Abstract

Over 650 business schools worldwide have embraced the 2007 United Nations initiative, the Principles for Responsible Management Education. Proponents claim the initiative drives change and a fundamental rethinking of management education through questioning and the challenging of assumptions. Critical discussions of the Principles for Responsible Management Education have been slower to emerge, and this article contributes a necessary critique. We relate claims of questioning and social change to ideas of critical reflexivity, including those of Margaret Archer, who presents it as an open-ended process of deliberation, generating social transformation. In so doing, we ask whether the Principles for Responsible Management Education enables a critical reflexivity which might drive fundamental change in management education. Based on a critical discourse analysis of research data gathered in our UK business school, we answer this question in the negative, arguing that the Principles for Responsible Management Education, far from promoting critical reflexivity, operate as an ‘imaginary’ to inhibit critical reflexivity and to impose a particular agenda, limiting fundamental change. Rather it is resistance to the Principles for Responsible Management Education agenda and the availability of alternative imaginaries providing different meaning-making resources, which may contribute to a much needed rethinking of management education.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.