Decline of Conceptual Articles in the Marketing Discipline
Manjit Yadav’s article (“The Decline of Conceptual Articles and Implications for Knowledge Development”) in the January 2010 issue of JM alerts readers about the value of conceptual articles to the marketing discipline. It also notes the alarming decline in the share of conceptual articles over the total number of articles published. The author reports that this decline is especially sharp for JM (relative to other top marketing journals) and that much of this decline has occurred in the last decade.
The analysis suggests that repeated exhortations of the importance of conceptual articles within the marketing discipline have not been effective; one hopes that Yadav’s somewhat disturbing and thought-provoking results stimulate more conceptual journal articles in the future.
The author proposes several steps to alleviate the problem, including greater involvement from senior leaders in the discipline, resurrecting/revitalizing seminars in theory construction within doctoral programs in marketing, creating a special section devoted to conceptual articles, and putting greater emphasis on theoretical contributions in promotion/tenure and other reward systems for marketing educators.
Overall, Yadav’s contributions have significant implications for (1) the future growth of the marketing discipline relative to other disciplines and (2) the ability of the former to influence the latter. Specifically, I hope that Yadav’s article stimulates attention to the following research questions:
(a) This article indicates that conceptual articles tend to generate more citations than other articles. Let me raise a related question: Do conceptual articles have a greater impact on other (nonmarketing) disciplines than empirical articles (as assessed by citation analyses of publications in nonmarketing journals)? This appears important given the widely shared view among scholars that a discipline’s ability to impact/lead other disciplines is primarily through citation impact.
(b) If the answer to (a) is “yes,” what additional insights can be generated on systematically linking Yadav’s demonstration of the declining share of conceptual articles in marketing to the general decline in marketing’s clout suggested in recent JM articles (see Reibstein, Day, and Wind 2009 for a candid assessment of the relative impact of marketing on other academic disciplines, and Verhoef and Leeflang 2009 for an assessment of the impact of the marketing function within firms)?
(c) It will be helpful to estimate the real/perceived differences in the effort/reward ratio between authoring conceptually oriented and empirically oriented publications within the marketing discipline. A survey approach targeted at scholars who have published both types of articles may offer fruitful additional insights.
(d) Yadav notes that conceptual articles have received a disproportionate share of awards. What additional steps can the discipline take to incent authors to devote more of their time to conceptual articles? For example, is there a need to substantially increase the number and scope of awards that specifically recognize conceptual contributions?
As always, the views of JM readers on this featured article and this blog are most welcome. Your contributions will help us advance this important discussion for the benefit of our discipline.
Siva K. Balasubramanian, Web Editor, Journal of Marketing
