Browse by title
David Boje and Grace A. Rosile
Viktor Dörfler and Marc Stierand
This introduction is an attempt to prepare our readers for an exceptional journey into the fascinating landscape of research methods used to study the remarkable phenomenon of creativity. Building on what is already available about research methods on creativity, we explain what we were trying to achieve, how we went about it, and why we are proud of what we have achieved – primarily through the work of our contributors to this handbook. Most of this introduction is dedicated to brief descriptions of the chapters of the book. At the end, we make some suggestions for using this edited volume. Creativity research has significantly matured in recent years, resulting in a wide variety of models and views of creativity (see Runco, 2019 for a recent comprehensive overview). Scholarly interest in creativity has gone mainstream, and dedicated creativity journals such as Journal of Creative Behavior, Creativity Research Journal, Thinking Skills and Creativity, Creativity and Innovation Management, and Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts are actively competing with more general psychology and management journals to publish the best and most interesting creativity research. In addition, the topic of creativity is becoming popular in a variety of other disciplines, such as biology and neuropsychology (Shiu, 2014).
Edited by Marta Sinclair
Edited by Keith Townsend, Mark N.K. Saunders, Rebecca Loudoun and Emily A. Morrison
Edited by Mike Wright, David J. Ketchen, Jr. and Timothy Clark
Edited by David W. Stewart and Daniel M. Ladik
Daniel M. Ladik and David W. Stewart
The (most) common mistake is not to “tell a story,” but only assemble different related parts. “Telling a good story” means to critically analyze what has been done before and demonstrate convincingly why something is changing. A significant contribution to knowledge does not happen in isolation and needs to be contextualized to the current situation.
John H. Roberts, Ujwal Kayande and Stefan Stremersch
We aim to investigate the impact of marketing science articles and tools on the practice of marketing. This impact may be direct (e.g., an academic article may be adapted to solve a practical problem) or indirect (e.g., its contents may be incorporated into practitioners' tools, which then influence marketing decision making). We use the term “marketing science value chain” to describe these diffusion steps, and survey marketing managers, marketing science intermediaries (practicing marketing analysts), and marketing academics to calibrate the value chain. In our sample, we find that (1) the impact of marketing science is perceived to be largest on decisions such as the management of brands, pricing, new products, product portfolios, and customer/market selection, and (2) tools such as segmentation, survey-based choice models, marketing mix models, and pre-test market models have the largest impact on marketing decisions. Exemplary papers from 1982 to 2003 that achieved dual - academic and practice - impact are Guadagni and Little (1983) and Green and Srinivasan (1990). Overall, our results are encouraging. First, we find that the impact of marketing science has been largest on marketing decision areas that are important to practice. Second, we find moderate alignment between academic impact and practice impact. Third, we identify antecedents of practice impact among dual impact marketing science papers. Fourth, we discover more recent trends and initiatives in the period 2004-2012, such as the increased importance of big data and the rise of digital and mobile communication, using the marketing science value chain as an organizing framework.