IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/jomorg/v21y2015i04p535-547_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On the prevalence of linear versus nonlinear thinking in undergraduate business education: A lot of rhetoric, not enough evidence

Author

Listed:
  • Costigan, Robert D.
  • Brink, Kyle E.

Abstract

The purpose of this research is to examine the undergraduate learning goals of business programs and determine if these goals are skewed in the directions posed by critics of undergraduate business education. The underlying theme of many critiques is that nonlinear-thinking processes are underrepresented in undergraduate business curricula, whereas linear-thinking processes are overrepresented. The learning goals of 208 Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business International-accredited business programs were coded into two goal categories: linear thinking and nonlinear thinking. The results support the contention that nonlinear-thinking processes have a lesser presence in the typical undergraduate business program’s curriculum. These findings are consistent across research and teaching universities.

Suggested Citation

  • Costigan, Robert D. & Brink, Kyle E., 2015. "On the prevalence of linear versus nonlinear thinking in undergraduate business education: A lot of rhetoric, not enough evidence," Journal of Management & Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 21(4), pages 535-547, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:jomorg:v:21:y:2015:i:04:p:535-547_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1833367214000868/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:jomorg:v:21:y:2015:i:04:p:535-547_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/jmo .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.