Strengthening capitalism through philanthropy: The Ford Foundation, managerialism and American business schools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Business schools have played a significant role in creating and sustaining many of today’s grand challenges, including income inequality, the gig economy and climate change. Yet calls for change go unanswered. With a critical perspective on philanthropy, an understanding of power and historical reflexivity, this article helps develop our understanding of why business schools are so deeply rooted in managerialism and so resistant to change. Through archival research, I show how the Ford Foundation used its money and influence in the 1950s to embed a managerialist ideology in American business schools as part of its efforts to sustain and strengthen the capitalist system. Through its outward face of objectivity and neutrality, combined with targeted support of specific schools, individuals and research, the Ford Foundation went beyond shaping the structure and curriculum of business schools to shaping the ideology and identities of management scholars. The more that we, as business academics, understand the full histories of our own institutions and the often hidden or ignored sources of power that played a role in their development, the easier it will be to change business schools in ways that fit our current contexts and support our current and future needs.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".