C. GOPINATH
The world of economics is in a tizzy about quality of research and the
little devils that can ruin the best of intentions. It all started with a
research paper published in 2010 by professors Carmen Reinhart and
Kenneth Rogoff, of Harvard University who, using published data, found
that nations that had a debt to gross domestic product greater than 90
per cent were in danger of seeing their average growth rate fall by 0.1
per cent.
This finding was of great interest to policy makers, since this was
post-global economic crisis when many countries were thinking of taking
on more debt in order to increase their spending as a stimulation to
their economies. The research gave a fillip to the opposite argument,
that what was needed was austerity.
Other studies that examined the same issue of debt also seemed to
support the findings and warned highly indebted countries from taking on
even more debt.
Now, a paper published earlier this month by three authors, Thomas
Herndon, Michael Ash and Robert Pollin, of the University of
Massachusetts Amherst (my alma mater, I may proudly add) has cast
a doubt on the Reinhart-Rogoff findings. This study grew out of the
efforts of the first author, a graduate student, who tried to replicate
the Reinhart-Rogoff study as assignment for a course.
Findings questioned
Finding that the results were not the same, he then sought and obtained
the original data sheet from Reinhart-Rogoff, and found simple
miscalculations and data exclusions in their study. Correcting these
errors, Herndon et al found that the average growth for the high
debt countries would be 2.2 per cent, and not negative as the original
study claimed. A major reversal of the conclusions.
This ‘incident’ allows us to draw some lessons. One is the importance of
being able to replicate research, using the same or similar data to
study the same questions and to see if the same results are obtained.
The other is being able to access the data set of other scholars.
This is quite often impossible, for researchers will hide behind
confidentiality and various other excuses and not share their data. This
is especially so if the data are not publicly available but have been
collected as primary data through surveys, and so on.
Gate keepers such as journal editors and reviewers ask for a lot of
details about the research methodology and analysis from those who
submit a manuscript to get a sense of the reliability and validity of
the data, analysis and the conclusions, but even they rarely have the
time or the inclination to ask for the raw data and run the analysis
themselves.
Replicability issues
In general, research in the sciences differentiates itself from the
social sciences in the matter of replicability. If chemical A mixed with
chemical B and heated to C results in D, and it is published, anyone
can try it out and see if it is true. In most social sciences, this is
difficult to do, and even when possible, is often not attempted.
The other problem that complicates social science research is the
difficulty of establishing cause and effect relationships between
variables due to the many variables that can affect the situation, and
the inability to keep all the other intervening variables constant, or
trying to control them. Thus, conclusions are provided with various
caveats about the weaknesses of the study and the limitations on
generalisability.
In the business/management field, there is an ongoing debate on the
issue of relevance of research. When primary data are collected through
surveys, replicability becomes almost impossible.
In short, research conclusions rarely contribute to cumulative
knowledge. Can’t blame the business folks for ignoring much academic
business research!
Research vs education
In an article published online at the Knowledge@Wharton Web site
in February this year, Larry Zicklin, a former chairman of a financial
services firm and a finance professor, argued that with university
reward systems driving faculty to publish, much research that is done is
irrelevant, and students end up paying for it through higher tuition
fees, since faculty teaching loads are lowered in research-driven
universities to allow their faculty to be engaged in research.
He comments about a faculty member who is highly regarded for his
research in the area of finance: “I’ve worked for 50 years and I didn’t
have a clue as to what his most recent articles were about… (His
research was directed at) the community of scholars who write for one
another but not for their students and certainly not for business
executives who are interested in practical ideas that might actually
work.”
A particularly tough rhetorical question Zicklin asks is: If business
research is useful, why are corporations so reluctant to pay for it?
The message from all this is that all educational institutions should
not join the game of pursuing research just because it helps the
reputation or ranking of the institution.
The majority of institutions should realise that they may make a better
contribution to society focused on education, which is not the same as
research, and which involves paying attention to teaching and making
education affordable to those who need it.
Those institutions that wish to pursue the research route should also be
careful that what they encourage in their scholars is relevant and
applicable.
(The author is professor of International Business and Strategic Management at Suffolk University, Boston, US.)
Related story
Related story
No comments:
Post a Comment