Integrated Business Core Curricula (Undergraduate): What Have We Learned in over Twenty Years?

Abstract

INTRODUCTION The 1990s brought many messages from business and industry leaders that they were not satisfied with the preparation of American business students. One commonly cited study by Porter and McKibben (1988) stated that undergraduate business programs relied on the same pedagogical model developed in the 1920's and 1930's. This model ascribed the concepts of the specialization of labor and division of labor. Thus, business schools were organized by functional specialty areas into departments of accounting, finance, marketing and management (Curington, 2002). The consequence of such a model in our rapidly changing global environment was that students, once employed, were poorly prepared function in an interdisciplinary operational environment. They simply could not see the big picture or the linkages between disciplines. AACSB began mandating in the 1992 standards revision that MBA programs use an integrated curriculum approach. Many schools revised their MBA curricula; a few experimented with the transformation of undergraduate The AACSB Management Education Task Force (2002) identified curricular relevance in today's business environment as a key priority. The report cited the need for business programs blur the boundaries between educational disciplines and to offer innovative programs. It encouraged schools adopt effective pedagogies, action learning, and effective application of technology. This paper examines sixteen integrated business programs attempted over the past twenty years. Wherever possible, published papers, assessment reports, conference presentations and other written sources were used (See Figure 1). This was supplemented with personal interviews with a number of faculty and administrators at several schools. A SHORT HISTORY OF INTEGRATED BUSINESS CURRICULA The earliest pioneer of integrated (cross-functional) programs may be Indiana University in the 1960s. However, it took quite a few years for others follow: UMass-Lowell (1992), Boston University (1993), the University of Oklahoma (1994), and the University of Idaho (1994). A number of schools have now successfully sustained integrated core programs for more than a decade [Boston University (13 yrs.), Indiana University (40), Northern Illinois University (10), the university of Idaho (12), and James Madison University (10)]. Some schools received grants from the U.S. Department of Education Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE), corporations, or private foundations implement the curriculum changes [University of Massachusetts at Lowell (FIPSE), Elon University (FIPSE), University of Arkansas (FIPSE), Lynchburg College (NCIIA), University of Virginia (General Electric Corporation)]. Level of funding received does not appear be a factor in whether a program becomes a permanent fixture in the curriculum. Several well-funded projects were abandoned, while others with no outside funding are still in operation. A literature search, personal knowledge, and networking by the authors identified sixteen integrated business core curricula operated during the past twenty years (See Table 1). Ten programs are active while six have been abandoned or drastically modified. PROGRAM STRUCTURE Program structure is described by program length, credit hours, year in the curriculum, and number of courses replaced. Table 1 indicates whether or not the program utilizes an independent course approach (individual instructors teaching separate courses containing integrated content) and an estimate of how many traditional courses were replaced. Integrated programs conducted during a single academic term are most common (seven schools), while four programs span two terms. These programs encompass 12 21 credit hours. Only five schools have attempted programs beyond one academic year in duration. Babson College is the most ambitious, integrating the curriculum over three years. …