Search results

This study reviews the teaching of real estate in the USA for the first 100 years after the foundational curriculum was laid down in 1923 by three key institutions: the National Association of Real Estate Boards (NAREB), the Institute for Research in Land Economics and Public Utilities (The Institute) and the American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB). Its line of investigative pursuit is the persistent lamentation by American real estate scholars that real estate is not getting the respect it deserves as an academic discipline compared to its peers in the school of business such as accounting, finance and marketing. The study addresses a fundamental question: What is the cause of this endless “search for a discipline”? This is motivated by the belief that identification of the root cause of this “search for a discipline” will lead to the requisite solution: the intellectual foundation of the real estate discipline.

The study used qualitative document analysis to review two primary documents published in 1959 as reports on business education in the USA: (1) Higher Education for Business, financed and sponsored by the Ford Foundation, and (2) The Education of American Businessmen – financed and sponsored by the Carnegie Corporation of New York. The impacts of the publications on the teaching of real estate to date have been reviewed in the context of scholarly actions and literature that has been generated in relation to the two documents.

The two primary documents impacted negatively on the teaching of real estate. The committee members who produced the two reports had indicated that real estate did not fit into the business curriculum hence should not be taught in business school. This conclusion led to unintended negative outcomes for real estate education. The negative impact of the reports arose principally because the teachers of real estate misinterpreted the outcome to mean that they should tweak the real estate curriculum to fit in the pedagogical framework of the business school. This reaction is responsible for perpetuating the identity crisis that has plagued real estate as an academic discipline since its inception as a subject of study in 1923. Secondly, at the inception of the real estate education in 1923, while the AACSB accepted real estate as a discipline in the school of business, Richard T. Ely wrote the curriculum under land economics which has led to the persistent collegiate dilemma regarding the teaching of the discipline.

The study sheds light on the situation of business education in the USA and AACSB-accredited colleges internationally. It draws attention to the incoherent body of knowledge of business education and will help schools of business to redesign their curricula to include course contents that rightly reflects the business oriented academic disciplines.

The study is timely as it has been done 100 years since the development of the first standard collegiate real estate curriculum following the 1923 conference at Madison. The study has reviewed the first 100 years in terms of the persistent quest: “in search of a discipline”. In so doing, it has uncovered the root cause of this search during the first centennium; and to end the search, it proposes that real estate should not be taught as a business discipline.

This paper aims to outline different views on international business (IB) as an academic discipline and looks into how IB scholars can cope with challenges to their disciplinary identity when stand-alone IB departments are merged with other departments such as management, marketing or strategy in business schools and universities.

The article offers a critical reflection on the development and future of IB as a discipline. The two authors are an IB and a Management scholar, both of whom were engaged in recent departmental mergers at their respective business schools. While the authors do not analyze these particular mergers, their experiences are inevitably interwoven in the views they express.

Mergers of stand-alone IB departments with other departments bring to light the nature of the IB discipline as a contested terrain. The article discusses how these structural changes challenge the disciplinary identity of IB scholars. It contributes, first, to discussions on the development of IB as a discipline and, second, to understanding identities and identification during major organizational change events in academia.

The authors suggest that the threat of marginalization of IB in the context of business schools and universities necessitates a move beyond the “big questions” debate to a critical self-examination and reflection on IB as a discipline and as a global scholarly community.

The article offers a critical view on current processes and challenges related to IB as a discipline and an academic community.

This paper aims to recommend dynamic capabilities as an integrative framework for the business school curriculum.

The paper discusses the history, sources, and consequences of the disciplinary fragmentation of most curricula. There is a determined effort to draw on all the relevant social science disciplines along with practice to create an intellectually coherent, interdisciplinary framework.

The dynamic capabilities framework can provide guidance for integrating the curriculum across disciplines and between theory and practice.

Implementation along the lines proposed will give students more of what they need and allow business schools to graduate individuals with a better chance of managing organizations in fast‐changing environments exposed to strong global competition.

The application of one of the dominant paradigms in management studies is proposed as a framework for integrating and enhancing the entire business school curriculum. There is no other framework that purports to do so in an intellectually coherent manner.

This commentary aims to identify the myopic drift of the marketing discipline and to opine on the areas in which the leadership of service scholars is needed. The authors identify specific areas where the input of service scholars is needed to enable the discipline to better contribute to users, providers, and society. For example, the growing gap between marketing scholarship and practical business needs is acknowledged, emphasizing the unique position of service scholars to bridge this divide. While consumer well-being is crucial, the exclusive focus on behavioral science is critiqued. Marketing’s roots are deeply connected to economics, shaping consumer choices, and service scholars can help revive marketing’s essence.

Personal reflections and historical literature assessment.

The services discipline is caught in the general myopic behavioral drift of the marketing discipline. However, they are well positioned to reverse the trend by seeking leadership in PhD programs, journal editorships and review boards, faculty recruiting, hiring and promotion, and by continuing its engagement with industry professionals.

The authors suggest extensive goals for service scholars. To accomplish these goals, it will be necessary to challenge the increasing behavioral drift of the majority of existing scholars in the discipline.

This work is original and controversial. It is meant to inspire discussion and focus attention on the problems inherent in the increasingly myopic behavioral orientation of the members of the discipline’s academic community.

This study explores the implementation of two Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) standards by business schools across Canada and the US. First, this study examines how teaching effectiveness is defined and measured in light of Standard 7 (Teaching Effectiveness and Impact). Second, this study explores the value of research on teaching and learning in relation to Standard 8 (Impact of Scholarship).

This study adopts a thematic analysis framework based on data obtained from an online survey, semi-structured interviews, and policy documents.

The results reveal that business schools rarely define teaching effectiveness; instead, they adopt various measures to evaluate teaching effectiveness. The results reveal that research on teaching and learning alone usually does not lead to tenure; however, it is valued if part of a portfolio that includes discipline-specific research. Lastly, this research highlights a stigma associated with research on teaching and learning relative to discipline-specific research.

This study introduces a comprehensive and integrated teaching evaluation framework that can be adopted to define teaching effectiveness and elevate the teaching function. In addition, the authors argue that business schools should nurture a niche set of academics that holds PhDs in their respective disciplines and are education experts to increase the production of research-informed instructional strategies curated for business schools.

This is the first study to explore how AACSB standards related to teaching effectiveness and research on teaching and learning are interpreted and implemented at AACSB accredited business schools.

Financial struggles affecting universities across the United States have caused debate about whether business schools are cost prohibitive or cost savvy, especially for small liberal arts universities that lack large endowments and are highly dependent upon student enrolment. In other words, are they too expensive for small schools to operate? The presence of a business school necessitates hiring business faculty with comparatively high salary expectations.

This paper analyses the cost effectiveness of business schools at four small liberal arts universities.

Our results show that cost is most strongly correlated with class size and adjunct instruction as opposed to faculty salaries.

Thus, class size and the implementation of adjunct instruction can make having a business school not only affordable but also advantageous.

Business schools offer a way for universities with missions centred around developing the whole person through a liberal arts education to remain a going concern in such a volatile climate.

This paper uses proprietary data to analyse the cost of faculty in different disciplines.

Compares research and teaching of today′s business economics with its predecessor disciplines before 1890. Describes attempts to organize commercial high schools from 1890 – business economics has its roots in these institutions. Discusses the reasons for the separation of business economics, as a discipline, from political economy. Paramount among these was a quarrel about value judgements.

The development and progressive refinement of the concept of academic freedom has generally occurred without material participation by the American business school. Whereas the business school looms large as a component of higher education in the twenty-first century, most believe that it is indifferent or perhaps hostile to the concept of academic freedom. For the most part, business school faculty fail to share the liberal political leanings of their colleagues from across the university, and therefore are less likely to find themselves to need academic freedom protection from those who would like to squelch opinions that run contrary to government and establishment elites. This chapter recognizes the fundamental alignment of what is taught in the business school and what business faculty research. However, that does not gainsay prospects for academic freedom protection when such is not the case. The chapter explores public interest dimensions of being a faculty member in a business school and how these might be manifested. Examples of controversial work are offered for each of the major business disciplines.

The study seeks to identify and document definitional challenges that hamper the delineation of the scope of real estate as a discipline and as an industry. Through literature review the article distils the perception of body of knowledge (BOK) of real estate within the academia. Two main issues are flagged up: the problem of undefined BOK and the collegiate dilemma. Later the study looks at the standard economic classification documents to capture the occupational domains of real estate professionals or real estate activities. These steps are necessary to help define an alternative academic, practical and social meaning of real estate that is sufficient and precise.

The study uses literature review and, as primary method, qualitative document analysis (QDA). The study has made a special appeal for the application of qualitative strategy in real estate research other than following the methodological orthodoxy of quantitative causal research designs. Further, it has argued for the recognition of QDA as a legitimate research method in the context of real estate studies. Consequently, the study performed QDA procedures on international economic classification standards.

From literature review and QDA, the study identified five definitional problems in the meanings or understandings of real estate: undefined body of knowledge, collegiate dilemma, inadequate classification of real estate occupations, inadequate industry classification and inadequate economic sector positioning. These are aspects that lead to misconceptions of the true boundary of knowledge in society and in the academia. The paper offers clarity and insights for the redrawing of these boundaries to give real estate its rightful place in the academia and in the real world.

The article follows up on the academic and social misconceptions on the BOK of real estate as a discipline and an economic activity domain to identify the contribution of real estate to the welfare of mankind. Ontology or the organization of academic or social knowledge is used to map out or catalogue real estate against competing domains and to show that the role of real estate is grossly understated and misunderstood. From the findings, the study makes recommendations to university curriculum developers, and international organizations like ILO, and UN-DESA to revise their conceptions of real estate to give the discipline its rightful position in society.