For re-institutionalizing the marketing discipline in Era V
Shelby D. Hunt ()
Additional contact information
Shelby D. Hunt: Texas Tech University
AMS Review, 2020, vol. 10, issue 3, No 7, 189-198
Abstract Commentaries on the status of the marketing discipline conclude that it is significantly troubled, which raises the question: Do the troubles identified portend a de-institutionalization of the discipline in marketing’s Era IV (1980–2020) and its potential re-institutionalization in Era V (2020-?)? This article examines (1) the marketing discipline’s founding in Era I (1900–1920), (2) how the discipline became institutionalized in Era II (1920–1950), (3) how marketing was re-institutionalized in Era III (1950–1980), and (4) how the discipline’s fragmentation in Era IV (1980–2020) portends its de-institutionalization. The article concludes by arguing for the marketing discipline’s re-institutionalization in Era V (2020-?).
Keywords: Marketing discipline; Institutionalization; History of marketing; marketing’s re-institutionalization; marketing’s de-institutionalization (search for similar items in EconPapers)
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: Track citations by RSS feed
Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s13162-020-00183-8 Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
Export reference: BibTeX
RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan)
Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:amsrev:v:10:y:2020:i:3:d:10.1007_s13162-020-00183-8
Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer. ... gement/journal/13162
Access Statistics for this article
AMS Review is currently edited by Manjit S. Yadav
More articles in AMS Review from Springer, Academy of Marketing Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().