GRADUATE SCHOOL
Ph.D. In Business Administration
BA 608 | Course Introduction and Application Information
| Course Name |
Marketing Theory
|
|
Code
|
Semester
|
Theory
(hour/week) |
Application/Lab
(hour/week) |
Local Credits
|
ECTS
|
|
BA 608
|
Fall/Spring
|
3
|
0
|
3
|
7.5
|
| Prerequisites |
None
|
|||||
| Course Language |
English
|
|||||
| Course Type |
Elective
|
|||||
| Course Level |
Third Cycle
|
|||||
| Mode of Delivery | face to face | |||||
| Teaching Methods and Techniques of the Course | DiscussionLecture / Presentation | |||||
| Course Coordinator | ||||||
| Course Lecturer(s) | ||||||
| Assistant(s) | ||||||
| Course Objectives | This core course has two major aims; (1) to equip students with advanced knowledge of theory development and extension in the field of marketing, and (2) provide students with the skills and capabilities to use existing theories/models or develop new theories to explain marketing phenomena. |
| Learning Outcomes |
The students who succeeded in this course;
|
| Course Description | Firstly, this course summarizes marketing schools of thoughts together with their historical evolutions and core research questions and then explains the scope of marketing discipline. It mainly discusses scientific foundations of creating marketing knowledge and developing/extending marketing theory. The course also evaluates critically different marketing theory studies. |
|
|
Core Courses | |
| Major Area Courses |
X
|
|
| Supportive Courses | ||
| Media and Management Skills Courses | ||
| Transferable Skill Courses |
WEEKLY SUBJECTS AND RELATED PREPARATION STUDIES
| Week | Subjects | Related Preparation |
| 1 | Introduction to the Course -Marketing Discipline Project Proposal Discussions | Hunt, Shelby D. (2010), Marketing Theory: Foundations, Controversy, Strategy, Resource-Advantage Theory. Chapter 2. Assigned articles. |
| 2 | A History of Schools of Marketing Thought | Shaw, E. H., & Jones, D. B. (2005). A history of schools of marketing thought. Marketing Theory, 5(3), 239-281. Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of marketing, 68(1), 1-17. Assignment Submission 1 |
| 3 | The Three Dichotomies Model and Production of Marketing Knowledge | Hunt, Shelby D. (2010), Marketing Theory: Foundations, Controversy, Strategy, Resource-Advantage Theory. Chapter 1. Rossiter, John R. (2001), "What is Marketing Knowledge? Stage I: Forms of Marketing Knowledge," Marketing Theory, 1 (1), 9-26. Wierenga, Berend (2002), "On Academic Marketing Knowledge and Marketing Knowledge that Marketing Managers Use for Decision-making," Marketing Theory, 2 (4), 355-362. Uncles, Mark (2002), "From Marketing Knowledge to Marketing Principles," Marketing Theory, 2 (4), 345-353. Assignment Submission 2 |
| 4 | Project Discussions - Theoretical Framework | Project Progress Report 1 Submission |
| 5 | Social Identity Theory, Disidentification Theory, Self-Congruity Theory | Assigned articles. Assignment Submission 3 |
| 6 | Equity Theory, Exit Voice Theory, Appraisal Theory, Legitimacy Theory, Attribution Theory | Assigned articles. Assignment Submission 4 |
| 7 | Regulatory Focus Theory, Regulatory Fit Theory, Approach and Avoidance Motivation, CLT | Assigned articles. Assignment Submission 5 |
| 8 | Self Study: Project – Theoretical Framework (contd.) | Project Progress Report 2 Submission |
| 9 | Hierarchy of Effects Theory, Elaboration Likelihood Model | Assigned articles. Assignment Submission 6 |
| 10 | The Attachment–Aversion Relationship Model | Assigned articles. Assignment Submission 7 |
| 11 | Contemporary Research in Marketing Theory Project Discussions– Theoretical Contributions | Guest Lecturer Project Progress Report 3 |
| 12 | TRA, TPB, TAM, PERMA | Assigned articles. Assignment Submission 8 |
| 13 | Self Study: Project – Discussion | |
| 14 | Project Presentations | Project Final Report Submission |
| 15 | Review of the Semester | |
| 16 | Review of the Semester |
| Course Notes/Textbooks | Hunt, Shelby D. (2010), Marketing Theory: Foundations, Controversy, Strategy, Resource-Advantage Theory. Armonk, NY: M. E. Shaw, E. H., & Jones, D. B. (2005). A history of schools of marketing thought. Marketing Theory, 5(3), 239-281. Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of marketing, 68(1), 1-17. Rossiter, John R. (2001), "What is Marketing Knowledge? Stage I: Forms of Marketing Knowledge," Marketing Theory, 1 (1), 9-26. Wierenga, Berend (2002), "On Academic Marketing Knowledge and Marketing Knowledge that Marketing Managers Use for Decision-making," Marketing Theory, 2 (4), 355-362. Uncles, Mark (2002), "From Marketing Knowledge to Marketing Principles," Marketing Theory, 2 (4), 345-353. |
| Suggested Readings/Materials | Academic articles |
EVALUATION SYSTEM
| Semester Activities | Number | Weigthing |
| Participation | ||
| Laboratory / Application | ||
| Field Work | ||
| Quizzes / Studio Critiques | ||
| Portfolio | ||
| Homework / Assignments |
1
|
40
|
| Presentation / Jury |
1
|
10
|
| Project |
1
|
50
|
| Seminar / Workshop | ||
| Oral Exams | ||
| Midterm | ||
| Final Exam | ||
| Total |
| Weighting of Semester Activities on the Final Grade |
3
|
100
|
| Weighting of End-of-Semester Activities on the Final Grade |
0
|
|
| Total |
ECTS / WORKLOAD TABLE
| Semester Activities | Number | Duration (Hours) | Workload |
|---|---|---|---|
| Theoretical Course Hours (Including exam week: 16 x total hours) |
16
|
3
|
48
|
| Laboratory / Application Hours (Including exam week: '.16.' x total hours) |
16
|
0
|
|
| Study Hours Out of Class |
14
|
6
|
84
|
| Field Work |
0
|
||
| Quizzes / Studio Critiques |
0
|
||
| Portfolio |
0
|
||
| Homework / Assignments |
8
|
5
|
40
|
| Presentation / Jury |
1
|
4
|
4
|
| Project |
1
|
38
|
38
|
| Seminar / Workshop |
0
|
||
| Oral Exam |
0
|
||
| Midterms |
0
|
||
| Final Exam |
0
|
||
| Total |
214
|
COURSE LEARNING OUTCOMES AND PROGRAM QUALIFICATIONS RELATIONSHIP
|
#
|
Program Competencies/Outcomes |
* Contribution Level
|
||||
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
||
| 1 | To be able to master existing theoretical knowledge in their specialized area of business administration. |
X | ||||
| 2 | To be able to gain in-depth knowledge of research methodologies and design. |
|||||
| 3 | To be able to acquire advanced knowledge of data collection and analysis techniques. |
|||||
| 4 | To be able to design and conduct original research with a scholarly theoretical emphasis. |
X | ||||
| 5 | To be able to disseminate scholarly knowledge in well-known academic networks. |
|||||
| 6 | To be able to demonstrate the ability to communicate the results of their research in a clear and effective manner with various audiences. |
|||||
| 7 | To be able to have concerns for the high ethical standards in research, and teaching. |
X | ||||
| 8 | To be able to adopt critical attitude toward the extant literature and practice in the specialized area of business administration. |
X | ||||
*1 Lowest, 2 Low, 3 Average, 4 High, 5 Highest