Careers and Noncommunication: The Case of Academic and Applied Marketing Research—A Comment

Abstract

In a recent JMR article, Kover [ 1 ] offers substantial insight on the apparent communications gap between academic and applied marketing researchers. Though practitioners might challenge some of the author's statements, such as theory and technique are of interest only as they lead to advantage in the negotiating process that establishes fact, or that there often is little cumulative knowledge building in the practitioner's career, the conclusions reached are empirically inescapable. The principal message in Kover's paper is the recognition of risk-taking differences between academic market researchers and practitioners and the impact of these differences on respective behaviors. However, as is often true in marketing research, a different witness to the data might draw a different conclusion about the underlying explanation and such is the case with Kover's difference model. Let us accept the proposition that the practitioner does face extreme personal risk as a function of his or her job requirements. How is the psychologically predictable risk-reduction behavior of this practitioner likely to be manifested? Typically, by seeking to better master the relevant body of knowledge, thereby allowing for more security in the negotiation process. This continual information-gathering activity of the practitioner is even more critical as the diversity of the research-related tasks expands. This demand for breadth of knowledge, combined with his general role as an immediate problem solver, forces the practitioner into the realm of a generalist as opposed to an expert in a narrow field. If the practitioner is successful in reducing personal by being an information (regardless of its form) consumer, then what induces this practitioner to become simultaneously an in-