Encyclopedia of Educational Philosophy and Theory

2017 Edition
| Editors: Michael A. Peters

Examining the “Service” of Business Education for Women: A Service-Dominant Logic Perspective

  • Kellilynn M. Frias
  • James R. Carver
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-588-4_427

Synonyms

Introduction

Numerous studies identify failures in business school output (Thomas and Corneul 2012). Citing a gap between the skills and knowledge desired by prospective employers and the preparedness of new business graduates, the business school faces increased pressures to improve education. A lack of relevance in topics, outdated teaching methods, and insufficient faculty diversity are among some of the most predominant arguments for improving the business school experience.

These failures, and corresponding need for improvement, are particularly important for women as existing research have been found to have a (greater) disproportionate impact on women than men Connell and Ryan (2011). Currently, business schools are said to evoke a male dominant bias due to the focus on “hard” management and the overly aggressive and competitive environment (Parsons and Priola 2010; White et al. 2011). A cumulative effect of sexist use of language,...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Augier, M., & March, J. G. (2007). The pursuit of relevance in management education. California Management Review, 49(3), 129–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bettencourt, L. A., Lusch, R. F., & Vargo, S. L. (2014). A service lens on value creation: Marketing’s role in achieving strategic advantage. California Management Review, 57, 44–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Buttner, H. (2001). Examining female entrepreneurs’ management style: Application of a relational frame. Journal of Business Ethics, 29, 253–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Buttner, E. H. (2002). High-performance classrooms for women? Applying a relational frame to management/organizational behavior courses. Journal of Management Education, 26, 274–290.Google Scholar
  5. Catalayst. (2000). Women and the MBA. Gateway to opportunity. New York: Catalayst.Google Scholar
  6. Connell, J., & Ryan, S. (2011) Women and management education: Has anything changed? Australian & New Zealand Academy of Management, Wellington, New Zealand. 1–17.Google Scholar
  7. Crombie, G., Jones, A., Piccinin, S., Silverthorn, N., & Pyke, S. W. (2003). Students’ perceptions of their classroom participation and instructor as a function of gender and context. The Journal of Higher Education, 74(1), 51–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dunne, P. M., Lusch, R. F., & Carver, J. R. (2014). Retailing (8th ed.). Mason: South-Western.Google Scholar
  9. Freeman, S., Eddy, S.L., McDonough, M., Smith, M.K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M.P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America PNAS 111, 8410–8415. [Abstract available at www.pnas.org/content/111/23/8410.abstract]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hawawini, G. (2005). The future of business schools. Journal of Management Development, 24(9), 770–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. McMurray, S., Dutton, M., McQuaid, R., & Richard, A. (2016) Employer demands from business graduates. Education+ Training, 58(1).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mill, J. S. (1848). Principles of political economy. London: J.P. Parker.Google Scholar
  13. Myers, B. (2016, January 5). The flagship diversity divide. The Chronicle of Higher Education.. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/interactives/flagship-diversity. Last accessed 02 Dec 2016.
  14. Parsons, E., & Priola, C. (2010) The micro-politics of feminism in the managerialist university, Paper presented at the Gender, Work and Organisation Conference, Keele University, Newcastle, UK, June.Google Scholar
  15. Rapoport, R., & Bailyn, L. (1996). Relinking life and work: Toward a better future. DIANE Publishing, Darby, PA.Google Scholar
  16. Smith, A. (1776/1904). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations (5th ed., Vol. 1). London: Printed for W. Strahan and T. Cadell, in the strand. Book 2, Ch. 3Google Scholar
  17. Thomas, H., & Cornuel, E. (2012). Business Schools in transition? Issues of impact, legitimacy, capabilities, and re-invention. Journal of Management Development, 31(4), 329–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic of marketing. The Journal of Marketing, 68, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Vargo, S.L & Lusch, R.F. (2016). Institutions and axioms: An extension and update of service-dominant logic. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44, 5–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Warhurst, R. (2011) Managers’ practice and managers’ learning as identity development: Reassessing the MBA contribution, Management Learning, 42(3), 261–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. White, K., Carvalho, T., & Riordan, S. (2011). Gender, power, and managerialism in universities, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 33(2): 179–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Texas Tech UniversityLubbockUSA
  2. 2.Auburn UniversityAuburnUSA