Commentary on “developing successful theories in marketing: insights from resource-advantage theory”

Abstract

Theory development, as Professor Hunt details, is incred-ibly important to academic inquiry. Empirical investigationsrely on theory to frame and guide not only the questionsthat are asked, but also the interpretations given to results.Well-crafted academic theory can have a tremendous impactin furthering academic understanding and real worldpractice. But, as with most outputs of high-value, success-ful theory building is difficult to do well.That theory development is - to put it euphemistically -“challenging” is not news to any doctoral student. Memo-ries of my own philosophy of science course still haunt meto this day. Nightmares of third libraries in the sky,mediators, moderators, levels, process models… the list ofaggressors seems endless. What came out of the course,though, was an ability to think more logically, morecritically, and – most importantly – more academically.But, just as knowing how to paint doesn’t make a person onpar with Monet, knowing the mechanics of theorydevelopment doesn’t mean a person’s theory is of anyvalue or use.Professor Hunt’s article fills an aching void for increasedknowledge of what makes a theory not just another theory,but a successful theory. Going beyond the mechanics of thecomponents of sound theory, Professor Hunt’sarticleprovides insight into the factors that propel a theory tonotoriety and, most importantly, adoption and use. Hispaper offers needed advice during a time of relatively lesstheory development among marketing academics. I com-mend him for the effort he has devoted to sharing hiswisdom through this article. What I offer next is a humblediscussion of the five factors Professor Hunt presents. Ihope to offer a sense of the lens that a recent PhD graduatemight use in reading his article. My comments are intendednot as a critique of his article, but as a friendly continuationof the important discussion he has kindly opened.Professor Hunt’s first suggestion is to address animportant issue in marketing. This is undoubtedly key incrafting theory that gains traction within the academiccommunity, yet knowing which issues to devote effort tois incredibly difficult. Prevalence of empirical articles inan area serve only as a rough guide since such articles(hopefully) build on existing theory. Previous theoreticalwork is an excellent basis for building theory, yetfoundation in existing theory does not itself make atheory novel. What instead seems crucial for developingsuccessful theory is a keen eye for recognizing not onlygaps in the literature, but issues of real relevance tomarketing. I offer that enacting Professor Hunt’sadvicedemands marketing academics not only be well readwithin the academic sphere, but also keenly aware ofcurrent issues facing marketing practitioners.The second factor offered is the need for a successfultheory to offer strong explanatory and predictive power. Imost certainly agree with Professor Hunt that good theorymust demonstrate both features, but ask how a researchercan know a priori that his or her theory is likely to provideexplanatory and predictive power. Looking back, the valueof Resource-Advantage Theory is well documented andclear. I ask what diagnostics were available lookingforwards. Were there deliberate features of theory that wereincorporated during its formation to increase its use? Whatlitmus test(s) was used to know the theory was a “winner”before the numerous empirical tests were conducted?Insight into the development process Professor Hunt –