소비자 연구방법론으로서의 Positivism과 Relativism의 절충주의 모색에 관한 소고

Positivism And Relativism In Consumer Research: Any Possibility of Eclecticism?

소비자 연구는 매우 다양한 방법론을 적용하는 분야로서 이론정립이나 실증분석에 대한 접근방식의 차이에 따라 positivism과 relativism에 근거한 연구로 분류할 수 있다. 객관적 현실(objective reality)의 존재여부, 실증자료의 객관성, 연구 결과의 일반화 가능성 등에 대한 가정이 서로 다른 이유로, positivism이나 relativism을 연구방법론으로 수용한 학자들 간의 긴장이 각자의 연구를 dog food managerialism (positivism에 대하여), weird science (relativism에 대하여)라는 수식어를 사용하며 비난하는 경우까지 있었다. 이 연구의 목적은 positivism과 relativism에 근거한 연구방법론의 차이를 살펴보고 절충주의의 가능성을 모색하는 것이다. 그러나 Kuhn (1970)이 지적했듯이, philosophy of science의 선택은 궁극적으로 개인적이고, 주관적인 것이기 때문에, 절충주의의 가능성을 제시하기보다는 연구주제의 선택이나 방법론에 있어서 positivism과 relativism이 상호 보완할 수 있는 부분을 제안하였다.

According to Ferber (1988), philosophy of science considerations are particularly important for an area like consumer research that seeks to be interdisciplinary. The fact that the topic is studied by so many disciplines with different research traditions immediately raises the question of how one evaluates the (often conflicting) knowledge claims of its various practitioners. Closely related to this is the issue of whether it is even possible to study the topic in a truly interdisciplinary manner or whether a multidisciplinary approach is worth trying. In fact, this issue has triggered heated debates on positivism and relativism in consumer research and a significant number of consumer researchers, though majority of them still resorts to the traditional positivist paradigm, has rejected the tenets of positivism and has turned instead to relativism as the emergent paradigm for knowledge generation. The purpose of this paper is to elaborate on the possibility of eclecticism between positivism and relativism in consumer research. However, self-justifying system of each research camp let any comparison or attempt to reconcile regress to the questioning of philosophical assumption, "Objective reality does exist?", which can not be resolved. As Kuhn (1970) noted, philosophy of science may be chosen for reasons that are ultimately personal and subjective. Therefore, the possibility of eclecticism may be reserved. Rather, complementarity of each research practice can be suggested to make consumer research achieve holistic disciplinary status. Both camps can get nowhere by challenging respective philosophical underpinnings but can advance knowledge on substantive and methodological domains by complementing each other.