Hunt v Anderson: Round 16
|Title:||Hunt v Anderson: Round 16||Authors:||Kavanagh, Donncha||Permanent link:||http://hdl.handle.net/10197/5796||Date:||1994||Abstract:||This paper argues that the philosophical debate in marketing, led by Shelby Hunt and Paul Anderson, is no longer providing new insights and is symptomatic of the anthropocentrism of the social sciences. This anthropocentrism has had consequent implications for metatheoretical frameworks that describe the field and has limited the breadth of philosophical discussion in marketing. The paper argues that this discussion should now move beyond the subject-object debate and it identifies writers who have variously tried to transcend the paradigm. It argues that the debate should move from epistemological to ontological and metaphysical issues and that marketing's philosophical discussion should also be broadened to include debate on aesthetics, theology and technology.||Type of material:||Journal Article||Publisher:||Emerald||Copyright (published version):||1994 MCB University Press||Keywords:||Marketing;Epistemology;Ontology;Consumers;Philosophy;Metaphysics||DOI:||10.1108/03090569410057272||Language:||en||Status of Item:||Peer reviewed|
|Appears in Collections:||Business Research Collection|
Show full item record
Page view(s) 5049
This item is available under the Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Ireland. No item may be reproduced for commercial purposes. For other possible restrictions on use please refer to the publisher's URL where this is made available, or to notes contained in the item itself. Other terms may apply.