Search results

This paper aims to review the evolution of management education primarily over the last 50 years and seeks to identify the challenges and lessons learned in management education and to assess the potential for change. To gain insight into these issues the authors draw on the perspectives of around 40 key individuals from academia, professional bodies, media, business and students.

The content of the paper is based upon a qualitative analysis of around 40 two‐to‐three hour interviews of key global players in the management education field.

The key stakeholders in management education are identified as students, business and employers respectively. But in terms of relative stakeholder influence faculty, business and students are the top three influencers. Faculty represent the supply‐side whereas business and students represent the demand side of management education. There is evidence that higher tuition fees may increase the power of students and business relative to faculty. The individuals who have had the greatest influence on management education are academics such as Mintzberg and Drucker rather than business school deans or administrators. Institutions such as INSEAD, IMD and Harvard have had the greatest influence. The main issues and challenges identified in Management Education include information technology, globalisation, the role of faculty, competition and business model performance. Few game changing innovations in curricula have occurred in management education raising the question of how change will occur in the future.

There are few in‐depth, open‐ended interview studies of key participants in the field of management education. It adds insights to a range of more reflective literature studies from writers such as Khurana, Mintzberg and Pfeffer.

This paper aims to examine the factors that affect the adoption of technological innovations in a service industry, like the higher education industry. Specifically, the use of Web-based technology (WEBCT/blackboard) by faculty and administrators in universities in Egypt in the delivery of educational material and communication with students and peers is the focus of this study.

A distinctive business-to-business (B2B) model is developed drawing on Rogers’ innovation adoption model, the resource-based view of the firm, as well as theoretical and empirical foundations in previous innovation adoption literature. The model is testified drawing on the results of empirical work in the form of a large survey conducted on 200 faculty and administrators in two different universities in Egypt. Structural equation modeling is used to test the research model.

In addition to the attributes of the innovation, all university-based factors as well as one service provider factor, namely, need for interaction, were identified to have a significant influence on the adoption of technological innovations in the higher education industry.

This paper attempts to enhance current understanding of the adoption of innovations in an important industry like the higher education industry. Empirical results shed light on influential factors when adopting technological innovations by faculty and administrators in the higher education industry. This is the first empirical study of this type to be conducted in the Middle East.

The dynamics of organizational change related to environmental sustainability on university campuses are examined in this article. Whereas case studies of campus sustainability efforts tend to classify leadership as either “top‐down” or “bottom‐up”, this classification neglects consideration of the leadership roles of the institutional “middle” – namely the faculty and staff.

The authors draw from research conducted on sustainability initiatives at the University of Guelph combined with a review of faculty and staff‐led initiatives at universities across Canada and the USA, as well as literature on best practices involving campus sustainability. Using concepts developed in business and leadership literature, faculty and staff are shown to be universities' equivalent to social “intrapreneurs”, i.e. those who work for social and environmental good from within large organizations.

Faculty and staff members are found to be critical leaders in efforts to achieve lasting progress towards campus sustainability, and conventional portrayals of campus sustainability initiatives often obscure this. Greater attention to the potential of faculty and staff leadership and how to effectively support their efforts is needed.

In the paper, a case is made for emphasizing faculty and staff leadership in campus sustainability efforts and several successful strategies for overcoming barriers are presented.

The purpose of this paper is to examine how a cohort of university faculty leaders in Canadian universities conceptualize sustainable development, sustainable universities, the role universities play in achieving a sustainable future, key issues facing the university, and the barriers to implementing sustainability initiatives on campus.

Research was collected through in‐depth interviews with university faculty leaders from university members of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada. Interviews included both closed and open‐ended questions and two checklists focused on sustainable development and sustainable universities. Interview transcripts are analyzed through the identification of respondent themes and using N'Vivo software.

The majority of participants demonstrated they had previously given thought to their own understanding of sustainable development, but less had thought about the term sustainable university. The majority of participants would like to see their institutions incorporate sustainability in the avenues of education, research and daily operations. Participants agreed that the most obvious barriers to sustainability were financial and that leadership, incentive and demand are required to move forward with improving sustainability at universities.

There are few studies that explore the conceptualizations of sustainability, what constitutes a “sustainable university” and what role universities should play in achieving sustainability held by major stakeholders, including faculty leaders. Higher education scholars share a reasonably common understanding of these concepts, but if universities are accountable for creating a sustainable future, all university stakeholders too must share a common understanding. This paper attempts to make a contribution to this significant gap in the literature.

With over 3,000 academic journals in the fields of Business and Economics, most academics face a hard time selecting an adequate journal to submit their work to. In today's demanding academic environment and with the presence of different journal ranking lists (JRLs), the selection becomes more difficult when considering employment, promotion and funding. The purpose of this paper is to explore key differences among multiple JRLs pertinent to the latter common objectives. An extensive analysis is conducted to compare the content of journals in the Australian Business Deans Council (ABDC) Journal Quality list, Scopus and Web of Science (WoS) in the fields of Business and Economics. Then, a case of a university with medium research output is considered where scholarly performance evaluation is based on the ABDC Journal Quality List.

After ranking journals in the fields of Business and Economics based on SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) indicator, JCR's Journal Impact Factor (JIF) and JCR's Eigenfactor (EF), a methodology is proposed to categorize journals in the three JRLs into the same categorization adopted by ABDC. The latter establishes a way to compare the four JRLs under consideration and serves as a basis to compare and analyze the content of journals in the ABDC Journal Quality list, Scopus and WoS. As a proxy impact metric, a normalized citation count is associated with each article based on Google Scholar. The publications of the considered university are then evaluated from the perspective of the four JRLs in terms of citation-based impact and quality while considering the exposure to popular world university ranking tables.

For journals classified under fourth tier by ABDC, over 53 and 59% are not indexed by Scopus and WoS, respectively. In this case study, over 42% of the publications appear in journals that are not listed in JCR despite the fact that over 94% of them are listed by the SJR list. Generally, publications that appear in journals listed by JCR achieve, on a yearly average, significantly higher citation rates when compared to those that appear in journals listed in ABDC and SJR Lists.

A four-tier mapping is proposed for consistent comparison among JRLs. Normalized citation count associated with each article based on Google Scholar is employed for evaluation. The findings provide recommendations for scholars, administrators and global universities, including Euro-Med Universities, on which JRL can be more influential for both faculty development and positioning of the university.

With today’s business faculty being tasked with making meaningful contributions to their community, corporate stakeholders, as well as in research and student learning, this makes faculty engagement and performance outputs key to metrics of college success. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to understand how faculty engage in shared governance at the college level is important to ensure success of the college.

The authors searched for research that examined governance structures in colleges of business and found this has received scant attention. After reviewing the research examining university governance, the authors evaluate how faculty engage in shared governance at the college level.

The authors identify four categories of decision-making that often involve shared governance and outline different shared governance options for colleges of business, along with their pros and cons. The authors posit that the most appropriate governance approach for a college of business depends upon the college’s external environment, culture and other contextual dimensions. Finally, guidance for future research and practice, including considerations for changing governance, is provided.

How colleges of business operationalize their governance structures has received scant attention in the management literature.

This paper reports on a comprehensive study of business schools in the UK. Data were obtained from two mail surveys ‐ one of faculty members and the other of deans from all of the UK business schools. Among the factors studied were demographic and institutional characteristics; the time faculty spends on major activities; faculty rewards, competencies and networks; faculty interaction with business; receptivity and support for increased interaction; benefits of increased interaction; characteristics of faculty who do applied research; barriers to applied research; and the role of advisory boards. The results show an internal alignment of activities and rewards for teaching and research, but limited support for applied and collaborative research, and a divergence between the two principal activities ‐ academic research and teaching. Interaction by business school with business appears to be mostly information passing.

Faculty participation in the assurance of learning (AoL) is requisite both for the effective operation of the system and for accreditation compliance, but faculty often resist engaging in AoL tasks. The purpose of this paper is to provide specific recommendations to address faculty concerns and to guide AoL systems toward maturity.

This paper provides a comprehensive model of faculty resistance perspectives aligned to AoL maturity, provides specific responses to faculty resistance and introduces success markers of progress toward maturity.

Specifically, a three-stage model of AoL system maturity is presented and aligned with five faculty perspectives. For each faculty perspective, responses targeting causal factors are proposed and signs of progress toward the next level of faculty engagement are highlighted.

Faculty and AoL leaders will be able to identify their current stage of AoL system maturity and implement practical solutions to move to the next stage of system maturity.

Understanding the motivations for faculty resistance will facilitate more meaningful and effective internal interactions as a school seeks to improve its AoL system. In turn, a more effective AoL system will promote better learning experiences for students; and better learning allows students to become productive in their chosen careers more quickly, thus improving society as a whole.

To the knowledge, no prior paper has organized faculty resistance along a maturity continuum, provided targeted responses based on the level of maturity or included signs that indicate growth toward the next level of maturity.

This study investigated how behavioral and emotional forms of engagement are associated with faculty support and student-faculty interactions among engineering students.

Quantitative research methods were used to analyze survey data from 781 undergraduates in seven large undergraduate engineering courses. Linear hierarchical regression models were used to evaluate the relationships between demographics (gender, race/ethnicity, family education, US status and transfer status) and student engagement and between faculty behaviors and engagement.

Faculty support was consistently, significantly and positively linked to all forms of student engagement, while student-faculty interactions were significantly and positively linked to effort and positive emotional engagement and negatively linked to attention and (an absence of) negative emotional engagement. Gender, race/ethnicity, international student status and transfer status significantly predicted at least one form of engagement.

Although this was a single institution study and cross-sectional, the findings suggest that faculty support and student-faculty interactions, while important for engagement, have different effects on different types of students. Faculty and teacher professional development efforts should raise awareness of these differences in order to enhance diversity and inclusion in engineering courses and curricula at all levels.

The analysis of behavioral and emotional forms of engagement represents more of a motivational lens on engagement in contrast to the traditional focus on time-on-task or time spent in fruitful educational practices, as is the norm with much of the engagement literature in higher education.

In the fall of 1996, Walstad suggested that the economics profession needed to obtain the students' perspective on the choice of major. The purpose of this paper is to examine the factors that influence the choice of major.

To recruit majors and to address Walstad's concern, economics and non‐economics majors were surveyed to determine which factors they consider important when choosing a major and to better understand why some students never consider economics.

The results suggest that interest in the subject, expected marketability, performance in major classes, and the approachability and teaching reputation of the faculty are influential to the choice of major.

The results may help the profession address enrollment issues, including the disproportionate number of women in the major.