Discussion: View Thread

  • 1.  The 'MSR must be a science' bandwagon

    Posted 09-19-2006 23:14
    Allen,

    Let me first explain what I mean by "I'm off the strict 'MSR
    must be a science' bandwagon that I was on years ago..." My
    basic thought at the time was that if MSR research is to be
    accepted within our Academy and within management as whole,
    it has to have a scientific underpinning. I haven't veered
    away from that--I still think that is the case.

    But what I've come to see is that there are different
    perspectives on this, among them:

    1. Some might not care whether the Academy or management
    practitioners accept MSR work. It's what they love to do,
    and as such, they should do it if it makes them happy. Being
    prescriptive on how other people should live was not my
    intention, but I think that given the hard line we took, it
    could be interpreted that way.

    2. There are other ways of knowing, and some of these may
    have great inherent value. I've always believed this, but as
    time has passed, I've recognized that because it flies in
    the face of a scientific worldview that we had to
    accomodate, such knowing shouldn't be part of our group. The
    truth is that there is likely as much or more inherent value
    in mystical traditions (for example) than our social
    sciences and social science approaches have produced. I
    think that this kind of knowledge will bring a smirk and a
    chuckle to many, and I don't think it will help us to bring
    spiritual viewpoints into organizations--but everyone should
    freely express their voice and what they know to be true,
    deciding for themselves whether they want to share a
    perspective that goes against the scientific establishment.
    As a group, we can decide whether or not it works for us as
    a community. Integrations of the two perspectives are also
    possible, though at this point, I'm not sure how they would
    come together as a unified whole.

    3. I have a strong distaste for religious leaders (Falwell,
    Robertson, for example) who claim there is but one way and
    that they know what it is (For those of you who like these
    guys, PLEASE don't send me hate mail...Jesus wouldn't do
    that). The truth is that when people like them talk, they
    attract people who are scared and can't think for
    themselves. That's not who I want to be associated with and
    not the tone I'd like to set for myself or anyone else. I
    THINK that a scientific approach will better address the
    questions that face us, given the world that we live in; I
    THINK it will bring more acceptance by outside stakeholders,
    and as such, will help us to make the world a better place;
    I THINK that talking about it in a "soft" , atheoretical way
    will not provide the rigor that the world demands of us. But
    unlike Falwell or Robertson, God has never told me anything,
    so I someone else can take the mike and convince us
    otherwise.

    There are other reasons as well...but this e-mail is getting
    too long! The way I see it, of all the values MSR stands
    for, the scientific values are the least important. My fear
    was and still is that unless we can speak in the language of
    a world that deems science important, no one will listen to
    the transcendent values that frame the core of a better
    tomorrow...

    Hope I answered your question...

    Bob


    Robert A. Giacalone, Ph.D.
    Department of Human Resource Management
    Acting Director, Center for Ethics and Organizational Integrity
    313 Speakman Hall, FSBM
    Temple University
    1810 N. 13th St.
    Philadelphia, PA 19122
    e-mail: ragiacal@temple.edu
    Work phone: 215 204-7038
    Fax: (215) 204-8362

    Without a rich heart, wealth is an ugly beggar.--Ralph Waldo Emerson

    It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society - Krishnamurti

    To care for anyone else enough to make their problems one's own, is ever the beginning of one's real ethical development--Felix Adler


  • 2.  The 'MSR must be a science' bandwagon

    Posted 09-20-2006 12:45
    Bob,
    I, for one, totally agree with your assessment of Falwell et al. I consider them the Pharisees of our time, but certainly not only them.

    When you discuss "scientific" do you mean it in terms of quantitative methods? If so, I think you are asking for more than can be delivered. For me, the qualitative method is really the only way to get to the heart of ones spirituality, if indeed it can be gotten in a meaningful way. But perhaps you disagree. I hope not. Can you elaborate on what you mean by scientific? g

    Glenn J. Forte, President
    Collective Knowledge Advisors, LLC
    517 E. Lancaster Avenue, Suite 402
    Downingtown, PA 19335
    V. 610.269.7851
    F. 610.269.7852
    C. 484.880.8862
    e gjforte@gwu.edu.com

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Robert A. Giacalone" <ragiacal@TEMPLE.EDU>
    Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 11:16 am
    Subject: The 'MSR must be a science' bandwagon
    To: MSR@AOMLISTS.PACE.EDU

    > Allen,
    >
    > Let me first explain what I mean by "I'm off the strict 'MSR
    > must be a science' bandwagon that I was on years ago..." My
    > basic thought at the time was that if MSR research is to be
    > accepted within our Academy and within management as whole,
    > it has to have a scientific underpinning. I haven't veered
    > away from that--I still think that is the case.
    >
    > But what I've come to see is that there are different
    > perspectives on this, among them:
    >
    > 1. Some might not care whether the Academy or management
    > practitioners accept MSR work. It's what they love to do,
    > and as such, they should do it if it makes them happy. Being
    > prescriptive on how other people should live was not my
    > intention, but I think that given the hard line we took, it
    > could be interpreted that way.
    >
    > 2. There are other ways of knowing, and some of these may
    > have great inherent value. I've always believed this, but as
    > time has passed, I've recognized that because it flies in
    > the face of a scientific worldview that we had to
    > accomodate, such knowing shouldn't be part of our group. The
    > truth is that there is likely as much or more inherent value
    > in mystical traditions (for example) than our social
    > sciences and social science approaches have produced. I
    > think that this kind of knowledge will bring a smirk and a
    > chuckle to many, and I don't think it will help us to bring
    > spiritual viewpoints into organizations--but everyone should
    > freely express their voice and what they know to be true,
    > deciding for themselves whether they want to share a
    > perspective that goes against the scientific establishment.
    > As a group, we can decide whether or not it works for us as
    > a community. Integrations of the two perspectives are also
    > possible, though at this point, I'm not sure how they would
    > come together as a unified whole.
    >
    > 3. I have a strong distaste for religious leaders (Falwell,
    > Robertson, for example) who claim there is but one way and
    > that they know what it is (For those of you who like these
    > guys, PLEASE don't send me hate mail...Jesus wouldn't do
    > that). The truth is that when people like them talk, they
    > attract people who are scared and can't think for
    > themselves. That's not who I want to be associated with and
    > not the tone I'd like to set for myself or anyone else. I
    > THINK that a scientific approach will better address the
    > questions that face us, given the world that we live in; I
    > THINK it will bring more acceptance by outside stakeholders,
    > and as such, will help us to make the world a better place;
    > I THINK that talking about it in a "soft" , atheoretical way
    > will not provide the rigor that the world demands of us. But
    > unlike Falwell or Robertson, God has never told me anything,
    > so I someone else can take the mike and convince us
    > otherwise.
    >
    > There are other reasons as well...but this e-mail is getting
    > too long! The way I see it, of all the values MSR stands
    > for, the scientific values are the least important. My fear
    > was and still is that unless we can speak in the language of
    > a world that deems science important, no one will listen to
    > the transcendent values that frame the core of a better
    > tomorrow...
    >
    > Hope I answered your question...
    >
    > Bob
    >
    >
    > Robert A. Giacalone, Ph.D.
    > Department of Human Resource Management
    > Acting Director, Center for Ethics and Organizational Integrity
    > 313 Speakman Hall, FSBM
    > Temple University
    > 1810 N. 13th St.
    > Philadelphia, PA 19122
    > e-mail: ragiacal@temple.edu
    > Work phone: 215 204-7038
    > Fax: (215) 204-8362
    >
    > Without a rich heart, wealth is an ugly beggar.--Ralph Waldo Emerson
    >
    > It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick
    > society - Krishnamurti
    >
    > To care for anyone else enough to make their problems one's own, is
    > ever the beginning of one's real ethical development--Felix Adler


  • 3.  The 'MSR must be a science' bandwagon

    Posted 09-20-2006 15:15
    Glenn,

    No, I think qualitative methods are also scientific...of
    course, like quantitative methods, I think there will be
    problems in the methods, but this is the reality of man-made
    methods!

    I agree--Falwell and Robertson are not the only
    problems...and the problems aren't restricted to religious
    leaders, either!

    Bob

    Robert A. Giacalone, Ph.D.
    Department of Human Resource Management
    Acting Director, Center for Ethics and Organizational Integrity
    313 Speakman Hall, FSBM
    Temple University
    1810 N. 13th St.
    Philadelphia, PA 19122
    e-mail: ragiacal@temple.edu
    Work phone: 215 204-7038
    Fax: (215) 204-8362

    Without a rich heart, wealth is an ugly beggar.--Ralph Waldo Emerson

    It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society - Krishnamurti

    To care for anyone else enough to make their problems one's own, is ever the beginning of one's real ethical development--Felix Adler