1 / 16

Sophistication in Research in Marketing

Sophistication in Research in Marketing. Donald R. Lehmann Leigh McAlister Richard Staelin “Ideas that Matter” Pre-Conference Summer AMA 2010. The Research System And Feedback Loops. Solid Lines = Direct Effects Dash Lines = Feedback Effects. Lynch Old Days: More Aspiration

maddox
Download Presentation

Sophistication in Research in Marketing

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Sophistication in Research in Marketing Donald R. Lehmann Leigh McAlister Richard Staelin “Ideas that Matter” Pre-Conference Summer AMA 2010

  2. The Research System And Feedback Loops Solid Lines = Direct Effects Dash Lines = Feedback Effects

  3. Lynch Old Days: More Aspiration For Conceptual Papers Today: Don’t Even Consider It Before Tenure

  4. Lynch Need more papers for promotion Count instead of read

  5. Lynch Process impacts PhD Training Nature of papers PhD students write

  6. Lynch Journals publishing more papers More authors More papers/author

  7. LMS Drawing scholars from other fields New methods New theories Less interest in marketing

  8. LMS Outside scholars drive technical sophistication arms race Not needed/helpful understanding marketing

  9. LMS Accelerates Elison- identified: “Execution drives out Idea quality” Yadav (2010) shift from conceptual articles Reibstein/Day/Wind (2009) shift away from relevance

  10. Survey of Published Authors • JM, JMR, JCR, MktSci; Past 5 years • 510 sent out • 56% response rate • No follow up notification • Target Journal • 20% JM • 40% JCR • 20% JMR • 20% Marketing Science

  11. What makes a good review? Useful Reviews Not Useful Reviews Use a different model Use a more complex method Alter the thrust of the paper ≈ Execution Quality • Enhance managerial relevance • Provide theoretical justification • Rule out alternative explanations • ≈ Idea Quality

  12. Asked to increase managerial relevance…. • 45% said it resulted in new insight • 41% said it improved the focus of the paper

  13. Asked to use more complex method…. • 80% said it had no impact on paper’s conclusions • 38% said it made the paper harder to read • People said they got this request 50% of the time

  14. Old Fart-itis? No. Responses didn’t differ by cohort, except In the field 5 years or less Less frequent requests for more complex model Fewer conflicting requests from reviewers

  15. What to do? • Editors • Tell reviewers to rebalance method and idea • Back up policy with editorial decisions • Reviewers • Interesting • Not wrong

  16. What to do? • More complex method is appropriate if: • Assumptions are met • Method is focus of research • Method changes the result • Benefit > extra communication cost • Method is described simply

More Related