turning theories around

March 11th, 2010  |  Published in Picture This

In round 2 of my visual triage of proven models (evaluating usefulness for my thesis), I was able to narrow down the total from 70 to 34.

Of these, a couple of observations emerged:

  1. there should be a way to graph the logical relationship between the theories presented on ProvenModels.com, for example, that the seven S framework and the five star model both are based on “structure follows strategy”
  2. there should be a timeline view to make this way of connecting theories even easier.
  3. some things are even more closely connected:
AIDA, SPIN, ADAPT, SIER - models of communication

AIDA, SPIN, ADAPT, SIER - models of communication (taken from provenmodels.com)

I don’t know about you, but when I put the pictures of AIDA, SPIN, ADAPT and SIER (turned on its head) next to one another, they all say the same thing, just with different words and a different point of view. AIDA shows the overall aim of the step, SPIN and ADAPT what to focus on and SIER reminds us to listen.

Interesting, don’t you think? Well, this is certainly not a unique example, but my question is this: Do the same things happen today as well (in the days of the internet, where everybody is connected to everything)? Are the internet’s serendipity mechanisms (like twitter users or the facebook stream) good enough already to prevent this?

Do you know examples of current research, where clever academics just reword the obvious because they didn’t look hard enough? Or any project in the research sphere that explicitly encourages serendipity? Where is it in Zotero, Mendeley and the like?

Or better: Do you think this is a problem based on the effects of a scarcity-mentality, not-invented-here syndrome and limited access to research sources?

blog comments powered by Disqus