Analyse and critique the research and methodological choices in three academic marketing articles on the specific theory in mark

In the article Towards a New Model of ‘Customer Compliance’ Service Provision, Kasabov and Warlow (2010) used secondary sources to determine the similarities and differences between customer-centric business models and the customer-compliance business model (CCBM) in service industries. In an earlier article, Automated Marketing and E-Marketing Practices of ‘Customer Compliance’ Providers, Kasabov and Warlow (2009) examined the concepts and processes of customer compliance providers. Dellande and Nyer (2007) empirically tested the effect of public commitment on role compliance in Using Public Commitment to Gain Customer Compliance. This essay critically evaluates the research designs and methodology strategies of these articles. Critical Evaluation of Methodologies Based on the data collection and analysis processes of Kasabov and Warlow (2010), they conducted a qualitative research, where they used existing studies on their topic to form their conclusions and to conduct their conceptual analysis. This research design is effective for their research because it considers the development of the service management literature on compliance models, and it helps determine research gaps. The constructionist approach that they employed explores the growth and much needed direction for the research on compliance models (Eriksson and Kovalainen, 2008: 80). The weaknesses of their research design are poor validity and reliability in generating conclusions and sampling research issues. They cannot generalise their findings too because of lack of empirical information that can provide tested results on compliance models. Kasabov and Warlow (2010) did not present their research design anymore, such as what systematic reviews normally do, but they did try to adopt numerous studies on customer compliance. Their sampling includes studies conducted from the 1990s to the 2000s, with more studies on the 1990s. This range of references shows extensive consideration to the development of the literature, but more recent articles and studies are necessary to ensure the relevance of their findings. Without further details on their research design, however, it is hard to replicate their methods and to come up with the same conclusions, which reduced the article’s reliability (Wilson, 2010: 116). A careful analysis of the arguments and use of sources is needed to explore the reliability and validity of their claims and conclusions. Kasabov and Warlow (2010) collected information about the CCBM through reviewing related literature. They have enhanced the validity of their research by including the doubts surrounding service provision and complaint management. They avoided the straw man fallacy, which happens when they only respond to weak arguments to their own claims. In order to critically evaluate their article, their main findings must be discussed. Kasabov and Warlow (2010) argued that CCBM cannot apply the same values and norms used in traditional service provisions and complaints management literature. Furthermore, they complained that current studies have not fully explored the importance and extensive applications of CCBM. They asserted that service management scholars often focused on outcomes and disregarded the importance of CCBM’s novel processes. In doing so, these studies were not able to wholly