alexa Polarization of Marketing Theory: Fueling the Quest for Scientific Marketing Truth | OMICS International
ISSN: 2168-9601
Journal of Accounting & Marketing
Like us on:
Make the best use of Scientific Research and information from our 700+ peer reviewed, Open Access Journals that operates with the help of 50,000+ Editorial Board Members and esteemed reviewers and 1000+ Scientific associations in Medical, Clinical, Pharmaceutical, Engineering, Technology and Management Fields.
Meet Inspiring Speakers and Experts at our 3000+ Global Conferenceseries Events with over 600+ Conferences, 1200+ Symposiums and 1200+ Workshops on
Medical, Pharma, Engineering, Science, Technology and Business

Polarization of Marketing Theory: Fueling the Quest for Scientific Marketing Truth

Wael Kortam*

Department of Business Administration, Vice Dean for Postgraduate Studies, Research and Internationalization, Faculty of Commerce, Cairo University, Egypt

*Corresponding Author:
Wael Kortam
Department of Business Administration
Vice Dean for Postgraduate Studies
Research and Internationalization
Faculty of Commerce, Cairo University, Egypt
E-mail: [email protected]

Received Date: March 05, 2012; Accepted Date: March 09, 2012; Published Date: March 12, 2012

Citation: Kortam W (2012) Polarization of Marketing Theory: Fueling the Quest for Scientific Marketing Truth. J Acct Market 2:e102. doi:10.4172/2168-9601.1000e102

Copyright: © 2012 Kortam W. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Visit for more related articles at Journal of Accounting & Marketing


Arguably, there is an evident condition of polarized controversies in marketing theory, where two extreme ends are trying to pull the arguments towards their outlier point without giving much room for meeting in middle points [1,2].

This article aims to examine how this currently evident polarization of marketing theory controversies can be a barrier/or a stimulus to reaching the ultimate objective of scientific marketing truth. The problem tackled by this article and hopefully by a subsequent stream of conceptual and empirical research is to bridge the theoretical gap of identifying the most influential polar points and their implications to having a plausible scientific marketing truth.

It’s still highly unclear whether marketing theory in its persistent and militant quest for scientific marketing truth needs to reach one of the polarized extremes or a point in between or actually needs to keep the light of argument shed on the essence of the sought truths of marketing as a science.

The polarization of marketing theory can be characterized by three important features of philosophical argumentation. First, it’s highly semantic-dominated meaning that there are highly raised arguments concerning generic and operational definitions of many marketing constructs. This has created a semantic jungle, where it became really difficult to come to terms with an exclusive and inclusive essence of any advanced, newly coined or even some basic marketing terms and jargons. Second, Many polarized controversies can be easily classified as census seeking i.e. they strive to bring all or at least most marketing scholars to hold and support polarized extreme ends. This has kept such controversies from acknowledging the values of their counter extremes and let alone the value of the argument itself. Third, most of these controversies are polarized based on belief-held rather than facts-found grounds, which in turn, reflect more the ideologies of researchers than the factual evidence of their research. This should be expected to result in a strong commitment to extremes based on pre-held dispositions even if it’s contradicted by objective empiricism [1,3-5]. So it can be claimed that the above scientific substantiation features of polarization of marketing theory are favoring that one extreme should fulfill a swift victory over the other. By this token, where does this take the quest for scientific marketing truth?, In other words, does it create shortcuts to scientific marketing truth or does it lead marketing thought astray from that much lucrative and appealing scientific mandate?

With a view toward answering these critical and legitimate queries, it might be wise to first understand the pillars of scientific marketing truth which stands as a main ultimate end of marketing theory. This article argues that scientific marketing truth must comply with five main pillars [6,7]: 1) rigor referring to adopting a logical and systematic methodological process, 2) verifiability referring to transparency of empirical evidence and research activities, 3) replicability referring to feasibility of repeating the research process in different contexts, 4) building up referring to compliance with a state of the art marketing knowledge in triggering and extending research endeavors., and 5) problem solving, referring to its dedication to fulfilling relevance & action ability of marketing thought. On the other hand, it could be useful if a number of high p rofiled polarizations of marketing theory are exhibited to demonstrate their very serious implications for reaching scientific marketing truth. This article proposes to single out ten polarized controversies that are currently hotly debated in marketing thought [1-3,5].

Transformational (revolutionary) versus foundational (confirmatory) marketing:

1. Dogmatic (ideological) versus pragmatic (factual) marketing.

2. Contextual (situational) versus universal (ubiquitous) marketing

3. Global (world class) versus local (cross cultural) marketing.

4. Economic optimizer (profit oriented) versus social friendly (welfare oriented) marketing.

5. Customer driven (well being driven) versus company driven (satisfaction driven) marketing.

6. Strategic (long term oriented) versus tactical (quick wins oriented) marketing.

7. Quantitative (generalization) versus qualitative (depth) marketing.

8. Real (physical) versus virtual (digital) marketing.

9. Customized (individualistic) versus mass (collectivistic) marketing.

To conclude, this article proposes a tentative answer to such crucial and complicated question, nevertheless, this answer are far from final and definitely requires substantial conceptual and empirical refines. The answer is built on the talking of whether the pillars of scientific marketing truth would benefit more from settling each polarized controversy to one extreme point, compromising each polarization to a middle point claiming that both extremes are needed or sparkling a permanent fire that guarantee that the polarization argument perpetuates for its own sake. Ultimately the final position of this article is that tentatively sparkling and sustaining the argument would be the road map for an effective quest to a scientific marketing truth that serve as true credential of marketing as a science, which taking a middle or an extreme point along the polars of marketing theory would simply bring an end to a potentially promising path to find a valuable marketing truth.


Select your language of interest to view the total content in your interested language
Post your comment

Share This Article

Relevant Topics

Article Usage

  • Total views: 12132
  • [From(publication date):
    April-2012 - Jan 18, 2018]
  • Breakdown by view type
  • HTML page views : 8348
  • PDF downloads : 3784

Post your comment

captcha   Reload  Can't read the image? click here to refresh

Peer Reviewed Journals
Make the best use of Scientific Research and information from our 700 + peer reviewed, Open Access Journals
International Conferences 2018-19
Meet Inspiring Speakers and Experts at our 3000+ Global Annual Meetings

Contact Us

Agri & Aquaculture Journals

Dr. Krish

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9040

Biochemistry Journals

Datta A

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9037

Business & Management Journals


[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

Chemistry Journals

Gabriel Shaw

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9040

Clinical Journals

Datta A

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9037

Engineering Journals

James Franklin

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

Food & Nutrition Journals

Katie Wilson

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

General Science

Andrea Jason

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9043

Genetics & Molecular Biology Journals

Anna Melissa

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9006

Immunology & Microbiology Journals

David Gorantl

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9014

Materials Science Journals

Rachle Green

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9039

Nursing & Health Care Journals

Stephanie Skinner

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9039

Medical Journals

Nimmi Anna

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9038

Neuroscience & Psychology Journals

Nathan T

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9041

Pharmaceutical Sciences Journals

Ann Jose

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9007

Social & Political Science Journals

Steve Harry

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

© 2008- 2018 OMICS International - Open Access Publisher. Best viewed in Mozilla Firefox | Google Chrome | Above IE 7.0 version