The Faculty-in-Residence program - Wake Forest University's Babcock School of Management

Business Horizons, Jan-Feb, 1996 by Bernard L. Beatty, Robert E. Lamy, Peter R. Peacock, Brooke A. Saladin

Business schools have come under increasing criticism over the relevance of faculty research to business practice and the adequacy of curriculum design and structure to prepare business leaders for the twenty-first century. Dissatisfaction over the quality of recent MBAs and the practical utility of business school research, expressed by both sponsoring corporate executives and business school administrators, is forcing academics to rethink the role and process of teaching and research. In this vein, Ghoshal, Arnzen, and Brownfield (1992) point out that the conceptual linkage between research and teaching assumes such research "will lead to knowledge useful to business and that such knowledge will flow back into companies through MBAs trained at business schools and through continuing education programs available to managers." However, as U.S. corporations struggle to adapt to a rapidly changing, globally competitive market, many firms are restructuring their recruiting processes, and their willingness to fund research based on "fuzzy academic theories in narrowly defined disciplines," as Byrne (1990) puts it, is clearly on the wane.

Many observers have questioned the evolution of business school research since the release of the Ford and Carnegie Foundation reports in the late 1950s by Gordon and Howell and Pierson et al. According to Leavitt (1989), these reports concluded that "research was the surest route to better faculty, better students, academic respectability, a leadership role in the business community, and perhaps some real contributions to the professionalization of management." Implementation of their recommendations yielded a vast expansion of research budgets--Byrne (1990), for example, has estimated that the top 20 business schools devote a total of more than $250 million a year to research--which in turn have generated the desired research output. Though several of the objectives set forth in the Ford and Carnegie reports have arguably been achieved, concerns about applicability remain a sensitive issue to observers both inside and outside academia.

About 30 years after the publication of the Ford and Carnegie reports, the relevance issue was again emphasized by Porter and McKibben (1988), who concluded that "it does not really matter whether a lot of research is being turned out or that much is directed at academic audiences, because it will not have an impact anyway." In addition, the overriding analytical emphasis of the research being produced by most business schools is seen as having a detrimental effect on curriculum development.

This concern for research relevance, however, must be viewed in juxtaposition to the need for teaching relevance. Some observers argue that one outcome of the overwhelming emphasis on research is a two-track model of teaching. Ghoshal, Arnzen, and Brownfield point out that many research-oriented schools have adopted what amounts to a two-track model for faculty: a high-status research track for social scientists and a low-status teaching track for classroom performers. Their main criticism is that much that is taught in MBA and executive courses lacks depth or rigor and is often plainly wrong, but research-oriented faculty have found it difficult to create any classroom interest or even tolerance for their own research and scholarship. In turn, mediocrity flourishes in management teaching devoid of the discipline and imagination that social science could bring to bear on new issues and challenges confronting corporations.

The challenge still facing the academic comcommuity and business firms seeking to develop better management is to design a support system that facilitates the production of both relevant curricula and relevant research. Such a challenge, however, does not necessarily require the complete dismissal of the traditional academic model. Attempts to design a support system that fosters relevancy of curricula and research have taken the form of executive education outreach programs (such as executive-in-residence and jointly sponsored research seminars), extensive use of consultants, and corporate partnership programs. As Edgar Leonard (1992) points out, using executives as classroom resources too often amounts to simply having a few invited discussions with the presumption that the executive "should go away and let the professor get on with the business of teaching."

Leonard adds that efforts to improve curricula require that "academics must be willing to share the responsibility of crafting the content of courses with executives, and executives must do more than tell a few war stories, give the current state of recruiting, and run out the door." Though the executive education approach has yet to be adequately exploited, the consulting firm approach has not proven effective. According to Linder and Smith (1992), its fundamental problem appears to be that even though consulting studies are often more timely, they may lack the academic rigor, objectivity, and depth that good academic research provides.