Comments on: the trouble with theory (EPIC ethnography III)

By: doug barker

doug barker — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 15:06:40 +0000

I was a student of Antos and a one-time professor of his son, Michael.
They are both outstanding people and scholars.

By: Donna

Donna — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 22:42:14 +0000

Hello,
My daughters are the grandaughters of Antos Rancurello, of the University of Dayton, I am not sure if you were speaking of the same man, but I would love for them to know who he was. I am fascinated, to know him, even though I married into the family, he is my daughters heritage. And I enjoyed your writings, thank you!

By: Grant

Grant — Tue, 03 Oct 2006 12:31:52 +0000

Tom, well said, sir, every theory another flash light for our trek through the marketing darkness (though I couldnt help notice you avoiding metaphors as banal as this one). Thanks, Grant

Natasha, great to meet you in Portland, and, yes, marketing as something theory driven, and multiple theory driven, instead of this serial big idea approach (blue oceans!) we are now inclined to take. Thanks, Grant

Steve, I believe with Bateson that our intellectual “instincts” are ideas first carefully chosen and mastered and then thoroughly automated, the faster and more creatively may we call them from their lair. And yes, academics scorn us for our theortically versatility, but then I believe they smuggle this in to practice and then conceal it after the fact. Best, Grant

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 02 Oct 2006 15:27:59 +0000

the trouble with theory

“Theoretical loyalty is a terrible idea not least because we are willing away all the other insights that promiscuity make available. Theoretical loyalty, that’s precisely the sort of thing that is likely to appeal to academics for whom tribal loyalty …

By: steve

steve — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 19:33:53 +0000

Of course, the question becomes which club to take out of the bag (I don’t golf, but it just sounded hard-headed and businessy). Is it instinct, or can the choice be made systematic? And if the latter, isn’t there a kind of meta-theory being proposed that links together the underlying theories?

I think most applied work in any field (e.g. engineering or strategy or law) requires a degree of theoretical pluralism because no field has a single over-arching framework that can solve (as opposed to merely rationalize) the problems it faces. In strategy, you do some industry analysis (say Porter’s five forces), you do some positioning analysis, some game theory might infiltrate, some organizational sociology, etc. I should point out that this pluralism and pragmatism is exactly why applied work receives little academic or intellectual respect.

By: Natasha

Natasha — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 13:51:30 +0000

The idea that one can pull from a plethora of theoretical possibilities to best inform actionable recommendations for our marketing clients is encouraging.

However, I guess this requires us to really be masters of our art then. Cool!

By: Tom Guarriello

Tom Guarriello — Thu, 28 Sep 2006 22:29:07 +0000

My mentor, Antos Rancurello, was brilliant (would that more of it would have rubbed off.) His speciality was the history of ideas. One of his PhDs was in philosophy, the other, in psychology. As an undergraduate, he taught a course I was fortunate to take entitled, “theories of personality.”

What a revelation! So many insights. The germane one: every personality theory (which is, after all, a theory of all human life, if you think about it) contains a kernel of truth. Each illuminates a corner of the reality of human existence, which it then totalized to be ALL of the reality of human existence. Do we symbolically relive the past? You bet. Freud had that one down pat. Is that all we do? Um, no, I don’t think so. Are we moved by reinforcement schedules of which we are totally unaware. Undoubtedly. With apologies to Peggy Lee, is that all there is? Nope.

So, I learned then that theories map segments of the territory, which zealots confuse with the whole enchilda. They’re helpful, correct, and incomplete.

And, for the record, anyone who accuses you of being anti-intellectual is someone from whom you should retreat, post haste!