J. Paul Peter & Jerry C.

Olson

Science is analyzed as a special case of nnarket-

ing—the marketing of ideas in the form of sub-
stantive and methodological theories. The mar-
keting mix, target markets, and marketing
objectives are developed for the scientific arena,
and a formal analysis of a relativistic/construc-
tionist view of science is used to support the ap-
Is Science
proach. This view is contrasted with the positiv-
istic/empiricist perspective of science currently
dominant in marketing and other social sciences.
Marketing?
Recommendations are offered for improved meth-
ods of developing knowledge.

F OR more than 30 years, marketing scholars have

debated whether or not marketing is a science (e.g.,
Alderson and Cox 1948, Bartels 1951, Baumol 1957,
been largely unproductive. For the most part, we at-
tribute the current confusion to the somewhat naive
conceptions of science that have informed the contro-
Buzzell 1963, Converse 1945, Hunt 1976, O'Shaugh- versy. In particular, we consider the typical beliefs
nessy and Ryan 1979, Taylor 1965). The typical ap- about how scientists do scientific work and how sci-
proach has been to offer a formal definition of science entific progress is achieved to be inconsistent with
or describe prototypic methods used in science and cun^ent views about such issues in the disciplines of
then compare marketing's key features and/or its de- philosophy, sociology, and history of science. That
velopmental progress against these standards. Despite is, in asking, "Is marketing a science?," marketing
these fairly intense analyses, a consensus regarding scholars have been comparing theory development and
the scientific status of marketing has not yet been testing in marketing to inappropriate standards which
achieved. Some believe that marketing is a science, have little to do with the conduct of scientific inquiry
while others believe that although scientific proce- in any field.
dures are employed in marketing, on the whole, mar- This article presents a relatively new and more
keting is an art. In contrast to these two segments, useful conception of science than has been considered
many other marketing scholars seem to be withhold- to date in the debates regarding marketing's scientific
ing judgment, perhaps awaiting more compelling ar- status. To do so, we tum the tables in this long-stand-
guments one way or the other. ing debate by asking the more fundamental and in-
Although well-intentioned, we believe the debate teresting question, "Is science marketing?" In this ar-
regarding whether or not marketing is a science has ticle we consider whether science can be effectively
analyzed as a special case of marketing—the market-
ing of ideas.'
J. Paul Peter is Associate Professor of Business at the University of Wis-
consin—Madison, and Jerry C, Olson is Professor of Marketing and 'For this purpose, we adopi the currently popular définition of mar-
Charles and Lillian Binder Faculty Fellow in Business Administration, keting as "human activity directed at satisfying needs and wants through
Pennsylvania State University, The authors thank Paul Anderson, Gil exchange processes" (Kotier 1980). This is consistent with the ar-
Churchill, Walt Nord, Tom Page, and the JM reviewers for their useful guments of Bagozzi (1975) and Hunt (1983) that exchange is a key,
comments and suggestions. unifying concept for the field. We suspect that most marketing schol-
ars accept this definition.

Journal of Marketing
Vol. 47 (Fall 1983), 111-125. Is Science Marketing? / I l l
 The article has two major sections. In the first we are invented or constructed.^ Like ideas for consumer
analyze common scientific practices in terms of con- products and the products themselves, substantive
ventional elements of marketing strategy. Specifi- and/or methodological theory products must also be
cally, we consider the elements in the marketing mix, marketed.
target markets, and marketing objectives. Although At some point in the development of a theory the
we can consider only a few of the major concepts in scientist usually produces a manuscript that describes
marketing, the examples in this brief analysis provide the idea. The manuscript may also present empirical
initial support for our contention that science can be data that illustrate the idea and/or provide tentative
viewed as a special case of marketing. In the second support. A manuscript is a tangible representation of
section, we discuss a relativistic/constructionist per- the invented system of ideas. Marketing a theory as
spective derived from recent work in science studies a tangible manuscript is both easier and more effective
that provide a conceptual rationale for analyzing sci- than promoting an intangible set of ideas, for at least
ence from a marketing perspective. We point out key four reasons. First, the theory product can be stored
differences between this emerging approach to sci- by potential adopters for use (study) at a more con-
ence and the traditional positivistic/empiricist view venient time. Second, because the manuscript is al-
that still pervades marketing (see Hunt 1983) and other ways available, potential adopters can reexamine and
social sciences (see Koch 1981). Again, due to space refiect on the theory and possibly come to appreciate
restrictions, we focus only on major points of depar- its value. Third, the relative permanence of a manu-
ture from the traditional view and cite major works to script allows wider dissemination of the theory to a
which readers can refer for additional information. secondary, pass-along audience (e.g., students). Fi-
nally, a tangible manuscript may be used to estabhsh
the scientist/marketer as the inventor of the theory or
Marketing Scientific Theories as the first to borrow the theory from another area and
apply it in a new field.
What makes a scientific theory successful? Simply
stated, a successful theory is one which is treated se- Over its life cycle a theory may undergo a number
riously and studied by a significant portion of a re- of modifications in response to a variety of potential
search community. Such theories may even be em- marketing problems. Customer complaints regarding
ployed by practitioners as a framework for analyzing measurement difficulties or lack of conceptual clarity,
important problems. In other words, a successful the- and competitive theory products marketed by other
ory is one that has been adopted by a substantial mar- scientists, are among the many problems a new theory
ket segment, just as is the case of a successful con- may face in trying to capture a viable market share of
sumer good. We argue that to successfully achieve an scientists. Perhaps the most serious problem occurs
adequate level of adoption, scientists must (at least when a test of a theory fails to predict adequately.
implicitly) develop and carry out a marketing strategy This means that the theory is not meeting the needs
to promote their theories. In this section, we consider of the largest segment of researchers—those con-
some of the concepts and strategies involved in this cemed with prediction and methodological and em-
process. First, we describe scientific theories in terms pirical rigor. If the research community cannot be
of the four basic elements of the marketing mix— convinced that the empirical test procedures were faulty,
product, channels of distribution, promotion, and price. either the inventor scienfist or another scientist who
Then we discuss the idea of market segmentation for has adopted the theory may change specific charac-
theories. Finally, we consider the marketing objec- teristics of the theory product in response to such
tives for scientific work. problems. However, the modified theory is seldom re-
named, as this might lose loyal customers. Many of
these modifications are made to seem minor and the
Theories as Products change process may be quite gradual, often so much
so that the changes are not always recognized by the
In the broadest sense, the major products of science
target market of scientists. However, it should be em-
are ideas. Scientific ideas consist of invented con- phasized that any change in a theory creates a mod-
structs and hypothesized relationships among them. A ified product—i.e., a different theory. For instance,
system of such ideas about a phenomenon may be called researchers made a number of seemingly minor con-
a substantive theory. Scientists also create ideas about
methods of obtaining, analyzing, and interpreting data.
These are methodological theories of measurement, ^Clearly. an understanding of the processes and/or accidents by which
sampling, and data analysis. Regardless of the type of new theories are created is critical for an understanding of science.
idea or theory, it should not be forgotten that the en- While we will not review the extant literature on the creation of sci-
entific or other products, i.e.. "marketing R&D." interested readers
tire theory product is invented or constructed by one should see Zaltman. LeMasters, and Heffring (1982) and Stein (1974,
or more scientists, just as ideas for consumer products 1975).

112 / Journal of Marketing, Fall 1983

 ceptual changes in the Fishbein-type expectancy-value understood. However, in other cases, new words and
models during the period of major interest in the mar- meanings can be useful for marketing theories, since
keting literature (1969-1975), yet only the most knowledge of them may give a scientist admission to
knowledgeable consumers were aware that these the cognoscenti of a research community.
changes created different theories (e.g., Cohen, Fish- Fifth, theories that are consistent with current po-
bein, and Ahtola 1972). litical and social values are easier to market (Bames
Product Attributes. As with consumer products, 1977, Gould 1982). For example, a theory advocating
several key attributes of a theory have a large effect gender differences in cognitive abilities is difficult to
on marketing success. A major characteristic concems market in the current environment, even with impres-
the topic, issue, problem, or phenomenon that is ad- sive empirical support (see Stanley and Benbow 1982).
dressed. A theory may concem an issue of major im- In addition, since political and social values often de-
portance, a "big" problem, or a relatively "small" is- termine funding priorities, theories dealing with prob-
sue of little theoretical or practical importance (Olson lems for which ample research support is available are
1982). In some ways it may be easier to market the more easily marketed to potential scientist adopters.
latter type of theory. For instance, the most widely The sixth (and purposefully last) product attribute
adopted theories tend to be those that are easiest to is the preliminary empirical evidence that can be mar-
understand and research empirically, especially in long shalled to support a theory. Strong empirical support
periods of normal science (Kuhn 1970). If research is a highly desirable attribute that will enhance the
on a theory requires special equipment (e.g., poly- marketability of a theory. However, strong empirical
graphs for the study of brain waves) or special subject evidence is neither necessary nor sufficient for the
populations (e.g., managers or purchasing agents), that successful dissemination of a theory. A number of
theory is not likely to be widely researched. In con- theories have been fairly widely adopted, despite poor
trast, theories that are easily researched with conven- (or even no) initial empirical support (e.g., early atomic
tional measurement procedures (e.g., self-report rat- theory or Freudian personality theory). Of course sci-
ing scales) and easily accessible samples (e.g., students) entists differ in the extent to which they are concemed
are more likely to achieve higher adoption rates. about the "fit" between data and theory; thus, the im-
A second important attribute of a theory concems portance of empirical support for a theory is likely to
the professional credentials and status of the inventor vary for different scientists (see Mitroff and Kilmann
or the borrower. Scientists who are well-known and 1978).
respected, based on their previous contributions to a Test Marketing. Quite often, scientists test market
field, have a better chance of successfully introducing their theories before attempting a full-scale introduc-
a new theory than do less well-known researchers. The tion via joumal publication. Their major goal is to gauge
credibility of the scientist/marketer may add a halo the reactions of potential adopters of the theory and
effect to the theory product. Inventors or borrowers to identify and correct any glaring fiaws before the
who do not enjoy a strong reputation in their fields theory is introduced on a major scale. One way to do
(e.g., doctoral students) may need to attract estab- this is by circulating working papers among col-
lished researchers ("celebrity scholars") to help mar- leagues and friends in the "invisible college" (see Crane
ket their theories. 1972). In addition, colloquia and seminars may be
Third, theories that are borrowed and adapted from presented to colleagues and students and their reac-
more established, familiar fields seem to be more eas- tions sought. At least three results are possible. First,
ily marketed than theories gleaned from unconven- and least likely, the theory product may be judged to
tional areas or that are constructed "from scratch." be irretrievably fiawed. This seldom occurs, since most
For example, it is probably easier to promote theories test market presentations are made to other scientists
for use in marketing that are borrowed from psychol- who not only share the same world view as the in-
ogy and economics rather than from areas such as an- ventor, but are also social friends who respect the in-
thropology, religion, or art. ventor. Normally, such groups are reluctant to totally
reject the theory product. However, test market pres-
Fourth, theories which contain familiar, common,
entations to less hospitable groups occasionally do
everyday concepts, words, meanings, and relation-
produce such an extreme rejection. Second, in equally
ships (e.g., needs, attitudes, personality) may be eas-
rare cases, the product may be viewed as a major ac-
ier to market successfully than theories which require
complishment with no serious problems and judged to
learning new words, meanings, and relationships (e.g.,
be ready for introduction.
shaping, aesthetic response, semantic relatedness, co-
herence analysis, negative reinforcement). Familiar Instead, the results of test marketing are likely to
concepts which are learned in childhood and are fre- suggest a variety of tnodifications to the theory. These
quently used in everyday language may be considered may involve adding or deleting constructs, clarifying
as highly important concepts to be researched and and redefining constructs, or changing the theoretical

Is Science Marketing? / 113

relationships between constructs. At a minimum, cos- or as a chapter in a book. However, this channel is
metic changes may be made in the theory's packaging not readily or equally available to all scientists. Thus,
(words and labels used) or suggestions may be made the more likely outcome is that the marketer will pres-
for repositioning the product. As with traditional con- ent the theory at one or more conferences and publish
sumer products, the scientist/marketer must consider a paper in a proceedings, if available. Of course, the
whether changing the theory according to the rec- chances of successfully marketing the theory decrease
ommendations derived from test marketing will im- with the use of more restricted, less prestigious chan-
prove the chances of successfully marketing the prod- nels of distribution.
uct.

Promotion of Theories
Channels of Distribution for Theories Throughout the life cycle of a theory, from creation
There are many channels by which scientific theories to test marketing to publication in a major joumal to
may be disseminated to potential adopters. The var- the widespread adoption and use of a theory by the
ious channels of distribution have different levels of research community, promotion is a key factor in suc-
effectiveness and may be differentially appropriate at cessfully marketing a tiieory. As with consumer goods,
different stages in the development and testing of the a variety of promotional techniques can be used. In-
theory. In the early stages of development, most the- terestingly, and contrary to popular beliefs, theories
ories are disseminated via presentations at colloquia that do not provide impressive empirical results, pro-
and conferences, and through informally distributed duce a potential resolution to a major problem in the
working papers. While conference and colloquia pre- field (Kuhn 1970, Popper 1959), or generate novel
sentations are especially valuable in that they provide predictions (Lakatos 1978), can still be marketed suc-
direct feedback to the scientist/marketer, not many cessfully.
scholars are likely to adopt a theory distributed in this Although strong empirical results are very useful
way. For one thing, relatively few scholars can be ex- in promoting a theory, they are not absolutely nec-
posed to the theory through these inefficient channels. essary. For example, personality research in market-
Before widespread adoption can be anticipated, most ing in the 1960s and early 1970s seldom surpassed the
theories must pass the muster of the gatekeepers in relatively trivial hurdle of obtaining statistically sig-
the discipline (the reviewers and editors of prestigious nificant correlations between measures of personality
joumals) and thereby achieve both legitimization and and a variety of other factors (Kassarjian 1971). Yet
widespread exposure. A theory that is evaluated poorly personality theory enjoyed wide popularity. Because
in test marketing may go no further than being pub- the weak empirical results were usually attributed to
lished in a conference proceedings, if at all. The the- methodological problems, most researchers did not
ory may languish there for several years before finally conclude that the underlying theory was wrong. In fact,
fading away or being resurrected by another scientist many marketing researchers still believe in personal-
who happens to stumble across it. Occasionally a the- ity theory despite the generally disappointing empir-
ory is published first in a proceedings and later in a ical results. Recently, new methods have produced more
journal, but this is generally considered bad form un- impressive empirical support for personality tiieory (see
less major changes have occurred in the manuscript. Epstein 1979, 1980), although a resurgence of interest
Some marketers begin the dissemination process has not yet occurred in marketing.
by submitting the manuscript directly to the key chan- It is also possible to successfully market a theory
nel, a major journal. If the manuscript is rejected from that makes no unusual or novel predictions and is in
a number of major joumals, the inventor/marketer may fact quite similar to other theories. Of course, a sci-
attempt to disseminate the theory through other chan- entist's promotion task will be easier if the theory
nels, perhaps less prestigious or highly specialized product has unique features (e.g., it generates novel
journals. Using these channels to distribute a theory predictions) or it has desirable attributes of a com-
reduces the probability that the theory will enjoy rapid pelling logic coupled with strongly supportive data.
acceptance, although publication per se does enhance However, as long as the new theory is relatively con-
the chances for eventual success. Publication in even sistent with the world view of at least a segment of
an obscure or specialized joumal may still reach the the field, it can be successfully promoted. A new the-
most interested target market of researchers who may ory that is based on a different set of metatheoretical
then be influential in further disseminating the theory assumptions than those held by most members of a
throughout the research community. Altematively, if research community can be difficult to successfully
the theory cannot be published in a major joumal, some promote and market. This is similar to situations in
marketers may try to publish the theory in book form consumer goods marketing in which discontinuous in-

114 / Journal of Marketing, Fall 1983

novations that are inconsistent with consumers' social fort and disruption involved in changing one's exist-
values and behavior pattems are often hard to sell.^ ing beliefs and established research behaviors. A ma-
In addition to "direct advertising" via publication jor component of the price of adopting a new theory
in journals, books, and proceedings, a theory can also involves the behavioral effort of actively researching
be promoted through publicity and personal selling. the theory, writing about it, and performing the be-
Publicity for a theory includes notices of forthcoming haviors necessary to get the results published in major
articles in journals, abstracts of published articles joumals.
printed in other journals, and notices of working pa- Like consumer products, theories vary in price.
pers in association newsletters. Occasionally, a sci- Low-priced theories are those that are consistent with
entist/marketer can get other scientists to cite the new the world view and existing research skills of the tar-
theory, perhaps while still in working paper form. get market of scientists. Adopting such theories is rel-
Scientists may be able to generate discussion of their atively inexpensive, as leaming time is short and be-
theory in nonscholarly publications such as Marketing lief and behavior changes are minimal. That is, the
News or Psychology Today. Finally, if dissertation re- price is within easy reach of many potential con-
search testing the theory wins awards or other rec- sumers. Thus, the scientist/marketer who prices his/
ognition, the resulting publicity can be very helpful her theory at the low end enhances the chances that
in the overall marketing effort. Publicity may perform the theory will penetrate the mass market.
a useful informational or reminder role, but is likely In contrast, theories that are radically different from
to be less persuasive than other forms of promotion. the established world view of the research community
However, a "bandwagon effect" for a theory might and/or from the research procedures common in a field
be enhanced through this kind of promotion. carry a higher price tag. Adopting such theories may
Personal selling is an important element of the require considerable leaming time, extensive belief
promotional strategy for theories. Personal selling oc- changes, and major changes in research behavior.
curs during formal or informal presentations of the Therefore, such high priced theories need to be mar-
theory as well as in direct one-on-one discussions with keted carefully and well. The marketing effort is fa-
potential adopters. Moreover, salesmanship is an im- cilitated if the scientist can articulate the benefits to
portant aspect of dealing with editors and reviewers be provided by the new theory. Because these benefits
in the revision process. Direct selling can be an ef- have to be perceived as substantial to justify the high
fective method of persuasion since the scientist/mar- price, some scientists substantially oversell their sub-
keter can address counter-arguments of the potential stantive or methodological theories in order to attract
buyer head on and can offer ad hoc hypotheses to cover consumers (see Churchill and Perrault 1982). For ex-
many of the perceived weaknesses in the theory. Fi- ample, it appears that stmctural equations methodol-
nally, a personal selling strategy can be particularly ogy has been substantially oversold in the social sci-
effective with one's doctoral students. ences (see Cliff 1983, Fomell 1983).
A variety of situational factors can infiuence the
Price of Theories success of a high priced theory, primarily by making
it seem worth the cost to early adopters. First, it is
The scientist who adopts a new theory must pay a helpful if the world view incorporated in established
price that involves time and money as well as psy- theories is recognized as problematic by a segment of
chological and behavioral costs. Part of the price of the research community. In fact, Kuhn (1970) argues
adopting a new theory involves the time spent leam- that a scientific revolution cannot take place unless the
ing the new theory and its methods, as well as the traditional view is recognized as failing and an alter-
associated opportunity costs. The adopter of a new native theory is available. Second, the availability of
theory may also incur financial costs in purchasing research funds to investigate the new theory is a pow-
new equipment (e.g., a physiology lab) or in educa- erful motivator for pursuing a new theory product. For
tion/training costs (e.g., attending seminars on causal example, funding for research on the effects of ad-
modeling). Other costs include the psychological ef- vertising on children lowered the price of entering this
new area. Third, in some situations researchers may
be bored with the traditional approach and, therefore,
'Strictly speaking, no scientific theory is constructed of totally new
concepts created in isolation from earlier concepts and theories. Pre- are willing to incur the cost of adopting more pro-
vious research and theorizing certainly has an impact on the scientist/ vocative theories. Similarly, some researchers may
inventor who is trying to create a "new" theory. However, some new simply feel they can make little marginal contribution
theories are seen as more creative and less continuous with previous
work than are others. We are merely arguing that it is more difficult to the traditional view and are seeking to invest in new
to market the more discontinuous theories. This discussion should not theories with greater payoff potential. In sum, there
be taken to imply that scientific work is cumulative in the sense that are particular situations when high priced theories are
a sequence of theories will ultimately lead to a valid general theory.

Is Science Marketing? / 115

more likely to be adopted by a research community. spective. Additionally, doctoral students constitute an
From a marketing strategy perspective, these situa- important target market because they (1) often be-
tions are strategic windows that the scientist/marketer come apostles for the theory once they have invested
can use to advantage in introducing an expensive the- the time to leam it and begin to research it, (2) are
ory product. entering the most active stage of their research careers
A final consideration regarding the price of a the- and may help market the theory through their writ-
ory concems the fact that not all researchers can af- ings, and (3) may be more easily persuaded as they
ford to pay the price required for adoption of a new have little investment in competing theories.
theory. A prime determinant of what price an indi- The second important target market for a new the-
vidual scientist can afford to pay is his/her place in ory is the group of active research scholars in the field.
the tenure decision process. Younger pre-tenure scholars This group can be further segmented into pre- and post-
may not feel they can afford a high priced theory. tenure researchers, and each of these segments can be
They may need less expensive theories that have a fairly further divided into adopter categories of opinion
high probability of producing rapid benefits, such as leaders, followers, and laggards. Of these, the opin-
easily publishable joumal articles. High priced theo- ion leaders are critically important. A single study on
ries, by their very nature, tend to offer benefits with a new theory by an opinion leader may be sufficient
a longer time horizon. Moreover, a fairly high degree to create widespread interest. Opinion leader scien-
of risk is associated with most high priced theories, tists are also likely to be mentors for high quality doc-
and many pre-tenure scientists may not wish to incur toral students who can be encouraged to research the
such risks. Therefore, more senior, post-tenure schol- theory. In addition, opinion leaders can often directly
ars may be more willing to invest in higher priced influence other active researchers to consider studying
theories. Occasionally, beginning scholars, such as and using the theory, thereby increasing its adoption
doctoral students, who have relatively little time and rate and eventual market share. Finally, studies by
effort invested in traditional theories and methods, may opinion leaders are more likely to be featured in text-
adopt higher priced theories, especially if encouraged books which also helps to establish the theory.'^
to do so by their post-tenure mentors. However, in The scholars least likely to adopt a new theory are
these cases, the theory is probably already in the growth those who remain loyal to a previous theory, partic-
stage of the product life cycle, or at least appears to ularly if it is their own or one in which they have
be a theory with a high probability of success, based invested heavily. In fact, members of this group are
on its attributes. more likely to criticize the new theory and attempt to
remove it from the market. Such attempts may well
Target Markets for New Theories take the form of "replications" which are intended to
A research community can be segmented in a number discredit the new theory. Often these attempts are partly
of ways. As just discussed, scientists can be divided successful since most theories have numerous prob-
in terms of their position in the career life cycle. Three lems in the early stage of development. For example,
distinct groups can be identified: doctoral students, pre- because constructs used in the theory have surplus
tenure scholars, and post-tenure scholars. The latter meaning, parts of the theory can be interpreted in a
group might be further divided by rank into associate manner which reveals inconsistencies and ambigui-
and full professors. Theory products will differen- ties. It may be faidy easy to show that the theoretical
tially appeal to these groups and, as noted, these groups concepts have different meanings than intended by the
can afford to pay different prices for theories and are inventor/marketer, thus adding to the confusion re-
willing to incur different levels of risk. Of course, dif- garding the theory. Second, since the skeptical re-
ferent marketing strategies may be required for eacb searcher now controls the method in a replication, he/
of these segments.
A prime target market for a scientist's theory is
his/her own doctoral students, although the students ''Once a theory has achieved "texthook status," it tends to become
of other scholars are of interest as well. Usually these part of the discipline's hody of "knowledge." Regardless of whether
potential customers are seeking exactly what the mar- the measures are subsequently invalidated or empirical results ever
show impressive relationships, such theories are seldom purged en-
keter has to offer; a new theory or method in need of tirely from the literature. Over time the theory may lose followers and
empirical research in a discipline-related context. Ide- interest as new theories are offered which are perceived to be belter
ally, the theory should be somewhat new in order to or deal with what seem to be more important or interesting problems.
establish that the dissertation is a "contribution" to the Although some laggard researchers will continue to investigate the old
theory, only occasionally will this work be published in a major out-
field. As mentioned above, this target market may react let. When it is, it may still be employed in textbooks for the purpose
less negatively if the theory deviates substantially from of giving a fresh reference to an old chapter and for exemplifying the
the accepted view in the field, partly because its mem- supposedly cumulative nature of scientific inquiry. In fact, Kuhn (1970)
argues that textbooks rewrite the history of theories in order to make
bers have not yet become fully committed to that per- science appear to be cumulative.

116 / Journal of Marketing, Fall 1983

 she can usually generate results inconsistent with the ceptually, these three classes are mutually exclusive;
new theory. For example, the design could include however, more than one type of objective can be
too few subjects to allow sufficient statistical power achieved with the same marketing strategy.
to detect the effect, or a research setting involving many Noble objectives are those most commonly asso-
uncontrolled sources of variance could be used to "wash ciated with science. Included are such lofty goals as
out" an effect. In sum, an antagonistic scientist can seeking knowledge, attempting to understand a phe-
often demonstrate that a new theory's predictions are nomenon, and contributing to a discipline or to so-
poorer than previously reported, or even that "dis- ciety as a whole. Normally such goals are considered
confirming" effects are obtained. Finally, because all to be beyond reproach. Note, however, that these goals
research requires a myriad of subjective decisions, the can only be accomplished by a scientist who markets
competitor scientist can usually argue that at least some his/her work to the scientific community (or gets
of the original methodological decisions were inap- someone else to do the marketing). A theory can make
propriate and thus produced data that were biased in no contribution if the work is kept hidden in a file
favor of the theory. In such controversies, comments, drawer. Thus, scientists must market their theories to
replies, and rejoinders can continue back and forth to achieve even noble goals.
the limits of the tolerance of editors, reviewers, and Curiosity objectives refer to seeking answers to
the research community. one's personal questions about the subject of inquiry.
The market for a new theory can also be seg- Curiosity goals are closely related to noble goals, and
mented in terms of psychological characteristics. Sci- they differ primarily in the degree to which the work
entists have differing views about what counts as im- is performed for self versus others. Doing research for
portant, interesting theory, and these values and beliefs the fun of it and the sheer joy of leaming new things
infiuence their evaluations of a new theory. Based on are not unknown as motivators in science. However,
such attributes, Mitroff and Kilmann (1978) have if the scientist needs no cooperation from others, con-
identified four types of scientists. Two of these are tents him-/herself with the findings, needs no coop-
particularly relevant for segmenting scientific mar- eration from others, and shares them with no one,
kets. The analytical scientist (AS) is mainly con- marketing is not involved. Only when the theory and
cemed with tightly controlled, highly rigorous re- the findings are exchanged with someone else does
search designs intended to test weII-specified hypotheses the marketing process for the theory become relevant.
deduced from theory. This group seems to be the larg- Self-serving objectives are well-known within sci-
est segment in marketing and in most other fields. In entific communities but are not widely recognized
contrast, the conceptual theorist (CT) is more con- among the general public, nor are they usually con-
cemed with abstract ideas, how they fit logically to- sidered by professional philosophers of science. Self-
gether, and with their heuristic, generative power for serving goals lead researchers to perform scientific work
creating other ideas. This group is small in both mar- primarily for the purpose of personal gain. The re-
keting and in most other disciplines. Obviously, the wards for being a successful scientist can be substan-
characteristics of a new theory will strongly infiuence tial: promotions, job security, money (in the form of
which of these groups will be more attracted. The CT salary, grants, and consulting fees), release time from
group may be more likely to adopt a new theoretical other duties, prestige and recognition in the field, and
perspective if it is quite different from existing per- specific awards and honors. While these gains are
spectives and offers promise for dealing with impor- usually intended for scientists who pursue noble goals,
tant, complex phenomena and problems. CT's tend they often are awarded to those who seek mainly self-
not to be concemed about a lack of empirical support, serving goals. Occasionally, scientists who pursue only
especially early in a theory's development. On the other self-serving goals, especially in a blatant manner, are
hand, an AS is not likely to adopt a new theory until recognized as such and may be denied at least some
it has been developed to the stage where methods and of the sought rewards. The research community may
measures can be relatively unambiguously applied to infer that a particular researcher is seeking only self-
test specific aspects of the theory. Moreover, the pre- serving goals based on the researcher's verbal reports
liminary data should look promising. of objectives, and from practices such as producing a
large number of marginal theory/research papers, or
Marketing Objectives relabeling and publishing the same paper in multiple
channels.
Although the marketer of a scientific theory probably
has objectives or goals in mind for that theory, and Clearly, different goals may lead researchers to
for his/her career as a scientist, these goals are not adopt different marketing strategies. For instance, some
often explicit. For purposes of discussion, we have scientists who pursue noble goals may naively believe
roughly categorized scientists' objectives into three that overt marketing effort is unnecessary and even
groups: noble, curiosity, and self-serving goals. Con- demeaning, since an obviously superior theory will

Is Science Marketing? / 117

"sell itself." Of course, sophisticated marketers can Positivistic/Empiricist (P/E) perspective (see Ander-
easily recognize this perspective as a sign of a strong son 1983 for a more detailed review). Then, we con-
product orientation and not a particularly viable strat- trast this view with a newer, more useful philosophy
egy for long-term success. It is also clear that differ- of science which we call the Relativistic/Construc-
ent goals may lead to the same strategy, i.e., devel- tionist approach (R/C). Our intent is to introduce these
opment and marketing of a high quality theory product ideas at a broad, general level and avoid becoming
with a high quality marketing plan. Moreover, sci- mired in technical jargon and subtle details. Thus our
entists may have multiple goals which are consistent. coverage of these issues is necessarily an overview.
Perhaps it would be worthwhile to study scientists'
goals, their hierarchical relationships, and their im- The Positivistic/Empiricist Approach
pact on scientific progress. However, the main point The philosophy of science that presently dominates
here is that accomplishing scientific objectives de- marketing is a descendent of logical positivism, com-
pends on the quality of the marketing strategy and the monly called logical empiricism (cf. Broadbeck 1982,
effort exerted. Hunt 1983).^ The term "positivism" usually refers to
a type of strict empiricism in which only those knowl-
Summary edge claims that are based directly on experience (i.e.,
In the furst part of this article we have demonstrated empirical observations) are considered important, use-
that basic marketing concepts and principles can ac- ful, and/or scientifically meaningful. Coupled with
count for many aspects of scientific activity. Thus far this strong emphasis on empirical data, positivism re-
our arguments that science is marketing have been in- lies heavily on formal symbolic logic as a tool of anal-
formal. We have shown that many aspects of science ysis. Thus, positivists claim that through formal log-
involve social exchanges, and in particular, the ex- ical analysis of theories and by means of unbiased
change of ideas in the form of theories. Therefore, as observations, the truth of any (meaningful) proposi-
the discipline most concemed with exchange pro- tion can be determined absolutely.
cesses, marketing provides a relevant perspective for Logical empiricism is a somewhat more moderate
understanding science. In addition, we have shown version of positivism developed to avoid the induction
how certain marketing concepts are or could be used problem—namely that no universal proposition can
by scientists to develop effective marketing strategies be conclusively verified by any set of observations,
that could inñuence other scientists to adopt their the- no matter how large. Thus logical empiricism tends
ories. to favor a view that although scientific propositions
In the remainder of the article we develop our claim cannot be conclusively verified, they can be "increas-
that science is marketing along more formal lines. We ingly confirmed," again using careful observations
attempt to show how current views on the nature of (e.g., in experiments) and the rules of formal logic.
science also lead to the conclusion that much of the In this view, for instance, theoretical terms derive their
activity of science involves marketing processes. The meanings through "correspondence rules" that "con-
key theoretical ideas used in our arguments constitute nect" them to direct experience (empirical observa-
a set of metatheoretical assumptions about the nature tions). These observations give meaning to the theo-
of scientific knowledge and how that knowledge is retical terms. The logical empiricist point of view
achieved. Many of these ideas are radically different dominates current marketing research in that much of
from those that underlie the philosophical perspective
our research methodology and approach are based on
currently prominent in marketing and other social sci-
these philosophical assumptions.
ences.
Popper (1959) proposed a "falsification" strategy
to avoid the inductive problems of the confirmation
Metatheoretical Assumptions approach of logical empiricism. However, as inter-
preted by many philosophers and marketing scholars,
about Science falsification is merely a somewhat more sophisticated
Scholars have proposed a variety of philosophical per- brand of logical empiricism (cf Calder, Phillips, and
spectives regarding science (see Brown 1977, Suppe Tybout 1981, 1982; Lynch 1982).^ This approach to
1977). These points of view are characterized by ma- science, termed "naive falsificationism" by Lakatos
jor as well as subtle differences and by a profusion of (1970), requires that a researcher consider a theory as
terminology (logical positivism, logical empiricism,
instrumentalism, realism, falsificationism, relativism,
etc.). We attempt to sidestep much of the resulting (1977) and Brown (1977) provide thorough historical anal-
controversy and semantic confusion in the remainder yses of how these positions have evolved.
^However, other, less well-recognized aspects of Popper's thinking
of this article. First, we briefiy describe the reigning are fairly consistent with the perspective we are advocating (see Brown
philosophical approach in marketing which we call the 1977, Chapters).

118 / Journal of Marketing, Fall 1983

 false if a key deductively-derived hypothesis is re- of observational data. These factors are not a part of
jected by empirical observations.^ the unbiased observations and formal symbolic logic
In sum, the P/E approach that currently underlies of the P/E approach; thus they are usually rejected
research in marketing emphasizes (a) the development from consideration as irrelevant for an understanding
of axiomatic theory through the use of deductively- of scientific progress. However, in terms of the R/C
derived hypotheses which are manipulated via formal perspective advocated below, these factors are of crit-
rules of symbolic logic, and especially (b) objective ical importance in understanding how scientific
empirical observations that give meaning to the the- knowledge develops.^
oretical propositions and are used to rigorously test This article is not the place to present a complete
them, perhaps even falsify them. Thus, many people discussion and defense of the R/C approach to sci-
consider the P/E approach to be rational (in the for- ence. Others have done so effectively (see Collins and
mal logical sense). Cox Í976, Feyerabend 1975, Knorr-Cetina 1981, Kunn
1970, Munévar 1981). Instead, in the rest of the ar-
The Relativistic/Constructionist Approach ticle we identify and briefly discuss some key dis-
In the P/E perspective of science, certain factors are tinctions between the P/E view of science and the
excluded from consideration, including the effects of R/C perspective. A summary of these distinctions is
(a) social interaction and influence among scientists, provided in Table 1.
(b) the idiosyncratic beliefs and values of individual
scientists, and (c) scientists' subjective interpretations *We cast the differences between these approaches in simple dicho-
tomous terms in order to distinguish them and make our points more
clearly. However, a variety of fmer, more subtle distinctions can be
'It should be noted thai Laudan (1965) clearly demonstrates the im- drawn. See Brown (1977) for a review of the issues involved in this
possibility of falsification. controversy.

TABLE 1
Major Differences between Positivistic/Empiricist and Relativistic/Constructionist Views of Science
PositJvistic/Empiricist Science Relativistic/Constructionist Science
Science discovers the true nature of reality. Science creates many realities.
Only the logic of justification is needed to understand The processes by which theories are created, justified,
science. and diffused throughout a research community are
needed to understand science.
Science can be understood without considering Science is a social process and cannot be understood
culturai, sociai, political, and economic factors. without considering cultural, social, political, and
economic factors.
Science is objective. Science is subjective.
Scientific knowledge is absolute and cumulative. Scientific knowledge is relative to a particular context
and period of time in history.
Science is capable of discovering universal laws that Science creates ideas that are context-dependent, i.e.,
govern the external world. relative to a frame of reference.
Science produces theories that conne closer and closer Truth is a subjective evaluation that cannot be
to absolute truth. properly inferred outside of the context provided by
the theory.
Science is rational since it follows formal rules of Science is rational to the degree that it seeks to
logic. improve individual and societal well-being by
following whatever means are useful for doing so.
There are specific rules for doing science validly (e.g., There are many ways of doing science validiy that are
falsification). appropriate in different situations.
Scientists subject their theories to potential Scientists seek supportive, confirnnatory evidence in
falsification through rigorous empirical testing. order to market their theories.
Measurement procedures do not influence what is Nothing can be measured without changing it.
measured.
Data provide objective, independent benchmarks for Data are created and interpreted by scientists in terms
testing theories. of a variety of theories, and thus are theory laden.

Is Science Marketing? / 1 1 9
Reality Is Relative try to convert other scientists to their point of view.
A key difference between the two approaches to sci- Recently, sociologists of science have been actively
ence concems the assumed nature of reality and how investigating how social interaction processes affect
scientists relate to reality through their theories and the development of social consensus regarding a sci-
observational evidence (see Hooker 1975). Research- entific method, a theory, or even the appropriate inter-
ers with a P/E orientation usually take a realist point pretation of empirical evidence (e.g., Collins 1981,
of view. Although there are various types of realism, Latour 1980, Pinch 1981). Developing a high degree
most P/E researchers appear to believe that an exter- of social concensus among scientists is a major ob-
nal world exists (usually one world in one way), and jective of marketing strategies for scientific theories.
that it is possible to come closer to knowing the true Science Is Subjective
nature of that world through empirical observations
obtained through rigorous methods and analyses. The- The presumed objectivity of science is a key charac-
ories, then, are treated as general statements about the teristic of the P/E approach that currently dominates
real world. The goal is to develop theories that come marketing and related social science disciplines.
increasingly closer to being true statements about real- However, this aura of objectivity has been steadily
ity. Altematively, researchers with an R/C orienta- eroding for years across all sciences, including phys-
tion conceive of many possible realities, each of which ics (see Zukav 1979). All pretensions to objectivity
is relative to a specific context or frame of reference. (in this narrow sense) disappear on adopting an R/C
According to this view, scientists construct "realities" perspective on science.
by developing a degree of social agreement about the P/E approaches tend to treat scientists' percep-
meanings of their theories and empirical observations tions or sense impressions naively as providing ob-
(e.g., Collins 1975, Collins and Cox 1976, Elkana jective, unbiased representations of the real world.
1978, Feyerabend 1975, Gilbert 1976, Munévar 1981). Thus, empirical observations (manifestations of sci-
entists' sense impressions) are treated as objective data
that are independent of any theory. In contrast, the
Science Is a Social Process R/C perspective recognizes that even so-called direct
Science is an activity performed by interacting human perceptions are not objective but are influenced by a
beings, and thus obviously is a social process. We multitude of factors, including relevant past experi-
believe these social interaction processes are very im- ences and training. For this reason different scientists
portant for understanding science. In fact, the ex- may examine the same data and perceive entirely dif-
changes that take place during these social processes ferent meanings (Stent 1975).
constitute a major reason for our contention that sci- Here we consider the process by which scientific
ence is marketing. meaning is developed. There are two aspects of this
Until recently, few philosophers of science have process, one psychological and the other sociological.
considered the social interaction and social infiuence No less a scientist than Einstein (1936) has noted the
processes involved in scientific progress. P/E philos- psychological aspects quite clearly:
ophers tend to ignore such social factors or even claim
Out of the multitude of our sense experiences we take,
that such processes are unimportant (or "irrational") mentally and arbitrarily, certain repeatedly occurring
and, thus, not worthy of study. Instead they continue complexes of sense impressions . . . and we attrib-
to be concemed with rather formal logical models for ute to them a meaning—the meaning of the bodily
object. Considered logically this concept is not iden-
the justification or testing of theories. That is, P/E tical to the totality of sense impressions referred to;
philosophers have focused on how theories are pre- but it is an arbitrary creation of the human (or ani-
sumed to be verified, corroborated, or falsified, and mal) mind. . . . The second step . . . we attribute
to this concept of the bodily object a significance.
presumed to be converted to scientific knowledge. which is to a high degree independent of the sense
In contrast, philosophers with an R/C orientation impression which originally gives rise to it. This is
have been willing to consider the (less formal) social what we mean when we attribute to the bodily object
processes in science. For example, Kuhn (1970) noted 'a real existence' (p. 60, emphasis added).
the importance of social influence in evaluating alter- The sociological aspect refers to the social interaction
native theories: "The superiority of one theory to an- and persuasion processes used to generate a degree of
other is something that cannot be proved in debate. social consensus regarding the scientific meaning of
Instead, I have insisted, each party must try, by per- an observation or a theory. Marketing strategies are
suasion, to convert the other" (p. 198, emphasis added). used to infiuence both the psychological (individual
Mitroff (1974), in his analysis of the Apollo moon level) and social (group level) aspects of the meaning
scientists, found that certain scientists are so highly development process.
committed to their theories that they resist all persu- Our point here is that all meanings—including the
asive attempts to chatige their beliefs and continually specific, technical meanings that constitute much of

120 / Journal of Marketing, Fall 1983

 scientific knowledge—are subjectively determined. sitions change, so does the meaning of the theory.
Moreover, an R/C approach to science explicitly rec- Moreover, a completely valid, causal explanation of
ognizes that meaning is never absolute. Meaning is a phenomenon (i. e., a true theory) cannot be produced
always meaning in context, i.e., relative to some frame since all rival altemative hypotheses can never be
of reference (Mischler 1979). In science, theories are eliminated (i.e., falsified). In fact, scientists are sel-
an important source of context. If the context changes dom aware of all the existing hypotheses which could
(perhaps because the theory is changed during a par- be used to explain a phenomenon, and, of course, sci-
adigm shift), so does the meaning of the relevant em- entists cannot know of hypotheses and explanations
pirical observations. P/E approaches tend to deny this yet to be invented.
subjective aspect of science by claiming that the rules Much of the logic underlying the extensive use of
and procedures for doing science produce objective, experimentation, representative sampling, and infer-
absolute meanings. The R/C perspective recognizes ential statistics in marketing research is based on the
the inherent subjectivity in science and accounts for P/E goal of developing universal theories and laws.
it in a relativistic, context-dependent manner. However, even statistical inferences drawn by scien-
tists who believe in statistical theory are relative to
Science Is Rational the assumed populations of people, stimuli, measures,
Contrary to the protests in the P/E literature (e.g., etc., being sampled. It is also clear from the history
Suppe 1977), the preceding discussion does not lead of science that no universal laws or theories have ever
to the conclusion that science is irrational. Individual been advanced that meet strict P/E requirements (see
scientists can reasonably be assumed to attempt to Feyerabend 1975, Munévar 1981). In marketing, even
achieve their objectives in a rational way. That is, sci- simple strategic planning models have been shown to
entists borrow or create those theories which they be- be restricted to particular situations (see Day 1977,
lieve can accomplish their noble, curiosity, or self- Wensley 1981). Thus, the P/E view of science which
serving goals. Their beliefs may be found on the basis pursues objectives, such as universal laws, seems
of what the "hot topic" is in a discipline, whether a misguided. In contrast, the R/C perspective explicitly
particular theory fits well with their values and pre- recognizes the "boundedness" of theories and the re-
dilections, or how easily a theory can be marketed, lativistic meaning of observations, and seeks to spec-
among other factors. ify the limits of their generalizability. In sum, theories
Rationality in science does not require the use of are limited to (relative to) specific times and particular
formal rules of symbolic logic. Nor must the objec- contexts.
tives and standards for judging progress be absolute
and fixed. In fact, it is quite clear from tbe history of Usefulness of Theories
science that standards and objectives vary across time Theories can be evaluated in terms of their truth con-
and across research communities. Similarly, scientific tent or their usefulness. P/E approaches usually focus
rationality does not require that research be conducted on truth content. However, no defensible method for
under the guidelines of a single scientific method such establishing the truth of a theory has ever been ad-
as falsification. Feyerabend (1975) argues that many vanced (Peter 1983). Therefore, from an R/C per-
major discoveries in science could not have occurred spective, usefulness seems to be a more appropriate
by following "the" scientific method and persuasively criterion for evaluating a theory. Usefulness is a prag-
argues against a single approach to science. In fact, matic criterion concemed with the difference it makes
Feyerabend recommends that "anything goes"—i.e., to follow the theory's recommendations. Here the em-
any methodology or theory, no matter how uncon- phasis is on the performance, or potential perfor-
ventional, can contribute to scientific progress.^ mance of a theory (Munévar 1981). Usefulness can
be judged in terms of how effectively a theory enables
Theories Are Not Universal the user to "get along" in the world or accomplish
A theory has meaning only within its own context, some specific task. For example, if application of a
i.e., within its own set of metatheoretical assumptions marketing theory leads to an increase in long run prof-
(Hooker 1975, Mischler 1979). As these presuppo- its for a firm, then it may be inferred that the theory
was a good one; that is, it was useful in that situation
and context, given that objective. Note tbat the use-
*The problem, of course, comes in marketing unconventional meth- fulness criterion of the R/C approach provides no di-
ods and theories to an unappreciative audience. Many researchers may
be committed to a P/E perspective and major journals may reject un-
rect evidence of the truth content of the theory; in fact,
usual approaches to developing knowledge. Generating acceptance of truth content is basically irrelevant from an R/C per-
new methods which challenge engrained beliefs and established re- spective (Olson 1982).
search procedures is often difficult. In fact, this problem may generate
the need for new channels (journals or books) to provide outlets for Theories can be useful in a variety of ways. For
such radical work. example, theories may include new concepts which

Is Science Marketing? / 121

offer more interesting or precise descriptions of phe- frequently advocated and apparently believed by many
nomena than previously popular constructs. Descrip- marketing scholars. We view the P/E accounts of ob-
tions of certain consumer behaviors in terms of "at- jective theory testing and the reliance on strict meth-
tributions" or "semantic processing" seem so much odological rules such as falsification as stifling crea-
more precise than "attitudes" or "perceptions." In fact, tive science rather than facilitating it. The following
within the context of current cognitive theory, these recommendations are offered in the hope that the out-
are more precise terms. Theories can also be useful dated P/E approach to science can be replaced by more
in a heuristic sense for generating other theories or creative, insightful, and useful styles of inquiry con-
ideas (Gergen 1978). Ultimately, though, a pragmatic sistent with the R/C perspective.
humanist criterion seems critical, i.e., what does the
theory do to increase societal welfare? Humanistic cri-
teria are much more easily integrated into science from
Scientific Training
an R/C than from a P/E perspective. It is clear that far more effort is exerted in training
scientists in methods of testing hypotheses rather than
Data Never Speak for Themselves encouraging them to create important, provocative,
Many P/E philosophers and scientists seem to believe meaningful, or useful theories. The typical doctoral
that data are independent of the theories they are used program in marketing contains many courses intended
to test. That is, empirical observations are assumed to to prepare students to test hypotheses, yet embarrass-
provide an objective benchmark against which to test ingly little attention is given to how to create hy-
and compare theories. Yet, philosophers of science potheses and evaluate their merits. In fact, creativity
have repeatedly shown that there is no pure obser- may be stifled in the rush to ensure that students have
vational language, i.e., all data are theory-laden (see the requisite methodological and statistical skills to
Feyerabend 1975, Kuhn 1970, Lakatos 1978, Popper produce the empirical demonstrations demanded by
1959, among others). This point is made clearer if we the P/E approach to science. While it seems unlikely
remember that data (empirical observations) are con- that creativity can be taught directly, more hospitable
structed just as theories are. Data do not exist in the environments could facilitate such leaming. Various
"real world" waiting to be gathered. Rather, data are scholars, including Davis (1971), McGuire (1973),
created through the measurement operations used by Webb (1961) and Zaltman, LeMasters, and Heffring
scientists to produce them. Clearly, the scientist se- (1982), have suggested a number of ideas for gener-
lects the theory, hypotheses, research setting, test ating interesting, insightful, useful research questions.
stimuli, subjects, measures, and statistics to be used. In essence, creative insights are a function of the
In fact, the entire production of research data is con- amount, quality, and content of what the individual
trolled by the scientist (Peter, in press). scientist thinks and does.'° At present, the major ef-
The point is that scientists control the process of forts in marketing are devoted to designing research
generating research data, and almost always have biases to test ideas borrowed from other disciplines, rather
about what they want to find and how the data are than creating and developing theoretical ideas about
interpreted. If "negative results" are found which are marketing phenomena and problems (Sheth 1982).
unpublishable, a new study nearly always can be con- Clearly, "replications" in a marketing context of re-
ducted to produce "appropriate" results. Although such search ideas gleaned from other fields has some value.
attempts will not always be successful in the short run, However, it is unlikely that marketing will advance
we suspect that long-term perseverance often yields very rapidly or very far as long as we depend on other
the desired results, especially if combined with an ef- scientists, uninterested in our field, to carry the major
fective marketing strategy to generate at least a min- responsibility for creating and developing the theories
imum level of consensus as to the value of the work. we use. We need to adapt and further develop the the-
However, if, after a number of trials, a researcher still ories we borrow.
cannot generate empirical support for a theory, the re- In addition, rather than starting research with a
searcher rather than the theory may warrant condem- borrowed theory or construct, it may be more useful
nation. Altematively, it may be that the methods re- to begin with a marketing phenomenon or problem in
quired to provide the desired empirical observations which we are interested, and then attempt to develop
and results are not yet available. our own theories about it. While insights from other
fields may aid in investigating the phenomenon or
problem, we should guard against letting them dom-
Recommendations
Our R/C view of science as the marketing of ideas
conflicts sharply with what Mitroff (1972) calls the '"For example, see Gruber's (1981) fascinating account of Charles
"fairytale description of science" (i.e., the P/E view) Darwin's creativity.

122 / Journal of Marketing, Fall 1983

 inate any ideas we have on our own. Further, we should Context-Specific Meaning
not constrain our search for additional insights to tra- We need to investigate meaning in context rather than
ditional areas of borrowing, such as economics, social strive to produce universal laws and theories. Some
and cognitive psychology, and statistics. Many dis- procedures for such research are suggested by Mis-
ciplines such as history, anthropology, sociology, and chler (1979) and Morgan and Smircich (1980). In fields
clinical psychology have useful ideas to offer. such as sociology and organizational behavior, con-
siderable work is currently being done on the devel-
Values in Science opment of new methods of context-specific inquiry
(e.g., Knorr-Cetina and Mulkay 1983, Morgan 1983).
We must stop deluding ourselves and others that as
At a minimum, consideration of these works points to
empirical scientists, we are impartial to the outcomes
the need to more fully observe and report research de-
of our research, that our research is objective, and that
tails in current approaches to research and to critically
we are dealing with established facts rather than in-
evaluate current research methods which were de-
ferences of varying quality. Clearly, scientists are ad-
signed for seeking universal generalizations. In gen-
vocates for their theories, hypotheses, and data. Usu-
eral, less emphasis on following normative rules of
ally "positive findings" must be produced to persuade
research conduct gamered from P/E accounts of sci-
others and to successfully market scientific work. To
ence may aid in the development of better methods
argue that all "scientific" research should be designed
and theories.
to falsify specific hypotheses is misleading and dys-
functional for our progress. Empirical research is cer-
tainly valuable. However, data should not be viewed Summary and Conclusions
as providing an objective test of a theory's truth value. We have shown that many aspects of scientific activ-
Empirical evidence may be more appropriately viewed ity are consistent with basic marketing concepts and
as demonstrating the usefulness of a theoretical idea processes. We have implied that astute scientists could
in a particular context. make good use of basic marketing principles to de-
velop effective strategies for promoting their theories.
In addition, we have shown that the "science is mar-
Scientific Behavior
keting" perspective is more consistent with the "new"
It should be clear that studying science as a social R/C philosophy of science than with the outdated
activity can produce new knowledge, not only about P/E orientation that currently dominates marketing
science but also about the behavior of scientists as well. research. We have also argued that adopting an R/C
For example, Mitroff s (1974) classic study of the approach in marketing could produce more creative
Apollo moon scientists, Knorr-Cetina's (1981) inves- and useful theories.
tigation of laboratory physicists, Latour and Wool- While we believe that marketing provides a useful
gar's (1979) description of biology scientists at the perspective for analyzing science, other views of sci-
Salk Institute, and Zukav's (1979) insights into the ence are useful as well. For example, science can also
conduct of research on quantum mechanics provide be analyzed as art and theater (Feyerabend 1968),
detailed descriptions of the social nature of science. rhetoric (Gusfield 1976), communication (Edge 1979),
These analyses clearly show that scientists are social and cognitive psychology (Tweney, Doherty, and
beings with social needs, not automatons following a Mynatt 1981). Moreover, aspects of science are sim-
program of formal logical analysis. In addition, in- ilar to mysticism (Capra 1975) as well as more for-
vestigations of collaborative research practices (Over mally organized religion (Feyerabend 1968). In some
1982), secretiveness and competitiveness for priority situations, even the positivistic/empiricist perspective
of discovery by researchers (Gaston 1971), referenc- may offer useful ideas about science. Future research
ing behavior (Gilbert 1977), and outright fudging of on science might identify and create new perspec-
research results, such as the case of Cyril Burt and tives, combine and compare altemative perspectives,
J. B. Watson (see Samelson 1980), provide insights and specify the contexts and situations under which
about scientific progress and the social behavior of the one perspective may be more useful than another.
scientists involved. Finally, studying the marketing Finally, it is reasonable to ask what we have leamed
plans of successful scientists could improve our about the question, "Is marketing a science?" While
knowledge of the effectiveness of various marketing we recognize that no defensible criterion for distin-
strategies and tactics in producing scientific prog- guishing science from nonscience has ever been found
ress. IT (Laudan 1982), we believe that the main task of sci-
ence is to create useful knowledge. To the degree that
marketing has done so, then it can be labeled a sci-
"For example, see Feyerabend's (1975) analysis of the strategies
followed by Galileo in marketing his radical views on astronomy.
ence. As marketing scientists we should be concemed

Is Science Marketing? / 123

 to make our discipline more effective in creating use- keting scholars the freedom and confidence to create
ful knowledge about our subject matter. We believe new conceptual schemes and perspectives. This
that such improvements are best achieved by adopting is in contrast to following the outdated rules of the
the relativistic/constructionist approach to science ad- P/E approach that focus only on testing theories we
vocated here. Recognizing the social processes of sci- already have. A creative science of marketing is more
ence, the context specificity of scientific knowledge, likely to flourish by taking a relativistic/construction-
and other features of the R/C program can give mar- ist approach.

REFERENCES
Alderson, Wroe and Reavis Cox (1948), "Towards a Theory Marketing,^ Journal of Marketing, 10 (July), 14-23.
of Maiketing,,''Journal of Marketing, 13 (October), 137- Crane, Diana (1972), Invisible Colleges: Confusion of Knowl-
152. edge in Scientific Communities, Chicago: University of
Anderson, Paul F. (1983), "Marketing, Scientific F*rogress, Chicago Press.
and Scientific Method," Journal of Marketing, 47 (Fall), Davis, Murray S. (1971), "That's Interesting! Towards a Phe-
18-31. nomenology of Sociology and a Sociology of Phenomen-
Bagozzi, Richard P. (1975), "Marketing as Exchange," Jour- ology," Philosophy of the Social Sciences. 1, 309-344.
nal of Marketing, 39 (October), 32-9. Day, George (1977), "Diagnosing the Product Portfolio,"
Bames, Barry (1977), Interests and the Growth of Knowledge, Journal of Marketing. 41 (April), 29-38.
London; Routledge and Kegan Paul. Edge, D. (1979), "Quantitative Measures of Communication
Bartels, Robert (1951), "Can Marketing be a Science?," Jour- in Science: A Critical Review," History of Science, 17, 102-
nal of Marketing. 15 (January), 319-28. 34.
Baumöl, William J. (1957), "On the Role of Marketing The- Einstein, Albert (1936), "Physics and Reality," The Journal
ory," Journal of Marketing, 21 (April), 413-18. of the Franklin Institute. 221 (3), reprinted in Out of My
Brodbeck, May (1982), "Recent Developments in the Philos- Later Years, A. Einstein (1956), New York: Citadel.
ophy of Science," in Marketing Theory: Philosophy of Sci- Elkana, Yehuda (1978), "Two-Tier Thinking: Philosophical
ence Perspectives. R. F. Bush and S. D. Hunt, eds., Chi- Realism and Historical Relativism," Social Studies of Sci-
cago: American Marketing. ence. 8 (August), 309-26.
Brown, Harold I. (1977), Perception, Theory, and Commit- Epstein, Seymour (1979), "The Stability of Behavior: I. On
ment: The New Philosophy of Science. Chicago: University Predicting Most of the People Much of the Time," Journal
of Chicago Press. of Personality and Social Psychology. 37 (July), 1097-1126.
Buzzell, Robert D. (1963), "Is Marketing a Science?," Har- (1980), "The Stability of Behavior: II. Implications
vard Business Review. 41 (January-February), 32. for Psychological Research," American Psychologist, 35
Calder, Bobby J., Lynn W. Phillips, and Alice M. Tybout (September), 790-806.
(1981), "Designing Research for Applications," Journal of Feyerabend, Paul (1968), "On the Improvement of the Sci-
Consumer Research, 8 (September), 197-207. ences and the Arts, and the Possible Identity of the Two,"
, , and (1982), "The Concept Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, III, New York:
of Extemal Validity," Journal of Consumer Research, 9 Humanities Press, 387-415.
(December), 240-44. (1975), Against Method, London: Redwood Bum
Capra, Fritjof (1975), The Tao of Physics, Boulder. CO: Limited.
Shambhala. Fomell, Claes (1983), "Issues in the Application of Covari-
Churehill, Gilbert A., Jr. and William D. Perrault (1982), "JMR ance Structure Analysis: A Comment," Journal of Con-
Editorial Policies and Philosophy," Journal of Marketing sumer Research. 9 (March), 443-48.
Research, 19 (August), 283-7. Gaston, ierry (1971), "Secretiveness and Competition for
Cliff, Norman (1983), "Some Cautions Conceming the Ap- Priority of Discovery in Physics," Minerva. 9 (October),
plication of Causal Modeling Methods," Multivariate Be- 472-92.
havioral Research, 18 (January), 115-126. Gergen, Kenneth (1978), "Toward Generative Theory," Jour-
Cohen, Joel B., Martin Fishbein, and Olli T. Ahtola (1972), nal of Personality and Social Psychology. 36 (November),
"The Nature and Uses of Expectancy-Value Models in 1344-1360.
Consumer Attitude Research," Journal of Marketing Re- Gilbert, Nigel G. (1976), "The Transformation of Research
search, 9 (November), 456-60. Findings into Scientific Knowledge," Social Studies of Sci-
Collins, H. M. (1975), "The Seven Sexes: A Study in the ence, 6 (September), 281-306.
Sociology of a Phenomenon or the Replication of Experi- (1977), "Referencing as Persuasion," Social Stud-
ments in Physics," Sociology. 9 (May), 205-24. ies of Science, 1 (Febmary), 113-122.
(1981), "Son of the Seven Sexes: The Social De- Gould, Jay (1982), "How Science Changes with the 'Political
struction of a Physical Phenomenon," Social Studies of Sci- Climate'," U.S. News and World Report, 92 (March 1),
ence, 11 (February), 33-62. 62.
and G. Cox (1976), "Recovering Relativity: Did Gruber, Howard E. (1981), Darwin on Man: A Psychological
Prophecy Fail?" Social Studies of Science, 6 (September), Study of Scientific Creativity. 2nd ed., Chicago: University
423-44. of Chicago Press.
Converse, Paul D. (1945), "The Development of a Science of Gusfield, J. (1976), "The Literary Rhetoric of Science,"

124 / Journal of Marketing, Fall 1983

 American Sociological Review. 41 fFebruary), 16-34. proaches to Social Science, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hooker, C. A. (1975), "Philosophy and Meta-Philosophy of Morgan, Gareth. ed. (1983), Beyond Method: Strategies for
Science: Empiricism, Popperianism and Realism," Synthese. Social Research, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
32 (November-December). 177-231. and Linda Smircich (1980), "The Case for Quali-
Hunt, Shelby D. (1976), Marketing Theory: Conceptual Foun- tative Research," Academy of Management Review. 5 (Oc-
dations of Research in Markering. Columbus, OH: Grid. tober), 491-500.
(1983), Marketing Theory: The Philosophy of Mar- Munévar, Gonzalo (1981), Radical Knowledge: A Philosoph-
keting Science. Homewood, IL: Irwin. ical Inquiry into the Nature and Limits of Science. Indi-
Kassarjian, Harold H. (1971), "Personality and Consumer Be- anapolis, IN: Hackett.
havior: A Review," Journal of Marketing Research. 8 (No- Olson, Jerry C. (1982), "Presidential Address-1981: Toward
vember), 409-18. a Science of Consumer Behavior," in Advances in Con-
Knorr-Cetina, Karin D. (1981), The Manufacture of Knowl- sumer Research. Vol. 9, A. Mitchell, ed., Chicago: As-
edge: Toward a Constructivist and Contextual Theory of sociation for Consumer Research, v-x.
Science, Oxford: Pergamon. O'Shaughnessy, John and Michael J. Ryan (1979), "Market-
(1982), "The Constructivist Programme in Sociol- ing, Science and Technology," in Conceptual and Theo-
ogy of Science: Retreats or Advances?," Social Studies of retical Developments in Marketing. O. C. Ferrell, S. W.
Science. 12 (May), 320-324. Brown, and C. W. Lamb, Jr., eds., Chicago: American
and Michael Mulkay (1983), Science Observed: Marketing, 577-89.
Perspectives on the Social Study of Science, Beverly Hills, Over, Ray (1982), "Collaborative Research and Publication in
CA: Sage. Psychology," American Psychologist, 37 (September), 996-
Koch, Sigmund (1981), "The Nature and Limits of Psycho- 1001.
logical Knowledge," American Psychologist. 36 (March), Peter, J. Paul (1983), "Some Philosophical and Methodolog-
257-69. ical Issues in Consumer Research," in Marketing Theory:
Kotier, Philip (1980), Marketing Management: Analysis, The Philosophy of Marketing Science. S . D . Hunt, Home-
Planning and Control. 4th ed., Englewood Cliffs, NJ: wood, IL: Irwin, 382-394.
Prentice-Hall. (in press), "On Ignoring a Research Education," in
Kuhn, Thomas S. (1970), The Structure of Scientific Revo- Distinguished Essays in Marketing Theory. S. Brown and
lutions. 2nd ed., Chicago: University of Chicago Press. R. Fiske, eds.. New York: Wiley.
Lakatos, Imre (1970), "Falsification and the Methodology of Pinch, Trevor J. (1981), "The Sun-Set: The Presentation of
Scientific Research Programmes," in Criticism and the Certainty in Scientific Life," Social Studies of Science. 11
Growth of Knowledge. I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave. eds., (February), 131-58.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Popper, Karl (1959), The Logic of Scientific Discovery, New
(1978), The Methodology of Scientific Research York: Harper.
Programmes: Philosophical Papers, Vol. 1, J. Worrall and Samelson, Franz (1980), "J. B. Watson's Little Albert, Cyril
G. Currie, eds., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Burt's Twins, and the Need for a Critical Science," Amer-
Latour, Bruno (1980), "Is it Possible to Reconstruct the Re- ican Psychologist, 35 (July), 619-25.
search Process?," in The Social Process of Scientific In- Sheth, Jagdish N. (1982), "Consumer Behavior: Surpluses and
vestigation, Sociology of Sciences Yearbook. Vol. 4, K. Shortages," in Advances in Consumer Research. Vol. 9,
Knorr, R. Krohn, and R. Whitiey, eds., Dordrecht, Hol- A. A. Mitchell, ed., Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Con-
land: Reidel. sumer Research, 13-16.
and Steve Woolgar (1979), Laboratory Life, Bev- Stanley, Julian C. and Camilla P. Benbow (1982), "Huge Sex
erly Hills, CA: Sage. Ratios at Upper End," American Psychologist, 37 (Au-
Laudan, Larry (1965), "On the Impossibility of Crucial Fal- gust), 972.
sifying Experiment: Gruntaum on The Cuhemian Argu- Stein, Morris I. (1974), Stimulating Creativity, Vol. 1, New
ment'," Philosophy of Science. 32 (July), 295-9. York: Academic Press.
(1982), The Demise of the Demarcation Problem," (1975), Stimulating Creativity. Vol. 2, New York:
paper presented at a workshop on the Demarcation between Academic Press.
Science and Pseudo-Science, Virginia Polytechnic Institute Stent, Günther S. (1975), "Limits to the Scientific Under-
and State University, April 30-May 2. standing of Man," Science, 187 (March), 1052-1057.
Lynch, John G., Jr. (1982), "On the Extemal Validity of Ex- Suppe, Frederick (1977), The Structure of Scientific Theories,
periments in Consumer Research," Journal of Consumer 2nd ed.. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Research. 9 (December), 225-^39. Taylor, Weldon J. (1965), "Is Marketing a Science? Revis-
McGuire, William J. (1973), "The Yin and Yang of Progress ited," Journal of Marketing, 29 (July), 49-53.
in Social Psychology: Seven Koan," Journal of Personality Tweney, Ryan D., Michael E. Doherty, and Clifford R. Myn-
and Social Psychology, 26 (June), 446-456. att (1981), On Scientific Thinking, New York: Columbia
Mischler, Elliot G. (1979), "Meaning in Context: Is There Any University Press.
Other Kind?," Harvard Educational Review, 49 (Febru- Webb, Wilse (1961), "The Choice ofthe Problem," American
ary), 1-18. Psychologist, 16 (May), 223-7.
Mitroff, Ian L (1972), "The Myth of Objectivity or Why Sci- Wensley, Robin (1981), "Strategic Marketing: Betas, Boxes,
ence Needs a New Psychology of Science," Management or Basics," Journal of Marketing, 45 (Summer), 173-82.
Science. 18 (June), 613-618. Zaltman, Gerald, Karen LeMasters, and Michael Heffring
(1974), "Norms and Counter-Norms in a Select (1982), Theory Construction in Marketing. New York:
Group of Apollo Moon Scientists: A Case Study ofthe Am- Wiley.
bivalence of Scientists, " American Sociological Review. 39 Zukav, Gary (1979), The Dancing Wu Li Masters: An Over-
(August), 579-95. view of the New Physics. New York: Bantam.
and Ralph H. Kilmann (1978), Methodological Ap-

Is Science Marketing? / 125