Is Science Marketing? Author(s): J. Paul Peter and Jerry C. Olson Source: The Journal of Marketing, Vol. 47, No.

4 (Autumn, 1983), pp. 111-125 Published by: American Marketing Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1251404 Accessed: 18/09/2010 14:30
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ama. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Marketing Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Marketing.

http://www.jstor.org

In particular. in asking. 47 (Fall 1983). That is. andtheJMreviewers Nord. and a formal analysis of a relativistic/constructionist view of science is used to support the approach. we believe the debate regarding whether or not marketing is a science has J. a consensus regarding the scientific status of marketing has not yet been achieved. Baumol 1957. Recommendations are offered for improved methods of developing knowledge. Converse 1945. marketing scholars have been largely unproductive. target markets. Although well-intentioned. We suspect that most marketing scholars accept this definition. Theauthors Pennsylvania thank PaulAnderson.' 'For this purpose.J. Some believe that marketing is a science. perhaps awaiting more compelling arguments one way or the other. Is Science Marketing? debated whether or not marketing is a science (e. The marand marketing keting mix. Paul Peter isAssociate Professor of Business attheUniversity ofWisandJerry C. and history of science. Despite these fairly intense analyses. This is consistent with the arguments of Bagozzi (1975) and Hunt (1983) that exchange is a key.. Olson Science is analyzed as a special case of marketing-the marketing of ideas in the form of substantive and methodological theories. Paul Peter & Jerry C. Journal of Marketing Vol. we consider the typical beliefs about how scientists do scientific work and how scientific progress is achieved to be inconsistent with current views about such issues in the disciplines of philosophy. "Is marketing a science?. Hunt 1976. fortheiruseful comments andsuggestions. Is ScienceMarketing? / 111 . 111-125. This view is contrasted with the positivistic/empiricist perspective of science currently dominant in marketing and other social sciences. we turn the tables in this long-standing debate by asking the more fundamental and interesting question. we attribute the current confusion to the somewhat naive conceptions of science that have informed the controversy. Buzzell 1963. In contrast to these two segments. objectives are developed for the scientific arena.g. Churchill." marketing scholars have been comparing theory development and testing in marketing to inappropriate standards which have little to do with the conduct of scientific inquiry in any field. while others believe that although scientific procedures are employed in marketing. The typical approach has been to offer a formal definition of science or describe prototypic methods used in science and then compare marketing's key features and/or its developmental progress against these standards. Taylor 1965). To do so. FOR more than 30 years. "Is science marketing?" In this article we consider whether science can be effectively analyzed as a special case of marketing-the marketing of ideas. Alderson and Cox 1948. O'Shaughnessy and Ryan 1979. For the most part. sociology. we adopt the currently popular definition of marketing as "humanactivity directed at satisfying needs and wants through exchange processes" (Kotler 1980). This article presents a relatively new and more useful conception of science than has been considered to date in the debates regarding marketing's scientific status. unifying concept for the field. Bartels 1951. Gil Walt TomPage. Olsonis Professor consin-Madison. StateUniversity. many other marketing scholars seem to be withholding judgment. on the whole. marketing is an art. of Marketing and Charles andLillian Binder Fellow in Business Faculty Administration.

a different theory. pass-along audience (e. the modified theoryis seldom renamed. promotion. LeMasters. Finally.g. Third. either the inventor scientist or another scientist who has adopted the theory may change specific characteristics of the theory product in response to such problems. Regardlessof the type of idea or theory. we discuss a relativistic/constructionistperspective derived from recent work in science studies that provide a conceptual rationalefor analyzing science from a marketingperspective. the major products of science are ideas. Fall1983 . Although we can consider only a few of the major concepts in marketing.and interpreting data. First. students). substantive and/or methodological theory products must also be marketed. Scientists also create ideas about methodsof obtaining. it should be emphasized that any change in a theory creates a modified product-i.just as ideas for consumerproducts are invented or constructed..However. A systemof suchideas abouta phenomenon may be called a substantivetheory.an understandingof the processes and/or accidents by which new theories are created is critical for an understanding of science.and price. These are methodological theories of measurement. i. because the manuscriptis always available. Marketinga theory as a tangiblemanuscript is both easier and more effective than promotingan intangible set of ideas. the relative permanenceof a manuscript allows wider dissemination of the theory to a secondary. MarketingScientific Theories What makes a scientific theory successful? Simply stated." interested readers should see Zaltman. for at least four reasons. Second. and marketing objectives. 1975). it should not be forgotten that the entire theory productis invented or constructedby one or more scientists. sampling. Specifically.A manuscriptis a tangible representationof the invented system of ideas. Many of these modifications are made to seem minor and the change process may be quite gradual.analyzing. In other words. For instance. We argue that to successfully achieve an adequate level of adoption. First.the examples in this brief analysis provide initial supportfor our contention that science can be viewed as a special case of marketing. we consider some of the concepts and strategies involved in this process. we describe scientific theories in terms of the four basic elements of the marketing mixproduct.channelsof distribution. In this section. 112 / Journal of Marketing. In the first we analyze common scientific practices in terms of conventional elements of marketing strategy. This means that the theory is not meeting the needs of the largest segment of researchers-those concerned with prediction and methodological and empirical rigor. and competitive theory products marketed by other scientists. Then we discuss the idea of marketsegmentationfor theories. the theory product can be stored by potential adopters for use (study) at a more convenient time. The manuscriptmay also present empirical data that illustrate the idea and/or provide tentative support.2Like ideas for consumer products and the products themselves. we considerthe elements in the marketingmix. target markets. often so much so that the changes are not always recognized by the targetmarketof scientists. If the research community cannot be convincedthatthe empiricaltest procedures were faulty.we focus only on major points of departurefrom the traditionalview and cite majorworks to which readerscan refer for additionalinformation.e. Over its life cycle a theory may undergoa number of modificationsin response to a variety of potential marketingproblems. we consider the marketing objectives for scientific work. a tangible manuscriptmay be used to establish the scientist/marketeras the inventorof the theory or as the first to borrowthe theory from anotherarea and apply it in a new field.The article has two major sections. At some point in the development of a theory the scientist usually produces a manuscriptthat describes the idea.In the second section. researchersmade a numberof seemingly minor con2Clearly.e. Finally. and Heffring (1982) and Stein (1974. are among the many problemsa new theory may face in trying to capturea viable marketshare of scientists. While we will not review the extant literature on the creation of scientific or other products. and data analysis. just as is the case of a successful consumergood.. Customer complaints regarding measurement difficulties or lack of conceptualclarity. "marketing R&D. Such theories may even be employed by practitionersas a frameworkfor analyzing important problems. a successful theory is one which is treatedseriously and studied by a significant portion of a research community. due to space restrictions. We point out key differences between this emerging approach to science and the traditionalpositivistic/empiricist view thatstill pervadesmarketing (see Hunt 1983) and other social sciences (see Koch 1981). scientists must (at least implicitly) develop and carryout a marketingstrategy to promotetheir theories. a successful theory is one that has been adoptedby a substantialmarket segment. Again. Theories as Products In the broadest sense. potential adopterscan reexamine and reflect on the theory and possibly come to appreciate its value. as this might lose loyal customers. However.. Scientific ideas consist of invented constructsand hypothesizedrelationshipsamong them. Perhaps the most serious problem occurs when a test of a theory fails to predict adequately.

doctoral students) may need to attract established researchers("celebrity scholars") to help market their theories.theories which contain familiar.. Fourth. but are also social friends who respect the inventor.g. semantic relatedness. or art. Third. This seldom occurs. self-report rating scales) andeasily accessiblesamples(e.g. since political and social values often determinefunding priorities. meanings." For example. students) are more likely to achieve higher adoption rates.g. a theory advocating gender differences in cognitive abilities is difficult to marketin the currentenvironment. shaping.thus.g.. Test Marketing.g. For instance. new words and meanings can be useful for marketingtheories..g. yet only the most knowledgeable consumers were aware that these changes createddifferent theories (e. have a betterchance of successfully introducing a new theorythando less well-knownresearchers. First. Instead. since most test marketpresentationsare made to other scientists who not only share the same world view as the inventor.even with impressive empiricalsupport(see Stanleyand Benbow 1982). or a relatively "small" issue of little theoreticalor practicalimportance(Olson 1982). early atomic theory or Freudianpersonalitytheory)..ceptualchanges in the Fishbein-typeexpectancy-value models duringthe period of majorinterestin the marketing literature (1969-1975). polygraphsfor the study of brainwaves) or special subject populations (e. Fifth.theoriesthat are borrowedand adaptedfrom more established. negative reinforcement). aesthetic response. meanings. in equally rarecases. Theirmajorgoal is to gauge the reactions of potential adopters of the theory and to identify and correct any glaring flaws before the theory is introducedon a major scale. One way to do this is by circulating working papers among colleaguesand friendsin the "invisiblecollege" (see Crane 1972). If research on a theory requires special equipment (e. At least three results are possible. Familiar concepts which are learned in childhood and are frequentlyused in everyday language may be considered as highly important concepts to be researched and understood. theories that are consistent with currentpolitical and social values are easier to market (Barnes 1977. attitudes. A majorcharacteristic concerns the topic. and least likely. theories that are easily researchedwith conventional measurementprocedures (e. several key attributesof a theory have a large effect on marketingsuccess.. colloquia and seminars may be presented to colleagues and students and their reactions sought. needs. the productmay be viewed as a major accomplishmentwith no serious problemsandjudged to be ready for introduction. Fishbein. However. In addition. and relationships (e. in other cases.. A number of theorieshave been fairly widely adopted. despite poor (or even no) initialempiricalsupport(e.g. since knowledge of them may give a scientist admission to the cognoscenti of a research community.Quite often. In some ways it may be easier to market the latter type of theory. Scientists who are well-known and respected. Gould 1982). it is probablyeasier to promote theories for use in marketingthat are borrowedfrom psychology and economics ratherthan from areas such as anthropology.a "big" problem. personality)may be easier to marketsuccessfully than theories which require learningnew words. and relationships (e. In addition. These may involve adding or deleting constructs. the results of test marketingare likely to suggest a variety of modificationsto the theory. religion. theories dealing with problems for which ample researchsupportis available are more easily marketedto potential scientist adopters. or changing the theoretical Is ScienceMarketing? / 113 .especially in long of periods normal science (Kuhn 1970). the most widely adopted theories tend to be those that are easiest to understand and researchempirically. scientists test market their theories before attemptinga full-scale introductionviajournalpublication.g. that is not theory likely to be widely researched. issue. problem. As with consumer products.. For example. Of course scientists differ in the extent to which they are concerned aboutthe "fit" between data and theory. Inventors or borrowers who do not enjoy a strong reputationin their fields (e. The of the add a halo credibility scientist/marketer may effect to the theory product. Product Attributes. common. clarifying and redefiningconstructs. Cohen. managersor purchasing agents). familiarfields seem to be more easily marketed than theories gleaned from unconventional areas or that are constructed "from scratch. However. A theory may concern an issue of major importance. Strong empirical support is a highly desirable attributethat will enhance the of a theory.. and Ahtola 1972). or phenomenon that is addressed.. coherence analysis.g. words. A second importantattributeof a theory concerns the professionalcredentialsand status of the inventor or the borrower. the theory productmay be judged to be irretrievably flawed. Second. the importanceof empirical supportfor a theory is likely to vary for different scientists (see Mitroff and Kilmann 1978). such groups are reluctantto totally reject the theory product. test marketpresentations to less hospitable groups occasionally do producesuch an extremerejection. strong empirical marketability evidence is neither necessary nor sufficient for the successful dissemination of a theory. In contrast. everyday concepts. based on their previous contributionsto a field. Normally. The sixth (and purposefullylast) productattribute is the preliminary empiricalevidence that can be marshalled to supporta theory.However.

The theory may languishthere for several years before finally fading away or being resurrectedby anotherscientist who happensto stumble across it. personality research in marketing in the 1960s and early 1970s seldom surpassedthe relatively trivial hurdle of obtaining statistically significant correlationsbetween measures of personality and a variety of other factors (Kassarjian1971). This is similar to situations in consumergoods marketingin which discontinuousin- 114 / Journalof Marketing. As with consumergoods. if at all. As with traditionalconsumerproducts. most theories are disseminated via presentationsat colloquia and conferences. 1980). In the early stages of development. Promotion of Theories Throughoutthe life cycle of a theory.less prestigious channels of distribution.g.the inventor/marketer may to attempt disseminatethe theory throughother channels. Interestingly. if the theorycannotbe publishedin a majorjournal.At a minimum. and contraryto popular beliefs. many marketingresearchersstill believe in personality theory despite the generally disappointingempirical results. It is also possible to successfully marketa theory that makes no unusual or novel predictions and is in fact quite similar to other theories. Some marketersbegin the dissemination process by submittingthe manuscriptdirectlyto the key channel. a majorjournal. the more likely outcome is that the marketerwill present the theory at one or more conferences and publish a paperin a proceedings. Publicationin even an obscure or specialized journal may still reach the most interestedtarget marketof researcherswho may then be influentialin furtherdisseminatingthe theory throughoutthe researchcommunity. Of course. but this is generally consideredbad form unless major changes have occurredin the manuscript. Of course. Popper 1959). theories that do not provide impressive empirical results. For example. Although strong empirical results are very useful in promoting a theory. or generate novel predictions(Lakatos 1978). althougha resurgenceof interest has not yet occurredin marketing. it can be successfully promoted. While conference and colloquia presentationsare especially valuable in that they provide direct feedback to the scientist/marketer. In fact. most theories must pass the muster of the gatekeepers in the discipline (the reviewers and editors of prestigious journals)and thereby achieve both legitimization and widespread exposure. perhaps less prestigious or highly specialized journals.A new theory that is based on a different set of metatheoretical assumptionsthan those held by most members of a research community can be difficult to successfully promote and market.some marketers may try to publish the theory in book form or as a chapter in a book. The various channels of distributionhave different levels of effectiveness and may be differentiallyappropriate at differentstages in the development and testing of the theory. from creation to test marketingto publicationin a majorjournal to the widespreadadoption and use of a theory by the researchcommunity. Occasionally a theory is published first in a proceedings and later in a journal. can still be marketedsuccessfully. However. Channels of Distribution for Theories There are many channels by which scientific theories may be disseminatedto potential adopters. Because the weak empirical results were usually attributedto methodological problems. Alternatively. most researchers did not concludethatthe underlying theorywas wrong. they are not absolutely necessary. relatively few scholarscan be exposed to the theory throughthese inefficient channels. Yet personalitytheory enjoyed wide popularity. if available. Thus. it generates novel predictions) or it has desirable attributesof a compelling logic coupled with strongly supportive data.A theorythat is evaluatedpoorly in test marketingmay go no furtherthan being published in a conference proceedings.Recently. produce a potentialresolution to a major problem in the field (Kuhn 1970. However. and through informally distributed workingpapers. Fall1983 . cosmetic changes may be made in the theory's packaging (words and labels used) or suggestions may be made for repositioningthe product. Before widespreadadoption can be anticipated. Using these channels to distributea theory reducesthe probabilitythat the theory will enjoy rapid acceptance. For one thing. as long as the new theory is relatively consistent with the world view of at least a segment of the field. a scientist's promotion task will be easier if the theory producthas unique features (e. promotionis a key factor in suca theory. not many scholarsare likely to adopt a theory distributedin this way. althoughpublicationper se does enhance the chances for eventual success. If the manuscriptis rejectedfrom a number of majorjournals. cessfullymarketing a variety of promotionaltechniques can be used.relationshipsbetween constructs. the scientist/marketermust consider whether changing the theory according to the recommendationsderived from test marketing will improve the chances of successfully marketingthe product. the chances of successfully marketingthe theory decrease with the use of more restricted..new methodshaveproduced more impressive empiricalsupportfor personality theory(see Epstein 1979. this channel is not readily or equally available to all scientists.

However. in some situations researchersmay be bored with the traditionalapproachand.novationsthat are inconsistentwith consumers' social values and behavior patternsare often hard to sell. A major component of the price of adopting a new theory involves the behavioraleffort of actively researching the theory. primarilyby making it seem worth the cost to early adopters. such high priced theories need to be marketed carefully and well. Because these benefits have to be perceived as substantialto justify the high price. Second. Adopting such theories is relatively inexpensive.g. as learning time is short and belief and behavior changes are minimal.g. Publicity may perform a useful informationalor reminderrole. Other costs include the psychological ef3Strictly speaking.. a personal selling strategy can be particularly effective with one's doctoral students. fort and disruptioninvolved in changing one's existing beliefs and establishedresearchbehaviors. First. and performing the behaviorsnecessaryto get the results publishedin major journals. Similarly. Part of the price of adoptinga new theory involves the time spent learning the new theory and its methods. a "bandwagoneffect" for a theory might be enhanced throughthis kind of promotion. the availability of researchfunds to investigate the new theory is a powerful motivatorfor pursuinga new theoryproduct. A variety of situational factors can influence the success of a high priced theory. extensive belief changes. perhaps while still in working paper form. there are particular situationswhen high priced theories are Is ScienceMarketing? / 115 . theories vary in price. Kuhn (1970) argues thata scientific revolutioncannottake place unless the traditionalview is recognized as failing and an alternative theory is available. Fornell 1983). Thus. the scientist/marketerwho prices his/ her theory at the low end enhances the chances that the theory will penetratethe mass market. In sum. Scientists may be able to generate discussion of their theoryin nonscholarlypublicationssuch as Marketing News or Psychology Today. salesmanshipis an importantaspect of dealing with editors and reviewers in the revision process. writing about it. Direct selling can be an effective method of persuasion since the scientist/marketer can address counter-arguments of the potential buyerheadon and can offer ad hoc hypothesesto cover many of the perceived weaknesses in the theory. it appearsthat structuralequations methodology has been substantiallyoversold in the social sciences (see Cliff 1983.3 In addition to "directadvertising"via publication in journals. a physiology lab) or in education/trainingcosts (e. Finally. Low-pricedtheories are those that are consistent with the world view and existing researchskills of the target marketof scientists. it is helpful if the world view incorporatedin established theories is recognized as problematicby a segment of the researchcommunity. and major changes in research behavior. a theory can also be promoted through publicity and personal selling. The adopter of a new theory may also incur financial costs in purchasing new equipment (e.theoriesthatare radicallydifferentfrom the establishedworld view of the researchcommunity common in a field and/or from the researchprocedures carrya higher price tag. The marketingeffort is facilitated if the scientist can articulatethe benefits to be providedby the new theory. In fact. Previous research and theorizing certainly has an impact on the scientist/ inventor who is trying to create a "new" theory. Personal selling occurs during formal or informal presentations of the theoryas well as in directone-on-one discussions with potentialadopters. but is likely to be less persuasive than other forms of promotion. and notices of working papers in association newsletters. Personal selling is an important element of the promotionalstrategyfor theories.For example. Adopting such theories may require considerable learning time. Price of Theories The scientist who adopts a new theory must pay a price that involves time and money as well as psychological and behavioral costs.. Publicityfor a theory includes notices of forthcoming articles in journals. However. Moreover. some scientists substantiallyoversell their substantiveor methodological theories in order to attract consumers(see Churchilland Perrault1982). books. a scientist/marketercan get other scientists to cite the new theory. For example. Third. This discussion should not be taken to imply that scientific work is cumulative in the sense that a sequence of theories will ultimately lead to a valid general theory. the resulting publicity can be very helpful in the overall marketingeffort. as well as the associated opportunitycosts. We are merely arguing that it is more difficult to market the more discontinuous theories. Like consumer products. the price is within easy reach of many potential consumers. abstracts of published articles printedin other journals. Finally. no scientific theory is constructed of totally new concepts created in isolation from earlier concepts and theories. some researchers may simply feel they can make little marginalcontribution to the traditional view and are seeking to invest in new theories with greater payoff potential. That is. if dissertationresearch testing the theory wins awards or other recognition. and proceedings. Therefore. therefore. Occasionally. attendingseminarson causal modeling). funding for research on the effects of advertisingon childrenlowered the price of enteringthis new area. are willing to incur the cost of adopting more provocative theories. In contrast. some new theories are seen as more creative and less continuous with previous work than are others.

Although some laggard researchers will continue to investigate the old theory. because constructs used in the theory have surplus meaning. Additionally. Ideally. these groups can afford to pay differentprices for theories and are willing to incurdifferentlevels of risk. Over time the theory may lose followers and interest as new theories are offered which are perceived to be better or deal with what seem to be more important or interesting problems. When it is. although the students of other scholars are of interestas well. or at least appearsto be a theory with a high probabilityof success.4 The scholarsleast likely to adopt a new theory are those who remain loyal to a previous theory. Second. 116 / Journalof Marketing.Youngerpre-tenure scholars may not feel they can afford a high priced theory. beginning scholars. This groupcan be further segmentedinto pre. studies by opinion leaders are more likely to be featuredin textbooks which also helps to establish the theory. based on its attributes. The latter groupmight be furtherdivided by rank into associate and full professors.A single study on a new theory by an opinion leader may be sufficient to create widespread interest. the opinion leaders are critically important. it may still be employed in textbooks for the purpose of giving a fresh reference to an old chapter and for exemplifying the cumulative nature of scientific inquiry. Kuhn (1970) supposedly argues that textbooks rewrite the history of theories in order to make science appear to be cumulative. Fall1983 .he/ 4Once a theory has achieved "textbook status. different marketingstrategies may be requiredfor each of these segments. A prime target market for a scientist's theory is his/her own doctoral students. opinion leaders can often directly influenceother active researchersto consider studying and using the theory. may adopthigher priced theories.thus adding to the confusion regarding the theory.pretenure scholars. and (3) may be more easily persuadedas they have little investment in competing theories. and post-tenure scholars. post-tenurescholars may be more willing to invest in higher priced theories." it tends to become part of the discipline's body of "knowledge. and many pre-tenurescientists may not wish to incur such risks. (2) are enteringthe most active stage of theirresearchcareers and may help market the theory through their writings. Usually these potentialcustomersare seeking exactly what the marketer has to offer: a new theory or method in need of empiricalresearchin a discipline-relatedcontext. these situations are strategicwindows that the scientist/marketer can use to advantagein introducingan expensive theory product.and each of these segments can be further divided into adopter categories of opinion leaders. since the skeptical researchernow controlsthe method in a replication. From a marketing strategy perspective. only occasionally will this work be published in a major outlet. Of course. particularly if it is their own or one in which they have invested heavily. followers. this targetmarketmay react less negativelyif the theorydeviates substantially from the acceptedview in the field. In fact. As mentionedabove. and laggards. such theories are seldom purged entirely from the literature. Target Markets for New Theories A researchcommunitycan be segmented in a number of ways. A prime determinantof what price an individual scientist can afford to pay is his/her place in the tenuredecisionprocess. thereby increasing its adoption rate and eventual market share. Theory products will differentiallyappealto these groupsand. a fairly high degree of risk is associated with most high priced theories. Moreover.Oftenthese attempts are partly successful since most theories have numerous problems in the early stage of development. They may need less expensivetheoriesthathave a fairly high probabilityof producingrapid benefits. As just discussed. doctoralstudentsconstitutean importanttarget market because they (1) often become apostles for the theory once they have invested the time to learn it and begin to research it. For example. parts of the theory can be interpretedin a manner which reveals inconsistencies and ambiguities. partlybecause its members have not yet become fully committedto that per- spective. High priced theories. by their very nature. However. who have relatively little time and effortinvestedin traditional theoriesand methods. scientists can be divided in termsof theirpositionin the careerlife cycle. in thesecases.more senior. Three distinctgroupscan be identified:doctoralstudents. Of these. such as easily publishablejournal articles. The second importanttargetmarketfor a new theory is the groupof active researchscholarsin the field. tend to offer benefits with a longer time horizon. Finally. A final considerationregardingthe price of a theory concerns the fact that not all researcherscan afford to pay the price requiredfor adoption of a new theory. such as doctoral students. the theoryis probablyalreadyin the growth stage of the product life cycle. It may be fairly easy to show that the theoretical conceptshave differentmeanings thanintendedby the inventor/marketer. In addition. especially if encouraged to do so by their post-tenure mentors. In fact. members of this group are more likely to criticize the new theory and attemptto remove it from the market. Such attempts may well take the form of "replications"which are intendedto discredit the new theory.and posttenureresearchers." Regardless of whether the measures are subsequently invalidated or empirical results ever show impressive relationships. as noted. the theory should be somewhat new in order to establishthatthe dissertationis a "contribution" to the field. Opinion leader scientists are also likely to be mentorsfor high quality doctoral studentswho can be encouragedto researchthe theory. Therefore. Occasionally.more likely to be adopted by a research community.

The market for a new theory can also be segmented in terms of psychological characteristics.On the other hand.interesting theory. and shares them with no one.Scientists have differing views about what counts as important. Finally. and self-serving goals. and the researchcommunity. or a researchsettinginvolvingmany uncontrolled sourcesof variancecould be used to "wash out" an effect. Included are such lofty goals as seeking knowledge. and with their heuristic.The CT group may be more likely to adopt a new theoretical perspective if it is quite different from existing perspectives and offers promise for dealing with important. generative power for creatingother ideas. needs no cooperation from others. This group seems to be the largest segment in marketingand in most other fields. Marketing Objectives Althoughthe marketerof a scientific theory probably has objectives or goals in mind for that theory. the conceptual theorist (CT) is more concerned with abstractideas. the design could include too few subjects to allow sufficient statistical power to detectthe effect. since an obviously superior theory will Is ScienceMarketing? / 117 . how they fit logically together. release time from otherduties.she can usually generate results inconsistent with the new theory. an antagonistic scientist can often demonstratethat a new theory's predictions are poorer than previously reported. grants. CT's tend not to be concernedabout a lack of empirical support. especiallyearlyin a theory'sdevelopment. In such controversies. The analytical scientist (AS) is mainly concerned with tightly controlled. and specific awards and honors. because all researchrequiresa myriadof subjective decisions.Note.some scientistswho pursuenoble goals may naively believe that overt marketingeffort is unnecessary and even demeaning. However. Moreover. or even that "disconfirming"effects are obtained. The research community may infer that a particularresearcheris seeking only selfserving goals based on the researcher'sverbal reports of objectives. Curiositygoals are closely relatedto noble goals. Curiosity objectives refer to seeking answers to one's personalquestions about the subject of inquiry. Clearly. Based on such attributes. and from practices such as producinga large numberof marginaltheory/research papers. contents him-/herself with the findings. money (in the form of salary. In contrast. reviewers. these three classes are mutually exclusive. Noble objectives are those most commonly associated with science. if the scientist needs no cooperationfrom others. the preliminarydata should look promising. prestige and recognitionin the field.scientistswho pursueonly self-serving goals. comments. replies. more than one type of objective can be achieved with the same marketingstrategy. Obviously. Normally such goals are considered to be beyondreproach. and contributingto a discipline or to society as a whole. they often are awardedto those who seek mainly selfservinggoals. curiosity. and consulting fees). Only when the theory and the findings are exchanged with someone else does the marketingprocess for the theory become relevant. While these gains are usuallyintendedfor scientistswho pursuenoble goals.Thus. we have roughly categorized scientists' objectives into three groups:noble. thatthese goals can only be accomplished by a scientist who markets his/her work to the scientific community (or gets someoneelse to do the marketing). nor are they usually consideredby professionalphilosophersof science. an AS is not likely to adopt a new theory until it has been developed to the stage where methods and measurescan be relatively unambiguouslyapplied to test specific aspects of the theory. highly rigorous researchdesignsintendedto test well-specifiedhypotheses deducedfrom theory. attemptingto understanda phenomenon. and rejoinderscan continue back and forth to the limits of the tolerance of editors. scientists must markettheir theories to achieve even noble goals. Doing researchfor the fun of it and the sheer joy of learning new things are not unknown as motivatorsin science. The rewardsfor being a successful scientist can be substantial: promotions. and for his/her career as a scientist. these goals are not often explicit. In sum. For example. Selfto performscientificwork servinggoals lead researchers primarilyfor the purpose of personal gain. or relabeling and publishing the same paper in multiple channels. Mitroff and Kilmann (1978) have identified four types of scientists. Two of these are particularlyrelevant for segmenting scientific markets. however. the characteristics of a new theory will strongly influence which of these groups will be more attracted. marketingis not involved. are recognized as such and may be denied at least some of the sought rewards. the scientistcan usually arguethat at least some competitor of the original methodological decisions were inappropriateand thus produced data that were biased in favor of the theory.For instance. Self-serving objectives are well-known within scientific communities but are not widely recognized among the general public. For purposes of discussion. especially in a blatantmanner. This group is small in both marketing and in most other disciplines.A theorycan make no contributionif the work is kept hidden in a file drawer. and these values and beliefs influence their evaluations of a new theory. complex phenomena and problems. Con- ceptually.job security. Occasionally. different goals may lead researchers to adoptdifferentmarketing strategies. and they differ primarilyin the degree to which the work is performedfor self versus others. however.

theoretical termsderive their rules" that "conmeanings through "correspondence nect" them to direct experience (empirical observations). However. marketingprovides a relevant perspective for understandingscience." again using careful observations (e. Lynch 1982). other. we have shown how certain marketingconcepts are or could be used by scientists to develop effective marketingstrategies thatcould influence other scientists to adopt their theories. Therefore. falsificationis merely a somewhat more sophisticated brandof logical empiricism (cf. It is also clear that different goals may lead to the same strategy. Broadbeck1982."sell itself. positivism relies heavily on formal symbolic logic as a tool of analysis. Then. no matterhow large. scientists may have multiple goals which are consistent. Popper (1959) proposed a "falsification"strategy to avoid the inductive problems of the confirmation approachof logical empiricism. commonly called logical empiricism(cf. and their impact on scientific progress. Hunt 1983). and Tybout 1981. Coupled with this strongemphasis on empiricaldata. Phillips. requiresthat a researcherconsider a theory as SSuppe(1977) and Brown (1977) provide thorough historical analyses of how these positions have evolved. 6However. Positivistic/Empiricist(P/E) perspective (see Anderson 1983 for a more detailed review). relativism. etc. First. Suppe 1977). Logical empiricismis a somewhat more moderate versionof positivism developed to avoid the induction problem-namely that no universal proposition can be conclusively verified by any set of observations.. general level and avoid becoming mired in technicaljargon and subtle details. less well-recognized aspects of Popper's thinking are fairly consistent with the perspective we are advocating (see Brown 1977. we briefly describe the reigning in marketing philosophical approach which we call the 118 / Journal of Marketing. We have shown that many aspects of science involve social exchanges. We attempt to sidestep much of the resulting controversyand semantic confusion in the remainder of this article.. falsificationism. In this view. The Positivistic/EmpiricistApproach The philosophy of science that presently dominates marketingis a descendentof logical positivism. Our intentis to introduce ideas at a broad. Moreover. Chapter 5). they can be "increasingly confirmed. as the discipline most concerned with exchange processes. as interpretedby many philosophersand marketingscholars. realism.the exchange of ideas in the form of theories. Fall1983 . instrumentalism. the truth of any (meaningful) proposition can be determinedabsolutely. These points of view are characterized by major as well as subtle differences and by a profusionof terminology (logical positivism. In the remainder of the articlewe develop our claim thatscience is marketingalong more formal lines.e. Metatheoretical Assumptions about Science Scholarshave proposeda varietyof philosophicalperspectives regardingscience (see Brown 1977.e." Of course. 1982. for instance. more useful philosophy of science which we call the Relativistic/Constructionistapproach these (R/C). logical empiricism. In addition. and in particular. positivists claim that throughformal logical analysis of theories and by means of unbiased observations. sophisticated marketerscan easily recognize this perspective as a sign of a strong viable stratproductorientationand not a particularly egy for long-term success. Thus our coverage of these issues is necessarily an overview. These observationsgive meaning to the theoretical terms. However.5 The term "positivism"usually refers to a type of strictempiricismin which only those knowledge claims that are based directlyon experience(i. Calder. Many of these ideas are radically different from those that underliethe philosophicalperspective currentlyprominentin marketingand other social sciences. The key theoreticalideas used in our argumentsconstitute a set of metatheoreticalassumptionsabout the nature of scientific knowledge and how that knowledge is achieved. empiricalobservations)are consideredimportant.. the main point here is that accomplishing scientific objectives depends on the quality of the marketingstrategyand the effort exerted. Thus logical empiricism tends to favor a view that although scientific propositions cannotbe conclusively verified. develof a high qualitytheoryproduct opmentand marketing with a high quality marketing plan.6 This approachto science. The logical empiricist point of view dominatescurrentmarketingresearchin that much of our researchmethodology and approachare based on these philosophicalassumptions. Thus.). and/or scientifically meaningful. i. We attemptto show how currentviews on the nature of science also lead to the conclusion that much of the activity of science involves marketingprocesses. in experiments) and the rules of formal logic.g. we contrastthis view with a newer. Thus far our argumentsthat science is marketinghave been informal. Summary In the first part of this article we have demonstrated that basic marketingconcepts and principles can account for many aspects of scientific activity.useful. their hierarchicalrelationships. termed "naive falsificationism" by Lakatos (1970). Perhaps it would be worthwhile to study scientists' goals.

Scientific knowledge is absolute and cumulative. i. these factors are of critical importance in understanding how scientific knowledge develops.. Data are created and interpreted by scientists in terms of a variety of theories. social. Munevar 1981). Relativistic/Constructionist Science Science creates many realities. Instead.a varietyof finer.thus they are usually rejected from considerationas irrelevantfor an understanding of scientific progress. Science is rational since it follows formal rules of logic. There are many ways of doing science validly that are appropriate in different situations. the P/E approachthat currentlyunderlies researchin marketingemphasizes (a) the development of axiomatic theory through the use of deductivelyderivedhypotheses which are manipulatedvia formal rules of symbolic logic. Measurement procedures do not influence what is measured. Science can be understood without considering cultural. Science produces theories that come closer and closer to absolute truth. and diffused throughout a research community are needed to understand science. Nothing can be measured without changing it. The processes by which theories are created. Scientists seek supportive. Science is subjective. of observationaldata. The Relativistic/Constructionist Approach In the P/E perspective of science. in the rest of the article we identify and briefly discuss some key distinctions between the P/E view of science and the R/C perspective. Thus. political. Knorr-Cetina 1981. confirmatory evidence in order to market their theories. and economic factors.7 In sum. Othershave done so effectively (see Collins and Cox 1976. more subtle distinctionscan be drawn. Only the logic of justification is needed to understand science. Science is capable of discovering universal laws that govern the external world. (b) the idiosyncratic beliefs and values of individual scientists. These factors are not a part of the unbiased observationsand formal symbolic logic of the P/E approach. Scientific knowledge is relative to a particular context and period of time in history. However. Science is objective. Feyerabend 1975.e. justified. Science is a social process and cannot be understood without considering cultural. and thus are theory laden. independent benchmarks for testing theories. Is ScienceMarketing? / 119 . There are specific rules for doing science validly (e.g. falsification). in terms of the R/C perspectiveadvocatedbelow. Truth is a subjective evaluation that cannot be properly inferred outside of the context provided by the theory.However. relative to a frame of reference. and especially (b) objective empirical observations that give meaning to the theoretical propositions and are used to rigorously test them. Science creates ideas that are context-dependent. TABLE1 Major Differences between Positivistic/Empiricist and Relativistic/Constructionist Views of Science Positivistic/Empiricist Science Science discovers the true nature of reality.false if a key deductively-derived hypothesis is rejected by empirical observations.. Kunn 1970. political. many people consider the P/E approachto be rational (in the formal logical sense). 8Wecast the differencesbetweenthese approaches in simpledichotomoustermsin orderto distinguish them and makeour pointsmore clearly.8 This article is not the place to present a complete discussion and defense of the R/C approachto science. A summaryof these distinctions is providedin Table 1. including the effects of (a) social interactionand influence among scientists. and (c) scientists' subjective interpretations 7Itshouldbe notedthatLaudan the im(1965) clearlydemonstrates possibilityof falsification.See Brown(1977) for a review of the issues involvedin this controversy. Data provide objective. Scientists subject their theories to potential falsification through rigorous empirical testing. certain factors are excluded from consideration. social. Science is rational to the degree that it seeks to improve individual and societal well-being by following whatever means are useful for doing so. perhapseven falsify them. and economic factors.

pretation empirical (e. Fall1983 . including physics (see Zukav 1979). are treatedas general statementsaboutthe real world. we attribute to this concept of the bodily object a significance. including relevant past experiences and training. sociologists of science have been actively investigating how social interaction processes affect the developmentof social consensus regardinga scientific method. There are two aspects of this process. Developing a high degree of social concensus among scientists is a major objective of marketingstrategies for scientific theories. unbiased representationsof the real world. According to this view. We believe these social interactionprocesses are very important for understandingscience. . Science Is Subjective The presumedobjectivity of science is a key characteristic of the P/E approachthat currentlydominates marketing and related social science disciplines. Munevar1981). Researchers with a P/E orientationusually take a realist point of view. a theory. This is whatwe meanwhen we attribute to the bodilyobject 'a real existence'(p. then. emphasis added). . this aura of objectivity has been steadily erodingfor years across all sciences. I have insisted. Here we consider the process by which scientific meaning is developed.g. committedto their theories that they resist all persuasive attemptsto change their beliefs and continually suasion. P/E philosophershave focused on how theories are preence is marketing. The second step . 60. found that certain scientists are so highly In contrast. Alternatively. No less a scientist than Einstein (1936) has noted the psychological aspects quite clearly: Outof the multitude of oursenseexperiences we take. empirical observations (manifestationsof scientists' sense impressions)are treatedas objectivedata that are independentof any theory. certainrepeatedly mentallyand arbitrarily. to convert the other" (p. researcherswith an R/C orientation conceive of many possible realities. which is to a high degree independent of the sense impressionwhich originallygives rise to it. Marketing strategies are used to influence both the psychological (individual level) and social (group level) aspects of the meaning developmentprocess. The goal is to develop theories that come increasinglycloser to being truestatementsaboutreality.Reality Is Relative A key difference between the two approachesto science concerns the assumed natureof reality and how scientists relate to reality through their theories and observationalevidence (see Hooker 1975). technical meanings that constitute much of The sociological aspect refers to the social interaction 120 / Journal of Marketing. by per- sumed to be verified. and persuasionprocesses used to generatea degree of social consensus regardingthe scientific meaning of an observationor a theory. That is. the exchanges that take place during these social processes constitutea major reason for our contention that sciUntil recently. scientists construct "realities" try to convert other scientists to their point of view. Elkana 1978. emphasisadded). Our point here is that all meanings-including the specific. thus. Thus. occurring complexesof sense impressions. and thus obviously is a social process. 198. one psychological and the other sociological. Feyerabend 1975. Mitroff (1974).. Recently. philosopherswith an R/C orientation have been willing to consider the (less formal) social processesin science. For this reason different scientists may examine the same data and perceive entirely different meanings (Stent 1975). . each party must try.g. . and presumed to be converted to scientific knowledge. . For example.. In contrast. and we attribute to them a meaning-the meaningof the bodily object. Theories. Collins 1975. However. Gilbert1976. the R/C perspectiverecognizes that even so-called direct perceptionsare not objective but are influenced by a multitudeof factors. most P/E researchersappearto believe that an external world exists (usually one world in one way). Although there are various types of realism.Considered logically this conceptis not identical to the totalityof sense impressions referredto. not worthy of study. corroborated. Instead they continue to be concernedwith ratherformal logical models for the justification or testing of theories. by developing a degree of social agreementabout the meaningsof their theories and empirical observations (e. few philosophers of science have consideredthe social interactionand social influence processes involved in scientific progress. All pretensions to objectivity (in this narrowsense) disappearon adopting an R/C perspectiveon science. P/E approaches tend to treat scientists' perceptions or sense impressions naively as providing objective.each of which is relative to a specific context or frame of reference. Collins and Cox 1976. and that it is possible to come closer to knowing the true nature of that world through empirical observations obtainedthroughrigorousmethods and analyses. P/E philosopherstend to ignore such social factorsor even claim that such processes are unimportant(or "irrational") and. or even the appropriate interof evidence Collins 1981. or falsified. in his analysis of the Apollo moon scientists. Pinch 1981). In fact. Instead. Latour 1980. Science Is a Social Process Science is an activity performedby interactinghuman beings. . Kuhn (1970) noted the importanceof social influence in evaluating alternative theories: "The superiorityof one theory to another is something that cannot be proved in debate. but it is an arbitrarycreationof the human(or animal) mind .

However. Rationalityin science does not require the use of formal rules of symbolic logic. The R/C perspective recognizes the inherent subjectivity in science and accounts for it in a relativistic.P/E approachestend to deny this subjectiveaspect of science by claiming that the rules and proceduresfor doing science produce objective.9 Theories Are Not Universal A theory has meaning only within its own context. Generating acceptance of new methods which challenge engrained beliefs and established research procedures is often difficult. i. so does the meaning of the theory. among other factors. given that objective. Many researchers may be committed to a P/E perspective and major journals may reject unusual approaches to developing knowledge. the preceding discussion does not lead to the conclusion that science is irrational. no matter how unconventional.. In contrast. or potential performance of a theory (Munevar 1981). scientists borrow or create those theories which they believe can accomplish their noble. truthcontent is basically irrelevantfrom an R/C perspective (Olson 1982). In fact. a completely valid..e. scientific rationalitydoes not requirethat researchbe conducted underthe guidelines of a single scientific method such as falsification. In science. measures. context-dependentmanner. being sampled.in fact.e. Much of the logic underlyingthe extensive use of experimentation. falsified). scientists are seldom awareof all the existing hypotheses which could be used to explain a phenomenon. can contributeto scientific progress. Munevar1981). absolute meanings. within its own set of metatheoreticalassumptions (Hooker 1975. of course. sitions change. curiosity. then it may be inferredthat the theory was a good one.even simple strategicplanning models have been shown to be restrictedto particularsituations (see Day 1977. Usefulness is a pragmatic criterionconcernedwith the difference it makes to follow the theory's recommendations. theories are an importantsource of context.. Similarly. However. Their beliefs may be found on the basis of what the "hot topic" is in a discipline. scientists cannot know of hypotheses and explanations yet to be invented.Here the emphasis is on the performance. In fact. from an R/C perspective. Mischler 1979). For example.e. Theories can be useful in a variety of ways. Meaning is always meaning in context. In fact. even statistical inferences drawn by scientists who believe in statistical theory are relative to the assumedpopulationsof people. etc. Feyerabendrecommendsthat "anythinggoes"-i.e. this problem may generate the need for new channels (journals or books) to provide outlets for such radical work. causal explanation of a phenomenon(i. Therefore. stimuli. it is quite clear from the history of science that standardsand objectives vary across time and across researchcommunities. P/E approachesusually focus on truthcontent. comes in marketing unconventional methods and theories to an unappreciative audience. For example... Note that the usefulness criterionof the R/C approachprovides no direct evidence of the truthcontentof the theory. It is also clear from the history of science that no universallaws or theories have ever been advancedthat meet strict P/E requirements(see Feyerabend1975. and seeks to specify the limits of theirgeneralizability. no defensible method for establishing the truth of a theory has ever been advanced (Peter 1983). and. In fact. In marketing. Usefulness can be judged in terms of how effectively a theory enables the user to "get along" in the world or accomplish some specific task. Moreover. Moreover. Suppe 1977). a truetheory)cannotbe produced since all rival alternative hypotheses can never be eliminated (i. theories may include new concepts which Is ScienceMarketing? / 121 . relative to some frame of reference(Mischler 1979). any methodology or theory. That is. so does the meaning of the relevant empiricalobservations.g. Science Is Rational Contraryto the protests in the P/E literature (e. Nor must the objectives and standardsfor judging progress be absolute and fixed. If the context changes (perhapsbecause the theory is changed during a paradigm shift). seems misguided. Wensley 1981). or how easily a theory can be marketed.representativesampling. of course.In sum.scientific knowledge-are subjectively determined. the P/E view of science which pursues objectives. or selfservinggoals. that is. such as universal laws.. an R/C approachto science explicitly recognizes that meaning is never absolute. it was useful in that situation and context.the R/C perspectiveexplicitly recognizes the "boundedness"of theories and the relativistic meaning of observations. As these presuppo9The problem. whether a particulartheory fits well with their values and predilections..Individual scientists can reasonably be assumed to attempt to achieve their objectives in a rationalway. Usefulness of Theories Theories can be evaluated in terms of their truthcontent or theirusefulness.e. if application of a marketing theory leads to an increasein long run profits for a firm. i. and inferential statistics in marketingresearch is based on the P/E goal of developing universal theories and laws. usefulness seems to be a more appropriate criterionfor evaluatinga theory. Feyerabend(1975) argues that many majordiscoveries in science could not have occurred by following "the"scientific method and persuasively argues against a single approachto science. theories are limited to (relativeto) specific times and particular contexts. Thus.

meaningful. While it seems unlikely that creativitycan be taughtdirectly. among others). In fact. it may be more useful to begin with a marketingphenomenonor problem in which we are interested. uninterestedin our field. yet embarrassingly little attention is given to how to create hypotheses and evaluate their merits.. or useful theories. the entire productionof researchdata is controlled by the scientist (Peter. The point is that scientists control the process of research data.If "negativeresults" are found which are unpublishable.10 At present. and content of what the individual scientist thinks and does. Alternatively. Theories can also be useful in a heuristic sense for generating other theories or ideas (Gergen 1978). see Gruber's (1981) fascinating account of Charles Darwin's creativity. However.a new study nearly always can be conductedto produce"appropriate" results. quality. hypotheses. i. creativity may be stifled in the rush to ensure that studentshave the requisite methodological and statistical skills to produce the empirical demonstrationsdemanded by the P/E approachto science." In fact. In fact. This point is made clearerif we rememberthat data (empirical observations)are constructedjust as theories are. what does the theorydo to increasesocietal welfare?Humanisticcriteriaare much more easily integrated into science from an R/C than from a P/E perspective. insightful. "replications"in a marketingcontext of researchideas gleaned from otherfields has some value. and statistics to be used. have suggested a numberof ideas for generatinginteresting. We need to adaptand furtherdevelop the theories we borrow. a pragmatic humanistcriterionseems critical. Popper 1959. research setting. empiricalobservationsare assumed to provide an objective benchmarkagainst which to test and compare theories.. Fall1983 .insightful. Descriptions of certain consumer behaviors in terms of "attributions"or "semantic processing" seem so much more precisethan "attitudes" or "perceptions. The following recommendations are offered in the hope that the outdatedP/E approach to science can be replacedby more creative. though. it may be that the methods required to provide the desired empirical observations and results are not yet available. and useful styles of inquiry consistent with the R/C perspective.offer more interestingor precise descriptionsof phenomena than previously popularconstructs. useful researchquestions. in press). Althoughsuch will not always be successfulin the shortrun.. 122 / Journalof Marketing. all data are theory-laden(see Feyerabend1975. including Davis (1971). subjects. Scientific Training It is clear that far more effort is exerted in training scientistsin methods of testing hypotheses ratherthan encouraging them to create important. LeMasters. Rather. The typical doctoral programin marketingcontains many courses intended to preparestudentsto test hypotheses. rather than creating and developing theoretical ideas about marketing phenomena and problems (Sheth 1982). i. Clearly. and then attemptto develop our own theories about it. test stimuli. the major efforts in marketingare devoted to designing research to test ideas borrowed from other disciplines. to carrythe major responsibilityfor creatingand developing the theories we use. McGuire (1973). these are more precise terms. We view the P/E accounts of objective theory testing and the reliance on strict methodological rules such as falsification as stifling creative science ratherthan facilitating it. the scientist selects the theory.e. While insights from other fields may aid in investigating the phenomenon or problem. In addition. a researcherstill cannotgenerateempiricalsupportfor a theory. especially if combined with an effective marketingstrategy to generate at least a minimum level of consensus as to the value of the work. attempts we suspect that long-term perseverance often yields the desiredresults. and almostalways have biases generating about what they want to find and how the data are interpreted. Kuhn 1970. it is unlikely that marketingwill advance very rapidlyor very far as long as we depend on other scientists. In essence.e.e. more hospitable environmentscould facilitate such learning. Webb (1961) and Zaltman. Yet. provocative. within the context of currentcognitive theory. rather than starting research with a borrowedtheory or construct. Data do not exist in the "realworld" waiting to be gathered. we should guard against letting them dom- Recommendations Our R/C view of science as the marketingof ideas conflicts sharply with what Mitroff (1972) calls the "fairytaledescriptionof science" (i. advocatedand apparently believed by many frequently marketingscholars. However. the researcherratherthan the theory may warrantcondemnation. measures. Clearly. philosophers of science have repeatedly shown that there is no pure observational language. if. and Heffring (1982). creative insights are a function of the amount. Ultimately. aftera numberof trials. That is. the P/E view) '"Forexample. data are created throughthe measurementoperationsused by scientists to produce them. Lakatos 1978. Various scholars. Data Never Speak for Themselves Many P/E philosophersand scientists seem to believe thatdata are independentof the theories they are used to test.

Further. we are impartialto the outcomes of our research. combine and compare alternativeperspectives. Context-Specific Meaning We need to investigate meaning in context ratherthan strive to produce universal laws and theories. Usually "positivefindings" must be producedto persuade others and to successfully marketscientific work. Mitroff's (1974) classic study of the Apollo moon scientists. scientists are advocates for their theories. Futureresearch on science might identify and create new perspectives. see Feyerabend's (1975) analysis of the strategies followed by Galileo in marketing his radical views on astronomy. other views of science are useful as well. Some proceduresfor such research are suggested by Mischler(1979) and Morganand Smircich(1980). we believe that the main task of science is to create useful knowledge. hypotheses. investigations of collaborativeresearch practices (Over 1982). Doherty. provide insights aboutscientific progressand the social behaviorof the scientists involved. referencing behavior (Gilbert 1977). and cognitive psychology (Tweney. In fields such as sociology and organizationalbehavior.sociology. To arguethat all "scientific"researchshould be designed to falsify specific hypotheses is misleading and dysfunctionalfor our progress. communication (Edge 1979).We have implied that astutescientistscould make good use of basic marketingprinciples to develop effective strategiesfor promotingtheir theories. Summary and Conclusions We have shown that many aspects of scientific activity are consistent with basic marketingconcepts and processes.We have also argued that adopting an R/C approachin marketingcould produce more creative and useful theories. considerablework is currentlybeing done on the development of new methods of context-specific inquiry and Mulkay 1983. and data. and outright fudging of research results. anthropology. science can also be analyzed as art and theater (Feyerabend 1968). and statistics. Many disciplines such as history. to ask what we have learned Finally. data should not be viewed as providingan objectivetest of a theory's truthvalue. and that we are dealing with established facts rather than inferences of varying quality. and Zukav's (1979) insights into the conduct of research on quantum mechanics provide detailed descriptions of the social nature of science. less emphasis on following normative rules of researchconduct garneredfrom P/E accounts of science may aid in the development of better methods and theories. and clinical psychology have useful ideas to offer. viewed Empiricalevidence may be more appropriately as demonstratingthe usefulness of a theoretical idea in a particularcontext. (e. social and cognitive psychology. such as economics. and specify the contexts and situations under which one perspective may be more useful than another. such as the case of Cyril Burt and J. "For example. considerationof these works points to the need to more fully observe and reportresearchdetails in currentapproachesto researchand to critically evaluate current research methods which were designed for seeking universal generalizations. we should not constrainour search for additionalinsights to traditionalareasof borrowing. In some situations. Clearly. For example. Finally. IsScience Marketing? / 123 . rhetoric(Gusfield 1976). and Mynatt 1981). then it can be labeled a science. B. In general.. As marketingscientists we should be concerned Scientific Behavior It should be clear that studying science as a social activity can produce new knowledge.that our researchis objective. Moreover. However. For example. "Is marketinga science?" While we recognize that no defensible criterion for distinguishing science from nonscience has ever been found (Laudan 1982). studying the marketing plans of successful scientists could improve our knowledge of the effectiveness of various marketing strategies and tactics in producing scientific progress. Watson (see Samelson 1980). To the degree that marketinghas done so. While we believe that marketingprovides a useful perspectivefor analyzing science. Latour and Woolgar's (1979) description of biology scientists at the Salk Institute. aspects of science are similar to mysticism (Capra 1975) as well as more formally organizedreligion (Feyerabend1968). secretiveness and competitiveness for priority of discovery by researchers(Gaston 1971). These analyses clearly show that scientists are social beings with social needs.it is reasonable about the question. In addition.even the positivistic/empiricist perspective may offer useful ideas about science. Empiricalresearchis certainly valuable. Morgan 1983). we have shown that the "science is marketing"perspectiveis more consistent with the "new" R/C philosophy of science than with the outdated P/E orientation that currently dominates marketing research.inateany ideas we have on our own. Knorr-Cetina At a minimum.g. not automatonsfollowing a programof formal logical analysis. Knorr-Cetina's(1981) investigation of laboratoryphysicists. not only about sciencebut also aboutthe behaviorof scientistsas well. Values in Science We must stop deluding ourselves and others that as empiricalscientists. In addition.

M.. Fritjof (1975). 423-44. "JMR Editorial Policies and Philosophy." American Psychologist. Chicago: American Marketing. Lynn W. "Marketing as Exchange. 9 (March). This is in contrast to following the outdated rules of the P/E approach that focus only on testing theories we already have. 18 (January). Paul (1968).GilbertA." Harvard Business Review. Gruber. Kenneth (1978). Elkana. 8 (August). Robert D. "Referencing as Persuasion. A creative science of marketing is more likely to flourish by taking a relativistic/constructionist approach." in Marketing Theory: Philosophy of Science Perspectives. 29-38. Epstein. Buzzell." Journal of Consumer Research. 9 (November). News and World Report. 10 (July). Albert (1936)." Journal of Marketing. (1976). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Nigel G." Journal of Marketing. London: Redwood Bur Limited. (1976). Darwin on Man: A Psychological Study of Scientific Creativity. (1979). Harold I." 124 / Journal of Marketing.. (1980). Edge." Journal of Marketing. 15 (January)." Journal of Marketing. Wroe and Reavis Cox (1948). Calder. Hunt. 387-415. and G. Baumol. 1097-1126. "Recovering Relativity: Did Prophecy Fail?" Social Studies of Science. 33-62." U. William J. Jr. J. Paul F." Journal of Marketing. 197-207. Claes (1983). We believe that such improvements are best achieved by adopting the relativistic/constructionist approach to science advocated here. Joel B. "The Literary Rhetoric of Science. "Marketing. (1975). Einstein." Social Studies of Science. Brodbeck. 36 (November). "Recent Developments in the Philosophy of Science." Journal of Consumer Research.. 309-26. Richard P." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. H. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Gilbert. Bush and S. 14-23. 11 (February). Scientific Progress. and other features of the R/C program can give mar- keting scholars the freedom and confidence to create new conceptual schemes and perspectives. R. (1945). "Physics and Reality." Journal of Marketing.. 39 (October). 37 (July). 1. "The Stability of Behavior: II." Social Studies of Science. CO: Shambhala. 790-806. George (1977). Cox (1976). 10234. "Issues in the Application of Covariance Structure Analysis: A Comment. 19 (August)." Journal of Consumer Research. (1981). (1963). 9 (May). (1975). eds. "The Stability of Behavior: I. Murray S. 47 (Fall)." History of Science. Tybout (1981). "Two-Tier Thinking: Philosophical Realism and Historical Relativism. 413-18. "Designing Research for Applications. 8 (September). Cohen. Gaston. 137152. and Scientific Method. (1977)." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Recognizing the social processes of science. Davis.." Multivariate Behavioral Research. Bagozzi." Philosophy of the Social Sciences. and Commitment: The New Philosophy of Science." Social Studies of Science. (1975).to make our discipline more effective in creating useful knowledge about our subject matter. 21 (April). Bobby J. 113-122. "Quantitative Measures of Communication in Science: A CriticalReview." Journal of Marketing Research. D. Against Method. Interests and the Growth of Knowledge. 221 (3). 2nd ed. 62." Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science. 1344-1360." Minerva. A. Ahtola (1972). reprinted in Out of My Later Years. Boulder. Fall 1983 . (1971). 6 (September). 205-24. "Toward Generative Theory. 281-306. Day. 319-28. and Alice M. Howard E. (1957)." Journal of Marketing. "How Science Changes with the 'Political Climate'. D. "The Development of a Science of Marketing. "The Transformation of Research Findings into Scientific Knowledge. (1981). Theory. Invisible Colleges: Confusion of Knowledge in Scientific Communities. "The Concept of External Validity. Martin Fishbein.and (1982). Einstein (1956). Crane. Bartels. 35 (September). 92 (March 1). Anderson. 9 (December). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. REFERENCES Alderson. (1983). Cliff. The Tao of Physics. III. "Towards a Theory of Marketing. 443-48. 41 (April). F. "Diagnosing the Product Portfolio. Perception. "On the Improvement of the Sciences and the Arts. Gergen.S. Jay (1982). (1977). Fornell. 32." Journal of Marketing Research. "Some Cautions Concerning the Application of Causal Modeling Methods. 456-60. 17. 18-31. 283-7. "The Seven Sexes: A Study in the Sociology of a Phenomenon or the Replication of Experiments in Physics. "Can Marketing be a Science?. Barnes. 7 (February)." Sociology. Paul D. Brown. "The Nature and Uses of Expectancy-Value Models in Consumer Attitude Research." The Journal of the Franklin Institute. Collins. Robert (1951). "On the Role of Marketing Theory. 115-126. "Secretiveness and Competition for Priority of Discovery in Physics. New York: Citadel. Feyerabend. "That's Interesting! Towards a Phenomenology of Sociology and a Sociology of Phenomenology. Capra. Gould. Converse. May (1982). the context specificity of scientific knowledge. On Predicting Most of the People Much of the Time. Perrault(1982). 13 (October). and William D. "Son of the Seven Sexes: The Social Destruction of a Physical Phenomenon. Diana (1972). New York: Humanities Press. 309-344. . and the Possible Identity of the Two. Yehuda (1978). 472-92." Social Studies Sciof ence. and Olli T. Seymour (1979). Implications for Psychological Research. Gusfield. "Is Marketing a Science?. 240-44. Churchill. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Norman (1983). 41 (January-February). Jerry (1971). 9 (October). 6 (September). 32-9. Barry (1977). Phillips.

" in Marketing Theory: The Philosophy of Marketing Science. 8 (November). and Steve Woolgar (1979). "Strategic Marketing: Betas. eds. Laboratory Life. Oxford: Pergamon. Trevor J. Jr. "Personality and Consumer Behavior: A Review. 2nd ed. O. 9. New York: Academic Press. 446-456. CA: Sage. "Some Philosophical and Methodological Issues in Consumer Research. 577-89. (in press). (1981). Dordrecht. Zaltman. Doherty. eds. Robin (1981). "On Ignoring a Research Education. 9 (December). Kassarjian." American Psychologist." American Psychologist. "Consumer Behavior: Surpluses and Shortages." in Advances in Consumer Research.. Brown." in The Social Process of Scientific Investigation. Gunther S. Lynch. Morris I. I. IN: Hackett. Lakatos. W. 972. 1. (1982). Gary (1979). McGuire. Wilse (1961). "Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. New York: Harper. New York: Columbia University Press. 4. Stanley. "J. (1973). Mitchell. Mitchell. Stent. "The Myth of Objectivity or Why Science Needs a New Psychology of Science. "Meaning in Context: Is There Any Other Kind?. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. The Structure of Scientific Theories. 382-394. A.. 18 (June). Zukav. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Laudan. (1982). New York: Wiley. Chicago: American Marketing. Sigmund (1981). Jr. Harold H. "The Nature and Limits of Psychological Knowledge." in Distinguished Essays in Marketing Theory. William J." in Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge.American Sociological Review. Holland: Reidel." Synthese. 12 (May). Marketing Management: Analysis. S." Harvard Educational Review. C.. Fiske. Vol. A. Ferrell. Samelson." paper presented at a workshop on the Demarcation between Science and Pseudo-Science. April 30-May 2. 16 (May). and Michael Heffring (1982). J. "The Sun-Set: The Presentation of Certainty in Scientific Life.. "On the Impossibility of Crucial Falsifying Experiment: Gruntaum on 'The Cuhemian Argument'. Ryan (1979). (1970). Homewood.. eds. 187 (March). (1965). 225-39. "Huge Sex Ratios at Upper End. 35 (July). 36 (March). 2. Kuhn. Vol. (1982). 409-18. IL: Irwin. "The Constructivist Programme in Sociology of Science: Retreats or Advances?. (1982)." American Psychologist." Journal of Marketing Research. Knorr. "Is Marketing a Science? Revisited. eds. Lamb. (1974). New York: Academic Press. and Linda Smircich (1980). Stein. "Marketing." Management Science. (1975). CA: Sage. Benbow (1982). 1-18. On Scientific Thinking. Beverly Hills." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 49 (February). A. Hooker. Theory Construction in Marketing. 1052-1057. Ray (1982). (1983). ed." American Sociological Review. Lakatos and A. Latour. Currie. MI: Association for Consumer Research. IL: Irwin. Mitroff. Karin D. 37 (August). Bruno (1980). "Collaborative Research and Publication in Psychology. B. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Elliot G. Vol. and C. Methodological Ap- proaches to Social Science." Philosophy of Science. Boxes. Ann Arbor. Karl (1959). 26 (June). Wensley. 32 (November-December). S. and Camilla P. 257-69. 173-82. Worrall and G. (1976). Vol. Pinch." Journal of Consumer Research. Ryan D. K. Suppe.. NJ: Prentice-Hall. D. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 29 (July). IsScience / 125 Marketing? . Karen LeMasters. (1982). Hunt. Gonzalo (1981). O'Shaughnessy." Academy of Management Review.. Philip (1980). "Presidential Address-1981: Toward a Science of Consumer Behavior. "Is it Possible to Reconstruct the Research Process?. (1972). 223-7." American Psychologist. Larry (1965). Cyril Burt's Twins. Paul (1983). The Demise of the Demarcation Problem. 619-25. R. 32 (July). "On the External Validity of Experiments in Consumer Research. Chicago: Association for Consumer Research. Beyond Method: Strategies for Social Research." Journal of Marketing." in Conceptual and Theoretical Developments in Marketing. Watson's Little Albert." Social Studies of Science. (1975). Urbana. 613-618. (1974). Musgrave. Mischler. "Norms and Counter-Norms in a Select Group of Apollo Moon Scientists: A Case Study of the Ambivalence of Scientists. 41 (February). S. Jerry C." Journal of Marketing. (1971). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Franz (1980). Stimulating Creativity. Webb. 5 (October). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. or Basics. Weldon J. Sheth. 1. Stimulating Creativity. A. 45 (Summer). ed. Knorr-Cetina. The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes: Philosophical Papers. The Manufacture of Knowledge: Toward a Constructivist and Contextual Theory of Science. 13-16. Kilmann (1978). Kotler. Marketing Theory: Conceptual Foundations of Research in Marketing. and Michael Mulkay (1983)." Science. (1981).. Gerald. Munevar. Englewood Cliffs. Brown and R. John G. Thomas S. 177-231. Gareth. 131-58. and R. Vol.. Marketing Theory: The Philosophy of Marketing Science.. New York: Bantam." in Advances in Consumer Research. 49-53. Whitley. New York: Wiley. "The Yin and Yang of Progress in Social Psychology: Seven Koan. (1975). Krohn. (1983). "Philosophy and Meta-Philosophy of Science: Empiricism. 579-95. 4th ed. 11 (February). OH: Grid. Ian I. v-x. Olson. 9. ed.." American Psychologist. 320-324. Radical Knowledge: A Philosophical Inquiry into the Nature and Limits of Science. and the Need for a Critical Science. Michael E. Science and Technology. 37 (September). IL: University of Illinois Press. (1979). "The Case for Qualitative Research. Beverly Hills. Vol. W." Social Studies of Science. Morgan. Hunt. Peter. eds. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Shelby D. The Dancing Wu Li Masters: An Overview of the New Physics. Julian C.. Planning and Control. J. Sociology of Sciences Yearbook. (1978). and Ralph H. 491-500. Popper. Homewood. 9961001. C. John and Michael J. "Limits to the Scientific Understanding of Man. 295-9. "The Choice of the Problem. 39 (August). 16-34. Imre (1970). Over. Indianapolis. Mynatt (1981). CA: Sage. Tweney. Science Observed: Perspectives on the Social Study of Science. and Clifford R. Popperianismand Realism. Frederick (1977). Koch.. Columbus. Taylor. 2nd ed. Jagdish N. Beverly Hills.