Secondly, it considers the way practitioners use marketing knowledge to ..... work skills required to support effectiveness (including general business skills and ...
Marketing competence and the curriculum: a conceptual framework.
This paper reviews some of the extensive literature to explore three key aspects of marketing degrees and their relationship to professional practice. Firstly, it discusses the aims and purpose of marketing degrees to conclude that whilst valuable wider educational aims can also be met, preparation for a career in marketing must be seen as their primary purpose. Secondly, it considers the way practitioners use marketing knowledge to conclude that the academic focus on propositional knowledge needs to be reviewed, and perhaps reduced, with greater emphasis placed on a „toolbox‟ of procedural elements and experiential learning. Thirdly, it surveys the complex notion of „competence‟ and, whilst acknowledging the value of the occupational standards approach, concludes that holistic models combining micro, macro and meta competences are of greater value. It then offers such a model to illustrate how these elements come together and suggests how it can be „reversed-engineered‟ to inform the marketing curriculum and pedagogy. However, it does not ignore the practical and cultural difficulties of doing so and, whilst offering brief examples of possible strategies, concludes that such change is essential if marketing courses are to be seen as relevant, worthwhile and of value to our students.
KEYWORDS: competence, curriculum, knowledge, practitioners MARKETING EDUCATION TRACK
1
Introduction This paper forms part of a doctoral research project which aims to help develop a vocationally focused graduate marketing curriculum designed to enhance the employment and career prospects of „early-career‟ marketers (defined as being in their first seven years in the profession). The focus is thus primarily on developing „new‟ rather than current practitioners. Within this project several themes have emerged which are felt to be of interest to the marketing academy, as presented within this paper. In particular, it is felt to be important that marketing educators recognise their role in preparing tomorrow‟s marketing practitioners (with application and additional skills as well as academic knowledge), understand more about how practitioners actually use academic propositional knowledge (or not) and exactly what is meant by the much used (and abused) term „competence‟ in relation to marketers. The following sections review these topics but also stress how professional and general knowledge and skills must be melded together with individuals‟ personal attributes and overarching abilities if true competence is to be achieved. In doing so, it highlights the difficulties and challenges this brings to educationalists and briefly outlines some possible approaches. Our aim: better citizen, better marketer- or both? One of the central issues is the aim and purpose of higher education, especially in relation to business disciplines such as marketing. The UK has a long tradition of liberal arts education, generally with a focus on intellectual enlargement (OED) and Palfreyman‟s (2007) preparation for a contribution to society “as an educated Citizen (not merely to the Economy as a Trained Worker with Skills)”. Nevertheless, the UK has a long tradition of vocational higher education, ranging from the „old‟ professions such as law and medicine to the newer ones of teaching, nursing, accountancy and, one assumes, marketing. The anticipated contribution of such graduates to the prosperity of „UK plc‟ is evident in Government reports and policy documents ranging from Robbins (1963), via Dearing (1997), to Foster (2005), Leitch (2006) and, in Wales, Jones (2009). This is further reflected in the QAA General Business and Management Benchmarks (2007) which specify vocational preparation amongst the primary aims of business a degree. In relation to marketing degrees, Stringfellow et al‟s (2006) survey of the literature found a consensus view that employment as a practitioner is the primary aim, adding that the focus should thus be on relevant marketing knowledge and skills. Aistrich, et al (2006), Rust (2006), Ramocki (2007) and Lynch (2007) also note the vocational focus whilst, Brennan and Skaates (2005), Muncy (2008) and Keown (2008) add that career aspirations are at the forefront of students‟ minds. Palfreyman (2007), Ryan 2001, Mirfield 2001, Boden and Hedeva (2010) and others also stress the role of a liberal arts education in developing higher level cognitive skills (notably synthesis, analysis and expression) and claim that other forms, vocational education in particular, cannot do so. However, the QAA Benchmarks (2007) clearly expects such skills to be developed within business degrees as they are included amongst the benchmark outcomes. That vocational education is able to and should develop such skills is debated by Johnstone (1999), Krebs and Wenk (2005) and Brennan and Skaates (2005) and Ramocki (2007) with the former suggesting that it can turn out not just „more able‟ professionals but also „more able persons‟ and the latter offering methods to achieve this. Pollack and Lilley (2008) also stress that such provision does not mean „dumbing-down‟ the curriculum and that marketing education can help develop the higher level skills that employers clearly value and practitioners require. A final dimension of the educational debate concerns the relationship between academe and practice. Whilst many have commented on the existence of a „gap‟ between marketing theory 2
and practice (e.g. Piercy 2002, Simkin 2002, McDonald 2003, Brennan 2004, Blythe 2006, Brownlie et al 2007, Tapp and Hughes 2008) it is fruitful to consider its implications. Within the marketing domain Rossiter (2001), as did Holbrook before him (1985 cit Cornelissen 2002), suggests that the two should remain divorced with academics‟ declarative knowledge and marketers‟ practice existing independently of each other. In response Wierenga (2002) suggests such a stance to be both unnecessary and unproductive whilst Cornelissen (2002) notes that the two camps should aim to complement each other rather than remain mutually exclusive. Johnstone (1999) adds Dewey‟s aim (from 1916 but still valid today) to eradicate the distinction between the two to avoid, on one hand, merely imparting technical skills and on the other “a harmful disdain for "practical knowledge". On a wider platform, Boys (in Edwards and Knight 1995) stresses that propositional and procedural knowledge need to be viewed as a whole with practitioners possessing a repertoire of skills and knowledge including both the „how and why‟ as well as the „what‟. The need for balance is noted by Brownlea et al (2007) who counsel that academics should avoid both being too close to practice (thus becoming trainers) and too far (thus becoming irrelevant). Thus, as Brennan and Skaates (2005) note, the vocational aim of marketing degrees is now a given and the debate must now move on to focus on how we can facilitate the development of the future generations of marketers. What should we teach: does less equal more? To help in doing so then „what should we teach them?‟ and „how it is used?‟ are logical next questions. Leaving aside issues concerning the above noted „gaps‟ and the precise content of the syllabus, it is fruitful to first consider the nature of knowledge and how practitioners use it. To do so, commentators such as Rossiter (2001, 2002), Stringfellow et al (2006) and Clarke et al (2006) help differentiate between four main knowledge domains: propositional or explicit knowledge (known and codified facts and theories); tacit or implicit knowledge (that which is known but cannot be articulated); procedural knowledge (Rossiter‟s „know-how‟); situational knowledge (unique to the circumstances or task). How marketing practitioners‟ use propositional, theoretical, knowledge (the focus of much of the marketing curriculum) was explored by Weirenga (2002) who found that, unlike scientists, they do not solve problems by going back to „first principles‟, as the relationship between the two is rarely clear and time is usually too short. Whilst he acknowledges the importance of propositional knowledge he differentiates between academic knowledge and that used by practitioners. The latter he suggests draw upon many sources, including propositional and tacit knowledge, but also aspects such as intuition, creativity, experience and judgement. The importance of these aspects, together with a view that rigid, rule-base, theory and procedures constrain their use was also noted by McIntyre and Sutherland (2002). They also found a preference for „fuzzy‟ and broad principles and experientially derived „micro-theories‟, able to be adapted to the situation and, as with Midgley (2002), a limited repertoire of theory (Schön‟s theories in use) with much (post exam) consigned to „storage‟. In response Midgley (2002) suggests that instead of an overloaded, theory driven, syllabus, there is the need for a tightly defined and codified body of „marketing science‟, supported by Lilien and Rangaswamy‟s (1998) „marketing toolbox‟ of useful and practical models and tools. Hunt (2002), Rust (2006) and Lynch (2007) also stress the need to review and revise what and how we teach with both stressing the need to reflect the needs of industry and ground theory in practice. However, it must be acknowledged that, if as Hunt (2002), Wierenga (2002) et al suggest, much practitioner practice builds upon experience, then, it would be naive to expect undergraduate degrees to create „out-of-the-box‟ practitioners.
3
Nevertheless, it is held that in light of the above, we reconsider what we teach, perhaps adopting Eraut‟s (1994) view that if we are to improve quality, we should consider rigorously „pruning‟ the syllabus to that which is useful and meaningful? Competence, competency or competencies? Whilst typologies of knowledge vary, the apparently simple term „competence‟ is more problematic. Amongst others, Whiddett and Hollyforde (1999), Melaia et al (2008) and Le Diest and Winterton (2005) note the plethora of definitions with the former observing that „experts‟ often prefer to use their own version and the latter that the term has become „fuzzy‟ with little precision in meaning. Elsewhere, Winterton et al (2005) offer Weinert‟s list of nine different ways in which the term is used but add that these often conflates different concepts and are used inconsistently, sometimes by the same author. Even the apparently synonymous terms, „competence‟ and „competency‟ have variations in meaning although commentators such as Le Diest and Winterton (2005) and Melaia et al (2008) standardise on „competence‟ relating to functional performance whilst „competency‟ concerns behavioural attributes. However, even if one agrees on terms, extremes of meaning can be observed by comparing the OED‟s view of „competent‟ as adequate, but not excellent performance with Hartle‟s (cit Winterton et al 2005) perspective of superior performance. The term „competencies‟ becomes more problematic with some using it simply as the plural of competency, some to describe generic transferrable skills, some for managerial skills and others in relation to higher level behavioural skills and traits („underlying competences‟ is also used for personal traits and characteristics). In addition, they note distinctions between input and output competencies and the organisational usage of „core-competences‟ to denote institutional skills and capabilities. To help make sense of such confusion, Le Diest and Winterton (2005) and Winterton et al (2005) attempt to create a „unified typology‟ which largely meets Hodkinson and Issitt‟s (1995) earlier plea for a holistic approach which integrates practitioners‟ knowledge, understanding, values and skills. This draws together Elkin‟s „micro competences‟ (cognitive knowledge and functional skills) and „macro competences‟ (attitudes and behaviours) together with Nelson and Naren‟s third dimension of „meta-competences‟ (higher order skills concerned with coping with uncertainty, learning and reflection- similar concepts formed the basis of the now defunct Management Initiative Charter‟s Personal Competence Model). Such a typology has proven of immense value in clearing away confusion and in re-labelling Wellman‟s (1998) model of marketing competence to reflect current terminology. Whilst the macro/meta competency view is widely held within the USA (Eraut 2001) the UK approach is largely micro-competency driven with a functional/output focus based upon structured job and skills analysis, as advocated by McMahon and Carter (1990) and within the „Job Competence‟ model of Mansfield and Mitchell (1996). Whilst, the approach has been subject to much criticism (Winterton et al [2005] offer Smithers 1993, Hyland 1994, Bates, 1995, Ecclestone, 1999, 2000, Jones and Moore, 1995, Wolf, 1995, 1998 and Eraut 2001), it has nevertheless been instrumental in the development of standards of competence as used within the UK‟s occupational standards (OSs) and National Vocational Qualification (NVQ) systems1. Included amongst these are the Marketing and Sales Standards Setting Body‟s (MSSSB 2006) marketing standards (currently in revision) which in turn have influenced the Chartered Institute of Marketing (CIM 2008) Professional Marketing Standards (PMSs). However, it is clear that such OSs are in themselves insufficient to define occupational competence and, as Hodkinson and Issitt suggested, a wider perspective is required. 1
The generic term occupational standards is used in preference to Scottish or National Occupational Standards (S/NOSs) as not all OSs fall within the S/QAA frameworks. In addition, not all N/OSs have associated NVQs, including those for marketing (although there is an OS based Modern Apprenticeship in Marketing).
4
Marketing competence: what does it look like? As has been seen, Winterton et al (2005) offer a holistic approach to combine all aspect of knowledge, skills and competence within their unified typology. However, it is felt that this fails to offer the full picture and that several aspects are missing. These include explicit linkages between the relationship between occupationally specific and more general competences and the vital role played by personal traits and attitudes (Mansfield and Mitchell‟s, 1996, Mansfield 2004). In addition, it fails to take into account situational and environmental considerations and constraints (Eraut 1994). However, such an integrative model was offered by Wellman (1998) which allows for such factors (Fig 1a) and can be revised to incorporate current terminology (Fig 1b).
Fig 1a Wellman‟s original competence model (1998)
Fig 1b revised competence model incorporating current terminology
As can be seen, this differentiates between occupationally specific technical skills and knowledge (which the MSSB and CIM standards inform) and the more general business and work skills required to support effectiveness (including general business skills and knowledge such as those for project or budget management and keyskills such as literacy, numeracy and IT). Whilst both of these broadly fit within Elkin‟s „micro-competence‟ categories, the attitudinal and behavioural aspects (e.g. motivation, confidence, determination and flexibility) more clearly fit within his „macro‟ level and are essential to effectiveness in the workplace. The final, central, dimension is akin to Nelson and Naren‟s „meta-competences‟, which may be seen to act as drivers for success. The importance of the non-technical competences is illustrated within Bennett‟s (2002) and Wellman‟s (2009) content analysis of marketing (and in Bennett, other business) post and person specifications (which also highlight the importance of macro-level employability skills and, in Wellman, experience). However, the model also recognises that no-one can be competent and successful unless they are operating within a supportive environment with appropriate systems and resources. Thus, it introduces the three external „enabling‟ aspects of: organisational policies and strategies, which should add direction and guidance; systems and structures, to provide information, processes and control; resources and support services, sufficient to the task in hand. Without such enablers, even the most proficient marketing practitioner would be as sure to fail as a three star Michelin chef without a menu, kitchen, ingredients, fuel and waiters. Thus, the model attempts to more fully integrate the various aspects to form the basis for focused consideration of how marketing education may be adapted to support the development of professionally competent marketers. Implications for the curriculum, teaching and marketing educators However, it would be naive to expect that any higher education institution could deliver a truly competent graduate practitioner and instead we must reconcile ourselves to producing, at
5
best, Dreyfus and Dreyfus‟s (1986 cit Hodkinson and Isslett 1995) novice or advanced beginner. If nothing else, the vital part played by experience and exposure to the „real-world‟ of practice would be near impossible to deliver and the ability of education to develop or change individuals‟ deep seated traits is questionable. Nevertheless, it is within our ability to more clearly reflect the needs of new practitioners in several ways. Firstly, reference to what practitioners actually do and how they use (or chose to ignore) academics‟ propositional knowledge will allow the curriculum to be more closely aligned to profession‟s needs, perhaps via Eraut‟s rigorously pruned syllabus and Lilien and Rangaswamy‟s toolkit. Reference to the MSSSB and CIM standards may help inform „what is in‟ and „what is out‟. In addition we have to reconsider how we teach to create and facilitate opportunities for application and practice, both to embed theory and enrich learning. Thus, we can learn from, amongst others: Kamath and MacNab‟s (1998) development of „business ready‟ students through self managing teams working on projects in near commercial conditions, Pollack and Lilly‟s (2008) use of experiential assignments, Wee et al‟s (2003) and Peterson‟s (2004) problem-solving approaches, Tonk‟s (2002) use of business simulations to develop analytical and decision making skills, Hershey and Walker‟s (2006) use of case studies to provide a „virtual experience curve‟; and even Butler‟s (2007) macabre assignment of „planning your own funeral‟ to help students understand and apply a range of marketing, project management and budgeting topics. But also we need to consider ideas from Greenley et al (2004) and Athvale et al (2008) about how to better integrate general management skills into marketers and others from Ellen and Pilling (2002) Laverie (2006) and Clarke and Flaherty (2007) on how to facilitate the development of workplace skills. The vital role to be played by work placements, internships and, for those in employment, secondments, job-swops, project work and job-shadowing, must also be considered. These can, as with Kamath and MacNab, be team and action-learning based or the sort of undergraduate placements and internships noted by Divine et al (2007) as offering the „win-win‟ benefits of students gaining experience and a better understanding of the application of theory whilst employers gain an opportunity to assess potential new recruits. In a more radical approach, Schibrowsky et al (2002) discuss the need to adopt a „professional schools‟ system and offers guidelines upon which to develop such a school, including: the indepth development of professional skills; lengthening courses to match those of engineering and medicine; a focus on application rather than theory alone; greater depth (in those subjects that matter) rather than broad-brush courses; ensuring currency and relevance in a fast changing world; work experience, internee-ships and live projects as a necessary part of learning process; embedding critical thinking, problem solving, and decision making skills. The challenges to the marketing academy are clear, but if we are to react to Wellman‟s (2009) study of UK early career marketing jobs where only 21.2% of entry level posts asked for a marketing degree, they must be faced. It is suggested that the proposed model again comes into play in that it can be „reverse-engineered‟ to force consideration of the enabling factors that would help create professional competence. Thus, we must reconsider our educational philosophy, curriculum and syllabus (proxies for organisational policies and strategies), our teaching and assessment methods (systems and structures) and, as with any organisation, our learning resources and support services. The alternative is to remain within Aistrich at al‟s (2006) ivory tower, concocting Gummesons‟s (2002) “theory mess” according to the rules of Blythe‟s (2006) “bad science” (or if you prefer “alchemy”) with academics teaching Clarke et al‟s (2006) “redundant and blunt instruments” and thus, as Nicholson et al (2005) suggest, failing to produce “students with the appropriate skills and knowledge needed in the marketplace”.
6
References Aistrich, M., Saghafi, M. and Sciglimpaglia, D., 2006. Ivory tower or real world: Do educators and practitioners see the same world?, Marketing Education Review,16(3), pp.7380. Athvale, M. J., Davis, R. And Myring, M., (2008, The integrated business curriculum: An examination of perceptions and practices, Journal of Education for Business, May/June 2008, pp. 295-301. Berman Brown, R. and McCartney,S., 1995, Competence is not enough: meta-competence and accounting education, Accounting Education, 4(1), pp.43-53. Blythe, J., 2006. A very short, fairly interesting and reasonably cheap book about studying marketing, London: Sage Publications Ltd Boden, R. and Nedeva, M., 2010. Employing discourse: universities and graduate 'employability'', Journal of Education Policy, 25(1), pp.37-4. Boys, C., 1995. National Vocational Qualifications- The outcomes-plus model of assessment. In Edwards, A. and Knight, P., ed. Assessing Competence in Higher Education, London, Kogan Page, 1995, pp.25-64 Bennett, R., 2002. Employers' Demands for Personal Transferable Skills in Graduates: a content analysis of 1000 job advertisements and an associated empirical study, Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 54(4), pp. 457-475. Brennan, R., 2004, Should we worry about an “academic-practitioner divide?, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 22(5), pp.492-500 Brennan, R. and Skaates, M. A., 2005. An international review of the business-to-business marketing curriculum, Marketing Education Review, 15(3), pp.77-89. Brown, P., Hesketh, A. and Williams, S., 2002. Employability in a Knowledge-Driven Economy, In: Skills plus: Innovation in education for employability Conference, Manchester Metropolitan University, 13th June 2002 [online] Available at: http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/socsi/resources/wrkgpaper26.pdf [Accessed 28th November 2009] Brownlie, D., Hewer, P. and Ferguson, P., 2007, Theory into practice: meditations on cultures of accountability and interdisciplinarity in marketing research, Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 23(5/6), pp.395-409. Butler, D. D., 2007, Planning your own funeral: a helpful pedagogical tool, Marketing Education Review, 17(1), pp.95-100. Chartered Institute of Marketing (CIM), 2008, Professional Marketing Standards, Cookham. Available at: http://www.cim.co.uk/about/mktgstandards.aspx [Accessed 15th May 2009] Clarke, I., Flaherty, T. B. and Yankey, M., 2006. Teaching the Visual Learner: The Use of Visual Summaries in Marketing Education, Journal of Marketing Education, 28(3), pp.218226.
7
Cornelissen, J., 2002, Academic and practitioner theories of marketing, Marketing Theory, 2(1), pp.133-143. Cowling, A., 1998. Knowing versus Doing: Academic and Vocational Education for Informatics in the UK, presented to International Symposium on Computer Employment and Education. Available at: http://www.dcs.shef.ac.uk/~ajc/seteach/knowdo.pdf. [Accessed 28th November 2009] Dearing, R., 1997, Report of the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education. Available at: http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/ncihe/. [Accessed 15th May 2009]. Divine.R. L., Linrud, J. K., Miller, R. H. and Wilson, J. H., 2007, Required internship programmes in marketing: Benefits, challenges or fit, Marketing Education Review, 17(2), pp.46-52. Ellen, P. S. and Pilling, B. K., 2002. Using Employer Input to Assess Graduate Marketing Education Effectiveness: a Working Example of Curriculum Development, Marketing Education Review, 12(1), pp.31-40. Eraut M, 1994, Developing Professional Knowledge and Competence, London, The Falmer Press Eraut, M., 2001, The role and use of vocational qualifications, National Institute Economic Review, No 178, pp.88-98. Greenley, G, Hooley, G. and Saunders, J., 2004, Management processes in marketing planning, European Journal of Marketing, 38(8) pp.933-955. Gummesson, E., 2002. Practical value of adequate marketing management theory, European Journal of Marketing, 36(3), pp.325-351. Hershey, L. and Walker, S., 2006, Using the CPPD method of analysis for teaching case studies in the marketing maangement class, Marketing Education Review, 16(2), pp.45-57. Hodkinson, P. Issitt, M., 1995. The challenge of competence for the caring professions: an overview. In Hodkinson, P. Issitt, M., ed. The Challenge of Competence: Professionalism Through Vocational Education and Training, London: Cassell Education, 1995, pp.1-12 Hunt, S. D, Chonko, L. B. and Wood V. R., 1986, Marketing Education and Marketing Success: Are they Related?, Journal of Marketing Education, 8, pp.2-13. Johnstone, G., 1999, Liberal Ideals and Vocational Aims in University Legal Education, First Published in Web Journal of Current Legal Issues in association with Blackstone Press Ltd. Available at http://webjcli.ncl.ac.uk/1999/issue3/johnstone3.html [Accessed 21st February 2010] Jones, M., 2009. Review of Higher Education in Wales, [RHEW 27-04-09(4)], Welsh Assembly Government, Cardiff, Available at: http://wales.gov.uk/docs/dcells/publications/090622hephase2en.pdf [Accessed 29th June 2009].
8
Kamath, S. J. and MacNab, B. E., 1998, Developing Business-Ready Marketing Professionals: The Strategic Focus of the Asian International Marketing (AIM) Program, Journal of Marketing Education; 20, pp.110 Keown, C. F., 1982, Attitudes of Practitioners and Students Toward Marketing, Journal of Marketing Education, 4 (Fall), pp.14-20. Krebs, R. and Wenk, S., 2005. Current debates about the construction of knowledge in the social sciences and humanities and the impact of these on disciplinization in eight European countries: Comparative Report, Available at: http://www.york.ac.uk/res/researchintegration/ComparativeReports/Comparative_Report_Co nstruction_of_Knowledge.pdf [Accessed 13th November 2009]. Le Diest, F. D., and Winterton, J., 2005. What is Competence?, Human Resources Development International, 8 (1), pp.27-46. Leitch, S., 2006. Prosperity for all in the global economy - world class skills, Norwich, HMSO Lilien, G. L. and Rangaswamy, A., 1998, Marketing Engineering: Computer-Assisted Marketing Analysis and Planning, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts. (revised 2004) Lynch, J., 2007, The creation of the new Marketer – are we getting it right? Conference paper In: Academy of Marketing Conference (AM2007), 03-06 July 2007, Egham, Surrey, UK Mansfield, B. and Mitchell, L., 1996. Towards a competent workforce, Aldershot, Gower Ltd. Mansfield, B., 2004, „Competence in transition‟, Journal of European Industrial Training, 28(2/3/4), pp.296-309.. Marketing and Sales Standards Setting Body, 2006. Marketing standards. Available at: http://www.ukstandards.co.uk/Find_Occupational_Standards.aspx?NosFindID=4&SuiteID=1 427 Accessed: 13 Mar 2008] McDonald, M., 1989. Ten barriers to marketing planning, Journal of Marketing Management, 5(1), pp.1-18. McIntyre, S. H. and Sutherland, M., 2002, A critical analysis into the accumulation of marketing knowledge at the level of the firm, Marketing Theory, 2(4), pp.403-418 . Melaia, S., Abratt, R. and Bick, G., 2008. Competencies of marketing managers in South Africa, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice,16(3) pp.233- 246. Midgley, D., 2002, What to codify: marketing science or marketing engineering?, Marketing theory, 2(4), pp.363–368. Muncy, J. A, 2008, The orientation evaluation matrix (OEM): Are students customers or products?, Marketing Education Review, 18(3), pp.16-23. Nicholson, C., Barnett, S. and Dascher, P., 2005. Curriculum assessment in marketing programs: current status and examination of AACSB core standards at the program level, Marketing Education Review, 15(2), pp.13-26.
9
Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Available at: http://www.oed.com/ [Accessed 3rd August 2009] Palfreyman, D., 2007. Ten paragraphs on Higher Education and Liberal v Vocational Education Polarisation. Available at: http://oxcheps.new.ox.ac.uk/MainSite%20pages/papers.html [Accessed 25th April 2008] Peterson, T. O., 2004, So you‟re thinking of trying problem based learning?: Three critical success factors for implementation, Journal of Management Education, 28(5), pp.630-647. Piercy, N., 1995. Marketing and strategy fit together (in spite of what some may say), Management Decisions, 33(1), pp.42-48. Piercy, N., 2002, Research in marketing: teasing with trivia or risking relevance?, European Journal of Marketing, 36(3), pp.350-363. Pollack, B. L. and Lilly, B., 2008. Gaining Confidence and Competence Through Experiential Assignments: An Exploration of Student Self-Efficacy and Spectrum of Inquiry, Marketing Education Review, 18(2). Qualification Assurance Agency, 2007. Benchmarks for General and Business Management. Available at: http://www.qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/benchmark/statements/GeneralBusinessManage ment.pdf [Accessed 13th February 2009] Robbins, L., 1963. Report of the Committee on Higher Education. Available at: http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/ncihe/r5_003.htm. [Accessed 13th June 2009] Ramocki, S. P., 2007. Metacognition and Transfer: Keys to Improving Marketing Education, Journal of Marketing Education, 29(1), pp.18-24., Rossiter, J., 2001. What is Marketing Knowledge? Stage 1: Forms of marketing knowledge, Marketing Theory, 1(1), pp.9–26. Rossiter, J., 2002. The five forms of transmissible, usable marketing knowledge, Marketing Theory, 2(4), pp.369–380. Rust, R. T., 2006. The Maturation of Marketing as an Academic Discipline, Journal of Marketing, 70 (3). Available at: http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid=4&hid=115&sid=468336a8-50a0-4380-b36a5c6478cb6476%40sessionmgr103 [accessed 2nd January 2009] Schibrowsky, J. A., James W. Peltier, J. A. and Thomas E. Boyt, T. E., 2002. A Professional School Approach to Marketing Education, Journal of Marketing Education, 24(1), pp.24-43. Simkin, L., 2002. Tackling implementation impediments to marketing, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 20(2), pp.120-126. Stringfellow, L., Ennis, S., Brennan, R. and Harker, M. J. 2006, market Intelligence and Planning, 24(3), pp.245-256.
10
Tapp, A. and Hughes, R., 2008, Why “soft science” is the key to regaining leadership in marketing knowledge, European Journal of Marketing, 42(3/4), pp.265-278. Tonks, D., 2002, Using marketing simulations for teaching and learning, Active learning in Higher Education, 3(2), pp.177-194. University of Ulster, 2003. Managing Personal Effectiveness/1 A View to Personal Effectiveness. Available at: http://www.business.ulster.ac.uk/businst/pub_service_mgt/bmg341/PE%20Manual%20%20ch%201%20-%20JT.pdf [Accessed 17th May 2009] Wee, L. K, Alexandria, M., Yih-Chyn Kek and Craig A. Kelley, C. A., 2003, Transforming the Marketing Curriculum Using Problem-Based Learning: A Case Study, Journal of Marketing Education, 25(2), pp.150-162. Wellman, N., 1998, The Lego approach, t-magazine, Redruth, issue: October 1998. Wellman, N., 2005, A review of the use of marketing planning techniques in small firms in Bristol, M A in Marketing dissertation, Birmingham, University of Central England (unpublished) Wellman, N. 2009, An empirical investigation to identify the attributes and qualifications requirements of employers for early career marketers, paper at Academy of Marketing Conference: Putting Marketing in its Place, Leeds 7th-9th July 2009. CD Available from http://www.leedsmet.ac.uk/conferences/am2009/index.html. Whiddet, S. and Hollyforde, S., 1999. The Competences Handbook, London, Institute of Personel and Development. Wierenga, B., 2002, On academic marketing knowledge and marketing knowledge that marketing managers use for decision-making, Marketing Theory, 2(2), pp.355 .
11
