Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] Date: 11 January 2016, At: 21:07
Journal of Education for Business
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
A Review of “Redesigning Management Education
and Research: Challenging Proposals From
European Scholars”
James L. Morrison
To cite this article: James L. Morrison (2013) A Review of “Redesigning Management Education and Research: Challenging Proposals From European Scholars”, Journal of Education for Business, 88:6, 366-367, DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2012.716463
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2012.716463
Published online: 26 Aug 2013.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 29
JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS, 88: 366–367, 2013 CopyrightC Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0883-2323 print / 1940-3356 online DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2012.716463
Book Review
Dameron, Stephanie, and Durand, Thomas. Redesigning Management Education and Research: Challenging Pro-posals From European Scholars. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. (2012). 256 pp. ISBN: 978-0-85793-358-4.$110.00.
A EUROPEAN VIEW ON DETERMINING QUALITY MANAGEMENT EDUCATION AND
RESEARCH
Redesigning Management Education and Research: Chal-lenging Proposals From European Scholarsraises issues in regards to determining quality business programs and corre-sponding research output which may be in need of addressing by a global audience of educators. The context for discus-sion and analysis is the current university-based American assessment model for management education. The readings focus upon how traditional Western-base standards for assur-ing the quality of management education (generally adopted worldwide through AASCB criteria and other scholarly rat-ing organizations) may not be appropriate for a diverse world. Being an edited text of readings, the authors in the publication are primarily European management scholars, thus providing a non-Western perspective as to the future of management education.
The editors, Dameron and Durand, initiate discussion by stating that enrollment in university business programs, as well as other kinds of business schools, has been increasing considerably worldwide. Correspondingly, more research is being conducted and thus published every year. The issue raised early in the text questions the fairness of the current process of how business programs are being rated against each other in an effort to identify those of high quality. The argument presented is that the current rating system and the requirements to become a major player in the field of man-agement have led to misdirected results. An example used is that of rewarding faculty and their institutions for publish-ing theoretical research in quality refereed journals and thus undermining the practical value now assigned to writing a textbook or publishing a practical piece in a less scholarly journal.
Another related question raised is to what extent is the knowledge produced by researchers at Western universities in particular appropriate for meeting the needs within a
multi-cultural and diverse political environment, such as a family business in Tunisia or a cooperative in Brazil? In other words, has scholarly inquiry based on a Western perspective become irrelevant in a global environment? The conclusion by these European authors is that business schools, relying on a West-ern standard-based ranking system, have lost their way while competing in a game of rankings. They also argue that Euro-pean business schools make a mistake in blindly following their North American leaders. In other words, a new set of regulations and guidelines may be needed to avoid a catas-trophe in the field of management education.
The target audience for the text of readings is faculty and administrators of both undergraduate and graduate business programs in addition to those accrediting organizations that set the standards of performance, such as AACSB and the
U.S. News and World Report. The discussion of management education in totality, that is teaching, research, and service, adds to the intensity of the message that change needs to occur in how we set criteria and then determine acceptable quality. In this instance, the authors are calling for a collective action for devising new strategies and criteria for redesigning management education and research.
The text is divided into four discrete parts. Part I of the readings describes the foundation of management education by providing an historical perspective to the discipline. Three French scholars give an in-depth portrayal of how manage-ment education has evolved over the past several decades. In this regard, Eric Godelier alludes to an historical interplay between the social sciences and management education. Ro-main Lufer compares how the disciplines of law and business management have been somewhat closely related over the past decades. He points out through an historical perspec-tive that both teaching and research in management have been somewhat directly connected to that in law. Finally, Armand Hatchuel attempts to carefully delineate manage-ment research as both a social and a cognitive science. He introduces the need for research to result in a “collective ac-tion,” thus having a significant impact upon resolving issues affecting both organizations and society simultaneously.
Part II focuses on proposing changes in the existing con-tent of management education and the corresponding re-search being currently generated. In this part of the readings, three authors from France and one from the United King-dom give their views on misdirected teaching, content, and
BOOK REVIEW 367
service. For example, a co-authors Alain Martinet and Marielle Payaud of France argue that how faculty are as-sessed in terms of their publications and research has re-warded theoretical output at the expense of practical solu-tions to complex problems. Specifically, business programs and their faculty do not engage students in learning how to modify corporate governance in order to develop appropri-ate business policies that result in advancing the quality of output. Similarly, Pete McKiernan of the United Kingdom suggests that there is a need to remove business research and classroom teaching from much of the irrelevancy that has emerged. In this regard, the rating systems used for judging the quality of teaching and research have resulted in ques-tionable output that does not advance the improvement of managerial practices in organizations throughout the world. Therefore, program content is becoming irrelevant.
Part III is dedicated to redesigning the current evalua-tive schemes utilized to determine business program quality, including individual contributions made by faculty. In this regard, Eric Cournel from Belgium makes several propos-als for revising current assessment practices by challeng-ing the reliance upon primarily journal publications as the central component for determining quality. Dennis Tourish, also from Belgium, examines how performance pressures to publish in approved journals has result in a proliferation of journal ranking systems that may actually undermine the production of useful and relevant research output.
Finally, Part IV offers direction for future action. Julienne Brabet and Thomas Durand of France suggest an evalua-tive strategy for encouraging, supporting and delineating the production of high-quality books. They emphasize the need to elevate the significance of publishing scholarly books as a basis for rewarding the best academics and their institu-tions, similar to the current process utilized for identifying quality journals. They also identify four categories of books in their proposal; those being, research readings, teaching-oriented textbooks, pretext-books that offer solutions to com-plex problems, and reason-books on management processes that are for the public consumption, rather than academics. Similarly, Pierre-Jean Benghozi, also of France, provides in-sight of the proposals included in French Academy of Man-agement position paper on how rankings may be more ef-fectively determined for identifying the best institutions for teaching and research. An intriguing alternative introduced is the promotion of a diverse journal ranking system that varies according to the publication expectations of academic institutions around the world. Another idea proposed is that of including the assessment of the quality of online journals in rankings, rather than restricting these to printed journals. A third proposal is that of creating an Internet portal listing of all the management publications worldwide.
The strength of the text of readings is a new set of ideas for revising the current system for judging what quality is and what is not. The current Western-based system is chal-lenged for its inflexibility, bias towards journal publications, and lack of relevancy for solving global managerial issues. The authors defend the position that having one single rank-ing system (or even a few) based on specifically American standards is damaging the reputation of management edu-cation worldwide. Thus, there is a need to generate diverse ranking practices better fitting the variety of business faculty and their institutions that have varying audiences and objec-tives. A better approach for getting this accomplished is to develop a new procedure for not only identifying a new cadre of scholarly reviewers but also publicizing their credentials for transparency in the view process. Having more openness in the peer review process as to publication policies, scope of disciplines published, target audience, and qualifications of reviewers would enhance the relevancy of the field of management generally.
On the other hand, while things can always get better, the need for a revolution in the way we determine quality of our research may be overstated. The authors appear to be quite ambitious in proposing a new set of regulations and guide-lines that realign criteria that is much broader in scope than in the past. Making generalized statements about books on management currently being an irrelevant academic endeavor (as compare to publishing in refereed journals) appears to be troublesome. The major differences in the writing and edit-ing processes associated with books and journal articles may prevent the creation of comparative ranking systems with the objective of determining the best. Therefore, proposing a new assessment framework to replace existing Western practices and expectations is a bold proposal that may be an overreaction to existing practices. However, the opportunity for debate is now at hand as to what direction management education should take.
The text is a call to action to revise current ranking prac-tices, especially in regards to standards of excellence. The argument that business programs may be on the verge of an ‘academic bubble’ is based on the notion that we have lost touch with reality as reflected in the present system for identifying quality work. However, there is always room for open discussion of issues affecting the reputation of busi-ness programs.This book of readings may be a first useful step.
James L. Morrison
University of Delaware Newark, Delaware, USA