Just Let Us Be: Domination, the Postcolonial Condition, and the Global Field of Business Schools

Neither Colony Nor Enclave: Calling for dialogical contextualism in management and organization studies

“…A similar risk, though less obvious and egregious, is possible in organizational scholarship and specifically in arguments about decolonizing MOS. For example, while we agree with parts of Darley and Luethge's (2019) and Pederzini and Barraza's (2019) critiques of global accreditations in Southern contexts, we worry that some of their arguments come close to scapegoating because they underexpose endogenous reasons for Southern business schools' challenges. They identify a number of "stumbling blocks" in Southern business schools, such as research and teaching quality, and they emphasize that such "stumbling blocks are magnified in the African context due to the impact of colonialism both as it influenced education in the past and as it continues to have lasting implications today" (Darley & Luethge, 2019).…”

Global competition and diffusion of the “A” list

“…Thus, the industry may be better viewed as an organizational field, defined as "an arena-a system of actors, actions, and relations-whose participants take one another into account as they carry out interrelated activities" (McAdam and Scott 2005, p. 10). In other words, there is a "global field of business schools" (Pederzini and Barraza 2019). Institutional theory provides a powerful lens through which we can understand the professionalization of business schools and the diffusion of the "A" list (Muzio et al 2013;Scott 2008).…”

“…A key insight of institutional theory focuses on the rationale behind the emergence of certain practices without obvious economic value (DiMaggio and Powell 1983). Since organizations act to enhance or protect their legitimacy, copying other reputable organizations-even without knowing the direct performance benefits of doing so-may simply be a low-cost heuristic to gain legitimacy (Pederzini and Barraza 2019). New practices (such as adopting the "A" list) are generally regarded as state-of-the-art techniques (Guler et al 2002).…”

“…Our propositions are designed to facilitate such future testing and debate. Struggles associated with the adoption of the "A" list and its ramifications for future faculty behavior, scientific progress, and university standing may unfold at a particular school or in a particular country such as China (Li and Peng 2008;Mao 2018;Peng 2012;Wang et al 2018;Xu 2009), South Korea (Kim et al 2007), and Mexico (Pederzini and Barraza 2019); or a region such as Africa (Zoogah and Peng 2019), Asia (Leung 2007;Meyer 2006;Peng 2007;Tsui 2007), and Europe (Macdonald and Kam 2007). While global competition is likely to assert its pressures, local logics and traditions may ultimately impact the adoption (or non-adoption) decision (Ansari et al 2010;Greenwood et al 2010), thus necessitating studies at both global and local levels.…”

“…There are different practical implications for the three groups-scholars, gatekeepers, and schools. For individual scholars, of course, a strategy of resistance is possible (Adler and Harzing 2009;Nkomo 2009;Pederzini and Barraza 2019). But the scholarly impulse to have our voice heard, the bureaucratic imperative of schools to compete in the rankings game, and the personal career interest make it difficult to resist the prevailing norms in the long run-unless one does not mind being isolated and marginalized by peers.…”