Search results

This paper aims to explore the importance of tailored faculty development for neurodiverse business educators. It focuses on how specialized support can enhance research output, teaching effectiveness and service contributions within the academic community.

This paper’s conceptual approach uses elements of autoethnography to inform and support prior theoretical and empirical work. An explication of how neurodiversity can be integrated into faculty development efforts is presented with emphasis on individualized support systems, empathetic mentorship and customized teaching and research support strategies to leverage often unrecognized abilities.

The research identifies that neuroatypical faculty possess certain strengths such as heightened problem-solving skills and attention to detail, which, when supported, can significantly enrich the academic environment. However, there is a lack of targeted support mechanisms for, and general awareness of, these faculty. The paper proposes modifications to existing faculty development activities, emphasizing general and individualized approaches to better harness the talents of neurodiverse educators.

Implementing the proposed strategies will foster an inclusive educational atmosphere while enhancing academic creativity, innovation and productivity. This approach also aligns with important trends in diversity and inclusion, promoting a more equitable and dynamic academic environment.

This research contributes to the field by extending the discourse on neurodiversity in higher education beyond student-focused initiatives to include faculty development. It provides actionable strategies to create inclusive environments that leverage the cognitive strengths of neurodiverse faculty, a relatively unexplored area in business education.

From a world society perspective, common national educational developments are driven by global cultural models that dominated an international liberal order. These models emphasized the centrality of education as an institution, both as a source of human capital and as an inherent human right. Epistemic communities and international organizations circulated these models influencing national educational policies and reforms. However, in recent decades the international liberal order has been challenged with social movements across the political spectrum questioning the value and authority of education in this order. Earlier educational mandates to be more inclusive are attacked with the rights of women, immigrants, and minorities often targeted. Confidence in knowledge grounded in education and science also gets undercut. In a more fragmented world society, educational contestations increase, reflecting surges in nationalist, populist, and traditional illiberal ideas. We reflect on the impact of these challenges on the centrality of education and propose future research directions to ascertain which educational developments are likely to continue to be globally valued and which are more apt to erode.

Patriotism is often described as the “love of country” that individuals display in the acclamation of their national community. Despite the prominence of this sentiment in various societies around the world, organizational research on patriotism is largely absent. This omission is surprising because entrepreneurs, human resource (HR) divisions, and firms frequently embrace both patriotism and patriotic organizational practices. These procedures include (among other interventions) national symbol embracing, HR practices targeted toward military members and first responders, the adulation of patriots and celebration of patriotic events, and patriotic-oriented corporate social responsibility (CSR). Here, the authors argue that research on HR management and organization studies will likely be further enhanced with a deeper understanding of the national obligation that can spur employee productivity and loyalty. In an attempt to jumpstart the collective understanding of this phenomenon, the authors explore the antecedents of patriotic organizational practices, namely, the effects of founder orientation, employee dispersion, and firm strategy. It is suggested that HR practices such as these lead to a patriotic organizational image, which in turn impacts investor, customer, and employee responses. Notably, the effect of a patriotic organizational image on firm-related outcomes is largely contingent on how it fits with the patriotic views of other stakeholders, such as investors, customers, and employees. After outlining this model, the authors then present a thought experiment of how this model may appear in action. The authors then discuss ways the field can move forward in studying patriotism in HR management and organizational contexts by outlining several future directions that span multiple levels (i.e., micro and macro). Taken together, in this chapter, the authors introduce a conversation of something quite prevalent and largely unheeded – the patriotic organization.