Publications Database

Welcome to the new Schulich Peer-Reviewed Publication Database!

The database is currently in beta-testing and will be updated with more features as time goes on. In the meantime, stakeholders are free to explore our faculty’s numerous works. The left-hand panel affords the ability to search by the following:

  • Faculty Member’s Name;
  • Area of Expertise;
  • Whether the Publication is Open-Access (free for public download);
  • Journal Name; and
  • Date Range.

At present, the database covers publications from 2012 to 2020, but will extend further back in the future. In addition to listing publications, the database includes two types of impact metrics: Altmetrics and Plum. The database will be updated annually with most recent publications from our faculty.

If you have any questions or input, please don’t hesitate to get in touch.


Search Results

Kardes, F., Fischer, E., Spiller,S., Labroo, A. Bublitz, M., Peracchio, L. and Huber, J. (2022). "Commentaries on “An Intervention-based Abductive Approach to Generating Testable Theory", Journal of Consumer Psychology, 32(1), 194-207.

View Paper

Abstract This paper assembles five comments on Janiszewski and van Osselaer's (this issue) article that promotes abductive research as a way to generate new psychological theory. The review process began by asking those making comments to be part of collaborative communication between themselves and Janiszewski and van Osselaer. The five comments arising from that process provide well-honed insights into the strengths and weaknesses of the abductive research. The first commentary, by Frank Kardes, offers convincing evidence showing that the techniques of abductive thinking are similar to other explorative techniques currently being successfully used in deductive research. Eileen Fischer sees abductive thinking as integral to inductive and qualitative thinking as it facilitates the generation of new constructs and remaps established ones. Stephen Spiller explores the implication of starting from interesting and paradoxical data rather than from established theory. The research challenge then requires a focus on strategic sampling of methods, responses, and critical constructs that confirm or limit a provisional theory. Aparna Labroo articulates the benefits of abductive thinking to help resolve complex practical problems, but warns against the proliferation of multiple findings that may be difficult to validate. Finally, Bublitz and Peracchio celebrate the value of abductive research to help resolve social issues and enable the fruitful merger of publishable research with personal social action.

Belk, R., Caldwell, M., Devinney, T., Eckhardt, G., Henry, P. and Plakoyiannaki, E. (2018). "Envisioning Consumers: How Videography can Contribute to Marketing Knowledge", Journal of Marketing Management, 34(5-6), 432-458.

Open Access Download

Abstract Based on a review of the past 30 years of videographic research and outputs in the field of marketing, we highlight the key contributions that videography has made to the marketing literature and identify the key issues facing videographic research today. We develop a typology that identifies four ways that videography can contribute to theory development and verification, presenting new criteria for assessing academic videographies. We note that making theoretical contributions is one of the most difficult issues facing videographic researchers and that this is an area in need of significant developments to help the field progress. Finally, we envision what the future of videography might look like and consider the implications of new forms of videographies.

Fischer, E., Gopaldas A. and Scaraboto, D. (2017). "Why Papers are Rejected and How to Get Yours Accepted: Advice on the Construction of Interpretive Consumer Research Articles", Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 20(1), 60-67.

Open Access Download

Abstract Interpretive consumer researchers frequently devote months, if not years, to writing a new paper. Despite their best efforts, the vast majority of these papers are rejected by top academic journals. This paper aims to explain some of the key reasons that scholarly articles are rejected and illuminate how to reduce the likelihood of rejection.