Management studies educational knowledge: technical, elite or political?

Article English OPEN
Hordern, J (2014)

This paper draws on the technical, elite and political interpretations of the purpose of management, to identify demands for particular forms of educational knowledge in the management studies curriculum. The varied character of this knowledge is discussed using Bernsteinian concepts of verticality, grammaticality, classification and framing, and illustrations from a benchmark statement and MBA programme documentation. It is argued that the development of rational and technical knowledge for management education is confounded by the absence of a definable ‘profession’ of management, which could aid the specification of a body of abstract knowledge. Meanwhile, the promotion of weakly classified and framed forms of elite and political knowledge or ‘knowing’ in management programmes negates the potential for conceptual and contextual coherence in the curriculum, and suggests that the inclusion of forms of rational and technical knowledge may primarily support the consolidation of particular social formations and managerial identities.
  • References (7)

    Donaldson, L., J.Qiu, and N.Luo. 2013. “For rigour in organizational management theory research.” Journal of Management Studies 50 (1): 153-172.

    Freidson, E. 2001. Professionalism: the third logic. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Ghoshal, S. 2005. “Bad management theories are destroying good management practices.” Spender, J.C. 2007. “Management as a regulated profession: an essay.” Journal of Management Inquiry 16 (1): 32-42.

    Thomas, H. and A.D.Wilson. 2011. “'Physics Envy', cognitive legitimacy or practical relevance: Dilemmas in the evolution of management research in the UK.” British Journal of Management 22 (3): 443-456.

    Warde, A. and T. Bennett. 2008. “A culture in common: the cultural consumption of the U.K.

    managerial elite.” The Sociological Review 56 (Issue supplement section 1): 240-259.

    Young, M. 2008. “From constructivism to realism in the sociology of the curriculum.” Review of Research in Education 32 (1): 1-28.

  • Metrics
    0
    views in OpenAIRE
    0
    views in local repository
    36
    downloads in local repository

    The information is available from the following content providers:

    From Number Of Views Number Of Downloads
    Research SPAce - IRUS-UK 0 36
Share - Bookmark