Revisiting the Relevance Debate Empirically: Historical Roots and Modern Shoots

Abstract

The present work empirically assesses the effect of the rigor–relevance debate on the relevance of research in marketing across various eras. The paper also ranks different types of relevance according to the importance given by managers. Finally, the current research informs if the top marketing journals are focusing on the relevant relevance category in the modern era. Fifty-seven articles in three leading marketing journals were analyzed for the period 1936–2015. Content analysis and n-way analysis of variance were used to measure the magnitude of managerial relevance in these papers. Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) was used to rank the relative importance of different types of relevance. The results support that the relevance across eras changed according to the direction of the ongoing debate on rigor–relevance. Findings indicate that significant gaps exist between the relevance expected by managers and those provided by the journals. The managers prefer “forecasts,” which is instrumental relevance; however, the leading marketing journals focus majorly on conceptual relevance. Out of the eight types of managerial relevance identified, “forecasts” was ranked the highest by managers, followed by “rhetoric devices” and “uncovering causal relationships.” Further, the three leading marketing journals differentiate themselves by focusing on different types of relevance. The results and implications provided are particularly useful for academicians, editors, academic administrators.