First steps to creating high impact theory in marketing
- PDF / 218,506 Bytes
- 7 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 27 Downloads / 190 Views
COMMENTARY
First steps to creating high impact theory in marketing Ruth N. Bolton 1 Accepted: 12 October 2020 / Published online: 28 November 2020 # Academy of Marketing Science 2020
Abstract The business research ecosystem can be transformed by responsible research principles. This commentary offers concrete guidance for developing high impact theory; it provides a tool to assess research benefits and identify participating stakeholders. It also calls for improving doctoral training, countering risk aversion in research topic selection, re-aligning faculty incentives, and leveraging academic institutions. Keywords Responsible research . Marketing theory . Stakeholders . Impact . Ecosystem . Research priorities
Research is formalized curiosity. It is poking and prying with a purpose. ─ Zora Neale Hurston (1942), p. 91 I have been asked to offer some reflections on the essays by Key et al. (2020), hereafter called KCFSP. Their work is thought-provoking and a call to action. This commentary begins by discussing my views on four key issues raised by KCFSP–including points of both agreement and disagreement. These four issues are: the purpose of conceptual research in marketing, changes in the marketing discipline, pathways for creating impact, and the relationship between research topics and impact. Then, the commentary offers my vision of a way forward to create impactful research. It identifies practical steps for researchers who seek to generate high impact conceptual work and create an ecosystem that values high impact work.
The purpose of research in marketing Many marketing thought leaders believe that theory can contribute to knowledge development about marketing * Ruth N. Bolton [email protected] 1
W. P. Carey School of Business, Arizona State University, P. O. Box 874106, Tempe, AZ 85287-4106, USA
phenomena that (ultimately) has impact–thereby creating a better world (e.g., Brown et al. 2005). Yet, KCFSP characterize most marketing scholars as focused on demand generation (or, arguably stimulation) and fulfillment with limited interest in the marketing system. This characterization reflects a diminished view of the real scope and importance of marketing as it is understood by many marketing thought leaders (e.g., Tsui 2016; Wilkie 2005; Wilkie and Moore 1999, 2003). In the view of many marketing scholars (including me), our field has a greater purpose: to develop knowledge about the aggregate marketing system–that (in particular) improves individual, organizational, societal and environmental well-being.
Change in the dominant logic of marketing The marketing discipline is always changing (Bolton 2017, 2020)–but is it changing for the better or worse? In his excellent historical review, Ferrell describes how supply chain management originated within marketing but (today) is considered a distinct field of inquiry (p. 153). However, should we view this outcome as a failure or a success? Subsequently, marketing scholars have built upon our knowledge of demand generation and fulfillment to study (more broa
Data Loading...
