Search results

The purpose of this editorial is to introduce the set of papers which comprise this issue of the journal, and to provide an interpretation of the current strategic debates about the future evolution of business school paradigms and, hence, identify possible strategic options.

The papers can be categorized into three broad themes: first, the impacts and environmental influences on management education including issues of globalization, global sustainability and advances in digital and social media. Second, challenges and criticisms of management education covering issues of legitimacy, business model sustainability and the need for change in business models. Third, the re‐invention of business schools and the creation of alternative models of management education and approaches for effective implementation and delivery of those models.

Globalization is an important environmental influence. Arnoud de Meyer, the President of SMU, offers his reflections. The paper by Peter Lacy and his colleagues at Accenture builds on the theme of globalization by examining the new era of global sustainability in the management arena. In discussing the second theme of challenges and criticisms, David Wilson and Howard Thomas examine the continued legitimacy of the business school with respect to both academic legitimacy in the university and business relevance and thought leadership legitimacy in the management community. Kai Peters and Howard Thomas address the issue of the sustainability of the current business school financial model and question whether it is too luxurious. Santiago Iñiguez and Salvador Carmona reinforce this urgent need to review the sustainability and viability of the existing business school models. Building on the importance of technology impacts, James Fleck illustrates how the Open University Business School (OUBS), the leader and pioneer in blended and distance learning in management education, has focused on further developing models of blended learning which will challenge the current weak adoption of such models in well‐known business schools. Rich Lyons, on the other hand, presents a thoughtful analysis of the careful implementation of a completely new MBA curriculum at the well‐regarded Haas Business School at Berkeley. Peter Lorange's “network‐based” model, on the other hand, is the most radical change model. Granit Almog‐Bareket's leadership paper offers one perspective on the importance of business school leadership in creating the conditions for innovative and insightful management of business school futures.

Clearly, debates and criticisms of business schools will continue to be addressed. It is a sign of a healthy academic and management community that such debates – particularly through the auspices of EMFD – can be presented in an open and constructive manner, as in this special issue of the Journal of Management Development.

This paper aims to consider the range of technologies currently affecting the business school world, and to draw out some of the implications and ramifications that we should bear in mind.

Drawing on insights from other analyses of technology development, the paper starts from a broad view of technology as including organisational and cultural aspects as well as the narrowly instrumental “hardware” aspects to analyse how technology is affecting how business schools will operate in the future.

Several important general observations are argued for: first, technical elements can be used in different ways to realise a range of distinct business and learning models. Second, technology can be deployed either to sustain existing operations or to disrupt them in fundamental ways. And third, those running Business Schools can, and should, actively “shape” technology, as otherwise they shall by default become victims of its impact.

The paper reveals that, deans must ensure their schools actively explore the immense potential and the wide ramifications of the new technologies coming on stream in the context of increasing globalisation, rather than just waiting to adopt passively the technologies that become available. That is, they should become technology makers rather than merely technology takers. Nevertheless, deans should also remember that technology is always just the means to an end, and so they have to be clear about what their purposes (ends) actually are.

The purpose of this paper is to address the nature and development of blended learning and the emerging notion of learning communities, with particular reference to management and business education.

In total, four specific models are explored to highlight some of the issues involved and the challenges and opportunities arising. These models draw primarily on experience with the UK's Open University, arguably the most successful exponent of blended learning and widely emulated around the world. In particular, the simplistic idea of “content” versus delivery is critiqued, the primacy of technology rather than pedagogy is challenged and the importance of fine operational details in achieving an appropriate fit for the required purposes is stressed.

There is no doubt that blended learning will become more prevalent. Even conventional face‐to‐face campus‐based teaching operations will use on‐line activities as important supporting elements, and information and resources available over the web will take over from printed library resources.

The challenges and opportunities of blended learning are summarized in this paper.

The centrality of emotions to all significant social, indeed human activities is now broadly acknowledged. Nevertheless, discussion of emotions in core activities of science, as distinct from the motivation of scientists, is undeveloped. In reviewing the role of emotions in science the paper shows that emotions provide consciousness of objects of scientific relevance. It is also shown that emotions necessary to scientific activities are typically experienced nonconsciously. These two issues, of emotional consciousness and nonconscious experience of emotion, raise a number of questions for the study of both consciousness and emotions.

George Herbert Mead is an exemplary figure in sociology, and is central to sociological conceptions of the self and social action. However, other important aspects of Mead's thought have been largely neglected, including his remarkably sophisticated and sociological theory of scientific knowledge. Traditional accounts of the sociology of science identify Thomas Kuhn, and his predecessor, Ludwig Fleck, as pioneers in the social analysis of scientific knowledge, allowing the modern constructionist school of science studies to emerge. This article challenges this history by showing Mead's awareness of the sociological aspects of scientific knowledge in papers that predate both Kuhn and Fleck. Finally, Mead's position attempts to avoid sociological relativism, and offers instead a pragmatist foundation to approach the study of science.

Communications regarding this column should be addressed to Mrs. Cheney, Peabody Library School, Nashville, Term. 37203. Mrs. Cheney does not sell the books listed here. They are available through normal trade sources. Mrs. Cheney, being a member of the editorial board of Pierian Press, will not review Pierian Press reference books in this column. Descriptions of Pierian Press reference books will be included elsewhere in this publication.

Research and debate on the value and deployment of Indigenous Knowledge (IK) has become contentious. While many agree that it is something that is both threatened and valuable, there are enormous conceptual difficulties encountered in framing what, exactly, it is that IK proponents should be fighting to preserve. This chapter uses insights from James C. Scott’s work on legibility and Bruno Latour’s work in the sociology of knowledge to privilege what we call relative epistemological performativity. This framework stands in contrast to attempts to privilege problematic essentialist views of “indigenous,” “Western,” or “scientific” knowledge. With this framework we are able to challenge some of the “antipolitics” implicit in educational development agenda that promote cultural and cognitive homogeneity as well as find space for hybrids like using ICT to strengthen IK. Finally, we conclude that the profound differences in conceptualizing the epistemology and ontology of IK should not detract from widespread agreement on the need for pedagogical practices that protect threatened local languages, cultures, and ecological knowledge.

This paper aims to investigate how the physical and sensory environmental triggers interact with subjective consumer evaluations in the production of shopping experiences, an under-investigated theme, despite its relevance.

An interpretative multi-method approach was used by combining video observation with camera eyeglasses and in-depth interviews with 30 customers of a department store.

Results offer a holistic framework with four-dimensional axial combination involving physical comfort, psychological comfort, physical product evaluation and sensorial product evaluation. Based on this framework, results highlight the role of comfort and products in producing shopping experience in ordinary store visits.

The findings contribute both to consumer experience studies and to the retail marketing literature in shading a light on experience production in ordinary store visits. Specifically, we detail these visits not as a static response to a given environment stimulus, but as a simultaneous objective and subjective combination able to produce experience.

The results encourage managers to understand the experience production not just as an outcome of managerially influenced elements, like décor or odor. It involves considering subjective elements in the design of consumers’ physical and sensorial retail experiences.

Adopting an innovative method of empirical data collection, results generated a framework that integrates the objective shopping environment and subjective consumer responses. This research considers the role of comfort and product features and quality both physically and sensorially to develop experiences in a holistic manner in ordinary shopping visits.

WHERE are we going? The aim is to double our standard of living in the next 25 years and, as Sir Alexander Fleck, K.B.E., Chairman of Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd., so aptly staled recently, ‘The man who knows where he is going is the one who is most likely to arrive.’ One might venture to expand this statement by adding that he is still more likely to arrive if the cluttering debris of inefficient methods and movements are cleared away.