Hunt's 1990 interpretation of scientific realism is compared with the relativistic/constructionist view previously introduced in this journal. Though some similarities are found, the two views differ most strikingly in terms of the nature of reality, the nature of truth, and the value of the concept of incommensurability. Several implications are offered for marketing scientists about what difference it makes which view they accept. However, the author concludes that philosophically oriented marketing theorists need to further demonstrate the value of their work for practicing marketing scientists.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndersonPaul F. (1983), “Marketing, Scientific Progress, and Scientific Method,” Journal of Marketing, 47 (Fall), 18–31.
2.
AndersonPaul F. (1986) “On Method in Consumer Research: A Critical Relativist Perspective,” Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (September), 155–73.
3.
BarnesBarry and BloorDavid (1989), “Relativism, Rationalism and the Sociology of Knowledge,” in Rationality and Relativism, HollisMartin and LukesSteven, eds. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 21–47.
4.
HuntShelby D. (1990), “Truth in Marketing Theory and Research,” Journal of Marketing, 54 (July), 1–15.
5.
KuhnThomas S. (1962), The Structure of Scientific Theories.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
6.
KuhnThomas S. (1970), The Structure of Scientific Theories, 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
7.
McMullinErnan (1984), “A Case for Scientific Realism,” in Scientific Realism, LeplinJ., ed. Berkeley: University of California Press, 8–40.
8.
OlsonJerry C. (1982), “Presidential Address—1981: Toward a Science of Consumer Behavior,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 9, MitchellA., ed. Chicago: Association for Consumer Research, v–x.
9.
PeterJ. Paul (1991), “Philosophical Tensions in Consumer Inquiry,” in Handbook of Consumer Behavior, KassarjianH. H. and RobertsonTom, eds. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 533–47.
10.
PeterJ. Paul and OlsonJerry C. (1983), “Is Science Marketing?” Journal of Marketing, 47 (Fall), 111–25.
11.
PeterJ. Paul and OlsonJerry C. (1989), “The Relativistic/Constructionist Perspective on Scientific Knowledge and Consumer Research,” in Interpretive Consumer Research, HirschmanElizabeth C., ed. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 24–9.
12.
PeterJ. Paul and OlsonJerry C. (1990), Consumer Behavior and Marketing Strategy, 2nd ed. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin, Inc.
13.
SawyerAlan G. and PeterJ. Paul (1983), “The Significance of Statistical Significance Tests in Marketing Research,” Journal of Marketing Research, 20 (May), 122–33.
14.
SiegelHarvey (1983), “Brown on Epistemology and the New Philosophy of Science,” Synthese, 14, 61–89.
15.
SuppeFrederick (1977), The Structure of Scientific Theories, 2nd ed. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
16.
WickerAllan W. (1985), “Getting Out of Our Conceptual Ruts,” American Psychologist, 40 (October), 1094–103.
17.
ZaltmanGerald, LeMastersKaren, and HeffringMichael (1982), Theory Construction in Marketing: Some Thoughts on Thinking.New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
