RECREATIONALIST VIEW OF SCIENCE AND IMPLICATIONS FOR INTERNATIONAL MARKETING

 INTRODUCTION

The ongoing debate concerning scientific status of marketing as well as pluralistic views regarding the roles of different philosophies in marketing research’s scientific progress has been dominated the marketing area since the beginning of twentieth century. This paper first answers the question of “Is Marketing a science? “. The author reviews the various thoughts on definition and criteria of science as well as the debate concerning the scientific status of marketing. Then, a model of scientific qualification criteria is proposed that would help to answer the question whether marketing is a science or not?. Secondly, the recreationalist view of science is explained and the recreationalist research model is proposed. The author proposes a complete model of research which is a dynamic system of quantitative and qualitative research combination. Thirdly, the effects of cultural dimension in international marketing strategies are explained. The author highlights the importance of host country culture in the development of marketing and communication strategies. The emphasis is given to the role marketing research in understanding the host country culture to develop proper marketing and communication strategies. Finally, the causes of the requirement to implement the recreationalist research model to the international marketing are explained.

SCIENCE

In order to answer correctly to the question whether marketing is a science or not, we should first understand what the science really is. That is we should define it and explain the fundamental features of it. By doing so we can demarcate sciences with non sciences and answer whether marketing is a science or an art or something else? When we look at the history of philosophy of science we realize that here are various thoughts concerning the definition and features of science since the time of Plato. It is better to not include all the definitions and features that are mentioned throughout the history of philosophy of science but instead we can mention some of them to help us understand better the evolution of the definition and features of science. Campell (1952) in his book called “What is Science?” defines it as “a body of useful and practical knowledge and a method of obtaining it”. He also adds that “science is a pure intellectual activity”. Another important definition of science is made by Bube as “knowledge of the natural world obtained by sense interaction with that world”. Kemeny (b.1926) defined science as “all knowledge collected by means of scientific method”. Another definition of science belongs to the Benjamin (b.1897) which is “Science is that mode of inquiry which attempts to arrive at knowledge of the world by the method of observation and by the method of confirmed hypothesis on what is given on observation. Buzzell (1963) list the main features of science as a classified and systematized body of knowledge, organized around one or more central theories and a number of general principles, usually expressed in quantitative terms and finally having knowledge which permits the prediction and under some circumstances the control of future events. Fisher (1975) defined science as “the body of knowledge obtained by methods based upon observation”. Fisher states that the practice of science is a human activity, there is an inherent limitation of science which is the limit of human senses, there is an authority in science which is observation, and there is a building upon the authority which means the methods are based upon observation. Hunt criticizes Buzell’s features of science by stating that his proposed feature of “organized around one or more central theories” is restrictive. According to Hunt, the purpose of science is to develop laws and theories to understand, explain, predict and control phenomena.  Hunt list his feature of science as every science have a distinct subject matter, there should be a description and classification of subject matter, there should be a presumption that underlying the subject matter are uniformities and regularities that science seeks to discover, and all sciences have some procedures that are called scientific method.

When we look at all the definitions and features of science throughout the history we realize that there are some core elements that should not be underestimated. First of all, observation and discovery and methodology are the fundamental elements that all scientific definition should include. That is our definition of science will include the observation, discovery and methodology terms. Thus we propose the following definition for science: “Science is the discovery of reality by employing a methodology used in observing, understanding, explaining, predicting, and controlling phenomena”. This is a short but complete definition which helps us to understand what really science is.    Another important issue is several thoughts on the features of science. By reviewing the features of Buzzell and Hunt we propose the following feature list of scientific qualification. First of all sciences should have a unit of analysis. Second, every science should have the explanation and classification of unit of analysis as Hunt stated in his list of features for subject matter. Third, every science should have a set of procedures called scientific methodology to discover the reality. Fourth, every science should have techniques build up consistently with scientific methodology to observe, explain, predict and control of phenomena.

In order to answer the question whether marketing is a science or not, it is better to analyze the proposed features of science in a model used to distinct the hard and social sciences. What we call hard sciences are natural sciences such as physics, chemistry and biology. On the other hand, social sciences are those such as sociology, psychology, anthropology and economics. The difference between hard and social sciences lies in the unit of analysis and techniques used to observe, understand, explain, predict and control phenomena. The units of analysis in hard sciences are non human and mainly tangible entities. On the other hand, the units of analysis of social sciences are mainly humanistic and intangible. That is social sciences mainly include some aspects that are not observable directly but with dwelling. The second distinction between hard sciences and social sciences lies in the techniques used. Hard sciences employ techniques which are mainly quantitative but on the other hand social sciences employ both quantitative and qualitative techniques. The employment of qualitative techniques in social sciences comes from the absence of directly observable causes and effects.   This distinction between hard sciences and social sciences leads us to a conclusion with a model of scientific qualification.

Figure I shows us the scientific qualification features and the fundamental features of hard and social sciences. As we see in this figure scientific qualification features are having a unit of analysis which should be distinct for that science, a classification and explanation of unit of analysis, a methodology to discover the reality, and lastly techniques which are consistent with this methodology to observe, understand, explain, predict and control the phenomena. All the disciplines which deserve the status of science should possess these fundamental features. These are the criteria that can be used to demarcate sciences from non sciences or pseudo sciences. As we see in the figure hard sciences possessing all these features employs quantitative techniques and they have only tangible entities to observe or investigate. On the other hand, social sciences again possessing all the fundamental features for being science, employ both quantitative and qualitative techniques and they also have tangible and intangible entities to observe and investigate. The new definition and feature requirement model of science helps us to understand better whether a discipline qualifies as science or not. Additionally, this model shows us that in reality there is no status difference between hard and social sciences in terms of scientific qualification. They both posses fundamental features of being science and differ in terms of techniques employed and entities they deal with.

After the detailed explanation of the fundamental features of science which help us to demarcate between sciences and non-sciences, it is better to explain the nature and content of reality, theories, scientific knowledge and objectivity. Here we propose a recreationalist perspective of science where the nature and content of reality, theories, scientific knowledge and objectivity are explained in a recreationalist point of view.

First of all it would be better to list the basic tenets of recreationalism and then explain each of them briefly. Recreationalism has the following basic tenets: The world is not the same as being perceived by human beings. Objectivity is one of the prerequisites of success in science. Scientific knowledge is cumulative but not absolute. Reality has its own reality. Theories may be assumed to represent the reality unless they fail.

Recreationalism, like classical realism holds that the universe is not the same as being perceived by human beings. That is fundamental objective of science is to discover what really exists behind the perception of human senses. Philosophies such as idealism or relativism hold that the universe does not exist independently from its being perceived. Supporters of these philosophical orientations do not believe to the existence of independent reality behind the human senses. In contrast, relativism for example holds that the reality is relative and there is no a single reality in the universe.

The second basic tenet of the recreationalism is that objectivity is one of the prerequisites of success in science. What is meant here is that objectivity is required and is not forsakenly. Science, in the course of the discovery of reality should be objective in order to be successful. One of the fundamental features of science is that every science has its own methodology to discover reality. These are some standardized rules and procedures that are create to use in the discovery of reality by empirical laws, lawlike statements and hypothesis testing. The aim and function of the scientific methodology is to minimize or eliminate completely the biases and context dependent perspectives in the discovery of reality. The most important function of the scientific methodology is to make inquiry as objective as possible. That is science is objective and the use of scientific methodologies makes the knowledge claims reliable.

The third basic tenet of recreationalism is that scientific knowledge is cumulative but not absolute. In the course of the discovery of reality the scientific knowledge produced is cumulative in the sense that every discovery is another brick put on to the preceding one which helps science to be closer to the reality. Scientific knowledge is not dependent to a particular context. Recreationalism view of scientific knowledge does not include absolutism. That is scientific knowledge is fallible.

The fourth basic tenet of the recreationalism is that reality has its own reality.  The reality in recreationalist view is subject to change in itself. There is no ultimate reality but the reality has its own reality which means the reality is not constant and changes independently from time and other contexts. Science has the objective to discover the reality; the reality is subject to change so there is an ongoing process for discovering the ultimate version of reality. Such an example some viruses enter the process of evolution and have a different nature when their evolution is completed. Afterwards they become non-sensitive to some medicines because of their nature change. Scientifically theories start to fail, reality becomes changed and there is always something to discover and cumulate our scientific knowledge.

This basic and most important tenet of the recreationalism is not the same but opposite of the relativistic view of reality. According to the relativistic view the reality is the product of human being relative to their worldview, language, social class, culture, theory or paradigm. That is there is no one reality but many of them constructed by human being. Another important tenet of relativistic view of reality is that the multiple constructs of reality across paradigms, cultures, languages, social classes or human beings are incommensurable that is we can not evaluate any others reality. Reality is context dependent and theory laden. The difference between recreationalist and relativistic view of reality is that the reality in recreationalist view is not context dependent and it is only one. In contrast to relativistic view the reality is not a construct of any human being, social class, paradigm and language. There is only one reality and this is not relative to any context.

When we look at the scientific realist view of reality we see that there is no certainty about the truth or reality. Scientific realism holds that if a theory has a long-term success it is the sign that something like the entities of this theory actually exists. Recreationalism differs from scientific realism in terms of certainty of reality. A long-term success of a theory is the indicator of discovered reality but not “something like” reality. That is recreationalism holds that science discovers the reality and the entities of the scientific theory constitute the reality unless the reality changes in itself. The reality has its own reality that is subject to change and although science discovers the reality, it is not stable, constant and forever.

RECREATIONALIST RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

After the explanation of basic tenets of recreationalism it will be useful to explain the recreationalist research methodology. Recreationalism holds that there are two layers of inquiry which are upper and deeper. Upper layer consists of directly observables and do not include the unobservable causal effects. The deeper layer on the other hand consists of unobservable causal effects. Scientific knowledge may be produced using the upper, deeper or both levels. Here the important point is that hard sciences mainly use the upper layer because they include mainly the tangible entities. On the other hand social sciences mainly employ the deeper level because they need probing to discover the reality of unobservable causal effects.

As we see in the Figure III recreationalist research starts with the observation. The scientist observes the phenomena after received by the sensations. In this model we have upper and deeper layers where inquiry is conducted with quantitative or qualitative techniques. In the upper layer quantitative techniques are used to test the hypothesis that come from the explanatory theories. Upper layer is mostly used in the hard sciences. The deeper layer is used mainly in the social sciences where qualitative techniques are employed and scientists need a deeper analysis to discover the reality. In both layers hypothesis are tested and accepted or rejected. Some sciences should use both the upper and deeper layer in order to understand, explain and predict phenomena.

It is now time to answer our question whether marketing is a science or not? To answer this question we will analyze the marketing discipline using our scientific qualification model.

MARKETING AS A SCIENCE

It is better to review some of the different thoughts concerning the scientific status of marketing before answering the question whether marketing is a science or not. Bartels (1951) states that if marketing is to be regarded as a science should correspond the standards of science. He lists these standards as having the objective of establishment of general laws or broad principles by means of observation and investigation, development of laws with social import not merely institutional application for prediction, theories and hypothesis should be useful for knowledge extension and profitable ends, and lastly extensions should be used in the explanation of marketing phenomena. He states that marketing has no distinct field of investigation. He concludes his thoughts by stating that marketing could be a science if the marketing enlarges the domain to the social interests and not staying at the competitive level. Hutchinson (1951) concludes by stating that marketing because of its incapability of generating theories or laws is not a science. He classifies marketing as an art or a practice such as engineering or medicine. Hunt (2002) on the other hand, taking basis the three dichotomies model of marketing states that if the focus is on the positive dimensions of marketing then marketing can be qualified as science. The positive dimension of the three dichotomies model of marketing is where the question of “What is?” is answered instead of “What should be?”.

To answer the question whether marketing is a science or not we should remember the fundamental features of science. The first fundamental feature of science is that every science has a distinct unit of analysis. Marketing’s unit of analysis is the ecosocial transaction. Here we define “ecosocial” term as the combination of economic and social systems which includes both commercial and non-commercial transactions. Every ecosocial transaction is the product of value exchange between the parties but the value exchange is not always commercial instead there can be some non-commercial values. Here a good example of commercial and non-commercial transactions may be given as cause-related marketing and philanthropy. In cause related-marketing the exchange of values are commercial. Consumer purchases the product or service and a proportion of purchase amount is paid to a third party which operates for a social purpose. In philanthropy on the other hand the consumer or the company directly pays to the third party. Here the exchanges of values are not commercial.

The second fundamental feature of science is that every science has the explanation and classification of unit of analysis. Ecosocial transactions are defined and explained as the economic and non-economic exchange of values between two or more parties in the society. The classification of ecosocial transactions on the other hand are those such as commercial and non-commercial transactions that we have in our example of cause-related marketing and philanthropy.

The third fundamental feature of science is that every science should have a methodology to discover reality. Marketing has a set of rules and procedures to assess knowledge claims for the discovery of reality. The fourth fundamental feature of science is that every science has techniques that are used to understand, explain, predict and control phenomena. Marketing has many quantitative and qualitative techniques that are used.

After a brief analysis of fundamental features of science with regard to marketing, we realize that marketing is a science. We can define the marketing science as “Marketing is a social science which analyses the ecosocial transactions in order to increase the well-being of consumers, profit organizations and non-profit organizations.”

IMPLICATIONS FOR INTERNATIONAL MARKETING

One of the practical areas of the marketing science is the international marketing. When we talk about international marketing actually we deal with a system of different philosophical orientations and cultures that seek to work in harmony. Here the main purpose of a marketing practitioner who deals with an international marketing phenomenon is to use the discovered reality of success factors in international marketing and implement them to the host country to get the desired results. Managerial orientations such as ethnocentrism and polycentrism are the products of the ultimate objective of maintaining the system in harmony to get the desired ends. In the ethnocentric orientation it is believed that home country is superior to the host country and the system will be in harmony event the products and services were presented to the host market as they are in the home country. Thus they believe that there is no need to adapt the products and services to the host market. The polycentric orientation, on the other hand, sees the world as the combination of unique markets. That is in the polycentric orientation every market is handled distinctly and products or services are adapted to the host market in order to maintain the harmony and get the desired results.

The source of the differences in various markets is the social and cultural environment that the companies operate. The failure of international marketing and communication strategies derive from the incapability to understand the host country’s social and cultural environment. Marketing literature possesses many of these types of failures in the international marketing and communication strategies. To develop a successful marketing and communication strategy, international marketers should know and understand completely attitudes, beliefs, values, aesthetics, and language and communication codes of the host country. In order to know and understand these international marketers should adopt the recreationalist research model which enables us to discover the reality that lies in the deeper layer.  Remember that because social sciences are different from the hard sciences in terms of entities they are interested in, beliefs, attitudes and values do not belong to the upper layer of the reality but to the deeper layer. The implementation of recreationalistic research model to the international marketing consists of conducting research both at the upper and deeper layers. Thus, both quantitative and qualitative research techniques should be employed in order to understand better the host country and avoid developing inefficient strategies. The code of communication and language such as low-context and high context cultures, beliefs exist inherently in the mind of the consumers are those which cannot be definitively discovered with the employment of upper layer research or quantitative research. These are intangible entities which require probing to discover.

REFERENCES

Anderson, P 1986, ‘On Method in Consumer Research: A Critical Relativist Perspective’, Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 13, pp. 155-171

Anderson, P 1983, ‘Marketing, Scientific Progress, and Scientific Method’, Journal of Marketing, vol. 47, pp. 18-31

Bartels, R 1951, ‘Can Marketing Be a Science?’, Journal of Marketing, vol.15, pp. 319-328

Hirschman, E 1986, ‘Humanistic Inquiry in Marketing Research: Philosophy, Method and Criteria’, Journal of Marketing Research, vol.23, pp. 237-249

Hunt, S 2002, Foundations of Marketing Theory: Toward a General Theory of Marketing, M.E. Sharpe, New York.

Hunt, S 2003, Controversy in Marketing Theory: For Reason, Realism, Truth and Objectivity, M.E. Sharpe, New York.

Hutchinson, K 1951, ‘Marketing as a Science’, Journal of Marketing, vol.16, pp. 286-293

Keegan, W & Green M 2003, Global Marketing, Prentice Hall, New Jersey

Peter, P & Olson, J 1983, ‘Is Science marketing?’, Journal of Marketing, vol.47, pp. 111-124

Peter, P 1992, ‘Realism or Relativism for Marketing Theory and Research: A Comment on Hunt’s “Scientific Realism”’, Journal of Marketing, vol.56, pp. 72-79

Taylor, W 1965, ‘Is Marketing a Science?’, Journal of Marketing, vol.29, pp. 49-53

To send your comments and / or questions for this article please fill out the form.