We at UF have benefited from the custom that economists in our college who
publish in law reviews treat the papers as
peer reviewed. Economists cannot be wrong, by definition. If chaired
professors in economics consider law students as peers, who are we to argue?
It's never even been questioned here.
Yes, it is assymetic, but what the hey?
Ginny
---- Original Message -----
From: "Michael O'Hara" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 5:02 PM
Subject: Re: PRJ/AACSBI Issues
> ALSBTALK:
>
> Below is my reply to Mary-Kathryn. Because I suspect her Dean might
> read the private email version, I deleted, but will not reinsert, my reply
> to her P.S. To wit: Do not confuse a request made with statement made
> with sufficient authority that the statement equates with an order. This
> is not to say it is wise to taunt a person falsely claiming authority in
> one context when that person holds authority in another context.
>
> Mary-Kathryn:
>
> [1] It is a joy to receive your affirmation.
>
> [2] Your welcome, I hope it reduces confusion and increases
> effective and efficient strategic action.
>
> [3] I was only vaguely able to recall authoring an ALSBTALK posting
> with the phrase "cart before the horse". So I checked the ALSBTALK
> archives. I assume you mean this posting.
> http://listserv.muohio.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0506&L=ALSBTALK&P=R100&D=0&H=0&I=-3&O=T&T=0
> Yes, you may share that within your college.
>
> [4] Your school is an accredited AACSB school.
> http://www.aacsb.edu/members/Omd3/Profile_page.asp?id=31324
> AACSB uses a definition of "intellectual contribution" that is so broad it
> forces each accredited member to pick and use a narrower definition.
> AACSB
> expects the school to be consistent in its Mission and related documents.
>
> If a school has chosen to hire lawyers to teach business law, then
> either [4A] the school must expressly chose and expressly inform
> those lawyers to -not- publish in the traditional law research outlets;
> or [4B] the school has implicitly chosen, by hiring lawyers to teach
> business law, to have those lawyers publish in the traditional law
> research
> outlets. Tradition is implicit, deviation from tradition must be explicit
> if the school is to be well managed.
>
> The vast majority of law research outlets are law school based law
> reviews. Nearly 100% of the law school based law reviews use editorial
> boards that are exclusively made up of law students. These editorial
> board
> duties are part of the doctorate education of law students who anticipate
> an academic career. Also, by law school tradition, the review process of
> articles does not use a double blind referee: it is single blind. The
> author does not know who serves as referee; but the referee knows who is
> the author. There are some law research outlets that are not affiliated
> with law schools. I am Editor of one such journal; the ALSB journal is
> another. Those few law research outlets that are not affiliated with law
> schools most often, but not always, use the double blind referee process.
> My journal does and the ALSB journal does. As proud as I am of my
> journal,
> I could not in good conscience assert its quality exceed that of the law
> reviews at Harvard, Stanford, Michigan, etc., etc., etc., all of which are
> edited by students and all of which use single blind referee process.
>
> The student edited single blind referee process law reviews are more
> academic than most of the professional edited double blind referee process
> law journals. The ALSB Business Law Journal is the lone exception. My
> journal has a clear practitioner slant.
>
> It has been my experience that most proponents of double blind
> referee process assert that preference in the context of law reviews
> having
> no idea how that preference will sculpt the publishable research. Most
> proponents desire a more academic slant, but assert that preference in a
> context that generates a more practitioner slant.
>
> AACSB has crafted its accreditation requirements mindful of the great
> diversity of forms of intellectual output. That is why it merely uses the
> rubrics of "PRJ" and "OIC". See, on PDF page 50 of 79, in "TABLE II:
> SUMMARY OF FACULTY QUALIFICATION, INTELLECTUAL CONTRIBUTIONS AND
> PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES
> (RE: Standards 2, 9, & 10)" of the January 1, 2005 version of the AACSB
> "Eligibility Procedures and Accreditation Standards for Business
> Accreditation".
> http://cba.unomaha.edu/faculty/mohara/web/AACSBstand1_1_05.pdf
>
> Note especially footnote 5 of that Table II.
> "5 The number of intellectual contributions should be listed in these
> columns. The peer reviewed journal columns marked “PRJ” should enumerate
> all of those intellectual contributions that have appeared in journal
> article form reviewed by academic and practitioner colleagues. The other
> intellectual contributions columns marked “OIC” should enumerate all other
> intellectual contributions regardless of the form of the contributions,
> including (but not limited to) research monographs, scholarly books,
> chapters in scholarly books, textbooks, proceedings from scholarly
> meetings, papers presented at academic or professional meetings, publicly
> available research working papers, papers presented at faculty research
> seminars, publications in trade journals, in-house journals, book reviews,
> written cases with instructional materials, instructional software, and
> other publicly available materials describing the design and
> implementation
> of new curricula or courses. Intellectual contributions must be publicly
> available, i.e., proprietary and confidential research and consulting
> reports do not qualify as intellectual contributions."
>
> The key word in this context is the word "colleagues". Given the
> tenor of the items used as examples of OIC versus the tenor of the items
> given as examples of PRJ, it would take a very odd construction of the
> word
> "colleagues" to render a law school hosted law review OIC. It is
> feasible,
> but it is very odd.
>
> One thing is for sure, while AACSB requires schools to track PRJ, and
> while AACSB requires more PRJ from Ph.D. granting accredited schools than
> from accredited schools only granting the BSBA, no where does AACSB define
> "peer reviewed". The ancient accreditation Standards of AACSB (i.e.,
> those
> pre-dating the Mission driven, continuous improvement focused Standards)
> did make attempts to define and to require double blind academic referee
> journals with a majority of the editorial board from academe; however,
> those ancient Standards were expressly rejected in favor of the expansive
> and inclusive Standards used today. Each school, based on its Mission,
> defines PRJ, and thus by default OIC.
>
> (As an aside, let me note that what ever definition of PRJ and of OIC
> the school picks is a definition that applies to all faculty: i.e., same
> definition used for full assignment faculty as part time assignment;
> participating same as supporting; tenured same as tenure track;
> academically qualified as professionally qualified. The choices on
> intellectual contributions are the most important choices in the Mission.)
>
> An AACSB school -could- expressly choose to categorize all law
> reviews hosted by all law schools as OIC. However, to do so implicitly
> would be to violate Standard 10: "The faculty has, and maintains,
> intellectual qualifications and current expertise to accomplish the
> mission
> and to assure that this occurs, the school has a clearly defined process
> to
> evaluate individual faculty member’s contributions to the school’s
> mission." To -implicitly- reject the tradition of a whole field (e.g.,
> law) would not be "clearly defined". This is a choice that must be done
> explicitly by the faculty. This choice has significant consequences on
> the
> intellectual contributions of the school.
>
> The Mission of your school, especially its second to last bullet
> (i.e., "Recruiting high quality faculty and staff and providing them with
> sufficient resources to support excellence in teaching, primarily applied
> and pedagogical research, and service."
> http://www.aacsb.edu/members/Omd3/mission_page.asp?inst=818) could support
> such a choice. However, such a choice would be expected for all faculty,
> again, given your Mission. That is, faculty in management also would be
> denied rewards (e.g., tenure) if their publications primarily strayed into
> discipline based scholarship, that is, were published in outlets of tenor
> similar to law school hosted law reviews.
>
> The portfolio of intellectual contributions generated by the school's
> faculty must serve the school's Mission. However, any single faculty
> member's academic freedom allows for that faculty member to generate any
> research. That is the tension all Deans manage. That is the tension
> AACSB
> wants the assembled faculty to address in crafting the school's Mission.
>
> Lastly, let me note that AACSB's requirement is that the school craft
> and implement a Mission. The school's Mission must be consonant with the
> hosting institution's Mission. To the extent UWG recognizes a faculty
> member's academic freedom in generating research, AACSB requires the
> school
> to also recognize that academic freedom. The school is not at liberty to
> infringe a UWG faculty member's academic freedom when the school crafts
> and
> when the school implements its AACSB mandated Mission. The Dean's
> response to a business law professor publishing in the Harvard Law Review
> ought to be the same as the Dean's response to a management professor
> publishing in the Journal of Management.
>
>
> Michael
>
> Professor Michael J. O'Hara, J.D., Ph.D.
> Finance, Banking, & Law Department Editor, Journal of Legal
> Economics
> College of Business Administration (402) 554 - 2014 voice fax (402)
> 554 - 3825
> Roskens Hall 502 www.AAEFE.org
> University of Nebraska at Omaha www.JournalOfLegalEconomics.com
> Omaha NE 68182
> [log in to unmask]
> (402) 554 - 2823 voice fax (402) 554 - 2680
> http://cba.unomaha.edu/faculty/mohara/web/ohara.htm
|
