Presidential Speech

Select One: [Speech 2010 Eng] [Speech 2010 Chi] [Speech 2008 Eng] [Speech 2008 Chi] [Speech 2006 Eng] [Speech 2006 Chi]

Presidential Speech for Conference 2006

Presidential Address: Are There Values IN Science?
Anne S. Tsui, Arizona State University
June 15-18, 2006, Nanjing, China

Index
1. Are there values IN science?
2. values OF science:
3. Values IN pursuing science
4. Value Area 1: Motivation to pursue a career in science
5. Value Area 2: Choice of issues to study
6. Value Area 3: Treatment of research participants, data and the literature
7. Value Area 4: Defining success
8. Value Area 5: Service to the scientific community
9. Conclusion: IACMR – a value-based organization
10. Call to Actions

1. Are there values IN science?

My dearest colleagues, students, friends, and distinguished scholars:

The last three days have been invigorating with much high energy generated among us. I think it is now time to sit back, pretend you are in your favorite easy chair, with your feet up, sipping your favorite tea or wine, and reflect on the fruits of our labor. All of us here in this room have worked long and hard to achieve success, and one of the key elements to our success that is often overshadowed by our busy life, is our deep commitment to our ethics and values as researchers. I would like to wind up this conference with a word about how important values are to a scientific community, that is, all of us here in this room tonight.

Let me first begin with defining the two key words in the title of my presentation: values and science. There are multiple meanings of the word “values”. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary “values” refer to something of relative worth, utility, or importance; something intrinsically desirable, with priority. The dictionary also shows that values relate to the idea of morals, which are guidelines to promote rather than diminish certain values.

The word “science” has two basic meanings. It refers to either the scientific method – a process for evaluating empirical knowledge; or the organized body of knowledge gained by this process. The word "science" comes from the Latin word, "scire," which is "to know." So the baseline definition of "science," then, is human knowledge, obtained through a systematic method of observing, classifying, and explaining various phenomena in the natural or social world.

At this 2006 conference of the IACMR, we have over 600 participants from over 20 countries, representing scholars at all stages of their careers, and in many different universities and disciplines. Despite this diversity, there is something common among us – we share a common interest, a similar life goal – and that is to make a difference in our world through the conduct of science.

Many of us here are just beginning the journey into the world of social scientists, and some of us have a lifetime of experience under our belts. But in common, we all are trying to be the best scientists we can be by sharing and inviting criticisms on our work.

As a community of scholars, we contribute to the development of management knowledge, not only in China but in the world. As a community of scientists, we have a responsibility to ensure that the knowledge we produce accurately reflects truth or reality; that it is practical, relevant, and can provide useful answers to solve managerial problems, knowledge that managers can confidently use to build stronger and better organizations. As a community of scientists, we have an opportunity to produce knowledge that will improve the practice of management and leadership in this wonderful country as well as in the world community.


2. values OF science:
- Seek truth
- Understand and explain nature
- Improve human life
- Create better organizations

Tonight, I am not going to talk about the values OF science. There is no debate about the values OF science (whether hard or soft sciences, natural or social sciences). The value or ultimate purpose OF science is to search for truth, for an accurate or valid understanding and explanation of the nature of things around us, with the eventual goal of improving human life in all spheres, including the management of enterprises. Through science, we create knowledge and technology to help people live a better life. For management scholars, science is a vehicle to help organizations to be more effective, productive and profitable, as well as to become kinder and gentler employers providing their employees with rewarding careers. These are the ultimate goals of our collective endeavors. That is the reason we are here today, to exchange and share the fruits of our scientific pursuits.

These values OF science that I have listed are not mutually exclusive, nor are they exhaustive. But they do represent some of the basic purposes of science and the goals we strive for.

3. Values IN pursuing science
- Motivation for an academic career in science
- Choice of issues to study
- Treatment of participants and data
- Defining success
- Serving the scientific community

What I would like to share with you tonight are some thoughts about the values IN science. The title of my presentation is a rhetorical question: “Are there values in Science?” The answer is obvious to all of us. Of course there are values in science. The first lesson in the philosophy of science class is that science is not value-free, and it cannot or should not be (Kaplan, 1964, The Conduct of Inquiry). Each research-methods textbook has a chapter about ethics, values or politics in science. The question is not whether there are values in science, but what the important values are, and how we incorporate them into our scientific endeavors.

My focus is not on the ethical decisions in the applications of science, but on the practical aspects of value choices in our scientific conduct. I have identified five areas listed on the PPT slide. Some of these may be obvious to you, but I found myself having to stop and think about them over the years of my research career. They were not always obvious to me, but they are important enough that I chose to talk about them in this final session of our great conference.

The first one is about why one chooses an academic career in science and the last is about a spirit of volunteerism, a subject on which I have written a short essay in the June newsletter of our association.

So, how do values influence what we do and why we do what we do? Many people have the romantic notion that scientists have a life of leisure – high-pay, ivory tower and in general a envied lifestyle. In reality, this romantic ideal is cloaked by hours of tedious and often demanding labor, which can go well past the 5 o’clock hour.

4. Value Area 1: Motivation to pursue a career in science
- The good life
- The intellectual freedom
- Educating or developing people
- Making a “bigger” difference
- Feeding your insatiable curiosity


Likewise, you won’t become rich by being a scientist. Albert Einstein, the greatest scientist in the history of mankind, was not wealthy, and one story goes that he often forgot to collect his paycheck – for months at a time. Then there is the monetary value of a Nobel prize. However, do you know that the award of the Nobel prize is less than what Bill Gates earns in 24 hours. The “grand scientific lifestyle” is a misnomer. Beyond teaching hours, supposedly we are free to work anywhere and anytime of the day. The reality is that we work all the time and everywhere. With the internet, the cell phones and email, the work follows us wherever we go. Most of us are workaholics, slaves of our work. Yet, we love it. So for us, our life is good in that it offers us the intellectual freedom we enjoy. We are our own bosses, and we can decide what problems to work on rather than being told by a supervisor. We are accountable to our own standards.

Many people pursue an academic career because they want to teach, to educate, and to develop the next generation of leaders or citizens. This motivation alone, while noble, does not define a scientific career. Most great scientists are motivated by another reason: the opportunity to make a “larger” difference, especially to mankind. Albert Einstein said

“Concern for man himself must always constitute the chief objective of all technological [or scientific] effort – concern for the big, unsolved problems of how to organize human work and the distribution of commodities in such a manner as to assure that our scientific thinking may be a blessing to mankind and, not a curse.”

At a more mundane and personal level, I recall why I decided to be an academic rather than take a job in a company. I thought that if I worked for a company, I could help only the people in the company. If I am a researcher, I potentially could help many people in many companies. What a naïve thought it was. Wasn’t it? In retrospect though, that thought is not as naïve as it might have appeared. The opportunities to do what I do today, including working for IACMR, were made possible by that naïve thought that led me to the choice of an academic career.

Beyond the academic freedom and the desire to make a difference, the best scientists are motivated by an insatiable appetite to explore the unknown. I quote Albert Szent-Gyorgi (1893-1986), the Nobel winning biochemist, who once said,
“If a student comes to me and says he wants to be useful to mankind and go into research to alleviate human suffering, I advise him to go into charity instead. Research wants real egotists who seek their own pleasure and satisfaction, but find it in solving the puzzles of nature.”

Henry Louis Mencken (1880-1956), one of the most influential American journalists of the late 19th – and early 20th – century, said this about the scientific investigator:

“What actually urges him on is not some brummagem idea of service, but a boundless, almost pathological thirst to penetrate the unknown, to uncover the secret, to find out what has not been found out before.”

So it seems some craziness is good for science. Each of us here is a little crazy or else we wouldn’t be here. A good scientist is a blend of both egotism and idealism.

Let me now move on to the second area involving value choices in science, and that is the decision of what to study.

5. Value Area 2: Choice of issues to study
- Your interest
- Relevance to practice
- Publication opportunities
- Popularity


I have mentioned that one of the motivations for pursuing a scientific career is the intellectual freedom we enjoy. This means that literally we can choose to study any topic or issue our hearts’ desire. However, there are other factors to consider. There has been a long-term debate between rigor and relevance in organizational sciences, as if the two were mutually exclusive. They are not. We can pursue relevant topics with the most rigorous research methods. However, different values are involved in choosing topics that are popular or that are offered to us fortuitously, especially if these topics do not match our own interests.

There is nothing wrong with opportunistic research if it leads to good scientific work. Unfortunately, opportunistic research tends to be quick-and-dirty-adventures, often not well thought-out, guided by the desire to have easy publications. These often result in low quality work. Such opportunistic research is not guided by intrinsic interest, but by external rewards.

Some scholars avoid topics that are hard to publish despite their deep interest in them. These include such topics as ethics, values, social responsibility or irresponsibility, corruption, wrongdoing, and religion at the work place. Yet these issues deserve analyses, understanding and explanation as much as leadership, motivation, innovation, strategy, internationalization, and performance.

Avoiding tough issues or pursuing popular issues is a value choice itself. The advice that I have been given by my professors, and now I pass on to my students, is that it is important to “follow your heart”. Given that we do have the freedom to choose, and our work requires such intensive involvement of mind and heart, it only makes sense to let our interests guide our choice of what to study. If we are going to be slaves of our work, we might as well be slaves of the work we love.

6. Value Area 3: Treatment of research participants, data and the literature
- IACMR Commitment to Excellence
- IACMR Research Code of Ethics
- Zero tolerance for disrespect, carelessness and plagiarism

The next area involves values in the treatment of research participants, data and the literature. This topic naturally requires a reference to the IACMR’s Commitment to Excellence statement with specific attention to the Research Code of Ethics that we have adopted to guide our members in discharging their duties as professors and researchers. I invite you to read this statement on page 55 of our Conference Program. Even though it is rather late at night, and it is at the end of an exhausting three-day conference, such a serious matter deserves attention. I would be irresponsible not to mention this issue under the theme of “values IN science”.

I encourage us to remember a simple yet universal principle known as the Golden Rule: “Treat others as you want them to treat you” (Matthews Bible, 7:12). If we want to be respected as scholars, we should give due respect to the people who participate in our studies, who provide us with their valuable opinions, who share with us their life experiences, and whose work we use to guide our own investigations. If we want our work to be taken seriously, we should conduct our studies in the most rigorous manner possible, with zero tolerance of any flaw or carelessness in the treatment of the data, without misrepresentation or inaccurate interpretation of the findings, and improper or no citation of other scholars’ research papers that have our thinking.

Charles Darwin once said, “False facts are highly injurious to the progress of science.” Sloppy and negligent research and intentional misuse of other people’s work can do great damage – even if the error is eventually uncovered or corrected. I was deeply disturbed by the recent news about fraudulent reporting of inventions and about PhD holders admitting to having paid someone to have their work published in academic journals (Mooney, China Newsweek, May 19, 2006). Such scandals can seriously undermine the public’s confidence in the integrity of science.

There should be no compromise to our value of zero tolerance for any disrespect of our research participants, the mishandling of our research data, and taking or using other’s intellectual property without recognition or acknowledgement.

Albert Einstein once said this about ethical behavior in science. “This most important human endeavor is the striving for morality in our actions. Our inner balance and even our very existence depend on it. Only morality in our actions can give beauty and dignity to life.”

I am sure all of you know that in China we have a great teacher and philosopher by the name of Confucius. In “The Analects” (Book IV, Chapter VI), he wrote, “To see what is wrong and not to do it, is want of courage.”

We need to do what is right to protect the honor of our profession and ourselves, and to gain the trust of society in us and in our research results.

7. Value Area 4: Defining success
• Contributions, not personal fame
• Knowledge creation, not publications
• Learning from failures, not surrendering to them

Again, each of us may have a different definition of success. What about success as a scientist? I went to the successful scientists to see what they have to say about success.

John C. Polanyi, 1986 Nobel Laureate in Chemistry, said, “In science, we have a group of individuals supporting one another, world-wide, in an endeavor whose success depends upon placing the truth ahead of personal advantage.”

Aaron Ceichnover, another Nobel Laureate (Chemistry, 2004), said, “I believe that a scientist should be judged by the quality of the people he has helped to produce and not by prizes or other honors bestowed on him.”

As many of you know, I am a Roman Catholic. Success according to a noted Catholic author, my friend Dr. Richard Brown, is, “productively applying the unique talents that God has given us.”

In other words, success follows those who define success as contribution and using their talents and skills rather than as personal fame or personal gain. This means that success as a scientist should be judged by knowledge created rather than by the number of publications.

Publications are a means to disseminate the knowledge discovered through scientific work. Yet, we, and our university administrators, often fall into the trap of means-ends inversion. We count publications rather than evaluate the quality of the scientific reports. This counting game has led researchers to break up one study into many small papers or to engage in opportunistic research. At worst, it leads to plagiarism of other’s ideas, listing of non-existing papers on resumes and other scientific misconducts.

The truth is that the nature of our work will lead to more failures than successes. It is said that Thomas Edison, who invented or fine-tuned the light bulb, had 2000 experiments that failed in doing that. When asked how he felt about these failures, he said, in essence, that they equaled 2000 steps to success. The ability to learn from failures and show improvements in one’s work over time should be a legitimate definition of success as well.

8. Value Area 5: Service to the scientific community
• Define and enforce the norms of practice
• Facilitate the fair and respectful exchange of research results and ideas
• Participate in the governance of our professional community
• Volunteerism


The last area of values IN science that I wish to comment upon relates to our professional community. The principle of academic freedom implies self-governance. In other words, we are accountable not to a hierarchical superior or any university administrators, but to our own professional standards and the norms of practice which we create collectively. As Abraham Kaplan (1964), a great philosopher of science said, we are responsible for upholding the value of good science in terms of theoretical and methodological rigor in our studies.

Our peers judge the quality of our work through the double-blind review process. Irresponsible reviewing or unfair editing produces publication of inferior quality and knowledge of questionable value. We should show fairness and respect when reviewing and offering constructive criticism of others’ work. The goal of reviewing is not to demean the authors but to help the authors improve their work. Again, the Golden Rule is good to keep in mind.

In my essay, “IACMR and Volunteerism”, I related how I learned about volunteerism in our profession from the Academy of Management when I was a young assistant professor. The message there is that we have an obligation to maintain the quality and viability of our professional community. The association provides us with a regular occasion during which we can engage in intellectual dialogues and exchange. Maintaining the association and all its activities involves a lot of work and requires the hearts and minds of many volunteers. Our gathering here in Nanjing this week was made possible only because of the hundreds of volunteers involved in numerous committees, in reviewing submitted papers, and making all the local arrangements. The volunteering spirit is alive and strong in IACMR. So I do not need to say more except to thank you for all your contributions.

9. Conclusion: IACMR – a value-based organization
- A source of support and inspiration
- A symbol of quality, integrity, excellence and pride

In summary, I hope I have been succinct in stressing that values cannot and should not be separate from science. While science can be neutral on the topic of war and peace, scientists are not. Scientists bring more than a toolbox of techniques to their work. Scientists also make complex decisions about which problems to study, what techniques to use to collect and interpret data, and what standards of honesty and integrity to maintain during these scientific endeavors.

IACMR is a community where members define the rules and norms of scientific conduct, where members volunteer their time and expertise to allow scientific work, exchange, and community learning to flourish and prosper. IACMR as a community aspires to make valuable contributions to continuous improvement in the practice of management and to enhance the quality of life for all those who work within its realm.

We set a role model for the students we teach, the managers we advise, and the families and friends we cherish. By promoting the important values of caring, integrity, contribution, and volunteerism, we can make the world a better place, and IACMR will support us in our pursuit of this dream.

If we believe in the importance of values for science and for human existence, what can we do to live a value-based life? I would like to suggest five simple actions:

10. Call to Actions
• Follow your heart
• Make a difference
• Always keep high ethical standards
• Focus on quality, not quantity
• Promote the spirit of IACMR


In closing, it has been my great honor and pleasure to have served you as the first President of IACMR. I have the greatest confidence that IACMR will be a significant force in the future development of management knowledge in China and beyond, because of you and your involvement. Let us work together to further IACMR as a source of support and inspiration – and as a symbol of quality, integrity, excellence and pride. Together, we can move mountains. Together, anything is possible. Together, we can succeed!

Thank you and God Bless You!