On serving two masters: An open letter to John E. Fleming
                                       
                   _From Lívia Markóczy and Jeff Goldberg_
                                      
     _________________________________________________________________
                                      
   Dear John,
   
   In your ethics column in the Academy of Management Newsletter (October
   1997) you pointed out some problems caused by the competing pressures
   of serving the academic community and management practitioners. We
   agree that there is a problem, but it is larger and distinct from what
   you mention. We think that the conflict between scholarship and
   serving practice is largely a creation of our greed, and once
   understood the solution is apparent, but it has a price.
   
   We will take as our starting point a quote from Daniel Dennett
   
     [T]he ``cutting edge'' [of science] is almost always composed of
     several rival edges, sharply competing and boldly speculative. Many
     of these speculations soon prove to be misbegotten, however
     compelling at the outset, and these necessary by-products of
     scientific investigation should be considered to be as potentially
     hazardous as any other laboratory wastes... If their
     misapprehension by the public would be apt to cause suffering ...
     scientists should be particularly cautious about how they proceed,
     scrupulous about labeling speculations as such, and keeping the
     rhetoric of persuasion confined to its proper place. [From Darwin's
     Dangerous Idea, Sec 7.1]
     
   If we accept Dennett's position (and we do), it becomes clear that
   striving to state the practical relevance of each and every bit of our
   work is a _disservice_ to the community. It is, in fact, irresponsible
   of us to do so. It is not only that our work may not stand the test of
   time (which only time will tell), but any particular study necessarily
   looks at only one or two things and often just one aspect of that one
   or two things. Such work is part of our collective attempt to
   construct the big picture, but it is only from the big picture that it
   would even be possible to offer advice.
   
   In the long run, of course, being able to do something useful with our
   theories may be the only true test of their validity. But that can
   only work as a long run view.
   
   So, the best way to serve the wider community is to resist the
   temptation to offer premature advice; to work on building up the big
   picture; and to be ``scrupulous about labeling speculations as such.''
   Anything else is a disservice to the community.
   
   This would resolve the ``conflict of pressures'' that you wrote of.
   Ignoring the pressure to provide guidance for practice is the best way
   to serve both communities. But why, if the resolution is so easy,
   don't we do that? Money. People are willing to pay for premature and
   boldly stated advice. If scholar A says:
   
     Sorry, although I have some opinions about how my theory might
     effect practice, and I certainly believe my theory is correct, it
     would be irresponsible of me to even hint at such implications
     until the field has had a chance to fully digest my work. So I
     won't say anything even though you are offering me $1000 a day.
     
   Scholar B will say ``Cash or charge?''
   
   We are not denying the importance and value of consulting work. But
   consulting work must be based on well established, proven and
   uncontroversial results and theories. It should not be based on our
   current cutting edge research. On those occasions where claims of
   practical importance are used to justify poorly constructed research
   the action is doubly damaging to practice.
   
   Just as pharmaceuticals must be shown to be ``safe and effective''
   before they can be sold to the public, maybe we should consider
   imposing some sort of regulatory regime to prevent us from selling
   snake oil. Short of such a drastic measure, there are smaller steps we
   all can take collectively and individually to ensure that we better
   serve the community.
    1. Resist the temptation to state or hint at practical importance of
       each individual research project or paper.
    2. Encourage replication. Quality replications should be publishable
       in quality journals and valued.
    3. Value (and publish) negative results.
    4. Following Dennett we ``should be particularly cautious about how
       [we] proceed, scrupulous about labeling speculations as such, and
       keeping the rhetoric of persuasion confined to its proper place.''
       
   These will help us help practice more than any number of grand new
   theories. The ethical dilemma is not a conflict of pressure between
   scholarship and serving practice, but instead we must chose whether to
   serve practitioners or to milk them.
   
                                                                 Regards,
                                                                         
                                                           Lívia Markóczy
                                                            Jeff Goldberg