Discussion: View Thread

  • 1.  sorting wheat from chaff

    Posted 10-14-2011 14:50

    Fred,

     

    Thanks, this helps. I wonder if you and others have seen the classification schemes created to "rank evidence."  While there are a variety, here is one:

     

    http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/grades.htm

     

    From the US Preventative Services Task Force, this framework includes grades for both "level of certainty" (from high to low, derived from nature of evidence) and "suggestions for practice" (from A to D, or I as insufficient).

     

    What would you and others on the list think about classifying management education findings using such a classification system? This would provide one possible mechanism to help separate wheat from chaff....

     

    Ken

     

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Kenneth G. Brown, Ph.D., SPHR

    Associate Professor of Management & Organizations and Tippie Research Fellow

    Editor, Academy of Management Learning & Education

    Henry B. Tippie College of Business

    The University of Iowa

    Iowa City, IA 52242

    Ph: 319.335.3812  Fx: 319.335.1957

     

    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Fred Nickols
    Sent: Friday, October 14, 2011 1:36 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: AOM 2012: Planning for a PDW/paper stream concerning the validity of using university students as a generalisable sample

     

    Ken:

     

    What I take away from the two articles in question is that unless we are capable of authoritatively and competently examining and critiquing the design and conduct of a research effort, we are not in a good position to question – or accept – its findings.  My bottom-line conclusion is that a great deal of so-called scientific research isn't and its findings are not to be trusted.  On the other hand, I'm equally sure there is a great deal of solid scientific research being conducted and reported.  For me, as a non-scientist, the difficulty lies in knowing which is which and, frankly, I'm darned if I can tell.  Even if I were qualified to evaluate research design, conduct and findings, I would hate to have to do that every time an interesting new or contradictory finding was reported.  It seems to me there ought to be some kind of mechanism for sorting the wheat from the chaff.

     

    Regards,

     

    Fred Nickols

    Managing Partner

    Distance Consulting LLC

    Home to "Solution Engineering"

    1558 Coshocton Ave – Suite 303

    Mount Vernon, OH 43050

    www.nickols.us | fred@nickols.us

     

    "We Engineer Solutions to Performance Problems"

     

     

     

    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Brown, Kenneth G
    Sent: Friday, October 14, 2011 10:33 AM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: AOM 2012: Planning for a PDW/paper stream concerning the validity of using university students as a generalisable sample

     

    Fred, thanks for sending this particular blog link.  I read it over lunch and came away disheartened.  The author (whom I can't identify from the blog) criticized Lehrer for sweeping generalizations but then himself wrote the following:

     

    "The problem isn't that the Decline Effect happens in science; the problem is that we think psychology and ecology and economics are sciences. They can be approached scientifically, but their conclusions cannot be considered valid outside of their immediate context." 

     

    "The problem isn't the Decline Effect, the problem is you believed the data had the force of  F=ma.  No one should be surprised when medical "truths" turn out to be wrong-- they were never true to begin with."

     

    "And the moment you talk to The New Yorker, your misinterpreted statistical association becomes truth."

     

    So I think the blogger here is ranting against the popular press (and scientists who talk to the popular press) and how it reports on findings too early and too flippantly. But he also seems to be dismissing all empirical research and, in particular, dismissing all research excepts physics. 

     

    Some of the studies described by Lehrer are rigourous meta-analyses, synthesized across multiple studies. They are not "n = 4 studies" (to use another quote from the blog post).  In this post I do not see a substantive criticism of the studies that Lehrer discusses as a basis for his views.

     

    As somone interested in the exchange of knowledge between science and practice, I come away thinking that the blog author believes there is no truth and no value in scientists trying to explain their findings to a broader public. This seems to me to be a nihilistic view of all social science, rather than a targeted criticism of the Decline Effect.

     

    Maybe I missed something?

     

    Ken

     

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Kenneth G. Brown, Ph.D., SPHR

    Associate Professor of Management & Organizations and Tippie Research Fellow

    Editor, Academy of Management Learning & Education

    Henry B. Tippie College of Business

    The University of Iowa

    Iowa City, IA 52242

    Ph: 319.335.3812  Fx: 319.335.1957

     

    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Fred Nickols
    Sent: Friday, October 14, 2011 8:13 AM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: AOM 2012: Planning for a PDW/paper stream concerning the validity of using university students as a generalisable sample

     

    In relation to the article Gary posted, here's one that takes a critical view of the claims made in it.

     

    http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2011/02/the_decline_effect_is_stupid.html

     

     

    Regards,

     

    Fred Nickols

    Managing Partner

    Distance Consulting LLC

    Home to "Solution Engineering"

    1558 Coshocton Ave – Suite 303

    Mount Vernon, OH 43050

    www.nickols.us | fred@nickols.us

     

    "We Engineer Solutions to Performance Problems"

     

     

     

     

    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Gary
    Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 6:37 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: AOM 2012: Planning for a PDW/paper stream concerning the validity of using university students as a generalisable sample

     

    Colleagues,

     

    You have probably heard about the Decline Effect.

    I seems relevant to Romie's request.

     

    The Decline Effect, New Yorker Magazine.

    www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrer

     

    Disturbing or intriguing.

     

    Best,

     

    Gary Lundquist

     



  • 2.  sorting wheat from chaff

    Posted 10-14-2011 15:22
    The gradings were really interesting, but I'm left wondering who, in the case of management research, would do the judging and for whom would they be making recommendations? I thought that the peer review process should have meant that evidence was adequate for the conclusions claimed, though some of the papers I have read do somewhat call this into question. But the greater difficulty is 'useful for whom'? Management research has many different audience 'segments' and ideas might be useful for academics but disastrous if accepted as a prescription for practice. So I'm feeling a bit gloomy about the likelihood of a parallel system for us.... And that is without considering the possibility that some of the most useful research might not fit a positivist 'scientific' paradigm....
    Sheila

    On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 7:50 PM, Brown, Kenneth G <kenneth-g-brown@uiowa.edu> wrote:

    Fred,

     

    Thanks, this helps. I wonder if you and others have seen the classification schemes created to "rank evidence."  While there are a variety, here is one:

     

    http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/grades.htm

     

    From the US Preventative Services Task Force, this framework includes grades for both "level of certainty" (from high to low, derived from nature of evidence) and "suggestions for practice" (from A to D, or I as insufficient).

     

    What would you and others on the list think about classifying management education findings using such a classification system? This would provide one possible mechanism to help separate wheat from chaff....

     

    Ken

     

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Kenneth G. Brown, Ph.D., SPHR

    Associate Professor of Management & Organizations and Tippie Research Fellow

    Editor, Academy of Management Learning & Education

    Henry B. Tippie College of Business

    The University of Iowa

    Iowa City, IA 52242

    Ph: 319.335.3812  Fx: 319.335.1957

     

    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Fred Nickols
    Sent: Friday, October 14, 2011 1:36 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: AOM 2012: Planning for a PDW/paper stream concerning the validity of using university students as a generalisable sample

     

    Ken:

     

    What I take away from the two articles in question is that unless we are capable of authoritatively and competently examining and critiquing the design and conduct of a research effort, we are not in a good position to question – or accept – its findings.  My bottom-line conclusion is that a great deal of so-called scientific research isn't and its findings are not to be trusted.  On the other hand, I'm equally sure there is a great deal of solid scientific research being conducted and reported.  For me, as a non-scientist, the difficulty lies in knowing which is which and, frankly, I'm darned if I can tell.  Even if I were qualified to evaluate research design, conduct and findings, I would hate to have to do that every time an interesting new or contradictory finding was reported.  It seems to me there ought to be some kind of mechanism for sorting the wheat from the chaff.

     

    Regards,

     

    Fred Nickols

    Managing Partner

    Distance Consulting LLC

    Home to "Solution Engineering"

    1558 Coshocton Ave – Suite 303

    Mount Vernon, OH 43050

    www.nickols.us | fred@nickols.us

     

    "We Engineer Solutions to Performance Problems"

     

     

     

    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Brown, Kenneth G
    Sent: Friday, October 14, 2011 10:33 AM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: AOM 2012: Planning for a PDW/paper stream concerning the validity of using university students as a generalisable sample

     

    Fred, thanks for sending this particular blog link.  I read it over lunch and came away disheartened.  The author (whom I can't identify from the blog) criticized Lehrer for sweeping generalizations but then himself wrote the following:

     

    "The problem isn't that the Decline Effect happens in science; the problem is that we think psychology and ecology and economics are sciences. They can be approached scientifically, but their conclusions cannot be considered valid outside of their immediate context." 

     

    "The problem isn't the Decline Effect, the problem is you believed the data had the force of  F=ma.  No one should be surprised when medical "truths" turn out to be wrong-- they were never true to begin with."

     

    "And the moment you talk to The New Yorker, your misinterpreted statistical association becomes truth."

     

    So I think the blogger here is ranting against the popular press (and scientists who talk to the popular press) and how it reports on findings too early and too flippantly. But he also seems to be dismissing all empirical research and, in particular, dismissing all research excepts physics. 

     

    Some of the studies described by Lehrer are rigourous meta-analyses, synthesized across multiple studies. They are not "n = 4 studies" (to use another quote from the blog post).  In this post I do not see a substantive criticism of the studies that Lehrer discusses as a basis for his views.

     

    As somone interested in the exchange of knowledge between science and practice, I come away thinking that the blog author believes there is no truth and no value in scientists trying to explain their findings to a broader public. This seems to me to be a nihilistic view of all social science, rather than a targeted criticism of the Decline Effect.

     

    Maybe I missed something?

     

    Ken

     

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Kenneth G. Brown, Ph.D., SPHR

    Associate Professor of Management & Organizations and Tippie Research Fellow

    Editor, Academy of Management Learning & Education

    Henry B. Tippie College of Business

    The University of Iowa

    Iowa City, IA 52242

    Ph: 319.335.3812  Fx: 319.335.1957

     

    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Fred Nickols
    Sent: Friday, October 14, 2011 8:13 AM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: AOM 2012: Planning for a PDW/paper stream concerning the validity of using university students as a generalisable sample

     

    In relation to the article Gary posted, here's one that takes a critical view of the claims made in it.

     

    http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2011/02/the_decline_effect_is_stupid.html

     

     

    Regards,

     

    Fred Nickols

    Managing Partner

    Distance Consulting LLC

    Home to "Solution Engineering"

    1558 Coshocton Ave – Suite 303

    Mount Vernon, OH 43050

    www.nickols.us | fred@nickols.us

     

    "We Engineer Solutions to Performance Problems"

     

     

     

     

    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Gary
    Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 6:37 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: AOM 2012: Planning for a PDW/paper stream concerning the validity of using university students as a generalisable sample

     

    Colleagues,

     

    You have probably heard about the Decline Effect.

    I seems relevant to Romie's request.

     

    The Decline Effect, New Yorker Magazine.

    www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrer

     

    Disturbing or intriguing.

     

    Best,

     

    Gary Lundquist

     




  • 3.  sorting wheat from chaff

    Posted 10-14-2011 21:24
    If we read back through some of the philosophy of science, many of the most interesting and important knowledge breakthroughs come from moving outside the dominant paradigm - the idea of scientific revolution.  This has been true in my area of accounting and finance where much of the positive research is replication and not generalisable and it has been in the areas of critical research that new ideas have come.  One of the debates I am having with colleagues is whether we now need to move beyond what is classified as critical because it has been captured by a semi-positivist mindset ... But that is another issue.  My point is to support the idea that many innovations do come when we move outside a positivist framework but when you are looking at a microscope slide, you see what is on the slide and not what is beyond its perimeters so it can be very hard from within a positive mindset to see what might be included in a framework that went beyond it.  Put simply, I agree, Sheila.
    Frances

    Sent from my iPad

    On 15/10/2011, at 8:29 AM, "sheila cameron" <sheilacx333@GMAIL.COM> wrote:

    The gradings were really interesting, but I'm left wondering who, in the case of management research, would do the judging and for whom would they be making recommendations? I thought that the peer review process should have meant that evidence was adequate for the conclusions claimed, though some of the papers I have read do somewhat call this into question. But the greater difficulty is 'useful for whom'? Management research has many different audience 'segments' and ideas might be useful for academics but disastrous if accepted as a prescription for practice. So I'm feeling a bit gloomy about the likelihood of a parallel system for us.... And that is without considering the possibility that some of the most useful research might not fit a positivist 'scientific' paradigm....
    Sheila

    On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 7:50 PM, Brown, Kenneth G <kenneth-g-brown@uiowa.edu> wrote:

    Fred,

     

    Thanks, this helps. I wonder if you and others have seen the classification schemes created to "rank evidence."  While there are a variety, here is one:

     

    http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/grades.htm

     

    From the US Preventative Services Task Force, this framework includes grades for both "level of certainty" (from high to low, derived from nature of evidence) and "suggestions for practice" (from A to D, or I as insufficient).

     

    What would you and others on the list think about classifying management education findings using such a classification system? This would provide one possible mechanism to help separate wheat from chaff....

     

    Ken

     

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Kenneth G. Brown, Ph.D., SPHR

    Associate Professor of Management & Organizations and Tippie Research Fellow

    Editor, Academy of Management Learning & Education

    Henry B. Tippie College of Business

    The University of Iowa

    Iowa City, IA 52242

    Ph: 319.335.3812  Fx: 319.335.1957

     

    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Fred Nickols
    Sent: Friday, October 14, 2011 1:36 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: AOM 2012: Planning for a PDW/paper stream concerning the validity of using university students as a generalisable sample

     

    Ken:

     

    What I take away from the two articles in question is that unless we are capable of authoritatively and competently examining and critiquing the design and conduct of a research effort, we are not in a good position to question – or accept – its findings.  My bottom-line conclusion is that a great deal of so-called scientific research isn't and its findings are not to be trusted.  On the other hand, I'm equally sure there is a great deal of solid scientific research being conducted and reported.  For me, as a non-scientist, the difficulty lies in knowing which is which and, frankly, I'm darned if I can tell.  Even if I were qualified to evaluate research design, conduct and findings, I would hate to have to do that every time an interesting new or contradictory finding was reported.  It seems to me there ought to be some kind of mechanism for sorting the wheat from the chaff.

     

    Regards,

     

    Fred Nickols

    Managing Partner

    Distance Consulting LLC

    Home to "Solution Engineering"

    1558 Coshocton Ave – Suite 303

    Mount Vernon, OH 43050

    www.nickols.us | fred@nickols.us

     

    "We Engineer Solutions to Performance Problems"

     

     

     

    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Brown, Kenneth G
    Sent: Friday, October 14, 2011 10:33 AM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: AOM 2012: Planning for a PDW/paper stream concerning the validity of using university students as a generalisable sample

     

    Fred, thanks for sending this particular blog link.  I read it over lunch and came away disheartened.  The author (whom I can't identify from the blog) criticized Lehrer for sweeping generalizations but then himself wrote the following:

     

    "The problem isn't that the Decline Effect happens in science; the problem is that we think psychology and ecology and economics are sciences. They can be approached scientifically, but their conclusions cannot be considered valid outside of their immediate context." 

     

    "The problem isn't the Decline Effect, the problem is you believed the data had the force of  F=ma.  No one should be surprised when medical "truths" turn out to be wrong-- they were never true to begin with."

     

    "And the moment you talk to The New Yorker, your misinterpreted statistical association becomes truth."

     

    So I think the blogger here is ranting against the popular press (and scientists who talk to the popular press) and how it reports on findings too early and too flippantly. But he also seems to be dismissing all empirical research and, in particular, dismissing all research excepts physics. 

     

    Some of the studies described by Lehrer are rigourous meta-analyses, synthesized across multiple studies. They are not "n = 4 studies" (to use another quote from the blog post).  In this post I do not see a substantive criticism of the studies that Lehrer discusses as a basis for his views.

     

    As somone interested in the exchange of knowledge between science and practice, I come away thinking that the blog author believes there is no truth and no value in scientists trying to explain their findings to a broader public. This seems to me to be a nihilistic view of all social science, rather than a targeted criticism of the Decline Effect.

     

    Maybe I missed something?

     

    Ken

     

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Kenneth G. Brown, Ph.D., SPHR

    Associate Professor of Management & Organizations and Tippie Research Fellow

    Editor, Academy of Management Learning & Education

    Henry B. Tippie College of Business

    The University of Iowa

    Iowa City, IA 52242

    Ph: 319.335.3812  Fx: 319.335.1957

     

    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Fred Nickols
    Sent: Friday, October 14, 2011 8:13 AM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: AOM 2012: Planning for a PDW/paper stream concerning the validity of using university students as a generalisable sample

     

    In relation to the article Gary posted, here's one that takes a critical view of the claims made in it.

     

    http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2011/02/the_decline_effect_is_stupid.html

     

     

    Regards,

     

    Fred Nickols

    Managing Partner

    Distance Consulting LLC

    Home to "Solution Engineering"

    1558 Coshocton Ave – Suite 303

    Mount Vernon, OH 43050

    www.nickols.us | fred@nickols.us

     

    "We Engineer Solutions to Performance Problems"

     

     

     

     

    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Gary
    Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 6:37 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: AOM 2012: Planning for a PDW/paper stream concerning the validity of using university students as a generalisable sample

     

    Colleagues,

     

    You have probably heard about the Decline Effect.

    I seems relevant to Romie's request.

     

    The Decline Effect, New Yorker Magazine.

    www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrer

     

    Disturbing or intriguing.

     

    Best,

     

    Gary Lundquist

     




  • 4.  sorting wheat from chaff

    Posted 10-15-2011 12:44

    Ken:

     

    This could be a very useful system but who would grade the graders?

     

    Regards,

     

    Fred Nickols

    Managing Partner

    Distance Consulting LLC

    Home to "Solution Engineering"

    1558 Coshocton Ave – Suite 303

    Mount Vernon, OH 43050

    www.nickols.us | fred@nickols.us

     

    "We Engineer Solutions to Performance Problems"

     

     

     

    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Brown, Kenneth G
    Sent: Friday, October 14, 2011 11:50 AM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: sorting wheat from chaff

     

    Fred,

     

    Thanks, this helps. I wonder if you and others have seen the classification schemes created to "rank evidence."  While there are a variety, here is one:

     

    http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/grades.htm

     

    From the US Preventative Services Task Force, this framework includes grades for both "level of certainty" (from high to low, derived from nature of evidence) and "suggestions for practice" (from A to D, or I as insufficient).

     

    What would you and others on the list think about classifying management education findings using such a classification system? This would provide one possible mechanism to help separate wheat from chaff....

     

    Ken

     

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Kenneth G. Brown, Ph.D., SPHR

    Associate Professor of Management & Organizations and Tippie Research Fellow

    Editor, Academy of Management Learning & Education

    Henry B. Tippie College of Business

    The University of Iowa

    Iowa City, IA 52242

    Ph: 319.335.3812  Fx: 319.335.1957

     

    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Fred Nickols
    Sent: Friday, October 14, 2011 1:36 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: AOM 2012: Planning for a PDW/paper stream concerning the validity of using university students as a generalisable sample

     

    Ken:

     

    What I take away from the two articles in question is that unless we are capable of authoritatively and competently examining and critiquing the design and conduct of a research effort, we are not in a good position to question – or accept – its findings.  My bottom-line conclusion is that a great deal of so-called scientific research isn't and its findings are not to be trusted.  On the other hand, I'm equally sure there is a great deal of solid scientific research being conducted and reported.  For me, as a non-scientist, the difficulty lies in knowing which is which and, frankly, I'm darned if I can tell.  Even if I were qualified to evaluate research design, conduct and findings, I would hate to have to do that every time an interesting new or contradictory finding was reported.  It seems to me there ought to be some kind of mechanism for sorting the wheat from the chaff.

     

    Regards,

     

    Fred Nickols

    Managing Partner

    Distance Consulting LLC

    Home to "Solution Engineering"

    1558 Coshocton Ave – Suite 303

    Mount Vernon, OH 43050

    www.nickols.us | fred@nickols.us

     

    "We Engineer Solutions to Performance Problems"

     

     

     

    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Brown, Kenneth G
    Sent: Friday, October 14, 2011 10:33 AM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: AOM 2012: Planning for a PDW/paper stream concerning the validity of using university students as a generalisable sample

     

    Fred, thanks for sending this particular blog link.  I read it over lunch and came away disheartened.  The author (whom I can't identify from the blog) criticized Lehrer for sweeping generalizations but then himself wrote the following:

     

    "The problem isn't that the Decline Effect happens in science; the problem is that we think psychology and ecology and economics are sciences. They can be approached scientifically, but their conclusions cannot be considered valid outside of their immediate context." 

     

    "The problem isn't the Decline Effect, the problem is you believed the data had the force of  F=ma.  No one should be surprised when medical "truths" turn out to be wrong-- they were never true to begin with."

     

    "And the moment you talk to The New Yorker, your misinterpreted statistical association becomes truth."

     

    So I think the blogger here is ranting against the popular press (and scientists who talk to the popular press) and how it reports on findings too early and too flippantly. But he also seems to be dismissing all empirical research and, in particular, dismissing all research excepts physics. 

     

    Some of the studies described by Lehrer are rigourous meta-analyses, synthesized across multiple studies. They are not "n = 4 studies" (to use another quote from the blog post).  In this post I do not see a substantive criticism of the studies that Lehrer discusses as a basis for his views.

     

    As somone interested in the exchange of knowledge between science and practice, I come away thinking that the blog author believes there is no truth and no value in scientists trying to explain their findings to a broader public. This seems to me to be a nihilistic view of all social science, rather than a targeted criticism of the Decline Effect.

     

    Maybe I missed something?

     

    Ken

     

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Kenneth G. Brown, Ph.D., SPHR

    Associate Professor of Management & Organizations and Tippie Research Fellow

    Editor, Academy of Management Learning & Education

    Henry B. Tippie College of Business

    The University of Iowa

    Iowa City, IA 52242

    Ph: 319.335.3812  Fx: 319.335.1957

     

    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Fred Nickols
    Sent: Friday, October 14, 2011 8:13 AM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: AOM 2012: Planning for a PDW/paper stream concerning the validity of using university students as a generalisable sample

     

    In relation to the article Gary posted, here's one that takes a critical view of the claims made in it.

     

    http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2011/02/the_decline_effect_is_stupid.html

     

     

    Regards,

     

    Fred Nickols

    Managing Partner

    Distance Consulting LLC

    Home to "Solution Engineering"

    1558 Coshocton Ave – Suite 303

    Mount Vernon, OH 43050

    www.nickols.us | fred@nickols.us

     

    "We Engineer Solutions to Performance Problems"

     

     

     

     

    From: Management Education and Development Discussion [mailto:MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Gary
    Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 6:37 PM
    To: MG-ED-DV@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
    Subject: Re: AOM 2012: Planning for a PDW/paper stream concerning the validity of using university students as a generalisable sample

     

    Colleagues,

     

    You have probably heard about the Decline Effect.

    I seems relevant to Romie's request.

     

    The Decline Effect, New Yorker Magazine.

    www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrer

     

    Disturbing or intriguing.

     

    Best,

     

    Gary Lundquist