Making Marketing Discipline More Scientific–Contesting Christian Grönroos’s “Toward a Marketing Renaissance”

Abstract

This article examines Christian Grönroos’s “Toward a Marketing Renaissance: Challenging Underlying Assumptions,” offering support for the advancement of marketing as a discipline while raising several critical issues with Grönroos’s approach. First, Grönroos’s analysis and proposals lack clarity regarding their focus on either marketing practice or the theoretical discipline of marketing. His analysis of foundational assumptions appears grounded in a predominantly managerial view of marketing, potentially limiting its scope. Second, the suggested foundational shifts overlook significant developments within academic marketing research. Finally, Grönroos’s vision of marketing as “meaningfulness” is based on an idealistic, marketer- and consumer-centric perspective that does not offer a solid foundation for marketing as an academic discipline. This article advocates positioning marketing firmly within the social sciences and proposes distinguishing between three perspectives in marketing scholarship: (1) marketing practice, (2) research into marketing practice (both empirical and theoretical), and (3) meta-theoretical research into the discipline itself. By identifying key research directions within these domains, the paper outlines an agenda for future scholarship that embraces marketing’s complexity, promotes rigorous and critical theory-building, and enhances marketing’s role within the broader social sciences.

Keywords

marketing theory marketing renaissance marketing discipline metatheory

Introduction

Christian Grönroos has joined the discussion on the marketing crisis with a suggestion that we critically examine and redefine the underlying assumptions of marketing (Australasian Marketing Journal, 2023, 1–9). This is an important topic from an internationally recognized scholar and having shared these concerns (Möller et al., 2020) I am eager to learn the issues and responses he raises.

After discussing the critical issues—marketing’s loss of credibility as an academic discipline and management practice, its waning influence in boardrooms, its overly narrow scope, and that the emphasis on methods has led to the neglect of current economic, societal, and environmental issues—Grönroos (2023) argues that “the very fundamental question has not been asked: As the business and societal environment has changed, could . . .the implicit underlying assumptions of the discipline be outdated, thus hindering marketing from changing and re-inventing itself (p. 1)?”

“The purpose of this article is to first scrutinize the implicit foundational assumptions underlying marketing, thereby enabling the introduction of alternative assumptions that would better fit marketing’s challenges. Second, based on this analysis, an alternative perspective on marketing is introduced in which the discipline is understood as a phenomenon. I argue that marketing as meaningfulness describes such a phenomenon.” (Grönroos, 2023, p. 2., emphasis in the original).

While I endorse this scrutiny of these assumptions—having done so with several colleagues (Möller, 2007, 2013; Möller et al., 2009; Möller & Halinen, 2022, 2000)—I have several issues with Grönroos’s article. Although it is an important stimulus to the discussion, as a research community we should be able to do better.

First, it is difficult to see whether Grönroos’s analysis and proposals concern marketing praxis and/or marketing discipline (theories into marketing). His evaluation of the foundational assumptions seems to be based on a narrowly management-oriented view of marketing, calling for conceptual clarity and more rigorous metatheoretical research. Second, the discussion and propositions concerning these new foundations seem to overlook major developments in academic research in marketing, diminishing the originality of the proposed “alternative assumptions.” Third, the suggestion of marketing as meaningfulness relies on an idealistic view of marketing and extends the idea of the domain (phenomenon) of marketing discipline to covering psychology, social psychology, and sociology. This may sound appealing, but I will argue that it is unreasonable and even potentially harmful to the relevance of our scholarship.

One should note that although Grönroos is emphasizing the management and practice of marketing, I will adopt a broader perspective and address marketing both as practice and academic discipline. I hope this approach will enable me not only to comment Grönroos’s proposals but to complement his article. At the same time, our different perspectives will bring some healthy tension to the analysis.

Marketing’s foundational assumptions: The emperor’s new clothes?

Drawing on a limited literature search—based primarily on the American Marketing Association’s (AMA) evolving definition of marketing—Grönroos argues that the prevailing view of marketing is biased in favor of activities, and emphasizes the marketer, including an “inside-out” view. Utilizing a managerially oriented definition, Grönroos identifies seven foundational assumptions: focus on activity, structure, exclusivity, one-sidedness, promise-making, value creation, and inside-out planning and execution. Instead of addressing each of these assumptions, I will draw attention to broader questions: the relationship between practice and theory, and the “marketing as a phenomenon” definition Grönroos is constructing and seeking to advance.

By drawing on the AMA’s definition of marketing, Grönroos criticizes what could be called “traditional marketing management thought,” a kind of primer on consumer marketing (Cronin & Nagel, 2024; Möller et al., 2009). This analysis results in what Grönroos calls the “implicit underlying assumptions” of marketing which he proceeds to contrast with his “alternative assumptions” (Grönroos, 2023, Table 1, p. 3). This kind of antagonistic comparison is an established rhetorical method (Miles, 2014; Potter, 2005). I regard the resulting comparison and the novelty of the claims made for the “alternative assumptions” highly questionable as it seems to ignore much of the evolution that has taken place in the marketing discipline during the last 20 years. In brief, I argue that the fundamental beliefs Grönroos identifies are only a subset of research into marketing and do not represent today’s marketing discipline.

Several issues can be identified. First, the formulation of assumptions seems to be based on a combination of managerial advice on how marketing should be seen and conducted and how marketing phenomena are researched. Second, many of the proposed alternative assumptions (Table 1, p. 3) were identified and articulated in various streams of the marketing discipline, over 30 years ago. Third, I claim that the identification of assumptions concerning either marketing practitioners or research streams is an empirical question requiring either field studies of marketing practices or analysis of marketing research traditions. Fourth, as Grönroos seems to imply, can we assume that marketing as a set of complex, multilayered research domains can or even should be covered with a single research orientation based on a specific set of assumptions?

Grönroos is not alone in mixing marketing as a normative managerial practice (e.g. marketing praxis, marketing philosophy, and even ideology), and marketing as a (social) science (see the discussion by Helkkula & Arnould, 2022; Tadajewski, 2022; e.g. see Hunt et al., 2022; Parvatiyar & Sheth, 2021; Sheth et al., 1988). This mixing of marketing as praxis and research into this praxis has several roots. From the beginning of academic interest in marketing in the early 1900s to the current discussion, most scholars have been interested in the marketing activities of North American consumer goods companies. Moreover, the research has been dominated by managerial interest in how to engage in various marketing practices, encapsulated in the conceptualization of marketing mix and disseminated via textbooks. This mixing of the description of praxis and academically derived guidelines is reflected in the history of marketing thought by Bartels (1976) and is evident also in Hunt et al.s’ (2022) propositions of how to make the marketing discipline more relevant (see comments on Hunt by Helkkula & Arnould, 2022).

The mixing of marketing theory and practice, although understandable due to the applied mainstream marketing research adopting the marketer perspective (Möller & Halinen, 2022) and producing what Arndt (1985, p. 17) called “normative micro approach, which focuses on marketing technology . . .” may confuse marketing students and younger researchers in distinguishing genuine research from textbook knowledge (Ojansivu, 2024).

Although I can endorse the logic of Grönroos’s “alternative assumptions” for marketing, it has some sever limitations. Although Grönroos makes some highly generic assumptions, they tend to be normative and to emphasize how marketing activities should be seen by researchers and practiced by organizations. In a more research-oriented perspective, the emphasis would be on how marketing is conducted across various domains and how various research approaches or traditions view marketing phenomena. We are still missing knowledge of What kind of marketing is practiced in various fields? How it is changing, and why? For a rare exception, see the Contemporary Marketing Practices Studies by Brodie et al. (2008).

Another limitation is the scant attention given to the socio-techno-economic-environmental context of marketing phenomena and its influence on the contextual nature of marketing practices. Generally examined under the label of macromarketing, these environmental issues are central in the academic understanding of how and why marketing practices evolve; and how marketing praxis can and should develop (Möller & Halinen, 2022). These questions, especially the potential dysfunctional effects of marketing, have been overlooked by mainstream research in marketing management but have received increased attention in business-to-business marketing, marketing systems research, and critical marketing studies (Möller et al., 2020; Rémy et al., 2024).

Perhaps the most unexpected aspect of the “alternative propositions” is proposing them as novel. The view of marketing as a complex layered research domain with marketers, customers, and channel members having active interactional roles in various institutional settings was introduced already by Alderson (2006, a republication of Alderson 1965; Alderson & Cox, 1948) then re-introduced and refined by macro marketing, services and relationship marketing research; channels studies; the interaction and network approach in business marketing; the Service Dominant Logic stream; and most recently marketing systems scholars.

The listed research streams, their underlying assumptions, goals, and limitations have been examined in several publications (Möller, 2013, Möller et al., 2009, 2020; Pels et al., 2009). The earliest date from the 1970s (channels research and services marketing), relationship and interaction perspectives from the 1990s, and IMP-driven networks and SDL movements from the first decade of the 21st century.) As Grönroos has been instrumental in the formulation of approaches to services and relationship marketing we may assume that he wanted to refine their main takeaways through his “alternative assumptions” packaging. Maybe there was not enough space to explain the provenance of various premises.

Before suggesting how to avoid the criticisms raised and offer other ways to advance marketing discipline it is necessary to examine the conclusion of Grönroos’s analysis of the state of marketing discipline: “marketing as meaningfulness.”

Meaningfulness as the core of marketing?

Grönroos (2023) argues that presenting alternative assumptions for marketing is not enough (p. 6): “. . . to re-invent marketing as a discipline, it is not sufficient to focus on several, disparate marketing topics (phenomena). Instead, a higher-order phenomenon should be in focus—a phenomenon that would guide how the discipline should be understood and investigations directed into marketing topics.” He sees this phenomenon “. . .as the foundational, inner meaning of an entity or concept that can explain what this entity or concept does, or should do, to make sense to involved stakeholders (Grönroos, 2023, p. 6). Grönroos then adds (p. 6): “Thus, I argue that to be meaningful reflects the inner meaning or foundational aspiration of marketing. Hence, marketing as a phenomenon can be described as the process by which an organisation is made meaningful to the users of its offerings.^”

Grönroos (2023) bases his suggestion on a few studies in consumer behavior, positive philosophy, and psychology. He proposes that (p. 7):

In a marketing context, meaningfulness can be described as being relevant and purposeful in customers’ lives, such that they are enabled to manage their individual life or organisational work processes in a way that is valuable to them. This pertains to both commercial and non-commercial contexts. Thus, an inclusive definition of the ultimate objective of marketing can be formulated succinctly as to make an organisation as provider of offerings meaningful to its users with the aim of creating attraction among them.

What to make of this suggestion, which if adopted by organizations would, according to Grönroos not only make them successful but also save the marketing discipline (my words). I see the meaningfulness proposition as an example of marketing’s idealistic perspective. Marketing is seen as the core—if not a major part—of the processes constructing value in the society. When viewed through idealistic lenses, marketing is always the “good guy,” and a meaningful partner in life. We seem unable to engage in a critical discussion on the societal and environmental side-effects of marketing activities. Moreover, the ideas Grönroos presents seem to mix metaphysical marketing idealism, marketing praxis, and marketing discipline. Is this the best way to lay the foundation for a discipline? I think not.

The nature and scope of marketing discipline: Responses to Grönroos

To increase the conceptual clarity in the development of marketing discipline I suggest adopting a few principal perspectives. First, we should be able to make the distinction between marketing praxis and research and theory construction about that praxis. This statement begs the question of What kind of practices do we regard as marketing practices or practices influencing these? And what kind of theories constitute the discipline?

Scope of marketing domain discussion

It is helpful to examine how the nature and scope of marketing have traditionally been captured. The title pays homage to Shelby Hunt, whose contributions shaped a more scientific view of marketing. It seems still useful to revisit the half-century old discussion. Hunt (1976) suggested that the nature and scope of marketing can be delineated through three dimensions (pp. 21–22): “. . .all marketing phenomena, issues, problems, models, theories, and research can be categorized using the three categorical dichotomies of (1) profit sector/nonprofit sector, (2) micro/macro, and (3) positive/normative.”

For me, it is most important to distinguish positive theory development, referring to the core what and why questions underlying all scientific inquiry. For example, how do firms in different business fields conduct their marketing activities (what is it out there?). If there are differences, why do they exist? One can construct consistent normative theory—theory driving managerial guidelines and suggestions: how firms should behave—based on positive theory only. The micro/macro dimension refers to whether issues, research, and theorizing concerns individual actors (consumers, customers, marketing actors, and organizations) or some aggregation of these and the socio-techno-economic environment of the firm (markets, market-systems, and institutional settings). Finally, the profit/nonprofit sector determines whether marketing activities, organizations, and customers situate in profit or non-profit sectors.

Does this trichotomy have any takeaways for Grönroos’s alternative assumptions? His recommendations that “[m]arketing is an externally oriented process that gears activities to the customers’ life-cycle processes” (Grönroos, 2023, Table 1) and “[m]arketing is planned and executed with on Outside-in focus” (Grönroos, 2023, Table 1) reflect a clearly normative view; this is how marketing should be conducted. In many cases this recommendation may be valid, but it misses the entire domain of radical innovations that may lead to offerings that meet the needs that potential customers may not even know they have (e.g. self-expression through social media platforms, self-driving vehicles). In this sense these alternative assumptions are restricting marketing discipline quite contrary to Grönroos’s intention. In a more general vein, my point is that how and why marketing is practiced are essentially empirical questions, and we know remarkably little about this compared to our accumulated knowledge of customer behavior. Another issue concerns the novelty value. At least since 1967, marketing scholars have emphasized the role of customers in guiding not only marketing activities but the offering creation of the firm (Kotler, 1967).

Hunt (1983) extended the disciplinary discussion by proposing the fundamental explananda of marketing (p. 12):

* The behaviors of buyers directed at consummating exchanges

* The behaviors of sellers directed at consummating exchanges

* The institutional framework directed at consummating and/or facilitating exchanges

* The consequences on society of the behaviors of buyers, the behaviors of sellers, and the institutional framework directed at consummating and/or facilitating exchange.”

One should note that Hunt uses “consummating exchanges” as the core concept. How does this work with the current views of marketing praxis as (co)constructing value (Gummesson, & Mele 2010; Kohtamäki & Rajala, 2016; Payne et al., 2008; Vargo et al., 2017)? Although neither Hunt—nor anyone else as far as I know—used value creation conceptualizations in the 1980s his “behaviors directed at consummating exchanges” is intentionally so generic that it accommodates any kind of competition, collaboration, coopetition, or persuasion that advances consummation. The reasons for exchange consummation are also left open. What drives the exchange relationships, whether the search for technological solutions, delicious chia seeds, profit, or indeed meaningfulness, is an empirical question.

Hunt’s propositions have been further developed into seeing the marketing domain as interrelated layers of phenomena where the behavior of focal actors is influenced by and reciprocally influencing contextual or environmental layers containing economic, institutional, technological, and socio-cultural aspects (see, e.g. Akaka & Vargo, 2015; Möller et al., 2009; Möller & Halinen, 2017; Taillard et al., 2016).

The description of reality consisting of interrelated layers has roots in the critical realist view of society and social organization (Sawyer, 2005; Sayer, 2010). The key point is that certain elements and structures have causal power and influence over all focal events and activities (Easton, 2010; Sayer, 2010). This perspective has begun to penetrate the strategic networks stream of the business networks approach (Möller, 2010; Möller & Halinen, 2017) and is more extensively applied in studies of market systems (Baker & Nenonen, 2020; Taillard et al., 2016), and within the service-dominant logic (Chandler & Vargo, 2011; Vargo & Lusch, 2016, 2017).

The key aspects of this current depiction of marketing and business have been summarized in Möller et al. (2020, p. 383) as (i) layered and nested, with the focal actors and their behaviors being influenced by several contextual layers and vice versa; as (ii) multimodal, intertwining social, economic, political, and technological aspects; and as (iii) transitional, denoting the constant change of the domain and its parts.

How does this discussion relate to Gönroos’s alternative assumptions about marketing? Due to the narrow focus on marketer and customer actors and to the normative tone adopted, he is silent about the ways in which marketing activities influence the evolution and construction of societies, cultures, and business fields. Nor is there any discussion of how these contextual characteristics and histories are influencing the kind of marketing practices conducted. In brief, Grönroos is silent about what traditionally have been labeled as macromarketing questions (Fowler et al., 2024) but that are essential in understanding business strategy (Möller et al., 2020). His proposed alternative assumptions and subsequent recommendations are practically silent of the field’s theoretical development over the past 10 years.

Another issue is should we in general embrace one set of assumptions about either marketing praxis or theory, as implied by Grönroos’s propositions? This question relates to the discussion of the possibilities, and indeed usefulness of constructing a general theory of marketing. In brief, many scholars who fall into the service-dominant logic research tradition argue for the potential of the SDL vocabulary, axioms, and consequent propositions to form a metalexicon for describing marketing phenomena and enabling the integration of research approaches (Brodie & Fehrer, 2022). My stance is that to have solid theories on the remarkably complex and nested marketing phenomena, we must embrace the pluralistic development of theories and research traditions in the marketing discipline (Möller, 2013; Möller et al., 2020). By using various theoretical lenses to analyze consumer behavior and relationships versus interorganizational relationships and business strategy in market contexts versus network or ecosystem contexts, we can arrive at a significantly richer theoretical understanding than through any highly abstract descriptive lexicon. However, this kind of multi-lens approach is intellectually demanding (Midgley et al., 2017). The comparison of the advantages and limitations of various research traditions requires metatheoretical comparison.

Our work on the relationship and business marketing domain offers robust support for the multi-theory view (Möller 2013; Möller et al., 2009; Möller & Halinen, 2000, 2022; Pels et al., 2009). Taken together, these analyses covered 10 approaches from marketing management to services marketing, via various streams of relationship marketing to channels research, and to the interaction and network approach. Each of these forms a logical entity based on the specific assumptions related to the goals of the research program. Combining or merging these approaches could only be achieved at a very high level of abstraction and would sacrifice much of their explanatory rigor.

“The phenomenon: Marketing as meaningfulness”

Should we accept Grönroos’s (2023) proposal of framing the empirical domain of marketing as meaningfulness (p. 7): “In a marketing context, meaningfulness can be described as being relevant and purposeful in customers’ lives, such that they are enabled to manage their individual life or organisational work processes in a way that is valuable to them.” Grönroos (2023) sees this as offering an inner meaning of an entity or concept that can explain what this entity (organization or customer) does, or should do, to make sense to involved stakeholders (p. 6). In his words (Grönroos, 2023, p. 7): “. . . the ultimate objective of marketing can be formulated succinctly as to make an organisation as provider of offerings meaningful to its users with the aim of creating attraction among them.”

How are we to read this bold statement? It seems to be a logical continuation of Grönroos’s (2000) thinking about marketer-customer (service) relationships, their activities, organization, and dynamics. I see it as a normative suggestion for how marketers should view their and their customers’ roles and behave accordingly. As such it can be seen as part of the long tradition of customer-centric idealization of marketing praxis. For me, this meaningfulness proposition it is not essentially different to, say Kotler’s ideas of constructing an offering targeted to the needs of specific customers, and through satisfaction creation to establish a foundation for enduring relationships (Kotler, 1967). The vocabulary is different, but the ethos is similar.

Does the meaningfulness proposition offer a meaningful foundation for marketing praxis, theory, or the entire discipline? I think not, it has serious limitations and is based on an idealistic rather than a theoretical view of our discipline. First, by focusing on a marketer—customer relationship the proposition does not cover the institutional context or any other contextual layers of marketing or organizational domain. Second, as argued in the previous section, the matter of how and why marketing praxis is conducted is an empirical issue. Third, should we base an entire discipline examining the nature and influence of marketing in economy and society on an idealistic ideology devoid of historical or critical perspectives? This view says nothing about the dysfunctional effects of marketing praxis; its role in promoting consumption society and the commercialization of any human and social phenomenon (Rémy et al., 2024; Yan & Hyman, 2024). Grönroos probably did not mean this, but his recommendation implies that firms should actively co-construct what the public perceive and believe as meaningfulness. Firms are obviously doing this all the time, some consciously and others unconsciously. As scholars, should we encourage this behavior?

Recommendations for making marketing more scientific

Personally, I see the marketing discipline as part of the social sciences as “. . . any branch of academic study or science that deals with human behavior in its social and cultural aspects. Usually included within the social sciences are cultural (or social) anthropology, sociology, psychology, political science, and economics” (Nisbet & Greenfeld, 2023). To make marketing more scientific (Arndt, 1985) it would be useful to identify and differentiate among three perspectives in marketing scholarship: marketing praxis, research into marketing praxis (both positive and normative theory formation), and research into the marketing discipline itself. As these are broad interrelated categories covering decades of research applying variable methodologies, in this context, all I can do is scratch the surface. Moreover, although these categories are theoretically separable, they are historically intertwined (Jones & Shaw, 2018; Witkowski & Jones, 2006). Further, I am not claiming to disclose anything new but rather to highlight those perspectives and domains of inquiry where I believe that we, as an academic community, need to do better.

Marketing praxis

The term is used in an extensive sense (Hunt, 1983) to cover what actors engaging in customer value-creation do in their historical context. I read into this the institutional, technological, economic, and socio-cultural layers where marketing activities are carried out. In addition to this layered view adopted in social theory, market systems view, business networks, and the Service Dominant Logic (SDL) approach (Akaka et al., 2013; Möller et al., 2020; Sawyer, 2005) I include the dynamic nature of marketing praxis, referring to its historical evolution and the various developmental processes constituting this emergence. This perspective is grounded in, besides traditional historical analysis, in evolutionary economics and sociology, and their applications in marketing and business studies (Argyres et al., 2020; Baker & Nenonen, 2020; Sawyer, 2005; Taillard et al., 2016).

When adopting this layered and dynamic view of markets and marketing, where do we stand? I present a few white areas by asking simple questions.

Why specific market forms and processes

What kind of market forms (markets systems, networks, and ecosystems) exist in different industries/business fields?

Why do we have the specific market forms—through what kind of processes have these evolved and why—what are the key drivers and conditioning factors?

What forces are transforming current market forms—view of the future?

As a discipline we seem to have scant knowledge of globally existing market forms, their emergence and evolution, and of the conditions driving this evolution. This is probably due to the ahistorical character of the mainstream marketing research assuming a simple context: working markets (Möller & Halinen, 2022). When responding to these questions, one could adopt several perspectives: (i) comparing different business fields in terms of their maturity/newness or structurization; (ii) comparing different regions with different cultures and/or phases of economic development; (iii) examining the driving forces and conditioning factors (enabling and constricting) of major market form emergence and change—including the initial power constellation and the resulting constellation; and (iv) examining the key processes constituting the new/emergent market forms and pinpointing major changes historically and/or across cultural and social systems. In brief, we lack understanding of various market forms, their evolution and revolutions, and the factors driving these processes.

Why specific channel structures, processes, and relationships

The study of marketing channels and the institutions constituting them was one of the focal areas in the early periods of marketing research, culminating in the institutional approach in the 1950s and 1960s and transforming in 1970s into the current channels of research focusing on channels relationships (Frazier, 1983; Sheth et al., 1988). To update our knowledge and arrive at a deeper understanding of the channel systems, similar questions that have already been posed can be used.

What kind of channel structures exist in different industries/business fields?

Why do we have the specific channel structures—through what kind of processes have these evolved and why—what are the key drivers transforming channel structures?

What kind of contractual relationships there are among channel members in various industries/business fields, and why—what are the key drivers?

Through what kind of processes have these and their embedded power structures evolved?

How are the channel structures related to channel performance? How do the structures and their changes influence channel member roles and profitability?

What forces are transforming current contractual relationships—what is the view of the future?

To direct this kind of broad comparative and/or longitudinal research, one could focus on the impact of major technological transformations like establishment of the commercial internet and the resulting digitalization, or on comparing major business fields across countries differing in their economic development and/or business systems (Mallen, 1996).

Why specific marketing practices, organization, processes, and relationships

We have dismayingly little knowledge of the marketing practices and their evolution compared to the accumulated understanding of customer behavior. The disciplinary emphasis on marketing management requiring customer information for product and services development, segmentation and targeting, and relationship management is the obvious reason. The major exception is the Contemporary Marketing Practices (MCP) project by Brodie et al. (2008). Again, a set of questions can be posed to remedy our knowledge gap.

Are there specific differences between the marketing practices across business fields and contexts—what explains these differences, and what are their main drivers?

Are there specific differences between how marketing practices have been organized across various business fields and contexts—why do these differences exist, and what are their main drivers?

Are there specific differences between the marketer and customer roles across business fields and contexts—why do these differences exist, what are their main drivers, and are there consequences for profitability?

These comparative and longitudinal research strategies could be also utilized here. Ideally, we would have longitudinal data sets covering major business fields enabling comparison of marketing practices, including organization, across interesting fields and facilitating the study of differences between economically and culturally varying countries.

Charting of the adoption of marketing practices in non-profit fields assessing how extensively marketing concept and practices are being utilized. Often called social marketing (Gordon, 2019; Kotler, 2005), this constitutes a an especially significant theme. Another important aspect is to create data on marketing practices that have either violated local laws or been seen as socially or ecologically harmful. This would allow more critical examination of the social functions and dysfunctions of marketing (Gordon, 2019). Here, I disagree with Gaski (2022) who regarded actors who are carrying out illegal marketing practices as criminals, not as marketers ( p. 14). If we are interested in how marketing practices are employed, we should not use these kinds of definitional tools to limit our inquiry.

In sum, there is much to improve upon our basic knowledge of marketing praxis and markets. The questions presented here pose challenges to the ways in which we understand and conduct marketing research.

Marketing theories and thought: Ways of knowing marketing praxis

There exist several accounts and commentaries of the evolution of research into marketing often labeled as marketing schools (Bartels, 1976; Hunt, 2020; Shaw, 2009; Shaw & Jones, 2005; Sheth et al., 1988 Wilkie & Moore, 2003). I have no intention to delve into these but will briefly address a few perspectives where we have either problems or room for development.

First, we could clarify the disciplinary understanding of marketing by distinguishing theoretical research traditions from schools of marketing thought. Schools of thought, as defined by Shaw and Jones (2005) are clusters of knowledge, encompassing common research approach(es), shared theories and concepts, and accumulated practical wisdom. As such they are amalgamations of often taken-for-granted research, management best practices, and consulting frameworks dispersed via textbooks and MBA courses. Separating research-based theories from non-research-based knowledge would enable more critical evaluation of the validity of both the research approach addressing the “why” questions and the praxis knowledge responding to “how to do” questions. At best this can probably be done by examining entire research traditions (Möller, 2013).

Accepting a major simplification, one can argue that since the 1960s the discipline has been dominated by the marketing management research tradition—I am excluding consumer behavior which I consider an independent discipline. Although being highly successful the marketing management tradition is based on a set of constricting assumptions and research practices (Möller & Halinen, 2022, p. 288): the tradition is guided by natural science research ideals and managerial orientation, assuming working markets and competition as dominant market force; it relies on a strong form of realism, objectifying research phenomena; research practices are guided by a problem solving-orientation and explanatory mode. These characteristics have resulted in variable-based measurement and the prioritizing of quantitative methods and modeling.

The characteristics of the mainstream marketing scholarship as outlined here have resulted in serious neglect of the research themes that are highly complex, embedded in historical context, wrought by several and often contradictory forces, and undergoing constant change. In essence, the mainstream approach is severely handicapped when facing current strategic issues. A major case is the reconfiguration of current value-producing systems to match sustainability requirements, necessitated by climate change. This involves radical value-system transition that consists of complex phases and processes, and cuts across many analytical layers, business fields, and societies on a global scale. Influencing this development are complex webs of local and global social and political entities, and the companies on the leading edge of the transition (Geels, 2020; Knight et al., 2015; Möller et al., 2020; Van Tulder et al., 2019).

To advance the disciplinary relevance we must develop research practices that enable us to study complex and dynamic strategic issues and to construct relevant theories covering layered, nested, and dynamic market systems. In brief, I would promote:

Longitudinal research including both historical and processual research, and the development of theories addressing the evolution of various market systems, including business ecosystems, and marketer behavior (Roberts & Geels, 2019).

Adoption of a configurational approach for theory development. A configurational approach, more common in organization and management research, sees business reality inherently gestalt-like. This means that the success (or non-success) or any other state or characteristic of a firm, business network, or strategy is influenced by a configuration of multiple factors, with complex causal relationships (Greckhamer et al., 2018). The configurational and contextual perspectives, and the related QCA methods would advance addressing the complexity of markets and marketing.

In addition to these general suggestions, we should become more serious about the role of marketing in society, generally addressed by macromarketing studies (Layton, 2019; Mittelstaedt et al., 2015) and examined within the critical marketing tradition (Tadajewski et al., 2019). This involves creating a better understanding of how marketing and society interact. Through what kind of processes and to what ends do marketing practices influence the institutional and cultural aspects of societies and their citizens (values, norms, consumption orientations, and behaviors)? This includes adopting a critical perspective, so we must examine the dysfunctional effects of marketing, not only malpractice, but the more extensive and enduring influence of marketing on society. In a more general vein, the discipline has evaded the inclusion of power—who possesses it, how it is used, and to what effect, how the power distribution is constructed and transformed—in its analysis. This is probably due to an underlying assumption of the benefits of marketing (Gaski, 2022).

Do not get me wrong, I appreciate that both macromarketing and critical marketing have long scholarly histories resulting in valuable theories and knowledge. My point is that we should adopt these approaches and the questions they are asking about markets and marketing into mainstream in terms of both education and research.

A particular issue in extending what is mainstream marketing involves examination of the ideological character of marketing praxis and marketing research. Current mainstream marketing seems to assume that marketing praxis (and theories) are either value-free or that they have a positive influence on customers and society. In this respect, marketing can also be regarded as technology, its frameworks and tools are applicable for promoting any kind of behaviors like in societal marketing, and in meeting the ecological sustainability goals (Rémy et al., 2024). Obviously, the ideology and technology perspectives are interrelated, so we need more research on the dimensions of ideological character of marketing and its societal and disciplinary effects (Eckhardt et al., 2019).

To sum up, I suggest that we deepen and expand the marketing discipline by carrying out more longitudinal and processual research, adopting methodological tools that enable better address of the contextual and nested character of complex marketing phenomena, and adding the examination of the dysfunctional, power-related, and ideological aspects of marketing to our doctoral education and research programs.

Metatheory of marketing discipline: Research of marketing theories

Metatheory can be concisely described as a theory (and theorizing) concerned with the investigation, analysis, or description of theories themselves (APA Dictionary, 2018). It is regarded as a higher-order theory about theories, allowing one to analyze, compare, and evaluate competing bodies of theories or sets of interrelated theories perceived as research traditions or schools (Wallis, 2010). Metatheory serves four purposes: (1) to gain a deeper understanding of extant theoretical work; (2) to provide an overarching perspective of that work; (3) to serve as a mechanism for evaluation of theories; and (4) to guide future theoretical work (Ritzer, 1991). As such, metatheoretical analysis is essential for advancing scientific understanding of our discipline.

In marketing, the available metatheoretical studies have addressed:

(i) The evolution of marketing discipline/thought offering periodization of the field, examining the basic contents of the proposed periods, and reflecting the drivers of development (Bartels, 1976; Jones & Shaw, 2002; Shaw, 2009; Sheth et al., 1988; Wilkie & Moore, 2003). The emphasis of these endeavors has been on the identification of schools and their historical evolution.

(ii) The comparison of the philosophy of science basis of major research orientations. Perhaps the best-known example is the debate about “truth” in marketing studies conducted between Hunt (1993) representing realism and Paul Anderson advocating relativism (Anderson, 1983; Kavanagh, 1994). A more recent example is the contrasting of the propositions by the Service Dominant Logic approach with a depicted view of marketing management research tradition (Vargo & Lusch, 2004).

(iii) Compositions of specific marketing domains and/or research traditions through bibliometric analysis resulting in clusters of subdomains/research themes, revealing the key contributing publications and their authors, and visualizing the networks of researchers and institutions in the field. A few studies are available concerning business marketing (Martínez-López et al, 2020; Valenzuela-Fernandez, 2019), marketing studies in general (Nicolas et al., 2020). Also, specific sub-themes like electronic marketing, international marketing, and bank marketing have been studied.

(iv) In-depth comparisons of research traditions/schools based on their fundamental assumptions, scientific goals, and research practices. This kind of disciplinary dissection is available at least on business marketing (Möller, 2013), and between mainstream business marketing and the IMP community driven research (Möller & Halinen, 2022).

Despite the growing interest in metatheoretical analysis, the discipline would clearly benefit from greater self-understanding. Knowing why we do the kind of research we do, on what assumptions and silent beliefs we base our axiological, epistemological, and methodological choices, and what kind of consequences these choices have for our knowledge production is invaluable for any critical evaluation of the marketing discipline. Continuing the discussion of the kind of research and theory development required, I would look forward to novel metatheoretical studies on the development of marketing and its subfields. Studies combining the historical examination of the evolution of the field with the philosophy of science rigor would be especially valuable. Addressing the role of economic, social, institutional, and science-related forces in the emergence of marketing thought will enrich our disciplinary wisdom. A comparison with such neighboring fields as strategy, management, and organization theory would provide additional perspective.

To conclude, it seems that the marketing discipline has journeyed from its growing pains of the 1970s to maturity, exhibiting the fragmentation that is not unfamiliar to any established field in the social sciences. I see fragmentation, however, as a sign of positive development, generating specialized middle-range theories and dedicated research communities. While deepening the total knowledge base the specialization obviously raises the bar for achieving a shared understanding of the discipline. This is reflected in the yearning for a general theory of marketing, often expressed by scholars employing the SDL framework (Vargo et al., 2023). I do not endorse these efforts as I regard the domain of marketing as so complex, multilayered, multi-actor, and diversified in its research that it cannot be meaningfully covered by any single general theory. At best this could be a highly abstract vocabulary with minimal explanatory power.

I do see a bright future for the discipline, however. As discussed, there are several ways of expanding and deepening marketing knowledge. By employing more contextual and configurational research approaches, conducting historical and processual research, and adopting a more critical perspective of the marketing praxis, we can advance the discipline. Metatheoretical research affords a better understanding of the various research traditions and thus facilitates construction of shared knowledge and understanding of the logics of various scholarly communities. I do hope that these reflections inspire this kind of multivoiced progress.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

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

Funding

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

ORCID iD

Kristian Möller

References

Akaka

M. A.

Vargo

S. L.

(2015). Extending the context of service: From encounters to ecosystems. Journal of Services Marketing, 29(6/7), 453–462.

Akaka

M. A.

Vargo

S. L.

Lusch

R. F.

(2013). The complexity of context: A service ecosystems approach for international marketing. Journal of International Marketing, 21(4), 1-20.

Alderson

(2006). Marketing efficiency and the principle of postponement. In Wooliscroft

Tamilia

R. D.

Shapiro

S. J.

(Eds.), A twenty-first century guide to Aldersonian marketing thought (pp. 109–113). Springer US.

Alderson

Cox

(1948). Towards a theory of marketing. Journal of Marketing, 13(2), 137–152.

Anderson

P. F.

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

APA Dictionary. (2018). https://dictionary.apa.org/metatheory

Argyres

N. S.

De Massis

Foss

N. J.

Frattini

Jones

Silverman

B. S.

(2020). History-informed strategy research: The promise of history and historical research methods in advancing strategy scholarship. Strategic Management Journal, 41(3), 343–368.

Arndt

(1985). On making marketing science more scientific: Role of orientations, paradigms, metaphors, and puzzle solving. Journal of Marketing, 49(3), 11–23.

Baker

J. J.

Nenonen

(2020). Collaborating to shape markets: Emergent collective market work. Industrial Marketing Management, 85, 240–253.

10.

Bartels

(1976). The history of marketing thought (2d ed.). Grid.

11.

Brodie

R. J.

Coviello

N. E.

Winklhofer

(2008). Contemporary Marketing Practices research program: A review of the first decade. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 23(2), 84–94.

12.

Brodie

Fehrer

(2022). Service-dominant logic as mainstream: Integrating apparently disparate marketing paradigms? A response to Moller and Halinen (2022). Industrial Marketing Management, 107, 498–501.

13.

Chandler

J. D.

Vargo

S. L.

(2011). Contextualization and value-in-context: How context frames exchange. Marketing Theory, 11(1), 35–49.

14.

Cronin

Nagel

D. M.

(2024). Guest editorial: Critiques and conflicts in service research: Suggestions for redefining the marketing of goods and services as a business discipline. Journal of Services Marketing, 38(1), 1–12.

15.

Easton

(2010). Critical realism in case study research. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(1), 118–128.

16.

Eckhardt

G. M.

Varman

Dholakia

(2019). Ideology and critical marketing studies. In Tadajewski

Higgins

Denigri-Knott

Varman

(Eds.), The Routledge companion to critical marketing (pp. 306–318). Routledge.

17.

Fowler

J. G.

Watson

Sen

Sinha

(2024). Reconceptualizing marketing: An assessment of the marketing system in an emerging economy. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 39(1), 14–28.

18.

Frazier

G. L.

(1983). Interorganizational exchange behavior in marketing channels: A broadened perspective. Journal of Marketing, 47(4), 68–78.

19.

Gaski

J. F.

(2022). Toward social responsibility, not the social responsibility semblance: Marketing does not need a conscience. AMS Review, 12(1), 7–24.

20.

Geels

F. W.

(2020). Micro-foundations of the multi-level perspective on socio-technical transitions: Developing a multi-dimensional model of agency through crossovers between social constructivism, evolutionary economics and neo-institutional theory. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 152, Article 119894.

21.

Gordon

(2019). Critical social marketing: Reflections, introspections, and future directions. In Tadajewski

Higgins

Dholakia

Denegri-Knott

Varman

(Eds.), The Routledge companion to critical marketing (pp. 83–97). Routledge.

22.

Greckhamer

Furnari

Fiss

P. C.

Aguilera

R. V.

(2018). Studying configurations with qualitative comparative analysis: Best practices in strategy and organization research. Strategic Organization, 16(4), 482–495.

23.

Grönroos

(2000). Service management and marketing: A customer relationship management approach. John Wiley & Sons.

24.

Grönroos

(2023). Towards a marketing renaissance: Challenging underlying assumptions. Australasian Marketing Journal, 31(4), 270–278.

25.

Gummesson

Mele

(2010). Marketing as value co-creation through network interaction and resource integration. Journal of Business Market Management, 4, 181–198.

26.

Helkkula

Arnould

(2022). Developing and renewing marketing as a scientific discipline through reflexive cocreation. AMS Review, 12(3–4), 168–173.

27.

Hunt

S. D.

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

28.

Hunt

S. D.

(1983). General theories and the fundamental explananda of marketing. Journal of Marketing, 47(4), 9–17.

29.

Hunt

S. D.

(1993). Objectivity in marketing theory and research. Journal of Marketing, 57(2), 76–91.

30.

Hunt

S. D.

(2020). For re-institutionalizing the marketing discipline in Era V. AMS Review, 10(3), 189–198.

31.

Hunt

S. D.

Madhavaram

Hatfield

H. N.

(2022). The marketing discipline’s troubled trajectory: The manifesto conversation, candidates for central focus, and prognosis for renewal. AMS Review, 12(3–4), 139–156.

32.

Jones

D. B.

Shaw

E. H.

(2002). A history of marketing thought. In Weitz

B. A.

Wensley

(Eds.), Handbook of marketing (pp. 39–65). Sage.

33.

Jones

D. B.

Shaw

E. H.

(2018). Avoiding academic irrelevance in the marketing discipline: The promise of the history of marketing thought. Journal of Marketing Management, 34(1–2), 52–62.

34.

Kavanagh

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

35.

Knight

Pfeiffer

Scott

(2015). Supply market uncertainty: Exploring consequences and responses within sustainability transitions. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 21(3), 167–177.

36.

Kohtamäki

Rajala

(2016). Theory and practice of value co-creation in B2B systems. Industrial Marketing Management, 56, 4–13.

37.

Kotler

(1967). Marketing management, analysis, planning, implementation, and control. Prentice-Hall.

38.

Kotler

(2005). The role played by the broadening of marketing movement in the history of marketing thought. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 24(1), 114–116.

39.

Layton

R. A.

(2019). Marketing systems: Looking backward, sizing up and thinking ahead. Journal of Macromarketing, 39(2), 208–224.

40.

Mallen

(1996). Marketing channels and economic development: A literature overview. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 26(5), 42–48.

41.

Martínez-López

F. J.

Merigó

J. M.

Gázquez-Abad

J. C.

Ruiz-Real

J. L.

(2020). Industrial marketing management: Bibliometric overview since its foundation. Industrial Marketing Management, 84, 19–38.

42.

Midgley

Nicholson

J. D.

Brennan

(2017). Dealing with challenges to methodological pluralism: The paradigm problem, psychological resistance and cultural barriers. Industrial Marketing Management, 62, 150–159.

43.

Miles

(2014). Rhetoric and the foundation of the Service-Dominant Logic. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 27(5), 744–755.

44.

Mittelstaedt

J. D.

Kilbourne

W. E.

Shultz

C. J.

II . (2015). Macromarketing approaches to thought development in positive marketing: Two perspectives on a research agenda for positive marketing scholars. Journal of Business Research, 68(12), 2513–2516.

45.

Möller

(2007). Marketing research traditions: Toward theoretical unification or pluralism? Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ), 15(1), 61–66.

46.

Möller

(2010). Sense-making and agenda construction in emerging business networks: How to direct radical innovation. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(3), 361–371.

47.

Möller

(2013). Theory map of business marketing: Relationships and networks perspectives. Industrial Marketing Management, 42(3), 324–335.

48.

Möller

Halinen

(2000). Relationship marketing theory: Its roots and directions. Journal of Marketing Management, 16(1–3), 29–54.

49.

Möller

Halinen

(2017). Managing business and innovation networks: From strategic nets to business fields and ecosystems. Industrial Marketing Management, 67, 5–22.

50.

Möller

Halinen

(2022). Clearing the paradigmatic fog: How to move forward in business marketing research. Industrial Marketing Management, 102, 280–300.

51.

Möller

Nenonen

Storbacka

(2020). Networks, ecosystems, fields, market systems? Making sense of the business environment. Industrial Marketing Management, 90, 380–399.

52.

Möller

Pels

Saren

(2009). The marketing theory or theories into marketing? Plurality of research traditions and paradigms. In Maclaran

P. E. A.

(Ed.), The Sage handbook of marketing theory (pp. 151–173). Sage.

53.

Nicolas

Valenzuela-Fernández

Merigó

J. M.

(2020). Research trends of marketing: A bibliometric study 1990–2017. Journal of Promotion Management, 26(5), 674–703.

54.

Nisbet

R. A.

Greenfeld

(2023). Social science. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/social-science

55.

Ojansivu

I. T.

(2024). Relevance and its epistemic underpinnings in B2B marketing research: Four axioms and nine relevance types. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 39, 507–520.

56.

Parvatiyar

Sheth

J. N.

(2021). Toward an integrative theory of marketing. AMS Review, 11, 432–445.

57.

Payne

A. F.

Storbacka

Frow

(2008). Managing the co-creation of value. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36, 83–96.

58.

Pels

Möller

Saren

(2009). Do we really understand business marketing? Getting beyond the RM and BM matrimony. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 24(5/6), 322–336.

59.

Potter

(2005). Representing reality: Discourse, rhetoric and social construction. Sage.

60.

Rémy

Roux

Arnould

Askegaard

Beudaert

Galluzzo

Giannelloni

J.-L.

Marion

(2024). Look up! Five research proposals for rethinking marketing in a post-growth society. Recherche et Applications en Marketing (English Edition), 39(1), 73–93.

61.

Ritzer

(1991). Metatheorizing in sociology (pp. 113–131). Lexington Books.

62.

Roberts

Geels

F. W.

(2019). Conditions for politically accelerated transitions: Historical institutionalism, the multi-level perspective, and two historical case studies in transport and agriculture. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 140, 221–240.

63.

Sawyer

R. K.

(2005). Social emergence: Societies as complex systems. Cambridge University Press.

64.

Sayer

(2010). Method in social science: Revised 2nd edition (2nd ed.). Routledge.

65.

Shaw

E. H.

(2009). Reflections on the history of marketing thought. Journal of Historical Research in Marketing, 1(2), 330–345.

66.

Shaw

E. H.

Jones

D. B.

(2005). A history of schools of marketing thought. Marketing Theory, 5(3), 239–281.

67.

Sheth

J. N.

Gardner

D. M.

Garrett

D. E.

(1988). Marketing theory: Evolution and evaluation. Wiley.

68.

Tadajewski

(2022). Rethinking ‘marketing as applied economics’. Marketing Theory, 22(4), 643–665.

69.

Tadajewski

Higgins

Denegri-Knott

Varman

(Eds.). (2019). The Routledge companion to critical marketing. Routledge.

70.

Taillard

Peters

L. D.

Pels

Mele

(2016). The role of shared intentions in the emergence of service ecosystems. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 2972–2980.

71.

Yan

Hyman

M. R.

(2024). Positive liberty, negative liberty, and marketing regulations: A holistic analysis. Journal of Macromarketing, 44(1), 59-73.

72.

Valenzuela-Fernandez

Merigó

J. M.

Lichtenthal

J. D.

Nicolas

(2019). A bibliometric analysis of the first 25 years of the Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing. Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing, 26(1), 75–94.

73.

Van Tulder

Jankowska

Verbeke

(2019). Introduction: Progress in international business research in an increasingly VUCA world. In Tulder

R. V.

Verbeke

Jankowska

(Eds.), International business in a VUCA world: The changing role of states and firms (Vol. 14, pp. 1–20). Emerald Publishing Limited.

74.

Vargo

S. L.

Akaka

M. A.

Vaughan

C. M.

(2017). Conceptualizing value: A service-ecosystem view. Journal of Creating Value, 3(2), 117–124.

75.

Vargo

S. L.

Lusch

R. F.

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

76.

Vargo

S. L.

Lusch

R. F.

(2016). Institutions and axioms: an extension and update of service-dominant logic. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44, 5-23.

77.

Vargo

S. L.

Lusch

R. F.

(2017). Service-dominant logic 2025. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 34(1), 46–67.

78.

Vargo

S. L.

Wieland

O’Brien

(2023). Service-dominant logic as a unifying theoretical framework for the re-institutionalization of the marketing discipline. Journal of Business Research, 164, Article 113965.

79.

Wallis

(2010). Toward a science of metatheory. Integral Review: A Transdiciplinary and Transcultural Journal for New Thought, Research, and Praxis, 6(3), 73-120.

80.

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.

81.

Witkowski

T. H.

Jones

D. B.

(2006). Qualitative historical research in marketing. In Belk

(Ed.), Handbook of qualitative research methods in marketing. Edward Elgar Publishing.