Some of the thought provoking comments shared as a result of the
initial question have been excellent. The discussion itself might
have taken different directions had the initiator placed the
question in context: Is the committee seriously seeking to
identify quality journals? (would be one issue), or is the
individual seeking to bolster their qualifications by arguing that
their publication record is equivalent to an existing standard?
(would be an entirely different issue).
Regardless, and following the thread, I believe we are confronted
with at least four (probably more) separate issues, and the
dialogue appears to be blurring the separation between them, which
is unfortunate, because I believe each is a separate issue that
must be resolved in each individual's mind. These issues are NOT
unique to entrepreneurship, but this is a good forum.
1. The issue of validity of measures; what constitutes an "A"
journal, and what does not. Unfortunately, elitism and self
aggrandizing abound in Academia. Most journals are
self-perpetuating (reviewers look for how many times articles from
that journal are cited within an article submitted for review; is
the journal's stream of thought being perpetuated?). As long as
we're dealing with human institutions, this issue will remain. On
one hand, there are journals (e.g. Administrative Science
Quarterly, Academy of Management Journal, Organization Science
.... etc., etc., etc.) that we all immediately recognize as
"top-tier" journals. On the other hand, there numerous journals
appearing almost daily. The quality of the article is not
necessarily related to the quality of the journal. There are
numerous examples of poor quality research in good journals and
there are numerous examples of excellent research appearing in
less than top tier journals. The quality of a journal develops
over time (e.g., JBV, JSBM, IEMJ, etc., etc), and is heavily
impacted by the editorial staff. Ideally, the acceptability of a
journal should be reviewed periodically. HOWEVER, there appears
to be strong correlation between the stature (or aspired stature)
of the institution and the desired ranking of journals. First
tier research Universities (we think we know who they are, and
those who want to be there) establish more restrictive
requirements than comprehensive Carnegie 1 Universities. Tenure
at a Top Tier University requires publication in acceptable top
tier journals.
2. The issue of tenure: Tenure is determined by institutional /
departmental criteria. The criteria are different at every
university / institution, and are generally available for review
prior to joining an institution. Most universities have a tiered
review process (at WIU, there are four specific reviews each
review period, with two additional possible if the applicant
appeals. The department / university criteria, in fact, a form of
contract to assure the University of having productive personnel
and the faculty member of having assurances of some measures of
performance standards. Review processes occur annually, and if
done properly, should identify on-going steps that must be taken
to assure success. The application of the process is in the hands
of mere mortals; it will often be biased. It is also continually
shaped by new entrants - the only way to change the tenure process
is from the inside. AACSB (which impacts approximately 25% of the
business schools, looks very closely at how academic
qualifications are defined and enforced. At WIU, a Carnegie 1
University (for example), three each of category 1, 2, and 3 are
required. We do not specify category 1 outlets by name, but
require that they be double-blind-reviewed. We also required that
the be classified as being theoretical, pedagogy, or
application-oriented contributions. We are reviewing our
criteria with the intention of removing some ambiguity (requiring
the applicant to demonstrably argue for intellectual contribution)
and requiring a cohesive research stream and regularity of
publishing. We also look at whether the publication is
individually or collectively authored. A less prominent,
double-blind reviewed publication that is solely authored is
favorable to a third-named author in a top-tier journal.
3. The issue of intellectual contribution and the dissemination
of creative (and different) thought. The reality, unfortunately,
is that true intellectual contribution will generally be opposed
by the social processes for affiliation, especially in Academia.
I am mindful of Bruno Latour's "Structure of Scientific
Revolutions?" Copernicus & Galileo, were certainly not given
credit (equivalent to tenure?) during their time, Deming didn't
receive acceptance in the U.S. for how many years? More recently
and within the field of entrepreneurship, David Birch did not get
published in a top-tier journal, and unquestionably achieved
significant impact. I would be interested in learning of a
significant, paradigmatic-breaking piece of research that first
appeared in a U.S. "A" journal? If we want to have a truly
entrepreneurial impact on academia as a whole, why not explore the
correlation of intellectual contribution to the outlet, and trace
the distribution? Citations is one possible measure, if it can be
controlled for self-citing. Citations over time is another (e.g.,
how often is Birch's 1981 article in "Public Interest" cited?).
Geographic dispersion (citation in foreign journals, translation
into other languages, use in pedagogy, etc.) might be another
measure. We could truly demonstrate methodological creativity and
rigor in this area.
4. The fourth issue is the intersection of personal aspirations
and standards; and the inevitable whining. If anyone accepts a
position at a university without clearly understanding and
accepting the tenure requirements; shame on them. As educators,
we are familiar with the many students who challenge the standards
rather than recognizing their personal responsibility. It is no
different for faculty. Ultimately, it is the applicant's duty to
demonstrate a cohesive research stream impact onto the academic
community, and this can be done in many different ways.
Pardon the long discourse, but having just served on (and
chaired) our department's personnel committee during reviews) and
having seen great variance in what was submitted, I thought
perhaps someone would be interested in having the issues separated
from each other.
Emeric
Dr. Emeric Solymossy (Dr. E.)
Assoc. Professor of Management and Entrepreneurship
Western Illinois University - Quad Cities
Phone: 309-762-9481 ext 249
Fax: 309-762-6989
e-Mail
E-Solymossy@wiu.edu
Web:
http://faculty.wiu.edu/E-Solymossy
-----Original Message-----
From: Entrepreneurship Division Listserv
[mailto:
ENTREP@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU] On Behalf Of
bpowell@BAMA.UA.EDU
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 7:17 PM
To:
ENTREP@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU
Subject: Re: [ENTREP] JBV as a top journal
This thread regarding the measurement of research performance in
Entrepreneurship is a very good one. If any field within business
academia is likely to spark reform of the current system, it is
Entrepreneurship. But as Per points out, none of the posts have
suggested a superior alternative.
Posts have presented a craft-type system as a straw man. But the
fact
that such a system is rejected so readily is very disconcerting to
me.
What's wrong with a department reading and reviewing the work of
its
members? Are we not professional enough to make a reasonable
effort to
identify and neutralize biases? How can we so flippantly dismiss
the
character of our colleagues?
The counter argument is that it would be naive to trust colleagues
to
review our work. What does that then say about the type of people
whom
business schools are hiring? Also, it is very easy to manufacture
data
and results in ways that reviewers cannot detect. Thus, the peer
review
system requires much trust as well. Why is trust appropriate in
one
context but not the other? If we cannot trust these people to
make
tenure decisions, why can we trust them to maintain research
standards
in their own work and in their reviews of journal submissions?
I see this thread tied to a much larger problem - the infusion of
agency theory into all aspects of life. Universal pay for
performance.
This trend is worse in the USA, but it's almost everywhere. And
it's
undermining important institutions like departmental review and
professional standards. It's nice to hear at least a few voices
challenging this distinctly American perspective. We should give
as
much thought and effort to strengthening our academic culture and
standards as we do to measuring and rewarding research
performance.
Another problem with the current system is that it is creating a
mono-culture, especially in the USA. From an ecological
perspective, a
mono-culture is terrible. It is devastating for the creativity of
a
field. This thread seems to suggest that the folks in New Zealand
have
a greater capacity for independent thought than do those of us
embedded
in the American academic mono-culture. My very limited
understanding of
the creativity literature is that assessment of any type - even
positive
- undermines creativity. Not surprisingly, most of history's
great
intellectual breakthroughs seem to have come from people who come
from
"outside the system," e.g. the Swiss patent clerk who developed
the
theory of relativity. In focusing strictly on universal
assessment of
individual performance, we are undermining our collective or
community
performance.
As we continue to tighten the noose of peer review, we run the
risk of
ceding leadership in the field of Entrepreneurship to outsiders.
The
ultimate arbitrator of performance is not a journal, an editor, or
the
AACSB. It is the marketplace for ideas. Ultimately, we must
compete
there. If peer review does not align with the marketplace, then
it will
be selected-out. Our journals are intended to be instruments for
the
dissemination of knowledge. When no one reads them (other than
us),
they and the process that produces them loose their fitness and
eventually become extinct.
-Ben Powell
Quoting Per Davidsson <
per.davidsson@QUT.EDU.AU>:
> Hi all,
>
> As much as I agree with many of the critical arguments (it is
> contribution that counts / it is circulation that counts / not
all
> papers in 'A' journals are used and cited much ... 'reducing
Tenure
> and Promotion committees to bean counters'...) it always
> amazes/amuses me that when people whinge about things like this
that
> they don't seem to be asking:
>
> - Is a LACK OF system any better? (how much arbitrariness and
bias
> would you have then? Is there any risk that very old laurels,
> self-promotion skills and even good looks would be over rated?
> Availability heuristic? Escalation of commitment?)
> - Is the CURRENT/OTHER system any better? (e.g., in Australia we
have
> for a long time had a system emphasising number of publications
only
> and treating all peer reviewed publications as equally good --
there
> is scientific evidence [Anne-Wil Harzing, again!] this has
increased
> the quantity but decreased the academic impact of Australian
> research--and more so in business econmics than in other areas)
>
> Personally, I prefer a system that has transparent criteria to
one
> that hasn't, and one that is better than the current
system--albeit
> not perfect (no system is ever going to be)--to clinging to the
old
> one (we are currently moving towards a more quality-sensitive
system
> in Oz, which many individuals and institutions whinge and
agonise
> over).
>
> The tragedy of all the measuring, ranking and accreditation is
rather
> the amount of time and effort that is invested into it, rather
than
> into producing the excellent work that is the intended object of
all
> these efforts.
>
> We still do research to learn, grow, have fun--and be of some
use,
> right?
>
> Regards,
>
> Per
>
>
>
> Per Davidsson
> Professor in Entrepreneurship
> Brisbane Graduate School of Business
> Queensland University of Technology
> Gardens Point Campus, Brisbane
> 4001 Queensland
> Australia
> Ph: +617 3138 2051
> Fax: +617 3138 1299
> email:
per.davidsson@qut.edu.au
>
>
> Australia's first MBA with the 'triple crown' of
> accreditation
>
> **************************************
> 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 Dr. 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 Dr. 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 Dr. John Bunch
jbunch@benedictine.edu.
Ventures HO!