Conceptual Contributions in Marketing Scholarship: Patterns, Mechanisms, and Rebalancing Options

Abstract

This article analyzes the nature and temporal change of conceptual contributions in marketing scholarship with two complementary studies. First, based on a computer-aided text analysis of 5,922 articles published in the four major marketing journals between 1990 and 2021, we analyze how conceptual contributions have changed over time using the MacInnis (2011) framework. Results indicate that over the past three decades, theorizing efforts have strongly favored “envisioning” and “explicating” at the expense of “relating” and “debating,” with this imbalance increasing over time. Second, drawing on 48 in-depth interviews with editors, department heads, and authors, we seek to validate these patterns and uncover their underlying mechanisms. Our findings indicate that a prevalent thought style has developed in the field—defined by the research ideals of novelty, clarity, and quantification—that shapes the collective view of how marketing scholars, in their roles as authors, reviewers, and mentors, can make a valuable contribution to marketing scholarship. This thought style favors envisioning and explicating contributions and disfavors relating and debating contributions. Jointly, the two studies point to several rebalancing options that can reinvigorate relating and debating contributions while preserving the current strengths of the marketing field.

Quelle place pour les contributions conceptuelles critiques dans les revues académiques en marketing ?

“…Mis en relation, ces deux articles éclairent la recherche en marketing actuelle d'un jour intriguant : les anomalies liées au marché et au fonctionnement de la société de consommation sont criantes mais les contributions qui pourraient mettre en question les cadres conceptuels existants et ouvrir la voie à des visions nouvelles se raréfient, du moins dans les revues considérées comme majeures dans la discipline (Kindermann et al, 2023). Cet état de fait interroge la capacité de la critique à influencer le champ, initier un changement de paradigme, changer la façon dont le marketing est enseigné et exercé.…”

“…En effet, les revues jouent à la fois un rôle de garde-barrière et de légitimation. A ce titre, elles peuvent éprouver des doutes vis-à-vis de ces articles et être enclines à les rejeter (Kindermann et al, 2023).…”

“…Le second article (Kindermann et al, 2023) analyse la nature des articles conceptuels en marketing publiés au cours des 32 dernières années dans les revues considérées comme les plus influentes de la discipline. Les auteurs catégorisent ces contributions en utilisant la classification de MacInnis (2011).…”

Paradigms for Progress: An Anomaly-First Framework for Paradigm Development

“…At the Journal of Marketing (JM), this "knowledge-first" process ensures that research focuses on addressing real and contemporary marketing phenomena (Van Heerde et al 2021), is conducted properly, and fosters interactions within the research ecosystem (Sridhar et al 2023).Recognizing the limitations of a narrow knowledge-first approach, scholars also pursue alternate paths to contribution. These paths include empirics-first approaches (Golder et al 2023), a shift to observable-to-construct links (Lynch, Van Osselaer, and Torres 2023), and a focus on conceptual contributions (Kindermann et al 2023). In Kuhnian terms, these approaches are compatible with "normal science" (Kuhn 1970).…”

“…Recognizing the limitations of a narrow knowledge-first approach, scholars also pursue alternate paths to contribution. These paths include empirics-first approaches (Golder et al 2023), a shift to observable-to-construct links (Lynch, Van Osselaer, and Torres 2023), and a focus on conceptual contributions (Kindermann et al 2023). In Kuhnian terms, these approaches are compatible with "normal science" (Kuhn 1970).…”