The role of replication in marketing research has been a tenuous one, at best. On the one hand the prevalent perceived bias against replication research has deployed more research effort into the process of theory generation. On the other hand, theory development and refinement have suffered from the lack of an explicit replication tradition in research, At various times through the history of social science, reminders have appeared in the literature for an increased emphasis on replication. In principle, most researchers agree that replication is a necessary ingredient for kowledge advancement in a discipline, but, in reality, few strict replication studies have been published. Many factors account for the apparent lack of interest toward conducting replication research, including a perceived lack of importance or creativity in such studies and a perception of editor and reviewer bins against such studies. We maintain that much ol this bids may be rooted in a misunderstanding of the role of replication in the research process. The belief that replication can be extricated from the research process, let alone be optional, is a sign of misunderstanding both the nature and process of science. Thus, the purpose of the present study is threefold. First, we discuss replication research and its relationship to the advancement of knowledge. Next, we discover the replication process in the contest of publishing. Finally, a prescription for the conduct of replication research is provided that attempts to explicate the conditions necessary to promote a replication tradition in marketing research. (C) 2000 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.
