Research Gap is not the best way to select Ph.D. topics
The enrolment number of
PhDs in every university in India is growing by factor ever since Ph.D. has
become a requirement for teaching in higher learning. It is a universal
standard practice in writing a research proposal - to conduct the literature
survey, find the research gap, and justify your work as a novel one as it fills
the gap. Thus it adds to the body of knowledge, particularly in the management
field, where I have the experience. But the point is, should we continue this
practice. The hypothesis that I am proposing is: as a result of this practice, we have
numerous Ph.D. thesis which coming out with so-called theories that are not
rigorously tested. The matter is
so alarming that UGC has decided to assess the PhDs submitted over the last 10
years. UGC's notification that allows Ph.D. holders from foreign varsities is
eligible for direct recruitment as assistant professor clearly shows the
confidence level of the regulating authorities on the quality of the PhDs in
Indian varsities. Milford and Rosenthal1 have rightly said, “Only in making this demand, declaring nothing
sacred, can we hope to encourage marketers to question the most ensconced ideas
on which we ground some of our basic marketing paradigms and understandings.
All sciences have made great strides and tend to continue developing, though
often by small steps, using this approach.” By encouraging the research gap
approach, we are not developing the “pragmatic skepticism” among the research
scholars. In other words, we do not build knowledge based on past theories in
management.
Nevertheless,
it is very much required. Searching in Google with a keyword, “number of Ph.D.
in TQM" gives 33,90,000 results, and the "number of Ph.D. in six
sigma” gives 2,13,00,000.
I do agree that these numbers do not indicate the number Ph.D., but it is safe
to assume that significant numbers of Ph.D. have gone out of the system on
these topics worldwide. This happens, as even in academics, we don't question
on what basis these paradigms have been proposed.
It
maybe noted that management science is full of management fads. There is no
evidence in favor of six sigma's impact on a firm's performance. There is a
website: www.sixsigmafails.com, which gives enough examples, where six sigma claims
are false. Similar is the case with TQM and Business excellence. Malcolm
Baldrige National Quality Award, which is the first business excellence model
designed to encourage US manufacturing organizations to excel, today it has no
takers from the intended sectors of the economy. No manufacturing unit
participates in the scheme except one or two SMEs in the USA!
Even
unquestionable theories in management like Maslow’s Hierarchy, Hawthorne
effect do not have strong evidence in support of these theories. Forbes has
published a couple of articles on 360 Deg feedback titled " 360 Degree
Feedback Is Idiotic”, “
The Horrible Truth About
360-Degree Feedback”.
It is high time to come out
with the "finding the Gap' syndrome and encourage scholars to creative skepticism
and find the truth of earlier theories or do add to build knowledge on the
existing knowledge. Through this approach, only we may have time tested
theories in management, and we can contribute meaningfully to the body of
knowledge. Such examples are in plenty in the field of medicine- take the
example of the relation between eating eggs and cholesterol level, taking
hypertension medicines in the morning instead of evening, the role of antibiotics
in case of bronchitis. In all these cases, the researchers challenged the
existing scientific beliefs. For this to happen in the management field, the Ph.D. supervisors and the Ph.D. approval committee
members of our universities should change their mindset first. Let us remember Isaac Newton's quote, "If I
have seen further than others, it is by standing upon
the shoulders of giants.”
Just
at the time of uploading this document I had a chance interaction with an article, Effects of
Change Interventions: What Kind of Evidence Do We Really Have?
Eric Barends, Barbara Janssen and Wouter ten Have, Journal
of Applied Behavioral Science , 2014, Vol 50 (1), 5-27, which has expressed the need for
replication studies in the field of social research.
Prabir Kumar Bandyopadhyay
Professor, Symbiosis Institute of Business
Management, Pune
Views are personal
1. Soper, B.,
Milford, G. E., & Rosenthal, G. T. (1995). Belief when evidence
does not support the theory. Psychology and Marketing, 12(5), 415–422.
Comments
Post a Comment