Keywords: marketing theory, philosophy of science, science debates, paradigm, multiple paradigm research

Transcription

1 The Marketing Review 2004, 4, Mark Tadajewski^ University of Leicester The Philosophy of Marketing Theory: Historicai and Future Directions This paper reviews over sixty years' research on the philosophy of science in marketing and consumer research, identifying the different Issues that have concerned marketing scholars over this period. These debates are important since they Impinge on every aspect of the research process with the production of research involving the researcher making assumptions about the nature of the world being investigated and the appropriate methodological stance involved in such study. Registering the centrality of these issues, the philosophy of science that underpins marketing research is increasingly seen to be an important feature of doctoral inquiry and stimulates interest among educators and practitioners alike. The paper provides a detailed, systematic reading of the development of the science debates and identifies an emergent form of theory development in marketing, namely, multiple paradigm research. Keywords: marketing theory, philosophy of science, science debates, paradigm, multiple paradigm research Introduction The philosophy of science debates seen throughout marketing and consumer research may seem like an esoteric area to review. However, as Lutz (1989: p.9) registers, marketing scholars need to be aware of the philosophical assumptions embedded in their research output because all research is underpinned and delimited by a particular stance toward the world they study (ontology) and how this is investigated (epistemology) which, in turn, influences the methodology used to seek knowledge (Anderson 1986, p. 156; Holland 1999, p.467; Peter 1991, p.543). Considering the fundamental impact of philosophy on the research process, Bristor (1985, p.300), argues that the implications of the philosophy of science for marketing are a 'seriously neglected issue', 'muddled' and much less productive than they may have been (Hunt 2003, p.5). Since the philosophy that underpins marketing research projects is seen to be an important feature of doctoral inquiry (Burton 2003; Hackley b; Munroe 1979; Olson 1982) and of interest among educators (Kernan 1995a; Payne 1993; Wilkie 1980, 2002) and practitioners alike (Laurie and Correspondence: Mark Tadajewski, Management Centre, University of Leicester, University Road, Leicester, LE1 7RH, mt66@le.ac.uk ISSN X/2004/3/ /0 Westburn Publishers Ltd.

2 308 Mark Tadajewski Cherry 2001) with the debate itself seen as 'virtually impenetrable' (Kavanagh 1994, p.28) and the central texts, 'hardly described as easy reading' (Brown 1995b, p.683), this paper will review this area of scholarship. These debates are framed within a historically informed perspective to orient the reader to the evolution of these debates, drawing on relevant interdisciplinary source material. While an understanding of the past is crucial if we are to refrain from reinventing the wheel (Burton 2003, p.892), an attempt is made to respond to what Kassrjian (1994, p.276) considers the most important question facing marketing science namely, 'where are we headed?' In recognition of this we conclude with a discussion of a future direction for theory development, namely, multiple paradigm research. Framing Philosophical Debate Given the diverse terminology and the lack of common semantic consensus throughout the science debates some framing mechanism is required. As the typology described by Burrell and Morgan (1979) is frequently invoked in the literature (e.g. Arndt 1985a, 1986b; Hudson and Ozanne 1988; Morgan 1992, 2003; Murray and Ozanne 1991; cf. Alvesson 1994, p ), this paradigm framework is used to structure this review and is weaved throughout. The paradigm concept is central to all research projects (Gummerson 2003, p.486) and is likewise central to Burrell and Morgan's (1979) paradigms typology; albeit in their hands receives a peculiar infiexion from that initially presented and later revised by Kuhn (1962, 1970). In his early period, Kuhn (1962) defined a paradigm as 'universally recognized scientific achievements that for a time provide model solutions to a community of practitioners' (Kuhn 1996, p.ix). For Kuhn, a paradigm is 'an accepted model of pattern' (Kuhn 1962, p.23) which encompasses a theoretical structure comprised of a network of conceptual, theoretical, and instrumental commitments (Kuhn 1962, p.42) that provide a model for future research. This definition was extremely unstable and meant that virtually any shared constellation of beliefs provided it was subscribed to by a group of roughly twenty five people could be labelled a paradigm (Kuhn 1996, p. 181; cf. Gutting 1980, p. 14). Kuhn later acknowledged the deficiency of his original formulation (Kuhn 2000) and in recognition of these difficulties, Burrell and Morgan (1979, p.23, 36n2) broaden Kuhn's definition to emphasize 'the commonality of perspective which binds the work of a group of theorists together in such a way that they can be usefully regarded as approaching social theory within the bounds of the same problematic' (Burrell and Morgan 1979, p.23). The four paradigms excavated by Burrell and Morgan (1979) are the functionalist/positivist, interpretive, critical/radical humanist and radical structuralist paradigms. Registering the difficulties associated with this labelling strategy, it is acknowledged that this approach reifies diverse

3 The Philosophy of Marketing Theory 309 approaches under umbrella terms^ and that paradigms are perhaps better thought of as generalizations whose views are generally not attributable to any single theorist but shared across a number of schools of thought (Hudson and Ozanne 1988, p.516; Murray and Ozanne 1991, p.132; Sherry 1991, p.551, 568). Early Science Debates The first major controversy in marketing theory can be traced to the debate surrounding the scientific status of marketing (Bush et al. 1982, p.3o). The stimulus being the exploratory study produced by Converse (1945) into the development of marketing scholarship examining whether marketing academics and practitioners perceived marketing to be either a science or an art; a debate that continued through the 1950s. Early papers in this regard were Bartels (1951), Brown (1948), Converse (1945), Hutchinson (1952), Stainton (1952) and Vaile (1949). These early papers represent a spectrum that either sidestepped the issue (Converse 1945), offered a qualified (albeit) implicit affirmation of the idea of marketing as a science (Alderson and Cox 1948; Bartels 1951, p.328; Brown 1948, p.27, 30; Cox and Alderson 1950), or questioned whether marketing was likely to attain scientific status since aspects of marketing were clearly artistic while others had some semblance of scientific gloss (Stainton 1952, p.65). Bartels, for example, doubted whether marketing 'can scarcely be said to have attained scientific status' (Bartels 1951, p.325) in view of the lack of theories, principles and law-like generalizations found in marketing scholarship, although there was, Bartels (1951) asserts, some evidence of the use of the scientific method. Nonetheless based, as marketing scholarship was on a 'thoroughgoing empiricism' (Buzzell 1964, p.33) and reliant on largely descriptive, qualitative research (White 1940, p.185), this scientific status was still some way off. Although there was, Bartels' proposed, no reason why marketing could not in the future attain the mantle of science when it is further down the 'evolutionary trail' (Bartels 1951, p.328; Buzzell 1964, p.34). Those within the academy more socially cognizant of the implications of the scientific production of knowledge questioned whether managerial marketing could or should ever be a science (Dawson 1971; Vaile 1949, p.520). Although such views were nonetheless a relatively marginal perspective until the early 1970s (Dawson 1971). Ford and Carnegie Reports: Toward Scientific Marketing It is not surprising, however, that such 'scientific' sentiment continues to be ^ The idea that one paradigm is 'interpretive', while the rest involve no interpretation as the title of this paradigm may suggest is inherently problematic because interpretation is a fundamental activity involved throughout all social science not just work conducted under the remit of this paradigm (Foxall 2002, pp ; Sherry 1991, p.551).

4 310 Mark Tadajewski found throughout the throughout the 1950s and accelerates in to the 1960s when, following the publication of the Ford and Carnegie reports on the state of business education, substantial reforms were demanded and subsequently put into place (Gordon and Howell 1959; Pierson 1959). Following the publication of these reports and the dissemination of their vitriolic critique into business school curricula which they painted as being based on vocational, mainly descriptive research with researchers seen to possess insufficient grounding in apparently more rigorous research methods and analytical techniques such as the advanced statistical techniques of the day. Following these reports marketing scholarship underwent a bout of self-doubt with scholars actively trying to determine the set of criteria that would allow marketing to achieve the mantle of science (Mason 1990; cf. Brown 2004: p.323). In response, Buzzell (1964, p. 13) proposed a set of general criteria that marketing 'science' should strive for including the development of a classified and systematic body of knowledge, coalescing around one or a number of central theories with a number of general principles, which were expressible in quantitative terms and that would enable the prediction and, on occasion, the control of events. During the 1970s we find a growing mass of marketing scholars reflecting in very different ways on the philosophical underpinning of marketing and the empiricist leanings of Buzzell (1964). Perhaps the exemplar in this philosophical narrative is Shelby Hunt (1976: p.26) who questioned the stringency and applicability of Buzzell's criteria for the elevation of marketing to the mantle of 'science' because, in Hunt's considered opinion, Buzzell confused the 'successful culmination of scientific efforts with science itself (Hunt 1976, p.25; emphasis in original). Refining Buzzell's criteria. Hunt asserts a logical empiricist position that science presupposes 'the existence of underlying uniformities or regularities among the phenomena that comprise its subject matter. The discovery of these underlying uniformities yields empirical regularities, law-like generalizations (propositions) and laws (Hunt 1976, p.26; emphasis in original). This position represents the orthodox, positivist approach to the production of knowledge in marketing (Easton 2002, p. 103). The premise of research conducted under the auspices of the positivist paradigm is that, ontologically, the world has a concrete existence that is essentially unchanging and is independent of the observers' apperception. Epistemologically, this paradigm seeks general laws and is reductionist in that it assumes that the object of research, no matter what the domain of study, can be broken in to constituent parts and subject to analysis. Desirable features of knowledge production include a commitment to objective research undertaken by a scientist who is able to distance themselves from the object of study through the careful use of the scientific method that sets out the rules and guidelines that delimit explanatory adequacy, prescribe inductive accuracy and insists on empirical testing (Hunt 1976, p , p , p.85). Knowledge production in this paradigm aims to produce practically useful

5 The Philosophy of Marketing Theory 311 knowledge geared to the requirements of the respective stakeholders, i.e. the channel captain perspective (Arndt 1985a, p. 19). For example, paradigmatic logic would dictate a research strategy that is concerned with the generation of knowledge about the customer (actual or potential) and would seek functional (predictive and explanatory) models of, for instance, consumer buying behaviour. In the context of this scientific style, market research is used to generate knowledge regarding the 'objective features' of the competitive environment so that marketing managers can effectively segment, target and position their product or service offering with the reality of this research topic seen as external to the objective marketing researcher and predictable and knowable (Morgan 1992; Simon 1994). Knowledge is developed via the use of methods such as survey research, with trends statistically measured, described and tabulated. (Hauser 1985, p.35o). In spite of the deficiencies of this approach, Morgan (1992) suggests that this style of research generates much of the dynamism of the marketing discipline (see, Hauser 1985, p.35o). This is not because the tools of attitudinal and behavioural measurement are unsophisticated and therefore need constantly refinement but because consumers are self-conscious and aware with changing tastes, attitudes and lifestyles (Baker 2001). While not without their predictive successes, marketing has not seen the spectacular growth in the development of empirical generalizations found in the natural sciences and this has generated palpable disaffection within the academy (Leone and Schultz 1980, p. 15; Gummerson 2001, p.3o). Despite the comparative lack of the development of long-range empirical generalizations widely seen as the raison d'etre of logical empiricism, any explicit critique of the extant philosophy of marketing was slow to appear, even though younger academy members were becoming conversant in alternative philosophical world-views. This can be attributed to the instrumental practicalities of the received view which, as Kernan recalls, was widely published, relatively wellrefined for educational simplification and thereby 'obviated...a pedagogic nightmare' (Kernan 1995a, p.554). The result being, at this juncture, those interested in alternative philosophical researches continued to perform their adherence to the epistemological dicta of the received view until they had established a disciplinary turf where new philosophical debate could be introduced (Kernan 1995a 1995b). This turf was found in the newly established Association for Consumer Research (1970) and encouraged through their conferences and informal correspondence. The late 1970s however, represents the turning point for philosophical debate in marketing theory when a series of working papers began to circulate, which had as their focus the philosophy of science underpinning marketing thought, and commensurate with this interest, issues epistemological and the practical implications for marketing research and doctoral education that stemmed from these philosophical investigations (Anderson 1986; Munroe 1979).

6 312 Mark Tadajewski A Spirited Debate: The Epistemoiogical^ Turn Registering the epistemological dominance of logical empiricism employed in marketing theory and the impact that this epistemological positioning had on the production of knowledge there began the 'spirited debate' between the proponents of a 'positivist' (O'Shaughnessy and O'Shaughnessy 2002a, p b), 'logical positivist' (Deshpande 1983, p.1o2), 'logical empiricist' (Arndt 1985a, 1985b) and those who were seen to conduct research under a variety of labels including: 'relativistic', 'interpretive' or postmodern research (Anderson 1983, 1986; Brown 1995a, p ; Kernan 1995b, p.491; Lutz 1989, p.6; Peter et al. 1982; Sauer et al. 1982). Paradigm debate commenced with a number of key commentators arguing that logical empiricism had been in decline in the history and philosophy of science for the past twenty years and was being replaced by a form of historicism in which philosophers of science actually looked at the practice of science to see whether the vision of scientific inquiry has followed any single scientific method (e.g. Feyerabend 1970). Questioning the veracity of the logical empiricist position that scientific research began with unmediated and untainted access to reality, from which the researcher generates an a priori model of the phenomena to be investigated, which is then judged as either confirming of disconfirming the hypothesis, the logical empiricist position was subject to extended scrutiny and found wanting for a number of reasons (Anderson 1983; Peter 1991; Peter et al. 1981). Firstly, the assumption of the untainted observation is problematic because observations are subject to some form of measurement error, hence the widespread literature devoted to the issue (Anderson 1983; Laudan 1977: p.11). Secondly and more importantly, the assumption of the theory independence of observation with its associated image of the objective scholar is inherently problematic, in view of scientific observations always being 'always interpreted in the context of a priori knowledge' (Anderson 1983, p.2o; emphasis added). The logical empiricist position for the emerging 'relativist' scholars represented an idealized image of scientific practice which has 'never existed - nor is it very likely that any such system will exist' (Anderson 1983, p.26). Dubbing this idealization 'Science^' Anderson argued this image of science should to be scrutinized through actually looking and seeing how science actually works. Recent literature in the philosophy of science, Anderson propounded, suggests that science works 'through a web of sociological and psychological processes as well as a series of logical processes' (Peter et al. 1982, p.11, 16). This view, clearly, stands in stark contrast to the dominant view in marketing. ^ Epistemology is the branch of philosophy concemed with the nature of knowledge, specifically how knowledge about knowledge is possible and concerns the study of the criteria that delimit what does and does not constitute warranted knowledge.

7 Storming the Citadei The Philosophy of Marketing Theory 313 The fall 1983 issue of the Journal of Marketing provided the formal, critical examination of logical empiricism, from an alternative philosophical position, dubbed Science^ (Anderson 1983, p.26). Agreeing with the premise that there is a single social and natural reality, a central concern was the idea that this reality could be discovered via the single scientific method (Anderson 1986, p. 157). It was argued that scientific inquiry was a social and historical exercise with the resulting knowledge products "affected as much by sociological factors as by purely 'cognitive' or empirical consideration" (Anderson 1986, p.156). Presenting his critical relativist perspective, Anderson argued that the adoption of a critical relativist position means that alternative research programs will be seen as different but not as wholly incommensurable ways of approaches of exploring and analyzing the phenomena of interest. Each approach will invariably possess specific advantages and liabilities and what is more likely to be the case is that participants in alternative research communities whom, we can plausibly assume will subscribe to diverse philosophical views and would (to some degree) disagree on the extent to which their approach reflects the most appropriate philosophical and methodological course for the production of marketing theory, there would therefore be a weak form of incommensurability in this sense, one derived from scientists understanding each other perfectly well, but disagreeing 'violently on the appropriate program for researching a particular topic' (Anderson 1986, p. 158). Critical relativism represents, 'first and foremost a descriptive enterprise' (Anderson 1986, p. 157) that assumes knowledge claims to be temporally relative with the appraisal criteria of scientific knowledge relative to a given research community at a given time (Anderson 1988, p. 135). Given this, scientific practice, is seen as a human activity and governed by a process of consensus generation (Peter et al. 1982, p. 12) and should be understood accordingly That is, as subject to the attitudes, personalities and ideologies of a given scientific community (Hirschman 1985, p.225). Consequently scientific knowledge and the certification of intellectual productions is seen to be historically contingent and conditional on the intellectual criteria currently subscribed to within the intellectual community in which it is produced, and it is unlikely therefore, that there will ever be a single normative model of scientific practice. As such, the nature of scientific practice is more likely to mirror a contingency model where a particular approach to knowledge production is more useful in one context than another (Peter et al. 1982, However, this relativistic view does not invite the charge of 'anything goes', a view usually attributed to Feyerabend widely but misunderstood as

8 314 Mark Tadajewski proposing that literally anything goes in knowledge production" (cf Fabian 2000; Scherer and Dowling 1995), something Calder and Tybout (1987) erroneously attribute to relativist thought. Contrary to the misinterpretation of the anything goes slogan, relativist thought in marketing (e.g. Anderson , 1988; Peter 1990, 1992; Peter and Olson 1983) believed a contribution to knowledge to be subject to community acceptance. That is, based upon a set of community agreed and not, individualistic convention. Community convention based at the time (and presently) on the tenants of logical empiricism (with their associated standards of rigor etc); criteria that Anderson recognized any alternative philosophical or paradigmatic perspectives would have to adhere to 'as we find them' (Peter et al. 1982, p.15). Consequently for the relativist contingent what is essential for the advance of marketing theory and of primary utility for the effective practice of marketing research 'is that we ought to become familiar with many philosophical points of view and their corresponding methods' (Peter et al. 1982, p. 14). This, Olson argues, should be an explicit feature of marketing theory and practice with researchers making clear 'the underlying, metatheoretical assumptions that provide the conceptual foundations for their research' especially, he notes, for doctoral students (Peter et al. 1982, p.15). The general consensus of these early writings is that an eclectic approach to marketing theory and practice is required (e.g. Peter et al. 1982a; Olson 1982; Sauer etal. 1982; Zaitman and Bonoma 1979). An Ontoiogical^ Turn The destabilization of the logical empiricist position was subject to rapid and sustained critique (Cooper 1987; Hunt 1984, 1990; Siegel 1988). Hunt (1990, p.7), for example, maintained that all forms of relativism, including critical relativism, are incoherent, irrational, self-refuting and imply nihilism because 'critics' such as Anderson (1983, 1986) argue that 'truth' is an inappropriate goal for marketing (Hunt 1990, p.4; cf. Zinkhan and Hirschheim 1992, p.81). In an ontological turn. Hunt argues for retaining truth as a central feature of a 'scientific' realism proposing that the notion of truth in marketing theory should be retained because the definition of 'truth', as he sees it utilized by critical relativists, falls prey to the philosophers' fallacy. This means that a term, i.e. 'truth', is subject to 'high re-definition' and defined in such a precise manner that it can no longer be 'applied to anything' (Hunt 1990, p.7; cf. Muncy and Fisk 1987, p.22). In view of the perceived inadequacy of this position. Hunt argues that a version of realism (cf. Easton 2002; Lopez and Potter 2001), as the philosophical school that superceded logical empiricism " Feyerabend was actually stating that rationalists who subscribe to strict rules in scientific inquiry will perceive his calls for pluralism to be anarchistic (Feyerabend ), ' Ontology is the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature of existence and the structure of reality.

9 The Philosophy of Marketing Theory 315 is an appropriate basis for marketing (Hunt 1982, p.8). This perspective assumes that reality exists independently of subjective perception (classical realism) since to assume otherwise. Hunt asserts 'makes a nonsense out of science' (Hunt 1990, p.9). Stressing tendentious continuity with a critical realist position (Easton 2002; Kavanagh 1994) Hunt sees the role of science, the structure of knowledge and the research process to be the improvement of 'our perceptual (measurement) processes, [which] separate illusion from reality' (Hunt 1990, p.9). This form of fallibilistic realism is combined with the critical realist assumption that any knowledge produced is subject to empirical testing to determine the extent to which 'our perceptions may be true and others false' (Hunt 1990, p.9, 11). From this it is assumed that the most accurate possible description and understanding of the world will be generated (Hunt 1990, p.9). To accept a theory, according to the scientific realist, is to tentatively assume that it is true (Hunt 1990, p.12). The longterm explanatory success of a theory is assumed to posit that something like the entities or structures hypothesized by the theory actually exists, thereby operating as a form of inductive realism. For the critical relativist such belief is viewed as a Utopian goal because, however desirable, it is likely to remain a pipedream since there is no universal criterion for absolute truth. The quixotic ideal of the goal of truth, Anderson maintains (1988, p.4o5) "...is not necessary for scientific progress...! would argue that, like physics, the social sciences can get along without the entanglements associated with the goal of 'truth' - and that the proper perspective to adopt with respect to the ontology of social science is a benign agnosticism". Truth, for a critical relativist is not the central issue but rather how the outcome of scientific inquiry can ever be judged as truthful, i.e. in accordance with reality (Anderson 1988; Peter 1992). The assertion that knowledge claims can be critically evaluated and tested with the 'fit' between knowledge claims and reality with reality as the adjudicator is an example of the fallacy of (scientific) realism whereby 'unless science can know with certainty what truly is the real world, it is impossible to judge the extent to which knowledge claims can truly represent or correspond to that world'(peter 1992, p.73). This criticism, however, was primarily a means to an end, enabling the opening and legitimization of alternative epistemological spaces in marketing theory. Indicative of the belief that marketing needed to expand the epistemological basis for knowledge production is seen in the following support for multiple research paradigms enunciated by Johann Arndt: "By limiting itself to the empiricist orientation and logical empiricist paradigms such as instrumental man, marketing has remained essentially a one-dimensional science concerned with technology and problemsolving. The subjective world and liberating paradigms challenge the assumptions of empiricism by generating metaphors resulting in the quite different research questions. While no paradigm or metaphor is more than

10 316 Mark Tadajewski a partial and incomplete truth, the notion of paradigms should be viewed as an argument for paradigmatic tolerance and pluralism. The yin and yang of progress in marketing include both the logic, rigor, and objectivity of logical empiricism and the socio-political paradigms, and the speculations, visions and consciousness of the subjective world and liberating paradigms" (Arndt 1985a, p b, pp.21-22; emphasis in original). While early radicalism and discursive conflict of the paradigm debate has ebbed with a marked silence surrounding the promotion of a critical relativist epistemology, critical discourse in marketing theory has continued in the crisis literature (Hunt 1990). For example, the later stages of the logical empiricism/scientific realism/critical relativism debate saw Siegel (1988) suggesting that Anderson should re-brand critical relativism, critical pluralism (1988). Here pluralism signifying a reaction to dogmatism as antithetical to scientific inquiry and the belief that marketing scholars, particularly new PhDs (Lutz 1989: 6), should understand alternative paradigms of inquiry and recognize the legitimacy of a variety of different approaches. The 'critical' however does not assume that all perspectives are equally valid but that each perspective can and should be evaluated (Hunt 2003, p.5; McOuarrie and Mick 1992). With this discursive shift in the intellectual trajectory of marketing theory criticism toward 'vaguely positivistic cliches' has become the 'epistemic duty' of marketing scholars (Robson and Rowe 1997). Criticism of established perspectives, they propose, should be undertaken with a view to seeing what 'marketing is and what is may become' (Robson and Rowe 1997, p.654). While some reasonably question the extent to which such critique has been taken (Foxall 2002; Szmigin and Foxall 2000) the general response among marketing scholars has been calls for a reversion 'to an intuitive creative, flexible, ideographic, essentially 'non-scientific' marketing concept' (Brown 1995, p.46). Crystallizing this movement were the debates staged at various Association for Consumer Research conferences which interrogated whether business was good or bad for consumer research (Holbrook 1985) and whether marketers should be the ultimate recipients of consumer research (Belk 1987). The Emergence of Interpretive Research The early to mid 1980s represent the major turning point during which marketing and consumer researchers were increasingly willing to challenge the dominant positivist paradigm (Anderson 1986; Arndt 1985a, 1985b; Belk et al. 1988; Holbrook and O'Shaughnessy 1988; Thompson et al. 1989) and begin to explore alternative avenues for the production of marketing and consumer research (Kassarjian 1994; Sherry 1995). The explicit bifurcation of paradigm allegiance in marketing and consumer research with 'interpretive' paradigm juxtaposed against the dominant positivist paradigm is

11 The Philosophy of Marketing Theory 317 seen to stem from the contributions of the Consumer Behaviour Odyssey (e.g. Belk et al. 1988, 1989). The division between the positivist 'defenders of the faith' (Brown 1995, p.48) and those who espouse a variety of post-positivistic, interpretive, constructionist and humanistic forms of marketing research can be described thus^. Proponents of the interpretive paradigm view the social world as having a precarious ontological status. Everyday life, Burrell and Morgan (1979) assert, is accorded the status of miraculous achievement by interpretive researchers. In questioning the ontological status of social reality, the emphasis in interpretive research is on the de-emphasis of an external concrete social world. In place of assuming an external, concrete reality, interpretive researchers seek to investigate the social world at the level of subjective experience with social reality seen as inter-subjectively composed. The implication of this ontological view is that epistemologically, knowledge is apprehended not from the standpoint of an external, objective position but from the individual participant in action, or the lived experience of co-participant, as in the phenomenological researches of Thompson and his co-authors (e.g. Thompson et al. 1989, 1990, 1997). Interpretive research is thus concerned with understanding, describing lived co-participant experience (Szmigin and Foxall 2000, p. 189) typically, though not exclusively, through the use of qualitative methods. In common with the positivist paradigm, interpretive research presupposes a commitment to regulation and order in human affairs with 'problems of conflict, domination, contradiction, potentiality and change play[ing] no part in' this theoretical framework (Burrell and Morgan 1979, p.31). The main divergence between this and the positivist paradigm is that social reality is held to be subjectively re-created, thereby denying the possibility for objective (free of subjective influence) social research (cf. Szmigin and Foxall 2000, p. 191). The support for and adoption of new epistemological and methodological perspectives is further evidence of a movement way from the importation of theoretical constructs drawn from cognitive, social and behavioural psychology and economics which had historically provided the theoretical foundations for marketing and consumer research toward approaches derived from anthropology (Sherry 1995), history (Cochoy 1993; Smith and Lux 1993), literary and cultural studies (Brown 1995a, 1998, 1999; Stern 1989) among many others with Foxall's (1993, 1995, 2000) radical behaviourism being the example that breaks the rule. Despite this epistemic movement there continues to be an undercurrent of tension between researchers on either side of the paradigmatic divide which remains apparent in the specific formalisation early interpretive research adopted (e.g. Belk et al. 1989). As an emergent approach to marketing and consumer research, interpretive researchers, in their attempts to secure acceptance for their Recalling the earlier acknowledgement that this is a necessary simplifications of the many different philosophies, while admitting that these will 'overlap...with regard to the sources of data used' (Goulding 1999, p.862)

12 318 Mark Tadajewski intellectual output, were quick to comply with the cultural and social norms of positivistic epistemological and methodological criteria (Belk 1995; Holt 1991; cf. Peter etal. 1980). Indicative of the tension felt during the formative emergence of a new scientific style, particularly when adopted by those trying to establish their own academic legitimacy, secure tenure and build an intellectual reputation, it was felt among early interpretive consumer researchers that there was a clear need for them to present their research in the manner likely to be accepted by positivist reviewers if they were to secure publication in, for example, the then, positivistic dominated Journal of Consumer Research (Willmott 1999, p.211). However early interpretive researchers did face criticism for the manner in which they sought legitimization for their research. On the one hand their interpretive practice was subject to scrutiny for failing to adhere to (inappropriate) positivistic standards of rigor and validity (Cote and Foxman 1987) and on the other when they sought to apply quasipositivistic standards based on Guba and Lincoln's (1985) criteria for 'trustworthiness' their research was criticized for being quasi-positivistic by some (Holt 1991) and hailed by others as contributing to the rapproachment of paradigmatic groups (Hunt 1991, pp.41-42). A noted consequence of this was that the first generation of interpretive researchers failed to accept their interpretive beliefs and practice as axiomatic (Shankar and Patterson 2001; cf Firat 1984, p.23). Nonetheless even though early interpretive research focused on methodological technology as a means to access channels of publication, later streams of interpretive research have eschewed the inappropriate standards of positivistic research and detail their own appropriate evaluation criteria (e.g. Arnould and Fischer 1994; Bristor and Fischer 1993; Gould 1991; Goulding 1999; Hackley 2001; Hirschman 1986; Stern 1989; Thompson et al. 1989). The importation of new styles of research, alongside the weakening of the belief that marketing and consumer research was necessarily the handmaiden of some business constituency has encouraged researchers to pursue research projects that mirrored their own interests and those of consumer groups whose analysis was of no direct relevance to business interests (Belk 1986; Hirschman 1986b). While a clear separation between the 'weird science' of interpretive and postmodern perspectives and traditional positivist subject matter is not so easily apprehended as might have been expected when we reflect upon Sherry's (1991) prophesy of disciplinary schism. It is clear that the inclusion of research topics examining the juggling life-styles of mothers (Thompson 1996), the experience of riverrafting (Arnould and Price 1993), introspective insights into developing consumer economies (Holbrook 1998) and new methodological vehicles such as poetry as a form of representation of consumer experience (Sherry and Shouten 2002) has increased the variety and understanding of marketing phenomena and consumer experience (Woodall 2001: p.154).

13 Critical Marketing Theory The Philosophy of Marketing Theory 319 So, for marketing and consumer research, the positivist and interpretive paradigms have become the two main perspectives invoked in the production of marketing and consumer theory (Morgan 1992, 2003; Ozanne and Hudson 1989; Pachauri 2002). Research based on alternative theoretical traditions grounded, for example, in critical social theory (i.e. derived from the writings of the Frankfurt School) or the radical structuralist tradition has had less of an impact in marketing (Alvesson 1994, p.313; McDonagh 1995, p.677; Morgan 1992, p.145; 2003, p.117) and 'urgently require support and expansion' (Sherry 1991, p.57o). This is not to suggest that such studies are entirely absent from marketing thought since there are explicit internal marketing studies drawing upon this paradigmatic territory (e.g. Burton 2001; Hudson and Ozanne 1988; Kilbourne 1992; Morgan 2003; Rogers 1987). However, these paradigms remain under-researched by the marketing academy (Alvesson and Willmott 1996, p.12o, 128; Willmott 1999: p.211), apparently because consumer researchers were interested in producing research that was 'fun' rather than being intent on 'making the world better' with the outcome that critical theory was not 'embraced by large numbers of ACR members' (Kernan 1995a, p.553); a view that ignores the structural impediments to such research (see. Burton 2001, p.731; Firat 1984, p.23; Murray and Ozanne 1991, p.141; Rogers 1987, p.9). The influx of critical research is attributable to a small but vociferous group who demand that we should take responsibility for the consequences of our research and attempt to make a positive difference to the lives of those involved (Alvesson 1994, p.3o8; Hirschman 1993, p.551; Willmott 1999, p.211). Broadly speaking, research inspired by critical theory assumes, like the interpretive paradigm, that social reality is socially manufactured and recreated, but asserts that individual consciousness is dominated and subservient to ideological superstructures. These imprison the individual and the role of critique is to describe the alienating forces and societal arrangements that impinge on individual agency and consciousness in society so that 'human beings can transcend the spiritual bonds and fetters which tie them into existing social patterns and thus realize their full potential' (Burrell and Morgan 1979, p.32). Criticism, thus functions to raise consciousness and encourage a transformation of the social world, particularly the one-dimensionality assumed to accompany contemporary capitalism (Burrell and Morgan 1979, p.318; Burton 2001, p.726). A recent extra-marketing example of this type of research is a study by Graham-Hill and Grimes (2001) who adopted this paradigmatic stance and the idea of praxis, that is, the transcending of alienation and the furthering of human development as their stated goal. The case study was based on a ^ The necessarily qualification to add here is that the extant 'extra-marketing' literature contains numerous contributions that can be seen to belong to these paradigms (e.g. Smith 1998).

14 320 Mark Tadajewski firm whose business strategy was based on historical success with the CEO seen to be a 'prisoner of his validation of his ancestors past' (Graham-Hill and Grimes 2001, p.282). The unusual dependence of this company and its CEO on the past had resulted in the excessive ascription of authority to historical figures led the authors to attempt to move the CEO to his moment of praxis through encouraging his to perceive his imprisonment and the detrimental affect of this on his present. This was facilitated by rerepresenting interviews where this narrative theme reoccurred and inviting the CEO to respond. While only partially successful, Graham-Hill and Grimes (2001, p.291) conclude that their near-emancipation of the CEO highlighted that praxis is not just theoretical possibility but very real. Clearly, the emancipatory intent of critical theory rests uneasily on the assumption that, while the researched are oppressed, the critical researcher is an autonomous agent who can presume to adjudicate what the real interests of research subject are outside of any form of power/knowledge relations (Graham-hill and Grimes 2001, p.291); something a Foucauldian study of power relations would critique (see. Hardy and Leiba-O'Sullivan 1999, p.473). The Nonevent of Radical Structuraiism The final paradigm, in the Burrell and Morgan (1979) typology and least utilized in marketing is the radical structuralist paradigm (McDonagh 1995; Morgan 2003). The radical structuralist, like the critical theory paradigm, proposes to interrogate existing social relations albeit from an objectivist standpoint similar to the positivist paradigm. This, however, is where the parallel between radical structuralism and positivism ends since concern in this paradigm is directed toward structural constraints and the contradiction and conflict assumed to be inherent in extant societal structures. It is through conflict such as political and economic crises that the transformation of the social becomes possible and will eventually result in the radical, structural change of society as a whole. Undoubtedly, as Beckmann and Elliott (2002, afterword) have recently noted in their philosophical and methodological edited coilection, despite the introduction of critical theory 'a thoroughgoing Marxist analysis has yet to make an appearance'. This, they suggest, is the next stage in the development of marketing as a mature discipline (Beckmann and Elliott 2002). Past the Post Regardless of such deficiencies, the late 1980s and early 1990s mark the first appearance and application of postmodern and poststructural approaches to marketing and consumer phenomena. Frequently conflated in the literature these labels hide a variety of perspectives, the difficulties of unpicking the various strands being well documented in the literature (e.g. Brown 1995a; Elliott and Ritson 1997; Firat and Venkatesh 1995, p.240n1). At the risk of gross oversimplification, these approaches has been most frequently associated with studies of advertising (among others) in a

15 The Philosophy of Marketing Theory 321 marketplace seen to be characterized by a postmodern turn and features such as fragmentation, ephemerality and such like, where consumer goods have become signifiers divorced from their use-value which is superceded by their sign-value and the symbolic meaning they resonate (Elliott 1999; Scott 1992). The influence of poststructuralism is seen by some as indicative of the linguistic turn and the detachment of meaning from the referring objects, circulating in an endless play of difference where meaning comes from the relation of one object to another (signifier to signifier) without the positivistic anchor of an external world (Sarup 1993, p.2). Truth, then, has lost any status it once had since the perpetuation flow of meaning precludes a final resting point or epistemic closure; it represents a very political posture in the hands of Michel Foucault and the assumed 'natural order of things' (Foucault 1970, p.ix; cf. Brownlie and Saren 1997, p.152). Postmodern marketing research, on the other hand, accepts such poststructural sentiment but is seen as apolitical (Parker 1995; cf. Scott 1992) and as a pluralistic seduction that distorts research into consumer experience (Miles 1999, p. 149). On a slightly more positive note, for others postmodernism represents an opportunity for marketing scholars to be reflexive about their presuppositions and 'be both self critical and celebratory' (Venkatesh et al. 1993, p.218). In ontological and epistemological terms we find ourselves as far removed from a positivist orientation as is conceivable with a postmodern position assumes both ontology and epistemology to be wholly subjective rejecting "the notion that individuals have unmediated access to an external reality, that the knowledge people possess is unreliable, dispersed, fragmented, pre-existing and an epiphenomenon of language. In other words it demotes the human subject from a constitutive to a constituted status' (Brown 1994, p.44). Clearly this makes the relationship between postmodern theory and research practice extremely difficult with 'researchers doomed to research the unresearchable' (Woodall 2001, p.15o) since Brown (1995a, p. 172) has asserted that undertaking any empirical research under the rubric of a strong (or pessimistic) variant of postmodernism is questionable (Goulding 2003, p. 156; Hassard 1999, p. 190). However other disciplines have made some tentative steps in the operationalisation of such a research strategy (Alvesson 2002; Gergen 1992; Ritzer2001). Future Directions: Muitiple Paradigm Research Concern that the challenge posed to the dominant paradigm via the emergence of interpretive research might lead to a complete schism appears largely unfounded. However early assertions that the incommensurable assumptions underlying different research paradigms would fracture the academy into different camps (Belk 1995, p.61; Spiggle and Goodwin 1988, p.9) with the effect that the knowledge products of each paradigmatic grouping would exist in isolation and not contribute to the cumulativity desired by Baker (2001) and seen as essential to scientific progress remain. In an

16 322 Mark Tadajewski attempt to resolve this issue Hunt has refuted the claims of incommensurability made by Hudson and Ozanne (1989), which assumed that adherents of different paradigms were using the same labels to refer to different things and therefore that they were somehow incommensurable^. According to Hunt the analysis produced by Hudson and Ozanne does not constitute incommensurability between the knowledge claims of different paradigms because, although different, their output 'cannot be considered rival, or competing. No choice is required. Therefore, their claims are not incommensurable in any meaningful epistemic sense' (Hunt 2003, p.229; emphasis in original; see also 1990, p , p.41n18; cf Combe 1999, p.344). The consequence of Hunt's rejection of incommensurability in this context is the discursive opening for research based on multiple paradigms in a single study via the navigation of alternative paradigmatic protocols; something long seen as desirable in theory building (Baker 2001, p.8, 10; Combe 1999, p.345; Foxall 2002, p. 16; Gergen 1998, p.279; Hirschman 1986a, p.239n3; Lutz 1989, p.6; Price and Arnould 1998, p.339; Rogers 1987, p.8; Thompson 2002, p.142; Tynan 2002, p.443; Wilk 2001, p.3o9). Thereby functioning as a means to challenge the boundaries of accepted convention and scientific certitude (Hudson and Ozanne 1988, p.518; Marsden and Littler 1996, p.653; Robson and Rowe 1997, p.665; Thompson 1993, p.337). Multiple paradigm research has been extensively researched in organization studies (e.g. Gioia et al. 1989; Gioia and Pitre 1990; Gowler and Legge 1986; Graham-Hill 1996; Hassard 1985, 1988, 1991, 1993; Kamoche 2000; Kelemen 1995; Kelemen and Lewis 2002; Kelemen and Hassard 2003; Lewis 1997; Pondy and Boje 1980). The argument for pursuing a multiple paradigm strategy has been well articulated by Gioia and Pitre (1990) who assert that the production of theory within any single paradigm may result in intellectual provincialism because the underpinning assumptions of a paradigm may, consciously or unconsciously, bias a theorist against alternative accounts of the chosen topic of study. The use of a single paradigm, Gioia and Pitre argue, produces a narrow representation of complex phenomena. This said, it is not a replacement for single paradigm research but an extension to existing theoretical and empirical research and founded, (depending on the position adopted) upon a form of iterative triangulation using multiple epistemological perspectives to enhance representational diversity (Lewis 1998b, p.457; Lewis and Grimes 1999, p.685). In this context, paradigms represent heuristics rather than binding * In his early writings Kuhn uses the term incommensurability to refer to the idea that each paradigm has its own structures of meaning, methodological standards and relation of theory and the world. Different theories are seen to be incommensurable because there is no direct means through which such theories can be compared against each other or some common standard (Kuhn 1996, p. 199). Since Burrell and Morgan adapt Kuhn's concept of paradigm, their understanding of incommensurability also divergences (see Jackson and Carter 1991; Tsoukas 1994 p.762;cf. Foxall 1998).

17 The Philosophy of Marketing Theory 323 ideologies (Jackson and Carter 1991) that aid the researcher in their exploration of the theoretical and conceptual complexity of any given phenomena thereby extending the range, relevance and creativity of theory building (Combe 1999, p.341; Holland 1999, p.475; Schultz and Hatch 1996, p.535; Tsoukas and Knudsen 2003, p. 13). The objectives of multiple paradigm research are: (1) to facilitate research comparisons across paradigms; (2) provide a more comprehensive view of the phenomena of interest (Lewis and Grimes 1999, p.673); (3) encourage researchers/research teams to adopt a metaparadigm vantage position to consider the potential contribution of disparate paradigm lenses (Gioia and Pitre 1990, p.598). The recognition of the limitations presented by single paradigm theory building when the phenomena of interest is particularly complex (see. Combe 1999; Combe and Botschen 2004; Davies and Fitchett 2001) has led numerous researchers to attempt to explore phenomena from a diverse range of theoretical and epistemological positions. The literature divides multiple paradigm research strategies into three inter-related streams; (1) multiparadigm reviews, where the theorist uses different paradigm views to elicit the often taken-for-granted presuppositions made by the researcher in approaching their object/subject of study. These reviews assume two main forms; (1a) paradigm bracketing, in which the literature, language and methods associated with different paradigms are sequentially adopted. An exemplar of this strategy is presented by Hassard (1985, 1988, 1990, ) who sidesteps the hermetic incommensurability thesis of the early Kuhn (1962) by conceptualizing paradigms as technical languages that can be learnt; a thesis he puts into practice by way of an empirical study that applies each paradigm (functionalist/positivist, interpretive, radical humanist, radical structuralist) to a paradigm specific research question (four research questions in total), thereby generating multiple streams of empirical data, while refusing to privilege any one account (see, Parker and McHugh 1991; Deetz 1996, p.2o4, for relevant criticism). The second review technique is termed paradigm bridging and asserts that there are theoretical views that can negotiate paradigm boundaries and form transition zones between paradigms. Theoretical concepts such as, for example, Giddens's structuration theory are used to derive one-dimensional views of the research topic in which individual actions and social structures are held to mutually interact, illustrating the potential for communication across paradigms (see, Gioia and Pitre 1990, p.592; De cock and Rickards 1995, p.7o3). Multi-paradigm reviews can be considered an in-depth form of literature review, with the researcher recognizing and accommodating (see, Kelemen and Hassard 2003, p.77) a diverse range of paradigmatic views to foster an increased awareness of the insights and limitations associated with each approach to overcome paradigm myopia (Lewis and Kelemen 2002, p.260). Multiple paradigm research entails the empirical operationalisation of the techniques learnt during immersion in the literature with each paradigm lens applied to the topic of interest. There are two ways of approaching the

18 324 Mark Tadajewski empirical research, either through a parallel study or sequentially. Parallel studies follow the strategy utilized by Hassard (1985, 1991) and apply each paradigm on equal terms (paradigms are mutually exclusive, in Burrell and Morgan's (1979) terms) to preserve the conflicts between the divergent paradigm lenses. Sequential studies assume that different paradigms are mutually complimentary by eliciting sequential levels of understanding within a single research project (Schultz and Hatch 1996, p.533) with the different but complimentary representations developed from each paradigm used to inform the next paradigm study. For example, Gioia et al. (1989) used a previous functionalist (positivist) study in their examination of the communication and cognition in performance appraisal interviews with the positivist study used as an input into later interpretive research to generate a triangulated and 'more complete' view of the processes involved in performance appraisal (Gioia et al. 1989, p.5o9). This is a reversal of the typical multi-paradigm strategy (Kelemen and Hassard 2003, p.77). Clearly, this research strategy bears resemblance to methodological triangulation (e.g. Jick 1979) except that diverse paradigm representations are cultivated between paradigms rather than within a single paradigm (Lewis and Kelemen 2002, p.263). The third strategy is termed metaparadigm theory building and involves researchers attempting to entertain conflicting paradigm insights by thinking paradoxically. This involves researchers attempting to accommodate and juxtapose conflicting views simultaneously to explore divergent themes that emerge from the literature review and multiple paradigm analysis to produce paradigm interplay and the recognition of both paradigm disparity and contrasts (Schultz and Hatch 1996, p.534). An exemplar of metaparadigm theory building can be found in Lewis and Grimes (1999) that utilizes all three multiple paradigm strategies in a case study of a multifaceted phenomenon (Advanced Manufacturing Technology: a study of the interactions between operator tasks and computerized machinery involved in a production process; see, Lewis 1996 for extended discussion). They present this topic as ideally suited to this approach since it was widely examined across the paradigmatic literature, a literature that was theoretically and empirically fragmented and contradictory. Adopting a metaparadigm strategy, Lewis and Grimes (1999) first examined the available literature framed via the Burrell and Morgan (1979) typology. Each of the paradigm lenses were then applied to existing case studies in a form of iterative triangulation (see, Lewis 1998) with each case written up according to paradigmatic convention in order to construct multifarious accounts of the role of this technology within an organizational context, thereby producing 'multidimensional theory' of the design process (Lewis and Grimes 1999, p.686) while at the same time acknowledging the possible pitfalls associated with this research strategy (see, Burrell 1997, p.46; Lewis and Grimes 1999, pp ; Lewis and Kelemen 2002, pp ; Kelemen and Hassard 2003, pp.77-78; Scherer 1998, p.155). Tentative steps toward multi-paradigm analyses have been made within

19 The Philosophy of Marketing Theory 325 marketing (e.g. Combe 1999; Combe and Botschen 2004; Davies and Fitchett 2001). An important example is Davies and Fitchett's (2001) combination of their positivist and interpretive PhD research grounded in a form of objective epistemic relativism holding that the epistemology adopted is relative to the purpose of the inquiry in their testing of the incommensurability thesis (Davies and Fitchett 2001, p.234; Muncy and Fisk 1987, p.31). Both PhD studies conformed to the requisite paradigmatic standards, examining museum consumption from positivist and interpretive standpoints in a similar format to the Gioia et al. (1989) study mentioned above. Registering the workbench level difficulties of multiple paradigm analyses, Davies and Fitchett question an extreme variant of the incommensurability thesis in view of each study reporting common findings with the difference between these paradigmatic project being 'a methodological, or surface level feature' (Davies and Fitchett 2001, p.238). Registering this, they assert that future projects could adopt a pragmatic stance, drawing insight from both perspectives. Multiple paradigm research, while not without limitations (see, Lewis and Grimes 1999, p.686), appears to be an important avenue for exploration in marketing and consumer research with the potential to foster greater comprehensiveness (Gioia and Pitre 1990), relevance (Combe 1999, p.356) and reflexivity (Lewis and Kelemen 2002, p.268) in research where mono-paradigm research is likely to or has previously been found to foster a 'too narrow view of the complexity, and the multifaceted nature of business reality' (Combe 1999, p.341; Lewis and Kelemen 2002, p.268). Conclusion This paper has reviewed the philosophy of science debates in marketing and consumer research and pointed the way forward for the development of marketing theory. It has followed Kotler's (1979) and Lutz's (1989) plea for more philosophically informed thought in marketing by attempting to comprehensively review the various philosophical debates that have engaged marketing and consumer researchers. The science and paradigm debates in marketing and consumer research have been charted and appropriate criticism offered. The interdisciplinary literature review drew from a wide range of extra-marketing sources with attention paid to the future direction of marketing theory. One potential direction for future study was discussed, multiple paradigm research. This form of research is still emerging as an intellectual force in its own right across the social sciences and appears to have much to contribute to knowledge production in marketing. It is hoped that this paper encourages new and established researchers to review and reflect upon the philosophical underpinning of their current projects and stimulate further philosophical and methodological debate, something many see as desirable (Easton 2002; Gummerson 2001; Lazer 1958; Lutz 1989; Kotler 1979).

20 326 Mark Tadajewski Acknowledgement The author wishes to thank Stephen Brown, Nick Ellis, Matthew Higgins, Gavin Jack and Campbell Jones for their advice during the production of this paper. He would also like to thank the editor for his comments. The usual disclaimers apply. References Ackroyd, Stephen and Fleetwood, Steve (Eds.) (2000), Realist Perspectives of Business and Organization, London, Routledge Alvesson, Mats (1994), "Critical theory and consumer marketing", Scandinavian Journal of Management, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp Alvesson, Mats (2002), Postmodernism and Social Research, London, Sage Alvesson, Mats and Willmott, Hugh (1996), Making Sense of Management: A Critical Introduction, London, Sage Anderson, Paul F. (1986), "On method in consumer research: a critical relativist perspective". Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 13, September, pp Anderson, Paui F. (1983), "Marketing, scientific progress, and the scientific method". Journal of Marketing, Vol. 47, Fall, pp Anderson, Paul F. (1988), "Relativism revidivus: in defense of critical relativism". Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15, December, pp.4o3-406 Arndt, Johan (1985a), "On making marketing science more scientific: role of orientations, paradigms, metaphors, and problem solving'. Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49, Summer, pp Arndt, Johan (1985b), "The tyranny of paradigms: the case for paradigmatic pluralism in marketing". In: Changing the Course of Marketing: Alternative Paradigms for Widening Marketing Theory, (Eds.), Dholakia, Nikhilkesh and Arndt, Johan (Greenwich), JAI Press, pp.3-25 Arnould, Eric J. and Price, Linda L. (1993), "'River magic': hedonic consumption and the extended service encounter". Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp Baker, Michael J. (2001), "Introduction", In: Marketing: Critical Perspectives on Business and Management, Vol. 1. (Ed.) Baker, Michael. J. (London), Routledge, pp Bartels, Robert (1951), "Can marketing be a science?". The Journal of Marketing, Vol. 51, January, pp Bartels, Robert (1970), Marketing Theory and Metatheory, Homewood, Richard D. Irwin Inc Beckmann, Susanne C and Elliott, Richard (2002), Interpretive Consumer Research: Paradigms, Methodologies and Applications, Copenhagen, Copenhagen Business School Press Belk, Russell W. (1987), "Happy thought: presidential address". In: Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 14, (Eds.), Wallendorf, Melanie and