What to codify: marketing science or marketing engineering?
Author: Midgley, David INSEAD Area: MarketingIn: Marketing Theory, vol. 2, no. 4, December 2002 Language: EnglishDescription: p. 363-367.Type of document: INSEAD ArticleNote: Please ask us for this itemAbstract: Rossiter (2001) has provided a stimulating and provocative "call to arms" to our field. He envisages a brighter future where there is broad agreement over the definition of marketing concepts and where our structural frameworks are "comprehensive and proven." More critically he asks us to develop our own strategic and research "principles," allowing us to offer good solutions for the diverse market and competitive situations in which marketing practitioners will find themselves. In other words, that we should seek to codify the body of marketing knowledge into a more defined, systematic and useful form than exists at present. Given the rather poor track record of marketing in codifying knowledge (Armstrong and Schultz, 1993), this is a very bright future indeed. Indeed, it raises many legitimate questions about our ability as a field to progress in this direction and what reforms to our doctoral education, journal review procedures and professional norms might be required to facilitate such dramatic progress. However, the author's purpose is not to outline these reforms, rather it is to ask, "For what purpose does one seek to codify marketing knowledge?"| Item type | Current location | Call number | Status | Date due | Barcode | Item holds |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Europe Campus | Available | BC008028 |
Ask Qualtrics
Rossiter (2001) has provided a stimulating and provocative "call to arms" to our field. He envisages a brighter future where there is broad agreement over the definition of marketing concepts and where our structural frameworks are "comprehensive and proven." More critically he asks us to develop our own strategic and research "principles," allowing us to offer good solutions for the diverse market and competitive situations in which marketing practitioners will find themselves. In other words, that we should seek to codify the body of marketing knowledge into a more defined, systematic and useful form than exists at present. Given the rather poor track record of marketing in codifying knowledge (Armstrong and Schultz, 1993), this is a very bright future indeed. Indeed, it raises many legitimate questions about our ability as a field to progress in this direction and what reforms to our doctoral education, journal review procedures and professional norms might be required to facilitate such dramatic progress. However, the author's purpose is not to outline these reforms, rather it is to ask, "For what purpose does one seek to codify marketing knowledge?"
Digitized
There are no comments for this item.