Paradigmapping marketing theory - CiteSeerX

7 downloads 993 Views 155KB Size Report
Paradigmapping marketing theory. Sid Lowe. Kingston Business School, Kingston University, Kingston on Thames, UK. Adrian N. Carr. School of Applied Social ...
The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0566.htm

COMMENTARY

Paradigmapping marketing theory Sid Lowe

Paradigmapping marketing theory 1057

Kingston Business School, Kingston University, Kingston on Thames, UK

Adrian N. Carr School of Applied Social and Human Sciences, University of Western Sydney, Sydney, Australia, and

Michael Thomas Strathclyde University, Glasgow, UK Keywords Marketing theory, Epistemology Abstract Paradigms are sets of prior assumptions that configure ways of seeing. This article employs a notion taken from Web of Life to map how paradigms in marketing have proliferated according to their juxtaposition within three criteria, namely structure, pattern and process. The exercise, termed “paradigmapping”, provides a useful picture of the relative positioning of selected contributions to the field. This positions each contribution according to its imposed relation to these three criteria. Each contribution involves preoccupation with one of the criteria, tolerance of a second and denigration of a third. The implications of this are explored.

Introduction In this paper we review the notion of paradigms within marketing and other social science disciplines. Paradigms are explored in terms of what they have been able to tell us and to what extent they have been a blessing or a curse. We review Kuhn’s (1962) original conception and comment upon the seminal contributions of Arndt (1985). We subsequently develop an alternative, which we have termed paradigmapping. This is developed from the notion of Frijof Capra in The Web of Life (1997) positing the world can only be understood by accommodation of three essential criteria of living systems simultaneously. Paradigmapping is a concept that we have developed to facilitate a new understanding of the manner in which paradigms can be reframed in marketing discourse. We attempt a construction of a “paradigmap” of selected contributions to marketing and consumption theory. On key debates over paradigms and incommensurability, paradigmapping not only helps to clarify what has transpired in marketing discourse thus far, but also it offers a new path to transcending potentially damaging binary arguments. We argue that we might wish to initiate a discourse not anchored in a pretext of rationality, as it has in the past, but anchored in values and a morally concerned scepticism. This is a relativist position where we clearly wish to argue the case for considering marketing’s potential as a moral art rather than the amoral science it has become. Paradigms Kuhn (1962) had argued that the history of science has been one in which one dominant theory has served as the prevailing paradigm. Lines of inquiry into problems were provided by this paradigm until their limitations became apparent and a new theory

European Journal of Marketing Vol. 38 No. 9/10, 2004 pp. 1057-1064 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0309-0566 DOI 10.1108/03090560410548861

EJM 38,9/10

1058

emerged; i.e. a “scientific revolution” occurred, and a new paradigm emerged. Kuhn (1970, p. 85) argued that when such a revolution is occurring there is a period of considerable overlap and continuity of paradigms rather than a sudden switch. For Kuhn it was the tension created by the anomalies of the existing paradigm that paved the way for the emergence of a new paradigm. Venkatesh (1995) in a perceptive exposition of Kuhn, challenges marketing theorists to examine three crises facing the marketing discipline: a crisis in theory building; a crisis in problem orientation; and a crisis of relevance. These crises issues remain urgent and relevant to the marketing discipline. Within marketing Arndt (1985) identified four paradigms within the field, each of which is clearly associated with metaphors as posited in Morgan’s (1980, 1986) thesis that associates paradigms with different tropic worldviews. For Arndt “marketing has been dominated by the logical empiricist paradigm stressing rationality, objectivity, and measurement” (Arndt, 1985, p. 11). The implication is that the dominant objectivist worldview within marketing creates a paradigm provincialism that reflect the values of dominant researchers and the interests of their sponsoring reference groups. The result is to conserve and legitimize the status quo and to produce a “one-dimensional science” (Arndt, 1985, p. 21). In management, the paradigm debate has been bogged down in warfare concerning proliferation and incommensurability. From the recent thematic issue of the journal Organization (Scherer, 1998) it seems that this debate has generated more heat than light. It is our view that marketing would do well to avoid following into this cul-de-sac. For this reason we propose “paradigmapping”, developed from Capra’s triadic notion of understanding living systems, as a prospective exit from the limitations of incommensurability arguments. Reframing the debate on paradigm proliferation and incommensurability: Capra’s triad Capra (1997) proposes that in order to understand complex and living systems we need to view them in terms of three inseparable factors or criteria, namely pattern, process and structure (see Figure 1). Process is a matter of cognitive invention of reality and pattern involves inventive design of objects. The three criteria are mutually implicated in that each one can only be defined in the context of the other two. An adoption of all three criteria, as equally important, results in an alternative conception of structure

Figure 1. Capra’s triad

that reveals the mechanistic, foundational certainties of Cartesian science as deluded and their analytical methods as contrived. Structure, in Capra’s (1997) view, is merely a manifestation of the “process” of embodiment of the “pattern” of organization of a system. As a result, “structure” is not ontologically “real” as such, because it is always a reification of process and pattern. Paradigmapping and marketing Using Capra’s (1997) three inseparable criteria for understanding complex living systems; i.e. pattern, process and structure; we would suggest, for example, that Cartesian science emphasizes structure and largely ignores pattern and process. Pattern concerns “form of organization”, which involves the qualitative configuration of relationships. Pattern is the configuration of relationships that gives a system its essential characteristics (Capra, 1997, p. 167). Process in living systems, as is the phenomenon of cognition or knowing. This mental process means that all living systems have or even are “mind” in that they can think, perceive, feel and do. Capra’s triad is a very useful “tool” or lens that enables us to readily see how contributions to various topics in marketing have been paradigmatically informed and we can readily see the “spaces” that are left untouched and unvisited by previous contributions to the field. Using Capra’s triad we can map the contributions to knowledge by placing them along one of the sides of the triangle. Contributions can be placed between structure and pattern, structure and process or pattern and process within three categories; namely X, Y and Z. The positioning along these continua reflects the principal focus of the contribution. This paradigm mapping, or “paradigmapping”, can be illustrated in respect, for example, to selected contributions to marketing in Figure 2. Arndt’s (1985) logical empiricist paradigm within this schema is located close to “structure”. It is substantiated by conscious and subconscious commitments to the objectivist assumptions of determinism, realism, positivism and nomothetic methodology. It constitutes a “transactional” view of exchange relationships and constitutes an enacted scientism, most typically advocated by Shelby Hunt (1983), which is characterized by monism, physicalism and reductionism (Arndt, 1985). It is characteristically expressed in the context of the dominant metaphors of “instrumental man”, “organism”, “marketing warfare” and “brand loyalty”. By contrast “relationship marketing” is located further away from “structure” and more towards pattern. It is also largely substantiated by conscious and subconscious commitments to the objectivist assumptions but constitutes a more “relational” view of exchange relationships. Most typically advocated by Christopher et al. (1991), it often employs a “back to basics” metaphor with relation to customer retention through successful need satisfaction. This is achieved through modification of “classical” concepts like the “marketing mix”, which are updated to cater for the new “relational” marketing life-world. In services marketing, for example, we must now adopt “people” as an element of a reconstituted, sevenfold mix that is more compatible with the renewed critical importance of establishing and maintaining relationships with customers. By further contrast, the IMP group is an industrial marketing school located further towards “pattern” on the X side of the triangle. IMP research is also concerned with business relationships, but in the context of business-to-business marketing. It is still dedicated to developing nomothetic theory but in other aspects of

Paradigmapping marketing theory 1059

EJM 38,9/10

1060

Figure 2. Paradigmapping

objectivist assumptions, it is inclined to be less committed. The central metaphor within IMP group analysis is the quasi-structural “network”, which also constitutes the main epistemological device employed to investigate business relationships. Paradigmapping of the research space concerning marketing generally requires placement of principal selected contributions to the subject. This is attempted in Figure 3, making judgements of each selected contribution relative to all others in the context of their orientation in terms of structure, process and pattern. The paradigmapping construction in Figure 3 shows that the most influential contributions have taken place along the X side of the triangle and the majority of this influential material is concentrated close to structure rather than pattern. Along the Y side of the triangle are the approaches juxtaposed between structure and process. For example, critical theory (CT) under the influence of Habermas, is positioned on the Y axis because of its quasi-structural assumptions. Habermasian critical theorists, in the main, see the potential for emancipation through a re-invigoration of the Enlightenment project of creating a culture of reason where a unified, egalitarian structure of meaning is possible through communicative action and the practice of “ideal speech” (Brown, 1995, p. 147). This form of CT seeks to challenge the dominant, partisan, “managerialist” orthodoxy in marketing with an emancipatory structure to liberate consumers from alienating, narcissistic, materialist anxiety, the mystification of needs and cultural doping (Alvesson, 1994). On the Z side of the triangle, interpretivist and postmodern contributions are represented. Postmodern contributions entirely reject conceptions of structure

Paradigmapping marketing theory 1061

Figure 3. Paradigmapping selected studies in marketing

implying the eschatology of marketing, an “end of the subject” (in its current form) through the replacement of structure with a concentration on process and pattern. Postmodernists deny that culture exists as an entity that can be comparatively examined. They reject structure and examine surface processes. Culture as discourse, therefore, is knowledge, information and communication that are constitutive of all human activity. Language becomes the principal vehicle of cultural process because it is a process that reflexively contains its own antithesis and upon which meaning is politically imposed. Paradigmapping and marketing research strategies Paradigmapping has two main advantages and consequences. First, it provides a territorial map for developing research strategies that seek to develop understanding, rather than simply generate knowledge and information additions. Paradigmapping the territory of the stage in paradigmatic development of management disciplines enables us to identify whether a subject is pre-paradigmatic, proto-paradigmatic, paradigmatic or post-paradigmatic. This is critical in delineating the strategic options facing research in that field. We argue that marketing theory is in its paradigmatic stage at present. Second, paradigmapping enables the researcher to implement research strategies that can transcend damaging “incommensurability” arguments and include strategic

EJM 38,9/10

1062

options that can be characterized as “paradigm parochialism”, “paradigm planting”, “paradigm sliding”, “paradigm crossing” or “paradigm transcendence”. “Paradigm parochialism” is a strategy where one particular element of the three criteria of structure, pattern and process is rigorously privileged. Such a strategy has been employed by, for example, Hunt (1983) in marketing and by Hofstede (1980) in studies of culture. “Paradigm planting” involves claiming unoccupied territory identified through the paradigmapping exercise. The extent of such opportunities will, of course depend upon the stage of paradigmatic development of the subject area. Greatest opportunities for “planting” are likely to exist in pre-paradigmatic and proto-paradigmatic fields. “Paradigm sliding” involves attempted integration of contributions that exist on the same side of the triangle to create new knowledge. For example, in Figure 2 an opportunity for “sliding” between relationship marketing and the IMP Group might be fruitful. We suggest that sliding is a strategy most productive during early stages of a paradigmatic stage of development. “Paradigm crossing” is a strategy outlined by Schultz and Hatch (1996). Paradigm crossing involves recognizing and engaging multiple paradigms requiring the cognitive flexibility to accept the coexistence of multiple truths and the expectation of benefits of mutual arising from the synthesis of apparent opposites. Lewis and Grimes (1999) suggest that a multiple paradigm approach reveals a greater understanding of complexity enabling the abandoning of a “realist”, correspondence conception of truth evident with paradigmatic parochialism. We propose that crossing is most appropriate at late paradigmatic and post-paradigmatic stages. “Paradigm transcendence” involves a conscious attempt to transcend the “incommensurability” debate in management subjects. Capra’s approach draws our attention to the fact that epistemes are themselves culture bound. For example, we argue (Lowe and Carr, 2003) that through such recognition one might wish to initiate a discourse not anchored in a pretext of rationality, as it has in the past, but anchored in values and a morally concerned skepticism. We again propose that crossing is most appropriate at late paradigmatic and post-paradigmatic stages. Transcendence supports a relativist position where we clearly wish to argue the case for considering the potential of marketing and other management disciplines as a moral art rather than the amoral science it has become. We concur with Thomas’s (2002) view that marketing must adopt moral artistry and accept an agenda for building a just market society “Conclusions”: footsteps for us to follow The logic of Capra’s argument, it would seem to us, is that marketing theory as with all “social facts”, takes its specific form from the interpretative framework of the viewer. We support the view that “If our theories create the facts that are relevant to them, we can only explore truth within a framework that defines what it is” (Greenfield, 1993a, p. 94). For us, it would seem a move away from theory and toward a discourse that overtly embraces philosophy might be in order and in particular the direction suggested by Greenfield. Essentially, Greenfield’s position was to advocate a philosophically oriented, normative and moral alternative. Greenfield came to the conclusion that theory was not simply an assemblage of “facts”, but was “also a moral vision of the world” (Greenfield and Ribbins, 1993, p. 217). If it can be said that management and administration is fundamentally about the production of desirable outcomes, and we would suggest that it is, then the implication of Greenfield’s vision is

for us to initiate a discourse related to values, for values are viewed as the very “stuff” of marketing, management and administration. The work of Capra and that of Greenfield each provide us with a new way of “penetrating” and engaging the debate over paradigms and incommensurability in a fresh manner. Capra’s Triad and paradigmapping provides marketing and its theoretical trajectories, with a way of clarifying what the discourse has yielded thus far and, simultaneously, draws attention the conceptual affinities and estrangement within that landscape. Capra’s work “radically” calls into question the notion that the theoretical trajectories that are enmeshed in the paradigm debate are ever going to provide unambiguous guidance to fields such as marketing. Greenfield and Capra are as one on this issue and it is Greenfield who then lays the foundation for considering the case for philosophically-oriented marketing theory philosophy. To initiate a discourse related to values and to view the task of marketing as a moral art, will require formal education programs for managers and administrators to be re-focused – away from a heavy, positivist, technical orientation and more toward a value reflexive and processual dialectical orientation. The nature of such a reform is something that is open for debate. This debate however should move us away from the paradigm gridlock and its anesthetizing effect that seems to be a current danger in marketing. References Alvesson, M. (1994), “Critical theory and consumer marketing”, Scandinavian Journal of Management, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 291-313. Arndt, J. (1985), “On making marketing science more scientific: the role of observations, paradigms, metaphors and puzzle solving”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49, Summer, pp. 11-23. Brown, S. (1995), Postmodern Marketing, Routledge, London. Capra, F. (1997), The Web of Life, Flamingo, London. Christopher, M., Payne, A. and Ballantyne, D. (1991), Relationship Marketing, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford. Greenfield, T. (1993), “The man who comes back through the door in the wall: discovering truth, discovering self, discovering organizations”, in Greenfield, T. and Ribbins, P. (Eds), Greenfield on Educational Administration, Routledge, London, pp. 92-121. Greenfield, T. and Ribbins, P. (Eds) (1993), Greenfield on Educational Administration, Routledge, London. Hofstede, G. (1980), Culture’s Consequences, Sage, London. Hunt, S. (1983), Marketing Theory: The Philosophy of Marketing Science, Irwin, Homewood, IL. Kuhn, T. (1962), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago University, Chicago, IL. Kuhn, T. (1970), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd ed., Chicago University, Chicago, IL. Lewis, M.W. and Grimes, A.J. (1999), “Metatriangulation: building theory from multiple paradigms”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 672-90. Lowe, S. and Carr, A. (2003), “Paradigmapping and management as a moral art: clearing a path through the incommensurability debate in organisation and management studies”, in Biberman, J. and Alkhafaji, A. (Eds), Business Research Yearbook: Global Business Perspectives, McNaughton & Gunn, Lansing, MI.

Paradigmapping marketing theory 1063

EJM 38,9/10

1064

Morgan, G. (1980), “Paradigms, metaphors and puzzle solving in organization theory”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 605-22. Morgan, G. (1986), Images of Organization, Sage, Newbury Park, CA. Scherer, A. (1998), “Introduction to the special issue (on incommensurability) – pluralism and incommensurability in strategic management and organization theory: a problem in search of a problem”, Organization, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 147-68. Schultz, M. and Hatch, M.J. (1996), “Living with multiple paradigms: the case of paradigm interplay in organizational culture studies”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 529-57. Thomas, M. (2002), “Thoughts on building a just market society”, Journal of Public Affairs, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 9-15. Venkatesh, A. (1995), “Is marketing ready for Kuhn?”, in Dholakia, N. and Arndt, J. (Eds), Changing the Course of Marketing: Alternative Paradigms for Widening Marketing Theory, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 45-67. Further reading Carr, A. and Leivesley, R. (1995), “Metaphors in organization studies: a retreat to obscurantism or ideology in ‘drag’?”, Administrative Theory & Praxis, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 55-66. Greenfield, T. (1993), “Re-forming and re-valuing educational administration: whence and when cometh the phoenix?”, in Greenfield, T. and Ribbins, P. (Eds), Greenfield on Educational Administration, Routledge, London, pp. 169-98. Hirschman, E.C. (1986), “Humanistic enquiry in marketing research: philosophy, method and criteria”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 237-49. Lowe, S. (2001), “In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king”, International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 313-32. Poster, M. (1998) (Ed.), Jean Baudrillard: Selected Writing, Blackwell, Oxford. Usunier, J.-C. (2000), Marketing Across Cultures, 3rd ed., Prentice-Hall, Harlow. Venkatesh, A. (1995), “Ethnoconsumerism: a new paradigm to study cultural and cross-cultural consumer behaviour”, in Costa, J. and Bamossy, G. (Eds), Marketing in a Multicultural World, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 126-41.