Publications Database

Welcome to the new Schulich Peer-Reviewed Publication Database!

The database is currently in beta-testing and will be updated with more features as time goes on. In the meantime, stakeholders are free to explore our faculty’s numerous works. The left-hand panel affords the ability to search by the following:

  • Faculty Member’s Name;
  • Area of Expertise;
  • Whether the Publication is Open-Access (free for public download);
  • Journal Name; and
  • Date Range.

At present, the database covers publications from 2012 to 2020, but will extend further back in the future. In addition to listing publications, the database includes two types of impact metrics: Altmetrics and Plum. The database will be updated annually with most recent publications from our faculty.

If you have any questions or input, please don’t hesitate to get in touch.


Search Results

Belk, R., Humayun, M. and Gopaldis, A. (2020). "Artificial Life", Journal of Macromarketing, 40(2), 221-236.

Open Access Download

Abstract In this article, we explore how the history and myths about Artificial Life (AL) inform the pursuit and reception of contemporary AL technologies. First, we show that long before the contemporary fields of robotics and genomics, ancient civilizations attempted to create AL in the magical and religious pursuits of automata and alchemy. Next, we explore four persistent cultural myths surrounding AL—namely, those of Pygmalion, Golem, Frankenstein, and Metropolis. These myths offer several insights into why humanity is both fascinated with and fearful of AL. Thereafter, we distinguish contemporary approaches to AL, including biochemical or “wet” approaches (e.g., artificial organs), electromechanical or “hard” approaches (e.g., robot companions), and software-based or “soft” approaches (e.g., digital voice assistants). We also outline an emerging approach to AL that combines all three of the preceding approaches in pursuit of “transhumanism.” We then map out how the four historical myths surrounding AL shape modern society’s reception of the four contemporary AL pursuits. Doing so reveals the enduring human fears that must be addressed through careful development of ethical guidelines for public policy that ensure human safety, dignity, and morality. We end with two sets of questions for future research: one supportive of AL and one more skeptical and cautious.

Belk, R. and Kniazeva, M. (2018). "The Morphing Anthropomorphism: An Update", Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science, 28(3), 239-247.

Open Access Download

Abstract This is an update of a 2010 paper we published on anthropomorphic consumer perception of brands and marketer attempts to humanize brands through packaging. Since that time a great deal of academic and business attention to the topic of anthropomorphism has resulted in the related work on brand mascots, brand personality, marketplace mythologies, and anthropomorphism in product design and advertising. In addition, new arenas of anthropomorphism have emerged with developments in projective research methods, digital avatars, robot design, digital self-presentation, and conversational digital assistants like Amazon’s Alexa and Apple’s Siri. Such novel directions have prompted new research questions and further studies. This paper offers a brief update of the evolving issues in the co-creation of anthropomorphic objects and brand interpretations by consumers, designers, roboticists, engineers, and marketers.

Belk, R. (2016). "Comprendre le Robot: Commentaires sur Goudey et Bonnin (“Understanding the Robot: Comments on Goudey and Bonnin”)", Recherche et Applications en Marketing, 31(4), 89-97.

View Paper

Abstract Goudey and Bonnin provide an important demonstration of our willingness to accept robots regardless of the degree to which they look like us. This comment seeks to expand their insights in two ways. First, by broadening our conception of what constitutes a robot, I argue that we have already accepted many non-humanoid robots, and that even robotic entities without a visual presence can be compelling and engaging. Second, I suggest expanding the original paper’s psychological treatment of category ambiguity through the anthropological treatment of Mary Douglas. Douglas suggests that category ambiguity is abhorrent because things perceived to transgress categorical boundaries challenge our cultural beliefs and social order. In the case of robots, the beliefs that are challenged are our basic understandings of what makes humans unique and privileged in the world. As machines grow more and more capable, by some accounts they threaten to eclipse and even supplant the human race. I identify several behavioral and ethical research issues that are imperative if we are to deal with and prepare for such possibilities.