This study examines productivity in Business and Management Education (BME) scholarship, identifying the “top 96” BME authors of the last decade, extending the author productivity conversation initiated by Arbaugh et al. (2017), and exploring the degree to which women feature in the list. The rankings proved very dynamic: approximately 55% of the top-ranked authors are new to the list, with 38% of those authors being female. The BME field continues to offer opportunities for establishing a profile as a highly productive author, since barriers for entry into the list remain relatively low: five articles continue to be the threshold for inclusion. Accounting expanded its dominance over other disciplines, with the number of accounting education scholars ranked increasing from 28 to 34. The number of highly productive authors affiliated with institutions outside of the United States has increased significantly when compared to the 2005–2014 study, suggesting that the call for wider international participation in BME scholarship is beginning to produce movement. We document differences in the content of the scholarship produced by leading male and female authors in economic education, noting that those differences tend to blend when they work together.

Chapter 2 focuses on the practices of engaged course design and assessment: what it means in practice to choose engaged learning as an overall educational philosophy and assess the unique learning outcomes that inform iterative course design development. Beginning with the understanding that engaged course design and assessment require different educator skills, understanding of learning and educational context, preparation, and relationships with students, the chapter then explores the practical implications of each of these components. By asking what 'real' considerations go into crafting and assessing an effective engaged course, the chapter offers engaged educators practical ideas for implementation, as well as vicarious experiences of others in terms of what they must consider to make an engaged course run smoothly. Chapter 2 makes the case that engaged learning is not only present and vibrant all over the world, but is distinctively positioned to advance diverse student perspectives, and cement student voice, agency, empowerment and choice.

Chapter 1 lays the theoretical foundation for engaged learning, and how theory is enacted in course design and student learning assessment. It offers a literature-based description of what engaged learning is, where it sits within historical educational models and philosophies, the types of learning outcomes that are unique to engaged learning practices, and insights into what engaged learning commitment means in terms of special course design elements. The chapter shows the vital connections between an educator's overall learning philosophy and the choice of learning objectives, learning activities, and the assessment of student learning. By reviewing the ways in which seminal educators have evolved in their views and practices of engaged pedagogy, Chapter 1 focuses on the common goals that engaged educators share: ultimately, to work together with their students in transparency and inclusion, in order to create meaningful learning for students and instructor alike.

Chapter 3 extends the focus on "real world" implementation with advice about all aspects of engaged course design and development. In three major sections - pre-course planning, running the course, and post-course considerations - readers will be able to see myriad ways in which educators implement engaged pedagogy effectively. The chapter articulates the many pre-course design and planning steps that are critical to the success of the course and how creating student learning objectives (SLOs) and linking them to course learning activities is essential to student learning. It then turns to steps that engaged educators should take while the course is underway, followed by actions that engaged educators should take after the course ends. Throughout the chapter, the discussion connects assessment activities with the various planning and implementation steps, making the distinction between formative/developmental assessment and summative assessment. Finally, the chapter considers how this attention to assessment helps students and educators gauge the need for learning and instructional adjustments.

Course Design and Assessment offers design strategies, educator-in-action perspectives, and real-world suggestions for engaged educators, creating inclusive and meaningful learning opportunities and developmental student growth. With a brief history situating engaged learning among educational models, the book shows the vital and practical connections between an educator’s overall learning philosophy and their pedagogical choices. The authors unpack the definitions and practices common to engaged learning, exploring the assumptions educators make about students, teaching, learning, and instructional contexts that underlie engaged educators’ pedagogical decisions. Ultimately a vehicle for inclusive learning and transparent design, the book outlines pre-course planning steps, suggestions for adjusting the course mid-stream, and a thorough discussion of assessment activities with planning and implementation steps.

Numerous events have fostered the increased legitimacy of business and management education (BME) scholarship in recent years. These include the rise of the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) expectations in various key BME journals, and new AACSB International – The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business standards regarding pedagogical research, assurance of learning, and teaching impact. An important next step in furthering BME scholarship is exploring the domain's prominent topics and identifying attendant future research opportunities and issues. Using the TxtViz® textual cluster analysis software, this paper investigates the content, sizes, and relative positions of the 15 key BME themes identified by Arbaugh et al. (2019) as well as derives Kuhnian-based (1962) implications for the field's future growth and development. In so doing, this study seeks to help scholars gain a finer-grained understanding of the state of the field and identify key domain-level research agenda issues as the BME domain continues to evolve.

Purpose This paper aims to compare the nature of three different business and management education (BME) research streams (online/blended learning, entrepreneurship education and experiential learning), along with their citation sources to draw insights on their support and legitimacy bases, with lessons on improving such support and legitimacy for the streams and the wider BME research field. Design/methodology/approach The authors analyze the nature of three BME research streams and their citation sources through tests of differences across streams. Findings The three streams differ in research foci and approaches such as the use of managerial samples in experiential learning, quantitative studies in online/blended education and literature reviews in entrepreneurship education. They also differ in sources of legitimacy recognition and avenues for mobilization of support. The underlying literature development pattern of the experiential learning stream indicates a need for BME scholars to identify and build on each other’s work. Research limitations/implications Identification of different research bases and key supporting literature in the different streams shows important core articles that are useful to build research in each stream. Practical implications Readers will understand the different research bases supporting the three research streams, along with their targeted audience and practice implications. Social implications The discovery of different support bases for the three different streams helps identify the network of authors and relationships that have been built in each stream. Originality/value According to the authors’ knowledge, this paper is the first to uncover differences in nature and citation sources of the three continuously growing BME research streams with recommendations on ways to improve the support of the three streams.

This article describes the authors’ experience at The New School’s Research in Management Learning and Education UnConference and presents five Business and Management Education (BME)–related actionable scholarship themes that originated at the UnConference: journal equivalency in BME scholarship, evolution of BME rankings, gender and BME scholarship productivity, timing of BME scholarship, and editor networks in BME scholarship. It is our hope that these themes will continue to generate provocative conversations between existing and new BME scholars and provide actionable research ideas to readers of the Journal of Management Education.

Increased competition for students and financial resources has contributed to a managerialist perspective in higher education. In this competitive landscape, institutional decision-making may prioritize choices perceived as rational imperatives to the forces buffeting higher education, bringing unintended consequences when they are driven mostly by short-term, marketing-based, revenue-enhancing considerations. In their efforts to “look good,” such institutions risk becoming Academic Potemkin Villages where symbolic façades are erected to impress relevant stakeholders at the risk of overshadowing core missions of learning and research. Exploring the Academic Potemkin Village metaphor, we examine its premises (factors that are pressuring higher education), its promises (the seduction of building various symbolic façades to respond to those pressures), and its perils (the impact on institutions, faculty, and students). We then suggest ways of building out Academic Potemkin Villages into lasting and unique collaborations, re-focused on the core values of higher education.

Discipline-specific research has a rich history in assessing journal article impact and factors that affect article citation patterns. In contrast, Business and Management Education (BME) research lacks such a history due to its relative youth as an independent discipline, its still fragmented literature, and significant variations in the types of articles it publishes. If BME scholarship is to advance as a unified and impactful domain, its scholars need to uncover factors that affect citations of its articles, as has been done in traditional business disciplines. This paper offers guidance to BME authors about factors that can potentially affect the citations of their research. It also offers advice to BME editors on ways to improve the stature of their journals. Inspired by Judge, Cable, Colbert, & Rynes' (2007) work on citation predictors in management research, we developed a model to predict citations of BME articles. Our findings showed that an author's h-index, a journal's recent h-index, and the number of references in an article are significant predictors of BME article citations. Article type, such as literature reviews and conceptual pieces did not predict BME article citation, in part because so few of them have been done for this field.

The authors examined the publications and impact of highly productive business and management education (BME) scholars across the business disciplines of accounting, economics, finance, information systems, management, marketing, and operations management. Results from a hierarchical cluster analysis revealed five clusters of scholars: leading BME Scholars, leading discipline-focused BME scholars, high-profile BME scholars, focused BME scholars, and recognized BME scholars. The article includes a discussion of findings and their implications for BME scholarship, future BME scholars, and business schools.

Despite calls for and advances in the scholarship of teaching and learning (SOTL) over the years, research-intensive institutions have a persistent reputation as preferring and demanding Boyer’s “scholarship of discovery” at the expense of SOTL work. In this article, we challenge the dominant narrative that research-focused institutions—the Carnegie “R1”and “R2”—do not engage in or value SOTL research in business and management education (BME). In a previous empirical study, we found evidence that a surprising proportion of R1 and R2 schools are already creating and disseminating innovative and impactful BME work. Using diffusion of innovations theory, we argue that those institutions can provide leadership due to their BME work, and examine what this might mean in terms of the prospects for diffusion of BME research among all research-intensive institutions. Due to external stakeholder pressures for excellent, evidence-based instruction, we assert that institutions that do subordinate SOTL to discipline-based scholarship will be forced to reframe their research portfolios. We end the article with solutions for how faculty could include BME work within their overall research efforts and challenge institutions to reconsider how BME scholarship may help them craft a more inclusive research narrative.

This study examines productivity in Business and Management Education (BME) scholarship, identifying the “top 99” authors in the most recent ten-year period (January 2008– December 2017). In addition to presenting the most up-to-date panorama of the top authors and disciplinary areas in the BME field, this study offers insights on how the field has evolved in comparison with the 2005-2014 productivity study by Arbaugh and colleagues (2017). A noteworthy finding is that the rankings proved very dynamic, with approximately 40% of the top-ranked authors being new to the list. The BME field continues to offer opportunities for establishing a profile as a highly productive author, since barriers for entry into the list remain relatively low: five articles continues to be the threshold for inclusion. Accounting expanded its dominance over other disciplinary areas, with the number of accounting education scholars in the list increasing from 28 to 36. Finally, in spite of numerous calls for wider geographic representation in BME scholarship, the number of highly productive authors affiliated with institutions outside the United States remains relatively low.

As the business and management education (BME) literature mounts, some highly-cited streams have become more dominant than other lesser-cited streams. In this bibliometric study, we compare the development of two highly-cited BME streams–online management education and entrepreneurship education– against a more established BME literature stream, experiential learning. Although the latter has some very well-cited articles, it curiously remains relatively less cited than other streams. Our goal is to investigate similarities and differences among these three BME streams’ citation patterns to provide prescriptions on how other BME streams could avoid self-inflicted citation barriers. We found distinct differences in behavior patterns between the streams using citation-based input and outcome measures. The entrepreneurship education literature shows strong linkages to the research of entrepreneurship discipline, whereas the online/hybrid education literature showed evidence of either influencing or being influenced by educational research. Conversely, although it had some very highly cited articles, the experiential learning stream showed inconclusive patterns in both types of works that it cited or was cited by in other articles. We believe this suggests that there is opportunity for scholars in other streams to raise their scholarly profiles by increasing their dialogue and defining their terms more consistently.

We seek to extend Legitimation Code Theory (LCT) from its present primary use as a tool for classifying academic fields of study that help instructors to convey course content and shape program curricula, to being a framework for assessing the development of research streams in educational research. We executed this extension by developing a listing of 250 highly-cited articles from business and management education (BME) research using Harzing’s (2013) Publish or Perish, and then categorizing abstracts from these articles into research streams using TxtViz clustering software. We developed new operational definitions and/or further refined existing operational definitions for three of LCT’s five dimensions: specialization, autonomy, and semantics. We then used these to position and assess the relative maturity of research streams in the BME realm. We expect this study to become a framework from which to move studies of BME research beyond simple counts of authors and citations, help BME researchers take a more cross-disciplinary approach to their work, and help scholars who are interested in LCT see new ways to apply this emerging framework.

This paper identifies the most highly referenced bibliographic works in the top 250 cited business and management education (BME) journal articles by employing Hambrick's (1990) bibliometric analysis. Uncovering these bibliographic works will help BME researchers understand foundational pieces that go into building the top 250 cited BME articles from 1978 to 2016. Not surprisingly, 25 out of the 50 most highly referenced bibliographic works were also part of the top 250 BME journal list. These 50 works had eight research themes: Online Learning and Technology (23), Business Education Development (10), Entrepreneurship Education (9), Experiential Learning (3), Online Group Process (2), Learning Psychology (1), Positive Organization Scholarship (1), and Research Methods (1). Implications of our findings are discussed in the paper.

The authors investigate institutional productivity in business and management education (BME) research based on the analysis of 4,464 articles published by 7,210 authors across 17 BME journals over a 10-year period, involving approximately 1,900 schools worldwide. Departing from traditional disciplinary silos, they examine the BME research field as a whole by including all traditional business disciplinary areas and producing two top 100 rankings, one based on raw number of author publications and the other based on weighted scores reflecting journal quality and coauthorship.

Previous studies of author productivity in business and management education (BME) research have focused on single disciplinary areas, and even single journals. This study is the first to examine the productivity of BME scholars across multiple disciplinary areas (i.e., accounting, economics, finance, information systems, management, marketing, and operations/supply chain management). We analyzed a pool of 17 BME journals with the highest hg-index, by including the top three journals in the accounting and information systems areas, the top two journals in each of the other disciplinary areas, and an interdisciplinary BME journal. This examination covered a 10-year period (2005-2014), 4,464 articles and 9,617 article co-authors. We identified 7,209 unique authors in this pool and ranked their productivity to create a “Key Authors” list. Each of the top 99 authors had five or more articles in our database. Our findings indicate the potential for cross-disciplinary dissemination of research ideas and opportunities for scholars to enhance their research profile, because even a small increase in productivity can lead to substantial movement in the BME rankings of authors.