Marketing science: where's the beef? - failures in efforts to establish the scientific aspect of marketing theory - includes bibliography

Business Horizons, Jan-Feb, 1994 by L. McTier Anderson

A much debated question since the late 1940s is whether marketing is a science. Most scholars trace the origins of the debate to Paul Converse's 1945 article, "The Development of the Science of Marketing." Wroe Alderson and Reavis Cox's 1948 classic, "Towards a Theory of Marketing," fueled the fires and provided a much needed focus. One of the most insightful and thought-provoking articles on the question was Robert D. Buzzell's "Is Marketing a Science?" (1963). Buzzell defined science as:

. . . a classified and systematized body of knowledge... organized around one or more central theories and a number of general principles... usually expressed in quantitative terms... knowledge which permits the prediction and, under some circumstances, the control of future events. (p. 33)

Scholars have taken positions from one extreme to the other on the marketing science question. For example, Kenneth Hutchinson (1952) argued that marketing was not--and given its nature, could never be--a science. At the other extreme, Shelby Hunt (1976a) argued that marketing is a science. Hunt's position was articulated in "The Nature and Scope of Marketing," which won the Journal of Marketing's Harold H. Maynard Award for its significant contribution to marketing theory and thought.

Hunt noted that most writers had cited Buzzell's perspective on the nature of science, but he disagreed with Buzzell's opinion that marketing is not a science because it lacks the requisite central theories. Hunt dismissed the central theory requirement as "overly restrictive," citing George Homan's belief that "what makes a science are its aims, not its results."

This article reviews the discipline's scientific progress and the science movement's effect on the study and practice of marketing.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF A MARKETING SCIENCE INFRASTRUCTURE

Marketing scholars have focused intensely for 30 years on developing a science of marketing. An important benefit of this movement was that scholars recognized the need to be more scientific in their investigation of marketing phenomena. This led to the development of a critically important infrastructure for scientific investigation and analysis: scholarly journals, research organizations, books, conferences on theory development, analytical tools, and the recognition of scholarly contributions.

A chronology (see the Figure) of selected milestones (at least ten years old to provide historical perspective) reveals that marketing has a more than adequate scientific infrastructure, much of which is long standing. For example, The Advertising Research Foundation was formed in 1936 for the purpose of "promoting the use of the scientific method in advertising and marketing"; the Marketing Science Institute, dedicated to the "crash cultivation" of a new field of science, was established in 1962.

While building the discipline's scientific infrastructure, marketing scholars have benefited from unparalleled computer power for analyzing data and processing manuscripts and from unprecedented growth in research methodologies. According to Jerry Wind (1981):

The methodological advancement of marketing research over the last two decades is unparalleled. Marketing research has emerged from a minor endeavor by relatively few research houses and even fewer users, to a large and prosperous industry. The field has progressed from the status of a borrower to that of a lender. Many developments in the marketing area have penetrated other social sciences, which now contain an increasing number of references to marketing research studies. Marketing research today is as methodologically advanced as the research of any other behavioral science or business area and is, in fact, considerably more advanced than most of the research conducted in areas such as personnel, accounting, sociology, or social psychology. (p. 8)

THE DISCIPLINE'S SCIENTIFIC TRACK RECORD

Given marketing's long standing and concentrated emphasis on science, then, one would reasonably expect that the discipline's scientific credentials would be firmly established by now. Because a science consists of both a body of knowledge (that is, central theories and principles) and an investigative process (the scientific method), the discipline's performance must be measured against both of these criteria.

Theory Development

In their classic, "Towards a Theory of Marketing," Alderson and Cox (1948) explained the need for the discipline to move beyond an "almost haphazard accumulation of facts" toward the development of marketing theory. The authors also noted "... a lively and growing interest in the theory of marketing..." as evidenced by theory courses at several universities, theoretical books and articles, and sections on theory at national conferences of the American Marketing Association.

How successful has the discipline been in developing a body of theoretical knowledge that meets the scientific criteria articulated by Buzzell? Thirty-five years after Alderson and Cox issued their challenge, Hunt (1983b) began his second Maynard Award-winning article, "General Theories and the Fundamental Explananda of Marketing," by citing similar evidence of increasing interest in the development of marketing theory. However, in answering the question, "Is a general theory of marketing possible?" Hunt concluded, "Although we are not close to developing a general theory of marketing at this time, progress is being made." This raises two questions. First, why has there been so little significant progress? Second, is it possible to develop marketing theories and principles that meet scientific standards?