As we move into the new century it is well to re-examine the philosophy and practice that Christian colleges and universities have towards the practice of research
and writing. Most of us work at Council for Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU) institutions that view their primary mission as teaching. State university
systems are frequently criticized for having gone too far in pursuing research at the expense of teaching excellence. In fact, many state university presidents, at
the prodding of their legislatures, businesses, parents, and other stakeholder groups, are recognizing this disparity and are implementing programs to encourage
more time in the classroom and excellence in undergraduate teaching.
"But be doers of the word and not hearers only... " James 1:22 (RSV)
Be creators of knowledge and not hearers only.
Abstract
As we move into the new century it is well to re-examine the philosophy and practice that Christian colleges and universities have towards the practice of research
and writing. Most of us work at Council for Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU) institutions that view their primary mission as teaching. State university
systems are frequently criticized for having gone too far in pursuing research at the expense of teaching excellence. In fact, many state university presidents, at
the prodding of their legislatures, businesses, parents, and other stakeholder groups, are recognizing this disparity and are implementing programs to encourage
more time in the classroom and excellence in undergraduate teaching.
Having spent substantial time at three major state universities, I assert that the teaching quality and commitment to excellence at our Christian institutions is equal
to, and in most cases, superior to state institutions. But I would also argue that we have neglected making substantial contributions to our fields of expertise. We
have become "hearers of the word without being doers or creators." While research may be "encouraged," rewards are seldom formalized. Most of us carry an
extremely heavy teaching load, and adding yet another item to our schedules is not something we relish. There are many reasons why the present system exists:
history, traditions, financial support base, and expectations of students, parents, alumni, and boards.
Why not leave things alone? Hasn't the present model served us well? Is the current paradigm well thought out and deliberate or has it simply evolved over time?
Is the current paradigm adequate for the next century? Does it provide our students and institutions with the best chance for competitiveness and viability? In this
paper I raise six questions about a possible renewed research emphasis at our institutions. I then present several initial "solutions" or "strategies" for discussion
that could move us toward a better balance that builds on our traditions and yet better equips our students for the next century.
Introduction
Publish or perish! The mere phrase conjures up a variety of reactions in higher education. At state and private research universities it reminds faculty that
promotion and tenure are not possible without substantial publications. For some faculty in more teaching oriented state and private universities it provides
motivation to get a few years experience and then "graduate" to a more research oriented institution. For other faculty who pursued PhDs primarily to teach, limited
research responsibilities are a welcome relief from the high pressure of the publish or perish atmosphere. Today very few mainstream universities exempt faculty
from at least some research, since it is seen as a primary responsibility of doctoral trained personnel.
Those of us who have experienced vigorous doctoral programs were reminded countless times that we were, after all pursuing a research degree. One
unfortunate side effect of this situation is that many Ph.D. candidates headed for colleges or non-research institutions--including Council of Christian Colleges and
Universities--must hide their agendas of pursuing teaching as a career. Many state university professors simply are not interested in chairing or serving on a
committee for someone who will "waste" their Ph.D. by going to an institution that does not strongly encourage or require research. Historically, most state colleges
and universities have pursued a variety of goals including teaching, research, and service. Most of our CCCU member institutions were created for a somewhat
different purpose, so it should not be surprising that the goals pursued today are indeed different. In many cases they were established to serve their sponsoring
denominations by training ministers and laymen to serve the church. Gradually more majors were added, including music, education, business, the sciences, et al.
In recent times many of our institutions have chosen to take on the "University" label, often when a college expands into graduate programs. It demonstrates
growth and an increased level of sophistication. I would argue, however, this change should be more than a marketing ploy. With the increased "status" comes a
responsibility to serve the community and its stakeholders in a way that is consistent with its new-found standing. As we approach the next century our member
institutions--whether they have taken the title of university or not-- need to reexamine their historical stance toward research. Dr. Harold Heie (1997), of Gordon
College, reported some astounding results regarding research at Christian institutions. "In a survey I did involving 173 Protestant confessional colleges, 107 (74%)
indicated that they spent less than $5,000 total in the 1994-1995 academic year in direct support of faculty scholarship" (p. 1). He goes on to say that money is not
really the primary obstacle to "nurturing Christian scholarship at Christian Colleges. Rather it is a lack of vision and commitment: lack of vision as to the role of
Christian scholarship at a Christian college, and lack of commitment to implementing that vision" (p. 2).
While there are powerful arguments to defend our current stance, it would be a strategic mistake if we fail to examine our position as we move towards the next
century. What starts out as a paradigm by design can over time become a paradigm by default. To remain relevant we must take a deliberate look at this issue.
This paper raises six fundamental questions which I hope will stimulate discussion and further research on this issue.
Six Important Questions
1. Are students served better by colleges and universities that devote most, if not all, of their resources to teaching and little or none to research?
One primary justification for teaching colleges and universities is that the art and science of teaching may require very different aptitudes and skills
than those required for research. While it has become fashionable in recruiting state university faculty to require both excellence in teaching and
research, the unwritten reality is that research productivity is still the ma or priority for hiring and tenure considerations. A great researcher with
below-average classroom skills is likely to be promoted but the opposite is not true. Many of us have suffered through classes taught by eminent
scholars in their field who had less than first rate teaching skills. Conversely, at the graduate level we may have taken greater responsibility for our
own learning and benefited from working with faculty that were at the cutting edge of their discipline.
At "pure" teaching institutions or those that make it the major priority, pedagogy and relevance are considered paramount. Without research
responsibilities, we are expected to excel in the classroom. While on average the teaching quality is probably better, there are at least two flaws in
this line of reasoning. First, we often are so loaded down with a breadth of courses that we fail to develop sufficient depth and stay even reasonably
in touch with our fields. At research institutions, professors usually teach two courses a semester. At teaching/research institutions the load is likely to
be a maximum of three courses a semester. While state institutions are often criticized for having graduate students teach undergraduates, it can be
argued that graduate students pursuing PhDs are more current in the literature than many professors-due to the vast quantity of reading required. A
load of two classes may involve two sections of one course or two closely-related courses perhaps one undergraduate and one graduate. At most
Council for Christian College and Universities (CCCU) institutions faculty tend to teach unrelated courses such as marketing, management, and
computer applications all within one semester. To stay reasonably current in even one field requires reading five-eight hours per week and the
reading or scanning of up to ten journals. While it may be hard to admit, with our heavy loads, we simply can not stay up-to-date in one field let alone
several simultaneously.
One major benefit of doing research is that it forces the faculty member to remain current. For example, my 1996 CBFA paper "Power Revisited: A
Christian View of French & Raven's Power Framework" forced me to examine 1500-2000 pages of literature that I otherwise would not have read. In
writing a paper for the 1997 Mid-West Academy of Management Meetings I spend about 40 hours in the literature just updating a paper that I had
written back in 1994. This had a direct impact on my teaching content. Not only did I share my findings, but I discussed the research process with my
students. While my institution encouraged these research efforts and applauded my involvement, there is a high opportunity cost of pursuing
research. Since the research is primarily done on our own time the costs come in the form of less family time, reduced leisure time, or foregone
earnings from additional teaching.
Regardless, our students are better off because of this research, not only in terms of more current content, but in seeing us as role models engaged
in research activities. Research and writing also has a way of helping the faculty member crystallize his positions on important issues. Summary:
there are important benefits in being "doers" of the word.
2. Does the move to redefine our institutions as "Universities" carry with it a responsibility, or is it rather simply a marketing tool or gimmick?
As previously noted it has become fashionable and useful for many institutions to become "universities." While I do not question a college's
motivation in changing its designation, I believe words connote an understanding to the public. Institutions that claim university status should examine
their position on research. There could be many benefits from pursuing a broader definition of the Christian university including: Attracting and
retaining better students who ultimately want to go on to graduate school; attracting and retaining better faculty; increasing respect in academic and
employer circles; expanding sources of funding; increasing the value of our graduates' degrees; increased employer recruiting at our institutions;
more national and international prominence for our universities.
Faculty in our institutions are among the most dedicated, and often serve at great sacrifice. Some of the best minds in the country teach at our
institutions, and it may be a colossal waste of intellectual capital-and from a Christian perspective bad stewardship-not to provide whatever is
necessary to leverage this resource. Many of us have a special interest in integrating a Christian perspective into teaching (Surdyk, 1995) and
writing, as illustrated by this CBFA conference and the Journal of Biblical Integration. While this is important, and actually unique when compared to
public universities' restrictions, our institutions are missing a meaningful opportunity to influence our fields through research, publishing, conference
presentations and so forth. On one hand we could agree that there is no such thing as "Christian" or "secular" research because the scientific method
demands objectivity and value-free examination of evidence. But that overstates the case. We recognize that the research agenda--what topics are
chosen--are often influenced by one's values and world view. Furthermore, interpretation of findings are not independent from one's viewpoint. To
recap, we need to re-enter the research arena and contribute to our fields if we are to fulfill our responsibilities as "universities."
3. Should all faculty be treated equally or should faculty be allowed to select from a cafeteria plan of responsibilities? (Teaching, research, & service).
Faculty at large research universities sometimes complain that there is a lack of flexibility in their tenure systems. Faculty who prefer more weight on
their teaching and community service are still required to engage in a heavy research program. Gifted teachers who spend extra time in building
classroom excellence and student rapport, or those who engage in consulting, may find promotion difficult to achieve. At many Coalition institutions,
with their heavy teaching loads, the opposite problem is more likely. The time needed to publish books, articles in refereed journals, or to get papers
accepted at conferences is seldom available without personal sacrifice. Both models seem excessive in their lack of flexibility. Indeed some state
university systems, mainly at the instigation of dissatisfied stakeholders including legislatures, parents, and employers, are starting to examine the
possibility of flexibility in rewarding gifted teachers who may be only average researchers.
Not many of CCCU institutions have a research requirement per se. Given this, it seems wise for institutions that are reexamining their stance
towards research to avoid the road of inflexibility or "one-size-fits-all" mentality. In other words, Christian colleges and universities should consider a
"cafeteria" approach that allows choice.
Some of our faculty will not have interest in pursuing academic research projects and would prefer a straight teaching load. Others might be gifted in
consulting projects that benefit the university and its stakeholders. Faculty from the religion and theology departments have traditionally served the
churches in a variety of ways, such as holding special meetings, writing church and Sunday school materials, etc. Business faculty have much to
offer their communities, churches, and alumni. A certain portion of this consulting might be done in lieu of the regular teaching load. Finally, for faculty
who have research interests, a reduced teaching load makes sense. Of course whenever reduced teaching loads are mentioned, department heads
and deans become very concerned and raise a series of questions including; Who will pick up the slack? Who will pay for this? How can you
measure productivity? What are appropriate research questions? How does this support our historic mission? Will alumni, parents, and other faculty
support this? Later in the paper I will suggest some answers to these questions. In summary, new commitments to research need to be phased
in over time and need to allow for faculty choice.
4. Why demand PhDs (research oriented degrees) if few resources are then provided to support the practice of one's craft?
Our colleges and universities recognize the value of employing a variety of personnel with different degrees including masters, CPAs, EdDs and of
course PhDs. It is interesting to note, though, how many of the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities business school faculty
announcements add the statement "Ph.D. preferred." Business PhDs are relatively difficult to obtain. It is not uncommon for a first-rate Ph.D. degree
to take from 4-6 years to complete (on a full time basis) beyond a masters degree. A great deal of that time is devoted to understanding the literature
of the field, learning statistics and research methodology, and then preparing to "create new knowledge" through the research process. While it is
true that virtually all Ph.D. trained business faculty that choose a Christian college or university are committed to teaching, it seems like a significant
waste of resources and talents--and perhaps poor stewardship--not to provide greater opportunity to practice research skills gained in graduate
school. It would be a bit like hiring a skilled medical doctor and surgeon to teach biology and keeping her so busy teaching that she never had the
opportunity to practice medicine.
As mentioned earlier, it is a great source of puzzlement and chagrin to many doctoral chairman and committee members why we are "wasting" our
degrees. While their criticism may be too harsh and a bit misguided, it still holds that the Kingdom of God, as well as the knowledge base of our
fields, could benefit greatly by men and women of God committed to creating knowledge from a Christian world view! Some might protest that there
is no such thing as Christian mathematics, biology, marketing. In one sense that is true. But knowledge creation does not take place in a vacuum,
and particularly in the social sciences, such as business, ethical and moral issues do impact the research agenda (Chewning, et al., 1990; Jones,
1991). For example, in my field of strategic management, one's worldview certainly impacts the questions that are asked, how the questions are
framed, and the how the results are interpreted and applied. The Anthony & Daake (1996) article on top management decision making subtlety,
reflects a Christian ethical perspective on certain key points, although this is never mentioned directly.
There are four primary benefits that will accrue to our institutions from a better utilization of the training and skills of our Ph.D. trained faculty.
1.
2.
3.
4.
It will be easier to recruit and retain top-notch talent. An institution that provides no research support will quickly reduce its young faculty
members' career options. Some excellent talent will be discouraged from accepting positions or will leave very quickly.
It can provide a significant recruiting advantage for exceptional undergraduate students.
It will provide increased visibility for our institutions among other academics, businesses, alumni, and others.
It will encourage non-Ph.D. faculty to go back and get advanced degrees.
5. In what ways might research activities directly benefit students and the institution? In what ways might these activities detract from the educational mission?
Research and associated writing and publication can provide many significant benefits to students and their institutions. First, faculty engaged in
research, conference presentations, and writing books are good role models for students. It is one thing to lecture to students about the importance
of pursuing knowledge but the message is more powerful when we can illustrate this through our current research projects. Second, research
activities can provide a potentially competitive advantage to undergraduate research assistants seeking to get into better graduate schools. Such
projects can provide meaningful student work and provide the possibility of publications. Third, for institutions that offer MBAs, a research program
enhances the value of the degree and the reputation of the school. Faculty who themselves are struggling with the rigors of good research are in a
better position to require higher standards in class research projects. Fourth, research requires that faculty stay more current with the theoretical
developments in their fields. While we pride ourselves on having a pragmatic "real world" approach (which I endorse), we may short-change our
students if we are not apprised of the latest thinking. Institutions that grant faculty research support are investing in the faculty's ability to remain
current, and, at least in a small way, contributing their fair share to rapidly-changing disciplines.
Of course there are dangers that detractors point out. The primary worry is that a faculty member who is too devoted to research will not pull his
weight, not be sufficiently interested in students, and will be too concerned about a national reputation at the expense of local responsibilities. Since
our institutions do not have unlimited resources, deans and department chairs also concerned about the financial impact. While these dangers are
real, I believe that Christian colleges have erred on the side of caution. Committed people are just that and they will complete their assignments with
integrity, energy, and excellence. My experience in three state university systems has convinced me that usually the best researchers are also
among the most competent teachers. Faculty in Christian institutions are certainly committed and for those who might choose a blended assignment I
believe that research activities would only enhance their performance. Good management of a blended assignment--like all good management-requires clarity in goals and objectives. In summary, students would benefit both directly and indirectly from a more aggressive research
policy at our institutions.
6. What are the major barriers to a reemphasis on research and publication at Christian colleges?
This paper has already addressed several concerns and issues related to an increased emphasis on research. A volume could be written on this
question alone, but let us discuss three of the most important barriers. First, the financial issues are of prime consideration. Because of this, faculty
engaged in research would still have a heavy teaching load, but initially might be assigned a 3 hour load credit reduction per semester. As more
funds are procured a summer contract might be issued as well. In most cases "pilot" programs of this magnitude could be covered by hiring adjunct
faculty. Most of our business departments are small, and students would actually benefit from being exposed to a larger number of faculty that an
effective adjunct program provides. Regardless of the magnitude of the effort, real dollars need to be expended and each institution has to decide
how to provide initial funds (Heie, 1997). Several possible options are discussed in the next section of the paper.
Second, the concern about time commitments is of considerable importance. Good research is very time consuming. Realistic output goals need to
be established. Publication in first or second tiered refereed journals are probably unrealistic initially, but publication in conference proceedings and
specialized journals are within reach. Books and publications that serve the Christian community should be given serious consideration, but I
recommend a diversified approach that includes "secular" outlets. Realistically applied research might be more palatable to our stakeholders than
more basic research projects.
The third, and perhaps the most significant barrier, is getting our "teaching" institutions to recognize that research can integrally support the mission
and reputation of our institutions. For many this "sea change" will not come quickly or easily. This will involve the education of students, parents,
supporters, alumni, and administrators. Many of us have fallen victim and perhaps have even perpetuated a series of myths and half-truths regarding
research including:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Theory is fine in college, but the real world does not work that way.
Most research is obtuse, impractical, and trivial.
The publish or perish mentality is destructive to teaching effectiveness.
Once you receive your Ph.D. and take a position in a teaching institution you no longer need worry about research and publication.
Research is a luxury that Christian institutions cannot afford.
If you want to do research you belong at a state institution.
Let me offer four counter arguments that summarize much of what I have written up to this point.
There is nothing so practical as good theory. A theoretical understanding of one's field provides fundamental breakthroughs and
relevant classroom teaching.
While some research is indeed impractical or trivial, today's research becomes the basis of tomorrow's textbooks. Paradigm shifts
frequently begin with research that initially is considered odd or out of the mainstream.
If well managed, pressure or at least strong encouragement to publish is an important motivator of intellectual development.
An earned Ph.D., Ed.D. and so forth carries with it privileges but also responsibilities. To dismiss the need to pursue research, in my
opinion, short changes our professors and other who have invested in us. Many important issues that could benefit our fields go
unresearched. A Christian perspective is needed in "secular" research! While the methodology would be the same, often the underlying
assumptions and projected hypotheses would be different. In addition many of our alumni, students, university friends, and Christian
college colleagues could benefit by our published perspectives on accounting, finance, management, marketing, and other business
topics.
Initial Solutions for Discussion and Debate
I have made the case that Christian colleges and universities face an awesome responsibility. As we move from decade to decade and now into the 21st- Century,
virtually all institutions are taking a close look at their mission and vision for the future. This paper asserts that the nineteenth century issues related to the roles of
college and universities must be carefully reexamined. To reiterate the fundamental question posed in this paper "Should we be only hearers and consumers of
knowledge or should we doers (creators) also? All of us have been called to serve in a Christian environment and we appreciate the opportunity. But Christ also
calls us to be in the world, without being of the world. Engaging in research can help us fulfill both obligations.
Hopefully this paper has posed some significant questions. There is a danger of jumping to simple conclusions or posing "sure-fire" solutions. Researchers have
warned about the dangers of prescribing too boldly before adequate descriptive work is done (Blair & Boal, 1991). There is a pressing need for descriptive
research into the issues raised in this paper. Given this cautionary note, the following suggestions are preliminary and are designed mainly to stimulate discussion
and future research. Most of these proposals would have to be implemented incrementally (Quinn, 1980) given the current position of research at our institutions.


A Call to Establish a Research Agenda to Examine the Current State of Affairs
Over the next two to three years I hope that several CBFA members will join me in conducting research both within and across our institutions
regarding the balance of teaching, research, and service. Dr. Doyle Lucas' excellent 1996 paper regarding CBFA faculty job satisfaction could be a
successful launching point in furthering our understanding of the issues. One or more of our members might consider a Ph.D. dissertation exploring
some of the questions raised in this paper. A variety of methodologies should be employed including focus groups, interviews, surveys, and case
studies (Eisenhardt, 1989). Not only should current practices and attitudes of faculty be explored, but also the attitudes of administrators, students,
and other relevant stakeholders. A future CBFA conference might want to include a call for papers dedicated to exploring the findings of this type of
research.
Encourage a Higher Profile of Research Within Our Institutions
Research and publication are encouraged at most of our institutions to some degree. For example, at Olivet Nazarene University, papers and
publications are recognized at the Annual President's Dinner, in alumni publications, and at our annual performance reviews. But more could be
done. Most state universities have regular colloquiums where faculty members have the opportunity to present their research from time to time. This
is a practice that should be adopted in our institutions. In addition, as the level of research grows an annual report of research that summarizes major
work can be sent to interested alumni, foundations, and businesses. Some university business departments have prominent display cabinets that
feature faculty books, papers, and monographs. These are placed in strategic locations so that students, alumni, parents, and visiting business
persons can view the research and publication results of their faculty.
Finally, we need to do a better job in educating our local media and our own public information officers as to the value and importance of our
research. The results of the Saturday football game may get two full pages of coverage while our presentation at a CBFA or Academy of
Management conference or the publication in a journal scarcely gets 2-3 lines in an obscure part of the paper. Coverage in the local media can
enhance our institutions' reputation especially in the eyes of local business and industry, but editors have to be convinced!




Foster Cooperative Efforts Across CBFA Faculty
Because of the size of our institutions, most of us are "one-person-shows" in our fields of expertise. We may be the only marketing, accounting, or
management expert, even though we usually teach outside of our field. Fostering research relationships across our institutions will be key to joint
research efforts, because few sole-author papers are published today in refereed journals. During the next year an effort should be made to survey
and inventory CBFA members' research interests and projects. Results could be posted on the CBFA Internet Server maintained by Houghton
College in New York. In addition a special bulletin board might be created where interested members could post abstracts of their current research
interests and projects. Over time collaborative efforts to present papers at regional and national conferences such as the Academy of Management
national and regional meetings could yield considerable dividends.
Continue to Support Research in Christian Publications & Journals
In recent years significant progress has been made in publishing materials that aid faculty in integrating faith into their classrooms. Examples include
Business through the Eyes of Faith by Chewning, Eby, Roels (1990); the Journal of Biblical Integration; Nash's (1994) book Believers in Business
and the proceedings from the annual CBFA conference. Other works by eminent authors like Covey (1990) have found widespread interest and
discussion in Christian colleges. There is the need for more such work that is written from a distinctive Christian perspective.
More Aggressively Pursue Research and Publication in Refereed Journals and Presentations in Our Fields
While we should continue to support and write for the Christian marketplace, the largest gap is publication in "secular" journals (see handout). Earlier
in the paper I asserted that we, like all advanced degree holders, and especially those of us who hold a research-oriented degree, have a
responsibility to contribute back to our fields. This is not easy to do since adequate funding, time, and connections are necessary to compete in a
very competitive publication environment. This will involve educating our own institutions as to the importance and benefits that research and
publication can bring to our colleges and universities. It will also require that we explore new funding options, teaching load calculations, and current
reward structures. Most of us will receive more support for "Christian" oriented research, but indeed there is an equal or greater need to become
more engaged in shaping the literature and thinking in our chosen fields.
Develop a More Sophisticated Approach to Funding Research and Publication
One of the most immediate needs for descriptive research (See item I above) is how CCCU members currently fund research activities. Anecdotal
evidence seems to indicate that most institutions provide little or no formal support in the form of funding, teaching load reduction, and so forth. Most
CBFA members are full-time teachers carrying very heavy loads. Our institutions are usually generous in providing support to attend a limited number
of conferences, basic supplies and postage, and provide secretarial and some student support. Despite the limited resources, many CBFA members
are publishing. But to meet the challenges and opportunities that face us in the next century I suggest that more creative funding sources need to be
sought. The following are three possible sources.
1.
2.
3.
Research grants from government, business, and foundations. These of course are very competitive. Yet our institutions, because of
lower overhead costs, might find that we are surprisingly competitive for certain projects. A recent issue of the Chronicle of Higher
Education featured an offer of diskettes ($295) that contain over 12,000 grants. Every 2 months an additional 1500 grants are
announced. Business faculty need to approach and work with development officers to find appropriate support for research activities.
Joint efforts between faculty across two or more CCCU institutions would result in substantial cost savings and make available dollars
go further. They also enhance the chances of getting published.
Just as entrepreneurs are sometimes supported by business "angles," I believe that we could find Christian business people who would
serve as "angels" to finance research efforts. While alumni are frequently asked to contribute funds to support building campaigns,
scholarships, and general operations, most donors have never been asked to fund research per se. This is a source virtually untapped.
Frequently we see papers in journals that recognized the generous support of an individual, foundation, or business. I believe that there
are potential unknown "angels" that can be developed over the long term. (Dr. Joel Carpenter, Provost of Calvin College has several
practical suggestions in his paper "Strengthening Christian Scholarship: The Role of Outside Support").
Conclusion
Without overstating the case, future historians will look back at the late 1990s as a time that major institutions examined and reoriented their missions and visions.
As we approach a new century, and indeed a new millennium, our colleges and universities will inevitably discuss and debate their purposes. Because of the
Council for Christian Colleges and Universities' historical position in American Higher Education, there might be a tendency to merely extend our current posture
into the future. We must question the existing paradigm and suggest that Christian institutions, and business faculty in particular, need to assert a stronger
presence in research and publication. Seldom, if ever, has the gap between the value systems of Christians and non-Christians been so great. Our insights,
questions, and research are needed both inside and outside the walls of our institutions. While very few of us face a publish or perish mandate in our professional
positions, the world may indeed be impoverished and to a degree perish without our Christian influence. I am optimistic about the prospect of CBFA members
making major contributions to 21st Century knowledge.
References
Anthony, W. P. & Daake, D.D. 1996. The Roles of a Facilitator in Top Management Team Decision Making: Promoting strategic group consensus and information
use. In Advances in Interdisciplinary Studies of Work Teams, Vol. 3: pp . 237-250. JAI Press.
Blair, J. D. & Boal, K. B. 1991. Strategy Formation Processes in Health Care Organizations. A context-specific examination of context free strategy issues. Journal
of Management, June: 305-344.
Carpenter, J. 1997. Strengthening Christian Scholarship: The role of outside support. Paper presented at conference "Reviving the Christian Mind" hosted by
Wheaton College.
Chewning, R. C., Eby, J. E. & Roels, S. J. 1990. Business through the Eyes of Faith. New York: Harper San Francisco.
Covey, S. R. 1991. Principle Centered Leadership. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Daake, D.D. 1996. Power Revisited: A Christian view of French & Raven's power framework. Conference proceedings: CBFA Annual Conference.
Daake, D.D. & Anthony, W. P. 1997. Understanding Power & Influence Gaps in a Health Care Organization: An empirical study. Conference proceedings: MidWest Academy of Management.
Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Building Theories from Case Research. Academy of Management Review, 14: 523-550.
Heie, H. 1997. Christian Colleges as Communities of Intellectual Nurturance: The art of the possible. Paper presented at conference "Reviving the Christian Mind"
hosted by Wheaton College.
Holy Bible: The New International Version. 1984. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan.
Jones, T.M. 199 1. Ethical Decision Making by Individuals in Organizations: An issue-contingent model. Academy of Management Review, 16:366-395.
Lucas, D. 1996. Business Faculty Job Satisfaction in Christian Colleges and Universities: An investigation of the CBFA membership. Conference proceedings:
CBFA Annual Conference.
Nash, Laura L. 1994. Believers in Business. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers.
Rush, M. D. 1990. Biblical Principles Applied to Management. In Christians in the Marketplace: Biblical principles & business: The practice. Richard C. Chewing
(ed). Colorado Springs: Navpress.
Freeman, R.E. 1984. Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Marshfield, Mass: Pitman.
Quinn, J. B. 1980. Strategies for Change: Logical incrementalism. Homewood, Ill.: Irwin.
Surdyk, L. 1995. Making Connections: Integrating Christianity and economics. Journal of Biblical Integration, Fall: 21-29.