Quadrants
Dr Stephen Dann, ANU
Abstract
This paper is proposing a heresy of sorts – perhaps marketing should practice what it
teaches, and develop journal ranks that meet the needs of the organisation, its
stakeholders, and which are based on segmenting the journal output market. This process
may even create, communicate and deliver value for the institution and our government
and industry stakeholders. What follows is a simple model of heresy that permits the
research goals of the university, the strengths of the researchers, and the need to enhance
marketing thought within the marketing academy to determine the relative match
between research output and ideal publication medium. The author full expects this
notion of an alternative to the JCR/JM/JMR Billboard Top 40 will go down like the
Titanic, but sometimes, it's worth shouting "Iceberg ahead" in hopes of changing the
course (and destiny) of the ship.
Introduction
O'Connor and Moodie (2006) remind us that once again, the higher education sector in
Australia is under criticism from its political masters - this time over the lack of
diversification between the universities. Under the current minister's vision for higher
education, universities are meant to diversify their portfolios, concentrate on their
strengths, and cede ground to rival institutions in the name of sector wide reform. In the
pursuit of this goal, most university systems, schools and departments are rushing
towards the paradoxical goal of diversifying to the same tune. Across the Australian
marketing academy, schools, departments and professors all acknowledge the need for
segmentation, positioning, diversification and the pursuit of publication in the same top
ten journals. If irony still had meaning in the post-modern world of academia, Alanis
Morrissette would sing the praises of this strategy. The problem, in part, is the pursuit of
league table style metrics that provide evidence of "best" rather than "best fit".
Diversification requires universities to focus on their strengths, but if each university uses
the same measures to determine those "strengths", then the rigid frameworks of "best
journals" and "best conferences" will see best-fit modified to match the "best journals".
In other words, diversification will result in the uniform pursuit of the same goals, with
everyone citing the same strengths to see themselves competitive on the same scorecard.
Rewarding quality by assessing it against a rigid criteria of "best" will simply result in
more of the same outcomes - rejection slips from the same "top tier" journals.
Sample
The preliminary sample of marketing journals was selected from the University of
Queensland Business School (UQBS) List 2003, and confirmed by the University of
Auckland List (2003). Although up to 120 journals have been identified as appropriate
outputs for marketing research, the preliminary Quadrant Ranking schema was restricted
to the 57 journals previously identified in these two papersTwo additional lists of
research quality ranks were used to assist the quadrant development, Polonsky and
Whitelaw (2006) paper (P&W List) which ranked 65 different journals according to five
different criteria, and the Mort et al (2003) paper which ranked 72 different journals.
These two lists were selected to reflect US (Polonsky and Whitelaw, 2006) and
Australian (Mort et al 2003) perceptions of journal quality.
Journals are selected for the research agenda quadrant based on the number of articles
containing the relevant research keyword, and the stated research goal of the journal. For
example, the Journal of Public Policy and Management has a strong fit with the goals,
whilst the Journal of Retailing has a weak fit with the research agenda. Consequently,
although the Journal of Retailing has a high individual rank score in the Polonsky and
Whitelaw (2006) and Mort et al (2003) league tables, it would not be an appropriate
priority target for this research agenda.
Conclusions
In what will be a disappointment for many readers, this paper does not feature a full
ranking index. Simply put, for the paper that argues for multidimensional priority
indexes based on organisational objectives and research priorities, presenting a one-
dimensional index would be to miss the point of the paper entirely. Only the primary
quadrant of academy journals should be consistent between organisations that ostensibly
pursue differentiated research agendas. It's time for Australian universities to prioritise
research outputs based on their own goals and agendas, and for business schools to walk
the talk of segmentation, positioning and targeting. Practicing what we preach is a quality
outcome for research, and one that is far more likely to make an impact than blind
adherence to antiquated league table score cards.
References
References
AACSB. (2006). Eligibility procedures and accreditation standards for business
accreditation, AACSB International.
http://www.aacsb.edu/accreditation/business/STANDARDS.pdf
Baumgartner, H, and Pieters, R.. (2003). The structural influence of marketing journals:
A citation analysis of the discipline and it subareas over time. Journal of Marketing 67
(1): 123-139.
Easton, G. and Easton, D.M.. (2003). Marketing journals and the research assessment
exercise, Journal of Marketing Management 19 (1-2): 5-24.
Mort, G. S., McColl-Kennedy, J. R., Kiel, G., and Soutar, G. N. (2004). Australian and
New Zealand senior academics’ perceptions of marketing journals Australasian
Marketing Journal 12 (2): 51-61.
O'Connor, I and Moodie, G. (2006) "Unis can't diversify to a formula" The Australian -
Higher Education Supplement, June 21, 2006 [Accessed online
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19534243-12332,00.html June 30,
2006]
UQ UA P&W Mort
Journal title Quadrant Quadrant List List