Dear Carlos:
Here are a couple of thoughts -- more from reviewing papers than from running a doctoral seminar. I hope that they are useful.
First, although the subject seems to be concise, the reality of research is that it is highly diverse. As a consequence, the field itself would need to be defined well -- how it is seen from different schools of thinking -- from Cyert and March's work through the Harvard Fatigue Lab studies (Hawthorne, Frederick Taylor, Tavistock, Lawrence-Lorsch), through psychology (decision-making), the "Visible Hand," TCE and RBV, etc.
Next, I believe that each paper should be approached on its own. When I review, I usually start with the question of, "What are the authors attempting to accomplish?" Sometimes, a paper may present years of exhaustive work. Others may frame a new area of inquiry. Still others may simply be a commentary on the state of things in a particular area on study.
Once I have a clear picture of what the authors are trying to accomplish, I ask, "How well are they achieving the goal that they set for themselves?" I also ask, "Did they set a reasonable goal -- meaning that it is ambitious enough but still well-defined? Many papers that I read could benefit from a sharper focus and less extraneous effort.
Then, I ask, "In what way is this effort a significant addition to our knowledge of the subject?" (Notice that I avoid asking whether it is.)
Finally, in reviewing a paper, I ask, "What would best aid the authors in getting to their goal?" If I am to make suggestions on a work in progress, I hope to make them really useful to the authors. Sometimes, it may be to sharpen the focus. At others, it may be to consider a different school of thought (many writers in our field seem to miss some highly relevant work of others, perhaps they are not familiar with it.)
In a doctoral seminar, I would also ask, "If we follow the direction that this author is going, where would it take us?" In research, I would be looking for the next logical step -- or an influence of this work on a different line of inquiry.
In practice, I would be asking, "What important question does this answer?" So much of management thinking seems to be based on untested heuristics. (And we, as academics often contribute to that problem rather than help solve it.)
I hope that these comments are at least a little bit helpful.
Jim Biteman
Tulane University
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 2:30 PM
Subject: PhD Seminar Questions
I am designing a Foundations of Management Doctoral Seminar. PhD Seminars frequently establish a list of questions the student must respond to review each research paper. What list of questions did you use when you went through the program? What list of questions are you using now when you teach a PhD Seminar? Do you change the questions according to the nature of the paper? Is this the most productive approach to teach such a course?
Thanks in advance.
Carlos Alcérreca
ITAM
México
La información contenida en este mensaje de datos es confidencial, constituye un secreto industrial y/o profesional en términos de la legislación vigente y se encuentra dirigida exclusivamente al destinatario indicado en dicho mensaje. Si usted recibe esta información por error o si usted no es el destinatario del mensaje, favor de notificar al emisor, y destrúyalo.
The information contained in this electronic message is confidential, it constitutes a profesional and/or industrial secret in terms of the current legislation, and is intended for its recipient only. If you receive this message by mistake or if you are not the recipient thereof, please notify the sender and destroy it.