https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0608-5239
ABSTRACT
In two developing nations, technology enhanced marketing communication education in the classroom, both during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. However, in what ways did enhancement occur, and to what ends? This research examines the reasons for and impacts of digitalisation on academic delivery of marketing communication education across two BRICS nations: South Africa and India. We use a comparative, narrative-based approach that challenges the ways that marketing communication educators often describe the significant teaching and learning agencies and incidents involving the place of technology in classroom learning. We show how the concepts of technological augmentation and paradox, the `TikTok effect´, and symbiotic pedagogies explain and help present a post-pandemic theory of marketing communication education in developing nations. We highlight the active learning and student-centred learning styles as symbiotic pedagogies that were regarded as best practice. Our findings show that educators were able to skilfully move across both styles depending on student need and skills required. We discuss how educators’ flexibility across contexts allowed them to maintain best practice technology-mediated teaching and learning strategies during the pandemic.
Introduction
Since the World Health Organisation (WHO) declared COVID-19 a global pandemic in March 2020 (Cucinotta and Vanelli Citation2020), many studies have considered the virus’s various impacts on society1. The consequent lockdown and social distancing strategies imposed by governments worldwide had extraordinarily disruptive implications for most sectors, particularly education. According to Stefano et al. (Citation2021), higher education systems were among the first to be impacted by government strategies to curb the spread of the pandemic, forcing universities to suspend face-to-face (F2F hereafter) delivery and abruptly shift to emergency remote teaching (Moorhouse and Kohnke Citation2021; Toquero Citation2020). Emergency remote teaching (ERT) is an interim instructional delivery shift in a crisis context, where fully remote teaching instruction replaced the ‘normal’ F2F or blended delivery modes (Hodges et al. Citation2020). Emergency remote learning has been labelled ‘emergency crisis e-learning’ (Tomczyk and Walker Citation2021), ‘rapid online-learning transfer’ (Nicklin et al. Citation2022); ‘unstructured, emergency remote education’ (Oliveira et al. Citation2021); and the ‘new normal’ (Gupta and Ishida Citation2022). Terminology aside, remote, online teaching and learning became the new normal for faculty and students for varying periods across the globe, including in developing countries, about which far less has been written.
Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa are home to 3.2 billion people, or 42% of the world’s population (Belli Citation2021). Despite rapid digital and online advances in BRICS countries, there are still issues of disproportionate and unequal technology and the lack of BRICS cooperation in this regard (Karine Citation2021). Research has established that greater access to electricity is linked to further improvement of education in these nations (Akram Citation2022). Higher education is correlated to economic progress (Chang, Chen, and Xiong Citation2018), making it an important focus of economic, policy and research development. Yet while these emerging countries are expected to share dominance of the global economy, they remain heterogenous with each country retaining a distinct history, culture, economy, and priorities, leading Altbach and Malee Bassett (Citation2014) to argue that the development of a common framework is not relevant. Indeed, it is the unique complexities that distinguish these emerging economies that makes them an important focus and rich source of insight. However, research that explores education after the pandemic in emerging economies is limited so to explorations of best practice in marketing communications (MarCom hereafter) education. Thus, the current study investigates the impact of digitalisation on academic delivery of MarCom education across two BRICS nations.
The remainder of the manuscript is set out as follows. The literature review considers the impact of the pandemic in higher education, including in BRICS countries. The research approach is then described, findings discussed, conclusions drawn, limitations noted, and future research directions outlined.
COVID-19 and higher education institutions
The unprecedented complexities of the pandemic resulted in heterogeneous responses by scholars to the opportunities and challenges for higher education. Ainsworth and McKenzie (Citation2020, 446) boldly declare, ‘The long-term impact of the COVID-19 epidemic on higher education has the potential to be significantly positive’. This optimistic argument holds that a more significant number of higher education institutions can offer a wider variety of programmes, to more people of all ages (marginalised or privileged), in less geographically bounded contexts, thereby ultimately improving employability and relieving pressure on governments. García-Morales, Garrido-Moreno, and Martín-Rojas (Citation2021) argue that the pandemic produced rich opportunities for disruptive digital transformation, fast-tracked adjustments and technological innovation to reinvent educational delivery modes to provide quality education. Conversely, Meshram, Paladino, and Cotronei-Baird (Citation2022) show how radical disruptions (i.e., the COVID-19 pandemic) enhanced marketing students’ self-regulated learning, specifically triggering self-determination, to lead to meta-cognitive learning strategies by students to achieve academic goals. On a more practical level, García-Morales, Garrido-Moreno, and Martín-Rojas (Citation2021, 2) further argue that the opportunities brought on by this educational disruption involve both the student and faculty members as ‘engines of learning to promote an open curriculum enabled by new digital education’, such as developing new learning spaces, mechanisms and materials, and as transforming how students absorb and use knowledge in conjointly created, richer learning experiences. The United Nations’ policy brief ‘Education during COVID-19 and beyond’ echo these scholars’ sentiments but warned that, although COVID-19 highlighted a promising future for teaching and learning towards quality education, it cannot be separated ‘from the imperative of leaving no one behind’ (UN Citation2022, 2).
Various barriers and challenges soon appeared during this adaptation in higher education teaching and learning, highlighting various inequalities affecting faculty and students (Mishra, Gupta, and Shree Citation2020; García-Morales, Garrido-Moreno, and Martín-Rojas Citation2021; Nicklin et al. Citation2022). Treve (Citation2021) notes a considerable amount of COVID-19 and higher education discourse, focusing predominantly on the transitions to virtual learning. Challenges associated with the shift to virtual learning have also been well documented, such as the impact of digital competence of both faculty and students in digital transformation (Sánchez-Cruzado, Santiago Campión, and Sánchez-Compaña Citation2021; Núñez-Canal, de Obesso, and Alberto Pérez-Rivero Citation2022), access inequality (Woldegiorgis Citation2022; Moodley Citation2022), challenges in adopting online pedagogies (Treve Citation2021), practical technological challenges such as internet connections and access to software and hardware (Nicklin et al. Citation2022) and quality concerns about remote learning (Bhagat and Kim Citation2020). Likewise, several studies investigated the perceptions and experiences of students of online learning in the pandemic context, focusing on student satisfaction (Greenland et al. Citation2021; Oliveira et al. Citation2021; Chien‐yuan and Guo Citation2021), student well-being (Kanyumba and Shabangu Citation2021; Moodley Citation2022; Gupta and Ishida Citation2022), psycho-social health of students (Katoch Citation2021); and student success (Schreiber et al. Citation2021; Butt et al. Citation2022).
As the pandemic had irrefutable consequences for students, it is similarly essential to consider its impact on faculty. In this regard, Taylor and Frechette (Citation2022) report increased teaching and research workloads, higher demands on time, and increased student interaction leading to fatigue and burnout among marketing faculty. Still, many marketing faculty members embraced digitalisation to ensure continuity of learning (Rippé, Weisfeld-Spolter, Yurova & Kemp, Citation2021), with notable outcomes. For example, Ackerman and Gross’ (Citation2021) successful implementation of synchronous online discussion boards as the primary modes of communication and instruction, Meshram, Paladino, and Cotronei-Baird (Citation2022) focus on marketing students’ self-regulation and grade expectations, indicating how pedagogical disruption can transform student learning and perceptions of their performance outcomes. Gala, Woodroof, and Drehmer’s (Citation2022) celebrate rapidly employed peer-reviewed teaching ideas, techniques, and assignments, illustrating promising post-pandemic pedagogy possibilities for the future of MarCom education.
Marketing communication education in developing countries
Any form of education today is vastly different to that at the end of the 20th century. We are living in a time of growing implementation of modern information and communication technologies in education (Švec and Selby Citation2019). COVID-19 has transformed the education environment without discrimination. Many higher education institutions (HEI) in different regions of the world, across both developed and developing economies, were forced to deal with this disruption in the best way possible (Spais and Paul Citation2021). This pandemic forced HEIs to shift from face-to-face to online education. However, some HEIs in developing countries had less access to formal online learning management systems to advance teaching (Sobaih, Hasanein, and Abu Elnasr Citation2020). Oginni, Mogaji, and Phong Nguyen (Citation2022) opine that HEIs can no longer rely on historical physical infrastructure, such classrooms and lecture theatres, but more on the increased prospects of technology and digitization. This will redefine higher education in a post-pandemic era.
MarCom as a subject must adapt to this technological enhancement and digitalization, specifically with regard social media, online shopping, and digital advertising (Carter Citation2021). An important consideration in teaching marketing is market demand. HEI should scan their own local and national environment and adapt to the real needs of their stakeholders, changing customer trends, business employment skills needs and disruptive innovations, irrespective of developed or developing country. Not only must HEI adapt to a changing world, but many businesses have started to require new types of employees to fit new job descriptions (Telli and Aydin Citation2021). As Rana et al. (Citation2016) note, HEIs should also consider new post-pandemic government policies and the changing domains of technology. Telli and Aydin (Citation2021) agree, stating that in marketing, digital transformation shapes not only the behaviours and attitudes of consumers but also how companies approach these new trends. So, as both the market and marketing change, so too should marketing education adopt new methods to equip learners to be a part of this new order. Marketing academics should update their knowledge frequently, learn new tools, metrics, software, and hardware and adjust their teaching approach, and materials accordingly. But as Ameen (Citation2021) laments, the prevailing digital divide, poor ICT infrastructure, lack of information and digital skills can hamper the quality of academic delivery, which in many cases is more prevalent in developing countries.
Apart from increased digitization, another post-pandemic consideration is social marketing (Harris Citation2022). Pre-pandemic, commercial marketing was the dominant teaching lens, but social marketing may need to ascend post-pandemic, as the world is now threatened by a ‘perfect storm’ of serious social and environmental challenges, a climate emergency, a war in Ukraine, a precarious position in the South China Sea and overdue social transformations. (Flaherty, Domegan, and Anand Citation2021; Chandy et al. Citation2021). In these times of turmoil, marketing education requires foresight and an appreciation of the well-being of society and the environment from an holistic systems perspective (Harris Citation2022). However, research that explores the new reality of education in a pandemic disrupted world is limited. We explore the new reality of MarCom education to advance a theory of best practice.
Research approach and method
Case study research enables depth of contextually grounded insight into complex variables. The strategy is particularly valuable when the research issues are obscure or not readily observable. Thus, it was suitable in this study´s exploration of how technology shaped post-pandemic MarCom education practice in BRICS countries. Multiple cases with several embedded units of analysis enabled the application of comparative logic and isolation of dynamics present within the different case settings (Eisenhardt Citation1989, Citation1991). Thus, the research design was inherently and deliberately comparative.
Study context
As Johns (Citation2001) notes, context is salient. BRICS countries, India and South Africa, have much in common and an ever-strengthening bond. Both were British colonies, with the former becoming a republic in 1950, and the latter in 1960 (having previously been a Union). India was part of the formation and formalisation of an organised political entity with the purpose of facilitating future-collaboration among BRIC members and improving the global economic situation. South Africa was formally admitted to the BRIC grouping in 2010 (Schwartzman, Pinheiro, and Pillay Citation2015). Both countries are highly influential in their regions and are going through significant `transformations as they modernize their societies´ that is reflected in the evolution and democratisation of their higher education systems (Schwartzman, Pinheiro, and Pillay Citation2015, 4). Thus, India and South Africa from a rich point of departure for this study into post-pandemic MarCom education.
Data collection
For the purposes of this study the method of eliciting appropriate data is based on semi-structured email interviews with MarCom faculty in both countries. Ethics approval was obtained through the School of Consumer Intelligence and Information Systems (SCiis) Research Ethics committee, a subcommittee of the UJ Research Ethics committee Footnote1 Due to the expert knowledge required to participate in the study, a purposive sampling approach was appropriate. An interview protocol promoted consistency of insight and served the purpose of steering the interviews. The framework encouraged informants to draw upon ´their own linguistic frameworks in describing significant incidents´ within their life story (Stern, Thompson, and Arnould Citation1998, 197). Specifically, interview, participants were asked to describe:
The role of technology in students´ educational experiences in marketing communication.
What constitutes best practice in the post-pandemic marketing communication classroom.
How they felt personally about the ways in which technology mediates learning experience in the post-pandemic classroom.
The opportunities that arose from the challenges experienced in pivoting to emergency remote learning.
Interviews, albeit a tool for eliciting rich narrative data (Ronkainen, Kavoura, and Ryba Citation2016; Tamminen and Bennett Citation2017; Walsh et al. Citation2018), are susceptible to the common problems of bias, poor recall or inaccurate articulation (Shankar and Goulding Citation2001; Smith and McGannon Citation2017). Thus, to protect the quality of evidence all interviewees responded in writing, providing a more accurate rendition of each individual´s account. See for a description of the participants. also details whether courses occurred in real time or asynchronously. The gender, seniority/experience and geographic location spreads across both countries were satisfactory.
Table 1. Participant summary.
Leveraging Internet communication as a tool in data collection enabled logistical barriers presented by the dispersion of interviewees to be overcome (Silverman Citation2016). While a viable alternative to face-to-face interviews, as with all methods of data collection, a series of limitations are inherent to email interviews, which this study sought to acknowledge and control for, namely, the inability to observe nonverbal communication and limited ability to probe for greater detail. To address these limitations strategically designing the interview questions for clarity and coherence was essential (Salmons Citation2014).
Data analysis
Braun and Clarke (Citation2006, 78) describe a comprehensive analytic tool that provides a ´rich and detailed, yet complex, account of data´ which was applied in this study and that is consistent with narrative inquiry. The research process involved multiple iterations and multiple levels of analysis viz. coding generation, pattern matching, review, defining themes and reporting. The qualitative software NVivo was a supportive tool for the organisation and analysis of data.
Iterative readings of the text involved moving back and forth between the parts of the whole, searching for meaning and analytic patterns (Braun and Clarke Citation2006; Gadamer Citation2008). These provided an important basis for data immersion and analysis (Ollerenshaw and Creswell Citation2002; Braun and Clarke Citation2006, 87; Gadamer Citation2008). Interesting features of the text were coded in a ‘systematic fashion across the entire data set’ (Braun and Clarke Citation2006, 87). After discerning and exhaustively coding the thematic and structural aspects of the text, analysis entered the analytic stage of pattern matching, which involved re-focusing the analysis by moving away from key words toward greater themes. Namely moving from specific words such as interaction, collaboration, and dilution, to a series of paradoxes that characterised engagement specifically and the educational experience broadly. Appendix A1 outlines the full list of first order (44), second order (13) and third order (5) coding terms. In this search for themes more broadly, different codes were sorted into potential themes and relevant coded data extracts were collated within the identified theme and the explanatory framework. The findings present a theory of post-pandemic education in MarCom.
Assurance of quality of analytic results
Ensuring data integrity is fundamental to robust qualitative research. The established practices for ensuring the quality of analytic results (Creswell and Miller Citation2000; Shankar, Elliott, and Fitchett Citation2009; Denzin and Lincoln Citation2011; Silverman Citation2016) applied in this study are triangulation, an audit trail, rich description, and a comparative approach.
The role of triangulation through the use of multiple sources of evidence to enhance validity is well established in the qualitative domain (Creswell and Miller Citation2000; Creswell Citation2003). Multiple informants served the purpose of capturing and respecting different perspectives, an important means of building a `dependable understanding´ of the phenomenon (Hirschman Citation1986, 246; Patton Citation2002; Woodside, Sood, and Miller Citation2008).
The research established credibility through a systematic approach to data collection, analysis and theory development. Documentation of the ´inquiry process´ through memoing established a clear chain of evidence (Creswell and Miller Citation2000, 128; Silverman Citation2015). Furthermore, we sought to give a just rendition of the educational narratives, ensuring the integrity of the analytic findings through thick rich description. Finally, the study applied an explicitly comparative approach, as is consistent with a case study research strategy (Yin Citation2009; Eisenhardt and Graebner Citation2007) involving within- and cross-case analysis.
Findings
The findings present a theory of MarCom education in developing nations, post-pandemic. Specifically, several multifaceted themes emerge that reveal the analogies between education in South Africa and India and tease out the nuances. Namely, augmentation, paradoxes, the `TikTok effect´, best practice, and symbiotic pedagogies. The findings reveal the importance of an informed strategic approach that is tailored to the unique needs of students in a specific country/context.
Augmentation
Technology was a powerful force for the augmentation of educators´ capabilities and the educational experience of students. The application of technology by educators in South Africa and India led to the optimization of temporal and physical resources, in turn allowing them to spend greater time `customizing learning programs for individual learners´ and supporting their journey.
Remote learning saves time and resources. For example, marking. Before Covid, we had to mark 400 or 500 papers manually. Now we set a multiple-choice question or online exam, marking a student’s work easier. It has brought us new ways of doing the same job for the students.
Technology also augmented the educational powers of educators through analytics. Analytics provided insight into the effectiveness of strategies and direction in designing programs that supported the achievement of core learning outcomes. Moreover, it enabled educators to better equip students for the workforce, through the integration of relevant technology which enhanced the students´ proficiency.
Nearly every element of human life has been changed by new technologies, including the methods used by businesses to promote their goods and services to customers. More radical technologies are developing alongside already well-known ones like the Internet, more powerful computers, mobile devices and applications, and social media. Therefore, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that businesses in almost every industry continue to continuously increase their technology spending to achieve diverse goals. When it comes to future of tech-mediated interactions and experiences in marketing communication education, it’s going be the next big thing in marketing education. Instead of text content, students will get hands on experience of theory. Conceptual understanding will be in much better and advanced way [sic].
Technology interaction helps students to become more technology savvy in terms of learning to utilise technology to their advantage, learn create better presentation using different tools as communication forms are being curtailed. Learning these things are more of constructive changes in student’s learning which will help them in future studies as well in their career.
In this way technology augmented the capabilities of educators, amplifying their temporal resources and enabling them to empower and equip students more effectively. Augmentation was only constrained by the level of knowledge educators possessed concerning technology.
Paradoxes
Technology was a paradoxical force in both countries. It concurrently engaged and disengaged, amplified, and constrained, and was accessible yet inaccessible due to inequities and a ‘digital divide’.
Engagement and disengagement
Technology heightened engagement to empower student development and superior learning outcomes. Technology strengthened all three facets of engagement in both developing nations: cognitive, behavioural, and affective.
Affective engagement encompassed interest, entertainment and belonging. Educators used technology to capture the interest and enhance the `entertainment value´ of classes through the incorporation of YouTube, Zoom, polls, and gamification.
I have found showing videos (ads, other relevant clips from TV shows, movies, etc.) and discussing them really helps in making the classes livelier. Use of Zoom polls (and linking them to class participation points) also helps in improving the student engagement.
Enjoyment evoked through technology, facilitated the emotional engagement of students. Technology also created a safe space for students, particularly those less vocal, to express themselves and their opinions, while creating an overall sense of belonging through WhatsApp groups and message chat boxes.
Cognitive engagement, which pertained to the comprehension of complex concepts, was heightened through technology. Technology enabled students to learn at their own pace, providing a framework for driven students to accelerate learning and a resource for the exploration of `new themes´.
Technology acts as an interactive enabler, making the students self-motivated as they interact with technology and thereby learn faster in the way and pace that they would like to learn. The reason for which technology is important is because of the level of experience that it would customise and provide to the end user.
Technology has helped me develop curriculums where students would not only learn from the classes but also have technology for their own pace of learning and comprehension.
Other technological means educators used to engage students cognitively included `problem solving´, the discussion of topical challenges via online platforms such as MS Teams, virtual reality, and simulations.
Inherently, technology can help in doing short quizzes within the class (e.g., using Zoom poll) to gauge students’ learning. But I don’t think it’s really integral to delivering the learning experience. Even in offline classes that I have taught this year, without polls, etc. I have been able to keep the engagement and interest high by incorporating some less-used pedagogies in my class (e.g., simulations and role-playing activities).
Educators enhanced behavioural engagement through interactivity, the stimulation of creativity and hands on demonstrations. For example, for digital MarCom, educators used Google Ads and Google Analytics to demonstrate `platform functionalities´ and initiate discussion regarding forms of communicating with potential customers. Other tools that facilitated interactivity included mobile phones, voice messages, chat boxes and canvas.
I ensured small situations in the concepts. I gave them virtual whiteboards and stickies to make representation of their ideas. These were made available to all the students. The students then remarked again once the session ended. They were made to share voice recordings on the topics assigned. Later video recordings helped them to see how confident they were when it came to individual story telling.
Greater engagement translated into superior learning outcomes including an `enriched understanding´ and an improved `standard´ of work´. Conversely, technology served to undermine all three aspects of engagement. Disengagement in both South Africa and India was a challenge for educators. Factors that educators identified as contributing to disengagement were `dilution´ of the learning experience, mounting distractions, boredom, and overload.
While it makes sense to have hi tech classrooms, it is important to manage the weaning attention span of students. Tech intermediated classes create more fatigue and inspire much less accountability and engagement in class, especially executive classrooms – in my experience.
It was a challenge for educators to discern when students had `switched off´ or the degree to which they `cognitively engaged with materials´. Disengagement was underpinned by the `TikTok effect´. The section that follows Accessibility and Inaccessibility´ elaborates on the `TikTok effect´.
Accessibility and inaccessibility
In both nations, technology served to amplify the geographic and temporal reach of educators. The educational experience was no longer restricted to a specific geographic place or time. Neither educators nor the learning experience were restricted to a physical classroom, a transition that was accelerated due to COVID-19 and normalised post pandemic. Technology offered greater flexibility for educators and their students alike.
Technology gives access- one can attend classes online from different geographies, timings etc this enables a bigger reach. Depending on the content and the person delivering the content online classes prove to be very beneficial for students across all subjects.
Technology has allowed learning to take place anywhere provided there is electricity and wifi available.
Technology amplified the reach of education and provided opportunities to engage experts from the field industry that was impossible prior to the pandemic.
The Covid period brought innovation as the students received access to international guest and industry guest lecturers who would not necessarily been accessible.
However, technology was a double-edged sword, amplifying the accessibility of education while heightening inequality through its inaccessibility. In South Africa, unlike India, access to and proficiency in technology were problematic. Demoded equipment, level of competence and connection stability compromised the education experience of students in South Africa.
I taught in India for about 10 years, and now 7–8 years in South Africa. Somehow Indian students are more technologically advanced than South Africa. That’s my first observation and the answer to your question about the future. Students accepted the reality that we live around technology - you cannot separate technology from teaching; previously (before Covid), our model was not firmly based on technology.
We can anticipate prolonged challenges in the South African context due to societal disparities in accessing technology, consequently marketing communication may be negatively affected.
Other universities abroad, you can be, you can easily be approached by a university in America to lecture something maybe on business perspective in Africa that will be interesting to them. But I think there are more challenges in South Africa because of the socio-economic landscape and South Africa is one of the most unequal countries in the world. And we still have many students that do not have access to, the basic facilities, like having a computer that works well - because that’s an issue.
The accessibility of education in India, sharpened the inequalities of technology in South Africa. The absence of a guiding framework and strong leadership post COVID-19 further attenuated these issues. In this way the issues confronted by South African and Indian educators were nuanced. South African educators lacked support while Indian educators were clearly confident with technology and its progressive application in an educational context. Consequently, perspectives of technology were considerably more polarized in South Africa, with educators expressing feelings of uncertainty to frustration.
The `TikTok effect´
For educators across both developing nations, the impact of social media on student cognitive, affective, and behavioural engagement was a prominent challenge. Defined here as a ‘TikTok effect’, the findings reveal the power of social media over students with real implications for the approach of educators. Students evidenced a dependency on social media that manifested itself in their proclivity to distraction. Further, evidence of the effect were students´ crippling attention span, inability to concentrate, passivity and expectations directly derived from their social media constructed reality. As one educator explains:
Becoming much more demanding and students are expecting “answers”, almost like a “tic toc” type of class where they want the “quick version”. This may mean that deep learning will not be achieved.
As the framework for their social reality, social media was dictating and informing the expectations of the educational experience. Some educators felt burdened by the necessity of creating an entertaining educational experience to achieve learning outcomes. Notwithstanding, students had a ghost like presence, where they sought to passively imbibe education without accepting their responsibility to actively engage in learning. A declining attention span coupled with an inability to communicate in face-to-face contexts, were further evidence of the effect at work in the educational contexts of South Africa and India:
However, proper body language in communications includes hand gestures to eye contact which seems to have lost during the pandemic times. Students are more conversing with screens than with the audience. Since they are back into classrooms things are changing.
The `TikTok effect´ represented an immediate challenge for educators in India and South Africa. Notwithstanding, educators in South Africa as well as India recognised that technology was central to practice post COVID-19.
Best practice
Educators from both nations identified a hybridized educational approach as best practice post pandemic. Technology was a valuable means of equipping students for industry, while face to face interaction `add value´ to the `learning experience´. This hybridized approach encompassed several principles. Namely innovation, seamlessness, and contemporary application.
Technological disruptions were not tolerated by students post COVID-19. Best practice required the seamless integration of technology into the course. Keeping course content and technology `up to date´ were also significant. Educators explained that it was important to focus on `real-world activities´ and applications ‘to effectively engage with students´ while also preparing them for a competitive employment market.
The courses are designed to provide an up-to-date, comprehensive understanding of the rapidly evolving world of marketing, where the impact of the Internet and data is deeply felt in all aspects of marketing. Issues pertaining to and springing from business practices are explored and discussed.
Post COVID-19 education transitioned from a product created by educators and consumed by students, to a co-created experience, where educators clearly recognised the importance of student input and participation in the achievement of successful learning outcomes.
It showed us that the more traditional lecturing that focuses on a one-way transfer of communication did not work well in the digital environment (Zoom fatigue etc.)
The learning environment is now co-created by the educator/lecturer and students, and this is largely due to students’ comfortability and expertise with tech gadgets.
Notwithstanding, educators from each developing nation faced unique challenges. Educators in India embraced a hybridized approach post COVID-19, integrating asynchronous and synchronous elements. They balanced in person classroom sessions with 24/7 access to instructional information online. Facilitators also encouraged in class `browsing´ and ´guided interaction/navigation with interfaces in the return face-to-face teaching. They perceived few challenges in the accelerating importance of technology, there principal concern was finding innovative and effective ways of engaging students. South African educators, in contrast, returned almost exclusively to a traditional face-to-face approach, even though they clearly identified a hybridized approach as the embodiment of best practice. They expressed concern about the integrity of examinations in an online environment and the measure of `support received by their institutions´.
Symbiotic pedagogies
Marketing educators in India and South Africa alike identified active and student-centred learning as pedagogies that were symbiotic with best practice post pandemic. These learning pedagogies were not dichotomous nor mutually exclusive. Instead, they were interrelated and compatible with post pandemic practice.
I don’t think that technology creates a dichotomy between these two. Both approaches are possible with technology-mediated teaching and learning.
Indeed, educators pragmatically shifted from one approach to the other to avail themselves of the strengths of each based on the needs of their students at a particular time. Student-centred learning gave students a sense of control, while active learning facilitated their acquisition of `skills required in the working world, particularly the need to solve problems´.
I think the outcomes of student-centred learning are that students tend to enjoy the process and possible learn a lot and active learning allows them to be more functional in the workplace in my opinion.
Notwithstanding, educators encouraged others to adopt flexibility rather than rigidity when it came to their pedagogical approach.
Discussion
The pandemic has catalysed dramatic shifts in educational practice. A reality that is reflected in the burgeoning literature that seeks to make sense of the impact of the pandemic on educators and students alike. From the findings, seven contributions emerge. We examine the implications of each in relation to the relevant literature.
First, we identify the agency of technology in cognitive, behavioural, and affective engagement. The extant literature considers the opportunity of digital education to promote an open curriculum and richer learning experiences (García-Morales, Garrido-Moreno, and Martín-Rojas Citation2021). We affirm the significance of technology in enriching MarCom education. However, we go further by identifying how marketing educators use technology to accommodate student neurodiversity and enhance engagement. Engagement was polysemous and technology was a mechanism engaging students with each of its dimensions. Educators sought to motivate students toward discovery by enhancing the entertainment value of lessons, leveraging YouTube, Zoom polls and gamification to heighten interest. Technology also permitted educators to create a safe and inclusive space which enhanced affective engagement. Educators leveraged technology to provide 24/7 access to instructional content, enabling foundational preparation prior to class and accelerated learning to cognitively engage driven students. Platforms including MS Teams and software such as zSpace (engaged the problem-solving faculty of students, (further contributing to strengthen cognitive engagement). Three-dimensional interactive software, simulations and platforms that facilitated discussion enhanced the interactivity of actively engaged students in the learning experience and enriched behavioural engagement. These three forms of engagement, together, translated into higher quality education and superior outcomes, thus, providing evidence of value of technology mediated interaction in MarCom education.
Second, we find technology to be paradoxical. Scholars have pointed to the challenges of the accelerated reinvention and digitization of educational delivery modes (Sánchez-Cruzado, Santiago Campión, and Sánchez-Compaña Citation2021; Núñez-Canal, de Obesso, and Alberto Pérez-Rivero Citation2022). We build on the extant literature by identifying engagement as being contemporaneously both amplified and undermined by technology. Several scholars note that a digital divide prevails that could severely hamper education equality, especially in developing nations. We confirm that access inequality is an issue and obstacle to the UN imperative of `leaving no one behind´. We offer nuanced insight into the impact of the digitization of education in two BRICS countries. South African educators noted a return almost exclusively to F2F teaching due to access inequalities. Although the inaccessibility of digital education in South Africa sharpened extant inequalities, in India, technology amplified the accessibility of MarCom. The anomaly between the two BRICS countries reveals the inherently paradoxical nature of technology and highlights the unique nuances that persist within BRICS countries. Thus, a one size fits all approach is neither preferable nor advisable. Educators in each country expressed distinct sentiments and faced unique challenges. In South Africa concern over technological inequities was compounded by an absence of leadership and digital infrastructure. Consequently, educators expressed sentiments that spanned frustration to concern regarding the future. Education had perhaps unsurprisingly returned almost entirely to a traditional F2F approach. In India, however, educators expressed confidence in and anticipation toward the future role of technology in education. These sentiments were reflective of an advanced digital infrastructure.
Third, we reveal how the pandemic has reshaped expectations around education. This shift was accelerated by the pandemic and informed by the `TikTok effect´ – creating significant challenges for MarCom educators. It charged educators with the expectation of entertainment `bites´ of education, while undermining student attention, contributing to excessive distraction and a state of passivity. Indeed, Ewing (Citation2009) has previously pointed to increasing attention fragmentation caused by technology and simultaneous media consumption within a MarCom context. We build on the extant literature by revealing how the expectations on educators have dramatically shifted, compounded, and accelerated by the pandemic. The findings reveal the ingenuity of educators, who flipped the script, recognizing the duplicitous power of technology to distract students and then harnessing it to engage students in their native space. Albeit, often in the case of South African educators, despite a lack of leadership support for digital innovation.
Fourth, we identify that technology added real value to the experience of MarCom educators. The extant literature addresses the impact of the pandemic on faculty, noting increasing workloads and interactivity, with negative repercussions for staff well-being (Taylor and Frechette Citation2022). The findings reveal a disjuncture in the experience of marketing educators prior to, during and after the pandemic. Although initial challenges with digital competence and the swift learning curve that the radical shift to emergency learning imposed (Treve Citation2021; Sánchez-Cruzado, Santiago Campión, and Sánchez-Compaña Citation2021), educators demonstrated agility, commendable adaptability, and technological proficiency post-pandemic. Indeed, the findings reveal that marketing faculty had overcome issues concerning their level of competence and drew on technology to augment their capabilities, optimising organisation, customising the learning experience, obtaining analytic insight, and refining their approach to meet emergent needs. They evidenced mental agility and technical flexibility enabling a swift bounce back toward teaching excellence.
Fifth, we identify several principles for best practice in MarCom education, post-pandemic. The quality of education during the pandemic has attracted substantial interest. Radical market changes and disruptions to consumer behavior have led scholars to question the relevance of past education practices. In response to calls for a new order of marketing communication education we identify several principles going forward. Namely a hybridized approach that integrates innovative forms of technology and fluidly shifts between digital and non-digital elements seamlessly to co-create an empowering and inclusive learning experience. A hybrid approaches moves beyond the blending of two extant approaches to the creation of an entirely new approach. An educational experience 2.0 which innovatively engage and expertly equips students for a competitive workforce that supports UN objectives.
Sixth, technology was elemental to equipping students for post pandemic employment. Dramatic changes in job creation and recruitment strategies, propelled by digitization, must be reflected in marketing education (Telli and Aydin Citation2021). We contribute to the extant literature by identifying the central role of technology in equipping students for a post pandemic employment context. Certain aspects of MarCom could only be taught effectively through the application of and interaction with technology. The strategic incorporation of technology into the curriculum accoutered students with superior understanding of theory that was grounded in practical experience, positioning them as a valuable commodity in competitive employment market.
Finally, we identify several pedagogies that advance post pandemic practice. Meshram, Paladino, and Cotronei-Baird (Citation2022) show how pedagogic disruption can transform student learning and suggest the development of curriculum and pedagogic strategies to support the shift toward student independence. Gala, Woodroof, and Drehmer (Citation2022) echo the need for pedagogic development and the application of creative tactics in MarCom. The findings suggest that the integration and pragmatic application of the two pedagogies, student-centered and active learning, was consonant with best practice following the pandemic. Educators encouraged others toward agility, appropriating one of the two pedagogies depending on student aptitude and the learning objectives. Thus, suggesting that agility in pedagogic development and application are significant post-pandemic to advancing marketing educational practices. It is important to note that five out of the six contributions pertain to the role of technology in education. Therefore, we propose that the greatest post pandemic influence on education is technology.
Limitations and future research
As with all methods, ours is not without its limitations. In accordance with the exploratory nature of the study we focused on depth of insight rather than breadth. More cases require study to assure the veracity of our explanatory theory of post-pandemic practice. Moreover, it could be valuable for future research to compare the findings with other BRICS member countries and non-member ‘developing’ countries.
The concept of symbiotic pedagogies offers one route to understand processes of active and student-centred learning in the post-pandemic MarCom classroom in South Africa and India. But the concept’s tendency towards psychological engagement suggests it does not entirely allow for understanding all aspects of social learning in the post-pandemic MarCom classroom. Therefore, it is important to consider work that combines ideas on the social and cultural shaping of active learning, such as the impact of the political economy and national higher education policy settings underpinning school- and institution-based considerations. How may the paradoxes of technology outlined earlier be understood in the light of varying national education policy settings, both in South Africa and India, that shape students’ levels of technological agility and fluency in a cost-imperative world?
Moreover, if technology was elemental to equipping students for post-pandemic employment, we think that this should be a starting point for work that discerns how the incorporation of technology – and how the application of creative tactics – into the marketing communication curriculum enabled students and faculty to develop a greater appreciation and understanding of marketing theory by co-creating pedagogical value. This is vital if we are to understand which components of MarCom theory are best understood through digitized means – which components, if any, are better understood through more traditional pedagogical routes. Thus, future research should examine the role of technology in facilitating student collaboration, since teamwork is essential in professional marketing communication practice.
Finally, and relatedly, further work on ‘attention fragmentation’, the `TikTok effect´, and on ‘edutainment’ is warranted here. The pandemic highlighted the significant expectations placed on educators in terms of building engagement using technology. A serious question to explore here involves the extent to which the duplicitous power of technology was deployed as a mere pedagogical tactic in the face of the transition to emergency teaching – or whether educators who initially ‘flipped the script’ are employing technology as a means through which to engage students in their native learning environment.
Conclusions
In conclusion, as the dust settles somewhat a few lines of clear sight emerge. If this study, like others in this special issue, sought to establish how students learnt about marketing during the pandemic and the ways that marketing communication pedagogy rapidly alerted us to the new online reality, then (like the pandemic itself) the impacts are uneven. Technology has agentic capacity in the classroom and adds real value to the experience and capacity of MarCom educators. The hybridized, best-practice approach we discern innovatively equips students with the skills to engage with a competitive workforce framed through a commitment to the UN SDGs.
Still, our study has broad pedagogical implications that require greater deliberation: it brings forth the important pedagogical relevance of active and student-centred learning styles. The paradoxical role of tech-mediated learning should be more fully explored by marketing educators as both a central enabler of and stymie to learning from one context to another. Indeed, this enabling role to the well-being of students and educators is valuable and needs to be more clearly acknowledged. Our findings can also be interesting for program leaders and administrators, for the renewal of learning and engagement systems and school-related access and equity policies. For instance, technology amplified the reach of education and provided opportunities to engage experts in ways not considered possible before the pandemic, and its role in management schools could be officially recognized in MarCom education and other learning programs.
In closing, our work highlights the concept of symbiotic pedagogies as an important extension to understanding MarCom education as a tech-mediated practice. Our findings reveal various layers and agentic acts of educator-student co-creative learning that illustrates the importance of digitalization for maintaining student engagement and participation over time. Equipped with an understanding of symbiotic classroom pedagogies, MarCom educators, program leaders, and school administrators can plan for best-practice services and solutions that consider the importance of tech-mediated relationships for marketing education and management school classrooms at large.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Holly B. Cooper
Holly B. Cooper is a research fellow at Deakin University, Australia. Her research interests include consumer psychology, brand heritage and narrative inquiry. She has published in the Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Psychology & Marketing, the European Journal of Marketing and the Journal of Marketing Communications. She completed her PhD at Griffith University.
Michael T. Ewing
Michael T. Ewing is Executive Dean of the Faculty of Business, Law & Arts at Southern Cross University. He received his doctorate from the University of Pretoria. His research interests include marketing communications, the marketing-technology interface and brand management. He has published in the Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Information Systems Research, the International Journal of Research in Marketing and Social Science & Medicine (amongst others).
Laknath Jayasinghe
Laknath Jayasinghe is Professor of Marketing at O. P. Jindal Global University, India. He received his PhD in consumer anthropology from the University of Melbourne, and much of his research applies a sociocultural lens to examine brand and advertising engagement. His work has been published in the Journal of Consumer Research, Marketing Theory, the Australasian Marketing Journal, and other outlets.
Ilse Struweg
Ilse Struweg is an Associate Professor in the Department of Marketing Management at the University of Johannesburg. She received her PhD from the University of Pretoria. Her research interests include consumer behaviour, IMC and brand management. She has published in Public Relations Review, European Business Review, Lecture Notes in Computer Science and Prism (among others).
Marius Wait
Marius Wait is an Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of Marketing at the University of Johannesburg. His research interest span marketing and sales education and his work has been published in Acta Commercii, Africa Education Review, the South African Journal of Higher Education, and the Australian Journal of Environmental Education. His PhD is from the University of Johannesburg.
Notes
1. Approval no. of project: 2022SCiiS041. Dated approved: 29 August 2022.
References
- Ackerman, D. S., and B. L. Gross. 2021. “Synchronous Online Discussion Board as a Primary Mode of Delivery Marketing Education: Responding to the COVID-19 Pandemic and Beyond.” Marketing Education Review 31 (4): 284–293.
- Ainsworth, Peter, and Tom McKenzie. 2020. “On the Benefits of Risk‐sharing for Post‐covid Higher Education in the United Kingdom.” Economic Affairs 40 (3): 446–453. doi:10.1111/ecaf.12433.
- Akram, Vaseem. 2022. “Causality Between Access to Electricity and Education: Evidence from BRICS Countries.” Energy Research Letters 3 (2): 1–5. doi:10.46557/001c.32597.
- Altbach, Philip G, and Roberta Malee Bassett. 2014. “Nix the BRICs—At Least for the Higher Education Debate.” International Higher Education 77 (77): 2–5. doi:10.6017/ihe.2014.77.5671.
- Ameen, Kanwal. 2021. “COVID-19 Pandemic and Role of Libraries.” Library Management 42 (4/5): 302–304. doi:10.1108/LM-01-2021-0008.
- Belli, L. 2021. “BRICS Countries to Build Digital Sovereignty. “In Belli, L. (eds).“ CyberBRICS 271–280. Cham: Springer.
- Bhagat, Sarbottam, and Dan J Kim. 2020. “Higher Education Amidst COVID-19: Challenges and Silver Lining.” Information Systems Management 37 (4): 366–371. doi:10.1080/10580530.2020.1824040.
- Braun, Virginia, and Victoria Clarke. 2006. “Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology.” Qualitative Research in Psychology 3 (2): 77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
- Butt, Sameera, Asif Mahmood, Saima Saleem, and F. Papa. 2022. “The Role of Institutional Factors and Cognitive Absorption on students’ Satisfaction and Performance in Online Learning During COVID 19.” PloS One 17 (6): e0269609. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0269609.
- Carter, Jason Lee. 2021. “Digital Marketing Education Brand Management for Organizational Strategizing in the Present-& Post-Covid-19 Era.” South Asian Journal of Marketing & Management Research 11 (11): 64–75. doi:10.5958/2249-877X.2021.00100.4.
- Chandy, Rajesh K, Gita Venkataramani Johar, Christine Moorman, and John H Roberts. 2021. “Better Marketing for a Better World.” Journal of Marketing 85 (3): 1–9. doi:10.1177/00222429211003690.
- Chang, Victor, Yian Chen, and Chang Xiong. 2018. “Dynamic Interaction Between Higher Education and Economic Progress: A Comparative Analysis of BRICS Countries.” Information Discovery and Delivery 46 (4): 225–238. doi:10.1108/IDD-07-2018-0023.
- Chien‐yuan, Su, and Yuqing Guo. 2021. “Factors Impacting University students’ Online Learning Experiences During the COVID‐19 Epidemic.” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 37 (6): 1578–1590. doi:10.1111/jcal.12555.
- Creswell, John W. 2003. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, Method Approaches. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
- Creswell, John W, and Dana L Miller. 2000. “Determining Validity in Qualitative Inquiry.” Theory into Practice 39 (3): 124–130. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2.
- Cucinotta, Domenico, and Maurizio Vanelli. 2020. “WHO Declares COVID-19 a Pandemic.” Acta Bio Medica: Atenei Parmensis 91 (1): 157.
- Denzin, Norman K, and Yvonna S Lincoln. 2011. The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. 4 ed. London: Sage Publications.
- Eisenhardt, Kathleen M. 1989. “Building Theories from Case Study Research.” Academy of Management Review 14 (4): 532–550. doi:10.2307/258557.
- Eisenhardt, Kathleen M. 1991. “Better Stories and Better Constructs: The Case for Rigor and Comparative Logic.” Academy of Management Review 16 (3): 620–627. doi:10.2307/258921.
- Eisenhardt, Kathleen M, and Melissa E Graebner. 2007. “Theory Building from Cases: Opportunities and Challenges.” Academy of Management Journal 50 (1): 25–32. doi:10.5465/amj.2007.24160888.
- Ewing, Michael T. 2009. “Integrated Marketing Communications Measurement and Evaluation.” Journal of Marketing Communications 15 (2–3): 103–117. doi:10.1080/13527260902757514.
- Flaherty, Tina, Christine Domegan, and Mihir Anand. 2021. “The Use of Digital Technologies in Social Marketing: A Systematic Review.” Journal of Social Marketing 11 (4): 378–405. doi:10.1108/JSOCM-01-2021-0022.
- Gadamer, Hans-Georg. 2008. Philosophical Hermeneutics. Berkley: University of California Press.
- Gala, Prachi, Parker Woodroof, and Charles Drehmer. 2022. “Going the Extra Mile: Teaching Innovations During Covid Times.” Marketing Education Review 32 (2): 1–4. doi:10.1080/10528008.2022.2063745.
- García-Morales, Víctor J, Aurora Garrido-Moreno, and Rodrigo Martín-Rojas. 2021. “The Transformation of Higher Education After the COVID Disruption: Emerging Challenges in an Online Learning Scenario.” Frontiers in Psychology 12: 616059. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.616059.
- Greenland, Steven, Muhammad Saleem, Roopali Misra, and Bhanu Bhatia. 2021. “Measuring COVID-19’s Impact on International HE Students and Intervention Satisfaction: Implications for Marketing Theory and Practice.” Journal of Marketing for Higher Education 1–28. doi:10.1080/08841241.2021.1949660.
- Gupta, Aditya, and Chiharu Ishida. 2022. “Navigating the New Normal: An SOR Perspective on Student Experiences of Environmental, Psychological, and Behavioral Changes During the COVID-19 Pandemic.” Journal of Marketing Education 44 (2): 166–190. doi:10.1177/02734753211065124.
- Harris, Fiona. 2022. “Social Marketing: Ready to Help Revolutionise Marketing Education.” Journal of Social Marketing 12 (3): 354–370. doi:10.1108/JSOCM-07-2021-0154.
- Hirschman, Elizabeth C. 1986. “Humanistic Inquiry in Marketing Research: Philosophy, Method, and Criteria.” Journal of Marketing Research 23 (3): 237–249. doi:10.1177/002224378602300304.
- Hodges, Charles, Stephanie Moore, Barb Lockee, Torrey Trust, and Aaron Bond. 2020. “The Difference Between Emergency Remote Teaching and Online Learning. Educause.” EDUCAUSE Review, Boulder. Accessed 27 March. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emergency-remote-teaching-and-online-learning.
- Johns, Gary. 2001. “In Praise of Context.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 22 (1): 31–42. doi:10.1002/job.80.
- Kanyumba, Blessing, and Nondumiso Shabangu. 2021. “The Effect of the COVID‑19 Pandemic on Students and the Living and Learning Spaces at a South African University.” Journal of Student Affairs in Africa 9 (1): 93–105. doi:10.24085/jsaa.v9i1.1430.
- Karine, HAJI. 2021. “E-Commerce Development in Rural and Remote Areas of BRICS Countries.” Journal of Integrative Agriculture 20 (4): 979–997. doi:10.1016/S2095-3119(20)63451-7.
- Katoch, Madhur. 2021. “Psycho-Social Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on University Students of Himachal Pradesh.” International Journal of Social Science 10 (1): 37–44. doi:10.46852/2249-6637.01.2021.5.
- Meshram, Kanika, Angela Paladino, and Valeria S Cotronei-Baird. 2022. “Don’t Waste a Crisis: COVID-19 and Marketing Students’ Self-Regulated Learning in the Online Environment.” Journal of Marketing Education 44 (2): 285–307. doi:10.1177/02734753211070561.
- Mishra, Lokanath, Tushar Gupta, and Abha Shree. 2020. “Online Teaching-Learning in Higher Education During Lockdown Period of COVID-19 Pandemic.” International Journal of Educational Research Open 1: 100012–100020. doi:10.1016/j.ijedro.2020.100012.
- Moodley, Dianna. 2022. “Post Covid-19: The New (Ab) Normal in South African Higher Education–Challenges with Emergency Remote Learning.” African Journal of Inter/Multidisciplinary Studies 4 (1): 112–125. doi:10.51415/ajims.v4i1.1008.
- Moorhouse, Benjamin Luke, and Lucas Kohnke. 2021. “Thriving or Surviving Emergency Remote Teaching Necessitated by COVID-19: University teachers’ Perspectives.” The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher 30 (3): 279–287. doi:10.1007/s40299-021-00567-9.
- Nicklin, Laura Louise, Luke Wilsdon, Darren Chadwick, Laura Rhoden, David Ormerod, Deborah Allen, Gemma Witton, and Joanne Lloyd. 2022. “Accelerated HE Digitalisation: Exploring Staff and Student Experiences of the COVID-19 Rapid Online-Learning Transfer.” Education and Information Technologies 27 (6): 7653–7678. doi:10.1007/s10639-022-10899-8.
- Núñez-Canal, Margarita, Mª de las Mercedes de Obesso, and Carlos Alberto Pérez-Rivero. 2022. “New Challenges in Higher Education: A Study of the Digital Competence of Educators in Covid Times.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 174: 121270–121283. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121270.
- Oginni, Yemi, Emmanuel Mogaji, and Nguyen Phong Nguyen. 2022. “Reimagining the Place of Physical Buildings in Higher Education in Developing Countries in a Post-COVID-19 Era. “In Mogaji, E., Varsha, J., Maringe, F., Hinson, E. (eds).“ Re-Imagining Educational Futures in Developing Countries, 283–305. Cham: Springer.
- Oliveira, Gabriella, Jorge Grenha Teixeira, Ana Torres, and Carla Morais. 2021. “An Exploratory Study on the Emergency Remote Education Experience of Higher Education Students and Teachers During the COVID‐19 Pandemic.” British Journal of Educational Technology 52 (4): 1357–1376. doi:10.1111/bjet.13112.
- Ollerenshaw, Jo Anne, and John W Creswell. 2002. “Narrative Research: A Comparison of Two Restorying Data Analysis Approaches.” Qualitative Inquiry 8 (3): 329–347. doi:10.1177/10778004008003008.
- Patton, Michael Quinn. 2002. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. 3 ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
- Rana, Sudhir, Arpan Anand, Sanjeev Prashar, and Moon Moon Haque. 2020. “A Perspective on the Positioning of Indian Business Schools Post COVID-19 Pandemic.” International Journal of Emerging Markets 17 (2): 353–367. doi:10.1108/IJOEM-04-2020-0415.
- Rippé, C. B., S. Yurova Weisfeld-Spolter, Y. Kemp, and A. 2021. “Pandemic Pedagogy for the New Normal: Fostering Perceived Control During COVID-19.” Journal of Marketing Education 43 (2): 260–276.
- Ronkainen, Noora J, Anna Kavoura, and Tatiana V Ryba. 2016. “A Meta-Study of Athletic Identity Research in Sport Psychology: Current Status and Future Directions.” International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology 9 (1): 45–64. doi:10.1080/1750984X.2015.1096414.
- Salmons, Janet. 2014. Qualitative Online Interviews: Strategies, Design, and Skills. Second ed. London: Sage Publications.
- Sánchez-Cruzado, C., R. Santiago Campión, and MT. Sánchez-Compaña. 2021. “Teacher Digital Literacy: The Indisputable Challenge After COVID-19.” Sustainability 13 (4): 1858–1887. doi:10.3390/su13041858.
- Schreiber, Birgit, Thierry M Luescher, Brett Perozzii, and Lisa Bardill Moscaritolo. 2021. “Student Affairs and Services During Covid‑19 in Africa: Mitigating the Pandemic’s Impact on Student Success.” Journal of Student Affairs in Africa 9 (1): 1–21. doi:10.24085/jsaa.v9i1.1425.
- Schwartzman, Simon, Rómulo Pinheiro, and Pundy Pillay (eds). 2015. “The Rise of the BRICS and Higher Education Dynamics.” In Higher Education in the BRICS Countries, 1–10. Dordrecht: Springer.
- Shankar, Avi, Richard Elliott, and James A Fitchett. 2009. “Identity, Consumption and Narratives of Socialization.” Marketing Theory 9 (1): 75–94. doi:10.1177/1470593108100062.
- Shankar, Avi, and Christina Goulding. 2001. “Interpretive Consumer Research: Two More Contributions to Theory and Practice.” Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal 4 (1): 7–16. doi:10.1108/13522750110364523.
- Silverman, David. 2013. Doing Qualitative Research: A Practical Handbook. 4 ed. London: Sage Publications.
- Silverman, David. 2015. Interpreting qualitative data. 5 ed. London: Sage Publications.
- Silverman, David (eds). 2016. “ In Qualitative Research: Theory, method and Practice.“ London: Sage Publications 450.
- Smith, Brett, and Kerry R McGannon. 2017. “Developing Rigor in Qualitative Research: Problems and Opportunities Within Sport and Exercise Psychology.” International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology 11 (1): 1–21. doi:10.1080/1750984X.2017.1317357.
- Sobaih, Abu Elnasr E, Ahmed M Hasanein, and Ahmed E Abu Elnasr. 2020. “Responses to COVID-19 in Higher Education: Social Media Usage for Sustaining Formal Academic Communication in Developing Countries.” Sustainability 12 (16): 6520. doi:10.3390/su12166520.
- Spais, George, and Pallab Paul. 2021. “A Crisis Management Model for Marketing Education: Reflections on Marketing Education System’s Transformation in View of the COVID-19 Crisis.” Marketing Education Review 31 (4): 322–339. doi:10.1080/10528008.2021.1951120.
- Stefano, Cesco, Vincenzo Zara, Alberto F De Toni, Paolo Lugli, Giovanni Betta, Alexander CO Evans, and Guido Orzes. 2021. “Higher Education in the First Year of COVID-19: Thoughts and Perspectives for the Future.” International Journal of Higher Education 10 (3): 285–294. doi:10.5430/ijhe.v10n3p285.
- Stern, Barbara B, Craig J Thompson, and Eric J Arnould. 1998. “Narrative Analysis of a Marketing Relationship: The Consumer’s Perspective.” Psychology & Marketing 15 (3): 195–214. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1520-6793(199805)15:3<195:AID-MAR1>3.0.CO;2-5.
- Švec, Václav, and Richard Selby. 2019. “Encourage Them to Learn: Case Study of Fictitious Product and Virtual Market in Marketing Communications Degree Course.” Journal on Efficiency and Responsibility in Education and Science 12 (3): 66–74. doi:10.7160/eriesj.2019.120301.
- Tamminen, Katherine A, and Erica V Bennett. 2017. “No Emotion is an Island: An Overview of Theoretical Perspectives and Narrative Research on Emotions in Sport and Physical Activity.” Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health 9 (2): 183–199. doi:10.1080/2159676X.2016.1254109.
- Taylor, David G, and Michael Frechette. 2022. “The Impact of Workload, Productivity, and Social Support on Burnout Among Marketing Faculty During the COVID-19 Pandemic.” Journal of Marketing Education 44 (2): 134–148. doi:10.1177/02734753221074284.
- Telli, Sahure Gonca, and Samet Aydin. 2021. “Digitalization of Marketing Education: New Approaches for Universities in the Post-Covid-19 Era.” Journal of University Research 4 (1): 61–74. doi:10.32329/uad.878216.
- Tomczyk, Łukasz, and Christopher Walker. 2021. “The Emergency (Crisis) E-Learning as a Challenge for Teachers in Poland.” Education and Information Technologies 26 (6): 6847–6877. doi:10.1007/s10639-021-10539-7.
- Toquero, Cathy Mae. 2020. “Emergency Remote Teaching Amid COVID-19: The Turning Point.” Asian Journal of Distance Education 15 (1): 185–188.
- Treve, Mark. 2021. “What COVID-19 Has Introduced into Education: Challenges Facing Higher Education Institutions (HEIs).” Higher Education Pedagogies 6 (1): 212–227. doi:10.1080/23752696.2021.1951616.
- UN. 2022. “Policy Brief: Education During COVID-19 and Beyond.” Accessed 22 October. https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2020/08/sg_policy_brief_covid-19_and_education_august_2020.pdf
- Walsh, Barbara, Eleanor M Whittaker, Colum Cronin, and Amy E Whitehead. 2018. “‘Net Mums’: A Narrative Account of participants’ Experiences Within a Netball Intervention.” Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health 26 (2): 1–16.
- Woldegiorgis, Emnet Tadesse. 2022. “Mitigating the Digital Divide in the South African Higher Education System in the Face of the COVID-19 Pandemic.” Perspectives in Education 40 (3): 197–211. doi:10.18820/2519593X/pie.v40.i3.13.
- Woodside, Arch G, Suresh Sood, and Kenneth E Miller. 2008. “When Consumers and Brands Talk: Storytelling Theory and Research in Psychology and Marketing.” Psychology & Marketing 25 (2): 97–145. doi:10.1002/mar.20203.
- Yin, Robert K. 2009. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Vol. 5. Thousand Oaks: Sage.