For re-institutionalizing the marketing discipline in Era V
- PDF / 343,636 Bytes
- 10 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 86 Downloads / 207 Views
THEORY/CONCEPTUAL
For re-institutionalizing the marketing discipline in Era V Shelby D. Hunt 1,2 Received: 30 October 2020 / Accepted: 5 November 2020 # Academy of Marketing Science 2020
Abstract Commentaries on the status of the marketing discipline conclude that it is significantly troubled, which raises the question: Do the troubles identified portend a de-institutionalization of the discipline in marketing’s Era IV (1980–2020) and its potential reinstitutionalization in Era V (2020-?)? This article examines (1) the marketing discipline’s founding in Era I (1900–1920), (2) how the discipline became institutionalized in Era II (1920–1950), (3) how marketing was re-institutionalized in Era III (1950– 1980), and (4) how the discipline’s fragmentation in Era IV (1980–2020) portends its de-institutionalization. The article concludes by arguing for the marketing discipline’s re-institutionalization in Era V (2020-?). Keywords Marketing discipline . Institutionalization . History of marketing . marketing’s re-institutionalization . marketing’s de-institutionalization
For several decades, commentaries on the marketing discipline have found it to be significantly troubled (e.g., Clark et al. 2014; Hunt 2018; Lehmann et al. 2011; Moorman et al. 2019; Piercy 2002; Reibstein et al. 2009; Sheth and Sisodia 2006; Steenkamp 2018; Varadarajan 2010; Webster and Lusch 2013; Yadav 2020). By thoughtfully extending the previous analyses, the Key et al. (2020) essays further confirm the discipline’s unsettled status. Indeed, the insightful essays by Terry Clark, O. C. Ferrell, Martin Key, David Stewart, and Leyland Pitt raise disciplinary problems that have not been previously addressed. Also, they propose a significant causal factor underlying some of marketing’s difficulties: a “central premise [that] emerged [was the existence of] a disciplinewide drift and myopic approach to rigor and relevance” (Key et al. 2020, p. 1). If the Key et al. (2020) commentary and its predecessors are on target, then the discipline faces a problematic future. Wilkie and Moore (2003, 2006) trace the marketing discipline’s evolution through four major Eras: (I) Founding the Field (1900–1920), (II) Formalizing the Field (1920–1950), (III) A Paradigm Shift – Marketing, Management, and the * Shelby D. Hunt [email protected] 1
The Jerry S. Rawls and P.W. Horn Distinguished Professor of Marketing, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USA
2
Department of Marketing, Rawls College of Business, Lubbock, TX 79409-2101, USA
Sciences (1950–1980), and (IV) A Fragmentation of the Mainstream (1980-present). Hunt (2018, forthcoming) supplements their periodization by creating a “five stages model” that ends their Era IV in 2020 and proposes a future Era V (2020-?). In each Era, the discipline’s nature, scope, central focus, and institutional status changed significantly. This article builds on the Key et al. (2020) commentary and its predecessors by using the five stages model to address the following question: Do the troubles identified in the commentaries por
Data Loading...
