BTW...the only thing I could come up for you (relative to your original question)was this article.

The content might not help but the references at the end might provide another path for your research.

quote:

Originally posted by entropy:
The short answer is this: Can you answer YES to all of the following?

Unfortunately, although I risk being accused of being recalcitrant, I can't answer yes or no to any of those. (Actually, I'm pretty sure the answer is yes to 1, 4, and 5, based on casual discussion, but I can't answer 2, 3, or 6 at all.)

I can pass along all these comments (the ones that weren't deleted) about why this question is a bad one, but I am guaranteed not to have any input in what someone else decides. I see, from other discussions on this board, that there seems to be a perceived issue that companies like to throw poorly-designed training at problems, and maybe that's the root of LL, KaliKos, and others' issues with my question: the assumption that I'm looking for a study that gives credence to such a technique.

Honestly, that might be my company's intention. I'm simply not in the position to know. I was given a pretty simple question to answer, and that answer will inform what happens. Assuming I can find something tangible. "A bunch of people on some training board said this is a dumb question," isn't going to cut it.

In the extremely unlikely case that we end up doing our own study -- if we can't find anything already performed, or if someone decides there's no such thing as an example, -- I will most certainly be considering these as important questions to ask. I still don't get to go forward until I have exhausted the literature. Hopefully before the literature and its adherents exhausts me.

Thanks for that link. The referenced journal Personnel Psychology seems promising, and a couple of the books warrant a look.

quote:

The discussion had nothing whatsoever to do with a dislike or disregard of research. It had nothing to do with not understanding a request for an article. This is, yet again, like so many of the so-called "discussions" here, someone asking for something that is not going to do anything towards actually fixing the problem as described.

Since it is you that is almost always in the middle of these "discussions", and your approach is consistent in attacking people who ask questions you don't like (and don't have answers to), perhaps a mirror would be a good start.

Paraphrasing...excellent idea. Unfortunately the time to clarify would have been at the beginning, and if you had done so, we would all have known that you didn't read/understand the initial post, or Madelyne's clarification, and that it appears that you really don't much care anyway. Sorry, but your post is absolutely unacceptable to me and I'm not going to be more polite than this.

I suggest people go back and read Madelyne's post, to note the incredible restraint she has exercised. Much more than I could, in the face of someone who persists in posting and arguing without reading, then erasing her posts, then starting the whole thing over again.

quote:

Here is my observation (paraphrasing here)...

Person A (Self-proclaimed novice):

I want an article that will demonstrate that re-training is an effective solution for our manufacturing problem.

A six year old could figure out that's not what Madelyne said. Seriously, what is the cause of this lack of understanding on your part? And more to the point, how do you conduct yourself in learning interactions if you are similarly limited in listening and comprehension.

quote:

Persons B, C, D, etc. (Experienced analysts, performance consultants, trainers):

You are trying to support an unfounded solution. You should figure out what's causing the problem, then identify possible solutions, and THEN find *additional* supporting evidence (if needed) for the solution(s) you prescribe. The only evidence you should need is the evidence of what was causing the problem in the first place.

If you want a good reason why trainers have bad reputations and no credibility, here's a good example. You tell someone the "only evidence you should need..." when you have almost no information about the workplace in question or the people involved, or...well anything. Yet YOU have a path that MUST be followed.

I'm not arguing that what you suggest is ONE way to do things. But you seem to think it's the only way, and I'd suggest to you that it's because you don't recognize the limitations of what you know, and the pervasiveness of the habit of making assumptions to fit the world into the few cognitive slots you have available. Not only is this rude, but it's a show of ignorance (sorry, but after 35 years in helping people learn, Masters and PH.D study, being a researcher and statistician, teaching at university, college, etc, I can recognize when people know "not enough" and think they "know best".

quote:

Person A (plus anybody who wants to be demeaning to persons B, C, D...):

That's all well and good, but I want my article. Why can't I have my article? Give me my article. (Along with...Yes - her question was clear - just give her the article.)

Yeah. That's a real fruitful conversation.

If this was my board/list these last lines would get you evicted. When you can't even get the main thrust of Madelyne's message right (indeed a simple thing), but insist you know what is best for her, what does this say.

You know what says it all. You felt compelled to erase your own messages. What a self-flattering thing to do.

Robert,

I have never seen such arrogance in my entire life. I understand that you left the TRDEV discussion group in total disgust because of all the stupid people there. So your solution was to "join the ASTD discussion boards." And now you are posting utter contempt for people on THIS list. PLEASE go back to the TRDEV or find another discussion board. Time to move on once again.

MadelynB,

Your question is hardly dumb.....nor is your bewilderment out of sync with the combative tone expressed by some.

That there does not appear to be an easily referenced answer to your question does not mean it does not exist. Just not necessarily a mainstream area of inquiry...given the more traditional steps folks use in the evaluation of the effectiveness of training.

If I run across anything that remotely sounds like it is relevant I'll send you a note.

Good luck.

Jeff