We are delighted to be celebrating our first year as Editors-in-Chief of Management Learning. We began our year with an editorial in which we stated our aim as ‘Continuing to be different’— continuing to publish imaginative, distinctive, and thought-provoking work (Cunliffe and SadlerSmith, 2010). Indeed, in a climate of quantification and metrification in all its various forms, we are proud to be upholders of a philosophy which actively encourages scholars to challenge the mainstream. We are proud that Management Learning is one of very few journals that provides space for bringing to bear different, and sometimes radical, philosophical perspectives and theoretical lenses in questioning the taken-for-granted practices and pedagogies in organizations and in management learning and education. A sample of articles from 2010 demonstrates the diversity and pluralism which Management Learning embraces, from existential reflexivity (Segal, 2010), Lacanian theorizing (Vidaillet and Vignon, 2010), to cognitive science (Casey and Goldman, 2010). Halliday and Johnsson (2010) brought a MacIntyrian perspective to organizational learning, arguing that consideration of MacIntyre’s views on practices, virtues, and practical reasoning can lead to a radicalization of organizational learning and management, while Syed, Mingers and Murray (2010) advanced critical realism as a way to go beyond the rigour/relevance divide and encourage critical reflection in research and business education. Such diversity testifies to the richness and innovative nature of the field of management and organizational learning. Management Learning publishes both theoretical and empirical work. In so far as the latter was concerned, 2010 saw a number of thought-provoking studies including Banerjee and Tedmanson’s (2010) work with indigenous community leaders in Australia on the barriers to economic development, while Simpson, Sturges, and Weight’s (2010) study of Chinese students on UK MBA programmes drew attention to the MBA as an ambiguous, uncomfortable, and potentially-creative liminal space. In addition to interviews and observations, our authors have used less traditional methodologies including auto-ethnography (Kempster and Stewart, 2010) and rengas (Gabriel and Connell, 2010) to generate reflection and learning. Management Learning 42(1) 3–5 © The Author(s) 2011 Reprints and permission: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1350507610395696 mlq.sagepub.com