Measuring the disruptiveness of conceptual papers in the field of marketing

TL;DR

This study uses network-based measures and a large language model to compare the impact of conceptual versus empirical marketing articles, finding that conceptual papers are more frequently cited and more disruptive.

Contribution

It introduces a novel approach combining network measures and language models to assess the disruptiveness of conceptual papers in marketing.

Findings

Conceptual articles are more frequently cited than empirical ones.

Conceptual research has a greater disruptive impact on marketing knowledge.

Large language models can effectively classify research types in academic journals.

Abstract

Marketing scholars have underscored the importance of conceptual articles in providing theoretical foundations and new perspectives to the field. This paper supports the argument by employing two network-based measures -- the number of citations and the disruption score -- and comparing them for conceptual and empirical research. With the aid of a large language model, we classify conceptual and empirical articles published in a substantial set of marketing journals. The findings reveal that conceptual research is not only more frequently cited but also has a greater disruptive impact on the field of marketing than empirical research. Our paper contributes to the understanding of how marketing articles advance knowledge through developmental approaches.