Marketing education: constructing the future

Citation

Cox, V. (2006), "Marketing education: constructing the future", Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 24 No. 3. https://doi.org/10.1108/mip.2006.02024caa.001

Marketing education: constructing the future

Val CoxHead of the Department of Marketing, and Public Relations at the University of Lincoln. She has a particular interest in learning and teaching and the relationship between theory and practice. The Guest Editor is very grateful to the following people who acted as reviewers for this special issue: Barry Ardley, Ross Brennan, Andrew Corcoran, Colin Coulson-Thomas, Keith Crosier, Frank Davies, Zafer Erdogan, Simon Haslam, Philip Kitchen, Roger Palmer, Gerard Prendergast, Graham Spickett-Jones, Stephen Tagg, Jonathan Taylor, Nick Taylor, Bill Wagner.

Marketing education: constructing the future

Introduction

A central issue for marketing education today is the relationship between theory and practice. Looking back over my own experience, I “learned” marketing on the job. It was back in those days when business studies courses in the UK were taught only at a few select “polytechnics” and marketing degrees were more or less unheard of. Blue chip companies in the UK thought they were taking a risk if they employed a graduate who had not been to Oxford or Cambridge. I, along with about 20 others that year, none of whom had studied business, became a graduate trainee in one of those companies. I kept a learning log. I went on lots of courses run in-house and by professional bodies. I was given projects to do. My boss gave me feedback. I worked with a team. I had a wonderful time and learned a lot. Later, much later, I came into education and saw what I had learned in practice codified, discussed and challenged and I thought how useful it would have been to have had some more of these ideas and frameworks earlier in my career together with the time to explore and reflect on them.

Now, things are very different. Marketing education has come of age and, some might argue, has entered something of a mid-life crisis. The role and purpose of higher education, business schools, and, more specifically, marketing education is under scrutiny among fears of a loss of distinctiveness and focus (Bennis and O’Toole, 2005; Schibrowsky et al. 2002; Starkey and Madan, 2001; Grey, 2001). New generations of marketing practitioners are growing up who have had a formal marketing education. At the same time a new generation of academics is growing up who have had limited or no direct practitioner experience. How do we reconcile these trends and what significance do they have for the future of marketing education?

There would be few who would disagree that with Tapp’s (2004, p. 4) contention that “Marketing is fundamentally a practice” or that marketing educators are in the business, at least in part, of developing the next generation of brand managers, marketing intelligence gatherers, strategic planners and marketing directors. The question is how this might be done. A recent survey sponsored by the Association of Business Schools indicated that the main motivation for students taking a business degree at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels was to improve their career prospects Crisp and Carrington, 2005). However, practitioners consider marketing graduates to have shortcomings in key business and life skills and this is coupled with mounting evidence that they also consider academic research in marketing – the bedrock of marketing knowledge – to have little relevance to their own practice (Brennan and Ankers, 2004; McCole, 2004; Reed et al., 2004; Tapp, 2004).

Academics meanwhile grapple with the overlapping and sometimes competing demands of publishing research, teaching students with a wide range of abilities and aspirations, managing courses, generating funding and proving pastoral care (Polonsky et al., 2003; Rapert et al., 2002). A study in the USA (Smart et al., 1999) portrayed academics’ view of the current generation of students as being more confident, more career conscious and more IT literate, but also as having poor numeracy and literacy skills, lower motivation and a reduced attention span; more interested in practice than theory, under-prepared and time impoverished – a picture which academics in other countries might recognise.

The task for marketing educators is to reconcile and meet the demands of these key constituencies whilst at the same time driving forward marketing knowledge and understanding. How do we ensure that academics create knowledge that is relevant, reaches the appropriate audiences, informs practice and contributes to further development of the profession and discipline of marketing? What part is, and should be, played by marketing education? What is the knowledge base a marketer might be expected to have? How might students be equipped to develop a career in marketing? What should the balance be between skills and knowledge? How does education differ from training? How might the marketing students of today help to grow the marketing profession and discipline of tomorrow?

This special issue tries to address some of these questions.

An overview of the papers

The paper by Clarke, Gray and Mearman is on intrinsic versus instrumentalist approaches to education using the example of ethics in marketing to illustrate their case. They suggest that, in the UK at least, educational policy “… is driven by the idea that the value of education lies in instrumental benefits” with increased productivity in the workplace being the main aim. They go on to argue that whilst this might be the natural inclination of employers and those seeking to be employed, education has a wider role, which is ultimately for the good of both these groups and society at large. That is to encourage people to develop their critical faculties not at the expense of gaining instrumental knowledge and skills, but in order to enhance their application of this knowledge so they can make more informed judgements and take a more creative approach to their decision making. They suggest, therefore, that marketing students should be encouraged to develop the core skills and techniques of their profession and, in addition, the ability to critically evaluate these skills and techniques. They focus in particular on the question of marketing ethics and use this to illustrate the value – both commercial and otherwise – of the ability to make informed ethical judgements and contribute to the wider debate on the acceptability of marketing practices. It is in this way that the academic discipline of professional practice of marketing is progressed and we avoid the stultifying effects of “recipe-book” based learning of received wisdom.

The sentiments of this paper resonate with a recent Marketing Intelligence & Planning viewpoint piece by Thomas (2006) that encouraged us to think about the wider responsibilities of marketers. He cautioned us to avoid what he terms “epistemopathology” – the irresponsible application of dubious knowledge applied mechanically and with short-termism and to break out of the confines of “brainwashed, mechanical, market driven professionalism” (Thomas, 2006). Challenging students to think critically about the role and scope of marketing and locate it in a wider social context is central to such a project.

The paper by Ardley also considers the question of context but from the point of view of that in which marketing decision making takes place in the real world and the way this is portrayed to students.

Taking the example of marketing planning, Ardley suggests that marketing educators should do more to recognise the messy realities of the process and not over-simplify its complexity. He argues that the approaches portrayed and promoted in the kinds of texts frequently recommended to students present an unrealistic model of decision making as rational, logical and objective. His own research indicates that much marketing decision making is individual, context-specific and idiosyncratic and unlikely to be changed by prescribing a universal objective approach. He suggests that in many cases, the 4Ps framework continues to form the basis for much marketing teaching and adherence to this precludes full recognition of the importance of serendipity and building market understanding through networks of relationships with others involved in the business. What emerges is a more social picture of business. Instead of the objective market analyst sitting in a backroom constructing a technically robust marketing plan informed by data from marketing research studies done by third parties and at a distance, the planner is submerged in the day to day realities of his or her business and takes a much more eclectic approach.

This has important implications for the skills needed by marketers and their concept of how business works. It also has significant implications for marketing educators. The fluid picture Ardley paints suggests that the skills marketers need to practice and hone are: working in groups, networking, working across disciplines, managing and critically evaluating information presented both formally and implicitly, and dealing with uncertainty. Also implicit in his findings is the suggestion that students of marketing can and should be given a realistic vision of themselves as practicing managers within specific business contexts. He promotes the idea of communities of practice as a framework for marketing education where the learner builds knowledge and experience through working with knowledgeable others. This blurs the boundaries between tutor and student. It casts academics more in the role of facilitators and raises questions about the breadth and currency of their own knowledge and practical experience.

Postgraduate and mature students often have a reservoir of relevant experience which can be shared with other students and tutors and the idea of reflective practice within learning sets as identified by Ardley would seem particularly pertinent to them. However, Ardley also suggests that full time students and those with little or no relevant prior experience can be exposed to, and learn from, the realities of marketing decision making through familiarity with the findings from action research and carrying out such research themselves.

This challenge of giving undergraduate or pre-experience students a realistic picture of the practical context for marketing whilst at the same time enthusing them and proving supportive conditions for reflection and learning is explored in Pearce and Jackson’s paper. This describes dramatic enactment as a way of facilitating discovery learning. The method involves students taking roles in a scenario designed to highlight particular issues. In this case, the scenario reflected the wider context of marketing decision making and focussed on skills associated with problem solving within the context of international and services marketing.

In educational drama the students experience roles as themselves rather than imagining how someone else might play them. Through this they take ownership of the experience and the learning that arises from it. Pearce and Jackson argue that it is this that gives the experience such potency. Student responses were enthusiastic. They found the drama fun and involving. It opened their eyes to the complexity of the decision-making process and the dilemmas faced by others; it made them “feel like a marketer”.

Pearce and Jackson’s paper encourages marketing educators to be creative in their approach to learning and teaching. As educators working in an environment increasingly constrained by the need for accountability and multiple demands on our time, we are perhaps less willing to take risks and resist the temptation to always fall back on the tried and tested or, more worryingly, familiar and convenient. In some instances, students look to us as role models. Taking a creative approach to the “problem” of facilitating learning is a direct way of demonstrating the advantages of innovative thinking. It may also mean we can have more fun.

Pearce and Jackson draw on the discipline of drama to inform their teaching and this idea of cross fertilisation of disciplines is echoed in Stanton’s paper. Her case study of an undergraduate course in data mining illustrates the possibilities of introducing a cross-disciplinary course which incorporates technical management information skills within a practical and theoretical marketing framework. She highlights not only the relevance of improved information management skills for students’ future career prospects, but also the intrinsic satisfaction that students can find in mastering such challenging skills. Once again (as with Pearce and Jackson) students reported the importance of learning through putting theory into practice under realistic conditions.

Stanton points up some of the potential barriers to this type of approach – a lack of suitable textbooks, teaching staff with the necessary range of skills, and the IT resources necessary to support student learning. As she points out, all these are surmountable. Demands on staff to be research active, generate external income, manage courses and so on may militate against such relatively high maintenance approaches, but Stanton argues that the ability to use technology to manage information is a essential skill for marketing practice and one that cannot be ignored in the marketing curriculum.

Skills and knowledge essential for marketing practice are the subject of the paper by Stringfellow, Ennis, Brennan and Harker who explore UK undergraduate marketing courses and the extent to which these mirror the knowledge and abilities sought by practitioners. Their review of the literature suggests that there is plenty of evidence to support the idea that employers and students have a relatively instrumental view of education focussing on the combination of skills and practical knowledge which enable them to do the job whilst academics tend to take a broader perspective with more emphasis on underpinning theory.

The study by Stringfellow and her colleagues compared the expectations of marketing practitioners, alumni and academics about undergraduate marketing courses with profiles of such courses currently being offered. Practitioners confirmed that whilst a marketing degree might provide a good starting point, cultural fit and the ability of graduates to develop their financial, and negotiating skills was key. It was not a question of new graduates being too theory orientated; it was more a case of a lack of contextualisation of the theory. To put it crudely, graduates lacked basic business “nous”. Profiles of the courses on offer indicated consensus on a small core of fundamentals but little evidence of curricula which set marketing in the wider business context. Stringfellow et al. call for greater collaboration between academics and practitioners in programme design and greater focus on the needs of students and the employment market – a move away from what they characterise as a production-led approach.

Bruce and Schoenfeld and Dacko consider the qualities associated with postgraduate education. These companion papers look at the skills and abilities developed among graduates of MBA programmes and their perceived value for practitioners. Dacko raises questions about which skills should be given priority and compares and contrasts employers views of skills needed, the extent to which MBA graduates display these skills, and graduates’ own perceptions of the emphasis put on such skills during their course. He identifies six skill weaknesses and suggests teaching and learning strategies which can be used to help to overcome them. He argues that without such skills, marketers will not be able to apply their marketing knowledge effectively.

The skills Dacko identifies are at a broad level. Bruce and Schoenfeld’s study identifies some more specific areas of strength and weakness as well as more general areas. They argue that there is evidence to suggest that, whilst knowledge underpinned by research is well developed in the curriculum, the ability to use this knowledge to inform decision making and translate theory into practice is under-developed. They compare and contrast the extent to which MBA students’ ability to think is developed with their ability to do, and suggest that there is a divide which, unless breached, will hamper the ability of marketing graduates to operate, and be seen to operate, effectively at the higher levels of corporate management. They make some suggestions for teaching and learning strategies which focus on specific outputs involving interactions between academics and practitioners and cross-disciplinary teaching teams together with possible barriers to their implementation.

Bruce and Schoenfeld identified a desire for further learning among their alumni subjects, and motivating students to continue their learning is the focus of our final paper by Pavia. She explores how academics might best keep their programmes relevant, up to date and interesting enough for students to want to continue bringing theory and practice together outside the context of a formal course. Through her work with post-experience executives, she suggests that it is possible to generate on-going demand for new marketing knowledge by instilling the confidence in student-practitioners and alumni that they will know where to find useful and relevant information, and have the ability to critically evaluate and apply it within their own particular contexts. She outlines how the use of conventional methods such as case studies and readings from a spectrum of academic and practitioner sources, when combined with real-time information and directed towards student-owned projects allows students to see the direct links between academic advances and improved decision making. She describes a method for encouraging the habit of reading and discussing accessible but challenging texts, and suggests that through this, practitioners can be encouraged to add to their knowledge and hone their evaluative skills.

Pavia proposes that marketing educators who can offer insights derived from new marketing knowledge which are helpful and relevant and who can moreover encourage their students to develop the ability to find, sift and use such knowledge for themselves, can make a real contribution to improved competitive advantage in practice. Her paper encourages marketing educators to adopt a pull strategy for their “product” by shifting the balance of their focus from academic-users and putting more emphasis on practitioner-users. In this way, she suggests, new marketing knowledge will diffuse through the practitioner community more readily and offer more opportunities for the academic-practitioner divide to be breached.

Conclusions

What can marketing educators draw from the findings reviewed here? The interrelationship of theory and practice defines marketing as a discipline. In this it differs from subjects like history or sociology; it is more akin to medicine or law. Theory and practice inform each other and when they start to become divorced, problems occur. The discipline loses its focus and distinctiveness and the opportunity to improve practice and drive relevant knowledge forward is lost. The papers in this issue look at ways in which this danger might be reduced. The marketing students of today are the practitioners of tomorrow and offer the potential for the further cementing of theory and practice. The challenge for educators is to give such students a vision of themselves as marketers who can confidently draw on the insights academic research can offer together with having the ability to use them.

Students need to be equipped with the sorts of transferable skills and competencies identified in the work reviewed here, but what is also highlighted is the need to have an appreciation of the particularities and complexities of individual situations. This involves offering students realistic experiences. Devices such as case studies, dissertations, live projects, role-play, dramatic enactment and debate with fellow students, practitioners and academics are some of the teaching and learning strategies that can be used. With skilful management, educators can, not only create realistic scenarios, but also the conditions that are more likely to allow students to be active collaborators in the learning process. The boundaries between learner and “teacher” blur and the educator takes the role of facilitator (Cunningham, 1999).

But what of the other skills required by the educator? As well as using interventions that help to promote learning, they are the custodians of the curriculum. They help to define the body of knowledge that is presented and legitimised to students. In this they have to make choices about the breadth and depth of topics studied. A clear theme emerging from the papers published here is the need to set marketing in a wider context that recognises its relation to other business disciplines and its wider impact in society. There is a tension between producing generalists whose specific marketing knowledge is limited, and specialists who are divorced from reality. Marketers without the ability to understand market dynamics, manage information, evaluate and communicate the financial impact of their strategies, forge networks and alliances and manage themselves and other people are not marketers in any practical sense of the term. Cross-disciplinary team teaching; numeracy and literacy skills that are embedded in core marketing modules rather than being “tacked on”; working with students from other disciplines; and collaborating with practitioners are some methods of reducing insularity and ensuring that marketing graduates are rounded enough to be effective practitioners yet focussed enough to also be effective advocates for their profession.

The needs of marketing students provide a focus for bringing academics and practitioners together. The previous special issue of Marketing Intelligence & Planning identified an academic practitioner divide caused by failures in communication, mismatched agendas for knowledge creation and application, and a lack of awareness on both sides (Brennan, 2004). Learning communities are common meeting grounds where the world of the academic and practitioner can collide productively. Marketing educators need to have a clear vision of what they bring to the process and the confidence that comes from close collaboration with all the other parties, that they are making a relevant and unique contribution to the development of our future marketing professionals.

The number of papers submitted in response to the Call for papers for this special issue suggests that the future for marketing education is a subject high on the agenda, and the selection of papers published here gives some indications of possible ways forward.

Val CoxLincoln Business School, University of Lincoln, Lincoln, UK