A Proven Way to Incorporate Catholic Social Thought in Business School Curricula: Teaching Two Approaches to Management in the Classroom
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Widespread agreement suggests that it is appropriate and desirable to develop and teach business theory and practice consistent with Catholic social teaching (CST) in Catholic business schools. Such a curriculum would cover the same mainstream material taught in other business schools, but then offer a CST approach to business that can be characterized by its relative de-emphasis on both materialism (e.g., business is not solely or primarily about maximizing financial well-being) and individualism (e.g., business should emphasize the common good rather than merely self-interests, especially of owners). Research shows that teaching management theory and practice consistent with CST alongside mainstream management theory (1) reverses the tendency for business students to become increasingly materialistic and individualistic; (2) enhances students’ critical thinking; and (3) enhances students’ ethical thinking. This article describes how a CST approach differs from a mainstream approach to management, accounting, finance, and marketing. Implications are discussed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it