Search results

This study examines the impact of the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) accreditation on education quality. We discern the prospective influences of AACSB, focusing on shifts in teaching methods and content and assessment procedures.

Using a case study approach, in-depth interviews are conducted with a Japanese-accredited business school’s faculty members to understand their perceptions of the school’s education-quality issues. The data were thematically analyzed.

Respondents acknowledged that AACSB accreditation has positively influenced teaching, encouraging active learning and the case method. However, they also indicated that accreditation had a restrictive effect on assessment activities, pushing toward compliance rather than genuine learning evaluation. This dichotomy suggests a need for balancing standard adherence with the flexibility to maintain educational depth and assessment integrity.

Convenience sampling may introduce self-selection bias. Furthermore, the qualitative case study approach does not allow for statistical generalization. However, when combined with existing literature, the findings can be analytically generalized and transferred to other contexts.

We provide insights regarding AACSB accreditation’s impact on business education, encompassing shifts in teaching methods and content and faculty perceptions of assessment. This study enhances the scholarly understanding of business school accreditation and offers guidance to accredited or accreditation-seeking academic institutions.

This study explores the use and perceptions of scholarly journal ranking lists in the management field based on stakeholders’ lived experience.

The results are based on a survey of 463 active knowledge management and intellectual capital researchers.

Journal ranking lists have become an integral part of contemporary management academia: 33% and 37% of institutions and individual scholars employ journal ranking lists, respectively. The Australian Business Deans Council (ABDC) Journal Quality List and the UK Academic Journal Guide (AJG) by the Chartered Association of Business Schools (CABS) are the most frequently used national lists, and their influence has spread far beyond the national borders. Some institutions and individuals create their own journal rankings.

Management researchers employ journal ranking lists under two conditions: mandatory and voluntary. The forced mode of use is necessary to comply with institutional pressure that restrains the choice of target outlets. At the same time, researchers willingly consult ranking lists to advance their personal career, maximize their research exposure, learn about the relative standing of unfamiliar journals, and direct their students. Scholars, academic administrators, and policymakers should realize that journal ranking lists may serve as a useful tool when used appropriately, in particular when individuals themselves decide how and for what purpose to employ them to inform their research practices.

The findings reveal a journal ranking lists paradox: management researchers are aware of the limitations of ranking lists and their deleterious impact on scientific progress; however, they generally find journal ranking lists to be useful and employ them.