Justificative conformity in ontologically ring-fenced fields: Problematizing the scholarly nomenclature in qualitative studies
本文指出某些学术领域因本体论假设单一导致理论创新受限，以国际营销定性研究为例，批判编辑实践造成的从众性方法论辩护，并提出改进建议。
Ontology is implicitly or explicitly the impetus of any study. However, what are the implications of a scholarly field whose prevailing ontological assumptions and resultant epistemological commitments impede more nuanced theorizing? In this paper, we caution against theorizing norms in fields characterized by a non-diverse and non-inclusive set of ontological assumptions. We contend that editorial practices therein create a certain kind of methodological conformity and conduct, that is, an undue justification and explanatory overtones related to methods that are set against the predominant grain. Through a thematic review of qualitative papers in international marketing as a case in point, we argue against narrow onto-epistemological arsenals, we discuss the value of critical theorizing and put forward two modest proposals to address this kind of scholarly conformity in the future.