Search results

The 170-year-old Master in Business Administration (MBA) program is becoming obsolete and inefficient to address today's real-world problems, and is facing mounting criticism from business scholars, management deans, and academic scholars alike. Reviewing major criticisms, this chapter suggests a new design for the MBA program that will not only address the criticisms but also accept a paradigm shift that will spearhead it in coming decades. The redesigned MBA “structure” proposes a four-semester full-time program, during which each semester delves into deeper marketplace problems of increasing complexity (i.e., from simple to complex to unstructured to wicked problems) and deals with these problems with new levels of critical thinking skills and ethical reasoning processes tempered by corresponding entrepreneurial knowledge, skills, and values. The “content” of the redesigned program is anchored around five major themes of business learning: namely, intrinsic motivation management, creativity and innovation management, productivity management, revenue management, and eco-sustainability management, each geared to generate professional entrepreneurial knowledge, and skills and values urgently needed today. Numerous beneficial features of this newly redesigned integrated business management program (MBA) are also discussed.

This chapter explores the complex intersection between students with disabilities and bullying prevention within educational settings. While bullying impacts all students, those with disabilities face unique challenges that make them more vulnerable to such experiences (Rose & Gage, 2016; Rose et al., 2011). By examining the underlying factors contributing to the heightened risk of bullying among students with disabilities, this chapter aims to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the issue. It delves into the specific ways in which students with disabilities are targeted and engage in bullying behaviors, such as through verbal, relational, or physical, and highlights the negative consequences on their overall well-being and academic performance. Moreover, this chapter examines existing interventions and strategies employed to prevent bullying among students with disabilities. It critically evaluates the effectiveness of individual, classroom, and school-wide interventions, highlighting the need for a comprehensive approach that addresses the unique needs and challenges faced by this subset of students. The importance of collaboration between educators, parents, and other stakeholders in implementing evidence-based practices is also emphasized. By promoting awareness, fostering inclusive school environments, and implementing targeted interventions, we can strive toward creating a safe and supportive atmosphere that enables students with disabilities to thrive academically and socially, free from bullying involvement.

Recent academic studies, as well as media reporting, have devoted substantial attention to the ongoing “crisis of democracy.” Democratic “backsliding” of Central and Eastern Europe – sometimes referred to as an effort to establish a new system of “illiberal democracy” – is one of the most visible symptoms of this crisis. This narrative is supported by the quantitative metrics of democratic quality, reflecting professional community views on the appropriate criteria to define and assess democracy. However, once general public views expressed in the survey item of “satisfaction with democracy” are taken into account, the picture changes markedly. This chapter analyzes quantitative metrics reflecting expert community consensus and the general public assessment of the quality of democracy in the 27 EU members over the period 2010–2019. It documents substantial divergence between the perspectives of the experts and the general public – while expert-based indexes portray Central and Eastern European backsliding as the most significant trend in the EU democratic landscape, public opinion identifies a very different set of democracy's successes and failures. As experts and the general public fail to arrive at mutually accepted criteria of democratic performance evaluation, public debate has become futile. Meaningful discussion and systemic corrections have become unlikely, creating conditions easily exploitable by the populists, eager to frame it as an example of “elite” detachment from the “ordinary people”.