My Photo

Blogs I'm enjoying right now

  • David Grossman's blog
  • Tony Sharp gets political
    Tony has an interesting take on IC - his blog doesn't just talk about good practice - there's an underlying political edge. I don't agree with everything he says but it makes me think (sometimes!).
  • The Chime Blog
    Thoughts from my colleagues across the Chime Group
  • Competent Communicator
    The work that Sue Dewhurst and I did to define competencies for communicators

  • Wedge at Kilobox
    An always interesting collection
  • Spreading Science
    Explaining the theory behind how the world works - even I can understand it
  • simply-blogging
    Marc, Dan and Kelly -
  • David Ferrabee's Blog
    I love how he writes it
  • Heather Yaxley
    Heather's ideas on PR and stuff

« Are US communicators different? | Main | Not a decision I’ve taken lightly – telling staff about bad news »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Not sure I recognise the absence, Liam. Halfway through the (deeply illuminating) IC Management MA at Kingston Business School, I'm overwhelmed by how much research is gathering dust out there, largely untroubled by the writers of more populist business lit.

True, a lot of it predates t'internet. And much of it goes by the more abstract 'communications theory', not our intra-organisational specialism per se. But there are things Gioia & Chittipedi, or Orlikowski, or Weick have been saying as early as the 1970s that would still blow your average SCM readers' socks off, if we were to have a concerted crack at sharing and 'operationalising' the insights to be had, there.

I don't think the problem is in academia.

Thanks for you comment.

Of course there is plenty of communications theory out there covering the field of human psychology and cognition. And there is a fair bit of reflection on practice in the areas of change.

However the sources you mention are 20 years old which could speak to the point I am making.

I don't think the issue is whether SCM is sufficiently academic - I guess most of its readers just want practical ideas about how to do a better job. I doubt anyone expects challenging analysis and theory from its pages. To my mind it's more about encouraging and supporting more academics to take a hard look at our field.

In most areas of human endeavour you can see real practical advances following the input of academics. Exploring case studies, publishing disprovable research and debate provide a platform to boost the effectiveness of what we do.

The comments to this entry are closed.