During all my Italian academic path I was always wondering to myself if in a future job’s career and in the practical daily works that I’ll encounter, I could use all the theories that I have read, all the information that teachers were trying to explain, all the knowledge accumulated in year of studying. The answer was all the time different, sometimes worrying, sometimes encouraging, surely depending on the feedback that I got from each subject, teacher, situation. This general question, that may appear a normal student’s crisis (maybe close to the exam session or an important deadline) or just in time of decisions (after high school or BA degree), is connected in my personal point of view with the topic introduced by Joep P. Cornelissen in his article about the use of the academic knowledge in practical situation. As Cornelissen said, already in sociology have been advanced some models to connect academic theories in practical situations, but I can bet that in all of our mind this need of answers unconsciously came in!
By the way, reading the words of Cornelissen we can focus in three main models that the author considers the base of the discuss. The first one is the Instrumental model, mostly followed by E.J. Robinson; it seems for me a kind of strict scientific method, really distant from an human approach of the topic, much more connected with other type of sciences than PR and Communication’s areas, concentrated in people, situations, messages, far from a rigid scientific system proposed with this model. Maybe I could agree with it if he had a connection to the real life, valuing more possibilities and open ways; analyzing that model it seems that there isn’t a world around us, that we live in a kind of parallel space made of theories, data, numbers and where people are just a decoration.
The second approach called Conceptual model sounds more comprehensive, distant from the law’s image of the previous one. It tries to give the right tools and information aims to find solutions analyzing problems . By the way I have some doubts about the real efficacy of it, cause it doesn’t explain how these information should be used to arrive to a conclusion, it seems that practitioners are a passive identity in this kind of process. The underlying intentions intention of this model could deceive the reader who shouldn’t get fascinated by the first explanations.
The last model is the Translation model, is the one that differs more from the others and that could appear anarchic or confused, but in my opinion is the one that give more space to the skill of practitioners that after have been studying all the theories they could use its in a opening way that surely will consider the human aspects missed in the others models. In this model the role the practitioner is fundamental, as his ability to analyze all the cases, never forgetting any single side of the research (human and scientific) on the way to edit a great truthful and unique work.
I really appreciate the article of Corneliessen, it made me a lot of question but in some passages wasn’t very clear. I think attaching to the article some examples of researches that were following these models could help the student to understand better what the author is trying to explain. But that’s just the begin, I’m sure we’ll have the possibility to get a lot of perfect example to have a clear idea about it.
Marco Certa
Dear Marco,
RispondiEliminaI really appreciate your beginning, this is exactly how I sometimes feel at university, I have to learn so many theories and I really think that most of them I will never be able to apply to anything.
You said you dont like the instrumental view because with this model it seems that "we live in a kind of parallel space made of theories, data, numbers and where people are just a decoration" I do understand your opinion, because our whole life is being controled by rules/theories/norms etc. but on the other hand I think you say it too extreme, because that is what our life is, I think the life in our comunity is only possible because we life according so many rules.
Your opinion on the Conceptual Model is that "it doesn’t explain how these information should be used to arrive to a conclusion " I totally agree. But this is not only for the second model, in general I am missing for all of the 3 Models an example or a detailed description how I can imagine how exactly to use one of these models( but thats what you also said in the end).
It seems that we all have much or less similar feelings about different models. I think that Marco made his statement quite frankly, Although I disagree at some points. I think that basics of life are quite dependent on basics of any kind of science, no matter whether they are social sciences or natural sciences and any kind of science is dependent on theories, data and numbers. Therefore, life,itself, is quite dependent on science.
RispondiEliminaAbout talking rules and so on, I believe that we need rules to keep the order. But I also think that they limit the development of science in some sense, so limit they development of humankind.
While reading the article and the comment, I just happened to think that I now understand that why it became kind of popular to hire analysts(business analysts) recently. They are the ones who manage the communication between theorists and practitioners in some fields. Are they model 4? What do you think?
@Hille: I was sure that my introduction could reflect the feelings of some of us, we are living in a very strange age, when topics like crisis and unemployment are ordinary and of course they make us confused or doubtful about the future utility of our studies and knowledge.
RispondiEliminaI think that my words sounds a little bit "radical" or extremist as you said, but they pretended to be a kind of provocation, to see your point of view about the "rules" in academic reaserch and in life as well!The first results (reading also the comment of Hakan) is that even the most anarchist or brilliant practitioner needs a regulation, but all the theories or the models don't have to destroy the creativity and the conscience of his potentiality.
@Hakan: that's a good point, the figure of analyst may contribute to build the perfect combination for an excellent result. So, we should create the "vademecum" of the impeccable PR manager, a mix of theoreticians, practitioner, analyst....bookmakers, dreamers, mathematicians, scientists, poets..... :):)
RispondiEliminaI just saw a very interesting comment?! The 4th model? so Hakan, did you mean a model which is conducted by the third group (not a practitioner or a researcher) who analyzes the relationship between those two groups? I mean, the relationship = "HOW" those two groups are interacting or interwinded each other...
RispondiEliminaIt is an interresting idea to construct a model by a third group (nor practitioner nor researcher) but in my opinion it is not possible.. who is able to construct a model when they are not practitioners and even not researcher.. . It is the task of researcher to build up new theories (models), they should get influence from different sources (practitioners) but THEY are the ones who were educated for research.
RispondiEliminaI am not saying that they are the one who conduct the model, they are the model theirselves, who transform the theoritical knowledge into practical approach and practical experience into theoritical information. I believe that their main concern is not conducting their model but conducting sustainable communication channels in different fields for individual bodies.
RispondiEliminaWhen I started to read this article, I had the same idea in my head, how in highschool all these thories in math or physics..or in any other topic, I was always wondering (mainly being annoyed) if I really will use those some day! I think it is necessary to have/know theories, but even more necessary to have practical skills (which may not come from theoretical scills), but the perfect combo is to combine these two..then you relly know your field :)
RispondiElimina