_________________________________
Did you know that over 94% of personal computers have hidden corrupt dangerous files with over 150 hidden errors and bugs on them?

I think what Zuckerman is trying to get lies in the utility of the theory. How many theories out there are actually useful for explaining real world situations? I have read a lot of articles and I have to say quite a large number of them are kinda out of touch with the real world. They might be elegant or insightful for the theory per se, but do not add too much value to solving real problems. Scholars are sometimes developing theories that are essentially white elephants. And more and more people would try to refine or extend those white elephants in the ivory tower. These efforts are meaningful only to the theorists and researchers but rarely make an impact to the real world.

But for newbies like us, I agree that starting from the theory is easier to get us into the “circle”. When we are as famous as Zuckerman, then we should be thinking mroe about utility and impact

The “phenomena” approach is a bottom-up approach. You start with something that people may be familiar or unfamiliar with. How plausible is what you are arguing? Sometimes, you get stuck with people who don’t buy your stories. This is particularly the case when your audience is not equally informed about the phenomena. Also, why the particular phenomena you study matter also becomes something that you need to demonstrate. In other words, you could run the danger of letting the audience set the reference benchmarks to judge the work. And they could set it anywhere.

In that regard, the theory approach is safer. Someone wrote a model that assume alpha. You develop a paper that empirically weaken this assumption slightly. Why does it matter? It matters because the theory matters and the changes you add provide insight into how the theory can be further developed or show the extent that the theory work. If people had build their work on the theorey’s premise and you came along to rework the foundation, now, that’s important.

And this gets to the situation. If you have a phenomenon that is commonly understood by your audience, there’s no problem with the benchmark. And if what you study is genuinely important, your audience (with commonly shared beliefs) gets it. In this case, go with the phenomenon approach.

But if you have something that isn’t necessarily important in real life and/or your audience’s benchmarks run wild (everyone has different beliefs and maybe ignorant in their own ways), the theory approach can be useful as you select a certain circle to debate the conversation.

What do you think?

I have appreciatted a lot your comments about Powell´s paper. In this way, I´d like to know if yo have published any article about these critics?
I´m a Ph.D student at Brazil, and so, I would like to know other forms of thinking about Network strucutures of governance.
It would be great if you have any material about this theme.

Best regards,

Andre Bonnet

Have you seen this Atlantic article by Jonathan Rauch, Caring for Your Introvert? As a major introvert (despite what others may think), I was so relieved when I read it. Had it on my bullentin board for years, even.

But it still doesn’t make networking any easier … I am already starting to dread that part of NCA. Rauch even links to a book called “Why Should Extroverts Make All the Money?” Yikes!