- Email: [email protected]
How different are we?
169
Editorial How different are we? This one included, three issues of IJRM have seen the light by now. Although as yet only sixteen articles have appeared, a first tentative impression can be formed. First, I want to say that 1 in my opinion a fine collection of articles has been published. Nevertheless, even after such a short period we should ask ourselves whether we are achieving the objectives stated for IJRM and whether or not we are missing significant parts of the marketing field. Looking at the articles published so far, it can be established that the area of quantitative models in marketing has been well covered. The behavioral area seems to have been somewhat under-represented up to now. This is also true for subjects like industrial marketing, marketing channels, and international marketing. I hope to receive enough manuscripts on the areas mentioned to re-establish the equilibrium on this point. However, what is more important, is the question of our unique positioning as a scientific marketing journal. Of course, one unique, and very visible, point about our journal is the fact that it is carried - in the sense of authors as well as Editorial Board - by researchers from a large number of different countries. Does this also result in a contents that is clearly distinguishable from other journals? The answer is: partly yes, and partly no (not yet?). To some extent, this has to do with the preponderance of quantitatively oriented articles up to now. As is argued by Mattson
Intern. J. of Research North-Holland
0167-8116/84/$3.00
in Marketing
0 1984, Elsevier
1 (1984)
Science
169-170
Publishers
and Naert in an interesting article about developments in European research in marketing to be published in the next issue, the language of models is universal. So models, although indispensable for the progress of the field and, consequently, for this journal, probably are not the best means to demonstrate the particular identity of our research approach. What would be the other type of work essential for demonstrating that we (Europeans?) are different? One approach would be to emphasize methodology. Not in the sense of methods and techniques, but in the more fundamental sense of philosophy of science and epistemology: what are the ways of reasoning applied in research in marketing, which critical questions should be asked? This should be a domain par excellence where Europeans can make original contributions. They have a long-standing tradition in the philosophy of science which used to be an essential element in almost all academic programs. Should not the Europeans out-perform here the Americans who are sometimes pictured as pragmatic, positivistic, heavily dependent on empirical facts but lacking adequate depth of reasoning? Another approach might be to start from the values and norms of society and to study the consequences for marketing. Clearly, there are large differences at this point between countries. In Europe, the traditional free enterprise ideas, so dominant in U.S. society, are much less prominent. This has consequences for the role of government in the economy, income distribution, flexibility of the labor market, consumer protection, possibilities for advertising and sales promotion,
B.V. (North-Holland)
Editorial
170
etc. Also, values with respect to the role of the . family, emancipation of women, participation of employees in company decision making, career objectives, etc. show large differences between countries. All these factors strongly affect the environment in which marketing decisions are made and the degrees of freedom marketing decision makers have. Eventually this might also have an impact on marketing theory. Maybe the paradigms developed at the other side of the Atlantic have to be revised and/or complemented to fit the European scene. I very much want to encourage articles that deal with these issues. From Europe, but also from other countries (the U.S. expressly included). Maybe the above statements are a severe exaggeration of the differences. Maybe there is no need for a specifically European or other school of thought besides the American. Maybe, after all, the concepts and theories developed up to now are as general as we want them to be. If this exaggeration is instrumental in generating your reactions I am quite content. Let me receive your papers on these topics so that our thinking can be developed further. Letter
to the Editor:
a new section
Of course, the type of papers referred to above are of a more conceptual nature than the typical research papers. Such papers probably will not fit the familiar sequence: problem description - review of the literature methodology - data - results - recommendations for further research. It will not be easy
to develop full-fledged papers that propose completely new paradigms or theories. Given this difficulty, but given also the importance of stimulating ideas and generating discussion, a special new section will be added to IJRM: ‘Letters to the Editor’. In this section you can write about your ideas about research methodology in marketing, about the direction research should take, about your objections against current research practices, reactions to opinions expressed by others, etc. Papers for this new section should be short (less than 1000 words) and will be refereed before being published. I am looking forward to receiving your creative contributions for this new interaction medium which - I hope - will help us to define and further develop our own research identity. Change of Editorial
address:
Because of the integration of the Graduate School of Management (Delft) with the Erasmus University (Rotterdam), the Editorial office of IJRM moved to Rotterdam. The complete address is now: Editor of IJRM Berend Wierenga Rotterdam School of Management Erasmus University P.O. Box 1738 3000 DR Rotterdam ’ The Netherlands Telephone: 010-525511, Ext. 4039 Bet-end Wierenga Editor
Editorial How different are we? This one included, three issues of IJRM have seen the light by now. Although as yet only sixteen articles have appeared, a first tentative impression can be formed. First, I want to say that 1 in my opinion a fine collection of articles has been published. Nevertheless, even after such a short period we should ask ourselves whether we are achieving the objectives stated for IJRM and whether or not we are missing significant parts of the marketing field. Looking at the articles published so far, it can be established that the area of quantitative models in marketing has been well covered. The behavioral area seems to have been somewhat under-represented up to now. This is also true for subjects like industrial marketing, marketing channels, and international marketing. I hope to receive enough manuscripts on the areas mentioned to re-establish the equilibrium on this point. However, what is more important, is the question of our unique positioning as a scientific marketing journal. Of course, one unique, and very visible, point about our journal is the fact that it is carried - in the sense of authors as well as Editorial Board - by researchers from a large number of different countries. Does this also result in a contents that is clearly distinguishable from other journals? The answer is: partly yes, and partly no (not yet?). To some extent, this has to do with the preponderance of quantitatively oriented articles up to now. As is argued by Mattson
Intern. J. of Research North-Holland
0167-8116/84/$3.00
in Marketing
0 1984, Elsevier
1 (1984)
Science
169-170
Publishers
and Naert in an interesting article about developments in European research in marketing to be published in the next issue, the language of models is universal. So models, although indispensable for the progress of the field and, consequently, for this journal, probably are not the best means to demonstrate the particular identity of our research approach. What would be the other type of work essential for demonstrating that we (Europeans?) are different? One approach would be to emphasize methodology. Not in the sense of methods and techniques, but in the more fundamental sense of philosophy of science and epistemology: what are the ways of reasoning applied in research in marketing, which critical questions should be asked? This should be a domain par excellence where Europeans can make original contributions. They have a long-standing tradition in the philosophy of science which used to be an essential element in almost all academic programs. Should not the Europeans out-perform here the Americans who are sometimes pictured as pragmatic, positivistic, heavily dependent on empirical facts but lacking adequate depth of reasoning? Another approach might be to start from the values and norms of society and to study the consequences for marketing. Clearly, there are large differences at this point between countries. In Europe, the traditional free enterprise ideas, so dominant in U.S. society, are much less prominent. This has consequences for the role of government in the economy, income distribution, flexibility of the labor market, consumer protection, possibilities for advertising and sales promotion,
B.V. (North-Holland)
Editorial
170
etc. Also, values with respect to the role of the . family, emancipation of women, participation of employees in company decision making, career objectives, etc. show large differences between countries. All these factors strongly affect the environment in which marketing decisions are made and the degrees of freedom marketing decision makers have. Eventually this might also have an impact on marketing theory. Maybe the paradigms developed at the other side of the Atlantic have to be revised and/or complemented to fit the European scene. I very much want to encourage articles that deal with these issues. From Europe, but also from other countries (the U.S. expressly included). Maybe the above statements are a severe exaggeration of the differences. Maybe there is no need for a specifically European or other school of thought besides the American. Maybe, after all, the concepts and theories developed up to now are as general as we want them to be. If this exaggeration is instrumental in generating your reactions I am quite content. Let me receive your papers on these topics so that our thinking can be developed further. Letter
to the Editor:
a new section
Of course, the type of papers referred to above are of a more conceptual nature than the typical research papers. Such papers probably will not fit the familiar sequence: problem description - review of the literature methodology - data - results - recommendations for further research. It will not be easy
to develop full-fledged papers that propose completely new paradigms or theories. Given this difficulty, but given also the importance of stimulating ideas and generating discussion, a special new section will be added to IJRM: ‘Letters to the Editor’. In this section you can write about your ideas about research methodology in marketing, about the direction research should take, about your objections against current research practices, reactions to opinions expressed by others, etc. Papers for this new section should be short (less than 1000 words) and will be refereed before being published. I am looking forward to receiving your creative contributions for this new interaction medium which - I hope - will help us to define and further develop our own research identity. Change of Editorial
address:
Because of the integration of the Graduate School of Management (Delft) with the Erasmus University (Rotterdam), the Editorial office of IJRM moved to Rotterdam. The complete address is now: Editor of IJRM Berend Wierenga Rotterdam School of Management Erasmus University P.O. Box 1738 3000 DR Rotterdam ’ The Netherlands Telephone: 010-525511, Ext. 4039 Bet-end Wierenga Editor