INTERNATIONAL ISSUESROBERT E. MARKLAND, Feature Editor, College of Business Administration, University of South Carolina North American-European cooperation in research: A European perspectiveby Jan C. Fransoo, Eindhoven University of Technology The Netherlands It can hardly be coincidental that in recent issues of Decision Line much attention has been paid to research methodology in Operations Management, and, at the same time, the Decision Sciences Institute has demonstrated a clear interest in internationalization. Both issues are closely related, especially in the view of many Europeans active in the field of the decision sciences (in particular, operations management), who believe one reason why institutional collaboration between Europeans and Americans hasn't fully evolved yet is due to differences in research methodology. Although it is difficult and maybe even dangerous to generalize, while European research tends to be more conceptual and case-oriented, American research seems more analytical and focused on more incremental improvements. These contrasting approaches can be explained by looking at the differences in the two university systems. Fortunately, we may be arriving at a balance between the two, and this is a good sign that it's the right time for the Institute's global aspirations. The most obvious difference between European and North American universities is the tenure system. In North America, university professors are appointed at a university for a limited period of time, in which they have to publish a number of refereed papers to qualify for tenure. This system is largely unknown in Europe. European universities generally do not have the opportunity for lengthy temporary contracts. Neither do they have formal requirements for publications which are tied to the personnel evaluation system. In contrast, the personnel evaluation system holds a set of wider and less quantifiable performance measures, of which teaching performances and management responsibilities are elements. Furthermore, if the personnel evaluation system has any consequences at all, these lie in the salary area and do not have any basis for dismissal. This European system of evaluation and its relative lack of consequences for professors works two ways. First of all, it gives professors unlimited possibilities to do their own research. In some cases this may be of poor quality, without any publishable results. As long as the professor enjoys his/her own research, however, it is unlikely to be discontinued. Clearly, the lack of performance consequences may be considered a disadvantage of the system. On the other hand, the lack of performance measures, which are mostly short-term oriented, enables professors to do research projects that are of a longer-term nature. Especially in the (operations) management area, this research usually includes a number of case studies to validate decision procedures that have been developed in other parts of the project. The case study is a very risky type of research methodology, since a lot of factors are not under control of the researcher. Therefore, it is uncertain whether publishable work will result. On top of that, it is also time-consuming because it involves the coordination of a lot of people. Since results from the decision sciences need to be eventually used in practice, European researchers generally think it is necessary to include this type of research within their long-term projects. The difference in evaluation and tenure systems thus lead to very different research practices. While the North American primarily works on expanding the published body of knowledge by improving on recently published results in the literature, the European frequently visits industry or develops his or her own ideas regarding new research and then works on that for a number of years. The European obviously embeds this in the literature, but it is not his primary guidance. A difference in performance measures leads to a difference in objectives and thus to a difference in research interests. This makes it unnatural to collaborate. It should be emphasized that this is not a question of good or bad research. The methodological quality of the research work varies a lot on both sides of the Atlantic. The second difference which is underestimated is more of a cultural difference between the two continents. Many Europeans who visit a U.S. conference for the first time are amazed at the number of parallel sessions and the lack of plenaries. In the U.S., every speaker presents his or her paper in a parallel session, regardless of the status of the speaker. But in many European countries there is a big status difference between full professors, other professors (teachers and lecturers) and Ph.D students. In addition, this status difference is more respected in the scheduling of papers. The hierarchical structure in Europe is fading, however. Large European conferences like EURO already posture the American model; although the number of smaller conferences where the traditional relations are respected is still impressive. I have demonstrated some general differences between European and North American research(ers). The questions remains whether there is any light at the horizon, and elaborating on that, what should be the role of the Decision Sciences Institute in this matter. There certainly is some light. On both sides of the Atlantic, mutual understanding and appreciation of each other's methodologies are growing. The attention for the `real world' in the decision-sciences-related literature in the U.S. has exploded over the last few years. This has mainly been survey-based research, but offers great possibilities to be expanded by in-depth case studies. It might be a nice idea to pick up a problem jointly. Both methodological approaches can then be exploited in order to come to combinable results. Furthermore, in Europe the pressure on publishing is currently increasing. This means that European researchers need to pay greater attention to the literature, need to have tighter fit to the published literature, and most of all, need to scale down research projects. But although research methodologies are approaching each other, the literature does not yet reflect this. More and more we see a difference between journals published under U.S. editorship and journals published under European editorship. Both rely on their established methods of research and, in general, it is far more difficult to publish across the Atlantic than to publish on one's own side of the ocean. For example, consider the most recent issue of Decision Sciences Journal I have received (volume 25, number 5/6þwe are lagging a little bit behind in Europe). Of its nine papers, eight are authored by U.S. academics and one is the joint work of two U.S. researchers and one German. Of the 25 associate editors, 21 are North American, two are European and two are Asian. Despite the good quality of the journal, it is hardly international--and should be careful of not slipping behind in this respect to other journals. Some editorial boards have already been internationalized, and these journals already show off the new research balance between the two continents. A considerable number of journals, however, stick to their continental traditions. While this may guarantee quality methodology and avoid the wild growth af academic journals in some management areas, well-conditioned internationalization is boosting the other journals ahead. Finally, a little word about the conferences. The Institute should take the lead in finding the balance between U.S. and European conference traditions. Both systems have their (dis)advantages, but they still have one thing in common: all conferences offer a great way to start off joint research and to meet people from ``the other side.'' Jan C. Fransoo is a research fellow of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences and, as such, employed at Eindhoven University of Technology in the Netherlands, at the Department of Operations Planning and Control. He has been a visiting lecturer at Clemson University (1991), and will be a visiting Fulbright scholar at Stanford University during the next academic year. He holds a Ph.D in industrial engineering. His research interests include production planning and control in process industries, aggregate capacity planning and modeling, and research methodology in operations management.
Dr. Robert E. Markland
|