From 2nd HA story today - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Jun 13, 2004

RE: From 2nd HA story today

Date: Jun 13, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: elliott
"Not to purposely jump into this spat, but I would personally put a lot more stock in the social sciences citation index rating of a paper's quality (over time) over some judgement by an award committee about "how good" a paper is at the point in which it gets published. "

Right. And if all it took were to win a few national journal awards (any book awards?) then a hell of lot of folks in CoAL should be dean and making way more than the paltry sums (comparatively) than they make now.

Date: Jun 13, 2004

i hate to enter this fray, but this points up the difficulty of judging vitae, particularly from an area that is not one's own. some value books, some value articles, some want quantity, some want quality. some want a citation index, some point out that poor articles get cited a great deal. in the best of all worlds we'd want all of the above--quantity and quality, books and articles. but USM isn't the best of all worlds. disciplines differ in what is valuable. we get people that have a mixed bag.

Date: Jun 13, 2004

a citation count would still be better than what a panel of judges (e.g., international figure skating) says about the value of the paper at the time it hits print.

Date: Jun 13, 2004

maybe. depends on the judges. how are nobel prizes awarded? some articles get cited because they are bad. that is a well-known problem with citation counts.

Date: Jun 13, 2004

Nobel Prizes are backward looking. A best paper award attempts to be forward looking. Nobel Prize committees look at citation counts, and the decisions of Nobel Prize committees are often criticized. Interestingly, Nobel Prizes are given for management.

Date: Jun 13, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: tomcat
"Nobel Prizes are backward looking. A best paper award attempts to be forward looking. Nobel Prize committees look at citation counts, and the decisions of Nobel Prize committees are often criticized. Interestingly, Nobel Prizes are given for management."

meant to say 'are not' given for management. Sorry.

Date: Jun 13, 2004

i'm not sure that article awards are forward looking. they may be backward looking, but not as far back as nobel prizes. they are an assessment of the quality of articles published at a particular point in time. which are the best. remember, the articles, both those awarded and those not, are still peer-reviewed, it's trying to pick the best of the best.

again, still points out the difficulty of evaluating the quality of research in areas with which one is unfamiliar. i don't know management, but i do know the academy of management review is a top-notch journal.

Date: Jun 13, 2004

So, a best paper award judges the best paper in a volume (i.e., a given year). Twenty years later, according to a market test, that paper may be the 19th best of the volume. What's the value of the best paper award? This type of judgement is far different that the backwards looking (sometimes 30 or more years) of a Nobel Prize.

Date: Jun 13, 2004

stinky cheese man, let's cut to the chase. Are you of the opinion that Doty is a big-name/big-time scholar in management?

Date: Jun 13, 2004

again, it's the best of the best at that time. stand the test of time? maybe-maybe not. but at the point of time it was judged the best--remember it was the best of the peer-reviewed articles published at the time. an editorial board already reviewed and passed muster on it. knowledge changes over time.

research published (via a peer-reviewed process) can look pretty silly over time. i've seen research publshed in my discipline 40 years ago, and it looks lame, but at the time it was judged to meet the standards of the time.

Date: Jun 13, 2004

Yes, but wouldn't the mindset of a committee of judges for a best paper award be "which one of these papers is going to have the greatest impact on the discipline over the next several (really several) years? I think so. It's forward looking.

Date: Jun 13, 2004

to onlooker--don't know. i'll give him the benefit of the doubt on the articles he published in the academy of management. it is a journal that in my discipline, which is not in business and economic develop, is well respected. "big time" i don't know what you mean by "big time." frankly, by some standards, no one at USM is big time in terms of publishing articles.

Date: Jun 13, 2004

frankly, in my most cynical of moments i say that if you are a "big time/big name" scholar at USM, then what the h*ll are you doing here. i'm not that cynical and believe that we're doing the best we can under trying circumstances. but i've said that for 20+ years.

Date: Jun 13, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: stinky cheese man
"frankly, in my most cynical of moments i say that if you are a "big time/big name" scholar at USM, then what the h*ll are you doing here. i'm not that cynical and believe that we're doing the best we can under trying circumstances. but i've said that for 20+ years."

I never thought I would post to this board, but I have followed the comments concerning with considerable interest.

When Dr. Doty arrived, about a year ago, many of us were hopeful that he had the skills and the ability to work toward improving CBED. However, we quickly learned that his greatest skill was in talking and self-promoting.

Contrary to his claims, his research is not world class. It is, even by CBED standards, marginal. He does not talk to his faculty unless they agree with his position. He does not encourage, promote or facilitate excellence. He encourages, promotes and facilites cronyism.

For all of this I am truly sorry.

Date: Jun 14, 2004

I've been following the debates about Doty's Best Paper awards in the 2 AMJ journals with some interest. Just did a quik search of the lit.

His coauthor on one, William Glick, has the following, and without Doty (note Huber is the other coauthor):

Acad. Manag. Executive, 2002; Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 2002; AMJ 2001 (with Huber); Decision Sciences, 2001; Strategic Mgt. Journal, 1999; Strategic Mgt. Journal, 1998; AMJ, 1997; another AMJ, 1997; AMJ, 1991 (with Huber); Organization Science, 1990 (with Huber); another Organization Science, 1990 (with Huber again); Academy of Mgt. Review, 1998; Academy of Mgt. Review, 1986; Academy of Mgt. Review, 1985.

His coauthor on the other is John Delery. Here is a look at Delery's recent work:

Journal of Business Research, 2003; Strategic Mgt. Journal, 2002; Personnel Psychology, 2001; Strategic Mgt. Journal, 2001; Organizational Res. Methods, 2000; Industrial Relations, 2000; Journal of Organizational Behavior, 1998; AMJ, 1998; Human Resource Mgt. Review, 1998.

So much for "Doty" having "won" 2 best paper awards. Looks like the poster who noted that "they dropped him" is probably correct after all. He owes a small fortune ($150K) to Glick and company.

Date: Jun 14, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: crow
"I've been following the debates about Doty's Best Paper awards in the 2 AMJ journals with some interest. Just did a quik search of the lit. His coauthor on one, William Glick, has the following, and without Doty (note Huber is the other coauthor): Acad. Manag. Executive, 2002; Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 2002; AMJ 2001 (with Huber); Decision Sciences, 2001; Strategic Mgt. Journal, 1999; Strategic Mgt. Journal, 1998; AMJ, 1997; another AMJ, 1997; AMJ, 1991 (with Huber); Organization Science, 1990 (with Huber); another Organization Science, 1990 (with Huber again); Academy of Mgt. Review, 1998; Academy of Mgt. Review, 1986; Academy of Mgt. Review, 1985. His coauthor on the other is John Delery. Here is a look at Delery's recent work: Journal of Business Research, 2003; Strategic Mgt. Journal, 2002; Personnel Psychology, 2001; Strategic Mgt. Journal, 2001; Organizational Res. Methods, 2000; Industrial Relations, 2000; Journal of Organizational Behavior, 1998; AMJ, 1998; Human Resource Mgt. Review, 1998. So much for "Doty" having "won" 2 best paper awards. Looks like the poster who noted that "they dropped him" is probably correct after all. He owes a small fortune ($150K) to Glick and company."

Those in CBED don't need anyone to tell them that Doty's research record isn't all that hot. Read his vita and it's obvious. The truth is nobody would really care if he were doing a good job for the college. He has created an atmosphere where he only hears those who agree with him. I have seen no efforts on his part to reach out the faculty. Faculty who have tried to give him a different perspective have been rebuffed. If there is an explosion at CBED, the dean manufactuired the bomb and lit the fuse.

Date: Jun 14, 2004

Have to agree with you on the Doty thing. It is unfortunate that the wheels in the CBED are falling off. Doty came in hootin and hollering about research this and research that and now he's all about "service." His top 10% who got raises was based on service. He lost everyone who is worth anything at that point. He is indeed one of "them" now and all hope is lost for the CBED.

Date: Jun 14, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: onlooker
"He's been around 15-20 years and has about 6-7 articles. Wow? I don't think so. And each Academy of Management Journal he has is with someone more famous. And doesn't he have more than just this one with Glick? I think so. If he's so fantastic at research, why is he depriving the world of his research talents to be a much-less-than-mediocre administrator? Doesn't seem like a smart trade-off to me. Unless, of course, his research is way overblown. Right you are my friend. "

Hey onlooker, to answer your last question with a question: Can you say "$150K/yr," "Dean/tenured full professor," and "home in Canebrake"? I thought so.

Date: Jun 15, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Caught in the Middle
"Have to agree with you on the Doty thing. It is unfortunate that the wheels in the CBED are falling off. Doty came in hootin and hollering about research this and research that and now he's all about "service." His top 10% who got raises was based on service. He lost everyone who is worth anything at that point. He is indeed one of "them" now and all hope is lost for the CBED. "

What Dr. Doty doesn't seem to understand is that adminstrators are transient. Over the past seven years or so, he is the third dean at CBED (four if you count the interim dean). While Doty has done, and can continue to do, a great deal of damage, I have great faith that our faculty will continue to do their jobs. For that reason I refuse to beleive all hope is lost.

Regardless of how much damage he does to CBED, we will rebuild and move one.

Date: Jun 15, 2004

Adam, at least all of the chairs are good in the college, right?

Date: Jun 15, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: new eagle
"Adam, at least all of the chairs are good in the college, right?"

I suppose you know Ken Malone is a chair in the college. Oddly enough, I'd bet that if you polled each department, Malone would be about the 2nd or third most popular chair (out of about 6 or 7) in the college these days.

Date: Jun 15, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: new eagle
"Adam, at least all of the chairs are good in the college, right?"

According to the CBED web page, after a year Dr. Doty still has four interim chairs. I think you can answer your own question now.

Interim Director
Dr. Rod Posey

Interim Department Chair:

Dr. Mark Klinedinst

Interim Department Chair

Dr. Alvin Williams

Department Chair

Dr. Alvin Williams

Chair
Ken Malone

Date: Jun 15, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Adam
" According to the CBED web page, after a year Dr. Doty still has four interim chairs. I think you can answer your own question now. Interim DirectorDr. Rod Posey Interim Department Chair: Dr. Mark Klinedinst Interim Department Chair Dr. Alvin Williams Department Chair Dr. Alvin Williams Chair Ken Malone"

he adam how'd you pull anything off the cbed webpage? i didn't think any of it was functional///

Date: Jun 15, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: onlooker
"he adam how'd you pull anything off the cbed webpage? i didn't think any of it was functional///"

Hey Onlooker, good question. I don't think anyone has claimed that none of the CBED web page is functional. If you go click around, you will find most of it is non-functional. Among the few active links are the departments and the office of the dean. Except for economic development, you can't get to anything but the mission pages for each department. The mission page has the name and status of the chairs.

But, go look at the CBED webpage yourself.

http://www.usm.edu/colleges/cbed/

I think you will agree, it is pretty bad. It isn't anything we can be proud of, but hopefully, it will work better by fall.