THE WAY WE TALK! TAKE II Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, Volume 30, 2003 THE WAY WE TALK! TAKE II Barbara J. Howard SUNY Geneseo howardb@geneseo.edu Daniel R. Strang SUNY Geneseo strang@geneseo.edu ABSTRACT The purpose of this paper is to review and reveal trends of research that ABSEL has undergone and identify the impact that the most active ABSEL scholars have had on the research agenda of the organization. The authors use content analysis to reveal patterns of emphasis of research throughout the 29 years of ABSEL’s existence. In addition, the authors quantitatively record and report the contribution of ABSEL’s leading scholars. INTRODUCTION Over the years there has been a sustained interest in the nature of research conducted by members of ABSEL. As early as 1985, Butler et al. critically reviewed the research design utilized by ABSEL authors. In 1989, Markulis et al. provided a 15-year profile of the salient trends of the proceedings. Aspects of ABSEL’s award-winning papers were reviewed by Markulis et al. (1991). In a paper that received ABSEL’s best-paper recognition, Burns and Banasiewicz provided a bibliometric study of author co- citations (Burns, 1994). In celebration of its 25th anniversary a number of researchers reviewed the contributions over the decades of the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s (Graf, 1999; Kelly, 1999; Butler, 1999). Also in 1999, Gold and Pray critically reviewed the simulations (Gold, 1999). The focus of the Gold and Pray study was targeted specifically at the algorithms and model enhancements that have been reported by ABSEL More recently a paper entitled, ABSEL: The Way We Talk (Howard, 2001) was presented at the annual ABSEL conference and appeared in the proceedings. Although the paper was generally well received at the conference, at least one member of the audience offered some criticisms of the methodology (admittedly minor) and suggestions for “improving the paper.” This paper reports the results of a rethinking and recasting of the previous analysis. The suggestions for improvement have been incorporated into the methodology of this paper. In addition to responding to the reaction to the initial paper, this paper extends the analysis into the focus of ABSEL research over its 29-year history. The analysis that follows can be thought to address three fundamental questions that once answered are very telling in terms of the nature of the research conducted by ABSEL. The three basic questions stated in the simplest form are: 1. What do we say? 2. Who says it?, and 3. Who do we cite? The answers to these questions provide insights into the nature of ABSEL. This paper makes extensive use of a technique called content analysis that was extolled by Holsti, (1969) and more recently commended and extended by Krippendorff (1980). As Krippendorff explains it “content analysis is nothing other than what everyone is doing when reading a newspaper except on a larger scale.” If one considers his comment one can gain an appreciation for the new research that is featured in this paper in contrast to the research methodology of the predecessor paper. In this case the Krippendorff reference to a newspaper is totally applicable. In the earlier paper the authors performed a content analysis on the TITLE of the articles. This was perfectly analogous to reviewing the headlines of newspaper articles. Based on the comments of audience critics this current paper reports the results of a content analysis performed on the entire text of the ABSEL articles, obviously analogous to examining the entire body of Krippendorff’s hypothetical newspaper articles. Content analysis is a research technique that has been employed for over one hundred years. In its early applications it was referred to as quantitative newspaper analysis (Krippendorff, 1980). Krippendorff reports that as early as 1893 rudimentary forms where “simply measuring the column inches of a newspaper devoted to particular subject matters” were used to reveal “the truth about newspapers” (1980, p. 14). More recently content analysis has found itself in other interesting applications. In the 1930’s it was employed as a method to assess the activity of propagandists in the great flurry of mass communications that preceded World War II. In this application, it was thought to be a useful tool for identifying individuals as “unethical” sources of influence. (Although the authors of this article may appreciate the value of the application of propaganda analysis for ABSEL authors, it is strictly stated that this is not an intended result of this research.) 133 mailto:howardb@geneseo.edu mailto:strang@geneseo.edu Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, Volume 30, 2003 Although content analysis clearly has its critics, it is fascinating to know that British analysts were able to use it to predict the date of the deployment of Germany’s V- weapons by analysis of the speeches of high ranking German officials (1980, p. 17). The advent of computers facilitated the otherwise onerous task of content analysis. Over the years software has been developed that trivializes the task of screening documents and summing word counts. The query utility that has been built into the Bernie Keys Library is ready made to perform several of the variants of basic content analysis. The precise variant used in this paper is classified as semantical content analysis. In this case the authors used the sub-category of designations analysis as a methodological tool for the analysis. According to Krippendorff the uses of this type of content analysis include; to describe trends in communication, to trace the development of scholarship, and to reveal the focus of attention (1980). Perhaps equal in importance to what is said? is the question who says it? This article reports the results of a longitudinal review of the contributions made by ABSEL’s most prolific scholars. To consider this dimension the library of all ABSEL proceedings was perused. Although no attempts were made to establish qualitative distinctions, the quantitative analysis that is reported certainly provides an indication of ABSEL’s recognized and acknowledged scholars. The third dimension that is explored in this paper addresses the question, who do we cite? Academicians all know how flattering it is to be cited by another scholar. Obviously a citation is a sign that the research of the author is at least worthy of comment, even though on occasion the comment might be critical. With this in mind the authors of the paper reviewed the proceedings and made a quantitative assessment of the numbers of citations of the most prominent ABSEL authors. Again, no attempt is made to ascribe qualitative distinction to the citations. The underlying premise that the reader may infer is that the quantity of citations by colleagues is at least a casual proxy for the significance of a member’s scholarship. METHODOLOGY The Bernie Keys Library, a single CD with the full contents of the ABSEL proceedings for the past 29 years, was used as the basis for the content analysis and the citation study. The original paper searched the titles of the proceedings for almost 50 word or word combinations that were frequently used in ABSEL research articles. The words from the previous study were used again in this follow-up study. The difference this time was that the database was searched for all occurrences of the word – not just in the titles. The search function in Adobe was utilized to conduct this process and each time the word appeared any place in a document it was counted as a “hit” for that word. There was no differentiation made between a document containing the word once and a document containing the word multiple times – so a word that appeared once in an article was credited with 1 hit and a word that appeared several times in the same article was also credited with 1 hit. Table 1 shows the ranking, based on the number of hits for each word, from highest to lowest, for both studies. The analysis of the rankings provides the reader with some interesting insights into ABSEL research and perhaps more telling, some possible pitfalls of the semantical content analysis method. The “results” section of this paper discusses these findings in detail. Appendix A lists the words from the previous results using only the titles (updated to include the latest volumes of the proceedings) and the new results from the extension of the search procedure to the entire document. The authors also updated, to reflect the additional years of the proceedings, the author table originally presented. The authors would like to point out that the difficulties reported in the first paper with the various spellings, etc. of authors’ names, were not encountered in this subsequent search – probably indicating a better indexing process by the compilers of the database. Application of this “cleaner” database resulted in some minor adjustments to the original authors table, but no significant changes to the list of top authors. The Bernie Keys Library was used to count the number of documents in which an author’s name appeared. For this search, the authors name could appear anywhere in the document – as author or as a citation. A simple arithmetic difference between the total number of occurrences and the number of authored articles provides a convenient mechanism to determine the number of citations of an author’s work. Table 2 presents a list of the number of articles written by each author and Table 3 presents the citation information for the same authors in rank order. RESULTS A comparison of words presented in Table 1 with the same words from the earlier study (Howard, 2001, p. 114) shows that there were basically no major changes in the ranking of the words based upon frequency of appearance. There was some slight movement in the middle grouping with Training and Design each falling 2 spots and ABSEL and Strategy both moving up in rank. Table 1 reveals that the top 4 words, Simulation, Business, Experiential, and Learning were the same under both methods even though there was a minor change in order resulting in the new order of--Experiential, Business, Simulation, and Learning. The fact that the word Experiential appears to have overtaken the word Simulation certainly has implications for an organization whose origins are firmly rooted in the promulgation of the benefits of both simulations and experiential exercises. A note of explanation specific to the top 4 words is necessary. The name of the proceedings is included in the header of each document in the Bernie Keys library – and Business, Simulation, and Experiential have always been in the title of the proceedings. This inflated the number of times that these words appeared, but a check of the titles and the articles 134 Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, Volume 30, 2003 indicated that these four words were indeed used in both the titles and the text of the documents sufficiently to warrant their high ranks. The most significant changes were in the number of times that Participant(s) and Review appeared when the entire document was searched compared to titles only. They went from 29th to 6th and 35th to 12th, respectively, in their rankings. Effectiveness and Regression both moved up 9 positions. Survey, Design and Demand all increased their rankings by 5 spots or more. Interestingly, the words Game and Gaming both fell in rank from 5th to10th and 11th to 20th, respectively. The word Exercise fell from 6th to 14th place. International and Internet both lost ground as well. Assessment went from 15th to 22nd position, while Evaluation dropped from 10th to 15th place. Even the ranking of the word ABSEL fell by 6 positions taking it out of the top 20 to the 24th spot. At first glance these findings might seem to indicate a major shift in the thinking about “what we say” as words like Game and Gaming, Exercise, Assessment and Evaluation seemed to lose ground. But a closer inspection might actually question that conclusion. As a result of the whole document search, words like Participant(s), Review, Regression, Survey, and even Design and Demand all took a more prominent position than in the previous study. However, these words are commonly used and integral components of the ABSEL language. One would expect them to occur frequently in the context of research, but not necessarily be the focus of the paper being presented, and therefore, not to receive the prominence associated with keywords found in the title of an article. To demonstrate this point, imagine the multiple meanings of the words Demand (to demand something versus a demand curve or function) and Review (a compilation of research versus “let’s review our findings”) and it is easy to see that the usage of the word in the body of the paper does not mean it is the focal point. Ironically, one could also conclude that the higher prevalence of words such as Exercise, Assessment and Evaluation, International and Internet in the title only search may be a deliberate attempt by the authors to include a “buzz” word in the title of the paper. The updated ABSEL Authors list in Table 2 shows that the leading authors have not changed much since the previous study. Jim Gentry has overtaken Tony Faria as the top author (must be Jim’s honeymoon is over and he is back to the grindstone) and Precha Thavikulwat has edged into the top 5 list. Gosen (pud), Wolfe, Burns, Cannon, Wheatley, Strang, and Anderson round out the new top 10 list. The re-emergence of Dan Berenenstuhl to the list of “active” authors is also noted and welcomed. Table 3 presents the results of the citation analysis component. It should be no surprise to the ABSEL readership that Joe Wolfe and Bernie Keys are the organization’s two most cited ABSEL authors. Not far behind are Jim Gentry, Al Burns and Dick Teach. As long- time ABSEL contributors it is only natural that their works will be so often cited by others. Appendix B shows an alphabetical listing of the authors’ citation information. CONCLUSIONS As was the case with the first content analysis study, this updated research found that ABSEL researchers used words that have a strong relationship to the organization’s name. Business, Simulation, Experiential and Learning were again the four most common words and that would be expected. The new methodology did not alter the overall conclusion that we talk about topics such as Participant(s), Groups, Performance, Evaluation, Assessment, Exercise, and even Survey, Design, Demand, and Review. However, the impetus for rethinking and repeating this study was the suggestion that perhaps the original methodology could be improved and that the results would be a better indicator. With that in mind the authors again used a form of content analysis but searched the entire body of the document and not just the titles. While the process was even easier than the original, it is not clear that the results are any more representative than those of the first study. It became very clear to the authors that the frequency of the word usage did not always indicate that the focus of the paper was on that topic. The meteoric rise in rank from 35th to 12th of the word Review was the perfect example of what might be wrong with the new methodology. The word clearly could be used in several contexts even in instances in which it was not the focal point of the discussion. While content analysis has long been accepted as a valid research method, a weakness may be the arbitrary “scoring” method – in this case – word count (Babbie, 1973). While using titles only may have its limitations, it appears that for the most part it may be a better indicator of the main topic the paper is presenting. A not so earth-shattering result was finding that some of the more senior ABSELites are also the most frequently cited. The most prolific authors are also some of the most cited authors and they have been active in ABSEL for two decades or more. Their expertise in the area of simulations and experiential learning is well documented. 135 Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, Volume 30, 2003 TABLE 1 CONTENT ANALYSIS RANKINGS Full Document Title Only Word Rank Word Rank Experiential 1 Simulation 1 Business 2 Business 2 Simulation 3 Experiential 3 Learning 4 Learning 4 Effectiveness 5 Game 5 Participant(s) 6 Exercise 6 Research 7 Performance 7 Case (Study) 8 Case (Study) 8 Performance 9 Research 9 Game 10 Evaluation 10 Group 11 Gaming 11 Review 12 Group 12 Model 13 Model 13 Exercise 14 Effectiveness 14 Evaluation 15 Assessment 15 Design 16 International 16 Strategy 17 Systems 17 Training 18 ABSEL 18 Systems 19 Strategy 19 Gaming 20 Training 20 Demand 21 Design 21 Assessment 22 Leadership 22 Survey 23 Pedagogy/Pedagogical 23 ABSEL 24 Ethics/Ethical 24 International 25 Cognitive 25 Pedagogy/Pedagogical 26 Demand 26 Leadership 27 Internet 27 Cognitive 28 Cooperative (Learning) 28 Grading 29 Participant(s) 29 Player 30 Survey 30 Regression 31 Grading 31 Ethics/Ethical 32 Collaborative 32 Cooperative (Learning) 33 Player 33 AACSB 34 Algorithm 34 Internet 35 Review 35 Algorithm 36 Service Learning 36 Collaborative 37 AACSB 37 Typology 38 Inter-Group 38 Inter-Group 39 Meyers-Briggs 39 Ethnocentric 40 Regression 40 Service Learning 41 Ethnocentric 41 Meyers-Briggs 42 Typology 42 136 Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, Volume 30, 2003 TABLE 2 ABSEL AUTHORS (1974-2002) First Latest Authored First Latest Authored Year Year Articles Year Year Articles Gentry, James 1974 2002 44 Chanin, Michael 1982 1991 8 Faria, A. J. 1974 2002 42 Golden, Peggy 1986 1990 8 Gosenpud (Gosen), Jerry 1980 2002 36 Hoover, J. Duane 1974 1980 8 Wolfe, Joseph 1976 2002 36 Jackson, George 1982 1998 8 Thavikulwat, Precha 1982 2002 30 Jensen, Ronald 1974 1999 8 Burns, Alvin 1975 2002 29 King, Albert 1977 1984 8 Cannon, Hugh 1987 2002 29 Morgan, Sandra 1993 2002 8 Wheatley, Walter 1986 1999 29 Overby, John 1988 2000 8 Strang, Daniel 1978 2002 28 Pillutla, Sharma 1994 2002 8 Anderson, Philip 1984 2002 27 Sampson, Nancy 1977 1995 8 Markulis, Peter 1983 2002 27 Snyder, Stephen (LT) 1993 1999 8 Fritzche, David 1974 2002 25 Stratton, Willaim 1978 1998 8 Graf, Lee 1980 2000 22 Whitney, Gary 1982 1992 8 Berenenstuhl, Daniel 1975 2002 21 Decker, Ronald 1981 1995 7 Biggs, William 1975 2000 21 Halterman, Carroll 1979 1995 7 Washbush, John 1991 2002 21 Kline, Donald 1981 1994 7 Butler, John 1981 2002 20 Micklich, Douglas 1998 2002 7 Goosen, Kenneth 1974 2002 20 Mills, Janet 1983 1988 7 Lawton, Leigh 1986 2002 20 Morse, Kenneth 1997 2002 7 Dickenson, John 1976 2002 19 Schellenberger, Robert 1981 1990 7 Pray, Thomas 1978 2002 19 Ward, William 1982 1990 7 Page, Diana 1985 2002 18 Whatley, Arthur 1976 1985 7 Teach, Richard 1984 2002 18 Winchell, Michael 1992 2000 7 Patz, Alan 1987 2002 17 Boozer, Robert 1993 2000 6 Schreier, James 1975 1990 17 Chesteen, Susan 1990 2001 6 Frazer, J. Ronald 1975 1996 16 Churchill, Geoffry 1974 1980 6 Gold, Steven 1981 2001 16 Cotter, Richard 1985 1998 6 Smith, Jerald 1974 1999 16 Curran, Kent 1987 1990 6 Keys, Bernard 1974 1999 15 Edge, Alfred 1979 1992 6 Maddox, E. Nick 1987 2001 15 Lambert, David 1980 1988 6 Platt, Richard 1992 2002 15 Leonard, Thomas 1994 1999 6 Barton, Richard 1974 1990 14 Moschella, Paul 1983 2001 6 Hemmasi, Masoud 1987 2000 14 Newstrom, John 1982 1989 6 Hornaday, Robert 1986 2001 14 Roderick, Roger 1979 1993 6 Catalanello, Ralph 1976 1994 13 Roge, Joseph 1995 1997 6 Chiesl, Newell 1979 2001 13 Ruble, Thomas 1978 1990 6 Howard, Barbara 1995 2002 13 Savai, Antonio 1993 2001 6 McAfee, Bruce (R. Bruce) 1978 2002 13 Wilterding, Jim 1980 1997 6 Nulsen, Ray 1974 1996 13 Wingender, John 1987 2001 6 Roberts, Ralph 1974 1999 13 Wolfe, Douglas 1974 1979 6 Sanders, Patricia 1982 2000 13 Armstrong, Terry 1989 1997 5 Vik, Gretchen 1979 2002 13 Badgett, Tom 1977 1983 5 House, William 1977 1995 12 Basuray, Tom 1979 1981 5 Kelley, Lane 1978 2001 12 Beatty, Richard 1974 1977 5 Wellington, William 1990 2002 12 Boyd, Charles 1982 1985 5 Crino, Michael 1978 2001 11 Bradley, Michael 1988 1996 5 Gomolka, Eugene 1982 1990 11 Byrne, Eugene 1975 1979 5 Malik, S. Dolly 1995 2001 11 Efraty, David 1994 1998 5 Scott, Timothy 1994 2002 11 Fuhs, F. Paul 1980 1988 5 Leonard, Nancy 1994 2000 10 Hall, Jeremy 1994 1996 5 Oppenheimer, Robert 1984 2002 10 Hsu, Ti 1985 1998 5 Palia, Aspy 1989 2002 10 Hunsaker, Johanna 1981 1993 5 Peach, Brian (E. Brian) 1997 2002 10 Hunsaker, Phillip 1977 1990 5 Pittenger, Khush 1996 2002 10 Klepetar, Wendy 1991 1995 5 Dutton, Richard 1976 1992 9 Miesing, Paul 1981 1991 5 Napier, Herman 1974 1988 9 Morgan, Fred 1985 1990 5 Whiteley, Richard 1989 2001 9 Raveed, Sion 1978 1981 5 Certo, Samuel 1974 1985 8 137 Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, Volume 30, 2003 TABLE 3 ABSEL AUTHOR CITATIONS Rank Order Total Articles Non-author Hits Authored Cites Wolfe, Joseph 288 36 252 Keys, Bernard 228 15 213 Gentry, James 228 44 184 Burns, Alvin 170 29 141 Teach, Richard 144 18 126 Scott, Timothy 134 11 123 Faria, A. J. 164 42 122 Berenenstuhl, Daniel 135 21 114 Fritzsche, David 142 28 114 Gosenpud (Gosen), Jerry 147 36 111 Biggs, William 128 21 107 Anderson, Philip 123 27 96 Pray, Thomas 114 19 95 Certo, Samuel 92 8 84 Roberts, Ralph 95 13 82 Jensen, Ronald 84 8 76 Gold, Steven 90 16 74 Lawton, Leigh 91 20 71 Graf, Lee 92 22 70 Goosen, Kenneth 86 20 66 Nulsen, Ray 76 13 63 Butler, John 82 20 62 Cotter, Richard 65 6 59 Kelley, Lane 71 12 59 Snyder, Stephen (LT) 61 8 53 Byrne, Eugene 57 5 52 Edge, Alfred 57 6 51 Washbush, John 72 21 51 Wheatley, Walter 80 29 51 Patz, Alan 66 17 49 Strang, Daniel 75 28 47 Catalanello, Ralph 59 13 46 Frazer, J. Ronald 61 16 45 Golden, Peggy 53 8 45 Page, Diana 60 18 42 Thavikulwat, Precha 70 30 40 Barton, Richard 52 14 38 Sanders, Patricia 51 13 38 Dickinson, John 56 20 36 Jackson, George 44 8 36 Cannon, Hugh 64 29 35 Schellenberger, Robert 39 7 32 Whiteley, Richard 41 9 32 Armstrong, Terry 36 5 31 Wellington, William 43 12 31 Hornaday, Robert 43 14 29 Markulis, Peter 56 27 29 Miesing, Paul 34 5 29 138 Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, Volume 30, 2003 Schreier, James 46 17 29 Whitney, Gary 35 8 27 House. William 38 12 26 Hsu, Ti 29 5 24 Badgett, Tom 27 5 22 Boyd, Charles 27 5 22 Churchill, Geoffry 28 6 22 Whatley, Arthur 29 7 22 Beatty, Richard 26 5 21 Hoover, J. Duane 29 8 21 Malik, S. Dolly 32 11 21 Decker, Ronald 27 7 20 Leonard, Nancy 30 10 20 Napier, Herman 28 9 19 Chanin, Michael 26 8 18 Curran, Kent 24 6 18 Wingender, John 24 6 18 Lambert, David 23 6 17 Mills, Janet 24 7 17 Basuray, Tom 21 5 16 Hemmasi, Masoud 30 14 16 Howard, Barbara 29 13 16 Sampson, Nancy 24 8 16 Chiesl, Newell 28 13 15 Crino, Michael 26 11 15 Bradley, Michael 18 5 13 Dutton, Richard 22 9 13 Hunsaker, Phillip 18 5 13 Maddox, E. Nick 28 15 13 Overby, John 20 8 12 Roderick, Roger 18 6 12 Gomolka, Eugene 22 11 11 Morgan, Sandra 19 8 11 Smith, Jerald 27 16 11 McAfee, Bruce (R. Bruce) 23 13 10 Palia, Aspy 20 10 10 Ruble, Thomas 16 6 10 Vik, Gretchen 22 13 9 King, Albert 16 8 8 Leonard, Thomas 14 6 8 Morse, Kenneth 15 7 8 Newstrom, John 14 6 8 Peach, Brian (E. Brian) 18 10 8 Platt, Richard 23 15 8 Pillutla, Sharma 15 8 7 Stratton, William 15 8 7 Halterman, Carroll 13 7 6 Kline, Donald 13 7 6 Morgan, Fred 11 5 6 Fuhs, F. Paul 10 5 5 Oppenheimer, Robert 15 10 5 Pittenger, Khush 15 10 5 139 Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, Volume 30, 2003 Raveed, Sion 10 5 5 Roge, Joseph 11 6 5 Wilterding, Jim 11 6 5 Chesteen, Susan 10 6 4 Klepetar, Wendy 9 5 4 Ward, William 11 7 4 Wolfe, Douglas 10 6 4 Moschella, Paul 9 6 3 Boozer, Robert 8 6 2 Efraty, David 7 5 2 Hall, Jeremy 7 5 2 Micklich, Douglas 8 7 1 Hunsaker, Johanna 5 5 0 Savaia, Antonio 6 6 0 Winchell, Michael 7 7 0 140 Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, Volume 30, 2003 REFERENCES Babbie, E. R. (1973) Survey Research Methods. California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc. Burns, A., A. Banasiewicz (1994) “The Intellectual Structure of ABSEL: A Bibliometric Study of Author Co-Citations Over Time.” Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Exercises 21, 7-12. Butler, J. (1999) “ABSEL’s Contributions to Experiential Exercises in the 90s.” Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning 26, 16-24. Butler, R., P. Markulis, and D. Strang (1985) “Learning Theory and Research Design: How has ABSEL Fared?” Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Exercises 12, 86-90. Gold, S. and T. Pray (1999) “Business Simulations – Algorithms and Model Enhancements: A 25 Year Review.” Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning 26, 32. Graf, L. A. (1999) “ABSEL’s Contributions to Experiential Learning/Experiential Exercises: The decade of the 1970s.” Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning 26, 25-31. Holsti, O. (1969) Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Reading: Addison-Wesley Publishing. Howard, B. and D. Strang (2001) “ABSEL: The Way We Talk.” Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning 28, 11-116. Kelly, L. and W. Brice (1999) “The Contributions of ABSEL During the 1980’s.” Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning 26, 8-10. Krippendorff, K. (1980) Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Beverly Hills: Sage. Markulis, P., P. Ricci, and D. Strang (1991) “A Critical Review and Assessment of ABSEL’s Award-Winning Procedure and Protocols.” Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Exercises 18, 61-65. Markulis, P., P. Ricci, and D. Strang (1989) “A Review of Salient Trends in Proceeding’s Characteristics: A Fifteen Year Profile of ABSEL.” Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Exercises 16, 200-203. 141 Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, Volume 30, 2003 APPENDIX A ALPHABETICAL LISTING OF CONTENT ANALYSIS WORDS Full Document Title Only Word Number Rank Number Rank AACSB 125 34 2 37 ABSEL 428 24 36 18 Algorithm 98 36 4 34 Assessment 466 22 46 15 Business 1837 2 367 2 Case (Study) 1219 8 82 8 Cognitive 333 28 18 25 Collaborative 64 37 6 32 Cooperative (Learning) 133 33 15 28 Demand 474 21 17 26 Design 828 16 32 21 Effectiveness 1481 5 47 14 Ethics/Ethical 147 32 19 24 Ethnocentric 12 40 1 41 Evaluation 879 15 62 10 Exercise 886 14 143 6 Experiential 1885 1 329 3 Game 998 10 154 5 Gaming 551 20 59 11 Grading 230 29 8 31 Group 990 11 58 12 Inter-Group 16 39 2 38 International 426 25 45 16 Internet 99 35 17 27 Leadership 358 27 24 22 Learning 1612 4 329 4 Meyers-Briggs 2 42 2 39 Model 906 13 50 13 Participant(s) 1315 6 14 29 Pedagogy/Pedagogical 358 26 23 23 Performance 1099 9 122 7 Player 200 30 5 33 Regression 167 31 2 40 Research 1271 7 64 9 Review 989 12 4 35 Service Learning 9 41 3 36 Simulation 1833 3 494 1 Strategy 738 17 36 19 Survey 460 23 12 30 Systems 601 19 40 17 Training 728 18 36 20 Typology 34 38 1 42 142 Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, Volume 30, 2003 APPENDIX B ALPHABETICAL LISTING OF AUTHORS AND CITATIONS Total Articles Non-author Hits Authored Cites Anderson, Philip 123 27 96 Armstrong, Terry 36 5 31 Badgett, Tom 27 5 22 Barton, Richard 52 14 38 Basuray, Tom 21 5 16 Beatty, Richard 26 5 21 Berenenstuhl, Daniel 135 21 114 Biggs, William 128 21 107 Boozer, Robert 8 6 2 Boyd, Charles 27 5 22 Bradley, Michael 18 5 13 Burns, Alvin 170 29 141 Butler, John 82 20 62 Byrne, Eugene 57 5 52 Cannon, Hugh 64 29 35 Catalanello, Ralph 59 13 46 Certo, Samuel 92 8 84 Chanin, Michael 26 8 18 Chesteen, Susan 10 6 4 Chiesl, Newell 28 13 15 Churchill, Geoffry 28 6 22 Cotter, Richard 65 6 59 Crino, Michael 26 11 15 Curran, Kent 24 6 18 Decker, Ronald 27 7 20 Dickinson, John 56 20 36 Dutton, Richard 22 9 13 Edge, Alfred 57 6 51 Efraty, David 7 5 2 Faria, A. J. 164 42 122 Frazer, J. Ronald 61 16 45 Fritzsche, David 142 28 114 Fuhs, F. Paul 10 5 5 Gentry, James 228 44 184 Gold, Steven 90 16 74 Golden, Peggy 53 8 45 Gomolka, Eugene 22 11 11 Goosen, Kenneth 86 20 66 Gosenpud (Gosen), Jerry 147 36 111 Graf, Lee 92 22 70 Hall, Jeremy 7 5 2 Halterman, Carroll 13 7 6 Hemmasi, Masoud 30 14 16 Hoover, J. Duane 29 8 21 Hornaday, Robert 43 14 29 House. William 38 12 26 Howard, Barbara 29 13 16 Hsu, Ti 29 5 24 143 Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, Volume 30, 2003 Hunsaker, Johanna 5 5 0 Hunsaker, Phillip 18 5 13 Jackson, George 44 8 36 Jensen, Ronald 84 8 76 Kelley, Lane 71 12 59 Keys, Bernard 228 15 213 King, Albert 16 8 8 Klepetar, Wendy 9 5 4 Kline, Donald 13 7 6 Lambert, David 23 6 17 Lawton, Leigh 91 20 71 Leonard, Nancy 30 10 20 Leonard, Thomas 14 6 8 Maddox, E. Nick 28 15 13 Malik, S. Dolly 32 11 21 Markulis, Peter 56 27 29 McAfee, Bruce (R. Bruce) 23 13 10 Micklich, Douglas 8 7 1 Miesing, Paul 34 5 29 Mills, Janet 24 7 17 Morgan, Fred 11 5 6 Morgan, Sandra 19 8 11 Morse, Kenneth 15 7 8 Moschella, Paul 9 6 3 Napier, Herman 28 9 19 Newstrom, John 14 6 8 Nulsen, Ray 76 13 63 Oppenheimer, Robert 15 10 5 Overby, John 20 8 12 Page, Diana 60 18 42 Palia, Aspy 20 10 10 Patz, Alan 66 17 49 Peach, Brian (E. Brian) 18 10 8 Pillutla, Sharma 15 8 7 Pittenger, Khush 15 10 5 Platt, Richard 23 15 8 Pray, Thomas 114 19 95 Raveed, Sion 10 5 5 Roberts, Ralph 95 13 82 Roderick, Roger 18 6 12 Roge, Joseph 11 6 5 Ruble, Thomas 16 6 10 Sampson, Nancy 24 8 16 Sanders, Patricia 51 13 38 Savaia, Antonio 6 6 0 Schellenberger, Robert 39 7 32 Schreier, James 46 17 29 Scott, Timothy 134 11 123 Smith, Jerald 27 16 11 Snyder, Stephen (LT) 61 8 53 Strang, Daniel 75 28 47 Stratton, William 15 8 7 144 Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, Volume 30, 2003 145 Teach, Richard 144 18 126 Thavikulwat, Precha 70 30 40 Vik, Gretchen 22 13 9 Ward, William 11 7 4 Washbush, John 72 21 51 Wellington, William 43 12 31 Whatley, Arthur 29 7 22 Wheatley, Walter 80 29 51 Whiteley, Richard 41 9 32 Whitney, Gary 35 8 27 Wilterding, Jim 11 6 5 Winchell, Michael 7 7 0 Wingender, John 24 6 18 Wolfe, Douglas 10 6 4 Wolfe, Joseph 288 36 252 Table of Contents Volume 30, 2003 The Optimal Timing For Introducing Business Simulations Can Handicapped Students Access Your Class Web Site? The Competition Game: Decision Making In A Dynamic Environment Pan-Pacific Enterprises: Strategic Decision Making Simulation Study Of Stochastic Channel Redistribution The Impact Of Business War Games: Quantifying Training Effectiveness Experiential Learning: Introducing Faculty And Staff To A University Leadership Development Program The Feasibility Of The Balanced Scorecard For Business Games A Misuse Of Pims For The Validation Of Marketing Management Simulation Games Incorporating Technology Into The 21st Century Classroom: Are We Facilitating Academic Dishonesty? Improving The Effectiveness Of Peer Evaluations The Use Of A Simulation In An Integrated Mba Curriculum Student Portfolios In Business Education Student Portfolios In Business Education At Ashland University Using SAP ERP Technology To Integrate The Undergraduate Business Curriculum Board Games And Teaching Textile Marketing And Finance Blogging: A New Threat To Student Research? The Way We Talk! Take II Strategic Management: An Evaluation Of The Use Of Three Learning Methods In Hong Kong Adoption Of Discussion-Based Teaching And Assessment In Teaching Strategic Management In Hong Kong The Tobin Q As A Company Performance Indicator Using Representative Nominal Group Technique For Course Review And An Interactive Solicitation Of Ways To Enhance Absel's Image Making Teaching Matter: The Art And Science Of Teaching Business Communication Beyond Sex, Age, And Race: Exploring The Deeper Contents Of Diversity Teaching & Learning The Facilitation Process A Brief On Debriefing: What It Is And What It Isn't Changing Perceptions Of The Importance Of Leadership: The Contribution Of Individual Spirit Harmonics In Leadership Knowledge, Skills And Sustainable Values In Learning Organizations: Some Implications From The Multicultural Virtual Classroom Challenges Of Teaching Undergraduate Organizational Behavior In A Nontraditional Time Format Interactive Online Positioning With The Web-Based Product Positioning Map Graphics Package The Longitudinal Effects Of Entrepreneurship Training On Risk Tolerance: A Look At Similarities And Differences Between Male And Female Undergraduate Students Revisiting Strategy Learning In A Total Enterprise Simulation What Are Simulations For?: Learning Objectives As A Simulation Selection Device Gaming Agency Markets Cooperate For Profits Or Compete For Market? Study Of Oligopolistic Pricing With A Business Game The Design Of A Business Simulation Using A System-Dynamics-Based Approach Modeling The Product Development Function For An Entrepreneurial Firm Simulation Performance And Forecast Accuracy? Is That All? Business Manager Identification Of Competitors In Real World And Simulation Settings Monte Carlo Simulation Analysis On The Costs Reduction Argument Of Interest Rate Swaps Ebiz Game: A Scalable Online Business Simulation Game For Entrepreneurship Training A Model For Online Education Delivery And A Look At Online Delivery Effectiveness Incorporating "Company Reputation" into Total Enterprise Simulations The Genesis And Future Of The Absel "Classicos" Initiative