Suter, T.A. and Kopp, S.W. "Using the Internet and World Wide Web in           
Marketing Education: An Examination of the Copyright Act of 1976", Marketing   
Education Review, 8:2, Summer 1998                                             

Since 1991, a major new instructional resource for marketing educators has been available. The World Wide Web, according to Suter and Kopp, was conceived and established by scientists at the European Particle Physics Laboratory, and was originally intended for use only by physicists. However, its expansion during the last eight years into a booming resource for recreation, dissemination of information, and transmission of data around the world has led to both tremendous marketing education opportunities and to legal headaches for those who jealously guard their information and intellectual property.

The above-cited article deals specifically with the field of marketing education and its interaction with the Internet, and does so within the context of the Copyright Act of 1976. There are many ways in which the Internet can be used legally and freely by marketing instructors to enhance the quality and content of their courses. However, there are certain dangers associated with employing the Internet as an educational tool which this article outlines in detail. The Copyright Act of 1976 did not anticipate the advent of the World Wide Web, and the article's authors therefore discuss recent cases in Copyright Law which have led to modification of the Act and have implications for the Internet which they also analyze.

After introducing the concept of the Web and its phenomenal versatility, the article offers the marketing instructor a practical itemization of ways in which the Internet can be properly used in the classroom setting, with special reference to Consumer Behavior and Marketing Principles classes. Placing course syllabi on-line, referring students to URLs for further information, encouraging exploration of interactive sites, and the uploading of original material on-line, which may constitute a homepage or an academic contribution to the field, are all permissible activities, Suter and Kopp emphasize. Additionally, firms like Coca-Cola have placed product related data on-line which can be used as instructional material for marketing classes, as can certain interactive government sites.

The authors discuss the difference from a legal standpoint of digitally stored data and hard-copy text. Court decisions have recognized this distinction, they confirm. Building on these points, they outline the structure of the Copyright Act of 1976, as amended twice in 1980 and 1988. The primary point for instructors to remember is that the "Fair Use Doctrine" allows copyrighted material to be used for educational purposes, whether on-line or off-line. But at least two major court battles have arisen in the interpretation of this Doctrine, as Suter and Kopp report in the cited article.

The first case involved Kinko's, a photocopy service at the time having more than 200 outlets throughout the United States, which had embarked on marketing of a fairly unique educational service: the preparation of customized course-packets for university professors. A major publisher sued Kinko's for violation of the intellectual property provisions of the Copyright Act of 1976. The publisher won this famous case and an award in their favor of $800,000 was made, plus 1.3 million dollars in court costs, all of which was payable by Kinko's. Additionally, Kinko's was legally bound to report similar copyright infringement violations by its competitors, if noticed. This case is described in detail by Suter and Kopp, but essentially established a precedent for the protection of intellectual property when photocopied, or, by extension, when placed on-line.

The second case cited in the article under analysis further solidified the legal precedent established in the first, although it raised a number of delicate questions which, as of this writing, still remain unresolved. The second case was brought against an Internet Bulletin Board Service (a BBS) by the Church of Scientology. There was a third party involved in this case, the BBS client who posted copyrighted material written by Ron Hubbard Founder of the Scientology group. Ultimately the Church of Scientology prevailed, and various degrees of liability were assigned by the Court to the other two parties. The Church's argument included the concept that on-line posting undercut the market for their teachings and made them available to unauthorized users.

Suter and Kopp provide insightful analysis of these two cases and project the court's findings into the world of the Internet. The implications, they assert, for marketing educators are vast. Unauthorized use of protected material is to be avoided whenever there is doubt about its being covered by the Fair Use Doctrine. In the Kinko's and Scientology cases there are still uncertainties; however, the posting of third parties' materials and the unauthorized distribution of them, even for educational purposes, must be avoided if legal precedents, such as those discussed, prevent such use. The authors conclude that security on the Internet is so easily undermined, that violation of the legal limits established is easily detectable, and it's best to be on the safe side of the law.

Hult, G.T. and Hasselback, J.R., "A Report of Gender and Professional Age of   
the Marketing Professorate",  Journal of Marketing Education, 20: 1, May 1998,     
35-40. 

Two professors at Florida State University, specializing in multinational business and taxation respectively, have recently collaborated on an analysis of the numbers, gender and professional training of marketing professors throughout the United States. The emphasis in their study, cited above, seems to focus on an exploration of the gender issue which, in the fields of sports and education, they point out, has come to the attention of the general public in the two and a half decades since passage of Title IX guidelines, passed by Congress in the early 1970s.

Initially, Hult and Hasselback lay the groundwork for their examination of gender and age of marketing education professors by offering general statistical data, such as figures indicating that females comprise 54% of all Bachelor's and Master's degrees awarded, but only 34% of all Doctorates earned in the United States. By contrasting such data with specific figures displayed on tabulated graphs pertaining to the "marketing professorate", the authors are able to analyze the state of affairs in marketing academia.

The cited article claims that, to date, very little other than anecdotal evidence has been generated with respect to female professors in the field. Their article, therefore, is aimed at providing new raw data -- not yet statistically manipulated -- and hopes to shed limited light on the growing participation of women in the field.

Their analysis begins with data drawn directly from one of the authors' own studies (Hasselback 1997a), a noteworthy point because it is sometimes thought unprofessional to build on data not independently confirmed. It is shown that 21.1% of marketing professors, predicated on a sample of 3649 such professors, are female. These professors held either Master's or Doctorates, or both. Another table is dedicated solely to holders of Ph.D.s, and removes 528 professors without them from consideration. In this smaller sample, 19.6% are women. Attention is subsequently turned to when marketing professors received their doctorates. Findings on similar-size samples demonstrate that females have newer doctorates at all levels (full, associate and assistant) than males. Male full-ranked professors, for example, have 5 years more post-Ph.D. experience than do females.

The article displays large tabulations, occupying more than two pages of the six, showing where doctorates were earned (Michigan State is top-ranked for both men and women) and proceeds to display which marketing journals have selected more females to serve on their Review Boards than others. Apart from the AMA Educators' Conference Proceedings publication, which reflected participation of 91 females out of 460 papers presented, the highest ranked journal for women contributors was Advances in Consumer Research.

After presenting figures in all of these categories, brief discussion ensues under the heading "Conclusion." The authors state that the 20% female marketing professor rate seems an essentially valid ballpark figure suitable for quoting in future literature, whether with reference to journal participation or in the area of classroom teaching. Females are found to occupy, on balance, lower positions and are younger.

Amazingly, both male authors conclude, in print, that special gender equity programs do not seem indicated to establish equilibrium in the professional marketing educational sector! They suggest, rather, that women, in spite of the 20% level, "appear to succeed well without such disproportionate programming."

They then go on to admit that males are vigorously outnumbering females in terms of new marketing doctorates. Males are likely to continue to dominate teaching as marketing professors because they remain in tenured positions for decades blocking female entrance into the field, the authors mention. Paraphrasing broadly, they conclude that over an extended period of time, women may be able to increase their percentage of representation among this 80% male-dominant population. In my estimation, it would seem quite unusual for two non-marketing professors in Florida to make assumptions, in a respected marketing education journal, as to the lack of a need for implementation of a woman's equity program in the field, when (1) they are using their own arguably unconfirmed data and (2) their findings demonstrate that only 21% of all professors in this field are women who, while they are making progress in some sub-areas of marketing education, still seem visibly under-represented.

Lamont, L.M. and Friedman, K.  "Meeting the Challenges to Undergraduate        
Marketing Education",  Journal of Marketing Education, 19:3, Fall 1997,        
17-30. 

This journal article is an international collaboration researched and written by a professor of management in Virginia and another, specializing in leadership and strategic design, at the Norwegian School of Management in Oslo. It could be considered an "omnibus" article since it touches on all major sub-divisions and emphases found within the discipline of Marketing Education. Their topics cover new, innovative thinking in learning theory, technological advances, the internationalization of business, curriculum adjustments, the inclusion of new trends in marketing, and even how to encourage change within the teaching faculty.

A rapid glance at Lamont and Friedman's contribution to the field indicates that the authors have approached their subject in a theoretical and conceptual manner without compiling statistics or relying on identifiable, empirical data. Their reference section is impressive and includes 58 sources drawn from European and North American professional journals. Not a single Asian or Third World source seems to be cited, indicating, in all probability, that contemporary thinking in the field of Marketing Education is centered in the major academic centers of the "western world."

Careful analysis of the cited article reveals that, because the dynamics of global marketing are fluctuating, the authors stress the need to re-adapt marketing curriculum at the undergraduate level to accommodate these changes and to meet the increasingly demanding requirements of employers. The article highlights, in its opening paragraphs, the powerful forces which are leading to the absolute necessity to reform marketing education, and thus sets the foundation for the suggestions and observations to follow.

Almost as fundamental as a see-saw, the article notes that student learning patterns must change and, insofar as faculty is concerned, their teaching methods, lesson content and instructional approaches must also be adapted to new demands in 'marketing beyond the classroom'. The ever-changing employment market must be understood, as must the shifting characteristics of competition. With the globalization of product availability via the Internet and other technologies, revolutionary new approaches in the marketing classrooms of U.S. and European Universities must be implemented. Personal fulfillment in student careers later on, and overall success, based on the realities of marketing, should be the primary targets or goals of new curriculum materials, the article points out.

It would be safe to assert that this article's authors do not merely discuss the abstract parameters of "change", however. They refer to the learning theories put forward by Kolb (1994) and mention the experiential models offered by other noted academics in marketing, such as Cunningham and Ronchetto (1995, 1992). They describe identifiable content strategies that must be inserted into existing curricula, such as classroom discussion of multi-media tools, and go on to explain how to 'track purchase behavior" among consumers, a concept that can be included in instructional materials.

Further, the article addresses the resurgence of decentralization of business, in general, and describes how this phenomenon will necessitate a re-prioritizing of subject matter at the undergraduate level. Under a major heading, the authors speak of a "new focus" in marketing and emphasize the colossal impact which the cyber-world will have on promotion of products, and indirectly, therefore, on marketing education strategies. There will be an amalgamation of cultures, they note, and products will simply fuse into a global arena. Students need to be told how all of this will affect their career options and study patterns.

As might be expected in an article coming from Virginia and Norway, the authors devote a tremendous amount of space to the global aspects of business and extrapolate what they've observed 'outside of education' into the field of education itself. They speak in terms of unifying and standardizing a new curriculum for marketing students throughout (we infer) the western world. In this article, it seems to the reader that 'everything that needs to be said is said': foreign languages, sociology, trade paradigms. All of this and more must be assimilated by tomorrow's marketers and businessmen.

Faculty must serve as dynamic leaders and become "champions" of new developments affecting their curricula and course syllabi. Professors, the authors conclude, need to strategize and brainstorm a "vision" or a single thematic direction and then devote their energies toward pursuing it, especially if it's something new, innovative and useful to the constantly changing business and marketing environment.

Without a doubt, although the authors fail to provide substantive data on change within the fields of marketing and marketing education, they certainly sweep across the entire horizon of these two fields in this all-encompassing article and suggest a few directions which marketing educators would be well advised to take.

Marchand, J. and LaVoie, S. "Non-Profit Organizations' Practices and Perceptions of Advertising: Implications for Advertisers", Journal of Advertising Research, 38:4, July/August 1998, 33- 40.

Two marketers from Quebec Province in Eastern Canada identified a need to determine how non-profit organizations view advertising, both "paid" and "public service", as a means of projecting their images and messages to the general public. A study was launched, therefore, using 62 non-profit organizations in Quebec as a subject pool, to examine their advertising patterns and their opinions concerning the effectiveness of ads as a part of overall marketing strategy.

After determining that the existing literature was not plentiful in this specific area of enquiry, the two researchers designed a questionnaire employing a Likert graduated scale for each question. These questions were mailed to the 62 firms, some of which were public non-profit organizations, some semi-public and others private. It was determined that a high degree of interest in these questionnaires, and in the survey, was apparent among participants since 27 of them specifically requested that results be forwarded to them. The questionnaire was designed in such a way as to elicit a wide variety of results which could then be analyzed to determine advertising priorities and preferences among the 62 non-profit organizations. These organizations, incidentally, had been chosen by consulting a number of registers and directories in Quebec, since no one data-base exists in Quebec containing all of the non-profit groups operating within the Province.

When results were received, a two-pronged statistical approach was applied to factor out specific information. Thus, a factorial analysis was used to analyze broad-based replies to the questionnaire, and a discriminant analysis was also carried out to reveal a narrower swath of results.

The latter method was specifically aimed at separating results pertaining to the three types of non-profit organizations with the objective of seeing if their use of advertising differed significantly.

As might have been anticipated, over 90% of the firms surveyed wished to maximize visibility through advertising and preferred to avoid anything controversial in the message's content. These firms also wished to explore multi-media approaches, varying their advertising techniques. These simple results were obtained through factorial analysis and were derived through calculation of correlational coefficients all of which ranged well above r =.49, indicating strong positive correlation with questionnaire statements reflecting a number of variables displaying advertising priorities of the 62 firms surveyed. The Quebec researchers eliminated all results with coefficients of less than r = .49, which is interesting since certain weak results were not included in their discussion section. Nonetheless, there was one strong negative correlation ( r = -.497) to the statement that a nonprofit firm's advertising costs should be minimized.

The discriminant analysis revealed that there was a discernable difference among the three types of firms (public, semi-public and private) at a level of confidence of 0.02. It was found, for example, that private organizations will pay all or a major portion of their own advertising costs, whereas public non-profit groups are open to the concept of sharing their messages with other partner-sponsors. However, there were also similarities among the three types of organizations, demonstrated at the 0.10 level of significance, namely that all organizations displayed a similar opinion of the goals and purposes (which the authors refer to as "perceptions") of advertising.

Both types of statistical analyses performed on data generated by this relatively small sampling of non-profit firms in Quebec pointed out that virtually all such firms found paid advertising expensive and to-be-shunned. The two researchers conclude their article by stating that a large market exists for low-cost advertising or for public-service messages. The current price structure seems to be discouraging humanitarian and charitable groups from using regular marketing or advertising channels because of the high costs involved.

The authors of this journal article were certainly convinced of their findings, which correlated convincingly with their initial expectations. Their questionnaire items almost seemed to 'anticipate' results, although the Likert approach gave every opportunity for firms to reply with considerable latitude. Additionally, it is crucial to note that, because the firms surveyed were all located in Quebec Province, there may have been an undetected bias in the survey results, making it unlikely that these figures could be validly applied to major urban or suburban markets in the United States where capital is readily available for advertising purposes. In other words, while Montreal and Quebec City are large urban centers, the dynamics of Quebec Province's advertising practices and preferences may not apply to non-profit groups in the United States. Publishing such a parochial study in a major North American journal, circulated throughout the U.S. where opinions may differ, might not have been the wisest decision for the Review Board of The Journal of Advertising Research.

In summation, the dual statistical approach utilized by Marchand and LaVoie is commendable, and their results are convincing. However, many readers may have preferred to see the weaker correlations displayed, and may have wished to read at least a brief comment by these Quebec professors on the applicability of their findings to the United States' non-profit sector.

Abernethy, A.M. and Le Blanc-Wicks, J. "Television Station Acceptance of AIDS Prevention PSAs and Condom Advertisements", Journal of Advertising Research, 38:5, September-October 1998, 53-62.

The urgent issue of AIDS prevention has achieved particular prominence throughout the last two decades in the United States. As deaths continue to mount beyond the 350,000 level in this country alone, a growing conviction on the part of concerned sociologists, health officials and educators is leading to design of massive media campaigns to inform the public of the risks involved. Public Service Announcements (PSAs) are generally used, rather than traditional advertising, for AIDS messages, whereas condom manufacturers frequently use paid advertisements.

Two marketing and advertising professors from the American South determined the need to contribute more data to an area of research that had heretofore only explored radio PSAs and ads relating to AIDS and condom use. They felt that statistical insight into the criteria imposed by TV stations for broadcasting such potentially "controversial" material had been generally unavailable. Their introductory section reviews essentially what the public already knows about AIDS, but also traces the history and present dynamics of the PSA approaches currently utilized by TV Sales Managers and General Managers. Because their hypotheses focus on station standards and willingness to broadcast such content-sensitive material, they also introduce, prior to presenting their five hypotheses, three "critical success factors" needed when embarking on TV-announcements of this type. Firstly, they feel that the messages must seek to modify behavior of targeted individuals. Secondly, an effort must be made to reach the intended audience; and, lastly, an on-going campaign must be designed so as not to lose the message's impact, over time, through extinction.

After this lengthy preamble, representing one third of their article, the authors present their hypotheses, survey method, and statistically analyzed results. Their primary hypothesis is that major urban markets are more open to televised AIDS announcements, followed by subsidiary hypotheses which suggest that network affiliates frown on such ads and that late-night broadcasts are more liberally oriented, and, hence, accept these announcements more readily.

To test these three hypotheses, and two others, the researchers designed a series of questionnaires using a seven-point progressively graduated scale. There were three 'restricted' pre-tests and a final questionnaire which was sent out to 898 commercial TV stations, 41% of which replied. No pretest data were utilized; solely the final questionnaire yielded what the authors considered the definitive "data-set."

Basic results showed considerable hesitation on the part of TV stations to air condom ads. Only 4.8% "always accepted" them, with nearly 20% always rejecting them. PSAs were found to be more acceptable, being rejected consistently by only 8.7% of stations surveyed.

Hypothesis 1 was clearly not supported; there were basically weak or negative correlations ( r = .017, -.014, and -.031) between TV market-size and acceptance of the three types of AIDS information messages (respectively, condom, safe-sex and AIDS PSAs). The second hypothesis was also rejected, meaning that networks and VHF stations were not necessarily less likely to accept these announcements. The third hypothesis was strongly confirmed, i.e. late-night AIDS messages were found to be more acceptable.

Glancing at the authors' statistical analyses, it can be seen, on the article's Table I, that they displayed 1990 radio data in comparison with their own new 1996 TV findings, and discovered that the means (M) did not vary markedly from one medium to another. On the seven point Likert-similar scale, with 7 representing "always accept" and 1 representing "never accept", the radio mean for AIDS PSAs was 5.97, and for TV 5.54. Both studies used the seven point scale and had N values in excess of 630, permitting significance to be established at the .01 and .05 levels of confidence.

Mountains of data were generated in the TV survey under analysis. Positive correlation was found, for example, between a TV station's profit motive and the broadcasting of condom ads, presumably even though station managers might be personally opposed to publicizing Trojans, Shieks and AIDS-Proof Lambskin.

In their discussion section, well constructed and properly reasoned, Abernethy and Wicks emphasize that results show how 'personal ethics' may be, and perhaps should be, overridden by greater community interests and needs. Because AIDS is a life or death matter, it is extremely important to communicate this vital message to the targeted TV audience for which it is intended, it is repeatedly asserted. The authors modestly discuss the limitations of their study, which further confirms its integrity and validity in the eyes of the reader, and conclude by stating that Bible Belt States, in which both authors teach, may be more reluctant to air these announcements, but that more research is necessary to determine whether this is so.

It is perhaps appropriate to state, in conclusion, that many readers may come away from this study, because of its overwhelming facts and figures, wondering whether America as a whole isn't succumbing to drug-addiction and homosexuality, given the apparent prevalence of AIDS and HIV, and the sense of urgency communicated in these massive media-blitz PSA campaigns.

Juric, B. Todd, S. and Henry, J. "From the Student Perspective: Why Enroll in an Introductory Marketing Course?" Journal of Marketing Education, 19:1, Spring 1997, 65-75.

Once the reader has mastered some of the non-standard "kiwi" terminology used by these three New Zealanders, all of whom teach marketing at the University of Otago in Dunedin, their article becomes a pleasurable venture in appreciation of research well conducted. Indeed, in New Zealand, a "tertiary" institution seems to be a "post-secondary" one, and a "college of advanced education" is a "community college." A single academic "major", as in the United States, doesn't exist in New Zealand; rather, the student can major in more than one area. Hence, a "Commerce Major", which encompasses to a mysterious degree Marketing, could be combined with something entirely out of the business sector. The authors make an attempt, as their study progresses, to correct for, or minimize, this factor, although it could be seriously argued that their findings may be marred or skewed due to it -- plus other sources of artifact.

The intent of the Juric, Todd and Henry article is to explore the reasons why students register for introductory courses in marketing, and to establish what variables might affect their decision. Under a prominent heading labeled "Influences on Course Selection", they review existing literature in the field, noting dozens of insightful articles, including one by Biggs (1982) which summarizes why students are at university, and why they choose certain courses. The Biggs model (instrumental, intrinsic and achievement) has probably become classic in the last seventeen years. Somehow, however, Juric et al., in spite of copious pre-existing literature, find a need to contribute even more data, with a focus on Intro to Marketing courses.

Their method consisted of surveying 340 undergraduates, who had enrolled in their institution's Intro to Marketing Management course. There were 14 items on the questionnaire requiring a 1-5 Likert-type response. Some 48% intended to major in Marketing. The pool of students was weighted somewhat toward males (56%). Nearly 300 were under 23 years of age, arguably making their age-based analysis later on somewhat problematic. Several statistical methods were employed, such as Tukey tests, to highlight any sizable differences among grouped sub-sections of items included on the questionnaire. This facilitated properly weighted compensation when analyzing results at a later stage.

The results are meticulously displayed on five tables, the third of which might have been more reasonably presented first. Table 3 includes Five Factorial Segments featuring the 15 questionnaire items (one was used twice: "to start my own business"). Graphed against these factors are three types of student respondents: marketing students, business students and non-business students. Their Likert responses, reflecting mean scores (M), are recorded plainly. First and foremost, marketing students "wanted to join the family business" (4.44), as did the other two groups. Standard deviation was on the order of 1.00 to 1.16, basically a close knit cluster. Again, the weakest response among all three groups was on the item "It is an interesting course" (1.72, 2.10 and 2.17). This probably reflected the naïveté of the item more than anything else.

On Table 1, of considerable interest, a Varimax Rotation was conducted and factorially analyzed. Data were arrayed on the basis of five factors (e.g. career prospects, intrinsic motivation, etc.) The authors explain each factor in laborious detail, and then display results, graphing each factor against questionnaire items. Table 2, providing the differences among factor scores, shows that marketing majors thought that career, intrinsic motivation and curriculum requirements were very important; whereas, non-business majors leaned heavily toward "pragmatic" considerations motivating their choice of the course.

[Note: Strong negative values on Table 2, entitled Differences in Factor Score Means, indicate a strong interest.]

Table 5, incidentally, bears data breaking down results by "years of study". Perhaps predictably, first year students tended to rank highest the feeling that "it is a course requirement", while fourth year students clearly "want to join the family business."

What emerges from the authors' well constructed discussion section is a break-down and interpretation of results ranging from the revealing Varimax Rotation approach to the more readily interpreted Likert scores (Tables 3 and 5). The reader not familiar with the Varimax analysis is guided through its interpretation in the text by Juric et al., which represents a 'nice touch' and provides deeper insight into the reasons students enroll in the New Zealand Intro to Marketing course.

Naturally, it would have been easy to say that the Biggs (1982) article had all the answers; but credit must certainly be given to these three "kiwis" for having discovered -- for absolute sure -- that career, curriculum requirements and "marketing for marketing's sake" are what really motivate students to enroll in introductory marketing classes.

Bridges, E., "Experiential Learning and Customer Needs in the Undergraduate Marketing Research Course", Journal of Marketing Education, 21:1, April 1999, 51-59.

It is important to review educationally-oriented material in the field of marketing which is both current and topical. The April 1999 issue of JME brings the marketing educator up to date on a number of issues pertaining to this field, including Associate Professor Eileen Bridges' particular focus on pleasing undergraduate students in Marketing Research courses, which have historically met with unenthusiastic reactions even from marketing majors. She cites marketing faculty sensitivity to declining enrollment and underscores a distinct need to listen to student-customers as two principal priorities for marketing professors who must, she affirms, redesign research course content to account for the preferences of an increasingly dissatisfied student clientele. Indeed, her article quotes alarming figures for 48 market research classes which showed that "evaluations...are significantly worse (at the .001 level of confidence) than those of 440 sections of other classes." These are recent results reflecting current feelings, she points out.

Faced with this sobering reality, she proposes a methodology (1) to improve the actual research classes she is teaching, because her students themselves will be investigating this problem, and (2) to statistically analyze what changes need to be made, i.e. those changes that will be essentially dictated by her students as they determine, qualitatively and quantitatively, what desires exist among themselves and prospective marketing research course enrollees.

Bridges' method was to divide her three Marketing Research course sections at Kent State into 22 three or four person teams. She used a normal research textbook while her students mastered the statistical models and concepts they would need to prove their and their prospective fellow enrollees' priorities to her for inclusion in future classes. Professor Bridges seemed pleased with the dual nature of her endeavor: (a) learning about student desires and (b) motivating them to produce their own results scientifically. In fact, she was actually motivating them to do something, as will be seen, that they instinctively preferred to avoid: analyze data bases and use statistical methods to do so.

First of all, classroom 4-man team deliberation yielded a "discussion guide" containing, in her published sample (Table 1), five major divisions (job goals, usefulness of course, respondents' point of view, etc.). Each division was further fragmented into sub-items, numbering approximately 45. Her discussion groups then chose a 'focus' person who was responsible for reducing the initial 45 items to categories based on 'conceptual content' (preconceptions, transferability, etc.). A little subjectivity might have crept into the process at this stage. Students used this material, in conjunction with their initial observations and comments, to draw up a questionnaire. Care was taken to ensure that focus material was included on or among question items. A target population was identified and selected (those who would be taking Marketing Research, but had not yet done so). There were 698 respondents, about one-third of the College of Business at Kent State. The survey was carried out, verbally, producing data for analysis. All twenty-two (22) student teams participated across campus (31.7 student respondents x 22 teams = 698 participants); they did not all ask the same questions, although all questions asked were on the questionnaire.

When results were tabulated, a meta-analysis (Cooper 1989) was applied to properly 'weight' all responses, thus evening out the results per item, since many questions were asked more (or less) often than others. Table 4 (Preconceptions) in Bridges' article graphs the 22 teams against focus criteria, and records results in Likert (1-5) mean values. Among results it can be seen that: students had a good impression of the course before taking it (4.1); they thought it involved "large projects" (4.12) and team work (4.12). Surely, there may have been a little bias in these results since the students surveyed were being visibly questioned by "teams" and this data-gathering project must have appeared "large" to students being questioned on campus. Bridges also compiled data in a similar vein for other "focus" categories.

She, and her classes, then reduced this Likert-type data to two circle graphs indicating, on the basis of student responses, how the (ideal) Marketing Research course should be graded (exams: 31%, projects: 21%, papers: 14%...) and how much time should be allotted to specific types of classwork (hands-on: 21%, lecture: 16%, "real world" cases: 13%...). Predictably, data showed that students didn't like "to attend class", but that they seem to appreciate the reality of having to do so.

In her concluding discussion section, Bridges reviews her findings (summarized only partially above) and suggests that, to bolster student enrollment in Marketing Research courses, field trips, in-class social activities, case studies, videos, and, paraphrasing generally, 'fun things' must be scheduled. Prospective students avoided statistics and data bases like the plague (see her Figure 1)! Professor Bridges expresses concern, but not surprise, over students' rejection of the research course's intrinsic purpose (data and stats), but implies, throughout her article, that the bottom line would seem to be enrollment!

Except for her delicate analysis of how she and her students moved from the first 'group discussion results' to the 'focus criteria', and how she applied her meta-analysis, it would appear that, empirically speaking, Bridges used only the most rudimentary of Likert-related statistical models to manipulate her data.