These were among the questions raised during a spirited Roundtable Discussion session at the American Marketing Association Summer Educators’ Conference in Boston, August 2004.  The need for a theoretical foundation encompassing global marketing has been a frequent theme in SIG conference sessions.  The Boston Roundtable was no exception.  The following observations are culled from that discussion. 

Do we need a theory or theories of global marketing?  Absolutely!  Theory building is an important endeavor for a serious academic, and an important research topic.  Research is conducted to develop concepts.  Empirical findings test theories, strengthening or weakening them.  Together, these activities establish the foundation for constructing a field of study, and suggest when new contributions to knowledge are worthwhile.  How can one do this in global marketing, where research often links to concepts that are part of some other body of knowledge, one that lies outside the domain of global topics?  An answer lies in finding a pervasive thread (or threads) that can link a variety of components, building the framework for future research and contributions to knowledge. 

While the roundtable did not produce total agreement, one theme that permeated the entire discussion was culture.  This body of knowledge is so vital, it was judged to be integral to global marketing topics – starting with people, their values, how they interact, communicate, take risks, organize, grow, regulate their activities, etc.  Culture is the thread because it is what makes us unique.  It gives meaning to the capabilities that lead to processes for internationalization. 

With adoption of a unifying theme, discussion turned to a related question.  What is the underlying framework for the study of culture?  Anthropology provides the foundation for understanding the people of a land.  History tells us how people have changed, and about the watershed events that have led to change.  History has internal and external dimensions.  Important components of history for intra-cultural examination include social institutions, organizations, business structures, and economic patterns.  Inter-culturally, wars, violent and peaceful invasions, and migration have all produced significant change.  Major historical events tend to be associated with people, with leaders.  Their motivations, aspirations and visions contribute to understanding culture and how it changes.  Global marketing can find its roots by studying history, particularly the history of efforts to internationalize. 

Where to start?  A Great Books List for global marketing would provide a jumping off point.  Considering the topic of culture, roundtable participants recalled being inspired by Trompenaars, Triandis, Hampden-Turner, and Hofstede. Their seminal works captured the promise and the problems involved with the study of culture.  But the Roundtable participants suggested reading these works with a critical eye.  Why don’t current definitions and measures of culture do justice to global marketing?  Why haven’t global marketing scholars advanced very far beyond the tried, true but also somewhat dated dimensions of country culture?  Ultimately, what will it take for global marketers to gain the next step? 

Perhaps the answer involves looking back.  The historical domain has not developed with the same fervor as the cultural framework.  Maybe it is time to return to the roots of trade, but not without bringing along the perspective of culture.  This thread still has a lot of unwinding to do. 

All participants in the sessions are commended for the   ideas they brought to the session and the knowledge they
produced during the discussion.  The following individuals participated in the “Theory of Global Marketing” Roundtable Discussion at the 2004 American Marketing Association Educators’ Conference in Boston: 

Bernadette Njoku, College of St. Rose
Luis Filipe Lages, Universidade Nova Lisbon
Anna Shaojie Cui, Michigan State University
Susan Tratner, State University of New York
David Griffith, Michigan State University
Frank Franzak, Virginia Commonwealth University

This summary of the Round Table discussion is based on
my notes, compiled during the session.  Apologies to an
outstanding group of participants for any omissions and all
misinterpretations.  Others would surely reach a different
set of conclusions. To the extent these comments start
meaningful dialogue, the Roundtable will have
accomplished its purpose.