Dear All, I share Jim's concern about type ll errors as well. It is our obligation to let students know that all of our knowledge claims are not done with a God's Eye certitude, but are subject to revision. We and our theories are fallible. They are our best guesses at the time. As Jim implies, it is the long range predictability of a theory that gives us a belief that the hypothetical constructs we propose actually exists. Our problem is that in the test of any theory, we are actually testing 3 theories. One theory purports to explain how the world works. One theory purports to provide the evidence. (This seems similar to Jim's concern about income as a surrogate for success). What we call construct validity. And one theory purports to say how we should be able to observe if a relationship really exists, i.e, how we should test our theories. We must always be circumspect whenever we make knowledge claims. Was it Cronbach who said no set of data ever disproved/forebade a theory. If the theory that is under examination and the data don't correspond. Then we must first, replace one of the theories, (e.g., use another statistical technique, refine our measures, modify our hypotheses), then another, then possibly all three until we find correspondence. This is the problem fever of science, and why we need programs of study, not merely single tests, and should favor the publication of creative replications.
Kim Boal
________________________________________
From: Organizational Behavior Division Listserv [
OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Clawson, Jim [
ClawsonJ@DARDEN.VIRGINIA.EDU]
Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 9:33 AM
To:
OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: Re: [OB-LIST] Teaching/research
Dear Colleagues,
I agree this is an interesting conversation. Kim's note caused me to want to respond. At the other end of the spectrum are researchers who draw broad generalizations from narrow studies done with surrogate variables (we can't see that so we develop a substitute measure, income for success, for example) and present them as "truth" in the classroom. I'm as concerned about those Type B errors as much as Kim is concerned about Type A errors. I had a colleague once who turned down the opportunity to spend two years working inside a Fortune 5 company studying their attempts to manage change because he had to get back to his 'research' on his computer. I was amazed since the company was the "thing itself" not a 2-3 layer removed representation of it. In some ideal world, for me, we'd all have a deep appreciation of and experience in the world of practical affairs and worry about the receptivity of our outputs among practicing managers as well as a desire to uncover provocative insights in the audience of academics. Such a bi-lateral appreciation would better serve, I think, our students. "Teaching from the text book" is not my idea of what good instructors do. Good instructors would be able to bring both research and practical insight/experience into the classroom and facilitate students' learning what works and what doesn't. That implies a connection between what we do, what we think, and what at a deeper level, we believe. (e.g. Kuhn, Structure of Scientific Revolutions)... For me, it's not 'either/or,' it's 'and/also' mixed in with Ellis' E-prime language that eschews 'statements of truth.' And invites more humility about what is and what isn't.
Respectfully,
Jim
James G. S. Clawson
Johnson & Higgins Professor of Business Administration
Darden GSB, University of Virginia
Box 6550, Charlottesville, VA 22906
100 Darden Boulevard, Charlottesville, VA 22903 USA
Tel: 434 924 7488 Fax: 434 243 7680
Web:
http://faculty.darden.virginia.edu/clawsonj
-----Original Message-----
From: Organizational Behavior Division Listserv [mailto:
OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Boal, Kim
Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 9:11 AM
To:
OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: Re: [OB-LIST] Teaching/research
Dear All, this is an interesting discussion. Please let me propose one hypothesis. The best researchers on their topic are likely to introduce all shades of nuance into their discussions, even contradicting the textbook. This leaves some students confused. Less knowledgeable lecturers are likely to stick to the book. Because students follow the KISS principle, less knowledgeable lecturers are likely to be rated higher by the students even though they learn less.
Kim Boal
________________________________________
From: Organizational Behavior Division Listserv [
OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of Céleste Brotheridge [
celeste_brotheridge@YAHOO.CA]
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2009 10:53 PM
To:
OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: Re: [OB-LIST] Teaching/research
Greetings all,
Perhaps it is, in part, a question of what is being measured. It may be difficult to find a relationship if we are measuring research output and trying to correlate this with student satisfaction with their instructors. Perhaps, the skill sets that are required to be a strong researcher vs. a well-liked instructor are not entirely the same. Perhaps, correlations would be found if we compared research output with a more objective measure of teaching effectiveness (partly measured by an increase in student knowledge of research relevant to the class topic?). Finally it is possible that the correlation would be stronger at the doctoral level where research is much more likely to be discussed in classes.
Best regards,
Celeste
Céleste Grimard Brotheridge
Professeure
Département d'organisation et ressources humaines
ESG UQÀM
École des sciences de la gestion
315, rue Ste-Catherine Est, bureau R-3325
Montréal (Québec) H2X 3X2
Téléphone : 514 987-3000 poste 6540
Télécopieur : 514 987-0407
Courriel :
grimard-brotheridge.celeste@uqam.ca
www.esg.uqam.ca<http://gip.uqam.ca/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://gip.uqam.ca/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.esg.uqam.ca/>
þ Avant d'imprimer, pensez à l'environnement
--- On Thu, 11/19/09, DOAN WINKEL <
doanemil@MSN.COM> wrote:
From: DOAN WINKEL <
doanemil@MSN.COM>
Subject: Re: [OB-LIST] Teaching/research
To:
OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Received: Thursday, November 19, 2009, 10:04 PM
Cindi -
Great thought on reframing the question. One step further would be asking, since studies apparently show very little relationship between teaching and research, how do we go about establishing (or re-establishing) the relationship between the two?
Doan
________________________________
Doan Winkel
PhD Candidate
University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Sheldon B. Lubar School of Business - N368
PO Box 742
Milwaukee, WI 53201
> Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:32:08 -0700
> From:
cfukami@DU.EDU
> Subject: [OB-LIST] Teaching/research
> To:
OB@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
>
> Hi everyone,
> Our colleagues Roy Lewicki and James Bailey have recently published a very interesting chapter on the relationship between teaching and research. It is titled: " The Research-Teaching Nexus: Tensions and Opportunities," and appears in The Handbook of Managerial Learning, Education, and Development, edited by Steven Armstrong and myself.
>
> I think a more interesting question is not whether they are related, but why they are or are not.
>
> Take care,
> Cindi Fukami
>
> --
>
> Cindi Fukami
> Professor of Management
> 2101 S University Blvd.
> Denver CO 80208-8941
> 303.871.2193
>
> [cid:3341500328_46054]
>
>
________________________________
Windows 7: It works the way you want. Learn more.<http://www.microsoft.com/Windows/windows-7/default.aspx?ocid=PID24727::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WWL_WIN_evergreen:112009v2>
________________________________
Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail <http://ca.promos.yahoo.com/newmail/overview2/>