Nyilasy.qxp

05/11/2007

11:39

Page 425

The academician–practitioner gap in advertising Gergely Nyilasy Hall and Partners, New York

Leonard N. Reid Grady College, University of Georgia

The existence of the academician–practitioner gap is readily acknowledged and widely discussed in the marketing/advertising literature. This paper analyses key writings on the nature of the academician–practitioner rift and proposes a new approach complementing the literature. The review identifies five prevailing explanations why miscommunication between academicians and practitioners exists: (1) the failure of academic knowledge dissemination systems; (2) problems with the knowledge content and knowledge form academicians produce; (3) counterproductive academic organisational systems; (4) questions of philosophy of science; and (5) practitioners’ inability and unwillingness to process academic information. The study concludes that one potential explanation is entirely missed in these accounts: the possibility that practitioners’ knowledge about how advertising works is an autonomous construct, which has its own rules and deep structure, and resists simple assimilation attempted by academicians. The study also complements the existing literature by basing the review on firm theoretical grounds: the authors apply the influential sociological theory of professionalisation. Finally, future directions for research investigation are suggested, which moves the predominantly normative discourse into the empirical world.

Introduction Advertising academicians and advertising practitioners seem to live in different worlds. The separation between these two groups, commonly referred to as the academician–practitioner gap (Hunt 2002a), would not be too alarming if it only denoted the fact that there are always discrepancies between theoretical modelling in the field and practical applications. The gap in the case of advertising, however, is much wider and is manifested on deeper levels than would be expected in the case of occupations such as medicine, engineering or law. International Journal of Advertising, 26(4), pp. 425–445 © 2007 Advertising Association Published by the World Advertising Research Center, www.warc.com

425

Nyilasy.qxp

05/11/2007

11:39

Page 426

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING, 2007, 26(4)

The importance of the subject is reflected in a recent action of the American Academy of Advertising. At the 2006 AAA Conference, a special topic session focused specifically on the problem of the academician–practitioner gap; the central mission of the session was to find ways ‘to create more connections between advertising practitioners and those in academia’ (Katz 2007, p. 1). The outcome was the creation of an AAA Newsletter series on applied research summaries to build and strengthen the relationship between the academic producers and the applied users of advertising knowledge. This paper offers another means of continuing the dialogue and promotes the discussion of the ‘gap’ problem between the academic and professional communities of advertising. The objective of this paper is twofold: (1) to give a structural review of the academician–practitioner divide literature in advertising and (2) to propose a new approach that moves the discussion forward. Specifically, the paper analyses key writings from the marketing and advertising literature that discuss the nature of the academician–practitioner rift, why it exists and if it is possible to narrow it. The paper also suggests that the reviewed literature suffers from three shortcomings: (1) the explanations offered are incomplete; (2) they lack a clear theoretical framework – they tend to be ad hoc assessments; and (3) they have little empirical support. In contrast, the authors recommend a new approach that addresses each of these points: (1) the approach offers a new explanation that complements the existing literature; (2) it utilises a firm theoretical base; and (3) it maps out directions for future empirical investigations. The review has some inherent limitations. Although the authors have made a significant effort to search and compile an exhaustive list of articles for reviewing the subject (through searching databases such as EBSCO Business Source Premier, following reference links, consulting colleagues, etc.), some sources might have been missed. Further, the review claims about the nature of academician–practitioner relations are limited geographically: they are assumed to be valid only in the US and the UK – the origins of the referenced sources. It is quite possible that some dynamics of the above relations have strong local flavours in other countries.

426

Nyilasy.qxp

05/11/2007

11:39

Page 427

THE ACADEMICIAN–PRACTITIONER GAP IN ADVERTISING

The first part of the paper surveys the existing literature. Next it introduces a new approach, which places the debate in a relevant theoretical context and maps out future directions for empirical inquiries.

The review The existence of the academician–practitioner gap is readily acknowledged and widely discussed in marketing, one of advertising’s umbrella disciplines. As Hunt (2002a, p. 305) argues: ‘Throughout its 100-plus year history, one of the most recurring themes has been that there is a “gap” or “divide” between marketing academe and marketing practice.’ Indeed, over the years, a sizeable volume of literature has developed focusing on this issue (e.g. Ehrenberg 1969; Kover 1976; Maiken et al. 1979; Peters 1980; Parasuraman 1982; Holbrook 1985, 1987; Preston 1985; AMA Task Force 1988; Wells 1993; McQuarrie 1998; Rossiter 2001; Hunt 2002b; McKenzie et al. 2002; Baker & Holt 2004; Baldridge et al. 2004; Brennan & Ankers 2004; November 2004; Tapp 2004a, 2004b; Gabriel et al. 2006; Southgate 2006). Most scholars define the gap as a communication problem between academia and advertising/marketing practice. According to this view, while academicians continually add to a body of abstract knowledge about advertising and marketing phenomena, practitioners do not seem connected to this information. Practitioners do not read journals, and they do not even consider academic knowledge very relevant (Hunt 2002a). While few commentators question the existence of the gap, they offer radically different explanations, and consequently suggest different potential solutions. Most commonly, the cause of the problem is attributed to academicians themselves, and the academician–practitioner rift linked to five problems: (1) information dissemination; (2) knowledge content and form; (3) academic organisational structures; (4) philosophy of science; and (5) practitioner users. Knowledge dissemination To many, the divide is a ‘dissemination’ problem and exists because academicians are not successful in disseminating the knowledge they generate. According to the AMA Task Force on the Development of Marketing

427

Nyilasy.qxp

05/11/2007

11:39

Page 428

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING, 2007, 26(4)

Table 1: Understandings of the marketing academician–practitioner gap – based on a review of the academic literature Definition: miscommunication between marketing academia and practice Who to blame Causes

Academicians

Knowledge dissemination

Failure to create adequate distribution systems for academic advertising knowledge

Knowledge content/form

Too much focus on knowledge production that has no relevance or presented in an incomprehensible format for practice

Academic organisational structures

Certain organisational characteristics of academia prohibit a practical focus

Philosophy of science

Philosophical presuppositions about the nature of academic advertising knowledge that prohibit a practical focus

Practitioner knowledge utilisation

Practitioners

Unwillingness and inability of practitioners to process advertising research results

Thought, academic researchers do not communicate well with their constituencies, ‘most importantly with practitioners’ (AMA Task Force 1988, p. 4). The Task Force – specifically brought together for assessing and potentially reducing the gap – described the classic ideal of a direct communication flow from academia to praxis: ‘Primarily, marketing knowledge is developed somewhat formally by academic researchers and commercial marketing researchers or consultants and more experientially by “practitioners” or users. Knowledge developed by academic researchers tends to be disseminated to the discipline through research journals or academically oriented conferences’ (AMA Task Force 1988, p. 17). It is the breakdown in academia’s knowledge distribution system that causes the divide. The assumption is that if only these systems improved, then the academician–practitioner problem would cease to exist. Similarly, Baker and Holt (2004) fault marketing education for the fact that despite long decades of research, marketing is perceived to be the least accountable function in business: ‘One of the key findings is that marketers are perceived to be “unaccountable” by the rest of the

428

Nyilasy.qxp

05/11/2007

11:39

Page 429

THE ACADEMICIAN–PRACTITIONER GAP IN ADVERTISING

organisation; they are seen as unable to demonstrate a return on investment in the activities they have control over’ (p. 560). Baker and Holt argue that this is especially embarrassing as there are useful tools out there that simply do not get to the practitioners. Some commentators, however, highlight that it is unrealistic to assume a direct flow from academe to praxis, and it is through the facilitation of indirect flows that the gap can be narrowed. Brennan (2004), for example, argues: ‘There is evidence that marketing practitioners do not read academic marketing journals. Perhaps the surprise here is not that practitioners eschew these journals, but that anyone would expect them to read such material at all.’ Brennan argues that immediate and obvious applications of academic research are neither possible nor desirable. Ehrenberg, almost four decades ago (1969), very similarly stated that it took a considerable amount of time and energy to apply theory to practice; technological application is not an automatic or a direct process in any field, rather it is a long and ‘painful’ one. The gap in this sense is to some extent natural, and careful nurturing of indirect channels that can effectively translate academic developments into technological applications (such as textbooks, association work, and consultant and research services) would ultimately resolve the issue. In his rejoinder to the AMA Task Force report, Garda (1988, p. 35) agrees with this assessment: ‘The Task Force report implies that marketing knowledge is solely original research at the concept/theory level. Original research is surely needed in each of the knowledge levels, but also needed are resynthesis, repackaging, and repetition of “old” knowledge for the new generation of managers.’ Academic researchers (or others such as consulting or research firms) need to develop this secondary form of knowledge to make academic research palatable for practitioners. McKenzie et al. (2002) also acknowledge the importance of channels for indirect communication flows such as trade journals, textbooks, conferences, training and development courses. Others, however, disagree with the assessment that no direct communication is necessary and express concern over the efficiency of indirect dissemination routes. Tapp (2004b, pp. 497–498), for example, suggests: ‘The argument that we don’t have to concern ourselves with how our work might be used, on the grounds that there is often a time lag between the development of underlying theory and its use in practice, is wearing

429

Nyilasy.qxp

05/11/2007

11:39

Page 430

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING, 2007, 26(4)

increasingly thin.’ He argues that if academicians do not concern themselves with the lack of direct flow, there will be no flow whatsoever, and academic research will quickly become obsolete. Knowledge content and form It is not only knowledge dissemination that is problematic but also the content of advertising/marketing knowledge itself. November (2004), for example, in his satirical article, enumerates seven reasons why practitioners should continue to ignore academic research: (1) academic research does not contain knowledge that is relevant or actionable for practitioners; (2) academic knowledge is inadequately structured: ‘The reality is that, while we do seem to have an agreed standard as to what a brick is, there is no agreement as to which bricks need to be made first, no foundations, no architect of the final wall, and no idea as to what the wall is expected to do when, if ever, it is built’ (November 2004, p. 41); (3) academics sometimes make false, misleading claims about the existence of causality where, in reality, it is not warranted; (4) academic research is often reductionistic: ‘While a narrowly focused study is manageable and likely to lead to a definitive result, the results, assuming they have statistical validity, cannot be applied outside the scope of the study. This means that we can never generate any generalisations from a single reductionist study’ (November 2004, p. 43); (5) measurement in marketing is imprecise: ‘Because our measurement systems lack precision in comparison with those used in classical sciences’ (November 2004, p. 44); (6) knowledge is too general and therefore does not help; (7) there is little replication in market research. In essence, November’s caustic satire implies there is no useful knowledge in marketing academia and practitioners should not expect there to be. In a similarly self-critical manner, the AMA Task Force (1988, p. 6) pummels academic researchers for producing research that is not good enough (and not good enough for practitioners). The Task Force suggests that there are no real innovative ideas in academic research, only shortpayoff studies; only ‘knowledge creep’ and not ‘knowledge spurt’. At another point in the report, they formulate this criticism much more strongly; they suggest that there is, in fact, very little knowledge available at all in marketing: ‘Further, there is little generalizable, accumulated

430

Nyilasy.qxp

05/11/2007

11:39

Page 431

THE ACADEMICIAN–PRACTITIONER GAP IN ADVERTISING

marketing knowledge to be disseminated to marketing’s constituents’ (AMA Task Force 1988, p. 17). Further criticisms include the suggestion that academic research is very difficult to read and uses a lot of jargon (Brennan 2004; Ottesen & Gronhaug 2004) – one study even provides empirical evidence for this claim (Crosier 2004). Another potential reason is that academic researchers are not familiar with the problems practitioners face and therefore are unable to develop research programmes that are useful for this constituency (Easton 2000, cited in Brennan & Ankers 2004). Parasuraman (1982, p. 78) suggests that this detachment is aggravated by the fact that little practitioner input is sought or allowed in academic projects: ‘Lack of managerial involvement or at least some managerial emphasis at the theory development stage can greatly reduce the chances of the theory ever being applied in practice.’ Finally, Katsikeas et al. (2004, p. 568) argue that the problem may simply be topicality: if academic researchers are able to identify the relevant ‘hot’ topics for research, academia automatically ceases to be irrelevant: ‘Emphasis is placed on identifying a number of “hot” topics worthy of future investigation. … It is hoped that the identification and discussion of these topics will spark greater research on fundamental marketing issues, and that the allied explication of research rigour will likewise enhance the efficacy of research in marketing.’ Academic organisational structures Others point to the organisational context of the academic world and argue that the gap between practitioners and academicians can partly be explained by the fact that academic incentive and reward systems are not conducive to research that is of direct use for practitioners. One of the key findings of the AMA Task Force study was that the understanding of the sociological context of academia has predictive power when it comes to explaining the gap. The Task Force (1988, p. 6) concluded: ‘The [incentive and reward] system, however, does truly deserve its appellation “publish or perish”. It produces some very strong and undesirable incentives toward knowledge development on the part of young academicians: it is extremely short-term in orientation, is almost entirely peer-reviewed, and

431

Nyilasy.qxp

05/11/2007

11:39

Page 432

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING, 2007, 26(4)

is strongly directed toward achieving a maximum number of publications as a means to the end of promotion.’ Similarly, November (2004, p. 41) suggests that the sociological context, in which academic knowledge is conceived, has a tremendous impact on the knowledge produced: ‘The relevance of this published material to practitioners has nothing to do with your promotional prospects or its chance of being published. At most universities, the critical factor is the number of publications and the type of journal in which they are published – not their relevance. The absence of relevance can readily be seen in the published products.’ Brennan and Ankers (2004, p. 511) also claim that it is the organisational structure of research at universities, and not individual researchers, that is at fault: ‘It seems clear that although academics would like to get closer to practitioners, they are inhibited by institutional factors, such as academic reward systems and the “publish or perish” culture.’ Philosophy of science Some commentators dig deeper and examine the fundamental philosophical presuppositions of academic research. The discussion has crystallised around the dichotomy of whether academic advertising/marketing research is a basic vs applied or academic vs professional discipline. Those who claim the field is an academic discipline argue that scholars are under no obligation to produce knowledge that is directly relevant for practitioners. For this group, the gap between practitioners and academicians is ultimately not a very serious issue. The other group, on the contrary, suggests that since advertising/marketing is by definition an applied field, if academicians are not relevant for practitioners, they are not producing any useful knowledge. This latter approach can be summed up by the proverbial question Webster (1988, p. 49) posed: ‘What kind of “knowledge” in marketing is there that is not relevant for practice?’ Although the debate was very heated in the 1980s, it seems the ‘professional discipline’ side has won the dispute. Hunt’s (2002b) monumental summary of marketing theory concludes that ‘problem-oriented research’ is what marketing academia should strive for. In his assessment, ‘problemoriented research’ represents a healthy equilibrium between purely basic research orientation and purely pragmatic applied research. ‘Problem-

432

Nyilasy.qxp

05/11/2007

11:39

Page 433

THE ACADEMICIAN–PRACTITIONER GAP IN ADVERTISING

oriented research’ is applied research, which produces theoretically based generalisations that also have practical value. Similarly, Myers argued in a famous roundtable discussion on the issue: ‘Marketing academicians should recognize that the overall purpose of research and knowledge development in this field, over the short-run or the long-run, is to improve marketing practice, and decision-making, and in general, to advance the state of knowledge useful for the profession’ (cited in Maiken et al. 1979, p. 62). There is still a group of thinkers that insist, quite forcefully, that advertising/marketing academia should have nothing to do with practice. Kassarjian suggests, for example: ‘I see no reason why just because we are in marketing we want to force a kind of practitioner view, or a real-world view into other places. … I see absolutely no reason why I should have a value system imposed on me that says do something useful. I don’t want to do anything useful; I want to do what I want to do. … Those of us in academia want to push our value system onto the other side of the world and the other side of the world is trying to push their value system on us and maybe we just ought to part company’ (cited in Maiken et al. 1979, p. 71). Holbrook (1985, p. 145; 1987), another famous advocate of the academic discipline viewpoint, argues: ‘I believe that business does to consumer research approximately what the comedian Gallagher’s Sledge-O-Matic does to watermelon. It smashes, crushes, and pulverizes. If you want to sit in the front row at a Gallagher concert, you had better wear a raincoat.’ While the above described standpoint seems to be in the minority in academia, it represents a very powerful dynamic: the need for autonomy in advertising/marketing (or any type of academic) research. Those criticising the academic discipline orientation blame this on – what they believe to be – a misconstrued notion of scholarly autonomy and suggest that this deep-seated belief is responsible for academia’s inability to produce useful knowledge for the advertising practitioner. Preston (1985, p. 14) suggests, for example, that academic freedom may be better understood within the boundaries of the mission of the academic unit under which the scholar is operating. If freedom is understood this way, marketing/advertising academicians may not be free to be irrelevant: ‘There is, however, another relevant academic concept – that of the stated mission of an academic unit. Many university departments have written

433

Nyilasy.qxp

05/11/2007

11:39

Page 434

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING, 2007, 26(4)

mission statements, and for advertising or marketing units they undoubtedly make reference to the study of problems faced by practitioners. If the faculty is studying the consumer in such ways as to be not explicitly studying practitioners’ problems, then perhaps the mission is not being carried out.’ Yet another way of characterising the above dichotomy between academic and professional discipline orientation is the ‘rigour vs relevance’ debate: ‘Marketing, perhaps more than any other management functions, has had to struggle with a presumed conflict between rigor and relevance’ (Webster 1988, p. 48). According to this formulation of the dichotomy, knowledge cannot be both rigorous and relevant in advertising/marketing research; you have to pick sides. Another way of stating this conflict is that researchers have to find a compromise between reliability and external validity. According to the critics of the academician–practitioner divide, however, the dichotomy is false and should not be an excuse for the production of professionally irrelevant research. Some suggest that perhaps the focus has been too much on reliability and not enough on external validity in academic research (McQuarrie 1998). The consensus seems to be that responsible advertising/marketing scholarship should strive for both rigour and relevance: ‘the rigor and relevance dichotomy is not only false but counterproductive and misleading. … Research quality suffers if the only concern is analytical rigor because marketing problems are so easily misspecified, leading to results that are neither valid nor credible. However, managers and practitioners certainly do not come to the academic world of marketing thought looking only for relevance. Nothing is more useful to a professional marketing manager than a good theory that can help to bring order out of chaos, insights out of data, meaning out of patterns’ (Webster 1988, p. 61). A similar assessment is provided by Katsikeas et al. (2004, p. 568): ‘Enhancing the relevance and rigour of our research in order to arrive at better explanations of contemporary and prospective marketing problems and issues is central to the continued development of the discipline.’ Even if, theoretically, the professional discipline view represents the majority opinion in academic practice, the actual research often ends up less than useful for practitioners: ‘It seems to be the case that the type of research output that is viewed by academics as being of the highest

434

Nyilasy.qxp

05/11/2007

11:39

Page 435

THE ACADEMICIAN–PRACTITIONER GAP IN ADVERTISING

quality, is the type of research that is viewed by managers as being of the least interest’ (Brennan 2004). Some critics suggest that even stating the dichotomy of basic vs applied is dangerous, because it allows for work that will never be useful for anyone. The danger to suggest that there is a basic orientation is that the academician–practitioner gap becomes trivialised and ignored. As Parasuraman (1982, p. 78) argues: ‘Surely, marketing theory building as an end in itself is not worth pursuing. Nevertheless, there is a very real danger of this happening due to the insistence on labeling research projects as either scientist-oriented or technologist-oriented, and further claiming that only scientist-oriented research can contribute to theory construction.’ Practitioner knowledge utilisation So far we have only discussed arguments placing the blame for the academician–practitioner divide on academicians. Some reviewers, however, clearly charge practitioners as well for the existence of the gap. First, some critics point to the fact that practitioners often do not use academic information even if it is useful for them. According to this view, even if academia sometimes does have problems with communicating relevant information to practitioners, many times there is relevant information available – practitioners simply do not use it. Brennan and Ankers (2004), for example, provide in-depth interview data with academicians pondering on this issue: ‘[The objective is to] provide leading edge knowledge to society but if that society chooses not to use it I don’t think it is our job to beat up on them and say “you’re idiots”. You can put the water in the trough and bring the horse to the trough, but if they don’t want to drink then that’s not an academic’s problem.’ McKenzie et al. (2002) report survey data suggesting that, out of their sample population of practitioners (n = 47), not a single marketing manager reads academic journals: ‘It is clear from this survey that academic journals devoted to marketing are largely unknown and unread by marketing managers’ (p. 12). Related to the previous commentary, the gap may also be explained by negative attitudes held by practitioners (irrespective of whether or not there is any justification for it). The AMA Task Force (1988, p 8), for instance, points to the possibility that the whole issue of irrelevance may

435

Nyilasy.qxp

05/11/2007

11:39

Page 436

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING, 2007, 26(4)

be more of a practitioner perception than reality: ‘The work of a marketing academician may be dismissed as “ivory tower” and having little relevance to the real world when, in fact, some marketing academicians do focus on translating theory into practice.’ Holbrook (1985, 1987) suggests that there is a generalised negative attitude among practitioners (business people) against academia: anti-intellectualism. In this view, the problem does not have to do with opinions about advertising research in particular. Rather, the problem has to do with a general negative opinion among American business people about the utility and value of academia. Holbrook argues – as cited above – that this is the main reason academia should not be concerned about practical relevance: business anti-intellectualism can only ruin academic marketing research. Finally, some critics focus on individual cognitive capabilities rather than structural features. Ottesen and Gronhaug (2004) argue that part of the problem may be that professionals simply lack the necessary knowledge to be able to comprehend complex presentations of academic data. They might also have a limited attention capacity to process academic information. They suggest: ‘Also, the research information may not be understood, because the potential users lack the required knowledge (Ottesen & Gronhaug 2004 1990, p. 521). It is also possible that the relevant users are unaware of the information, because potential users – like other human beings – have limited attention capacity’ (Cohen & Levinthal 1990, p. 521). Myers, similarly, argues that part of the explanation for the gap lies in managers’ ‘lack of receptivity’ to academic information (cited in Maiken et al. 1979, p. 64).

Summary and new directions To summarise, the growing literature on the academician–practitioner gap has expressed serious concern about the status quo. Commentators emphasise that the current situation is unfortunate and detrimental to the future interests of both advertising/marketing academia and practice. Most define the problem as a communication issue and attribute the cause of the gap to academic research itself: the inability of academia to produce and disseminate relevant research knowledge to practitioners. The consensus is that the discipline is by definition applied and not basic;

436

Nyilasy.qxp

05/11/2007

11:39

Page 437

THE ACADEMICIAN–PRACTITIONER GAP IN ADVERTISING

therefore academicians should conduct ‘problem-oriented research’ (Hunt 2002b), or research that addresses general problems advertising/marketing practitioners may face. Some commentators also point to the possibility that – at least partly – practitioners should be blamed for their unwillingness or inability to process information that is practically useful and readily available. The authors’ contention is that this classic understanding of the academician–practitioner gap has shortcomings on three fronts: (1) the explanations offered are incomplete; (2) they lack theoretical foundations – they tend to be ad hoc assessments; and (3) they do not have much empirical support. Let us consider each of these limitations and offer a new approach that strives to overcome them. A new explanation: practitioner knowledge autonomy What is striking from the reviewed literature is the extent to which the discussion is centred on academia. Most of the literature focuses on academicians themselves and identifies academic knowledge distribution, content/form, organisational and philosophical factors as the root causes of the problem. When practitioners are mentioned, they are conceptualised as empty vessels (and very leaky ones at that) to be filled with academic wisdom. Despite bona fide attempts by academicians, they are deemed unwilling and incapable of accepting a knowledge transfer. This classic view does not allow for a very possible alternative scenario: practitioners may have their own autonomous knowledge forms about how advertising works. It is very conceivable that as a distinct social group, they have developed their own sets of beliefs about advertising, which in both content and form are independent of academic knowledge. Practitioner knowledge may carry either of the following ‘markers of knowledge autonomy’: • • • • •

own set of theories own sets of postulated boundary conditions and domains of applicability unique underlying philosophical assumptions (meta-theories) unique forms of validity/reliability testing independent social systems to negotiate, distribute and consume knowledge-systems that ignore or may actively resist academic influence

437

Nyilasy.qxp

05/11/2007

11:39

Page 438

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING, 2007, 26(4)

• own ‘style’ of thinking and normative ideas about what is acceptable vs unacceptable to believe in, irrespective of a strict sense of validity. This is not to say that practitioners are entirely isolated from academia. Indeed, the history of advertising research offers great examples of academician–practitioner interaction. Many authors have actually been on both sides of the fence, both practising and publishing in academic journals – literally embodying a knowledge crossover (consider such classic theorists as Ernest Dichter, Claude C. Hopkins, Herbert Krugman, Richard Vaughn; or contemporaries such as Tim Ambler, Paul Feldwick, Robert Heath, John Philip Jones, Erik du Plessis, John R. Rossiter, to name a few). Further, practitioners may in fact use, unadmittedly, some forms of academic knowledge. Even though direct flows seem to be obstructed, in indirect ways some ideas may still percolate through. Media planners, for instance, may use the mental models of wear-in/wear-out theory when working with media response models – even if they would not be able to reflect on the fact that they have borrowed anything from academia. It seems that intermediaries (consultancies, research services and products, journalists, general educators) have a very instrumental role in these implicit transfers. Nevertheless, the existence of interactions, dialogues and crossovers (which still represent relatively isolated occurrences, rather than the norm) does not challenge the contention that there may be structural differences between academic and practitioner knowledge forms. Even though they may influence each other, the two forms of knowledge seem to represent different centres of gravity. The existence of a conversation does not imply that the conversing partners have identical norms, underlying assumptions, styles of expression or ways of knowing. In fact, that is very rarely the case. Finally, as an analytical strategy, it makes sense to fully understand the individual components of an intertwined system, before interactions can be described. The classic view clearly ignores the possibility of practitioner knowledge autonomy and implicitly or explicitly presupposes a unidirectional flow from academia to praxis. Some innovative thinkers, however, have already pointed to the possibility of a ‘reverse flow’. The most emblematic example is Zaltman et al.’s (1982) ‘theory-in-use’ approach. Others have also emphasised the legitimacy of a praxis-to-academe transfer. Ottesen

438

Nyilasy.qxp

05/11/2007

11:39

Page 439

THE ACADEMICIAN–PRACTITIONER GAP IN ADVERTISING

and Gronhaug (2004, p. 526), for instance, argue: ‘In order to enhance the usefulness of academic marketing knowledge to practitioners, we need to understand what types of information they perceive as useful as well as factors that might impair the transfer of research information from academia to practice.’ Similarly, Parasuraman (1982, p. 79) suggests: ‘To the extent possible, attempting to incorporate some managerial focus in the process of marketing theory development is a useful goal to strive toward. However, this may be easier said than done. For, it would not only require that the theory builders be aware of the ultimate theory users’ (i.e. practitioners’) perspectives, but also require that the ultimate theory users be appreciative of the potential benefits of developing marketing theories.’ Rossiter (2001, p. 21) proposes that one potential way of overcoming the divide between academia and practice is back-engineering practitioner knowledge into academia: ‘What is circulating as “practitioner marketing knowledge” must be codified and translated into the form of strategic principles, and this work will doubtless have to be done by academics.’ What we argue for in this paper, however, goes beyond the idea of a simple reverse flow. It is possible that, precisely because of the postulated autonomy of practitioner knowledge, certain aspects of this knowledge do not lend themselves to easy back-engineering into academia. It is also possible that fundamental philosophical, metatheoretical and methodological rifts between the two domains (as well as sociological aspects of their production and negotiation) make the reverse flow just as problematic as the forward flow depicted by the classic literature. When thinking about knowledge flows, we can no longer assume, without critically assessing the validity of this assumption, that the only difference between academic and practitioner knowledge is their topical content. It is quite possible that they are autonomous knowledge systems that differ in complex, multifaceted and interacting structural ways. Although at the developmental stage, the authors have collected data that have found some initial empirical support for the above outlined new approach. The authors encourage others to also investigate the hypothesis. Broader theoretical context The classic literature on the academician–practitioner divide also fails to put its claims into a larger theoretical context. However, there is a theory

439

Nyilasy.qxp

05/11/2007

11:39

Page 440

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING, 2007, 26(4)

in the sociology of occupations that can be of great help. The theory of professions focuses precisely on the phenomenon we want to understand: the nature of the link between an occupation and its theoretical core (if it at all exists). Professionalisation explains why occupations need to develop an academic knowledge base, thereby maintaining and elevating their standing in society (see for example MacDonald 1992; Abbott 1998). All occupations, even ones that are not considered ‘professions’ in a sociology of occupations sense, strive for a professional status. If there seems to be a breakdown in the otherwise universal professionalisation process (discrepancies and detachments between the knowledge base and its application), the analysis needs to focus on the characteristics of the knowledge base and how key constituencies think about it, in order to understand the discrepancy better. In other words, the idea of professionalisation puts the academician–practitioner gap in a broader-scale theoretical context that may provide better explanations than an enumeration of ad hoc causes based on ad hoc opinions, an approach, characteristic of the above reviewed literature. Among other things, professionalisation sheds light on the fact that what is really at stake is not just a problem of communication disturbances, personally held attitudes or reading habits, but the societal status of an occupation. If the divide between practitioners and academicians is truly rooted in knowledge, and if practitioners and academicians disagree what knowledge is or can be in advertising, this can seriously threaten, if not altogether undermine, the (aspired) professional status of the advertising industry. The need for empirical studies on practitioner knowledge Finally, as suggested above, the current literature discussing the academician–practitioner discrepancies is largely normative: a collection of ad hoc observations and recommendations without positive support (some exceptions using empirical data are McKenzie et al. (2002) and Brennan & Ankers (2004)). With a Copernican turn, we need to start using our own social scientific methods and observe the gap in an empirical-positive manner. If we truly want to understand what seems to be a key component of the issue, namely the autonomy of practitioner knowledge, we need to launch research projects to investigate. Such empirical studies can give

440

Nyilasy.qxp

05/11/2007

11:39

Page 441

THE ACADEMICIAN–PRACTITIONER GAP IN ADVERTISING

support (or can refute) the new conceptualisation of the academician– practitioner gap described above. Sadly, with very few exceptions (Kover 1995; Gabriel et al. 2006) there are currently no empirical studies available to answer the question of whether there are knowledge autonomy-based discrepancies between academicians and practitioners. We do not know if the gap exists partly because of any of the following: 1. ad practitioners believe advertising works differently from what academics claim; 2. if practitioners have the same presuppositions whether this knowledge is even possible; 3. whether it is even relevant for them to have such a theoretical knowledge base when dealing with clients. Such an investigation is long overdue. As mentioned earlier, the authors have recently collected and analysed data to be able to answer these questions, focusing on: 1. practitioner theories; 2. practitioner metatheories; and 3. pseudo-professionalisation techniques. Their approach in this research was qualitative interviewing, using the grounded theory method. Another potential empirical direction may be the analysis of written practitioner texts. Advertising professionals seem to love to write about their trade in the form of business books, trade articles and even crossover papers published in academic publications such as the Journal of Advertising Research, International Journal of Advertising or International Journal of Market Research; such documents can be subjected to systematic analysis. A third potential source is advertising effectiveness case studies collected and published by professional organisations such as the IPA and MRS in the UK. Finally, conference proceedings can be analysed to content/textual analyses. When executing such empirical investigations, it is important to note that ‘practitioner’ is a heterogeneous construct. At the macro-level argument that has been presented in this paper, the practitioner clearly differs from the academic; on a more micro-level analysis, important differences are expected. It is very reasonable to assume that there will be important

441

Nyilasy.qxp

05/11/2007

11:39

Page 442

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING, 2007, 26(4)

variations in the knowledge autonomies of advertising agencies (and even functional units within) as well as marketing personnel or higher management on the client side. Further, intermediaries (research services, consultancies, associations, etc.) represent yet another layer of complexity – as these groups often take an intervening position between academia and practice. The differences between these groups should be uncovered by empirical investigations.

Conclusion For advertising academicians to advance advertising knowledge, while fulfilling their professional responsibilities to the academic and professional communities, investigations from the practitioner perspective are sorely needed in order to accomplish two fundamental objectives: 1. to narrow the divide between academicians and practitioners, which endangers both academic research as a discipline and advertising as a professionalising occupation; communication and exchange – which are impossible without the understanding of each other’s language – are necessary preconditions for long-term survival for both parties 2. to aid advertising education by uncovering the types of knowledge advertising practitioners possess, use and expect from novices entering the academy; advertising educators may benefit from this research by using these insights for the development of improved educational programmes – ones that do a better job in anticipating the realities of advertising work and the needs of the industry. To the benefit of all, research on what practitioners think about the workings of advertising will allow us to compare and contrast practitioner perspectives with academic ones, thus allowing us to understand the academician–practitioner gap on an even deeper level. If discrepancies are found, this can be indicative of the knowledge-based nature of the academician–practitioner gap and relevant implications can be drawn to minimise it. Additionally, if investigated in the social context in which practitioner knowledge is used, research can provide a rich description of a knowledge-based occupation’s professionalisation dynamics, including advertising’s scholarly responsibilities to the academic community where

442

Nyilasy.qxp

05/11/2007

11:39

Page 443

THE ACADEMICIAN–PRACTITIONER GAP IN ADVERTISING

advertising is taught and studied, and to the professional community where advertising is practised.

Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank the editor and the manuscript’s three reviewers for their insightful and constructive comments and suggestions.

References Abbott, A. (1998) The System of Professions: An Essay on the Division of Expert Labor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. AMA Task Force on the Development of Marketing Thought (1988) Developing, disseminating and utilizing marketing knowledge. Journal of Marketing, 52 (October), pp. 1–15. Baker, S. & Holt, S. (2004) Making marketers accountable: a failure of marketing education. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 22(5), pp. 557–567. Baldridge, D.C., Floyd, S.W. & Markoczy, L. (2004) Are managers from Mars and academicians from Venus? Toward an understanding of the relationship between academic quality and practical relevance. Strategic Management Journal, 25 (November), pp. 1063–1074. Brennan, R. (2004) Should we worry about an ‘academic–practitioner divide’ in marketing? Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 22(5), pp. 492–500. Brennan, R. & Ankers, P. (2004) In search of relevance: is there an academic–practitioner divide in business-to-business marketing? Marketing and Intelligence Planning, 22(5), pp. 511–519. Cohen, W.M. & Levinthal, D.A. (1990) Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35 (March), pp. 128–152. Crosier, K. (2004) How effectively do marketing journals transfer useful learning from scholars to practitioners? Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 22(5), pp. 540–556. Easton, G. (2000) Is relevance relevant? Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the IMP Group, Bath, UK. Ehrenberg, A.S.C. (1969) The discovery and use of laws of marketing. Journal of Advertising Research, 9 (June), pp. 11–17. Gabriel, H., Kottasz, K. & Bennett, R. (2006) Advertising planning, ad-agency use of advertising models, and the academic practitioner divide. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 24(5), pp. 505–527. Garda, R.A. (1988) Developing, disseminating, and utilizing marketing knowledge: comment. Journal of Marketing, 52 (October), pp. 32–41. Holbrook, M.B. (1985) Why business is bad for consumer research: the three bears revisited. Advances in Consumer Research, 12, pp. 145–156. Holbrook, M.B. (1987) What is consumer research? Journal of Consumer Research, 14 (June), pp. 128–132.

443

Nyilasy.qxp

05/11/2007

11:39

Page 444

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING, 2007, 26(4)

Hunt, S.D. (2002a) Marketing as a profession: on closing stakeholder gaps. European Journal of Marketing, 36 (March), pp. 305–312. Hunt, S.D. (2002b) Foundations of Marketing Theory: Toward a General Theory of Marketing. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. Katsikeas, C.S., Robson, M.J. & Hulbert, J.M. (2004) In search of relevance and rigour for research in marketing. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 22(5), pp. 568–578. Katz, H. (2007) Building bridges with industry to advance advertising knowledge. AAA Newsletter, 3(1) (March), pp. 1, 8. Kover, A.J. (1976) Careers and noncommunication: the case of academic and applied marketing research. Journal of Marketing Research, 13 (November), pp. 339–344. Kover, A.J. (1995) Copywriters’ implicit theories of communication: an exploration. Journal of Advertising Research, 21 (March), pp. 596–611. MacDonald, C. (1992) How Advertising Works: A Review of Current Thinking. Henley-onThames, UK: Advertising Association. Maiken, J.M., Myers, J.G., Peters, W.H., Schwartz, G. & Westing, J.H. (1979) What is the appropriate orientation for the marketing academician? in O.C. Ferrell, S.W. Brown & C.W. Lamb, Jr (eds) Conceptual and Theoretical Developments in Marketing. Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association, pp. 49–75. McKenzie, C.J., Wright, S., Ball, D.F. & Baron, P.J. (2002) The publications of marketing faculty – who are we really talking to? European Journal of Marketing, 36 (November), pp. 1196–1208. McQuarrie, E.F. (1998) Have laboratory experiments become detached from advertiser goals? A meta-analysis. Journal of Advertising Research, 38 (November–December), pp. 15–25. November, P. (2004) Seven reasons why marketing practitioners should ignore marketing academic research. Australian Marketing Journal, 12(2), pp. 39–50. Ottesen, G.G. & Gronhaug, K. (2004), Barriers to practical use of academic marketing knowledge. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 22(5), pp. 520–530. Parasuraman, A. (1982) Is a ‘scientist’ versus ‘technologist’ research orientation conducive to marketing theory development? in R.F. Bush & S.D. Hunt (eds) Marketing Theory: Philosophy of Science Perspectives. Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association. Peters, W.H. (1980) The marketing professor–practitioner gap: a possible solution. Journal of Marketing Education, 2 (Fall), pp. 4–11. Preston, I.L. (1985) The developing detachment of advertising research from the study of advertisers’ goals. Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 8(2), pp. 1–15. Rossiter, J.R. (2001) What is marketing knowledge? Stage 1: forms of marketing knowledge. Marketing Theory, 1(1), pp. 9–26. Southgate, N. (2006) The academic–practitioner divide: finding time to make a difference. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 24(6), pp. 547–551. Tapp, A. (2004a) A call to arms for applied marketing academics. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 22(5), pp. 579–590.

444

Nyilasy.qxp

05/11/2007

11:39

Page 445

THE ACADEMICIAN–PRACTITIONER GAP IN ADVERTISING

Tapp, A. (2004b) The changing face of marketing academia: what can we learn from commercial market research and practitioners? European Journal of Marketing, 38(5–6), pp. 492–499. Webster, F.L., Jr (1988) Developing, disseminating, and utilizing marketing knowledge: comment. Journal of Marketing, 52 (October), pp. 48–51. Wells, W.D. (1993) Discovery-oriented consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 19 (March), pp. 489–504. Zaltman, G., LeMasters, K. & Heffring, M. (1982) Theory Construction in Marketing: Some Thoughts on Thinking. New York: Wiley.

About the authors Gergely Nyilasy is a senior account executive in the New York City office of Hall & Partners, a market research firm specialising in advertising and brand research. Beyond regular quantitative research projects for various fmcg, B2B/technology and service industry clients, he plays a major role in the firm’s R&D and new product development initiatives. He graduated from the University of Georgia with a PhD in mass communication, where he also taught classes in copywriting (a former career). His research interests include digital communication, word of mouth, sociology of occupations/professionalisation and practitioner–academician relations. Leonard N. Reid is professor of advertising at the University of Georgia. He received his PhD from the University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign. He is a Fellow of the American Academy of Advertising and former editor of the Journal of Advertising. His research on advertising and related topics has been published in many of the leading advertising, marketing, mass communication and health communication journals. His most recent research focuses on advertising knowledge and professional practice, trust in advertising, and direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising. Address correspondence to: Greg Nyilasy, Hall & Partners New York, 72 Spring Street, New York, NY 10012, USA. Email: [email protected]

445