In their recent paper reviewing market systems dynamics (MSD) research, Pedeliento et al. (2023) offered an overview that is informed by what they refer to as the metaphor of the “human development cycle” (p. 9). They argue that this metaphor is “suitable to rhetorically describe the development and trajectory of the field” (p. 9). Their undertaking is informed by goals of defining “the intellectual boundaries of the field known as MSD,” of tracing “how the field has evolved” and of suggesting how MSD can “advance in the future” (p. 4).

In responding to Pedeliento et al. (2023), we take the opportunity to consider a different metaphor, that of the “rhizome” (Deleuze & Guattari, 1987), to provide a complementary view of the nature and trajectory of MSD research. We do so in part because the application of a human development cycle metaphor seems to suggest that MSD research must be hurtling toward its demise if—as argued (Pedeliento et al., 2023, p. 1)—it has already reached the adulthood stage of its life cycle; hopefully, the death of MSD is not immanent! More seriously, we do so because we believe that there is something to be gained by breaching whatever intellectual boundaries might have been erected around MSD research, and considering its rhizomatic trajectories into research that might well not be classified as part of this body of work.

This article is organized as follows. We begin by offering an overview of Deleuze and Guattari’s (1987) metaphors for thinking about knowledge structures, contrasting what they refer to as an arboreal metaphor with their aforementioned rhizomatic metaphor. We then make the case that most prior characterizations of MSD research (including our own) have been more aligned with the arboreal than with the rhizomatic view. Thereafter, we build up a rhizomatic account of the emergence of MSD research, as well as of its connection to recent consumer and marketing research that might not, at first glance, seem related. We then suggest some implications that follow from this rhizomatic review.

Alternative Metaphors for Thinking About Research

French theorists Deleuze and Guattari (1987) offer a set of metaphors that they position as images of thought, or of knowledge structures, that can be used to describe networks of theory and research. We elaborate briefly on two of these, the arboreal metaphor and the rhizomatic metaphor. The arboreal metaphor is based on the image of a tree that has roots, a trunk, branches and leaves. This metaphor, according to Deleuze and Guattari, portrays knowledge as emanating from a single stem, making unidirectional progress, and terminating with specific fruits. An arboreal metaphor is self-enclosed: it draws binary boundaries between what is within the tree-like system, and what is not.

Deleuze and Guattari (1987) contrast the arboreal metaphor to that of a rhizome. A rhizome is a type of plant stem that grows horizontally underground forming a network that connects any point to any other point. A rhizome has no center, no origin, no beginning, no end. It grows in multiple directions, and—according to Deleuze and Guattari—undergoes constant transformations and metamorphoses as it changes its nature and dimensions. Research thus described is open, dynamic, non-hierchical and multiplicitous. It is characterized by interconnectedness and heterogeneity. Deleuze and Guattari insist that in rhizomes there are no points or positions such as a root; rather, there are “lines of flight,” which refers to movements between “nodes” in the network of ideas. The rhizome metaphor calls for recognition of the contingent and temporary nature of what is discovered at those nodal meeting points and encourages an understanding that what we learn continues to move between nodes in new and often unpredictable, directions (Guerin, 2013).

While it would be inaccurate to portray prior approaches to characterizing MSD research as strictly arboreal, it seems fair to characterize some as having been concerned—in arboreal fashion—with identifying its roots and differentiating it from seeming related bodies of work. For example, although (as noted earlier) Pedeliento et al. (2023) explicitly adopted a human life cycle metaphor to structure their portrayal of MSD research, they argue the need for this undertaking as remedy for approaches that have “conflated” (p. 3) MSD research with other bodies of work such as studies of market shaping, or studies of institutional fields. They seek to claim a “distinctive intellectual domain” for MSD research by tracing its “inception” to the work of Giesler (2003). It seems clear that while the arboreal metaphor differs from a human development metaphor, applications of either share commonalities in terms of their focus on a fixed point of origin and their insistence on a binary boundary logic, differentiating what is from what is not within a body of work.

Seeming even closer to the arboreal metaphor in some respects, Nøjgaard and Bajde (2021), in their comparative review of MSD research versus of constructivist market studies (CMS) state that:

… the two fields have grown from different intellectual grounds. MSD stems from and remains institutionally and intellectually wedded to CCT, while CMS springs from (but has also in part parted ways with) the IMP Group and largely owes its intellectual heritage to STS. Indeed, anyone familiar with the two fields may easily object that we are comparing apples and oranges, as the fields, observed from certain angles, do certainly resemble entirely different fruits. (p. 132)

The likening of the papers in two fields that grow from different “grounds” to produce different “fruits” clearly resonates with descriptions of the arboreal metaphor. It must be noted, however, that Nøjgaard and Bajde’s main goal was not original to disentangle two root/trunk/leaf/fruit structures but rather to encourage “cross-pollination” between the two. As their methods section reveals, in their journey toward this goal, they were encouraged by reviewers to “consider the histories of the two fields and the historical reasons for the differences between them” (p. 126) despite the fact that their original objective had been to look for ways of creating bridges rather than boundaries. And Nøjgaard and Bajde are clearly well aware that the commonalities between what they characterize as two bodies of work are just as striking, and just as important, as the differences. While they appear to have been encouraged to adopt an arboreal metaphor, a careful reading of their paper suggests their initial intuition could align with a rhizomatic view of research. We now attempt to build on that intuition and explore a rhizomatic perspective on MSD research further.

MSD: Rendered rhizomatically

Adopting a rhizomatic metaphor on research encourages us to consider nodes in vast, interconnected networks of thought. A rhizomatic perspective acknowledges that arboreal lenses help reduce interpretive complexity in rhizomatic structures. But it also recognizes that this complexity reduction technique is an intellectual end point, not a starting point. If essentialized to a singular arboreal structure, any conceptual discussion will erase analytical nuances and gray zones and produce a well-defined but nonetheless tautological domain. As such, a rhizomatic perspective urges researchers to adopt accounts that afford the productive co-existence of multiple, often competing, arboreal (and other) genealogical narratives. For purposes of exposition, we will consider consumer and marketing research to constitute one such network, adjacent to and inter-connected with other networks such as those of economics, anthropology, psychology, and sociology. Somewhat arbitrarily, we will treat individual papers, books or book chapters as network nodes. Even more arbitrarily, we will examine two papers that have frequently been singled out in the MSD literature as “seminal”—Giesler (2008) and Humphreys (2010)—to give a flavour for what a rhizomatic perspective brings into focus.

Giesler (2008), based on the author’s own (2003) dissertation research in the context of the rise and fall of Napster, asked the question “How do markets change?” What were the lines of flight that led to that question and to the answers offered? A reading of Giesler’s paper suggests direct connections to Victor Turner’s (1988) ideas regarding social drama as an explanation for processes of cultural change, to Holt’s (2002) theory of the market co-optation of consumer creativity, and to Deighton’s (1992) perspective on Goffmanian performance. Though less apparent in the paper published in JCR, Giesler’s dissertation research was further informed by the critical and system-level sociological thinking of Niklas Luhmann, the ecological anthropology of Gregory Batson, and the French post-structuralism of Michel Foucault.

Humphreys (2010), based on dissertation research in the context of the legalization of casino gambling in the U.S., addressed the question “How are new markets created?” In contrast to the nodes most immediately adjacent to Giesler’s work, Humphreys’ is most proximately connected to innovation research such as that by Kotler (1986), diffusion research such as that of Bass (1969), and scholarship on organizational legitimacy, such as Suchman (1995). Humphreys’ work was also shaped in reaction to the dominant qualitative methodologies that relied primarily on interview data; her introduction of automated text analysis can be seen as a line of flight away from such earlier work (cf. Giesler & Thompson, 2016). Similar to Holt’s, both Giesler’s and Humphreys’ analytical perspectives, in turn, were influenced considerably by meso-level sociological perspectives taught at Northwestern University during the early 2000’s.

What is the point of this brief exercise? It is to highlight the multiplicity of MSD research, and its textured character as drawing from a multiplicity of sources, rather than focusing (as would an arboreal perspective) on its historical convergence in a seminal moment, author, or idea. Even these brief paragraphs highlight the heterogeneity of the positioning within the larger network of consumer and marketing research of these two papers that are so frequently co-categorized as MSD research. Though subsequent studies create connections between these nodes, at the point of publication each occupied a very different position in the consumer and marketing research rhizome. Despite the indisputable fact that these papers have commonalities, their points of origin differ, and—in rhizomatic fashion—these links connect what is now regarded as MSD research to lively conversations well outside any boundaries an arboreal metaphor would seek to preserve.

Another goal of the rhizomatic perspective we discuss is to encourage looking not inward at papers that can be co-classified as belonging to the MSD category for the sake of solidifying an arboreal narrative and set of seminal ideas and actors, but outward toward other networks of ideas that have been influenced by (and influence) nodes in the MSD network. Again, we can illustrate this by examining the conversations in which Giesler (2008) and/or Humphreys (2010) are routinely invoked. A perusal of recent papers citing one or both of these articles shows the lines of flight from them toward many disparate assemblages of research. These conversations range, for example, from service dominant logic (e.g. Vargo & Lusch, 2016) to market driving (e.g. Maciel & Fischer, 2020); from market innovation (e.g. Sprong et al., 2021) to market stigma (Slade Shantz et al., 2019); from sales and selling (e.g. Hartmann et al., 2018) to customer journeys (e.g. Novak & Hoffman, 2019); from consumer sharing (e.g. Scaraboto, 2015) to consumer artificial intelligence (e.g. Puntoni et al., 2021) to liquid consumption (e.g. Bardhi & Eckhardt, 2017). What emerges from these observations is a more textured, and intellectually generative, view of MSD research. The lines of flight that can be observed from work thus classified most definitely converge within work that identifies itself as being MSD-related, but they also flow outwards in manifold directions that deserve recognition.

Working with this rhizomatic perspective also encourages thought about the divergent lines of flight that might be yet to occur. In other words: what other conversations might MSD research join? Surely the list is endless, but we offer two suggestions that we find personally intriguing.

One possibility would be to consider a novel line of flight between MSD research and family consumer research (Epp & Price, 2008). This would shift perspectives from family identity bundles to family consumption systems. Demonstrating how emergent family-based market systems such as assemblages of outsourced care and same-sex wedding markets are differently created and understood (Epp & Velagaleti, 2014; Velagaleti & Epp, 2023) would also help question long-held analytical principles in household economics (Becker, 1981).

Another possibility relates to the line of flight between MSD research and policy research on the regulation of emerging artificial intelligences (AIs). Work at this nexus could take a holistic view of how alternative ways of regulating AI would affect not only the developers and users of a specific AI, but also the consumers, competitors, regulators, media, and civil society.

Concluding Thoughts

Our goal in this response to Pedeliento et al. (2023) has most assuredly not been to critique their review of MSD research. Indeed, we appreciate their thoughtful contribution. And we recognize how naturally it builds on and follows from our own earlier overview (Giesler & Fischer, 2017). Neither has our goal been to discourage research that identifies with and is identified as MSD research. As scholars who have considerable enthusiasm for research on market systems, we encourage it.

What, then, has been our goal? Simply put, we seek to encourage research that creates new connections, that build bridges between work that is thus far in separate spheres, and that experiments with hybridizations not yet imagined. If MSD research is to flourish and make meaningful contributions, we believe this outward looking orientation is critical.