ABSTRACT
Over recent years, there has been an increasing demand for accountability from management education programs responding, in part, to an evolving “risk society” with its lack of trust (Trow 1998). Hedmo, Sahlin-Andersson, and Wedlin (2001) use the term “regulatory field” to characterize the dynamics of the evolving regulations. A field is held together by the “common belief” (Bourdieu 1977) in certain strategic intents, such as offering appropriate and relevant management education, though the individual actors in the field may differ in their views on how those strategic intents should be pursued and perused. The interactive relationships in a field serve to generate conformity to the shared strategic intent by assuring transparency (access to all essential information), openness (nondiscriminatory participation by all constituencies), impartiality (no privilege to one party), relevance (reflective of market and regulatory needs), and coherence (aligning conflicting contexts, perspectives, purposes, and actions). The regulatory actors emphasize a “mission” that should define management education based on the interests of their constituencies, from whom they derive legitimacy and who are the key consumers of their regulatory activities. Indeed, mission-based operation is now the fundamental element for the accountability of business programs (AACSB 2003).
