theoretical framework in marketing research

Educational resources and simple solutions for your research journey

What is a Theoretical Framework? How to Write It (with Examples) 

Theoretical framework 1,2 is the structure that supports and describes a theory. A theory is a set of interrelated concepts and definitions that present a systematic view of phenomena by describing the relationship among the variables for explaining these phenomena. A theory is developed after a long research process and explains the existence of a research problem in a study. A theoretical framework guides the research process like a roadmap for the research study and helps researchers clearly interpret their findings by providing a structure for organizing data and developing conclusions.   

A theoretical framework in research is an important part of a manuscript and should be presented in the first section. It shows an understanding of the theories and concepts relevant to the research and helps limit the scope of the research.  

Table of Contents

What is a theoretical framework ?  

A theoretical framework in research can be defined as a set of concepts, theories, ideas, and assumptions that help you understand a specific phenomenon or problem. It can be considered a blueprint that is borrowed by researchers to develop their own research inquiry. A theoretical framework in research helps researchers design and conduct their research and analyze and interpret their findings. It explains the relationship between variables, identifies gaps in existing knowledge, and guides the development of research questions, hypotheses, and methodologies to address that gap.  

Now that you know the answer to ‘ What is a theoretical framework? ’, check the following table that lists the different types of theoretical frameworks in research: 3

Developing a theoretical framework in research can help in the following situations: 4

• When conducting research on complex phenomena because a theoretical framework helps organize the research questions, hypotheses, and findings  
• When the research problem requires a deeper understanding of the underlying concepts  
• When conducting research that seeks to address a specific gap in knowledge  
• When conducting research that involves the analysis of existing theories  

Summarizing existing literature for theoretical frameworks is easy. Get our Research Ideation pack  

Importance of a theoretical framework  

The purpose of theoretical framework s is to support you in the following ways during the research process: 2  

• Provide a structure for the complete research process  
• Assist researchers in incorporating formal theories into their study as a guide  
• Provide a broad guideline to maintain the research focus  
• Guide the selection of research methods, data collection, and data analysis  
• Help understand the relationships between different concepts and develop hypotheses and research questions  
• Address gaps in existing literature  
• Analyze the data collected and draw meaningful conclusions and make the findings more generalizable  

Theoretical vs. Conceptual framework  

While a theoretical framework covers the theoretical aspect of your study, that is, the various theories that can guide your research, a conceptual framework defines the variables for your study and presents how they relate to each other. The conceptual framework is developed before collecting the data. However, both frameworks help in understanding the research problem and guide the development, collection, and analysis of the research.  

The following table lists some differences between conceptual and theoretical frameworks . 5

How to write a theoretical framework  

The following general steps can help those wondering how to write a theoretical framework: 2

• Identify and define the key concepts clearly and organize them into a suitable structure.  
• Use appropriate terminology and define all key terms to ensure consistency.  
• Identify the relationships between concepts and provide a logical and coherent structure.  
• Develop hypotheses that can be tested through data collection and analysis.  
• Keep it concise and focused with clear and specific aims.  

Write a theoretical framework 2x faster. Get our Manuscript Writing pack  

Examples of a theoretical framework  

Here are two examples of a theoretical framework. 6,7

Example 1 .   

An insurance company is facing a challenge cross-selling its products. The sales department indicates that most customers have just one policy, although the company offers over 10 unique policies. The company would want its customers to purchase more than one policy since most customers are purchasing policies from other companies.  

Objective : To sell more insurance products to existing customers.  

Problem : Many customers are purchasing additional policies from other companies.  

Research question : How can customer product awareness be improved to increase cross-selling of insurance products?  

Sub-questions: What is the relationship between product awareness and sales? Which factors determine product awareness?  

Since “product awareness” is the main focus in this study, the theoretical framework should analyze this concept and study previous literature on this subject and propose theories that discuss the relationship between product awareness and its improvement in sales of other products.  

Example 2 .

A company is facing a continued decline in its sales and profitability. The main reason for the decline in the profitability is poor services, which have resulted in a high level of dissatisfaction among customers and consequently a decline in customer loyalty. The management is planning to concentrate on clients’ satisfaction and customer loyalty.  

Objective: To provide better service to customers and increase customer loyalty and satisfaction.  

Problem: Continued decrease in sales and profitability.  

Research question: How can customer satisfaction help in increasing sales and profitability?  

Sub-questions: What is the relationship between customer loyalty and sales? Which factors influence the level of satisfaction gained by customers?  

Since customer satisfaction, loyalty, profitability, and sales are the important topics in this example, the theoretical framework should focus on these concepts.  

Benefits of a theoretical framework  

There are several benefits of a theoretical framework in research: 2  

• Provides a structured approach allowing researchers to organize their thoughts in a coherent way.  
• Helps to identify gaps in knowledge highlighting areas where further research is needed.  
• Increases research efficiency by providing a clear direction for research and focusing efforts on relevant data.  
• Improves the quality of research by providing a rigorous and systematic approach to research, which can increase the likelihood of producing valid and reliable results.  
• Provides a basis for comparison by providing a common language and conceptual framework for researchers to compare their findings with other research in the field, facilitating the exchange of ideas and the development of new knowledge.  

Frequently Asked Questions 

Q1. How do I develop a theoretical framework ? 7

A1. The following steps can be used for developing a theoretical framework :  

• Identify the research problem and research questions by clearly defining the problem that the research aims to address and identifying the specific questions that the research aims to answer.
• Review the existing literature to identify the key concepts that have been studied previously. These concepts should be clearly defined and organized into a structure.
• Develop propositions that describe the relationships between the concepts. These propositions should be based on the existing literature and should be testable.
• Develop hypotheses that can be tested through data collection and analysis.
• Test the theoretical framework through data collection and analysis to determine whether the framework is valid and reliable.

Q2. How do I know if I have developed a good theoretical framework or not? 8

A2. The following checklist could help you answer this question:  

• Is my theoretical framework clearly seen as emerging from my literature review?  
• Is it the result of my analysis of the main theories previously studied in my same research field?  
• Does it represent or is it relevant to the most current state of theoretical knowledge on my topic?  
• Does the theoretical framework in research present a logical, coherent, and analytical structure that will support my data analysis?  
• Do the different parts of the theory help analyze the relationships among the variables in my research?  
• Does the theoretical framework target how I will answer my research questions or test the hypotheses?  
• Have I documented every source I have used in developing this theoretical framework ?  
• Is my theoretical framework a model, a table, a figure, or a description?  
• Have I explained why this is the appropriate theoretical framework for my data analysis?  

Q3. Can I use multiple theoretical frameworks in a single study?  

A3. Using multiple theoretical frameworks in a single study is acceptable as long as each theory is clearly defined and related to the study. Each theory should also be discussed individually. This approach may, however, be tedious and effort intensive. Therefore, multiple theoretical frameworks should be used only if absolutely necessary for the study.  

Q4. Is it necessary to include a theoretical framework in every research study?  

A4. The theoretical framework connects researchers to existing knowledge. So, including a theoretical framework would help researchers get a clear idea about the research process and help structure their study effectively by clearly defining an objective, a research problem, and a research question.  

Q5. Can a theoretical framework be developed for qualitative research?  

A5. Yes, a theoretical framework can be developed for qualitative research. However, qualitative research methods may or may not involve a theory developed beforehand. In these studies, a theoretical framework can guide the study and help develop a theory during the data analysis phase. This resulting framework uses inductive reasoning. The outcome of this inductive approach can be referred to as an emergent theoretical framework . This method helps researchers develop a theory inductively, which explains a phenomenon without a guiding framework at the outset.  

Q6. What is the main difference between a literature review and a theoretical framework ?  

A6. A literature review explores already existing studies about a specific topic in order to highlight a gap, which becomes the focus of the current research study. A theoretical framework can be considered the next step in the process, in which the researcher plans a specific conceptual and analytical approach to address the identified gap in the research.  

Theoretical frameworks are thus important components of the research process and researchers should therefore devote ample amount of time to develop a solid theoretical framework so that it can effectively guide their research in a suitable direction. We hope this article has provided a good insight into the concept of theoretical frameworks in research and their benefits.  

References  

• Organizing academic research papers: Theoretical framework. Sacred Heart University library. Accessed August 4, 2023. https://library.sacredheart.edu/c.php?g=29803&p=185919#:~:text=The%20theoretical%20framework%20is%20the,research%20problem%20under%20study%20exists .  
• Salomao A. Understanding what is theoretical framework. Mind the Graph website. Accessed August 5, 2023. https://mindthegraph.com/blog/what-is-theoretical-framework/  
• Theoretical framework—Types, examples, and writing guide. Research Method website. Accessed August 6, 2023. https://researchmethod.net/theoretical-framework/  
• Grant C., Osanloo A. Understanding, selecting, and integrating a theoretical framework in dissertation research: Creating the blueprint for your “house.” Administrative Issues Journal : Connecting Education, Practice, and Research; 4(2):12-26. 2014. Accessed August 7, 2023. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1058505.pdf  
• Difference between conceptual framework and theoretical framework. MIM Learnovate website. Accessed August 7, 2023. https://mimlearnovate.com/difference-between-conceptual-framework-and-theoretical-framework/  
• Example of a theoretical framework—Thesis & dissertation. BacherlorPrint website. Accessed August 6, 2023. https://www.bachelorprint.com/dissertation/example-of-a-theoretical-framework/  
• Sample theoretical framework in dissertation and thesis—Overview and example. Students assignment help website. Accessed August 6, 2023. https://www.studentsassignmenthelp.co.uk/blogs/sample-dissertation-theoretical-framework/#Example_of_the_theoretical_framework  
• Kivunja C. Distinguishing between theory, theoretical framework, and conceptual framework: A systematic review of lessons from the field. Accessed August 8, 2023. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1198682.pdf  

Editage All Access is a subscription-based platform that unifies the best AI tools and services designed to speed up, simplify, and streamline every step of a researcher’s journey. The Editage All Access Pack is a one-of-a-kind subscription that unlocks full access to an AI writing assistant, literature recommender, journal finder, scientific illustration tool, and exclusive discounts on professional publication services from Editage.  

Based on 22+ years of experience in academia, Editage All Access empowers researchers to put their best research forward and move closer to success. Explore our top AI Tools pack, AI Tools + Publication Services pack, or Build Your Own Plan. Find everything a researcher needs to succeed, all in one place –  Get All Access now starting at just $14 a month !    

Related Posts

Paperpal Review: Key Features, Pricing Plans, and How-to-Use

How to Structure a Dissertation? 

• Privacy Policy

Home » Theoretical Framework – Types, Examples and Writing Guide

Theoretical Framework – Types, Examples and Writing Guide

Table of Contents

Theoretical Framework

Definition:

Theoretical framework refers to a set of concepts, theories, ideas , and assumptions that serve as a foundation for understanding a particular phenomenon or problem. It provides a conceptual framework that helps researchers to design and conduct their research, as well as to analyze and interpret their findings.

In research, a theoretical framework explains the relationship between various variables, identifies gaps in existing knowledge, and guides the development of research questions, hypotheses, and methodologies. It also helps to contextualize the research within a broader theoretical perspective, and can be used to guide the interpretation of results and the formulation of recommendations.

Types of Theoretical Framework

Types of Types of Theoretical Framework are as follows:

Conceptual Framework

This type of framework defines the key concepts and relationships between them. It helps to provide a theoretical foundation for a study or research project .

Deductive Framework

This type of framework starts with a general theory or hypothesis and then uses data to test and refine it. It is often used in quantitative research .

Inductive Framework

This type of framework starts with data and then develops a theory or hypothesis based on the patterns and themes that emerge from the data. It is often used in qualitative research .

Empirical Framework

This type of framework focuses on the collection and analysis of empirical data, such as surveys or experiments. It is often used in scientific research .

Normative Framework

This type of framework defines a set of norms or values that guide behavior or decision-making. It is often used in ethics and social sciences.

Explanatory Framework

This type of framework seeks to explain the underlying mechanisms or causes of a particular phenomenon or behavior. It is often used in psychology and social sciences.

Components of Theoretical Framework

The components of a theoretical framework include:

• Concepts : The basic building blocks of a theoretical framework. Concepts are abstract ideas or generalizations that represent objects, events, or phenomena.
• Variables : These are measurable and observable aspects of a concept. In a research context, variables can be manipulated or measured to test hypotheses.
• Assumptions : These are beliefs or statements that are taken for granted and are not tested in a study. They provide a starting point for developing hypotheses.
• Propositions : These are statements that explain the relationships between concepts and variables in a theoretical framework.
• Hypotheses : These are testable predictions that are derived from the theoretical framework. Hypotheses are used to guide data collection and analysis.
• Constructs : These are abstract concepts that cannot be directly measured but are inferred from observable variables. Constructs provide a way to understand complex phenomena.
• Models : These are simplified representations of reality that are used to explain, predict, or control a phenomenon.

How to Write Theoretical Framework

A theoretical framework is an essential part of any research study or paper, as it helps to provide a theoretical basis for the research and guide the analysis and interpretation of the data. Here are some steps to help you write a theoretical framework:

• Identify the key concepts and variables : Start by identifying the main concepts and variables that your research is exploring. These could include things like motivation, behavior, attitudes, or any other relevant concepts.
• Review relevant literature: Conduct a thorough review of the existing literature in your field to identify key theories and ideas that relate to your research. This will help you to understand the existing knowledge and theories that are relevant to your research and provide a basis for your theoretical framework.
• Develop a conceptual framework : Based on your literature review, develop a conceptual framework that outlines the key concepts and their relationships. This framework should provide a clear and concise overview of the theoretical perspective that underpins your research.
• Identify hypotheses and research questions: Based on your conceptual framework, identify the hypotheses and research questions that you want to test or explore in your research.
• Test your theoretical framework: Once you have developed your theoretical framework, test it by applying it to your research data. This will help you to identify any gaps or weaknesses in your framework and refine it as necessary.
• Write up your theoretical framework: Finally, write up your theoretical framework in a clear and concise manner, using appropriate terminology and referencing the relevant literature to support your arguments.

Theoretical Framework Examples

Here are some examples of theoretical frameworks:

• Social Learning Theory : This framework, developed by Albert Bandura, suggests that people learn from their environment, including the behaviors of others, and that behavior is influenced by both external and internal factors.
• Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs : Abraham Maslow proposed that human needs are arranged in a hierarchy, with basic physiological needs at the bottom, followed by safety, love and belonging, esteem, and self-actualization at the top. This framework has been used in various fields, including psychology and education.
• Ecological Systems Theory : This framework, developed by Urie Bronfenbrenner, suggests that a person’s development is influenced by the interaction between the individual and the various environments in which they live, such as family, school, and community.
• Feminist Theory: This framework examines how gender and power intersect to influence social, cultural, and political issues. It emphasizes the importance of understanding and challenging systems of oppression.
• Cognitive Behavioral Theory: This framework suggests that our thoughts, beliefs, and attitudes influence our behavior, and that changing our thought patterns can lead to changes in behavior and emotional responses.
• Attachment Theory: This framework examines the ways in which early relationships with caregivers shape our later relationships and attachment styles.
• Critical Race Theory : This framework examines how race intersects with other forms of social stratification and oppression to perpetuate inequality and discrimination.

When to Have A Theoretical Framework

Following are some situations When to Have A Theoretical Framework:

• A theoretical framework should be developed when conducting research in any discipline, as it provides a foundation for understanding the research problem and guiding the research process.
• A theoretical framework is essential when conducting research on complex phenomena, as it helps to organize and structure the research questions, hypotheses, and findings.
• A theoretical framework should be developed when the research problem requires a deeper understanding of the underlying concepts and principles that govern the phenomenon being studied.
• A theoretical framework is particularly important when conducting research in social sciences, as it helps to explain the relationships between variables and provides a framework for testing hypotheses.
• A theoretical framework should be developed when conducting research in applied fields, such as engineering or medicine, as it helps to provide a theoretical basis for the development of new technologies or treatments.
• A theoretical framework should be developed when conducting research that seeks to address a specific gap in knowledge, as it helps to define the problem and identify potential solutions.
• A theoretical framework is also important when conducting research that involves the analysis of existing theories or concepts, as it helps to provide a framework for comparing and contrasting different theories and concepts.
• A theoretical framework should be developed when conducting research that seeks to make predictions or develop generalizations about a particular phenomenon, as it helps to provide a basis for evaluating the accuracy of these predictions or generalizations.
• Finally, a theoretical framework should be developed when conducting research that seeks to make a contribution to the field, as it helps to situate the research within the broader context of the discipline and identify its significance.

Purpose of Theoretical Framework

The purposes of a theoretical framework include:

• Providing a conceptual framework for the study: A theoretical framework helps researchers to define and clarify the concepts and variables of interest in their research. It enables researchers to develop a clear and concise definition of the problem, which in turn helps to guide the research process.
• Guiding the research design: A theoretical framework can guide the selection of research methods, data collection techniques, and data analysis procedures. By outlining the key concepts and assumptions underlying the research questions, the theoretical framework can help researchers to identify the most appropriate research design for their study.
• Supporting the interpretation of research findings: A theoretical framework provides a framework for interpreting the research findings by helping researchers to make connections between their findings and existing theory. It enables researchers to identify the implications of their findings for theory development and to assess the generalizability of their findings.
• Enhancing the credibility of the research: A well-developed theoretical framework can enhance the credibility of the research by providing a strong theoretical foundation for the study. It demonstrates that the research is based on a solid understanding of the relevant theory and that the research questions are grounded in a clear conceptual framework.
• Facilitating communication and collaboration: A theoretical framework provides a common language and conceptual framework for researchers, enabling them to communicate and collaborate more effectively. It helps to ensure that everyone involved in the research is working towards the same goals and is using the same concepts and definitions.

Characteristics of Theoretical Framework

Some of the characteristics of a theoretical framework include:

• Conceptual clarity: The concepts used in the theoretical framework should be clearly defined and understood by all stakeholders.
• Logical coherence : The framework should be internally consistent, with each concept and assumption logically connected to the others.
• Empirical relevance: The framework should be based on empirical evidence and research findings.
• Parsimony : The framework should be as simple as possible, without sacrificing its ability to explain the phenomenon in question.
• Flexibility : The framework should be adaptable to new findings and insights.
• Testability : The framework should be testable through research, with clear hypotheses that can be falsified or supported by data.
• Applicability : The framework should be useful for practical applications, such as designing interventions or policies.

Advantages of Theoretical Framework

Here are some of the advantages of having a theoretical framework:

• Provides a clear direction : A theoretical framework helps researchers to identify the key concepts and variables they need to study and the relationships between them. This provides a clear direction for the research and helps researchers to focus their efforts and resources.
• Increases the validity of the research: A theoretical framework helps to ensure that the research is based on sound theoretical principles and concepts. This increases the validity of the research by ensuring that it is grounded in established knowledge and is not based on arbitrary assumptions.
• Enables comparisons between studies : A theoretical framework provides a common language and set of concepts that researchers can use to compare and contrast their findings. This helps to build a cumulative body of knowledge and allows researchers to identify patterns and trends across different studies.
• Helps to generate hypotheses: A theoretical framework provides a basis for generating hypotheses about the relationships between different concepts and variables. This can help to guide the research process and identify areas that require further investigation.
• Facilitates communication: A theoretical framework provides a common language and set of concepts that researchers can use to communicate their findings to other researchers and to the wider community. This makes it easier for others to understand the research and its implications.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Thesis Outline – Example, Template and Writing...

Research Results Section – Writing Guide and...

Research Approach – Types Methods and Examples

How to Cite Research Paper – All Formats and...

Data Verification – Process, Types and Examples

Ethical Considerations – Types, Examples and...

Theoretical underpinnings of research in strategic marketing: a commentary

• Published: 25 October 2018
• Volume 47 , pages 30–36, ( 2019 )

Cite this article

• Rajan Varadarajan 1  

13k Accesses

14 Citations

3 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Morgan et al. ( Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 47 (1), 2019 ) propose a new conceptualization of the domain and sub-domains of marketing strategy and employ them as a framework to assess the current state of research in marketing strategy. Based on an analysis of articles addressing marketing strategy related issues published in six leading marketing journals during the period 1999 to 2016, they highlight challenges and opportunities for creating new marketing strategy knowledge grounded in scholarly research, and propose an agenda for future research in marketing strategy. This commentary focuses on some of the findings relating to the theoretical underpinnings of research in marketing strategy that Morgan et al. report and discuss. They include (1) the dearth of indigenous marketing theories and reliance on theories developed in other disciplines, (2) research grounded in single versus multiple theories, and (3) the shift away from theory-based research to data-driven research. The commentary concludes with a brief discussion on the merits of organizing the accumulated body of knowledge on strategic marketing by distinguishing between research focusing on substantive issues in the domains of market strategy and marketing strategy.

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Periodic reviews of extant research in various specialized fields of study in marketing make an important contribution to the advancement of marketing knowledge. For one, they critically evaluate a body of research, synthesize accumulated knowledge, and propose a roadmap for future research. In reference to the need for such a review of published research in marketing strategy, Morgan et al. ( 2019 ) point out that much has transpired in the worlds of both marketing strategy practice and research since the publication of a major review article on the topic about two decades ago (Varadarajan and Jayachandran 1999 ). They propose a new conceptualization of the domain and sub-domains of marketing strategy and employ them as a framework to assess the current state of research in marketing strategy. Based on an analysis of articles addressing marketing strategy related issues published in six leading marketing journals during the period 1999 to 2016, they highlight challenges and opportunities for creating new marketing strategy knowledge grounded in scholarly research, and propose an agenda for future research in marketing strategy. In reference to opportunities for research, they note that the number and importance of unanswered managerially relevant marketing strategy questions has never been greater. Against this backdrop, this commentary focuses on some of the findings relating to the theoretical underpinnings of research in marketing strategy reported and discussed by Morgan et al. They include (1) the dearth of indigenous marketing theories and reliance on theories developed in other disciplines, (2) research grounded in single versus multiple theories, and (3) the shift away from theory-based research to data-driven research. The commentary is in the vein of conjectures on the issues addressed with the objective of fostering further debate and discussion.

Dearth of indigenous marketing theories and reliance on theories developed in other disciplines

Morgan et al. ( 2019 ) report that during the period studied, researchers had employed almost 60 different theories to investigate various marketing strategy related issues. They further note that while 69% of these theories were employed only in a single study, the following nine theories were employed in five or more studies: institutional theory , resource-based view , agency theory , contingency theory , performance feedback theory , organizational theory , configuration theory , organizational learning theory , and structure-conduct-performance theory . In reference to trends in marketing strategy research, they note that the evidence is indicative of a general shift away from theory development using grounded approaches and/or conceptual development to data-driven approaches. They further note that the downward trend in marketing strategy articles developing new theory and/or conceptual frameworks would be less of a cause for concern if the indigenous marketing strategy theory base were rich. However, they point out that the current state is otherwise.

Also pertinent in this regard are the findings of a study by Merwe et al. ( 2007 ). Based on analysis of a dataset of 987 theory uses and references to 322 distinct theories in articles published in the Journal of Marketing , Journal of Marketing Research and Journal of Consumer Research over a ten-year period (1993–2002), the authors identify 13 theories as pivotal theories during the time frame. They conceptualize pivotal theories as those that were most influential and instrumental in the development of marketing thought and practice. They further distinguish between pivotal theories based on their intrinsic capital (most frequently used theories) and linkage capital (theories with the most number of non-redundant links with other theories in the data set). According to the authors, during the period studied, the 10 pivotal theories in marketing in respect of intrinsic capital were agency theory , attribution theory , exchange theory , game theory , information theory , organization theory , prospect theory , resource theory , transaction cost theory , and utility theory . The 10 pivotal theories in respect of linkage capital were adaptation-level theory , agency theory , attribution theory , economic theory , equity theory , exchange theory , game theory , organization theory , resource theory , and transaction cost theory (seven theories are common to both sets of pivotal theories). As may be evident, the disciplinary origins of all 13 theories enumerated by Merwe et al. as pivotal in research in marketing generally, and the nine theories enumerated by Morgan et al. as pivotal in research in marketing strategy specifically are outside of the marketing discipline. Not surprisingly, over the years, a number of journal editors have voiced concerns regarding the dearth of organic marketing theories ( indigenous marketing theories ; homegrown marketing theories ), and the need for scholarship in marketing to address this void (Frazier 2011 ; Rust 2006 ).

A quarter century ago, Hunt ( 1994 ) conjectured that the sociology of the marketing discipline is an impediment to the development and diffusion of organic marketing theories. He noted that reviewers in the marketing discipline generally tend to react quite negatively to manuscripts that make genuinely original contributions to marketing knowledge. Reflecting on his experiences submitting manuscripts for review to marketing journals, he noted that criticisms such as “where is the precedent?” and “where is the authority?” were disproportionately prominent in reviews by marketing referees. Even when marketing scholars make an original contribution, Hunt noted, they tend to cite the works of scholars from other disciplines for authority (using locutions such as “drawn from…”). He surmises, “Marketers making genuinely original contributions to knowledge do so at their peril.” (Hunt 1994 , p. 15).

A second plausible and partial explanation for the dearth of organic marketing theories may be the nature of certain issues that are fundamental to the marketing discipline. For instance, Hunt ( 1983 ) enumerates four inter-related sets of issues as the fundamental explananda of marketing science. They are the (1) behaviors of buyers directed at consummating exchanges, (2) behaviors of sellers directed at consummating exchanges, (3) institutional framework directed at consummating and/or facilitating exchanges, and (4) consequences to society of behaviors of buyers and sellers, and the institutional framework directed at consummating and/or facilitating exchanges. In a similar vein, Day and Montgomery ( 1999 ) enumerate four issues as fundamental to the field of marketing. (1) How do customers and consumers behave? (2) How do markets function and evolve? (3) How do firms relate to their markets? (4) What are the contributions of marketing to organizational performance and societal welfare? They note that fundamental issues are those that are enduring to a field of study, amenable to accommodating new insights and approaches, and distinguish a field of study from related fields and contributing disciplines. They further note that fundamental issues serve to establish the identity of a field of study, distinguish it from other fields and disciplines, and compel further research inquiry.

The centrality of issues relating to understanding, explaining and predicting the behaviors of buyers and sellers (customers and consumers, and marketers/organizations) to marketing as an academic discipline is prominent in both Hunt’s ( 1983 ) and Day and Montgomery’s ( 1999 ) construal of issues fundamental to marketing. Against this backdrop, consider the following hierarchy of theories pertaining to the behavior of firms (i.e., behavior of firms in the marketplace orchestrated by decision-makers in firms). Theory of (1) behavior of the firm, (2) marketing behavior of the firm, (3) promotion behavior of the firm, (4) sales promotion behavior of the firm, (5) consumer sales promotion behavior of the firm, and (6) consumer sales promotion behavior of the firm in emerging markets. From the standpoint of desirable qualities in a theory (Wilson 1998 , p. 198), ceteris paribus, developing a theory that explains a broader range of firm behaviors is more desirable than one which explains a narrower range of firm behaviors such as the marketing behaviors of firms, promotion behaviors of firms, or sales promotion behaviors of firms. Along similar lines, consider the following theories of human behavior—theory of human behavior, theory of buyer behavior, theory of buyer behavior for experience products, and theory of buyer behavior for experience products in subsistence marketplaces. Here again, ceteris paribus, a theory of behavior that explains a broader range of behaviors of humans is preferable to a theory that explains a narrower range of behavior of humans. A related issue is relative merits of focusing on unification of theories across disciplines versus developing individual disciplines focused theory. The similarities in competition for resources between plants in the ecological sphere, and between firms in the business sphere is instructive in this regard (see Varadarajan 2018 ).

As noted earlier, the impetus for a large body of strategic marketing research is the explanation and prediction of various facets of a firm’s marketing behavior such as advertising behavior, innovation behavior, pricing behavior, and signaling behavior. In the search for theoretical explanations of a marketing phenomenon of interest, a logical first step that a researcher is likely to undertake is reviewing theories advanced in basic disciplines. Ceteris paribus, under the scenario of the researcher uncovering a higher level theory (e.g., a theory that explains a broad range of firm behaviors including the marketing behavior of interest), the need for organic marketing theory development as an explanation for the marketing phenomenon of interest does not arise.

The need for an organic marketing theory arises when a general theory of firm behavior is deficient as an explanation for the marketing behavior (phenomenon) of interest. In fact, a major focus of theory development in marketing is mid-range theories (e.g., extensions of general theories that shed insights into moderators and/or mediators of the relationships that are the focus of general theories). However, under the scenario of a researcher lacking the requisite skills to evaluate the received theory objectively (e.g., deficiencies if any of the theory and/or its inadequacies for explaining the marketing phenomenon of interest), development of mid-range theories is less likely to occur. An issue of concern from the standpoint of development of both organic theories and mid-range theories in marketing is the marginalization of philosophy of science and theory related course content in doctoral programs in marketing. Footnote 1

Research grounded in single theory versus multiple theories

In reference to trends in marketing strategy research, Morgan et al. ( 2019 ) note that the evidence is indicative of a growing proportion of studies using multiple theories as opposed to a single theoretical lens for conceptual development. They further note that a multi-theory approach may be necessary to deal with the growing complexity of marketing strategy problems. On the one hand, there are merits to Morgan et al.’s observation that the growing complexity of strategic marketing problems may necessitate employing a multi-theoretic approach for conceptual development (development of conceptual model, research propositions and conceptual support for the model and propositions). However, a related issue that should also be borne in mind is the assumptions underlying the various theories employed in a multi-theoretic model. For instance, two critical assumptions underlying the resource-based view of the firm are resource heterogeneity and resource immobility (Barney 1991 ). Transaction cost economics assumes bounded rationality, opportunism, risk neutrality and transaction cost minimization (Tsang 2006 ). Agency theory makes certain assumptions about people (e.g., self-interest, bounded rationality and risk aversion), organizations (e.g., goal conflict among members), and information (e.g., information is a commodity that can be purchased) (Eisenhardt 1989 ). The assumptions underlying a multi-theoretic model are all of the assumptions underlying the theories that the model is based on. Footnote 2

Focus of new theory development: new developments in the world of marketing practice versus challenging reigning theories

But he has continued to butt heads with other scholars, recently with the biologist and science writer Richard Dawkins, who panned Dr. Wilson's 2012 book, “The Social Conquest of Earth,” in the British magazine Prospect. In the book, Dr. Wilson challenged the idea of kin selection—the long-held theory that individuals display altruistic, self-sacrificing behavior toward their relatives, with the aim of perpetuating their own genes. He put forth a theory of group selection, a kind of natural selection that acts on all members of a group rather than just related members and ultimately evolves the fitness of the entire group. Dr. Wilson hopes that his next book, “The Meaning of Human Existence,” coming out this fall, will be just as inflammatory. After all, he says, science proceeds only when people are “willing to stick their necks out.” He says, “There's nothing more satisfying than the slaughter of an old theory, provided you can replace it” (Wolfe 2014 ).

Morgan et al. ( 2019 ) note that the paucity of new theory development in marketing strategy during the past two decades is particularly alarming, given the dramatic changes that have taken place in the world of marketing strategy practice during the same period. Their observation speaks to new and evolving marketing phenomena as a wellspring for new theory development in marketing. The limitations of received theories (theories borrowed from other disciplines to explain and predict marketing phenomena) are also a wellspring for new theory development in marketing. For instance, Morgan et al. ( 2019 ) list the structure-conduct-performance (SCP) paradigm as one of the nine most used theories in marketing strategy research during the period of their study.

The SCP model in industrial organization economics posits that industry structure influences firm conduct (behavior or strategy), and in turn, conduct influences performance (Bain 1956 ). The SCP model views a concentrated market structure as conducive to facilitating oligopolistic coordination among firms, resulting in lower output, higher prices, and higher rates of return. To prevent the emergence of concentrated market structures, prior to the 1980s, antitrust policy in the US was a strong deterrent to horizontal acquisitions (firms acquiring other firms who are their direct competitors) and intra-industry mergers (merger of firms that are direct competitors in an industry), and to a degree, even diversification into closely related businesses through acquisitions. Under these conditions, in their quest for growth, firms resorted to unrelated diversification, leading to the emergence of conglomerates (Lichtenberg 1990 ).

A competing theory that posited a different path ( Conduct ➔ Performance ➔ Structure ) is the efficiency model in industrial organization economics (Demsetz 1973 ). The efficiency model posits that the relationship between concentration and profitability is due to efficiency differences between firms. A consequence of efficiency differences between firms competing in an industry is inefficient firms exiting from the industry, and the industry becoming more concentrated. This stream of research is credited to have had a major impact on public policy (reduced institutional constraints on firms from growing in their present and/or related lines of businesses), and in turn, on the behavior of firms. Less stringent enforcement of antitrust statutes and changes in the antitrust statutes were conducive to horizontal acquisitions and intra-industry mergers, resulting in a sharp increase in both during the 1980s (Schleifer and Vishny 1991 ). Rather than being limited to competing on Main Street for market share growth, it became possible for firms to complement such efforts with buying market share on Wall Street (i.e., acquiring competitors). As opportunities became available for firms to pursue growth through intra-industry acquisitions and diversification into related businesses, conglomerates firms resorted to divesting unrelated businesses from their business portfolios and becoming more focused.

Wilson ( 1998 ) notes that scientific theories are constructed specifically to be blown apart if proved wrong, and if so destined, the sooner the better. His cautionary note about researchers falling in love with their own theories, spending a lifetime vainly trying to shore them up, and squandering their prestige and academic capital in the effort is both timely and timeless. The excerpt about Wilson in an article (Wolfe 2014 ) quoted at the beginning of this section is also insightful in this regard.

A recent book titled This Idea Must Die: Scientific Theories That Are Blocking Progress (Brockman 2015 ) also provides valuable insights into this issue. The book, a compilation of invited contributions from leading scholars in various disciplines, focuses on established scientific ideas that should be moved aside, in order for science to advance.

Shift away from theory development-focused research to data-driven research

The scientific method is built around testable hypotheses. These models, for the most part, are systems visualized in the minds of scientists. The models are then tested, and experiments confirm or falsify theoretical models of how the world works. This is the way science has worked for hundreds of years.... But faced with massive data, this approach to science—hypothesize, model, test—is becoming obsolete” (Anderson 2008 ).

Proponents of data-driven science conjecture that hypotheses are obsolete: New knowledge will simply emerge from mechanical application of algorithms that mine data for plausible patterns. This approach is attractive, but there are potential pitfalls. The discovery of patterns from data alone is similar to the task faced by an explorer in an unfamiliar jungle, without a guide. With no sense of what is already known about the environment or its perils, she is likely to misclassify what she sees - fearing the intimidating but harmless snake; ignoring the tiny lethal frog (Evans and Rzhetsky 2010 , p. 399).

In reference to trends in marketing strategy research, Morgan et al. ( 2019 ) report that the evidence is indicative of a general shift away from theory development using grounded approaches and/or conceptual development to data-driven approaches. Following an article titled, “The end of theory: the data deluge makes the scientific method obsolete,” by Anderson (2008), a number of articles, commentaries, editorials and opinion pieces have focused on the question of whether the age of big data portends the end of theory in science, or is data-driven research sans theory perilous.

In an article titled, “Big data need big theory too,” Coveney et al. ( 2016 ) point out that even in the context of big data, there is a need for models and theoretical insights to help guide the collection, curation and interpretation of data. Mazzocchi ( 2015 ) questions whether data-driven research is a genuine mode of knowledge production , or merely a tool for identifying potentially useful information . Choudhury et al. ( 2018 ) discuss the use of machine learning methods (decision trees, random forests, K-nearest neighbors and neural networks) for inductive theory building by uncovering robust patterns in data.

Impetus for research in strategic marketing: gaps in scholarly literature versus frontiers in business practice

Marketing is not like Euclidean geometry, a fixed system of concepts and axioms. Rather, marketing is one of the most dynamic fields within the management arena. The marketplace continuously throws out fresh challenges, and companies must respond. Therefore, it is not surprising that new marketing ideas keep surfacing to meet the new marketplace challenges (Kotler 1997 , p. xxxii).

Morgan et al. ( 2019 ) note, “Yet, casual observation of the nature, magnitude, and rate of change in marketing practice suggests that new marketing phenomena are bound to be emerging. This suggests that marketing strategy research is increasingly lagging practice.” A number of considerations suggest that the nature of the relationship between practice and scholarly research in marketing is reciprocal and mutually reinforcing, rather than research lagging practice. The impetus for a large body of research in marketing published in scholarly journals and business magazines is new-to-the world marketing behaviors. For example, at some point in time, some firm was the first to experiment with every marketing behavior currently in vogue such as co-branding, cause-related marketing, and offshore outsourcing of customer relationship management. The diffusion of such behavior among a larger number of firms is the impetus for scholarly research addressing questions such as what explains firms engaging in a specific marketing behavior (environmental and organizational antecedents of behavior), what are the consequences, and what variables mediate and moderate the relationship between the focal construct and antecedents, and the focal construct and outcomes. In turn, such scholarly research in marketing contributes to (has the potential to contribute to) better marketing practice. As pointed out by Yadav ( 2018 ), emerging phenomena represent a significant knowledge development opportunity for the marketing discipline, and timely and effective examination of such phenomena is crucial to the discipline’s dynamism and long-term impact.

Literature-based scholarly research is generally construed as research based on a critical and comprehensive review of prior research in a substantive domain, identifying gaps in the body of research, and undertaking research to bridge the gaps. Understandably, beyond highlighting the nature and scope of the gap that a research study strives to bridge, the motivation for research also entails articulating the importance of bridging the gap (i.e., why bridging the gap matters). However, a cursory examination of published research in strategic marketing during the past quarter century suggests that the impetus for a growing body of research is interesting and important problems that have emerged in the aftermath of macro environmental developments (e.g., the dawn of Internet and the social media), rather than gaps in an extant body of research. Nevertheless, insights from extant literature provide the conceptual, theoretical and empirical foundation for research motivated by new developments in the world of marketing practice. A recent editorial essay by Jaworski ( 2018 ) focusing on issues relating to the ability, motivation, and opportunity for scholars to contribute to the advancement of marketing theory and practice by identifying and discussing important problems with marketing practitioners, translating those conversations into researchable questions, conducting research, and disseminating the research is instructive in this regard.

Organizing accumulated knowledge in strategic marketing: distinguishing between research focusing on substantive issues in the domains of market strategy and marketing strategy

The current body of literature and accumulated knowledge on strategic marketing as a specialized field of study in marketing is the confluence of paradigms, theories, principles, constructs, relationships, models, methods, measures, and findings, principally from the disciplines of marketing, management, and industrial organization economics, spanning more than one-half of a century. For the most part, the literature has evolved with marketing strategy construed as the organizational construct germane to the field. From the standpoint of the future of the field, it may be desirable to distinguish between research focusing on substantive issues in the domains of market strategy and marketing strategy. The principal focus of market strategy is issues relating to “where to compete,” and that of marketing strategy is issues relating to “how to compete” (Varadarajan 2015 ). On its own accord, the body of literature focusing on substantive issues in the domain of market strategy (e.g., understanding, explaining and predicting a firm’s choice of markets to compete in, and its mode of entry, order of entry, and time of entry) is quite vast. The body of literature focusing on substantive issues in the domain of marketing strategy (e.g., how do/should a business compete in the chosen markets by efficiently and effectively deploying marketing resources) is even vaster. From the standpoint of organizing the accumulated body of knowledge, as well as review, synthesis and critique of extant literature, it would therefore be highly desirable to distinguish between research focusing on substantive issues in the domains of market strategy and marketing strategy.

In the abstract of their article, Morgan et al. ( 2019 ) state, “Marketing strategy is a construct that lies at the conceptual heart of the field of strategic marketing and is central to the practice of marketing.” It is within the realm of possibilities that a future review, synthesis and critique article along the lines of Morgan et al. may contain a statement such as, “Market strategy and marketing strategy are constructs that lie at the conceptual heart of the field of strategic marketing and are central to the practice of marketing.”

It is conceivable that some readers might view my remarks regarding the marginalization of philosophy of science and theory focused course content from doctoral programs in marketing as being oblivious to the difficult trade-off decisions that institutions must make regarding the curriculum content of marketing doctoral programs. To the contrary, I am sympathetic and understanding of the challenges faced by Directors of Doctoral Programs in Marketing and faculty members intimately involved in doctoral programs in capacities such as teaching doctoral seminars, and chairing and serving on doctoral dissertation committees. Clearly, the current expectations of the marketplace (institutions recruiting PhDs in marketing for faculty positions) regarding the research skills repertoire that PhDs in marketing are expected to possess and demonstrate is substantially higher than was the case during earlier decades. Likewise, at journals, the baseline threshold of conceptual and methodological rigor that manuscripts must meet has risen over the years. With the creation of new knowledge and a better understanding of the limitations of the research methods currently in vogue, the state-of-the-art of methodological rigor is destined to be even higher in the future than it currently is. Understandably, in order to make room for more doctoral coursework designed to equip the students with the state-of-the-art training in research methods, modeling, metrics, and data analysis, some of the courses that were integral to doctoral programs in marketing during an earlier era needed to be eliminated and others combined. Making room for new knowledge in the course content of a doctoral program inevitably entails deleting and/or combining some of the current course content. Assigning methodological rigor the front seat and relegating conceptual rigor to the back seat could indeed be a carefully thought through trade-off decision. My cautionary note in this regard is that this could have an adverse impact from the standpoint of organic and mid-range theories development in marketing.

I wish to acknowledge that in some of my published works, I draw on multiple theories in support of the proposed conceptual model and research propositions (e.g., Varadarajan et al. 2001 ; Kalaignanam and Varadarajan 2012 ). However, the implications of the assumptions underlying multiple theories that a model is based on is an issue that I have been pondering about only relatively recently.

For instance, Tsang ( 2006 ) distinguishes between assumptions-based theory testing and assumptions-omitted theory testing, and notes that most empirical research in transaction cost economics is assumptions-omitted testing. He further notes that in order to establish a solid foundation for a new theory, there is a need for researchers to pay greater attention to assumptions-based theory testing.

Anderson, C. (2008). The end of theory: the data deluge makes the scientific method obsolete. Wired . June 23. https://www.wired.com/2008/06/pb-theory/ .

Bain, J. (1956). Barriers to competition . Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17 (1), 99–120.

Article   Google Scholar  

Brockman, J. (Ed.). (2015). This idea must die: Scientific theories that are blocking progress . New York: Harper Perennial.

Google Scholar  

Choudhury, P., Allen, R., & Endres, M. G. (2018). Developing theory using machine learning methods. Harvard Business School Working Paper #19-032.

Coveney, P. V., Dougherty, E. R., & R. H. Highfield. (2016). Big data need big theory too. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 373 (November 13, Issue 2080) http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/374/2080/20160153 .

Day, G. S., & Montgomery, D. B. (1999). Charting new directions for marketing. Journal of Marketing., 63 (Special Issue), 3–13.

Demsetz, H. (1973). Industry structure, market rivalry, and public policy. Journal of Law and Economics., 16 (April), 1–9.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Agency theory: An assessment and review. Academy of Management Review., 12 (1), 57–74.

Evans, J., & Rzhetsky, A. (2010). Machine science. Science, 329 (5990, July 23), 399–400.

Frazier, G. L. (2011). From the incoming editor. Journal of Marketing., 75 (4), 1–2.

Hunt, S. D. (1983). General theories and fundamental explananda of marketing. Journal of Marketing., 47 (Fall), 9–17.

Hunt, S. D. (1994). On rethinking marketing: Our discipline, our practice, our methods. European Journal of Marketing., 28 (3), 13–25.

Jaworski, B. J. (2018). Introducing the Theory + Practice section. AMS Review. 8 (1-2), 1-4.

Kalaignanam, K., & Varadarajan, R. (2012). Offshore outsourcing of customer relationship management: Conceptual model and propositions. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science., 40 (2), 347–363.

Kotler, P. (1997). Marketing management: Analysis, planning, implementation, and control (9th ed.). Prentice-Hall.

Lichtenberg, F. R. 1990. Want more productivity? Kill the conglomerate. Wall Street Journal . January 16, A14.

Mazzocchi, F. (2015). Could big data be the end of theory in science? A few remarks on the epistemology of data‐driven science. EMBO Report, 16 (10), 1250–1255.

Merwe, R., Berthon, B., Pitt, L., & Barnes, B. (2007). Analyzing theory networks: Identifying the pivotal theories in marketing and their characteristics. Journal of Marketing Management, 23 (3–4), 181–206.

Morgan, N., Whitler, K. A., Feng, H., & Chari, S. (2019). Research in marketing strategy. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science., 47 (1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-018-0598-1 .

Rust, R. T. (2006). From the editor: The maturation of marketing as an academic discipline. Journal of Marketing 70 (July), 1–2.

Schleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (1991). Takeovers in the 60s and the 80s: Evidence and implications. Strategic Management Journal, 12 (Winter), 51–59.

Tsang, E. W. K. (2006). Behavioral assumptions and theory development: The case of transaction cost economics. Strategic Management Journal., 27 (11), 999–1011.

Varadarajan, R. (2015). Strategic marketing, marketing strategy and market strategy. AMS Review., 5 (3–4), 78–90.

Varadarajan, R. (2018). Advances in strategic marketing and the advancement of the marketing discipline: The promise of theory. Journal of Marketing Management, 34 (1–2), 71–85.

Varadarajan, R., & Jayachandran, S. (1999). Marketing strategy: An assessment of the state of the field and outlook. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27 (Spring), 120–143.

Varadarajan, R., Jayachandran, S., & White, J. C. (2001). Strategic interdependence in organizations: Deconglomeration and marketing strategy. Journal of Marketing 65 (1), 15–28.

Wilson, E. O. (1998). Consilience: The unity of knowledge . New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Wolfe, A. 2014.

Wolfe, A. (2014). E.O. Wilson tells it like it is. The Wall Street Journal . April 18.

Yadav, M. S. (2018). Making emerging phenomena a research priority. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. 46 (3), 361-365.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Texas A&M University, 4112 TAMU, College Station, TX, 77843-4112, USA

Rajan Varadarajan

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rajan Varadarajan .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Varadarajan, R. Theoretical underpinnings of research in strategic marketing: a commentary. J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. 47 , 30–36 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-018-0612-7

Download citation

Published : 25 October 2018

Issue Date : 15 January 2019

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-018-0612-7

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Marketing strategy
• Market strategy
• Marketing theory
• Strategic marketing
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research