From academic research to marketing practice: Some further thoughts
Introduction
We thank Don Lehmann (2014) and Russ Winer (2014) for their thoughtful comments on our paper (Roberts, Ujwal & Stefan, 2014). Their respective commentaries reveal a mix of optimistic and pessimistic tones about the impact of marketing science on marketing practice. We expand further on their comments by identifying (i) that about which we can be optimistic, (ii) that about which we should be worried, and (iii) how further research could address the study design issues raised by Lehmann and Winer.
Section snippets
Why is the glass half-full?
Both Lehmann and Winer comment on why we should be optimistic about the impact of marketing science on practice. There are three main reasons for optimism: the evidence in our study, evidence outside of our study, and the evolution of historical goals and accomplishments of research in marketing science.
Why is the glass half-empty?
Notwithstanding the reasons to be optimistic about our impact on practice, Lehmann and Winer both also identify reasons as to why we should be concerned. There are three main reasons to be pessimistic: a general decline in academic-practice collaboration in many areas, increasing competition from industry and other disciplines, and trends in doctoral training and publication processes.
Limitations of our study design
Lehmann and Winer raise some fair points of criticism regarding our study's design. In fact, we feel their criticism is, in some senses, kind on us in view of our own learnings from this project and the controversy we have aroused during this learning process. Lehmann and Winer point out that, in a study such as ours, there is a myriad of possible ways to approach it, and a host of different measures that one could use. We appreciate that other scholars might have made other, just as
Conclusions
We would like to close by once again thanking Lehmann and Winer for their comments on our research, and by reiterating our primary objectives with this research:
- •
We aimed to systematically gather, synthesize, and contrast the views of three major stakeholder groups regarding the impact of marketing science research on management practice,
- •
We wanted to draw some conclusions based on this data collection as to what has historically worked, what has not, and where the difference lies, and,
- •
We wished
References (8)
Market driven strategy
(1990)Commentary on from academic research to marketing practice: exploring the marketing science value chain
International Journal of Research in Marketing
(2014)Bridging the academic-practitioner divide in marketing decision models
Journal of Marketing
(2011)- et al.
Guest editorial: Is marketing academia losing its way?
Journal of Marketing
(2009)
Cited by (15)
The role of services in creating brand loyalty for B2B manufacturers
2024, Journal of Business ResearchThe managerial relevance of marketing science: Properties and genesis
2023, International Journal of Research in MarketingConsumers’ privacy calculus: The PRICAL index development and validation
2022, International Journal of Research in MarketingCitation Excerpt :We followed the most prevalent guidelines in developing our PRICAL index (MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Podsakoff, 2011; Rossiter, 2002) (see Fig. 1), except that we added a step that focuses on the managerial use of our measure in marketing. The marketing field has had an ongoing discussion on increasing the impact of marketing research on practice (e.g., Kohli & Haenlein, 2021; Roberts et al., 2014). By adding the step of testing the applicability of the developed scale in practice, our aim is to show how brands can use the PRICAL index for diagnostic purposes.
Commentary on Kohli & Haenlein: The study of important marketing issues: Reflections
2021, International Journal of Research in MarketingCitation Excerpt :The motivation for this paper is not new. For years indeed, scholars have deliberated whether the glass is half-full or half-empty (see, Lilien, 2011; Reibstein, Day, & Wind, 2009; Roberts, Kayande, & Stremersch, 2014a, 2014b (including commentaries by Lehmann (2014) and Winer (2014)); Stremersch, Verniers, & Verhoef, 2007; Stremersch & Winer, 2019; Stremersch, Winer, & Camacho, 2020). On the one hand, there are clear signs that our research matters.
Factors affecting the study of important marketing issues: Implications and recommendations
2021, International Journal of Research in MarketingCitation Excerpt :Instead, we argue that the methodological and conceptual standards used to judge a research project must take into account the aims of the project and the importance of the issue it examines. As scholars have previously noted, questions of methodological rigor become more difficult to solve when addressing problems relevant to marketing managers at higher hierarchical levels (e.g., Roberts et al. 2014b). To be clear, we are not advocating publishing theories/findings that are wrong.