Search results

Despite the general recommendation of using a combination of multiple criteria for research assessment and faculty promotion decisions, the raise of quantitative indicators is generating an emerging trend in Business Schools to use single journal impact factors (IFs) as key (unique) drivers for those relevant school decisions. This paper aims to investigate the effects of using single Web of Science (WoS)-based journal impact metrics when assessing research from two related disciplines: Business and Economics, and its potential impact for the strategic sustainability of a Business School.

This study collected impact indicators data for Business and Economics journals from the Clarivate Web of Science database. We concentrated on the IF indicators, the Eigenfactor and the article influence score (AIS). This study examined the correlations between these indicators and then ranked disciplines and journals using these different impact metrics.

Consistent with previous findings, this study finds positive correlations among these metrics. Then this study ranks the disciplines and journals using each impact metric, finding relevant and substantial differences, depending on the metric used. It is found that using AIS instead of the IF raises the relative ranking of Economics, while Business remains basically with the same rank.

This study contributes to the research assessment literature by adding substantial evidence that given the sensitivity of journal rankings to particular indicators, the selection of a single impact metric for assessing research and hiring/promotion and tenure decisions is risky and too simplistic. This research shows that biases may be larger when assessment involves researchers from related disciplines – like Business and Economics – but with different research foundations and traditions.

Consistent with the literature, given the sensibility of journal rankings to particular indicators, the selection of a single impact metric for assessing research, assigning research funds and hiring/promotion and tenure decisions is risky and simplistic. However, this research shows that risks and biases may be larger when assessment involves researchers from related disciplines – like Business and Economics – but with different research foundations and trajectories. The use of multiple criteria is advised for such purposes.

This is an applied work using real data from WoS that addresses a practical case of comparing the use of different journal IFs to rank-related disciplines like Business and Economics, with important implications for faculty tenure and promotion committees and for research funds granting institutions and decision-makers.

The increasing push towards centralisation and bureaucratisation in higher education, further exacerbated by the disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, calls for a better understanding of the nature of collegiality in contemporary universities. We address this issue by looking into the necessary conditions and barriers to sustaining a collegiate environment. The empirical focus is on academics, academic leaders and professional support staff at Anonymous Business School (ABS), a department in a large civic UK university. We interviewed 32 participants across the school, ranging from early-career academics to experienced professors and members of department leadership teams. The findings suggest multiple emerging perspectives on collegiality, with features of horizontal collegiality perceived as key to successful academic responses to the crisis. The findings also indicate how sustaining a collegiate environment within the department requires both choice and effort from leadership and from staff, particularly when decision-making is primarily located at the centre of the university. The choice and effort made across different collegiate pockets contribute to the department becoming an ‘island of collegiality’ within the increasingly centralised and bureaucratised university hierarchy. In this sense, the actions of the department leadership to establish supporting mechanisms, and the actions of the staff to, in turn, embrace and build interpersonal relationships and professional identities, are key to sustaining a collegiate environment.

In the context of business schools, the word “leadership” is widely used in missions, visions, and marketing materials. However, underlying support and the infrastructure to truly develop leaders may be lacking. The purpose of this paper is to highlight the challenges and issues facing leadership education in the context of business education. More specifically, we highlight some of the structural challenges, foundational issues, and research related problems and identify several opportunities to address some of the areas for development. Throughout this paper, we discuss how the National Leadership Education Research Agenda can spark research that will legitimize our work not only in business, but across disciplines.

This paper examines the association between the quality of management schools and sustainability and investigates whether ethical behavior of firms moderates relationship between the quality of management schools and sustainability.

The sample consists of 500 country-year observations over the period of 2014-2017. Sustainability is collected from the Global Sustainable Competiveness Index reports for 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017, while the quality of management schools and ethical behavior of firms are collected from the Global Competiveness Report for the same years.

The findings of this study suggest that the quality of management schools is positively associated with sustainability. When testing for the moderating effect of ethical behavior of firms on the association between quality of management schools and sustainability, results show that the positive association becomes positive and more significant for countries where firms operate with high ethical behaviors, while the association becomes insignificant for settings where firms operate with low ethical behaviors. Findings also show that the quality of management schools and ethical behavior of firms play a complimentary role in improving sustainability.

The findings emphasize the role played by business schools and business ethics in improving sustainability. These results may have policy implications for governments aiming to improve sustainability by emphasizing on education for sustainable development in management schools’ 2019 programs enforcing standards dealing with business ethics and controlling firms’ 2019 compliance with them.

The findings of this study highlight the importance of education, as proxied by the quality of management schools, in the development of sustainable societies and economic systems. To the best of the author's knowledge, this is the first study that tries to empirically link business schools programs to sustainability efforts and how business ethics may affect this association.

This paper aims to describe an innovative approach of integrating sustainability into the structures and processes of a business school without creating resistance.

A sustainable entrepreneurship competition was embedded as an independent programme in an already existing business plan competition at the School of Business FHNW. The paper shows, which structural elements of the competition had to be adapted to the needs of sustainable entrepreneurs.

The paper outlines aspects that need to be considered and steps that need to be taken to run a sustainable entrepreneurship competition supporting as many high-quality projects as possible. It describes the importance of developing an independent instrument that meets the specific needs of sustainable entrepreneurs in project planning. The sustainable innovation plan is explained.

The student projects are developed at the School of Business FHNW as part of the entrepreneurship competition, which has been successfully carried out twice. They have numerous measurable positive social and ecological effects, which are described by the students in their sustainable innovation plans and are subsequently reflected in the realization of the projects.

Using the example of the Swiss Student Sustainability Challenge, the paper demonstrates under which conditions a sustainability project can be successfully integrated into the existing structures of an institution of higher education and develop into a beacon project of the university. Other universities can make use of these findings to launch comparable projects at their institutions.

This paper aims to discuss Assurance of Learning (AoL) and 2020 Standards from Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) International with Marine Condette from AACSB.

Structured interview.

Changes following the 2020 Standards.

This paper is an interview with Marine Condette from the AACSB Europe, Middle East and Africa (EMEA) office on AoL discussing as well the changes with the 2020 AACSB Standards.

A truly successful continuous improvement review (CIR) visit does more than merely check the boxes for a positive recommendation. It builds the story of the school and should be an opportunity for its culture to shine through. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate how to facilitate a successful CIR visit by moving from the basics of accreditation to understanding, implementing and “living” best practices.

Short tenure and high turnover among business school deans, mean that the majority of those leading the CIR may have no previous experience with the process.

This study begins by providing an overview of the role of accreditation and the role of the dean in the accreditation process. With a combined experience of over 35 years in the dean role and having served on or chaired over 35 accreditation visits, the authors share their experiences and offer a seven-step process for understanding and implementing best practices in the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business accreditation process.

The suggestions offered in this study should help schools enhance long-term positive outcomes and serve as a guide to those navigating the CIR process.

The issues associated with the production and dissemination of management research have been widely debated amongst administrators, scholars and policymakers for decades. However, few studies to date have examined this issue at the level of the individual scholar. The purpose of this paper is to view a management scholar’s choice of knowledge dissemination (KD) outlets as a legitimacy judgment embedded in their social structure and community norms.

To explore this, the authors conduct a sequential mixed-methods study. The study uses qualitative methods, including one-on-one interviews (n=29) and five workshops (n=79) with administrators, management scholars, students and external community members (practitioners and policymakers). In addition, the authors analyzed the KD outcomes of 524 management scholars at seven Canadian universities drawn from a stratified sample of business schools.

The results of the research demonstrate the complex interaction between individual scholar-level factors, including socialization (degree type and practitioner experience) and tenure, and the institutional-level factors, such as strategic orientation and accreditation, and how these influence KD judgments. Specifically, the authors find that institutional factors (such as tenure and promotion) are a central predictor of scholarly KD; in contrast, the authors find that individual-level factors including degree, professional experience and career stage influence non-scholarly KD.

The results suggest that as management scholars face increasing pressure to demonstrate impact beyond academia, it may be more difficult than simply adapting the reward system. Specifically, the authors suggest that administrators and policymakers will have to consider individual factors, including their academic training (including interdisciplinary training), previous practitioner experience and career stage.

In this article, we explore some of the barriers that prevent learning about grand challenges. By grand challenges, we refer to transformational social and environmental issues and the critical barriers toward addressing them. Despite recent research contributions, initiatives, and calls for action to focus on such concerns, relatively little is known about the different barriers that hinder learning about grand challenges. To explore these issues, we draw from Rayner’s (2012) concept of uncomfortable knowledge, defined as knowledge that is disagreeable to organizations because it may challenge their value base, self-perception, organizing principles, or sources of legitimacy. Focusing on the example of recent programmatic attempts to advance “responsible education” in business schools, we identify three barriers to learning about grand challenges: Cognitive overload, emotional detachment, and organizational obliviousness. We conclude by outlining several implications on how to overcome these barriers, adding to recent academic and policy debates on how to make business school education more attuned to the transformational and social challenges of our time.