Discussion: View Thread

Erwin Rausch and MG-ED-DIV:

Whereas the dilemma that I face in this thread surrounds the halls of academe,
I believe that the entire issue benefits from discourse from all sides.
Perhaps this is also a key example of the disconnect between practitioners and
academics. In many cases the academics appear to "snub" the practitioners and
consensus within the entire discipline is not achieved.

I support the position that ANYONE (with the proper training... not restricted
to PhDs) can conduct research, and that ANYONE can be a scholarly
practitioner. An excellent example of this argument would be many of our
Professors Emeriti who only have an earned Masters... What academician can
look them in the eye and declare to them that they aren't scholars???

The key issue here is what scholarly behaviors (knowledge, skills and
abilities) MUST a practitioner demonstrate to attain the often discussed but
undefined status of a scholarly practitioner?

Allow me to share a rough draft of where my head is on this issue. My model
was developed for a doctoral program that focuses on the scholarly
practitioner concept. Therefore it is slanted toward the holders of
doctorates functioning as practitioners. (I believe that successful
assertions could be made to substitute other activities in place of doctoral
course work and dissertations... allowing that these other activities must be
rigorous with concrete results to fully equate.)

A scholar...

1. Participates as a peer in scholarly discourse by way of membership in
professional associations; periodically attends and presents papers at
conferences.

2. Demonstrates "expertise" in qualitative and/or quantitative research;
reports findings; reads and critically evaluates emerging epistemology;
demonstrates commitment to the discipline with periodic contributions to the
emerging epistemology of the discipline by way of authoring scholarly
publications and book reviews.

3. Develops and maintains "working competence" in the major theories of their
discipline (usually subjects covered in the doctoral course work).

4. Develops and maintains "near-mastery" in the theoretical foundations of
two or three additional areas of specialization (usually selected from
required courses or electives covered in the doctoral course work).

5. Develops and maintains "mastery" in the theoretical foundations of one
area of specialization within their discipline (usually the area covered by
the dissertation).

NOTE: Upon review of the responses to my initial posting, I have altered my
model to _exclude_ proficiency in the conduct of significant empirical
research that contributes to the epistemology of the discipline.

Therefore a scholarly practitioner is a practitioner who accomplishes and
maintains the five tenants of scholarship identified above.

Comments? Criticisms? Have I wandered too far from academe? Have I not
wandered far enough?

Bruce Pawlak

At 12:16 PM 1/20/99 EST, Bruce Pawlak wrote:
<snip>
>
>Therefore a scholarly practitioner is a practitioner who accomplishes and
>maintains the five tenants of scholarship identified above.
>
>Comments? Criticisms? Have I wandered too far from academe? Have I not
>wandered far enough?

Not far enough, IMHO. The five remaining criteria are maintained by only a
small minority of full-time professors, so it's had for me to accept that
they could reasonably be applied to people who live at least part of their
lives outside the academic world.

One area that seems overlooked so far in this discussion of the research
and publishing side of scholarship is TEACHING. The most common form of
scholarly practitioner is the adjunct professor or sessional lecturer.
Observations on the roles these people play and their effectiveness may
help us move the definition forward. (Incidentally, rapid growth in the
Entrepreneurship field in the past decade has led to very rapid scale-ups
in the use of adjuncts and sessionals. A recent Academy of Managment
Innovation Award went to the ENTR Division for its work on the care and
feeding of such scholarly practitioners, and I commend the volume by Randy
Carlock and Jerry Katz to anyone trying to wrestle with these questions.)

One of the problems we have had (and it's not over yet, by any means) in
the ENTR field is getting beyond the personal war stories level of
teaching. It is clear that purely experiential story-telling is not
scholarly. But there is a strong tradition in English literature and
ethnographic research, for example, of structured story-telling, that can
be treated as a very high form of scholarship. Thus, I have come to
distinguish between stories that have only impulsive links between them,
and stories that have a sophisticated theoretical framework wrapped around
and through them.

The key seems to be that theoretical framework -- regardless of its
derivation. Where does that framework develop? It rarely seems to occur
in isolation, so the dominant model is one of examination of prior
scholarship, familiarity with the state-of-the-art in knowledge. For most
of us, that knowledge now develops through PhD studies, and is maintained
through some form of listening watch (at least) on the core literature in
our disciplines.

A scholarly approach to practice seems to require at least this level of
thoughtfulness, and it can clearly go beyond this level into the kinds of
active research participation and contribution to the knowledge base that
Bruce outlines.

Let me suggest another aspect, based on observation. In many of our
fields, there are now more PhDs active in industry than in academic
careers. Those practitioners have similar training to the carreer
scholars, and may well be maintaining their familiarity with the core
literature of their field. I argue that they make ideal adjunct
professors, since they can integrate thier daily work experience with the
theoretical frameworks of scholarship. Indeed, as Bruce suggests, they may
even have something special to offer to the academic world, as testers,
evaluators, challengers, and revisors of theories that they try to apply in
practice.

At the very top of my model of scholarship is the person who can apply
scholarly models in practical situations, observe the discrepancies
thoughtfully, and revise the models as a consequence. In this world, there
is no separation between theory and practice, just iterations that advance
both the theoretical and practical components of knowledge.


+/+/+/+/+/+/+/+/+/+/+/+/+/+/+/+/+/+
Prof. Thomas A. Bryant, Ph.D., Visiting professor and
State of New Jersey Chair in Small Business & Entrepreneurship
Faculty of Management, MEC 326
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
111 Washington Avenue, NEWARK, NJ 07102-3027 U.S.A.
Tel: (973) 353-1062; Fax: (973) 353-1664
e-mail: tabryant@andromeda.rutgers.edu

Hello Bruce,

I applaud the thoughtfulness with which you have developed your five
criteria for a scholarly practitioner. However, I must resepctfully
disagree with your assertion that the mastery and near mastery domains
of a scholarly pracitioner must emanate from either one's doctoral
dissertation or from one's doctoral course work. It is both my belief
and my own academic career experience that doctoral course work and the
dissertation's most enduring leagcy is to provide one with the practice
in how to attain mastery in a disciplined and scholarly fashion.
However, careers can last a very long time, and it is likely that
scholars will develop new scholarly interests that depart from the focus
of their doctoral studies.

Thank you for the opportunity to reflect on what most of us take for
granted in defining ourselves as scholars.

Robert DeFillippi



>From owner-mg-ed-dv@maelstrom.stjohns.edu Wed Jan 20 09:56:04 1999
>Received: from maelstrom.stjohns.edu (149.68.1.24) by
maelstrom.stjohns.edu (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id
<10.D4D6480A@maelstrom.stjohns.edu>; Wed, 20 Jan 1999 12:49:50 -0500
>Received: from MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU by MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
(LISTSERV-TCP/IP
> release 1.8c) with spool id 16594008 for
> MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU; Wed, 20 Jan 1999 12:49:43
-0400
>Received: from imo22.mx.aol.com (198.81.17.66) by maelstrom.stjohns.edu
(LSMTP
> for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id
<7.2DF3C179@maelstrom.stjohns.edu>;
> Wed, 20 Jan 1999 12:16:32 -0500
>Received: from Bfp2000@aol.com by imo22.mx.aol.com (IMOv18.1) id
JGCKa01428 for
> <MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU>; Wed, 20 Jan 1999 12:16:07
-0500
> (EST)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
>X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 for Windows 95 sub 18
>Message-ID: <a1d948ba.36a60f57@aol.com>
>Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 12:16:07 EST
>Reply-To: Management Education and Development Discussion
> <MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU>
>Sender: Management Education and Development Discussion
> <MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU>
>From: Bruce Pawlak <Bfp2000@AOL.COM>
>Subject: Re: A Proposed Scholarly-Practitioner Model
>To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
>
>Erwin Rausch and MG-ED-DIV:
>
>Whereas the dilemma that I face in this thread surrounds the halls of
academe,
>I believe that the entire issue benefits from discourse from all sides.
>Perhaps this is also a key example of the disconnect between
practitioners and
>academics. In many cases the academics appear to "snub" the
practitioners and
>consensus within the entire discipline is not achieved.
>
>I support the position that ANYONE (with the proper training... not
restricted
>to PhDs) can conduct research, and that ANYONE can be a scholarly
>practitioner. An excellent example of this argument would be many of
our
>Professors Emeriti who only have an earned Masters... What academician
can
>look them in the eye and declare to them that they aren't scholars???
>
>The key issue here is what scholarly behaviors (knowledge, skills and
>abilities) MUST a practitioner demonstrate to attain the often
discussed but
>undefined status of a scholarly practitioner?
>
>Allow me to share a rough draft of where my head is on this issue. My
model
>was developed for a doctoral program that focuses on the scholarly
>practitioner concept. Therefore it is slanted toward the holders of
>doctorates functioning as practitioners. (I believe that successful
>assertions could be made to substitute other activities in place of
doctoral
>course work and dissertations... allowing that these other activities
must be
>rigorous with concrete results to fully equate.)
>
>A scholar...
>
>1. Participates as a peer in scholarly discourse by way of membership
in
>professional associations; periodically attends and presents papers at
>conferences.
>
>2. Demonstrates "expertise" in qualitative and/or quantitative
research;
>reports findings; reads and critically evaluates emerging epistemology;
>demonstrates commitment to the discipline with periodic contributions
to the
>emerging epistemology of the discipline by way of authoring scholarly
>publications and book reviews.
>
>3. Develops and maintains "working competence" in the major theories
of their
>discipline (usually subjects covered in the doctoral course work).
>
>4. Develops and maintains "near-mastery" in the theoretical
foundations of
>two or three additional areas of specialization (usually selected from
>required courses or electives covered in the doctoral course work).
>
>5. Develops and maintains "mastery" in the theoretical foundations of
one
>area of specialization within their discipline (usually the area
covered by
>the dissertation).
>
>NOTE: Upon review of the responses to my initial posting, I have
altered my
>model to _exclude_ proficiency in the conduct of significant empirical
>research that contributes to the epistemology of the discipline.
>
>Therefore a scholarly practitioner is a practitioner who accomplishes
and
>maintains the five tenants of scholarship identified above.
>
>Comments? Criticisms? Have I wandered too far from academe? Have I
not
>wandered far enough?
>
>Bruce Pawlak
>


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

Professor Bryant and MG-ED-DIV:

One response to your thought provoking comments. Most professional degree
programs deliberately avoid the issue of preparing graduates to teach because
as practitioners we're returning to our professional pursuits and academe is
not an acceptable choice in most professional programs (as is the case in my
institution)!

I truly feel that this oversight on the part of professional schools is
extremely unfortunate in that IF their alumni were surveyed the schools would
probably find that many are teaching. This is a tremendous area of
scholarship, however, is it ESSENTIAL to be a scholar?

A moment of brainstorming synthesizing comments received to present:
Perhaps my model of the scholarly practitioner would be more useful and
appropriate if it were a "menu:" Example - Choose one activity from Part A,
and four from Part B? (or something of that nature to include scholarly
behaviors not REQUIRED but scholarly non-the-less? Give the "cumulative"
weight of scholarship more importance with some non-negotiable requirements
for KSAs that are so important they could not be negotiated away???)

Very respectfully,

Bruce Pawlak

I believe Bruce Pawlak is on a generally good track with this thread.
There are obvious challenges in operationalizing the five tenets he
cited, but that's as it should be. He's a doctoral student.

My only constructive criticism of his model is that it puts the entire
burden of proof on the practitioner. Like many in the business
community, I believe there's quite enough of that already. It would be
helpful if a scholar. . .

1. participates as a peer in practitioner discourse by way of
experience in non-academic organizations; periodically works in such
organizatons.

2. demonstrates expertise in performing value-added work in for- or
not-for-profit organizations; makes judgments; stands accountable;
hires, fires, coaches, rehabilitates associates in showing her/his
ability to bridge the gap between the academic and non-academic worlds.

3. develops and maintains "working competence" in particular areas of
expertise for which there is demand in a competitive market place.

4. etc.

Perhaps this'll stir the hackles of many, but that is not my intention.
My aim is balance. If we're going to mix "scholar" and "practitioner,"
then the onus for maintaining the model should not, it seems to me, rest
on just one side, no matter how subversive an idea that might sound.

I know that burden-shifting is a long tradition, but it's one that
neither the academic nor the so-called "practitioner" community can
afford. One Cold War ended nearly a decade ago, and this one needs to
end, too.

Best,

WDM

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* Warren D. Miller, MBA, CPA-ABV, CMA *
* Beckmill Research/Lexington, Va. *
* "Research Orientation, Results Mentality" *
* 540.463.6200 (v); 540.463.6208 (f) *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Hello Robert and the MG-ED-DIV:

I concede (partially) to Robert's comments. Although I have not yet begun
to experience the dissertation blues (I'm only mid-way through my second
year), I was very careful to indicate "usually" in my statements (allowing for
changes in academic passion as the scholar matures).

I'm assuming that Robert accepts the premise of a primary specialization,
with some alternates (to add to the scholarly sandbox) and the importance of
keeping a working knowledge of the overall theoretical framework of the
general theories in the discipline of choice.

In Robert's e-mail he writes >> It is both my belief and my own academic
career experience that doctoral course work and the dissertation's most
enduring legacy is to provide one with the practice in how to attain mastery
in a disciplined and scholarly fashion. <<

Whereas I don't take issue with the dissertation, and it's difficult to attack
the conceptual basis offered in Robert's discussion of the course work, I have
constructed a different view of the purpose of the course work. I have viewed
the concept of the discipline-specific doctoral course work as _the framework_
of the epistemology of the discipline (excluding the research sequence and
dissertation preparation course work), assuming that if it were not critical
to the discipline, it would not be offered. Therefore constituting the basis
for _the framework_ of the epistemology of the discipline. (????)

If my statement above holds water, then the body of knowledge that the scholar
(with a doctorate) should possess is easily defined. Perhaps my statement is
weakened when the course work is compared the course work of graduates with
similar degrees from different schools, or when compared to a "non-
traditional" (non-doctoral) scholar (oh noooooo... what have I just done... a
new label... don't know if I really want to "go" there....). Although I
believe that we really don't want a strict interpretation of what "counts" and
what doesn't (in that most doctoral programs are NOT professionally accredited
to allow for academic freedom).

Very respectfully,

Bruce Pawlak

Hi, Bruce, Robert, Kim, James, Warren, and others who participate and/or are
interested in this thread.

Like Robert, I applaud Bruce's interest, and initial work on establishing a
definition for 'scholarly-practitioner' and I am very interested in the
modifications suggested by Robert, James and Warren.

However, I have two questions, and some thoughts on them:

First the less important one (on my value/priorities scale):

WHERE IS THIS TREAD GOING? There seems to be a need to find a common ground
for standards which would help to define, and possibly guide selection
criteria on both sides of the divide (education and practice). So, it is
valuable to provide a foundation on which an individual can legitimately
claim, and be considered, a scholarly-practitioner. If this is where this
thread is going, I hope it will indeed reach the objective and somehow find
its way into the literature.

The second question concerns something that I believe is even more important:
CAN THIS TREAD HELP WITH A SERIOUS PROBLEM RELATED TO THE DEFINITION OF
SCHOLARLY WORK THAT RESTRICTS THE EXPANSION OF KNOWLEDGE IN MANAGEMENT AND
LEADERSHIP FIELDS, AND POSSIBLY EVEN LIMITS CREATIVITY? It may not be fully
appreciated how the belief, that new ideas should stand up under the rigor of
sound research, may place an almost insurmountable burden on some very
significant and valuable new thinking. New constructs that are too broad to
be 'analyzed/validated/questioned' by research within the resources of any
one individual or small group, are effectively stifled and may never enter
that segment of the literature that may lead to serious examination.

Let me provide an example:

Assume that there is a significant new idea that can bring faster learning,
enhance motivation to learn, and provide foundation for establishing criteria
for better decisions at every level in every organization, no matter where in
the public or private sector it may be. Assume further that this idea is
solidly based on the major segments of the literature and past research in the
field(s) to which it applies. Finally assume that it is so flexible that it
can embrace new thinking and findings of new research.

As things stand now, reviewers in the most prestigious journals and
professional associations will reject the idea for lack of empirical evidence
and validation. Even the reviewers of your journal, Kim, may recommend
against publication of a paper based on this idea.

Yet, to validate this idea would require research in many areas. Let me just
mention two of the most important ones:

- Do students indeed learn 'faster'. That requires definitions of WHAT
learning should be measured and HOW it should be measured. In both areas
instruments would have to be designed and validated. That requires
longitudinal studies and, in all probability will require years. That is
especially true if the 'what is to be measured' has to be validated on the
basis of effectiveness of the learning on performance of something - another
issue with many facets, each of which has to be investigated, longitudinally,
if the research is to be fully scholarly.

- What makes a decision 'better' Now, that opens up a real bag of worms.
Should outcome be the major criterion of a 'better' decision? How does one
specify, and measure conditions of outcome, and insulate against fortuituous
influences? If it is not outcome, or not only outcome, what other criteria
could be used to establish quality of a decisions? How many studies would it
take to validate at least some of the dimensions of these three aspects of
the question?

Why am I raising these issues? I am hoping to increase awareness that a
broader definition of scholarly pursuits, it it were to gain some measure of
acceptance, might bring greater tolerance, and willingness to publish and
debate, work that is supported by previously published research findings, but
does not have specific empirical research to support it. Such work, if it is
logically sound and substantial, can then provide foundation for many
worthwhile empirical studies, and ELIMINATE THE GATE THAT NOW RESTRICTS THE
EXPANSION OF KNOWLEDGE, UNNECESSARILY.

If there are members of this list who would like to consider joining in
research on various aspect of a concept that has at lest some of the features
listed above, I would be most happy to suggest/explore ideas, and collaborate
if wanted.

Erwin (Rausch)

In response to Erwin Rausch's observations on a field of research in this
topic--note the upcoming issue of the Acad.Mgt Journal-
"Knowledge Transfer between Academics and Practitioners"
www.aom.pace.edu/amj/srfkt.htm

I will also present a paper at the National AACSB meeting in April on
the Internet's role as a facilitator of scholar/practitioner communication.

Chuck Morrissey, Pepperdine

Dear Bruce,

Could not agree with you more !

Best Regards,

Liora.

----------------------------------
Prof. Liora Katenstein
Dean
ISEMI-Israel School of Entrepreneurial Management and Innovation.


--------------------------------------------
Dr Liora Katzenstein, Forum International
12A Meskin Street, Tel Baruch, ISRAEL
Tel: (972)(3)648-2717 Fax: (972)(3)648-2602