In recent decades, we have seen concerned writers lament that university-based business schools are engaged in research that does not influence the practice of business (e.g., Bennis & O’Toole, 2005; Pfeffer & Fong, 2002; Podolny, 2009; Witzel, 2017), are providing an education that fails to prepare students effectively for the practice of management (e.g., Grey, 2004; Mintzberg, 2004; Parker , 2018), and are populated by a faculty that is not interested in the problems that face business today or in taking a role in solving those problems (e.g., Bennis & O’Toole, 2005; Thomas & Wilson , 2011). Likewise, in recent decades, writers in management and business (e.g., Gulati, 2007; Learmonth, Lockett, & Dowd, 2012; Palmer, Dick, & Freiburger, 2009; Wolf & Rosenberg, 2012) have discussed the virtues of “rigor versus relevance.” This discussion debates the degree to which business school research should have academic rigor versus relevance to the practice of business.
All of these topics, while quite important discussions to undertake, mask a more rudimentary underlying question that is not being addressed sufficiently: What is the purpose of the twenty-first-century university-based business school? Each of these authors has made assumptions about that purpose, although the assumptions frequently are not explicitly articulated or justified. For example, in the discussions mentioned above, some writers are assuming that a purpose of the business school is to influence the practice of business; others are assuming that scientific curiosity and the unbiased search for knowledge by a systematic process is the purpose. My intent is not necessarily to challenge any of those assumed purposes; my intent is to say that all criticisms of business schools are rooted in assumptions about what the purposes of the business school appropriately are and that many of those assumptions are unstated and not subjected to debate.
According to erotetic logic (the subfield of logic that deals with asking questions), all questions embody presuppositions —contentions that are inherent in the question and frequently are implicit (Rescher, 2000). For example, the question “What is the melting point of silver?” implies that silver indeed does melt, and that it melts at a predictable temperature that does not vary. The question “What is the purpose of business schools?” implies that business schools indeed do have a purpose and that it can be articulated. The questions “What do business schools wish to accomplish?” and “How do they wish to accomplish it?” imply that business schools do wish to accomplish something identifiable and that they have a plan of the means to accomplish those desired outcomes. My assertion is that the presuppositions to these rudimentary questions are not sufficiently clear and that an explicit discussion of them is warranted. This is not necessarily to say that the literature is silent on this issue; however, a common occurrence (e.g., Dameron & Durand, 2011, p. xiv; Khurana , 2007, p. 312; Van de Ven & Johnson, 2006, p. 830) is to assert the purpose as a secondary point (sometimes with or without explanation) in route to pursuing a different primary agenda.
The question of the purpose of the university-based business school has its parallels in the greater university going back for centuries. Over 2000 years ago, Aristotle (translated by Jowett, 1885, p. 245) observed, regarding education, that
[T]he existing practice is perplexing; no one knows on what principle it should proceed—should the useful in life, or should virtue, or should the higher knowledge, be the aim of our training; all three opinions have been entertained. Again, about the means there is no agreement.
In universities based on the European tradition, this discussion has continued in more recent centuries. The wording of important titles in this stream of discussion reflect that this literature has been very open and direct about discussing purpose: The Idea of a University by John Henry Newman (1996 [1859]); über die innere und äußere Organisation der höheren wissenschaftlichen Anstalten zu Berlin (On the Spirit of and the Organizational Framework of Intellectual Institutions in Berlin) by Wilhelm von Humboldt (c. 1809); The Uses of the University by Clark Kerr (2001 [1963]); and What Are Universities For? by Stephan Collini (2012). Newman saw the purpose of the university as being the repository of society’s culture—a “finishing school” for gentlemen—assuring that young men about to take their station in society were well-schooled in literature, history, philosophy, and other essential domains. Humboldt saw the purpose of the university as the unbiased discovery of knowledge.
Kerr points out that, while Newman’s and Humboldt’s views bring to mind very romantic images of the university, neither is particularly complete. Kerr coined the term “multiversity ” to describe today’s university. The multiversity has a myriad of purposes; a sampling of these purposes includes researching plovers and other shorebirds; providing vocational training for the next generation of accountants, tuba players, and journalists; informing key policy decisions regarding the economy and nutrition; conducting research desired by external funders such as the military and the National Institutes of Health (NIH); fielding a competitive football team; currying favor with constituents who can provide or facilitate financial support; maintaining rigorous academic standards; and deriving income from services provided such as teaching hospitals.
Collini (2012) notes that these various purposes were added to the university’s portfolio at different times in history, for different reasons, and at the behest of different constituents. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that many of these purposes are not synergistic while others are overtly conflicting. For example, fielding a competitive football team is frequently in conflict with maintaining rigorous academic standards.
Some of the business school critics seem to be implying that the university-based business school has a singular purpose—in the tradition of Newman (1996 [1859]) or Humboldt (c. 1809)—rather than acknowledging Kerr’s (2001 [1963]) concept of the multiversity . However, like the greater university, the university-based business school has multiple purposes, and likewise, those purposes are not necessarily synergistic. For example, the age-old debate about whether hiring faculty members who are productive researchers—but have never been employed as (for example) accountants or financial analysts—conflicts with providing the best training for future accountants or financial analysts shows no sign of subsiding. Just as the greater university, the university-based business school has multiple purposes accepted at different points in time, for the benefit of different valued constituents.
Most of the proposed purposes of the university-based business school fall under the three headings outlined by Aristotle : (1) seeking higher knowledge; (2) promoting the virtuous practice of business; and (3) addressing topics that have utility to the practice of business. Additionally, as...