Designing and Teaching Business & Society Courses From a Threshold Concept Approach

Abstract

This article examines the redesign of an undergraduate course in Business & Society using a threshold concept approach. Business & Society courses may be troublesome for students because they depart from the premise that business is limited to creating value for shareholders. We argue that Business & Society courses contain a web of threshold concepts (i.e., ethics, corporate social responsibility, and sustainability) that need to be understood in unison. The redesigned course should help students understand our threshold conception that business has social, environmental, and economic responsibilities that are interconnected and interdependent. This study shows that multiple, interconnected theoretical concepts can serve as threshold conceptions in certain disciplines. In addition, we also demonstrate that progressive assessments throughout the course as well as empirical methods can help instructors identify student evolution through the liminal space.

Keywords

Business & Society threshold concepts corporate social responsibility sustainability business ethics

Business & Society courses explore the relationships that exist between business activities and societal well-being. These courses usually address topics involving ethics in business, corporate social responsibility (CSR), and sustainability. Traditional approaches to teaching Business & Society courses teach these as distinct separate concepts. Perhaps with the exception of Doh and Tashman (2014), who discuss theoretical frameworks that can be used to integrate CSR, sustainability, and sustainable development in business schools’ courses, most of the literature exploring the pedagogical approaches to these concepts in management education treats them separately. Some refer specifically to approaches to teaching business ethics (Baker & Comer, 2012), while others refer solely to sustainability (Stubbs, 2013), or discuss CSR, ethics, and sustainability as different courses offered by business schools (Sharma & Hart, 2014).

In this article, we argue that this traditional segregated approach is generally unsuitable for teaching Business & Society courses. Although each of these concepts can be taught as stand-alone topics, business ethics, CSR, and sustainability are interrelated and interconnected, being equally important in explaining the role of business in society. Davies and Mangan (2007) suggest that certain subjects are better learned as a web of threshold concepts. We argue that Business & Society is one of these subjects. Sustainability, CSR, and business ethics may be taught and learned separately (Sharma & Hart, 2014). However, we believe that students have a better grasp of the interconnections and interdependencies between the social, environmental, and economic responsibilities of business when these separate concepts are presented as a web of threshold concepts that transform the understanding of one another (Davies & Mangan, 2007).

The purpose of this article is to substantiate that redesigning Business & Society courses from a threshold concept approach may improve student understanding of this subject. Individually, sustainability, CSR, and business ethics are difficult notions for students. The pedagogical approaches to teaching these notions vary considerably, with some instructors grouping them into one subject, but with most still addressing them as separate topics (Doh & Tashman, 2014). The threshold concept approach should be more effective when teaching these complex notions since it supports the strategic alignment of course design and protocols with the goals (or threshold conception) for the course (Davies & Mangan, 2006).

We followed Wright and Gilmore’s (2012) method for identifying threshold conceptions and redesigning courses. The authors outlined the steps used when redesigning their introductory management course, including the process used to identify the threshold conception for the course as well as the method used to restructure learning activities and assessments (Wright & Gilmore, 2012). Like their introductory management course, threshold concepts in Business & Society courses are very dependent on “the ways of thinking and practicing” management (Meyer & Land, 2003, p. 9). Therefore, their method for redesigning management courses from a threshold concept approach is also appropriate for redesigning our Business & Society course.

This study provides three main contributions to the use of threshold concepts in management education. The first contribution refers to the web of threshold concepts explored in our Business & Society course. Although Wright and Gilmore (2012) show that the connection between theory and practice can be a threshold conception in introductory management course, our study reveals that interconnections between different theoretical concepts, such as sustainability, CSR, and business ethics, may also serve as threshold conceptions for more advanced-level courses. In addition, this study demonstrates the importance of using progressive assessment throughout the semester to assess students’ development toward the threshold conception for the course. These different assessment points allow instructors to identify earlier in the semester those students who might be getting stuck in the threshold as well as those points in the course that might need clarifications and improvements. Finally, this study illustrates how empirical methods (quantitative and qualitative) may be used to identify students’ progression through different liminal states, as well as certain student characteristics that might influence their understanding of threshold concepts.

This article is structured as follows. First, we present a literature review briefly discussing the main ideas about threshold concepts and conceptions. The core of our literature review focuses on threshold concepts in management education followed by a more specific discussion of the literature on threshold conceptions in Business & Society courses. We then describe the redesigning process for this course and discuss its outcomes based on the qualitative and quantitative data gathered during this change. We conclude this article with a brief review of the findings and a discussion of potential areas for future research.

Threshold Concepts and Conceptions

Threshold concepts “can be considered as akin to a portal, opening up a new and previously inaccessible way of thinking about something. It represents a transformed way of understanding, or interpreting, or viewing something without which the learner cannot progress” (Meyer & Land, 2003, p. 1). These concepts have five characteristics: transformative, irreversible, integrative, bounded, and potentially troublesome (Meyer & Land, 2005). Threshold concepts are said to be transformative in that once students understand and integrate the learning of threshold concepts with previous knowledge, they experience a transformation of personal and/or professional views of the subject. In general, this new perspective remains until a new threshold concept replaces or integrates with it. Threshold concepts create irreversible learning that cannot be ignored due to the deeper understanding of the topic that they create. This is also due to the nature of threshold concepts being integrative (Meyer & Land, 2005). They build on previous knowledge and combine the old and new understanding of a topic, “exposing previous interrelatedness of something” (Meyer & Land, 2005, p. 373). Students will compare previous knowledge with new content and “rework their understanding of previously acquired concepts” (Davies & Mangan, 2006, p. 8). Threshold concepts may also be bounded, many times demarcating disciplinary areas and the conceptual space bordering with other threshold concepts (Meyer & Land, 2003). Last, threshold concepts are generally troublesome for learners, since they may appear counterintuitive, alien, or incoherent to students (Meyer & Land, 2003; Perkins, 1999).

Many times, students may understand individual threshold concepts, but may not be able to reach a deeper level of understanding that connects these concepts together into practice. In other words, students are not able to understand the threshold conception or the “underlying game” of the discipline (Land, Cousin, Meyer, & Davies, 2005; Perkins, 2006). Therefore, this becomes a possible point of struggle when scaffolding knowledge in curriculum design (Land et al., 2005). Students’ recognition of the “underlying game” or threshold conception can be turning points in their learning, but this may also be a point of frustration if students are unable to understand it.

Threshold Concepts in Management Education

Previous studies have identified threshold concepts in many disciplines, such as economics (Davies & Mangan, 2006, 2007), law, physics (Akerlind, McKenzie, & Lupton, 2011), sports science, English literature, and engineering (Irvine & Carmichael, 2009). However, it is still a relatively underexplored concept in management education (Hawkins & Edwards, 2013; Hibbert & Cunliffe, 2013; Wright & Gilmore, 2012; Yip & Raelin, 2012). Meyer and Land (2003, p. 9) argue that threshold concepts are more easily identified in disciplines “where there is a relatively greater degree of consensus on what constitutes a body of knowledge (for example, Mathematics, Physics, Medicine).” In disciplinary fields where this may not be the case, such as management, “the ways of thinking and practicing also constitutes a crucial threshold function in leading to a transformed understanding” (Meyer & Land, 2003, p. 9). In our Business & Society course, “the ways of thinking and practicing” translates into expecting students to “think like managers of responsible organizations.”

Recently, Ross et al. (2010) suggested that threshold concepts may have extrinsic properties. There has not been much discussion about the role of individual student characteristics in their understanding threshold concepts. However, Ross et al. argue that differing cultures and student characteristics may play a role in how students understand threshold concepts. In addition, they maintain that once students cross a threshold in one area of their learning, they might be able to transfer this ability to other theoretical contexts (Ross et al., 2010).

Studies exploring threshold concepts in management education addressed issues of moral reflexive practice as a threshold concept (Hibbert & Cunliffe, 2013), application of threshold concepts for leadership development (Yip & Raelin, 2012), using threshold concepts to familiarize students with “doubt” as a central aspect of leadership development (Hawkins & Edwards, 2013), and redesigning an introductory management course from a threshold perspective (Wright & Gilmore, 2012). Although these studies focus on important issues in management education, none have yet addressed the design of Business & Society courses using a threshold concept approach.

Business & Society Courses and Threshold Conceptions

Business & Society courses embed business within the larger societal system. Many instructors approach these courses from a stakeholder theory perspective (Doh & Tashman, 2014), which argues that business is a “constellation of co-operative and competitive interests possessing intrinsic value” (Donaldson & Preston, 1995, p. 66). In general, Business & Society courses address a broad range of topics (see Table 1). However, for the purposes of this study, we are dividing these topics into two main areas: (a) ethics, including individual (personal/professional) and organizational ethics and (b) CSR and sustainability in business. These two areas greatly overlap with one another, but many business ethics courses may not address CSR and sustainability issues, whereas some Business & Society courses may overlook content that specifically discusses ethical issues. Table 1 provides a broad overview of topics that might be part of each of these areas, although different schools and instructors may highlight different topics within this list.

Table 1.

Topics Typically Addressed in Business & Society Courses.

Ethics	Corporate social responsibility and sustainability
• Personal ethics	• Stakeholder theory
• Personal ethics	• Business stakeholders (e.g., customers, employees, stockholders, community)
• Ethical reasoning	• Business–government relations
• Ethical reasoning	• Business and the natural environment
• Ethical dilemmas	• Globalization
• Ethical dilemmas	• Outsourcing and sustainable supply chain management
• Organizational ethics and the law	• Social entrepreneurship
• Organizational ethics and the law	• Business and technology

We consider CSR and business sustainability largely as synonyms. Business sustainability and CSR have different origins, but these concepts are closely interconnected today. Although sustainability can be practiced at individual, organizational, and societal levels, CSR is the application of the sustainability concept to a business context principally (but not exclusively) at an organizational level. Therefore, we view CSR and business sustainability as the “formulation, implementation, and evaluation of both environmental and socioeconomic sustainability related decisions” (Starik & Kanashiro, 2013, p. 12) in business activities.

Hibbert and Cunliffe (2013) argue that responsible management education can be achieved through teaching moral reflexive practice as a threshold concept. They distinguish between self- and critical-reflexivity: the former being about questioning individual moral behavior, while the later focuses on responsible organizational behavior (Hibbert & Cunliffe, 2013). While addressing both self- and critical-reflexivity in our courses, our focus when teaching Business & Society has been on critical reflexivity. More specifically, we concentrate on the interconnections between business and society and how business activities affect the natural environment and society at large.

For management educators, business ethics, CSR, and sustainability can be viewed as a web of threshold concepts. Although traditionally taught as separate concepts, there has been some recognition that business ethics, CSR, and sustainability should and could be presented as overlapping concepts to students (Moon & Orlitzky, 2011; Nicholls, Hair, Ragland, & Schimmel, 2013). According to Davies and Mangan (2007), the acquisition of different threshold concepts in a subject should transform student understanding, as students start seeing these concepts as interrelated. In the case of Business & Society courses, this web would contain basic concepts such as business ethics, CSR, and sustainability.

These interrelated and interconnected concepts are generally perceived to conflict with the traditional or managerial view of the firm. Creating shareholder value (or maximizing profits) is at the center of the managerial view, making shareholders’ interests more relevant than the interests of other stakeholder groups. This view gives the erroneous impression that the interests of shareholders and other stakeholders are incompatible when, in fact, they are not (Freeman, Harrison, & Wicks, 2007). As a result, firms that follow the managerial view are inwardly focused, many times failing to identify sources of growth and innovation in their external environment (Freeman et al., 2007).

Business & Society courses usually present CSR, sustainability, and ethics in management through the lens of stakeholder theory (Doh & Tashman, 2014). Stakeholder theory argues that the business world consists of webs of relationships, which are represented by “interconnected networks of customers, suppliers, communities, employees, and financiers that are vital for the achievement of business success” (Freeman et al., 2007, p. 5). To manage the interests of these stakeholders, firms need an outward focus. Thus, Business & Society courses take a human-centered educational approach that requires students to understand the impact of decisions and behaviors on others (Giacalone & Thompson, 2006; Kleinrichert, Tosti-Kharas, Albert, & Eng, 2013; Kolodinsky, Madden, Zisk, & Henkel, 2010). This approach requires students to develop both inward and outward focuses; students need to realize what their values and beliefs are, while understanding how their actions may affect others. Grasping this connection between inward and outward focuses leads to the integration of old and new knowledge about themselves and business management in general. Many times, the need for outward focus may conflict with students’ beliefs and values (Kolodinsky et al., 2010). When this happens, the knowledge conveyed through these courses becomes troublesome. However, if students comprehend how decisions and behaviors may affect others, this learning can be transformative and irreversible.

Furthermore, CSR and sustainability are emerging as thought processes rather than simple groups of facts. These concepts allow us to make sense and interpret the world we experience in different ways. For example, the stakeholder view of the firm portrays business as institutions for stakeholder interaction and argues that capitalism is “a cooperative system of innovation, value creation, and exchange” instead of a purely competitive system (Freeman et al., 2007, p. 6). In addition, CSR and sustainability are multidimensional concepts that can be interpreted differently depending on personal and organizational beliefs and contexts. Neither it has a universally accepted definition nor it provides a precise roadmap for implementation that fits all cases. Therefore, they simultaneously serve as management tools as well as lens for alternative interpretations of the purpose of business and its responsibilities. This is a troublesome notion for most students, but once fully captured, this knowledge expands students’ view of management by integrating old and new knowledge. It may also transform the way they view the world and is generally irreversible.

Each of these theoretical concepts (i.e., CSR, sustainability, and business ethics) constitutes different fields of study that have been traditionally studied in isolation. Nonetheless, all of them convey the same general message that firms need to be responsible for their economic, social, and environmental impacts, while increasing their business success by doing so. Despite these overlaps, Business & Society courses increase the complexity of this message by usually presenting these topics separately, while requiring students to understand them jointly. There has been some recognition of these interconnections and some new labels, such as Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainability, are now being used to describe these joint theoretical concepts (Moon & Orlitzky, 2011; Nicholls et al., 2013). Therefore, our emphasis in this study is on the fact that these concepts “work together in a web to define the way of thinking and practicing” responsible business management (Davies & Mangan, 2006, p. 8).

Managers (and students alike) tend to think in terms of trade-offs when deciding how to address stakeholder interests (Freeman et al., 2007). This mindset usually translates into questions such as “Whose interests are we going to address and whose interests are we going to ignore this time?” Managing a responsible business will require students to be able to think in terms of conciliating different interests and finding solutions that are mutually beneficial for their firms as well as diverse stakeholder groups. The questions asked then should take the form of “How can we ensure the success of our business by addressing the concerns of these stakeholder groups?” (Freeman et al., 2007). Understanding this threshold conception requires the simultaneous development of inward and outward focus, the use of CSR, sustainability, and business ethics as thought processes, and the ability to understand the concepts of ethics, CSR, and sustainability jointly.

As argued earlier in this article, the main conceptual areas (e.g., business ethics, CSR, and sustainability) for Business & Society courses form a web of threshold concepts. As a group, the theoretical concepts that form this web meet the five characteristics of threshold concepts. Ethics and sustainability meet most characteristics of threshold concepts defined by Meyer and Land (2003), with the exception of being bounded. According to Meyer and Land (2003), threshold concepts might often be bounded in that they have “terminal frontiers, bordering with threshold concepts into new conceptual areas” (p. 5), even though this is not always the case. The concepts of ethics and sustainability transcend many disciplinary boundaries and may, in fact, be applied to most conceptual fields. However, CSR does have a bounded characteristic in that it defines what constitutes the responsibilities and ethical behavior of firms. Since CSR, sustainability, and ethics considerably overlap with one another, CSR’s bounded characteristic may be extended to sustainability and ethics when these concepts are applied to business.

From our perspective, a first step in crossing this threshold would involve students gaining an understanding of how business relates to broader societal issues and how it affects (and is affected by) society in general. If, in addition to understanding this interconnectedness, students learn tools to implement this knowledge into daily business management, they would have completely crossed this threshold. Next, we will discuss how we redesigned an undergraduate level course in Business & Society from a threshold concept perspective.

Approaching a Business & Society Course From a Threshold Approach

Course Context

We used our own teaching in Business & Society to illustrate how the theory on threshold concepts might support student learning in topics covered by these courses. This Business & Society course is a core requirement of the management program in this university, and it is offered every semester. We teach two sections of 60 students each, up to a total of 120 students per semester. Since this is a 300-level course, sections have a combination of junior and senior students. Although the profile of students taking this course may vary each semester, based on our experience, characteristics of students tend to approximate a normal distribution. Every semester, there are a few students who start the course with an already good understanding of the topic, some students with very little understanding of the topic who usually lag behind, and most students somewhere in between these two extremes.

Traditionally, the assignments and course activities were designed to address the main concepts and tools that we wanted students to take away from this course. These main takeaway points included topics such as stakeholder theory, stakeholder analysis, business ethics, and how to create CSR and sustainability programs that enhance business success and societal well-being. This latter point was required as part of the final group project in which students needed to evaluate the CSR and sustainability program of a company of their choice and make suggestions for improvement. Although students put a significant amount of effort into their papers and showed good understanding of each component of CSR and sustainability programs, there was limited understanding of how these programs are embedded into core business strategies and everyday business activities. We realized that assignments stood in isolation from one another; each assignment addressed important points, but did little to help students understand the interconnections between these topics. As a result, students finished the course with a fragmented view of business ethics, CSR, and sustainability and did not seem to understand how to implement and manage responsible businesses. The following quote illustrates this point. We often ask students to provide feedback at the end of each semester by asking what the three messages that they learned in the course were. This student, who took the course prior to its redesign, answered the following:

The three main messages I got from the course were: sustainability, CSR, and stakeholders. Sustainability is important in all areas of business. [It is about] being profitable now without sacrificing the good of the future. CSR involves the duty of care required to all businesses to give back to its stakeholders, as well as their responsibility of any product or service they provide. Lastly, stakeholders have immense power when it comes to business. Stakeholders, provided they are active in business relations, can transgress many aspects of business and political environment they adhere to.

This student, like many others, did understand some aspects of each of these concepts (i.e., sustainability and CSR from a stakeholder theory perspective) separately, but still did not show that he understood that all of these concepts are interconnected and should be applied together. For us, this was a clear indication that students did not understand the “underlying game” or threshold conception for this course (Land et al., 2005; Perkins, 2006).

Threshold Conception and Listening for Understanding

We redesigned this course using the steps outlined by Wright and Gilmore (2012). Following their method, we identified our “underlying game” or threshold conception as the notion that business has social, environmental, and economic responsibilities, which are interconnected and interdependent. Land et al. (2005) argue that “teaching for understanding of threshold concepts needs to be preceded by listening for understanding” (p. 58). Therefore, our first step consisted of identifying those points where students were having the most difficulties. We looked into exams and assignments from previous semesters and noticed that students were having difficulty conducting stakeholder analysis, understanding the definitions of CSR and sustainability, and designing CSR and sustainability programs that are connected with core business strategies, while concurrently enhancing business success and societal well-being. This indicated that students have difficulty understanding how to address stakeholder needs when making ethical decisions as well as applying these concepts to real life situations (refer to Tables 3, 4, and 5 for some examples).

Initially, the exams and assignments used in this course were designed based on assignments used by colleagues teaching Business & Society courses in this and other universities. The level of success students were having in these assignments and exams was similar to those students taking Business & Society courses taught by other instructors. Therefore, the issue was not how well assignments and exams were designed, but the purpose to which they were designed. Business & Society courses cover a broad array of topics and our goal is to help students connect these topics in order to understand “the ways of thinking and practicing” (Meyer & Land, 2003) responsible business management. Prior to redesigning this course, students did well on assignments and exams assessing specific, isolated topics. However, many students were having difficulties seeing the interconnectedness of these topics, in part because the course had not been initially designed with this goal in mind. The goal of helping students “connect the dots” is what motivated us to redesign this course.

In addition to identifying areas that needed improvements, we noted that some parts of the course were working well. The use of case studies and class exercises based on small and large discussion groups were helping students understand basic concepts in this course, such as stakeholders and the definition of business ethics. By approaching the theoretical concepts in this course as a web of threshold concepts (Davies & Mangan, 2007), an initial understanding of each of the theoretical concepts in this web would be a necessary step in helping students understand the web of threshold concepts in Business & Society.

Course Redesign and Assessment

Davies and Mangan (2006) outlined a set of four principles that guide curriculum development for troublesome concepts. These principles suggest that: (a) there should be a sufficient foundation of basic concepts to ensure that students will be able grasp threshold concepts, (b) instructors should help students rework their understanding of previous knowledge from the perspective of threshold concepts, (c) instructors should demonstrate how scholars in the discipline operationalize threshold concepts, and (4) instructors should help students tolerate uncertainty and understand the learning process.

We redesigned this course based on our threshold conception, our assessment of strengths and weaknesses, and Davies and Mangan’s (2006) principles. We started looking for learning activities that required students to think in terms of interconnections between the social, economic, and environmental responsibilities of business. The redesign focused on two aspects of the course: (a) evaluations tools (assignments and exams) and (b) classes (sequence of topics and classroom exercises).

We examined different approaches to teaching CSR, sustainability, and business ethics (see for example, Erskine & Johnson, 2012, for some approaches to these topics). For example, more structured, in-class, group activities were considered and tested. Due to the limitation of time (75 minutes), and the large class size (60 students per class), direct instruction was cut short as much as possible. Organizing students into small group activities, though possible, was very time consuming. While some small group activities still occur in class, and an emphasis on structured classroom discussions remained, it was found that having students do the group work outside of the class prepared them to assimilate knowledge more easily during class time.

We concluded that evaluations for this course needed to have a varied number of components that require students to work toward the threshold conception and serve as protocols. Protocols are learning activities that expose students’ level of understanding of a threshold concept by asking them to apply procedures that reflect their understanding of threshold conceptions (Meyer & Land, 2008; Wright & Gilmore, 2012). In general, students may be at different states of understanding (or liminality) of threshold concepts: preliminal, liminal, and postliminal.

Liminality is defined as “a space of transformation in which the transition from an earlier understanding (or practice) to that which is required is effected” (Land, Rattray, & Vivian, 2014, p. 200). Students in the preliminal state have not yet approached the threshold (Meyer & Land, 2003). These students may have captured an overgeneralization of the concept that is not clear or has been misunderstood. They may also have an understanding of a word associated with the concept, while still not accepting its alternate use (Land et al., 2014). Students choose to approach the liminal state when they sign up for the class. In the liminal state, students tend to be stuck at the threshold (Meyer & Land, 2003). This state is characterized by uneasiness around the topic, a state of mimicry or imitation (such as attempting to use the correct signifiers or vocabulary), or sincere acknowledgement that the concept is not fully understood (Land et al., 2014). It has also been described as a state of oscillation, and a reflective student can be aware of the transformation that is occurring related to the threshold concept (Land et al., 2014). The postliminal state represents the crossing of the threshold. The individual is transformed and changed, has integrated the threshold concept into old knowledge, and is unable to return to previous states (Land et al., 2014; Meyer & Land, 2003).

We established four evaluation methods: quizzes, current events presentations, an individual paper, and a group assignment. Each of these evaluation tools serves as protocols to expose students’ state of understanding of the threshold conception. Quizzes, while still focusing on fragmented knowledge, test for basic knowledge of key concepts, which address the first principle proposed by Davies and Mangan (2006). The individual paper and the group assignment look into student evolution in understanding and applying the threshold conception. However, the use of group assignments to assess student understanding of threshold concepts can be complicated because they may obscure those students that are in the preliminal state. For this reason, we included peer evaluations as part of the group assignment, as well as examined individual papers and quizzes for indication of preliminal and liminal students. In general, preliminal and liminal students had greater difficulty in their individual assignments and received poor peer reviews in their group assignment. In all aspects of the course, students were asked to explain the reason for their choices and opinions as another protocol for assessing student liminality. They were also asked to reflect on their own learning about different concepts and conceptions in order to notice changes occurring in their view of these concepts.

Weekly or biweekly quizzes on the topics covered in class were administered as protocols to check students’ progress on basic concepts covered in this course rather than giving midterm or final exams. The quizzes provided immediate feedback to both the student and the instructors on the students’ progression in the course. Davies and Mangan (2007) consider the integration of concepts from the discipline with everyday experience as a first step toward crossing the threshold. In order to help them connect Business & Society topics discussed in class with everyday experience, students had to choose an article about a current event (within 6 months of the first day of classes) in Business & Society and present it to other students, explaining how the article connected with topics discussed in class. The individual paper required students to read an assigned case and discuss how topics from the case were related to concepts discussed in the classroom. These assignments address Principles 2 and 3 proposed by Davies and Mangan (2006).

The main change to our course was the design of a semester-long group assignment in which students had to create a company and then design the company’s CSR and sustainability program. Land et al. (2005) emphasize the importance of “engagement with, and manipulation of, the conceptual material” (p. 57), so that students may better understand the “ways of thinking and practice” expected of practitioners in the discipline. Since most students who take this course will work for, or will open, a small or medium enterprise after graduation, they had to create a small or medium enterprise¹ for this assignment. This requirement helps them relate better to the threshold conception as well as develop the necessary skills for application of this conception in everyday experiences (Davies & Mangan, 2007; Land et al., 2005).

Overall, the group assignment had four different components. First, students created different components of their company’s CSR and sustainability program that were submitted in the form of weekly or biweekly deliverables. Table 2 provides an overview of the topics addressed in each deliverable. We provided extensive feedback on each deliverable in order to give students a chance to reevaluate their decisions regarding the CSR and sustainability program of their company. This helped students tolerate uncertainty from this learning process (Davies & Mangan, 2006). In Deliverable 6, students provided feedback to another group and, consequently, were exposed to the challenges faced by other groups, which further supports the learning of the threshold conception (Wright & Gilmore, 2012). At the end of the semester, students submitted a final paper summarizing and integrating the CSR and sustainability components of their companies, explained how this program connected with their business core strategies, and demonstrated the company’s ability to become more successful while enhancing societal well-being. Students were asked to revise their CSR and sustainability programs based on the feedback that they received from the instructors on deliverables for this final product. The last two components of the group assignment included a presentation of the main findings of their final papers to the classroom and a peer evaluation. In general, the group assignment addressed all principles proposed by Davies and Mangan (2006) guiding curriculum development for troublesome knowledge.

Table 2.

Topics Addressed in Each Deliverable of the Group Assignment.

Deliverable	Topic
1	Create your company
2	Stakeholder analysis
3	Establishing an ethics program
4	Responsible employee relations
5	Consumer protection
6	Intergroup feedback
7	Cross-sector partnerships
8	Environmental management
9	Innovating for sustainability
10	Responsible supply chain management

Classes and sequence of topics were redesigned to increase focus in the threshold conception. Some class discussions and exercises were modified to help students connect the different responsibilities of business with its core strategies and societal well-being. Students were given many examples of businesses that were integrating their social, economic, and environmental responsibilities in their strategies, and discussed case studies addressing the threshold conception in the classroom. At several points throughout the semester, we asked students to draw connections between concepts addressed in this course through class discussions and exercises. The sequence of content in the course was reviewed to align with the deliverables required for the group assignment. The intent was to provide support to student learning and continuity of the journey toward crossing the threshold (Land et al., 2005).

Each of these changes made to the course were also used as assessment items of students’ progress toward the threshold conception. Assessments in courses designed from a threshold concept perspective should be based on two points: (a) defining and assessing the conceptual change instructors wish to see in students and (b) identifying ways to assess the students’ journey through the liminal states (Meyer & Land, 2008; Wright & Gilmore, 2012).

In terms of conceptual change, we expected our students to recognize the interconnected social, economic, and environmental responsibilities of business, as well as that the concepts of business ethics, CSR, and sustainability concurrently improve business success and societal well-being. The final paper and presentation were designed to assess whether students had made these connections. Otherwise, they would have difficulties explaining how the CSR and sustainability program they created was connected with their business’ core strategies. Without a good understanding of the threshold conception for the course, students would struggle to demonstrate how this program helped their companies become more successful while enhancing societal well-being.

We used the individual paper, the group assignment deliverables, a midsemester assessment, and a survey at the end of the semester to assess students’ level of learning throughout the semester. The individual paper was due halfway through the semester and tested students’ ability to identify and connect topics in the course that were leading to the web of threshold concepts (Davies & Mangan, 2007). The deliverables for the group assignment also verified students’ ability to build this conceptual web, since deliverables built on knowledge acquired on previous deliverables. Finally, we asked students to fill out a survey in the last day of classes in order to assess their final liminal state. In this survey, we asked students to answer questions related to our threshold conception for this course. One of the open-ended questions used in this survey had also been used in a class exercise in the beginning of the semester. We compared students’ answers with this question in the beginning and end of the semester as a way to assess changes in their state of liminality. Results are discussed next.

Outcomes of the Course Redesign

We conducted a survey on the last day of classes to identify students’ exit levels of understanding of our threshold conception. Out of the 117 students registered in the two sections of the Business & Society course we taught on the Fall semester of 2013, 93 students (79.5%) completed the survey. The survey had a total of 33 questions divided into three sections. The first section asked students to indicate their level of agreement with 26 statements about ethics (personal, professional, and business ethics) and the role of CSR and sustainability in business success. We used a 5-point Likert-type scale, varying from (1) being strongly disagree to (5) being strongly agree (Bearden, Netemeyer, & Mobley, 1993; Bruner, Hensel, & James, 1992). The second section included open-ended questions about students’ ethical values, their understanding of what sustainability in business means to them, and what students considered to be key elements in developing ethical companies. We collected profile information in the final section of the questionnaire, including gender and educational status (Junior, Senior, MBA, or other).

The open-ended question about the meaning of sustainability in management was also used as a class discussion exercise in the beginning of the semester (students submitted their responses in writing). We used student answers to this question from the beginning and end of the semester to assess changes in their liminal states. This provided us a basis for comparison for overall student evolution through the liminal space.

We normally conduct a short midsemester assessment to gather some student feedback on aspects of the course that are working well and those that need improvements. During the semester in which we collected data for this study, we also included two questions to assess liminality and troublesome learning for the students. These questions were: (a) What do you not understand well enough yet? and (b) Have you changed your worldview in relation with sustainability, CSR, and/or business ethics? Please give an example of a change that you have experienced after learning the class material.

Data Analysis

We compared students’ responses with the question “What does sustainability in management mean to you?” from the beginning and end of the semester in order to identify general changes in liminality. We classified students’ responses into one of the three states of liminality: preliminal, liminal, and postliminal (Land et al., 2014; Meyer & Land, 2003). Please refer to Appendix 1 (Table 8) for the characteristics of each liminal state we used to classify students’ responses.

Table 3 provides representative quotes from student answers in the beginning of the semester and Table 4 shows representative student quotes from the end of the semester. These quotes were chosen based on their ability to illustrate the breadth of responses in each liminal state. These tables also provide the number of student responses in each state of liminality.

Table 3.

Illustrative Student Answers to the Question “What Does Sustainability in Management Mean to You?” (Beginning of the Semester).

Preliminal (n = 49)	Liminal (n = 27)	Postliminal (n = 8)
“The ability to become a super brand like Coca-Cola.”	“Sustainability in management is the management of resources that a business uses in order to obtain maximum profitability while having as little waste or environmental impact.”	“Sustainability means that a company is profitable by evaluating the needs of market and non-market stakeholders.”
“Sustainability relates to a company’s longevity.”	“Maintaining a business such that the business and society can continue for the long-term future.”
“Being able to compete in whatever market you are in, year in and out.”	“To be able to maintain a good ethical environment.”	“To be good with environmental and social life while making a profit at the same time.”
“How long a company will remain profitable.”	“Long lasting, positive relationships with all stakeholders.”	“Sustainability means providing efficient means of production without excessive externalities to society.”
“Being able to keep the doors open, lights on, and payroll met.”	“Improvement on technology and employee health.”
“It means long-term continued existence.”	“Sustainability in management portrays company’s policies and procedures that are aligned with the values, mission, and vision of a socially responsible company.”
“Consistency.”	“Sustainability is a business’ responsibility to the welfare of the community and the people they serve.”	“Keeping the business solvent socially, environmentally and economically.”
“A profitable company.”	“Being charitable and profitable.”
“I don’t understand the question.”

Table 4.

Illustrative Students Answers to the Question “What Does Sustainability in Management Mean to You?” (End of the Semester).

Preliminal (n = 20)	Liminal (n = 18)	Postliminal (n = 46)
“Means when they are responsible [for] finding ways to keep the business sustainable.”	“The same thing as before the class, conserving natural resources and improving the environment.”	“When management in a company operates its business through ethical values and not [doing] harm to the environment or humans.”
		“To create a net good for society.”
“Maintaining status and innovations with new products or ideas.”		“It means looking at all functions of a business and determining if they would be done in a way that helps the environment/community.”
“Managers have goals that they strive to accomplish in order to keep the company strong.”	“The responsibility of management to promote and enforce sustainable work practices.”	“The ability to conduct business in a way that is both profitable and serving to a broader social purpose.”
“It means creating long-term success for a company.”	“The ability to maintain success through business [by] creating innovation, growth and increasing productivity.”	“Working towards the greater good.”
“Ability to innovate in ways that help keep your business running.”	“Management having/keeping same values and morals (ethics) as business.”	“CSR.”
“Planning for the future.”	“Operating a business with the least amount of cost with the lowest effect on the environment.”	“Longevity for the company by using social and environmentally conscious procedures.”
“It means the company’s ability to endure changing environments and ultimately become a stronger better business.”	“Sustainability means working towards cutting energy cost and making up for energy and waste produced.”	“It means a better future for everyone.”
“Sustainability means being able to run a healthy business in the long run.”	“A lot more than what it did at the beginning.”	“A company’s ability to cater to the various needs of its stakeholders in order to create and maintain a lasting company.”
“Provide plans for a company to achieve sustainability in business.”	“I feel that it is important and necessary.”	“Benefitting the environment and society while generating a profit.”

Note. CSR = corporate social responsibility.

We analyzed the data collected for the 26 statements in the survey using descriptive statistics. The goal of this descriptive analysis was to discern the general profile (gender and educational status) of students who answered the survey. This analysis also to show the means (with 95% confidence intervals) for the responses to each statement.

We also conducted a k-means cluster analysis on the 26 statements to further characterize students. This additional analysis was used to help us better understand the types of students who might be more likely to get stuck in the threshold. Cluster analysis is a multivariate statistical method used for data reduction and classification. It groups cases into clusters by identifying high homogeneity within clusters and high heterogeneity between clusters (Manly, 1994). The method uses an algorithm that finds cluster centers by computing simple Euclidian distances from centroids. As a starting point to separate cases, the algorithm uses the arithmetic mean as the initial centroid. This is an iterative process that ends when the distance between cluster centers is maximized. Final cluster centers should differ from the mean and be as far away as possible from each other. In a k-means cluster analysis, the researcher decides on the number of clusters (i.e., k groups) a priori based on certain characteristics of the study (International Business Machines, 2012; Wedel & Kamakura, 1998).

Results

Qualitative Results

Tables 3 and 4 show student answers in the beginning and end of the semester (divided by state of liminality) to the question “What does sustainability in management mean to you?” We had responses from 84 students in the beginning of the course and 84 responses in the end of the course. As we expected, there were students in all three states of liminality in the beginning and end of the semester. Most students (49) were in the preliminal state in the beginning of the course. Only eight students were at the postliminal state when the course started, but more than half of the respondents (46) had crossed the threshold by the end of the course. The number of students in the liminal state remained relatively the same in the beginning (20) and end (18) of the semester. Twenty students were still at the preliminal state by the end of the course.

Table 5 shows student responses from the midsemester assessment. When asked what they still did not understand well yet, students indicated that they did understand most of the theoretical foundation, but were having difficulty understanding how those concepts could be applied in their jobs and business activities in general. Some students, however, were still having trouble understanding the most basic concepts. In response to whether or not they had changed their worldview in relation to sustainability, CSR, and/or business ethics, some students mentioned that they started comparing their employers’ practices against their new knowledge of the topic, recognized the existence of grey areas in business ethics, expanded their understanding of the impact of business activities on others, increased their awareness of the multiple responsibilities of business, and realized how CSR and profits are connected. However, some students were still skeptical of the validity of these concepts and were finding them troublesome.

Table 5.

Representative Quotes From Student Answers in the Midsemester Assessment.

What do you not understand well enough yet?	Have you changed your worldview in relation to sustainability, CSR, and/or business ethics? Please give an example of a change that you have experienced after learning the class material.
“At this point, I understand every theory pretty clearly but will need to look at sustainability a bit more.”	“What I have learned in class makes me look closer at the company I work for and I realize what little integrity they have.”
	“I have not changed my views of business ethics, but I have learned a lot more and added more to my beliefs.”
	“It isn’t always black and white. I always thought being ethical was really easy, but some ethical dilemmas aren’t as simple.”
	“I think that this class has good ideas on ethics but the real world is very, very different.”
	“Business practices affect far more people than I had originally thought.”
“I get most of the information about the different types of stakeholders but it is still a little confusing to me (their relationship with businesses).”	“In general, I think I now see how directly ethics can affect the bottom line of a company as well as society as a whole.”
“I am still unclear as to what I would do in ethical situations that may jeopardize my job status.”	“I relate and discuss class information to more and more people all the time.”
“I still do not understand CSR.”	“I’ve been more aware that companies have a responsibility to its consumers. Without them, their company would not exist.”
“I still don’t understand stakeholder analysis.”	“I thought CSR was customer service for half of the first 8 weeks. I know better now.”
“I still don’t understand the terminology.”	“I am still conflicted about CSR (how much CSR should affect a company; how obligated each is).”
“How is this going to translate to our business experience? As we enter the business world we will be a dime a dozen; how can we stand up to CEO’s when asked to perform unethical tasks?”	“I realized that the social responsibility is a necessity for productive well-run companies.”
“Exactly what can be done to make sure the right thing is done.”	“I do believe CSR is important. However, with the business model in the U.S. being based mostly on who you know, contributions, and profit, the companies with the most money do not have to ‘Play Fair.’”
“The responsibility businesses have towards non-market stakeholders.”	“In my current job I spotted an area that was questionable and called for CSR.”
“How exactly am I supposed to apply this knowledge in the real world?”	“I learned how important CSR is to the community. The only reason businesses survive is because the community allows them to.”

Note. CSR = corporate social responsibility.

Descriptive Statistics

In total, 93 students responded to the survey. Table 6 shows the distributions of gender and educational status in the entire sample. There were four missing values for the variable gender, resulting in an adjusted sample size of 89, and three missing values for the variable educational status, resulting in an adjusted sample size of 90. Although there was a fairly equal distribution, a little over half of the respondents were female (55%) and senior students (52%).

Table 6.

Distributions of Gender and Educational Status.

	Frequency	Percentage
Gender
Female	49	55
Male	40	45
	89	100
Educational status
Junior	43	48
Senior	47	52
	90	100

Figure 1 shows the means and the 95% confidence intervals of student answers to each of the 26 statements about ethics, CSR, and sustainability. The statements were ranked in ascending order of their means. On average, student responses were consistent with our expectations that they would mostly agree with positive statements (means above the neutral point of three) and mostly disagree with negative statements (means below the neutral point of three) about ethics, CSR, and sustainability.

Figure 1.

Means and 95% confidence intervals for student answers to the 26 statements about ethics, CSR, and sustainability (n = 93).

Cluster Analysis

We used a two-cluster solution for our data. The k-means cluster analysis algorithm grouped 56 students in Cluster 1 and 37 students in Cluster 2. Refer to Table 9 in the Appendix 2 for the final clusters centers of the 26 statements. Based on the information of the final clusters centers, Cluster 1 generally has centers below the arithmetic means (see Figure 1) for negative statements and centers above the arithmetic means for positive statements. In other words, students in Cluster 1 overall tend to be more disagreeable with the negative statements and more agreeable with the positive statements than students in Cluster 2. As the k-means cluster analysis is not an inferential technique and since the algorithm is designed to maximize the heterogeneity between clusters, one should not test for significant differences between clusters centers—it would be opportunistic and biased (International Business Machines, 2012). Instead, demographic variables are often used to better illustrate and find potential differences between clusters (Wedel & Kamakura, 1998). We characterized each cluster based on gender and educational status of students to highlight the particularities of each group (see Table 7). Cluster 1 has a higher proportion of female (63.6%) and senior (62.5%) students, while Cluster 2 has more male (58.8%) and junior (64.7%) students. Confidence intervals (z tests) for the difference between two proportions (see Appendix 2) were used to check if there were any significant differences between the proportions of gender and educational status between the two clusters. Results show that Cluster 1 has a significantly higher proportion of females (or a significantly lower proportion of males) than Cluster 2. The z tests also revealed that Cluster 1 has a significantly higher proportion of senior students (or a significantly lower proportion of junior students) than Cluster 2 (see Table 7). Refer to Appendix 2 for additional information about the cluster analysis methodology and the z test (including formulas) used in these analyses.

Table 7.

Proportions of Females and Males and Juniors and Seniors in Each Cluster.

			Cluster
			1	2
Gender	Female	Count	35	14
	Female	% Within cluster	63.6^a	41.2^a
	Male	Count	20	20
	Male	% Within cluster	36.4	58.8
Total		Count	55	34
		% Within cluster	100	100
Educational Status	Junior	Count	21	22
	Junior	% Within cluster	37.5	64.7
	Senior	Count	35	12
	Senior	% Within cluster	62.5^a	35.3^a
Total		Count	56	34
Total		% Within cluster	100	100

Proportions between clusters differ significantly from each other at the .05 level.

Discussion

We redesigned an undergraduate Business & Society course with the goal of helping students reach the threshold conception that business has social, environmental, and economic responsibilities that are interconnected and interdependent. It is sometimes more complicated to determine what constitutes threshold concepts and conceptions in certain disciplines. When this is the case, Meyer and Land (2003) suggest that “the ways of thinking and practicing” are important tools to transform understanding (p. 3). Scholars have recently started exploring threshold concepts in management education (Hawkins & Edwards, 2013; Hibbert & Cunliffe, 2013; Wright & Gilmore, 2012; Yip & Raelin, 2012) and the definition of threshold concepts and conceptions in this field is not always as obvious as it may be in other disciplines, such as physics and economics. This article adds to this discussion by demonstrating that interconnections between different theoretical concepts may serve as threshold conceptions in more advanced-level courses.

Business ethics, CSR, and sustainability, the main theoretical concepts addressed in this course, are traditionally taught separately to students. However, some scholars are starting to recognize that the boundaries between these concepts are often blurred, suggesting that they should be presented to students as a group (Moon & Orlitzky, 2011; Nicholls et al., 2013). In fact, we argue that the true threshold conception for these courses is the ability to understand and apply them together. This article shows that approaching and presenting these topics as interconnected concepts gives students a more coherent view of the role of business in society as well as its multiple and interrelated responsibilities toward society. More important, we demonstrate that a web of threshold concepts may serve as the threshold conception for a more advanced-level course.

This study also demonstrates the importance of establishing progressive assessments throughout the semester. These protocols, such as using the same questions on class exercises in the beginning and end of the semester, midsemester assessments, and quizzes, help instructors determine progress and challenges in students’ understanding of the threshold conception. Student answers to the question “What does sustainability in management mean to you?” as well as the means from the 26 statements about ethics, CSR, and sustainability show that most students had crossed the threshold by the end of the semester. Tables 3 and 4 clearly show the change in student liminality from the beginning to the end of the semester. Since these data were collected anonymously, we cannot tell whether the same students who started the semester in the liminal and preliminal state were the same ones who finished the semester in these states. However, this is an area that could be improved should one desire to follow the progression of students through the liminal space on a more individual basis.

The comments provided by students in the midsemester assessment (see Table 5) gave us a clearer idea of their progress toward the threshold conception. These midsemester assessments also point out some areas for improvement, such as helping students connect their new knowledge with real world applications (Land et al., 2005). One notable result, however, is that even students who finished the course in the preliminal state were using signifiers (i.e., words, symbols, and images) related to the threshold concepts in this course. This shows that, even though these were empty signifiers (Land et al., 2014), students assimilated at least some knowledge about these topics.

Student assignments and quizzes showed an improved understanding of the threshold conception when compared with previous semesters. The final paper that asked students to discuss how their CSR and sustainability program was connected to their business’ core strategy showed less fragmented knowledge about Business & Society. We consider this an indication that students who did well in this assignment were starting to see the web of threshold concepts in this course and were able to understand how the threshold conception could be operationalized. This was reinforced by answers to the open-ended question “What does sustainability in management mean to you?” that was part of a class exercise in the beginning of the course as well as the survey administered in the last day of classes (see Tables 3 and 4).

In this study, we used descriptive statistics and cluster analysis to identify students’ understanding of the web of threshold concepts as well as each individual theoretical concept in this web. Students’ responses to the 26 statements about business ethics, CSR, and sustainability show an overall positive trend in their understanding of the threshold conception. Some of these statements mixed two or more of the main theoretical concepts forming the web of threshold concepts for this course in order to assess whether students were able to understand them together, while other statements addressed individual concepts. As the results show, students demonstrated an overall good understanding of individual as well as combined concepts. This is in alignment with Davies and Mangan (2006) principles for teaching threshold concepts.

These statistical tools also helped us assess student progression through the liminal space by providing additional information about other factors that might affect their understanding of the threshold conception, such as educational status and gender. We conducted the cluster analysis as a complementary analysis in order to characterize students who might be more likely to get stuck in the threshold. Cluster 1 points to existence of a group of students that seemed to grasp the threshold conception better than students in Cluster 2. Cluster 1 has a significantly higher proportion of female and senior students. Although there has been some discussion about the role of gender in ethical behavior (Schminke & Ambrose, 1997), this discussion is beyond the scope of this study. However, these results do point to the possibility that context and individual student characteristics might play an important role on student interpretation, and therefore understanding, of threshold conceptions in certain disciplinary areas. This supports Ross et al.’s (2010) argument that threshold concepts contain extrinsic characteristics, meaning that students understanding of threshold concepts vary not necessarily because of the concept itself, but due to individual student characteristics, such as cultural background. For example, Land et al. (2005) argue that students’ ability to understand threshold concepts is often dependent on “their prior experience and learning, and the way they are therefore likely to initially approach their studies” (p. 62). This may explain why, at large, senior students indicated a higher degree of understanding of the threshold conception. In addition, Davies and Mangan (2007) contend that the transformative nature of threshold concepts may alter individual identity and identification with different groups. However, it has not been discussed yet the role of the initial identity of individuals in this process and the influence it might have on how students understand threshold concepts. This study indicates the need to explore this issue in greater detail.

Land et al. (2005) argue that identification of barriers to learning should be done through constructive (and constructivist) feedback. These results reflect the impact of the first iteration of changes in this Business & Society course. We will continue to “listen for understanding” (Land et al., 2005) in our ongoing process of redesigning this course. Many of the changes we implemented in our Business & Society course had a positive impact in helping students understand our threshold conception for this course. However, based on student feedback and our own assessment of the impact of these changes, additional modifications need to be made in order to further improve student understanding of our threshold conception.

Conclusion

In this article, we presented and discussed the redesign of an undergraduate Business & Society course from a threshold concept perspective. Changes to this course were made based on the threshold conception that business has social, environmental, and economic responsibilities that are interconnected and interdependent. We implemented a number of evaluation tools throughout the course that also served as protocols to assess students’ level of understanding of the threshold conception. Some protocols were designed to test for knowledge of basic concepts, while others focused on the integration and application of the different theoretical concepts of ethics, CSR, and sustainability into a final web of concepts for this course.

This study showed that groups of interrelated and interconnected concepts might work together as a web of threshold concepts for a particular topic, such as Business & Society. Once we recognized that ethics, CSR, and sustainability overlapped to the extent that they work as a web of threshold concepts, we were able to redesign our Business & Society course in a way that made this course more coherent for our students. During this process of course redesign, we established a number of assessments and protocols that helped us follow students’ progression through the liminal space and adapt the course accordingly. These progressive assessments will also help us continue to “listen for understanding” (Land et al., 2005), while working on additional improvements for this course. Finally, this study demonstrated that statistical analysis may offer additional tools when (re)designing courses from a threshold concept approach. The descriptive statistics and cluster analysis helped us understand student progression toward our threshold conception, as well as identify certain student characteristics that might also influence their understanding of threshold concepts.

Future research could look into the creation of a tool that is better able to categorize liminal states. Although the use of protocols provide a good overview of students’ journey toward threshold concepts and conceptions, it can still be challenging for instructors to identify the level of understanding each student has of the threshold conception, especially in large groups such as these. Another area that needs further development is how to address the needs of the preliminal students, while liminal and postliminal students are able to move forward and expand application of knowledge. If students are not grasping or are unable to apply threshold concepts into everyday experiences, knowledge acquired in this course would not translate into more responsible management practice. Business & Society may seem common sense to many students because it does not appear to have clearly defined boundaries (i.e., most questions discussed in these courses do not have “yes” or “no” answers). Therefore, it may be even harder for students to cross into the postliminal state and apply this knowledge in their workplaces. Customization of learning activities and tutoring might be possible solutions in smaller groups, but not necessarily in larger groups. A final area that needs to be addressed is the real impact of redesigning a Business & Society course from a threshold approach, while the remainder of business schools curriculum remains mostly intact. For students to grasp these interconnections and interdependencies between business and society, these concepts should be addressed throughout the management curriculum.

Footnotes

Appendix 1

Appendix 2 Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the associate editors for this special issue, Dr. April Wright and Dr. Paul Hibbert, and two anonymous reviewers for the invaluable comments that helped us make this article ready for publication.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

This article is part of the Special Issue, “Threshold Concepts in Management Education: Research, Teaching and Learning.”

Notes

References

Akerlind

McKenzie

Lupton

(2011). A threshold concepts focus to curriculum design: Supporting student learning through application of variation theory (Final report). Strawberry Hills, Australia: Australian Learning and Teaching Council.

Baker

S. D.

Comer

D. R.

(2012). “Business ethics everywhere”: An experiential exercise to develop students’ ability to identify and respond to ethical issues in business. Journal of Management Education, 36, 95-125.

Bearden

W. O.

Netemeyer

R. G.

Mobley

M. F.

(1993). Handbook of marketing scales: Multi-item measures for marketing and consumer behavior research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Bluman

A. G.

(2007). Elementary statistics: A step by step approach (6th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Bowerman

B. L.

O’Connell

R. T.

(2003). Business statistics in practice (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Bruner

G. C.

Hensel

P. J.

James

K. E.

(1992). Marketing scales handbook: A compilation of multi-item measures. Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association.

Davies

Mangan

(2006, August). Embedding threshold concepts: From theory to pedagogical principles to learning activities. Paper presented at the Threshold Concepts Within the Disciplines Symposium, Glasgow, Scotland.

Davies

Mangan

(2007). Threshold concepts and the integration of understanding in economics. Studies in Higher Education, 32, 711-726.

Doh

J. P.

Tashman

(2014). Half a world away: The integration and assimilation of corporate social responsibility, sustainability, and sustainable development in business school curricula. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 21, 131-142.

10.

Donaldson

Preston

(1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20, 65-91.

11.

Erskine

Johnson

S. D.

(2012). Effective learning approaches for sustainability: A student perspective. Journal of Education for Business, 87, 198-205.

12.

Freeman

R. E.

Harrison

J. S.

Wicks

A. C.

(2007). Managing for stakeholders: Survival, reputation, and success. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

13.

Giacalone

R. A.

Thompson

K. R.

(2006). Business ethics and social responsibility education: Shifting the worldview. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 5, 266-277.

14.

Hawkins

Edwards

(2013). Managing the monsters of doubt: Liminality, threshold concepts and leadership learning. Management Learning. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1350507613501736

15.

Hibbert

Cunliffe

(2013). Responsible management: Engaging moral reflexive practice through threshold concepts. Journal of Business Ethics. Advance online publication. doi:10.1007/s10551-013-1993-7

16.

International Business Machines. (2012). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows (Version 21.0). Armonk, NY: Author.

17.

Irvine

Carmichael

(2009). Threshold concepts: A point of focus for practitioner research. Active Learning in Higher Education, 10, 103-119.

18.

Kleinrichert

Tosti-Kharas

Albert

Eng

J. P.

(2013). The effect of a business and society course on business student attitudes toward corporate social responsibility. Journal of Education for Business, 88, 230-237.

19.

Kolodinsky

R. W.

Madden

T. M.

Zisk

D. S.

Henkel

E. T.

(2010). Attitudes about corporate social responsibility: Business student predictors. Journal of Business Ethics, 91, 167-181.

20.

Land

Cousin

Meyer

J. H. F.

Davies

(2005). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (3): Implications for course design and evaluation. In Rust

(Ed.), Improving student learning diversity and inclusivity (pp. 53-63). Oxford, England: Oxford Centre for Staff Learning and Development.

21.

Land

Rattray

Vivian

(2014). Learning in the liminal space: A semiotic approach to threshold concepts. Higher Education, 67, 199-217.

22.

Manly

B. F. J.

(1994). Multivariate statistical methods: A primer (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Chapman & Hall.

23.

Meyer

J. H. F.

Land

(2003). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge: Linkages to ways of thinking and practising within the disciplines (ETL Project: Occasional Report No. 4). Edinburgh, Scotland: University of Edinburgh.

24.

Meyer

J. H. F.

Land

(2005). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (2): Epistemological considerations and a conceptual framework for teaching and learning. Higher Education, 49, 255-289.

25.

Meyer

J. H. F.

Land

(2008, June). Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (5): Dynamics of assessment. Paper presented at the Second International Conference on Threshold Concepts, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.

26.

Moon

Orlitzky

(2011). Corporate social responsibility and sustainability education: A trans-Atlantic comparison. Journal of Management & Organization, 17, 583-603.

27.

Nicholls

Hair

J. F.

Jr. Ragland

C. B.

Schimmel

K. E.

(2013). Ethics, corporate social responsibility, and sustainability education in AACSB undergraduate and graduate marketing curricula: A benchmark study. Journal of Marketing Education, 35, 129-140.

28.

Perkins

(1999). The many faces of constructivism. Educational Leadership, 57(3), 6-11.

29.

Perkins

(2006). Constructivism and troublesome knowledge. In Meyer

J. H. F.

Land

(Eds.), Overcoming barriers to student understanding: Threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge (pp. 33-47). London, England: Routledge.

30.

Ross

M. R.

Taylor

C. E.

Hughes

Whitaker

Lutze-Mann

Kofod

Tzioumis

(2010). Threshold concepts in learning biology and evolution. Biology International, 47, 47-54.

31.

Schminke

Ambrose

M. L.

(1997). Asymmetric perceptions of ethical frameworks of men and women in business and nonbusiness settings. Journal of Business Ethics, 16, 719-729.

32.

Sharma

Hart

S. L.

(2014). Beyond “saddle bag” sustainability for business education. Organization & Environment, 20, 1-6.

33.

Starik

Kanashiro

(2013). Toward a theory of sustainability management: Uncovering and integrating the nearly obvious. Organization & Environment, 26, 7-30.

34.

Stubbs

(2013). Addressing the business-sustainability nexus in postgraduate education. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 14, 25-41.

35.

Wedel

Kamakura

W. A.

(1998). Market segmentation: Conceptual and methodological foundations. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.

36.

Wright

A. L.

Gilmore

(2012). Threshold concepts and conceptions: Student learning in introductory management courses. Journal of Management Education, 36, 614-635.

37.

Yip

Raelin

J. A.

(2012). Threshold concepts and modalities for teaching leadership practice. Management Learning, 43, 333-354.