I just returned yesterday from attending the 5th Consumer Culture theory (or CCT) conference in Madison, Wisconsin, held at the Grainger Center of the University of Wisconsin’s Wisconsin School of Business. The conference is an annual get together dedicated to people who are doing cultural research in the field of marketing and consumer research. I thought this was the best CCT Conference yet, with some lively conversations, great facilities, and the highest quality sessions ever.
I’m going to provide some recap and reflections of the conference in the next few blog entries this week. I’ll start in this entry with the first session, which provided plenty to think about, as it seemed like it was intended as the “kick-off” session of the conference.
The middle presentation of the session is the one I’ll focus in on. It was delivered by by Eric Arnould of the University of Wyoming, and was co-authored with Craig Thompson of the University of Wisconsin, and Markus Giesler my colleague at York University’s Schulich School of Business. It was titled “Three Waves of CCT: On Transcending Anachronistic Rhetorical Conventions.”
The presentation took a historical overview of consumer culture research, and argued that there were three distinct stages of waves of this type of research that we can understand by virtue of the way the work was written, or its rhetorical gestures.
This was a fairly complex presentation with a lot of diagrams, terminology, and slides, and the presenter, Eric Arnould whipped through most of them at a pace that left me wishing he had more time to linger on and digest their richness. I hope there’s a paper published out of this (Craig just told me via comment to this post that there is indeed one).
Looking at cultural articles in the area of retail (a fairly small subsegment of overall cultural consumer research), the authors purported to examine the genealogy, the rhetorical scientific language “games” of the articles, and to examine the epistemology, ontology, and axiology of certain key “exemplary” texts.
Now, for those of you who are not up on your philosophy of science, it’s well worth brushing up on. I learned this from classic works in our field authored by Beth Hirschman, Laurie Anderson (then Hudson), and Julie Ozanne,:
- ontology is how scientists and philosophers reason about the nature of reality,
- epistemology is what the nature of knowledge or understanding consists of, and
- axiology is about our purpose or goals
You can find much more detailed definition on Wikipedia, or other online philosophy encyclopedias if you like. Reading through this stuff brings into sharp relief (belief?) the torturous birth pangs of the field of what is now called CCT in the 1980s.Back to the presentation….
The Second Wave‘s ontology was that of “cultured groups” (a move, apparently from the reality of individuals to groups-change in level of analysis?), the epistemology was “narrative reflexivity” and the axiology was critical engagement with firms. Exemplary texts here were Lisa Penaloza and John Sherry’s work on Niketown, or Penaloza and Gilly’s work on the Changer and the Changed that looks at marketers as cultural change agents who teach immigrants to be consumers.
The epiphanous present moment is included in the Third Wave, which they called “Towards cultural marketing management” and in that third waves they saw the ontology as one that engaged or focused upon “networks, post-natural and post-authentic” (again, the networks seems like a level of analysis change), an epistemology that is multimodal, multiple method, multisensory, and uses multiple diverse teams, and an axiology of engagement with both consumers and managers.
So there seem to be two trajectories in the historical overview. The first was towards a more network-embedded view of consumption. The second was towards an engagement with both producers or firms and consumers or consumer communities. We could see both trajectories as interlinked.
The presentation highlighted the very interesting differences from seeing brands as collections of associations in people’s information processing noggins (a la Kevin Keller) to seeing brands as part of a “brand matrix,” a type of actor-network theory of brands and branding in which brand are cultural insertions that take on a life of their own and affect various constituents and stakeholders (beyond the consumer-sounds a bit like Kotler’s megamarketing on the brand side).
But the defining moment in the presentation, and the biggest controversy and most pointed attention to it came from the summary, in which the presenter called for there to be “no more case studies” in consumer culture research. Apparently, this is part of the epistemological trend towards more multiple methods research, more diverse research teams, and, apparently, the move to multi-sited ethnography.
No more case studies? Let’s pick up that discussion-and it was one of the big discussions at this year’s conference-in tomorrow’s posting.