Is Marketing
a Science or, at Best, a Standardised Art?
Hutchinson
(1952) – firmly believe this is an art or practice thus
difficult to develop a unique body of theory. P13
Bartels
(1951), Buzzell (1963) and Hunt (1976b) examined how well marketing meet the
scientific requirements.
Bartels
(1951): P13
1.
Must be establishment of general laws
or broad principles
2.
Should be of social import
3.
Extension of knowledge as well as
guiding administrative means toward profitable ends
4.
Abstraction as well as concrete facts
Buzell (1963):
P13
1.
A classified and systemized body of
knowledge
2.
Organized around one or more central
theories and a number of general principles
3.
Usually in quantitative terms
4.
Permits prediction or control future
events
Hunt
(1976b): P14
1.
Described and classified real world
2.
Presume underlying uniformities and
regularities interrelating the subject matter
3.
Adopt intersubjectively certifiable
procedures for studying the subject matter
Anderson
(1983): P14
…
Positivism’s reliance on empirical testing as the sole means of theory
justification cannot be maintained as a viable description of the scientific
process or as a normative prescription for the conduct of scientific
activities.
Peter and
Olson (1983): P14
…. Main task
of science is to create useful knowledge. Marketing scholars… to create new
conceptual schemes and perspectives…. outdated rules of the Positivistic /
Empiricist approach that focuses only on testing theories we already have….
Bagozzi
(1984) summarized the structural aspects of theory construction:
·
Logical empiricist model (the
Received View), Operational oriented approach – realist theory of
science(Holistic Construal), Criticism
and constructivism (Arndt 1985), Relativism (Anderson 1983, 1986, Peter &
Olson 1983), Humanish (Hirschman 1986)
·
Comparative approach vs. traditional
confirmatory approaches
Ei kommentteja:
Lähetä kommentti