the contribution continuum

ORIGINAL EMPIRICAL RESEARCH

The contribution continuum

Daniel M. Ladik & David W. Stewart

Received: 12 February 2008 /Accepted: 18 February 2008 /Published online: 20 March 2008# Academy of Marketing Science 2008

The question, What constitutes a knowledge contri-bution? has a simple and straightforward answerthat is less than simple or straightforward to accom-plish (David Glen Mick).

The most common reason manuscripts fail to clear thehurdle necessary for publication in leading journals is a lackof strong incremental contribution. Reviewers often com-pliment the exposition of a paper and praise the researchdesign only to conclude that the paper contains nothing thatis newsworthy. This is a frustrating outcome for an author.As a result, the most frequent question asked of editors is,What is a contribution? and how does one tell if thecontribution is large enough to merit publication. Evenpapers that are eventually published in very good journalsoften start the review process with reviewers comments to

the effect that the contribution of the paper is unclear. Lessexperienced scholars often have an especially difficult timearticulating their papers contribution, but even accom-plished researchers can fail to explain why a paper isimportant and what it adds to the literature. More often thannot, authors do not clarify their papers contribution and/orexpress how their papers contribution adds to what isalready known or how it significantly extends priorpublished work. Every editor of a journal has answeredthe question of what a contribution is. Despite thefrequency of the question it has seldom been directlyaddressed in print.

The objectives of this paper are to (1) collect the insightsof past and present editors of major journals in marketing,(2) help clarify what a contribution is, (3) illustrate how acontribution relates to a manuscripts likelihood of beingpublished, and (4) develop a continuum of the forms andtypes of contributions that exist. To accomplish this goal,we asked past and present editors of leading marketingjournals, What is a contribution? Each editor wrote ashort essay ranging from approximately 250 to 750 wordsoutlining their thoughts on what is and how to make acontribution. The past and present editors that contributedto this paper are identified in Table 1. The editorsresponses, as data, were reviewed and inductively synthe-sized to form common themes from across the essays. Insum, the contribution concept represents an outcome-based measure in which the knowledge generated from themanuscript is compared with the extant knowledgecontained within the literature stream (Michael Dorsch).A contribution is made when a manuscript clearly adds,embellishes, or creates something beyond what is alreadyknown.

J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2008) 36:157165DOI 10.1007/s11747-008-0087-z

An earlier version of this manuscript was presented by the authors in aspecial Doctoral Student Special Interest Group (DocSIG) session atthe 2007 American Marking Associations Summer EducatorsConference held in Washington DC.

D. M. LadikDepartment of Marketing, Sawyer Business School,Sawyer Building, 837A, Suffolk University,8 Ashburton Place,Boston, MA 02108-2770, USAe-mail: [email protected]

D. W. Stewart (*)A. Gary Anderson Graduate School of Management,University of California, Riverside,Anderson Hall 122900 University Avenue,Riverside, CA 92521, USAe-mail: [email protected]: http://agsm.ucr.edu/

The present paper is organized in two parts. The first partof the paper presents four themes that were common to alleditors essays. These include (1) clarifying the targetaudience, (2) the subjective nature of a contribution, (3) theimportance of passion for the research topic, and finally, (4)surprise. The second part of the paper examines strategiesfor creating strong contributions. This section of the papermay be most useful for doctoral students and youngerscholars, but we also hope that it is helpful to moreexperienced scholars. Numerous editors suggested usingBrinberg and McGraths (1985) substantial, conceptual, andmethodological domains as a guide to organizing thoughtswhen creating and executing a paper. In addition, a con-tinuum of contributions based on magnitude from a literalreplication to developing a new theory that predicts a newphenomenon (e.g., the theory of relativity) is introduced

and discussed. The paper concludes with a checklist ofelements rigorous research should contain, as well as a listof questions to ask to avoid the dreaded So what?response from an editor.

Four common themes

Target audience

To me, the first step toward a contribution is to thinkvery carefully about the audience to whom you wish tomake the contribution. Is it other academics? Is itpractitioners? Thinking carefully about the intendedaudience and the nature of the audience is crucial.For example, an academic audience is generallyinterested in a theoretical advance, whereas practi-tioners want actionable implications. Decide on thenature of your intended contribution and state itclearly as your research objective. (Richard Lutz).

The first common theme across the editors essays focusedon the need to consider the target audience of an intendedcontribution. David Glen Mick observed that a manuscriptshould result in a change in the audience of an intendedcontribution: The audience exposed to the research haslearned something new and/or its prior beliefs on the topichave been changed. The editors agreed that researchers do agood job of picking the appropriate journal (e.g., sending amanuscript with a retailing focus to the Journal of Retailing).However, numerous editors stated that developing scholarsoften do not articulate who will be impacted by the research.For instance, Roland Rust suggested the idea of a stakehold-er: To be a contribution, a paper has to change the mindand/or behavior of a stakeholder. In a similar fashion,Barton Weitz emphasized the marketing community andadded, Research that makes significant contributions typi-cally has (1) a strong theoretical framework and (2)addresses an issue or problem that is important to themarketing community.

Rajan Varadarajan further developed this theme bysuggesting a constituency perspective. He outlined fivedifferent stakeholders (managers, researchers, public policyofficials, marketing educators, and society at large) withinthe marketing community who could be impacted by apaper and its contribution(s): Research studies in market-ing can be distinguished on the basis of their contributionsto the advancement of practice of marketing and/orresearch in marketing. In this context, distinguishingbetween specific constituencies, who might benefit from aresearch study, might be desirable.

An important implication of this theme is that acontribution is not independent of its audience. A papercan make a strong contribution for one constituency and

Table 1 Editors contributing comments for this paper

Editor Editorship tenure

Eric Arnould Associate Editor, Journal of ConsumerResearch (2000current)

Barry Babin Associate Editor (Marketing), Journalof Business Research (1999current)

Anthony DiBenedetto Journal of Product InnovationManagement (2004current)

Michael Dorsch Journal of Marketing Theoryand Practice (20022005)

Dhruv Grewal Journal of Retailing (20012007)Ronald Paul Hill Journal of Public Policy

and Marketing (2006current)Raymond Laforge Marketing Education Review (19901998)Donald Lehmann Marketing Letters (19891996)

Co-Editor, International Journal ofResearch in Marketing (2006current)

Michael Levy Journal of Retailing (20012007)Robert Lusch Journal of Marketing (19961999)Richard Lutz Journal of Consumer Research (19881990)David Glen Mick Journal of Consumer Research (20002003)A. Parasuraman Journal of the Academy of

Marketing Science (19972000)Journal of Service Research (2005current)

Roland Rust Journal of Service Research (19982005)Journal of Marketing (20052008)

James Stock International Journal of PhysicalDistribution and Logistics Management(19902003)Journal of Business Logistics (2005current)

Rajan Varadarajan Journal of Marketing (19931996)Journal of the Academy of MarketingScience (20002003)

Barton Weitz Journal of Marketing Research (19911994)Co-Editor, Marketing Letters (19972006)

George Zinkhan Journal of Advertising (19901994)Journal of the Academy of MarketingScience (20002003)

158 J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2008) 36:157165

little or no contribution to another constituency. A papercan profoundly impact practice but have little theoreticalrelevance. A paper may be very useful to a smallconstituency but have little utility for most individualswithin a broader constituency. Hence, key questions for anyauthor are (1) who is the constituency for the paper (2) howimportant and useful is the contribution of the paper to thatconstituency and (3) how well does a given journal matchthat specific constituency?

Contribution subjectivity

The notion of a contribution to knowledge is anelusive one. Ask ten editors and expect ten differentanswers (Richard Lutz).

One of the more challenging aspects in the reviewprocess is the subjective nature involved in determiningwhat constitutes a contribution and how large that contri-bution is. Multiple editors acknowledged subjectivity suchas Michael Levy and Dhruv Grewal (2007, p. 249):Relative contribution relates to how interesting andimportant a topic is, but the degree to which a topic isinteresting is, of course, quite subjective. Ronald Hillconcurred stating, Like beauty, [a contribution] is in theeye of the beholder. For example, one reviewer gets excitedabout gains in a particular area, while another feels thatlittle value is added to the field. In the end, it is the editorsjob to be the arbitrator.

The double-blind journal review process can be de-scribed as a conversation among three parties: the author,the editor, and the reviewers. All three parties have anopinion on the quality and the magnitude of a contribution;however, it is the editor who makes the final decision.James Stock described the interplay between the editor andthe reviewers: I believe that there is some truth to thegeneralization that Editors look for reasons to acceptmanuscripts, while reviewers look for reasons to rejectthem. If an Editor really believes that a submission issignificant, he/she will do what they can to get it published.Fatal flaws will never be ignored, but if there are none, thenEditors will try to shepherd the submission through theprocess so that it eventually gets published. The processthen becomes one of continuous improvement.

Michael Dorsch elaborated on this interplay betweenthe editor and the reviewers by suggesting that thereviewers evaluate a manuscripts absolute contributionby determining if the manuscript extends the existingknowledge about a phenomenon (e.g., the study wasconducted in a new context; the study examines a new ordifferent relationship; etc.). By contrast, the editor evaluatesa papers relative contribution by examining how thecontribution compares to other research efforts in theliterature stream.

As presented in a Table 2, opinions about the absoluteand relative contribution of a paper result in a clearlyacceptable manuscript only when both are positive. Lowabsolute and low relative contribution will result in anunambiguous rejection of a manuscript. In either of the twoother cells where the absolute and relative contributionsdiffer, the editor will make the final decision, though editorsdiffer in their willingness to overrule a strong consensusamong reviewers.

While the subjective nature of the review process cannotbe avoided, by no means did any of the editors commentssuggest that authors should view the review process interms of luck, fate, randomness, or serendipity. By contrast,the editors stressed that it is the authors responsibility tomake a persuasive and conclusive contribution argumentwith the first submission. After all, it is the authorspromotion and tenure record that is at stake. Dorsch stated,Recognizing that a contribution may be assessed ondifferent dimensions (e.g., absolute vs. relative), is onlypart of the story; it is also important to recognize that acontribution may not be readily apparent to the editor,reviewer, or journal reader. As a result, the manuscript mustbe efficiently and effectively crafted so that its contributionis clearly and convincingly established. George Zinkhansuggested that developing scholars can achieve higherquality contributions when greater harmonies exist amongthe manuscripts elements: Some reviewers claim that thisis a subjective judgment. In other words, they know qualitywhen they see it. Quality involves simplicity and harmonyand parsimony. There should be harmony between:objectives, theory, hypotheses, methods, inferences, andimplications.

Multiple editors emphasized that developing scholarsshould concentrate on their writing efforts even if thatmeans hiring a proofreader or copy editor. Rigorousmethods and significant results will still fail in the reviewprocess if the author cannot articulate the contribution ofthe paper in a clear and persuasive manner. Robert Luschsuggested: If you cannot communicate your message withclarity, insight, persuasiveness, and impact then the topic

Table 2 Relative vs. absolute contribution

Editor Decision

Absolute Contribution

Clear Acceptance

Editor Decision

Clear Rejection

High Low

Low

High

Reviewers Opinion

Relative Contribution

Editors Opinion

J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. (2008) 36:157165 159159

and technique are of little consequence. If you develop aunique theoretical insight, properly empirically test this insight,and obtain convincing results but you fail to communicateeffectively with the written word, then you will fail inpublishing your contribution in an appropriate journal. If youhappen to be doing scholarly writing that is non-empiricallybased, then writing quality is even more important.

The final comment on this second common theme helpsbridge the second theme (subjectivity) with the third theme(passion). Rejection is unavoidable in the review processespecially among the most general and rigorous journals.Rejection can occur for many reasons. Perhaps the authordid not present a clear and compelling exposition of thecontribution of their paper. Perhaps, in the opinion of thereviewers and editor, the changes required to improve apaper and strengthen its contribution were too great towarrant further review. Time and time again the editorsstressed, Dont give up. The review process may not beeasy or fun, but it is necessary in academia. Michael Levyand Dhruv Grewal (2007, p. 249) suggested pickingresearch topics that you love. There is a greater chancethat a scholar will persevere through the review process ifthe research topic is one s/he loves: If you pick a topic thatreviewers believe does not make a contribution, no amountof revision will rectify the situation. However, even weacknowledge that reviewers (and editors) are not alwaysright. If you believe in your project, you should take thefeedback you receive and improve the project. If you havefollowed our first piece of advicethat is, choosing a topicthat fascinates youyou should be willing to continue tofight to get it published. Therefore, it remains incumbenton authors to present strong arguments for the relevancy oftheir contributions to specific constituencies.

Passion for the research topic

So what do I recommend? The road less traveled? Well,you have many choices as a scholar, none of whichassures success. Thus, you might as well take an excitingpath that has a greater likelihood of being personallystimulating and potentially rewarding. No one said itwould be easy but it can be fun! (Ronald Hill).

Some of the best advice ever imparted to us was to workon research you love. Work on research that is sointeresting that it keeps you up at night. Work on researchin which you truly have a passion. This advice was clearlyevident across the editors essays. Beyond the perseverancerequired to survive the review process, academic researchrarely provides instant gratification. More often than not,years will elapse between the conceptualization of a paperand a completed article appearing in print. Continuing withtheir thoughts from the previous section, Michael Levy andDhruv Grewal (2007, p. 248) stated: Perhaps the most

important criterion in choosing your research topic is tofind one about which you personally feel passionate.Because you likely will be working on this topic (and itsextensions) for many years, you want to ensure it issomething you will continue to find interesting to maintainthe necessary levels of hard work and commitment to it.

While stressing the importance of having a passion for aresearch topic, many editors emphasized the parallel impor-tance of programmatic research. Focusing on a specificdomain of inquiry provides the opportunity to develop depthof understanding and expertise on a particular research topic.In addition, focusing on a specific domain helps inbranding oneself in the literature. Barton Weitz favorsprogrammatic research and discourages topic hopping: Acritical issue is what can a researcher do to make a significantcontribution? Research on creativity suggests two factorscontribute to the creative outputs: (1) domain knowledge and(2) intrinsic interest. Applying these factors to academicresearchers, to make a creative contribution, researchersneed extensive knowledge in the problem domain and aninherent interest in the issue. Thus, high impact research ismore likely to be produced by researchers who do multipleprojects in a domain of personal interest than a researcher whoflits from one hot topic to another. Roland Rust agrees andsuggests authors should not only avoid topic hopping but gleanideas from practice as well as from the academic literature:Many of themost useful contributions come from real industryproblems, rather than hunting around for an application area forsome pet theory or technique. The problem should drive theapproachnot the other way around.

Richard Lutz provided a useful summary comment on thistheme of passion and its relationship to programmaticresearch. Lutz states: [An] essential step for making acontribution is complete immersion in the research domain.You are unlikely to make a contribution by dabbling in anumber of topic areas. If you are conducting research in morethan two or at the very most three distinct areas, you areunlikely to make a meaningful contribution. Focus isimperative. Read the literature, both current and classic.Talk with leading researchers in the area at conferences.Bounce your ideas off them. Ask if they will read andcomment on your research ideas and/or manuscripts.

Surprise

When viewing what is a contribution or not, the mostsignificant contributions create what I call the wow,thats really neat response from reviewers and readers(James Stock).

A significant contribution in a paper is often character-ized by an element of surprise. Doing something new isnecessary, but not sufficient to make a significant contri-bution. Doing something interesting is necessary, but not


sufficient to make a significant contribution. Simply put, ifthe goal is to make a contribution in one of marketings topjournals, an element of surprise should be part of the effort.In the words of Robert Lusch, A contribution is also adirect function of the surprise it presents to the reader. Verysimply, if I read a manuscript and I am not surprised thenthere is no or little contribution. Surprise is not adichotomous variable, but is continuous and ranges fromsmall to large surprises. It is the large surprises that makethe best contribution. These are articles that the reader sitsback and says to him or herself: (1) wow, I wish I hadthought about that before; (2) that is a counterintuitive andinsightful result; (3) that is not what I expected but I amnow convinced that is how things work or might work; or(4) that really changes how I will practice marketing or howpublic policy should develop.

The editors were virtually uniform in suggesting thatscholars often fail to follow up on and investigate asurprising result. For instance, researchers often investigatea set of hypotheses and just report whether or not supportwas found at some level of significance (e.g.,

phenomenon. The third domain is the substantive domain,which is the range of the phenomenon of interest (alsoknown as the studys context). As illustrated in Fig. 1, theintersection of these three interwoven domains (simplifiedto Theory, Method and Context) is the place most likely toproduce a strong contribution. While the best papers featurecontributions in all three of these domains, most manu-scripts make a significant contribution in one or twodomains. For the aspiring author the key to success isassuring that there is an important and meaningfulcontribution in at least one of these domains for someconstituency. This also brings us full circlea contributionin one of these domains may be more or less important andrelevant to a specific constituency. It is critical that thedomain of the contribution match the focus of the targetjournal and its readership.

The majority of empirical papers in the academicliterature or marketing includes theory, method, and contextcomponents. Conceptual papers usually do not feature amethodological component, which often makes thesearticles the most difficult to get published. The theory andthe context contributions must to be strong enough to standon their own without data. A common strategy in writing apaper and identifying its contribution is to identify a gapin the literature and justify a contribution by filling in thegap. While a gap might exist, it does not logically followthat filling a gap is an important contribution. In fact, gapsmay exist precisely because the issue is uninteresting orobvious. The marketing discipline is not very old, so moregaps exist than published articles. On this point BarryBabin observed, The fact that no researcher has tested thisbefore does not logically justify the need for such a test.When a gap does exist it is not always obvious why fillingthe gap is important. It is an authors responsibility to tell the

target audience why filling the gap is relevant and meaning-ful. On this point Barton Weitz noted, As an editor andreviewer, I am concerned when authors claim their contri-bution will fill a gap in the literatureno one previously haslooked at the relationship between X and Ybut the authorsnever discuss why anyone should be interested in therelationship between X and Y.

In contrast to simply filling a gap in the literature, theelegance of Brinberg and McGraths (1985) perspective onthe domains of potential contributions provides a richer andmore compelling way to think about what defines acontribution. Papers that offer highly generalizable insightsthat are meaningful and useful to broad constituencies aremost likely to contain a strong contribution. This is onereason that papers that make a contribution to theory havethe best chance of being published in the top journals. Theleading journals in marketing, and in most academicdisciplines, tend to have an academic editor, academicreviewers, and academic readers and these constituents aremore often than not, interested in theoretical advances thancontributions to the other domains. But, this is more than justa matter of preference for theory over other domains. Bydefinition the insights of a good theory should transcendspecific methods and context. In contrast, empirical researchis generally limited by method and context. In the words ofEric Arnould, In most cases at academic journals, acontribution refers to a contribution to theory. Thus, theapplication of a theory to a novel context is often questionedfor failing to make a contribution. If a theory is directlyborrowed from marketing, psychology, or economics andnot extended, refined, or limited by boundary conditions,then the contribution to theory is minimal and the manuscriptis likely to contain a modest contribution at best.

It is possible to make a contribution methodologically bycreating a new method or by refining an existing method.Publications like the Journal of Marketing Research andthe International Journal of Research in Marketing havethis goal as part of their mission. There are journals in otherdisciplines, such as statistics, psychometrics, and manage-ment science that are exclusively devoted to methodolog-ical contributions. Most journals in marketing, however,will not publish a paper where the only contribution ismethodological (e.g., the Journal of the Academy ofMarketing Science). In these cases, the contribution tomethod must be part of a paper that also includes acontribution to theory and/or contribution to context.Reviewing a journals mission statement, reading editorsarticles, and attending meet-the-editor sessions at confer-ences are excellent ways to ascertain the focus of a journal.

Contributions defined solely in terms of context arerarely sufficient to merit publication in leading marketingjournals. As noted in the discussion of target audience,strong research indicates who will be impacted (e.g.,

Theory

Context

Your UniqueContribution

Method

Figure 1 Three contribution domains


marketing managers, public policy officials, society atlarge, etc.,) by a studys findings. Yet, articles that directlyborrow a previously developed theory and use a wellestablished method in a novel context do not necessarilywarrant publication in the leading journals. On the otherhand, there are a host of marketing journals that define theirfocus in terms of contributions to context. Such contextsmay be defined in terms of geography, industry, marketingactivity, type of customer, or reader interest, among others. Inthese publications, a contribution to context is perhaps themost important component of the manuscript. There is almostalways a home for a well conceived and well written paper.

The contribution continuum

Just as there is a continuum of journals from the mostgeneral to those that are more methodological or contextspecific, there is also a continuum of contributions anauthor can make from identical replication to developing anew theory that predicts a new phenomenon (see Fig. 2).

Donald Lehmann believes the various positions on thecontinuum are differentiated by the degree of innovationmanuscripts offer: This ranges from exact replicationthrough incremental (i.e., one thing at a time variation) tonoticeable (i.e., changes several aspects) to discontinuous(breakthough, really new).

On the far left axis of the continuum (position 1) areidentical replications. These studies replicate a previouslyexecuted study to determine whether or not the results hold.Although replications do make a contribution by illustratingprevious results are sound, there is little new beyond thereplication to advance the literature in this area. Failure toreplicate is even more problematic because there are manyuninteresting reasons that can produce such a failure,including use of a different sample, unintended variationin measures, and different context, among others. Whileidentical replications are rarely seen in the publishedliterature (but often find a place on conference programs),

replication and extension (position 2) is a commoncontribution found in the literature, though often not inleading journals. Such replications and extensions are reallycontributions to context. By showing that a previouslydemonstrated effect is not the result of chance or a one-of-a-kind event and by expanding, refining, or limiting thecontexts in which the effect occurs theory by establishingboundary conditions, insight is provided and understandingis increased. Position 3, extension of a new theory ormethod in a new area, is very similar to replication andextension. Replication and extension extend theory devel-oped and examined in previous work.

The integrative review (position 4) is another way tomake a contribution although this type of contribution isnot as common as positions 2 or 3, at least in the marketingliterature. One approach to the integrative review takes theform of a conceptual paper with propositions. Suchpropositions may serve to integrate and organize priorresearch in new and useful ways. Meta-analyses would fallin this category of paper, but it is possible to develop newinsights from an integrative review of a literature without aformal meta-analysis. Often, such propositions identify newopportunities for empirical research that had not beenpreviously identified. An integrated review can provide away to resolve existing contradictions or controversies inthe field (George Zinkhan). David Glen Mick agrees:Aside from contributions that add to knowledge or changeprior beliefs, there is a possibility of making a contributionthat solidifies knowledge (where, perhaps, prior beliefs areweakly held or based on inclusive and controversialevidence). On the other hand, a literature review that isjust a description of previous studies seldom makes muchof a contribution, especially for the constituency thatalready knows the relevant literature well.

A clever way to make a contribution is to develop a newtheory to explain an old phenomenon (position 5). With thisstrategy, a new theoretical explanation is developed toexplain the same effect previously reported in the literature.In classic theory testing mode, it is also possible to directlycompare a previously established theory with the newlydeveloped theory to see which has better results (e.g.,variance explained, etc.).

The vast majority of academics can achieve promotionand tenure using one or more of the strategies described inpositions 2 through 5. Given the relatively short window oftime for promotion and tenure review (in most cases 5 to7 years) and the relatively long window of time to move apaper from conception to publication (2 to 4 years onaverage), it is very practical for many academics to focuson these strategies, at least early in a career. Articles withrigorous theoretical development and sound methodologicalefforts employing one or more of the strategies described inpositions 2 though 5 appear in every issue of the leading

1) Straight replication 2) Replication and extension 3) Extension of a new theory/method in a new area 4) Integrative review (e.g., meta-analysis) 5) Develop a new theory to explain an old phenomenon -

compete one theory against another - classic theory testing6) Identification of a new phenomenon 7) Develop a grand synthesis - integration 8) Develop a new theory that predicts a new phenomenon

(e.g., the theory of relativity)

1. 2. 7. 3. 5. 6. 4. 8. Source: Dr. John C. Mowen. Used with permission.

Figure 2 A Contribution continuum


journals in marketing. Raymond Buddy LaForge thoughtthese positions can be considered the middle of thecontinuum: The middle of the continuum is the longestand most research projects and published articles fit intothis area. Previous research provides a foundation, but theresearch extends prior work in some meaningful way. It isimportant to synthesize the relevant literature to summarizewhat has been done and is known in an area, and then topresent a strong argument as to how the current researchadds to the knowledge base in the area.

The far right of the continuum, positions 6 to 8, clearlyfit Donald Lehmanns description of discontinuous. Asdescribed by LaForge, these contributions are the mostchallenging: At the other end of the continuum are themajor contributions. These are often difficult to publish,because the research introduces new ideas, perspectives,methodologies, etc. that do not fit or build directly on theresearch on the research foundation in an area. Because ofthe difficulty of getting this type of research published, fewmarketing scholars focus on this type of research. This isunfortunate. My judgment is that the marketing area needsmuch more attention to innovative research that couldproduce unique insights that would drive, rather thanfollow, marketing thought and practice. Such ground-breaking papers require enormous creativity and hard work.They are also high risk and often take years to appear in theliterature. Nevertheless, this is the type of contributionsought and rewarded by the leading research universities.

The first of these three major contribution strategies isthe identification of a new theory (position 6). This newtheory would not extend, refine, or limit (via boundaryconditions) any previous theory that has appeared in theliterature. By contrast, the new theory should stand on itsown and be relatively unique in comparison to any othertheories in the social disciplines. In essence, this new theorywould begin a new stream of literature creating thefoundation for future research to build upon.

It is also possible to make a major contribution via agrand synthesis, integrating a number of sound theories intoa cohesive whole (position 7). With this strategy, multipleindependent theories become the elements of a model toexplain some phenomenon of interest. We place emphasison the idea of independent and distinct theories as multiplesimilar theories would all explain too familiar of aphenomenon. One classic example of this strategy is theHowardSheth model of buyer behavior (Howard andSheth 1969). Robert Bartels provides another example.Although not nearly as popular as his History of MarketingThought text, Robert Bartels (1970) was also a proponentof this strategy and wrote a book titled Marketing Theoryand Metatheory using the concept of meta-analysis andapplying it to theory development.

The final position on the continuum is reserved for thebest and the brightest physical and social science thinkers.In addition, many authors who have made a contribution atthis level have earned international accolades such as theNobel Prize for their research. This strategy, (position 8) isto develop a new theory that predicts a new phenomenonsuch as the theory of relativity. Research at this level doesnot only create a new stream within a discipline, but alsodisrupts all work within the discipline just as quantummechanics impacted physics. Psychologists, who havemade enormous contributions to marketing thought, havewon the Nobel Prize. Perhaps, in time, a marketer will alsobe so honored.

Conclusion

The purpose of this paper is to better inform and elucidatethe elusive concept of a contribution to the literature. Withthe help of past and present editors, we attempt to clarifywhat is meant by a contribution, to illustrate how acontribution impacts a manuscripts publishing opportuni-ties, and to develop a continuum of the forms and types ofcontributions that exist. In closing, we highlight commentsfrom editors that speak to the big picture of manuscriptdevelopment. A. Parasuraman outlined a checklist ofelements that tend to characterize rigorous, publishableresearch based on a strong contribution. In his essay, apaper with a truly significant contribution will:

(a) Succinctly summarizeand synthesizeinsights frompast studies related to the topic,

(b) Clearly suggest (early in the paper) what the paperscontribution is beyond what is already known,

(c) Use a theoretically and methodologically rigorousapproach for investigating the issue(s),

(d) Succinctly discuss the findings from the investigation,(e) Compellingly demonstrate how insights from the

findings add to current knowledge by offering newtheoretical, methodological and/or practical insights,and

(f) Acknowledgeand build onthe current investiga-tions limitations, and suggest issues and directions forfurther scholarly inquiry.

Michael Levy and Dhruv Grewal (2007, p. 250) listed aset of questions an author could ask oneself to avoid thedreaded so what? response. They suggest, The singlemost important question that authors should ask about theirown work, from the very moment they start writing, mustbe, so what? Why should readers care about theinformation contained in the article? The answer to thisquestion should be based on several sub-questions:


& Are the findings obvious? If so, then why shouldreaders keep reading? Theyve already figured out theimplications.

& Could the findings make a difference to retail practice?If not, then why would readers take the time to finishreading the paper? Marketers are busy people, andresearch that does not make a difference for them is notworth the time spent to read it.

& Could the findings answer some previously unresolvedresearch questions or spur more research in the area? If not,then how does this information inform or enlighten readers?

References

Bartels, R. (1970). Marketing theory and metatheory. Chicago:American Marketing Association.

Brinberg, D. L., & McGrath, J. (1985). Validity and the researchprocess. Beverly Hills, CA, USA: Sage.

Davis, M. S. (1971). Thats interesting! towards a phenomenology ofsociology and a sociology of phenomenology. Philosophy of theSocial Sciences, 1(4), 309314.

Howard, J., & Sheth, J. (1969). The theory of buyer behavior. NewYork: John Wiley & Sons.

Levy, M., & Grewal, D. (2007). Publishing perspectives from theeditors. Journal of Retailing, 83(3), 247252.


The contribution continuumFour common themesTarget audienceContribution subjectivityPassion for the research topicSurprise

Strategies for making a contributionThree domainsThe contribution continuum

ConclusionReferences

/ColorImageDict > /JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict > /JPEG2000ColorImageDict > /AntiAliasGrayImages false /DownsampleGrayImages true /GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /GrayImageResolution 150 /GrayImageDepth -1 /GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeGrayImages true /GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterGrayImages true /GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /GrayACSImageDict > /GrayImageDict > /JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict > /JPEG2000GrayImageDict > /AntiAliasMonoImages false /DownsampleMonoImages true /MonoImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /MonoImageResolution 600 /MonoImageDepth -1 /MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeMonoImages true /MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode /MonoImageDict > /AllowPSXObjects false /PDFX1aCheck false /PDFX3Check false /PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false /PDFXNoTrimBoxError true /PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox true /PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfile (None) /PDFXOutputCondition () /PDFXRegistryName (http://www.color.org?) /PDFXTrapped /False

/SyntheticBoldness 1.000000 /Description >>> setdistillerparams> setpagedevice

the contribution continuum

Documents