For re-institutionalizing the marketing discipline in Era V

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

1 Scopus citations

Abstract

Commentaries on the status of the marketing discipline conclude that it is significantly troubled, which raises the question: Do the troubles identified portend a de-institutionalization of the discipline in marketing’s Era IV (1980–2020) and its potential re-institutionalization in Era V (2020-?)? This article examines (1) the marketing discipline’s founding in Era I (1900–1920), (2) how the discipline became institutionalized in Era II (1920–1950), (3) how marketing was re-institutionalized in Era III (1950–1980), and (4) how the discipline’s fragmentation in Era IV (1980–2020) portends its de-institutionalization. The article concludes by arguing for the marketing discipline’s re-institutionalization in Era V (2020-?).

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)189-198
Number of pages10
JournalAMS Review
Volume10
Issue number3-4
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 2020

Keywords

  • History of marketing
  • Institutionalization
  • Marketing discipline
  • marketing’s de-institutionalization
  • marketing’s re-institutionalization

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'For re-institutionalizing the marketing discipline in Era V'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this