Discussion: View Thread

  • 1.  hypotheses? data?

    Posted 12-03-2015 13:47

    I find it hard to make sense of Dave's comment about changing a system that (apparently) has worked well for a century. I don't know who is proposing such a thing. It seems to me that trends in external evaluation and journal lists have indeed changed, though over a longer period of time than Dave suggests.

    One modest improvement, in my mind (shared with Ari Lewin in a discussion a few years back) would be to have a different reviewing approach. This would include whatever necessary expertise is called for: a topical/subject matter reviewer, a related literature reviewer (possibly the same person) and a methods reviewer. If all said the manuscript was at least competent it would be published. This might get around the problem of writing to avoid being rejected... and yes, I think that is a problem.

    If one were so inclined to collect data (good thing, certainly) and form hypotheses, perhaps a place to explore is the changes in UK scholarship before and after the (various forms of) research assessment exercises.

    On the anecdotal front, I have received lengthy private communications from junior scholars who do experience this as a problem. Small n, possibly wrong... but the comments resonated with them.

    As for the natural sciences, the inspiration for my post was a lead story in today's Chronicle. It in turn is based on a book:

    http://www.amazon.com/Creativity-Crisis-Reinventing-Science-Possibility/dp/0199375380/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1449167842&sr=1-1&keywords=The+Creativity+Crisis

    The review in Science states that

    Ness's book is so broad that it often cannot do sufficient justice to its own arguments. Yet there is empirical evidence underneath many points, even where that depth is left more to the bibliography than the prose.

    Alex


    Alex Stewart, Ph.D.
    Professor of Management
    Coleman Foundation Chair in Entrepreneurship
    Marquette University
    Milwaukee, WI 53201-1881
    Office: 414 288-7188
    ************************************** This message is from ENTREP which is sponsored by the Entrepreneurship Division of the Academy of Management. Please do not post messages with attached files. Commercial messages or spammed messages are not allowed on the list. The use of auto-responder "out-of-office" messages may also lead to your removal from the list. You can manage your subscription options, including joining or leaving the list here: http://aomlists.pace.edu/scripts/wa.exe?SUBED1=entrep&A=1 If you have questions or need help, please contact Jeff Pollack (jeff_pollack@ncsu.edu) or John Bunch (jbunch@benedictine.edu). Ventures HO!


  • 2.  hypotheses? data?

    Posted 12-03-2015 14:25
    I have to agree with Alex, that the 'system' is certainly dysfunctional, it is under assault UNLIKE anything that occurred over the last century (increasing significantly over the past decade as more global players compete in the same 'game') and there are numerous articles (including a special issue I am now co-editing for AMLE) where we have plenty of hypotheses and data to demonstrate a problem. Of course, you have only to look here: http://jom.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/03/18/0149206314527133.full
    Or here:
    Or here:
    Or here:

    To begin to get a sense of the problem. Alternatively, you might look at the host of retractions going on, many of them ethical violations. In fact, I'm a bit surprised that ANYONE would think the system is 'working pretty well', but I suppose, for some people, arguably a minority,  it may be just 'honky dory'. However, I maintain that we all pay the price when the system only works for a minority of scholars, and fails to take advantage of the richness and diversity of scholarship world-wide. When less than 5% of all papers are accepted to top journals, and these are required for tenure in numerous institutions,  very strange and unfortunate biases tend to creep in. As far as the innovation in our work, I'm still waiting for clear evidence based management to demonstrate we're making progress. 
    Nice discussion, Happy researching,
    Benson
    - 
    Benson Honig Ph.D.
    Teresa Cascioli Chair in Entrepreneurial Leadership
    DeGroote School of Business, McMaster University
    Hamilton Ontario Canada L8S4M4
    Tel: 905-525-9140 ext. 23943
    Cell: 905-518-1716


    From: Entrepreneurship Division Listserv <ENTREP@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU> on behalf of Alex Stewart <alex.stewart@MARQUETTE.EDU>
    Reply-To: Alex Stewart <alex.stewart@MARQUETTE.EDU>
    Date: Thursday, December 3, 2015 at 1:46 PM
    To: "ENTREP@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU" <ENTREP@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU>
    Subject: [ENTREP] hypotheses? data?

    I find it hard to make sense of Dave's comment about changing a system that (apparently) has worked well for a century. I don't know who is proposing such a thing. It seems to me that trends in external evaluation and journal lists have indeed changed, though over a longer period of time than Dave suggests.

    One modest improvement, in my mind (shared with Ari Lewin in a discussion a few years back) would be to have a different reviewing approach. This would include whatever necessary expertise is called for: a topical/subject matter reviewer, a related literature reviewer (possibly the same person) and a methods reviewer. If all said the manuscript was at least competent it would be published. This might get around the problem of writing to avoid being rejected... and yes, I think that is a problem.

    If one were so inclined to collect data (good thing, certainly) and form hypotheses, perhaps a place to explore is the changes in UK scholarship before and after the (various forms of) research assessment exercises.

    On the anecdotal front, I have received lengthy private communications from junior scholars who do experience this as a problem. Small n, possibly wrong... but the comments resonated with them.

    As for the natural sciences, the inspiration for my post was a lead story in today's Chronicle. It in turn is based on a book:

    http://www.amazon.com/Creativity-Crisis-Reinventing-Science-Possibility/dp/0199375380/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1449167842&sr=1-1&keywords=The+Creativity+Crisis

    The review in Science states that

    Ness's book is so broad that it often cannot do sufficient justice to its own arguments. Yet there is empirical evidence underneath many points, even where that depth is left more to the bibliography than the prose.

    Alex


    Alex Stewart, Ph.D.
    Professor of Management
    Coleman Foundation Chair in Entrepreneurship
    Marquette University
    Milwaukee, WI 53201-1881
    Office: 414 288-7188
    ************************************** This message is from ENTREP which is sponsored by the Entrepreneurship Division of the Academy of Management. Please do not post messages with attached files. Commercial messages or spammed messages are not allowed on the list. The use of auto-responder "out-of-office" messages may also lead to your removal from the list. You can manage your subscription options, including joining or leaving the list here: http://aomlists.pace.edu/scripts/wa.exe?SUBED1=entrep&A=1 If you have questions or need help, please contact Jeff Pollack (jeff_pollack@ncsu.edu) or John Bunch (jbunch@benedictine.edu). Ventures HO!
    ************************************** This message is from ENTREP which is sponsored by the Entrepreneurship Division of the Academy of Management. Please do not post messages with attached files. Commercial messages or spammed messages are not allowed on the list. The use of auto-responder "out-of-office" messages may also lead to your removal from the list. You can manage your subscription options, including joining or leaving the list here: http://aomlists.pace.edu/scripts/wa.exe?SUBED1=entrep&A=1 If you have questions or need help, please contact Jeff Pollack (jeff_pollack@ncsu.edu) or John Bunch (jbunch@benedictine.edu). Ventures HO!