INTRODUCTION

The article “Marketing: philosophy of science and “epistobabble warfare” is a commentary by the author Michel Rod published as a qualitative research in an International Journal, Vol. 12 Iss. 2, pp. 120- 129.

Throughout the article Rod articulated his viewpoints on the variety of philosophies involved in legitimizing the science of marketing research and sought to establish his own perspective of what he actually believes marketing research should accomplish. This was stated in his thesis statement that:

“Rather than argue one particular perspective, it is this paper’s central thesis that no one philosophical perspective does or should have a monopoly on what makes a useful contribution to our understanding of marketing phenomena. “

Consequently, what Rod proposes is that rather than trying to establish an allegiance to any one particular philosophy one should be free to research, understand and articulate all the questions and results that can ‘contribute meaningful information to the study of marketing phenomena’. In other words, whilst Rod understands that a philosophy might be needed to establish foundations of ontology and epistemology to determine the methodology (POEM): -

* Type of questions or problem one attempts to answer in their research * The manner in which these questions should be posed…. * The best methodological approach to shed some light on the particular question(s) being posed or the phenomenon of interest being investigated.

Getting caught up in debating which philosophical viewpoint is valid or has more use diminishes the opportunity to put together and take away the ‘learnings’ from each that could be applied to the study whose value can only be determined by its use. Rod’s objective therefore in his commentary was to demonstrate the benefits of accepting, reconciling and compromising the ‘epistobabble’ in making an invaluable contribution to marketing research that could benefit all.

In the ensuing pages of Rod’s review of the literature he looked at the current philosophical paradigm that permeates the academe of marketing, which based on popularity is logical empiricism. Citing research from (Anderson, 1983; Deshpande, 1983; Peter and Olsen, 1983; Hunt, 1991) Rod put forward the conflicting ontological and epistemological views particularly that of Shelby’s that addresses the concept of modern empiricism. Conceptually, logical empiricism (LE) was derived from logical positivism (LP) both believing in logical thinking and critical discussions. Where they vary is as it relates to the core concepts of scientific language, where LP believes in determining truth through analysis of theories and unbiased observation and LE acknowledges that scientific propositions cannot be conclusively verified but rather can be increasingly confirmed through observation. For example, LP will state that driving with a seat belt on protects you in the event of an accident; LE will perhaps confirm that driving with your seat belt on will increase the chances of you being safe in the event of an accident. This taking the view as Anderson surmises that LE will observe the realities of the environment through observation and develops a model to further investigate.

Other perspectives put forward by Rod in his commentary, is his review of scientific realism whose quest is as explored by Blair and Zinkhan, 1984; Hunt, 1991; Zinkhan and Hirschheim, 1992). Scientific realism (SR) argues that truth is the appropriate goal for marketing theory and that science can know the real world but not with complete certainty. As Rod puts it although both SR and LP believes that science has made progress, SR wants to derive at the real truth behind the concept, the meaning of it, so for the example with the seat belt, the SR would want to understand the reason it cannot be stated definitively that the effective use of seat belts in an accident can save lives 100% of lives. SR seeks to explore the qualifying rule or principle that explains why the percentage of lives that cannot be saved be 100 percent.
To further balance his commentary, Rod also looked at the unpopular aspect of the philosophy of science in marketing, the philosophies that dictate how market research should be conducted to make a real contribution to society. In quoting Frank Bass on his editorial comment to put it all together
Gains in fundamental knowledge have been substantial, but, more importantly, what has transpired has been the development of a system for further development of science in marketing (p. 124.)
Whilst Rod continued in his literature review to explore further philosophies,

Critique
Rod’s conceptual paper on Marketing: the philosophy of science and “epistobabble warfare” was not an easy paper that one could read and understand on the first go. If the topic is not within the subject area of the reader, then the article further becomes an ‘epistobabble’ full of ‘isims’ and ‘schisms’ that one would have to ponder on for days.

There is no denying that the reader had to do additional research to fully comprehend Rod’s commentary on the philosophical perspectives involved in conducting a market research. Nevertheless, by stating his background in medicine where research was/is conducted with less philosophical debates, save ‘ethical ones’ the transition for Rod to an area with documented philosophies in search of truths was a transition for him.

Who is the author of this journal entry? It was interesting to note that Professor Michel Rod is an associate professor with the Sprout School of Business, one of ten researchers honored by the Carleton University in 2011 for his efforts for innovative research that helps solve real-world problems. It was interesting how this knowledge changed the outlook of the journal article. The paper was written in 2009, perhaps when Rod was doing the research for submission. If he had merely complied, not challenging ‘epistology’ and not had a point of view to arrive at something real, practical and applicable, would he have received the award given to him earlier this year?

At the heart of Rod’s commentary is the contestation of the philosophies and paradigms involved in the debate of qualitative vs. quantitative methodologies used in conducting marketing research. Quantitative research is described as being positivism i.e. scientific and objective. Qualitative research is interpretivism i.e. non-scientific and subjective. Rod delineated in his commentary that received and contested views of the philosophies involved in market research and sought to refute these claims by objectifying his commentary to note that debating is a no-win situation the philosophies and perspectives involved are relevant and important in its own merits. The differences that exist can be reconciled to bring about a better research the value of which can only be determined by market forces.
There was no doubt from the outset that the journal was Rod’s personal comment on the philosophes. Whilst he tried to maintain a balance in his literature review by showing the contention in the debates, his comments clouded this reader from having an objective opinion on the topic. Notably as well, was that there was little if any definition on each philosophy certainly ‘epistobabble’, as well as examples to drive home the academic discourse in the varying debates described in his journal. Perhaps one could argue the article was written for scholastic purposes specifically for persons with an appreciation of the subject area or a more in-depth appreciation of research philosophies. Either way, as Fine would say:

..Science is a human activity, so that its understanding involves frameworks and modalities for social action’.

There is no doubt that Rod is well read and informed on his subject area, the research he documented showed the evolution of the philosophies and acknowledged as well the ones who one could term as authorities on the subject area; Zinkhan and Hirscheim, Hunt, Calder, Fine and others he had named whose research spanned from 1977 to most recent times of 2005. Having read it, I would take away from it aspects of the natural ontological attitude that being: * reading and bracketing truth as an explanatory concept * recognizing openness of science especially in choice and judgment (p. 127) recognizing as well that there is no right or wrong but just being able to read understand producing a research that would add value to whom it is intended.