Ethnocentricity in academic marketing journals: a study of authors, reviewers, editorial boards and editors

Purpose – This paper aims to examine and compare a set of key characteristics of ethnocentricity that influence the policy of academic marketing journals, and hence the provenance, authorship and nature of articles in academic marketing journals.

Design/methodology/approach – The “fundamental” characteristics of three major marketing journals, published in the USA, the UK and New Zealand, were examined for the six-year period from the start of 2000 to the end of 2006. Data were collected from editorials and web homepages. Analysis was conducted of 811 articles, 1,676 authors, three editorial teams and three sets of reviewers

Findings – There is a challenging academic ethnocentricity in the management and implied policy of the three journals. The extent varies, but the inescapable conclusion is that the world-wide research community in marketing is not properly represented by leading journals.

Research limitations/implications – The sample was intentionally small, and unrepresentative of any category except “leading quality”. The findings are intended to add momentum to a debate and point ways forward, not to provide generalisable answers.

Practical implications – The findings suggest that: the editorial boards and reviewing teams should be made more representative geographically; editorships should be organized around the concept of a team of geographically differentiated editors; editorial and review teams should be ethnographically representative of individuals who do research and wish to publish it, particularly beyond the English-speaking world. In general, the world-wide research community in marketing would benefit from less ethnocentricity in academic journals, and these leading examples should strive to reduce it.

Originality/value – The impact of ethnocentricity is underestimated in this context. The issue needs to be discussed, because of paradigmatic influences that it can have on a journal and the profile of its authors, and hence on journal ranking and perceptions of journal quality.

Editorial

In this issue of Papers we publish essays based on a selection of conference papers at the Seventh International Conference of the Australasian Children’s Literature Association for Research (ACLAR) held in Melbourne on 13-14 July, 2006. The cover of this issue replicates Kathryn James’s design for the conference programme, with its clever image of the ‘undercover child’ reading a comic. The theme of the conference emphasised newness: new texts, technologies, readings and readers, and the essays we present here traverse a variety of concepts and texts within this framework.

Editorial : the construction of academic literacy and difference

In recent years, academic literacy has been a subject of heated scholarly and political debates. How academic literacy is defined, whom it serves, and what its purposes are shape both educational policies and the pedagogical practices adopted in classrooms. Any definition of academic literacy, its purposes and its learners also constructs powerful notions of difference. For instance, many traditional definitions of academic literacy posit “out of school” literacy (or literacies) as its opposite; current literacy standards and performance measures create categories of students as able or struggling; and so on. At a time when English classrooms around the world are becoming more multicultural, multilingual and international, how might understandings of academic literacy respond to cultural, linguistic, gender, economic, (dis)ability and other differences? How can literacy be taught to difference without reducing it to sameness? Framing the curriculum around dominant cultural literacy and establishing communal homogeneity, whilst de-legitimizing the Other and announcing ever-new strangers, is not feasible in a new multilingual, multiculural order. There is an increasing need to resist conservative tendencies and to continue a socially critical model of literacy education that is more response-able to the lives of strangers and other forms of difference in a late-modern, globalized society at the same time that it provides opportunities for all students to expand their communicative repertoires and to gain agency in the “design of their social futures” (New London Group, 2000). Articles in this issue respond in different ways to this agenda.

Editorial: English afloat on a digital sea

In the 21st Century, new technologies, in particular interactive multimedia and the internet, challenge many aspects of our teaching practice and assumptions. What counts as knowledge, what counts as literacy, the ways we teach, and even the relationships we form are coloured and reshaped by changing cultural and social practices, such as global commerce and ICTs. These issues, and the relationships between them, need to be considered anew. Two current frames of reference for thinking about these changes and their implications for subject English are the notion of an "information revolution" (Castells 1996) and the changing nature of literacy, with its shift towards multiliteracies, or thinking of literacy as design (New London Group, 2000). Both frames have significant implications for how we conceptualise English curriculum (for example, literacy, texts and assessment), for how we re-imagine English teaching, and for the ways in which we ask students to work with and within digital culture and new media.