Abstract
In this commentary, the authors take a thoughtful look at Shelby Hunt’s final submission to AMS Review. Building on Hunt, Madhavaram, and Hatifield’s (2022, in this issue) suggestions of how Marketing’s Era V can be re-centered on more viable and long-lasting ground as a discipline, the present authors propose that the field of marketing is, and always has been, an emergent discipline that is better served by the “invisible hand” of self-organization rather than an attempt at holistic acceptance and adoption of a central focus. Moreover, the paper drills down into one of Hunt’s recurring critiques of marketing, its doctoral programs, and makes suggestions of how this is a significant point of focus to heal our ailing discipline.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Change history
28 December 2022
A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-022-00251-1
References
Biggadike, R. E. (1981). The contributions of marketing to strategic management. Academy of Management Review, 6(4), 621–631.
Clark, T., Key, T. M., Hodis, M., & Rajaratnam, D. (2014). The intellectual ecology of mainstream marketing research: An inquiry into the place of marketing in the family of business disciplines. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Sciences, 42(3), 223–241.
Clark, T., & Key, T. M. (2021). The methodologies of the marketing literature:Mechanics, uses, and craft. AMS Review, 11(3), 416–431.
Goldstein, J. (1999). Emergence as a Construct: History and Issues. Emergence, 1(1), 49–72.
Hunt, S. D. (2020). For re-institutionalizing the Marketing Discipline in Era V. AMS Review, 10(3), 189–198.
Hunt, S. D., Madhavaram, S., & Hatfield, H. N. (2022). The marketing discipline’s troubled trajectory: The manifest conversation, candidates for central focus, and prognosis for renewal. AMS Review, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-022-00238-y
Key, T. M., Clark, T., Ferrell, O. C., Stewart, D. W., & Pitt, L. (2020). Marketing’s theoretical and conceptual value proposition: opportunities to address marketing’s influence. AMS Review, 10(3–4), 151–167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-020-00176-7
Mercer, E. (2018). What are emergent properties?https://sciencing.com/emergent-properties-8232868.html
Wilkie, W. L., & Moore, E. S. (2006). Macromarketing as a pillar of marketing thought. Journalof Macromarketing, 26(2), 224–232.
Yadav, M. S. (2020). Reimagining marketing doctoral programs. AMS Review, 10(1–2), 56–64.
Wilkie, W. L., & Moore, E. S. (2003). Scholarly research in marketing: Exploring the ‘4 eras’ of thought development. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 22(2), 116–146.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
The original online version of this article was revised: There are texts errors in the Introduction and Academic marketing’s troubled trajectory sections.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Clark, T., Key, T.M. & Azab, C. Marketing as an emergent discipline: Commentary on Shelby Hunt’s final contribution to our field. AMS Rev 12, 157–161 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-022-00239-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-022-00239-x