The marketing discipline in trouble? Academic voices vying for supremacy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose To the best of the authors’ knowledge, there is no study that investigates the historical roots of quantitative paradigm hegemony over the qualitative paradigm in marketing using a critical lens. The purpose of this paper is to stimulate thoughtful reflections among marketing scholars so that the dialog among paradigms expands, the stale paradigmatic debates disappear, and the marketing discipline evolves and contributes to the actual functioning of markets and the welfare of society. Design/methodology/approach This study is conducted in the light of foucauldian genealogy through the analysis of historical materials that Foucault called discourses, a set of languages, systems of thinking and governality techniques that determine how individuals or organizations come to be disciplined. In this paper, the concept of discourse mainly refers to visible rituals and practices by which marketing researchers have been psychologically and behaviorally shaped to reproduce and perpetuate a hypothetical-deductive mainstream within their discipline. Findings This paper intends to stimulate a dialog among marketing scholars about expanding paradigms so that stale debates disappear, and marketing disciplines proves their scientific status by better contributing to the functioning of markets and the welfare of society. As an evolving social science, marketing requires new theory, new concepts and new research methods. Originality/value The intellectual contribution of this paper lies in its intention to alert marketing researchers about the danger we are exposing our discipline to by promoting imperialist traditions and standardization of thinking.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".