Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Advancing marketing theory and practice: guidelines for crafting research propositions

  • Theory/Conceptual
  • Published:
AMS Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Effective research propositions are key to advancing marketing theory and practice. However, our discipline provides little guidance on how to systematically craft impactful propositions. Consequently, scholars often refrain from including propositions in conceptual articles due to either a lack of knowledge or the confidence to do so. This proves detrimental to scholars looking to develop theory and conceptual papers. To address this challenge, our article defines research propositions and positions them within the broader set of the key building blocks of theory development. Based on an integrative framework that ties foundational premises, concepts, constructs, research propositions and hypothesis together, the article lays out four easy-to-follow actionable steps—grounding, crafting, connecting, and simplifying—that guide scholars in developing effective research propositions. Further, the article proposes four criteria, i.e., clarity, consistency, conciseness, and contribution to theory advancement and scholarly research, to assist scholars in evaluating outcomes achieved when writing research propositions. The article concludes by offering an agenda for how key stakeholders involved, i.e., Ph.D. students, early career researchers and established marketing scholars, university research program directors and promotion and tenure (P&T) committees, as well as reviewers and journal editors, can contribute to advancing knowledge and skills of crafting effective research propositions as part of the broader goal to stimulate the innovation and growth of marketing theories in our discipline.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. “We use the word ‘empiricize’ similar to other words such as ‘conceptualize’ and ‘theorize’ to denote the process of forming/making/rendering something (in our case “to make or render empirical”).”

References

  • Alderson, W. (1957). Marketing Behavior and Executive Action. Irwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bagozzi, R. P. (1984). A prospectus for theory construction in marketing. Journal of Marketing, 48(1), 11–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bagozzi, R. P., & Phillips, L. W. (1982). Representing and testing organizational theories: A holistic construal. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27(3), 459–489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolton, R. N. (2020). First steps to creating high impact theory in marketing. AMS Review, 10(3), 172–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. D. (1996). Testing in language programs. Upper Saddle River, NJ, Prentice Hall.

  • Cornelissen, J. (2017). Editor’s comments: Developing propositions, a process model, or a typology? Addressing the Challenges of Writing Theory without a Boilerplate, Academy of Management Review, 42(1), 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Costner, H. L. (1969). Theory, deduction, and rules of correspondence. American Journal of Sociology, 75, 245–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J.W. (2014). Research Design (Qualitative, Quantitative, & Mix Methods Approaches). SAGE Publications.

  • Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct Validity in Psychological Tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52(4), 281–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, J. R., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2000). On the nature and direction of relationships between constructs and measures. Psychological Methods, 5(2), 155–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Golder, P. N., Mitra, D., & Moorman, C. (2012). What is Quality? An Integrative Framework of Processes and States. Journal of Marketing, 76(4), 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, S. D. (1983). General Theories and the Fundamental Explananda of Marketing. Journal of Marketing, 47(4), 9–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, S. D. (2020). Indigenous theory development in marketing: The foundational premises approach. AMS Review, 10(1/2), 8–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, S. D., & Morgan, R. M. (1995). The Comparative Advantage Theory of Competition. Journal of Marketing, 59(2), 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, S. D., & Morgan, R. M. (1997). Resource-advantage theory: A snake swallowing its tail or a general theory of competition? Journal of Marketing, 61(4), 74–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaccard, J., & Jacoby, J. (2020). Theory construction and model-building skills: A practical guide for social scientists. Guilford publications.

  • Jarvis, C. B., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2003). A Critical Review of Construct Indicators and Measurement Model Misspecification in Marketing and Consumer Research. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(2), 199–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaworski, B. J., & Kohli, A. K. (1993). Market Orientation: Antecedents and Consequences. Journal of Marketing, 57(3), 53–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerlinger, F. N., & Lee, H. B. (2000). Foundations of behavioral research (4th ed.). Harcourt College Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kilduff, M. (2006). Editor’s comments: Publishing theory. The Academy of Management Review, 31(2), 252–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohli, A. K. (2009). From the Editor. Journal of Marketing, 73(1), 1–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohli, A. K. (2011). From the editor: Reflections on the review process. Journal of Marketing, 75(6), 1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohli, A. K., & Haenlein, M. (2021). Factors Affecting the Study of Important Marketing Issues: Additional Thoughts and Clarifications. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 38(1), 29–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohli, A. K., & Jaworski, B. J. (1990). Market orientation: The construct, research propositions, and managerial implications. Journal of Marketing, 54(2), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macdonald, E. K., Kleinaltenkamp, M. & Wilson, H. N. (2016). How business customers judge solutions: Solution quality and value in use. Journal of Marketing, 80(3), 96-120.

  • MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Jarvis, C. B. (2005). The Problem of Measurement Model Misspecification in Behavioral and Organizational Research and Some Recommended Solutions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 710–730.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moorman, C., van Heerde, H. J., Moreau, C. P., & Palmatier, R. W. (2019). JM as a Marketplace of Ideas. Journal of Marketing, 83(1), 1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myers, J. L., Well, A., & Lorch, R. F. (2010). Research Design and Statistical Analysis. (3rd ed.) Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. (1985). A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research. Journal of Marketing, 49(4), 12–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Payne, A. F., Frow, P., & Eggert, A. (2017). The customer value proposition: Evolution, development, and application in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45(4), 467–489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rudner, R. S. (1966). Philosophy of social science. Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rust, R. T. (2006). From the Editor: The Maturation of Marketing as an Academic Discipline. Journal of Marketing, 70(3), 1–2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sajtos, L., & Magyar, B. (2016). Auxiliary theories as translation mechanisms for measurement model specification. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 3186–3191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sekaran, U., & Bougie, R. (2016). Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach. John Wiley & Sons.

  • Schwab, D.P. (1999). Research Methods for Organizational Studies. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates London.

  • Steenkamp, J.-B.E.M. (2018). The Future of the marketing department at business schools. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46(2), 169–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steenkamp, J.-B.E.M., & Baumgartner, H. (2000). On the use of structural equation models for marketing modeling. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 17(2–3), 195–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stremersch, S., Winer, R. S., & Camacho, N. A. (2021). Faculty Research Incentives and Business School Health: A New Perspective from and for Marketing, Available at SSRN 3741126

  • Tuli, K. R., Kohli, A. K., & Bharadwaj, S. G. (2007). Rethinking customer solutions: From product bundles to relational processes. Journal of Marketing, 71(3), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Varadarajan, P. R. (1996). From the editor: Reflections on research and publishing. Journal of Marketing, 60(4), 3–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a New Dominant Logic of Marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2016). Institutions and Axioms: An Extension and Update of Service-Dominant Logic. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(1), 5–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yadav, M. S. (2010). The Decline of Conceptual Articles and Implications for Knowledge Development. Journal of Marketing, 74(1), 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yadav, M. S. (2014). Enhancing theory development in marketing. AMS Review, 4, 1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zaltman, G. (2003). How customers think: Essential insights into the mind of the market. Harvard Business Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaltman, G., LeMasters, K., & Heffring, M. (1982). Theory Construction in Marketing. John Wiley and Sons Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaltman, G., Pinson, C. R. A., & Angelmar, R. (1973). Metatheory and consumer research. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeithaml, V. A., Jaworski, B. J., Kohli, A. K., Tuli, K. R., Ulaga, W., & Zaltman, G. (2020). A Theories-in-Use Approach to Building Marketing Theory. Journal of Marketing, 84(1), 32–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. Michael Kleinaltenkamp, Vishal Kashyap, and Andreas Eggert contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. INSEAD Europe Campus, Boulevard de Constance, Marketing Area, 77305, Fontainebleau, France

    Wolfgang Ulaga

  2. Marketing Department, Freie Universität Berlin, Arnimallee 11, 14195, Berlin, Germany

    Michael Kleinaltenkamp & Andreas Eggert

  3. Marketing Department, University of Graz, Elisabethstraße 50b, 8010, Graz, Austria

    Vishal Kashyap

Authors
  1. Wolfgang Ulaga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael Kleinaltenkamp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Vishal Kashyap
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Andreas Eggert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wolfgang Ulaga.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ulaga, W., Kleinaltenkamp, M., Kashyap, V. et al. Advancing marketing theory and practice: guidelines for crafting research propositions. AMS Rev 11, 395–406 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-021-00215-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-021-00215-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation