A series of blogs about the broadcast industry, narrated by David Brennan...

I've been giving the subject of this week's blog a lot of thought and, although it might sound like pretentious twaddle in places, I would really appreciate any comments if it strikes a chord, hits a nerve or presses your buttons. It is about the art and science of our jobs...

I initially went to university to study economics, but gave it up after less than three weeks, persuading them that I really should have been studying psychology instead. Economics frightened me in the same way the Daleks had caused me to hide behind the sofa just a decade before; it portrayed a world of self-interest - cold, rational, analytical, predictable and improbably perfect.

Psychology should have been much more satisfying; it was about people and even in my teens I recognised that they were much warmer, messier, irrational, complex and unpredictable than economic theory.

Unfortunately, like many psychology faculties at the time, the focus was on the scientific method and many of the theorists I was drawn to would often be dismissed as charlatans, because their theories could never be scientifically tested.

Psychology so wanted to be a science, even though it was designated a Bachelor of Arts degree. If it couldn't be measured, it couldn't exist, said my tutors, and who was I to disagree?

This conflict between art and science has not always been so pronounced. During the Renaissance of the 14th - 17th centuries, both art and science flourished and polymaths such as Da Vinci were commonplace.

However, the subsequent 'Age of Enlightenment', from the late 17th century, prized reason above everything and many of the rigorous principles underpinning science, mathematics and economics were laid down. They have ensured science has been valued over art ever since.

In our world of media and marketing, we have a much shorter time-frame to look at, but I think we have been through our renaissance and are now living through our age of enlightenment. Take advertising; the world of 'Mad Men' depicted one where art carried the torch. The creative was the focus, the science was more peripheral and 'research' was still finding its feet.

Since then, we've had our own Age of Enlightenment, although I'm not sure how enlightened it has made us. A combination of 'marketing science' - where everything can be measured and evaluated - and digital technology - unleashing a torrent of analytics - has ensured there is more than a hint of Dalek in the cold, rational, analytical, predictable and perfectly-defined world we now inhabit. This is the world of the pre-test, the marketing formula, real-time planning, media auditing and response optimisation. In its way, it is a beautiful place, a data junkie's nirvana, but it has never felt like home!

There are signs that things are swaying back to a new Renaissance, though. Two connected phenomena in particular have helped to make life interesting again;

1. The decline in the reputation of classical economics, and the increasing applicability of behavioural economics to marketing theory and practice.

2. The increasing understanding that emotion is behind most decision-making and it can be best elicited through creativity.

I think both of the above have begun to transform marketing and advertising, the former in quite a micro way (re-framing the context, employing media touch-points for specific behavioural goals) whilst the latter has been at a more macro level (releasing creativity, uniting media around big, brave ideas).

So here is my question. Is media - especially media research - ahead of or behind the curve? Is it driven by art or science?

In order to answer that question, let me ask a follow-up. How much of our work directly affects the decisions that really move the goalposts? I don't mean reinforcing decisions that have already been taken or fine-tuning the process.

How often does the work we produce - whether for media owners, agencies or advertisers - have a real influence on the stuff that normal consumers would mention spontaneously if you were to stop them on the street or would animatedly talk about among themselves in all of those face-to-face conversations we never hear?

When they enthuse about animated meerkats, genre-busting TV shows, drumming gorillas, magazines aimed at lifestyles you didn't know existed, posters that (literally) stop the traffic or social media experiences that last longer than a wet weekend, how often can research, or planning for that matter, puff out its chest and say - "Without me that might never have happened?"

I don't want to make this sound like an attack on research or planning. I have been fortunate enough to work for, with and against some of the most knowledgeable, talented and intellectually curious people I could ever wish to meet, but this issue has bugged me throughout my career. We have developed the perfect tools to analyse, evaluate and measure, but how often do we use them to inspire, innovate or even challenge preconceptions? I can't think of too many examples.

If we want to be there when the big decisions are being made, we need to merge the science with the art, the insight with the analytics, and the creative with the prosaic. It's possible; the data's available in abundance and the 'renaissance' skills within our industry even more so. Are we bringing them together enough to really make a difference? Do we need a renaissance or are we enlightened enough?

It's a genuine question. If you have an answer, or even an insight to offer, email me at david@medianative.tv.