Johan Arndt

On Making Marketing ScienceMore Scientific: Role ofOrientations, Paradigms,

Metaphors, and Puzzle SolvingMarketing thinking is profoundly dominated by the empiricist world view and the logical empiricist par-adigm. This article argues that marketing can be enriched by opening up to alternative paradigms thatcapture subjective experiences, conflicts, and liberating forces.

MARKETING has been dominated by the logicalempiricist paradigm stressing rationality, objec-

tivity, and measurement. Whiie leading to manybreakthroughs, this domination has contributed to aneglect of important aspects of marketing and a lackof attention to alternative research approaches. Thisarticle revolves around paradigms.

Thomas Kuhn, historian of science, believes thatparadigms refer to "accepted examples of actual sci-entific practice—examples which include law, the-ory, application, and instrumentation together—[which]provide models from which spring particular coherenttraditions of scientific research" (Kuhn 1962, p. 10).Therefore, paradigms deal with the proper domain ofa science, the research questions it should ask, andthe rules to follow in the interpretation of the results(Bagozzi 1976, Carman 1980). While paradigms arenot theories, they form the foundation of theories butoften remain implicit, are taken for granted, and, hence,are usually unquestioned.

Paradigms are not value-free and neutral. Rather,

Johan Arndt is Professor, Norwegian School of Management. The au-thor is indebted to James M. Carman, Johan Olaisen, Torger Reve, JyrkiUusitalo, and Liisa Uusitalo for their useful comments.

paradigms may be viewed as social constructions re-flecting the values and interests of the dominant re-searchers in a science and their reference groups. Forthese reasons, it is no wonder that there has been aheated debate in many behavioral sciences regardingacceptable paradigms. Such a debate has also emergedin marketing. Important manifestations are the recenttheory in marketing conferences (Bush and Hunt 1982;Ferrell, Brown, and Lamb 1979; Lamb and Dunne1980), the 1983 AMA Alternative Paradigms Con-ference in Rhode Island, and the Fall 1983 theory is-sue of the Journal of Marketing. This article wishesto contribute to this debate by examining current andalternative paradigms as well as orientations, meta-phors, and puzzle-solving activities in marketing. Thearticle is organized as follows: The first section com-ments on the metatheoretic debate in marketing. Next,fundamental notions are introduced on science as re-search processes. The following sections deal withmajor research orientations and Kuhn's theory of thecycle of paradigms. In the next step, four main worldviews in marketing are identified. Examples are givenof important metaphors in each of the areas definedby the four paradigms. The conformity pressures inmarketing science are then discussed. The last sectionaddresses how marketing may break free from the cur-rent paradigmatic provincialism.

Journal of MarketingVol. .^^^i On Making Marketing Science More Scientific / 11

Metatheoretic Work in MarketingTwo important points of departure for this discussionare, first, the conceptual broadening of marketing, and,second, the work on establishing quality control cri-teria for the certification of knowledge in the disci-pline. The broadening of marketing research traditioncan be traced back to a pioneering article by Kotierand Levy (1969). The resulting conceptual extension,chronicled by Hunt (1976, 1983), was a functionaland generic redefinition of marketing to apply to allsituations involving voluntary exchanges between twoor more parties (Bagozzi 1978, Kotier 1980).

Of equal importance are the attempts by Hunt (1976,1983) and Zaltman and his associates (Zaltman,LeMasters, and Heffring 1982; Zaltman, Pinson, andAngelmar 1973) to introduce the rigorous thinkingmethodology from the philosophy of science gener-ally referred to as metatheory. So far the metatheo-retic work in marketing has mainly been of a nor-mative nature, as the objectives appear to have beento develop sets of universal criteria for theory evalu-

FIGURE 1A General Model of the Process of Research

ation.Another aspect of metatheory relates to how sci-

entists work viewing scientific activity as a social pro-cess. Such an approach, which is often referred to asthe sociology of science (Kaplan 1964), will be usedhere as a basis for formulating normative implica-tions.

Elements of the Process ofResearch

The thoughts presented in this section build on thework by Tömebohm and bis associates at the Instituteof Theory of Science at the University of Gothenburg(Danielsson and Tömebohm 1968, Tömebohm 1971).This school of thought conceives science as a se-quence of partly cumulative and partly noncumulativetransformations of knowledge (K), problems (P), andinstruments (I).

By knowledge is meant generalized, certified in-formation relating to an aspect of reality. An aspectis a selected group of phenomena or characteristics insome sphere of the real world. Problems arise fromthe discrepancies between what is known and what isunknown, or from the uncertainties of applying gen-eralized knowledge to concrete situations. Instrumentsor methods refer both to what Kombauser and La-zarsfeld (1955) call "master techniques" (such as overallresearch design, models, etc.) and "servant tech-niques" (such as questionnaire construction, statisticalmethods, hardware facilities, etc.). Figure 1 sum-

'Exceptions from this rule are several of the articles in the specialtheory issue of the Journal of Marketing (Fall 1983).

REALITY

denotes orientation and world view

Adapted from Tömebohm (1971)

marizes this view of the process of research and maybe interpreted as follows. The aspect of interest (inthis case, some feature of marketing structures or pro-cesses) is mapped by applying the initial KPI to it. Inthis process, the KPI complex is filtered through whatis called the researcher's orientation and world view(in Tömebohm's terms, "perspective"), referring tothe fact that there are altemative ways of approachingthe aspect. The aspects studied are not given once andfor all. New knowledge widens the boundaries, ashappened after the broadening of marketing debate.Moreover, the aspects studied are influenced by theexisting KPI complex. Similar to agenda setting, someitems predominate while others never appear. This isoften the case for research questioning the legitimacyof a discipline and the power stmctures.

The transitions, for instance, from complex (Ki,Pi, II) to (K2, P2, I2) occur when the problems Pi aresolved so as to increase the stock of knowledge fromKi to K2. In the problem solving process, new in-struments may be developed or borrowed from otherdisciplines, hereby changing Ij to I2. In several re-spects, the Tömebohm scheme parallels the concep-tual tool of altemating between deductive and induc-tive thinking advocated by Zaltman, LeMasters, andHeffring (1982, pp. 97-112).

A central notion in this view is that in any science.

12 / Journal of Marketing, Summer 1985

there should be some balance between the K, P, andI elements. If one of the three elements is allowed todominate the other two, the discipline becomes un-healthy. Overemphasis on formal representations ofknowledge {knowledge-itis) may result in empiricallyempty formal structures irrelevant to the problems. Thismay be the case for some sectors within contemporaryneoclassical economics. On the other hand, preoc-cupation with unconnected and narrowly definedproblems (problem-itis) may mean shallow pragma-tism and conceptual malnutrition. In his attack oncontemporary empiricism in marketing, Anderson(1983) ventured such a diagnosis for the marketingmanagement tradition. Finally, too much attention toinstruments [instrument-itis) may erode the substan-tive core of a discipline, which instead is being moreand more defined in terms of research methodology.Some marketing practitioners charge that the Journalof Marketing Research is suffering from such a dis-ease by becoming increasingly less comprehensibleand less relevant. Such instrument-itis in developingdisciplines like marketing may partly be explained asa misdirected striving for respectability.

As pointed out above, the filter of orientation andworld view intervenes between the KPI and the aspectstudied. The next section presents a typology for fun-damentally different research orientations. The role ofalternative world views will be returned to in the dis-cussion of paradigms.

Scientific OrientationsScientific orientations, as applied here, refer to theaccepted role of the researcher and the objectives ofthe research. Specifically, tbe orientation prescribesthe relationship between the data, theories, and valuesof the researcher. The framework used in this sectionwas initially formulated by Galtung (1972).

Galtung (1972) assumes that a common goal of allsciences is to establish what are called sentences di-chotomizing their world space by including some worldpoints and excluding others. Hence, data sentencesare reports defining the empirical world by includingwhat is observed and excluding what is nonobserved.Theory sentences (hypotheses), on the other hand, de-fine iht foreseen world, including aspects that are pre-dicted by the underlying theory. Finally, value sen-tences refer to the preferred world, including what isaccepted and excluding what is rejected. The Galtungframework is clearly related to Tomebohm's (1971)scheme discussed earlier. For instance, his notions ofvalue sentences and preferred world add understand-ing to Tomebohm's idea of orientation and world view.

In scientific activity, sentences may be comparedwith other sentences of the same type. For instance,reliability tests imply comparisons of data sentences.

However, a distinguishing feature of science is thecomparison of sentences of different kinds, such asI hypothesis testing, involving a confrontation of theorysentences and data sentences.

A Typology for Research OrientationsGaltung (1972) has developed a taxonomy for alter-native orientations for the three pairwise sentencecomparisons possible. His scheme, the so-called sci-ence triangle, is shown in Figure 2. Here, empiricismas a research orientation consists of comparing datasentences with theory sentences. If there is disso-nance, the Popperian falsification principle (Anderson1983; Popper 1962, 1972) calls for giving priority tothe data sentences so that consonance is establishedby producing new theory sentences.

Criticism is the type of scientific activity wheredata sentences are confronted with value sentences.An analogy is a court of law where the police and thetestimonies provide the data sentences, the law the val-ue sentences, and the judge, prosecutor, and defensestruggle over the validity of either. By the tenets ofthis orientation, consonance is created by producingnew data sentences (by changing the aspect of realityinto an acceptable condition). Studies in this tradition,such as Baran and Sweezy (1967), often use neo-Marxist approaches to study monopoly capitalism,multinational corporations, etc. Some of the work oninner-city marketing conditions, such as Sturdivant(1969), is representative of this orientation.

Constructivism implies comparing theory sen-tences with value sentences to see to what extent theforeseen world is also the preferred world. As shown

FIGURE 2Research Orientations: Triangle for Bilateral

Scientific Activity

Data

EMPIRICISM

Consonance: TrueDissonance: False

Theory

CRITICISM

Consonance: AcceptableDissonance: Non-acceptable

Values

CONSTRUCTIVISM

Consonance: AdequateDissonance: Inadequate

Adapted f rom Galtung 1 1972 1.

On Making Marketing Science More Scientific / 13

in Figure 2, the conclusion is in terms of adequate orinadequate. In case of dissonance, theory and valuesentences are about equal in priority, and both maybe changed. Hence, in this way theories may be "fal-sified" because of their problem-solving impotence(Calder, Phillips, and Tybout 1981). Perhaps the clos-est to a constructivist approach is the analysis of Myersand his colleagues of the inadequacies of existingmarketing knowledge in providing answers to the crit-ical questions raised by practitioners in the discipline(Myers, Greyser, and Massy 1980).

In marketing, the most dominant orientation hasbeen, and still is, empiricism. Hence, a few words onthe empiricist orientation would seem appropriate.

Empiricism as a Research OrientationThe origin of the empiricist orientation is attributed tothe philosopher Auguste Cotnte, who advocated pos-itivism as a scientific method. Empiricism articulatesan ideal approach for the natural sciences as well asfor the behavioral sciences. This ideal regulates therelationship between the researcher, the research pro-cess, and the aspect studied. A key element in theideal is the belief that only objective, detached ob-servation ensures intersubjective certification. What ishere referred to as empiricism really consists of dif-ferent schools of thought, such as classical empiri-cism, falsificationism, modem positivism, etc. (Rad-nitzky 1970). A common denominator of the empiricistschools is that they view science as monistic, physi-calistic, and reductionistic.

In principle, all scientific disciplines are believedto be a part of a higher order, basic discipline (mon-ism). Therefore, the notions of "unified science" and"single scientific method" are central (Hunt 1976,1983). A corollary of this view is that the hypothe-tico-deductive method of the unified science is ele-vated into being the only acceptable scientific ap-proach.

Among the current sciences, physics seems to beclosest to the ideals of empiricism (Hempel 1966).Because of the unquestionable advances in physics (andin the natural sciences in general), the goals of pre-diction and the criteria for good science in physics canthen be used to pull up apparently less developed dis-ciplines such as sociology, psychology, and market-ing. Not unexpectedly, the transfer of such hard sci-ence criteria has been central in the metatheoreticdevelopment of marketing (Hunt 1976, 1983; Zalt-man, Pinson, and Angelmar 1973).

According to the logic of physicalism, behavioralconcepts may be treated in the same way as physicalentities, for instance, by isolating bits of behavior fromthe system of which they are constituent parts (reduc-tionism). Such bits of behavior are then reified—treatedlike things manipulable in the experimental laboratory

and measured by interval or ordinal scales.Like phenomena in nature, human behavior is be-

lieved to be governed by invariant laws. As arguedby Galtung (1972), ideally the tenability of a hypoth-esis should be invariant of variations in time, space,consciousness of the subject (who formulates the the-ory sentences), and consciousness of the object (whomthe sentences are about). The goal of science is touncover these laws to obtain a basis for prediction andcontrol. The laws should be expressed in such a waythat they are nonambiguous and satisfy the aestheticdemands for a harmonious system. Preferably the lawsshould be formulated in mathematic terms and fullyformalized as a theory (Hunt 1976, 1983).

Modem empiricism is a part of the Anglo-Amer-ican philosophy of science tradition, emphasizing ex-planation and control and placing the scientist in aspectator, observer role. In contrast, what may be calledthe Continental tradition (dialectical approaches, her-meneutics) focuses on understanding and views thescientist as a participant in a historical process.

Fundamental research orientations are linked to theparadigms (theory foundations) used by scientists. Oneof the most provocative and debated statements of therole of paradigms is the cycle of paradigms frame-work proposed by Kuhn (1962).

The Rise and Fall of Paradigmsin Science

The essence of Kuhn's (1962) position is that para-digms serve a normative and conserving function. Whena paradigm prevails in a discipline, so-called normalscience is practiced as puzzle solving activity. Newmarginal bits of knowledge are generated by meansof shared existing categories and well-known proce-dures. The consequence is that research results tendto be mostly known in advance. Such structuring ofresearch offers several advantages. The majority ofthe researchers in a field do not have to engage in afutile search for ultimate truths. Instead, they are al-lowed to concentrate on "mopping-up" activities.^However, as time passes, anomalies may arise forwhich normal science fails to provide adequate an-swers. When such anomalies build up and scientistsare losing faith, the field enters the crisis stage. Thisculminates in a scientific revolution, and a new par-adigm emerges. In tum, the new paradigm goes throughthe same cycle.

Though more often than not paradigms result in

^These mop-up activities should tiot be underestimated. As Kuhnhimself observes: "Few people who are not actually practitioners ofa mature scietice realize how much mop-up work of this sort a par-adigm leaves to be done or quite how fascinating such work can provein the execution" (1962, p. 24).

14 / Journal of Marketing, Summer 1985

"drastically restricted vision" (Kuhn 1962, p. 24), thepositive functions of paradigms should not be ne-glected. Paradigms advance a science through theiragenda setting, problem determining, constraining,heuristic, and justificatory functions (Laudan 1977pp. 86-93).

Kuhn's (1962) elegant and provocative formula-tion has been subject to substantial controversy. Stud-ies of both the natural science and social science dis-ciplines reveal few periods in which a single paradigmhas dominated (Anderson 1983). Too, the transitionfrom one paradigm to another has often been foundto be gradual. Hence, the revolutionary metaphor ap-pears to be a colorful exaggeration. Nevertheless, thenotions of a paradigmatic life cycle and the status quofunction of paradigms seem to be intact.

It is commonly agreed that the paradigm conceptitself remains somewhat vague and unclear. This ispanly because paradigm has taken on different mean-ings over time. In the original conceptualization, theterm was mainly used in the nanower meaning of"exemplary problem solutions." Later it took on a lifeof its own, expanding its meaning to encompass "theentire global set of commitments shared by the mem-bers of a particular scientific community" (Kuhn 1977,pp. xix-xx). Retrospectively, Kuhn admitted havinggone too far. His new position was to reserve para-digm to mean exemplars, while using disciplinary ma-trix to denote the wider interpretation, including allthe shared group commitments (Kuhn 1977, pp. 318-319). Disciplinary refers then to the fact that the par-adigm is the common possession of the practitionersof a professional discipline. The matrix component re-flects its composition of ordered elements of varioussorts (Kuhn 1977, p. 297).

Even in its original formulations in The Structureof Scientific Revolutions (Kuhn 1962), the paradigmnotion was ambiguous. Kuhn has been charged ashaving used the paradigm notion in no less than 21different ways (Masterman 1970, Morgan 1980). Thesedefinitions can be grouped into three main categories:paradigms as a complete view of reality or way ofseeing, as relating to the social organization of sciencein terms of different schools of thought, and as relat-ing to the specific use of instruments in the processof scientific puzzle solving (Morgan 1980). As pro-posed by Morgan (1980), these three classes of def-initions may be viewed as different levels of abstrac-tion and generality. The three levels in Morgan's (1980)scheme are presented in Figure 3, which adds researchorientation as the fourth and highest level. This ori-entation level addresses the role of data, theories, andvalues in the research process.

The second level contains paradigms which in thiscontext can be viewed as alternative realities or worldviews, as suggested by Morgan (1980). These shared

FIGURE 3Orientations, Paradigms, Metaphors,

and Puzzle Solving

Orientations

of theresearcher relatingto the role of (teta,theorv. and values

Paradigm

Alternativerealities Orworld views

Metaphors

Bastí torschools ofthoughts

Puzzle Solving

Based onspecific toolsand procedures

Adapted from Morgan (19801.

world views bind the scientific communities together.The third level includes the metaphors representingdifferent schools of thought or alternative approachesfor using a given world view. At the puzzle-solvinglevel, research is practiced as normal science, guidedand constrained by accepted exemplars. The concreteresearch instruments operationalize the implicationsof the metaphors.

The next two sections will discuss paradigms asalternative realities and different metaphors currentlyin use in marketing.

Alternative Realities in MarketingMarketing may be analyzed in terms of four main worldviews. These alternative realities are based on differ-ent metatheoretical assumptions about the nature ofscience, the subjective-objective dimension, and theexplicitness of long-term conflicts in society. Thereare also assumptions about the nature of the marketingdiscipline and the study of marketing phenomena. Assuggested in Figure 4, the assumptions may be classi-fied along two dimensions, the objective-subjectiveand the harmony-confiict dimensions.^ Tbe resulting

objective-subjective dimension was proposed by Morgan (1980).The other dimension of Morgan's scheme is regulation-radical change.

On Making Marketing Science More Scientific / 15

FIGURE 4Paradigms and Metaphors in Marketing

Logical empiricist paradigm

Marketing managemeniBroadening marketingConsumer behavior

SOCIO political paradigm

Subjective world paradigm

Molivaiional researchInterpretive iiutliejSymtiolic interactioniim

Aclion researchCritical research

\

SUB-JECTIVE

Victimconsun

Alienatedman

four paradigms in the scheme, the logical empiricist,sociopolitical, subjective world, and liberating para-digms, differ significantly in fundamental assump-tions.

In its original, more narrow meaning, logical em-piricism can be viewed as a methodological appioach.As research technology, the logical empiricist para-digm can be applied also in research operations in-spired by other paradigms, as will be pointed out be-low. However, in the wider meaning applied here, italso has substantive implications. By emphasizingmeasurability and intersubjective certification, theparadigm concentrates on certain variables and rela-tions, while excluding others. The logical empiricistparadigm, reflecting empiricism as a research orien-tation, assumes that marketing relations have a con-crete, real existence independent of the observer anda systemic character producing regularities in mar-keting behavior. Marketing systems are viewed as beingequilibrium-seeking. These assumptions have much incommon with the view of the universe as a clocklikemechanism of separate parts, all working together un-der immutable laws. The real world is considered es-sentially as harmonious and conflict-free in the longrun. These assumptions are shared with the function-alist paradigm identified by Morgan (1980). Such anontological philosophy is consistent with an ideal ofscience being objective and value-free.

Like the logical empiricist view, the sociopoliticalparadigm is based on the assumption of predictableuniformities in marketing behavior. The world ofmarketing exchanges is defined by concrete, measur-

able, ontologically real structures. This paradigm dif-fers from the former in explicitly recognizing the con-flicts among marketing actors caused by the scarceresources and the interdependencies in marketing sys-tems.

The subjective world view, which shares the as-sumptions of the interpretive paradigm formulated byMorgan (1980) and Pfeffer's (1982) social construc-tionist notion, holds that social reality does not existin any concrete sense, but is the product of the sub-jective and intersubjective experience of individuals.Therefore, marketing behavior must be understood fromthe viewpoint of the participant rather than from thedetached outside observer. Such understanding can onlybe attained by direct, give-and-take interaction withthe members of the population in question (Calder1977).

The liberating paradigm also assumes that whatpasses for reality is often socially created and main-tained. The paradigm draws attention to the "pathol-ogy of consciousness" by identifying the psychic andsocial processes which constrain and control humanthought processes causing alienation. The role of sci-ence then is to identify the actors in the systems, theirgoals, interests, and power bases, in order to describethe conflicts and contradictions of the system and showthe way to emancipation. Like radical humanists, re-searchers inspired by the liberating paradigm are con-cerned with discovering how humans can link thoughtand action (praxis) as a means of transcending theiralienation {Morgan 1980, p. 609).

Metaphors in MarketingThis section discusses the role of metaphors in scienceand then presents characteristic metaphors in the fourparadigm groups.

Epistemological Role of MetaphorsMuch of human behavior may be interpreted as at-tempts to make sense of the world by developing con-ceptions about the environment. Cassirer (1955) andMorgan (1980) note that in such orientation pro-cesses, symbols are used to make the world concreteand coherent by giving it form. Hence, meaning isprovided through the media of language, art, sym-bols, and myths objectifying the world by means ofessentially subjective processes (Levy 1981, Morgan1980, Pfeffer 1982, Pinder and Bourgeois 1982).Words, names, and ideas are used not so much to de-note external things but as tools for understanding whatis out there in ways that may be shared with others.Like other individuals, scientists draw on symbolicconstructs to make concrete the relationships betweenthe subjective and objective worlds (Morgan 1980,p. 610). By this perspective, scientific activity in-

16 / Journal of Marketing, Summer 1985

volves viewing the world metaphorically through con-cepts, language, and images which focus, structure,and filter the perceptions of the aspect studied. Themetaphors often produce their effects by the crossingof images. An example is the metaphor of brand loy-alty, which will be discussed below.

The metaphors used are believed to influence theframework of analysis adopted and the puzzle-solvingmethods used. As is the case for other abstractionsand representations, metaphors are partial truths andincomplete models. No single metaphor can capturethe whole of a selected aspect of reality in its fullcomplexity. Adopting the metaphorical view of sci-ence means adopting a pluralistic perspective. Manymetaphors are needed to throw adequate light on aphenomenon. In the bon mot attributed to Oscar Wilde,"truth is rarely pure and never simple."

The discussion that follows gives examples of im-portant metaphors in the four paradigm groups iden-tified.

Logical Empiricist MetaphorsDespite its axiomatic and deductive formal structure,neoclassical microeconomics appears to form much ofthe theoretical underpinnings of the metaphors in thisgroup. In short, the microeconomic theory assumesthat market processes can be analyzed in terms of sup-ply and demand curves, which can be derived by meansof marginal analysis and assumptions about utilitymaximization, utility and cost functions, rationality,and perfect information. Though some of the as-sumptions (for instance, perfect information) have beenrelaxed, the essence of the framework remains intact(Amdt 1981, 1983).

The traditional approaches in marketing are basedon the instrumental man metaphor emphasizing pur-posive decision making. This metaphor appears to un-deriie much of the work in the marketing managementtradition centering on the profitable manipulations ofthe 4 Ps in the marketing mix (Kotier 1967, 1980;McCarthy 1960). This normative micro approach,which focuses on marketing technology, has been ex-ported to the domain of nonproflt organizations (Kot-ier 1982; Mokwa, Dawson, and Prieve 1981) and po-litical campaigns (Mauser 1983) under the flag ofbroadened marketing (Kotier and Levy 1969).

The organism metaphor introduced to marketingby Alderson's (1957) notion of organized behaviorsystems creates an image of an intemally differen-tiated living system attempting to survive in the con-text of a wider environment providing necessary re-sources. The metaphor seems to have inspired ongoingwork on the relationship between marketing organi-zations and their environments, usually referred to asthe contingency theory area (Jay Galbraith 1973, Weitzand Anderson 1981).

Newer work on commercial rivalry and competi-tive strategy, such as Porter (1980), has resulted inwhat may be called the marketing warfare metaphor(Kotier and Achrol 1981). Serving consumers best asprescribed by the marketing concept (Kotier 1967) isno longer viewed as the only way to success. Instead,higher profitability may be obtained through reducingor eliminating competition by using market power tochase competitors out of the market (Wish, Dholakia,and Rose 1982).'̂ The marketing warfare school usesunabashedly militaristic terms, such as objectives,strategies and tactics, campaigns, guerilla operations,line and staff, intelligence, propaganda, and targetgroups (the customers or the enemy?). Practices fol-lowing from this metaphor may contribute to con-sumer alienation. It is perhaps no wonder that con-sumers in many countries attempt to establishcountervailing power by organizing and asking forgovemment intervention in the marketplace.

There is perhaps as much wishful thinking as em-pirical reality supporting the fourth metaphor, the brandloyal consumer. The metaphor itself is the combina-tion of a term referring to a commercial entity (brand)and a term (loyalty) meaning trust or being faithful toa person, cause, or ideal. There are comprehensiveleaming theory conceptualizations of consumer be-havior as brand loyalty development, such as theHoward and Sheth (1969) and the Engel, KoUat, andBlackwell (1968) models. It is true that there is over-whelming evidence of the existence of repeat brandpurchase behavior in many product categories (Engeland Blackwell 1982). However, such repeat buyingmay not only be explained in terms of well-deservedtrust and a high degree of active consumer involve-ment with the brand, as suggested by the metaphor.Other possible explanations are routinization of pur-chases of low involvement product categories, "struc-tural loyalty" (the stores usually visited only carry afew brands), and special dealing effects. This exam-ple may serve as an illustration of the role of meta-phors in overconcretizing marketing phenomena bytreating the concepts used as a valid description ofreality.

Sociopolitical MetaphorsThe common characteristic of the metaphors in thisgroup is that they attempt to capture the conflict forscarce resources within and between organizations.

The political marketplace metaphor is apparent inthe pioneer writings of Thorelli (1965). A few yearslater. Stem and his colleagues creatively extended thisapproach to the behavioral aspects of channels of dis-tribution, with a pronounced emphasis on conflict

•"As Kotier states, "Business executives all praise competition in theabstract but try to neutralize it when it touches them" (1980. p. 116).

On Making Marketing Science More Scientific / 17

causes, conflict processes, and conflict resolutionmethods (Stem 1969). The subsequent textbook ver-sion. Marketing Channels, represents a refreshing andoriginal tack in marketing (Stem and El-Ansary 1977).Its 1982 revision, however, adopted a somewhat moremanagerial (interorganizational management) frameof reference, emphasizing planning, organizing, andcontrol tools, thus moving the revised version up tothe logical empiricist quadrant in Figure 4 (Stem andEl-Ansary 1982).

A related metaphor of increasing importance viewsorganizations or cooperating networks of organiza-tions ?LS political economies (Amdt 1981, 1983; Stemand Reve 1980). In the political economy metaphor,organizations or channels of distribution are seen as"comprising interacting sets of major economic andsociopolitical forces which affect collective bebaviorand performance" (Stem and Reve 1980, p. 53). Hence,the metaphor directs attention to the interplay of power,the goals of power wielders, and the productive eco-nomic exchange systems.

The reality defined by the Spaceship Earth met-aphor emphasizes the interdependencies and neces-sary balances in ecological systems. Work in this tra-dition, such as Fisk (1973), Kangun (1974), and Henion(1976), adopts a macro, sometimes even a global,perspective in underscoring the environmental respon-sibilities of marketing with a view to developing ad-equate societal govemance structures and controls.

Subjective World MetaphorsThe metaphors in this group question the foundationsfor logical empiricist and sociopolitical theory build-ing by viewing marketing behavior mainly as a gameof words, thoughts, and actions. Behavior in the mar-ketplace is oriented as much to making sense of thepast as to the future. From this follows that it may befutile to attempt to quantify human behavior throughrigorous causal models distinguishing between inde-pendent and dependent variables.

The irrational man metaphor of the motivationalresearch era of the 1950s focused on unconscious pro-cesses and drew on tools borrowed from clinical psy-chology, such as projective techniques and depth in-terviews, and relied on clinical judgment (Calder 1977,Dichter 1964, Newman 1957). This approach, whichwas mainly used in commercial market research, pro-duced many original if not bizarre ideas, such as "Menwho wear suspenders are reacting to an unuresolvedcastration complex" (Kotier 1980, p. 147). On the ba-sis of its subjectivity and the nonreproducibility of itsresults, Calder (1977) classified this tradition as "quasi-scientific." It is perhaps no wonder that the irrationalman approach was washed away by logical empiricisttides in the 1960s.

The experiencing man metaphor uses a phenom-enological approach to understand the everyday ex-

perience of the consumer. In marketing the metaphorlegitimizes the use of focus groups, which can bringrespondents' experiences to the surface (Calder 1977).Largely untapped resources for the further develop-ment of phenomenology in marketing can be found inthe area of semiotics, that is, the general theory inphilosophy of signs and symbolism. A central notionis that much of human behavior in different situationsis caused by mentally stored images, dreams, events,ideas, and idiosyncracies, fantasies, and myths (Levy1981). Hence, consumer behavior and lifestyle maybe viewed as expressive behavior (Goffman 1959, Levy1964).

Conceptually related to the image of experiencingman is the metaphor of language and text. As in theinfamous Watergate tapes, the spontaneous languageused is believed to tell more about the underlying cul-ture, ideals, perceptions, and frustrations than pol-ished, structured presentations. Pondy (1978) has evenproposed analyzing leadership as a language game. Inmarketing, the language and text metaphor is apparentin the use of protocol analysis, involving asking in-dividuals to think aloud as they engage in some de-cision (Bettman and Park 1980). More fundamentally.Levy has proposed to search for meaning in consumerprotocols by treating responses as a special case ofstorytelling (Levy 1981). The responses may then beinterpreted by means of the Levi-Strauss structuralanalysis approach to finding meaning in myths andfairy tales (Levi-Strauss 1963). An example of the un-obtrusive application of the language and text meta-phor in marketing is the documentary study of a com-puter purchase conducted by Pettigrew (1975).

Liberating MetaphorsThe metaphors compatible witb the liberating para-digm focus on the alienating role of marketing prac-tices and marketing thought in modem, mass con-sumption society. The adherents to this paradigmusually share a critical or constructivist orientation,stress the importance of stating values explicitly, andopenly side with one party in marketplace conflicts,usually the weaker, dominated party.

Many adherents of the marketing management tra-dition may fail to stop at the following action pre-scription for good marketing, attributed to CharlesRevson: "In the factory we make cosmetics, and inthe drugstore we sell hope" (Kotier 1980, p. 351). Aliberating metaphor would in this case most likely meanquestioning the value premises of the catchy adageand questioning the apparently cynical use of perfumeas a substitute solution to deeply felt personal prob-lems.^

*To the extent that the adage represents characteristic and acceptablemarketing practice, it would seem just as appropriate to view mar-keting as the "science of illusion creation" than as the "science ofexchanges."

18 / Journal of Marketing, Summer 1985

The alienated man metaphor underscores market-ing's role in making human beings passive and ac-cepting the status quo in the hedonic treadmill. Out-side marketing, such criticism has been associated withthe so-called Frankfurt school (Helenius 1974, Mar-cuse 1964). An example of a marketing application isthe dissertation of Firat (1978). who tried to resolvethe paradox that poor and disadvantaged consumersestablish "luxury" consumption pattems in expensivefoods and cars. As the consumption pattems are in-duced by society, the notion of individual choice be-havior becomes irrelevant. With measurement in thebest of the logical empiricist tradition, the alienationconstruct has also been used in conventional market-ing surveys to identify problem segments (Allison 1978,Lambert 1980).

The victimized consumers metaphor directs atten-tion to disadvantaged consumer groups unable to copewith the system. The studies in this tradition have oftenused ordinary survey tools and descriptive statistics todramatize the plight of the captives of inner-city mar-ketplaces (Caplovitz 1963, Sturdivant 1969). To theempiricist, such value bound, critical analyses may bedismissed as being unscientific.

Conformity Pressuresin Marketing Science

Even a cursory perusal of scholarly articles in mar-keting joumals is bound to confirm the dominant sta-tus of logical empiricism. The principles of empiri-cism appear to be treated synonymously with thescientific method as such. This strong position issomewhat paradoxical in view of the fact that the em-piricist orientation has been abandoned by contem-porary philosophy and sociology of science over thelast two decades (Anderson 1983, Radnitzky 1970).The prevalence of empiricism in marketing may betraced to the applied nature of the discipline and tothe adoption of the "channel captain" perspective,viewing marketing phenomena through the eyes of thecorporate executive (Tucker 1974). The control tech-nology and instrumentalism of the logical empiricistparadigm may well be compatible with the problemsolving needs and pragmatism of marketing practi-tioners. While these reflections touch on the issue ofwhy the logical empiricist paradigm is so firmly en-trenched in the discipline, the next question is how.Some answers are provided by the sociology of sci-ence.

Retuming to the points made earlier, the logic ofparadigms and metaphors implies that scientific activ-ity is a social process and often a subjective enter-prise. Social and cognitive factors are inextricablylinked in production of all scientific knowledge. Thebehavior of scientists is mediated by their social mi-

lieu which tend to channel research efforts to conformwith existing "normal science" tenets. Such a viewclearly challenges the myth of the autonomous, ob-jective, and open-minded researcher, creatively anddoggedly pursuing the truth.

The normal sources of conformity are less dra-matic and more indirect and subtle. The main powerbase of paradigms may be the fact that they are takenfor granted and not explicitly questioned. Hence, re-searchers are bom into orientations and paradigms ratherthan consciously selecting them. An important so-cializing role is served by the burgeoning Ph.D. pro-grams in marketing, emphasizing model construction,hypothesis testing, data collection, and data analysis,rather than a critical orientation. Many of the leadingdoctoral programs do not require any courses in thephilosophy of science. In such "broiler programs,"courses in marketing history and comparative mar-keting would also appear impractical and irrelevant.The net result is that the young researcher enters theresearch profession with a narrow set of intemalizedcriteria and assumptions of science, including orien-tation, paradigms, and appropriate metaphors.

In addition to the socialization agents mentionedabove, there are extemal gatekeepers, such as joumaleditors, referees, and editors at publishing houses, whomay function as "guardians of the faith." Even profes-sional conferences act more to preserve the status quothan to disseminate new knowledge. Studies of con-ference behavior suggest that most participants inter-act with persons they already know well, persons fromtheir own country and even from their own institution(Amdt, Gronhaug, and Troye 1980). Career pressuresin combination with the research grant system alsocontribute to encourage programmable, puzzle solv-ing studies. The end result is that research commu-nities sometimes become closed systems. The chiefrevisionist of early Kotier (1967) is no other than laterKotier (Kotler 1980, Kotler and Levy 1969). One ofthe best critical comments on the early work of Jacoby(Jacoby, Speller, and Kohn 1974) is provided by laterJacoby (1978). Dissenting voices reach the majorjoiUTials less easily. Hence, the launching of the Jour-nal of Macromarketing is to some extent a reaction tothe prevailing conventional wisdom.

In marketing it appears that the cost of heresy ishigh. In our enlightened age the dissident marketingscientist is not bumed at the stake. Instead, he or sheis rather likely to suffer the slow bumout of neveremerging from the joumals' revision purgatories.

As iconoclast economist John Galbraith observes;The good scholar is the man who sticks tightly to hislast, declines any concern with the truth or error ofthe system of which his work is a part. And suchconcern, since it involves the difficult task of offer-ing more satisfactory alternatives, can usually be at-tacked as deficient in methodology or proof (1973.p. 8).

On Making Marketing Science More Scientific / 19

Breaking Free from ParadigmaticProvincialism

This article charges that marketing thought has beenimprisoned by the dominant logical empirical meta-phors that have drawn attention to some phenomenain the marketplace while neglecting others. As a "nor-mal science," the logical empiricist paradigm as prac-ticed has contributed to marginalism and the cumu-lation of trivial findings. An example is themethodologically well-done study reported by Homik(1982), who "discovered" that ingratiating appeals andpolite imperative statements in mail surveys expect-edly increased response rates.

A first step in the emancipation of marketingthought is to understand the limiting and constrainingnature of paradigms and metaphors, which are giventhe status of uncontested dogma. Paradigms cannot beempirically tested like theories and propositions byconventional procedures. As Kuhn points out, "in-sofar as he is engaged in normal science, the researchworker is a solver of puzzles, not a tester of para-digms" (1962, p. 143).

This is a case for multiple paradigms and com-petition. When alternative paradigms compete for theallegiance of a scientific community, the interpara-digmatic criticism often forces scientists to refine andimprove their formulations.

As Churchman (1979) and Monieson (1981) warn,science in established disciplines develops "rational-istic" conceptions of reality as the thought processesare based on the right logic derived from rationalisticthinking. Hereby science becomes concerned about itsown methodology and isolates itself through its dis-ciplinary politics. In this way, a discipline which ear-lier was characterized by breadth of vision may betransformed into a narrow, isolated, and unidimen-sional research area (Monieson 1981, p. 18). Hence,for marketing in its present state of development, theauthor essentially shares the "extreme" position ofFeyerabend (1975) and Olson (1983) that no rule andno set of prescriptions will ensure genuine scientificprogress. Metaphors should be treated as creative de-vices suggesting research leads and new approaches.Marketing will hopefully be fundamentally broadenedby allowing for metaphors outside the logical empiri-cist paradigm. The remainder of this section will pres-ent a few illustrations on how marketing may be re-directed.

First, it should be recognized that the managerialtechnology in marketing is culture-bound rather thanuniversal. Tbe main principles formulated by text-book authorities, such as McCarthy (1960) and Kotier(1967, 1980), are mainly applicable in oligopolisticNorth American or European markets, where a fewlarge producers of branded consumer goods compete

for the patronage of a large number of anonymous andatomized consumers through the use of television ad-vertising and implementation of "push strategies" tomove the products out to mainly nonintegrated chan-nels of distribution.

Even in its own backyard, there are indications thatmarketing is failing to measure up to expectations. Ina survey of top American business executives, Web-ster (1981) found marketing criticized for not askingthe right questions. Marketing officers were blamedfor not thinking creatively and innovatively about theproblems facing their companies. Instead, imitatingothers appears to be the prevailing strategy in NonhAmerica (Hayes and Abemathy 1980). The commis-sion appointed in the late 1970s by the American Mar-keting Association to assess the effectiveness of mar-keting science concluded that only to a small extenthad marketing practitioners found the knowledge pro-duced useful, arguing that the knowledge was poten-tially valuable but underutilized (Myers, Greyser, andMassy 1980, pp. 279-280). Marketing veteran andcritic Monieson (1981) arrived at a similar pessimisticverdict and linked the application problems to the verydifferent views of reality held by academics and prac-titioners.

A move in the right direction would be more em-phasis on comparative studies (Boddewyn 1981; Dho-lakia, Firat, and Bagozzi 1980). Such studies may notonly reduce the provincialism of the discipline but mayalso serve to critically examine current marketingpractices in domestic markets.

Earlier it was pointed out that marketing has de-veloped into an applied discipline concerned with theimprovement of management practice and researchmethodology. To become a full-fledged behavioralscience and to receive scientific legitimacy, marketingwill need different goals and purposes, perhaps mak-ing exchange structures and processes the focus of at-tention (Anderson 1983; Arndt 1981, 1983). In thewords of Levy, research into marketing should be "apursuit of knowledge, as distinguished from its ap-plication, candidly and proudly so" (Levy 1976,p. 580). Other disciplines have found it convenient toinstitutionalize the distinction between applied and basicscience by developing special subdisciplines, such asapplied psychology, applied sociology, etc. (Ander-son 1983). In marketing, the problem is rather one ofspinning off a basic science from a problem solvingdiscipline.

Finally, marketing may be broadened by bringingcriticism, values, and creativity into marketing sci-ence. Many marketing scientists have come to regardas scientific only the model building and hypothesistesting parts of research, referred to by Hunt (1983,pp. 21-25) as the "logic of justification." However,prominent behavioral scientists, such as psychologist

20 / Journal of Marketing, Summer 1985

McGuire (1973) and Zaltman and his associates (Zalt-man, LeMasters, and Heffring 1982, pp. 16-17), havemade a strong case for being multilingual in justifi-cation as well as in discovery. Excluding the creative,hypothesis formation stages from science may makeresearch in marketing the domain for conceptual au-ditors and controllers, driving out the visionaries andbold thinkers. Since research in marketing has tendedto be data centered, and since data are only definedfor the past and not for the future, it is no wonder thatmarketing thought has been much past oriented, sup-porting and legitimizing past and current practices. Forthis reason, marketing science has become conser-vative and passive. To move ahead it will be neces-sary to break free from the conceptual colonization ofempiricism. Paradigmatic ecumenism may lead to afiercer but nevertheless more stimulating, idea-gen-erating debate. By analogy, examples in other disci-plines of how paradigmatic changes have led to dis-continuous scientific progress are provided by Kuhn(1962) and Laudan (1977).

Concluding CommentsThe sociology of science analysis of marketing pre-sented in this article leads to the conclusion that ori-entations, paradigms, and metaphors have served aconserving function legitimizing the status quo ("whatis, should be"). On the basis of the role of the re-

searcher and objectives of research, three orientationswere identified: empiricism, criticism, and construc-tivism. Among these, empiricism was found to be byfar the most important orientation in marketing. At thenext level, four alternative world views were devel-oped: the logical empiricist, sociopolitical, subjectiveworld, and liberating paradigms. Examples were givenof metaphors in each of the four groups.

By limiting itself to the empiricist orientation andlogical empiricist paradigms such as instrumental man,marketing has remained essentially a one-dimensionalscience concerned with technology and problem solv-ing. The subjective world and liberating paradigmschallenge the assumptions of empiricism by generat-ing metaphors resulting in the asking of quite differentresearch questions. While no paradigm or metaphoris more than a partial and incomplete truth, the notionof paradigms should be viewed as an argument forparadigmatic tolerance and pluralism. The yin and yangof progress in marketing include both the logic, rigor,and objectivity of logical empiricism and the socio-political paradigms, and the speculations, visions, andconsciousness of the subjective world and liberatingparadigms.

To close with the words of Niels Bohr:

There are trivial truths and great truths. Theopposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. Theopposite of a great truth is also true.

REFERENCESAlderson, Wroe (1957), Marketing Behavior and Executive

Aclion, Homewood, IL; Irwin.Allison, Neil K. (1978), "A Psychometric Development of a

Test for Consumer Alienation from the Marketplace,"Journal of Marketing Research. 15 (November), 565-575.

Anderson, Paul F. (1983), "Marketing, Scientific Progress,and Scientific Method," Journal of Marketing, 47 (Fall),18-31.

Arndt, Johan (1981), "The Political Economy of MarketingSystems: Reviving the Institutional Approach," Journal ofMacromarketing, 1 (Fall), 36-42.

— ( 1 9 8 3 ) , "The Political Economy Paradigm: Foun-dation for Theory Building in Marketing," Journal of Mar-keting, 47 (Fall), 44-54.

, Kjell Gr0nhaug, and Sigurd V. Troye (1980), "In-formation Exchange among Scientists: A Two-Step So-ciometric Study," Sociology, 14 (August), 441-448.

Bagozzi, Richard P. (1976), "Science, Politics, and the SocialConstruction of Marketing," in Marketing: 1776-1976 andBeyond, Proceedings of the 1976 Educators' Conference,Kenneth L. Bernhardt, ed., Chicago: American Marketing,586-592.

(1978), "Marketing as Exchange: A Theory of

Transactions in the Marketplace," American BehavioralScientist, 21 (March/April), 535-556.

Baran, Paul A. and Paul M. Sweezy (1967), Monopoly Cap-ital. New York: Monthly Review Press.

Bettman, James F. and C. Whan Park (1980), "Effects of PriorKnowledge and Experience and Phase of the Choice Pro-cess on Consumer Decision Processes: A Protocol Analy-sis," Journal of Consumer Research, 1 (December), 234-248.

Boddewyn, J. J. (1981), "Comparative Marketing: The First25 Years," Journal of International Business Studies, 12(Spring/Summer), 61-79.

Bush, Ronald F, and Shelby D. Hunt, eds. (1982), MarketingTheory: Philosophy of Science Perspectives. Chicago, IL:American Marketing.

Calder, Bobby J. (1977), "Focus Groups and the Nature ofQualitative Marketing Research, " Journal of Marketing Re-search. 14 (August), 353-364.

, Lynn W. Phillips, and Alice M. Tybout (1981),"Designing Research for Application," Journal of Con-sumer Research, 8 (September), 197-207.

Caplovitz, David (1963), The Poor Pay More, New York: TheFree Press.

On Making Marketing Science More Scientific / 21

Carman, James M. (1980), "Paradigms iti Marketing," in Re-search in Marketing. Vol. 3, Jagdish N. Sheth, ed., Green-wich, CT: JAI Press, 1-36.

Cassirer, Ernst (1955), The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms,Vols. 1-3, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Churchman, C. West (1979), The System Approach and ItsEnemies, New York: Basic Books.

Danielsson, A. and H. Tömebohm (1968), On Complex Sys-tems with Human Components, Stockholm, Sweden: Fors-varets Forsknings-Anstalt, Planeringsbyran.

Dholakia, Nikhilesh, A. Fuat Firat, and Richard P. Bagozzi(1980), "The De-Americanization of Marketing Thought:In Search of a Universal Basis," in Theoretical Develop-ments in Marketing, Charles W. Lamb, Jr., and Patrick M.Dunne, eds., Chicago: American Marketing, 25-29.

Dichter, Ernst (1964), Handbook of Consumer Motivations,New York: McGraw-Hill.

Engel, James F., David T. Kollatt, and Roger D. Blackwell(1968). Consumer Behavior, New York: Holt.

and Roger D. Blackwell (1982), Consumer Behav-ior, 4th ed., New York: Holt.

Ferrell, O. C , Stephen W. Brown, and Charles W. Lamb,Jr., eds. (1979), Conceptual and Theoretical Developmentin Marketing, Chicago, IL: American Marketing.

Feyerabend, Paul (\915). Against Method. Thetford, England:Lowe & Brydone.

Firat, A. Fuat (1978), "Social Construction of ConsumptionPatterns," Ph.D. dissertation. Northwestern University,Evanston, BL.

Fisk, George (1973), "Criteria for a Theory of ResponsibleConsumption," Journal of Marketing, 37 (April), 24-31,

Galbraith, Jay R. (1973), Designing Complex Organizations,Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Galbraith, John K. (1973), Economics and the Public Pur-pose. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Galtung, Johan (1972), "Empiricism, Criticism, Constructiv-ism: Three Approaches to Scientific Activity," paper pre-sented at the T"hird World Future Research Conference, Bu-charest, September 3-10.

Goffman, Erving (1959), Presentation of Self in Everyday Life.New York: Doubleday.

Hayes, Robert H. and William J. Abemathy (1980), "Man-aging Our Way to Economic Decline," Harvard BusinessReview, 58 (July-August), 67-77.

Helenius, Ralf (1974), Konsumera allt och alia, Stockholm:Raben och Sjögren.

Hempel, Carl G. (1966), Philosophy of Natural Science, En-glewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Henion, Karl E., II (1976), Ecological Marketing, Columbus,OH: Grid.

Homik, Jacob (1982), "Impact of Pre-Call Request Form andGender Interaction on Response to a Mail Survey," Journalof Marketing Research. 14 (February), 144-151.

Howard, John A. and Jagdish N. Sheth (1969), The Theory ofBuyer Behavior, New York: Wiley.

Hunt, Shelby D. (1976), Marketing Theory: Conceptual Foun-dations of Research in Marketing, Columbus, OH: Grid.

(1983), Marketing Theory: The Philosophy of Mar-keting Science. Homewood, IL: Irwin.

Jacoby, Jacob (1978), "Consumer Research: A State-of-the-Art Review," Journal of Marketing, 42 (April), 87-96.

, Donald Speller, and Carol Kohn (1974), "BrandChoice Behavior as a Function of Information Load." Jour-nal of Marketing Research. 11 (February), 63-69.

Kangun, Norman (1974), "Environmental Problems and Mar-keting: Saint or Sinner?," in Marketing Analysis for Soci-etal Problems. Jagdish N. Sheth and Peter L. Wright, eds..

Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 250-270.Kaplan, Norman (1964), "Sociology of Science," in Hand-

book of Modern Sociology, Robert E. L. Faris, ed., Chi-cago: Rand McNally, 852-881.

Komhauser, Arthur and Paul F. Lazarsfeld (1955), "The Anal-ysis of Consumer Actions," in The Language of Social Re-search, Paul F. Lazarsfeld and Morris Rosenberg, eds.. NewYork: The Free Press, 392-404.

Kotier, Philip (1967), Marketing Management, EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

(1980), Marketing Management, 4th ed., Engle-wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

(1982), Marketing for Nonprofit Organizations, 2nded., Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

and Ravi S. Achrol (1981), "Marketing Warfare inthe 198O's," Journal of Business Strategy, 1 (Winter), 30-41.

and Sidney J. Levy (1969), "Broadening the Con-cept of Marketing," Journal of Marketing, 33 (January),10-15.

Kuhn, Thomas S. (1962), The Structure of Scientific Revo-lutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

(1977), The Essential Tension, Chicago, IL: Uni-versity of Chicago Press.

Lamb, Charles W., Jr., and Patrick M. Dunne, eds. (1980),Theoretical Developments in Marketing, Chicago, IL:American Marketing.

Lambert, Zarrel V. (1980), "Consumer Alienation, GeneralDissatisfaction, and Consumerism Issues: Conceptual andManagerial Perspectives," Journal of Retailing, 56 (Sum-mer), 3-10.

Laudan, Larry (1977), Progress and its Problems, Berkeley,CA: University of California Press.

Levi-Strauss, Claude (1963), Structural Anthropology, NewYork: Basic Books.

Levy, Sidney J. (1964), "Symbolism and Life Style," in To-ward Scientific Marketing, Stephen A. Greyser, ed., Chi-cago: American Marketing, 140-150.

(1976), "Marcology 101 or the Domain of Market-ing," in Marketing 1776-1976 and Beyond, Kenneth L.Bernhard, ed., proceedings of the 1976 Educators' Con-ference, Chicago, IL: American Marketing, 577-581.

(1981), "Interpreting Consumer Mythology: AStructural Approach to Consumer Behavior." Journal ofMarketing, 45 (Summer), 49-61 .

Marcuse, Herbert (1964), One Dimensional Man, Boston, MA:Beacon Press.

Masterman, Margaret (1970), "The Nature of a Paradigm," inCriticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Imre Lakatos andAlan Musgrave, eds., Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, 59-89.

Mauser, Gary (1983), Political Marketing, New York: PraegerPublishers.

McCarthy, E. Jerome (1960), Basic Marketing: A ManagerialApproach, Homewood, IL: Irwin.

McGuire, William J. (1973), "The Yin and Yang of Progressin Social Psychology: Seven Koan," Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 26 (no. 3), 446-456.

Mokwa, Michael P., William M. Dawson, and E. Arthur Prieve(1981), Marketing and the Arts, New York: Praeger.

Monieson, David D. (1981), "What Constitutes UsableKnowledge in Macromarketing?," Journal of Macromar-keting, 1 (Spring), 14-22.

Morgan, Gareth (1980), "Paradigms, Metaphors, and PuzzleSolving in Organization Theory," Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 25 (December), 605-622.

Myers, John G.. Stephen A. Greyser, and William E. Massy

22 / Journal of Marketing, Summer 1985

(1980), Marketing Research and Knowledge Development:An Assessment, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Newman, Joseph W. (1957), Motivation Research and Mar-keting Management. Boston: Division of Research, Grad-uate School of Business Administration, Harvard Univer-sity.

Olson, Jerry (1983), "Comments in a Panel Discussion," inMarketing Theory: The Philosophy of Marketing Science.Shelby D. Hunt, ed., Homewood, IL: Irwin, 442-448.

Pettigrew, Andrew M. (1975), "The Industrial Purchasing De-cision as a Political Process," European Journal of Mar-keting. 9 (March), 4-19.

Pfeffer, Jeffrey (1982), Organizations and Organization The-ory, Boston: Pitman.

Pinder, Craig C. and V. Warren Bourgeois (1982), "Control-ling Tropes in Administrative Science," AdministrationScience Quarterly, 27 (December), 641-652.

Pondy, Louis R. (1978), "Leadership Is a Language Game,"in Leadership: Where Else Can We Go?, Morgan W.McCall, Jr., and Michael M. Lombardo, eds., Durham, NC:Duke University Press, 87-99.

Popper, Karl (1962), Conjectures and Refutations, New York:Harper.

(1972), Objective Knowledge, Oxford: ClarendonPress.

Porter, Michael (1980), Competitive Strategy: Techniques forAnalyzing Industries and Competitors. New York: The FreePress.

Radnitzky, Gerard (1970), Contemporary Schools of Métase i-ence. Gothenberg: Akademiforlaget.

Stem, Louis E., ed. (1969), Distribution Channels: Behav-ioral Dimensions, Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

and Torger Reve (1980), "Distribution Channels as

Political Economies: A Framework for Comparative Anal-ysis," Journal of Marketing. 44 (Summer), 52-64.

and Adel 1. El-Ansary (1977), Marketing Channels,Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

(1982), Marketing Channels, 2nd edition, Engle-wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Sturdivant, Frederick D., ed. (1969), The Ghetto Marketplace,New York: The Free Press.

Thorelli, Hans B. ( 1965), "The Political Economy of the F i r m -Basis for A New Theory of Competition?," SchweizerischeZeitschrift für Volkswirtschaft und Statistik, 101, 248-262.

Tucker, W. T. (1974), "Future Directions in Marketing The-ory," Journal of Marketing, 38 (April), 30-35.

Tömebohm, Hakan (1971), "Funderinger Over Forskning iFysiken," unpublished paper, Gothenburg: The Universityof Gothenburg, Institute of the Philosophy of Science.

Webster, Frederick E.. Jr, (1981), "Top Management's Con-cerns about Marketing: Issues for the 1980s," Journal ofMarketing, 45 (Summer), 9-16.

Weitz, Barton and Erin Anderson (1981), "Organizing theMarketing Function," in Review of Marketing 1981, BenM. Enis and Kenneth J. Roering, eds., Chicago: AmericanMarketing, 134-142.

Wish, John R., Nikhilesh Dholakia, and Susan Rose (1982),"When Dr, Marx Read Dr. Kotier: A Dialectical Look atAmerican Marketing," paper presented at the Seventh An-nual Macromarketing Seminar, Colorado, August 5-8.

Zaltman, Gerald, Karen LeMasters, and Michael Heffring(1982), Theory Construction in Marketing: Some Thoughtson Thinking. New York: Wiley.

, Christian R. A. Pinson, and Reinhard Angelmar(1973), Metatheory and Cotisumer Research, New York:Holt.

On Making Marketing Science More Scientific / 23