CHAPTER 33
Anne M. Greenhalgh, Douglas E. Allen, and Jeffrey Nesteruk
Abstract
This chapter explores the impact of the interplay of humanities and business on student well-being and flourishing both in theory and in practice. Drawing on positive psychology, the chapter uses a conceptual model supplied by Tay, Pawelski, and Keith (2018) and focuses on a cognitive-emotional process that fosters two modes of thought characteristic of liberal learning: namely, reflection and creative thinking. The conclusion of the chapter attempts to answer the call of critics of management education so that students get the full benefit from and make the most of a meaningful connection between the study of humanities and the study of business.
Key Words: humanities, business education, management education, liberal learning, positive psychology, flourishing
“Faith” is a fine invention
For Gentlemen who see!
But Microscopes are prudent
In an Emergency!
—Emily Dickinson
Introduction
Although the study of the humanities and the study of business have been intertwined for a long time, critics of undergraduate business education have often found a lack of meaningful integration between the two and have called for a tighter connection.1 In order to explore the interplay of the arts and humanities and the study of business, we use a conceptual model supplied by Tay, Pawelski, and Keith (2018) and focus on a cognitive-emotional process that fosters two modes of thought, in ordinary terms, reflection and creative thinking. The Teagle project at Franklin & Marshall College reminds us that ethics has served as the main connection between the arts and humanities and the study of business, and that virtue ethics, in particular, enables students to reframe business challenges and opportunities with richer notions of human flourishing than the abstractions of the efficient market model. The Teagle project at Bucknell University builds on the liberal arts tradition by elaborating on the idea of liber. More specifically, students who cultivate a progressive or innovative character are thoughtful about the world’s broader social, cultural, and ethical challenges and also are free to create positive change. Coursework that incorporates both active and contemplative moments makes the most of the transformative potential of business education and enhances its traditional instrumental value. The Teagle project at The Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania underscores the dominance of problem-solving and application as course objectives and the prevalence of case studies within the Wharton undergraduate curriculum. Skills such as creative thinking and the ability to reflect—typically associated with the study of the arts and humanities—are less salient. Moreover, case method, the dominant pedagogy at Wharton and, presumably, at business schools across the United States, is a microcosm of the macrocosm—of the push and pull between the humanistic and scientific cultures of the academy; between enlightenment and vocation; or, in the wordplay of Emily Dickinson, between seers and those who see, insight and sight. We will conclude this chapter with thoughts on how to answer the call of critics so that our students get the full benefit from and also make the most of a meaningful connection between the study of humanities and the study of business.
Conceptual Framework
In order to explore the interplay of the liberal arts and humanities and the study of business, we rely on work by Tay, Pawelski, and Keith (2018) who provide a conceptual model that includes “an operational definition of the arts and humanities, an articulation of the various types of flourishing outcomes to which they might lead, and a set of mechanisms through which these outcomes may occur” (p. 2). More specifically, these authors complement an extensional definition of the arts and humanities (that would include commonly held disciplines, subjects, and courses of study) with a functional analysis that puts equal emphasis on the way in which we interact with these objects of study. In their words:
We propose that the arts and humanities can be understood operationally by integrating the extensional definition and the functional analysis. The extensional definition demarcates and constrains the content and domain. The functional analysis addresses the ways this content is presented, as well as the types of engagement and participation involved. Thus, these modes of engagement and activities of involvement describe actions and interactions undertaken within extensionally defined domains and are closely related to measurable mechanisms that lead to flourishing outcomes. (p. 3)
Of the four mechanisms they identify—immersion, embeddedness, socialization, and reflectiveness—we pay particular attention to “reflectiveness,” “an intentional, cognitive-emotional process for developing, reinforcing, or discarding one’s habits, character, values, or worldview” (p. 4). The reason for our attention is that reflectiveness lends itself to the exploration and contemplation of values and points of view. In this way, reflectiveness fosters two modes of thought that Colby, Ehrlich, Sullivan, and Dolle (2011) would say are characteristic of liberal learning; namely, “the Reflective Exploration of Meaning” and “Multiple Framing.” The former is the “traditional heart of liberal education, the focal point of humanistic learning” because this mode of thought raises such fundamental questions as “what difference does a particular understanding or approach to things make to who I am, how I engage the world, and what is reasonable for me to imagine and hope.” The latter mode of thought encompasses the ability “to work with fundamentally different, sometimes mutually incompatible, analytical perspectives” (p. 60). Both modes of thought are of special interest to us because they evoke the language of subjectivity, interpretation, and problem-posing typically associated with the liberal arts and complement the language of objectivity, analysis, and practical problem-solving characteristic of scientific and management education (see Greenhalgh, 2007).
In the process of exploring the impact of the interplay of the humanities and business on student well-being, we recognize, as Ryan and Deci (2001) make clear, that Aristotle’s classic formulation of eudaimonia contrasts with more popular understandings of happiness rooted in the hedonic paradigm that emphasizes pleasure attainment and pain avoidance. The eudaimonic tradition views happiness as a state characterized by “meaning and self-realization and defines well-being in terms of the degree to which a person is fully functioning” (p. 141). Moreover, of special interest to our study is the notion that eudaimonic happiness is anchored in virtues and character identity that coalesce as the result of thinking, feeling, and practicing in situ. Making sense of and reflecting on experience matter.
The Arts and Humanities and the Study of Business
The liberal arts and humanities and the study of business have been intertwined from the very start. The birth of business education in the United States took place in Philadelphia in 1881. Joseph Wharton, an entrepreneur and manufacturer in the steel and nickel industry, established the world’s first collegiate school of business at the University of Pennsylvania. As Colby et al. (2011) report, Joseph Wharton’s “aim was to replace the ad hoc nature of on-the-job business training with systematic cultivation of a perspective that would combine courses in the knowledge and arts of ‘modern finance and economy’ with the broadening effects of the liberal arts, including a special focus on the then-new social sciences of economics and politics” (p. 15). They go on to add that The Wharton School was “attempting a kind of integrated liberal education for business in order to shape a new kind of highly educated man of affairs” (p. 15). They conclude that “business education began as an effort to establish university training as a way to instill in the then-new occupation of manager an understanding of purpose that was explicitly public in orientation. For this purpose an education based in the liberal arts was thought essential” (p. 16).
From the beginning, the relative emphasis and predominance of the humanities in relationship to the study of business has been up for debate. Again, Colby et al. (2011) recall the initial and ongoing tension between the two:
If taken as a serious goal in education for business, understanding and balancing strategic goals with social responsibilities would require strong ties to liberal education precisely in order to ensure that future managers could grasp the complexities of multiple aims and conflicting interpretations of facts. In contrast, if economic efficiency and technical productivity were the only or dominant goals, then preparation for management could more narrowly focus on technological and economic competence. This split image of the identity of professional management posed a problem for business education, one that has remained unsettled (p. 18).
Over the years, as Peknik (2013) summarizes, “each generation has had its own reasons” to rejuvenate the debate, whether prompted by the entrance of women into colleges in the 1920s, the rise of government-funded research at state universities in the 1950s, or the post–World War II expansion of universities, to name a few (p. 24).
On balance, critiques of business education have highlighted the tension, often finding a lack of meaningful integration between the two. Gilbert (1997) describes attempts to integrate the liberal arts and humanities with the study of business as either “fertilizer,” “Chamber of Commerce,” or “heartstrings” approaches. Gilbert concludes that these three approaches thrive—and we would add, continue to thrive—because they “preserve conventional ways of talking about management practice. To this cause of reaffirming the language of management studies, the fertilizer genre contributes intellectual skills, the Chamber of Commerce genre contributes precedents, and the heartstrings genre contributes emotional zest” (p. 31). More recently, Colby et al. (2011) describe the relationship between the liberal arts and business curricula as a kind of barbell in which students struggle to find the connection between the business courses they take and their broader general education requirements (p. 5). Harney and Thomas (2013) are even less optimistic, saying, “If there is a conflict of the faculties today in management education, then higher faculty has largely vanquished the lower faculty to the margins” (p. 512); in other words, the study of vocation has trumped the pursuit of enlightenment (p. 509).
In light of critiques such as these, sustained arguments for a tighter integration between the humanities and business have found prominence in recent book-length publications such as Management Education and Humanities, edited by Gagliardi and Czarniawska (2006). In one of the chapters, Hendry (2006b) argues that business schools put an emphasis on knowledge that “masquerades as technique” and also on knowledge that makes “claim to scientific status” (pp. 35–36). Here and elsewhere (Hendry, 2006a), he argues that “studies within the humanities are indispensable for the rational and informed questioning of people’s judgements, and indeed of their actions in general” (2006a, p. 268). In their book Transformative Management Education: The Role of the Humanities and Social Sciences, Landfester and Metelmann (2018) explain the call for tighter integration as a twofold response: first, to the global financial crisis which business school graduates, at worst, promoted and, at best, failed to avert; and, second, to prepare graduates for the volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous (VUCA) world they will inhabit (p. 3). The Teagle projects at Franklin & Marshall College and at Bucknell University provide illustrations of two responses to the most recent call for a tighter connection between the humanities and business.
Ethics: A Prevailing Point of Intersection
The Teagle project at Franklin & Marshall College reminds us that the study of ethics is the prevailing way in which humanistic thinking and values have entered business pedagogy and practices. Prompted initially by corporate scandals during the 1970s, ethics entered the curricula of business schools and programs and has now developed a prominent presence among business educators and corporate leaders. As long ago as 1991, 90 percent of schools that are members of the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) covered ethics in the curriculum, and more than half of the schools expressed interest in increasing coverage of the subject (Schoenfeldt, McDonald, & Youngblood, 1991).
The link between pedagogy and practice is crucial here. While the original interest in ethics among management teachers arose as a reaction to corporate scandals, ethics pedagogy itself has now developed into a more mature, innovative field influencing business practices ranging from strategy to accounting to marketing (see, for example: Armstrong, Ketz, & Owsen, 2003; Husted & Allen, 2000; and Yoo & Donthu, 2002). Significantly, too, implicit in many of the contemporary approaches toward teaching ethics is a distinctive conception of business excellence, of what it means to do business well.
The foundational contribution of ethics to management pedagogy lies in the way it reframes business challenges and opportunities, thus helping to engender a new narrative for business. Colby et al. (2011) emphasize the importance of multiple framing in business education, pointing to the debilitating consequences of an inadequately understood or restrictive business model in the formation of the outlooks of business students:
Typically, students are asked to learn and apply standard business concepts without their origins and broader significance. When concepts are taught in this way, students tend to see them as corresponding to some objective reality instead of tools created by human beings. This problem is exacerbated when individuals remain embedded in a single conceptual frame over an extended period of time (as the dominance of the efficient market model in business almost ensures), coming to treat the model as real even if they are aware at some level that it is not. (p. 75)
Reframing of business challenges and opportunities in ethical terms opens the door for a more complex story of business, one centered on a richer notion of human flourishing than the abstractions of the efficient market model. Notably, this new narrative of human flourishing in business attends to the good of individual managers and the larger public good and also to the good of corporations, now reframed as a kind of community whose virtue must be examined.
Virtue ethics has thus emerged as one prominent way of addressing such basic concerns and challenges in business. Drawing historically from Aristotle and extended into the business environment by philosophers such as Robert Solomon and Edwin Hartman, virtue ethics brings the question of human flourishing to the fore. From the perspective of virtue ethics, human flourishing is intimately intertwined with the development in individuals of virtues or states of character, dispositions that are admirable or praiseworthy. From this point of view, individual preferences or interests are no longer the foundational point for ethical analysis. As Hartman (1994) puts it: “[It] can make little sense to say virtue is or is not in your interests because vice or virtue determines what your interests are” (p. 257). Individuals of good moral character will have desires that differ from those whose dispositions have been corrupted.
Developing such virtues is not simply a matter of individual choices or actions. Good persons require good communities in which to flourish. Drawing upon Aristotle, Edwin Hartman goes on to say, “But for a good person, in particular a cooperator inclined to trust others, life in a community full of treacherous free riders would be unhappy. So we can see the point of Aristotle’s claim that a virtuous person must live in a great polis—can only survive in a good community we might say” (pp. 257–258).
Such an emphasis on the importance of the good community requires the evaluation of the various kinds of business communities, including, most prominently, the corporation. As Robert Solomon (1992) points out, “Corporations are real communities, neither ideal nor idealized” (p. 325). Such communities provide an embodied and richly socialized context that is formative of our identities. “What it means to be part of a community,” Solomon asserts, “… is, among other things, to identify yourself and your interests in and with the community. It is, simply, to become a different person” (pp. 280–281).
Under the Teagle grant, Franklin & Marshall College engaged in pedagogic innovations and experiments marked by a distinctive understanding of business excellence. At the core of this understanding is the recognition of the embedded nature of the business enterprise, one that has been called a “nested conception” of business. In the words of Nesteruk (2017), “Under this nested conception, business is never a world unto itself claiming vindication of its actions as ‘just business,’ but rather a socially integrated practice in which doing well is inextricably tied to doing good.”
The Teagle initiative brought the nested conception of business to the fore through the collaboration of business and liberal arts professors. Through a variety of linked courses and other creative collaborations, participating faculty interwove the values and perspectives of business and liberal learning. One prominent collaboration took place between an entrepreneurship professor and an instructor of improvisational dance. A second linked course occurred between a professor of sustainable business teaching a course on the business of food and a literary scholar teaching a class on the literature of the Anthropocene. A third course collaboration between a corporate law scholar and a political theorist brought into view how human flourishing involves more than rule following and is intertwined with the development of dispositions that are admirable or praiseworthy. Through guest lectures, joint classes, and common readings, this collaboration aimed to illuminate economics from the standpoint of political theory, examining the limits of market dynamics and values. It brought to business students new questions, ranging from “Is loyalty possible in business?” to “What can’t money buy?” to “Does the character of shareholders matter?” to “Are corporations moral persons?”
In each collaboration, students had the opportunity to practice the reflective exploration of meaning and multiple framing, to borrow terms from Colby et al. (2011). Students found moments where such creative collaborations were “transforming,” as one student wrote:
Overall, I thought both creativity exercises were helpful in improving my creativity and seeing things from a new perspective…. I think that going forward I will be able to cut out some of the analytical thinking and just brainstorm. I think this will help me be less restrictive in my ideas so that I can view issues from a new perspective.
In short, such collaborations between business and liberal arts professors deepen ethics education from an intellectual classroom exercise into practices with the potential to carry over into students’ lives and careers. Significantly, they do so by emphasizing how ethics is not simply a matter of individual choices or actions. Rather, these collaborations embed business students in an interconnected world, one in which their individual flourishing is intimately connected with the larger public good and one in which corporations must be the kind of communities that good persons require in order to flourish.
Character Building: Liberal Values at the Crossroads
The Teagle project at Bucknell University shares much in common with the effort at Franklin & Marshall College in that both projects attest to how the arts and humanities can augment business and management education in a manner conducive to human flourishing. Each project complements the other by fostering reflection and multiple framing, but with a different emphasis. Whereas the Franklin & Marshall project places more weight on multiple framing as a way to help students see and understand that management and business concerns are nested and part and parcel of larger community values and concerns, the Bucknell project puts more emphasis on character building and the interplay between students’ individual-level embodied practices and the multiple frames they use to interpret their personal relationship to their educational experience. Stated differently, the Franklin & Marshall project operates at the level of the habitat of classroom content, and the Bucknell project operates more at the level of habits involved in the learning experience.
Colby et al. (2011) emphasize that “going to college changes people” and argue for shifting the emphasis from the traditional, instrumental aim of a business education to a more transformative purpose (p. 32). Instead of emphasizing the tools students need from a business curriculum in order to advance in the workplace, the focus shifts to what kind of people our students are becoming. Similarly, Landfester and Metelmann (2018) turn to the European educational focus on character, Bildung, which emerged in the early 1800s, and make the case that “transformative management education means focusing more on the students than the subjects taught” (p. 23).
In keeping with its emphasis on character building, the Bucknell project draws on the origins of the liberal arts tradition by embracing the classic root of the word “liberal,” liber, meaning “free.” In the context of thought, speech, and action, this root often conveys freedom from dogma, prejudice, and convention. By contrast, a more forward-looking meaning of liber connotes the freedom to have a creative, performative force on the world. Taking seriously Colby et al.’s (2011) assertion that college changes people, the Bucknell project explicitly emphasizes building a progressive or innovative character in students. Such a character means inhabiting the world in a manner other than taking the world for granted or letting the world go by in an unquestioning way (freedom from). Stated positively, a progressive or innovative character entails taking a posture toward the world that is sensitive to its broader social, cultural, and ethical challenges and also imbued with the inclination and confidence to create positive change (freedom to). In conceptualizing character, the Bucknell project also draws on Aristotle’s understanding that character is not an inner quality, per se, but rather is composed of habits that are honed through active practice. In the spirit of eudaimonia, character building is not passive but, rather, a blend of action and reflective contemplation. Building character is a process.
An experimental course, entitled “Building an Innovative Character,” is illustrative of the Bucknell project. Jointly created by a management professor and an art professor, the course engaged students in the exploration and practice of five primary habits that comprise an innovative character: (1) child’s eye/hyper-observation (a mode in which individuals are hyper observant of their environment and question aspects that typically go unnoticed); (2) embracing ambiguity; (3) failing forward; (4) developing creative confidence; and (5) empathizing. Although these five habits may not be exhaustive and definitive, they build logically from one to the next. With greater mindfulness and observation, the world becomes less certain and more ambiguous. One response is to retreat to the familiar black and white; another is to embrace the gray and ambiguous. The emergence of new and surprising pathways can lead to uncertainty about the right choice to take, fear of the risk of forging a new direction, indecision and paralysis. At this juncture, failing forward and creative confidence can sustain progress, however defined. Finally, through empathy (and, perhaps, its close cousin, compassion), a progressive character may orient toward “the good” and eudaimonic life.
Offered twice over two consecutive semesters, this experimental course was composed of fourteen discrete, transportable one-week modules taught by interdisciplinary teams of faculty. Consistent with the Aristotelian view of habits and eudaimonic existence as involving both active and contemplative moments, these modules included prominent experiential and embodied elements linked to one or more of the five habits comprising a progressive character. In addition to conceptual readings, each of the modules required individual reflections on the embodied experiences, such as in-class exercises and homework assignments.
As illustration, one module taught by a management professor and a dance professor focused on the topic of “active hope.” Active hope offers a way of grappling with the daunting challenges facing humanity (for example, climate change and global poverty) by reframing so that students are not so overwrought with despair that they become devoid of energy and are unable to become part of the solution. Through physical movements that explore how the body plays a role in our relationship with the environment and through reflection by way of gratitude journaling, students at Bucknell—like those at Franklin & Marshall College—practiced multiple framing and the reflective exploration of meaning, to borrow again from Colby et al. (2011). As one student wrote at the end of the module:
I realized that the first step towards achieving active hope is being able to face reality, and to discuss topics that are bleak or depressing…. When a difficult topic is brought up, it is easy to push it under the rug, or attempt to avoid it at all costs. However, in order to fail forward as a society and actively make a change, it is necessary to acknowledge and discuss issues that are uncomfortable and daunting. Once we are willing to face reality, we can then address issues before they progressively get worse overtime…. Next, in order to take action and to fulfill the last step, it is necessary to empathize with others…. Thus, once we consider ourselves as a cohesive unit with society, and are willing to put ourselves in the shoes of people who are completely different than us, it becomes easier to induce change.
By combining reframing and reflection, the Bucknell project provides evidence and hope of contributing to student well-being and flourishing.
Case Method: The Embodiment of the Interplay and Tension
The Wharton project at the University of Pennsylvania has enabled a snapshot of the undergraduate business curriculum during the academic year 2015–2016. Following Augier and March (2011), this snapshot is not panoramic but limited—a singular portrait of one business school at a particular moment in time. As they said of their study, “Within the population of North American Business schools, variations across time and among graduate and undergraduate schools, private and public schools, large and small schools, rich and poor schools, and all their combinations are daunting to any attempt to generalize” (pp. 7–8). Nonetheless, this snapshot of the Wharton undergraduate business curriculum is worthy of note because it reveals the salient course objectives and dominant teaching method at the nation’s first collegiate business school and one of the country’s most prestigious undergraduate programs.
Painting a picture of the business curriculum required downloading all 220 of the 100- to 300-level course syllabi in ten departments at Wharton: Accounting; Business Economics and Public Policy; Finance; Healthcare Management; Legal Studies; Management; Marketing; Operations, Information, & Decisions; Real Estate; and Statistics. If sections of a course were taught by different professors using different syllabi, these sections counted as separate courses. If all sections used the same syllabus, regardless of the professor, they counted as one course. Painting a picture also required going through each syllabus looking for specific mentions of skills taught (such as problem-solving, analytical thinking, critical thinking, application, creative thinking, and reflection) and of teaching methods for delivering course content (such as the use of cases, simulation and role play, novels, films, or videos). Skills taught and methods used that were stated in the course description received greater emphasis than those mentioned in course assignments or grading rubrics.
A close look at the Wharton undergraduate curriculum reveals the primacy of problem-solving and application as course and learning objectives. Overall, the most prevalent skills were analytical thinking and problem solving (noted in 74 percent and 70 percent of all course syllabi, respectively) and application (noted in 63 percent of syllabi). The least prevalent skills were critical thinking (noted in 21 percent of course syllabi) and creative thinking (noted in 18 percent of all syllabi). Roughly two-thirds of the course objectives at Wharton aim to teach students how to solve problems and apply what they have learned. Skills typically associated with the study of the arts and humanities—namely, the ability to think creativity and pose problems, as well as the ability to reflect on what is learned—are less prevalent. The salience of problem-solving over problem-posing points to the dominance of the scientific approach over the literary (Greenhalgh, 2007).
A close look at the Wharton undergraduate curriculum also sheds light on the dominant pedagogy: Case method. A majority—71 percent of all courses—use cases. The use of case method to teach students how to solve business problems and apply what they have learned is a microcosm of the macrocosm—a way of teaching that replays the tension between two narratives, the push and pull between the literary and scientific cultures of the academy, as outlined by C. P. Snow (1963) in his famous lecture on the two cultures. Case method is at once a scientific, laboratory method in which students solve problems and apply what they have learned, and also a literary method in which students use their interpretative and reflective capacities to address and resolve issues (Greenhalgh, 2007). And, as Starkey and Tempest (2008) point out, the case study itself becomes “a quintessential example of business school knowledge” (p. 384). Although they may be rightly critical of the kind of knowledge that cases represent—“war stories, dubious narratives of success, with a cast of all-powerful leaders and, recently, more powerful entrepreneurs” (p. 384)—we had better take cases seriously, following Sharen and McGowan (2019), who argue for providing positive female role models in the written cases we ask our students to read because “[a]s educators, we consciously and unconsciously shape our students’ identities as managers and leaders through what we teach, how we teach it, our choices as role models, the discussions we entertain in the classroom, and the materials we select” (p. 159).
Answering the Call
Taking seriously what we teach and how we teach it for the sake of our students’ flourishing means answering the call and making a tighter and more meaningful connection between the arts and humanities and the study of business. But making a tighter and more meaningful connection necessitates more than including more liberal arts content alongside or within the business curriculum. As Buşoi (2017) cautions:
[a] humanities-based education offers no guarantees. For no matter how much philosophy you have read, no matter how many artwork [sic] you have looked at, whatever classical, sublime music you have listened to, it is still possible to be immoral/amoral, it is possible not to understand, it is possible to remain selfish and inert like a plain, soulless rock on a dusty road, that has no role, and no goal, but just to hurt the feet of those who are passing by. (pp. 128–129)
To answer the call, we need to include virtue ethics as part of the study of business so that our students can see business issues and problems as matters of human flourishing in addition to market efficiency. In addition, we need to give our students the opportunity to act and reflect and build character through coursework that makes the most of their transformational and instrumental education. We must also use case method as a literary method of interpretation, as well as a laboratory method of analysis, so that our students can develop their creative, associative, and interpretive skills as well as their critical, linear, and analytic abilities (Greenhalgh, 2007). And finally, we need to enhance our students’ ability to reflect in a deep rather than superficial way so that they can analyze and interpret rather than simply record and describe their experiences in and out of our classrooms.
Research by Dyment and O’Connell (2011) reveals that the quality of reflection found in student journals varies considerably, from superficial to profound. In their review, Dyment and O’Connell (2010) identify a series of limiting and enabling factors that they find inhibits or enhances reflection: namely, “clarity of expectations, training, responses, assessments, relationships with the lecturer, and developing the practice” (p. 233). If we answer the call and help our students reflect so that they can make a meaningful connection, we will give them hope and faith in their ability to see—with the insight and sight afforded to those who benefit from the study of the liberal arts and humanities and the study of business.
References
Armstrong, M. B., Ketz, J. E., & Owsen, D. (2003). Ethics education in accounting: Moving toward ethical motivation and ethical behavior. Journal of Accounting Education, 21(1), 1–16.
Augier, M., & March, J. (2011). The roots, rituals, and rhetorics of change: North American business schools after the Second World War. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Buşoi, S. (2017). The importance of humanities in business education. Euromentor Journal: Studies about Education, 8(4), 117–130.
Colby, A., Ehrlich, T., Sullivan, W. M., & Dolle, J. R. (2011). Rethinking undergraduate business education: Liberal learning for the profession. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Dyment, J. E., & O’Connell, T. S. (2010). The quality of reflection in student journals: A review of limiting and enabling factors. Innovative Higher Education, 35(4), 233–244.
Dyment, J. E., & O’Connell, T. S. (2011). Assessing the quality of reflection in student journals: A review of the research. Teaching in Higher Education, 16(1), 81–97.
Gagliardi, P., & Czarniawska, B. (Eds.). (2006). Management education and humanities. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
Gilbert, D. R. (1997). A critique and a retrieval of management and the humanities. Journal of Business Ethics, 16(1), 23–35.
Greenhalgh, A. M. (2007). Case method teaching as science and art: A metaphoric approach and curricular application. Journal of Management Education, 31(2), 181–194.
Harney, S., & Thomas, H. (2013). Towards a liberal management education. Journal of Management Development, 32(5), 508–524.
Hartman, E. (1994). The commons and the moral organization. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4(3), 253–269.
Hendry, J. (2006a). Educating managers for post-bureaucracy: The role of the humanities. Management Learning, 37(3), 267–281.
Hendry, J. (2006b). Management education and the humanities: The challenge of post-bureaucracy. In P. Gagliardi & B. Czarniawska (Eds.), Management education and humanities (pp. 21–44). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
Husted, B. W., & Allen, D. B. (2000). Is it ethical to use ethics as strategy? Journal of Business Ethics, 27(1), 21.
Landfester, U., & Metelmann, J. (2018). Transformative management education: The role of the humanities and social sciences. New York, NY: Routledge.
Nesteruk, J. (2017). Entrepreneurs who want to dance: The liberal arts approach to business. Retrieved from https://www.timeshighereducation.com/blog/entrepreneurs-who-want-dance-liberal-arts-approach-business.
Peknik, P. J. (2013). The rise of business education in America. In G. M. Hardy & D. L. Everett (Eds.), Shaping the future of business education (pp. 19–25). London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 141–166.
Schoenfeldt, L., McDonald, D., & Youngblood, S. (1991). The teaching of business ethics: A survey of AACSB member schools. Journal of Business Ethics, 10(3), 237–241.
Sharen, C., & McGowan, R. (2019). Invisible or clichéd: How are women represented in business cases? Journal of Management Education, 43(2), 129–173.
Snow, C. P. (1963). The two cultures and the scientific revolution. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Solomon, R. (1992). Corporate roles, personal virtues: An Aristotelean approach to business ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly, 2(3), 317–339.
Solomon, R. (1994). The corporation as community: A reply to Ed Hartman. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4(3), 271–285.
Starkey, K., & Tempest, S. (2008). A clear sense of purpose? The evolving role of the business school. Journal of Management Development, 27(4), 379–390.
Sullivan, W. M., & Rosin, M. S. (2008). A new agenda for higher education: Shaping a life of the mind for practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Tay, L., Pawelski, J. O., & Keith, M. G. (2018). The role of the arts and humanities in human flourishing: A conceptual model. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 13(3), 215–225.
Yoo, B., & Donthu, N. (2002). The effects of marketing education and individual cultural values on marketing ethics of students. Journal of Marketing Education, 24(2), 92–103.
1 Grants awarded by the Teagle Foundation to Franklin & Marshall College, Bucknell University, and The Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania have made this exploration of management and business education possible.