Bibliometric evidences of a divide between marketing academics and practitioners

Abstract

Marketing practitioners and academics have different priorities and this causes a divide between them. Academics often seek publishing in prestigious journals. Practitioners often do not know these publications, focusing in professional challenges. This paper aims to answer whether titles of books and scientific articles are evidence of the gap between academia and practice in the area of marketing. It was then performed a bibliometric research, which started by collecting through web-scraping 351 book titles on Consumer Behavior and 293 on Marketing Research, as well as 252 article titles from the Journal of Marketing, 336 from the Journal of Consumer Research and 332 of the Journal of Marketing Research. Using Content Analysis, 8 categories were created in which the terms used in the titles were coded. The analysis of Pearson's χ2 indicated that there is a significant association between proposed categories (8) and the type of publication (2, Books and Scientific Articles), χ2 (7, N = 5,112) = 518,274, p =, 000, Cramer’s V =, 318. From the Adjusted Residues, it was possible to state that 7 of the 8 categories showed an association between the types of publication, with emphasis on the categories Concepts and Instructions, the first being predominant in scientific articles and the second in books. The results are evidence of the gap between academia and practice in the area of ​​Marketing. As a result, a dialogue between the parties should be encouraged, in order to reduce the distance and benefit both academics and practitioners.