|
RECREATIONALISTIC VIEW OF SCIENCE AND MARKETING
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
recreationalistic view of science is explained
and the recreationalistic 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
recreationalistic 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 recreationalistic and
relativistic view of reality is that the reality
in recreationalistic 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
Zinkhan G, P & Hirschheim, R 1992, ‘Truth in
Marketing Theory and Research: An Alternative
Perspective’, Journal of Marketing, vol.56, pp.
80-88 |
Contact
sitemap