A Look at the Future of TheoryAric RindfleischUniv. of Wisconsin & Korea Univ.2010 Summer AMA Conference

The ProblemConceptual articles are important and influential but difficult to get published in top journals due to an empirical bias.

The Solution:

“If a discipline is committed to theory-building...it must demonstrate that commitment in its major journals...It is noteworthy that several other business disciplines have done just that...”

Yadav (2010, p. 14)

“The Field of Management’s Devotion to Theory: Too Much of a Good Thing?”

Hambrick (2007)

“WE’VE GONE OVERBOARD IN OUR OBSESSION WITH THEORY” (P. 1346)

“A look at top journals in other fields readily uncovers papers that do not purport to contribute to theory. For instance, a 2006 Journal of Marketing article (Thompson, Rindfleisch & Arsel 2006) neither propped themselves up with any theories or claimed to have generated any theories. They simply documented and dissected a fascinating, important phenomenon, in a way that would be a remote prospect in our top journals.”

Hambrick (2007, p. 1347)

“We need at least one journal...that is largely devoted to straightforward tests of theories...Many other fields have such journals. For example, Marketing Letters...”

Hambrick (2007, p. 1351)

Common EnemyJournal review process

Shared Assumption

We need this process

The Reality

The biggest theoretical contributions are often found in books or B-level journals

An Alternative

“We leave judgments about the worth of research and ideas open to more people in a more democratic assessment process.”

Pfeffer (2007, pp. 1342)

“WEIGHTING CITATIONS MORE STRONGLY THAN NUMBER OF PAPERS AND WHERE THEY HAVE BEEN

PUBLISHED” (P. 1342)

What if...

We published everything and let the scholarly community decide the value of a contribution?

This is already happening...

What will happen next...?