Management Learning http://mlq.sagepub.com

Accreditation Sickness in the Consumption of Business Education: The Vacuum in AACSB Standard Setting Anthony Lowrie and Hugh Willmott Management Learning 2009; 40; 411 DOI: 10.1177/1350507609335851 The online version of this article can be found at: http://mlq.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/40/4/411

Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Management Learning can be found at: Email Alerts: http://mlq.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://mlq.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav Citations http://mlq.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/40/4/411

Downloaded from http://mlq.sagepub.com by Hugh Wilmott on December 1, 2009

Management Learning Copyright © The Author(s), 2009. Reprints and permissions: http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav http://mlq.sagepub.com Anniversary Issue Vol. 40(4): 411–420 1350–5076

Article

Anthony Lowrie Minnesota State University, USA

Hugh Willmott University of Cardiff, UK

Accreditation Sickness in the Consumption of Business Education: The Vacuum in AACSB Standard Setting Abstract This article examines peer-administered accreditation in business education, taking AACSB (Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business) as its focus. Attention is directed to the educationally unhealthy consequences of an established regional mode of accreditation becoming an international benchmark for business education consumption. At the heart of the AACSB’s mission-linked approach is an evacuation of core content from business education. The change to a mission-linked architecture was motivated, it is argued, primarily by expansionist, rather than pedagogical, considerations. It coincided with a reduction in the number of US researchbased schools unaccredited, the inability of many US-business schools to meet AACSB’s previous standards, the emergence of a rival accreditation agency (Association of Collegiate Business Schools and Programs) formed to target this market, and international competition from other accreditation bodies. We note that the mission-linked approach, underpinned by peer-review, has been good for AACSB growth but has, we suggest, been restrictive and unhealthy for business education that does not fit its ostensibly flexible and accommodating mould. Key Words: AACSB; accreditation; peer review Introduction ‘. . . University Business School . . . is the first and best business school in . . . It is the only business school in . . . to be doubly accredited by both AACSB and EQUIS’ (jobs.ac.uk, 2008)

In the 40 years since Management Learning was established, regimes of accreditation have become an increasingly significant and imposing feature of the global DOI: 10.1177/1350507609335851 Downloaded from http://mlq.sagepub.com by Hugh Wilmott on December 1, 2009

412

Management Learning 40(4) Anniversary Issue

management education landscape, as the foregoing extract from a recent job advert attests. For business schools, the appeal of gaining accreditation is not difficult to grasp: ‘It puts a seal of approval, so to speak, on what we do as a school’. ‘When it comes to recruiting of students and recruiting of faculty, it’s a critical additional affirmation that we’re a place worth coming to.’ (Paul Bates, Dean of the DeGroote School, McMaster University on the occasion of obtaining AACSB accreditation. (See DeGroote, 2006)

Commentaries on the role of accreditation in ‘professionalizing’ management education tend to address the positive implications (e.g. Porter and McKibbin, 19881). In contrast, studies that are attentive to the impacts upon curriculum design and learning from accreditation institutions are atypical.2 Symptomatic of this imbalance, a recent ‘systematic review of the literature on higher education marketing’ (Hemsley-Brown and Oplatka, 2006) does not even consider accreditation. Perhaps the absence of studies on the operation and effects of accreditation processes reflects a widespread confidence in their positive, uncontentious contribution (Scherer et al., 2005). Or might it be that faculty in business schools are nervous about the unflattering prospect of ‘fall out’ that might be produced by a detailed study? After all, the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) has recently been likened to ‘a group of foxes guarding the MBA henhouses’ (Navarro, 2008: 120). There are many aspects of accreditation that could be subjected to close examination. Here, we attend to the shift to a mission-linked approach to accreditation adopted by the largest and most influential of the US-based bodies, the AACSB, and emulated by its national competitors, the ACBSP (Association of Collegiate Business Schools and Programs) and IACBE (International Assembly for Collegiate Business Education). We associate the shift to a mission approach with ‘the dwindling number of research-based schools remaining unaccredited’, the failure of many US-business schools able or willing to meet AACSB’s previous standards and the formation of the ACBSP in 1988 to target this market3 (see Casile and Davis-Blake, 2002: esp. 182; Roller et al., 2003; Julian and Ofori-Dankwa, 2006). Moreover, internationalizing of accreditation brought AACSB head-tohead with non-US based accreditation bodies.4 At the centre of our analysis is the contention that the exclusion of issues of content from the pyramid-style, peer-administered architecture of the AACSB’s mission-linked approach stems as much from its pursuit of expansionary ambitions as from its case for diversity, innovation and inclusion.

Pitching for a Global Market AACSB presents itself as ‘the world’s leader in the advancement of management education’ (AACSB, 2007b) and promotes itself as an authoritative guide to consumer choice in the business education marketplace. Founded in 1916, its initial membership included Harvard, Columbia, Stanford and Wharton. Since the early 1990s, AACSB membership has grown rapidly. By 2006, there were 1060 members from 72 countries and 527 accredited members from 30 countries

Downloaded from http://mlq.sagepub.com by Hugh Wilmott on December 1, 2009

Lowrie & Willmott: Accreditation Sickness in the Consumption of Business Education

413

(AACSB, 2007b). Extending AACSB accreditation to non-US members carries risks of product substitution and intensifying competition as widening AACSB accreditation threatens to reduce the reputational differential between the core membership of US schools and non-US competitors. Set against this is the greater risk, from an AACSB perspective, of leaving unchallenged indigenous accreditation bodies and associated processes (e.g. EQUIS—the European Quality Improvement System) that might eventually rival or even displace the AACSB.

The Conservatism of Peer Review The list of accredited institutions (561 at 12 April 2008—see aacsb.edu, 2008) is notable with respect to intellectual and social standing. Its homogeneity is remarkable, yet it is hardly surprising, given AACSB’s historical formation and peerreview mode of accreditation. As AACSB accredited schools are ‘elite’ institutions, it is to be expected that there is little representation of concerns which escape the priorities of elites (see Jantzen and Pendleton, 1994; Stensaker, 1998), although the requirement to be attentive to the concerns of existing members exists in a relation of some tension with expansionary ambitions. As a peerreviewed accrediting body, AACSB is hardly unusual in acting to: (a) diminish the value of knowledge production taking place outside elitism; (b) exclude the vast majority of business schools from involvement in improvement; and (c) put resources into elitism rather than supporting education for a much broader-based set of constituencies. The emergence of other accreditation bodies, as well as the retention of elitist screening measures within AACSB’s mission-linked response to their formation, are indicators of this orientation. The peer-pyramid, mission-linked approach provides existing members with the reassurance that applicants for AACSB accreditation are subjected to a uniform set of procedures for assessing any specific mission. In principle, a diverse range of missions from ‘lesser’ business schools might be accredited, which was a cause of concern for current members: ‘I think the most charged issues were those around member schools who had gone through the accreditation process wanting to make sure that nothing was done that would make it ‘easier’ for an international school (AACSB respondent)’ (Durand and McGuire, 2005: 178). However, the potential negative impact upon the reputation of existing AACSB members is cushioned by procedures that operate to: (a) restrict dilution of the American learning model and (b) substantiate plausible differences in learning outputs for those consumers willing to pay the premium for the ‘superior’ AACSB accredited business school. This stratagem was evident in the early move to extend accreditation to non-US schools. To minimize the risk of accepting schools that might depart from an American format, AACSB’s selection of the first nonUS ‘pilot schools’ involved ‘focusing on schools (and educational contexts) more readily accepted by their existing membership’ (Durand and McGuire, 2005: 182). Not surprisingly, the AACSB’s approach to accreditation has attracted criticism from those who complain that ‘AACSB is “too American”, too homogeneous. This is its weakness. Its strengths rest in the “steamroller” aspects of the American model’ (Associate Dean of a European business school with experience of both AACSB accreditation and the European-based EQUIS accreditation processes, quoted in

Downloaded from http://mlq.sagepub.com by Hugh Wilmott on December 1, 2009

414

Management Learning 40(4) Anniversary Issue

Durand and McGuire, 2005: 181, emphases added). For schools willing to comply with the uniform, ‘steamroller aspects’ of the AACSB ‘model’, accreditation is nonetheless comparatively straightforward even if it is lengthy, costly and administratively demanding.

Mission-Linked Approach In 1991, members approved a shift from universally applied standards to a mission-linked model incorporating a peer-review process with a more recent emphasis upon continuous improvement in achieving the school-specific mission. The mission-linked approach, revised in 2003,5 relies upon a distinction between content and process. Illustrative of this approach is the recommendation of the AACSB’s Ethics Education Task Force Report: While the task force does not prescribe a particular curriculum or course, it recommends that AACSB encourage its member schools and their faculties to renew and revitalize their commitment to ethical responsibility at both the individual and organizational levels. (AACSB, 2004: 14; see also aacsb.edu, n.d.)

Schools determine the content of what they offer whilst the peer-reviewed accreditation process evaluates procedures for delivering that content. The most recent standards require that learning goals are set and monitored but what is included in, or excluded from, the learning process is contingent upon the mission. There is no core curriculum for, or minimal level of provision of, for example, ethics education. As Grossman (2001) remarks, when addressing the effect of the mission-linked formula upon the teaching of management science as part of the previously core MBA curriculum, ‘AACSB has no required body of knowledge’. ‘This’, he continues, ‘has meant that schools could cut management science without harming their accreditation. And cut they did, with many programs (including Harvard, Stanford, Chicago and Tuck) reducing or eliminating management science from the required core’. In a similar vein, Swanson and Frederick (2003: 26) have pointed out how, for the same reasons, the mission-linked approach can ‘contribute directly to reducing or eliminating the number of professors teaching ethics in business schools’ (see also Swanson and Frederick, n.d.). AACSB combines an accommodation of alternative missions and evacuation of universally applied standards for content, including ethics not in keeping with the preferred ideological model to shape content for ‘freely chosen’ missions. According to AACSB, the mission-linked approach accommodates ‘diverse paths to achieving high quality in management education’ (AACSB, 1991). What ‘high quality’ means is unspecified. It is a floating signifier that, in principle, can be ascribed to any submission. What all accredited members are held to have in common—‘the preparation of students to enter useful professional, societal, and personal lives’—also floats with ambiguity. ‘Useful’ with regard to what counts as ‘professional’ or ‘societal’ is also unexplicated. In contrast to this silence, AACSB’s mission-linked accreditation incorporates the setting of demanding input measures, such as percentage of academically qualified faculty

Downloaded from http://mlq.sagepub.com by Hugh Wilmott on December 1, 2009

Lowrie & Willmott: Accreditation Sickness in the Consumption of Business Education

415

(number of faculty with PhDs and current research/publications), while giving discretionary power to the institution seeking accreditation for the setting of output goals. Accreditation aspires to assess whether the measures adequately match the mission but there is flexibility to accommodate some (undisclosed) forms of input and output substitution to meet the mission.6 With regard to undergraduates, for example, AACSB requires that ‘Students achieve knowledge and skills for successful performance in a complex environment requiring intellectual ability to organize work, make and communicate sound decisions, and react successfully to unanticipated events’ (AACSB, 2007a). As with references to quality and usefulness, what counts as ‘successful’ or a ‘sound decision’ is assumed either to be self-evident or perhaps to defy definition on the grounds that it is wholly contingent upon the particular mission of individual schools.7 Where requirements are (minimally) elaborated, they are followed by a disclaimer: ‘While schools may wish to include some of these concepts in their learning goals for specific programs, there is no requirement to do so. The learning goals developed by each institution should fit the mission of that institution and the particular degree program’ (AACSB, 2007a).

Discussion It would seem clear that the absence of any universally applied standards, combined with input–output flexibility with regard to the mission, has enabled AACSB to expand internationally as well as nationally (see McKee et al., 2005). The mission-linked approach has undoubtedly facilitated the national and global expansion of AACSB (see, for example, McKee et al., 2005). Notably, it has facilitated the accreditation of non-US schools willing to comply with AACSB’s US-embedded conception of acceptable ‘missions’ and with associated measures assessed to demonstrate the applicant institution’s capacity to realize its favoured mission. Milton Blood, as Managing Director of Accreditation Services at AACSB, characterized the new standards as follows: ‘We have now created standards in a much more universal language that allows us the flexibility of identifying quality globally. We accredit schools in 22 countries and that number is growing’ (Thompson, 2004: 437–8). Expansion has been enabled by the abandonment of any core curriculum and, according to a recent survey of ‘top-ranked US business schools, ‘the inability—or perhaps unwillingness—of the AACSB to transform its own task force recommendations and stated standards into widespread and concrete curriculum changes’ (Navarro, 2008: 120). If this picture is to be believed, it would seem that the AACSB’s shift to a mission-linked approach has resulted not only in the erosion, if not elimination, of any core curriculum but also in an institutionalized ‘inability’ or ‘unwillingness’ to fill this vacuum with its own favoured recommendations and standards. At the very least, the absence of an obligation upon its members to meet non-mission specific standards—such as the necessary inclusion of ethics in the curriculum—is difficult to reconcile with the claim that AACSB accreditation ‘represent(s) the highest standard of achievement for business schools, worldwide. Institutions that earn accreditation confirm their commitment to quality and

Downloaded from http://mlq.sagepub.com by Hugh Wilmott on December 1, 2009

416

Management Learning 40(4) Anniversary Issue

Figure 1 ‘Harvard business school raises a laugh’ the Independent 3 March 2002 (independent.co.uk, 2002)

The words ‘Harvard Business School’ rarely raise a laugh. Respect, maybe. Fear, sometimes. But not a laugh. That was until Jeffrey Skilling, the chief executive of Enron, gave evidence to the Senate Commerce Committee last Tuesday. Mr Skilling said he was not an accountant, so he did not have an understanding of the manipulation of the energy giant’s accounts through special purpose entities. He said he did not know enough to see that there was anything wrong with these deals, which kept debts off Enron’s books and made millions for company insiders and their partners. Senator Barbara Boxer, a Californian Democrat, expressed her disbelief. ‘Where were you educated?’ she asked. ‘Harvard Business School,’ replied Mr Skilling, prompting enough laughter to bring the house down.

continuous improvement through a rigorous and comprehensive peer review’. (aacsb.edu/accreditation, n.d.). But, of course, reconciliation is possible because whatever counts as the ‘highest standard of achievement’ is entirely mission-defined and mission-specific. The credibility of such reconciliation is placed in question, however, by the recollection that alumni of AACSB-accredited institutions have been held responsible for Enron (see Figure 1) and other corporate scandals. (See, for example, Corporate Narc, 2009 and wikipedia [corporate], n.d.) Why has there been a deafening silence on such matters from accreditation bodies (see Swanson and Frederick, 2003; Swanson, 2004)? Perhaps it is because in the case of AACSB at least, the mission-linked model places no requirement upon schools with regard to the content of what is taught, or not taught, outside of the American model (see Stella and Spooner, 2007) but can apply considerable pressure via peer review resulting in ‘dramaturgical compliance’ (Barrow, 1999).8 What is much clearer is that the expansionist strategy pursued by AACSB is financially rewarding. Membership does not come cheap. The initial application fee for business (without accounting) is $11,000, with a further pre-accreditation fee of $3,800 and an annual renewal fee of $3,800 for institutions on a five-year accreditation review cycle (aacsb.edu/accreditation/fees, 2006–2009). For aspiring members, this is not, however, the most significant cost. The greater, less visible cost arises from attending pre-accreditation workshops and the faculty time involved in preparing the documentation for accreditation, reaccreditation and increased faculty salaries following accreditation. Roberts, Johnson and Groesbeck (2004: 112) calculate, that ‘even a small school . . . can easily exceed $500,000 per year’. Given the considerable burdens of accreditation, institutions may prefer not to seek AACSB accreditation. But which of them can afford not to pay the dues for protection afforded by this club?9

Conclusion The intention of this article has been to provoke reflection, debate and perhaps foster critical scrutiny of the business of accrediting business education. Our examination of AACSB accreditation has been exploratory and necessarily Downloaded from http://mlq.sagepub.com by Hugh Wilmott on December 1, 2009

Lowrie & Willmott: Accreditation Sickness in the Consumption of Business Education

417

selective, not least because of the limited space at our disposal and the paucity of publicly available evidence relevant to presenting or qualifying our analysis.10 The financial incentive for AACSB expansion offers an important but partial explanation of its development. We have interpreted expansion as a pre-emptive strike against the ambitions—real or imagined—of competitor accreditation bodies in order to secure the dominance of a US-model of management education and thereby the continuing growth of AACSB. Success of the pre-emptive strategy has, of course, been contingent upon the acceptability of the mission-linked approach to the identification and assessment of standards. A key strength attributed to the mission-linked approach is its fostering of diversity. The practice of this principle, we have suggested, is compromised, however, by reliance upon an inherently conservative process of peer-review exercised by existing members. In this regard, we cited evidence of how the move away from a universal standards approach was initially resisted by existing members who believed that it would degrade the value of AACSB accreditation—a source of discontent that was in all likelihood quelled by the reassurance of peer review (Durand and McGuire, 2005: 178). Available evidence also suggests ‘dramaturgical compliance’ (Barrow, 1999) with the mission-linked approach (Stella and Spooner, 2007; Navarro, 2008). At the very least, this change of approach has involved a minimal, or formally compliant, accommodation of the abandonment of universally applied pedagogical standards by AACSB members who bear collective responsibility for the strategy. We leave it to members and defenders of the AACSB to contest our conjecture that the evacuation of a core curriculum from the mission-linked approach is educationally unhealthy insofar as it stunts the development of business education that is intellectually rigorous, ethically defensible and unshackled by the monoculturalism of US-based input standards.

Notes 1. This study was commissioned by AACSB. 2. We have identified the following: McKenna et al., 1995; Casile and Davis-Blake, 2002; Miles et al., 2004; Roberts et al., 2004; Durand and McGuire, 2005; Khurana, 2007; Stella and Spooner, 2007; Navarro, 2008. 3. The IACBE was founded in 1997. 4. Zammuto (2008: 261) observes that ‘it wasn’t until the ACBSP began soliciting AACSB’s nonaccredited international members with the intention of getting them to apply for its accreditation that the AACSB was spurred to action (Flesher, 2007)’ by inviting ‘a dozen high profile business schools’ from around the world ‘to participate in a pilot program’ which ‘led to the adoption of revised standards in 2003 that better fit a global business education market (McKee, Mills and Weatherbee, 2005)’. 5. In 2003 the AACSB introduced new accreditation standards that endorsed the mission-based philosophy but also placed additional emphasis upon continuous improvement in fulfilling the identified mission. See Miles et al. (2004) and Hedin et al. (2005) for overviews and assessments. 6. As the AACSB accreditation process document emphasizes ‘Deviations from standards may be encountered that represent innovation or cultural differences that the standards have not anticipated. Evaluations must be based on the quality of the learning experience, not rigid interpretations of standards (AACSB, 2007a).

Downloaded from http://mlq.sagepub.com by Hugh Wilmott on December 1, 2009

418

Management Learning 40(4) Anniversary Issue

7. Likewise, for Masters level and MBA programmes, for which the requirement is ‘the accumulation of knowledge and abilities for participation in the business world and an understanding of how to evaluate knowledge claims in their area of focus’ (AACSB, 2007a), there is no specification of the nature of such ‘participation’ or the basis for evaluating knowledge claims. 8. Where the subject is not in keeping with the American model, peer-review can and does put pressure on faculty to change, particularly with regard to ideological positions on the subject. For example, faculty at the University of Technology, Sydney, were forced to change their position on teaching Industrial Relations on the basis that ‘AACSB provided a rationale and a depth for these studies which had not been earlier envisaged. HRM could be taught from the perspective of how it might contribute to good corporate governance with an in depth consideration of associated ethical issues’ (Stella and Spooner, 2007: 71). It is difficult to understand why IR could not provide such an ‘in-depth consideration’. 9. One answer, provided by Muuka et al. (2007), is that the costs of accreditation accounts, in substantial part, for the absence of any AACSB accredited business schools in the entire continent of Africa comprising 54 nations. 10. Despite deriving much of its income from publicly funded universities, the AACSB is not subject to the freedom of information act, and so we have necessarily had to rely upon what AACSB has been prepared to publish.

References AACSB (1991) Achieving Quality and Continuous Improvement Through Self Evaluation and Peer Review. (April 1991, rev. 1993) Tampa, FL: AACSB International. AACSB (2004) Ethics Education in Business Schools. St Louis, MO: AACSB International. AACSB (2007a) URL (accessed 12 April 2008): http://www.aacsb.edu/accreditation/ process/documents/AACSB_STANDARDS_Revised_Jan07.pdf AACSB (2007b) URL (accessed 12 April 2008): http://www.aacsb.edu/members/ ReportToMembers-2007.pdf aacsb.edu (2008) URL (accessed 12 April 2008): http://www.aacsb.edu/General/ InstLists.asp?lid=3) aacsb.edu (n.d.) URL (accessed 28 July 2008): www.aacsb.edu/resource_centers/ EthicsEdu/overview-notrequired.asp. aacsb.edu/accreditation (n.d.) URL (accessed 12 April 2008): http://www.aacsb.edu/ accreditation/ aacsb.edu/accreditation/fees (2006–2009) URL (accessed 12 April 2008): http://www. aacsb.edu/accreditation/fees.asp Barrow, M. (1999) ‘Quality Management Systems and Dramaturgical Compliance’, Quality in Higher Education 5(1): 27–36. Casile, M., and Davis-Blake, A. (2002) ‘When Accreditation Standards Change: Factors Affecting Differential Responsiveness of Public and Private Organizations’, Academy of Management Journal 45(1): 180–95. Corporate Narc (2009) URL (accessed May 2009): http://www.corporatenarc.com/ DeGroote (2006) URL (accessed 6 April 2008): http://www.degroote.mcmaster.ca/ News/pdfs/2006-04-18_AACSB.pdf Durand, R. and McGuire, J. (2005) ‘Legitimating Agencies in the Face of Selection: The Case of AACSB’, Organization Studies 26(2): 165–96. Flesher, D. L. (2007) The History of the AACSB International, Volume 2: 1966–2006. Tampa, FL.: AACSB International.

Downloaded from http://mlq.sagepub.com by Hugh Wilmott on December 1, 2009

Lowrie & Willmott: Accreditation Sickness in the Consumption of Business Education

419

Grossman, T. A. (2001) ‘Causes of the Decline of the Business School Management Science Course’, Transactions on Education 1(2), URL (accessed 6 April 2006): http:// ite.pubs.informs.org/oldsite/Vol1No2/Grossman/Grossman.php Hedin, S. R., Barnes, C. H. and Chen, J. C. H. (2005) ‘AACSB 2003 Accreditation Standards: Impact on Continuous Quality Improvement’, International Journal of Services and Standards 1(3): 358–78. Hemsley-Brown, J. and Oplatka, I. (2006) ‘Universities in a Competitive Global Marketplace: A Systematic Review of the Literature on Higher Education Marketing’, International Journal of Public Sector Management 19(4): 316–38. independent.co.uk (2002) ‘Harvard Business School raises a laugh’, Independent 3 March, URL (accessed 12 April 2008): http://news.independent.co.uk/business/ news/article193226.ece Jantzen, R. H. and Pendleton, T. A. (1994) ‘Preferences of the American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business’, Journal of Education for Business 70(1): 6–11. jobs.ac.uk (2008) Jobs in Research, Science, Academic and Related Professions. URL (accessed 12 April 2008): http://www.jobs.ac.uk/jobs/LS979/Faculty_Positions/ Julian, S. D and Ofori-Dankwa, J. C. (2006) ‘Is Accreditation Good for the Strategic Decision Making of Traditional Business Schools?’ Academy of Management Learning and Education 5(2): 225–33. Khurana, R. (2007) From Higher Aims to Hired Hands. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. McKee, M. C. Mills, A. J. and Weatherbee, T. (2005) ‘Institutional Field of Dreams: Exploring the AACSB and the New Legitimacy of Canadian Business Schools’, Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences 22(4): 288–301. McKenna, J. F., Cotton, C. C. and Van Auken, S. (1995) ‘Business School Emphasis on Teaching, Research and Service to Industry: Does Where You Sit Determine Where You Stand?’ Journal of Organizational Change Management 8(2): 3–16. Miles, M. P., Hazeldine, M. F. and Munilla, L. S. (2004) ‘The 2003 AACSB Accreditation Standards and Implications for Business Faculty: A Short Note’, The Journal of Education for Business 80(1): 29–34. Muuka, G. K., Harrison, D. E., McCoy, J. P. and Schoenfeldt, R. (2007) ‘When Their Tomorrow Comes: African Business Schools and Strategic Management Standards of AACSB-International’, Journal of African Business 8(2): 127. Navarro, P. (2008) ‘The MBA Core Curricula of Top-Ranked US Business Schools: A Study in Failure?’ Academy of Management Learning and Education 7(1): 108–23. Porter, L. and McKibbin, L. (1988) Management Education and Development: Drift or Thrust into the 21st Century. New York: McGraw-Hill. Roberts, W. A., Johnson, R. and Groesbeck, J. (2004) ‘The Faculty Perspective on the Impact of AACSB Accreditation’, Academy of Educational Leadership Journal 8(1): 111–25. Roller, R. H., Andrews, S. L. and Bovee, K. (2003) ‘Specialized Accreditation of Business Schools: A Comparison of Alternative Costs, Benefits, and Motivations’, Journal of Education for Business? 78(4): 197–204. Scherer, R. F., Javalgi, R. G. and Bryant, M. (2005) ‘Challenges of AACSB International Accreditation for Business Schools in the United States and Europe’, Thunderbird International Business Review 47(6): 651–69. Stella, N. and Spooner, K. (2007) ‘From IR to HRM: Thank God for AACSB!’ New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations (Online) 32(2): 69–86, URL (accessed May 2009): http://www.nzjournal.org/NZJER_ISSUE_32(2).pdf Stensaker, B. (1998) ‘Assessing the Assessors: A Comparative Study’, Quality Assurance in Education 6(4): 205–11.

Downloaded from http://mlq.sagepub.com by Hugh Wilmott on December 1, 2009

420

Management Learning 40(4) Anniversary Issue

Swanson, D. L. (2004) ‘The Buck Stops Here: Why Universities Must Reclaim Business Ethics Education’, Journal of Academic Ethics 2(1): 43–61. Swanson, D. L. and Frederick, W. C. (2003) ‘Are Business Schools Still Silent Partners in Corporate Crime’, Journal of Corporate Citizenship 9: 24–7, URL (accessed 3 January 2008): http://greenleaf-publishing.com/content/pdfs/jcc09swan.pdf Swanson, D. L. and Frederick, W. C. (n.d.) URL (accessed 19 July 2008): http://info. cba.ksu.edu/swanson/Call/Call.pdf Thompson, K. R. (2004) ‘A Conversation with Milton Blood: The New AACSB Standards’, Academy of Management Learning and Education 3(4): 429–39. Wikipedia (Corporate) (n.d.) URL (accessed 12 April 2008): http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Corporate Zammuto, R. F. (2008) ‘Accreditation and the Globalization of Business’, Academy of Management Learning and Education 7(2): 256–68.

Contact Addresses Anthony Lowrie School of Business, Minnesota State University, Moorhead MN 56563 USA. [email: [email protected]] Hugh Willmott Cardiff Business School, Aberconway Building, Colum Drive, Cardiff, CF10 3EU, UK. [email: [email protected]]

Downloaded from http://mlq.sagepub.com by Hugh Wilmott on December 1, 2009