Ohio State nav bar
The Ohio State University
- BuckeyeLink
- Find People
- Search Ohio State
Literature Review, Theoretical Review or Conceptual Review?
I was researching and refreshing what I learned about literature reviews and research methodology in the 6625 ESLTECH class and came across this post in ResearchGate:
While I was interested in finding out how to conduct a lit review, and what methodologies fit with my “Begin With the End in mind” framework, I remembered that I was actually conducting a conceptual analysis of the Hackathon through two instruments: the opportunistic interviews and my observations. Applying Backward Design as research methodology has been used in the biological sciences. It is called Backward Design for Education Research (BDER) and basically it instructs how to apply teaching-as-research (based on the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning(SoTL) model) to see what works in “providing evidence-based pedagogy and a deeper understanding of causal mechanisms for the broader education community.” (Jenkins, Bailey, Kummer & Weber, 2017). My approach was more like “Backward Market Research,” which consists of eight steps that ultimately resemble Wiggins and McTighe’s Backward Design for curriculum development. The key to backward market research lies in identifying the desired outcome (i.e., what data would answer the question you are asking) before embarking on the project …” (Jenkins, Bailey, Kummer & Weber, 2017). My question is broad – what insights come out of the Hackathon – and the results are formative – data reports generate more questions and identify the need to code certain responses, or to add a new question next year (as with the multitude of comments about Judging from 2017) – but a body or knowledge is being formed.
Conceptual review papers: revisiting existing research to develop and refine theory
- Theory/Conceptual
- Published: 29 April 2020
- Volume 10 , pages 27–35, ( 2020 )
Cite this article
- John Hulland 1
6749 Accesses
68 Citations
8 Altmetric
Explore all metrics
Conceptual review papers can theoretically enrich the field of marketing by reviewing extant knowledge, noting tensions and inconsistencies, identifying important gaps as well as key insights, and proposing agendas for future research. The result of this process is a theoretical contribution that refines, reconceptualizes, or even replaces existing ways of viewing a phenomenon. This paper spells out the primary aims of conceptual reviews and clarifies how they differ from other theory development efforts. It also describes elements essential to a strong conceptual review paper and offers a specific set of best practices that can be used to distinguish a strong conceptual review from a weak one.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this article
Subscribe and save.
- Get 10 units per month
- Download Article/Chapter or eBook
- 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
- Cancel anytime
Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Rent this article via DeepDyve
Institutional subscriptions
Similar content being viewed by others
Meta-analysis: integrating accumulated knowledge.
Designing conceptual articles: four approaches
Contours of the marketing literature: text, context, point-of-view, research horizons, interpretation, and influence in marketing.
Palmatier et al. ( 2018 ) reference a study of the frequency with which review papers were published in top marketing journals during the 2012–2016 period. Focusing on the top six journals included in the Financial Times (( FT-50 ) journal list, the study found that “ JAMS has become the most common outlet … publishing 31% of all review papers that appeared in the top six marketing journals.”
The bifurcation here between theory development “from scratch” versus through conceptual review is potentially somewhat misleading, since the latter can also result in novel theoretical insights. Furthermore, many conceptual papers make significant theoretical contributions by building on existing theory without themselves being review papers. Nonetheless, conceptual reviews necessarily involve working with extant, published work.
This focus is quite distinct from the approach proposed by Zeithaml et al. ( 2020 ). Their emphasis is on “an approach that is ideally suited to the development of theories in marketing: the ‘theories-in-use’ (TIU) approach” (p. 32). They propose it as an alternative inductive methodology (vs. case studies and ethnographies) to developing grounded theory.
These elements are drawn from Hulland & Houston ( 2020 ), MacInnis ( 2011 ), Palmatier et al. ( 2018 ), and Yadav ( 2010 ). Houston ( 2020 ), MacInnis ( 2011 ), Palmatier, Houston & Hulland et al. ( 2018 ), and Yadav ( 2010 ).
These underlying assumptions are a crucial component in developing strong arguments for theory development (Toulmin 1958 ).
MacInnis ( 2011 ) describes eight critical skills for conceptual thinking that are arrayed across four dimensions: envisioning (identifying vs. revising), explicating (delineating vs. summarizing), relating (differentiating vs. integrating, and debating (advocating vs. refuting). For conceptual review papers, summarizing and revising represent critical skills that need to be harnessed by the author (whereas identifying and delineating are skills more critical to uncovering new ideas). For the other two dimensions (relating and debating), a more balanced use of the associated skills is needed (i.e., both differentiating and integrating are important, and both advocating and refuting are important).
In her paper, Jaakkola ( 2020 ) describes four different types of research designs for conceptual reviews: (1) theory synthesis, (2) theory adaptation, (3) typology, and (4) model. In the current paper, elements from all four of these types are discussed.
In doing so, Khamitov et al. discover seven overarching insights that reveal gaps in the interfaces between the three streams. This highlighting of gaps represents stage four in the theory refinement process.
Not all of the gaps in a specific domain are necessarily valuable, however. Just because no one has studied a phenomenon in a particular industry or region, or with a particular method does not mean that a filling of that gap is required (or even valued).
Antonakis, J., Bartardox, N., Liu, Y., & Schriesheim, C. A. (2014). What makes articles highly cited? The Leadership Quarterly, 25 (1), 152–179.
Article Google Scholar
Barczak, G. (2017). From the editor: Writing a review article. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 34 (2), 120–121.
Bem, D.J. (1995). Writing a review article for Psychological Bulletin . Psychological Bulletin , 118(2), 172–177.
Bettencourt, L. A., & Houston, M. B. (2001). Assessing the impact of article method type and subject area on citation frequency and reference diversity. Marketing Letters, 12 (4), 327–340.
Dekimpe, M. G., & Deleersnyder, B. (2018). Business cycle research in marketing: A review and research agenda. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46 (1), 31–58.
Dowling, K., Guhl, D., Klapper, D., Spann, M., Stich, L., & Yegoryan, N. (2020). Behavioral biases in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science in press , 48 (3), 449–477.
Gilson, L. L., & Goldberg, C. B. (2015). Editors’ comment: So, what is a conceptual paper? Group & Organization Management, 40 (2), 127–130.
Grewal, D., Puccinelli, N. M., & Monroe, K. B. (2018). Meta-analysis: Integrating accumulated knowledge. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46 (1), 9–30.
Houston, M. B. (2019). Four facets of rigor. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 47 (4), 570–573.
Hulland, J., & Houston, M. B. (2020). Why systematic review papers and meta-analyses matter: An introduction to the special issue on generalizations in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 48 (3) in press, 351–359.
Hulland, J., Baumgartner, H., & Smith, K. M. (2018). Marketing survey research best practices: Evidence and recommendations from a review of JAMS articles. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46 (1), 92–108.
Jaakkola, E. (2020). Designing conceptual articles: Four approaches. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science in press.
Khamitov, M., Gregoire, Y., & Suri, A. (2020). A systematic review of brand transgression, service failure recovery and product-harm crisis: Integration and guiding insights. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science in press , 48 (3), 519–542.
Kozlenkova, I. V., Samaha, S. A., & Palmatier, R. W. (2014). Resource-based theory in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 42 (1), 1–21.
Lamberton, C., & Stephen, A. T. (2016). A thematic exploration of digital, social media, and mobile marketing: Research evolution from 2000 to 2015 and an agenda for future inquiry. Journal of Marketing, 80 (November), 146–172.
Littell, J. H., Corcoran, J., & Pillai, V. (2008). Systematic reviews and meta-analysis . New York: Oxford University Press.
MacInnis, D. J. (2011). A framework for conceptual contributions in marketing. Journal of Marketing, 75 (July), 136–154.
Palmatier, R. W. (2016). Improving publishing success at JAMS : Contribution and positioning. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44 (6), 655–659.
Palmatier, R. W., Houston, M. B., & Hulland, J. (2018). Review articles: Purpose, process, and structure. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46 (1), 1–5.
Rindfleisch, A., & Heide, J. B. (1997). Transaction cost analysis: Past, present, and future applications. Journal of Marketing, 61 (4), 30–54.
Rosario, A. B., de Valck, K., & Sotgiu, F. (2020). Conceptualizing the electronic word-of-mouth process: What we know and need to know about eWOM creation, exposure, and evaluation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science in press.
Samiee, S. (1994). Customer evaluation of products in a global market. Journal of International Business Studies, 25 (3), 579–604.
Sample, K. L., Hagtvedt, H., & Brasel, S. A. (2020). Components of visual perception in marketing contexts: A conceptual framework and review. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science in press , 48 (3), 405–421.
Short, J. (2009). The art of writing a review article. Journal of Management, 35 (6), 1312–1317.
Sorescu, A., Warren, N. L., & Ertekin, L. (2017). Event study methodology in the marketing literature: An overview. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45 (2), 186–207.
Steinhoff, L., Arli, D., Weaven, S., & Kozlenkova, I. V. (2019). Online relationship marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 47 (3), 369–393.
Stewart, D. W., & Zinkhan, G. M. (2006). Enhancing marketing theory in academic research. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34 (Fall), 477–480.
Sutton, R. I., & Staw, B. M. (1995). What theory is not . Administrative Science Quarterly, 40 (3), 371–384.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument . Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar
Wade, M., & Hulland, J. (2004). The resource-based view and information systems research: Review, extension, and suggestions for future research. MIS Quarterly, 28 (1), 107–142.
Yadav, M. S. (2010). The decline of conceptual articles and implications for knowledge development. Journal of Marketing, 74 (January), 1–19.
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.
Download references
Author information
Authors and affiliations.
Terry College of Business, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, 30602, USA
John Hulland
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Corresponding author
Correspondence to John Hulland .
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
Hulland, J. Conceptual review papers: revisiting existing research to develop and refine theory. AMS Rev 10 , 27–35 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-020-00168-7
Download citation
Received : 11 March 2020
Accepted : 01 April 2020
Published : 29 April 2020
Issue Date : June 2020
DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-020-00168-7
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
- Conceptual review papers
- Marketing theory
- Find a journal
- Publish with us
- Track your research