Download Marketing Science Journal of the Academy of

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