“Oh Grandmother, what big teeth you have!”: Incentives to spur scientific research at business schools have been treacherous

Scientific research was introduced to business schools in the mid-1950s to raise the quality of business education as well as to improve actual business practices. Schools expected scientific research to be a benign and respected path toward improvements, and government support for research and students’ strong interest in studying business brought financial resources and hiring opportunities that made large changes possible. Consequently, hundreds of business schools began urging their academic staff to engage in scientific research. Sixty years later, plentiful evidence is showing that scientific research has not brought the expected benefits for business operations; on the contrary, it has generated a high percentage of untrustworthy “findings”. This disappointing outcome is the product of six major interacting causes: (1) business schools have expanded by hiring professors who studied fundamental topics of economics, psychology, and sociology rather than topics relevant for business practices, so few of these research findings have been adopted and tested by firms; (2) instead of evaluating the quality or consequences of research findings for themselves, schools have relied on evaluations by journal editors and reviewers, whose overriding criteria emphasize theory advancement at the expense of practical and policy implications; (3) editorial evaluations have high error rates because editors and reviewers only know what researchers choose to tell them, and because the complexity of manuscripts causes editors and reviewers to disagree frequently; (4) schools have incentivized professors by making promotions and job security dependent on publishing numerous papers in “prestigious” journals; (5) the overwhelming majority of researchers have responded to these incentives by engaging in covert practices that make studies unlikely to be supported in replications; and (6) researchers, editors, and reviewers have largely relied on null-hypothesis statistical significance tests, which are prone to over- interpret small variations or random errors in data as “significant” findings. Although there are fresh efforts to make research findings more reliable and impactful, the need for further interventions directed toward reforming the present knowledge production system is all too apparent and efforts to do so would be welcome.