Analysis of the University, Ltd: Changing A Business School Article by Parker - Literature review Example

Critical Review Research in organizational dynamics and structure has been on the rise (Choo, 1996). Every now and then one comes across a new methodology or approach devised by social scientists or academics from management studies (Muzio et al., 2013). The main focus of these researches is to improve the overall performance of an organization by developing productive organizational culture, establishing sense of belongingness among members, and to unite all the departments within an organization for better productivity (Perkins, 1973). In universities the organization mainly relies on two pillars that include faculty and administrative bodies, and sometimes one may find overlaps among the two factions. Both the groups have different backgrounds, and both the sides have to act in different domains. It is the duty of faculty members to improve the quality of education and modes of delivering knowledge, and conducting meaningful research. Meanwhile administration of a university has to act like a provider, monitor, and manager. The role of university administration over the past few decades have evolved greatly. Administration has gained more power, and as a result of which the academics at the university have become weaker. Administrators think like businessmen, and their decision are relatively more subtle than the ones made by academics. Managers calculate their input against their output to obtain maximum efficiency. They try to introduce modern technologies, more trendy programs, and things that bring in maximum profit. While academics are more conservative, they have a different approach. However, the academic of today has also changed, he/she knows the best way to save a career in academics, one needs to get along with the administrative decision i.e. instead of showing resistance or raising question against administrative policies it is better submit ones opinion and to follow the flow (Duryea, 1973; Krücken & Meier, 2006;). Parker (2014) in his article “University, Ltd: Changing a business school” offers a first person account of what he observed at Euro Business School as an academic. The article begins with a historical comparison of how universities have changed their approach towards education over the 20th century with rise in industrialization. The article points out some of the main alterations in the universities that were induced by ever expanding industrial sector in Europe. The two main things that according to Parker (2014) have changed include the administration of business schools, and the attitude of academics, the modification of the two, contributed eventually towards transforming the curriculum and the purpose of these business schools. Parker introduces the case by quoting example of Warwick’s case of 1950s. The purpose of quoting Warwick’s example was to define a correlation between changes in the industry and the universities, and then to link the whole case with changes occurring in EBS. The article seems more like a detailed editorial in the newspaper or a magazine rather than a research article. The article lacks objectivity; moreover, there is no particular structure of this article apart from having four sections that are related with each other. Even the author himself mentioned the possibility of biasedness in the account. Further, Parker (2014) suggests that people in favor of the new admin would disagree with his account. For readers it is pretty clear that Parker (2014) was not happy with the system he was working in, but this reason is not enough to rate this article publishable. Parker (2014) has written this article in form of a story, he mentioned the chronology of the main events that took place and lead to what he considers a disaster of administration. The use of first person account becomes quiet irritating for the readers as they read through the 10 pages of Parker’s article. Thus the findings of this article or the conclusions drawn in the paper are neither reliable nor reproducible. In other words the author attempted to offer a case study of EBS regarding the changes that took place in the business school over the last 2-3 years. To make his findings more credible he could have opted for applying statistical model, along with a survey or questionnaires. The data obtained from subjective responses of the people could be documented in graphical or tabulated form. This extra effort would have made the findings of this article more sound and acceptable. Another possible approach could have been comparing the progress of the business school during new administration with the old admin. The purpose of using statistics in research of an inductive nature is to represent the degree of validity in the acquired information. Statistics runs on the principles of probability, it determines the possibilities and likeliness of an event to occur or helps in measuring the truthfulness of the acquired assumptions. Further, statistical tools are primarily used for the sake of data reductions, there are so many ways of representing data or presenting inferences, but application of statistical tools coupled with graphical representation offers an optimized mode of sharing data, information or opinion. Education has become a business, and institutions like universities and research centers follow corporate curriculum. The transformation of academic centers into a market is a product of collaboration between industrial and education center. The approach or supervisors, and course instructors have taken a great turn; students are being lectured about what they have to do in the industry, or how they have to make their place in the current business setup (Beaubien, 2008; Gruber, 2014). The pursuit for knowledge is being marginalized, and those academics that have resisted the shift, are the ones suffering from isolation, and are being cornered (Hills, 1988). Over the past few years universities, and especially business schools have modified their policies, they want more productivity in research, because the greater the number of publications, the greater will be the funds for future projects (Gordon & Howell, 1959; Hambrick & Mason, 1984). This approach has nothing wrong in it as far it is beneficial for the school as well as for the industry. However, recruitment of high profile researchers into the staff may sometime destabilize the balance; students need teachers, and the assumption that every good researcher is a good teacher is totally wrong (Clark, 1996). Teaching is a profession that demands patience and tolerance, however, the requirements for a good researcher are a bit different (Stigler, 1983). Researchers are more ambitious, they want things to happen, so that they could extract something new and present it with their tag, but a teacher explains phenomena that are already discovered or developed (Davis, 2005). The relationship between industry and business schools is an inevitable one, because at the end of the day graduates of these schools are supposed to go out there and manage these firms, and perhaps the development of new methods and managerial skills is due to the industrial necessities. When old methods fail there is a need for new methods. New techniques are never independent of the previous techniques; they definitely involve some part of the previously used methodology. Moreover, it is impossible to create a technique that is sound and applicable without knowing the faults in the previous methodology; and sometimes when new technologies fail, one has to jump back to the new ones (Birnbaum & Edelson, 1989). For this particular reason students need to have strong background knowledge, and they must have clear concepts. In social sciences research tools are very important to validate one’s findings. Parker (2014) did not mention any tool that he used; moreover, research methodology of this account is not at all visible to its readers. The approach of the author in this article was deductive, he established a prolific stance against the administration changes that place in EBS but he did not offer any evidence that could double check his opinion. The performance of EBS was declining, and there was a need for change in the policy and administration. Nomination of new administrator was followed by his induction, the new management policy removed multiple administrative officials and restricted the decision making body to one man show. The establishment of the new hierarchal order by the new dean seemed quiet inappropriate to the author, but there is a question that a reader would ask, and that is if the business school was not performing well in the presence tenure of older dean, then what was the other option other than devising a new management policy? There is always a margin for improvement, and the policies devised by the new dean could have succeeded in the longer run, and one may consider that the author has been too rigid in imposing his position onto his readers. The theme of this article was criticism on the evolution of the role of administration in the university. Parker (2014) took the case of Euro Business School, and elaborated his thesis statement by providing evidence from his personal account. This article seemed more like a critique than research. The inferences drawn by the author in this article were purely based on his observation and logic. There is margin of biasedness in this account, and even the author himself clearly states that in the article. Some of the arguments offered by the author in defense of his thesis are definitely worth some attention. However, overall the lack of statistical analysis and the absence of research tools question the validity of the account presented by Parker. References Beaubien, L., 2008. Constitutive practice and institutional change: ethics and behavior.. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change, 4(1), pp. 47-66. Birnbaum, R. & Edelson, P. J., 1989. How colleges work: The cybernetics of academic organization and leadership.. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 37(3), pp. 27-29. Choo, C. W., 1996. The knowing organization: how organizations use information to construct meaning, create knowledge and make decisions.. International journal of information management, 16(5), pp. 329-340. Clark, B. R., 1996. Substantive growth and innovative organization: New categories for higher education research.. Higher education, 32(4), pp. 417-430. Davis, G. F. ed., 2005. Social movements and organization theory.. s.l.:Cambridge Univ Pr. Duryea, E. D., 1973. Evolution of university organization. The university as an organization, Volume 15, p. 37. Gordon, R. A. & Howell, J. E., 1959. Higher education for business.. The Journal of Business Education, 35(3), pp. 115-117. Gruber, T., 2014. Academic sell-out: how an obsession with metrics and rankings is damaging academia.. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, pp. 1-13. Hambrick, D. C. & Mason, P. A., 1984. Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of management review, 9(2), pp. 1993-206. Hills, G. E., 1988. Variations in university entrepreneurship education: an empirical study of an evolving field.. Journal of business venturing, 3(2), pp. 109-122. Krücken, G. & Meier, F., 2006. Turning the university into an organizational actor.. Oxford: Oxford University Press. . Muzio, D., Kirkpatrick, I., Brock, D. & Suddaby, R., 2013. Professions and Institutional Change: Towards an Institutionalist Sociology of the Professions. Journal of Management Studies, Volume 50, pp. 699-721. Parker, M., 2014. University, Ltd: Changing a business school.. Organization, 21(2), pp. 281-291. Perkins, J. A., 1973. The University as an Organization.. Stigler, G. J., 1983. The organization of industry.. s.l.: University of Chicago Press Economics Books. Read More