Restating the case: How revisiting the development of the case method can help us think differently about the future of the business school
journal contribution
posted on 2020-07-29, 23:19 authored by Todd BridgmanTodd Bridgman, Stephen CummingsStephen Cummings, C McLaughlin© Academy of Management Learning & Education. Although supportive of calls for business schools to learn the lessons of history to address contemporary challenges about their legitimacy and impact, we argue that our ability to learn is limited by the histories we have created. Through contrasting the contested development of the case method of teaching at Harvard Business School and the conventional history of its rise, we argue that this history, which promotes a smooth linear evolution, works against reconceptualizing the role of the business school. To illustrate this, we develop a "counterhistory" of the case method-one that reveals a contested and circuitous path of development-and discuss how recognizing this would encourage us to think differently. This counterhistory provides ameans of stimulating debate and innovative thinking about how business schools can address their legitimacy challenges, and, in doing so, have a more positive impact on society.
History
Preferred citation
Bridgman, T., Cummings, S. & McLaughlin, C. (2016). Restating the case: How revisiting the development of the case method can help us think differently about the future of the business school. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 15(4), 724-741. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2015.0291Publisher DOI
Journal title
Academy of Management Learning and EducationVolume
15Issue
4Publication date
2016-12-01Pagination
724-741Publisher
Academy of ManagementPublication status
PublishedContribution type
ArticleOnline publication date
2016-09-22ISSN
1537-260XeISSN
1944-9585Language
enUsage metrics
Categories
No categories selectedKeywords
Licence
Exports
RefWorksRefWorks
BibTeXBibTeX
Ref. managerRef. manager
EndnoteEndnote
DataCiteDataCite
NLMNLM
DCDC