Numerous authors have discussed the possibility of a marketing science and have presented their visions to describe the characteristics of such a science. Fundamentally, these visions must come to grips with the idea of “truth” and the role truth plays in theory and research. In this article, the authors explore “truth in marketing science” by describing the essential problem of science in general and discussing the issues that shape the notion of a marketing science in particular. They note two limiting factors in viewing marketing as a science: (1) marketing as an applied field and (2) marketing's attempts to explain human behavior—a phenomenon that is mutable, unpredictable, and reactive. They propose a scientific realist perspective, which can be useful for describing some of the “scientific” explanations offered in the marketing literature.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AakerDavid A. (1991), Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand Name.New York: The Free Press.
2.
AchinsteinP. (1969), “Approaches to the Philosophy of Science,” in The Legacy of Logical Positivism, AchinsteinP. and BarkerS., eds. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.
3.
AndersonPaul F. (1983), “Marketing, Scientific Progress, and Scientific Method,” Journal of Marketing, 46 (Fall), 18–31.
4.
AndersonPaul F. (1986), “On Method in Consumer Research: A Critical Relativist Perspective,” Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (September), 155–73.
5.
AndersonPaul F. (1988), “Relative to What—That Is the Question: A Reply to Siegel,” Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (June), 133–7.
6.
BergerPaul and LuckmannThomas (1967), The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge.New York: Doubleday & Co., Inc.
7.
BhaskarRoy (1975), A Realist Theory of Science.Leeds, UK: Leeds Books.
8.
BhaskarRoy (1979), The Possibility of Naturalism.Brighton, UK: Harvester Press.
9.
BirdM.ChannonC., and EhrenbergA. S. C. (1970), “Brand Image and Brand Usage.” Journal of Marketing Research, 7 (August), 307–14.
10.
BlairEdward and ZinkhanGeorge (1984), “The Realist View of Science: Implications for Marketing,” in Scientific Method in Marketing: Philosophy, Sociology and History of Science Perspectives, AndersonP. F. and RyanM. J., eds. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 26–9.
11.
BullmoreJeremy (1984), “The Brand and its Image Revisited,” International Journal of Advertising, 3 (3), 235–8.
12.
DeshpandeRohit (1983), “Paradigms Lost: On Theory and Method in Research in Marketing,” Journal of Marketing, 46 (Fall), 101–10.
13.
DobniDawn and ZinkhanGeorge M. (1990), “In Search of Brand Image: A Foundation Analysis,” in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 17, GoldbergM., GornG., and PollayR. W., eds. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 110–19.
14.
FeyerabendPaul (1975), Against Method.Thetford, UK: Lowe and Brydone.
15.
GergenKen (1976), “Social Psychology, Science and History,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2 (Fall), 373–83.
16.
GergenKen (1977), “Social Exchange Theory in a World of Transient Fact,” in Behavioral Theory in Sociology, HamblimR. L., ed. New York: Transaction Books.
17.
GergenKen (1978), “Toward Generative Theory,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36 (November), 1344–60.
18.
GillyMary C. (1988), “Sex Roles in Advertising: A Comparison,” Journal of Marketing, 52 (April), 75–85.
19.
HabermasJürgan (1984), The Theory of Communicative Action: Volume One—Reason and the Rationalization of Society.Boston: Beacon Press.
20.
HowardJohn and ShethJagdish (1969), The Theory of Buyer Behavior.New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
21.
HuntShelby D. (1989), “Reification and Realism in Marketing: In Defense of Reason,” Journal of Macromarketing, 9 (Fall), 4–10.
22.
HuntShelby D. (1990), “Truth in Marketing Theory and Research,” Journal of Marketing, 54 (July), 1–15.
23.
HymanMichael and SkipperRobert (1991), “A Foundations Analysis of the Term ‘Market,” working paper, North Texas University.
24.
JohnsonMadeline and ZinkhanGeorge M. (1990), “Defining and Measuring Company Image,” in Developments in Marketing Science, Vol. 13, DunlapB. J., ed. Cullowhee, NC: Academy of Marketing Science, 346–50.
25.
LaudanLarry (1977), Progress and Its Problems.Berkeley: University of California Press.
26.
LaudanLarry (1980), “Views of Progress: Separating the Pilgrims From the Rakes,” Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 10, 273–86.
27.
LevySidney J. (1978), Marketplace Behavior.New York: AMACOM.
28.
ManicasP. and SecordPaul (1983), “Implications for Psychology of the New Philosophy of Science,” American Psychologist, 38, 399–413.
29.
MoniesonDavid D. (1988), “Intellectualization in Macromarketing: A World Disenchanted,” Journal of Macromarketing, 8 (Fall), 4–10.
30.
MoniesonDavid D. (1989), “Intellectualization in Macromarketing Revisited: A Reply to Hunt,” Journal of Macromarketing, 9 (Fall), 11–16.
31.
NewmanJoseph W. (1957), “New Insight, New Progress, for Marketing,” Harvard Business Review, 35 (November–December), 95–102.
32.
ParkC. Whan, JaworskiBernard J., and MacInnisDeborah J. (1986), “Strategic Brand Concept-Image Management,” Journal of Marketing, 50 (October), 135–45.
33.
PeterJ. Paul and OlsonJerry C. (1983), “Is Science Marketing?” Journal of Marketing, 47 (Fall), 111–25.
34.
PohlmanAlan and MuddSamuel (1973), “Market Image as a Function of Group and Product Type: A Quantitative Approach,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 57 (2), 167–71.
35.
RadnitzkyG. (1970), Contemporary Schools of Metascience.Gothenberg: Akademiforlaget.
36.
ReynoldsThomas J. and GutmanJonathan (1984), “Advertising Is Image Management,” Journal of Advertising Research, 24 (February-March), 27–38.
37.
SayersB. (1987), “Wittgenstein, Relativism, and the Strong Thesis in Sociology,” Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 17 (June), 133–45.
38.
SecordPaul (1983), “Explanation in the Social Sciences and in Life Situations,” presented at University of Chicago Conference on Potentialities of Knowledge in the Social Sciences (September).
39.
SiegelH. (1988), “Relativism for Consumer Research?” Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (June), 129–32.
40.
SirgyM. Joseph (1985), “Using Self-Congruity and Ideal Congruity to Predict Purchase Motivation,” Journal of Business Research, 13(3), 195–206.
41.
SynderPaul (1978), Towards One Science: The Convergence of Traditions.New York: St. Martins Press.
42.
ThomasonB. (1982), Making Sense of Reification.London: Macmillan Press.
43.
ToulminSteven (1972), “The Genealogy of ‘Consciousness’,” in Explaining Social Behavior: Consciousness; Human Action and Social Structure, SecordP. F., ed. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
44.
VillanovaLisa, ZinkhanGeorge M., and HymanMichael (1990), “On Defining and Measuring Store Image,” in Developments in Marketing Science, Vol. 13, DunlapB. J., ed. Cullowhee, NC: Academy of Marketing Science, 466–70.
45.
WhiteheadA. (1925), Science in the Modern World.New York: The Macmillan Press.
46.
ZinkhanGeorge M. (1987), “Scientific Realism and the New Functionalism: Implications for Marketing Theory and Research Practice,” in Marketing Theory, BelkR. W. and ZaltmanG., eds. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 389–94.
