Mathematical Background for the "Softer" Side of Business Scholarship

[young&ambitious]

As the regular posters probably already know by now, I'm interested in pursuing a PhD in organizational behavior. I have the necessary personality characteristics, decent GPA, strong statement of purpose, seven to eight LORs from tenured professors, and will have above-average publication/research experience by the time I apply. But I feel that my main admissions weakness is my poor quantitative reasoning performance (big problem). So to tackle this issue, I am designing the curriculum of an independent study with one of my University's OB/SEM professors to (1) work on GMAT quant section, and (2) improve mathematical background for quantitative research methodology (which will hopefully improve my chances of getting admitted to a good program).

I wanted to check with this community to see what mathematical background would beneficial for an OB/OT PhD applicant, (my coursework only has taken me through Calculus I and statistics), as well as to see what statistical packages do OB/OT programs typically use (so I can possibly get certified in these beforehand). I know HBS uses SAS and STATA. Is this the norm?

Thanks again!!!

[young&ambitious]

Columbia GSB (one of the schools I'm looking at) has the following on their website to describe all of their doctorate programs.

"Mathematics Requirement: A strong background and ability in mathematics are important for successful completion of the program. A minimal mathematics prerequisite for entering PhD students is a thorough working knowledge of the material covered in a two-semester introductory calculus sequence (is that Calc II?) . The entering student must be able to use mathematics as a language, translating verbal descriptions of phenomena into the appropriate mathematical framework. Students with some background in linear algebra, the elements of optimization and probability and statistics (would this hold true for both the hard and soft scholarships alike?) will be better prepared for required course work."

I know Columbia's program is very finance heavy (looking at their MBA curriculum), are there programs that have a stronger focus on qualitative research?

[RHYME800]

For OB Phd, generally the quant prerequisits (for North American uni) are-
Calculus (I, II, II)
Linear Algebra
Probability
Mathematical Statistics

[young&ambitious]

Originally Posted by RHYME800

For OB Phd, generally the quant prerequisits (for North American uni) are-
Calculus (I, II, II)
Linear Algebra
Probability
Mathematical Statistics

Yeah, now that's beginning to sound right. After doing more research, I found this under Stanford's OB PhD section: "All students are required to have, or to obtain during their first year, mathematical skills at the level of one course each of calculus and linear algebra, probability, and mathematical statistics."

[socialpsych]

I'm a new student at Stanford this year. I have no linear algebra or probability background, and as far as I know, no one is going to make me take any.

I did have an unusual statistics background for a psych undergrad, and I think that helped me out. The good quant score did too. I'm pretty sure none of the courses in the PhD curriculum are calculus-based -- not at Stanford and no one said anything at any of the schools I visited -- but having a math background makes it look like you're smart and you'll be able to handle the stats courses.

Good luck!

PS: seven to eight LORs?! Why on earth?

[young&ambitious]

Originally Posted by socialpsych

I'm a new student at Stanford this year. I have no linear algebra or probability background, and as far as I know, no one is going to make me take any.

I did have an unusual statistics background for a psych undergrad, and I think that helped me out. The good quant score did too. I'm pretty sure none of the courses in the PhD curriculum are calculus-based -- not at Stanford and no one said anything at any of the schools I visited -- but having a math background makes it look like you're smart and you'll be able to handle the stats courses.

Good luck!

PS: seven to eight LORs?! Why on earth?

Hey socialpsych! As somebody in one of the best, if not the best, OB program in the country, I really appreciate your insight. Here's the situation: I'm looking to actually apply in about three years time (1 year to complete undergrad+1 year grad school/Fulbright research+1 year in a predoctoral program--see below), and like I originally said I feel that my greatest weakness is my quantitative reasoning skills (reflected through my math grades thus far since I haven't had the chance to sit down and take a practice GMAT).

After attending several AOM sessions this past week, it has further solidified to me that I need to learn to walk the walk and talk the talk of quantitative research methodology, which seems to be the primary language of management scholarship (although I'm particularly interested in scientifically-rigorous qualitative analyses in the form of ethnographic filmmaking in parallel to the traditional scholarly publication).

So, I'm trying to figure out what I can do to compensate for this weakness (as well as improve this particular skill set to enhance the quality of my scholastic contribution in the long term), The four projected action items that I have planned are (1) an independent study with Dr. Bob Vandenberg, current editor-in-chief of "Organizational Research Methods" and considered probably one of the top methodologists in the field, (2) get certified in one of the statistical packages like SAS, STATA, or SPSS, (3) take a MSc-level methodology course while under hopefully a Fulbright Grant doing international research, and (4) spend a year in NYU Stern's predoctoral program that concentrates on building quantitative reasoning skills. Simultaneously trying to get a few conference presentations and maybe some co-authored publications under my belt (one in the works for the ICA Conference in Singapore, maybe a research associate position with a professor of interest next summer--such as Dr. Daniel Gruber of Northwestern or Dr. Thomas Eisenmann of HBS--and then one from a 10-month Fulbright project). Hence what I should have said as seven to eight applicable and potential LORs from Fulbright advisors, graduate-level instructors, co-authors, etc.

Socialpsych (and others), I suppose that's a long-winded introduction to ask two questions: (1) is that insufficient, satisfactory, or overboard amount of preparation for a doctoral program? And (2) if I say I want to engage in qualitative research, does that hurt my chances of getting into a top-tier program? (is it almost as bad as saying you're interested in teaching! ahh, as I am!)

It just seems like there are three primary drivers in which I would like to contribute to the field of management scholarship that are counter-mainstream: (1) developing substantive qualitative research methodologies, (2) engage in industry-specific research (media firms), and (3) improving pedagogic methodology in management education. I don't know if any of these very strong interests will hurt my application! Any insight anybody could provide (especially Socialpsych) would greatly be appreciated!

[young&ambitious]

Oh, and yes I do realize that this plan entails me dedicating the next 8 years of my life as lowly graduate student plus another 6 years trying to get tenure...so, yeah this is something I really want to do. And plus, I'm 19, so I got plenty of life still in me! (of course ask that to me again 14 years from now...)

[socialpsych]

Originally Posted by young&ambitious

After attending several AOM sessions this past week, it has further solidified to me that I need to learn to walk the walk and talk the talk of quantitative research methodology, which seems to be the primary language of management scholarship (although I'm particularly interested in scientifically-rigorous qualitative analyses in the form of ethnographic filmmaking in parallel to the traditional scholarly publication).

I can't tell from this whether you consider yourself micro or macro. Have you thought about that? It might make a difference...for example, I think quantitative research methodology is more or less the ONLY language of micro OB/management, but people who consider themselves macro use a slightly different set of methodologies. I was a psych major and plan to be trained as a social psychologist by advisors with psych PhDs, so I can only speak to that part of the management world.

(3) take a MSc-level methodology course while under hopefully a Fulbright Grant doing international research

This is an important one, but it will matter what grade you get...so make sure you are ready for it and put in adequate effort!

Your CV will look great. Once you've cleared that bar, you need to make sure your statement of purpose and letters are strong.

Many people gave me this tip when I was applying: as long as your letter-writers know you fairly well, choose someone with high status in the field over someone who knows you really well. For you, since you are concerned about your quantitative background, choose people who teach stats or are well known as methodologists (Vandenberg would be a perfect example), and who have worked with you on quantitative methods, overseen your data analysis, etc.

Then, when you approach them to ask for a letter, mention that you feel this is your weak point and ask them how they think you should deal with it in your app. I wouldn't ask them explicitly to mention it in a letter, but if you let them know that you're worried about it and ask for advice, they may be able to find subtle and effective ways of shoring you up in their letters. Plus, any other advice they have will probably be great anyway!

(1) is that insufficient, satisfactory, or overboard amount of preparation for a doctoral program?

Again, what you learned from the preparation matters more than the mere fact that you got through it.

Your CV will look better than mine did when I applied, because I was still in college (otherwise pretty similar). But I know of a few cases where programs admitted me over applicants with master's degrees or post-bac research experience. I think I stood out because I was clearly a very self-directed learner and had soaked up everything I could from my preparation, as opposed to people who had spent more time on it but did not seem as focused. (How did I show this? statement of purpose, and presumably LORs.) Going through courses, programs, or assistantships is useful in large part because it gives you an opportunity to say something interesting; your CV doesn't speak for itself.

And (2) if I say I want to engage in qualitative research, does that hurt my chances of getting into a top-tier program? (is it almost as bad as saying you're interested in teaching! ahh, as I am!)

I wouldn't say you're interested in teaching, but if you have teaching experience you can put it in your CV and possibly even in your statement of purpose; I did both and no one commented on it either positively or negatively. You'll be expected to stand up and speak in front of groups a lot, and programs know that's hard for a lot of people, so I'll bet it doesn't hurt to show you're okay with that.

About qualitative research: probably depends on the professor you want to work with, and to some extent the program. You clearly have the right idea about what kind of political issues you have to navigate when applying to such an interdisciplinary and heterogeneous field as management. So, be cautious and feel it out case-by-case. For example, if you can get in touch with grad student advisees of the profs you want to work with, ask them (the advisees) about their research. See if they mention anything about qualitative methods. Then you can ask: "So is XYZ typical of the kinds of methodologies Dr. A uses?" Just be extra careful if you find out that grad students are on the adcom at that school...

there are three primary drivers in which I would like to contribute to the field of management scholarship that are counter-mainstream: (1) developing substantive qualitative research methodologies, (2) engage in industry-specific research (media firms), and (3) improving pedagogic methodology in management education. I don't know if any of these very strong interests will hurt my application!

I would definitely avoid putting it like that in your statement of purpose. Here's the thing: profs want to evaluate your readiness to do graduate research in their field, using the scientific paradigm that they use. They are looking for talented lumps of clay, so to speak, not people who are ready to come in and change everything. I don't think you really have the credentials to propose sweeping changes in the field until you have a PhD, if then (perhaps not until tenure!).

Presumably you are looking for grad advisors who are interested in or at least receptive to some of your views here. You may just have to tailor your statement of purpose to focus on the issues that resonate with each advisor. And even then, I would not put it as strongly as you just did. The point is, implying that you want to change the system in the same breath as you are asking people to spend 5+ years mentoring you, passing on their wisdom to you, could sound ignorant or arrogant or both.

I hope that made sense and wasn't too harsh. Again, you clearly understand that there is some politics to deal with here, and you are asking the right questions. Keep it up and your application will be very strong.

[young&ambitious]

Wow....socialpsych, thanks for everything!!! Yeah, I think a lot of posters on this forum who just post their numbers don't realize how political this process is, and the things that you shared definitely do highlight that phenomenon!

Thanks again!

[moomber123]

As someone who experiences some difficulty justifying qualitative research in my career thus far, let me throw in my 2 cents on the issue of quan vs. qual:

1.) As socialpsych stated, it is probably heavily dependent on which department and which professors. I've come across some academics who would never consider qualitative research legit, and in some rare cases, some who think quantitative research is just "f**king" with numbers until you get the results you want, hence is totally useless. The truth is, IMHO, that they are both right to some extent. You will probably learn in your intro research class that theory building in and of itself incorporates much qualitative aspects, and good empirical testing should be grounded on a sound theoretical framework. So my take is that great research should be both qualitatively sound and quantitatively rigorous. The whole political issue is most likely rooted in the fact that both quan and qual employ very different sets of methods, which are increasingly complex, idiosyncratic and highly specialized. Consequently, most researchers are only conversant in one set of the methods and simply "don't get" what the other side is doing.

2.) some in the field has been pushing the idea of "triangulation" on this issue (which is a bit of a weird term since it's only two sets of methods - quant and qual). I am in favor of it in principle, but have some practical concerns. In reality, a young scholar in training would need to spend a good few years to master a set of methods. If you attempt to do both and insist on triangulation on all of your research projects, what is very likely the result is poor execution in BOTH quant and qual aspects of your research. It's a delicate balancing act. When you submit to a journal with mixed method papers, and you are not absolutely right on all the techniques used, what is likely the result is that you invite reviewers from both sides to trash your paper. I am sure you don't want that. So practically speaking, it is very hard to pull off.

3.) The whole issue of qual vs. quant is also very much dependent on geographic area. In North America, quant is the dominant method, but I think most reasonable researchers nowadays do respect good qual research (even though I think most can't discern good from bad in qual research). There is a sense that qual is "sexy" or "trendy." In Europe, qual has always been accepted method. Many of them try really hard to catch up with the North American sophistication of quant methods because they want to publish in top journals, but qual research is less likely to be rejected upfront there. In Asia, qual research is never going to help you have a successful career, except in very very rare cases. The reason being that Asian academic right now is completely lost in the myth of quantifiable research productivity, and people there are competing to see who can turn out the most papers regardless of its content or quality. Qual research simply can't get you that kind of volume there. Some still do it, but most of them are already tenure-secure and are in it to forward their own belief. But for a young scholar, it is almost a career suicide there to say I am going to stick with qual. So I guess your choice needs to reflect your preference on geography somewhat.

4.) As far as admissions is concerned, stating that you are "open" to qual or that you are curious shouldn't hurt you too much. I think at the most it just doesn't "help." But saying that you are in love with qual and you have to stick with it will, even with someone who might be very open to qual. The fact is that most applicants won't be aware of the issues like you are, and are relatively naive, so adcoms are looking for the right attitude more than anything else. Open and curious is good. Having ample preparation in one area or another is also great. But being almost dogmatic about it hurts.