Tài liệu Marketing Theory Matters by Dawn Burton doc

Marketing Theory Matters
Dawn Burton
Centre for Business Management, Queen Mary, University of London, Mile End Road, London, E1 4NS, UK
Email:
There have been concerns about the slow pace of theory development inside and outside
of marketing for a number of years. Rarely have some of the possible reasons for this
lack of development been considered, or an assessment of the ways in which a more
theoretically driven focus might emerge been discussed. This paper addresses these gaps
in the current debate. Potential difficulties have emerged as a result of a lack of
theorists, lack of theory courses, business school strategies and misguided perceptions of
practitioner-oriented research amongst other things. Suggestions for future action to
drive a more theoretically driven marketing are proposed.
Concerns about the slow progress of theory
development in marketing have existed over a
significant number of years (Alderson and Cox,
1948; Bartels, 1976; Halbert, 1965). The perceived
lack of theoretical discourse has prompted
several AMA Educators conferences and special
issues in high-profile journals in an atte mpt to
generate more interest (Bush and Hunt, 1982;
Hunt, 1983; Lamb and Dunne, 1980). At the end
of the millennium a more theoretically driven
marketing was identified as an important area for
future development in special issues of the
Journal of Marketing (Day and Montgomery,
1999), Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science (Malhotra, 1999) and Psychology and
Marketing (Taylor, 1999), amongst others.
Alongside academics that favour a more theore-
tical focus per se, are those that advocate a more
critical theoretical discourse of various persua-

sions (Brownlie et al., 1999; Burton, 2001;
Dholakia, Fuat Firat and Bagozzi, 1980; Gron-
roos, 1994; Gummesson, 2001; Ozanne and
Murray, 1991, 1995).
Of course, there will be academics within the
discipline that are willing to disregard the
growing evidence of a lack of theoretical orienta-
tion. They point to the extensive range of subjects
and theories from which marketing already draws
citing economics, psychology, sociology and
cultural studies as examples. A rather different
interpretation is that if marking academics
believe that by extensively theory borrowing they
are creating a theory-driven discipline, they are
deluding themselves. Theory-borrowing alone is
not the issue. How borrowed theory is trans-
formed and applied in a marketing context and
thereafter perceived as a valuable resource by
providing new insights and theory is a crucial
measure. What the impact indicators inform
marketing academics is that they cite from many
other disciplines, but far less frequently does the
reverse occur (Baumgartner and Pieters, 2003).
This evidence demonstrates that academics in
other disciplines perceive marketing theory and
marketing academics as having little to offer,
theoretically or otherwise.
A strategy often deployed by marketing aca-
demics to defend their position at the bottom of
the theory hierarchy of business school disci-

plines, is to play the ‘stak eholder card’. The
argument goes something like this. Marketing is
an applied discipline, it has many stakeholders, of
which practitioners are one of the principal
constituents. The main function of marketing
academics is therefore to provide useful knowl-
edge for business, not develop theory that is some
distance removed from the day-to-day realities of
marketing practitioners. Academics writing for
academics is indicative of Mode 1 research, and is
out of date. Marketing is therefore one of the
British Journal of Management, Vol. 16, 5–18 (2005)
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2005.00432.x
r 2005 British Academy of Management
more enlightened business school disciplines at
the forefront of Mode 2 and 3 research (Starkey
and Madan, 2001).
Reasonable as they might seem, the stake-
holder arguments with respect to practitioner-
oriented research do not hold up under scrutiny.
There is no self-evident relationship betw een lack
of theory in a discipline and the ability to
undertake research/consultancy for industry in
marketing or elsewhere (Grey, 2001). There is
mounting evidence, and there has been for some
time, that marketing knowledge in its current
form is not particularly valued by business. It has
long been recognized that graduates of any
discipline are recruited to marketing positions
and the acquisition of professional examinations

is not a prerequisite for a senior marketing
appointment (Walker and Child, 1979). There is
seemingly little relationship between marketing
education and compa ny performance (Hunt,
1995), and few marketing directors are on the
boards of large companies in the USA and UK
(Doyle, 2000). The perceived need for marketing
knowledge in business has not been reflected in a
higher level of status awarded to marketing
practitioners or academic s (Willmott, 1999). A
related concern is that marketing academics’
perceptions of what marketing knowledge is,
are some distance removed from the realities of
everyday practices of marketing managers. Mar-
keting texts are largely normative in nature,
specifying in pr escriptive terms what needs to
be accomplished (what to do), but rarely doc-
umenting how marketers actually conduct their
business in practice (Brownlie and Saren, 1997;
Gummeson, 2002). Some of the most vocal
criticisms about the status of academic marketing
knowledge come from academics involved in
designing marketing management support sys-
tems, who recognize the considerable gulf be-
tween academic and practitioner marketing
knowledge (Wierenga, 2002).
Undoubtedly, the lack of theory generation in
marketing raises some uncomfortable issues for
marketing academics. One is that marketing
academics are intellectually incapable of generat-

ing theory (Fine and Leopold, 1993). This is an
extension of Piercy’s (1999) argument that aca-
demics moving into marketing from other dis-
ciplines are those who can no t make the grade in
their source discipline. In this sense marketing
becomes a repository of intellectually inferior
members, since man y academics in the field have
backgrounds other than marketing. This is
indeed a hard criticism and undermines some of
the very good theoretical and critical theoretical
work of marketing scholars, especially in top-tier
marketing journals such as the Journal of
Consumer Research.
A rather different approach would be to find
answers in the way marketing as a discipline and
discourse are socially and politically constructed
(Brownlie and Saren, 1996). Lazer (1967) pro-
vides a starting point by suggesting that the lack
of theorists and lack of theory courses in
academic institutions are the main reasons why
theory has been slow to develop in marketing
(Capella, Robin and Maronick 1986; Lazer,
1967). While this is an important starting point,
it is a rather simplistic assessment of what is a
rather more complex issue. The paper builds on
Lazer’s analysis and makes a contribution to
existing knowledge by considering additional
factors, including the lack of a widely agreed
upon marke ting syllabus, the lack of an ex tensive
range of marketing theory tex ts, business school

priorities, the publication-driven nature of mar-
keting and misplaced perceptions of practitioner-
oriented research. The paper begins with a
discussion about the lack of marketing theorists.
Lack of theorists
Bartel’s (1988) view that the lack of theory in
marketing can be attributed to a lack of theorists
would appear as well-founded today as it was
nearly 20 years ago. Few marketing academics
would readily identify themselves as marketing
theorists judging by their teaching preferences
and the paucity of theory-focused articles in
major journals (Baker and Erdogan, 2000).
Although marketing academics are a very eclectic
bunch in terms of their backgrounds and profes-
sional orientati on (Brownlie, 1997), the majority
of marketing academics more closely identify
themselves with marketing practice and applied
practitioner-oriented research, rather than theory
development. Further evidence for this is pro-
vided by the RAE submissions of marketing
academics that were highly concentrated in the
Journal of Marketing Management and the
European Journal of Marketing (Easton and
Easton, 2003). Both of these journals are
6 D. Burton
classified as havin g an overwhelming focus on
marketing applications (Bau mgartner and Pi-
eters, 2003).
It is not being suggested here that there is a firm

dichotomy between academics that are interested
in theory and others that favour practical applica-
tion,buttosuggestthattherearedifferencesinthe
relative importance of theory and theory develop-
ment in their work. In this respect marketing is
different from other social sciences where to be
identified as a theorist is a high status, high profile
position, since theorists play a pivotal role in
creatively advancing disciplines.
To fully appreciate the development of the
discipline requires a historical perspective. This
presents some difficulties for marketing aca-
demics since marketing history is one of the least
developed specialisms and competing views of its
development are limited (Holden and Holden,
1998; Jones and Monieson, 1990). The most
authoritative account is provided by Bartels
(1983), who argues that the lack of theorists in
marketing can be traced back to the 1960s and is
the outcome the relative influence of organized
groups of US practitioners and academics that
today comprise the American Marketing Asso-
ciation. He notes that the earliest teachers of
marketing in the USA were economists, and their
professional identification was first established in
1915 as the National Association of Teachers of
Advertising (NATA). These academics were
primarily responsible for developing the original
‘principles of marketing’, a body of thought no t
primarily intended for application to marketing

management problems’ (Bartels, 1983, p. 33). The
focus was on theory and theory generation,
particularly with respect to advertising. With
the broadening of activities introduced under the
auspices of marketing, other academics wished to
join the Association and as a result NATA and
the National Association of Marketing Teachers
was formed in 1933. Simultaneously, and inde-
pendently of ac ademic organizations, practitioner
groups were establishing themselves, and in 1930
they formed the American Marketing Society. In
1937, the practitioners merged with the teachers’
group to become the American Marketing
Association.
The merging of the two groups formed the
basis of a closer working relationship between
academia and industry, although conflicts arose
due to their different orientations. Initially
academic interests prevailed, but as the influence
of practitioners increased the emphasis was
’shifted from theoretical to empirical research,
from basic to applied thought devel opment, and
from educational to occupational concerns’
(Bartels, 1983, p. 33). One of the consequences
was that vocationalism was introduced into
academic marketing programmes. In undergrad-
uate programmes, marketing management was
introduced as an introductory course rather than
something more broadly based. At graduate
level, courses in historical perspectives in the

development of marketing and marketing
thought were largel y eliminated by the end of
the 1950s and early 1960s.
The shift to a more applied, practical approach
to the teaching of marketing in the USA,
coincided with the expansion of British business
schools in the mid-1960s (Midgley, 1970). The
American model was adopted in its entiret y
without a marketing theory specialism, or theo-
retical orientation (Spillard, 1967). The wholesale
adoption of the US business education model was
not unique to marketing, nor was it specific to the
UK. The transfer of US technical and managerial
know-how was adopted in many areas of
Western Europe and Japan in the post-War
period. However, in Britain during the 1960s
there was already recognition that the US one-
size-fits-all model of marketing knowledge was
not entirely appropriate. A decisive factor in the
publication of Britain’s first marketing journal,
the British Journal of Marketing in 1967, was to
counteract the highly North-Am erican nature of
marketing education imported into Britain,
whether in the form of textbooks or research
methods (Willis, 1967). As a result of the
temporal-spatial relationship of marketing
knowledge in the USA and the UK during the
1960s, many of Britain’s ‘mature’ professors of
marketing have not been actively involved in
teaching a theory specialism, nor teaching from a

theoretical perspective, whereas this is not true of
the USA.
One way to ensure a supply of theorists in the
future, is to give theory a higher profile in the
training programmes of doctoral students who
will comprise the next generation of marketing
academics and practitioners. As Venkatesh (1985,
p. 63) argues, ‘theory development requires a
kind of training which is not available to most
academic marketers who come out of traditional
Marketing Theory Matters 7
marketing departments, where the emphasis is on
empirical research, data analysis, and quantita-
tive modelling. These areas offer limited potential
for theory generation’. A similar point is made by
Zaltman, LeMasters and Heffring (1982, p. 5)
who argue that ‘creating theory is not the same as
understanding, modelling, and testing theory.
Little guidance is available to the marketing
student about creating theories’.
During the mid-1980s, an AMA-commissioned
report on the state of research training in the
USA, found considerable variation in the content
and quality of doctoral programmes, with little
focus on theory or theory development (Tybout,
1986). As a result, there was reluctance to
describe students as ‘highly qualified’ marketing
theorists at the end of the process (Capella,
Robin and Maronick, 1986). In the UK, the
current Economic and Social Research Council

Training Guidelines make no mention of theory
or theory generation in marketing, although it is
addressed as an important issue in other manage-
ment specialisms (Burton, 2003; ESRC, 2002).
The lack of support to theory development in
doctoral programmes is not desirable, as Levy
(2002, p. 303) acknowledges ‘To deny the need
for this support is a foolish ‘‘know-nothing’’ anti-
intellectual attitude that does not understand the
role and necessity of basic research whose
practical value may not be immediately appar-
ent’. It is important that theory is actively written
into formal doctoral training guidelines, since the
emphasis given to particular elements can be a
highly subjective process. Trocchia and Berko-
witz (1999) have demonstrated the ways in which
supervisors socialize research students according
to their particular set of beliefs. Allowing super-
visors to control research-training content is
likely to reinforce the status quo.
Lack of theory courses
Given the lack of theorists in marketing, it is not
surprising that marketing theory has not emerged
as a core specialism in marketing discourse. In
this respect, marketing is fundamentally different
from the social sciences from which it evolved
and from other business school disciplines
including organizational studies where a theory
specialism is deeply embedded in disciplinary
discourse. Students studying these disciplines will

be exposed to the theoretical underpinnings of
their chosen subject in the first term of their
undergraduate studies, with an advanced version
usually incorporated into Masters degree pro-
grammes. While some marketing academics
could have concerns about teaching marketing
theory early on in the syllabus, a broadly based
theory course would provide a us eful foundation
for specialist modules taught later on .
There are considerable cross-national varia-
tions in the extent to which a marketing theory
specialism is incorporated into marketing syllabi
at undergraduate and postgraduate level in the
Pacific Rim, the USA and Europe. There are also
differences in the precise content of courses and
the importance of theory within different institu-
tional contexts (Baker and Erdogan, 2000;
Hetzel, 2000; Howard and Ryans, 1993; Howard
et al., 1991; Polonsky and Mankelow, 2000;
Schlegelmilch, 2000). Capella, Robin and Mar-
onick’s (1986) analysis of marketing theory
courses over twenty years in the USA, found
there was a decline in the percentage of institu-
tions offering theory courses at masters level and
an increase at doctora l level. Over the same
period there was also an observable change in the
orientation of theory courses. Those of a
descriptive and historical nature declined, while
those that focused on the nature of theory based
on the philosophy of science dramatically in-

creased. In the USA there are wide divergences in
the emphasis that marketing theory is given in
business schools that are AACSB and non-
AACSB accredited, and institutions provide
differential rewards to theory generation (Mar ti-
nez, Toyne and Menger, 2000).
In France, business schools belonging to the
state university system have a strong research
tradition and place a significant emphasis on
theory development and the teaching of theory.
On the other hand, private business schools
usually belong to the chamber of commerce
system, are largely staffed by former marketing
managers whose training was in ‘the marketing
field and not marketing theory’ (Hetzel, 2000,
p. 699). Apart from the very highest echelons,
private schools are practice oriented, and in the
past research was not valued. To some extent
these trends are changing as younger people with
PhDs are being recruited to work in private
schools, often promoting a culture clash with
older academics in the same department.
8 D. Burton
The very segmented employment streams that
are observable in France and the USA are not as
evident in Britain; indeed one might argue that
trends are moving in the opposite direction. The
conversion of former polytechnics into universi-
ties is one example of this shift, blurring the line
between the ‘traditional research focused institu-

tions’ and those that are predominantly teaching
institutions. However, perhaps a more relevant
feature is the current employment market in
Britain. As a result of rapidly expanding student
numbers, highly qualified marketing academics
are often difficult to attract and keep. Even in
high status, research-led universities where one
might have expected significant numbers of mar-
keting theorists to be employed, and therefore
marketing theory to be taught, they are largely
absent. Another trend is to employ practitioners,
or former practitioners in lecturing positions to
cover shortfalls in teaching. Arguably these
trends are not conducive to a heightened theore-
tical focus in teaching, indeed quite the reverse,
with far more emphasis on practical application.
The lack of an emphasis on teaching theory
courses needs to be acknowledged and dealt with,
as such courses could act as a focus for change
and stimulate more interest in theory and theory
development, which has the potential to transform
the discipline. According to this line of reasoning,
a marketing theory course should be incorpo-
rated as a core course at first-year undergraduate
level. The function of such provision would be to
map the field of marketing, giving some context
to marketing as an economic, social and political
activity in its historical context. This foundation
could be built upon in subsequent modules of a
more applied nature.

A rather different position would be to oppose
the incorporation of dedicated marketing theory
courses on the grounds that marketing as an
academic and practical activity is organized
around marketing specialisms. According to this
line of argument the way to integrate more mark-
eting theory into the curriculum is to heighten the
theoretical content within existing specialisms. It
is already fairly widely acknowledged that the
theoretical infrastructure within specialisms var-
ies widely (Burton, 2001). Theory is probably the
most advanced in the area of consumer behavi-
our, and researchers in that specialism have taken
an active interest in documenting the theoretical
development of the field (Belk, 1995), while in
other areas, for example exporting, there has
reportedly been little theoretical development
over the last twenty years (Piercy, 2002). A more
proactive approach to theory building within
specialisms would require an audit of courses to
determine where and how the level of theore tical
content might be increased. The downside of this
approach is that a very fragmented and compart-
mentalized approach to the teaching of theory is
adopted, with few overriding theoretical perspec-
tives that integrate specialisms together. In the
long term, both approaches working in tandem
are highly desirable.
Lack of a widely agreed-upon
marketing theory syllabus

Another barrier to a heightened theoretical focus
in marketing is the lack of a widely agreed-upon,
standardized marketing theory syllabus. In many
marketing specialisms, what is deemed to be
appropriate content has evolved and been widely
agreed upon within the marketing community
over a significant number of years, drawing on
journal articles, texts and possibly in conjunction
with marketing practitioners. For example, the
syllabus relating to marketing research, consumer
behaviour and services marketing will vary little
between institutions and academics. This is not
the case for marketing theory (November, 2002).
One approach to the development of a market-
ing theory syllabus is set out in Table 1 and
includes theories ‘of ’ marketing, theories ‘in’
marketing, practitioner theories in use and critical
approaches to marketing theory. Each of these
elements will be discussed in the remainder of the
section.
Theory definition
At the heart of the marketing theory debate is
defining the criteria of a theory. Depending on
how one defines the term ‘theory’, marketing
could be either theory rich or theory impover-
ished. During the 1960s and 1970s, the criterion
for defining a theory was given considerable
attention by marketing academics. For example,
drawing on the philosophy of the sciences
literature, Hunt (1983) argued that marketing

theories could only be legitimately designated as
theories if they (1) comprise a systematically set
of statements (2) consisted of law-like general-
Marketing Theory Matters 9
izations, and (3) were empirically testable propo-
sitions. Other marketers have argued that mar-
keting is essentially dealing with human
endeavour and is essentially a social process.
Marketing as a social process cannot be studied
and measured by importing the criteria of theory
from the sciences (Gummesson, 2002). According
to this interpretation, Hunt’s criteria, and others
like it, are inappropriate vehicles for theory
construction in marketing.
Venkatesh (1985) argues that theori es can be
represented in a hierarchical structure (see Table
2). The highest form of theoretical representati on
closely conforms to the definition of theory in the
natural sciences. He argues that theory in this
form does not exist in marketing. The lowest
forms are sets of empirical findings that are not
supported by any theoretical explanation. Mar-
keting research is largely concentrated at the
lower levels of the theoretical hierarchy, and the
inability to climb the ladder in any meaningful
sense has led to a theory crisis in marketing.
Theories ‘of ’ marketing
There is some disagreement about where the
emphasis in marketing theory development
should be placed. Some marketing academics

would argue for a general theory of marketing
and the focus of theory development within the
discipline should be directed towards this end
(Hunt, 1983). Bagozzi’s (1975) general theory of
marketing as exchange is one such example.
Much of the valuable literature in this area has
been written up as biographies (Brown, 2001,
2002).
Theories of marketing have an impo rtant place
within the theoretical development of the discipl-
ine; however, to confine theoretical contributions
to this area alone is perhaps too narrow a focus.
It is a very specialized area of discourse and it is
unlikely to capture the imagination of significant
numbers of marketing academics. There have
also been doubts about the utility of this app-
roach to theory development from marketing
practitioners who believe that grand theories of
marketing are some distance removed from day-
to-day marketing practice (Bird, 1996) and by
marketing academics who regard it as a waste of
time and effort (Prendergast and Berthon, 2000).
Theories ‘in’ marketing
Other academics would argue that the focus
should be on generating theory ‘in’ marketing
rather than ‘of’ marketing. This is a much wider,
Table 1. Marketing theory syllabus
Theme Content
Existence of marketing theory Issue of boundaries and multidisciplinarity
Theory definition Different criteria for theory, existence in marketing

Theories ‘of’ marketing Main contributions and contributors in the field, difficulties of the approach
Theories ‘in’ marketing Distinction between theory of and in marketing, importance of specialisms in
generating theory
Critical approaches to marketing theory Definitions of critical theory in marketing, barriers to its implementation
Practitioner theories in use Importance of theory to practitioners: metalanguage, management learning and
extending terms of reference
Table 2. A hierarchical theoretical structure
Notions of theory Situation in marketing
Highest form Theory (natural science model) None exists
Carefully developed classificatory schemata Very few
Complex models A small number
Complex concepts leading to interesting findings A small number
Research questions of highest significance Quite a few and growing
Broad ideas about how marketing phenomena behave A large number
Expectations about empirical findings A large number
Lowest form Relating empirical findings to other empirical findings A large number
Source: Venkatesh, 1985.
10 D. Burton
and some might argue, inclusive position. For
example, the theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen,
1985) and the theory of reasoned action (Fishbein
and Ajzen, 1975) both originate in psychology
but have formed the basis of a great deal of
research in marketing over the years (for example
see Davies Foxall and Pallister, 2002; Foxall,
1997). Another approach is a consideration of the
ways in which theori es in marketing have been
generated. One contemporary example is that of
the development of relationship marketing theory
having its roots in services marke ting, marketing

channel management, business marketing and the
interaction of networks, and direct and database
marketing (Moller and Halinen, 2000).
The development of theory in marketing is a
bottom-up rather than top-down approach to
theory building. It is probably a more accessible
approach to theory development for most aca-
demics, since theory can be generated through
marketing specialisms in which most marketing
academics feel comfortable working. For exam-
ple, O’Driscoll and Murray (1998) argue that
although there has been little movement towards
a general theory of marketing in recent years,
within individual marketing specialisms there has
been a con siderable amount of theory building.
Practitioner theories in use
The view that theory is of little relevance to
marketing practitioners is simply incorrect, since
they can and do actively use theories and con-
cepts in their day-to-day activities (Cornelissen,
2002; Lus ch, 1980). In the 1970s, practitioners
were writing articles in marketing journals
requesting a more conceptual menu and inter -
disciplinary approach to university marketing
courses (Dillon-Malone, 1970). There was a reco-
gnition that good quality marketing theory should
have positive, practical outcomes, whereas poor
marketing theory is of little practical value (see
also Gummesson, 2001, 2002). Co nsiderable att-
ention in marketing has been paid to the percei-

ved gap between marketing theory and practice.
Far less emphasis has focused on the importance
of theory building to practitioners and the con-
cept of theories in use. Zaltman, LeMasters and
Heffring (1982) argue that practitioners should be
concerned with building theory for three main
reasons: the importance of devel oping metalan-
guage to enable managers to think more crea-
tively about their own thinking and the thinking
of others; the ability to learn efficiently in new
situations; and as a way of extending their terms
of reference.
Critical approaches to marketing theory
Another aspect of the theory debate in marketing
is the emergence of critical theory as a distinctive
approach to marketing knowledge. While the
concept of critical theory is self-evide nt in some
of the mature social sciences, e.g. sociology, its
definition in marketing is not so clear cut. In its
‘pure’ form critical theory is a very distinctive
tradition that has its roots in the Frankfurt
School in the writings of Habermas (1971) and
within marketing (Burton, 2001, 2002; Holt,
2002; Ozanne and Murray, 1991, 1995). At
another level, critical theory can be conceptua-
lized as an umbrell a term to refer to theory in a
critical tradition including philosophy in the case
of critical realism (Easton, 2002), feminism,
racism (Hirchman, 2001), and postmodernism
(Brown, 1994, 1995; Cova, 1999; Firat et al.,

1995). At another level, critical theory can be
conceived as an approach that is opposition to
mainstream marketing theory; for example,
relationship marketing as a critique of the
conventional marketing mix (Gronroos, 1994).
A final approach would argue that the generation
of theory implies critically evaluating the state of
existing knowledge and building upon this to
create new theoretical approaches.
Critical perspectives have not been widely
embraced in marketing; it is largely a minority
interest comprising different factions. The tradi-
tion of critical theory in marketing contrasts
starkly with the experience in accounting where
alternative critiques and theorizing have opened
up an important space between ‘conventional’
accounting literature and practice, often despite
opposition and sustained attacks from tradition-
alists (Gray, 2002). It is important that these
different theoretical traditions are acknowledged,
and incorporated into mainstream teaching even
though they may not be welcome in all institu-
tional contexts. As academics, we regularly state
in course outlines that the objectives of courses
include a critical evaluation of theory and
practice. In reality, marketing academics must
ask themselves whether they really do approach
Marketing Theory Matters 11
their teaching in this way (see also Walker et al.,
1998). It is important that critical theory in

marketing opens up new spaces, and is not just
simply a means of reacting to old ones. Some
headway has already been made with the estab-
lishment of new journals including the Journal of
Macromarketing, Consumption, Markets, and
Culture and Marketing Theory.Anextstepisto
evaluate the contribution and impact this discourse
is having on teaching and research in marketing.
Emphasizing the importance of good quality,
critical marketing theory could be perceived as a
step towards the ‘deMcDonaldization (Ritzer,
2001, p. 20) of marketing in higher education.
A comp rehensive theory course should contain
all of these elem ents to provide students with a
rich overview of the field.
Lack of appropriate marketing theory
texts
Another inhibiting factor to the generation and
teaching of marketing theory is the lack of
appropriate teaching materials and a relative
unwillingness to use theory texts from outside of
marketing to facilitate the discussion (Capella,
Robin and Maronick, 1986). Compared with
other areas of marketing discourse, few market-
ing theory texts are available (November, 2002).
It is difficult to envisage a situation where theory
will develop and flourish within marketing
without app ropriate texts to facilitate the dis-
cussion. Herein lies another issue; the relatively
little importance given to the writing of good

quality texts in marketing. Brownlie and Saren
(1995) argue that there is a stigma attached to
textbook writing, particularly when products
take the form of repackaging the ideas of the
original authors. However, teaching texts or the
‘Big, Fat Books About Marketing’, as Brown
(2001) would have them, do not necessarily have
to take this form and research-led theory texts are
evident in other social science and management
disciplines.
Existing marketing theory texts can be divided
into various categories, those that are broadly
based and cover a substantial terrain at a fairly
superficial level, and those that include discus-
sions of theory per se and theory within
specialisms (see Baker and Erdogan, 2000). A
number of texts have also been published relating
to marketing theory per se (Hunt, 1983; Sheth,
Gardner and Garrett, 1988) and theory building
in marketing (Zaltman, LeMasters and Heffring,
1982). Others specialize in particular aspects of
theory development for example, postmodernism
(Brown, 1995, 1997, 2001), alternative methodo-
logical approaches (Stern, 1995) and theoretical
positions drawn from the wider social sciences
(Foxall, 1997). There is a place for both broadly
based and specialized texts, depending on the
nature and level of the course and the expertise of
students.
The marketing academy will have to decide for

itself whether dedicated marketing theory texts
are desirable and what types of texts are most
appropriate to support this work. This decision
will ultimately be reflected in authors’ predis-
position to write such texts, the willingness of
publishers to publish them and academics’ will-
ingness to adopt them for use on their courses
(Holbrook, 1995; Hunt, 2002).
Business school priorities
Despite the considerable debate about marketing
theory (or the lack of it), the focus has tended to
be on the content as opposed to the organiza-
tional context in which theory is gener ated. This
is an important omission, since theory generation
is essentially ‘stripped’ from the social, economic
and political context of the higher education
system in which it is generated. Barry, Chandler
and Clark (2001, p. 87) argue that there have
been considerable changes to systems of higher
education in many advanced societies in recent
years. The move to mass higher education has led
some to argue that universities resemble assembly
lines in factories. Increasing student numbers,
targets, limited resources, quality audits, semes-
terization, research assessment exercises, league
tables and pressures of new course development
are all features of the contemporary academic
landscape. The MacDonaldization of higher
education has arguably led to undergraduate
degrees becoming an ‘insufficient credential for

anything of consequence (Hudson, 2001, p. 20)
and the value of management education, parti-
cularly the MBA, has been questioned (Lataif,
1992; Linder and Smith, 1992).
Considerable competition from alternative
suppliers has also emerged. In the USA, corpo-
12 D. Burton
rate universities are the fastest growing sector of
higher education. There are approximately 1800
corporate universities in existence, and over the
next decade they will outnumber traditional
higher education establishments (Prince and
Beaver, 2001). Further competition is emerging
from the numerous coalitions (universities, pub-
lishers and communications providers) of on-line
higher education suppliers (Goddard, 2001).
Business education is high on the agenda of these
organizations, and on-line course delivery is
particularly suited to a traditional marketing
course syllabi with its focus on applying existing
theories and models (Ponzurick, France and
Logar, 2000). Exploring theory and theoretical
development is more suited to face-to-face
delivery, since this gives more scope for interac-
tion and discussion. Lastly, the relationship
between professional marketing qualifications
that have a practical orientation and university
marketing modules have become blurred through
the use of CIM exemptions (Burton, 2001). Given
the considerable expense of a university educa-

tion, studying for professional marketing exam-
inations on a part-time basis that requires far less
time and fin ancial commitment could be per-
ceived as a better route into a marketing career
than an undergraduate degree.
Slaughter and Leslie’s (2001, p. 154) concept of
‘academic capitalism’ is instructive in under-
standing the relationship between the market
place and the theoretical content of marketing in
its focus on the market and market-like beha-
viours of universities and faculties. A key aspect
of academic capitalism is for organizations to
select an appropriate marketing mix in order to
win competitive advantage. In order to do this,
universities are responding to what customers
want, rather than what they need (Barrett, 1997).
Marketing courses including conversion courses
and DBAs are often money-generating activities
in their function of delivering what consumers
want, or rather what they think they need, which
is often practically focused provision that is no t
theory driven.
In their attempts to compete on a global basis,
universities are delivering what consumers want.
In marketing, this tends to be highly pr actical
provision akin to training marketers. This strat-
egy is having a negative effect on the teaching and
development of theory in many institutional
contexts (Holbrook, 1995). Short-term economic
gain by providing low-level practical tuition that

is rarely valued in the workplace if judged by the
poor relationship between marketing education
and company perform ance (Hunt, 2002), the fact
that few marketing directors are on the boards of
large companies (Doyle, 2000), and low levels of
professional closure (Enright, 2000), is not an
appropriate long-term strategy. Theory genera-
tion will provide innovative and exciting insights
that marketers need to effectively function at the
highest levels. Low-level, skills-bas ed tuition has
limited utility over the longer term; the skills and
ability to creatively think about marketing
problems will transcend this. Hence the mush-
rooming interest in managers’ cognitive compe-
tence (see Hodgkinson, 1997; Hodgkinson and
Sparrow, 2002).
In the longer term the most successful depart-
ments will possibly be those that are creative,
theory driven and have lots of new ideas and
approaches to offer marketers that are outside
their current frames of reference. If the observable
trends in academic capitalism continue, it is highly
likely that these creative marketing centres maybe
outside of the large business schools, in manage-
ment studies departments where the pressure to
conform to the essentially US model of business
education that is largely synonymous with mar-
keting management practice is often not as great.
The publication-driven nature of
marketing

The publication-driven nature of academia is a
trend that is evident in a number of countries and
is not unique to marketing (see Hetz el, 2000;
Sinkovics and Schlegelmilch, 2000). The empha-
sis on published output as a measure of academic
success has generat ed a raft of indicators includ-
ing the ranking marketing of marketing journals
(Hult, Neese and Bashaw, 1997), the contribution
of scholars and marketing departments in major
marketing journals (Bakir, Vitell and Rose,
2000), and the modelling of publication perfor-
mance (Diamantopoulos, 1996).
Bartels (1983, p. 33) argues that the ‘publish or
perish culture’ that has pervaded the process of
obtaining tenure for many years in the USA, has
had its part to play in marginalizing the role of
theory in marketing. He notes that the shift to-
wards a more practical orientation in marketing
Marketing Theory Matters 13
has resulted in publications that place less empha-
sis on marketing theory and more on implications
for practitioners. Promotion and tenure decisions
are based on the conduct of such research and he
notes that ‘motivation in scholarly work is for
short-term rather than long-term career payoffs.
And there is little concern for philosophy in
marketing even among more mature academics’.
Similar sentiments have been aired about short-
termism as one consequence of the UK research
assessment exercise in business and management

(Cooper and Otley, 1998), so have the inevitable
quality issues resulting from academics producing
multiple marketing publications to meet RAE tar-
gets (Piercy, 2000; Saren, 2000), and its impact on
the writing of theory papers in marketing (Brown,
1995). There is also a related concern that critical
theory is not well received in highly ranked US
journals, and this may be having the effect of
suppressing this area of theory development. As
Ardnt (1985, p. 19) indicates, ‘In marketing it
appears that the cost of heresy is high. In our
enlightened age the dissident marketing scientist is
not burned at the stake. Instead he or she is rather
more likely to suffer the slow burnout of never
emerging from the journals revision purgatories’.
There can be little doubt that the system of
tenure and RAEs maybe a contributory factor in
the lack of attention to theory in marketing for
the reasons ou tlined above. However, it needs to
be recognized that the highly empirical and
applied focus in marketing existed prior to the
system of tenure and RAEs. It is also apparent
that academics in oth er disciplines are under
pressure to produce high-quality work, yet they
do not have the same anti-intellectual, anti-
theoretical image that many marketing academics
tend to attract.
Some might argue that it is significant that over
the last decade some of the most influential theo-
retical developments, in particular with respect to

relationship marketing, had their roots in Scan-
dinavia and to a lesser extent in Australiasia.
Neither of these research environments are as pub-
lication-driven as either the USA or UK, nor do
they operate a system of tenure. This observation
maybe indicative of future trends. Some of the
most important theoretical developments maybe
generated in research environments where aca-
demics are able to spend time and are committed
to developing and writing theory papers. An im-
portant research project is to explore the relation-
ship between major theoretical advances and
research cultures in which they are generated; this
could include acknowledging the importance of
national academic research culture.
Misplaced perceptions of practitioner-
oriented research
The relationship betw een theory and practice in
management research is a long-standing debate
(Whitley, 1984, 1988) and discussions about
Modes 1, 2 and 3 research are a recent addition
to this dialogue (Huff and Huff, 2001; Starkey
and Madan, 2001; Tranfield and Starkey, 1998).
Much of the call to engage in practitioner-
oriented research includes meeting the needs of
stakeholders in more appropriate and efficient
ways. The solutions are often couched in terms of
creating bridges between academic institutions
and business by mechanisms promoting appro-
priate and effective knowledge exchange and

dissemination, creating forums and networks,
and developing new journals. The debate about
practitioner-oriented research has a long history
in marketing; however, it was noticeable that
none of the contributions in a recent special
issue in the British Journal of Management (see
Hodgkinson, 2001) were written from a market-
ing perspective.
Conflicts over the importance that should be
given to practitioner-oriented research in market-
ing has been the subject of bitter debate and are
neatly summarized by Holbrook (1995) in his
characterization of marketing academics as either
dogs or cats. The canine variety are more than
happy to wag their tails and please their masters
in industry by displaying plenty of tricks and
obediently doing as they are told for the next
research grant. The feline variety are much more
independent, are more likely to please themselves
and be more aloof. Dancing to the tune of
practitioners is not high on their agenda. For
Holbrook, the function of academics is to be
independent from practitioners and produce
good quality research that is theory driven. If
the research output is of interest to practitioners,
all well and good, but meeting the needs of
practitioners should not be high on the agenda of
marketing academics.
Piercy (1999, 2002) and others like him, on the
other hand, bemoan the lack of practitioner-

14 D. Burton
oriented research in marketing and a rgue that
business s chools i n general should have much c loser
working r elationships with industry. However,
when it comes to defining what the term practi-
tioner-oriented research is, there is little of sub-
stance beyond avoiding ‘methodological madness’
and giving managerial implications as much cover-
age as research results. There is little space given to
critically evaluating the discourse of practitioner-
oriented research and the issue of relevance
(Brownlie, 1997; Brownlie and Saren, 1997), or
of the importance of theory in this endeavour.
A middle-range position is exemplified by
Gummesson’s (2002) view that marketing aca-
demics need to generate a theory of marketing
management. He argues that both academics and
practising managers underrate the value of good
theory. There is a need in marketing for basic
research, whether generated deductively by pos-
ing questions from existing theory, or inductively
to come up with answers to question s not yet
asked. Meeting the demand for research that is
immediately applicable to please industry stimu-
lates short-term thinking, which, although it might
be a necessity, it does not tackle the generic
properties of marketing. Basic research takes time
and its future yields are uncertain, but it has the
power to generate long-term, dynamic change.
Advocates of practitioner-or iented research

also need to recognize that practitioners are only
one group of stakeholders in marketing (Denzin ,
2001) as is the case in other areas of management
(Grey, 1991). Marketing academics have no
hesitation in exploring stakeho lder orientation
in companies (see Greenley and Foxall, 1996) but
have been far more relucta nt to critically reflect
on the stakeholders of the marketing academy.
Hunt’s (2002) discussion of marketing as a pro-
fession and on closing stakeholder gaps acknowl-
edges the ‘problem of conceptuali zing practi-
tioners as the only stakeholders’, but his analysis
of multiple stakeho lders goes little further than
the training of technically competent and socially
responsible graduates, and the odd reference to
policy makers. There is an urgent need to theorize
who the stakeholders of marketing knowledge
should be and on what basis groups are included
and excluded, along with the relative importan ce
of each. Bazerman (2001) criticizes consumer rese-
archers and consumer research for failing to take
the educational needs of consumers seriously. Al-
though consumer researchers have developed some
very powerful insights, these in sights are likely t o b e
of more benefit to marketers than consumers. In
this respect consumer researchers have failed in
their responsibility to provide journalists with
information to pass on to readers. Other stake-
holders include the government, regulators and
consumer groups amongst others (Burton, 2003;

Hollander, Keep and Dickinson, 1999).
A debate needs to take place in marketing with
respect to what form practitioner-oriented and
other forms of stakeholder research should take
and the role of theory in this endeavour. Market-
ing theorists would argue that conceptualizing
practitioner-oriented resea rch as simply respond-
ing to the day-to-day needs of practitioners is a
totally inappropriate role for marketing aca-
demics, and it could be detrimental to industry
in the long-term. Fudging the issue by emphasiz-
ing diversity within the marketing academy
(Wensley, 2002) is not the answer. There needs
to be an open debate in marketing about the role
of theory in practitioner-oriented research.
Conclusion
In 1967, Lazer proposed two main reasons why
theory was slow to develop in marketing: the lack
of theorists and the lack of theory courses in
academic institutions. It would appear that relati-
vely little progress has been made in the inter-
vening quarter of a century. It has been argued
that additional factors play a contributory role in
explaining the lack of theoretical orientation and
these need to be recognized and addressed before
the situation is likely to improve. Incorporating a
more theoretical focus is likely to combat the
anti-intellectual image that has dogged marketing
and marketing academics for a considerable
period of time. A more theoretically driven dis-

course requires action at different levels: by indi-
viduals in terms of what they teach and their
research agendas; at the level of the marketing
community in the context of collectively agreeing
on some definition of the content of a marketing
theory syllabus, a consistent policy for the train-
ing of doctoral students, and opening up spaces
for alternative discourse, and at the institutional
level in relation to being able to control course
content in the face of heightened importance
given to academic capitalism. Unless each of these
levels is simultaneously addressed, the prognosis
Marketing Theory Matters 15
for change is likely to be po or and marketing will
remain the least-theorized business school speci-
alism. This situation is not desirable, and aca-
demics within business schools outside of the
discipline should support the few marketing
academics that are attempting to facilitate change,
since there is considerable opposition from within.
References
Ajzen, I. (1985). ‘From Intentions to Actions: A Theory of
Planned Behavour’. In J. Kuhl and J. Beckman (eds), Action
Control: from cognitions to behavior, pp. 11–39. Springer-
Verlag, Berlin.
Alderson, W. and R. Cox (1948). ‘Towards a Theory of
Marketing’, Journal of Marketing, 13 October, pp. 137–152.
Arndt, J. (1985). ‘The Tyranny of Paradigms: the case for
paradigm Pluralism in Marketing’. In N. Dholakia and
J. Arndt (eds), Changing the Course of Marketing: Alternative

Paradigms for Widening Marketing Theory. JAI Press,
Greenwich, CT.
Bagozzi, R. P. (1975). ‘Marketing as Exchange’, Journal of
Marketing, 39(October), pp. 32–39.
Baker, M. J. and B. Z. Erdogan (2000). ‘Who are we and what
do we do– 2000’, Journal of Marketing Management, 16,
pp. 679–696.
Bakir, A., S. J. Vitell and G. M. Rose (2000). ‘Publications in
major marketing journals: an analysis of scholars and
marketing departments’, Journal of Marketing Education,
22(2), pp. 99–102.
Barrett, L. R. (1997). ‘On students as customers – some
warnings from America’, Journal of Further and Higher
Education, pp. 70–73.
Barry, J., J. Chandler and H. Clark (2001). ‘Between the ivory
tower and the academic assembly line’, Journal of Manage-
ment Studies, 38(1), pp. 87–102.
Bartels, R. (1976). The History of Marketing Thought. Grid,
Columbus OH.
Bartels, R. (1983). ‘Is marketing defaulting its responsibilities?’,
Journal of Marketing, 47(4), pp. 32–35.
Baumgartner, H. and R. Pieters (2003). ‘The Structural
Influence of Marketing Journals: A Citation Analysis of the
Discipline and its Subareas Over Time’, Journal of Market-
ing, 67(April), pp. 123–139.
Bazerman, M. H. (2001). ‘Consumer Research for Consumers’,
Journal of Consumer Research, 27(March), pp. 499–511.
Belk, R. W. (1995). ‘Studies in the New Consumer Behaviour’.
In D. Miller, Acknowledging Consumption, pp. 58–95.
Routledge, London.

Bird, D. (1996). ‘Education Could be the Death of Good
Marketing’, Marketing, 5(December), p. 14.
Brown, S. (1995). Postmodern Marketing. Routledge, London.
Brown, S. (1997). Postmodern Marketing 2: Telling Tales.
International Thomson Press, London.
Brown, S. (2001). Marketing – the retro revolution. Sage, London.
Brown, S. (2002). ‘Reading Wroe: on the biopoetics of Alder-
son’s Functionalism’, Marketing Theory, 2(3), pp. 243–272.
Brownlie, D. (1997). ‘Beyond ethnography: Towards writerly
accounts of organizing in marketing’, European Journal of
Marketing, 31(3–4), pp. 1–16.
Brownlie, D. and M. Saren (1995). ‘On the Commodification of
Marketing Knowledge: Opening Themes’, Journal of Market-
ing Management, 11(3), pp. 619–627.
Brownlie, D. and M. Saren (1997). ‘Beyond the One-dimen-
sional Marketing Manager: The discourse of theory, practice
and relevance’, International Journal of Research in Market-
ing, 14(2), pp. 147–162.
Brownlie, D., M. Saren, R. Wensley and R. Whittington (1999).
‘Marketing Disequilibrium: On Redress and Restoration’.
In D. Brownlie, M. Saren, R. Wensley and R. Whittington
(eds), Rethinking Marketing. Sage, London.
Burton, D. (2001). ‘Critical marketing theory: the blueprint?’,
European Journal of Marketing, 35(5/6), pp. 722–743.
Burton, D. (2003). ‘Rethinking the UK System of Doctoral
Training in Marketing’, Journal of Marketing Management,
19(7–8), pp. 883–904.
Bush, R. F. and S. D. Hunt (1982). Marketing Theory:
Philosophy of Science Perspectives. AMA Conference Pro-
ceedings, Chicago.

Capella, L. M., D. P. Robin and T. J. Maronick (1986).
‘Marketing Theory Courses: Which Direction?’. In
J. Guuiltinan and D. Achabal (eds), Marketing Education:
Knowledge Development, Dissemination, and Utilization.
AMA Winter Educators Conference.
Cooper, C. and D. Otley (1998). ‘The 1996 Research Assess-
ment Exercise for Business and Management’, British Journal
of Management, 9, pp. 73–89.
Cornelissen, J. (2002). ‘Academic and Practitioner Theories of
Marketing’, Marketing Theory, 2(1), pp. 133–143.
Cova, B. (1999). ‘From marketing to societing: When the link is
more important than the thing’. In D. Brownlie, M. Saren,
R. Wensley and R. Whittington (eds), Rethinking Marketing.
Sage, London.
Davies, J., G. R. Foxall and J. Pallister (2002). ‘Beyond the
Intention-Behaviour Mythology: an integrated model of
recycling’, Marketing Theory, 2(1), pp. 29–114.
Day, G. S. and D. B. Montgomery (1999). ‘Charting New
Directions for Marketing’, Journal of Marketing, 63, pp.
3–13.
Denzin, N. K. (2001). ‘The Seventh Moment: Qualitative Inqui-
ry and the Practices of a More Radical Consumer Research’,
Journal of Consumer Research, 28(September), pp. 1–11.
Dholakia, N., A. Fuat Firat and R. P. Bagozzi (1980). ‘The De-
Americanization of Marketing Thought: In Search of a
Universal Basis’. In C. W. Lamb and P. M. Dunne (eds),
Theoretical Developments in Marketing. AMA Conference
Proceedings, 10–13 February, Pheonix.
Diamantopoulos, A. (1996). ‘A Model of the Publication
Performance of Marketing Academics’, International Journal

of Research in Marketing, 13, pp. 163–180.
Dillon-Malone, P. J. (1970). ‘A marketing approach to
marketing education’, British Journal of Marketing, 4,
pp. 215–219.
Doyle, P. (2000). ‘Valuing Marketing’s Contribution’, European
Management Journal, 18(3), pp. 233–245.
Easton, G. (2002). ‘Marketing A Critical Realist Approach’,
Journal of Busimess Research, 55, pp. 103–109.
Easton, G. and D. M. Easton (2003). ‘Marketing Journals and
the Research Assessment Exercise’, Journal of Marketing
Management, 19, pp. 5–24.
Economic and Social Research Council. (2002). Research
Training Guidelines. ESRC, Swindon.
16 D. Burton
Fine, B. and E. Leopold (1993). The World of Consumption.
Routledge, London.
Fishbein, M. and I. Ajzen (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention and
Behavior. Addison Wesley, Reading MA.
Foxall, G. R. (1997). Marketing Psychology: The Paradigm in
the Wings. Macmillan, London.
Goddard, A. (2001). ‘Idealism trodden in rush to market?’, The
Times Higher, 8 June, p. 12.
Gray, R. (2002). ‘The Social Accounting Project and Account-
ing, Organizations and Society Privileging Engagement,
Imaginings, New Accountings and Pragmatism Over Cri-
tique’, Accounting, Organization and Society, 27, pp. 687–708.
Greenley, G. E. and G. R. Foxall (1996). ‘Consumer and
Nonconsumer Stakeholder Orientation in U.K. Companies’,
Journal of Business Research, 35, pp. 105–116.
Grey, C. (2001). ‘Re-imagining Relevance: A Response to

Starkey and Madan’, British Journal of Management,
12(Special Issue), pp. S27–S32.
Gronroos, C. (1994). ‘From marketing mix to relationship
marketing towards a paradigm shift in marketing’, Manage-
ment Decision, 32(2), pp. 1–19.
Gummesson, E. (2001). ‘Are current approaches in marketing
leading us astray’, Marketing Theory, 1(1), pp. 27–48.
Gummesson, E. (2002). ‘Practical Value of Adequate Market-
ing Management Theory’, European Journal of Management,
36(3), pp. 325–349.
Halbert, M. (1965). The Meaning and Sources of Marketing
Theory. McGraw-Hill Book Company, London.
Hetzel, P. (2000). ‘Where are we going? Perceptions of French
marketing academics’, Journal of Marketing Management,
16(17), pp. 697–716.
Hirschman, E. C. (2001). ‘Ethnicity, Racism, and Colonization of
Consumption’, AMA Educators Proceedings, 12, pp. 236–244.
Hodgkinson, G. P. (1997). ‘The Cognitive Analysis of Com-
petitive Structure: A Review and Critique’, Human Relations,
50(6), pp. 625–654.
Hodgkinson, G. P. (Ed.) (2001). ‘Facing the future: The nature
and purpose of management research re-assessed’, British
Journal of Management, 12(Special Issue), pp. S1–S80.
Hodgkinson, G. P. and P. R. Sparrow (2002). The Competent
Organization: A Psychological Analysis of the Strategic
Management Process. Open University Press, Buckingham.
Holbrook, M. B. (1995). ‘The four faces of commodification’,
Journal of Marketing Management, 11(3), pp. 641–654.
Holden, A. C. and L. Holden (1998). ‘Marketing History:
illuminating marketing’s clandestine subdiscipline’, Psychol-

ogy and Marketing, 15(2), pp. 117–123.
Hollander, S. C., W. W. Keep and R. Dickinson (1999).
‘Marketing Public Policy and the Evolving Role of Market-
ing Academics: A Historical Perspective’, Journal Public
Policy and Marketing, 18(2), pp. 265–269.
Holt, D. (2002). ‘Why Do Brands Cause Trouble? A Dialectical
Theory of Consumer Culture and Branding’, Journal of
Consumer Research, 29(June), pp. 70–90.
Howard, D. G. and J. K. Ryans (1993). ‘What role should
marketing theory play in marketing education: A cross-
national comparison of marketing educators’, Asia Pacific
Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 5(2), pp. 29–43.
Howard, D. G., D. M. Savins, W. Howell and J. K. Ryans
(1991). ‘The evolution of marketing theory in the United States
and Europe’, European Journal of Marketing, 25(2), pp. 7–16.
Hudson, A. (2001). ‘Power plays to market moves’, The Times
Higher, 6 July, p. 20.
Huff, A. S. and J. O. Huff (2001). ‘Re-Focusing the Business
School Agenda’, British Journal of Management, 12,
pp. 49–54.
Hult, G. T. M., W. T. Neese and R. E. Bashaw (1997). ‘Faculty
Perceptions of Marketing Journals’, Journal of Marketing
Education, 19(1), pp. 37–52.
Hunt, S. D. (1983). Marketing Theory, The Philosophy of
Marketing Science. Irwin, Holmewood IL.
Hunt, S. D. (2002). ‘Marketing as a Profession: on closing
stakeholder gaps’, European Journal of Marketing, 36(3),
pp. 305–312.
Jones, D. G. B. and D. D. Monieson (1990). ‘Historical
Research in Marketing: Retrospect and Prospect’, Journal of

the Academy of Marketing Science, 18(4), pp. 269–278.
Lamb, C. W. and P. M. Dunne (1980). ‘Theoretical Develop-
ments in Marketing’, AMA Conference Proceedings, Pheonix,
Arizona, February, pp. 10–13.
Lataif, L. E. (1992). ‘MBA: Is the traditional model doomed’,
Harvard Business Review, Nov/Dec, p. 128.
Lazer, W. (1967). ‘Some observation of the state of the art of
marketing theory’. In E. J. Kelley and W. Lazer (eds),
Managerial Marketing Perspectives and Viewpoints. Irwin,
Holmewood IL.
Levy, S. J. (2002). ‘Revisiting the Marketing Domain’,
European Journal of Marketing, 36(3), pp. 299–304.
Linder, J. and H. J. Smith (1992). ‘The complex case of
management education’, Harvard Business Review, Sept–Oct,
pp. 16–33.
Lusch, E. (1980). ‘Alderson sessions and the 1950s manager’. In
C. W. Lamb and P. M. Dunne (eds), Theoretical develop-
ments in marketing. AMA Conference Proceedings, AMA,
Chicago, IL.
Martinez, Z. L., B. Toyne and R. A. Menger (2000). ‘Research
expectations at business school: responding to changing
business education pressures’, Journal of Marketing Manage-
ment, 16(7), pp. 761–778.
Midgley, D. F. (1970). ‘Conspectus of advanced marketing
courses’, British Journal of Marketing, Winter, pp. 246–252.
Moller, K. and A. Halinen (2000). ‘Relationship Marketing
Theory: Its Roots and Direction’, Journal of Marketing
Management, 16, pp. 29–54.
November, P. (2002). ‘Teaching Marketing Theory: a herme-
neutic approach’, Marketing Theory, 2(1), pp. 115–132.

O’Driscoll, A. and J. A. Murray (1998). ‘The changing nature
of theory and practice in marketing: On the value of syn-
chrony’, Journal of Marketing Management, 14, pp. 391–416.
Ozanne, J. L. and J. B. Murray (1991). ‘The critical imagina-
tion: emancipatory interests in consumer research’, Journal of
Consumer Research, 18(September), pp. 129–144.
Ozanne, J. L. and J. B. Murray (1995). ‘Uniting Critical Theory
and Public Policy to Create the Reflexively Defiant Consu-
mer’, American Behavioral Scientist, 38(4), pp. 516–525.
Piercy, N. F. (1999). ‘A Polemic. In Search of Excellence
Among Business School Professors: cowboys, chameleons,
question-marks and quislings’, European Journal of Market-
ing, 33(7/8), pp. 698–706.
Piercy, N. (2000). ‘Commentary: Why it is fundamentally stupid
for a business school to try to improve its research assessment
exercise score’, European Journal of Marketing, 34(1/2).
Marketing Theory Matters 17
Piercy, N. F. (2002). ‘Research in Marketing: teasing with trivia
or risking relevance?’, European Journal of Marketing, 36(3),
pp. 350–363.
Polonsky, M. J. and G. Mankelow (2000). ‘Where are we going?
Perceptions of U.S. marketing academics’, Journal of
Marketing Management, 16, pp. 717–743.
Ponzurick, T. G., K. R. France and C. M. Logar (2000).
‘Delivering graduate marketing education: an analysis of
face-to-face versus distance education’, Journal of Marketing
Education, 22(3), pp. 180–190.
Prendergast, G. and P. Berthon (2000). ‘Insights from Ecology:
An Ecotone Perspective of Marketing’, European Manage-
ment Journal, 18(2), pp. 223–232.

Prince, C. and G. Beaver (2001). ‘The rise and rise of the
corporate university: the emerging corporate learning agen-
da’, The International Journal of Management Education,
1(2), pp. 17–26.
Ritzer, G. (2001). ‘Lets make it magical’, The Times Higher,
6 July, p. 20.
Saren, M. (2000). ‘Further Comment: Tales of the Gulag’,
European Journal of Marketing, 34(1–2), pp. 36–38.
Schlegelmilch, B. B. (2000). ‘Editorial: Is the grass really
greener on the other side?’, Journal of Marketing Manage-
ment, 16(7), pp. 675–678.
Sheth, J. N., D. M. Gardner and D. E. Garrett (1988).
Marketing Theory Evolution and Evaluation. John Wiley
& Sons, Chichester.
Sinkovics, R. R. and B. B. Schlegelmilch (2000). ‘Marketing
academics in Austria, Germany and Switzerland: Humboldts
ideals give way to performance pressures’, Journal of
Marketing Management, 16, pp. 745–759.
Slaughter, S. and L. L. Leslie (2001). ‘Expanding and
Elaborating the Concept of Academic Capitalism’, Organiza-
tion, 8(2), pp. 154–161.
Spillard, P. (1967). ‘Education and Research in Marketing: The
CNAA System’, British Journal of Marketing, 1(Autumn),
pp. 29–41.
Starkey, K. and P. Madan (2001). ‘Bridging the Relevance Gap:
Aligning Stakeholders in the Future of Management
Research’, British Journal of Management, 12, pp. 3–26.
Stern, B. B. (1995). Representing Consumers: Voices, Views and
Visions. Routledge, London.
Tranfield, D. and K. Starkey (1998). ‘The Nature, Social

Organization and Promotion of Management Research:
Towards Policy’, British Journal of Management, 9(4),
pp. 341–353.
Trocchia, P. J. and D. Berkowitz (1999). ‘Getting Doctored:
a proposed model of marketing doctoral student socia-
lization’, European Journal of Marketing, 33(7/8),
pp. 746–759.
Tybout, A. M. (1986). ‘The role of doctoral programs in the
generation and dissemination of marketing knowledge: draft
report to the AMA, AMA, New York.
Venkatesh, A. (1985). ‘Is Marketing Ready for Kuhn?’. In
N. Dholakia and J. Arndt (eds), Changing the Course of
Marketing: Alternative Paradigms for Widening Marketing
Theory. Jai Press, Greenwich CT.
Walker, R. H., D. Hanson, L. Nelson and C. Fisher (1998). ‘A
case for more integrative multi-disciplinary marketing
education’, European Journal of Marketing, 32(9/10).
Wensley, R. (2002). ‘A Bridge Over Troubled Water?’,
European Journal of Marketing, 36(3), pp. 391–400.
Whitley, R. (1984). ‘The Scientific Status of Management
Research as Practically-Oriented Social Science’, Journal of
Management Studies, 21(4), pp. 369–394.
Whitley, R. (1988). ‘The Management Sciences and Manage-
ment Skills’, Organization Studies, 9(1), pp. 47–68.
Wierenga, B. (2002). ‘On Academic Marketing Knowledge and
Marketing Knowledge the Marketing Managers Use for
Decision-making’, Marketing Theory, 2(4), pp. 355–362.
Willis, G. (1967). ‘Introduction to the British Journal of
Marketing’, British Journal of Marketing, 1(1), p. 1.
Willmott, H. (1999). ‘On the Idolization of Markets and the

Denigration of Marketers: Some Critical Reflections on a
Professional Paradox’. In D. Brownlie, M. Saren, R. Wensley
and R. Whittington (eds), Rethinking Marketing. Sage,
London.
Zaltman, G., K. LeMasters and M. Heffring (1982). Theory
Construction in Marketing. Wiley, New York.
Dawn Burton is Reader in Marketing at the University of London. She has held previous positions
at the Universities of Lancaster, Nottingham, Sheffield and Leeds. Dr Burton has held numerous
research grants and has acted in a consultan cy capacity for many organizations in the financial
services sector. She is founding editor of the journal Marketing Theory and editor of Research
Training for Social Scientists. Her work has been published in leading journals within the fields of
marketing, management, sociology and geography.
18 D. Burton