Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

“What ‘is’ marketing?” Perusal of the marketing literature reveals that “marketing” has been defined and characterized in multiple, often inconsistent but typically ambiguous, ways that have evolved over time. The present essay argues that characterizing marketing as a transdisciplinary body of knowledge formally captures its essence and possesses numerous implications for marketing education as well as marketing practice. Following a brief review of how marketing has been conceptualized in the past, the benefits and challenges of conceptualizing marketing as a transdisciplinary body of knowledge are discussed from a paradigmatic perspective.

Keywords

transdisciplinary marketing definition body of knowledge semantics discipline

What “is” marketing? As the opening heading in the first chapter of a marketing principles book by Grewal and Levy (2024), the authors enticed readers (i.e., students) by telling them that marketing, unlike other subjects studied as an undergraduate, is already familiar to them. That familiarity, the authors contended, comes from students having been exposed to and engaged in marketing activities throughout their transition to college life.

Yet, to scholarly minds, this seemingly innocuous, perhaps rhetorical, question has a myriad of answers, many of which are inconsistent, contradictory, and/or at the least ambiguous. Consider, for illustration, the current “official” or formal definition of the American Marketing Association (2024): Marketing is the activity, set of institutions, and processes for creating, communication, delivering, and exchanging offerings that have value for customers, clients, partners, and society at large. How, for example, would someone (e.g., student, scholar, practitioner) differentiate marketing as the activity from, say, marketing as the set of institutions? Perusal of marketing principles textbooks and marketing curricula at colleges and universities worldwide reveals that educators tend to focus on marketing activities in the classroom. Simultaneously, though, marketing educators tend to apply a larger conceptual domain outside of the classroom.

With both the activities and the larger conceptual domain in mind, the purpose of this essay is to propose that marketing be characterized as a transdisciplinary body of knowledge. To a certain extent, this body of knowledge has resulted from the oft-coincidental application of a nonmarketing transdisciplinary paradigm to the production of marketing knowledge in attempts to demonstrate creativity and innovativeness. A consequence of this characterization is that research on (and in) marketing as well as marketing education will have to advance to fully understand, effectively employ, and meaningful expand the body of knowledge referred to as marketing (e.g., Crittenden & Peterson, 2019). A brief historical overview of attempts to define and/or describe marketing paves the way for understanding the evolutionary response to “What is Marketing?” and the implications for marketing educators.

What Is Marketing? A Précis of Marketing Definitions

The definition, the core construct, and the perception of marketing have changed dramatically over the past century. Wilkie and Moore (2003) described in detail four broad “eras” of marketing thought since 1900 that influenced the definitions and perceptions of marketing:

Era I (1900–1920): “Founding the Field”

Era II (1920–1950): “Formalizing the Field”

Era III (1950–1980): “A Paradigm Shift—Marketing, Management, and the Sciences”

Era IV (1980–present): “The Shift Intensifies—A Fragmentation of the Mainstream”

At a more granular level, Kerin (1996) discussed six decades of marketing thought as reflected by articles published in the Journal of Marketing:

1936–1945: “Marketing as Applied Economics”

1946–1955: “Marketing as a Managerial Activity”

1956–1965: “Marketing as a Quantitative Science”

1966–1975: “Marketing as a Behavioral Science”

1976–1985: “Marketing as a Decision Science”

1986–1995: “Marketing as an Integrative Science”

Kumar (2015) updated Kerin’s typology by adding three more time periods:

1996–2004: “Marketing as a Scarce Resource”

2005–2012: “Marketing as an Investment”

2013–present: “Marketing as an Integral Part of the Organization”

Review of these three sets of timelines reveals how thinking about what marketing “is” has evolved.¹ Marketing was initially considered to be a “branch” or “subfield” of applied economics and, as such, was formally defined in 1935 by the predecessor to the American Marketing Association (Committee on Definitions, 1935, p. 156) as “a series of business activities which are involved in the flow of goods from production to consumption.”

A quarter of a century later, the American Marketing Association definition of marketing (Committee on Definitions, 1960, p. 15) had evolved to “the performance of business activities that direct the flow of goods and services from producer to consumer or user.” In 1985, marketing was formally defined by the American Marketing Association (1985, p. 1) as “the process of planning and executing the conception, pricing, promotion, and distribution of ideas, goods, and services to create exchanges that satisfy individual and organizational objectives.”

The definitional evolution continued, and, by 2007, marketing was defined by the American Marketing Association as “the activity, set of institutions, and processes for creating, communicating, delivering, and exchanging offerings that have value for customers, clients, marketers, and society at large” (Gundlach & Wilkie, 2009). This definition is virtually identical to the current one with the exception of the insertion of the term “partners” for “marketers” in the most recent version.

Peterson (2002) undertook an extensive review of how marketing has been defined—both formally and informally—in introductory marketing textbooks, academic articles, and business and general dictionaries over the period 1923 through 2001.² After defining and categorizing “definitions” (such as lexical or real and stipulative or nominal), he characterized the focal feature of each marketing definition as either an “activity” (or “activities”), a “process,” or “other.” “Other” marketing definitions variously described marketing as “performance,” a “point of view,” a “catalyst,” a “way of thinking,” or a “philosophy.” He concluded that, over time, the various definitions of marketing revealed that there is no consensus on what marketing “is” or even what constitutes marketing.

Moreover, the different definitions appear to reflect a tension between what might be termed “academic marketing” and “practice marketing” regarding what marketing is, with, for example, the formal American Marketing Association definitions consisting of conceptual compromises between academics and practitioners (c.f., Gundlach & Wilkie, 2009; Keefe, 2008). In brief, the definition of marketing has morphed from it being an activity to being performance to a process to simultaneously an “activity, set of institutions, and processes” that reflects a “middle ground” and implicitly acknowledges bifurcation between the perspectives of marketing academics and practitioners. So, what is marketing . . . an activity, a set of institutions, processes, or . . .? For reference, note that defining marketing in terms of an activity, a set of institutions, or a process is specifying “what marketing does”—that is, its function, role, or purpose—rather than “what marketing is.” Semantic confusion is rife.

Semantic Confusion

To illustrate the semantic confusion due to the varying definitions and characterizations of marketing, consider the paradigm-shifting Journal of Marketing article by Philip Kotler (1972) titled, “A Generic Concept of Marketing.” In this article, which has been cited more than 3,000 times and has served as the impetus for conferences and countless discussions and debates, Kotler (1972) argued that the notion of marketing should not be limited to economics or business but that it is “specifically concerned with how transactions are created, stimulated, facilitated, and valued” (p. 49). The article was instrumental in broadening perceptions of marketing and contributed to subsequent expansions of its definition.

While the article was insightful and seminally influential in its expanded view of marketing’s nexus and domain, its terminology with respect to “what marketing is” was semantically confusing. For example, the article simultaneously referred to marketing as:

a “discipline” (pp. 46–47),

a “behavioral science” (p. 46),

a “business field” (p. 47),

a “business subject” (p. 47),

a “useful perspective” (p. 48),

a “category of human action” (p. 49),

an “approach” (p. 50),

an “attempt” (p. 50),

a “problem” (p. 50),

a “task” (p. 50),

a “descriptive science” (p. 52),

a “logic” (pp. 52–53),

a “particular way of looking at the problem” (p. 53), and

a “competence” (p. 53).

Although the number and variety of ways in which Kotler identified marketing might seem excessive, for comparison, according to Hunt (1994, p. 17), Kuhn (1962) described his seminal construct, “paradigm,” in 21 different ways in his ground-breaking philosophical tome. To a certain extent, differences in the definition of marketing across individuals are to be expected. Not only is marketing dynamic, complex, and changing over time, the perspectives and intentions of the definers differ. Nearly 60 years ago, Bell (1966, p. 3) wrote:

Marketing means different things to different people. The variations in marketing stem from differences in viewpoint . . . Some observers view marketing broadly. Others view it narrowly. Definitions of marketing reflect these differing viewpoints.

This same thought was reiterated by Kotler (1994, pp. 353–354):

The term “marketing” means different things to different people. There are least four (business) meanings [the company’s promotion and distribution function . . . a company department . . . a company-wide philosophy . . . a specific process] (italics in original) . . . Therefore, people can talk about marketing and really be talking about different things until they make these distinctions.

Because of differences in how marketing is defined and characterized, and the underlying amorphousness of the term, a parsimonious perspective of marketing could possibly reignite discussion of “what marketing is.” A parsimonious view would be helpful in both teaching and research for a variety of reasons. In particular, if a common understanding of marketing is to be achieved that subsequently leads to the manner in which marketing is being studied, taught, or practiced, it is necessary to start with a perspective that meets four criteria. The perspective should (Peterson, 2002, p. 143):

communicate the essential attributes of marketing (the definiendum in logic terms),

not be circular,

neither be too broad nor be too narrow (i.e., “mid-range”), and

not employ ambiguous or obscure language.

Furthermore, the perspective should be relatively stable and consistent over time and across situations. That is, the perspective should not be subject to sporadic, paradigmatic (perhaps whimsical) changes. Unless there is a common perspective of marketing that meets these criteria, analogous to a moving target, marketing cannot be meaningfully investigated, understood, or, importantly in the present context, communicated, either in an educational setting or in practice.

Is Marketing a Science?

Before proceeding to a parsimonious and hopefully clarifying perspective of marketing, it is instructive to reflect briefly on various ways in which marketing has been, and still is being, characterized. Apart from the definitional issue, early marketing thinkers, mainly marketing scholars, debated whether marketing is a science. Oft-cited, provocative journal article titles such as “Scientific Marketing Makes Progress” (Coutant, 1937), “The Development of the Science of Marketing—An Exploratory Survey” (Converse, 1945), “Can Marketing Be a Science?” (Bartels, 1951), “Is Marketing a Science?” (Buzzell, 1963), “Marketing as a Science: An Appraisal” (Hutchinson, 1952), “Marketing Science in the Age of Aquarius” (Dawson, 1971), “‘Is Marketing a Science?’ Revisited” (W. J. Taylor, 1965), and “Toward a Profession of Marketing” (L. O. Brown, 1948) inquired as to whether marketing was, or could be, a science. Interestingly enough, science itself was seldom defined in these articles; rather, “science” was implied to be one of the “mother” or “natural” sciences, such as physics, chemistry, or biology (e.g., L. M. Anderson, 1994), rather than a social science such as economics, psychology, or sociology.

Overall, with few exceptions, the answer to the question, “Is marketing a science?” appears to be “no.” However, there was agreement that marketing aspires to be a science or that marketing should consider the “scientific approach” in research (e.g., Coffin & Hill, 2022). One notable exception was offered by Bass (1993). By adopting Goldstein and Goldstein’s (1978) broad definition of science as an activity characterized by a search for understanding that is achieved through the application of general laws or principles that are tested experimentally, Bass attempted to demonstrate that marketing had become a science.³

As an aside, S. Brown (1996) provided an interesting if solipsistic perspective of what he termed the 50-year marketing “art or science debate.” In his review of the “debate,” Brown discussed the insights of L. M. Anderson (1994) and Kavanagh (1994) and described how the “debate” devolved into a rather acrimonious dispute regarding relativism versus realism (e.g., the P. F. Anderson [1983]–Hunt [1990] exchanges), with Peter and Olson (1983) contributing the attention-getting claim that science is a special case of marketing in their Journal of Marketing article, “Is Science Marketing?”

Marketing as a Discipline

Apart from the discord over whether marketing is a science, academic marketing literature seems inclined to identify marketing as a discipline (i.e., a self-contained branch or field of knowledge with its own theories, methodologies, and adherents that is taught in an organized manner). Even so, in most instances, the academic marketing literature merely assumes that marketing is a discipline and reports “marketing-is-a-discipline” in passing with no discussion or justification. For example, Bagozzi (1975) mentioned marketing as a discipline when he propounded his notion of exchange. Similarly, Kotler (1972), as noted previously, used the term “discipline” as one of his (many) marketing nomenclatures when discussing the concept of generic marketing, and Kumar (2015) used the phrase “Evolution of Marketing as a Discipline” in the title of an editorial. Indeed, it is commonplace for marketing academicians to routinely consider marketing to be a discipline when writing about it, regardless of how else it is termed (e.g., S. Brown, 1996; Coffin & Hill, 2022; Cornelissen, 2002; Lutz, 2011; MacInnis, 2011; Yadav, 2010) and without any justification.

Hunt (1992) seems to be the only author to have specifically focused on justifying marketing-as-a-discipline. After discussing different discipline terminology options, Hunt (1992, p. 310, 1994, p. 21) concluded that “Marketing is a university discipline that aspires to be a professional discipline and that, accordingly, has responsibilities. . . .” Although superficially satisfying, this view still does not accommodate the “true essence” of marketing if it is implicitly being limited to only one of many functions of business.

Marketing Is a Body of Knowledge

Knowledge is a psychological construct or, stated simply, an understanding of some phenomenon or phenomena. Knowledge can be shared; it can be formal or tacit. Knowledge can be acquired through education or study (inference and interpretation), experience (empirical observation and activity), or some combination of education, study, and experience. Ontologically,

knowledge consists of truths, not falsehoods,

knowledge is dynamic and continually increasing, and

knowledge can be formally or informally transmitted.

As a body of knowledge, marketing circumscribes and simultaneously consists of (a) certain facts, concepts, tools, techniques, theories, principles, practices, and vocabulary that are at least subject to being organized, (b) guidance for how to apply these facts, concepts, tools, techniques, theories, principles, and practices, and (c) understanding of the consequences of applying these facts, concepts, tools, techniques, theories, principles, and practices (Peterson, 2002, pp. 153–154). Thus, marketing encompasses standard concepts like the four Ps, market orientation, and first mover advantage; tools including markups and markdowns; techniques including conjoint analysis and structural equation modeling; theories like attribution theory and schema theory; principles such as supply and demand; and practices including price discounting and logistics management. Furthermore, marketing is knowing how and when to apply (or not apply) these facts, concepts, tools, techniques, theories, principles, and practices, as well as the possible consequences of applying them, such as potential buyer responses and competitive and regulatory reactions.

When considered a body of knowledge, marketing is not simply an activity, a set of institutions, a process, a philosophy, or a system, and it renders moot the question of whether it is an art or a science. Treating marketing as a body of knowledge serves a unifying function in that it accommodates nearly any posited perspective, whether macro or micro, for-profit or not-for-profit, broad or narrow, or any of the categories set forth by Hunt (1976) in his Journal of Marketing “nature and scope” article. Moreover, treating marketing as a body of knowledge would seem to meet Peterson’s (2002) four required body of knowledge criteria: stating its essential attributes, not being circular, neither being too broad nor being too narrow, and not employing obscure language.

What distinguishes marketing as a body of knowledge from marketing as a discipline is its contents and scope. Marketing as a body of knowledge is broader than marketing as a discipline in that its contents are not as structured or focused as a discipline and, importantly, marketing encompasses and accommodates the contents of multiple disciplines. Furthermore, marketing as a body of knowledge is focused on solving practical problems by a variety of means, whereas a discipline is typically based on a common (academic) framework that focuses on theoretically oriented research and inquiry and is situated within an academic institution.

Benefits (and Challenges) of Treating Marketing as a Body of Knowledge

There are clearly benefits to treating marketing as a body of knowledge. Treating marketing as a body of knowledge provides a coherent and coalescing structure or framework that facilitates meaningfully integrating the facts, concepts, tools, techniques, theories, principles, and practices that constitute marketing. Such a structure or framework in turn makes it easier to study, understand, and apply marketing. Importantly, treating marketing as a body of knowledge legitimizes it from an academic perspective and thereby facilitates pedagogical approaches while encouraging both empirical and theoretical scholarly exploration.

Treating marketing as a body of knowledge implicitly sanctions a lexicon that reduces communication ambiguity in educational contexts and between academics and practitioners. A common vocabulary consequently fosters consistent terminology and promotes collaboration among academics and between academics and practitioners. It also leads to content standardization (what “is” and “is not” marketing) and ultimately increases the likelihood of systematically incorporating new facts, concepts, tools, techniques, theories, principles, and practices into the marketing body of knowledge.

Challenges

Simultaneously, though, there are potential challenges associated with treating marketing as a body of knowledge. Analogous to any body of knowledge, marketing is inherently dynamic and continuously evolving. For example, the recent introduction and application of artificial intelligence concepts, tools, and techniques have upended marketing education and practice. (See, e.g., Acar [2024] or Guha et al. [2024] for recent discourses on the use of artificial intelligence in marketing education.) Not considering marketing’s inherent dynamism risks oversimplifying marketing as a rigid, nonflexible body of knowledge or stifling the addition of new facts, concepts, tools, techniques, theories, principles, or practices to it. On balance, however, it would seem the conceptual and practical benefits of treating marketing as a body of knowledge outweigh possible challenges.

A Transdisciplinary Body of Knowledge

Numerous scholars have considered marketing to be a body of knowledge, even though they may have not expressly labeled it as such. More than 60 years ago, Alderson (1957), arguably the original marketing theoretician, consistently viewed marketing as a body of thought (knowledge), and the Marketing Staff of the Ohio State University (1965, p. 44) wrote that marketing “can also be considered as an area of knowledge.”

What is unique about marketing as a body of knowledge is that it should be recognized as a transdisciplinary body of knowledge. The adjective “transdisciplinary” was allegedly coined by Jean Piaget in 1970 at the first International Conference on Interdisciplinary Research and Teaching in Universities to represent synergistic approaches to scientific inquiry (see Budwig & Alexander, 2020). At a superficial level, transdisciplinary simply means across (“trans”) knowledge areas (“disciplines,” a word derived from the Latin term “disciplina,” the meaning of which roughly translates to “training and learning”). However, over time the term “transdisciplinary” has become associated with a particular paradigm and incidentally has acquired more nuanced meanings (even a spiritual meaning; see Nicolescu, 2019).

Consider the prefatory “trans.” Transdisciplinary pundits have interpreted “trans” in the context of transferring knowledge, transforming knowledge, transcending knowledge boundaries, and even transgressing the boundaries defined by traditional disciplinary modes of inquiry (e.g., Lawrence, 2010). Perhaps not surprisingly, over time the term “transdisciplinary” has been misused, abused, and confounded with similar terms. Even a cursory review of the “transdisciplinary” literature will reveal “linguistic looseness” in how the term has been conceptualized and communicated (e.g., Baumber et al., 2018; Coffin & Chatzidakis, 2021; Dorst, 2018; Lusch et al., 2016; Ormiston, 2018; Strong et al., 2016; Zafeirakopoulos & van der Bijl-Brouwer, 2018). Following their review of 458 scientific papers containing the term “transdisciplinary,” van Baalen et al. (2021) documented the ambiguity and multiplicity of use of the term. Indeed, there is not even a consensual spelling, with some authors using the term “transdisciplinary” and others “trans-disciplinary.”

Stember (1991) provided a useful hierarchy or continuum for distinguishing among various knowledge-related paradigms:

Intradisciplinary—refers to a single knowledge stream,

Cross-disciplinary—refers to viewing one knowledge stream from the perspective of a second knowledge stream,

Multidisciplinary—refers to employing several collaborating knowledge streams, each providing a different perspective,

Interdisciplinary—refers to integrating several knowledge streams, and

Transdisciplinary—refers to unifying several knowledge streams into a unique, coherent whole beyond mere integration.

What distinguishes “transdisciplinary” from, say, “multidisciplinary” and “interdisciplinary” is not the transfer or application of one knowledge stream into another, but rather the synthesis or unification of possibly several different, unrelated knowledge streams into a unique, holistic new body of knowledge.⁴ Oversimplifying, common words that can be used to describe multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary are, respectively, additive, interactive, and holistic (Choi & Pak, 2006). To illustrate the latter, in the context of theory, J. M. Taylor and Raskin (2012, p. 134) noted that,

a transdisciplinary theory of a field is a true synthesis of the theories of a number (N) of contributing fields, including the specific theory of that first field. This washes out the privileged position of a target field and replaces it with a set of N+1 source fields.

Three properties are generally used to certify whether a body of knowledge can be characterized as transdisciplinary (e.g., Bernstein, 2015; Lawrence, 2010). The first is whether the body of knowledge is intended to address a complex, “real-world,” or practical problem. This is a “given” in marketing. The second property is whether there is involvement of both “thinkers” and “doers” in creating and applying the body of knowledge. The legitimacy of marketing is confirmed as a transdisciplinary body of knowledge because of the obvious melding of stakeholders—“thinkers” (scholars), “doers” (practitioners), and “beneficiaries” (consumers)—who frequently are jointly involved in the creation and application of the body of knowledge to solve practical problems. (See, e.g., Cornelissen [2002], Deighton et al. [2021], and Harrigan and Hulbert [2011] for discussions and benefits of academics and practitioners working together, and the illustration of Netflix’s use of design thinking to develop marketing strategy.)

The third property is whether the knowledge embedded within the body extends (i.e., “flows”) beyond its preconditioned boundaries. With respect to this property, there is ample evidence that marketing as a body of knowledge originally focusing on business- or economics-related matters has evolved significantly and is now being applied to a plethora of nonbusiness matters ranging from politics to religion to nonprofit organizations to health issues and even individuals (e.g., social media influencers). A simple examination of the last decade of Journal of Marketing articles reveals significant attention being given to each of these application topics. In brief, marketing meets the general properties that allow it to be characterized as transdisciplinary.

To use a food metaphor, multidisciplinary refers to a ham-and-cheese sandwich in which the ingredients consist of separate components placed next to each other; interdisciplinary refers to a fruit salad in which the ingredients are mixed together but distinguishable; whereas transdisciplinary refers to a cake, wherein the ingredients are individually distinguishable initially but when blended become indistinguishable. (Perhaps this metaphor helps explain the statement that “marketing is a piece of cake!”) More to the point, from a transdisciplinary perspective, marketing can be visualized as a Venn diagram consisting of numerous overlapping or intersecting circles, with each circle respectively representing facts, concepts, tools, techniques, theories, principles, or practices. That portion of the diagram where these circles all overlap or converge is the marketing body of knowledge.

On reflection, there can be little doubt that marketing has progressed through the hierarchy espoused by Stember (1991), from being an intradisciplinary body of knowledge (i.e., a branch of economics) to a cross-disciplinary body of knowledge (e.g., knowledge of personal selling behavior through a sociological lens) to a multidisciplinary body of knowledge (e.g., knowledge of potential competition based on a mathematical simulation model) and to an interdisciplinary body of knowledge (e.g., knowledge of competitive advantage by incorporating resource theory) to becoming a transdisciplinary body of knowledge. Marketing has always borrowed, appropriated, and applied knowledge from other sources and, as such, has evolved to become a transdisciplinary body of knowledge wherein, for example, evidence-based insights and decisions are often based on a unified fusion or synthesis of different knowledge streams.

Consider the decision to create and produce a new package for a food product. Conceptually, marketing-related input into the decision process should at a minimum emanate from product design (form), engineering (function), psychology (consumer motivation), legal (patents, trade dress), accounting (costs), manufacturing (production), food/consumer science (nutrition package interactions), logistics (distribution), communication (advertising), and marketing intelligence (consumer and competitor information). If the aforementioned knowledge streams are applied sequentially or in parallel, the process would most likely be termed multidisciplinary. If they were applied simultaneously but within their respective boundaries, the process would likely be termed interdisciplinary. If the knowledge streams were applied simultaneously and synthesized, they would result in a knowledge node: a new, unique unit of transdisciplinary knowledge dedicated to solving a practical problem that is quite complex.

The Nexus and Domain of Marketing

Given that marketing is a (transdisciplinary) body of knowledge, what is the nexus that links its contents? What is the domain of marketing? Following Bagozzi (1975), Kotler (1972), and the current American Marketing Association definition, the nexus is “exchange.” Oversimplifying, the domain of marketing consists of attempts to “influence exchange.”

Exchange has long been recognized as the nexus of marketing. Nearly a century ago, Vaile and Slagsold (1929, p. 35) explicitly wrote that the basic (business) function of marketing is exchange—buying and selling. Likewise, Breyer (1934, p. 4) referred to marketing as “the agency whereby the exchange of goods and services is accomplished.” Even so, considerable disagreement exists as to what exactly constitutes exchange in the context of marketing. Ignoring this disagreement for the moment, and to facilitate discussion of exchange in the context of marketing, it is illuminating to review Robin’s (1978, p. 235) definition of marketing exchange as “a relationship between human beings where each party is willing to give up something of value in order to receive something else of value.”

Robin’s (1978) definition concisely encompasses the critical nexus elements that differentiate marketing from other bodies of knowledge. His definition specifies that a marketing exchange is a value exchange between parties that are human. As such, the definition accommodates complex, multiparty exchanges (e.g., marketing platform-based exchanges) as well as limited two-party exchanges, whether or not monetary. An “encounter” between a flower and a bee, wherein the flower “offers” its pollen through its scent, color, or location and the bee accepts and removes the pollen, might be considered as producing value (pollination for the flower and food for the bee) but would not qualify as a marketing exchange due to the absence of human involvement. Likewise, any “exchange” that is not willing (i.e., not voluntary), such as one occurring due to coercion or one that does not involve reciprocity, would not qualify as a marketing exchange. Note that Robin’s definition does not require that an exchange occur, only that the parties be willing to participate in an exchange. Furthermore, note that there is no time limit on the exchange; the focus could be on an immediate exchange transaction or a long-term exchange relationship.

The domain of marketing is the attempt to influence an exchange. All the contents of the body of knowledge known as marketing are ultimately—directly or indirectly—focused on influencing exchanges. Both the nexus and the domain serve a precising function, and both are necessary for marketing to be designated a body of knowledge; neither alone is sufficient. Influence can be positive (to facilitate an exchange) or negative (to inhibit an exchange). Paraphrasing Peterson (2002), in the context of business, the domain of marketing is attracting and retaining those entities (people, organizations, etc.) that are the most valuable to the firm. Both attraction and retention can be positive as well as negative. For example, a bank might attempt to attract potentially profitable customers by offering no-fee checking accounts while simultaneously encouraging unprofitable customers to leave by offering reduced savings account interest rates. In the context of business, “satisfying customers” (albeit at a profit) is merely a marketing euphemism for influencing an exchange that provides value to a firm and its customers.

Observations and Implications for Marketing Education

Marketing has consciously and continuously borrowed and integrated knowledge streams from a variety of sources in the scholarly literature, resulting in it being far removed from consideration as being intradisciplinary. As marketing matured, borrowing and integrating have progressed to synthesizing knowledge streams into a blended body of knowledge. For example, what is now commonly considered as consumer behavior in marketing in part reflects an amalgamation of economics, psychology, sociology, and anthropology knowledge streams. Similarly, marketing analytics consists of a synthesis of multivariate statistics, data science, and marketing research among other knowledge streams. This recognition is already happening in marketing education, albeit without explicitly acknowledging the coordinating framework offered by formally treating marketing as a transdisciplinary body of knowledge or even rarely incorporating the term “transdisciplinary.”

In the past few years, synthesis of concepts, tools, techniques, theories, principles, and practices from a variety of knowledge streams that constitute marketing knowledge has resulted in it rising to a transdisciplinary body of knowledge (e.g., Harrigan & Hulbert, 2011; Sodergren et al., 2024; Ye et al., 2024). As evidence, authors increasingly are using the term “transdisciplinary” in the context of marketing. For example, Lusch et al. (2016, p. 2957) have called for a “transdisciplinary perspective of service-dominant logic,” and Coffin and Chatzidakis (2021, p. 40) cited the need to work toward a “transdisciplinary understanding of market spatiality.”

Interestingly, marketing educators have long espoused the benefits of teaching marketing from a cross-disciplinary, cross-functional, multidisciplinary, or interdisciplinary perspective. More than 35 years ago Alden et al. (1991, p. 25) wrote that “[W]e suggest that curriculum planning should include a cross-disciplinary approach to the teaching of marketing—developing better links between marketing and other areas of business and fostering connections between marketing and liberal arts courses.” They provided six reasons for their suggestions, reasons that even today resonate in benefits that augur in favor of formally recognizing marketing as a transdisciplinary body of knowledge. According to Alden et al. (1991, p. 25):

Disciplinary boundaries in organizations are becoming fuzzier.

Career paths often cross disciplinary boundaries.

Cross-disciplinary learning increases students’ problem-solving abilities.

Students improve their career flexibility and potential for success.

Students become more productive employees.

Students’ lives are likely to be more interesting and fulfilling.

Crittenden and Wilson (2006) documented how cross-functional elements were being integrated into marketing classrooms. Based on a survey of marketing department chairs and defining cross-functional as “attempts to integrate two or more business functions or integration between one business function and a discipline outside of the business school” (p. 82), they identified common instances of cross-functional integration that included team teaching, cross-functional cases, class projects, guest speakers, and class field trips as attempts to facilitate cross-functional learning. In other work examining cross-functional integration in undergraduate business education, Schelfhaudt and Crittenden (2005) reported that business leaders espoused the need for students to learn to put their functional activities within the context of the business as a whole and to have knowledge of all functions for interdepartmental communications and teamwork to be successful. In their work, however, Corsini et al. (2000) bemoaned the lack of information to suggest that academic institutions were providing undergraduate students with cross-functional learning opportunities.

Yet, perusal of the Journal of Marketing Education reveals that several educational scholars have addressed many of the tenets of marketing as a transdisciplinary body of knowledge or attempted to implement transdisciplinary principles in a classroom setting (albeit typically without explicitly identifying transdisciplinary principles as such). For example, Lunsford and Henshaw (1992) proposed integrating marketing research and engineering design courses.⁵ In 1999 alone, McKeage et al. (1999) wrote about an interdisciplinary marketing–engineering course, DeConinck and Steiner (1999) reported on an integrated marketing and finance course, and Sautter et al. (1999) discussed a cross-functional marketing–logistics course. Other marketing journals have carried similar articles. For instance, Jones (2024) described the design of an interdisciplinary marketing course consisting of elements drawn from marketing research, engineering, and media arts.

Recently, highlighting the transdisciplinary nature of marketing, Atkinson-Toal (forthcoming) reported that a transdisciplinary curriculum in marketing would instill learners with preparedness for the future as an engaged citizen, foster a mind-set calibrated to identifying complex societal problems, and deploy a suite of disciplinary knowledge and metacognitive skills to deal with the challenges of tomorrow. In addition, educators such as Rohm et al. (2019) referred to the need for transdisciplinary [marketing] courses and Martinez and Munoz (2021) proposed two course models for transdisciplinary entrepreneurship education. Thus, it appears that at least some marketing educators have begun to move toward a transdisciplinary teaching and learning environment.

Looking Ahead

What remains is further integration of different knowledge streams and updating of pedagogy to properly communicate and apply these transdisciplinary constructs in the context of marketing education. The former will require expanded research approaches (and open minds!) for knowledge production, whereas the latter will require pedagogies to “teach the teachers” the prerequisites for successful knowledge acquisition and dissemination. There will undoubtedly be challenges, including a rethinking that doctoral education should always prioritize “specialized deep learning” to at least including a modicum of broad (transdisciplinary) knowledge. Although many of the “traditional” pedagogical strategies that have been incorporated when teaching cross-functional or interdisciplinary courses (e.g., cases, teams of teachers representing different disciplines, or guest lecturers from industry) may be employed to create an initially successful transdisciplinary learning experience, new pedagogies, new instructional technologies, and even new types of instructors are necessary if the true power of transdisciplinarity is to be achieved (e.g., Allinson & Mahon, 2022; Budwig & Alexander, 2020).

Transdisciplinarity as a noun was conceptualized, and its contents ostensively designed, to serve as a paradigm to address large, complex, global issues—“wicked problems” in the words of many proponents (e.g., van Baalen et al., 2021). Two such wicked problems are “global sustainability” and “climate change.” Perhaps needless to say, solutions to these problems require in part a marketing component. Contemporary articles in the Journal of Marketing Education by Kemper et al. (2022), Deo et al. (2024), and Rodriguez-Tejedo and Etayo (2024) and a Journal of Marketing editorial illustrate the contributions that marketing can make to solving these problems when it is viewed as a transdisciplinary body of knowledge.

In a 2018 Journal of Marketing editorial, Kumar (2018, p. 2) defined transformative marketing as the following:

Transformative marketing is the confluence of a firm’s marketing activities, concepts, metrics, strategies, and programs that are in response to marketplace changes and future trends to leapfrog customers with superior value offerings over competition in exchange for profits for the firm and benefits to all stakeholders.

Comments on the editorial by Meyer (2018) and Varadarajan (2018) indicated at least a soupçon of concurrence with this definition. Close inspection of Kumar’s definition reveals that in certain regards—apart from the words “transdisciplinary” and “transformative”—it is not all that different in substance from the view proffered here in advancing marketing education. Both treatments go beyond marketing being limited to an activity, a set of institutions, or the like, as in previous definitions. Importantly, both treatments emphasize marketing as a synthesis of concepts, tools, techniques, theories, principles, and practices or, in Kumar’s words (p. 2), an equivalent “confluence of activities, concepts, metrics, strategies, and programs.” The major difference between the treatments is focus. Whereas Kumar appeared to limit marketing to firm-related goals and activities, the present treatment encompasses a broader sphere of goals and activities.

In addition, although Yadav (2018, p. 365) never used the term “transdisciplinary,” he also implicitly embraced the notion of marketing being a transdisciplinary body of knowledge when he argued the need for a “critical rethinking of all aspects of . . . [marketing’s] knowledge development approach—our journals, our institutions, our incentive systems, and how we train the next generation of scholars.” Similarly, Simmonds (2018, p. 466) called for marketing to become an “effective, reflexive, and integrative metatheoretical structure,” characteristics that coincide with treating marketing as a transdisciplinary body of knowledge. Moreover, Figure 3 in the article by Kindermann et al. (2024) (“Rebalancing Options for the Marketing Field”) is replete with elements that corroborate and reinforce marketing being a transdisciplinary body of knowledge.

Regardless of semantic differences, the intent of such treatments is to stimulate thinking and discussion about what marketing “is.” That marketing needs to be perceived and taught differently than it has been in the past is without question. Otherwise, not only will marketing lose its relevance and credibility, but it will also surrender its raison d’être. The implications for marketing education are simultaneously exciting and challenging, and the answer to Crittenden’s (2024) question “What Is the Future of Marketing Education?” requires consensually recognizing marketing as a transdisciplinary body of knowledge.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

References

Acar

O. A.

(2024). Commentary: Reimagining marketing education in the age of generative AI. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 41(3), 489–495.

Alden

S. D.

Laxton

Patzer

G. L.

Howard

(1991). Establishing cross-disciplinary marketing education. Journal of Marketing Education, 13(2), 25–30.

Alderson

(1957). Marketing behavior and executive action. Richard D. Irwin.

Allinson

M. E.

Mahon

(2022). Modelling transdisciplinary pedagogy: A method for collaborative curricular design. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 19(3), 1–15.

American Marketing Association. (1985, March 1). AMA board approves new marketing definition. Marketing News.

American Marketing Association. (2024). What is marketing? https://www.ama.org/the-definition-of-marketing-what-is-marketing/

Anderson

L. M.

(1994). Marketing science: Where’s the beef? Business Horizons, 37(1), 8–16.

Anderson

P. F.

(1983). Marketing, scientific progress, and scientific method. Journal of Marketing, 47(4), 18–31.

Atkinson-Toal

(forthcoming). Student value of a transdisciplinary approach to curriculum development. Journal of Marketing Education.

10.

Bagozzi

R. P.

(1975). Marketing as exchange. Journal of Marketing, 39(4), 32–39.

11.

Bartels

(1951). Can marketing be a science? Journal of Marketing, 15(3), 319–327.

12.

Bass

F. M.

(1993). The future of research in marketing: Marketing science. Journal of Marketing Research, 30(1), 1–6.

13.

Baumber

Metternicht

Ampt

Cross

Berry

(2018). From importing innovations to co-producing them: Transdisciplinary approaches to the development of online land management tools. Technology Innovation Management Review, 8(8), 16–26.

14.

Bell

M. L.

(1966). Marketing: Concepts and strategy. Houghton Mifflin Company.

15.

Bernstein

J. H.

(2015). Transdisciplinarity: A review of its origins, development, and current issues. Journal of Research Practice, 11(1), 1–20.

16.

Breyer

R. F.

(1934). The marketing institution. McGraw-Hill Book Company.

17.

Brown

L. O.

(1948). Toward a profession of marketing. Journal of Marketing, 13(1), 27–31.

18.

Brown

(1996). Art or science? Fifty years of marketing debate. Journal of Marketing Management, 12(4), 243–267.

19.

Budwig

Alexander

A. J.

(2020). A transdisciplinary approach to student learning and development in university settings. Frontiers in Psychology, 11(October), 1–13.

20.

Buzzell

R. D.

(1963). Is marketing a science? Harvard Business Review, 41(l), 32–34, 36, 39–40, 166, 168, 170.

21.

Choi

B. C. K.

Pak

A. W. P.

(2006). Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in health research, services, education and policy: 1. Definitions, objectives, and evidence of effectiveness. Clinical and Investigative Medicine, 29(6), 351–364.

22.

Coffin

Chatzidakis

(2021). The Mobius strip of market spatiality: Mobilizing transdisciplinary dialogues between CCT and the marketing mainstream. AMS Review, 11(1–2), 40–59.

23.

Coffin

Hill

(2022). Introduction to the special issue: Presenting marketing differently. Journal of Marketing Management, 38(15–16), 1613–1632.

24.

Committee on Definitions. (1935). Definitions of marketing terms. The National Marketing Review, 1(Fall), 148–166.

25.

Committee on Definitions. (1960). Marketing definitions (p. 15). American Marketing Association.

26.

Converse

P. D.

(1945). The development of the science of marketing—An exploratory survey. Journal of Marketing, 10(1), 14–23.

27.

Cornelissen

(2002). Academic and practitioner theories of marketing. Marketing Theory, 2(1), 133–143.

28.

Corsini

L. S.

Crittenden

V. L.

Keeley

R. C.

Trompeter

G. M.

Viechnicki

(2000). Integrating cross-functional undergraduate teaching and learning: A work in progress. Marketing Education Review, 10(Fall), 1–17.

29.

Coutant

F. R.

(1937). Scientific marketing makes progress. Journal of Marketing, 1(3), 226–230.

30.

Crittenden

V. L.

(2024). What is the future of marketing education? Journal of Marketing Education, 46(1), 3–5.

31.

Crittenden

V. L.

Peterson

R. A.

(2019). Digital disruption: The transdisciplinary future of marketing education. Journal of Marketing Education, 41(1), 3–4.

32.

Crittenden

V. L.

Wilson

E. J.

(2006). An exploratory study of cross-functional education in the undergraduate marketing curriculum. Journal of Marketing Education, 28(1), 81–86.

33.

Daneshpour

Kwegyir-Afful

(2022). Analysing transdisciplinary education: A scoping review. Science & Education, 31, 1047–1074.

34.

Dawson

L. M.

(1971). Marketing science in the age of Aquarius. Journal of Marketing, 35(3), 66–72.

35.

DeConinck

Steiner

(1999). Developing an integrated finance and marketing MBA core course. Journal of Marketing Education, 21(1), 44–50.

36.

Deighton

J. A.

Mela

C. F.

Moorman

(2021). Marketing thinking and doing. Journal of Marketing, 85(1), 1–6.

37.

Deo

Hinchcliff

Thai

N. T.

Papakosmas

Chad

Heffernan

Gibbons

(2024). Educating for the sustainable future: A conceptual process for mapping the United Nations sustainable development goals in marketing teaching using Bloom’s taxonomy. Journal of Marketing Education, 46(2), 84–96.

38.

Dorst

(2018). Mixing practices to create transdisciplinary innovation: A design-base approach. Technology Innovation Management Review, B 98, 60–65.

39.

Goldstein

I. F.

(1978). How we know: An exploration of the scientific process. Plenum Press.

40.

Grewal

Levy

(2024). Marketing. McGraw Hill LLC.

41.

Guha

Grewal

Atlas

(2024). Generative AI and marketing education: What the future holds. Journal of Marketing Education, 46(1), 6–17.

42.

Gundlach

G. T.

Wilkie

W. L.

(2009). The American Marketing Association’s new definition of marketing: Perspective and commentary on the 2007 revision. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 28(2), 259–264.

43.

Harrigan

Hulbert

(2011). How can marketing academics serve marketing practice? The new marketing DNA as a model for marketing education. Journal of Marketing Education, 33(3), 253–272.

44.

Hunt

S. D.

(1976). The nature and scope of marketing. Journal of Marketing, 40(3), 17–28.

45.

Hunt

S. D.

(1990). Truth in marketing theory and research. Journal of Marketing, 54(3), 1–15.

46.

Hunt

S. D.

(1992). Marketing is.… Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 20(4), 301–311.

47.

Hunt

S. D.

(1994). On rethinking marketing: Our discipline, our practice, our methods. European Journal of Marketing, 28(3), 13–25.

48.

Hutchinson

K. D.

(1952). Marketing as a science: An appraisal. Journal of Marketing, 16(3), 286–293.

49.

Jones

C. S.

(2024). Designing an interdisciplinary course: Case study of an interdisciplinary project combining marketing research, engineering, and media arts. Marketing Education Review, 34(2), 144–152.

50.

Kavanagh

(1994). Hunt versus Anderson: Round 16. European Journal of Marketing, 28(3), 26–41.

51.

Keefe

L. M.

(2008, January 15). Marketing defined. Marketing News, 28–29.

52.

Kemper

J. A.

Moscato

E. M.

Kennedy

A.-M.

(2022). Hacking the marketing education system: Using macromarketing and the circular economy to make a better world. Journal of Marketing Education, 44(3), 311–321.

53.

Kerin

R. A.

(1996). In pursuit of an ideal: The editorial and literary history of the Journal of Marketing. Journal of Marketing, 60(1), 1–13.

54.

Kindermann

Wentzel

Antons

Salge

T.-O.

(2024). Conceptual contributions in marketing scholarship: Patterns, mechanisms, and rebalancing options. Journal of Marketing, 88(3), 29–49.

55.

Kotler

(1972). A generic concept of marketing. Journal of Marketing, 36(2), 46–54.

56.

Kotler

(1994). Reconceptualizing marketing: An interview with Philip Kotler. European Management Journal, 12(4), 353–361.

57.

Kuhn

(1962). The structure of scientific revolution. University of Chicago Press.

58.

Kumar

(2015). Evolution of marketing as a discipline: What has happened and what to look out for. Journal of Marketing, 79(1), 1–9.

59.

Kumar

(2018). Transformative marketing: The next 20 years. Journal of Marketing, 82(4), 1–12.

60.

Kwong

C. K.

Chen

Chan

K. Y.

(2011). A methodology of integrating marketing with engineering for defining design specifications of new products. Journal of Engineering Design, 22(3), 201–213.

61.

Lawrence

R. J.

(2010). Deciphering interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary contributions. Transdisciplinary Journal of Engineering & Science, 1(December), 111–116.

62.

Lunsford

D. A.

Henshaw

J. M.

(1992). Integrating courses in marketing research and engineering design: An instructional technique for enhancing the product development process. Journal of Marketing Education, 14(2), 10–19.

63.

Lusch

R. F.

Vargo

S. L.

Gustafsson

(2016). Fostering a trans-disciplinary perspectives of service ecosystems. Journal of Business Research, 69, 2957–2963.

64.

Lutz

R. J.

(2011). Marketing scholarship 2.0. Journal of Marketing, 75(l), 225–234.

65.

MacInnis

D. J.

(2011). A framework for conceptual contributions in marketing. Journal of Marketing, 75(4), 136–154.

66.

Marketing Staff of the Ohio State University. (1965). A statement of marketing philosophy. Journal of Marketing, 29(1), 43–44.

67.

Martinez

Munoz

(2021). Are andragogy and heutagogy the secret recipe for transdisciplinary entrepreneurship education? European Business Review, 33(6), 957–974.

68.

McKeage

Skinner

Seymour

R. M.

Donahue

D. W.

Christensen

(1999). Implementing an interdisciplinary marketing/engineering course project: Project format, preliminary evaluation, and critical factor review. Journal of Marketing Education, 21(3), 217–231.

69.

Meyer

(2018). Reflections on “transformative marketing: The next 20 years.” Journal of Marketing, 82(4), 13–14.

70.

Nicolescu

(2019). Being transdisciplinary. In Nicolescu

Yeh

R. T.

Ertas

(Eds.), Being transdisciplinary (pp. 7–16). ATLAS Publishing.

71.

Ormiston

(2018). Blending practice worlds: Impact assessment as a transdisciplinary practice. Business Ethics: A European Review, 28(4), 423–440.

72.

Peter

J. P.

Olson

J. C.

(1983). Is science marketing? Journal of Marketing, 47(4), 111–125.

73.

Peterson

R. A.

(2002). Marketing is . . . a body of knowledge. Essays by Distinguished Marketing Scholars of the Society for Marketing Advances, 11, 139–169.

74.

Robin

D. P.

(1978). A useful scope for marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 6(3), 228–238.

75.

Rodriguez-Tejedo

Etayo

(2024). From talk to action: How small steps can make a big impact in marketing education for climate action. Journal of Marketing Education, 46(2), 140–154.

76.

Rohm

A. J.

Stefl

Saint Clair

(2019). Time for a marketing curriculum overhaul: Developing a digital-first approach. Journal of Marketing Education, 41(1), 47–59.

77.

Sautter

E. T.

Maltz

Boberg

(1999). A customer: Bringing marketing and logistics together. Journal of Marketing Education, 21(2), 138–145.

78.

Schelfhaudt

Crittenden

V. L.

(2005). Specialist or generalist: Views from academia and industry. Journal of Business Research, 58, 946–954.

79.

Simmonds

(2018). Emancipatory marketing and the emancipation of marketing research: A critical realist perspective. Journal of Critical Realism, 17(5), 466–491.

80.

Sodergren

Ahlberg

Hjelm

(2024). Marketing and the theatre of the absurd. Marketing Theory. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/14705931241249020

81.

Stember

(1991). Advancing the social sciences through the interdisciplinary enterprise. The Social Science Journal, 28(1), 1–14.

82.

Strong

Adams

J. D.

Bellino

M. E.

Pieroni

J. S.

Das

(2016). Against neoliberal enclosure: Using a critical transdisciplinary approach in science teaching and learning. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 23(3), 225–236.

83.

Taylor

J. M.

Raskin

(2012). On the transdisciplinary field of humor research. Journal of Integrated Design and Process Science, 16(3), 133–148.

84.

Taylor

W. J.

(1965). “Is marketing a science?” Revisited. Journal of Marketing, 29(3), 49–53.

85.

Vaile

R. S.

Slagsold

P. L.

(1929). Marketing: An introductory course. The Ronald Press Company.

86.

van Baalen

W. M.

de Groot

Noordegraff-Eelens

. (2021). Higher education, the arts, and transdisciplinarity: A systematic review of the literature. Research in Education, 111(1), 24–45.

87.

Varadarajan

(2018). A commentary on “transformative marketing: The next 20 years.” Journal of Marketing, 82(4), 15–18.

88.

Vargo

S. L.

Lusch

R. L.

(2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1–17.

89.

Wilkie

W. L.

Moore

E. S.

(2003). Scholarly research in marketing: Exploring the “4 eras” of thought development. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 22(2), 116–146.

90.

Yadav

M. S.

(2010). The decline of conceptual articles and implications for knowledge development. Journal of Marketing, 74(1), 1–19.

91.

Yadav

M. S.

(2018). Making emerging phenomena a research priority. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46(3), 361–365.

92.

Kim

Cho

Y.-N.

(2024). Digital marketing and analytics education: A systematic review. Journal of Marketing Education, 46(1), 32–44.

93.

Zafeirakopoulos

van der Bijl-Brouwer

(2018). Exploring the transdisciplinary learning experiences of innovation professionals. Technology Innovation Management Review, 8(8), 50–59.

Marketing Is a Transdisciplinary Body of Knowledge

Abstract

Keywords

What Is Marketing? A Précis of Marketing Definitions

Semantic Confusion

Is Marketing a Science?

Marketing as a Discipline

Marketing Is a Body of Knowledge

Benefits (and Challenges) of Treating Marketing as a Body of Knowledge

Challenges

A Transdisciplinary Body of Knowledge

The Nexus and Domain of Marketing

Observations and Implications for Marketing Education

Looking Ahead

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

Notes

References