Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science http://jam.sagepub.com/ From the Editors: Enhancing Marketing Theory in Academic Research David W. Stewart and George M. Zinkhan Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 2006 34: 477 DOI: 10.1177/0092070306291975 The online version of this article can be found at: http://jam.sagepub.com/content/34/4/477 Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com On behalf of: Academy of Marketing Science Additional services and information for Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science can be found at: Email Alerts: http://jam.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://jam.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://jam.sagepub.com/content/34/4/477.refs.html >> Version of Record - Sep 6, 2006 What is This? Downloaded from jam.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2014 From the Editors Enhancing Marketing Theory in Academic Research David W. Stewart University of Southern California George M. Zinkhan University of Georgia Over the past 50 years, the discipline of marketing and the body of marketing knowledge associated with it have made enormous advances. In 1955, only two well-recognized marketing journals existed: Journal of Marketing and Journal of Retailing. The articles published in these two publications, with a few exceptions, tended to be highly descriptive and focused on the institutional dimensions of marketing practice. The domains of consumer research and quantitative marketing that now dominate much of marketing scholarship were still embryonic and not yet recognized as the disciplined, theory-based approaches to scholarship and marketing practice that they have become. It was in 1956 that Wendell Smith wrote the first academic article that suggested that consumers differ on important dimensions. This important article, the first on “segmentation,” was followed 1 year later by Pierre Martineau’s (1957) important book on “motives that make people buy.” Markets and the buyers and sellers within them were recognized as varied, complex, and worthy of study at the individual and segment level, as well as at the level of the aggregate market. Within a few short years, the Ford Foundation would energize such study through its support of John Howard’s Buyer Behavior Project and its seminal business education project, which facilitated greater integration of mathematics and the behavioral and social sciences into business scholarship and education. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. Volume 34, No. 4, pages 477-480. DOI: 10.1177/0092070306291975 Copyright © 2006 by Academy of Marketing Science. In the 50 years that have followed, questions about buyer and seller behavior, and the factors responsible for such behavior, have been addressed by marketing scholars with increasingly sophisticated conceptual and methodological tools. At the same time, there have been improvements in business practice and important advances in related social sciences such as psychology, economics, and sociology, as well as advances in research methods, including those in data collection, analysis, and statistical inference. During much of the past 50 years, marketing research and knowledge have advanced by borrowing and adapting theories from other disciplines. More recently, marketing scholars have begun to develop theories more specific to markets and customer behavior and have added unique perspectives to those theories borrowed from other disciplines. Marketing scholarship has matured as it has more and more translated empirical findings into theories of buyer and seller behavior, of markets, and of marketing institutions and practices. These advances in conceptual development, and the unique issues associated with contributing to theory and conceptual thinking in the field of marketing, are the focus of this editorial comment. Specifically, we concentrate on marketing theory as it is developed and presented in academic journals. Conceptual and theoretical articles are arguably the most difficult types of scholarship to craft in a compelling fashion that make a significant contribution to the discipline. It is certainly the case that it is more difficult to get conceptual articles through the review process. Nevertheless, strong conceptual and theoretical articles provide the foundations for subsequent empirical work and serve to integrate and extend past empirical work. In our view, there is a Downloaded from jam.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2014 478 JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF MARKETING SCIENCE FALL 2006 need for more such work in the field of marketing, and the ability of the field to produce such work is an important indicator of its health and maturity as a discipline. We would like to see more such work published in Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science (JAMS), but not at the expense of or as a substitute for strong empirical work. Neither do we wish to suggest that JAMS will be an easy place to publish half-baked conceptual articles. JAMS welcomes strong conceptual and theoretical articles, but these articles will be rigorously reviewed and will need to meet a high standard. Nevertheless, we want to encourage such work, precisely because it is both difficult to execute well and can provide a significant contribution to the field. In this editorial, we offer some suggestions to guide the crafting of such work. In doing so, we rely on our experiences as scholars, editors, and review board members. First, we begin by discussing some attributes related to “strong theory,” and then we describe some common problems associated with theory development. We conclude with some prescriptions regarding the writing, reviewing, and evaluation of conceptual articles that may be of use to journal readers, reviewers, and authors. number of products and industries. Thus, there is a real challenge for marketing scholars to create generalizable knowledge. Good theory building and theory testing are ways to try and achieve such a goal. Good theory does more than describe; it identities causal structures that provide the basis for forward prediction (not just good fits of historical data) and control (at least in some circumstances). It provides explanations of marketing phenomena—for example, why customers behave as they do, why different markets evolve in particular ways over time, and why specific institutions and practices emerge. With the addition of situational (e.g., industry) knowledge), marketing theories may also provide for predictions. While it is the case that the social sciences, in general, often have difficulties in predicting patterns of human behaviors (Secord 1983), it is a mistake to dismiss prediction as a necessary characteristic of good theory. There is a myth that the physical sciences, the “real” sciences, are somehow better at prediction. They are not. They are only better at limiting the tests of their predictions to carefully controlled environments where a test is possible but also bound by the testing environment. Strong theories are simple and elegant, they provide rich descriptions, and they provide the basis for testable predictions in controlled circumstances. HALLMARKS OF STRONG THEORY Traditionally, there is some disagreement about what constitutes good marketing theory (cf. Hunt 1990; Zinkhan and Hirschheim 1992). Sutton and Staw (1995) have persuasively argued that theory is not references, data, variables, diagrams, or hypotheses. Such elements have their place in theory development but none of them, alone or in combination, is a theory. Rather, in our view, strong theory has some of the following characteristics. Strong theory resonates, it shows patterns of interconnectedness, it provides details about causal mechanisms, and it provides answers to the question Why? (Kaplan 1964). Strong theory captures and succinctly summarizes knowledge that is generalizable. This goal may appear to be a particular challenge in an applied field, like marketing, which has its roots in application and practice. If marketing is to take its rightful place as social science, it must move beyond these applied roots to focus on more general questions. Integration of data and empirical findings across customers, situations, specific markets, and specific industries is critical for theory development. The individual market or application may be informative, but it does not build theory. Neither does review of numerous individual studies of different markets and applications alone result in a theory. Rather, theory emerges first from the integration of findings and ultimately results from a willingness to step away from the underlying data to take a creative leap that produces insights not to be found in any individual study. In the end, empirical studies are very often about a limited WHAT THEORY IS NOT Sutton and Staw (1995) argue that descriptions of theory building can leave a reader more, rather than less, confused about how to write an article that contains strong theory. Instead, they explain that it might be more productive to erect five “warning signs” (or “wrong way” signs). In other words, they describe things that may appear in an article that are not theory; these include (a) diagrams and figures, (b) conceptual definitions, (c) hypotheses, (d) data, and (e) references. We discuss each of Sutton and Staw’s warning signs, as they apply to marketing thought. Diagrams and Figures Many marketing articles include diagrams or figures. Such devices, on their own, are not theories (Sutton and Staw 1995). Instead, the theory builder must provide a rich description in the text so as to explain the underlying causal mechanisms and key processes. Creating a set of boxes and arrows that show relationships among variables is not a theory. There must be a compelling logic about the reasons why the particular set of variables, their relationships, and the direction of their relationships are supported by empirical research. Journal authors should describe why this particular model is more compelling than any other configuration of variables. Authors should Downloaded from jam.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2014 Stewart, Zinkhan / FROM THE EDITORS 479 develop the logic behind specific, testable predictions about outcomes (even if these predictions can only be tested in highly controlled circumstances). Conceptual Definitions As well described by MacKenzie (2003), defining focal concepts is a crucial first step for the author of a successful manuscript. Conceptual and theoretical articles are no exception. For example, how can measurement be successful if there is only a vague idea of what exactly is being measured? Nonetheless, a theory is more than just a set of clear and concise definitions. A theory must go beyond this stage and describe the causal linkage between concepts. Some social sciences (e.g., sociology) may be particularly prone to this tendency to “provide a dictionary of a language that possesses no sentences” (Weick 1989:517). Marketing has had a tendency to engage in such practices. Thus, after more than 20 years of research on relationship marketing, there is still an absence of a compelling definition of relationship, and, after 30 or more years of research that “demonstrates” the importance of involvement in consumer decision making, involvement is still largely defined in terms of outcome rather than as a more fundamental construct. Hypotheses Hypotheses represent one kind of “sentence” described by Weick (1989). However, a hypothesis is not a theory; rather, a hypothesis is a derivative of theory. A wellcrafted hypothesis is a statement of what a theory predicts and therefore provides for a test of theory. But, a hypothesis, on its own, is not a theory. For instance, hypotheses provide statements about what is expected to occur; they do not necessarily explain why it is expected to occur. Note that some manuscript authors attempt to introduce so many hypotheses that it is not feasible to provide an adequate explanation for each and every one (Sutton and Staw 1995). In this regard, authors would be better off with a smaller number of hypotheses that they can conceptually defend through specific links to the predictions expected from a given theory. This perspective also implies that authors (and reviewers and editors) should be more willing to be satisfied with a journal article that tests just one part of theory. As we discuss below, marketing scholars do not universally accept this kind of approach. Data Data can provide the inspiration for theory (as in inductive research), but they are not a substitute for theory. Marketing is an applied discipline, so there is a justification for studying real phenomena from the marketplace; there is often a goal to explore research issues that are relevant to marketing managers. Nonetheless, theory and data play a distinct role in behavioral science research (Kaplan 1964). Data may describe empirical patterns, whereas theory focuses on causal mechanisms (Sutton and Staw 1995). References Journal authors provide citations to situate their work in the extant literature (Zinkhan, Roth, and Saxton 1992). In other words, authors attempt to anchor their work in prior research, both to justify their approaches and predictions and to make their unique contribution clear. Nonetheless, a listing of references does not constitute a theory. In fact, a single manuscript sentence, followed by a listing of seven or eight references, is not an especially effective way to communicate with journal readers. Instead, the authors need to discuss prior works in detail, so as to elaborate on the causal logic mechanisms (Sutton and Staw 1995). SOME RECOMMENDATIONS Our discussion suggests that the author of a conceptual or theoretical article designed for an academic journal confronts a large number of hurdles. As DiMaggio (1995) succinctly stated, authors who “disobey Sutton and Staw’s injunctions deserve whatever the reviewers deal them” (p. 396). Editors and reviewers will scrutinize conceptual definitions, references, theories, hypotheses, methods, analyses, implications, and more. How is an author to accomplish so much in a rather brief space (e.g., the length-to-contribution ratio)? One solution is to specialize. For example, JAMS has a long and successful history of publishing conceptual articles (Zinkhan 2004). In these cases, the authors can concentrate on the conceptual portion of the article and devote only passing attention to issues of measurement or analysis. With the added space, authors have a chance to sharpen their conceptual reasoning and provide great depth (e.g., in terms of discussing causal mechanisms). Of course, a journal such as JAMS is interested in both theory building and theory testing. We urge authors of empirical articles to devote considerable energies toward describing causal mechanisms and causal structures. However, such an effort creates a “catch-22” effect for authors. Specifically, as the authors describe the underlying mechanisms (and variables) that underpin their hypotheses, there is a danger that reviewers (and editors and readers) will raise objections. Now, the author has introduced variables that are not explicitly measured in the current study. With respect to this issue, we endorse Sutton and Staw’s (1995) recommendation that journals Downloaded from jam.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2014 480 JOURNAL OF THE ACADEMY OF MARKETING SCIENCE FALL 2006 “let down their guard just a bit” (p. 381). In other words, it may not be necessary for authors to measure every concept that is discussed. Instead, journals should be willing to publish articles that test part of a theory. In many respects, modern marketing theories are rather complex, and it is unrealistic to expect a definitive test of a specific theory within the confines of a single journal article. Physics does not demand an empirical test of the “theory of everything,” but there have also been numerous attempts to offer such theories during the past 100 years. Efforts to develop such theories must be compelling, and there have been few real attempts, even in physics. However, such theoretical developments represent important and creative efforts to integrate vast amounts of empirical data; they should not be held to a standard that also requires empirical proof of all relationships. Nevertheless, such work should suggest hypotheses that are testable, at least in some circumstances. At the same time, a modest empirical study that tests important predictions of a general theory can represent a compelling contribution if it provides strong support for the theory (and, more important, contradicts any competing theories) or provides unqualified evidence that the theory is incorrect. fact should not deter such efforts, and journals, including JAMS, must work to nurture such scholarship, even in the face of a very high hurdle. Nonetheless, we believe that marketing theorists have made significant progress over the past 50 years, but, if the discipline is to play an important role in the social sciences and influence management practice, it must accelerate its efforts to create its own unique theories of markets and marketing phenomena. JAMS is a welcoming and nurturing place for such work. CONCLUSION It may be easier to describe “what not to do” than it is to describe “what to do” when writing a conceptual or theoretical article. In this sense, the five “wrong way” signs may be of limited value. Nonetheless, it is our experience that quite a number of marketing manuscripts sometimes wander down one of these streets where strong theory is rarely present. We realize that some of our recommendations are difficult to implement. The reality is that good theoretical work is far more difficult to do and requires far greater creativity than most empirical research. This REFERENCES DiMaggio, Paul J. 1995. “Comments on ‘What Theory Is Not.’” Administrative Science Quarterly 40 (3): 391-397. Hunt, Shelby. 1990. “Truth in Marketing Theory and Research.” Journal of Marketing 54 (July): 1-15. Kaplan, Abraham. 1964. The Conduct of Inquiry. New York: Harper & Row. MacKenzie, Scott B. 2003. “The Dangers of Poor Construct Conceptualization.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 31 (3): 323-327. Martineau, Pierre. 1957. Motivation in Advertising. New York: McGraw-Hill. Secord, Paul. 1983. “Explanation in the Social Sciences and in Life Situations.” Paper presented at the University of Chicago Conference on Potentialities of Knowledge in the Social Sciences, September, Philadelphia. Smith, Wendell R. 1956. “Product Differentiation and Market Segmentation as Alternative Marketing Strategies.” Journal of Marketing 21 (1): 3-8. Sutton, Robert I. and Barry M. Staw. 1995. “What Theory Is Not.” Administrative Science Quarterly 40 (3): 371-384. Weick, Karl E. 1989. “Theory Construction as Disciplined Imagination.” Academy of Management Review 14:516-531. Zinkhan, George M. 2004. “Accessing Academic Research Through an E-Data Base: Issues of Journal Quality and Knowledge Use.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 32 (4): 369-370. ——— and Rudy Hirschheim. 1992. “Truth in Marketing Theory and Research: An Alternative Perspective.” Journal of Marketing 56 (April): 8088. ———, Martin Roth, and Mary Jane Saxton. 1992. “Knowledge Development and Scientific Status in Consumer Behavior Research: A Social Exchange Perspective.” Journal of Consumer Research 18 (September): 282-291. Downloaded from jam.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 6, 2014