Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Marketing Theory
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Johnson, M. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Designating Opponents in Empirical Research Reports: The Rhetoric of ‘Interestingness’ in Consumer Research

Mark S. Johnson

Montclair State Universityjohnsonm{at}mail.montclair.edu

Numerous studies have called attention to the importance of rhetoric inscientific writing by focusing on arguments presented in scientific debate articles. In contrast, citation analysis studies indicate that empirical research articles are generally nonconfrontational in criticizing the work of other researchers. How do empirical research reports establish opposing perspectives to argue against? One rhetoricalstrategy is to be ‘interesting’, which, according to Davis (1971), is the author’s attempt to contradict a taken-for-granted assumption of the reader. Scholars in management, marketing, and consumer research have also cited Davis’ conception of ‘interestingness’ as a characteristic of research that is more influential and intellectually creative. This article presents textual evidence from a volume of the Journal of Consumer Research demonstrating that a majority of researcher-authors of these articles use ‘interestingness’ as a rhetorical framing device in the abstracts, introductions, and concluding sections of empirical articles. However, an analysis of article citations and references suggests that these ‘interesting’ articles are neither more influential nor more innovative than other articles in the same volume.

Key Words: citation analysis • Murray Davis • rhetoric of science

Marketing Theory, Vol. 3, No. 4, 477-501 (2003)
DOI: 10.1177/1470593103040783


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Marketing TheoryHome page
S. J. Gould
An introspective genealogy of my introspective genealogy
Marketing Theory, December 1, 2008; 8(4): 407 - 424.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Marketing TheoryHome page
E. Sivadas and M. S. Johnson
Knowledge flows in marketing: An analysis of journal article references and citations
Marketing Theory, December 1, 2005; 5(4): 339 - 361.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Journal of the Academy of Marketing ScienceHome page
M. R. Hyman and I. Mathur
Retrospective and Prospective Views on the Marketing/Finance Interface
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, October 1, 2005; 33(4): 390 - 400.
[Abstract] [PDF]