From academic research to marketing practice: Some further thoughts

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2013.12.001Get rights and content

Abstract

In this rejoinder, we share some further thoughts that were triggered by the insightful comments of Lehmann and Winer, and address some concerns expressed by them. We argue that our work can be interpreted using two different reference points, leading to an optimistic view or a more pessimistic one. We also advance a number of strategies for those in our field who aspire to influence the decisions that managers actually make.

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)

  • George S. Day

    Market driven strategy

    (1990)
  • Donald R. Lehmann

    Commentary on from academic research to marketing practice: exploring the marketing science value chain

    International Journal of Research in Marketing

    (2014)
  • Gary L. Lilien

    Bridging the academic-practitioner divide in marketing decision models

    Journal of Marketing

    (2011)
  • Reibstein et al.

    Guest editorial: Is marketing academia losing its way?

    Journal of Marketing

    (2009)
There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (15)

  • The managerial relevance of marketing science: Properties and genesis

    2023, International Journal of Research in Marketing
  • Consumers’ privacy calculus: The PRICAL index development and validation

    2022, International Journal of Research in Marketing
    Citation 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 Marketing
    Citation 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 Marketing
    Citation 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.

View all citing articles on Scopus
View full text