A Look at the Future of Theory
description
Transcript of A Look at the Future of Theory
![Page 1: A Look at the Future of Theory](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062806/56814fbb550346895dbd75c1/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
A Look at the Future of TheoryAric RindfleischUniv. of Wisconsin & Korea Univ.2010 Summer AMA Conference
![Page 2: A Look at the Future of Theory](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062806/56814fbb550346895dbd75c1/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
The ProblemConceptual articles are important and influential but difficult to get published in top journals due to an empirical bias.
![Page 3: A Look at the Future of Theory](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062806/56814fbb550346895dbd75c1/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
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)
![Page 4: A Look at the Future of Theory](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062806/56814fbb550346895dbd75c1/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
“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)
![Page 5: A Look at the Future of Theory](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062806/56814fbb550346895dbd75c1/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
“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)
![Page 6: A Look at the Future of Theory](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062806/56814fbb550346895dbd75c1/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
“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)
![Page 7: A Look at the Future of Theory](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062806/56814fbb550346895dbd75c1/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Common EnemyJournal review process
Shared Assumption
We need this process
![Page 8: A Look at the Future of Theory](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062806/56814fbb550346895dbd75c1/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
The Reality
The biggest theoretical contributions are often found in books or B-level journals
![Page 9: A Look at the Future of Theory](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062806/56814fbb550346895dbd75c1/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
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)
![Page 10: A Look at the Future of Theory](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062806/56814fbb550346895dbd75c1/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
What if...
We published everything and let the scholarly community decide the value of a contribution?
![Page 11: A Look at the Future of Theory](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062806/56814fbb550346895dbd75c1/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
This is already happening...
![Page 12: A Look at the Future of Theory](https://reader036.fdocuments.net/reader036/viewer/2022062806/56814fbb550346895dbd75c1/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
What will happen next...?