Journal of Historical Research in Marketing

If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service. Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com With over forty years'''' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in business, society, public policy and education. In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as well as an extensive range of online products and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

Journal of Historical Research in Marketing

Emerald Article: Interpreting Brown and Hackley (2012): From the history

to the histories of marketing theory and practice

Mark Tadajewski

Article information:

To cite this document: Mark Tadajewski, (2012),"Interpreting Brown and Hackley (2012): From the history to the histories of

marketing theory and practice", Journal of Historical Research in Marketing, Vol 4 Iss: 2 pp 316 - 323

Permanent link to this document:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17557501211224485

Downloaded on: 25-08-2012

References: This document contains references to 49 other documents

Citations: This document has been cited by 1 other documents

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

This document has been downloaded 47 times since 2012 *

Users who downloaded this Article also downloaded: *

Stephen Brown, (2012),"There's a scholar born every minute: This way to the eejit", Journal of Historical Research in Marketing,

Vol 4 Iss: 2 pp 324 - 330

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17557501211224494

Stephen Brown, Christopher Hackley, (2012),"The greatest showman on earth: Is Simon Cowell P.T Barnum reborn?", Journal of Historical Research in Marketing, Vol 4 Iss: 2 pp 290 - 308

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17557501211224467

Alan J Richardson, (2012),"What do I have to do to get noticed around here?: A comment on Brown and Hackley (2012): "The

greatest showman on earth: is Simon Cowell P.T Barnum reborn?"", Journal of Historical Research in Marketing, Vol 4 Iss: 2 pp

309 - 315

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17557501211224476

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by Journal of Historical Research in Marketing

For Authors:

If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service

Information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all Please visit

www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

With over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in business, society, public policy and education In total, Emerald publishes over 275 journals and more than 130 book series, as

well as an extensive range of online products and services Emerald is both COUNTER 3 and TRANSFER compliant The organization is

a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation

*Related content and download information correct at time of download

Interpreting Brown and Hackley

(2012)

From the history to the histories of marketing theory and practice

Mark Tadajewski

Department of Marketing, University of Strathclyde Business School,

Glasgow, UK

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.

Keywords Marketing history, Marketing theory, Literary theory, Critical marketing, Marketing Paper type Viewpoint

Introduction

In this issue Brown and Hackley (2012) return to a number of topics with which Brown has grappled for some time These relate to retro-marketing, representation and writing As we might expect, Brown’s scholarship is “popularist” in tone: he tries to speak to multiple academic audiences and engage with practitioners This is not easily achieved, if ever possible, when writing in the “academic marketing argot of lifeless, desiccated, disinterested and indeed uninteresting prose” (Brown, 1998, p 247) To speak beyond the ivory towers, moreover, means we have to shift our own cognitive orientation – often a deeply entrenched “positivistic” orientation – that views the types of inquiry we pursue, with its attendant methodological rigour, as the only real way to produce meaningful knowledge about the world (Barker and Kuiper, 2003) Brown appreciates that many pertinent marketing insights come from outside of the

www.emeraldinsight.com/1755-750X.htm

The author would like to thank the Editor for inviting this commentary

Editor’s note: As explained in the introduction to Brown’s rejoinder which is presented here,

the circumstances surrounding Professor Hackley’s co-authorship of the Brown and Hackley article led Professor Tadajewski in this commentary to direct his comments directly to Brown – who answers his critics in his solo rejoinder

JHRM

4,2

316

Journal of Historical Research in

Marketing

Vol 4 No 2, 2012

pp 316-323

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

1755-750X

university and he uses contemporary figures such as Simon Cowell or the Ryanair

CEO, Michael O’Leary (Brown, 2008), as exemplars

Despite Brown’s marketing twist worthy of Barnum himself where he asserts his

intention “to stress test the contention that [Simon] Cowell is Barnum reborn”, he is not

doing this at all This is a further exercise in encouraging us to think beyond the

bounds of our disciplinary training, the normal science that we practice on a daily

basis He wants us to question the notion of history we adopt The frequent citation of

Jenkins’ work in Brown’s oeuvre should forewarn us that he can justify the use of a

very contemporary example, provided it serves some purpose, as properly historical

The former author (citing a number of different figures) points out that “any decision

as to what history is is ultimately an arbitrary choice” ( Jenkins, 2003, p 28)

Clearly within the community researching marketing history there is a noticeable

commitment to intellectual pluralism that encourages the production of more culturally

rich studies like Brown’s contribution This said, there has also been a marked

tendency to refer to the history of marketing thought and marketing history, when a

more accurate label might be histories of marketing thought and marketing histories

(Lubek, 1992) This labelling strategy highlights the pluralisation of interpretation and

representation that results from paradigmatic and methodological expansion beyond

once popular, but less so now, “positivist” approaches (Brown et al., 2001; Savitt, 1980).

The next section engages with these ideas in more detail

The histories of marketing thought and marketing histories

Brown is extending his project to problematise the traditional assumptions of those

working in more logical empiricist, “positivist” or even more broadly “marketing

science” based veins In doing so, he walks a tightrope After all, there is a tendency for

certain types of representational strategy to speak to some groups and not others In

one respect, Brown maximises the audience for his paper Even the most ardent

positivist may be intrigued by the promised comparative approach which ticks the box

of generalisation (Brown et al., 2000).

Buttressing his work still further he bookends his contribution with easily

identifiable critiques, in an effort to encourage readers to “trust” the arguments

presented (Hunt, 2005); provided, that is, his account is supported with appropriate

methodological discussion and symbolism For the more “marketing science” oriented

this is a lacunae in Brown’s article, especially if they demand more methodological

complexity – which they generally will (see Lehmann et al., 2011) – beyond his

reference to “thematic analysis”

But, and it is an important point, this fascination with method as a validation tool;

this desire to arrive at a consensus position regarding the historical narrative that is

offered for consumption fails to understand Brown’s general “point” He treads a fine

line between deploying credibility building symbolism (see Richardson, 2012), while

avoiding the trap of quasi-positivism (see Shankar and Patterson, 2001) Obviously, the

“stories” provided in his paper are contestable (e.g Ball, 2012, pp 10-11; Brown, 2004,

p 210, 2005; Brown and Schau, 2008, p 145; Richardson, 2012) And, as he has written

in other places:

For every biographical example, a counter-example could be provided .For every conceptual

analogy, a non-analogous issue can be identified .But, to dismiss the present paper as

“unproven” or “unscientific” is to miss the point completely The purpose of literary

Interpreting Brown and Hackley 317

appreciation is not to prove or disprove a point or to come to an incontestable scientific conclusion Textual evidence can always be interpreted in another way or tackled from an alternative theoretical perspective (Brown, 2002, p 141; see also Brown, 1999, p 11)

Registering the limitations of his analysis, Brown may conceivably lose one audience: the logical empiricist contingent His style will be found wanting and judged more commensurate with scholarship produced in the humanities (Brown, 2003) Such views are understandable; but we could, if we were having a bad day at work, attribute them

to “personal animosity, professional jealousy and a narrow-minded conviction that their preferred research approach is incontestable” (Brown, 1998, p.189)

On a more relaxed day, we can shrug our shoulders and appreciate that in losing one audience, we gain another, admittedly smaller audience of interpretive and postmodern scholars This varied group will bring their own assumptions to the table, viewing Brown’s work in a way that does not lead to a critical interrogation of the ontological, epistemological and methodological principles he implicitly utilises They would see merit in his attempt to question the nature of historical representation, arguing that reality is socially constructed and therefore there is not one reality, but multiple realities; these being produced and reaffirmed on the basis of the intellectual attributes and skills that we turn on to our historical object Brown’s juxtaposition of Barnum and Cowell, on this reading, would be just another reading, albeit one that must be judged persuasive, evocative, plausible and so forth

What would an interpretive scholar take from Brown’s analysis? Certainly, there are likely to be multiple interpretive avenues available to the reader Is this a case of salami-slicing, adding some extra water in terms of the case study of Simon Cowell then serving it up to the waiting audience? Perhaps Given Brown’s very skilful ability

to set-up major projects – witness his Harry Potter stream of publications – and maximise the value from these, are we seeing the start of another project with more studies on Cowell to come? On the basis of previous research, and citation in this article, this is probable In an excellent (Brown, 1996) book chapter, for instance, he engaged with the “eras” framework and took an equally broad-brush approach because

it offered “enormous scope for further academic debate and publication opportunities” (Brown, 1996, p 31) Alternatively, is he offering us a “theory of success” (Lowenthal,

1961, p 125), chronicling exemplars of the “ideology of affluence” (Hirschman, 1990) as

a “how to” guide for those devoted to the accumulation of financial rewards? No doubt this interpretation would say more about the financial monomania of the reader than of Brown More subversively, his tongue could be firmly in cheek

By contrast, those working out of critical marketing might try to situate Brown’s narrative more firmly in the relevant social-historical context(s) (see Askegaard and Linnet, 2011; Tadajewski, 2010a) Moving away from the individualistic orientation of his argument, the focus would be on the subject position of the figures he invokes, along with the family, social and other networks that enabled Barnum and Cowell’s activities, revealing the background supports otherwise “lost, forgotten, hidden or excluded” from the account provided (Lubek, 2000, p 324) These could then be further contextualised in relation to wider structural changes in society that had ramifications for the practices of both Barnum and Cowell

With respect to the former, a critical marketing scholar would call attention to the emergence of consumer capitalism, the growing distance between producer and consumer, and the increasing complexity of products which made it more difficult for

JHRM

4,2

318

individuals to understand the full constitution of the items they consumed on a daily

basis In light of this, perhaps Barnum’s museum performed an admittedly unlikely

consciousness-raising function (see Brown on duplicity) As Pettit (2007, pp 160-61)

puts it, the consumer of Barnum’s museum was allowed:

[ .] to determine [ .] how the exhibits functioned, to detect hidden seams, thereby revealing

the elements that made the initial deception possible Barnum stressed the social utility of his

dubious trade, arguing that his exhibits encouraged ordinary Americans to hone their critical

judgment and their commercial sensibilities [ .] Barnum’s approach to the problem of

deception was crafted in response to early developments in capitalism that led many

Americans to worry about how appearances could not be trusted The visual order of urban

life and consumer capitalism was rife with misleading appearances

There are various ways, in other words, that we can understand Brown’s work and

depending on our preferred perspective, the questions we ask and the answers we

ultimately derive will differ Having dealt with the related issues of paradigm-specific

interpretation, representation and cogitation, the remainder of this commentary tries to

develop Brown’s ideas along productive lines, discussing a critique of his work from a

critical marketing stance After this, since an element of critical marketing practice

calls for critique, then the proposal of new conceptual tools, attention is turned to recent

debates about “scientific personae” (Daston and Sibum, 2003)

From “great men” to “personae”

The “great man” thesis has attracted some influential adherents Genealogically we run

the gauntlet from Hegel via Carlyle and onward to DuPont’s Cavalcade of America and

beyond Put simply, the idea was that there were certain individuals in world history

who exerted a motive force (Ball, 2012; Stole, 1998) Remnants of these ideas continue

to reverberate, as the on-going tributes to Steve Jobs illustrate (Ball, 2012;

Isaacson, 2011) As mentioned above briefly, those academics scrutinising this

“thesis” using the resources of the radical change paradigms would move away from

the individualistic axiology that underpins it, preferring instead to see social classes or

other groupings as the engine of social change (Ball, 2012; Service, 2010; Tadajewski,

2010a; see Westbrook, 1992) Taking a feminist perspective would, by contrast,

encourage us to ask questions about the impact of this gendered concept on the way we

think about, write and teach the histories of marketing, recognising that the

vocabulary we adopt in our “stories” has “material consequences” for our readership

(Fox Keller, 1995) Critically, we could take very serious issue with Brown’s use of two

affluent white males as the axes for his research There is a response to this of course

Despite being fundamentally problematic, focusing on this very restricted population

is consistent with disciplinary conventions in marketing and consumer research

(Burton, 2009; Stern, 2008)

Putting these critiques to one side, a potentially fruitful way forward beyond the

“great man” thesis might be to engage with the idea that we are all influenced by the

cultural categories that surround us (Ball, 2012; Ho, 2005, 2009) The work of Daston

and Sibum (2003) is useful in helping us understand this process[1] They draw on the

concept of the persona which provides a way to situate individual practice within a

wider cultural context Importantly, cultural socialisation, institutional support[2]

(Kendall and Wickham, 1999), individual biography and the production, synthesis and

circulation of appropriate concepts (Carson, 2003; Foucault, 2004) produce “a shared

Interpreting Brown and Hackley 319

and recognizable physiognomy” This defines a “collective” grouping, in spite of there not being a total correspondence between the individual and the characteristics of the

“species” (Daston and Sibum, 2003, p 2)

Those studying “personae” “investigate the personal element in science not as biographers but more as botanists, piecing together a type specimen that represents a class rather than any individual in particular” (Daston and Sibum, 2003, p 3) And there is, naturally enough, a tension here There will be certain individuals who define the way we think about collective groupings In terms of English literature, Shakespeare revolutionised the category of playwright through his use and application

of the English language (Leavis, 1969; see Brown, 2002, p 143n10) From the field of physics, J Robert Oppenheimer was emblematic of “a new type of theoretical physicist”, whose contribution to the “scientific personae” was a function of his

“exceedingly complex” personality, his issues with interaction, his depression, the institutional forces rallying against him after the Second World War, combined with the role of various religious teachings in his life (Schweber, 2003, p 225) From marketing, figures like Robert J Keith, Philip Kotler and Stephen Brown himself have provided innovative language, concepts and helped frame the contributions of later scholars via the performative value of their writing (Brown, 2002; Hackley, 2006; Tadajewski, 2010a, b)

What this conceptual apparatus encourages us to do is focus on micro-macro interactions that cultivate certain ways of thinking and acting, indeed whole categories

of scientific and cultural practice It goes beyond the “idiosyncratic particularity” of any specific case (Daston and Sibum, 2003) and examines the emergence of certain ways of thinking about and perceiving marketing theory and practice: where do we get the notion of the mendacious, profit-seeking marketing practitioner? How does this

“personae” contribute to the production of self as reflected to external constituents? Has it, and does it, continue to have negative effects on those associated with the discipline in terms of their psychological adjustment? Does it marginalise some, while privileging others (Tucker, 2008)? These are historical questions and they should be accompanied by a critical stance:

[ .] the study of scientific personae may stir suspicions: what is a scientific personae but a mythology by another name? Since personae are collective entities, never fully realized in historical individuals, how can they be reconciled to hard historical facts? [ .] These anxieties rest upon an ontology that is itself a historical artefact worthy of inquiry: the individual is more real than the abstract, the jottings of the archive are more real than the testimony of portraits and novels [ .] the scientific personae [ .] whose Cartesian coordinates cannot be so precisely defined [ .] are nonetheless real, in that they cause things

to happen in the world (Daston and Sibum, 2003, p 7)

Conclusion

As we have come to expect, Brown’s work manages to engage those who read it On this front, his paper is a success Taking his arguments seriously, this paper has sought to use his narrative as a springboard for further debate about the way we approach the production of knowledge about marketing histories and histories of marketing thought But, does Brown’s account achieve the goals it sets itself? This is arguably difficult to determine, as he is never entirely clear about how his preamble, main text and discussion interrelate Seeing it as a piece of literary theory-influenced

JHRM

4,2

320

scholarship, we can say that he provides an interesting narrative that many, but not all,

will find compelling It should, even so, encourage us to be circumspect about totalising

claims to be producing the history on any given topic This, to end on a slightly opaque

note, is not to suggest that all we can do is tell small narratives a´ la Lyotard (1999).

Notes

1 Ball’s (2012) excellent critique and negotiation of the Great Man thesis provides an

exceptionally useful review of some of these issues She points to work on “scientific

personae”, alongside other pertinent research on historiometrics, “psychological factories”

and a variety of ways of registering the importance of key individuals in the history of any

given discipline, whilst not eliding contextual influences

2 In the case of marketing, for instance, we might reference the Ford Foundation (Tadajewski,

2006), the Marketing Science Institute (Lehmann et al., 2011) and textbook producers (Brown,

2002) These institutional forces support the production of exemplars such as the “marketing

scientist” among others It must be said that these “personae” studies, while cautious in their

assertions, still leave those with a more contextual orientation, somewhat wary of the

abstract generalisations they invoke

References

Askegaard, S and Linnet, J.T (2011), “Towards an epistemology of consumer culture theory:

phenomenology and the context of context”, Marketing Theory, Vol 11 No 4, pp 381-404.

Ball, L.C (2012), “Genius without the ‘great man’: new possibilities for the historian of

psychology”, History of Psychology, Vol 15 No 1, pp 72-83.

Barker, D.K and Kuiper, E (2003), “Introduction: sketching the contours of a feminist philosophy

of economics”, in Barker, D.K and Kuiper, E (Eds), Towards a Feminist Philosophy of

Economics, Routledge, London, pp 1-18.

Brown, S (1996), “Trinitarianism, the eternal evangel and the three eras schema”, in Brown, S.,

Bell, J and Carson, D (Eds), Marketing Apocalypse: Eschatology, Escapology and the

Illusion of the End, Routledge, London, pp 23-43.

Brown, S (1998), Postmodern Marketing 2: Telling Tales, International Thompson Business

Press, London

Brown, S (1999), “Marketing and literature: the anxiety of academic influence”, Journal of

Marketing, Vol 63, January, pp 1-15.

Brown, S (2002), “The spectre of Kotlerism: a literary appreciation”, European Management

Review, Vol 20 No 2, pp 129-46.

Brown, S (2003), “Crisis, what crisis? Marketing, Midas, and the Croesus of representation”,

Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, Vol 6 No 3, pp 194-205.

Brown, S (2004), “Theodore Levitt: the ultimate writing machine”, Marketing Theory, Vol 4 No 3,

pp 209-38

Brown, S (2005), “Reconsidering the classics: reader response to ‘marketing myopia’”, Journal of

Marketing Management, Vol 21, pp 473-87.

Brown, S (2008), Fail Better! Stumbling to Success in Sales and Marketing – 25 Remarkable

Renegades Show How, Cyan, London.

Brown, S and Hackley, C (2012), “The greatest showman on earth: is Simon Cowell P.T Barnum

reborn?”, Journal of Historical Research in Marketing, Vol 4 No 2, pp 290-308.

Interpreting Brown and Hackley 321

Brown, S and Schau, H.J (2008), “Writing Russell Belk: excess all areas”, Marketing Theory,

Vol 8 No 2, pp 143-65

Brown, S., Hirschman, E.C and Maclaran, P (2000), “Presenting the past: on marketing’s

re-production orientation”, in Brown, S and Patterson, A (Eds), Imagining Marketing: Art,

Aesthetics and the Avant-Garde, Routledge, London, pp 145-91.

Brown, S., Hirschman, E.C and Maclaran, P (2001), “Always historicize! Researching marketing

history in a post-historical epoch”, Marketing Theory, Vol 1 No 1, pp 49-89.

Burton, D (2009), “‘Reading’ whiteness in consumer research”, Consumption, Markets & Culture,

Vol 12 No 2, pp 171-201

Carson, C (2003), “Objectivity and the scientist: Heisenberg rethinks”, Science in Context, Vol 16

Nos 1/2, pp 243-69

Daston, L and Sibum, H.O (2003), “Introduction: scientific personae and their histories”, Science

in Context, Vol 16 Nos 1/2, pp 1-8.

Foucault, M (2004), Abnormal: Lectures at the College de France 1974-1975, Palgrave, London Fox Keller, E (1995), “Gender and science: origin, history, and politics”, Osiris, Vol 10, pp 27-38 Hackley, C (2006), “High anxiety – a decidedly partial review of Stephen Brown’s Writing

Marketing: Literacy Lessons from Academic Authorities, London: Sage, 2005, interpolated

with some no-doubt ephebic ruminations on the meanings of the Brown oeuvre”, Journal of

Marketing Management, Vol 22 Nos 7-8, pp 883-90.

Hirschman, E.C (1990), “Secular immortality and the American ideology of affluence”, Journal of

Consumer Research, Vol 17 No 1, pp 31-42.

Ho, K (2005), “Situating global capitalisms: a view from Wall Street investment banks”, Cultural

Anthropology, Vol 20 No 1, pp 68-96.

Ho, K (2009), “Disciplining investment bankers, disciplining the economy: Wall Street’s

institutional culture of crisis and the downsizing of ‘corporate America’”, American

Anthropologist, Vol 111 No 2, pp 177-89.

Hunt, S.D (2005), “For truth and realism in management research”, Journal of Management

Inquiry, Vol 14 No 2, pp 127-38.

Isaacson, W (2011), “American icon”, Time Magazine, 17 October, pp 26-9.

Jenkins, K (2003), Refiguring History: New Thoughts on an Old Discipline, Routledge, London Kendall, G and Wickham, G (1999), Using Foucault’s Methods, Sage, London.

Leavis, F.R.T.S (1969), “Eliot and the life of English literature”, Massachusetts Review,

Vol 10 No 1, pp 9-34

Lehmann, D.R., McAlister, L and Staelin, R (2011), “Sophistication in research in marketing”,

Journal of Marketing, Vol 75, July, pp 155-65.

Lowenthal, L (1961) “The triumph of mass idols”, in Lowenthal, L (Ed.), Literature, Popular

Culture, and Society, Spectrum Book/Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp 109-36,

(originally published in 1944)

Lubek, I (1992), “The histor(y/ies) of social psycholog(y/ies)”, Canadian Psychology/Psychologie

Canadienne, Vol 33 No 3, pp 657-61.

Lubek, I (2000), “Understanding and using the history of social psychology”, Journal of the

History of the Behavioral Sciences, Vol 36 No 4, pp 319-28.

Lyotard, J.-F (1999), The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, Manchester University

Press, Manchester, trans by Bennington, G and Massumi, B (originally published in 1984)

JHRM

4,2

322

Pettit, M (2007), “Joseph Jastrow, the psychology of deception, and the racial economy of

observation”, Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, Vol 43 No 2, pp 159-75.

Richardson, A.J (2012), “What do I have to do to get noticed around here? A comment on Brown

and Hackley (2012): ‘The greatest showman on earth: is Simon Cowell P.T Barnum

reborn?’”, Journal of Historical Research in Marketing, Vol 4 No 2, pp 309-15.

Savitt, R (1980), “Historical research in marketing”, Journal of Marketing, Vol 44 No 1, pp 52-8.

Schweber, S.S.J (2003), “Robert Oppenheimer: Proteus unbound”, Science in Context,

Vol 16 Nos 1/2, pp 219-42

Service, R (2010), Trotsky: A Biography, Pan-Macmillan, Basingstoke.

Shankar, A and Patterson, M (2001), “Interpreting the past, writing the future”, Journal of

Marketing Management, Vol 17 Nos 5/6, pp 481-501.

Stern, B (2008), “Course innovation: ‘diverse consumers: race, ethnicity, religion, social class, and

gender’”, Marketing Education Review, Vol 18 No 1, pp 55-60.

Stole, I (1998), Advertising on Trial: Consumer Activism and Corporate Public Relations in the

1930s, University of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL.

Tadajewski, M (2006), “The ordering of marketing theory: the influence of McCarthyism and the

cold war”, Marketing Theory, Vol 6 No 2, pp 163-200.

Tadajewski, M (2010a), “Toward a history of critical marketing studies”, Journal of Marketing

Management, Vol 26 Nos 9-10, pp 773-824.

Tadajewski, M (2010b), “Reading ‘the marketing revolution’ through the prism of the FBI”,

Journal of Marketing Management, Vol 26 No 1, pp 90-107.

Tucker, J (2008), “Objectivity, collective sight, and scientific personae”, Victorian Studies,

Vol 50 No 4, pp 648-57

Westbrook, R.B (1992), “Schools for industrial democrats: the social origins of John Dewey’s

philosophy of education”, American Journal of Education, Vol 100 No 4, pp 401-19.

Further reading

Brown, S (1996), “Art or science? Fifty years of marketing debate”, Journal of Marketing

Management, Vol 12 No 4, pp 243-67.

Brown, S (2005), Writing Marketing, Sage, London.

About the author

Mark Tadajewski is Professor of Marketing at the University of Strathclyde Business School He

is the Co-Editor of the Journal of Marketing Management, an Associate Editor of the Journal of

Historical Research in Marketing, the Co-Editor of the Routledge Studies in Critical Marketing

monograph series and the author of numerous articles and books His research interests are

wide-ranging and he is currently focused on issues relating to the structuring of cultural

meaning, critical marketing studies, correspondence education in marketing and critical studies

of exemplar marketing companies Mark Tadajewski can be contacted at:

m.tadajewski@strath.ac.uk

Interpreting Brown and Hackley 323

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints