Skip to main content

Trond Bergestuen

Title: Clinical Assistant Professor

Department: Marketing

College: College of Business

Curriculum Vitae

Curriculum Vitae Link

Education

  • PhD, University of North Texas, 2020
    Major: Business
    Specialization: Marketing
    Dissertation: Insights into the Complex Relationship between Independent Manufacturers' Representatives and Their Principals
  • MBA, Cornell Universtiy, 1998
    Major: Marketing
  • MS, Norwegian School of Economics, 1992
    Major: Finance and Internationalization

Current Scheduled Teaching

MKTG 4280.407Global Marketing Issues and PracticeSummer 5W2 2026
MKTG 4280.002Global Marketing Issues and PracticeSpring 2026 Syllabus
MKTG 4520.001Marketing Channels and Strategic PartnershipsSpring 2026 Syllabus
MKTG 4520.407Marketing Channels and Strategic PartnershipsSpring 2026 Syllabus
Texas Education Code 51.974 (HB 2504) requires each institution of higher education to make available to the public, a syllabus for undergraduate lecture courses offered for credit by the institution.

Previous Scheduled Teaching

MKTG 4280.002Global Marketing Issues and PracticeSpring 2026 Syllabus
MKTG 4520.001Marketing Channels and Strategic PartnershipsSpring 2026 Syllabus
MKTG 4520.407Marketing Channels and Strategic PartnershipsSpring 2026 Syllabus
MKTG 4280.003Global Marketing Issues and PracticeFall 2025 Syllabus SPOT
MKTG 4330.005Strategic Brand ManagementFall 2025 Syllabus SPOT
MKTG 4520.007Marketing Channels and Strategic PartnershipsSummer 5W2 2020 Syllabus SPOT
MKTG 4890.501Applied Marketing ProblemsSpring 2020 Syllabus
MKTG 4520.007Marketing Channels and Strategic PartnershipsFall 2019 Syllabus SPOT
MKTG 4890.001Applied Marketing ProblemsSummer 5W2 2019 Syllabus SPOT
Texas Education Code 51.974 (HB 2504) requires each institution of higher education to make available to the public, a syllabus for undergraduate lecture courses offered for credit by the institution.

Published Intellectual Contributions

    Book Chapter

  • Wittink, D.R., Bergestuen, T. (2001). Forecasting with Conjoint Analysis. International Series in Operations Research & Management Science. 147-167. Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-306-47630-3_8

    • Journal Article

  • Thompson, K., Strutton, D., Mims, T.C., Bergestuen, T. (2022). The impact of sales controls on manufacturers’ agents’ tactical decisions: the importance of inter-organizational climate. Other. 37 (6) 1222-1240. Emerald. https://doi.org/10.1108/jbim-12-2020-0565
  • Bergestuen, T., Thompson, K.N., Strutton, H.D. (2022). Principal-independent manufacturers' representative relationships: Review, synthesis, directions for future research. Industrial Marketing Management. 102 (April 2022) 421-437.
  • Bergestuen, T., Thompson, K.N., Strutton, H.D. (2021). Dual distribution systems: Investigating their effects on independent manufacturers' representatives' perceptions of manufacturers. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management. 42 (1) 68-82.
,
Overall
Summative Rating		 Challenge and
Engagement Index		 Response Rate

out of 5
out of 7		 %
of
students responded
  • Overall Summative Rating (median):
    This rating represents the combined responses of students to the four global summative items and is presented to provide an overall index of the class’s quality. Overall summative statements include the following (response options include a Likert scale ranging from 5 = Excellent, 3 = Good, and 1= Very poor):
    • The course as a whole was
    • The course content was
    • The instructor’s contribution to the course was
    • The instructor’s effectiveness in teaching the subject matter was
  • Challenge and Engagement Index:
    This rating combines student responses to several SPOT items relating to how academically challenging students found the course to be and how engaged they were. Challenge and Engagement Index items include the following (response options include a Likert scale ranging from 7 = Much higher, 4 = Average, and 1 = Much lower):
    • Do you expect your grade in this course to be
    • The intellectual challenge presented was
    • The amount of effort you put into this course was
    • The amount of effort to succeed in this course was
    • Your involvement in course (doing assignments, attending classes, etc.) was
CLOSE