I think this blog post by Seth Godin is relevant to theory development:
"Just got some work back from a new copyeditor hired by my publisher. She did a flawless job. She also wrecked my work. Totally wrecked it.
"By sanding off every edge, removing every idiom, making each and every fact literally correct, she made it boring and dry and mechanical.
"If they have licenses for copyeditors, she should have hers revoked.
"I need to be really clear. She's not at fault. She did exactly what she was supposed to do. The fault lies in the job description, not the job. If the job description of your lawyer or boss or editor or client is to make sure everything is pure and perfect and proven and beyond reproach, they are making things worse, not better. (Unless you're in the vaccine business).
"Almost everything you do has some sort of copyediting filter. It might be the legal eagle or the graphic supervisor or the customer service police. They're excellent at making round things fit perfectly through round holes.
"Boring and ignored is fine with them, because no one complains.
"Fortunately, copy editors have a remedy. It's a word called STET. Which means, "leave it alone, it was fine." Time to teach that to your editors, wherever they may be. Maybe there should be a t-shirt.
"If all you want is safe, have baby food for dinner. Just leave me out of it."
http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2008/05/sucking-all-the.html
Here's how I think this applies to theory building... Change and innovation require deviation from the "norm." This also means there is some amount of uncertainty involved. Which means risk. A new theory provides a new way of looking at things. It stretches into the unknown. When it does so, it introduces risk---risk of being wrong, risk of being useless, risk of failure. But it also invovles potential---potential of being right, useful, and of great success. Any good theory, must take risks to reach it's potential and therefore must extend beyond what is pure, proven, and safe.
"Just got some work back from a new copyeditor hired by my publisher. She did a flawless job. She also wrecked my work. Totally wrecked it.
"By sanding off every edge, removing every idiom, making each and every fact literally correct, she made it boring and dry and mechanical.
"If they have licenses for copyeditors, she should have hers revoked.
"I need to be really clear. She's not at fault. She did exactly what she was supposed to do. The fault lies in the job description, not the job. If the job description of your lawyer or boss or editor or client is to make sure everything is pure and perfect and proven and beyond reproach, they are making things worse, not better. (Unless you're in the vaccine business).
"Almost everything you do has some sort of copyediting filter. It might be the legal eagle or the graphic supervisor or the customer service police. They're excellent at making round things fit perfectly through round holes.
"Boring and ignored is fine with them, because no one complains.
"Fortunately, copy editors have a remedy. It's a word called STET. Which means, "leave it alone, it was fine." Time to teach that to your editors, wherever they may be. Maybe there should be a t-shirt.
"If all you want is safe, have baby food for dinner. Just leave me out of it."
http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2008/05/sucking-all-the.html
Here's how I think this applies to theory building... Change and innovation require deviation from the "norm." This also means there is some amount of uncertainty involved. Which means risk. A new theory provides a new way of looking at things. It stretches into the unknown. When it does so, it introduces risk---risk of being wrong, risk of being useless, risk of failure. But it also invovles potential---potential of being right, useful, and of great success. Any good theory, must take risks to reach it's potential and therefore must extend beyond what is pure, proven, and safe.
Comments