+44-7897-074717Appa Rao Korukonda
This paper is aimed at refuting the use of suggestive, but highly misleading and substantively inaccurate titles in articles purporting to report on serious research findings. Using a recently published article on the Death of the MIS Degree, the absurdity of using a highly context-specific sample to draw broad and sweeping generalizations is highlighted. A number of other methodological flaws in the argumentation behind the Death of the MIS degree article are pointed out and a critical examination of the uncritical use of titles for their sheer shock value is presented. It is argued that such a practice is inconsistent with the traditions of academic research and has the potential to reduce it to that of tabloid journalism. While this is unfortunate in its own right, it is argued that a bigger tragedy is that this type of sub-standard “research” could sometimes be used by uninformed administrators, especially those with no appreciation of the true nature of Business as an academic discipline, to marginalize high quality MIS programs and faculty members delivering them----to the long-term detriment of the basic mission of any university and any school of Business. It is argued that a shortage of MIS graduates caused by misperceptions about the nature of MIS as well as the confusion created by the multiplicity of program offerings under similar names, has, in reality, elevated MIS to the status of a Business major where each graduate has three or four job offers in a salary range that is among the highest of Business majors. It is posited that on account of this imbalance, a market correction will ensue in a few years resulting in a resurgence in the enrollment in MIS programs and a revitalization of the MIS degree----a far cry indeed from the Death of the MIS degree. Keywords: MIS Degree, Business School
Share this article