EDITORIAL

Abstract

Thank you Dr. Barbara Wooldridge! To begin, I sincerely want to thank Dr. Barbara Wooldridge for her time and service in the past 3 years as the Editor for our journal. Barbara has made significant strides in elevating our journal to new heights despite the challenges presented during the ongoing pandemic. I have already learned (and continue to learn) from Barbara, and I thank her for the instrumental support and passion she has for MER. I hope to carry forward her enthusiasm as I embark on this new role as the incoming Editor. There is no doubt that our understanding of “Marketing Education” has evolved over the years. Since the inception of the journal (1990 – Founder: Raymond W. Buddy LaForge), the priorities and lens in which we look at marketing education has shifted, along with the journal’s focus. Indeed, the push toward digital modes of delivery and shifting needs of stakeholders (students, faculty, and industry) have transformed the way we think about Marketing Education. As a start, I believe it is important to develop a holistic understanding of the journal’s strengths and weaknesses prior to engaging in any initiatives and opportunities. Recently, I conducted an analysis of all articles (31 years) identifying the topic trends, impact (e.g., citation analysis), networks (e.g., co-authorships) to better understand the past and the present, along with identifying opportunities for the future. Holistically, the journal has largely focused on marketing instruction/delivery (assignments, content, etc.) or student learning/experience (experiential, active learning, etc.). While this is core to what we do, it is my hope that we also push toward thinking about topics that are not always traditionally “student-facing”; this could include topics related to curriculum, administration, careers, internships, facilities, etc. I also feel that there can be more opportunities for topics related to graduate education and more insights into faculty experiences. I encourage us to think wider in how the ecosystem of academia can differentially influence marketing instruction and student experiences. Further, the publications contained within MER were primarily US-centric. While this is not surprising given that the journal is founded in the United States (and largely promoted within the US), it presents an intriguing opportunity to expand our reach globally. Further, I hope to expand beyond our core “marketing” lens to connect with other disciplines that often maintain close associations with our discipline (hospitality, fashion, graphic design, etc.). While my vision for the journal is not to deviate away from “marketing,” there lies an opportunity to interconnect with other disciplines that may still be highly relevant (e.g., services in hospitality, fashion consumption, graphics & ads, etc.). As the former editors have worked tirelessly to elevate the journal each and every step, I too am looking forward to pursuing these opportunities to advance the journal’s reputation and pedigree. I look forward to 2022 with great optimism. Despite the array of adjustments and pivots that we have had to make in the past 2 years, professors are now equipped with new tools, new strategies, and innovative approaches to pedagogy. I see this evolution taking place right in front of our eyes, transforming how we view, deliver, and shape our field. To that end, I challenge us to collectively think about shaping the future of Marketing Education. In compiling this issue, I focused on three themes: simulations, gamification, & evaluations. Regarding simulations, Laverie, Hass, and Mitchell discuss the benefits of using marketing simulations as a pedagogical tool to provide a dynamic learning experience. They report multiple studies to demonstrate that, via simulations, students are able to move beyond conceptual knowledge to develop higher-order thinking skills. This parallels the work of Dietz, Fox, and Fox who concur that simulations enable students to bridge theory with practice. Dietz et al. provide a multilevel (MSEM) model that simultaneously takes into account both the individual and team learning outcomes in critical thinking during a marketing simulation. One of the more interesting findings from their work include the important role of self-efficacy in improving perceptions of simulation-enhanced learning. In Kwiatek, Papakonstantinidis, and Limani’s work, the focus was on learning styles of groups performing simulations. Their results showed that students with similar learning styles performed better in simulations. At the individual level, simulations (online) were beneficial primarily to visual and intuitive learners. MARKETING EDUCATION REVIEW 2022, VOL. 32, NO. 1, 1–2 https://doi.org/10.1080/10528008.2022.2026493