By biases, we mean…?

Most of my colleagues come from management. They got an MBA. Some come from more exotic fields. It is common belief that where you got your undergraduate degree influences what kind of researcher you become. Consider this: Igor Ansoff wrote a thesis on the “Dynamics of Rigid Bodies.” Hmmmmm.

I come from communication but, strangely enough, I don’t believe that everything can ultimately be solved with “good” communication. I don’t even consider that one of my “biases.” I have seen very little solved by “communication.” However, the field of organizational communication is unbelievably rich in powerful theories.

I also come from corporate America, through several detours from corporate consulting to European SMEs. In my book, the aim of management research is finding answers to managers’ problems. Ways to go about this range from theory building (middle-range being certainly more useful than grand universal ones) to empirical testing and re-testing of existing theories.

Unfortunately, our field seems to value theory building over anything else. Some would say we value the creation of grand theories just for the sake of it. Maybe it is to be expected from a field impaired by a chronic inferiority complex: Management is “just” an applied science. Sigh. If only it could be taken as seriously as Economics… Sigh again. Have you heard of hte Nobel Prize in mangement? Didn't think so.

I guess the worse bias for me is that: research is for finding practical solutions and that rarely goes through theory building. However, when I present research results based on empirical testing of an existing theory (Have I told you about Taylor’s metaconversation model?), my dear colleagues smile condescendingly and say: “tsk tsk tsk, this is all nice but why didn’t you build your own theory?”

Disheartening, I tell you.