JMM Special Issue Call for Papers: Deadline for submissions 1 November 2021

Celebrating Failure: A path towards opening up disciplinary debate

Guest Editors: Chloe Preece, Royal Holloway, University of London, UK; Benedetta Cappellini, Durham University, UK & Gretchen Larsen, Durham University, UK

Failure: the fact of someone or something not succeeding (Cambridge dictionary)

As the definition above demonstrates, failure is generally placed in opposition to success. It is conceptualised as a lack, whether in the ability to fully control something or falling short of a target. While market failures of all types have been assessed and analysed, perhaps even ‘solved’ in the marketing literature, we take note of recent debates around failure and creativity in management studies (Alvesson & Kärreman, 2016; Alvesson & Sandberg, 2013; Tourish, 2020). We would therefore like to bring this debate closer to home and open a discussion about failure in our field.

Rather than seeing failure as the opposite of success however, we understand failure in a Foucauldian sense, as a consequence of incompleteness and indeed of any unsuccessful attempts of controlling and dominating processes (Malpas & Wickham, 1995). In liberating failure from a mechanistic and simplistic view, we understand it as part of any epistemological process. As such, failure should be celebrated as a creative way of resisting any attempt to hide the incompleteness of our work. More broadly, failure should be celebrated as an attempt to resist disciplinary governance (Brownlie, 2006) and its various attempts to dominate plurality and diversity in doing and disseminating research (CohenMiller et al., 2020).

There is a rich history of work, particularly in critical marketing which has sought to expand the horizons of our scholarly debate by examining the performance of knowledge claims in our field. Key concerns as to the institutionalised forms of gatekeeping framing our theorisations were set out in this very journal as part of a Special Issue on the production of disciplinary space (Brownlie et al., 2009). More than a decade later, we seek to revisit these debates. It is now clear that many have heeded the call to “problematise the status of knowledge claims” (p. 638) in our discipline. Some of this has looked to the past, uncovering forgotten contributions and provocations (Tadajewski, 2010; Tadajewski & Maclaran, 2013). Other work has provided alternative forms of research interpretation, methodological perspectives and epistemological lenses (e.g. Harman et al., 2020; Patterson & Larsen, 2019; Preece & Kerrigan, 2021; Rokka et al., 2018; see also the recent Special Issue on epistemological challenges in studying consumption and family in Qualitative Market Research, Cappellini et al., 2021). These new sensitivities proved to be fruitful paths in investigating vulnerable groups, elucidating hidden power structures and questioning marginalising representations (Downey, 2016; Higgins, 2020; Hutton, 2016; Kravets et al., 2020; Larsen, 2017; Larsen et al., 2014; Preece & Telford, 2020; Rodner & Preece, 2019; also see the Special Section on taboo in consumption and marketing of this journal, Larsen & Patterson, 2018). Recent research has also confronted racism and racial dynamics in marketing (see, for example the recent Special Issue on marketing and managing racial dynamics of this journal, Thomas et al., 2020 as well as Francis & Robertson, 2021) and has also bought attention to wider stakeholders and alternative systems (e.g. Casey et al., 2020; Lloveras et al., 2018). Indeed, as the greatest failure of the market, climate change illustrates the need for reframing capitalist measure of success whereby progress is understood as an increase in the total quantity of commodities we produce and consume each year at the expense of labour and resources of the global South (Chatzidakis et al., 2014; Hickel, 2020). Forthcoming Special Issues, such as the one on #MeToo in this journal (Prothero & Tadajewski) and on hierarchies of knowledge in Marketing Theory (Kravets & Varman) are sure to uncover additional blind spots of our field. We suggest that a focus on failure can further enable us to stretch the limits of marketing inquiry.

By adopting the lens of failure, we consider that all academic works are incomplete in their epistemological process, thus partly failing (Clark & Sousa, 2020). In this special issue we would like to critically examine, theorise and problematise the concept of failure, something which all researchers experience, although it may be hard to tell looking at our polished conference presentations and glossy journal articles. In particular, we specifically seek to interrogate the consequences for our discipline in hiding failures and in constantly thriving for individual success via low-risk research projects that are ‘easily’ and ‘quickly’ publishable. As such our initial questions are: what can we learn by examining our personal and collective research failures? What happens if rather than downplaying or overcoming failure, we celebrate it? Answering this might imply unearthing those long abandoned dusty data sets and considering whether, in a research culture which seems to require ever increasing levels of productivity in the face of vanishing security, there are spaces for collective resistance (Clare, 2019). Taken further, there is a need to reconceptualise the concept of failure to expose the serendipity of outcomes that can result from mistakes. We take inspiration from glitch feminism (Russell, 2020) whereby a glitch provides liberation and revolution, breaking down binaries and limitations.

Papers might provide, for example, reflections on failures and cul-de-sacs experienced at various stages of the research process; engaging with theoretical debates about the very notion of ‘data’ and ‘researcher.’ While we know that research requires risk-taking to make new discoveries, the fear of failure is never very far, and this clearly has an impact on the research we chose to do and what – and who – gets published (Alvesson & Sandberg, 2013). Given the impact of the pandemic, which is increasing various forms of inequality in academia (gender inequality, sessional work, instability and precarity, increased pressure on early careers and a growing divide between research and teaching-focused universities) and the significance and reliance of academics and institutions on rankings such as REF and ABS list (Grey, 2010; Tourish & Willmott, 2015), there is a need to consider how we can maintain perspective, autonomy and authenticity as ‘failing’ researchers without succumbing to the isomorphic pressures of academic conservatism.

We welcome conceptual or empirical original papers from a wide variety of methodological and disciplinary perspectives engaged (but not limited) with the following:

  • Understandings of failing and failures in doing marketing research
  • The politics of success and productivity in doing marketing research
  • Navigating between wellbeing and productivity, how do we foster a culture of care in academia?
  • Rejection and risk-taking, broadening the horizons of the discipline
  • Publication bias in terms of contexts studied, models, frameworks, dominant logics, and methodologies taken
  • Negative findings and lessons learned
  • Pathways to resilience, how do we come to terms with, and even celebrate, our failures?
  • Accounts of rational – and irrational – alarm, dread, anxiety, shame and distress in the research process
  • Researcher trauma, exploitation and failure
  • Examinations of marketing glitches which expose the vested interests of power within the marketing academy and its legitimating institutions
  • Failure as resistance to the neoliberal marketisation of higher education

In the spirit of this call for papers we also welcome alternative submissions, however, please contact the Special Issue editors if you are considering this as an option.

Submission Requirements:
Authors should submit manuscripts of between 8,000–10,000 words (excluding tables, references, captions, footnotes and endnotes). All submissions must strictly follow the guidelines for the Journal of Marketing Management. These are available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/rjmm20/current

Manuscripts should be submitted online using the Journal of Marketing Management ScholarOne Manuscripts site (https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/rjmm). New users should first create an account. Once a user is logged onto the site submissions should be made via the Author Centre. Authors should prepare and upload two versions of their manuscript. One should be a complete text, while in the second all document information identifying the author should be removed from the files to allow them to be sent anonymously to referees. When uploading files authors will then be able to define the non-anonymous version as “Complete paper with author details”, and the anonymous version as “Main document minus author information”. To submit your manuscript to the Special Issue choose “Special Issue Article” from the Manuscript Type list when you come to submit your paper. Also, when you come to the ‘Details and Comments’ page, answer ‘yes’ to the question ‘Is this manuscript a candidate for a special issue’ and select the Special Issue Title of Celebrating Failure in the text field provided.

Potential contributors can contact the Special Issue Editors to discuss their ideas for a paper prior to submitting a formal proposal. Please direct any questions about the submission process to the guest editors.

• Chloe Preece: chloe.preece@rhul.ac.uk
• Benedetta Capellini: benedetta.cappellini@durham.ac.uk
• Gretchen Larsen: gretchen.larsen@durham.ac.uk

The closing date for submissions is 1 November 2021.

Technical queries about submissions can be referred to the Editorial Office: rjmmeditorial@westburn.co.uk

References

Alvesson, M., & Kärreman, D. (2016). Intellectual failure and ideological success in organization studies: The case of transformational leadership. Journal of Management Inquiry, 25, 139–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492615589974
Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2013). Has management studies lost its way? Ideas for more imaginative and innovative research. Journal of Management Studies, 50(1), 128–152. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01070.x
Brownlie, D. (2006). Emancipation, epiphany and resistance: On the unimagined and overdetermined in critical marketing. Journal of Marketing Management, 22, 505–528. https://doi.org/10.1362/026725706777978712
Cappellini, B., Molander, S., & Harman, V. (2021). Guest editorial. Qualitative Market Research, 24(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1108/QMR-01-2021-197
Casey, K., Lichrou, M., & O’Malley, L. (2020). Prefiguring sustainable living: An ecovillage story. Journal of Marketing Management, 36(17-18), 1658–1679. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2020.1801800
Chatzidakis, A., Larsen, G., & Bishop, S. (2014). Farewell to Consumerism: Countervailing Logics of Growth in Consumption. Ephemera, 14(4), 753–764.
Clare, N. (2019). Can the failure speak? Militant failure in the academy. Emotion, Space and Society, 33, 100628. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emospa.2019.100628
Clark, A. M., & Sousa, B. J. (2020). A manifesto for better research failure. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920973858
CohenMiller, A., Schnackenberg, H. & Demers, D. (2020). Rigid flexibility: Seeing the opportunity in “failed” qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920963782
Downey, H. (2016). Poetic inquiry, consumer vulnerability: Realities of quadriplegia. Journal of Marketing Management, 32(3-4), 357–364. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2015.1103301
Francis, J. N. P., & Robertson, J. T. F. (2021). White spaces: How marketing actors (re)produce marketplace inequities for Black consumers. Journal of Marketing Management, 1–33. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2020.1863447
Grey, C. (2010). Organizing studies: Publications, politics and polemic. Organization Studies, 31, 677–694. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840610372575
Harman, V., Cappellini, B., & Campos, S. (2020). Using visual art workshops with female survivors of domestic violence in Portugal and England: A comparative reflection. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 23(1), 23–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2019.1672285
Higgins, L. (2020). Psycho-emotional disability in the marketplace. European Journal of Marketing, 54(11), 2675–2695. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-02-2019-0191
Hutton, M. (2016). Neither passive nor powerless: Reframing economic vulnerability via resilient pathways. Journal of Marketing Management, 32(3-4), 252–274. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2015.1118144
Hickel, J. (2020). Less is More: How degrowth will save the world. Penguin Random House.
Kravets, O., Preece, C., & Maclaran, P. (2020). The uniform entrepreneur: Making gender visible in social enterprise. Journal of Macromarketing, 40(4), 445–458. https://doi.org/10.1177/0276146720930331
Larsen, G. (2017). “It’s a Man’s Man’s Man’s World”: Music groupies and the othering of women in the world of rock. Organization, 24(3), 397–417. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508416689095
Larsen, G., & Patterson, M. (2018). Consumption, Marketing and Taboo. Journal of Marketing Management, 34(13-14), 1063–1066. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2018.1536391
Larsen, G., Patterson, M., & Markham, L. (2014). A deviant art: Tattoo-related stigma in an era of commodification. Psychology and Marketing, 31, 670–681. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20727
Lloveras, J., Quinn, L., & Parker, C. (2018). Reclaiming sustainable space: A study of degrowth activists. Marketing Theory, 18(2), 188–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470593117732458
Malpas, J., & Wickham, G. (1995). Governance and failure: On the limits of sociology. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology, 31(3), 37–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/144078339503100304
Patterson, M., & Larsen, G. (2019). Listening to consumption: Towards a sonic turn in consumer research. Marketing Theory, 19(2), 105–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470593118787583
Preece, C., & Kerrigan, F. (2021). Creative Destruction: Problematising cultural value through an art-object-oriented ontology. In K. Lehman, I. Fillis, & M. Wickham (Eds.), Exploring Cultural Value: Contemporary Issues for Theory and Practice (pp. 39-50.). Emerald Group Publishing Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-78973-515-420211005
Preece, C., & Telford, N. (2020). Lucky Breaks: Unpicking the intersectionalities at play in artistic careers. In I. Fillis & N. Telford (Eds.), Handbook of Entrepreneurship and Marketing (p. 419). Edward Elgar.
Rodner, V. L., & Preece, C. (2019). Consumer transits and religious identities: Towards a syncretic consumer. Journal of Marketing Management, 35(7-8), 742–769. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2019.1601124
Rokka, J., Hietanen, J., & Brownlie, D. (2018). Screening marketing: Videography and the expanding horizons of filmic research. Journal of Marketing Management, 34(5–6), 421–431. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2017.1403112
Russell, L. (2020). Glitch Feminism: A Manifesto. Verso.
Tadajewski, M. (2010). Towards a history of critical marketing studies. Journal of Marketing Management, 26(9-10), 773–824. https://doi.org/10.1080/02672571003668954
Tadajewski, M., & Maclaran, P. (2013). Remembering female contributors to marketing theory, thought and practice. Journal of Historical Research in Marketing, 5(3), 260–272. https://doi.org/10.1108/JHRM-04-2013-0021
Thomas, K. D., Davis, J.F., Wilson, J. A. J., & Sobande, F. (2020). Repetition or reckoning: Confronting racism and racial dynamics in 2020. Journal of Marketing Management, 36(13-14), 1153–1168. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2020.1850077
Tourish, D., & Willmott, H. (2015). In defiance of folly: Journal rankings, mindless measures and the ABS guide. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 26, 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2014.02.004
Tourish, D. (2020). The triumph of nonsense in management studies [AMLE]. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 19(1), 99–109. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2019.0255

This post is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, unless otherwise stated. Third party materials remain the copyright of the original rightsholder.