From Both Sides Now: Publishing in the Social Sciences
Allan H. Church
Publishing in the social sciences is a nasty business. You spend months
and months (and sometimes even years and years) sweating, toiling, and pouring your heart
into a paper. You have colleagues read it, you talk about it at cocktail parties, you tell
your family about it until you are blue in the face. Finally, the day of completion comes.
You know it's not quite ready, but it is time nonetheless to send it off into that black
hole known only as "the peer review process." It takes months, sometimes years,
but you wait patiently, hoping against hope that your life's blood-your opus-will actually
be read, appreciated and yes, yes, yes accepted by a select group of your
"peers" at some prestigious journal. Suicide or murder (depending on the
strength of your self-esteem) seem to be the only solutions when you receive that
inevitable letter of rejection. Of course, the blow is often softened with the phrases
like "Thank you for allowing us to consider your manuscript for possible publication
in the XXX journal. Please think of us as an outlet for your future work." Meanwhile,
based on the tone of the reviewers' comments, you have to assume that the letter is really
saying "We can't believe you wasted our time with this garbage, we hope we never hear
from you again." The final straw comes when at a later date you examine a copy of the
same journal only to find either (a) a paper similar to your own but written by more
"accepted" (read well-connected) authors, or (b) a piece of work that, in your
esteemed opinion, isn't worth the paper on which it is printed.
While this scenario is perhaps a bit exaggerated and overly cynical, it
is nonetheless a caricature of a common enough experience of the journal
submission/publishing process in our field. Of course, there are other scenarios as well.
For example, sometimes the cards fall the other way, and that really bad paper you wrote
winds up getting accepted outright somewhere. Another path is the one where you receive a
promising offer for a revision-"if you can address these issues we would be very
interested in seeing a revision"-only to have the revision that you worked so hard on
receive even more negative reviewer comments than the first version.
Moreover, although we all know that editors and reviewers have typically
been "trained"-if you can call it that-to be critical but constructive in their
comments to prospective authors, it definitely does not always work that way. Not that I
have not been guilty of providing some over-zealous criticism myself, you understand, when
serving as a reviewer. This tendency to be critical, however, can be very inviting for
reviewers. As Scott Adams (1996) has noted "it can be very satisfying...you get to
savor the experience of shredding another person's ego while taking no personal risk"
(p. 46). The fact is that sometimes the paper review process can be painful to the
author's ego. One of the most negative comments I have ever received, for example,
concerned a model I was attempting to describe in greater detail. This relatively meager
contribution, I admit, was nonetheless met with the following statement from the editor of
a respected peer review journal-"From all theories I respect, this is a profoundly
incorrect concept."
The point is that publishing in the social sciences is anything BUT a
science in and of itself. Take the "blind peer review process," for example. A
recent study (Beyer, Chanove, & Fox, 1995) in AMJ of 1400 AMJ potential
manuscripts found that while peer reviews typically are in fact blind, there are a host of
other variables that can enter into the acceptance equation, including biases on the part
of the editor who is usually not blind to the authorship of the submissions. Another issue
in the peer review process is the fact that some peers' reviews are more important than
others (e.g., Epstein, 1995). It can be quite perplexing to receive two reviews-one raving
and one scathing-only to read in the editor's letter that the reviewer who didn't like
your paper is one of his or her more important ones. As one anonymous researcher commented
to me in response to a post on the ODCNET and IOOB-L newsgroups-"My wish for the
publication process is to see editors strike an optimal balance between relying on
reviewers' opinions and exercising their own authority to publish papers. On the whole I
don't think there has been enough open discussion about how editors should make these
decisions. Clearly the editor should give a lot of weight to esteemed reviewers, yet these
same reviewers have the strongest vested interests or biases. These reviewers also have
clout that seems to intimidate some editors. My simple request is: Make a decision in a
context established by the field (in terms of how much latitude for decision
making)."
Other issues and research concern the dissemination process as well. For
example, Marc Levine is currently working on his dissertation at the California School of
Professional Psychology in Alameda, looking at the institutionalized practices of
publishing in the social sciences, including distortions in research findings and their
subsequent citations in textbooks and/or in the popular management press. Of course, who
knows if and/or where that will eventually be published! Given the importance of having
publications in our field-either in the search for the Holy Grail of tenure or for
professional credibility with clients and colleagues-I thought it would be interesting to
see what others had to say about the entire publishing process, from soup to nuts. More
specifically, I asked this issue's contributors to reflect on the process of publishing
in the social sciences from their own experiences in their given role: that of the
editor, the reviewer, and the author, rather than focus on a specific question, as is
usually the case.
Gary N. McLean, Professor and Coordinator of Human Resource Development
and Professor of Business and Industry Education at the University of Minnesota, provides
the first set of comments (and tips) for this forum. I asked Gary to address the issues of
publishing from the voice of the Editor.
Refereed Journals in the Social Sciences: An Editor's Perspective
Gary N. McLean
To speak to this title, I can only rely on my own experience as an
editor beginning in 1984 as a Consulting Editor with the Journal of Education for
Business (JEB), a position in which I continue today, with 6 of those years spent as
Executive Editor. In 1989, I had an incidental role in the birthing of the Human
Resource Development Quarterly (HRDQ), sponsored by the American Society for Training
and Development (ASTD) and published by Jossey-Bass. I served for 4 years as Associate
Editor and am now entering my fourth (and final year) as Editor. Beginning with Volume 8,
the journal will be co-sponsored by ASTD and the Academy of Human Resource Development. I
also served one term as Chair of the Editorial Board of the Journal of Vocational
Education Research.
Of all the changes I have seen during this time, perhaps the most
significant has been the acceptance of a much wider range of research methodologies. It
was clear in the early 1980s that only positivistic research was acceptable, with perhaps
an occasional submission of a case study or review of the literature manuscript. Today
there are interpretive, critical science, policy analysis, and meta-analysis manuscripts,
among others.
A second change has been an increase in the number of manuscripts
received from consultants and academics who are from schools that are not research
institutions. Some consultants see publication as a way of "advertising"
themselves. Academics from schools that do not have a tradition of requiring research from
their faculty are now often under pressure to publish because more and more of these
institutions are seeking accreditation. Because these two groups do not have an extensive
publishing history, it is usually more difficult for them to have manuscripts survive the
referee process. Consultants often lack socialization in "academese;" they are
used to writing so their clients can understand them, but such language is not always what
is sought by reviewers of academic manuscripts. I have also been surprised at how many
consultants blatantly market their products or services in their articles-clearly not
acceptable. With both groups, compassionate, understanding reviewers and an editor who is
willing to work hard and long with the authors can often salvage a manuscript. But then,
the challenge to the editor is to provide the difficult feedback in such a way as to
encourage rather than discourage the author. Of course, the bulk of manuscripts that I see
are not from seasoned researchers; they still tend to be from those who are seeking
promotion and tenure.
A third change has been the proliferation of (and death of some)
journals in all fields, but especially in the social sciences. Each time a new journal
that appears to be competitive comes on the market, I hold my breath, expecting the flow
of manuscripts and the number of subscriptions to fall. In the case of HRDQ, the
result on both counts has been positive. Manuscript flow at present is the best it has
been in its 8-year history. And given the recent decision of co-sponsorship and a change
in membership benefits, subscriptions during this past year have almost tripled, to over
4,000. The JEB during this time has survived by successfully making a major change
in the target audience, from secondary and 2-year post-secondary business programs to all
post-secondary business programs. Clearly, the result of the growing numbers of journals
has been greater numbers of manuscripts published and more journals sold (whether or not
they are read). It will be interesting to see the impact of the fledgling electronic
journals.
How can authors increase the possibility of publication? Every
manuscript has its own idiosyncrasies. Having said that, however, there are definitely
things authors can do to improve the odds of having their manuscript selected. Based on my
review of over 300 manuscripts submitted to the HRDQ, and at least 100 more to the
JEB, here are my suggestions for handling the most frequently occurring problems faced by
authors. Some are easily remedied; others are more difficult.
1. Use the format specified by the journal, no matter how inappropriate
you believe it to be or however unfamiliar you may be with the style. HRDQ requires
the use of the fourth edition of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological
Association (American Psychological Association, 1994). It has been quite amazing to
me how many authors totally ignore this requirement. When manuscripts are returned to be
put into this format, the revisions often come back incorrectly using the specified style.
It is difficult to believe that authors actually think that editors will do this for them.
2. Have your article edited by someone with excellent writing skills,
even if you have to pay for it. Often, we receive reviews back from reviewers with
negative recommendations for publication, yet the comments made hardly address content.
The writing is often so poor that reviewers are not able to see past it.
3. Review guidelines before submitting the article: How many copies are
required? To whom are the copies to be sent? What is required to insure a
"blind" review? For, example, we request a separate title page that can be
removed prior to blind review, and all references to "my work" or any other
internal references that would provide clues of authorship must be removed. Failure to
follow these guidelines can add measurably to the time required for the review process. It
also seems to make sense to review several issues of the journal before submitting
manuscripts. It amazes me how many authors have obviously never seen a copy of the journal
to which they are submitting a manuscript.
4. Make the relevance to the primary focus of the journal clear and
explicit. Our experience is that we receive many manuscripts that are implicitly
appropriate for publication in the HRDQ, but the authors leave it up to the
reviewers, and ultimately the readers, to make the connection to the field of human
resource development. We want such connections to be explicit.
5. Describe methodology completely. Readers should not be left guessing
about what was done or why it was done. This section doesn't have to be lengthy, it just
has to be complete.
6. Avoid the formalities of a dissertation. Over the years, traditions
have developed about the format and structure of a dissertation. Because most graduate
students do not get the experience of writing for publication, their own model for writing
continues to be the dissertation. Such structure is not appropriate for a published
article. Potential authors are, hopefully, subjected to reading lots of journal articles.
These should be examined prior to writing for publication. As just one example, hypotheses
are rarely listed in a journal article and they often are in dissertations.
7. Be internally consistent with the methodology of your study. If your
methods section indicates that certain steps were followed, the reader should legitimately
expect that the findings would reflect these steps. If a qualitative study is described,
then one should expect to see this methodology carried out throughout the article.
8. If your study is positivistic, and you want to generalize your
findings, be sure that the population is defined, your sampling is described, and your
sample is adequate. Response rate also has to be adequate, or the burden of the argument
is on you to make the case for its acceptability.
9. In positivistic studies, you must provide reliability and validity
data. These are not optional requirements; they are essential in supporting the
appropriateness of the findings presented.
10. If your manuscript includes statistical analyses, be prepared to
provide a computer disk of your raw data. All our statistical manuscripts are reviewed by
a statistical reviewer. If a computer disk is available, assumptions behind the
statistical tests can be checked and alternatives explored. If the disk is not available,
long, complex letters may be required, and both parties may be left discontented with the
results.
11. A qualitative study is not an excuse for a lack of rigor. In some
ways, there is still a struggle going on about what criteria to use in evaluating a study
that does not use traditional positivistic approaches. Our experience with reviewers,
however, is that there is a belief that qualitative articles do not generally meet quality
standards-not because qualitative articles are less acceptable for publication (they
aren't), but because the same rigor is often not applied.
12. Respond to the editors' feedback quickly. We make detailed
recommendations to every author on ways in which the article can be improved. It then
becomes the author's responsibility to respond to those suggestions, either by
incorporating the changes into the manuscript or by telling the editors why those
suggestions are not appropriate and why they have not been taken. Getting the revisions
back to the editors quickly can also enhance the probability of publication. In any case,
it will definitely be given faster consideration.
I would be pleased to receive manuscripts from potential authors. Take a
look at our journals, and, if they fit, contact me, and I will see that you receive the
author guidelines.
A Reviewer's Perspective
Mike Harris
Mike Harris, associate professor of management at the University of
Missouri, St. Louis, provides his comments and reflections from the voice of the Reviewer.
He highlights some of the contradictions inherent in the process. Mike has served as a
reviewer for a number of academic journals, including JAP, and is currently the
senior associate editor of the International Journal of Organizational Analysis.
Research publications play a significant role in the field of I/O
psychology. In addition to their potential influence on organizational practices, court
cases, and public policy, the careers of many academics are affected by their research
publications (or lack thereof). Placed in that light, the process by which a manuscript is
accepted or rejected for publication becomes of great interest. I will address this
process from the dual role of a reviewer and an acting (associate) editor. I would also
like to point out that I do not believe that my views are necessarily among the most
popular or the most widely held; while some of you agree with a few of my assertions,
others among you may disagree vehemently. In the final analysis, however, I believe that
reviewing/editing is a fairly subjective process, and that ultimate conclusions about what
is "good research" are subject to debate. Given these comments, I make the
following observations.
1. Reviewers do not always agree with each other. At a certain
point in time, it began to concern me that my reviews did not always agree with those of
other reviewers. This seemed particularly true with regard to the most subjective aspect
of the review: the perceived value of a paper. I was a reviewer on one paper, for
instance, where the editor declared to the author that she/he had never seen such a large
difference in opinion among the three reviewers. But there is plenty of research in the
performance appraisal area indicating that different raters do not perfectly agree in
their ratings, so there is little reason to believe that reviewers will always agree. It
would be rather interesting for someone to conduct a policy-capturing study to see what
might account for reviewer differences. Is it, for example, that some reviewers assign
differential importance to certain features (e.g., whether the study had tight controls)
compared with other features (e.g., how realistic the study was). Long ago, when I was in
graduate school, one of my professors said to me that every study has a flaw. Perhaps
certain reviewers are more willing to overlook certain flaws that other reviewers will not
overlook.
2. Reviewers don't always indicate how they feel in their comments to
authors. One thing that I have discovered in the role of an acting (associate) editor
is that reviewers' comments to authors don't always reflect their "bottom line"
recommendations. In my role as an acting editor, I have actually had some reviewers whose
comments to the authors sounded fairly positive, while their actual recommendation was
quite negative. Not only do I think the author would be quite confused, but it may be
rather difficult for me to explain my decision as an editor. This simply makes it
difficult for all parties involved to understand what is going on. Of course, for those
very rare outstanding papers, it is possible that a short review is in order. In most
cases, however, there is plenty of room for comments and suggestions. In the few cases
where I, as a reviewer, had little to say, I have usually included some kind of note to
the editor explaining why I had so little to say. That, in my opinion, would be helpful,
especially if the reviewer had never reviewed before for that particular editor.
3. The editor's role is not what they may have told you in graduate
school. When I first began doing research, I thought that the editor's role was to
assign reviewers, combine their comments in a thoughtful manner, and act as a neutral
judge who makes a decision based on the arguments presented by the reviewers and the
authors. As a reviewer over the last 10 or so years, however, I have seen more editors act
as the third or fourth reviewer. I'm not saying this is necessarily wrong; either my
initial impression was incorrect or some editors have defined their role differently. I do
think that this is something that new researchers should be aware of, though. So, while it
is true that editors can only work with the manuscripts they receive, I think that many
editors take a much more proactive position in making acceptance/rejection decisions. I
used to believe that my papers would fare somewhat differently depending on which
reviewers they were sent to; I now believe my papers will be somewhat affected by which
editor will make the ultimate decision as well.
4. If at first it doesn't get accepted, try, try, and try again (at
different journals). When I first finished graduate school, I met some peers
who had been out several years longer than I had who told me that they had never had a
paper rejected! You can just imagine my reaction to the first few rejections that I
received. Since that time, I have talked with some of the top researchers in the field and
discovered that they don't bat 1,000! I have also talked with some peers who had a paper
that was initially rejected at a lower-level journal, which they then submitted to a
higher-level journal, and the paper was then accepted! As for the strategy of following
through with a request for a revision, I have read that at least in some journals about
half of those papers for which a revision is encouraged are ultimately accepted. That is
probably true, based on my own experience. But, authors, beware! About half are ultimately
rejected, too! And my own experience, as well as the experience of others with whom I have
talked, is that while you may think you have addressed all these concerns, the reviewers
and editors may believe otherwise. On that basis, I believe that someone who revises his
or her paper, only to find it rejected, tends to be more upset than someone whose paper is
rejected in the first round. My suggestion is that editors be as clear as possible about
the probability that a revision will turn out to be acceptable.
5. Research is still a great deal of fun. Despite the issues
raised, I believe that research and publishing is still a very exciting, engaging, and
rewarding activity. A number of years ago, I described to a graduate student how a
research project is similar to an archeological dig I participated in near Jerusalem.
Despite the fairly intense and tedious work, I was fascinated by the possibility that at
any moment I might discover a rare coin, art object, or other item of great interest. The
truth was that only occasionally was an "article" (pun intended) of any real
interest found. From time to time, various interesting looking objects were uncovered, but
according to the archeologists, they were just junk (for example, some exquisite shards of
glass that were about 500 years old were simply thrown away). Perhaps the most valuable
object I found in 3 or 4 days of work was a rather ordinary looking piece of pottery. The
archeologist who examined this piece, however, said it was alabaster, which was quite rare
in the region. I believe that conducting research is similar in many ways to my experience
in this archeological dig. We don't always know what we have found until the independent
reviewers examine our research. Though we might think it is beautiful and important, we
are sometimes mistaken. One should always retain the excitement of never knowing in
advance what will be found. At the same time, some areas in which one digs are more likely
to provide success than other areas. Nothing substitutes for hard work. The bottom line is
that you should have fun doing the work, no matter what you find, particularly if your
research fails to result in a publication.
An Author's Perspective
Bill Kahnweiler
Our final set of comments come from Bill Kahnweiler, associate professor
of human resource development at Georgia State University, Atlanta. Bill takes the
perspective of the Author, drawing on his experience of having over 50 articles
published in both academic and applied journals. Some of his stories may sound very
familiar.
Here are some war stories that are part of my experience as an author,
for both academic and practitioner-oriented publications. I've had a couple of experiences
that were really frustrating. In one instance, the editor of a refereed journal sent back
a 3 page, single-spaced letter detailing the revisions to a manuscript a colleague and I
had submitted. The problem was not so much the number of revisions requested; it was
understanding any one of them. My colleague and I read and re-read the letter about 5
times, and after each read, we became more confused. We decided to call the editor, as it
seemed that doing the same ineffective activity (reading the editor's letter) over and
over again was not working. Perhaps this was one of those "great in theory/poor in
reality" ideas. The more we asked the editor what we thought were pointed,
closed-ended questions, the more confused we became. But there is a happy ending to this
saga. The journal changed editors and we got our manuscript published. I believe this
journal is pretty well respected among scholars, and supposedly it's not an easy one in
which to get published. I guess I had the silly, naive notion that an editor of such a
publication would have had decent written and verbal communication skills. That was not my
experience.
In another instance, a colleague and I submitted a manuscript for
publication to an academic, refereed journal. Again, we thought this was a highly
respectable and selective publication outlet for our work. My strategy has always been to
"start at the top" and work my way down the hierarchy of journals if and when I
got rejected. To make a long story short, the editor sent us a cordial and enthusiastic
letter about a year after we submitted, asking us to make a few minor changes quickly, as
he hoped to publish it soon. His suggestions were clear and very do-able within the time
frame he requested. About 3 weeks after we had submitted our revision, we received another
letter from him asking for additional revisions that had nothing to do with the ones he
asked for the first time. Again, they were clear and do-able, and we completed them. About
2 weeks later, the same deal. This process went on for about six rounds. We'd respond to
his requests, and he'd come back with, "Thanks. Good job. Now do these things."
One of his requests was for us to cite the works of a person who just happened to be on
the editorial board, and may have been one of the blind reviewers of our work. This
person's work was related to ours in that it dealt with the HR function in organizations,
however, that's where the similarity ended, at least to me and my colleague. This
experience left me skeptical about the integrity of the entire process of "know-ledge
dissemination," as well as becoming even more cynical than I already was about what
it takes to get published in scholarly journals.
It's not always this way, however. I have had experiences as an author
that were about as different as they could be from the ones noted above. For example, on
two separate occasions with two different publications, I was informed about 3 weeks after
submitting a manuscript that it was accepted word for word, with no revisions requested.
I'd be the last to claim that this was due to the extremely high quality and/or importance
of the manuscript. I believe both these journals were hard up for manuscripts and I just
got lucky. As an aside, my experience with some practitioner-oriented publications is that
the editors tend to make more changes to your work without your prior know-ledge or
consent, compared with editors of academic journals.
I believe getting published, or even trying to get published, is in many
ways an act of arrogance. You are in effect saying, "I think what I have to say is so
good and so important that it needs to be printed for others' use." Then again, I
like to remember how many people actually read (much less enjoy or find useful) our
portrayals of wonderful ideas, leading-edge research, and innovative practices. In the
greater scheme of things, it's not a big deal to get published. It feels good, and one's
family might have one more thing to brag about when the conversation at cocktail parties
needs a boost. Of course, for most people in professorial positions seeking tenure, I
think the clich "publish or perish," like all clichs, has some truth in it.
One tool that helped me cope with the incessant pressure I felt to publish my proverbial
rear end off was to realize that in many ways academic publishing is a game. I don't
necessarily endorse the game or how it's played, but I don't make the rules and I'm not a
journal editor. So my unsolicited advice to non-tenured, tenure track assistant professors
is: Learn the rules of the game, accept them, avoid expending much energy on your feelings
about them, and play the game as best you can.
Similarly, my summary statement to aspiring authors is to maintain your
sense of humor throughout the publication process (or acquire one quickly if you don't
have one), be persistent, and be resilient. By persistent and resilient, I mean that it's
not necessary to become overly morose on receiving a rejection. Deal with it, accept it,
and move on. There are plenty of publications out there. If one's written work can't find
a home somewhere, it probably contains significant deficiencies.
Conclusions
So, what can we conclude about the publishing process? As I think I
stated earlier, it is not easy. What with inconsistent reviewers, the differences in style
and presence of a given editor, and current trends in articles being published, you never
know how it's going to turn out in the end. Yet, given the number of papers that are
continually being rejected at JAP, AMJ or Personnel Psychology, there
are clearly voluminous quantities of manuscripts in the queue for the remaining hundreds
of other journals in the field. In fact, I would bet (although I don't have any data to
back this up) that the sheer total number of papers being generated in I/O, OD, and OB
have been steadily rising over the last few decades and that it will continue to do so in
the near future as long as these respective fields remain popular, attractive and
ultimately rewarding. Despite this, however, it does appear that the publishing process is
probably a mixture of (a) writing skills, (b) research and/or theory orientation, (c)
motivation to achieve, (d) professional name recognition, (e) timing, and (f) simple luck.
I guess we need to use LISREL to really figure this one out.
In the meantime, however, if you have that "writing" bug in
you, or if you are in a publish-or-perish situation, you might find some of the comments
and suggestions listed above very helpful. As all three of these contributors noted, the
keys to achieving a successful publishing career are playing by the rules and being
persistent. It is important to remember, however, that people differ substantially in
their definition of what a constitutes a "successful" publishing career-e.g., is
it 10 high quality research publications in top tier journals or 100 professional and
practitioner-oriented articles in middle-level journals or non-peer-reviewed outlets?
Either way, the importance of finding the right fit between your own work and what the
editors and reviewers are looking for is undeniable. So, too, is the importance of being
able to write effectively and in the appropriate style. For example, while I agree with
Gary that many practitioners and consultants have difficulty converting their 24-point
client presentations to the more esoteric nomenclature of academese, I would also argue
that many academics have trouble writing (and sometimes even speaking) in simple English.
Thus, beyond the trait of being persistent in trying to find a home for that paper, the
primary directive, I would say, is flexibility in writing style. And remember to keep
trying. I can tell you from personal experience that there is always a journal out there
somewhere that will take that manuscript you've been working on.
Thanks to Gary, Mike, and Bill for sharing their comments and
reflections on the publishing process. Thanks also to JW for reviewing this piece and to
MZ for editing it. As always, if you feel the urge to communicate, however briefly, send
your thoughts and suggestions to me at W. Warner Burke Associates Inc., 201 Wolfs Lane,
Pelham, NY, 10803, (914) 738-0080, fax (914) 738-1059, or by e-mail at AllanHC96@AOL.COM.
References
Adams, S. (1996). The Dilbert principle. New York, NY:
HarperBusiness.
American Psychological Association. (1994). Publication manual of the
American Psychological Association (4th Ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Beyer, J. M., Chanove, R. G., & Fox, W. B. (1995). The review
process and the fates of manuscripts submitted to AMJ. Academy of Management Journal,
38(5), 1219-1260.
Epstein, S. (1995). What can be done to improve the journal review
process. American Psychologist, 50, 883-885.
Biographies
Gary N. McLean is a professor and coordinator of human resource
development and adult education, as well as a professor in business and industry
education, in the Department of Work, Community, and Family Education, College of
Education and Human Development, University of Minnesota, St. Paul. Prior to his current
position, Gary taught at Quinsigamond Community College, worked in the Research and
Evaluation Office of the City University of New York, and was an instructor in Business
Education at Teachers College, Columbia University. He has also worked as an independent
consultant, primarily in training, OD, and quality transformation, for almost 25 years,
serving as principal consultant with ECCO (Effecting Creative Change in Organizations). He
was one of two consultants who began the quality journey with Zytec, 1991 winner of the
Malcolm Baldrige and Minnesota Quality Awards. Gary received his M.A. and Ed.D. in
business education from Teachers College, Columbia University, and his M.Div. from the
United Theological Seminary. He is a frequent speaker and has written over 100 journal
articles and 20 textbooks. He is editor for the Human Resource Development Quarterly
and consulting editor for the Journal of Education for Business. You can reach Gary
via e-mail at MCLEA002@MAROON.TC.UMN.EDU
Michael M. Harris is an associate professor of management at the
University of Missouri, St. Louis. Prior to this position, he taught in the Krannert
Graduate School of Management at Purdue University. He received his Ph.D. in I/O
psychology from the University of Illinois at Chicago. His research has focused on
employee selection, performance appraisal, drug and alcohol use, and the effect of item
wording on survey responses. In addition to serving as an ad hoc reviewer for a number of
journals, he has served on several editorial boards, including the Journal of Applied
Psychology, the Journal of Health and Social Behavior, and the Journal of
Business and Psychology. He is currently the senior associate editor for the International
Journal of Organizational Analysis. He is the author of a recent textbook, Human
Resource Management: A Practical Approach, published by Dryden Press, and is
co-editing (with Robert Eder) The Employment Interview: Theory, Research, and Practice
(2nd Ed.), to be published by Sage Publications. Mike's e-mail address is C1994@UMSLVMA.UMSL.EDU
Bill Kahnweiler is an associate professor of human resource development
at Georgia State University, Atlanta. Prior to this position, he was a professor of
counseling and development at Miami University in Ohio, a training and organizational
development manager with General Electric's Aircraft Engine Business Group, a principal
with Hay Management Consultants, and owner of his own consulting business. Bill received
his Ph.D. from Florida State University. His research focuses on employee involvement in
decision making, innovative career development interventions, and leadership and
consulting competencies of human resource professionals. He has presented papers at
numerous national and international professional conferences, and published over 50
articles in both scholarly and popular outlets on these topics. Bill has also served as a
reviewer for several human resource journals and consults with a variety of for-profit and
non-profit organizations. Bill can be reached via e-mail at EPSWMK@PANTHER.GSU.EDU
|