36中英文双语外文文献翻译成品： 评估跨文化营销理论和研究：对克雷格和道格拉斯评论的回应

《36中英文双语外文文献翻译成品： 评估跨文化营销理论和研究：对克雷格和道格拉斯评论的回应》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《36中英文双语外文文献翻译成品： 评估跨文化营销理论和研究：对克雷格和道格拉斯评论的回应（10页珍藏版）》请在毕设资料网上搜索。

1、外文标题： Assessing cross-cultural marketing theory and research: Reply to Craig and Douglas' commentary 外文作者： Andreas Engelen  , Malte Brettel 文献出处 :Journal of Business Research,2011,782-784 英文 2469 单词，  14788 字符，中文 4389 汉字。  此文档是外文翻译成品，无需调整复杂的格式哦！下载之后直接可用，方便快捷！只需二十多 元。  Assessi

2、ng cross-cultural marketing theory and research: Reply to Craig and Douglas' commentary Andreas Engelen  , Malte Brettel Abstract This article responds to the major concerns Craig and Douglas (2011) raise in their commentary essay on the content analysis of cross-cultural marketing research

3、 from Engelen and Brettel (2011). Based upon theoretical arguments and empirical findings in the extant literature, 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

4、supports the idea that “whiteness” is present in cross-cultural marketing research. Keywords: Cross-cultural research Cross-cultural marketing  National culture  Whiteness 1. Introduction The present paper replies to Craig and Douglas' (2011) comment on Engelen and Brettel's (2011)

5、 content analysis of 99 survey-based studies in cross-cultural marketing research. This reply fully agrees with Craig and Douglas' (2011) contention that cross-cultural marketing research should have full consideration because this research stream has important implications for both theory-build

6、ing in marketing science and for managerial practice. Although Craig and Douglas (2011) agree with some of the conclusions Engelen and Brettel (2011) draw from their content analysis (e.g., over-use of the dimensions from Hofstede, 2001), they express concern about other issues, primarily the definition of cross-cultural research, the conclusion that “whiteness” is present in this research stream and the journals Engelen and Brettel (2011) include in the content analysis. While Craig and Douglas (2011) point to some major issues in this researc