Updates from AMSR
Forthcoming content
The next issue of AMS Review – most likely – will feature two noteworthy contributions among a host of outstanding articles. The first one is a collection of articles that begins with a well-known marketing scholar raising the question of just what the core phenomena of the marketing discipline are. It is not a new question, of course. It is a question that has been addressed and debated at least since the early discussions of the kinds of utility contributed by marketing (e.g., Shaw 1991) and, more recently, in the 2004-07 “definition of marketing” debates (e.g., Lusch 2007) and the fragmentation of marketing (e.g., Hunt et al. 2022), among others. Along the way, various core phenomena have been suggested, including various utilities, transactions, relationships, and value cocreation. However, the discussion of the core phenomenon has, arguably, never reached a general consensus. Nor is one suggested by the author of the upcoming contribution, though s/he does point toward the need for a transcending conceptualization. This contribution is followed by original contributions/commentaries by outstanding scholars from all over the world. This collection of contributions is a joint effort by Steve Vargo and Sreedhar Madhavaram and we both hope that this endeavor inspires, stimulates, and continues the discussion around this worthy endeavor on the core phenomena of the marketing discipline.
The second is a contribution by a management scholar (along with a team of scholars) well known for his work on stakeholder theory. This contribution focuses on a question raised by Hunt et al. (2022, p. 139): “how the marketing discipline will successfully use its human and institutional resources to reverse its troubled trajectory, renew itself, and meet its responsibilities to its stakeholders.” Drawing on stakeholder theory amplified by concepts from systems and institutional theory, this contribution argues (a) that competitiveness among marketing’s sub-fields operates to invoke mutual improvements for the stakeholders of each sub-field, and (b) that due to the constitutive nature of systems, each necessary contribution by a given sub-field can be identified and included in sufficiently serving marketing’s stakeholders. Specifically, three contributions are offered: (i) theory development to suggest how multiple marketing constituencies might continue to pursue novel research while remaining true to the foundations of each constituency; (ii) a theoretical mechanism for integration across sub-fields; and (iii) ideas whereby marketing-discipline actors can work proactively to create, maintain, and in some cases disrupt the institutions that presently constrain the development of marketing as a core field of study in a dynamic business environment. Hopefully, this paper can serve an effectuating purpose as the marketing discipline seeks to use its human and institutional resources in connection with its troubled trajectory, to renew itself, and meet its responsibilities to its stakeholders.
