36中英文雙語外文文獻(xiàn)翻譯成品 評(píng)估跨文化營(yíng)銷理論和研究對(duì)克雷格和道格拉斯評(píng)論的回應(yīng)

1、<p>　　外文標(biāo)題：Assessing cross-cultural marketing theory and research: Reply to Craig and Douglas' commentary</p><p>　　外文作者：Andreas Engelen , Malte Brettel</p><p>　　文獻(xiàn)出處:Journal of Busines

2、s Research,2011,782-784</p><p>　　英文2469單詞， 14788字符，中文4389漢字。</p><p>　　此文檔是外文翻譯成品，無需調(diào)整復(fù)雜的格式哦！下載之后直接可用，方便快捷！只需二十多元。</p><p>　　Assessing cross-cultural marketing theory and research: Re

3、ply to Craig and Douglas' commentary</p><p>　　Andreas Engelen , Malte Brettel</p><p><b>　　Abstract</b></p><p>　　This article responds to the major concerns Craig an

4、d Douglas (2011) raise in their commentary essay on the content analysis of cross-cultural marketing research from Engelen and Brettel (2011). Based upon theoretical arguments and empirical findings in the extant literat

5、ure, this reply argues that national borders are an appropriate major level at which to study the culture construct. This reply also shows that empirical research on consumer acculturation supports the idea that “whitene

6、ss” is p</p><p>　　Keywords: Cross-cultural research Cross-cultural marketing National culture Whiteness</p><p>　　1. Introduction</p><p>　　The present paper replies to Craig and Do

7、uglas' (2011) comment on Engelen and Brettel's (2011) content analysis of 99 survey-based studies in cross-cultural marketing research. This reply fully agrees with Craig and Douglas' (2011) contention that c

8、ross-cultural marketing research should have full consideration because this research stream has important implications for both theory-building in marketing science and for managerial practice. Although Craig and Dougla

9、s (2011) agree with some of the</p><p>　　While Craig and Douglas (2011) point to some major issues in this research stream, this reply disagrees to a certain extent with these criticisms and evaluates them i

10、n light of extant conceptual and empirical research on cross-cultural research. This reply is important because the issues Craig and Douglas (2011) raise relate not only to the Engelen and Brettel's (2011) content an

11、alysis, but also to major issues in cross-cultural marketing research.</p><p>　　2. Criticism of the study of Engelen and Brettel (2011)</p><p>　　2.1. Definition of cross-cultural research</p&

12、gt;<p>　　One of Craig and Douglas' (2011) major criticisms is Engelen and Brettel's (2011) narrow definition of cross-cultural research, which embraces only studies that explicitly integrate national cultu

13、re in their research models and that empirically validate their research models in at least two different national cultures by means of survey research.</p><p>　　First, Craig and Douglas (2011) criticize Eng

14、elen and Brettel's (2011) defining cultural regions along national borders. While national and cultural identity has traditionally been a basic assump-tion of most cross-cultural research, Craig and Douglas (2011) ar

15、gue that “national culture is becoming increasingly meaningless and that the appropriate culture unit to be studied is often a smaller, more homogeneous grouping within a given geographic location” (compare also Douglas

16、and Craig, 2006).</p><p>　　While sub-cultures are interesting and promising avenues of study, this reply holds that strong within-country cultural common-ality and between-country differences justify the exa

17、mination of culture at the national level: From the theoretical perspective, the people of a nation share a strong similarity in terms of history, language, and political, legal and educational environment that have shap

18、ed their culture over decades and centuries (Hofstede, 2001). From the empirical perspective, Smith </p><p>　　differences between nations” (p. 112). Schwartz and Ros (1995) find across 13 countries that nati

19、onal culture could explain three times more variance than could within-country determinants (e.g., age and education). In a more practical approach, Trompenaars and Hamp-den-Turner (2004) compare various level of culture

20、s (e.g., functions within organizations, organizations, nations) and conclude that nations show the strongest between-entity (i.e., between-country) heterogeneity and the strongest wi</p><p>　　Further, the e

21、xisting research in cross-cultural marketing itself justifies the equation of national and cultural boundaries. Following Steenkamp (2001), survey-based studies in marketing that incorpo-rate cultural effects at the nati

22、onal level provide interesting findings that the Engelen and Brettel's (2011) overview of studies also reflects. Steenkamp (2001) argues that, if one assumes no between-nation differences in culture, “such findings w

23、ould be hard, if not impossible to achieve” (p. 36</p><p>　　Further, from a more practical point of view, surveys show that nations differ in many respects, including that of corruption indexes (e.g., the Co

24、rruption Perception Index; Svensson, 2005). Again, if national borders are not appropriate for defining distinct cultural settings, these differences may not emerge. Besides, managerial practice typically structures inte

25、rnational activities along national borders, so cross-cultural marketing could lose its managerial relevance by ignoring the needs of</p><p>　　While defending the examination of culture at the national level

26、, this reply also acknowledges the different layers of culture within nations. However, the existence of other cultural levels or sub-cultures should not lead to the rejection of national cultural examinations, but shoul

27、d, instead, lead to interesting research avenues (Leung et al., 2005). Studying the interaction effects between layers of culture, such as those between organizational and national culture may be worthwhile. For exam<

28、/p><p>　　Overall, contrary to Craig and Douglas' (2011) view, national cultures are a meaningful and proven level of study. The research agenda should address the interactions or configuration effects of na

29、tional culture with other layers of culture, rather than replacing national culture with other definitions of cultural boundaries.</p><p>　　Second, in addition to the issue of national and cultural identity,

30、 Craig and Douglas (2011) criticize Engelen and Brettel's (2011) omission of single-country/single-culture studies from the content analysis. However, the survey-based examination of two national cultures is the mini

31、mum requirement for a study to be qualified as a cross-cultural study because, otherwise, virtually all survey-based studies would qualify as cultural studies. While a survey inherently reflects the national cultural <

32、;/p><p>　　Further, the distinctiveness of the cross-cultural research streams lies in part in the specific methodological challenges of these</p><p>　　comparisons. The concept of equivalence is pro

33、bably the most important methodological concept since the research must establish equivalence at several points in a process that incorporates more than one national cultural setting (Singh, 1995). For example, research

34、must establish equivalence in terms of sample composition or measurement invariance. Hult et al. (2008) provide an overview of the equivalence concept, the methodological concept in terms of which cross-cultural research

35、 differs from </p><p>　　2.2. Role of “whiteness” bias in cross-cultural marketing</p><p>　　Craig and Douglas (2011) disagree with Engelen and Brettel's (2011) finding that cross-cultural mar

36、keting research is subject to whiteness theory, stating that “while researchers may have been trained in the US or Europe, this does not mean that they necessarily abandon their cultural origins.” Thus, two theoretical p

37、erspectives compete: Engelen and Brettel (2011) argue that whiteness is, at least to some extent, inherent in cross-cultural marketing research because a large majority of published</p><p>　　The question con

38、cerning whether or not researchers adopt the national culture of their host country is essentially a topic of acculturation (Steenkamp, 2001). Extant marketing research addresses acculturation by examining the degree to

39、which consumers adopt products and services from another national culture and give up products and services from their home culture (e.g., Gentry et al., 1995; Lerman et al., 2009). While the extant research includes no

40、studies on the degree to which researchers a</p><p>　　Alden, Steenkamp and Batra (1999) show that the tendency to adopt a host country's national culture is particularly strong when those who move to a n

41、ew country are highly educated. Given that researchers with publication track records are necessarily highly educated, this finding suggests that such researchers are inclined to adopt their host countries' national

42、cultures and to give up at least some facets of their home cultures. Consequently, researchers affiliated with western universities, al</p><p>　　Thus, while acknowledging that final, empirically derived conc

43、lu-sions concerning researchers' acculturation are not possible, this reply argues that findings from acculturation literature on consumers give strong support for the position that researchers adopt their new cultur

44、es, at least to some extent. Thus, the reality is likely to be somewhere in between the two theoretical positions of no whiteness and complete whiteness in cross-cultural marketing research. Future empirical studies shou

45、ld</p><p>　　2.3. Selection of journals for inclusion in content analysis</p><p>　　Craig and Douglas' (2011) third major criticism relates to the choice of journals included in the content an

46、alysis. Engelen and Brettel's (2011) major criterion for a marketing or general business journal with an international focus to be included in the content analysis is its quality, as reflected by widely accepted ran

47、kings. This approach is in line with relevant content analyses in the field of marketing, innovation and international business research (e.g., Page and Schirr, 2008; Guo, 2008</p><p>　　Craig and Douglas'

48、; (2011) recommendation implies that researchers from non-European and non-US contexts submit their papers only to these other journals and/or that editors of the European and US journals are reluctant to accept papers f

49、rom non-European and non-US researchers. However, Engelen and Brettel's (2011) content analysis indicates that an increasing number of Asia-based researchers publish in prominent European and US journals (20% and 16%

50、 for 2000–2005 and 2005–2008, respective-ly). T</p><p>　　3. Conclusion</p><p>　　This reply joins Craig and Douglas (2011) in stating that cross-cultural research is essential to advancing the un

51、derstanding of the range and limits of theoretical frameworks in marketing research and that discussion on the current state of this research streams are extremely important. This reply responds to Craig and Douglas'

52、 (2011) major points of criticism of Engelen and Brettel's (2011) content analysis of cross-cultural marketing research. Empirical findings and theoretical arguments sugg</p><p>　　References</p>&

53、lt;p>　　Adler N. Cross-cultural management research: the ostrich and the trend. Acad Manage Rev 1983;8(2):226–32.</p><p>　　Adler N, Doktor R, Redding S. From the Atlantic to the Pacific century: cross-cult

54、ural management reviewed. J Manage 1986;12(2):295–318.</p><p>　　Alden D, Steenkamp J, Batra R. Global brand positioning and advertising effectiveness: does acculturation to global consumer culture make a dif

55、ference? Paper presented at the AMA Summer Educators Conference; 1999.</p><p>　　Craig C, Douglas S. Assessing Cross-Cultural Marketing Theory and Research: A Commentary Essay. J Bus Res 2011;64(6):625–7.<

56、/p><p>　　Douglas S, Craig C. On improving the conceptual foundations of international marketing research. J Int Mark 2006;14(1):1-22.</p><p>　　Engelen A, Brettel M. Assessing Cross-Cultural Marketi

57、ng Research and Theory. J Bus Res 2011;64(5):516–23.</p><p>　　Gentry JW, Sunkyu J, Tansuhaj P. Consumer acculturation processes and cultural conflict: how generalizable is a North American model for marketin

58、g globally? J Bus Res 1995;32(2):129–39.</p><p>　　Guo L. An analysis of 22 years of research in JPIM. J Prod Innov Manage 2008;25: 249–60.</p><p>　　Hofstede G. Culture's Consequences: Compar

59、ing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2001.</p><p>　　Hult T, Ketchen D, Griffith D, Finnegan C, Gonzalez-Padron T, Harmancioglu N, et al. Data equivalenc

60、e in cross-cultural international business research: assessment and guidelines. J Int Bus Stud 2008;39(6):1027–44.</p><p>　　Lerman D, Maldonado R, Luna D. A theory-based measure of acculturation: the shorten

61、ed cultural life style inventory. J Bus Res 2009;62(4):399–406.</p><p>　　Leung K, Bhagat RS, Buchan NR, Erez M, Gibson CB. Culture and international business: recent advances and their implications for futur

62、e research. J Int Bus Stud 2005;36 (4):357–78.</p><p>　　Nakata C, Huang Y. Progress and promise: the last decade of international marketing research. J Bus Res 2005;58(5):611–8.</p><p>　　Page AL

63、, Schirr GR. Growth and development of a body of knowledge: 16 years of new product development research, 1989–2004. J Prod Innov Manage 2008;25(3): 233–48.</p><p>　　Schwartz S, Ros M. Values in the West: a

64、theoretical and empirical challenge to the individualism–collectivism cultural dimension. World Psychol 1995;1(2):91-122.</p><p>　　Singh J. Measurement issues in cross-national research. J Int Bus Stud 1995;

65、26(3): 597–619.</p><p>　　Smith P, Schwartz S. Values. In: Berry J, Segall M, Kagitcibasi C, editors. Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Volume 3: Social Behavior and Applications. Boston: Allyn & Bac

66、on; 1997. p. 77-118.</p><p>　　Steenkamp J. The role of national culture in international marketing research. Int Mark Rev 2001;18(1):30–44.</p><p>　　Svensson J. Eight questions about corruption.

67、 J Econ Perspect 2005;19(3):19-A13. Trompenaars F, Hampden-Turner C. Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding</p><p>　　Diversity in Business ed London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing London; 2004. Webster C,

68、White A. Exploring the national and organizational culture mix in service</p><p>　　firms. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 2009;38(6):691–703.</p><p>　　評(píng)估跨文化營(yíng)銷理論和研究：對(duì)克雷格和道格拉斯評(píng)論的回應(yīng)<

69、/p><p>　　安德里亞斯恩格倫, 馬爾特 布雷特爾</p><p><b>　　摘要</b></p><p>　　在本文中，對(duì)克雷格和道格拉斯（2011）就恩格倫和布雷特爾（2011）所做跨文化市場(chǎng)營(yíng)銷研究?jī)?nèi)容分析的評(píng)論文章中提出的主要問題做出了回應(yīng)。 根據(jù)現(xiàn)有文獻(xiàn)中的理論論證和實(shí)證研究結(jié)果，這一回應(yīng)認(rèn)為國(guó)界是研究文化結(jié)構(gòu)的適當(dāng)?shù)闹饕獙用妗?這

70、一回應(yīng)還表明，關(guān)于消費(fèi)者文化適應(yīng)的實(shí)證研究支持了“白人研究員偏好”在跨文化市場(chǎng)營(yíng)銷研究中是存在的這一觀點(diǎn)。</p><p>　　關(guān)鍵詞：跨文化研究，跨文化營(yíng)銷，國(guó)家文化，白人研究員偏好</p><p><b>　　1.導(dǎo)論</b></p><p>　　本文就克雷格和道格拉斯（2011）對(duì)恩格倫和布雷特爾（2011）在99份調(diào)查研究基礎(chǔ)上所做的跨

71、文化市場(chǎng)營(yíng)銷研究?jī)?nèi)容分析的評(píng)論做出了回應(yīng)。這一回應(yīng)完全認(rèn)同克雷格和道格拉斯（2011）關(guān)于跨文化市場(chǎng)研究充分考慮的論點(diǎn)，因?yàn)檫@相研究對(duì)營(yíng)銷科學(xué)理論建設(shè)和管理實(shí)踐都有重要的意義。 盡管克雷格和道格拉斯（2011）同意恩格倫和布雷特爾（2011）其內(nèi)容分析中得出的一些結(jié)論（例如，過度使用Hofstede提出的維度，2001），但他們表達(dá)了對(duì)其他問題的關(guān)注，主要是 跨文化研究，在本研究報(bào)告以及恩格倫和布雷特爾（2011）期刊中發(fā)表的關(guān)于“白人

72、研究員偏好”的結(jié)論也包含在其內(nèi)容分析中。</p><p>　　雖然克雷格和道格拉斯（2011）指出了這一研究領(lǐng)域中的一些重大問題，但這個(gè)回應(yīng)在一定程度上與批評(píng)并不一致，并根據(jù)對(duì)跨文化研究的現(xiàn)存概念和實(shí)證研究進(jìn)行了評(píng)估。 此回應(yīng)非常重要，因?yàn)榭死赘窈偷栏窭梗?011）提出的問題不僅涉及恩格倫和布雷特爾（2011）的內(nèi)容分析，還涉及跨文化市場(chǎng)營(yíng)銷研究中的主要問題。</p><p>　　2.對(duì)

73、恩格倫和布雷特爾研究的批評(píng)（2011）</p><p>　　2.1 跨文化研究的定義</p><p>　　克雷格和道格拉斯（2011）的主要批評(píng)之一是恩格倫和布雷特爾（2011）對(duì)跨文化研究的狹義定義，其中只包括將國(guó)家文化明確納入其研究模型的研究，至少應(yīng)通過調(diào)查研究的方式在兩個(gè)研究模型中去驗(yàn)證他們的研究，來探討不同民族文化。</p><p>　　首先，克雷格和道格

74、拉斯（2011）批評(píng)了恩格倫和布雷特爾（2011）只是順著國(guó)界定義文化區(qū)域。 盡管國(guó)家和文化認(rèn)同歷來是大多數(shù)跨文化研究的基本假設(shè)，但克雷格和道格拉斯（2011）認(rèn)為，“民族文化變得越來越無意義，要研究的文化單位往往更小會(huì)比較適宜，更多的是在給定的地理位置內(nèi)進(jìn)行同類分組研究“（克雷格和道格拉斯，2006）。</p><p>　　盡管亞文化比較有趣并且也是很有方向性的研究途徑，但這一回應(yīng)認(rèn)為強(qiáng)大的國(guó)內(nèi)文化共同性和國(guó)與

75、國(guó)之間的差異證明了國(guó)家層面對(duì)文化的審查是合理的：從理論角度來看，一個(gè)國(guó)家的人民在歷史、語言、政治、法律和教育環(huán)境方面有很強(qiáng)的相似性，幾十年來一直影響著他們的文化（Hofstede，2001）。 斯密斯和施瓦茲（1997）從實(shí)證角度考察了來自中國(guó)三個(gè)地區(qū)、日本三個(gè)地區(qū)和美國(guó)五個(gè)地區(qū)的樣本之間的文化差異，并斷定這些群體之間的差異“被各國(guó)之間的巨大差異所掩蓋”（p 112）。施瓦茲和羅斯（1995）發(fā)現(xiàn)，在13個(gè)國(guó)家中，國(guó)家文化可以解釋為國(guó)內(nèi)

76、決定性因素的差異（例如年齡和教育）。在一個(gè)更實(shí)際的方法中，Trompenaars和Hamp-den-Turner（2004）比較了不同文化的層次（例如組織、機(jī)構(gòu)、國(guó)家內(nèi)部的職能），并得出結(jié)論認(rèn)為各國(guó)之間表現(xiàn)出最強(qiáng)實(shí)體間（即國(guó)與國(guó)之間）的異質(zhì)性以及就主要價(jià)值而言最強(qiáng)實(shí)體間（即國(guó)內(nèi)）的同質(zhì)性。此外，霍夫斯泰德（Hofstede，2001）發(fā)現(xiàn)，在具有一定程度文化異質(zhì)性的國(guó)家，與其他國(guó)家相比，不同民族有著相同的文化共同性。因此，理論和經(jīng)驗(yàn)證據(jù)

77、表明，國(guó)界適用于去確定文化上的同</p><p>　　此外，現(xiàn)有的跨文化營(yíng)銷研究本身就證明了國(guó)家和文化之間的界限。按照Steenkamp（2001）的觀點(diǎn)，基于調(diào)查的市場(chǎng)營(yíng)銷研究結(jié)果顯示國(guó)家層面的文化效應(yīng)提供了有趣的發(fā)現(xiàn)，即恩格倫和布雷特爾（2011）的研究綜述也反映了這一點(diǎn)。斯坦卡普（2001）認(rèn)為一個(gè)人在文化上不存在國(guó)家間的差異，“如果不是不可能實(shí)現(xiàn)的話，這樣的發(fā)現(xiàn)將是困難的”（第36頁）。因此，本研究的價(jià)值

78、結(jié)果證明選擇具體國(guó)家文化是審查文化的主要單位。</p><p>　　而且，從更實(shí)際的角度來看調(diào)查結(jié)果顯示各國(guó)在許多方面有所不同，包括腐敗指數(shù)（例如，腐敗感知指數(shù); Svensson，2005年）。同樣，如果國(guó)界不適用于界定不同的文化背景，這些差異可能不會(huì)出現(xiàn)。此外，管理實(shí)踐通常會(huì)沿著國(guó)界去構(gòu)建國(guó)際活動(dòng)，因此跨文化營(yíng)銷可能會(huì)忽視實(shí)踐的需要而失去其管理的相關(guān)性，這為在如何通過營(yíng)銷活動(dòng)解決不同國(guó)家背景方面的問題提供了支

79、持。</p><p>　　在捍衛(wèi)國(guó)家層面的文化審查的同時(shí)，這一回應(yīng)也承認(rèn)了國(guó)家內(nèi)部不同層次的文化。 然而，不因其他文化層次或亞文化的存在而忽略國(guó)家文化的審查，而應(yīng)該是帶來更有趣的研究途徑（Leung等，2005）。 研究文化層之間的互動(dòng)效應(yīng)，如組織文化與民族文化之間的互動(dòng)效應(yīng)是值得的。 例如，韋伯斯特和懷特（2009）發(fā)現(xiàn)，在美國(guó)文化背景下，企業(yè)文化的某些價(jià)值觀（如侵略性或結(jié)果取向性的價(jià)值觀）更為有效，而其他價(jià)值

80、觀則在日本文化背景下更為有效。</p><p>　　總而言之，與克雷格和道格拉斯（2011）觀點(diǎn)相反的是民族文化是處于一個(gè)有意義且更成熟的研究水平。 研究議程應(yīng)該解決國(guó)家文化與其他文化層面之間的相互作用或配置效應(yīng)，而不是用其他文化界限來替代國(guó)家文化。</p><p>　　其次，除了國(guó)家與文化認(rèn)同問題之外，克雷格和道格拉斯（2011）從內(nèi)容分析角度批評(píng)恩格倫和布雷特爾（2011）忽略了具體國(guó)

81、家單位的文化研究。 然而，基于對(duì)兩種國(guó)家文化審查的調(diào)查，這被認(rèn)為是跨文化定性研究的最低要求，否則幾乎所有基于調(diào)查的研究都有資格成為文化研究。Adler（1983）和Adler，Doktor和Redding（1986）認(rèn)為雖然一項(xiàng)調(diào)查內(nèi)在地反映了調(diào)查所在國(guó)家的國(guó)家文化的先決性，但由于樣本的其他特征（例如，工業(yè)部門的癱瘓）造成的文化結(jié)果的差異也不是不可能。 因此，旨在發(fā)現(xiàn)文化效應(yīng)的基于調(diào)查的研究項(xiàng)目至少需要兩種國(guó)家文化來分析某一研究主題。&

82、lt;/p><p>　　此外，跨文化研究的獨(dú)特性部分在于對(duì)這些比較研究的具體方法論的挑戰(zhàn)。 等同概念可能是最重要的方法論概念，因?yàn)樵谘芯恐斜仨氃诎鄠€(gè)國(guó)家文化背景的過程中的若干點(diǎn)建立等同性（Singh，1995）。 例如，研究必須建立樣本組成或測(cè)量不變性的等值性。 Hult等人 （2008）概述了等同概念，即跨文化研究與大多數(shù)其他研究不同的方法論概念。 在跨文化研究的框架下，只將單一國(guó)家/單一文化研究納入其中將喪失

83、跨文化研究的這一特點(diǎn)，并將消除跨文化研究與相關(guān)研究之間的界限。</p><p>　　2.2 “白人研究員偏好”在跨文化營(yíng)銷研究中的角色</p><p>　　克雷格和道格拉斯（2011）不同意恩格倫和布雷特爾（2011）的發(fā)現(xiàn)，即跨文化市場(chǎng)研究受白人理論的影響，聲稱“雖然研究人員可能在美國(guó)或歐洲受過培訓(xùn)教育，但這并不意味著他們必然放棄他們的文化淵源“。因此，兩個(gè)理論觀點(diǎn)相互競(jìng)爭(zhēng)：恩格倫和布雷

84、特爾（2011）認(rèn)為白度至少在某種程度上是跨文化市場(chǎng)研究中固有的，因?yàn)樵撗芯款I(lǐng)域的大多數(shù)研究人員來自美國(guó)或歐洲大學(xué)附屬機(jī)構(gòu)，而克雷格和道格拉斯（2011）認(rèn)為，白度是不是固有的跨文化市場(chǎng)營(yíng)銷研究。</p><p>　　關(guān)于研究人員是否采用東道主國(guó)家的民族文化的問題，其本質(zhì)上是文化適應(yīng)的話題（Steenkamp，2001）。當(dāng)前的營(yíng)銷研究通過研究消費(fèi)者采納來自其他國(guó)家文化的產(chǎn)品和服務(wù)的程度來解決文化適應(yīng)問題，并放棄

85、他們本國(guó)文化中的產(chǎn)品和服務(wù)（例如，Gentry等人，1995; Lerman等人，2009）。 雖然現(xiàn)有的研究沒有包括研究人員采用其東道國(guó)民族文化的研究，但通過對(duì)現(xiàn)有的基于調(diào)查的消費(fèi)者文化適應(yīng)研究的類比，可能揭示白度是否是跨文化研究中的問題。 由于研究人員最終也是消費(fèi)者，并且由于個(gè)人的文化預(yù)設(shè)決定了他們的購(gòu)物習(xí)慣和工作風(fēng)格，所以這種類比似乎對(duì)這個(gè)主題的初步分析來說是合理的。</p><p>　　Alden，Ste

86、enkamp和Batra（1999）表明當(dāng)這些移民到新國(guó)家的受過高等教育的人采納東道國(guó)民族文化的傾向尤為強(qiáng)烈。 鑒于具有出版物記錄的研究人員必然接受過高等教育，這一發(fā)現(xiàn)表明，這些研究人員傾向于采用他們的東道國(guó)的民族文化，并至少放棄他們本國(guó)文化的某些方面。 因此，附屬于西方大學(xué)的研究人員雖然總是保留其母國(guó)的一些重要方面，但他們可能會(huì)采用他們的新文化并相應(yīng)地去解釋他們的發(fā)現(xiàn)。</p><p>　　因此，盡管要承認(rèn)關(guān)于

87、研究人員文化適應(yīng)的最終的經(jīng)驗(yàn)性結(jié)論是不可能的，但該回應(yīng)認(rèn)為來自文化消費(fèi)者的文化研究的結(jié)果為研究人員采用新文化的立場(chǎng)提供了強(qiáng)有力的支持，至少在某種程度上是如此。 因此，跨文化營(yíng)銷研究中實(shí)際情況可能是處于沒有白人和全部是白人的兩個(gè)理論位置之間。 未來的實(shí)證研究應(yīng)該考察這個(gè)研究中白人研究員參與的程度。</p><p>　　2.3 納入期刊內(nèi)容分析的選擇</p><p>　　第三個(gè)克雷格和道格拉斯

88、（2011）主要批評(píng)的是涉及納入期刊的內(nèi)容分析的選擇。恩格倫和布雷特爾（2011）關(guān)于選擇市場(chǎng)營(yíng)銷或一般商業(yè)期刊的主要標(biāo)準(zhǔn)是能否將國(guó)際焦點(diǎn)將納入其內(nèi)容質(zhì)量分析，正如其他學(xué)者廣泛接受的那樣。 這種方法符合營(yíng)銷創(chuàng)新和國(guó)際商業(yè)研究領(lǐng)域的相關(guān)內(nèi)容分析（如Page和Schirr，2008; Guo，2008; Nakata和Huang，2005）。 盡管恩格倫和布雷特爾（2011）將期刊質(zhì)量視為標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，但克雷格和道格拉斯（2011）建議通過添加具有

89、非歐洲和非美國(guó)籍的期刊，將納入標(biāo)準(zhǔn)擴(kuò)展到地理來源，以獲得更全面的研究圖景。</p><p>　　克雷格和道格拉斯（2011）的建議表明來自非歐洲和非美國(guó)境內(nèi)的研究人員僅將他們的論文提交給其他期刊，歐洲和美國(guó)的期刊的編輯們不愿意接受來自非歐洲和非美國(guó)研究人員的文章。 然而，克雷格和道格拉斯（2011）的內(nèi)容分析表明，越來越多的亞洲研究人員可以在歐洲和美國(guó)的著名刊物上發(fā)表文章（2000-2005和2005-2008分

90、別為20％和16％）。 這一觀察結(jié)果反駁了克雷格和道格拉斯（2011）的建議，因?yàn)閬喼扪芯咳藛T已經(jīng)向這些期刊提交了他們的研究成果，編輯們也接受了這些投稿。 因此，內(nèi)容分析中包含的期刊已經(jīng)發(fā)表了高質(zhì)量的研究成果，這些研究起源于非美國(guó)和非歐洲國(guó)家。</p><p><b>　　3. 結(jié)論</b></p><p>　　在對(duì)克雷格和道格拉斯（2011）的回應(yīng)中指出跨文化研究對(duì)

91、于促進(jìn)理解營(yíng)銷理論研究中框架的范圍和局限性至關(guān)重要，并且對(duì)這些研究的當(dāng)前狀態(tài)進(jìn)行討論也非常重要。 這就回應(yīng)了克雷格和道格拉斯（2011年）批評(píng)恩格倫和布雷特爾（2011年）對(duì)跨文化市場(chǎng)營(yíng)銷研究的內(nèi)容分析的主要觀點(diǎn)。 實(shí)證結(jié)果和理論觀點(diǎn)表明，國(guó)家層面的文化審查通常是適宜的，并且由于文化適應(yīng)性，白人研究人員也是其中的一個(gè)相關(guān)因素。</p><p><b>　　參考文獻(xiàn)</b></p>

92、<p>　　Adler N. Cross-cultural management research: the ostrich and the trend. Acad Manage Rev 1983;8(2):226–32.</p><p>　　Adler N, Doktor R, Redding S. From the Atlantic to the Pacific century: cross-c

93、ultural management reviewed. J Manage 1986;12(2):295–318.</p><p>　　Alden D, Steenkamp J, Batra R. Global brand positioning and advertising effectiveness: does acculturation to global consumer culture make a

94、difference? Paper presented at the AMA Summer Educators Conference; 1999.</p><p>　　Craig C, Douglas S. Assessing Cross-Cultural Marketing Theory and Research: A Commentary Essay. J Bus Res 2011;64(6):625–7.&

95、lt;/p><p>　　Douglas S, Craig C. On improving the conceptual foundations of international marketing research. J Int Mark 2006;14(1):1-22.</p><p>　　Engelen A, Brettel M. Assessing Cross-Cultural Mark

96、eting Research and Theory. J Bus Res 2011;64(5):516–23.</p><p>　　Gentry JW, Sunkyu J, Tansuhaj P. Consumer acculturation processes and cultural conflict: how generalizable is a North American model for marke

97、ting globally? J Bus Res 1995;32(2):129–39.</p><p>　　Guo L. An analysis of 22 years of research in JPIM. J Prod Innov Manage 2008;25: 249–60.</p><p>　　Hofstede G. Culture's Consequences: Com

98、paring Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2001.</p><p>　　Hult T, Ketchen D, Griffith D, Finnegan C, Gonzalez-Padron T, Harmancioglu N, et al. Data equival

99、ence in cross-cultural international business research: assessment and guidelines. J Int Bus Stud 2008;39(6):1027–44.</p><p>　　Lerman D, Maldonado R, Luna D. A theory-based measure of acculturation: the shor