than tests that lead to hiring mistakes. But you made a valid pointthat it can be easier to fix a test and adapt it to the needs <strong>of</strong> anorganization than it is to change people. And that is something Iagree with. Tests can’t get testy when you change them. JI think this was a good week <strong>for</strong> EBMgt, since I got towatch the same process happen to me that goes through somepeople when they are told that what they’re doing is not goodenough, and there’s a way to make it better.”Our teaching has generated many more stories, as graduates take whatthey have learned into the workplace. Former students contact us about a currentwork challenge after they have already reviewed the evaluated research evidenceto discuss possible implications <strong>for</strong> their decisions. We are heartened by thestrong demand from our graduating students to retain access to academicdatabases as a critical source <strong>of</strong> evidence on the job. Alumni remain in closecontact with us and some have expressed great interest in developing acollaborative EBMgt group as a way <strong>of</strong> staying connected, knowledgeable, andinvolved with research. We do not pretend that our courses have imparted all <strong>of</strong>our students’ critical thinking skills. We do believe that we have sparked anappetite <strong>for</strong> critically considering and using evidence.At this point, the quality <strong>of</strong> evidence we can provide regarding changes instudents’ knowledge, skills, attitudes, and behavior is somewhat limited. (Selfratedchanges by students are reported below.) We recognize that EBMgtproponents face heightened calls to produce high-quality evidence <strong>for</strong> their own994
positions and programs (e.g., Briner et al., 2009; Reay, Berta, & Kohn, 2009;Rynes, Trank, Lawson, & Ilies, 2003) and we encourage rigorous evaluations <strong>of</strong>EBMgt education and implementation. Indeed, more rigorous research is needed<strong>for</strong> management education, generally (Rynes et al., 2003). Examples <strong>of</strong>systematic reviews <strong>of</strong> EB-related education initiatives are emerging in otherevidence-based practice (EBP) domains such as education and medicine, althoughthe amount and quality <strong>of</strong> evidence tends to be low even in more establishedpr<strong>of</strong>essions (Parkes, Hyde, Deeks, & Milne, 2001). We take solace in theargument that “using evidence does not mean slavishly following it, acting onlywhen there is good evidence or doing nothing if there is none” (Briner &Rousseau, 2011, p. 6). An EB approach to teaching does not mean that educatorsmust or should delay action pending the results <strong>of</strong> a systematic review <strong>of</strong>randomized control trials <strong>of</strong> EBMgt teaching strategies. Like EBMgt, EBteaching is action-oriented, reflective, and receptive to better in<strong>for</strong>mation as itbecomes available. We concur with our counterparts in other EBP domains (e.g.,Murad et al., 2009; Wyer et al., 2004) that it is valuable <strong>for</strong> educators to sharein<strong>for</strong>mation about their instructional approaches. We encourage educators toconsider, reflect critically upon, and experiment with insights (<strong>for</strong>mally orin<strong>for</strong>mally) about teaching EBMgt. Resources <strong>for</strong> teaching EBMgt have appearedonline (e.g., evidencebased-management.com and its associated Google group).Readers are encouraged to contribute. Importantly, there is considerable researchon education, generating teaching and learning principles that figure prominently995
- Page 1 and 2: Reflections of Teaching Evidence-Ba
- Page 3 and 4: 2007). Educators who do incorporate
- Page 5: help them overcome from others when
- Page 9 and 10: differ in several respects. The maj
- Page 11 and 12: to convert well-established evidenc
- Page 13 and 14: the practice evolves, more will be,
- Page 15 and 16: etter outcomes for organizations an
- Page 17 and 18: esearch methods content provides st
- Page 19 and 20: evaluating the process. None of us
- Page 21 and 22: two ways: both as content to inform
- Page 23 and 24: A lack of knowledge is not the only
- Page 25 and 26: Asking the Right QuestionsTo use ev
- Page 27 and 28: informal mentorship, or gender diff
- Page 29 and 30: Characteristics of good, researchab
- Page 31 and 32: “Reader Beware”) have been conv
- Page 33 and 34: on Easterby-Smith, Thorpe, and Jack
- Page 35 and 36: may be packaged with textbooks (e.g
- Page 37 and 38: debriefings of the Absenteeism Diag
- Page 39 and 40: Although the multidisciplinary natu
- Page 41 and 42: (1992) book, Doing Exemplary Resear
- Page 43 and 44: practice that is commonly used in b
- Page 45 and 46: action, using evidence and organiza
- Page 47 and 48: eviewed only upon completion of the
- Page 49 and 50: specific skills the class intended
- Page 51 and 52: ReferencesAdprin.com. (2011). Adver
- Page 53 and 54: Coomarasamy, A., & Khan, K. S. (200
- Page 55 and 56: Hadley, J. A., Davis, J., & Khan, K
- Page 57 and 58:
Pedhazur, E. J., & Schmelkin, L. (1
- Page 59 and 60:
Rynes, S. L., Brown, K. G., Colbert