Seems to me that Kim is highlighting an important aspect of research,
whether it be by academics or practitioners. That is the difference between
the potential value of the research and the apparent value (as amplified by
marketing). A person's ability to negotiate the "tree house rules" for
gaining tenure and prestige is not necessarily congruent with an ability to
illuminate or cleanse the knowledge applied by the rest of us. We users
simply must notice whether the proffered knowledge is a theory or is a
vetted claim. With the advent of the www and other means for communicating
across location and political boundaries communities of practice are less
likely to be restricted to the campus. It takes great and purposeful effort
to create the collaboratory for vetting claims and we must do more.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Automatic digest processor" <
LISTSERV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU>
To: "Recipients of MG-ED-DV digests" <
MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU>
Sent: Sunday, December 22, 2002 10:36 PM
Subject: MG-ED-DV Digest - 21 Dec 2002 to 22 Dec 2002 (#2002-268)
> There are 4 messages totalling 300 lines in this issue.
>
> Topics of the day:
>
> 1. 12th World Business Congress
> 2. Decision Making thoughts...
> 3. Academics and practitioners
> 4. Got publications?
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 05:11:42 -0500
> From: Charles Wankel <
cxx@bellatlantic.net>
> Subject: 12th World Business Congress
>
> From: Erdener Kaynak [mailto:
k9x@psu.edu]
>
> >Dear Colleagues,
>
> >The Twelfth World Business Congress of the International Management
> >Developpment Association (IMDA) titled Succeeding in a
> >Turbulent Global Marketplace: Changes, Developments, Challenges, and
> >Creating Distinct Competencies will be held from June 25 through 29,
> >2003 at Hyatt Regency Hotel in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. The
> >Congress is organized by Lansbridge University, Kingston College, and
> >the International Management Development Association (IMDA). Scholarly
> >papers and panel/special session proposals for presentation and
> publication
> >in the refereed Congress proceedings are invited. In addition to
> sharing
> >scholarship regarding global business issues, the Congress is designed
> >to offer an excellent opportunity to meet colleagues from around the
> >world and exchange of information and ideas. Manuscript submission
> deadline
> >is March 15, 2003. For further information about the Congress, please
> >contact Dr. Erdener Kaynak at
execdirector@imda.cc or consult with
> >the web site of the Association at
http://www.imda.cc
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 10:52:23 -0600
> From: Kim Boal <
KimBoal@TTU.EDU>
> Subject: Re: Decision Making thoughts...
>
> Dear Colleagues, Gary is correct that practitioners are often the source
of
> new theories. Academics have no priviledged position with respect to the
> creation of knowledge. Though we probably spend more time thinking about
> it. Practitioners clearly apply theories they and others
> develop. However, with due respect to Gary, rarely to they put these
> theories to any stringent test to assess their internal validity.
Internal
> validity is concern with the question of whether or not X causes Y. To
> assess internal validity, one must show that: 1) X covaries with Y (i.e.,
> that high or low scores on X systematically, not due to chance, are
related
> to high or low scores on Y. These scores may be in the same or opposite
> direction, but they should be consistently the same (direction and
> magnitude) across time & situations unless a third variable Z moderates
the
> relationship between X & Y-effects the magnitude/direction of the
> covariation). 2) A second condition is that causes must precede effects,
> ie., a change in X must come before a change in Y_.3) Finally, to
> demonstrate internal validity, must one rule out alternative explanations,
> ie., that something else is causing a change in Y. Sometimes, two
> variables covary but the relationship is spurious in causal terms, eg.,
> height and weight. Few practitioners put their theory to such
> tests. Rather, in some causes they put them to the mimetic test, ie., if
> others are doing the same, that must be "proof" that the theory is
> true. Unfortunately, this is how many "fads" and "fashions" are
> born. Finally, many managers are not even aware of the theory they put in
> practice. For example, some might "espouse" a theory of "participative
> decision making" but "use" a theory of "autocratic decision making."
Chris
> Argyris noted this difference between "espoused theories" and "theories in
> use."
>
> As an academic, one of my goals is to improve practice. Unfortunately,
> some practitioners think we live in an ivory tower and are not connected
to
> the "real" world. I suggest that practitioners would be better off,if
they
> used academics to "test" the theories they are using or contemplating
> using. Conna is right that a gulf often exist between academics and
> practioners. We would both be better off, as would the knowledge
spectrum,
> if be cooperated with each other more. Each bringing to bear what they
have
> to offer with respect to the creation, testing,dissemination, and practice
> of knowledge. As Kurt Lewin once said, nothing is more practical than a
> good theory. The development of good theories usually takes the
> cooperation of both academics and practioners.
>
> Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy Holiday season.
>
> Kim Boal
>
> At 02:10 PM 12/20/2002 -0700, you wrote:
> >Colleagues,
> >
> >With due respect to Kim Boal, whose postings I highly regard, I must
> >question her assumptions regarding who creates, tests, disseminates, and
> >applies knowledge. Certainly academia has no special place in creating
> >and testing knowledge. Dissemination is the most obvious fit in terms of
> >those four categories.
> >
> >"Practitioners" develop, test, and apply knowledge.
> > In the hard sciences, academics are often, but not always, true
> > practitioners. I've taken many a science course in which the prof
simply
> > restated a text and offered no extra knowledge. And I've worked with
> > others who developed and tested astonishing new theories, then applied
> > them in very practical ways. Indeed, a lot of testing in science and
> > engineering is application to real-world problems.
> > In the business sciences, I'm more skeptical about professors being
> > practitioners. Perhaps because I've never had academic training in
business.
> >
> >On the other hand, managers, marketers, finance officers, and product
> >developers in industry, government, education, and the arts constantly
> >develop, test, and apply new theories, models. practices, and processes.
> > If they don't develop from scratch, they modify, update, restate,
and
> > refocus ideas into new contexts and applications.
> > A high percentage of business books, whether by academicians or
> > others, are syntheses of interviews with practitioners and analysis of
> > existing practices. The author may discover patterns and develop an
> > integrating language, but the core knowledge base is what practitioners
> > have already tried.
> > Business text books rarely state new theories for practitioners to
> > try out. They organize, summarize, and present existing knowledge.
> > That which is new to many minds (e.g., systems theory in The Fifth
> > Discipline) is almost always a new (and perhaps marvelous) presentation
> > of concepts, tools, and methodologies that have been in use by
> > practitioners for years.
> > I don't know how to measure the reality, yet I suspect that 80% or
> > more of new business ideas and models are written, taught, and promoted
> > by non-academic practitioners, including consultants. They do all four
> > steps: creating, testing, disseminating, and applying knowledge.
> >
> >So, Conna, I think that the odds are you have as much or more to offer
> >this group as anyone else. And I hope practitioners of all backgrounds
> >will continue to offer topics and share their knowledge.
> >
> >Best to all, and Happy Holidays!
> >
> >Gary
> >----------------------------
> >Change will never, ever again
> >be as slow as it is today.
> >
> >Gary Lundquist - The Accelerator
> >303-840-9929
www.market-engineering.com
> >
garyl@market-engineering.com
>
> --------------------------------
> Kim Boal
> College of Business Administration
> Texas Tech University
> Lubbock, TX 79409
> (806) 742-2150
>
KimBoal@ttu.edu
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 11:07:59 -0600
> From: Kim Boal <
KimBoal@TTU.EDU>
> Subject: Re: Academics and practitioners
>
> Dear Jack, I fully agreed with the need to collaborate. That is what
> prompted me to first respond to Conna's email. I wish practioners would
> make better use of academics. While academics can theorize (I have myself
> written several theoretical papers on Organizational commitment & job
> involvement, resource based view of the firm, charismatic leadership etc.)
> and academics can do limited laboratory studies to see if something "can"
> happen, to see if something "does" happen we need the cooperation of
> practioners.
>
> See my previous email on internal validity.
>
> Regards, Kim Boal
>
>
> At 07:18 AM 12/21/2002 -0700, you wrote:
> >Kim,
> >
> >Pls elaborate on how an academic can perform #2 without having some
> >appreciation for the demands within #4.
> >
> >Specifically, I am inquiring into whether a judgement that knowledge is
> >"right" can be based on the properties of the knowledge, sans situation,
or
> >does one first have to observe the effect of applying the knowledge to
judge
> >its viability let alone value?
> >
> >I am not suggesting "situation ethics" here. Simply inquiring into
whether
> >the proof is in the recipe or in the pudding -- as in, "It isn't what you
> >know, it is what you do with what you know"
> >
> >If testing and justification can be done without #4, how do you handle
the
> >Law of Unintended Consequences?
> >
> >In my several decades in this milieu I consistently see that the better
> >results stem from collaboration --- among academics, practitioners and
just
> >plain workers (including professors).
> >
> >
> > > Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 13:13:22 -0600
> > > From: Kim Boal <
KimBoal@TTU.EDU>
> > > Subject: Re: Decision Making thoughts...
> >[...]
> > > Let us put the knowledge spectrum on a four stage continuum from: 1)
the
> > > generation of new knowledge; 2) the testing/justification of new
> >knowledge;
> > > 3) the learning & dissemination of knowledge; and 4) the application
of
> > > knowledge.
>
> --------------------------------
> Kim Boal
> College of Business Administration
> Texas Tech University
> Lubbock, TX 79409
> (806) 742-2150
>
KimBoal@ttu.edu
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 11:42:27 -0600
> From: Kim Boal <
KimBoal@TTU.EDU>
> Subject: Re: Got publications?
>
> Dear All, To clarify David's statement, it is true that promotion and
> tenure at top tier Research universities is highly influenced by a
> scholar's impact on his/her discipline. Journal articles are one way of
> reaching other scholars and thus making a potential impact. (Merely
> publishing in certain journals is no guarantee that ones writings will be
> read, much less, influence others). However, books and book chapters,
> although not subject to the same review process often make as big, or
> bigger impact on the field, (e.g., Porter's book). The people who tend to
> be most respected among academics are those whose research/writings make a
> difference. Some "leading" scholars have written a lot, some not nearly
as
> much. But in both cases, they each wrote something that many others
judged
> to be important enough to cite their work as justification of the work the
> other was doing.
>
> Now not all universities put equal emphasis on scholarly
> impact. Interestingly, if you ask either practitioners or academics to
> name the top 20 business schools (off the top of their head, I bet that
> most of them are ones that place a great deal of emphasis on scholarly
> impact. Why is that? I submit that it is because the creation and
testing
> of knowledge, especially creation, of true knowledge is very difficult,
and
> thus highly prized).
>
> While I am a reasonably good academic, there is a reason I am not at
> Harvard, Michigan, or Stanford, etc. And there is a reason why both
> practitioners and academics value these business schools so highly. That
> reason has little to do with the dissemination of knowledge, since we do
> not keep systematic records across universities about teaching ability.
We
> do keep systematic records about ones contribution to the creation and
> testing of knowledge. Thus, universities use this information for making
> tenure/promotion decisions. However, my own experience is that one who is
> not a reasonably good (not outstanding or great necessarily) teacher will
> not be tenured or promoted, despite their research record.
>
> Regards, Kim Boal
>
> At 12:57 PM 12/21/2002 -0500, you wrote:
> >Folks,
> >
> >Careful, now. If we professors relax our hold on knowledge, then we are
> >shaking up our tidy world. Our promotion and tenure systems, our
> >credibilty among academics, our very mobility college to college is
> >carried by publications. Publications rule. Whatever that "stuff" is
> >that practioners call knowledge rarely meets the test of a juried article
> >in one of our top journals. If it's in the AMR, it must be right.
Right?
> >
> >David
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Jack wrote in reply to Kim:
> >Pls elaborate on how an academic can perform #2 without having some
> > appreciation for the demands within #4.
> >
> > Specifically, I am inquiring into whether a judgement that knowledge i
s
> > "right" can be based on the properties of the knowledge, sans
> > situation, or
> > does one first have to observe the effect of applying the knowledge to
> > judge
> > its viability let alone value?
> >
> > I am not suggesting "situation ethics" here. Simply inquiring into
> > whether
> > the proof is in the recipe or in the pudding -- as in, "It isn't what
you
> > know, it is what you do with what you know"
> >
> > If testing and justification can be done without #4, how do you handle
the
> > Law of Unintended Consequences?
> >
> > In my several decades in this milieu I consistently see that the
better
> > results stem from collaboration --- among academics, practitioners and
> > just
> > plain workers (including professors).
>
> --------------------------------
> Kim Boal
> College of Business Administration
> Texas Tech University
> Lubbock, TX 79409
> (806) 742-2150
>
KimBoal@ttu.edu
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of MG-ED-DV Digest - 21 Dec 2002 to 22 Dec 2002 (#2002-268)
> ***************************************************************
>