This paper is a practical attempt to contribute to the ongoing reappraisal of the dichotomies and categories that have become prevalent throughout marketing research.
The paper reviews current literature on incommensurability and undertakes a comparative re‐examination of two studies.
How the authors view their research is constituted in retrospective terms through a marketing and consumption logic based on the principles of division, distinction and difference. Re‐examination of some empirical case material suggests that in practice the perceived duality separating research traditions is unsound. A misplaced reading of paradigm incommensurability has resulted in research practices appearing oppositional and static when they are essentially undifferentiated and dynamic. An over‐socialised research epistemology has raised the tangible outcomes of research activities to be dominant in directing research practice.
The comparative analysis is illustrative rather than representative.
The paper offers an applied exposition of theoretical debates in marketing research concerning paradigm incommensurability.
