Reflections of Teaching Evidence-Based Management - Center for ...

independent of our efforts to understand it; and that observations, facts, andconcepts (our lay term for “constructs”) are subjective and value-laden, but notcompletely fallible (Rousseau et al., 2008; Shadish et al., 2002). We differentiatebetween meta-analyses and other forms of systematic reviews as examples ofhigh-quality evidence, and opinion-pieces (expert or non-expert) as examples ofweak evidence. However, evidence hierarchies, if presented, are inclusive ofresearch designs (e.g., case studies; descriptive research; quasi-experimentalinvestigations) that may be applicable for some questions, entities, or stages ofknowledge development. Triangulation across methods and theoretical pluralismare valued, consistent with a critical realist perspective (Rousseau et al., 2008).Learning to plan one’s own research and critically appraise others’research are complementary learning experiences. We encourage criticalappraisal of evidence from all four EBMgt elements (Briner et al., 2009). Wedescribe to students various ways of acquiring knowledge (e.g., personalexperience, tradition, authority, formal research) and associated strengths andlimitations. Whereas personal experience is valuable and will inform managerialdecision-making, an EBMgt perspective requires critical reflection upon thatsource, as well as the others. For example, the Absenteeism Diagnosis exercise,discussed previously, includes questions adapted from Briner and Rousseau(2011) such as, “What are my beliefs about the causes of absence?” and “Howrelevant and applicable is my experience?” Such questions are designed toencourage critical appraisal of personal experience. An additional question,“Have I developed an ‘expert’s intuition’ (vs. a ‘gut feel’)?” has been used in1024