Issue link:

Contents of this Issue


Page 33 of 83

The Scientist and the Sage Two educators propose a new portfolio model of business faculty for business schools, designed to give great researchers and great teachers equal recognition and equal reward. by James Bailey and Roy Lewicki D espite popular notions to the contrary, we business professors are human. And, like all humans, our aptitudes and interests vary; we have dif- ferent skills and fill different, though equally important, roles at our institutions. Even so, many business schools expect a uniformity among business faculty that focuses on research, regardless of how effectively they engage students in the classroom. Business professors themselves often believe, prima facie, that professors must be quality scholars to be quality teachers—that they must embody, in equal parts, the skills of the scientist and the sage. This conventional wisdom is about as close to an "article of faith" as one can find among a group of otherwise diverse and reliably contrary professors. With that belief in mind, we wanted to examine the simple, but profound, question: Do good researchers necessarily make good teachers, and vice versa? Recent studies, as well as our own experience as business faculty, suggest that the answer to that question is a resounding "No." Business schools' overarching mission is to promote excellence in research and in teaching. Moreover, the excellent scholar and the excellent educator are often not the same person. Business school administrators need to re-examine their widely held bias toward research; they must realize that communicating knowledge is as important to their missions as creating knowledge. Only then can they fashion a system that offers equal status and rewards to teaching and research—and creates a more balanced portfolio of faculty talent. The Compatibility Myth A chorus of prominent voices has emerged to debunk the myth of the insep- arability of the scientist and sage in academia. Many argue that research- oriented schools are designing curricula to further their research missions, while neglecting their educational missions. Jeffrey Pfeffer and Christina Fong, for example, contend that business research has become so divorced from practical application that it adds little value to students' professional development. And Warren Bennis and James O'Toole have gone so far as to say that many business schools have relinquished their teaching responsibili- ties to clinical instructors who are worked harder, paid less, and given less job stability than tenured faculty. Perhaps the most serious allegation was made by the late Sumantra Ghoshal. He charged that business theory acolytes have so doggedly pursued rigor in research, at the expense of real-world relevance, they actually have laid a founda- tion in the classroom for unethical corporate behaviors. These are disturbing claims; but they also have inspired business schools to re-examine the way they conceive and conduct research and teaching activities. In fact, three compelling arguments make the case that research and teaching aren't as interconnected as many have for so long believed. 32 BizEd JULY/AUGUST 2007

Articles in this issue

Archives of this issue

view archives of BizEd - JulyAugust2007