This December 2018 issue of the Journal of Marketing Education (JME) provides a collection of articles on four different topics. Each topic has been popular in JME, and each of these articles builds on a sizeable and established literature. As such, this issue offers an update in four important areas. We launch this issue with Neu’s study on how students select team members, and then we move to Chen, Benedictus, Kim, and Shih’s article on design thinking and facilitating student creativity. Ackerman and Chung offer insights into yet another and underresearched bias in student evaluations of teaching. Lee, Heinze, Donoho, Fournier, Jalal, and Cohen present the results of a multinational study of student perceptions of sales ethics. Neu extends some interesting and provocative findings from two of his earlier qualitative studies published in JME (2012, 2015). In the first of two quantitative studies in the current article, Neu shows that most students do indeed form social networks as they progress through a program, and these networks guide their choices of teammates on group projects. In this study, trust emerges as an important characteristic of preferred team members. In his second study, Neu more clearly validates findings from his earlier qualitative work. In the absence of other information, students use social cues, in particular the style of dress, to evaluate the trustworthiness and trust of potential teammates. I found these results, while not particularly surprising, to be concerning. As we strive for greater inclusiveness in higher education, a common practice of allowing students to select their own groups may systematically put some students at an educational disadvantage, particularly students who may not conform to the majority’s stereotype of a trustworthy individual. The issues of helping students develop their peer networks and facilitating inclusiveness in student teams are important areas for future research. In this issue’s second article, Chen, Benedictus, Kim, and Shih demonstrate two different approaches to design thinking. Both approaches should be beneficial to students as marketing managers, but the differences between the two approaches can provide students with a deeper understanding of the trade-offs inherent in different approaches to design. In the user-centered design (UCD) approach, marketers focus on how design meets consumer needs; in the design-driven innovation (DDI) approach, marketers focus on radical product aesthetics. The authors explain in detail how each approach can be taught. They demonstrate that the UCD approach can yield designs perceived to be more useful, while the DDI approach can yield designs that are higher in perceived originality. The authors also demonstrate how the effectiveness of either approach may depend on whether the consumer experience is more utilitarian or more hedonic. Thus, the approaches themselves should be helpful to students, and the insights into possible tradeoffs between functionality and novelty, and the importance of context, can provide students with a deeper insight into the design process itself. As student evaluations of teaching (SET) are a prominent element in most merit reviews and promotion decisions for marketing faculty, education researchers have explored a number of possible biases in SET. Ackerman and Chung examine social modeling, which is an understudied bias in SET. This bias exists with online faculty evaluations (e.g., RateMyProfessors.com) when students see ratings of the teacher of interest before they provide their own ratings. Ackerman and Chung present evidence that prior ratings may indeed bias subsequent student ratings in much the same way that poll results can influence voter sentiments through the bandwagon effect. Thus, a few positive RateMyProfessors evaluations of a teacher can lead to higher ratings in the future, while a few bad ratings can lead to lower ratings. Students and faculty who use RateMyProfessors scores to evaluate faculty should take this bias into account. This social modeling effect may explain in part the modest correlation between university-run SET and RateMyProfessors. In recent years, higher education has experienced an explosive growth in the number of sales centers on campuses, and JME has published articles on sales education with increasing frequency. One of the primary challenges in sales education is that many students have negative associations with sales careers, and they may reject what might otherwise be a quite satisfying career. In particular, students may associate sales with ethical abuse. With this challenge as a starting point, Lee, Heinze, Donoho, Fournier, Jalal, and Cohen examine differences in sales ethics across five 809232 JMDXXX10.1177/0273475318809232Journal of Marketing EducationBacon editorial2018

中文翻译：

---

编辑角

2018年12月发行的《营销教育杂志》（JME）提供了有关四个不同主题的文章集。每个主题在JME中都很流行，并且每个文章都建立在大量的既有文献基础上。因此，本期提供了四个重要方面的更新。我们通过Neu关于学生如何选择团队成员的研究来开始这个问题，然后转到Chen，Benedictus，Kim和Shih的文章中有关设计思维和促进学生创造力的文章。阿克曼（Ackerman）和钟（Chung）提供了对学生对教学评价的另一种且研究不足的偏见的见解。Lee，Heinze，Donoho，Fournier，Jalal和Cohen展示了一项针对学生对销售道德观念的跨国研究结果。Neu在JME（2012，2015）上发表的两项早期定性研究中扩展了一些有趣且具有启发性的发现。在本文的两个定量研究的第一个中，Neu显示，大多数学生确实在完成某个程序时确实形成了社交网络，并且这些网络指导他们在小组项目中选择队友。在这项研究中，信任成为首选团队成员的重要特征。在第二项研究中，Neu更清楚地验证了他较早的定性研究结果。在没有其他信息的情况下，学生会使用社交线索，尤其是着装风格，来评估潜在队友的信任度和信任度。我发现这些结果值得关注，尽管并不特别令人惊讶。在我们争取更高的高等教育包容性的同时，允许学生选择自己的小组的常见做法可能会系统地使某些学生处于教育劣势，尤其是那些可能不符合大多数人对可信赖个人的刻板印象的学生。帮助学生发展他们的同伴网络和促进学生团队包容性的问题是未来研究的重要领域。在本期的第二篇文章中，Chen，Benedictus，Kim和Shih展示了两种不同的设计思维方式。两种方法都应该对作为市场营销经理的学生有利，但是两种方法之间的差异可以使学生对不同设计方法所固有的权衡取舍有更深入的了解。在以用户为中心的设计（UCD）方法中，营销人员将重点放在设计如何满足消费者需求上。在设计驱动的创新（DDI）方法中，营销人员将注意力集中在根本的产品美学上。作者详细解释了如何教授每种方法。他们证明，UCD方法可以产生被认为更有用的设计，而DDI方法可以产生被认为具有更高创意的设计。作者还证明了这两种方法的有效性如何取决于消费者的体验是更实用还是更享乐。因此，方法本身对学生应该是有帮助的，对功能和新颖性之间可能取舍以及上下文重要性的见解可以为学生提供对设计过程本身的更深入的见解。由于学生对教学的评估（SET）是市场营销人员在大多数绩效评估和晋升决策中的突出要素，教育研究人员探索了SET中的许多可能偏见。Ackerman和Chung研究了社交模型，这是SET中被忽视的偏见。当学生在提供自己的评分之前先查看感兴趣的老师的评分时，在线教师评估（例如RateMyProfessors.com）便存在这种偏见。Ackerman和Chung提供的证据表明，先前的评分确实可能会以与民意调查结果可以通过潮流效应影响选民情绪的方式偏向于对随后的学生评分产生偏见。因此，对教师的一些RateMyProfessors正面评价会在将来导致较高的评分，而一些较差的评分则会导致较低的评分。使用RateMyProfessors分数评估教师的学生和教师，应考虑这种偏见。这种社会模型效应可以部分解释大学经营的SET与RateMyProfessors之间的适度相关性。近年来，高等教育在校园内的销售中心数量呈爆炸式增长，JME越来越频繁地发表有关销售教育的文章。销售教育的主要挑战之一是，许多学生与销售职业之间有着消极的联系，他们可能会拒绝本来可以令人满意的职业。特别是，学生可以将销售与道德虐待联系起来。Lee，Heinze，Donoho，Fournier，Jalal和Cohen以这一挑战为出发点，研究了五个809232 JMDXXX10.1177 / 0273475318809809的销售道德差异培根社论2018 高等教育在校园内的销售中心数量呈爆炸式增长，并且JME越来越频繁地发布有关销售教育的文章。销售教育的主要挑战之一是，许多学生与销售职业之间有着消极的联系，他们可能会拒绝本来可以令人满意的职业。特别是，学生可以将销售与道德虐待联系起来。Lee，Heinze，Donoho，Fournier，Jalal和Cohen以这一挑战为出发点，研究了五个809232 JMDXXX10.1177 / 0273475318809809的销售道德差异培根社论2018 高等教育在校园内的销售中心数量呈爆炸式增长，并且JME越来越频繁地发布有关销售教育的文章。销售教育的主要挑战之一是，许多学生与销售职业之间有着消极的联系，他们可能会拒绝本来可以令人满意的职业。特别是，学生可以将销售与道德虐待联系起来。Lee，Heinze，Donoho，Fournier，Jalal和Cohen以这一挑战为出发点，研究了五个809232 JMDXXX10.1177 / 0273475318809809的销售道德差异培根社论2018 销售教育的主要挑战之一是，许多学生与销售职业之间有着消极的联系，他们可能会拒绝本来可以令人满意的职业。特别是，学生可能会将销售与道德虐待联系起来。Lee，Heinze，Donoho，Fournier，Jalal和Cohen以这一挑战为出发点，研究了五个809232 JMDXXX10.1177 / 0273475318809809的销售道德差异培根社论2018 销售教育的主要挑战之一是，许多学生与销售职业之间有着消极的联系，他们可能会拒绝本来可以令人满意的职业。特别是，学生可以将销售与道德虐待联系起来。Lee，Heinze，Donoho，Fournier，Jalal和Cohen以这一挑战为出发点，研究了五个809232 JMDXXX10.1177 / 0273475318809809的销售道德差异培根社论2018