Jump to content
Urch Forums

JourneyMan

Members
  • Posts

    21
  • Joined

Converted

  • Occupation
    Consulting

Converted

  • My Tests
    Yes

JourneyMan's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

1

Reputation

  1. This is a great suggestion. From my vantage point, I think I am quant- oriented and inclined, but, I've immensely enjoyed some Qual theories/tools - eg Ethnography, Grounded Theory, and the ubiquitous focus group method.
  2. You're welcome Indus, truly. I appreciate the thought and the effort you've put in. Respect! You're right. This isn't detailed enough, and 1] I need to work on refining this; 2] I need to research the different types of groups - management, entrepreneurship/ marketing , better This is precious. Thanks for sharing. I tend to have a "let's find a wholesome answer" approach. What you're suggesting here, is a segmented approach. This is a really interesting suggestion and I need to think a lot more now. Thanks! These are the right next steps for me. I think this needs work, and requires a lot more thought to be 'spared' for the next level of detail for the research area. Lastly, on a separate note, it's sad to hear that the marketing strategy topic has been sidelined a bit. I think we should continue the dialog here, and through the efforts of members with an interest in the marketing strategy area, we can certainly compile useful tips, lists of topics, names of professors working in this area, etc. Indus - thanks again for your detailed commentary. All in good spirit, and very welcome. Thanks!
  3. In my line of work, we don't really distinguish between different approaches. And, we use the approach that works best. So, I agree with you that a person should know both types of tools/techniques, and should use the best set of techniques available to address a particular problem. However, given the way most research work is structured, my wishful thinking might remain wishful, barring some occasional overlaps. :)
  4. Thank you. This sure helps. So, my understanding is that the tools/methods are applied in reasonably distinct ways, and that distinction (or say, minimal overlap) ensures that the tool/method used, by itself, can act as the identifier of the types of problems to address. Hence, a separate, outcome based classification is not needed.
  5. It's the lull before the storm. If one compares with past data at gradcafe, we can reach 3 different conclusions: 1] Several people applying for Business PhDs are not on gradcafe this year, especially for Marketing, Operations, Strategy and OB areas 2] Several people applying for Business PhDs are neither active on gradcafe nor on TM forums If 1] and 2] are false (ie people are active on both websites) then, 3] most schools are a little late this year in sending out invitations for interviews.
  6. My observation: Sub-areas described within the marketing area. Most schools split the marketing area into 1] Qualitative/ Quantitative OR into 2] Consumer+Behavioral / Quantitative [ this second classification appears faulty, but we'll discuss this side- topic some other day] This appears to be a "methods used' based approach (first) or a "original training/subject" based approach (second). (The para below is an illustration, and could be incomplete and/or faulty. I request you to respond to the thought, and not to the 4 specific suggestions used to illustrate the thought] Is there a reason why schools don't have sub-areas such as the following 1] Sales and Distribution, including channel management 2] Brand management 3] Market, Competition and Consumer research 4] Marketing strategy (assuming corporate and business strategy as a 'given') - so essentially product level strategy; etc (The para above is an illustration, and could be incomplete and/or faulty. I request you to respond to the thought, and not to the 4 specific suggestions used to illustrate the thought]
  7. This suggestion is close to the sub-area that I have in mind - marketing strategy + product design. Boatwright (CMU), Venkat (Darden) - both suggestions are valuable. I hope that through the guidance of the forum members, I can find some more names in this sub-area, so that a meaningful list can be compiled. Thank you!
  8. Top 20 schools list - great set of suggestions. Spotted two themes - overall school rankings/ratings don't matter AND make your own Top 20 list Rankings - Rankings actually don't matter, I agree. For example, if we were medical students looking for internships or residencies, and say I was focused on neurosurgery, then, I'd apply to the best neurosurgery med schools - and I wouldn't have more than passing interest in how the orthopedic or cardiology sections of those schools were rated, or, for that matter, how was the med school rated overall. Again, every mathematically oriented person knows, averages of any kind, including reputation rating averages are fairly meaningless descriptors of the underlying population, and possibly the least useful statistic to examine or describe a given population. So, we're done with school ranking averages. Personal Top 20 schools - This is where I personally struggle. The data are best available at a program or area level. At a sub-area/ specific interest level, the data aren't quite there to create any meaningful ranking, at least in the topics that interest me. In my situation, I think the members of this forum can be particularly helpful with their suggestions - specific professors and/or specific groups within departments in some schools. Indeed, I have already received 5+ great suggestions from people here. Thank you so much!
  9. Consumer Culture Theory "CCT" - CCT is a really nice suggestion, possible_phd, thank you. I was summarizing the opinions expressed on this thread and the opinions seemed to suggest that Qualitative Marketing or some other area with a qualitative component, would be the right choice for me. Responding to some other points made on this thread On my fit with CCT - I don't think I can do justice to CCT. Several useful suggestions have emerged regarding CCT and its future prospects. Thank you for sharing, possible_phd and Behavioral!
  10. Rsaylors - thanks! The emerging view on the board seems to be that Marketing - Qualitative might be a good fit, in addition to the Strategy program ....
  11. This is a great suggestion, sombaner, Thanks! On a related note, kudos to you and to rsaylors - you've not just made helpful suggestions, you've even shared detailed faculty profiles. Just amazing. Hats off to both of you, and to other such people on this forum!
  12. I've been up for the past 20 hours or so - conflicting schedules. With that caveat, my first reaction is: Venkat looks good, but, Darden admits only once in 4 years - that method doesn't seem that appealing. Aldrich - is great. I don't think I fit in that well with his interests though.
  13. Update on Strategy / Management / Marketing program concentrations: Source: My analysis of the program descriptions shared by roughly Top 20 US B-schools Stand alone Strategy programs are necessarily inter-disciplinary, and few in number. Several strategy programs are 'sub-areas' within a larger area: Management (OB, Org Design, Applied Micro-Economics and Applied Econometrics), Policy (public policy, regulation, government sector, at times, also entrepreneurship and Technology related innovation) Some strategy type programs are also 'sub-areas' within the Marketing area ( competitive strategy, marketing strategy) As such, my conclusion is that my chosen research area could be addressed by the Management, Policy or Marketing areas, depending on the specific school faculty's interests. Overall, marketing seems to come closest. As before, I look forward to your feedback!
  14. Update on Research area: My desired area has to do with product design. Broadly speaking - How do you design a new product or a service taking into account your competition, the appetite, interest, and ability to pay - of your target market, the state of the economy etc. As such, to me, it seems to be an intersection of marketing and strategy (and it's also not quite innovation, strictly speaking). If we approach it purely from the marketing stand point, we can miss out several strategic considerations - for example regulation, government influence etc. If we approach from a policy / strategy side, we'll stay at perhaps a sectoral response level and will miss out on the elements of product design, introduction, testing and sampling. Hence, both elements (marketing and strategy) need to be addressed. Awaiting feedback from forum members. Thank you!
×
×
  • Create New...