- Email: [email protected]
The case for borrowing rather than becoming
Australasian Marketing Journal 24 (2016) 255–256
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Australasian Marketing Journal j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s e v i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / a m j
Commentary
The case for borrowing rather than becoming Stanley J. Shapiro * Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, Canada
A R T I C L E
I N F O
Article history: Available online 25 August 2016
It is with considerable reluctance and even greater academic concern that I find myself taking issue with any intellectual position assumed by Roger Layton, a scholar whose academic range and resulting contributions to marketing thought are, in my opinion, now approaching those of my academic guru of a half century ago, Wroe Alderson. Both Wroe and Roger, each in his own time, repeatedly demonstrated the ability to overwhelm me academically with both the breadth and the depth of their thinking. Occasionally, however, Alderson also left me with a feeling that he was intellectually trying to accomplish much too much and to do so far too quickly. Slow down, Wroe, I often thought, please slow down for us mere mortals as we struggle to keep up with you. Can’t we just take one modest intellectual step at a time rather than attempting giant leaps? Now, a half century later, I wonder if Roger is also trying to do too much too soon in his current effort to convert marketing into a social science, an undertaking about which I have some real doubts. First of all, it is worth noting that neither being nor becoming a social science is now generally recognized as in itself an intellectual or “Divine State of Grace.” Social science research is already having its own identity crisis, with criticisms being leveled at what is now being studied by the various social sciences, how and how well is it being studied, what are the controlling mind-sets that are too rarely acknowledged, how the way such research is financed affects things, and how the mores of the academic establishment have complicated, and, in some cases, even corrupted the entire process. Those interested in learning more about this disciplinary angst might find recent papers by Boyd (2016) and Prewitt (2016) a most useful starting point. And then, of course, there is the challenge posed by conflicting and even contradictory schools of thought and by the very extensive bodies of literature supporting these conflicting positions found within each of economics, sociology, anthropology and the other generally recognized social sciences. How much must be learned, and by how many different marketing scholars, about the content, the context and the conflicts within each of these other academic domains? Phrased another way, what are the
* E-mail address: [email protected].
academic dues those who would reposition marketing as a social science must be prepared to pay? Similarly, and with all due respect, I don’t think our primary concern at this stage of marketing’s intellectual development should be to reposition our discipline as a social science. Perhaps, just perhaps, this is a desirable, and even eventually attainable, intellectual objective, but it is one that at best could only be achieved over a considerable number of years. It takes time to reorient any discipline, and with any reorientation comes disruption. A review of the history of how first the Ford Foundation sponsored quantitative wave of the 1960s and then the behavioral sciences assault that soon followed both impacted the discipline of marketing makes that clear. How much longer will it take to convert marketing from a provisioning technology if we must first absorb into our discipline’s mainstream all that a wide range of social sciences might contribute? And how exactly do we get there from here? How much intra-disciplinary feuding will go on before, if ever, marketing doctoral programs reintroduce the marketing theory and thought courses that would have to be both the academic home of such an effort and the intellectual launching pads for any subsequent major repositioning of our discipline? Our doctoral programs have in recent decades focused steadily increasing attention on research methods at the expense of “big issue” societal concerns. How likely is that to change in the foreseeable future? Fifty years after my apprenticeship with Alderson, I am still one who advocates a “one step at a time” approach to intellectual progress. There are indeed a few among us who are seminal thinkers capable of big picture academic breakthroughs. However, most of us do our best researching within the framework of such seminal concepts, refining, polishing and occasionally, on a very good day, modestly reshaping one minor intellectual component or another. This is exactly the strategy that should now be followed, not as we reposition marketing as a social science but rather as we again (and, remember, it was done in the past (Lazer and Kelley, 1962)) draw upon the literature of the different social sciences. This is a literature that is itself often confusing and conflicting but, nevertheless, still highly informative, and can yield new insights on the exchange processes and provisioning systems upon which marketers,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2016.08.011 1441-3582/© 2016 Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
256
S.J. Shapiro / Australasian Marketing Journal 24 (2016) 255–256
at least macromarketers, should be focusing. It is also worth noting that a strong case can, and has been made, (Brown, 2001) that there is much to learn, before we choose to boldly march forward, from first carefully reviewing a half century of debate as to whether marketing is in fact more art or science. Fortunately, we do not have to share Dr. Layton’s views as to the desirability of marketing becoming a social science in order to benefit from all the reading he has done in a wide variety of other academic disciplines. In the course of his latest academic odyssey Professor Layton has uncovered for us incredibly relevant readings from archeology, anthropology, history, analytical sociology and economics. Being Roger, and only as Roger could, he then for each chosen source demonstrates the obvious marketing relevance especially as regards the development and functioning of markets and of marketing systems. His discussion of “field theory” as set forth by Fligstein and McAdam (2012), for example, is an introduction to a method of analysis of obvious relevance both to the functioning of markets and as well to “the politics of distribution.” This is an important topic that has in recent years been all but neglected. Once again, though, a familiar problem arises. The Fligstein and McAdam discussion of “field theory” is only one of a number of differing approaches to that topic one finds in the literature. How does an intellectual voyeur from another discipline choose? Hopefully, younger marketing scholars will now travel this intellectual trail as well as all the other social science paths that Roger identified in his seminal paper as having obvious marketing significance. Indeed, I would urge them to do so, although with some degree of caution. But, and as I have already repeatedly indicated,
I differ from Dr. Layton, in one important respect. I expect major contributions to marketing thought that would follow in due course were the contributions from the social sciences Layton identified to be pursued by others; but preferably without our having to expend all the time and effort necessary to reposition an entire discipline. I’d much rather we view the now generally considered social sciences as the source of “new to marketing” concepts and approaches that could and should provide us with different perspectives on what macromarketing, in my opinion (an opinion shaped originally by Fisk (1981)), is all about – the study of both how and how well, in economies and social orders of all sorts and during both the past and the present, marketing, markets and marketing systems have collectively served as society’s provisioning technology.
References Boyd, D., 2016. Why social science risks irrelevance. Chron. High. Educ. 62. July 24, 2016. Available online. Brown, S., 2001. Art or science? Fifty Years of marketing debate. Mark. Rev. 2, 89–119. Fisk, G., 1981. An invitation to participate in affairs of the journal of macromarketing. J. Macromark. I (Spring), 3–6. Fligstein, N., McAdam, D., 2012. A Theory of Fields. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Lazer, W., Kelley, E., 1962. Interdisciplinary contributions to marketing management. In: Lazer, E.J., Kelley, W. (Eds.), Managerial Marketing: Perspectives and Viewpoints, rev ed. Richard D. Irwin, Inc., Homewood, Illinois, pp. 586–606. Originally from Lazer, E.J., Kelley, W., 1959. Marketing and Transportation Paper No. 5, Bureau of Business and Economic Research, College of Business and Public Service, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI. Prewitt, K., 2016. Can social science matter. Items – Insights from the Social Sciences. May 3, 2016. Available online.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Australasian Marketing Journal j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s e v i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / a m j
Commentary
The case for borrowing rather than becoming Stanley J. Shapiro * Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, Canada
A R T I C L E
I N F O
Article history: Available online 25 August 2016
It is with considerable reluctance and even greater academic concern that I find myself taking issue with any intellectual position assumed by Roger Layton, a scholar whose academic range and resulting contributions to marketing thought are, in my opinion, now approaching those of my academic guru of a half century ago, Wroe Alderson. Both Wroe and Roger, each in his own time, repeatedly demonstrated the ability to overwhelm me academically with both the breadth and the depth of their thinking. Occasionally, however, Alderson also left me with a feeling that he was intellectually trying to accomplish much too much and to do so far too quickly. Slow down, Wroe, I often thought, please slow down for us mere mortals as we struggle to keep up with you. Can’t we just take one modest intellectual step at a time rather than attempting giant leaps? Now, a half century later, I wonder if Roger is also trying to do too much too soon in his current effort to convert marketing into a social science, an undertaking about which I have some real doubts. First of all, it is worth noting that neither being nor becoming a social science is now generally recognized as in itself an intellectual or “Divine State of Grace.” Social science research is already having its own identity crisis, with criticisms being leveled at what is now being studied by the various social sciences, how and how well is it being studied, what are the controlling mind-sets that are too rarely acknowledged, how the way such research is financed affects things, and how the mores of the academic establishment have complicated, and, in some cases, even corrupted the entire process. Those interested in learning more about this disciplinary angst might find recent papers by Boyd (2016) and Prewitt (2016) a most useful starting point. And then, of course, there is the challenge posed by conflicting and even contradictory schools of thought and by the very extensive bodies of literature supporting these conflicting positions found within each of economics, sociology, anthropology and the other generally recognized social sciences. How much must be learned, and by how many different marketing scholars, about the content, the context and the conflicts within each of these other academic domains? Phrased another way, what are the
* E-mail address: [email protected].
academic dues those who would reposition marketing as a social science must be prepared to pay? Similarly, and with all due respect, I don’t think our primary concern at this stage of marketing’s intellectual development should be to reposition our discipline as a social science. Perhaps, just perhaps, this is a desirable, and even eventually attainable, intellectual objective, but it is one that at best could only be achieved over a considerable number of years. It takes time to reorient any discipline, and with any reorientation comes disruption. A review of the history of how first the Ford Foundation sponsored quantitative wave of the 1960s and then the behavioral sciences assault that soon followed both impacted the discipline of marketing makes that clear. How much longer will it take to convert marketing from a provisioning technology if we must first absorb into our discipline’s mainstream all that a wide range of social sciences might contribute? And how exactly do we get there from here? How much intra-disciplinary feuding will go on before, if ever, marketing doctoral programs reintroduce the marketing theory and thought courses that would have to be both the academic home of such an effort and the intellectual launching pads for any subsequent major repositioning of our discipline? Our doctoral programs have in recent decades focused steadily increasing attention on research methods at the expense of “big issue” societal concerns. How likely is that to change in the foreseeable future? Fifty years after my apprenticeship with Alderson, I am still one who advocates a “one step at a time” approach to intellectual progress. There are indeed a few among us who are seminal thinkers capable of big picture academic breakthroughs. However, most of us do our best researching within the framework of such seminal concepts, refining, polishing and occasionally, on a very good day, modestly reshaping one minor intellectual component or another. This is exactly the strategy that should now be followed, not as we reposition marketing as a social science but rather as we again (and, remember, it was done in the past (Lazer and Kelley, 1962)) draw upon the literature of the different social sciences. This is a literature that is itself often confusing and conflicting but, nevertheless, still highly informative, and can yield new insights on the exchange processes and provisioning systems upon which marketers,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2016.08.011 1441-3582/© 2016 Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
256
S.J. Shapiro / Australasian Marketing Journal 24 (2016) 255–256
at least macromarketers, should be focusing. It is also worth noting that a strong case can, and has been made, (Brown, 2001) that there is much to learn, before we choose to boldly march forward, from first carefully reviewing a half century of debate as to whether marketing is in fact more art or science. Fortunately, we do not have to share Dr. Layton’s views as to the desirability of marketing becoming a social science in order to benefit from all the reading he has done in a wide variety of other academic disciplines. In the course of his latest academic odyssey Professor Layton has uncovered for us incredibly relevant readings from archeology, anthropology, history, analytical sociology and economics. Being Roger, and only as Roger could, he then for each chosen source demonstrates the obvious marketing relevance especially as regards the development and functioning of markets and of marketing systems. His discussion of “field theory” as set forth by Fligstein and McAdam (2012), for example, is an introduction to a method of analysis of obvious relevance both to the functioning of markets and as well to “the politics of distribution.” This is an important topic that has in recent years been all but neglected. Once again, though, a familiar problem arises. The Fligstein and McAdam discussion of “field theory” is only one of a number of differing approaches to that topic one finds in the literature. How does an intellectual voyeur from another discipline choose? Hopefully, younger marketing scholars will now travel this intellectual trail as well as all the other social science paths that Roger identified in his seminal paper as having obvious marketing significance. Indeed, I would urge them to do so, although with some degree of caution. But, and as I have already repeatedly indicated,
I differ from Dr. Layton, in one important respect. I expect major contributions to marketing thought that would follow in due course were the contributions from the social sciences Layton identified to be pursued by others; but preferably without our having to expend all the time and effort necessary to reposition an entire discipline. I’d much rather we view the now generally considered social sciences as the source of “new to marketing” concepts and approaches that could and should provide us with different perspectives on what macromarketing, in my opinion (an opinion shaped originally by Fisk (1981)), is all about – the study of both how and how well, in economies and social orders of all sorts and during both the past and the present, marketing, markets and marketing systems have collectively served as society’s provisioning technology.
References Boyd, D., 2016. Why social science risks irrelevance. Chron. High. Educ. 62. July 24, 2016. Available online. Brown, S., 2001. Art or science? Fifty Years of marketing debate. Mark. Rev. 2, 89–119. Fisk, G., 1981. An invitation to participate in affairs of the journal of macromarketing. J. Macromark. I (Spring), 3–6. Fligstein, N., McAdam, D., 2012. A Theory of Fields. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Lazer, W., Kelley, E., 1962. Interdisciplinary contributions to marketing management. In: Lazer, E.J., Kelley, W. (Eds.), Managerial Marketing: Perspectives and Viewpoints, rev ed. Richard D. Irwin, Inc., Homewood, Illinois, pp. 586–606. Originally from Lazer, E.J., Kelley, W., 1959. Marketing and Transportation Paper No. 5, Bureau of Business and Economic Research, College of Business and Public Service, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI. Prewitt, K., 2016. Can social science matter. Items – Insights from the Social Sciences. May 3, 2016. Available online.