The role of critical conceptual contributions in academic marketing journals

In the editorials of Recherche et Application en Marketing (RAM), volumes 37 and 38, my goal was to define the scientific publication standards expected in the journal. The volume 37 editorial highlighted the internationalization of RAM as a significant challenge, outlining the resultant expectations for authors. The volume 38 editorial revisited the concept of theoretical contribution, defining and clarifying it. In addition, it presented a series of questions to help authors more effectively articulate their theoretical contributions in their articles.

A new editorial team will take over next September, and with it, the criteria for publishing in RAM may evolve. Therefore, I have opted to explore a broader topic in this editorial. Prompted by the publication of an invited article coordinated by Eric Rémy and co-authored by eight colleagues, I delve into the role of critical conceptual contributions within generalist marketing journals.

Two recent articles published in the Journal of Marketing inspired this topic. The first is the editorial by Swaminathan et al. (2023) on the dynamics of marketing research. Like any scientific discipline, marketing should evolve according to the discontinuous mechanics described by Kuhn (1970), that is, oscillate between normal and extraordinary science phases. Normal science phases involve adhering to an established paradigm, providing a robust and coherent framework for contributions. However, extraordinary scientific advancements, or paradigm shifts, are typically triggered by anomalies – disruptive events that render existing theories ineffective. Most of the marketing articles use these “old” theories, often reflexively, as they align with the established norms and conventions of the academic community. Swaminathan et al. (2023) then point out that conceptual or empirical contributions tend to advance knowledge in a paradigm that is no longer necessarily appropriate. The authors propose a method for developing new paradigms based on the identification of anomalies. Identifying significant anomalies that are intimately connected with the marketing discipline is relatively straightforward, especially when it comes to consumption and consumer behavior. Examples include the rise in obesity rates, the proliferation of plastic pollution and its role in the decline of living organisms, or the escalation of road and air transportation contributing to increased greenhouse gas emissions. These phenomena contradict the definitions of marketing as proposed by the Association Française du Marketing and the American Marketing Association. Both definitions emphasize long-run value creation for consumers, customers, partners, and society as the central objective of marketing activities. As a consequence, these anomalies should herald a shift in the scientific paradigm.

The second article (Kindermann et al., 2023) analyzes the nature of conceptual articles published in the most influential journals in marketing over the last 32 years. The authors categorize these contributions using MacInnis’ (2011) classification. They show that envisioning and explicating contributions have been largely dominant and increasing over the past 30 years. In contrast, contributions aimed at linking or differentiating conceptual domains or entities (relating contributions) and, above all, contributions aiming at questioning a conceptual domain to refute or support it (debating contributions) are much rarer and in decline. Critical marketing research falls mainly into the latter family. MacInnis (2011) explains that this last category of contributions is essential, as it promotes the transition to a new cycle of conceptualization/visualization, explanation, and linking. Debating contributions foster scientific progress and the emergence of new paradigms: Such questioning lays the groundwork for groundbreaking articles that introduce innovative and transformative perspectives.

Kindermann et al. (2023) provide explanations for these trends. The main reason is that authors conform to a dominant style of thinking. They select topics that are easy to present as novel, although these may not always be the most urgent issues. Alternatively, they focus on subjects that appear significant simply because they have attracted widespread research attention. This tendency gives an advantage to envisioning contributions that remain limited in scope and to explicating contributions. The second explanation is that reviewers and editors are wary of contributions that aim at questioning because they do not know how to evaluate them. A third explanation is that doctoral education often places less emphasis on developing skills in theory-building and conceptualization, which are vital for cultivating deep critical analysis.

Taken together, these two articles shed an intriguing light on the state of current marketing research. While market and consumer society anomalies are evident, there is a scarcity of contributions that critically question and potentially reshape existing conceptual frameworks, at least in journals deemed the most significant in the field (Kindermann et al., 2023). This situation raises questions about the potential of critical perspectives to influence the field, spark a paradigm shift, and alter the teaching and practice of marketing.

Our frameworks of thought are being challenged (Remy and Roux, 2022), yet paradoxically, the reflection on their renewal occurs mainly outside the field of marketing. Twelve years on from Kotler’s (2011) editorial calling for a marketing reinvention to address ecological imperatives, the field remains markedly distant from realizing these ambitions. This observation led to inviting Eric Rémy, Dominique Roux, Eric Arnould, Soren Askegaard, Anthony Beudaert, Anthony Galuzzo, Jean-Luc Giannelloni, and Gilles Marion to contribute an article to RAM, focusing on ways to reinvent marketing. The authors have chosen to take a critical look at sustainable marketing to sketch out avenues for a paradigmatic break. This article exemplifies the potential of critical research to instigate change within a discipline: It highlights key issues and paves the way for its evolution and revitalization. The thorough argumentation and research agenda offer stimulating perspectives for marketing.

Nevertheless, this article adopts an atypical format, and without disparagement, it seriously challenges the foundational principles of sustainable marketing research, as highlighted in the latest special issue of RAM. In generalist journals, critical conceptual contributions, designed to present alternative and minority viewpoints, often encounter challenges within the editorial process. Indeed, journals play both a gate-keeping and a legitimizing role. As such, editorial teams may have doubts about such articles and be inclined to reject them (Kindermann et al., 2023).

In the classification of MacInnis (2011), critical conceptual contributions fall into the category of debating contributions. These contributions typically serve two purposes: they either advocate for minority perspectives or challenge and counter majority viewpoints. To quote MacInnis (2011):

Because advocacy and refutation are designed to persuade by taking a stance on an issue about which there may be varying opinions, interesting propositions suggest that prevailing beliefs about an issue or its normative appropriateness are, in fact, in error. Thus, with advocacy, interesting propositions argue that what is considered false is actually true, what is considered unacceptable is actually acceptable, what is considered wrong is right, and what is considered inappropriate is actually appropriate. Interesting propositions pertaining to refutation suggest the opposite. (p. 147)

Critical research, as discussed by Schroeder (2007), encompasses a broad spectrum of issues, with a primary focus on examining capitalism and consumer culture through their impacts on the environment, individual freedoms, inequalities, and the global distribution of power and resources, as highlighted by Kozinets (in the article by Scott, 2007). Bradshaw and Firat (2007) suggest that critical contributions aim to inspire profound transformations in marketing, potentially questioning its fundamental nature and goals. Consequently, these works are not about proposing enhancements to marketing’s role in fulfilling consumer desires but a deeper re-evaluation of its underlying principles and effects.

The divergence of such work from established paradigms can make its publication in generalist journals challenging, potentially leading to self-censorship among authors. Anticipating a strenuous evaluation process, authors might avoid writing critical conceptual articles. This apprehension is not baseless, as critical pieces are inherently more complex to review because their theoretical contribution can be difficult to assess. Adding to this complexity is the critical aspect, which introduces a political element that could cause reviewers and editors to be skeptical about the scientific validity of the work. Finally, as critical contributions challenge established frameworks, they are often evaluated by researchers who are experts in these established frameworks who may feel their own work is being questioned. Breslin and Gatrell (2023) explain this problem using the miner and prospector metaphor. The approach of “miner” researchers involves crafting a contribution by immersing themselves in the norms of the field, positioning their work relative to other authors in the area, and operating within a co-dependent logic. They work alongside others to collectively extract value from a “vein” of research. Conversely, “prospectors” may opt to use existing literature as a springboard, challenging, disrupting, or circumventing the established norms and assumptions of the discipline. They seek new veins, potentially destabilizing the field. In this context, journals and their editorial teams play a pivotal role.

Academic journals can, however, hinder field destabilization by contributing to standardizing writing, structuring, and style of thought (Kindermann et al., 2023). First, since the number of articles submitted to marketing journals has risen quickly in recent years, norms are proving useful because they enable editors to make rapid decisions, including immediate rejection, and cope with the difficulty in finding reviewers (Petrescu and Krishen, 2022). The problem is that using heuristics in the decision process can encourage conformism. Second, it is certainly riskier for journals to publish critical contributions since their publication provides legitimacy to the article. It is crucial to clarify that the editorial process primarily aims to validate the relevance and originality of the questions raised, along with the rigor and integrity of the scientific argument. Therefore, accepting a paper for publication does not equate to endorsing its proposed direction, although it may be interpreted as such by the readership. As a result, generalist academic journals can act as gatekeepers, and there is a significant risk that they will block contributions preparing a paradigmatic renewal. This blocking can occur directly by rejecting work that disrupts an established research line or indirectly by not demonstrating sufficient openness to pluralism in the effective editorial policy. Despite RAM’s continuous commitment to promoting eclecticism and the diversity of ideas, who has not already heard comments about the type of articles that are more likely to be accepted?

In this scenario, authors of critical conceptual contributions (the “prospectors”) must bear some responsibility. To successfully navigate the publication process, they should adhere to the journal’s stylistic and content conventions. This involves, even when addressing alternative subjects, utilizing the formal language and structure of the journal. Specifically, this means minimizing jargon, focusing on clarity and definition, and striving for educational content. Since critical contributions aim to foster dialogue, failing to comply with the journal’s formal codes could result in adverse strong reactions or, even worse, indifference due to misunderstandings.

Regarding content, critical conceptual contributions should go beyond merely deconstructing existing frameworks; they must also guide their reconstruction. Presenting alternatives and adopting a problem-solving stance, like suggesting a research agenda, is paramount. Equally important is the task of building connections with existing research in the dominant paradigm, elucidating the transition to new thought frameworks, and pinpointing areas for collaborative and transitional efforts. Finally, these articles must address the practical implications and challenges in implementing the proposed frameworks to ensure they are effectively actionable.

To conclude, let us talk again about the article by Rémy et al. entitled “Look up! Five research proposals for rethinking marketing in a post-growth society,” which you will discover in this first issue of volume 39. I want to thank the authors for responding to my invitation and writing an article that follows these guidelines. This work contributes to putting forward stimulating ideas and visions. For researchers working on themes related to sustainable marketing, particularly in consumer behavior, it raises healthy and beneficial questions. Ultimately, despite its critical perspective, the authors’ approach aligns with Kotler’s (2011) aforementioned call to action, demonstrating how researchers with diverse viewpoints can unite around common, substantial goals.

The editorial team is open to publishing a commentary to encourage debate. Researchers wishing to engage in this exercise are invited to contact the editor.

Wrapping up, I wish to express my gratitude once again to the team that has stood by me for over 2 years and to the colleagues who, despite their hectic schedules, accepted our requests to review articles. Although review activities are not always adequately recognized in career progression, their contribution to evaluation is immensely valuable. The list of ad hoc reviewers who have evaluated one or more articles over the past year is available following the editorial.