scholarly journals External validity and assignment of experimental vs. control treatment providers within small work groups: a research note

Author(s):  
Lawrence W. Sherman ◽  
Sarah van Mastrigt ◽  
Christian B. N. Gade ◽  
Theresa Ammann ◽  
Heather Strang
Author(s):  
Robert Heckman ◽  
Dave Maswick ◽  
Jamie Rodgers ◽  
Kevin Ruthen ◽  
Gary Wee

In both corporate and academic organizations, collaborative work is frequently accomplished and managed in small work groups. These can take either the form of formal work groups or ad hoc task groups. The formal work group has relatively permanent membership, ongoing tasks, and routinized reporting relationships within the organization. Over time, skills and information of group members become more group-specific and norms more implicit. There is less communication on how to work together and more on the work itself (Finholt, Sproull, and Kiesler, 1990). Some types of work are, however, best performed in ad hoc or quickly formed task groups. According to Finholt, Sproull, and Kiesler (1990), such groups are convened for a particular purpose, consist of members who otherwise would not work together, and disband after completing their assigned task. These task groups permit an organization to respond rapidly to changes in the environment and to non-routine problems by calling on expertise regardless of where it resides in the organization. In higher education, a particular form of ad hoc task group is familiar to many instructors—the student project team. Such teams are commonly formed to allow students to tackle projects that are too big to handle individually, to allow students to teach and learn from one another, and to create opportunities for practicing the intricate dynamics of collaborative work. Given the benefits claimed for ad hoc task groups, it is presumed to be a good thing for students to gain hands-on experience in their function.


2013 ◽  
pp. 37-55
Author(s):  
Esther Lucile Brown
Keyword(s):  

1991 ◽  
Vol 131 (3) ◽  
pp. 335-344 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Li-Ping Tang ◽  
Peggy Smith Tollison ◽  
Harold D. Whiteside

2001 ◽  
Vol 2001 (1) ◽  
pp. H1-H6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey T. Polzer ◽  
Laurie P. Milton ◽  
William B. Swann
Keyword(s):  

1980 ◽  
Vol 33 (6) ◽  
pp. 369-382 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian S. G. Meadows

2020 ◽  
Vol 56 (4) ◽  
pp. 587-607
Author(s):  
Hanna Kool ◽  
Jens A. Andersson ◽  
Ken E. Giller

AbstractAgronomists have increasingly conducted experiments on-farm, in an attempt to increase the wider applicability (external validity) of their experimental findings and their relevance for agricultural development. This review assesses the way in which on-farm experimental studies address the scope or generalisability of their findings when based on a limited number of farms. A central question is how on-farm studies define the environment or research population in which the on-farm trial findings are valid, or are valuable for. Such an assessment is, of course, conditional on the (internal) validity of the experimental findings. We therefore first analyse how authors of on-farm experimental studies describe the factors that may shape experimental outcomes. As agronomic experiments often use ‘yield’ as dependent variable to assess treatment effects, we developed a procedure to score studies on their descriptions of yield-determining factors. Although experimental validity principally rests upon the reproducibility of the experiment and its findings, we found that on the basis of the information provided in published on-farm experimental studies, it is often difficult or impossible to reproduce the experimental design. Nutrient management, weed management and crop information are best described, whereas land preparation, field history and management of pests and water are rarely described. Further, on-farm experimental studies often compare treatments to a ‘farmer practice’ reference or control treatment which is assumed to be widely and uniformly practiced and known to the reader. The wider applicability or external validity is often poorly addressed in the reviewed studies. Most do not explicitly define the research population and/or environment in which (they expect) the experimental findings to work. Academic textbooks on agronomic experimentation are remarkably silent on both the internal and external validity of on-farm experimentation. We therefore argue for more systematic investigations and descriptions of the research population and settings to which on-farm experimental studies seek to generalise their findings.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document