j.1467-8551.2011.00764.x jurnal ilmiah
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/2/2019 j.1467-8551.2011.00764.x jurnal ilmiah
1/19
Management Education in the UK: TheRoles of the British Academy of
Management and the Association ofBusiness Schools
Swapnesh Masrani, Allan P. O. Williams1 and Peter McKiernan2
School of Management, University of Stirling, Stirling FK9 4LA, UK, 1Cass Business School, City University,
106 Bunhill Row, London EC1Y 8TZ, UK, and 2Strathclyde Business School, University of Strathclyde,
Glasgow G1 1XQ, UK
Corresponding author email: [email protected]
This paper uses institutional theory to analyse the role of the British Academy ofManagement (BAM) and the Association of Business Schools (ABS) in gaininglegitimacy for management education in the UK. By the 1980s, serious issuessurrounding rigour and relevance were being asked about UK business schools thatraised concerns about the legitimacy of management as a discipline. A majorconsequence was that management received relatively low research funding comparedwith other social science disciplines from key funding bodies, e.g. the Economic andSocial Science Research Council. Using archival and interview data, we examine howBAM and ABS, as professional bodies, applied multiple approaches aimed at improvingthe quality of management research and teaching to gain legitimacy from influentialexternal agencies. An unintended consequence of these actions has been an increasingisomorphism in management research and education in the UK. Although some of theoriginal concerns still remain with regard to management education, both organizations
have been successful in increasing the external perception of legitimacy.
Introduction
Europe has a deep legacy in formal management
education. This stems from the first business
school in Lisbon (Portugal) in 1759, through the
Ecole Superieure de Commerce de Paris (France)
in 1819 and the German Betriebswirtschaftslehre
in the late 19th century to the Catholic-influenced
institutions in France, Portugal, Spain and Italyat the turn of that century. Prussian administra-
tion influenced the founding of Wharton in 1881,
although US business schools began earlier at
Louisiana and Wisconsin in 1851 and 1852
respectively (Spender, 2008). In the UK, if we
recognize the Staff College at Hayleybury (train-
ing centre for administrators of the British East
India Company) as equivalent to these institu-
tions, then its establishment in 1805 pre-dates all
but Lisbon (Witzel, 2009).
In the UK, technical-based professional insti-
tutions, such as the Institution of Mechanical
Engineers (1847), the Institute of Chartered
Accountants (1880) and the Chartered Institute
of Secretaries (1902), led the way in education
and training during the growth of the Empire.Institutions more closely associated with man-
agement gradually emerged as the need arose for
specialized managerial skills to confront the new
challenges of competition, knowledge growth and
complex organizational forms, e.g. the Sales
Managers Association in 1911 (now the
Chartered Institute of Marketing); the Welfare
British Journal of Management, Vol. 22, 382400 (2011)
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2011.00764.x
r 2011 The Author(s)British Journal of Management r 2011 British Academy of Management. Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd,9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA, 02148, USA.
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected] -
8/2/2019 j.1467-8551.2011.00764.x jurnal ilmiah
2/19
Workers Association in 1913 (now the Chartered
Institute of Personnel and Development); and the
Institute of Industrial Administration in 1920
(now the Chartered Management Institute).These developments were founded on strong
leadership, such as Urwick (Brech, Thomson
and Wilson, 2010), Rowntree (Wilson andThomson, 2006) and Elbourne (Elbourne, 1934).
Academia was slow to engage with manage-
ment education, despite the setting up of the
Faculties of Commerce at the London School of
Economics (1895) and the Universities of Bir-mingham (1902) and Manchester (1904), because
it was seen as too practical and insufficiently
academic. Moreover, in the 19th and first half of
the 20th centuries, the dominant attitude of
management was that leaders were born and
not made. All this meant that UK technical
colleges, with their closer associations with theprofessional institutions, were ahead of UK
universities in regarding management education
as a legitimate area of study (Thomas, 2008).
The first business schools in the UK to be part
of the higher education sector were the London
and Manchester Schools, which were created on
the recommendation of the Franks Report
(Franks, 1963), with the support of the Founda-
tion for Management Education (FME)1 (Nind,
1985) and the government-established National
Economic Development Council (Rose, 1970).
However, a significant marker was reached whenUrwicks report on Education for Management
proposed that a Diploma in Management be
introduced in technical and commercial colleges
(Urwick, 1947). This meant that by the time the
London and Manchester Business Schools
recruited their first cohorts of Master of Science
students, some technical colleges, polytechnics
and colleges of advanced technology had grad-
uated several cohorts of Diploma in Management
Studies. This stream of students continued to
grow when the Council for National Academic
Awards (CNAA) was created in 1964, to approvequalifications in non-university institutions.
Meanwhile, the university sector embraced the
subject with increasing vigour from the early
1970s to the mid 1980s, with many management
initiatives beginning in departments or schools of
economics that provided an intellectual impri-
matur. In parallel, the success of the Academy of
Management in the USA provided leading UK
academics with the inspiration to form the BritishAcademy of Management2 (BAM) in 1986, with
its first conference at Warwick Business School in
1987. This was followed closely by the formationof the Association of Business Schools (ABS) in
1992, to represent the voice of UK business
school deans.
These humble and hesitant origins of UK
management education made it impossible topredict its rapid growth over the next 50 years. In
2009, almost one in seven of all students in UK
universities was studying business and manage-
ment. This achievement was all the more
impressive when one considers the challenges
facing business schools during the 1970s and
1980s, many of which persist today. They can becategorized as follows.
Research and funding
1. Many business schools were being used as
cash cows by their parent university.
2. Colleagues in established academic disciplines
questioned the academic credibility of those in
management, particularly when all were com-
peting for resources from the same financial
pool.
3. Insufficient recognition was being given to
business schools for their potential contribu-
tion to the national economy, and therefore
for their involvement in the development of
policies relating to economic and social affairs.
4. Employers felt that the emerging business
schools were failing to meet their needs.
1The FME was formed in 1960 by a group of influentialbusiness men who saw a link between superior Americanproductivity and US business schools.
2BAMs original aims were (a) to encourage the sharingand development of a research knowledge base for allmanagement disciplines; (b) to act as a forum for thevarious disciplines in management and to encourage thedevelopment of an integrated body of knowledgecommensurate with management as a profession; (c) toencourage and promote disciplinary research andcollaboration amongst the various management disci-plines; (d) to further the development of managementeducation in the UK.
Management Education in the UK 383
r 2011 The Author(s)British Journal of Management r 2011 British Academy of Management.
-
8/2/2019 j.1467-8551.2011.00764.x jurnal ilmiah
3/19
Teaching
5. Academic staff new to management education
had to go through a process of education
themselves in adapting to their unfamiliar
context.
6. The rapid expansion of management educa-tion in the UK threatened the quality of the
unregulated MBA degree.
There has been some attempt to analyse the
implications of these issues on management
education during this period. For example,
Caswill and Wensley (2007) examine the role of
policies developed by the Social Science Research
Council (later the Economic and Social Science
Research Council (ESRC)) in promoting user
engagement and the rigour and relevance debatein management research, while Starkey and
Tiratsoo (2007, pp. 115119) describe the
implications of the Research and Assessment
Exercise (RAE) at the business school level in
terms of shaping the research agenda for
academics. However, the role of the ABS and
the BAM remains under-acknowledged.3 In this
paper we examine the part played by these
institutions in creating an identifiable and legit-
imate management education sector by promot-
ing exchanges in knowledge and good practice in
research, funding and teaching. We use institu-
tional theory as a framework to analyse thestrategies used to influence the legitimacy of
management education under adverse conditions
through (a) the formation of pressure groups to
influence decision making and (b) the develop-
ment of norms relating to the quality of business
schools and their products (both qualifications
and research). While both institutions repre-
sented the business and management community,
each has different objectives: BAM is concerned
mainly with improving the quality of research in
management while ABS is concerned mainly with
the quality and reputation of business schoolsand publicizing their contributions.
This paper is divided into four further sections.
The next section outlines the institutional theory
framework that guides the analysis of the
subsequent case material. Then details on the
sources of data and the method deployed are
given, while the following section provides the
case material for each of the BAM and ABS. Thefinal section summarizes the findings, weaves
these findings into the theory and provides
concluding commentary.
Institutional theory
Despite the threads of management education in
the UK stretching beyond the 1960s, the estab-lishment of the first UK higher education
business schools at Manchester and London
mark the middle of that decade as the birth of a
sector. We chose to view its emergence and
development though the lens of institutional
theory, as opposed to competing theories, e.g.population ecology or resource dependence,
because our interest lies in professional bodiesas units of analysis (Di Maggio and Powell, 1991;
Greenwood, Suddaby and Hinnings, 2002) in
both ABS and BAM, their symbolic status, their
exertion of agency and the influence of iso-
morphic pressure. Professional bodies play an
important role in a sector on three fronts: (1) they
act as platforms through which the sector
represents itself internally, e.g. by facilitating
debate and through determining conditions
of membership; (2) they act as negotiatingor representative agencies for interacting with
external agencies, especially to legitimize the
sectors identity and role when they come under
threat; (3) they oversee internally that members
comply with agreed beliefs and practices (Green-
wood, Suddaby and Hinnings, 2002, pp. 6162).
Although the main focus, internal or external,
may differ, often the three activities are carried
out simultaneously to achieve the stated objec-
tive. In this paper we are particularly concerned
with the role of professional bodies in generating
legitimacy from external stakeholders.As early as the end of the 1960s (Mant, 1969;
Owen, 1970) and for decades thereafter, external
agencies (mainly government bodies and practi-
tioners) questioned the direct utility of business
schools in enhancing the quality of management
and, consequently, the effect on national eco-
nomic productivity and competitiveness. In
parallel, research funding applications from
academics to government research councils (e.g.
3Histories of the development of each of these institu-tions exist (for BAM, see McKiernan and Masrani,2008; for ABS, see Williams, 2007) but they do not dealexplicitly with the notion of legitimacy nor the co-jointimpact.
384 S. Masrani, A. P. O. Williams and P. McKiernan
r 2011 The Author(s)British Journal of Management r 2011 British Academy of Management.
-
8/2/2019 j.1467-8551.2011.00764.x jurnal ilmiah
4/19
ESRC) continued to be ineffective because of a
perceived lack of quality and a paucity of rigour
and relevance. Clearly, to thrive, the sector had
to earn legitimacy4 from these external5 stake-holders. An integral part of legitimacy enhance-
ment is the creation of formal structures that are
engineered as much for their symbolism oflegitimacy as for their efficiency in handling task
action issues (Meyer and Rowan, 1977; Parsons
and Bales, 1956).
Further legitimacy building emerges from the
exertion of active agency through proactivepressure (e.g. political lobbying) to change
institutional rules and regulations in the hope of
altering the existing belief systems of targeted
members of society (Di Maggio, 1988; Gomes,
Garry and Rodrigues, 2008; Oliver, 2001).
Usually, processes of measurement reinforce such
activity, for instance where the technical under-pinnings of accountancy or numeracy in general
can have a positive effect on legitimacy percep-
tion and consequent acceptance through power-
ful psychological persuasion (Covaleski and
Dirsmith, 1986; Masrani and McKiernan, 2011;
Scott and Meyer, 1991).
Integral to the institutional lens is the process
of isomorphism (see, for instance, Di Maggio and
Powell, 1983). External shocks, like adverse
criticism from significant stakeholders, can force
sector agencies into a reformulation of their
structural and strategic designs (Tolbert andZucker, 1996; see also McKiernan and Wilson,
2011). There may be many individual new ways
of doing business operationalized but, in the
early stages, no dominant model acceptable to
recognized groups or important clusters is
detectable. In time, objectification occurs as a
perceived successful model emerges and this is
embraced cautiously by the sector until an
understanding of the best recipe (Spender,
1989) is clarified. Some players may be touted
as exemplars and act to encourage others to
adopt similar structures. The institutional process
is complete when these structures have persistedto a point of robust sedimentation, when
isomorphic convergence to homogeneity is evi-
dent across the sector through the pressure ofthree well-known forces: mimetic (copying,
Sevo n, 1996); normative (professionalization,
Touron, 2005); and coercive (social obligation,
Carmona and Macias, 2001; Carpenter and
Feroz, 2001). Interestingly, it is difficult toidentify the exact impact of each singly, as their
individual impact varies over time and because
these pressures often act in concert, when inter-
active effects become strong (Mizruchi and Fein,
1999). To endure, such institutionalism needs
little challenge, perceived successful outcomes
and constant active agency. In their absence,de-institutionalization can occur as the systemic
model is reconfigured or replaced by aggressive
new entrants or disgruntled existing players.
This study will examine the role of two
professional institutions, the BAM and the
ABS, in the legitimization of management
education in the UK. In particular it will examine
ways in which they sought legitimacy from key
external stakeholders.
Data sources and research methodResearch data for this paper were collected from
multiple sources. For BAM, these included
e-interviews with Chairpersons, Presidents and
key Officers in 20076 and 20117; and archival
material, including internal documents such as
minutes of Council meetings, subcommittee
meetings and private and published reports from
its founding in 1986 to 2008. For ABS, personal
interviews were conducted with every Chairper-
son from 1992 to 2010, and other key Officers
when it was necessary to fill in any gaps. In4Suchman (1995) defines legitimacy as the generalizedperception . . . that the actions of an entity are desirable,
proper, or appropriate within some socially constructedsystem of norms, values, beliefs and definitions (p. 174).5Legitimacy can be earned internally and externally.However, in this paper we are concerned only with thegaining of legitimacy with external stakeholders. Werecognize the greater validity and superior effectivenessof agencies with the broad support of internal players. Inthe cases of the ABS and BAM, we realize that thisextent of support may not have been the case through-out the period under study, especially in the early years.
6These included Cary Cooper, Andrew Pettigrew,Andrew Thomson, Derek Pugh, David Otley, DavidWilson, Roger Mansfield, Gerry Johnson, David Par-ker, Graham Hooley, Peter McKiernan, RichardThorpe, Mark Easterby-Smith, Gerard Hodgkinson,Chris Huxham, Susan Cartwright, Ian Clarke, JackyHolloway, Alan Murray, Allan Williams, John Bur-goyne and Howard Thomas.7Richard Thorpe, Mark Easterby-Smith and ChrisHuxham.
Management Education in the UK 385
r 2011 The Author(s)British Journal of Management r 2011 British Academy of Management.
-
8/2/2019 j.1467-8551.2011.00764.x jurnal ilmiah
5/19
addition, archival material was gathered from
ABS from its foundation in 1992 to 2010,
together with information from the antecedent
bodies of ABS. In both the BAM and ABScases, critical incident questions were used to
identify the events taking place in their history. In
the case of ABS, particular views of respondentswere sought as to what their Executive was trying
to achieve during their term of office, and
what were the factors that helped or hindered
the achievement of these objectives. Views
were also sought as to the main contributionsthat ABS had made to the business school sector,
and how its role was likely to change in the
future.
The role of ABS and BAM: generating
legitimacyResearch funding: the exertion of active agency
Historically, government funding for research in
management was markedly low. In 19889, with
76 proposals, the business and management
studies discipline was the largest applicant for
funds. However, its success rate was 12%, with
only nine grants awarded. In comparison, the
success rate in economics (48%), politics (40%)
and sociology (36%) was much higher. Excluding
research centres, the total amount of funds
granted to management was d367,000, comparedwith d722,000 in linguistics and d710,000 in
economics. The situation had become critical
and these numbers triggered a powerful reaction
in the business and management community.
BAM was determined to use their persuasive
psychological power to alter perceptions.
At this stage, the field for advocacy for the
business and management community in the UK
was scattered and its impact sporadic and
non-systematic. Despite the best efforts of the
Council for University Management Schools
(see below), it was difficult to influence thedominant belief system of influential political
and financial stakeholders. Moreover, there was
no specific academy based model to follow. For
instance, the Academy of Management in the
USA had been founded 50 years earlier than
BAM in 1936 and had not developed political-
influencing abilities. Hence, in a significant
alteration from previous reactive tactics, BAM
started to exert pro-active agency, ab initio, in
several ways to influence the grant-making
process within the major government funding
bodies, of which the ESRC was the most
prominent. In the immediate term BAM focusedits attention on three fronts.
First, in May 1990, the BAM Executive invited
Howard Newby (ESRC)
8
to their meeting toaddress the following issues directly:
the current funding and success rates of
management research proposals
the involvement of management scholars on
ESRC grant committees
the refereeing of management research
proposals
the development of new research initiatives
from the management research community
Second, a sub-group of the BAM Executive9
was created to debate and manage this agenda.By February 1992 it began to ask hard questions
of the ESRC; in particular, why were there only
two or three management specialists on the 20-
member grant-giving board when they repre-
sented the largest constituency? Further, the
Executive sought feedback on the rejected appli-
cations but was told that this could be given only
with the permission of the referee concerned.
However, after careful investigation, the sub-
group discovered that several major factors were
to blame:
The ESRC perceived management submis-
sions to be weaker in presentation and
methodology than those of other social science
disciplines.
The issue of relevance was important but the
concept of relevance had not been debated
fully.
The ESRC did not have a sufficient number of
referees nor suitably qualified referees for
management research.
The ESRC criterion of basic or strategic
was not a suitable taxonomy for much ofmanagement research.
This dialogue between BAM and its major
institutional stakeholder, the ESRC, was productive.
8The ESRC is the main UK government funding bodyfor business and management studies.9This group consisted of Andrew Pettigrew as chair,Peter Buckley, Richard Butler, Barbara Lewis, DavidOtley and Robin Wensley.
386 S. Masrani, A. P. O. Williams and P. McKiernan
r 2011 The Author(s)British Journal of Management r 2011 British Academy of Management.
-
8/2/2019 j.1467-8551.2011.00764.x jurnal ilmiah
6/19
The 1992 Research Assessment Exercise10 (RAE)
had confirmed the scale of the sector (2000 active
researchers, 6000 publications, 86 departments,
d20 m research income) and by June 1993 theESRC recognized the low level of support that it
had given to management research proposals,
promising a review of its procedures and theelimination of any bias. For the profession, there
was a general consensus that the standards of
submission had to be improved to allay any
perceptions held within the ESRC about relative
quality in the social sciences. BAM reactedquickly and focused its 1993 annual conference
on the Crafting of management research.
Third, in 1993 BAM collaborated wholly with
the ESRC Commission on Management
Research by supplying several members of its
Council to act on the Commission and by
submitting a detailed, written report. GeorgeBain, a recognized leader in the field having
presided as Dean at Warwick and London,
chaired the Commission11 and presented its
findings to the first BAM Directors of Research
Network (DoRN) meeting at the London Busi-
ness School in February 1994. The Commission
made 12 recommendations, directed both at the
ESRC and at business schools, researchers and
the Higher Education Funding Council (HEFC).
The recommendations focused on four areas: (a)
the formation of the Management Research
Forum a platform to promote dialogue betweenresearch providers and users; (b) enhanced
support for research studentships and fellow-
ships; (c) research training and development; (d)
concern for relevance. The BAM Executive, with
the full backing of its Council, supported the
Reports recommendations with enthusiasm,
especially the establishment of the Management
Research Forum as BAM saw this as an
opportunity to continue to widen its influence
among key stakeholders. However, the lack of
senior representatives from industry worked
against the achievement of this outcome.
In addition, BAM had set up a Research Policy
Subcommittee to coordinate action towards the
achievement of its central goal to foster a
culture of research among management aca-demics. The committee was instructed to harness
its resources and gain active support in the
community for the Bain Reports findings andto advise the BAM Executive on immediate
policy actions. Despite this, two of the Reports
recommendations to the ESRC provoked dis-
content amongst academics and there was further
disquiet about the Reports tone and inclusive-ness. First, in spite of the successful impact of an
earlier Management Teaching Fellowship
Scheme (1989), the new Fellowship Scheme
recommendation, designed to bring young blood
into the profession, was denied funding by the
ESRC. Second, the criteria of relevance were
insufficiently defined, especially with regard tothe construction of research proposals. Contro-
versy raged in the Academy concerning whether
such utilitarian decisions masked an ideology of
managerialism as scholars became concerned
that their freedom to undertake research based
upon alternative, post-modern, critical paradigms
would be compromised.
Critics within BAM claimed that the Bain
Report had not addressed the transparency of
ESRC procedures well enough to promote
change and many Directors of Research from
the new university community claimed that it hadtaken an elitist view of research.12 They were
concerned about the volume and direction of
funding under the recommendations and looked
to the Academy for help in promoting co-funding
between old and new universities and for
collaborative submissions. By late 1994, the
influence of members from the new sector was
highly significant in shaping BAM policy. These
arguments, driven by the definitional uncertainty
within the Commissions Report and the ESRC
and the rapid population of the Academy by
researchers from the new universities after 1992,persisted among the Council and DoRN
throughout the 1990s.
As institutional theory guides, active agency
must exert pressure continuously for real change
10The RAE is the periodic (usually 5 year) researchauditing exercise for all UK based, government fundedinstitutions in the higher education sector. Such researchauditing began in 1986 and covers subjects across theacademic spectrum.11The Bain Inquiry was set up in response to thecontinuing concerns about the quality of managementresearch, arrangement of funding, and need to strength-en research culture in business schools (Bain, 1993).
12This new community was formed when centralinstitutions (former polytechnics) opted for universitystatus in 1992. Previously, they had specialized inteaching and came fresh to formal research activity.
Management Education in the UK 387
r 2011 The Author(s)British Journal of Management r 2011 British Academy of Management.
-
8/2/2019 j.1467-8551.2011.00764.x jurnal ilmiah
7/19
to endure. These first influencing steps were the
start of a campaign to privilege the influence and
lobbying within the strategic tenets of the
Academy for the long term. The Bain Inquiryacted as a cornerstone of this strategy. BAM
followed Bain by engineering reinforcing
mechanisms in research (the DoRN), trainingand development, and collaboration. For each of
these elements, BAM established formal commit-
tee structures to handle the task action issues
involved. However, these committees had strong
symbolic meaning in the face of critical stake-holders and so played an important legitimacy-
enhancing role (Meyer and Rowan, 1977).
Directors of Research Network (DoRN)
In 1993 BAM established a specialized network,
involving current and prospective Directors ofResearch, to (a) support Directors of Research in
carrying out their roles in their own organiza-tions; (b) develop UK research capability in
business and management; and (c) raise the
profile of UK business and management research
in relation to that of the other social sciences.
The ESRC engagement and the setting up of
the DoRN had sparked a debate on research
direction and how best to establish the research
culture both within BAM and within UK
business schools. Importantly, after the first few
RAEs, established universities had refined theirresearch approaches and positioning while the
new institutions were keen to borrow this knowl-
edge to help them prepare for future audits. At
the first DoRN meeting in February 1993 a range
of issues were discussed (see Table 1).
For the next two years, the Directors of
Research met, debated and, as expected, failed
to agree on the purpose of management research,
what appropriate standards should be applied
and what the basis of funding should be. This
diversity of opinion, though a challenge to
BAMs initial objectives, helped to re-shape boththe strategy and structure of the Academy and,
eventually, led to an official party line. This was
influenced greatly by the work of Council
members David Tranfield and Ken Starkey and
captured in their 1998 paper in the British Journal
of Management. Their suggestion was to position
management research within the social sciences in
a way equivalent to the position of engineering in
the physical sciences or medicine in the biological
sciences, i.e. that management research was
trans-disciplinary and had to be informed by
practice as well as concepts and theories. The
authors had ensured that this view was embodied
already in BAMs strategic reappraisal in No-
vember of 1997. With minor amendments, it has
endured ever since.
BAMs influence was growing at the HEFC.
Many academics appointed to serve on thecommittees for the 2001 RAE were drawn from
those nominated by BAM. The DoRN began to
run seminars on preparation for the RAE.
Further, BAM was instrumental in furnishing
the ESRC with themes for its five-year policy
while providing evidence and critique for the
ESRC of its broad-brush themes, including the
identification of important omissions, e.g. the
links between organizational performance and
national performance, entrepreneurship, risk,
innovation and European perspectives. To sti-
mulate more influence of this kind, a media andpolicy sub-group was set up to project BAMs
message and position itself effectively towards
more external agencies.
After the 2001 RAE, the DoRN received less
attention for a few years until changes to ESRC
structures and policies, together with the looming
2008 RAE, caused the BAM Executive to
reinvigorate this important network in 2004.
The topics of discussion at the re-launch
Table 1. BAM Inaugural DoRN Meeting, February 1993:
concerns of participants
1. How to develop a research culture?
2. Benchmarking: what is successful research? What is
appropriate research in specific circumstances?
3. How to overcome the problem of critical mass?
4. How to learn from best practice?
5. How to develop a successful research proposal?6. How to present research?
7. How to manage research? How to get resources for
research? How to motivate busy teachers to do research?
How to encourage collaborative research? What is the role
of a Research Director?
8. How to ensure the current system does not encourage
quantity over quality in research?
9. How to carry out research with low funding?
10. How to manage tension between individual and institutional
research?
11. For new universities: what is the changing nature of
research?
12. How to avoid some academics becoming teaching only staff?
How to avoid insisting that everyone should do research?
388 S. Masrani, A. P. O. Williams and P. McKiernan
r 2011 The Author(s)British Journal of Management r 2011 British Academy of Management.
-
8/2/2019 j.1467-8551.2011.00764.x jurnal ilmiah
8/19
meeting were the Lambert Review,13 conversa-
tion with the ESRC and the role of DoRN. It
also saw the launch of a new annual Develop-
ment Programme for Directors of Research run
in association with the ABS. The programme
brought together Directors of Research from the
UK and some European business schools toshare experiences and good practices under
Chatham House rules (see Table 2 for key
objectives).
Traditionally the DoRN events attracted high
attendance, especially those on RAE or funding.
However, attendance was sparse for events on
general developmental issues of the network.
Some participants felt that there was not enough
support for them to attend unless they were from
traditional research-oriented institutions. In
2009, BAM created a Research Advisory and
Development Subcommittee (RADC), replacingDoRN, to allay some of these concerns and add
vigour in helping it to achieve its research-related
objectives (see Table 3 for RADC objectives).
Arguably, DoRN was the most influential of
BAMs formal committees. In symbolizing the
centrality of high quality research in the business
and management community, it had some success
in altering the sometimes negative attitude to this
quality by academic peers in cognate disciplines
on grant-making bodies.
Training and development
Training for senior researchers. The need for
training to foster a culture of research was
recognized during the early interactions with the
ESRC on funding (see above). It was reinforcedafter the decision by John Majors Conservative
Government in 1992 to grant university status to
former polytechnics, central institutions and
colleges of higher education. This swelled the
membership of the Academy overnight. Without
an established research culture in the host
institutions, most of these new members looked
to BAM to provide new skills, provide grant-
getting know-how and help with publications.
The more traditional research-based philosophy
of the Academy, manifest in its inaugural
objectives and strategy, came under pressureto provide for a large demand from a non-
traditional sector that it had neither anticipated
nor had the capacity to fill in the short run. BAM
ran training activities regularly at its annual
conferences during the 1990s to encourage a
strong culture of research. More recently (2004),
BAM began to collaborate with the Advanced
Institute of Management (AIM) to offer work-
shops on writing research proposals and journal
publishing and these enjoyed a strong demand.
However, increasing the frequency and variety of
events required a substantial financial resource.14BAM used its growing links to the ESRC to
secure additional funds, especially through its
own members on the Training and Development
Board. Again, in 2004, these two institutions
Table 2. Key objectives for development programme for Directors
of Research
Role of Directors of Research, their organizational context and
the expectations placed upon them
Issues in relation to research strategy, funding, the development
of faculty, doctoral provision, quality and accreditation
Opportunity to participate in a development programme as
opposed to one-off events, to learn with peers and the enhancednetworking opportunities that this presents
Source: ABS
Table3. Objectives of the Research Advisory and Development
Committee
Providing advice and expertise with regard to research policy
and research development issues
Providing advice and assistance in drafting response to
research-related consultations
Supporting the Directors of Research and others responsible
for research activitiesProviding advice on the development and delivery of training
aimed at enhancing research capability across the BAM
constituency
Pro-active engagement with stakeholders with interest in
research to the benefit of the business and management
community
Source: BAM Annual Review 2009
13The Lambert Review was commissioned by theGovernment in 2002 to review long-term links betweenbusiness and university with a view to fostering greatercollaboration between them to leverage the benefits ofresearch to benefit the UKs economy.
14BAM continued to secure funds from various sources.For example, in 2007 it received support from the FMEto run workshops throughout the year. However, therewas insufficient funding to ensure long-term continuity.
Management Education in the UK 389
r 2011 The Author(s)British Journal of Management r 2011 British Academy of Management.
-
8/2/2019 j.1467-8551.2011.00764.x jurnal ilmiah
9/19
submitted a proposal to the ESRCs Research
Development Initiative (RDI) for programmes
designed to enhance the UKs management
research capacity. BAMs application was suc-cessful and it received a grant of d120,000.
Subsequent awards secured sufficient funding
for workshops from 2007 to 2010, which allowedBAM to increase its portfolio of training offer-
ings. To emphasize the Academys increasingly
influential role in national research affairs, the
ESRC invited it to act as a Gateway of Support
for training initiatives in business and manage-ment.15 In its political-influencing role, this
switch of dependence from BAM on the ESRC
to a formal acknowledgement of its legitimacy
and onto joint project progression was a major
strategic breakthrough for the Academy.
Training young researchers. One of the found-ing aims of BAM was a commitment to the
training of doctoral researchers. Initially, these
activities were funded by internal resources and
as a result limited the scope of activities on offer
until 199495. Moreover, they were conducted
on an ad hoc basis. However, the training
committee soon began to draft these events into
their annual agenda to become regular offer-
ings. Importantly, BAMs growing links with
the ESRC began to bear fruit. In 1997, it
received support from the ESRC under the
latters training and development scheme. This
widened the product offerings to include courses
on preparing for viva, data analysis, case study
research, and conducting a systematic literature
review. More recently, provision from the RDI
(see above) meant that BAM was able to
provide continuing support from 2006 to 2010
to this important constituency. For example,
the second round of RDI, termed The Northern
Way,16 was dedicated to building and strength-
ening methodological capabilities. Further-
more, through its linkage to the AIM, BAMwas also able to use very experienced scholars to
deliver the events.
Collaboration
From 2000 to 2010, BAM established active links
with several sister associations. These links
played an important role in its ability to develop
research-related policies and to further influence
external stakeholders. Besides its collaboration
with AIM, which resulted in grants under theRDI, it grew closer to the ABS and together theydeveloped a new programme for Directors of
Research in 2004. ABS was running a pro-
gramme for new and aspiring Deans and this
new joint venture programme for current and
aspiring Directors of Research in its member
schools and departments appeared as a natural
extension to its existing training portfolio.
BAMs emphasis on collaboration acceleratedafter a survey of members in 2007 urged it to
strengthen its political voice. BAM initiated
interactions with several sister academies.17 In2008, bi-annual meetings were started with AIM,
FME, SAMS, AoM, ORS, BAA and the ISBE.
These meetings were organized under the Stand-
ing Committee for Research Academies in
Management, which was led by BAM.
Hence, BAMs efforts to increase the perceived
legitimacy of management research in the UK
through political lobbying, dialogue with key
external stakeholders, the setting up of formal
committees in its structure, the use of symbolism,
the provision of a broad portfolio of training
programmes and a series of strategic alliances has
enjoyed a degree of success. Major stakeholders
(e.g. ESRC, HEFC) turn now to the Academy for
consultation, policy advice, the population of
committees and joint project work. But primar-
ily, compared with the early 1990s, business
and management research funding levels have
increased dramatically. For example, funding by
DUIS-funded18 research councils in 20089 stood
at d22 million compared with d0.4 million in 1994
(see Figure 1). During this period, overall funding
15This resulted in establishing a dedicated website:www.managementresearcher.ac.uk16Funding was aimed at a consortium of 14 businessschools in the north of England.
17Institute of Small Business Entrepreneurship (ISBE),Foundation for Management Education (FME), UKJoint University Council for Social and Public Admin-istration, Chartered Management Institute (CMI),British Accounting Association (BAA), OperationalResearch Society (ORS), Academy of InternationalBusiness (AIB), Society for the Advancement ofManagement Studies (SAMS), Academy of Marketing(AoM).18Department of University Innovation and Skills.
390 S. Masrani, A. P. O. Williams and P. McKiernan
r 2011 The Author(s)British Journal of Management r 2011 British Academy of Management.
http://www.managementresearcher.ac.uk/http://www.managementresearcher.ac.uk/ -
8/2/2019 j.1467-8551.2011.00764.x jurnal ilmiah
10/19
has risen from d22 million in 1994 to d66 millionin 20089 (see Figure 2). The share of income
from DUIS-funded research councils as a pro-
portion of total allocations increased from 20%
in 1994 to 34% in 20089. However, this is still
lower in comparison with other disciplines. For
example, in 20089 total income for business and
management was around d66 million, compared
with d125 million for information technology and
d167 million for social studies. Ironically, despite
recommendations from influential reports such asthe Lambert Review to increase business
university collaboration, the share of income
from industry to business and management
declined from 18% in 1994 to 11% in 20089.
Worryingly, in 20078 total research income fell
for the first time since HESA began collecting
records in 1994. This slide continued in 20089.
Although funding from industry, charities and
research councils has risen slightly, this has not
20,000
25,000
10,000
15,000
5,000
0
Figure 1. Business and management funding: Department of Innovation, University and Skills (DIUS) Research Councils (19942008)
(thousands)
Source: HESA records complied by ABS
80,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
Figure 2. Total business and management funding (thousands)
Note: Covering DIUS Research Councils, UK-based charities (open competitive process), UK-based charities (other), UK central
government bodies/local authorities, health and hospital authorities, UK industry, commerce and public corporations, EU
government bodies, EU industry, commerce and public corporations, EU-based charities (open competitive process), EU other, non-
EU industry, commerce and public corporations, non-EU-based charities (open competitive process), non-EU other, and Other
sources.
Source: HESA records complied by ABS
Management Education in the UK 391
r 2011 The Author(s)British Journal of Management r 2011 British Academy of Management.
-
8/2/2019 j.1467-8551.2011.00764.x jurnal ilmiah
11/19
covered the reduction in income from the central
government (see Figure 2). Hence, although
much has been achieved, securing research
funding remains an ongoing battle for theAcademy.
In the legitimacy-influencing battle with stake-
holders, the ABS joined BAM in 1992. At thistime, the context remained unstructured. Both
BAM and ABS had their own defined domain
but interlocking executive membership of the
precursor organizations to the ABS ensured that
knowledge was shared between each institutionfrom the outset. Where BAM had a primary
focus on research, the ABS concentrated on
teaching and accreditation. Hence, the ABS was
able to work for the legitimacy of management
education across a different array of stakeholder
groupings and so broaden the legitimacy-
enhancing exercise. Moreover, because the ABShad a prehistory of engagement, it was involved
in a variety of influencing activities from its
outset and brought much needed skills and
knowledge to the effort.
Association of Business Schools: the birth of a
pressure group
ABS came into existence in 1992 as a result of a
merger between two bodies that went back over
20 years CUMS (Council of University
Management Schools) and AMBE (Associationof Management and Business Education). The
latter originated from two bodies, one of which
was named the Association of Regional Manage-
ment Centres. From 1971, CUMS had been an
informal group for discussing current issues
facing business schools and for disseminating
information relevant to its members. At the first
meeting 12 schools sent representatives; two years
later 23 schools were represented and formal
minutes began to be kept. In 1973, one of its first
tangible benefits came when it negotiated a low
interest loan scheme with Midland Bank to assistpostgraduate management education. Other net-
working opportunities came as links developed
with such bodies as the European Foundation for
Management Education, the Department of
Education and Science, the Graduate Business
Association (now the Association of MBAs or
AMBA) and AMBE.
By 1977, CUMS had developed from its liaison
roots to become an effective agent for its
members and for management education in
general. For instance, the traumatic episode
generated by Griffiths and Murray to privatize
business schools (Griffiths and Murray, 1985) ledto the setting-up of the working parties which
resulted in the influential Constable/McCormick
report (Constable and McCormick, 1987). Themeeting that triggered these working parties was
arranged and chaired by Bob Horton, then
Chairman of BP and of the Council of Industry
for Management Education, whose function was
to coordinate the views of industry towardmanagement education. Senior representatives
of four other key stakeholder groups were
present: John Stoddart, Director of the Council
for National Academic Awards (representing the
polytechnic sector), John Constable (Director of
the Institute of Management), Andrew Thomson
(Chair of CUMS), and Sir David Hancock(Permanent Secretary at the Department of
Education and Science). The processes involved
in the research and preparation of the BIM/CBI
sponsored Constable/McCormick report made
business schools more aware of their common
problems (e.g. being treated as cash cows by
their universities), and reinforced the beliefs that
effective management was a key factor in
economic growth and that Britain was behind
some of its competitors in the future supply of
management education and development. This
authoritative report included in one of itsrecommendations the statement: Management
schools should remain in their parent academic
institutions but should have greater managerial
and financial autonomy. This statement legit-
imized the need for greater autonomy, shared
by most UK management schools based in
universities.
In 19889, under the Chairmanship of Profes-
sor (now Sir) George Bain, the formalization of
CUMS reached a new peak when it transformed
itself into a legal entity and employed its own
part-time administrator (prior to this it was thesecretary of whoever filled the Chair of CUMS
who provided this service). This new status
enhanced the institutional influence of its
members as government and other bodies recog-
nized it as the voice of business schools in the
UK. Accordingly, direct representations on
behalf of schools were made to the Permanent
Secretary of the Department of Education and
Science relating to the Handy (Handy, Gordon
392 S. Masrani, A. P. O. Williams and P. McKiernan
r 2011 The Author(s)British Journal of Management r 2011 British Academy of Management.
-
8/2/2019 j.1467-8551.2011.00764.x jurnal ilmiah
12/19
and Gow, 1987)19 and Constable (Constable and
McCormick, 1987) reports; and to the Chairman
of the University Grants Committee relating to
the next research selectivity exercise. And indivi-duals in the House of Lords were briefed before
their debate on management education in 1988.
More recently, ABS has undertaken manyrepresentational roles, including gathering and
transmitting the collective views of business
schools in national consultation exercises (e.g.
the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Educa-
tions paper on the post-Dearing future of qualityaudit and assessment); and ensuring that a
business school voice is heard on key standing
committees and committees of enquiry (e.g. the
Chairperson of ABS, Stephen Watson, being
made a member of the Council for Excellence in
Management and Leadership which was set up in
in April 2000 to advise on action needed toimprove the quality of management and leader-
ship in the UK).
Accreditation, regulation and quality enhance-
ment. The next major step in the development
and consolidation of management education in
the UK came when CUMS and AMBE agreed to
merge and form the Association of Business
Schools (ABS) in 1992. The two bodies had
cooperated already through conferences. The
demise of the Council for National Academic
Awards (CNAA), the growth of management
education in the further education sector, the
transformation of the polytechnics into univer-
sities and the enlightened leadership of several
individuals made this a natural development. The
Memorandum and Articles of Association of
ABS were a modification of those of CUMS;
extracts are shown in Table 4.
A more succinct version of the ABS mission
was agreed in 2002 when the first strategy plan
was arrived at which gave recognition to its
international as well as national role:The Association of Business Schools is the repre-
sentative body and authoritative voice for all the
business schools of UK universities, higher educa-
tion institutions and independent management
colleges. ABS seeks to promote the interests of its
members and the business and management educa-
tion, training, research and development they
provide, nationally and internationally, so as to
improve the quality and effectiveness of manage-
ment, entrepreneurship and leadership for the
benefit of society at large.
Accreditation was one of the main pathways
through which some of its objectives could be
achieved. By applying this process across the
business school sector and gaining active support,
schools conformed to specific design criteria
through the well-known isomorphic pressures of
institutional theory in particular mimetic and
normative ones (see McKiernan and Wilson,
2011).
The ABS continued the work of the CNAA;indeed, in its dying days the CNAA helped the
new body to establish itself by providing office
space and administrative assistance. Jonathan
Slack, the CNAA Registrar for Business, Man-
agement and Information Studies, was seconded
to ABS before becoming one of its first two
employees. One of the first accreditation initia-
tives of ABS was the formation of the Manage-
ment Verification Consortium, in partnership
Table 4. Extracts from the Memorandum and Articles of
Association of ABS
To advance the education of the public in business and
management in particular through the promotion of business
and management education training and development so as to
improve the quality and effectiveness of the practice of
management in the United Kingdom. In furtherance of such
objects but not otherwise the Company may:
Promote effective forms of organization administration
teaching and research within institutions delivering
undergraduate postgraduate or post-experience business and
management education
Promote research organizational structures and
communications between members and the public and
government to assist its members in their contributions to
society at large
Provide a forum for the exchange of ideas and stimulate
discussion on the role of business and management
education
Organize and facilitate the development of the competence of
all academic and administrative staff of member
organizations
Carry out any other role in the nature of assistance
promotion investigation and exchange of information about
business management education training and development
generally. . .
19The Charles Handy report The Making of Managerswas sponsored by the National Economic DevelopmentOffice and focused on the international context formanagement education in the UK, thus complementingthe Constable/McCormick report which was concernedwith the nature of the UK provision.
Management Education in the UK 393
r 2011 The Author(s)British Journal of Management r 2011 British Academy of Management.
-
8/2/2019 j.1467-8551.2011.00764.x jurnal ilmiah
13/19
with the Institute of Management. This body was
intended to provide a robust verification process
enabling business and management schools to
award the Management Charter Initiatives Na-tional Vocational Qualifications and Scottish
Vocational Qualifications. However, ABS soon
withdrew from the consortium since only a few ofits members felt that it met their needs and
several academics criticized the competency-
based approach adopted by the Management
Charter Initiative (Burgoyne, 1988).
The importance that ABS attached to theaccreditation of programmes and schools was
not diminished by this venture. Other bodies were
also concerned with these matters, namely the
Association of MBAs (AMBA), the international
European Foundation for Management Devel-
opment (EFMD), and the already well-estab-
lished AACSB in the USA. In an effort to have asingle accreditation body in the UK, negotiations
were held between ABS and AMBA in 1997 but
these reached an impasse and the latter chose to
proceed on its own. This had the effect of
drawing ABS closer to EFMD with the result
that it took the lead in the formation of EQUAL
(Equal Quality Link). These events explain why
many of the top business schools in the UK and
abroad now seek, or are accredited, by Equis,20
AMBA and AACSB. Increasingly, the interna-
tional orientation of Equis is shared with the
other two associations (Greensted, 2000). Equisis not primarily concerned with the MBA but
accredits business schools as a whole. It
has established its recognition worldwide; 129
institutions have been awarded Equis accredita-
tion in 36 countries, including 20 business schools
in the UK.
Through its involvement in accreditation, ABS
has been able to influence the content and
standard of management education in the UK.
It exerts its influence through a variety of means,
including, in 19978 it was invited by the Quality
Assurance Agency (QAA) to be the lead body forall masters degrees in business and management
(a parallel with BAMs recognition by the ESRC
as a Gateway of Support for research); it has
been involved continuously in EFMDs Equis
scheme; generally, it is recognized as the main
body representing business schools in the UK;
full membership of ABS is associated with
evidence of an acceptable standard. The lattersinfluence is achieved by laying down certain
criteria for membership; these are reproduced in
Table 5 as agreed at the 2008 AGM. The
Executive Committee of ABS takes these into
account when considering membership applica-
tions. In 2010 there were 116 full members.
Publicizing management education. ABS has
always recognized the importance of publicizing
the benefits of management education. In 1997,
Chris Greensted, as Chairperson of ABS,
launched its first publication aimed at raising
awareness of the immense contribution which
business schools make to the national and
international economies Pillars of the Economyis now an annual publication (ABS, 201011).
Participation in exhibitions and presentations to
relevant bodies are also undertaken (e.g. overseas
officials of the British Council). The ABS-
sponsored publication The History of UK Busi-
ness and Management Education (Williams, 2010)
reinforces the current legitimacy of UK manage-
ment education to a national and internationalaudience.
Training and development. ABS has been recep-
tive to the needs of its member organizations
continually. This has led it to develop a successful
profile of courses for various categories of staff,
both academic and managerial (ABS, 200910).
The first, aimed at deans and directors, was held
in 2001; its success has resulted in a repeat of the
Table 5. ABS membership criteria
Membership is available to institutions which are universities,
colleges, schools or any other bodies which satisfy all of the
following criteria:
Delivery in the UK of higher education level qualifications in
the business and administrative studies area as defined by
HESA Have gained formal approval from the Privy Council and
approval by either the QAA or QCA/SQA for their
qualifications
Demonstrable commitment to research or scholarship in
relation to their qualifications
In considering the third criterion and whether an institution can
demonstrate a commitment to research or scholarship, the
following will be taken into account: the institutional strategy
and policies, the quality and quantity of published outputs, and
the existence of and support for the community of scholars
associated with the qualifications.
20EQUALs accreditation arm.
394 S. Masrani, A. P. O. Williams and P. McKiernan
r 2011 The Author(s)British Journal of Management r 2011 British Academy of Management.
-
8/2/2019 j.1467-8551.2011.00764.x jurnal ilmiah
14/19
programme in succeeding years. A parallel
programme, launched in 2002, for senior admin-
istrators and managers has proved equally
successful. Other developmental programmeshave been run on a 50/50 basis with BAM:
Directors of Research since 20045, and Direc-
tors of Teaching and Learning since 20056. ABShas also run programmes with bodies outside the
UK on a 50/50 basis: the International Deans
Programme with EFMD (now in its fourth year),
and more recently a course for programme
managers with a body corresponding to ABS inFrance. All these programmes have been finan-
cially successful.
A developmental network started by Allan
Bolton (School Administrator, Lancaster Uni-
versity Management School) with the support of
CUMS has continued to flourish under ABS. The
Administrators network has provided a regularplatform for a sharing of knowledge and
experience for the benefit of schools, e.g. in
relation to improving the quality of service to
students.
Academic journal quality guide. ABS was not
concerned primarily with research and funding.
Before BAM was established and while it was
finding its feet, CUMS represented business
schools in various national consultations that
were taking place relating to research. Thus, in
1988, representations were made to the Univer-
sity Grants Committee re the Research Selectivity
Exercise. Since then it has collaborated infor-
mally with BAM when appropriate. These inter-
actions were facilitated when BAM took the
deliberate decision to locate its administration in
ABSs London offices in 2003. Further, most
members of BAM are located in ABS member
schools. However, the element of overlap
between the two bodies (e.g. in the short course
and conference areas) can be a source of potential
conflict.A recent initiative of ABS which comes close to
challenging the boundaries with BAM relates to
the publication Academic Journal Quality Guide
which first appeared in 2007 (Harvey, Morris and
Kelly, 2007). This is an example of ABS
providing a service that its members had identi-
fied to meet the needs of UK business and
management research communities in their
search for greater quality. As Howard Thomas,
at that time Dean of Warwick Business School,
pointed out in the introduction of the first
version:
The world of academic publishing has become ever
more complex and competitive. An authoritative
guide to the relative quality of the many hundreds
of journals that publish the results of academicresearch has become necessary for several reasons.
Those who fund research and evaluate the out-
comes need a guide to the academic quality of the
outlets in which it is published. Deans and other
university senior managers need a reliable means of
assessing the achievements of their academic staff;
information professionals, responsible for large
budgets, need to know what they are getting for
their money when they purchase access to a journal
or a bundle of journals. Above all, individual
researchers need to be well informed when making
choices with regard to preferred outlets for their
work.
The guide is based on peer evaluation andlimits the weight attached to citation indices; as
such it is argued it should be a useful tool for
individual academics and business schools, given
the influence of academic publications in deter-
mining research income, career progression and
school rankings. As expected, the first version of
the guide covering over 1000 journals aroused
some controversy as (a) the journal rankings were
not coterminous with the expectations of authors
who had published in them and (b) there weredifferences in the ABS rankings and those of
other international lists. However, the methodol-
ogy has been continually improved with the
benefit of feedback and an advisory panel of
experts. Evidence of the publications success
comes with the appearance of the fourth version
(Harvey et al., 2010), its broad acceptance within
the UK academic community and its increasing
international following in other European coun-
tries. The success of the guide has exceeded
expectations. It started as the brainchild of
Harvey and Morris, with initial finance fromABS. It is now a free ABS service to the business
school community, and its influence has spread
abroad. It receives the most popular hit on the
ABS website.
The ABS list is one of many ranking lists that
proliferate in the field (Adler and Harzing, 2009).
Such rankings represent the process of commen-
suration whereby the qualitative process of
scholarship is quantified by a numeral (Power,
Management Education in the UK 395
r 2011 The Author(s)British Journal of Management r 2011 British Academy of Management.
-
8/2/2019 j.1467-8551.2011.00764.x jurnal ilmiah
15/19
2003). This use of measurement can be a power-
ful means of psychological persuasion in altering
belief systems (provided the figures portray UK
business and management research to be of worldstanding). From the first research audit exercise
in 1988 to recent times, there appears to be an
improvement in the quality and quantity of thatresearch (though see Saunders, Wong and Saun-
ders in this issue for a contrary view). Hence,
such lists added their own strong message in
attempting to influence the broad stakeholder
group and so supported the legitimacy exercise.However, they have been criticized heavily
by many scholars for their make-up and for
the many unintended consequences of their
over-active operation. Because they entered the
narrative of business and management education
in the UK so deeply, there have been strong
isomorphic processes at work, especially coercionand mimicry, as schools strive for the top
rankings and so converge on similar approaches
(see McKiernan and Wilson, 2011).
Discussion and conclusion
This paper examined the part played by the two
professional institutions, the BAM and the ABS,
in the legitimization of management education in
the UK. The theoretical framework adopted was
that of institutional theory, where the establish-ment of legitimacy by professional bodies
among key external stakeholders was central
(Greenwood, Suddaby and Hinnings, 2002).
Both BAM and ABS entered an embryonic
UK field contextualized by a suspicion of the
quality and applicability of management educa-
tion and especially of its research component.
Both institutions aimed to gain legitimacy from
external stakeholders through active agency by
lobbying, by creating formal and symbolic
structures and through the use of measurement
systems in order to influence the prevailing beliefsystems and to alter decision making rules and
regulations, e.g. those pertaining to research
funding. Table 6 summarizes their key contribu-
tions to the development of management educa-
tion in the UK.
The history of institutions in modern manage-
ment education in the UK mirrors closely the
phases of institutionalization. External shocks,
like serious concerns with quality, triggered
action in the early years by both BAM and the
forerunners of ABS (e.g. CUMS) who adoptednew strategies and structures in a pro-active,
influencing campaign. Early successes led to the
finessing of these strategies and structures, for
instance in the adoption of formal committees
(BAM) and accreditation alliances (ABS), mak-
ing objectification possible in the 1990s and early
2000s. In recent years, with major stakeholder
groups privileging these two institutions with
significant presence (ESRC with BAM and QAA
with ABS) and consulting them widely on all
issues in the business and management domain,
the road to sedimentation may have begun.Traditionally, empirical studies using institu-
tional theory have examined the role of three
approaches (mimetic, coercive and normative)
separately (Mizruchi and Fein, 1999). But as this
study shows, often organizations use all three
compliances, but perhaps the emphasis on each
one differs at each stage of development. For
example, BAM was established using the Acad-
emy of Management in the USA (including its
journals) as a mimetic model. For the ABS,
mimetic behaviours were less obvious, but one
model that had an influence when CUMS wastransformed into ABS was that of the CNAA.
Once established, BAM attacked the prevailing
belief system through the political lobbying of
influential decision making bodies, particularly
the ESRC, which had restricted research funding
to management. By making nominations to
decision making panels, BAM ensured that
committee members were more empathetic to
the needs and challenges of management re-
Table 6. Key contributions of BAM and ABS
BAM ABS
Providing a forum for
discussing research-
related policy issues at
national level
Accumulating and
disseminating knowledge re the
value of business schools to the
British economy
Providing a structure forassessing and disseminating
research outputs
Taking lead roles for theaccreditation of qualifications
and their business schools
Building a case for enhanced
funding of management
research
Ensuring that the voice of the
business school sector is heard
on influential bodies
Running programmes for
improving the quality of
management research
Running training programmes
for deans and senior managers
396 S. Masrani, A. P. O. Williams and P. McKiernan
r 2011 The Author(s)British Journal of Management r 2011 British Academy of Management.
-
8/2/2019 j.1467-8551.2011.00764.x jurnal ilmiah
16/19
search. In the case of ABS, coercive behaviours
were displayed in the various committees in
which ABS representatives participated such as
the subcommittees of the QAA and the workingparties associated with the Constable/McCor-
mick report (e.g. Andrew Thomson as Chair of
ABS). In addition to these, both organizationsapplied normative behaviour in parallel to
achieve their objectives. Both coercive and
normative strategies worked to mutually rein-
force their impact and increased the visibility of
BAM and ABS as the legitimate representativebodies within academia and beyond. BAMs
normative activities concentrated on increasing
the quality of research by promoting a culture of
research through workshops and training activ-
ities. Accordingly its value in the educational and
economic development of the nation has been
enhanced, and the views of its members are likelyto be consulted by policy making bodies when
appropriate. In the case of ABS, normative
activities were in the form of common standards
that emerged relating to the contents of degrees
and the levels of qualifications and experience
required for acceptance onto programmes.
These have increased the visibility of ABS and
it is difficult to imagine anybody trying to
influence business schools in the UK without
first consulting ABS as the main representative of
this sector.
Given the nature of the three categories ofbehaviours associated with institutional theory, it
is not surprising that an element of isomorph-
ism21 has arisen in the development of manage-
ment education (see McKiernan and Wilson,
2011). The knowledge exchanges that the Direc-
tors of Research (BAMABS) and the Deans and
Administrators (ABS) have participated in have
led naturally to the less successful copying the
successful. This has sometimes resulted in
undesirable consequences such as an overload
of paper submissions to top ranking journals.
However, although there is strong evidencethat all three pressures operated together, there is
some evidence that each may reach prominence
at different phases of institutionalization. For
instance, in the early stages, BAMs mimicry
was prominent in the absence of a well-developed
national institutional domain. It copied
from other established UK organizations (e.g.
in accounting) and the American Academy.During objectification, it made more use of
coercive lobbying and, when legitimacy was
becoming established, it turned heavily towardsprofessionalizing its activities in a normative
fashion. Only in sedimentation did it employ all
three strongly in a parallel manner, making it
difficult to identify either the relative impact of
each or the power of their interaction(see Gomes, Garry and Rodrigues, 2008). The
phasing was slightly different for the ABS, as it
had different beginnings, being a development of
previous forms of organization. Early on,
ABS used coercive power through lobbying and
this pressure has been paramount since then.
Mimicry has been the less powerful force in itsdevelopment, while normative professionalism
has been a large part of its identity throughout.
Hence, we conjecture that contextual factors,
e.g. the presence or absence of competition at
birth and/or the differing objectives of an
organization may lead to an explanation of the
significance of each pressure through the phases
of institutionalization.
Another important point emerging from this
analysis is that of perceived legitimacy by key
external constituents. One of the major concerns
expressed by external constituents regardedrigour and relevance of management research.
This led some to question the legitimacy of
management as a discipline and was one of the
factors that restricted research funding. Both
BAM and ABS made attempts to address rigour
(through various training activities) and rele-
vance (through promoting user engagement in
research and publicizing managerial implications)
to increase the legitimacy of management as a
discipline. However, as Wensleys paper in this
issue shows, the debate surrounding rigour and
relevance in management research has yet toreach a conclusion. Yet, between 1994 and 2008
research funding for management increased.
Hence, we conjecture that key external constitu-
ents can sometimes perceive the actions under-
taken towards addressing the causes that raise
legitimacy issues as sufficient even though con-
cerns surrounding that particular cause may not
be resolved entirely to the satisfaction of the
original institutions.
21Here, isomorphic pressures can be witnessed at severallevels, i.e. at the pan domain level in BAM and ABS andthrough the actions of individual business schools andthen their scholars.
Management Education in the UK 397
r 2011 The Author(s)British Journal of Management r 2011 British Academy of Management.
-
8/2/2019 j.1467-8551.2011.00764.x jurnal ilmiah
17/19
Thoughts for the future
The development of both BAM and ABS has
been replicated in other countries, as new
business school domains have emerged. This
has led to supra bodies being formed such as
the European Academy of Management (EUR-
AM).22 These developments reflect the increasingglobalization of management education, and thecross-recognition that takes place further
strengthens the legitimacy of these institutions
both nationally and internationally. But increas-
ing global competition from for profit business
schools, the emergence of new B-school compe-
titors in the East and the stakeholder criticism
voiced at business schools and their MBAs over
the moral obligations in the recent crisis and theconsequent prevailing economic climate present
new threats to the business and management
landscape in the UK.What are the consequences of these and other
changes for the roles of BAM and ABS in the
management education sector? They all have
financial implications, and legitimacy on its own
is an inadequate shelter from financial threats. It
may be that more cooperative structures (if not a
full merger) need to be introduced between ABS
and BAM, between business schools themselves,
and indeed between representative bodies in
different countries. Leadership is an ingredient
that has paid dividends for both institutions in
the past and it will continue to play an important
part in ensuring sustained legitimacy in the
future.
References
ABS (200910). ABS Annual Report 2009/10. London: ABS.
ABS (201011). Pillars of the Sustainable Economy. London:
ABS.
Adler, N. J. and A. -W. Harzing (2009). When Knowledge
wins: transcending the sense and nonsense of academic
ranking, Academy of Management Learning, 8, pp. 7295.Bain, G. (1993). Commission on Management Research State-
ments of Evidence. Swindon: Economic and Social Research
Council.
Brech, E., A. Thomson and J. Wilson (2010). Lyndall Urwick:
Management Pioneer. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Burgoyne, J. (1988). Competency Based Approach to Manage-
ment Development. Lancaster: Centre for the Study of
Management Learning.
Carmona, S. and M. Macias (2001). Institutional pressures,
monopolistic conditions and the implementation of early cost
management practices: the case of the Royal Tobacco
Factory of Seville (18201887), Abacus, 37, pp. 139165.
Carpenter, V. L. and E. H. Feroz (2001). Institutional theory
and accounting rule choice: an analysis of four US state
governments decisions to adopt generally accepted account-
ing principles, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 26,
pp. 565596.
Caswill, C. and R. Wensley (2007). Doors and boundaries: a
recent history of the relationship between research and
practice in UK organizational and management research,
Business History, 49, pp. 293320.
Constable, J. and R. McCormick (1987). The Making of British
Managers. London: British Institute of Management/Con-
federation of British Industry.
Covaleski, M. A. and M. W. Dirsmith (1986). The budgetary
process of power and politics, Accounting, Organizations and
Society, 11, pp. 193214.
Di Maggio, P. (1988). Interest and agency in institutional theory.In L. G. Zucker (ed.), Institutional Patterns and Organiza-
tions: Culture and Environment, pp. 320. Cambridge, MA:
Ballinger.
Di Maggio, P. and W. Powell (1983). The iron cage revisited:
institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in
organizational fields, American Sociological Review, 48,
pp. 147160.
Di Maggio, P. J. and W. W. Powell (1991). Introduction. In
W. W. Powell and P. J. Di Maggio (eds), The New
Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, pp. 133. Chica-
go, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Elbourne, E. T. (1934). Fundamentals of Industrial Administra-
tion. London: Macdonald and Evans.
Franks, L. (1963). British Business Schools. London: HMSO.Gomes, D., D. C. Garry and L. L. Rodrigues (2008).
Accounting change in central government: the adoption of
double entry bookkeeping at the Portuguese Royal Treasury
(1761), Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 21,
pp. 11441184.
Greensted, C. (2000). Measures for measure or a pound of
flesh? (A comparison of quality assurance schemes), Inter-
national Journal of Management Education, 1, pp. 310.
Greenwood, R., R. Suddaby and R. C. Hinnings (2002).
Theorizing change: the role of professional associations in
the transformation of institutionalized fields, Academy of
Management Journal, 45, pp. 5880.
Griffiths, B. and H. Murray (1985). Whose Business? A Radical
Proposal to Privatise British Business Schools. Hobart Paper.London: Institute of Economic Affairs.
Handy, C., C. Gordon and I. Gow (1987). The Making of
Managers. London: NDEC/MSC/BIM.
Harvey, C, H. Morris and A. Kelly (2007). ABS Academic
Journal Quality Guide, Version 1. London: ABS.
Harvey, C, A. Kelly, H. Morris and M. Rowlinson (2010). ABS
Academic Journal Quality Guide, Version 4. London: ABS.
Mant, A. (1969). The Experienced Manager a Major Resource.
London: BIM.
Masrani, S. and P. McKiernan (2011). Accounting as a
legitimising device in voluntary price agreements: the case
22BAM has been one of the main sponsors of EURAMsince its beginnings in 2000 through BAM ChairRichard Whipp. Collaboration between the two Acade-mies was reinforced when Peter McKiernan went fromthe Chair of BAM to the EURAM Presidency in 2007.
398 S. Masrani, A. P. O. Williams and P. McKiernan
r 2011 The Author(s)British Journal of Management r 2011 British Academy of Management.
-
8/2/2019 j.1467-8551.2011.00764.x jurnal ilmiah
18/19
of the Dundee jute industry, 19451960, Critical Perspectives
on Accounting, 22, pp. 415433.
McKiernan, P. and S. Masrani (2008). History of the British
Academy of Management: 19862007. Oxford: British Acad-
emy of Management.
Meyer, J. and B. Rowan (1977). Institutionalized organiza-
tions: formal structure as myth and ceremony, American
Journal of Sociology, 83, pp. 340363.
Mizruchi, M. and L. Fein (1999). The social construction of
organizational knowledge: a study of the uses of coercive,
mimetic, and normative isomorphism, Administrative
Science Quarterly, 44, pp. 653683.
Nind, P. (1985). A Firm Foundation: The Story of the
Foundation for Management Education. London: FME.
Oliver, C. (2001). Strategic responses to institutional process,
Academy of Management Review, 16, pp. 145179.
Owen, T. (1970). Business Schools: the Requirement of British
Manufacturing Industry. London: BIM.
Parsons, T. and R. F. Bales (1956). Family, Socialization and
Interaction Process. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Power, M. (2003). Auditing and the production of legitimacy,
Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28, pp. 379394.
Rose, H. (1970). Management Education in the 1970s. London:HMSO.
Scott, W. R. and J. Meyer (1991). The organization of societal
sectors: propositions and early evidence. In W. Powell and P.
Di Maggio (eds), The New Institutionalism in Organizational
Analysis, pp. 108140. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.
Sevon, G. (1996). Organizational imitation in identity trans-
formation. In B. Czarniawska and G. Sevo n (eds), Translat-
ing Organizational Change, pp. 4967. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Spender, J. C. (1989). Industry Recipes: The Nature and Sources
of Managerial Judgement. Oxford: Blackwell.
Spender, J. C. (2008). The business school in America: a
century goes by, In T. Durand and S. Dameron (eds), The
Future of Business Schools: Scenarios and Strategies for 2020,pp. 918. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Starkey, K. and N. Tiratsoo (2007). The Business School
and the Bottom Line. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: strategic and
institutional approaches, Academy of Management Journal,
20, pp. 571610.
Thomas, H. (2008). Business schools and management
research: a UK perspective, Journal of Management Devel-
opment, 28, pp. 660667. Special issue entitled Challenging
the Purpose of Business Schools, ed. Howard Thomas.
Tolbert, P. and L. Zucker (1996). The institutionalization of
institutional theory. In S. Clegg, C. Hardy and W. Nord
(eds), Handbook of Organization Studies, pp. 175190.
London: Sage.
Touron, P. (2005). The adoption of US GAAP by French firms
before the creation of the International Accounting Stan-
dards Committee: an institutional explanation, Critical
Perspectives on Accounting, 16, pp. 851873.
Tranfield, D. and K. Starkey (1998). The nature social
organization and promotion of management research:
towards policy, British Journal of Management, 9, pp. 341
353.
Urwick, L. (1947). Education for Management: ManagementSubjects in Technical and Commercial Colleges: Report of a
Special Committee Appointed by the Minister of Education.
London: Ministry of Education.
Williams, A. P. O. (2007). The Fifteenth Anniversary of ABS:
19922007. London: Association of Business Schools.
Williams, A. P. O. (2010). The History of UK Business and
Management Education. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.
Wilson, D. and P. McKiernan (2011). Global mimicry; putting
strategic choice back on the business school agenda, British
Journal of Management, 22, pp. 457469.
Wilson, J. and A. Thomson (2006). The Making of Modern
Management: British Management in Historical Perspective.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Witzel, M. (2009). Management History: Texts and Cases.London: Routledge.
Dr Swapnesh Masrani is a Lecturer in International Business at the School of Management,
University of Stirling. His research interest is in cross-fertilization of research in business history and
strategy. Swapnesh completed his doctoral thesis at the University of St Andrews in 2008. The thesis
examined the strategic response of manufacturing firms in the Dundee jute industry to increasing
international competition between 1870 and 1970. His research has been published in a