critical marketing theory: the journal of blueprint? · salesmanship to conquer and defend this...

EuropeanJournal ofMarketing35,5/6

722

European Journal of Marketing,Vol. 35 No. 5/6, 2001, pp. 722-743.# MCB University Press, 0309-0566

Received August 1999Revised February 2000

Critical marketing theory: theblueprint?

Dawn BurtonLeeds University Business School, Leeds, UK

Keywords Marketing theory, Post-modernism, Management education

Abstract There has been considerable recent discussion about the relevance of critical theory tomanagement discourse and its implications for the education of managers. Within this debate,marketing, and by implication, marketing academics, have been extensively criticised by thoseoutside the discipline for failing to embrace more critical theoretical approaches in their work.Unfavourable parallels have been made with management accounting which has a similaracademic/practitioner profile but where critical theory was embraced over two decades ago. Theobjectives of this paper are threefold: to attempt to account for the lack of critical theory in thediscipline; to provide a critical evaluation of the usefulness of critical theory in marketingdiscourse; and to assess some of the practical implications associated with the implementation ofcritical theoretical approaches in teaching, research and publishing.

Theory development is an issue that has been widely debated in the marketingacademy over a considerable number of years. Extensive interest in the subjectis exemplified by a number of AMA educators conferences focusing on theissue during the 1980s (Belk and Zaltman, 1987; Bush and Hunt, 1982; Lamband Dunne, 1980). In 1983 a special edition of the Journal of Marketing wasdevoted to theory (Hunt, 1983a) and at the end of the millennium anotherspecial issue charting new directions in marketing identified theory as animportant area for future development (Day and Montgomery, 1999). Recurrentthemes in the theory debate include: marketing boundaries (Kotler and Levy,1969; Kotler, 1972; Tucker, 1974; Arndt, 1978; Sheth et al., 1988), thedevelopment of theory in the specialisms (Kerin, 1996; Rosson, 1977); whethermarketing theory should be developed along the lines of art or science (Brown,1995a); the feasibility of a general theory in marketing (Hunt, 1994); theory andthe academic-practitioner divide (Lazer, 1967; Spillard, 1967; Dillon-Malone,1970; Bartels, 1983; O'Driscoll and Murray, 1998); and the Americanised natureof marketing theory (Dholakia et al., 1980). Recently the debate has shifted asacademics both inside and outside the discipline have called for a criticalappraisal of marketing and marketing theory in the context of radical social,economic and political change (see for example Brown, 1995a; Brownlie et al.,1994, 1999; Firat et al., 1997; Thomas, 1999; Wensley, 1995; Morgan 1992;Willmott, 1999; Cova, 1999).

The aim of this paper is to contribute to one aspect of theory development inmarketing, specifically, the relevance of critical theory to marketing discourse.Critical theory has not attracted a great deal of attention in marketing, despitebeing widely debated in a range of disciplines including: sociology (Scambler,1996), cultural studies (Kellner, 1988); criminology (Groves and Sampson, 1986),socio-legal studies (Salter and Shaw, 1994), policy research (Ozanne and

The research register for this journal is available athttp://www.mcbup.com/research_registers

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available athttp://www.emerald-library.com/ft

http://www.mcbup.com/research_registers

http;//www.emerald-library.com/ft

Criticalmarketing

theory

723

Murray, 1995); religious studies (Reed, 1995; Kim, 1996), archaeology (Leoneand Potter Shakel, 1987), medicine (Waitzkin, 1989), nursing (Wilson-Thomas,1995; Hopton, 1997), anthropology, history and politics (Bronner and Kellner,1989). In the management disciplines critical theory has had the most impact inmanagement accounting where several journals have been specificallydeveloped to disseminate this discourse (Brownlie et al., 1999; Hopper et al.,1987), in organisation studies (Alvesson and Willmott, 1996; Morgan, 1992) andmanagement education (Grey and French, 1996; Reynolds, 1999).

Since critical theory has been widely discussed outside of marketing, thispaper will go some way to filling the `̀ gap'' in the existing literature byevaluating critical theory's relevance in the marketing context. The first part ofthe paper documents the development of critical approaches in marketingtheory since the 1970s by way of contextualising the subsequent discussion. Inthe second section of the paper, the key characteristics of critical theory are setout and its relevance to contemporary theoretical debates in marketing arediscussed. Since critical theory is a distinctive approach rather than a singletheoretical perspective, there are wide-ranging implications for all aspects ofmarketing activity. The final part of the paper will be devoted to drawing outthe practical implications of adopting a critical theoretical perspective inmarketing. Specific reference will be made to undertaking research, thepublication outlets available to marketing academics wishing to promotecritical theory and the implications for marketing education at undergraduate,postgraduate and post experience levels.

Marketing theory and the development of critical marketingdiscourseTheory development in marketing has been debated since the 1940s (Aldersonand Cox, 1948) but since the 1970s there has been a renewed interest in theoryin the USA and Europe as evidenced by the number of articles appearing on theissue in quality US and European journals (Howard et al., 1991). It was duringthe 1970s that a more critically informed approach to marketing theorysurfaced in the USA. It is significant that academic interest in marketing theoryfrequently coincides with periods when the discipline is under attack, or itsrelevance is being questioned, and the development of critical theory is noexception. A major debate about the adequacy of theory in marketing occurredas a direct response to the rapidly changing social, economic and politicalenvironment in the USA. The positive effects of marketing in society werequestioned by social scientists, who viewed marketing as the handmaiden ofcapitalist enterprise rather than being capable of generating real, tangible useor benefit to society (Packard, 1960; Farmer, 1967; Gist, 1974; Marcuse, 1991).There was also concern that many of the areas in which marketing theory hadbeen extensively applied were being drained of significance as the population'spriorities changed. The real distribution issues were not concerned withmarketed goods, but bombs arrests, diplomas, medical services, welfarepayments and jobs.


724

In their classic papers, Kotler and Levy (1969) and Kotler (1972) responded tosome of these criticisms by arguing that marketing theory and practice should bebroadened to include processes and institutions which were previously notincluded, for example non-profit making organisations. This in turn raised theissue of whether traditional forms of marketing theory and practice could besimply transferred over without adequately theorising consumer well-being orthat of society (Tucker, 1974). Other concerns were whether `̀ extracurricular''applications in non-profit institutions should be treated as an integral part ofmarketing and whether marketing should be developed into a fully-fledgedbehavioural science. Arndt (1978, p. 101) rejected the behavioural scienceargument on the basis that broadening the marketing concept would `̀ threatenthe conceptual integrity of marketing, add to the confusion in marketingterminology, and widen the gulf between marketing theory and practice''. Afurther objection was that in broadening the marketing concept, marketingacademics would have to `̀ imperialistically annex'' significant debates fromsocial anthropology, social psychology and sociology. There was considerabledoubt whether the marketing discipline had the `̀ power, conviction, andsalesmanship to conquer and defend this territory''. This debate was particularlysignificant because it heralded the beginning of critical discourse that laterbecame known as macromarketing, the primary function of which was to locatemarketing in its wider social, economic, political and historical context.

The development of critical theory in the 1970s was partly a response tocriticisms of marketing from individuals outside of the discipline. During the1980s and 1990s an interest in critical theory occurred as a response to adifferent set of circumstances, specifically, the fact that social scientists outsideof the discipline, especially cultural theorists and sociologists, becameinterested in consumption, markets and consumer culture issues. Most of theseacademics were based in northern Europe, not the USA, and they saw fewproblems in commenting about issues in marketing `̀ territory'' by contrast withsome of the doubts shared by Arndt (1974) a decade earlier about the merits ofmarketers venturing into the social sciences. The broader based social scienceliterature was highly theoretical and critical and developed in a number ofdifferent directions including collective consumption (Castells, 1980),individualised consumption associated with postmodernism (Baudrillard, 1988;1998; Lash and Urry, 1987; Lash, 1990; Featherstone, 1988, 1991), and socialgroups based on consumption (Bourdieu, 1984, 1990). A small number ofmarketing academics also began to rethink marketing using theoreticalframeworks for the social sciences (Dholakia and Arndt, 1985; Brown, 1995a). Itwas in the 1980s that critical theory and its relevance to marketing discoursemade one of its first appearances with a presentation by a leading criticaltheorist, Mark Poster, at the 1987 AMA Educators Conference (Poster andVentatesh, 1987).

During the 1980s the Americanisation of marketing thought also began to bequestioned by a group of US critical theorists. Dholakia et al. (1980) argued thatthe US dominance of marketing theory had a number of undesirable effects. Of

Criticalmarketing

theory

725

particular concern was the fact that marketing concepts are a product of andcontextually bound by the US industrial system, and as a result the validity ofmarketing concepts across time and space are extremely limited. Oneconsequence of this scenario is that this context boundedness inhibits theemergence of a universal conception of the nature and scope of marketing perse. The knock-on effect is that specific bias and barriers are created intheoretical developments in the field. As a result they argued that there was anurgent need to deconceptualise, reconceptualise and thereby universalise theanalytical categories of marketing. A number of Scandinavians also began toquestion the Americanised nature of marketing theory with specific referenceto the 4Ps, in favour of what became known as the Nordic school of relationshipmarketing (Gummerson, 1994; GroÈnroos, 1994).

Another very significant development in the 1990s, was that US academicsbegan a dialogue about how critical theory of any persuasion was being receivedin US business schools. One of the most damning criticisms comes from Ehrensal(1999) in his paper `̀ Critical management studies and American business schoolculture: or, how not to get tenure in one easy publication'', in which he suggeststhat engaging in critical discourse amounts to career suicide. He argues thatmainstream US culture promotes an ethos of management research that focuseson a `̀ science of administration'' and that the aim of management teaching is totrain future managers and not to critique existing systems and values. Thissentiment is shared by Usunier (1998, p. 48), who suggests that the stronglycompetitive system and the `̀ publish or perish'' culture leads to a high level ofconformism based on `̀ mainstream professional guidelines as to how researchshould be conducted''. PhD students are socialised into this system in which theyare taught to be `̀unpolitical'' and `̀keep their nose clean'' (Trocchia andBerkowitz, 1999). It is significant that many of the strongest critiques oftraditional marketing theory have a firm base outside of the USA. Indeed, manyof the UK's leading marketing professors are not advocates of US mainstreammarketing theory (Brownlie et al., 1999; Brown, 1995a)

Placing the development of marketing theory into a historical context (albeitbriefly) demonstrates that concern about theory development in marketing hasbeen an issue among academics for over half a century. The stronger emphasison techniques and concepts required in practical situations has marginalised theimportance of theory. The production of research outputs in order to gainpromotion and tenure has prompted short-termism. Theoretical discourse haslost out in this battle with empirically driven work. It also needs to be noted thatthe US domination of existing theoretical discourse has not been conducive tocritical perspectives, although it needs to be recognised that the small number ofUS advocates of critical theory in marketing have been extremely successfulputting this discourse on the agenda and planting seeds for others to develop.

Critical theory and its relevance for marketing discourseAlvesson and Willmott's (1996) review of critical theoretical approaches inmanagement disciplines indicated that it has the most to contribute in


726

marketing, yet it was here where there was least interest. Part of the reason forthis neglect has been that the development of theory has not attracted the sameamount of attention from marketing academics as it has in other social scienceand management disciplines. Another contributory factor is thatpostmodernism has been considered the dominant theoretical challenge toexisting marketing theory. An additional problem relates to conceptualdifficulties in defining critical theory. The term critical in common sense usageusually implies negative evaluations. Although there is an essential element ofdeconstruction in using critical theory, and one possible outcome of using acritical theoretical framework may in fact be a negative reaction, the primarypurpose of the term `̀ critical'' in critical theory goes beyond negativeevaluations. There is also often confusion about the distinction between criticaldiscourse and critical theory. For example, a particular line of empiricalenquiry might lead a researcher to critically evaluate a particular model orposition which would lead to critical discourse without using critical theory toframe the discussion.

The difficulties of defining critical theory are compounded by the fact that itis not a single unified theory. The critical element in critical theory containsthree inter-related elements: demystifying the ideological basis of socialrelations; a questioning of positivist methodology whether that be in relation tothe nature of reality, knowledge and explanation; and the importance of self-reflexivity of the investigator and the linguistic basis of representation. Criticaltheory rejects scientific, foundational approaches to human nature and insteadfavours interpretive approaches to human behaviour which need to becontextualised in time and space to avoid the ethnocentrism by which all othercultures are viewed and judged by one's own. A significant task of criticaltheory is to simultaneously critique contemporary society while envisioningnew possibilities. In this sense critical theory is normative theory, it is a theoryabout values and what ought to be rather than focusing exclusively on the hereand now. Calhoun (1996, p. 35) suggests that critical theory generates a critiquein four senses:

(1) a critical engagement with the theorist's contemporary social world,recognising that the state of affairs does not exhaust all possibilities,and offering positive implications for social action;

(2) a critical account of the historical and cultural conditions (both socialand personal) on which the theorist's own intellectual activity depends;

(3) a continuous critical re-examination of the constructive categories andconceptual frameworks of the theorist's understanding, including thehistorical construction of those frameworks; and

(4) a critical confrontation with other works of social explanation that notonly establishes their good and bad points but shows the reasons behindtheir blind spots and misunderstandings, and demonstrates the capacityto incorporate their insights on stronger foundations.

Criticalmarketing

theory

727

Since there has been little interest in critical theory among marketingacademics it is not surprising that there have only been a few attempts tooperationalise the concept in the marketing context. One position has beenadvanced by Hetrick and Lozada (1999, p. 162) when they note:

The `̀ movement'' from traditional marketing theory to either anti-marketing theory (criticaltheory) or marketing anti-theory (postmodernism) allows us to supersede the strong andperverse adherence to the basic tenets of positivist and logical empiricist thought.

While Hetrick and Lozada (1999) have made a positive start in defining criticaltheory in marketing, a point of debate is their view that critical theory is anti-marketing theory. Critical theorists promote a pro marketing theory stance, buttheory that adequately reflects the social, historical and political context inwhich marketing discourse and practice occurs. This final point is importantsince one criticism of existing marketing discourse is that it does not reflectsocial reality and is little more than hype at the hands of capitalist enterprise(Morgan, 1992; Willmott, 1999). There is also a presumption on the part ofHetrick and Lozada (1999) that critical theory and postmodernism areincompatible and/or oppositional. Card carrying critical theorists such asHabermas do not agree that postmodernism should be located under theumbrella of critical theory (Kellner, 1988). However, this position is notuniversally shared and is a point of debate rather than an absolute. Ray (1993)for example, notes that there are probably more points of convergence betweencritical theory and postmodernism than the reverse. It has already been notedthat a minority of marketing academics write from critical or theoreticalperspectives of any persuasion. Whether it makes sense to create boundariesbetween different approaches to critical discourse, whether that ispostmodernism or any other, particularly when there are points of convergence,needs to be considered. Whether or not postmodernists in the marketingdiscipline would wish to be included in a broader based critical theorymovement is another issue.

Saren and Brownlie, in a 1998 call for papers, provide an alternativedefinition of critical theory in the marketing stream of the first InternationalCritical Management Conference held at University of Manchester Institute ofScience and Technology in 1999. They indicate:

By critical theory we mean any approach drawing inspiration from the substantive criticaltraditions of, for example, feminism, Marxism, ethnography and symbolism, post-structuralism, hermeneutics, postmodernism and environmentalism.

This is a more specific definition of the potential boundaries than that providedby Hetrick and Lozada (1999) and is a broader based definition than the `̀ purist''critical theory position. However, if the scope of critical theory is widenedfurther, a case might be made that good quality marketing theory of whateverpersuasion has the potential to provide critical insights and therefore the abilityto develop critical theory in the wider sense of the term. Perhaps it is the casethat some theoretical perspectives are more critical than others, some alreadyhave the label and tradition and others have been longer established.


728

The adoption of critical theoretical traditions raises the issue of marketingbecoming a fully-fledged behavioural science. Within this context it isimportant to have an understanding of where the existing marketingboundaries lie and why. This is a complex issue, but on the one hand there areacademics within other social science disciplines that have not necessarily beenattracted to marketing theory per se because of its strongly positivistmethodological position, emphasis on individual consumer behaviour, and themanifestly uncritical nature of research enquiry. These are possibly some of thereasons why few marketing publications are written from a sociologicalperspective (Tetreault, 1987). This is in contrast with psychological theory,which has been widely embraced in consumer behaviour discourse since the1970s because of the greater congruity between marketing scholars andpsychologists in respect of their research purpose and philosophies of science(Mittelstaedt, 1990). Alternatively, there are other academics who wish to beincluded but believe they are excluded for being out of step with mainstreamthought. For example, marketing historians believe that the small number oftheir papers finding their way into the prominent marketing journals sendsclear signals that their work is being marginalised (Holden and Holden, 1998).As a result of this anti-historical or ahistorical stance (Hollander, 1980),historical perspectives in marketing discourse are highly dependent on the fewacademics that manage to be successful (see especially Fullerton (1988), Bartels(1976), and to a lesser extent Gilbert and Bailey (1990) and Vink (1992)). Thelack of historical work is particularly important in relation to critical theory'snormative stance that emphasises learning from the past to make sense of thepresent and the future. This issue also ties in with the view that better useshould be made of previous marketing contributions to avoid `̀ re-inventing thewheel'' (Baker, 1995; Hunt, 1995), minimising the duplication of effort,presenting a weaker analysis and distorting the evaluation of marketingdevelopments (Hollander, 1980).

Critical theory's support for a move away from positivist or more broadlyfoundationalist approaches in the social sciences (Hammersley and Gomm,1997) to a more inclusive interpretive approach has implications for the widelydiscussed art versus science debate (Brown, 1996) and new paradigm researchin marketing (Buttle, 1994). However, a complicating factor is that interpretiveapproaches to research are not overwhelmingly supported by all marketingacademics who would position themselves in the critical/radical camp, nor doresearchers who favour qualitative approaches have a monopoly on the viewthat marketing is theoretically deficient (Hunt, 1994). Foxall (1998) suggests farfrom recent trends towards a more interpretive approach in consumer researchpromoting greater tolerance and genuine methodological pluralism, a newretrenchment has developed.

A further issue is that if the marketing discipline is to genuinely adopt andencourage many of the theoretical traditions associated with the label criticaltheory, then there also needs to be an appreciation of the methodologicaltraditions that accompany them. For example, there has been a considerable

Criticalmarketing

theory

729

debate amongst feminists outside of marketing on the issues of epistemology,methodology and method (see for example Oakley, 1981; Finch, 1984; Harding,1987; Stanley and Wise, 1993; Kramarae and Spender, 1993; Lennon andWhitford, 1994; Stanley, 1990; 1997; Webb, 2000), whereas the methodologicaltraditions associated with research on ethnicity, race and racism areparticularly underdeveloped in and outside marketing (see for exampleStanfield and Dennis, 1993; Williams, 1995; Sills and Desai, 1996; Jackson, 2000;Thomas-Bernard, 2000). Historical research has much to offer marketing theoryin areas as diverse as postcolonialism (Burke, 1996), masculinity (Mort andThompson, 1994) and the contribution women have made to marketing thought(Zuckerman et al., 1990). Yet Holden and Holden (1998) indicate that fewmarketing history articles appear in high status marketing journals because ofthe descriptive research methods employed, which are frequently regarded asof low status. A more flexible approach in marketing discourse that activelyembraces methodological pluralism is an important ingredient of criticalapproaches to theory and practice. An issue which critical marketing theoristsneed to address is whether the importance of developing good quality theory isgoing to take precedence over arguing about research methodology.

Some practical implications of adopting critical theory in marketingThe adoption and implementation of critical theory in marketing discourse willcertainly have wide-ranging implications and will challenge marketingacademics and their students in a number of different directions. The aim ofthis section of the paper is to assess some of the practical implications ofadopting critical theory in marketing in the context of research, publishing andteaching.

Implications for researchA research emphasis on developing theory in marketing goes against many ofthe norms in the discipline that are overwhelmingly rooted in applied research.The importance of basic research to theory development in marketing wasacknowledged back in the 1950s (Lusch, 1980). Yet despite this debateoccurring over half a century ago, basic research is rarely undertaken orpublished in mainstream US and European journals (Howard et al., 1991). Therationale for its value is that marketing managers use theories and concepts intheir day-to-day activities and therefore theoretical research should be funded.This is not to suggest that empirical research has no theoretical value or thattheoretical work has little practical application. The point is that criticaltheorists promote a position which states that research in marketing should betheory driven and that conceptual and theoretical work should not be regardedas the `̀ poor relation''.

Interdisciplinary research is another key tenet of critical theory and iscertainly favoured by research councils (Rappert, 1997), encouraged in researchassessment exercises (Cooper and Otley, 1998), although less so in teaching(Knights and Willmott, 1997). Philosophically, the aim of developing good


730

interdisciplinary research is laudable, in practice it is difficult to achieve and ismore often discussed than practised. Many academics feel more confidentworking within closely defined disciplinary boundaries, and to a large extentthis is a rational view since trawling the literature across disciplines is a time-consuming activity which is usually not rewarded in equal proportion to thetime invested. Although there are advocates of interdisciplinary research inmarketing per se (Firat, 1997) there are no guarantees that interdisciplinaryresearch makes a more significant contribution to debates over and above thosedrawn from a single discipline (Knights and Willmott, 1997). Ultimately therehas to be some purpose or logic to working across disciplines or paradigms(Brown, 1997; Watson, 1997). That said, Zaltman (1999) suggests that some ofthe most interesting developments in marketing are to be found at the borderswith other disciplines rather than at the centre of already well-coloniseddisciplinary territory.

A strength of marketing is the extent to which different disciplines arealready included; therefore many links are already in place, in other instanceslinks may need forging from scratch. However, this interdisciplinary strengthcan also be a weakness if imported theories are weaker, incomplete versionsthan those that exist in the `̀ host'' discipline, or are inappropriately used.Murray et al. (1995) suggest that indiscriminate and opportunistic use ofborrowed theories can be counter-productive by misleading researchers in theirattempts to understand the phenomenon of interest. Halbert (1965) alsoindicates that it is seldom the case that a completely adequate theoreticalstructure in one area is directly applicable in another. However, goodinterdisciplinary research should increase the speed with which importanttheoretical frameworks from other disciplines are critically evaluated. Forexample, Wensley (1999) suggests that some of the current debates inmarketing occurred in sociology 20 years ago.

Implications for publishingOther important issues to address relate to the status and acceptability ofresearch outputs. Although interdisciplinary research is encouraged byresearch councils and is consistent with the philosophical approach advocatedby critical theory, it does not always have the same status when it comes topublication. Another issue is the acceptability of critical marketing papers inmainstream marketing journals. Marketing is no different from many otherdisciplines, in the extent to which disciplinary boundaries are sociallyconstructed and maintained. The publication driven nature of academia inBritain ensures that journal editors, referees and publishers act as`̀ gatekeepers'' and in so doing determine what gets published, in effect they setand deliver the agenda. A recognition that disciplinary boundaries are sociallyconstructed introduces the issues of power and politics into the process bywhich marketing as a discipline is constructed, maintained, and undergoesrounds of restructuring. The perception that some topics are defined asmarketing and others are not is an ongoing process, as Foxall (1989, p. 7)

Criticalmarketing

theory

731

explains: `̀ reflects the consensus of opinion within the `scientific community' ofthe nature of their subject matter, the most appropriate ways of examining itand the canons of judgement which should be applied in the appraisal ofempirical findings''.

The notion of distance is particularly important in this regard. It is arguablythe case that the further research differs from accepted norms in marketing theless likely it is to be accepted for publication. While there are senior academicswho are advocates of the controversial (Baker, 1995; Carson, 1995), closure,although unacceptable, exists (Brownlie and Saren, 1995; Wilson, cited inTransfield and Starkey, 1998). Holbrook (1995, p. 643) argues that closure is atits worst in top US journals where the review process has been described as`̀ fundamentally rotten and corrupt to its very core'', with those responsibleprotected by the veil of anonymity. Another issue is the ability of existingmarketing academics to referee publications written from a criticalinterdisciplinary perspective. In acknowledging this point, McDonagh (1995)suggests, in the short term at least, there will be a need to source reviewersfrom outside the discipline. The acceptance of critical theory and theinterdisciplinary research findings that accompany it will ultimately require asignificant cultural change among a critical mass of marketing academics.

The availability of suitable publication outlets for critical marketingdiscourse will be a decisive factor in the speed with which it is accepted andmainstreamed. It is a point of debate among critical theorists whether or nottheir work should be concentrated in journals explicitly developed for thatpurpose for fear that a `̀ ghetto'' may be created. According to this view, criticaltheorists must challenge the prevailing orthodoxy in the high rankinginternational journals wherever possible. A different perspective is that forcritical marketing theory to develop there needs to be a focus and a specificoutlet to develop this work and help it gain momentum. Within marketing, theJournal of Macromarketing made its appearance in the 1980s and encouragedmarketing academics to locate marketing theory and practice in its wider socialand historical context. Consumption, Markets and Culture was launched in1997 and was designed as a critical, interdisciplinary forum for academics frommarketing, the social sciences and humanities. Similarly, Brownlie et al. (1994)toyed with the idea of a critical marketing journal based in Europe. However, itneeds to be recognised that neither of these US-based journals had an explicitfocus on the development of critical marketing theory. This final point was adecisive factor in the launch of Marketing Theory in 2000, a UK-basedspecialised outlet committed to the development and dissemination of criticaland alternative perspectives on marketing theory.

The development of these journals indicates that critical discourse per se isbecoming more widely disseminated in marketing. However, what is of crucialimportance is how academics perceive the status of such journals. Despite theconsiderable importance attached to the international ranking of journals, theprocess is highly subjective (Hult et al., 1997). One negative effect in the contextof discussions about critical theory is that it could result in authors not


732

targeting certain journals because the outlets are relatively unknown and noteasily recognised by colleagues. Supporters of critical discourse in marketingshould actively support a more sophisticated system of recognising the value ofdifferent journal contributions that may include development of marketingtheory, critical perspectives, current marketing practice, and usefulness inobtaining tenure.

It also needs to be acknowledged that the development of critical theory inmarketing has to go beyond the development of new journals and thepublication of journal articles since they will only be read by a fraction of thestaff who teach marketing and reach many fewer students than desirable. Thedevelopment and mainstreaming of critical theory in marketing requires thematerial to be developed into texts which have a much broader remit thanjournal articles. However, within the marketing academy this activity couldprove highly problematic. Different disciplines have different ways ofrecognising what counts as a scholarly contribution (Firat, 1997). The traditionof writing good quality, critical books is not well established within marketingin Britain or elsewhere, unlike other management disciplines (e.g. organisationstudies) and social sciences (e.g. sociology) where articles and good qualitycritical books are both explicitly built into the career advancement process.Good quality texts that are both theoretical and critical in approach areconspicuous by their absence.

Although we live in a multi-media age, textbooks remain the most widelyused teaching resource and their content has a very influential effect on thediscipline. Despite the importance of marketing texts, the reasons whyacademics recommend one over another has rarely been the subject ofacademic investigation (Smith and Reed Muller, 1998). While many moremarketing texts were written in the 1980s and 1990s there remains anoverwhelming emphasis on prescriptive books which reflect the professionalactivity versus academic discipline dilemma. In reviewing the most popularmarketing textbooks in the UK, Baker (1999, p. XIV) reports:

. . . all the books conform to the prescriptive `̀ what to do'' model and give less attention to thetheoretical insights derived from other social sciences that underpin the relatively newsynthetic discipline of marketing. While this approach clearly appeals to the mass market,students wishing to pursue their studies in more depth may well appreciate texts thatrecognise that marketing is not a cut-and-dried subject but one that is dynamic, full ofcontroversy and short on providing answers to the question why? For them a morechallenging menu would be more appropriate.

There is little product differentiation or segmentation of marketing texts thatare similar in price (most are too expensive for the average student to buy),attempt to cover too much material at a superficial level, and frequently mergetheory and practice, with most emphasis given to the latter (see Brownlie andSaren (1995) for an alternative view). Brown (1995, p. 683) suggests mostmarketing texts are `̀ clones of Kotler'' infested with `̀ bullet-points, learningobjectives, pseudo-case studies, and normally written in words of one syllableor less''. Part of the problem is the time lag between the publication of research

Criticalmarketing

theory

733

literature finding its way into teaching texts (Dibb and Stern, 1999), which cantake 10-15 years (Foxall, 1989). There is critical theoretical discourse beingpublished in journals which is not finding its way readily into marketingtheory texts. The texts which are available tend to be dominated by a particulartheoretical framework such as postmodernism (Brown, 1995, 1997); a specificmethodological approach (see Stern (1998) on interpretation); are written fromthe perspective of one discipline (see for example, Foxall (1997) on psychologyand marketing); or have a broader brief of developing critical perspectives inmarketing per se, which may or may not include critical theory (see Brownlie etal., 1999).

Clearly, in order for a more critical theoretical marketing focus to bemainstreamed there is going to have to be a radical shift in how writing booksis perceived by marketing academics and a recognition of the importance ofresearch-led texts. It is a fact of academic life in the UK as far as marketing isconcerned, there is little recognition for writing books when it comes toresearch assessment exercises. The emphasis is very firmly on articles and thestatus of journals in which they are published. It is clearly a risk for authorswho are willing to undertake an activity that is time consuming and may notnecessarily have an immediate high value in terms of career progression. Thatsaid, there are risks involved in any new area of work, as the discussion byBrown et al. (1994) about the risks associated with developing the servicesmarketing literature illustrates.

The implications for marketing educationMarketing education per se has suffered from having a low priority inmarketing discourse as measured by the small number of articles appearing inmainstream, high status European and US journals. Contributions in thespecialist Journal of Marketing Education tend to emphasise new methods ofreinforcing traditional theory and an over-emphasis on practice rather than onthe critical evaluation of theory and practice. There are also some interestingcross-national differences in the emphasis given to theory in marketingeducation. Howard et al.'s (1991) research indicated that far fewer USundergraduate and masters programs include a specific marketing theorycourse compared with those in Europe. Similar findings were noted by Howardand Ryans (1993), who noted that countries in Europe and the Pacific Rim putsignificantly more emphasis on the importance on marketing theory atundergraduate and MBA level than their US colleagues.

Alvesson and Willmott (1996) indicate that critical approaches inmanagement education have wide-ranging implications for content andapproach and advocate a more reflexive approach to teaching and learning.Cunliffe (1999) argues that it is simply not a question of thinking about newteaching techniques but requires a rethinking of assumptions about learning,identity and student-teacher power relations. A pertinent issue is how theintegration of critical theory in the curriculum will be perceived by studentsboth in terms of the content and a more reflexive approach to learning. The


734

cultural change whereby `̀ patients, parents, passengers and pupils are re-imagined as `consumers''' (du Gay and Salamon, 1992, p. 622:) or enterprisingconsumers (Keats et al., 1994; Abercrombie, 1994; Fuller and Smith, 1991) isarguably also applicable to university students. However, it is a point whichhas generated heated debate, controversy and in some cases extremeopposition from academics, who do not believe students are in an informedposition to enable them to precisely define their educational needs (see forexample Barrett, 1997). Another concern is that the existing literature in the UKhas tended to focus on using critical theory with students on MBA programmes(see for example Gold et al., 1999; Reynolds, 1999). This feature neglects toacknowledge that the vast majority of management students areundergraduates. This point is at its most obvious in the USA where one in fourgraduates read business studies (Thrift, 1999). An over concentration onapplications with practising managers neglects to take into account the rangeof students who study marketing and therefore fails to consider that theapplication of critical theory in marketing education may have a variety ofeffects.

Developing interdisciplinary, multi-disciplinary and reflexive approaches toteaching marketing to undergraduates has received more interest in the USAthan in the UK (see for example, Graeff, 1997). One factor which prompted thischange has been the declining numbers of business students since the mid-1990s combined with concern that some of the best students are siphoned offinto accounting and finance rather than marketing. Marketing the marketingmajor has prompted alliances with liberal arts subjects in an attempt to developstudents with a wider range of skills, abilities and being able to think in criticalways (Prindle, 1994; Hugstad, 1997). Another factor which is driving changeare marketing professionals. Lundstrom et al.'s (1996, p. 15) research whichinvolved professionals evaluating the course content of internationalmarketing programs indicated a need for `̀ an interdisciplinary, andragogicalapproach ± one that combines area studies, political science, language training,communication, and general business and marketing classes'' as opposed tosimply including international material in existing courses. This approach willbring business school and marketing staff in daily working relationships withcolleagues from across the campus.

The relevance versus rigor debate is particularly applicable in the context ofcritical marketing discourse. It is a far more demanding task for students to betaught traditional marketing theory, and be able to critically reflect upon itrather than simply move from traditional theory to practical application. It hasbeen suggested that it is at the higher executive levels where there will be mostresistance to this approach, as Holbrook (1995) suggests:

. . . executives demand what they perceive as managerial relevance but also insist on beingcharmed and entertained, usually at the expense of rigor. The inevitable result is thatparticipants in executive programs want advice that they can use on the job tomorrowdelivered to them in the atmosphere of a circus. Teachers who dare to veer from this patternusually receive poor ratings (Murphy et al., 1987, p. 3).

Criticalmarketing

theory

735

How representative Holbrook's (1995) experience is, is not clear. Berry (1993,p. 3) suggests that in a highly competitive educational environment the `̀ issueis not rigor versus relevance'' but `̀ rigor and relevance''. Thrift (1999) alsoargues that as a result of `̀ cultural circuits of capitalism'' that are responsiblefor the production and distribution of management knowledge (businessschools, consultants, gurus), managers are becoming better educated almosteverywhere, resulting in the need for more advanced, conceptual, critical andcreative ideas. The increased packaging of material (videos, books,management seminars, good quality press) makes it more likely that marketingacademics will be charged with not only creating theory which closely reflectsthe real life working situations of managers (Brownlie, 1997), but withevaluating existing theory critically to help managers create novel solutions.

At PhD level the effects of critical theoretical approaches are more complex.Practices in the USA are particularly important in this regard since 100-50students are awarded doctoral degrees in marketing annually (Trocchia andBerkowitz, 1999) and, given the highly Americanised nature of marketingdiscourse (Dholakia et al., 1980), some of them will undoubtedly go on to beleaders in the field. Tybout (1986) suggests that marketing has an anti-intellectual image among some sections of the population in the USA, causingproblems in attracting good quality candidates from allied disciplines such aseconomics, sociology, politics and psychology that believe marketing has littleto offer in respect of conducting basic/theoretical work. A more theoreticallyinformed critical marketing could have a great deal to offer students in closelyallied disciplines who wish to move into marketing because of the moreattractive job prospects on completion of their studies, and in so doing couldgreatly enrich the discipline. Whether academics with backgrounds from othersocial sciences that move into marketing and also wish to keep a `̀ foot'' in theiroriginal discipline will be made welcome is another issue. Piercy (1999, p. 705)describes such individuals as `̀ spreading poison and causing havoc'' andundermining business schools from within. Clearly, this is not a position thatcritical theorists would support.

A different perspective on US PhD training culture is that it stifles dissentand critique in favour of promoting a science of administration and anunspoken code of political correctness (Ehrensal, 1999). Trocchia andBerkowitz's (1999) analysis of the socialisation process of US doctoral studentsgoes some way to demystify practices, the problem with their analysis is that itdoes not directly address the issue of politics or power relations betweenstudents and supervisors, which are crucial in understanding all aspects of theresearch student process from admissions to determining how the thesis iswritten up. Brand equity is an important factor in this discussion sincesupervisors want to protect their own reputation of producing quality researchstudents and taking it on themselves to inform the marketing community ifthey have produced one which is a disappointment. In short, the US PhDtraining system militates against the dissemination of critical perspectives perse in favour of maintaining the status quo. Leong et al. (1994) suggest that a


736

liberalisation of research norms in US doctoral training associated with moreexposure to critical discourse might generate more reflexive, enlightenedacademics. Academics based in Europe that are advocates of critical theoreticalperspectives in marketing should also be concerned about the new cadre oftaught doctoral qualifications (DBAs) that have been imported from the USA.DBAs contain a significant taught element, are highly practical, industryoriented and place little emphasis on the development of theory or criticaldiscourse. Another point of disquiet is the fact that US business schools aresome of the most advanced in the business when it comes to delivering ITbased distance learning, which is potentially more of a threat than theEuropean based DBA delivery.

A final issue that needs addressing is the relationship betweenundergraduate and postgraduate marketing courses and professionalqualifications since both are linked by exemptions in many universities. Therehas been little extensive research or discussion about where the division oflabour resides, or more to the point, where it should reside between universitymarketing courses and the role of professional marketing qualifications. Thislack of clarity is paralleled in the uncertainty surrounding the currency ofprofessional qualification in marketing. Walker and Child (1979, p. 32) raisedthe issue of credentialism in the industry over two decades ago when theynoted, `̀ The questions of how far membership of its occupational associationshould be restricted and whether according to criteria of formal qualification ofpractical experience are still unresolved to this day in marketing''. The failureto understand the importance of professional qualifications in the industry,particularly since graduates of any discipline are recruited for marketingpositions on both sides of the Atlantic (Walker et al., 1986), suggests that atbest marketing should be classified as a semi-profession. Articles entitled`̀ Education could be the death of good marketing'' (Bird, 1996) and `̀ Doprofessors really know marketing?'' (Morris, 1995) appearing in the industrypress do little to improve the status of marketing education. The ambiguityover the currency of postgraduate diplomas has important gender implicationssince women with them earn less than men without (Reed, 1995). It is in theinterests of critical theorists to engage in debates about professional marketingeducation since the issue of accreditation could have an important impact onthe extent to which critical theoretical perspectives can be integrated into themarketing curriculum in undergraduate and masters programs.

ConclusionCriticisms from academics inside and outside the discipline pointing to adistinct lack of critical theoretical discourse would appear to be well founded.The objectives of this paper were threefold: to attempt to account for the lack ofcritical theory in the discipline; to provide an evaluation of the usefulness ofcritical theory in marketing; and to assess some of the practical implicationsassociated with the implementation of critical theoretical approaches inteaching, research and publishing. As far critical theory is concerned, a major

Criticalmarketing

theory

737

impediment has been a long-standing tradition in marketing of marginalisingthe importance of theory development. Few universities on both sides of theAtlantic extensively teach marketing theory as part of the curriculum and fewmarketing academics have an interest in developing theory. Furthermore, whensenior academics are questioned about how they perceive theoreticaldevelopments evolving, they suggest that it is more likely to be generatedthrough individual marketing specialisms rather than the creation ofoverarching theories that apply to the discipline as a whole. Given the lack of atheoretical tradition and relatively poor knowledge of theoretical developmentsin other social sciences, it is not surprising that the implications of criticaltheory have been slow to develop in marketing.

If adopted, critical theory would have a considerable impact on theoreticaldebates in marketing and generate a considerable number of new avenues ofenquiry. The implementation issues are possibly the ones which are the mostproblematic to resolve. Critical discourse of any persuasion is frequentlyviewed as a threat by those holding positions of authority in particulardisciplines (Firat, 1997), especially if they have built their careers on traditionalforms of marketing thought. It is not unknown for power differences withinorganisations to be used to instigate subtle forms of coercion (Alvesson andWillmott, 1996) to ensure people toe the line. As far as the advancement ofcritical theory in marketing is concerned, one would hope that its influence willflourish in the future given the larger numbers of students who have beenexposed to critical ideas as undergraduates. Some of these students may wishto undertake doctoral work in the area and possibly enter academia themselves.

References

Abercrombie, N. (1994), `̀ Authority and consumer society'', in Keat, R., Whiteley, N. andAbercrombie, N. (Eds), The Authority of the Consumer, Routledge, London.

Alderson, W. and Cox, R. (1948), `̀ Towards a theory of marketing'', Journal of Marketing, Vol. 13,October, pp. 137-52.

Alvesson, M. and Willmott, H. (1996), Making Sense of Management: A Critical Introduction,Sage, London.

Arndt, J. (1978), `̀ How broad should the marketing concept be?'', Journal of Marketing, January,pp. 101-3.

Arndt, J. (1985), `̀ On making marketing science more scientific: the role of observations,paradigms, metaphors and puzzle solving'', Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49, pp. 11-23.

Baker, M.J. (1995), `̀ A comment on: the commodification of marketing knowledge'', Journal ofMarketing Management, Vol. 11, pp. 629-34.

Baker, M.J. (1999), `̀ In the market for some hard-sell techniques'', The Times Higher, 26 February,p. XIV.

Barrett, L.R. (1997), `̀ On students as customers ± some warnings from America'', Journal ofFurther and Higher Education, pp. 70-3.

Bartels, R. (1976) The History of Marketing Thought, Grid, Columbus, OH.

Bartels, R. (1983), `̀ Is marketing detailing its responsibilities?'', Journal of Marketing, Vol. 47No. 4, pp. 32-5.

Baudrillard, J. (1988), Selected Writings, Polity Press, Cambridge.


738

Baudrillard, J. (1998), The Consumer Society, Sage, London.

Belk, R.W. and Zaltman, G. (1987), `̀ Marketing theory'', AMA Winter Educators' Conference, SanAntonio, TX.

Berry, L.L. (1993), `̀ Our roles as educators: present and future'', Journal of Marketing Education,Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 3-8.

Bird, D. (1996), `̀ Education would be the death of good marketing'', Marketing, 5 December, p. 14.

Bourdieu, P. (1984), Distinction, Routledge, London.

Bourdieu, P. (1990), In Other Words: Towards a Reflexive Sociology, Polity, Cambridge.

Bronner, S.E. and Kellner, D.M. (1989), Critical Theory and Society, Routledge, London.

Brown, S. (1995), Postmodern Marketing, Routledge, London.

Brown, S. (1996), `̀ Art or science? Fifty years of marketing debate'', Journal of MarketingManagement, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 243-68.

Brown, S. (1997), Postmodern Marketing 2: Telling Tales, International Thomson Press, London.

Brown, S.W., Fisk, R.P. and Bitner, M.J. (1994), `̀ The development and emergence of servicesmarketing thought'', International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 5 No. 1,pp. 1-19.

Brownlie, D. (1997), `̀ Beynond ethnography towards writerly accounts of organizing inmarketing'', European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 31 No. 3/4, pp. 1-16.

Brownlie, D. and Saren, M. (1995), `̀ On the commodification of marketing knowledge: openingthemes'', Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 619-27.

Brownlie, D., Saren, M., Wensley, R. and Whittington, R. (1994), `̀ The new marketing myopia:critical perspectives on theory and research in marketing'', European Journal of Marketing,Vol. 28 No. 3.

Brownlie, D., Saren, M., Wensley, R. and Whittington, R. (1999), `̀ Marketing disequilibrium: onredress and restoration'', in Brownlie, D., Saren, M., Wensley, R. and Whittington, R. (Eds)Rethinking Marketing, Sage, London.

Burke, T. (1996), `̀ Fork up and smile: marketing colonial knowledge and the remote subject inZimbabwe'', Gender and History, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 440-56.

Bush, R.F. and Hunt, S.D. (1982), `̀ Marketing theory: philosophy of science perspectives'', AMAConference Proceedings, AMA, Chicago, IL.

Buttle, F.A. (1994), `̀ New paradigm research in marketing'', European Journal of Marketing,Vol. 28 No. 8/9, pp. 8-11.

Calhoun, C. (1996), Critical Social Theory, Blackwell, Oxford.

Carson, D. (1995), `̀ A comment on: the commodification of marketing knowledge'', Journal ofMarketing Management, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 661-4.

Castells, M. (1980), City, Class and Power, Macmillan, London.

Cooper, C. and Otley, D. (1998), `̀ The 1996 research assessment exercise for business andmanagement'', British Journal of Management, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 73-90.

Cova, B. (1999), `̀ From marketing to societing: when the link is more important than the thing'', inBrownlie, D., Saren, M., Wensley, R. and Whittington, R. (Eds), Rethinking Marketing,Sage, London.

Cunliffe, A. (1999), `̀ Critical pedagogy: reflective dialogical practice'', paper presented at the FirstCritical Management Studies Conference, UMIST, Manchester.

Day, G.S. and Montgomery, D.B. (1999), `̀ Charting new directions for marketing'', Journal ofMarketing, Editorial, Special Issue, Vol. 63, pp. 3-13.

Criticalmarketing

theory

739

Dholakia, N. and Arndt, J. (Eds) (1985), Changing the Course of Marketing: AlternativeParadigms for Widening Market Theory, Research in Marketing Series, Supplement 2,JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.

Dholakia, N., Firat Firat, A. and Bogozzi, R.P. (1980), `̀ The de-Americanization of marketingthought in search of a universal basis'', in Lamb, C.W. and Dunne, P.M. (Eds), TheoreticalDevelopments in Marketing, AMA Conference Proceedings, Phoenix, AZ, 10-13 February.

Dibb, S. and Stern, P. (1999), `̀ Research, rhetoric and reality: marketing's trifid'', in Brownlie, D.,Saren, M., Wensley, R. and Whittington, R. (Eds), Rethinking Marketing, Sage, London.

Dillon-Malone, P.J. (1970), `̀ A marketing approach to marketing education'', British Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 4, pp. 215-19.

du Gay, P. and Salaman, G. (1992), `̀ The cult(ure) of the consumer'', Journal of ManagementStudies, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 615-33.

Ehrensal, K.N. (1999), `̀ Critical management studies and the American business school culture:or, how not to get tenure in one easy publication'', paper presented at the CriticalManagement Studies Conference, Manchester School of Management, UMIST,Manchester.

Farmer, R.N. (1967), `̀ Would your let your daughter marry a marketing man?'', Journal ofMarketing, January, pp. 1-10.

Featherstone, M. (1988), `̀ In pursuit of the postmodern: an introduction'', Theory, Culture andSociety, Vol. 5, pp. 195-215.

Featherstone, M. (1991), Consumer Culture and Post-modernism, Sage, London.

Finch, J. (1984), `̀ `It's great to have someone to talk to': the ethics and politics of interviewingwomen'', in Bell, C. and Roberts, H. (Eds), Social Researching, Routledge and Keegan Paul,London.

Firat, A.F. (1997), `̀ Welcome to CMC'', Consumption, Markets and Culture, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 1-6.

Foxall, G.R. (1989), `̀ Marketing's domain'', European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 8, pp. 7-22.

Foxall, G.R. (1997), Marketing Psychology: The Paradigm in the Wings, Macmillan, London.

Foxall, G.R. (1998), `̀ Radical behaviorist interpretation: generating and evaluating an account ofconsumer behaviour'', The Behavior Analyst, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 321-54.

French, R. and Grey, C. (1996), Rethinking Management Education, Sage, London.

Fuller, L. and Smith, V. (1991), `̀ Consumers' reports: management by customers in a changingeconomy'', Work, Employment and Society, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 1-16.

Fullerton, R. (1988), `̀ How modern is modern marketing? Marketing's evolution and the myth ofthe production era'', Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52, pp. 108-25.

Gilbert, D. and Bailey, N. (1990), `̀ The development of marketing ± a compendium of historicalapproaches'', Quarterly Review of Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 6-13.

Gist, R.R. (1974), Marketing and Society, Dryden Press, Hinsdale, IL.

Gold, J., Holman, D. and Thorpe, R. (1999), `̀ The manager as a critical reflective practioner:uncovering arguments at work'', paper presented at the Critical Management StudiesConference, Manchester School of Management, UMIST, Manchester.

Graeff, T.R. (1997), `̀ Bringing reflective learning to the marketing research course: a cooperativelearning project using intergroup critique'', Journal of Marketing Education, Spring,pp. 53-60.

GroÈnroos, C. (1994), `̀ From marketing mix to relationship marketing towards a paradigm shift inmarketing'', Management Decision, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 1-19.

Groves, W.B. and Sampson, R.J. (1986), `̀ Critical theory and criminology'', Social Problems,Vol. 33, October/December, pp. 58-80.


740

Gummerson, E. (1994), `̀ Making relationship marketing operational'', International Journal ofService Industry Management, Vol. 5 No. 5, pp. 1-10.

Halbert, M. (1965), The Meaning and Sources of Marketing Theory, McGraw-Hill Book Company,London.

Hammersley, M. and Gomm, R. (1997), `̀ Bias in social research'', Sociological Research On-line,Vol. 2 No. 1, <http://www.socresonline.org.uk/socresonline/2/1/2.html>.

Harding, S. (1987), Feminism and Methodology, Open University Press, Milton Keynes.

Hetrick, W.P. and Lozada, H.R. (1999), `̀ Theory, ethical critique and the experience of marketing'',in Brownlie, D., Saren, M., Wensley, R. and Whittington, R. (Eds), Rethinking Marketing,Sage, London.

Holbrook, M.B. (1995), `̀ The four faces of commodification'', Journal of Marketing Management,Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 641-54.

Holden, A.C. and Holden, L. (1998), `̀ Marketing history: illuminating marketing's clandestinesubdiscipline'', Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 117-23.

Hollander, S.C. (1980), `̀ Some notes on the difficulty of identifying the marketing thoughtcontributions of the `early institutionlists''', in Lamb, C.W. and Dunne, P.M. (Eds),Theoretical Developments in Marketing, AMA Conference Proceedings, Phoenix, AZ,10-13 February.

Hopper, T., Storey, J. and Willmott, H. (1987), `̀ Accounting for accounting: towards thedevelopment of a dialectical view'', Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 1 No. 5,pp. 437-56.

Hopton, J. (1997), `̀ Towards a critical theory of mental health nursing'', Journal of AdvancedNursing, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 492-500.

Howard, D.G. and Ryans, J.K. (1993), `̀ What role should marketing theory play in marketingeducation: a cross-national comparison of marketing educators'', Asia Pacific Journal ofMarketing and Logistics, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 29-43.

Howard, D.G., Savins, D.M., Howell, W. and Ryans, J.K. (1991), `̀ The evolution of marketingtheory in the United States and Europe'', European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 2,pp. 7-16.

Hugstad, P. (1997), `̀ Marketing the marketing major'', Journal of Marketing Education, Vol. 19No. 1, pp. 4-13.

Hult, G.T.M., Neese, W.T. and Bashaw, R.E. (1997), `̀ Faculty perceptions of marketing journals'',Journal of Marketing Education, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 37-52.

Hunt, S.D. (1983), `̀ General theories and the fundamental explanada of marketing'', Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 9-17.

Hunt, S.D. (1994), `̀ On rethinking marketing: our discipline, our practice, our methods'', EuropeanJournal of Marketing, Vol. 28 No. 3.

Hunt, S.D. (1995), `̀ On the marketing of marketing knowledge'', Journal of MarketingManagement, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 635-9.

Jackson, P. (2000) in Burton, D. (Ed.), Research Training for Social Scientists: A Handbook forPostgraduate Researchers, Sage, London.

Keat, R., Whiteley, N. and Abercrombie, N. (1994), The Authority of the Consumer, Routledge,London.

Kellner, D. (1988), `̀ Postmodernism as social theory: some challenges and problems'', Theory,Culture and Society, Vol. 5, pp. 239-69.

Kerin, R.A. (1996), `̀ In pursuit of an ideal: the editorial and literary history of the Journal ofMarketing'', Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60, pp. 1-14.

Criticalmarketing

theory

741

Kim, A.E. (1996), `̀ `Critical theory and the sociology of religion': a reassessment'', Social Compass:International Review of Sociology of Religion, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 267-83.

Knights, D. and Willmott, H. (1997), `̀ The hype and hope of interdisciplinary managementstudies'', British Journal of Management, Vol. 8, pp. 9-22.

Kotler, P. (1972), `̀ A generic concept of marketing'', Journal of Marketing, Vol. 36, April, pp. 46-54.

Kotler, P. and Levy, S.J. (1969), `̀ Broadening the concept of marketing'', Journal of Marketing,Vol. 33, January, pp. 10-15.

Kramarae, C. and Spender, S. (1993), The Knowledge Explosion, Harvester Wheatsheaf, NewYork, NY.

Lamb, C.W. and Dunne, P.M. (Eds) (1980), Theoretical Developments in Marketing, AMAConference Proceedings, Phoenix, AZ, 10-13 February.

Lash, S. (1990), The Sociology of Postmodernism, Routledge, London.

Lash, S. and Urry, J. (1987), The End of Organized Capitalism, Polity, Oxford.

Lazer, W. (1967), `̀ Some observation of the state of the art of marketing theory'', in Kelley, E.J. andLazer, W. (Eds), Managerial Marketing Perspectives and Viewpoints, Irwin, Homewood, IL.

Lennon, K. and Whitford, M. (Eds) (1994), Knowing the Difference: Feminist Perspectives inEpistemology, Routledge, London.

Leone, M.P. and Potter Shackel, P.B.P.A. (1987), `̀ Towards a critical archaeology'', CurrentAnthropology, Vol. 28, pp. 283-302.

Leong, S.M., Sheth, J.N. and Tan, C.T. (1994), `̀ An empirical study of the scientific styles ofmarketing academics'', European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 28 No. 8/9, pp. 12-26.

Lundstrom, W.J., White, D.S. and Schuster, C.P. (1996), `̀ Internationalising the marketingcurriculum: the professional marketer's perspective'', Journal of Marketing Education,Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 5-16.

Lusch, R.F. (1980), `̀ Alderson, Sessions and the 1950s manager'', in Lamb, C.W. and Dunne, P.M.(Eds) Theoretical Developments in Marketing, AMA Conference Proceedings, AMA,Chicago, IL.

McDonagh, P. (1995), `̀ Radical change through rigorous review? A commentary on thecommodification of marketing knowledge'', Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 11No. 3, pp. 675-9.

Marcuse, H. (1991), One Dimensional Man, Routledge, London.

Mittelstaedt, R.A. (1990), `̀ Economics, psychology and the literature of the subdiscipline ofconsumer behaviour'', Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 18 No. 4,pp. 303-11.

Morgan, G. (1992), `̀ Marketing discourse and practice: towards a critical analysis'', in Alvesson,M. and Willmott, H. (Eds), Critical Management Studies, Sage, London.

Morris, D. (1995), `̀ Do marketing professors really know marketing?'', Marketing News, Vol. 24No. 3, pp. 4-5.

Mort, F. and Thompson, P. (1994), `̀ Retailing, commercial culture and masculinity in 1950sBritain: the case of Montague Burton the `tailor of taste''', History Workshop Journal,Vol. 38, pp. 106-27.

Murphy, P.E., Ennis, B.M., Millenson, J.S. and Holbrook, M. (1987), `̀ Marketing education in the1980s and beyond: the rigor/relevance rift'', in Belk, R.W. and Zaltman, G. (Eds), MarketingTheory, AMA Winter Educators' Conference, San Antonio, TX.

Murray, J.B., Evers, D.J. and Swinder, J. (1995), `̀ Marketing, theory borrowing, and criticalreflection'', Journal of Macromarketing, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 92-106.


742

Oakley, A. (1981), `̀ Interviewing women: a contradiction in terms'', in Roberts, H. (Ed.), DoingFeminist Research, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.

O'Driscoll, A. and Murray, J.A. (1998), `̀ The changing nature of theory and practice in marketing:on the value of synchrony'', Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 14, pp. 391-416.

Ozanne, J.L. and Murray, J.B. (1995), `̀ Uniting critical theory and public policy to create thereflexively defiant consumer'', American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 516-25.

Packard, V. (1960), The Hidden Persuaders, Penguin, Harmondsworth.

Piercy, N.F. (1999), `̀ A polemic: in search of excellence among business school professors:cowboys, chameleons, question-marks and quislings'', European Journal of Marketing,Vol. 33 No. 7/8, pp. 698-706.

Poster, M. and Venkatesh, A. (1987), `̀ From Marx to Foucault ± an intellectual journal throughcritical theory'', in Belk, R.W. and Zaltman, G. (Eds), Marketing Theory, AMA WinterEducators' Conference, San Antonio, TX.

Prindle, J. (1994), `̀ Marketing ethics, macromarketing and the managerial perspectivereconsidered'', Journal of Macromarketing, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 47-62.

Rappert, B. (1997), `̀ Users and social science research: policy, problems and possibilities'',Sociological Research On-line, Vol. 2 No. 3, <http://www.socresonline.org.uk/socresonline/2/3/10.html>.

Ray, L.J. (1993), Rethinking Critical Theory, Sage, London.

Reed, D. (1995), `̀ Critical theory and the Catholic church's ambivalence about capitalism'',International Journal of Social Economics, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 19-39.

Reynolds, M. (1999), `̀ Grasping the nettle: possibilities and pitfalls of a critical managementpedagogy'', British Journal of Management, Vol. 9, pp. 171-84.

Rosson, P. (1977), `̀ British teachers' conceptions of marketing'', European Journal of Marketing,Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 51-61.

Salter, M. and Shaw, J.J.A. (1994), `̀ Towards a critical theory of constitutional law: Hegel'scontribution'', Journal of Law and Society, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 464-86.

Scambler, G. (1996), `̀ The `project of modernity' and the parameters for a critical sociology: anargument with illustrations from medical sociology'', Sociology, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 567-81.

Sheth, J.N., Gardner, D.M. and Garrett, D.E. (1988), Marketing Theory Evolution and Evaluation,John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.

Sills, A. and Desai, P. (1996), `̀ Qualitative research amongst ethnic minorities in Britain'', Journalof the Market Research Society, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 251-65.

Spillard, P. (1967), `̀ Education and research in marketing: the CNAA system'', British Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 1, Autumn, pp. 29-41.

Smith, K.J. and Reed Muller, H. (1998), `̀ The ethics of publisher incentives in the marketingtextbook selection decision'', Journal of Marketing Education, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 258-69.

Stanfield, J.H. and Dennis, R.M. (1993), Race and Ethnicity in Research Methods, Sage, London.

Stanley, L. (1990), Feminist Praxis, Routledge, London.

Stanley, L. (1997), Knowing Feminisms, Sage, London.

Stanley, L. and Wise, S. (1993), Breaking out Again, Routledge, London.

Tetreault, M.A. (1987), `̀ Speculations on the sociology of marketing'', in Belk, R.W. and Zaltman,G. (Eds), Marketing Theory, AMA Winter Educators' Conference, San Antonio, TX.

Thomas, M. (1999), `̀ Commentary'', in Brownlie, D., Saren, M., Wensley, R. and Whittington, R.(Eds), Rethinking Marketing, Sage, London.

Thomas-Bernard, W. (2000) in Burton, D. (Ed.), Research Training for Social Scientists: AHandbook for Postgraduate Researchers, Sage, London.

Criticalmarketing

theory

743

Thrift, N. (1999), `̀ The place of complexity'', Theory, Culture and Society, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 31-69.

Transfield, D. and Starkey, K. (1998), `̀ The nature, social organization and promotion ofmanagement research: towards policy'', British Journal of Management, Vol. 9 No. 4,pp. 341-53.

Trocchia, P.J. and Berkowitz, D. (1999), `̀ Getting doctored: a proposed model of marketingdoctoral student socialization'', European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 33 Nos 7/8, pp. 746-59.

Tucker, W.T. (1974), `̀ Future directions in marketing theory'', Journal of Marketing, Vol. 38,pp. 30-5.

Tybout, A.M. (1986), `̀ The role of doctoral programs in the generation and dissemination ofmarketing knowledge'', Draft Report to the AMA.

Usunier, J. (1998), International and Cross-cultural Management Research, Sage, London.

Vink, N. (1992), `̀ Historical perspectives in marketing management: explicating experience'',Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 219-37.

Waitzkin, H. (1989), `̀ A critical theory of medical discourse: ideology, social control, and theprocessing of social context in medical encounters'', Journal of Health and SocialBehaviour, Vol. 30, pp. 220-39.

Walker, B.J., Berry, L.L., Etzel, M.J., Laczniak, E.R., Muncy, J.A. and Swan, J.E. (1997), `̀ Buildingprofessionalism in marketing: the role of marketing educators'', in Belk, R.W. and Zaltman,G. (Eds), Marketing Theory, AMA Winter Educators' Conference, San Antonio, TX.

Walker, D.S. and Child, J. (1979), `̀ The development of professionalism as an issue in Britishmarketing'', European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 27-54.

Watson, T.J. (1997), `̀ Theorizing managerial work: a pragmatic pluralist approach tointerdisciplinary research'', British Journal of Management, Vol. 8, pp. 3-8.

Webb, S. (2000), `̀ Feminist methodologies for social researching'', in Burton, D. (Ed.), ResearchTraining for Social Scientists: A Handbook for Postgraduate Researchers, Sage, London.

Wensley, R. (1995), `̀ A critical review of research in marketing'', British Journal of Management,Vol. 6, pp. 63-82.

Wensley, R. (1999), `̀ Commentary'', in Brownlie, D., Saren, M., Wensley, R. and Whittington, R.(Eds), Rethinking Marketing, Sage, London.

Williams, J.D. (1995), `̀ Review article'', Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. XXXII, May,pp. 239-45.

Willmott, H. (1999), `̀ On the idolization of markets and the denigration of marketers: some criticalreflections on a professional paradox'', in Brownlie, D., Saren, M., Wensley, R. andWhittington, R. (Eds), Rethinking Marketing, Sage, London.

Wilson-Thomas, L. (1995), `̀ Applying critical social theory in nursing education to bridge the gapbetween theory, research and practice'', Journal of Advanced Nursing, Vol. 21 No. 3,pp. 568-75.

Zaltman, G. (1999), `̀ Commentary'', in Brownlie, D., Saren, M., Wensley, R. and Whittington, R.(Eds), Rethinking Marketing, Sage, London.

Zuckerman, M., Ellen, M. and Carsky, M.L. (1990), `̀ Contribution of women to US marketingthought: the consumers' perspective 1900-1940'', Journal of the Academy of MarketingScience, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 313-18.

critical marketing theory: the journal of blueprint? · salesmanship to conquer and defend this...

Documents