Pedagogical research is among the toughest research to do. Designing rigorous assessment in the quest to determine causality and contribute to the development of theory is challenging, but necessary to the advancement of our field.
As a dean, I know that the perceived value of pedagogical research varies by field. Economics, for example, is a discipline that places a greater value on pedagogical research. As editor of this journal, I desperately want to raise the perception of the value of our work.
The first step is to elevate rigor while maintaining relevance in our field. In order to accomplish higher rigor, we need methods pieces that examine the challenges specific to pedagogical research. For example, how can we tease out the effects of a faculty member who passionately believes in this new technique? If we can’t control for faculty effects, can we truly know if the intervention worked?
Further, what is the effect of response bias? Are there other demand artifacts? These are just a few of the questions for which we rarely explicitly provide answers, yet regularly confound results. Thus, I encourage you to consider submitting pieces on methods in pedagogical research, and I look forward to dialogues on methods at conferences.
In this issue, Stacey A. Morrison, Amanda J. Blair, Kylie L. McMullan, and Andrew Flostrand lead off with a review of the past 25 years of Marketing Education Review (MER) titled “Shaping the Marketers of Tomorrow: An Analysis of 25 Years of Marketing Education Review.” I find it hard to believe that we let that anniversary slip by us,so expect a celebration at the next SMA. But as someone who has been involved with MER since the beginning, I know that we’ve ratcheted up rigor significantly over that period. Yet, there are many gaps in our work, and Morrison et al. give us a good look back.
In my college, we have worked hard to build a strong mentoring program for our students. We’re not there yet, but I have already used what I learned from Frances Gunn, Seung Hwan (Mark) Lee, and Madelyn Steed and their article, “Student Perceptions of Benefits and Challenges of Peer Mentoring Programs: Divergent Perspectives From Mentors and Mentees.” I shared this with the members of my Advisory Council’s mentoring committee and they agree that the findings are generalizable to mentoring by businesspeople.
Neil T. Bendle and Charan K. Bagga offer a clarification on customer lifetime value (CLV) and how to teach it in “The Confusion About CLV in Case-Based Teaching Materials.” As someone who has been actively involved in customer relationship management since the turn of the century, I appreciate their efforts to draw attention to this concept and its importance.
“The Impact of Collaboration, Empowerment, and Choice: An Empirical Examination of the Collaborative Course Development Method,” by K. Damon Aiken, Timothy C. Heinze, Matthew L. Meuter, and Kenneth J. Chapman is an interesting piece that deserves a read all across the college. Reviewers sometimes question the fit for an article that can seem to be too broad, but there are times when we can best serve our field by contributing to the broader discussion, and I think this piece is one that serves that objective.
The same concern could be raised for the final piece in this issue, “Determinants of Perceived Learning and Satisfaction in Online Business Courses: An Extension to Evaluate the Differences Between Qualitative and Quantitative Courses.” Yet again, this piece by Jacqueline K. Eastman, Maria Aviles, and Mark D. Hanna does uniquely address marketing concerns, while also serving needs in a broader conversation.
Therefore, another way that we can elevate the perceived value of our work is to share these pieces with our colleagues. Use the journal to address important questions you are working on. Send copies of articles to associate deans and curriculum chairs. Find ways to help others in your college recognize the contributions we are making together in MER.