Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Interpreting Brown and Hackley (2012) From the history to the histories of marketing theory and practice

Interpreting Brown and Hackley (2012) From the history to the histories of marketing theory and... Purpose – This paper aims to use Brown and Hackley's contribution to the Journal of Historical Research in Marketing as a springboard for further discussion. It seeks to argue that we can put aside their suggestion that they intend to “stress test the contention that Cowell is Barnum reborn”. This is not what they are trying to do at all. Their point is more elemental. They aim to provoke readers to think critically about the production of marketing histories and histories of marketing thought. Design/methodology/approach – This paper adopts a viewpoint approach. Findings – Given that Brown and Hackley arguably intend to encourage a response to their work and this is a response to their paper means they have been successful in their efforts. They have secured readers for their scholarship in an academic marketplace where many papers go unread, are never cited and whose only worldly “impact” is in terms of the carbon footprint they leave. This said, this paper takes Brown and Hackley seriously, engages with their ideas and offers a variety of ways we can think beyond their “thematic analysis”. Originality/value – The paper situates Brown and Hackley's account within the wider sphere of marketing thought. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Historical Research in Marketing Emerald Publishing

Interpreting Brown and Hackley (2012) From the history to the histories of marketing theory and practice

Loading next page...
 
/lp/emerald-publishing/interpreting-brown-and-hackley-2012-from-the-history-to-the-histories-4SYzVRWCEh

References (54)

Publisher
Emerald Publishing
Copyright
Copyright © 2012 Emerald Group Publishing Limited. All rights reserved.
ISSN
1755-750X
DOI
10.1108/17557501211224485
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Purpose – This paper aims to use Brown and Hackley's contribution to the Journal of Historical Research in Marketing as a springboard for further discussion. It seeks to argue that we can put aside their suggestion that they intend to “stress test the contention that Cowell is Barnum reborn”. This is not what they are trying to do at all. Their point is more elemental. They aim to provoke readers to think critically about the production of marketing histories and histories of marketing thought. Design/methodology/approach – This paper adopts a viewpoint approach. Findings – Given that Brown and Hackley arguably intend to encourage a response to their work and this is a response to their paper means they have been successful in their efforts. They have secured readers for their scholarship in an academic marketplace where many papers go unread, are never cited and whose only worldly “impact” is in terms of the carbon footprint they leave. This said, this paper takes Brown and Hackley seriously, engages with their ideas and offers a variety of ways we can think beyond their “thematic analysis”. Originality/value – The paper situates Brown and Hackley's account within the wider sphere of marketing thought.

Journal

Journal of Historical Research in MarketingEmerald Publishing

Published: Apr 27, 2012

Keywords: Marketing history; Marketing theory; Literary theory; Critical marketing; Marketing

There are no references for this article.