- Email: [email protected]
Editorial: Applying for research grants
Sand. 1. Mgmt. Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 281-28?, Pergamon Press Ltd. Printed in Great Britam
1992
EDITORIAL APPLYING
FOR RESEARCH GRANTS
Some days ago a colleague asked this editor for advice about how to formulate applications for research grants. Would it be a good idea to include an introduction to research methods other than large sample, cross-section survey methods? It should perhaps be noted that the researcher in question is one of our most productive and respected management researchers. I advised against introducing any other methods than the traditional survey research to members of the social science research councils. They might be upset by the implication that they are not familiar with scientific methods. After all anybody that has participated in the deliberations of such a group of distinguished researchers will know that proper method and rigorous analysis are the catch words here. The advice is to use these words - method and rigorous - but not to say anything about the fact that you are not going to use cross-section survey research methods. (To avoid misunderstanding, it should be said that there are problems that can adequately be studied by way of survey methods, even if they are few in the management area.) This editor, having sat on various research grant committees for many years, remembers a tense moment some years ago when a committee was about to make a decision on an application by one of our young, bright economists. The application started with the sentence: “The organization and transaction costs of industrial enterprises have been subjected to hardly any scientific study”. The two representatives of the business administration area protested saying that they knew of several thousand researchers and hundreds of journals dealing with organization and costs in industry. One of the economists on the committee pointed out that the crucial word was scientific and suggested we should have a discussion on methods then and there. “Let me start”, he said, “I claim that only behaviour that can be described by equations can be subjected to rigorous analysis”! Then he looked across the table with an expectant look in his eyes. My business administration colleague and I both opened our mouths, thinking rapidly of how to respond properly to such an invitation to have a good 3 minute exchange on methods with the economists. Then we looked at each other, still thinking about how we should answer, both with our mouths wide open. We must have looked very funny. I still wonder why we did not break into roars of laughter. There was a moment of silence. Then we realized that we had failed to meet the challenge. How can you say anything persuasive on methods under such circumstances. We exhaled, closed our mouths, and sunk a little deeper into our chairs, and the meeting went on with decisions on grants with and without proper methods. It seems as if management research has suffered from having its applications for grants treated in the same fora as economics. The implicit assumption in economics is that it is the science of rational decisions. What would a rational man do in this or that situation is the question asked in micro economics. Most of the other branches of economics would crumble without the clean assumptions of rational decision-making of micro economic
282
EDITORIAL
theory. And the joy of rigorous analysis of equilibria! What would economics be without it? Even Porter (1991), who must be considered a renegade by some economists, believes that game theory is the right way to achieve a dynamic theory of strategy. The problem is that neither markets nor organizations seem to achieve equilibrium, if they would nobody would recognize it. Most actors would be busy throwing everything into disequilibrium again with their strategic management, making rigorous analysis impossible. Real actors are like students - universities would be very nice places without them. One way to counteract chaos is to give research grants to applicants who show their devotion to rigorous analysis and proper methods. One might wonder if it was good advice to recommend that a colleague refrain from the project of showing that there are other rigorous methods in the world other than cross-section survey research. With such a large population of researchers that have been brought up in the traditions of equilibria, data collection from large samples, and rigorous analysis to support statistical generalization, the time is not yet ripe. The breakthrough of a serious discussion about the proper match between problems and methods will have to come through the journals. We all know that editors and reviewers tend towards the conservative side in their evaluations; especially American journals, which have their ranking to worry about. Still, there are reasons for hope. Articles with serious analyses of other methods seem to be gaining in number and case method research is increasingly being published. The advice should have been to focus on publishing articles debating methodological issues rather than trying to educate conservative research grant committee members. The Scandinavian Journal of Management is a suitable outlet. Sten Jonsson Editor
REFERENCE Porter, M. E., Towards issue), pp. 95-119.
a dynamic
theory
of strategy,
Strategic Management Journal (1991), Vol. 12 (Special
1992
EDITORIAL APPLYING
FOR RESEARCH GRANTS
Some days ago a colleague asked this editor for advice about how to formulate applications for research grants. Would it be a good idea to include an introduction to research methods other than large sample, cross-section survey methods? It should perhaps be noted that the researcher in question is one of our most productive and respected management researchers. I advised against introducing any other methods than the traditional survey research to members of the social science research councils. They might be upset by the implication that they are not familiar with scientific methods. After all anybody that has participated in the deliberations of such a group of distinguished researchers will know that proper method and rigorous analysis are the catch words here. The advice is to use these words - method and rigorous - but not to say anything about the fact that you are not going to use cross-section survey research methods. (To avoid misunderstanding, it should be said that there are problems that can adequately be studied by way of survey methods, even if they are few in the management area.) This editor, having sat on various research grant committees for many years, remembers a tense moment some years ago when a committee was about to make a decision on an application by one of our young, bright economists. The application started with the sentence: “The organization and transaction costs of industrial enterprises have been subjected to hardly any scientific study”. The two representatives of the business administration area protested saying that they knew of several thousand researchers and hundreds of journals dealing with organization and costs in industry. One of the economists on the committee pointed out that the crucial word was scientific and suggested we should have a discussion on methods then and there. “Let me start”, he said, “I claim that only behaviour that can be described by equations can be subjected to rigorous analysis”! Then he looked across the table with an expectant look in his eyes. My business administration colleague and I both opened our mouths, thinking rapidly of how to respond properly to such an invitation to have a good 3 minute exchange on methods with the economists. Then we looked at each other, still thinking about how we should answer, both with our mouths wide open. We must have looked very funny. I still wonder why we did not break into roars of laughter. There was a moment of silence. Then we realized that we had failed to meet the challenge. How can you say anything persuasive on methods under such circumstances. We exhaled, closed our mouths, and sunk a little deeper into our chairs, and the meeting went on with decisions on grants with and without proper methods. It seems as if management research has suffered from having its applications for grants treated in the same fora as economics. The implicit assumption in economics is that it is the science of rational decisions. What would a rational man do in this or that situation is the question asked in micro economics. Most of the other branches of economics would crumble without the clean assumptions of rational decision-making of micro economic
282
EDITORIAL
theory. And the joy of rigorous analysis of equilibria! What would economics be without it? Even Porter (1991), who must be considered a renegade by some economists, believes that game theory is the right way to achieve a dynamic theory of strategy. The problem is that neither markets nor organizations seem to achieve equilibrium, if they would nobody would recognize it. Most actors would be busy throwing everything into disequilibrium again with their strategic management, making rigorous analysis impossible. Real actors are like students - universities would be very nice places without them. One way to counteract chaos is to give research grants to applicants who show their devotion to rigorous analysis and proper methods. One might wonder if it was good advice to recommend that a colleague refrain from the project of showing that there are other rigorous methods in the world other than cross-section survey research. With such a large population of researchers that have been brought up in the traditions of equilibria, data collection from large samples, and rigorous analysis to support statistical generalization, the time is not yet ripe. The breakthrough of a serious discussion about the proper match between problems and methods will have to come through the journals. We all know that editors and reviewers tend towards the conservative side in their evaluations; especially American journals, which have their ranking to worry about. Still, there are reasons for hope. Articles with serious analyses of other methods seem to be gaining in number and case method research is increasingly being published. The advice should have been to focus on publishing articles debating methodological issues rather than trying to educate conservative research grant committee members. The Scandinavian Journal of Management is a suitable outlet. Sten Jonsson Editor
REFERENCE Porter, M. E., Towards issue), pp. 95-119.
a dynamic
theory
of strategy,
Strategic Management Journal (1991), Vol. 12 (Special