MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020983373 · doi:10.1108/jmd-03-2011-0028

Does accreditation promote organizational learning? A multiple case study of Canadian university business schools

2013· article· en· W2020983373 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Management Development · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicManagement and Marketing Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccreditationOriginalityQualitative researchPublic relationsMedical educationPsychologyPedagogyPolitical scienceSociologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore the potential learning consequences of AACSB accreditation as perceived by administrators and faculty members at four Canadian university business schools. Design/methodology/approach A qualitative, multiple case study approach was employed. A purposive sample of four Canadian business schools was selected and data were collected from multiple sources. The data were analyzed using NVivo7 and a cross case analysis was performed. Findings The results indicate that AACSB accreditation facilitated organizational learning in three of the four schools. Respondents felt that accreditation promoted strategic alignment, a re‐assessment of the school's mission, and an emphasis on performance management; others identified an increased focus on quality and/or research. Accreditation also served as a catalyst for change, one which motivated program improvement. In terms of contextual factors, leadership was found to be the most pervasive influence on organizational learning effects. Resource dependence was also found to be influential. Research limitations/implications This research highlights the importance of educational leadership in facilitating organizational learning through evaluative inquiry. Because of the qualitative methodology, the sample size is limited to four university business schools. Practical implications This study has practical implications for management education internationally, as AACSB accreditation is increasingly a global phenomenon. The findings will be of interest to educational administrators, policy makers, managers, and accrediting bodies who are interested in facilitating learning through accreditation Originality/value This research offers a novel approach to studying the question of AACSB accreditation and its learning effects. By using a qualitative multiple case study method, this research provided a unique opportunity to focus more keenly on context and its role in influencing the potential learning consequences of accreditation.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.156
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.179 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it