Management and Business Education in Africa: A Post-Colonial Perspective of International Accreditation

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

“…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). We have no problem with this analysis, except that it should be complemented by a careful analysis of additional, endogenous reasons for such challenges in enhancing research and teaching quality.…”

“…If we and many of our Southern colleagues share some indignation at being invited by gatekeepers of mainstream MOS journals in a somewhat one-sided manner, there is yet a diverse array of options for our responses. Some authors, like Darley and Luethge (2019), argue that we should focus on "indigenous management practices" and that we develop and focus on our own journals and ignore international accreditations. We agree that focusing on context-embedded, endogenous management practices has value, and fostering regional journals can help (Kiggundu & Lamont, 2015).…”

“…On the other hand, there is vocal resistance to this globalization of management education and research as an expression of “hegemonic ethnocentrism” (Alcadipani et al, 2012, p. 133). This Southern critique views elite journals and business school accreditations as perpetuating “epistemic colonialism” (Ibarra-Colado, 2006), imposing “a discussion of Western managerial theories which may not apply in the African context” (Darley & Luethge, 2019, p. 104). Accepting this imposition, as scholars based in African or other Southern contexts, may force us to “deny our own identity” (Ibarra-Colado, 2006, p. 471), or even to become “local intermediaries, who enable foreign domination by promoting the interests of Western autonomous/dominant pole within their postcolonial business schools” (Pederzini & Barraza, 2019).…”

Is Global Management Knowledge on the Way to Impoverishment?

“…The path to a more inclusive management theory and prolific, multifaceted and polycentric global MK lies through embracing peripheral management research by intellectual minorities. Created by a genuinely dialogical relationship, it is likely to benefit not only the peripheral locations but also other parts of the world (Darley and Luethge 2019), thus enhancing the self-knowledge of the global community. However, and as this article attempted to demonstrate, the journey of peripheral MK towards becoming a truly enriching and impactful source of global MK is endangered by three interrelated factors.…”

“…Accumulating evidence suggests that the exportation of Western-style management theorising to the periphery (Ryen 2011) has become a continuous process (Grech 2011), which is based on the belief that Western, mainly American, MK is directly transferable globally (Darley and Luethge 2019). Some examples of decontextualised Western-centric management conceptualisations are high-performance work systems (Boxall and Macky 2009), work-life balance (Cooke 2017) and intellectual capital (Andriessen and van den Boom 2007).…”