19
This article was downloaded by: [Umeå University Library] On: 07 October 2014, At: 08:06 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Journal of Marketing Management Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjmm20 Who We Are and What We Do - 2000 Michael J. Baker & B. Zafer Erdogan Published online: 01 Feb 2010. To cite this article: Michael J. Baker & B. Zafer Erdogan (2000) Who We Are and What We Do - 2000, Journal of Marketing Management, 16:7, 679-696, DOI: 10.1362/026725700784672935 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1362/026725700784672935 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub- licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Who We Are and What We Do - 2000

  • Upload
    b-zafer

  • View
    213

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

This article was downloaded by: [Umeå University Library]On: 07 October 2014, At: 08:06Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Marketing ManagementPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjmm20

Who We Are and What We Do -2000Michael J. Baker & B. Zafer ErdoganPublished online: 01 Feb 2010.

To cite this article: Michael J. Baker & B. Zafer Erdogan (2000) Who We Areand What We Do - 2000, Journal of Marketing Management, 16:7, 679-696, DOI:10.1362/026725700784672935

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1362/026725700784672935

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information(the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor& Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warrantieswhatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purposeof the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are theopinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor& Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francisshall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs,expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arisingdirectly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expresslyforbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Journal of Marketing Management, 2000, 16, 679-696

Michael J. Baker*and B. ZaferErdogan**

* Nottingham BusinessSchool** DumlupinarUniversity, Turkey

Introduction

Who We Are and What We Do - 2000

This paper presents the findings of a survey of UKmarketing academics undertaken in 1998/1999. In partit is a follow-up to a survey undertaken byDiamantopoulos, Schlegelmilch and Neate-Stidson(1992) and, in part, a replication of a survey of membersof the Academy of Marketing Science details of whichare reported elsewhere in this Journal. While the surveydata cannot claim to be representative of the UKmarketing academy it is believed to provide a reasonablyaccurate profile of who we are, what we do, and what areour major interests and concerns. These findings arecompared with the earlier 1991 survey and those ofPolonsky and Mankelow (2000).

The first issue of the Journal of Marketing Management in 1992 (VoL 8)comprised a collection of papers selected from those presented at theMarketing Education Group Conference held at the Cardiff Business Schoolin the summer of 1991. The first paper in this special issue, edited by NigelPiercy, was by Adamantios Diamantopoulos, Bodo Schlegelmilch and SimonNeate-Stidson and was entitled 'Who We Are and What We Do: A Profile ofMarketing Academics in UK Universities'. Ten years later we undertook afollow up of this survey for incorporation in this Special Issue of the Journalwhich takes an international look at the professional identity of marketingacademics

Such a review is particularly timely as significant changes have occurredduring the 1990s in marketing education not only in the UK but in manyother countries too. In the UK the university system ( if you can call it that!)has grown enormously in size from 51 institutions at the time of the earliersurvey to over 100 now as a result of the elimination of the 'Binary' line andthe enfranchisement of the former Polytechnics and many other Institutes ofHigher Education which, traditionally, had been the main source ofadvanced courses in marketing. In 1999 applications for admission to BritishUniversities reached record levels. The largest and most popular subject areawas Business and Management Studies which accounted for almost 12 percent of all applications while applications to study for a degree in Marketingexceeded 15,000. In 1998, under the leadership of its then Chair, DavidISSN0267-257X/2000/070679+ 17 $12.00/0 ©Westburn Publishers Ltd.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

08:

06 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

680 Michael J. Baker and B. Zafer Erdogan

Carson, the Marketing Education Group transformed itself into the Academyof Marketing, which now has over 1000 members on its books, and hasadopted the Journal of Marketing Management as its official journal.

Similar growth and change are apparent in many other countries and itwas this which prompted Bodo Schlegelmilch to suggest a special issue ofJMM on 'The State of the Marketing Profession in Continental Europe'.Bodo's particular interest in 'continental Europe' was no doubt stimulated byhis recent return from the USA to take up the Chair of InternationalMarketing and Management at Vienna University. As the Editor of JMM atthe time I felt the idea deserved to be extended to include the non-continentalpart of Europe (the UK) . In addition in 1997 I had spent some time as aVisiting Professor at Newcastle University in New South Wales and met upwith Michael Jay Polonsky and Gary Mankelow who had been conductingsimilar research into the Australasian and American marketing academies.Here then was an opportunity for a truly international study of marketingacademics, always provided someone could be found to look after the UKend of the research. It was hard to refuse!

To begin with we describe the methodology used in collecting the data onwhich this report is based. Essentially, this was the circulation of a self-completion questionnaire based on the earlier 1989 survey but replicatingthat used by Polonsky and Mankelow (2000) reported elsewhere in this issue.

The findings of the survey are reported following the format adopted byDiamantopolous et al. (1991) and used by Polonsky and Mankelow (2000),with comparisons to these two surveys where appropriate. Topics include:Demographics, Career Profiles, Education and Qualifications, WorkActivities and Interests and a summary of what UK marketing academicsconsider the most pressing issues currently facing marketing theory andpractice.

Survey Design and Implementation

In their original UK study Diamantopoulos et al. undertook a more rigorousapproach to the collection of data than that adopted in the study reportedhere. To begin with Diamantopoulos et al. concentrated only on UKuniversities. While recognising the important contribution of other non-university institutions to marketing teaching and research it has to beacknowledged that research and publication were dominated by universitybased academics. Given that research, publication and attendance atconferences were and are the primary basis for international comparisonsthis emphasis is understandable.

In the absence of an authoritative listing of the populationDiamantopoulos et al. obtained a complete listing of UK universities fromthe 1989 Commonwealth Universities Yearbook in order to identify those

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

08:

06 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Who We Are and What We Do - 2000 681

departments which could be expected to have marketing staff - usuallyBusiness Studies or Management Departments. The second step in theprocedure was to telephone these Departments and ask for the names of allstaff holding teaching / research posts in marketing. This approach resulted inthe identification of 234 individuals "practically representing a census of therelevant population. Out of 51 universities contacted, only nine claimed tohave no marketing academics at all." (Details of the response patterns aregiven in Appendix 1 of their paper ).

The third stage in the earlier survey was the administration of a six-pagepostal questionnaire to all 234 individuals from whom a total of 111 usableresponses (47.4%) were received. Details of the questionnaire are notincluded in the paper but we are told that this was loosely based on that usedby Williams et al. (1974) covering details of the respondents academic andnon-academic career, qualifications, teaching and research activities andincome sources. Demographic information was also obtained.

As implied earlier, we adopted a rather less rigorous approach to datacollection in the research reported here. To begin with it was decided toreplicate the questionnaire developed by Polonsky et al. which had beenadministered to the Academy of Marketing Science in the USA the results ofwhich are the subject of another paper in this issue. This questionnaire wasitself based on Diamantopolous et al. but extended to include questions onacademic interests and issues of concern to academics. The questionnairewas then reproduced in the Academy of Marketing Newsletter which iscirculated to all members of the Academy. (This was a similar approach tothat used by Polonsky and Mankelow).

Given its subject matter and the promise of a report at the 1998Conference it was naively assumed that colleagues would be anxious toparticipate in the survey. In the event only 58 responses were received andwere the subject of a preliminary report (Baker and Erdogan, 1998) in whichit was recognised that there was a considerable bias towards the more seniormembers of the profession. (We prefer to think that this reflects considerationof these colleagues for the lead researcher rather than something to do withavailable time. Polonsky and Mankelow cite 'pressed for time' and 'surveyfatigue' as possible explanations of their disappointing 11% response rate ).

In order to achieve a larger and more representative response it was'decided to write directly to the Heads of the ten largest Departments ofMarketing enclosing 10 copies of the questionnaire and asking them toencourage younger members of staff to complete and return these. Thisapproach proved much more successful and resulted in 44 usable returnswhich were added to the original 58 to give an overall response of 102 and amuch better balance in terms of our subjective view of the profile of theAcademy of Marketing. It is these responses which are reported on here.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

08:

06 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

682

Survey Results

Michael J. Baker and B. Zafer Erdogan

To facilitate comparison with the 1989 survey we report our findingsfollowing the same structure and, wherever possible, similar Tables. Tobegin with we look at the Demographic Characteristics of the sample in Table1.

Table 1 summarises data on eight aspects of the demographic profile ofthe 1999 UK sample. This data is directly comparable with Table 1 inPolonsky and Mankelow (2000). However, only the first 4 items werereported in Diamantopoulos et al. (1991) (see their Table 1 p.7). The moststriking difference between the three reports is that our survey indicates amuch higher proportion of women (43%) than the 1991 report (18%) or theAMS (2000) survey with 22%. In 1991 Diamantopoulos et al. commented"Men outnumber women by a ratio of 4:1 according to the sample data: thecorresponding estimated population proportion for male staff lies between74.2% and 89.4% (at the 95% level of confidence) indicating that marketingacademia is a man's world!" This would still seem to be the case with the USacademy where only 14% of the 1987 AMA membership were femalecompared with 22% reported by Polonsky and Mankelow now.

We believe that our data probably reflect the UK position reasonably welland possibly understate the true position given that the average age of oursample is 42 compared with 41 in 1991. During the 1990s the proportion ofwomen entering UK universities has continued to grow, particularly in thesocial sciences, and casual observation of undergraduate classes wouldsuggest that the female:male ratio is probably nearer to 60:40. Given that thisis the source of most new recruits to the academy it would be surprising ifthe gender balance did not continue to improve in the near future.

As noted in the preceding paragraph the average age of marketingacademics in all three surveys is over 40. We do not believe that this anaccurate reflection of the UK population. Earlier we commented that the firstattempt at data collection resulted in a sample skewed towards the moresenior members of the profession. Despite our efforts in phase 2 to encouragemore junior staff to reply the data for Position show that more than 50% ofthe sample were Senior Lecturers or Professor / Reader which greatlyoverstates the true position. Given that Age and Gender are such basicclassificatory factors it is to be hoped that the Academy of Marketing willincrease its efforts to profile its membership more accurately in future.

In terms of Nationality all three surveys indicate that the great majority(90% +) are from their home country - hardly surprising given theprevalence of Work Permits but hardly conducive to the development of aninternational community of scholars.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

08:

06 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Who We Are and What We Do - 2000 683

Table 1. Demographics

Freq. %Gender Female 44 43(n= 102) Male 58 57Marital Status Single 20 19.6(n= 101) Married Defacto / Partner 77 75.5

Widowed/ Separated 3 2.9Other 1 1.0

Nationality British 84 85.7(n= 98) Irish 6 6.1

Other 8 8.2Age Less than 29 11 10.8-

(x = 42, sd=9, n= 102) 30-39 28 27.540-49 37 36.350-59 22 21.660+ 4 3.8

Qualification First degree 93 91.2(n= 101) Masters 70 68.6

Doctorate 47 46.1Other (CIM diploma, etc.) 31 30.4

Position Chair / Professor / Reader 22 21.6(n= 102) Senior Lecturer 33 32.4

Lecturer 38 37.3Other (RA, TA, etc.) 9 8.8

Type of Appointment Full-time Tenured/Tenurable 47 46.1(n= 102) Full-time Contract 43 42.2

Part-time Contract 4 3.9Adjunct 2 2.0Other 6 5.9

Hours spent on academicactivities in a week Less than 40 hours 18 20.7- 40-50 hours 43 49.4( x = 46, sd= 13,n= 87)

51-60 hours 20 22.961+hours 6 6.9

Much of the data reported under Qualification, Position, Appointment andHours spent is also contained in later Tables which may be compareddirectly with the 1991 survey and so will not be commented on immediately.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

08:

06 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

684 Michael J. Baker and B. Zafer Erdogan

Career ProfileTable 2 - Position Occupied may be compared directly with Table 2 in

Diamantopoulos et al. The most striking differences are that the earliersurvey better reflected the proportion of Lecturers to those in promoted postsand that the representation of Females in all grades has increasedsignificantly. In 1991 only 6 per cent of the holders of promoted posts werefemale. In 1999 the number has risen to 9 per cent for Professors and 48percent for Senior Lecturers.

Table 2. Position Occupied

% % Female" Mean age""21.6 9.1 49.432.4 48.5 43.137.3 55.3 37.68.8 55.6 39.7

Number2233389

Chair / Professor / ReaderSenior LecturerLecturerOther (RA, TA, etc.)

*X2= 13.6, P<.003; **F= 10.4, P<.OOl

Table 3 - Employment Background contains much the same information asTable 3 in the 1991 survey but presented in a somewhat different format.Given the caveats already expressed concerning the representiveness of ourdata we do not wish to make too much of this Table. However, we mightspeculate that the proportion of persons who have held their appointmentsfor less than five years (52%) is as much a reflection of mobility as of thecreation of new appointments as institutions jockey for position to enhancetheir RAE ( Research Assessment Exercise) ratings. The other statistic worthyof comment is that over a third of the sample have two years or less of Non-academic experience. In part this reflects the fact that, like other academicdisciplines, there is now a clear academic career path as well as the fact thatthere is an increasing supply of academically qualified personnel to fill thegrowing number of positions. It also raises the question of the desirability ofappointing persons to teach an applied discipline like marketing when theyhave no direct experience of practice themselves. To do so can onlyperpetuate the "Those who can do, those that can't teach" attitude held bysome practitioners. Given that practical experience forms an essentialelement in the formation of many professions the Academy might like toconsider its relevance to marketing. (By the same token many educationistsmight question the employment of practitioners as teachers without aprofessional teaching qualification!)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

08:

06 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Who We Are and What We Do - 2000 685

Table 3. Employment Background

Academia**( x = 12.6, sd= 8, n= 99)

Non-academic work-

( x = 8.6, sd= 7, n= 98)

Current university*( x = 8.5, sd= 6.8, n= 97)

Current position(x = 5.9, sd= 4.7, n= 98)

Freq. %1-2 years 27 26.53-5 years 26 25.5

6-10 years 38 37.311 + years 7 6.91-2 years 17 17.53-5 years 21 21.6

6-10 years 38 39.311-20 years 14 14.421 years + 7 7.2

1-5 years 17 17.26-10 years 35 35.3

11-20 years 30 30.321 years + 17 17.2

Nil 18 18.41-2 years 16 16.33-5 years 15 15.3

6-10 years 27 27.611-20 years 17 17.321 years + 5 5.1

*F=5.1, P<.002 (Profs have been working in their university longer than allothers, but it is only significantly different from Lecturers)**F=17.1, P<.OOl [Profs have been in the academia longer than all others, andit is significantly different from all others (SLs, Ls, TAs, RAs)]

Education and QualificationsTable 4 summarises the type of qualifications held by UK marketing

academics and is a simplified version of Table 4 in Diamantopoulos et al.which contained details of the business / marketing content of thequalifications held. In terms of the kind of degree held the two surveys arevery similar. In 1991 95.5% of respondents held a first degree, slightly morethan those included in our survey. For Masters Degrees the comparable dataare: 1991- 66.7% 1999 - 68.6% and for Doctoral degrees 1991- 47.7% 1999- 47%. Two statistics deserve further comment. First the percentage ofProfessors holding Doctorates is greater than the percentage holding a firstdegree. While the difference is small the significance is that possession of adoctorate has become virtually mandatory for new professorialappointments. Second, for some older members of the professoriate theabsence of a first degree did not deter them from acquiring a higher degree

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

08:

06 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

686 Michael J. Baker and B. Zafer Erdogan

as a necessary step towards promotion. Senior lecturers without doctorates(over 80%) take note!

Table 4. Types of Academic Qualifications

ChairTotal SeniorProfessor Lecturer OtherSample LecturerReaderFirst Degree Count 93 20 30 35 8

% 91.2 90.9 90.9 92.1 88.9Masters Count 70 17 23 24 6

% 68.6 77.3 69.7 63.2 66.7Doctorate* Count 47 21 5 20 1

% 46.1 95.5 15.2 52.6 11.1*X2= 39.4, P<.OOI (Professors are more likely to hold a PhD than others.

Table 5 gives details of the Membership of Professional Associations held bythe respondents which should be compared with Table 7 in the 1991 survey.These two tables are not directly comparable as our survey used the listingcontained in the AMS survey which had also been administered in Australiaand New Zealand. Accordingly this contains some associations likeANZMEC and Australian Marketing Institute which are of limited interest toUK academics while omitting others such as CAM which are. That said themost striking finding from our survey is the progress made by the Academyof Marketing (formerly Marketing Education Group or MEG) at the expenseof the Chartered Institute of Marketing. Again we would counsel caution inaccepting these data without further research. It will be recalled that the firstadministration of the questionnaire was by means of the Academy'sNewsletter so you had to be a member to get it. However, this was not thecase for the second administration which yielded 47% of the total responses.In the 1991 survey 60 respondents claimed membership of the CharteredInstitute of Marketing (55%) and 53 (48%) membership of the MarketingEducation Group. As can be seen from Table 5 the comparable statistics are57% and 73.5% While the CIM may claim it is maintaining its position itcertainly cannot claim to have improved it. By contrast, the Academy mightargue that increasingly it is being seen as the Professional body for marketingacademics.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

08:

06 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Who We Are and What We Do - 2000

Table 5. Membership of Professional Organisations

687

OrganisationAcademy of MarketingChartered Institute of MarketingAmerican Marketing AssociationEuropean Marketing AcademyAcademy of Marketing ScienceBritish Academy of ManagementAcademy of Int'l BusinessInt'! Market Research SocietyInstitute of Direct MarketingANZMECAssociation of Consumer ResearchThe Academy of ManagementAustralian Marketing InstituteESOMAROther

Freq.755822191515109754221

30

%73.556.921.618.614.714.7

9.88.86.94.93.92.02.01.0

29.4

Work ActivitiesIn Table 1 it was reported that the average academic working week was 46

hours, slightly less than the 51.2 hours reported in 1991. In Table 6 we showhow this time was spent across a range of activities. This Table may becompared directly with the AMS survey reported elsewhere in this issue(Table 2) and is very similar to Table 9 in Diamantopoulos (1991). (The lattercontained only seven categories and did not include information onExecutive Teaching or Supervising Research students. Further, the 1991survey reports estimated hours while the later surveys report the proportionof time spent. In crude terms, the means reported in Table 6 are similar to theaverage hours given in the 1991 survey.)

Comparison of the three surveys indicates the following:

1. On average the 1999 UK academic spends much more time onadministrative duties than their American counterpart - 19.3% versus13% - and more than the approximately 16% reported for the UK in 1991.

2. The time spent on consulting by UK and US academics is the same -ca. 6per cent. Outside work accounted for approximately 10% of the 1991 UKacademic's time 'during term time' (!).

3. Executive Teaching is a minority activity and accounts for only 3% of theUK academic and 1% of the US academic's time.

4. Keeping up with New Developments has decreased in importance in theUK from around 10% in 1991 to 8% now and 6% in the USA - probably

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

08:

06 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

688 Michael J. Baker and B.Zafer Erdogan

due to the pressure of other activities.5. Research and Writing occupies 20 per cent of the time of our

respondents. This is less than the US sample (23 per cent) and the 1991sample (also approximately 23%).

6. Supervising Research students averages 9% of our respondents time -significantly more than the 2% reported by the AMS survey where onlyone third of the respondents reported this activity compared with over75% of our sample who had some involvement. This was not reportedfor the 1991 survey.

7. Teaching Post Graduates takes up almost 10% of our time nowcompared with around 8% in 1991. For the AMS respondents the figureis 7%.

Table 6. How we Spend our Time

Administrative duties

(x = 19.3, sd= 14, n= 102)

Consulting and other Outside work

(x = 5.7, sd= 7.2, n= 102)

Executive teaching

(x = 2.7, sd= 7.3, n= 102)

Keeping up with new developments

(x = 7.7, sd= 7.7, n= 102)

Research and Writing

(x = 19.9, sd= 17.4, n= 102)

Supervising Research students

(x = 9.1, sd= 10.52, n= 102)

Freq %Nil 6 5.9

1-5% 14 13.76-15% 31 30.416-30% 36 35.331%+ 15 14.7

Nil 41 40.21-5% 29 28.56-15% 24 23.516%+ 8 7.8

Nil 74 72.61-5% 16 15.76-15% 8 7.816%+ 4 3.9

Nil 24 23.51-5% 34 33.36-15% 32 31.416%+ 12 11.8

Nil 18 17.61-5% 8 7.8

6-15% 21 20.516-30% 37 36.431-45% 7 6.946%+ 11 10.8

Nil 24 23.51-5% . 24 23.5

6-15% 40 39.316%+ 14 13.7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

08:

06 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Who We Are and What We Do - 2000 689

Freq· %Teaching Post Graduates Nil 30 29.4-

1-5%(x = 9.7, sd= 12.8, n= 102) 19 18.66-15% 33 32.316-30% 18 17.631%+ 2 2

Teaching preparation Nil 14 13.7

( x = 10.9, sd= 7.6, n= 102) 1-5% 17 16.76-15% 50 4916%+ 21 20.6

Teaching Undergraduates Nil 15 14.7

(x = 14, sd= 10.6, n= 102) 1-5% 13 12.76-15% 37 36.416-30% . 33 32.331%+ 4 3.9

1. Teaching Preparation appears to have declined considerably to about11% of our time now compared with around 18% in 1991 and 18%currently in the USA. This aspect of our work appears to be a majorcasualty of the increasing pressure put on academics time. It would beinstructive to establish if there is any correlation between reducedpreparation time, student evaluations and overall assessments ofteaching quality.

2. Finally, Teaching Undergraduates is our third most important activitytaking up 14 per cent of our time considerably up on the average 8% in1991but way below the 21% recorded by the AMS respondents.

Perhaps UK academics are not as hard done by as they like to thinkthey are. We appear to have more variety in our work load and moreopportunity to work with advanced students. That said we mustremember the skewed response and not assume that newer entrants tothe academy enjoy the same privileges as their better establishedcolleagues.

Given the emphasis placed on the Research Assessment Exercise PublicationOutput has become an issue of central importance throughout the Academy.In Table 7 we report the findings of our survey.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

08:

06 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

690 Michael J. Baker and B. Zafer Erdogan

Table 7. Publication Output

Means (% of total annual income)Categories Total Chair S . Other 95% Interval F-enlOr(Individually S I Professor L t Lecturer (TA, Lower Upper ratio·& .) amp e Reader ec urer RA) Bound Boundco-wntten

A Books written 1.0 2.4 0.2 4.0 3.9 11.9 4.9b

B Books edited 0.2 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.3 3.3a

C Refereed 1.6 5.1 1.4 0.1 0.6 2.6 5.9c

BookChapters

D Non-Refereed 0.8 3.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 1.6 3.7a

BookChapters

E Refereed 7.9 23.9 4.4 3.7 4.2 11.7 8.0c

JournalArticles

F Non-Refereed 3.5 12.2 0.8 1.6 1.2 5.8 6.0c

JournalArticles

G Conf. Papers 6.6 18.0 4.5 3.3 0.7 3.6 9.6 6.2c

inProceedings

H Conf. Papers 3.0 7.7 1.7 2.2 1.0 5.1 2.1NOT inProceedings

I Total 17.1 49.4 10.5 7.1 4.7 9.9 24.3 9.1c

Refereed Pub.(a+c+e+g)

J Total Non- 4.4 16.1 1.0 1.8 1.5 7.4 6.6c

Refereed Pub.(b+d+f)

K Total 21.5 65.4 11.5 8.8 4.7 12.0 31.0 9.8c

Publications I(i+j)

L Total 24.5 73.1 13.2 11.0 4.7 13.4 35.7 8.4c

PublicationsII (k+h)

• of one-way ANDV A; a P<.03, b P<.01, c. P<.OOl.

As can be seen, the 1999 data show a reduction across all categories and byall kinds of academic staff. While many of the differences are not large, areduction in refereed publications in 1991 of 18.4 to 17.1 in 1999, it would beinteresting to explore these data more fully given the imminence of the nextRAE. A possible explanation is that our data includes the former Polys

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

08:

06 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Who We Are and What We Do - 2000 691

which had a limited research tradition and had a lot of ground to make up.The final table which may be compared with the earlier UK survey (Table

8) reports sources of income. While Table 8 is not directly comparable withTables 12 and 13 of the 1991 survey the general picture is that the presentsample receive less additional income. Clearly, Professors do moreconsulting than their junior colleagues and are less dependent on ExternalExaminers fees than are Senior Lecturers. Whether this is a reflection of thepaucity of external examiners fees so that they represent a smaller proportionof a larger salary or whether it indicates that Professors are leaving it to theirmore junior colleagues to perform this essential but poorly rewarded activitywe can only speculate.

Table 8. Source of Income

Means (% of total annual income)T t 1 Chair S . Other 95% Interval F-a a enlOr .

S 1 Professor L t Lecturer (TA, Lower Upper rattoamp e Reader ec urer RA) Bound Bound *81.3 67.0 86.4 85.3 80.2 76.3 86.2 3.3a

2.0

n/a

n/a

3.8b

6.6b

3.9b

5.1

0.6

8.82.21.8

0.7

3.80.90.7

1.8

0.1

0.1

7.6

3.72.20.8

0.1

5.0

3.60.20.4

2.0

4.91.22.4

0.2

1.4

1.1

0.9

14.04.01.0

0.2

0.3

6.31.51.2

3.5

Academicwages / salaryConsultingBook royaltiesExternalexaminationsUniversityadministrationNon-regularactivitiesBoardmembership ordirectorship* of one-way ANOVA; a P<.03, b P<.Ol. n/ a= one-way ANOVA can not beapplied owing to small number of cases.

Programmes OfferedThis topic was not included in the earlier UK survey. The findings from oursurvey appear in Table 9 from which it can be seen that most institutionsoffer a range of undergraduate and postgraduate courses as well as doctoralprogrammes on campus. Fewer institutions are involved in open/ distancelearning and here the emphasis is on postgraduate, mainly Master's courses.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

08:

06 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

692 Michael J. Baker and B. Zafer Erdogan

Table 9. Marketing Programs Offered

Freq. %Traditional on Campus Mode

Certificate / DiplomaUndergraduateHonoursGraduate DiplomaMastersPhD/DBAOther

External ModeCertificate / DiplomaUndergraduateHonoursGraduate DiplomaMastersPhD/DBAOther

4094825184864

1285

1739172

39.292.280.450.082.484.3

3.9

11.87.84.9

16.738.216.72.0

Academic InterestsAnother new topic included in our survey was to ask respondents to

declare their main Teaching and Research Interests. Each respondent wasasked to nominate their top three interests for each category in order ofimportance. In Tables 10 and 11 we present the findings summarised as anIndex number computed by assigning a value of 3 to the top priority, 2 to thesecond and 1 to the third. Given that one's teaching interests are largelydetermined by the courses offered by institutions it is unsurprising that thelisting of Teaching interests is shorter and more focused than it is forResearch interests. Readers are left to draw their own conclusions from thelistings although the authors would comment that the low interest shown forresearch into Marketing Research is surprising given that this underpins theresearch process itself and is the second most important teaching interest.

Polonsky and Mankelow collected similar data for the AMS sample but donot disaggregate them in terms of teaching and research. With slightvariations in the ordering their top five topics are the same as the UK sample.However, their number 6 does not appear on our listings at all - Selling andSales Management. We now know which of our colleagues didn't complete aquestionnaire given that they write extensively on the subject but, moreseriously, we should be concerned that this key topic doesn't figureanywhere in the sample's interests.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

08:

06 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Who We Are and What We Do - 2000 693

Table 10. Teaching Interests

Areas Freq. % IndexMarketing Strategy 39 38.2 89Marketing Research 22 21.6 53Global/International Marketing 23 22.6 52Advertising 19 18.6 38Consumer Behaviour 14 13.7 32Services Marketing 16 15.7 32Relationship Marketing 12 11.8 23Technology & Marketing 10 9.8 20New Product/Brand Management 8 7.8 17Business to Business 6 5.9 16Marketing and Entrepreneurship 6 5.9 16Retailing 8 . 7.8 16Ethics 7 6.8 15Channels Distribution / Logistics 7 6.8 13

Cut off was 10 index points rather than frequency

Table 11. Research Interest

Areas Freq. % IndexMarketing Strategy 32 31.4 65Consumer Behaviour 23 22.6 44Business to Business 19 18.6 41Global/International Marketing 19 18.6 41Services Marketing 21 20.6 39Relationship Marketing 17 16.7 30New Product/Brand Management 12 11.8 28Advertising 11 10.8 23Marketing Education 10 9.8 23Retailing 11 10.8 21Technology & Marketing 10 9.8 21Ethics 8 7.8 19Marketing and Entrepreneurship 9 8.8 19Not for Profit Marketing 8 7.8 16Marketing & Society / Social 6 5.9 14MarketingTourism, Hospitality & Leisure 8 7.8 14Marketing Research 10 9.8 13Direct Marketing 6 5.9 11Segmentation 7 6.8 11

Cut off was 10 index points rather than frequency

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

08:

06 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

694 Michael J. Baker and B. Zafer Erdogan

Pressing IssuesIn common with the AMS survey we invited respondents to share with us

their concerns for what they see as the most pressing issues in terms ofTheory, Practice and our own Jobs. These were open-ended questions withan invitation to cite up to three issues for each category. The findings aresummarised in Tables 12,13 and 14.

Table 12. The Most Pressing Issues Facing Marketing Theory

Issues Freq. %Integration of theory and practice 45 44.1New hot topics 27 26.5Existenceof marketing theory* 19 18.6Methodological issues 18 17.6Lack of rigour and historical perspective 18 17.6Role of new technology 15 14.7Lack of new ideas & dated theory 10 9.8

X2= 10.4, P<.015 *(higher the position more likely to mention this issue)

Table 12 lists the most pressing issues fa<;ing marketing theory and sees theintegration of theory and practice as by far the most important issue. (Giventhat this is the primary objective of the Journal of Marketing Management it isto be hoped the new Editor sees this as an opportunity rather than a failing ofher predecessor!) This was ranked as the third most important issue in theAMSsurvey.

The second issue "New hot topics" is a composite item summarising anumber of separate themes such as Relationship Marketing, Metrics etc.which are currently fashionable and attracting a lot of attention. Third in ourlist 'Existence of theory' was the first concern of the AMS respondents and, asthe footnote indicates was more likely to be mentioned by our respondentsthe more senior they are.

Table 13. The Most Pressing Issues Facing Marketing Practice

IssuesRecognitionRole of new technologyIntegration of theory and practiceNew hot topicsBetter informed consumersNot knowing what marketing isHard to measure activities

Freq.33232221131010

%32.422.521.620.610.19.89.8

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

08:

06 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Who We Are and What We Do - 2000 695

Table 13 lists the most pressing issues facing marketing practice and citeslack of recognition as the most important single issue. This matter is notmentioned at all in the AMS survey in which 'Hard to measure activities'was ranked number one. While both the Chartered Institute and theMarketing Council have raising the awareness of marketing as a primaryobjective there is clearly much to be done, especially on behalf of thoseacademics who are members. In the longer term it is believed that thegrowing number of marketing graduates will enhance public recognition ofour discipline. Meantime, academics should not remain complacent andignore their own role in increasing awareness of the discipline.

With regard to the other issues there is a reasonable overlap between theconcerns of the UK and US marketing academies although we see integrationof theory and practice as a practitioner concern and they do not. Alsoglobalisation is cited as their third most important concern but is subsumedwithin our 'hot topics' category.

Finally, in Table 14 we present our most pressing concerns about our ownjobs. As can be seen from the table these have been collapsed into five maincategories covering funding and the increased administrative burden whichhas accompanied a declining unit of resource; personal development (whyaren't the SL's concerned?); the curriculum; students and research. Fewerparticipants in the AMS survey expressed concerns of which the mostpressing was the decline in the standards of students.

Table 14. The Most Pressing Issues Facing Marketing Academics inTerms of Teaching, Admin, Service, etc

%46.141.238.3

Freq.474239

IssuesFunding / administration*Personal development**Coursecontent/ development/ deliveryStudents 37 36.3Research 29 28.4

* X2= 6.5, P<.089 (Professors are more likely to mention this issue)**X2= 9.1, P<.028 [Professors and lecturers are more likely to raise thisissue as opposed to senior lecturers and others (TA, RA, etc.)]

Conclusion

One of the reviewers commented that "the paper does not provide muchhelp in restructuring tertiary marketing education." We agree, but, withrespect this was not what we set out to do. While we did ask respondents to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

08:

06 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

696 Michael J. Baker and B. Zafer Erdogan

identify what they considered to be the most pressing issues facingmarketing theory and practice at the present time (See Tables 12-14 above)this hardly constitutes a consensus that marketing education needs to berestructured in any particular way. That said it is hoped that the findings,together with those from Polonsky and Mankelow (2000), will prove usefulto those who do perceive such a need.

Despite the acknowledged weaknesses in the survey data, experiencesuggests that the overall picture painted above is not too far from the truth.That said there are several issues on which more rigorous and dependabledata would be valuable in promoting both the discipline of marketing andthe careers of those who teach and research in the field. It is ironic that thosewho depend heavily upon the collaboration of others in pursuing their ownresearch interests should be so reluctant to participate in a study which couldgreatly help improve the recognition of the discipline and those who professit.

Comparison with the earlier UK survey reveals a generally static picturewith the welcome exception of the growing role and influence of women inthe marketing academy. There are also many similarities between the UKand US marketing academies and it will be interesting to compare thefindings of these two studies with others reported in this special issue ofJMM.

Finally, it is clear that the present paper presents a somewhat imperfectrepresentation of "Who we are and what we do". It is to be hoped, however,that its appearance will encourage us all to do better next time.

References

Baker, Michael J. and Erdogan, Zafer B., (1998) 'Who We Are and What WeDo: Interim Report to the Academy of Marketing', Academy of Marketing,Sheffield.

Diamantopoulos, A., Schlegelmilch, B. B. and Neate-Stidson, S. (1992) 'WhoWe Are and What We Do: A Profile of Marketing Academics in UKUniversities', Journal of Marketing Management, 8, pp. 5-20

Polonsky, Michael Jay and Mankelow, Gary (2000) 'Where Are We Going?Perceptions of US Marketing Academics' Journal of Marketing Management,16, pp. 717-743

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

08:

06 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014