Publication and citation rankings have become major indicators of the scientific worth of universities and determine to a large extent the career of individual scholars. Such rankings do not effectively measure research quality, which should be the essence of any evaluation. These quantity rankings are not objective; two citation rankings, based on different samples, produce entirely different results. For that reason, an alternative ranking is developed as a quality indicator, based on membership on academic editorial boards of professional journals. It turns out that the ranking of individual scholars based on that measure is far from objective. Furthermore, the results differ markedly, depending on whether research quantity or quality is considered. Thus, career decisions based on rankings are dominated by chance and do not reflect research quality. We suggest that evaluations should rely on multiple criteria. Public management should return to approved methods such as engaging independent experts who in turn provide measurements of research quality for their research communities.
Dental schools use a variety of clinic management models with the goals of promoting patient care, student education, and fiscal responsibility. In 2004, the University of the Pacific Arthur A. Dugoni School of Dentistry transitioned to a more generalist model with these goals in mind. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of this clinic model change relative to the quantity of specific procedures completed by students. The quantity of procedures completed by each student from the classes of 1995 through 2009 were compiled from our electronic clinic management system and analyzed. The post-transition group (2004–09) showed a greater number of completed oral diagnosis and treatment planning and root planing procedures per student compared to the pre-transition group (1995–2003), but fewer crowns, root canals, operative procedures, and dentures. Because the higher procedure numbers were for low-cost procedures, our transition to a generalist model did not necessarily enhance clinic income but may support student learning and enhanced patient care.
Unternehmenskäufe sind in der Wirtschaftswelt an der Tagesordnung. Dennoch erfüllen sie oft nicht die in sie gesetzten Erwartungen. Im Mittelpunkt dieser Dissertation stehen zwei gegensätzliche Perspektiven, die zur Analyse des Akquisitionserfolgs bzw. -misserfolgs dienen: Einerseits könnte es sein, dass das Management der akquirierenden Unternehmen mögliche Synergien im Blick hat. Andererseits besteht die Gefahr, dass das Management die eigenen Fähigkeiten überschätzt, Synergien realisieren zu können. In diesem Fall wird von einer Hybris des Managements gesprochen. Die Analyse der Hybris am Beispiel von Akquisitionen bildet den Kern dieser Arbeit.
The relationship between theory and practice has been discussed in the social sciences for generations. Academics from management and organization studies regularly lament the divide between theory and practice. They regret the insufficient academic knowledge of managerial problems and their solutions, and criticize the scholarly production of theories that are not relevant for organizational practice (Hambrick 1994). Despite the prevalence of this topic in academic discourse, we do not know much about what kind of academic knowledge would be useful to practice, how it would be produced and how the transfer of knowledge between theory and practice actually works. In short, we do not know how we can make academic work more relevant for practice or even whether this would be desirable. In this introduction to the Special Issue, we apply philosophical, theoretical and empirical perspectives to examine the challenges of studying the generation and use of academic knowledge. We then briefly describe the contribution of the seven papers that were selected for this Special Issue. Finally, we discuss issues that still need to be addressed, and make some proposals for future avenues of research.
