Excellent thoughts, as usual. Another facet of engaging academics is that
the practitioners are not always aware of their frame of reference or
situatedness, thus do not perceive that what worked in one company or case
may not be appropriate for another. Such perspective can be provided by an
"outsider," especially one with a broad view.
> ------------------------------
>
> 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