Struggles over corporate social responsibility meanings in teaching practices: The case of hybrid problem-based learning

Abstract

Although experiential learning has been widely discussed in relation to the teaching of corporate social responsibility, the socially mediated and discursive nature of experiential learning approaches to corporate social responsibility has been either neglected or given only cursory coverage in the literature. Considering this gap, I problematise corporate social responsibility education within the axioms of managerialism, arguing that it should also allow business students to critically evaluate, analyse and question the basic premises underlying contemporary business practices. Using an action research approach, I explore the possibilities and challenges of using hybrid problem-based learning to help business students engage in critically reflexive processes and, thus, the social construction of corporate social responsibility meanings. Drawing on discourse analysis, I illustrate two central discursive patterns that characterise the struggle over corporate social responsibility meanings in a series of courses implemented in the business curriculum of a Nordic university between the years 2007 and 2010. The findings offer empirical support for several key arguments in the debate over corporate social responsibility education.

Keywords

Corporate social responsibility critical reflexivity discourse experiential learning problem-based learning social constructionism

Introduction

Corporate social responsibility (CSR)¹ education is regarded as particularly challenging because of the abstractness, ambiguity and complexity of the subject. As research suggests, students find CSR difficult to understand and apply unless they are able to connect theory with their particular realities by becoming actively involved in the process of dealing with environmental, social and ethical issues (DesJardins and Diedrich, 2003; McWilliams and Nahavandi, 2006). Given these considerations, there has been much academic debate over the use of experiential learning approaches that can be used to help students gain a better understanding of business–society relations and the moral complexity of those relations (Galea, 2007; McWilliams and Nahavandi, 2006; Sims, 2002). While these scholars recognise the social nature of learning, they tend to rely upon subjective cognitive approaches (Cunliffe, 2008; Holman et al., 1997). These approaches assume that CSR learning is primarily rooted in a student’s own experience, perception and context and that the student strengthens this learning by engaging in interpersonal interactions within an educational setting.

In this article, I suggest that experiential learning approaches to CSR should also recognise the socially situated and discursive nature of learning as well as the collaborative practices that students might use in building interpersonal and intrapersonal relations (see Cunliffe, 2002: 36–37; Holman, 2000: 206). Drawing upon the postmodern perspective on experiential learning (Holman et al., 1997; Usher, 1992) and a relational social-constructionist orientation to management learning (Cunliffe, 2002, 2008; Ramsey, 2005; Watson, 2001), I discuss one such experiential learning approach by presenting hybrid problem-based learning (PBL) as an alternative pedagogical tool to promote critical reflexivity and the construction of CSR knowledge. Although ‘critical thinking’ is a term commonly used in PBL and CSR literature to mean the ability to adopt a disciplined approach to problem solving, ‘critical reflexivity’ alludes to the social process of questioning assumptions embodied in both theory and professional practice (see Cunliffe, 2002, 2004: 412; Reynolds, 1999: 538).

In accordance with Skålén et al. (2008: 3), I suggest that to better understand the relationship between business and society, business students should have the opportunity to fundamentally evaluate, critically analyse and reflect upon the premises underlying contemporary business practices. As language provides students with the means to frame their thought processes and conceptions of reality (Chia, 1996), its role in contributing to critical reflexivity must be recognised. Indeed, language is not merely a communication channel but a system through which students and instructors (re)define their social identities, social worlds and social relations (see Phillips and Jorgensen, 2002: 9).

This article considers my experience during the development and implementation of two CSR courses based on hybrid PBL at the Faculty of Tourism and Business² of the University of Lapland, Finland, between the years 2007 and 2010. The study builds upon first-person action research (AR), and the data were collected using participant and non-participant observation (both in physical and virtual spaces), students’ learning journals and questionnaires. The data were analysed using discourse analysis. The combination of AR with a discursive perspective provides an opportunity to examine critical questions in CSR teaching that are not easily approached using more traditional methodological approaches. By drawing attention to two particular discursive patterns, the empirical analysis shows how business students (1) tend to frame environmental and social issues within the managerial discourse; (2) distance themselves from the CSR discourse to maintain their professional identity; and (3) use both discourses to talk about and be critically reflexive of issues that have been either legitimised or silenced during their business education.

This study makes two main contributions. First, a social-constructionist perspective on CSR education means reworking CSR teaching from instructing students to make responsible business decisions to enabling them to think more critically about the nature of business. In doing so, the study approaches social responsibility not only as a teaching subject (Matten and Moon, 2004; McWilliams and Nahavandi, 2006) but also as a relational activity in which knowledge from different stakeholder groups is shared, interpreted and used to collectively construct CSR meanings (see Burchell and Cook, 2006; Dryzek, 1997; Ramsey, 2003). This study shows how traces of wider discursive structures, ideologies and power relations brought by students and instructors into the learning process (Cunliffe, 2002: 46) can be used as an opportunity to promote learning dialogues and relationships that include stakeholder voices usually silenced or neglected within a CSR teaching context.

Second, the study not only extends the literature on the use of PBL in business schools by examining its application in a CSR context (Coombs and Elden, 2004; Hallinger and Lu, 2011) but it also represents a response to calls to use PBL as a means to help students become reflexive thinkers who are able to challenge, rework and appreciate their most cherished fundamental assumptions (Drinan, 1997; Lindén and Alanko-Turunen, 2006). Indeed, by illustrating the implementation of hybrid PBL within a CSR educational context, the study provides a concrete example of how PBL can contribute to creating learning spaces that support critical reflexive practice in business education. The term ‘hybrid’ refers to a form of PBL that is supported by parallel learning activities, such as lectures and in-class exercises (Kahn and O’Rourke, 2005: 4).

A discursive perspective on corporate social responsibility teaching

In line with Du Gay et al. (1996), ‘discursive perspective’ refers here to an analytical perspective on the production of CSR knowledge through language and representation and the way that this knowledge is legitimated within an educational context. It reproduces existing and introduces new practices and technologies that promote certain ways of perceiving and acting as a (responsible) business practitioner. As discourses play a role in producing not only knowledge but also identities and social relations (Phillips and Jorgensen, 2002: 5), a discursive perspective seems to be very well suited for looking at CSR teaching as a set of critically reflexive processes and collaborative practices through which CSR meanings are socially constructed.

Managerialism, which is based on the principles of neoclassical economics, has gained a hegemonic position within the context of business education, shaping the belief systems, ways of thinking and statements that provide students with a language for conceptualising and preparing themselves for the role of managers (see Du Gay et al., 1996). From this point of view, managerialism as a discourse represents a field of power in which students and instructors take up particular subject positions to understand and discuss business (see Laine and Vaara, 2007). Their subjectivities – the way they act and perceive themselves – are centrally defined by the premises of continuous economic growth, profit maximisation, efficiency, competitiveness, individualism, autonomy and control, among others (Banerjee, 2007; Du Gay et al., 1996; Skålén et al., 2008). As argued by Alanko-Turunen (2005: 230), all of these factors influence the reading material preferred by instructors and suggested to students, the pedagogical approaches used and the way successful business is represented in the classroom.

If business students are taught to conduct business based on the premises listed above, they will not only be inclined to act according to the principles of neoclassical economics, but they will also be inclined to think like a profit- and growth-oriented manager because they lack the ability (and language) to think in a different way (cf. Skålén et al., 2008: 93). This view is contrary to the idea suggested by most pedagogical approaches to CSR teaching, namely that CSR courses should start by problematising and articulating a critique towards existing business practices and, based on these critiques, develop more responsible business approaches. The question then remains: how can contemporary business practices be criticised without critically evaluating the premises and beliefs that legitimate and justify these business practices in the first place? A critical evaluation of these premises and beliefs is challenging not only because managerial discourse has already defined the way students make sense of business and see themselves as managers, but also because its hegemonic position diminishes the multiple meanings of language and, thus, the possibility of students approaching business from a different perspective (see Alanko-Turunen, 2005; Fairclough, 1992; Jonker and Marberg, 2007).

By promoting critical reflexivity, the hybrid PBL approach described in this study attempts to open up opportunities to use CSR as a means to shake up the dominant managerial discourse. In doing so, CSR is seen as a discourse in its own right, based upon the premise that social, ethical and environmental concerns are central to the role of business in society and that multi-stakeholder learning processes and dialogues are needed to address those concerns (Burchell and Cook, 2006; Jonker and Marberg, 2007). I argue that, as a discourse, CSR offers business students the language needed to question and redefine the logic of contemporary business practices. However, to that end, CSR needs to be seen as a discourse that goes beyond the realm of the business community and includes other stakeholders who actively take part in shaping the discourse through the continuous scrutiny and criticism of what it means to be and to act as a socially responsible business organisation (see Burchell and Cook, 2006).

Problem-based learning

PBL is a pedagogical approach that was developed during the 1960s at McMaster University for the purpose of medical education (Barrows, 1996). Several educational fields have since witnessed the adoption of PBL, including education, engineering, health services and management (Boud and Feletti, 1997; Savery, 2006). The use of a problem as a starting point for learning represents the main characteristic of PBL (Savery, 2006). In PBL, the term ‘problem’ refers to the idea of a research problem, namely a description of a situation involving an option for development or improvement (Margetson, 1994). While some studies portray PBL as a teaching technique, others go further and outline it as a philosophy able to transform education through its strong focus on learning processes and its atypical approach of viewing teachers as learning facilitators (Margetson, 1994). This study will focus on discussing PBL as a pedagogical approach to support CSR learning at the course level.

Even though the development of PBL was not inspired by any particular educational model, as Barrows (2000) argues, its understanding and further development demanded that PBL be positioned within theories of learning. In particular, Dewey’s pragmatism, Kolb’s learning cycle, Lewin’s equation of behaviour and Piaget’s model of intellectual development have dominated the theorisation of PBL (Portimojärvi, 2006). PBL’s attempts to encourage students to be autonomous learners in managing information, collaborating with others, and developing their own perception, meanings and ways of making sense of reality are thus grounded in cognitive psychology and experiential learning.

This epistemological premise has, however, been criticised for its strong emphasis on the individual as a knowledge acquirer and problem solver. In line with Reed and Anthony (1992: 601), it can be argued that the overriding emphasis given to cognitive, functional and technical skills in PBL literature might have crowded out any concern with the social, economic, political and moral context of learners’ lives and future working environments. This omission has probably led some scholars to turn their attention toward a more social-constructivist approach to PBL that focuses on studying both internal cognitive processes and the role of students’ interactions in knowledge construction (Ryan, 1997; Savery and Duffy, 1995). According to the epistemological stances taken in these studies, a distinction can be made between a modern and a postmodern social-constructivist orientation. While the modern view takes into consideration the role of social interactions in promoting learning, it continues to view learning as a rational process that only occurs in the mind. The postmodern view, on the other hand, rejects the idea of an individual-centred locus of knowledge by approaching learning as a social process in which an amalgam of interpersonal and intrapersonal means are used in conversation with one’s self and in joint action with others (Holman, 2000: 206).

The adoption of PBL in business education, which has been growing since the early 1990s, has tended to rely extensively on a modern social-constructivist orientation (Alanko-Turunen, 2005: 65–71; Hardless et al., 2005). Most business educators view PBL as an instruction method used to support students in acquiring and applying a rationality (knowledge and personal competencies) for managing organisations in a rapidly changing global economy (Hallinger and Lu, 2011; Wee et al., 2003). Furthermore, due to its role in promoting teamwork, creativity and leadership, among other skills, PBL has been regarded as a practical way to respond to the criticism that business education lacks rigour and relevance (Smith, 2005). This view of PBL is in line with the idea of transforming educational processes into a matter of economic efficiency at the service of potential employers, rather than a matter of building societies (see Lindén and Alanko-Turunen, 2006; Skålén et al., 2008: 157).

This way of thinking about PBL has been criticised by business educators who take a postmodern social-constructivist perspective (e.g. Alanko-Turunen, 2005; Lindén and Alanko-Turunen, 2006). According to this view, PBL should go beyond the idea of producing human capital for the labour market to create spaces where students are encouraged to critically challenge the underlying assumptions of business practice and to think more reflexively about how these assumptions affect other people’s lives (Lindén and Alanko-Turunen, 2006). Reflexivity goes deeper than reflecting on either an event or a situation; it involves recognising ourselves and our actions in relation to others (Cunliffe, 2008: 135). This view of PBL seems to be particularly relevant for incorporating reflexive practice in CSR learning. By drawing on the postmodern social-constructivist perspective within the context of this study, PBL allows business students to explore the notion of CSR by engaging in critical and dialogical processes with instructors and fellow students (see Cunliffe, 2008).

Research process

I draw on first-person action research (AR) to explore reflexive processes, discursive practices and the social construction of CSR meanings in two CSR courses over four years. First-person AR refers to an inquiry in which the researcher seeks to improve practice and contribute to scientific understanding (Lewin, 1948). However, in contrast to Lewin’s cycle, which views students’ feedback as information for evaluating the success and failure of a given course format, I see feedback as an essential part of the on-going co-construction of the hybrid PBL approach to CSR teaching (see Ramsey, 2003). Marshall (2001, 2004) devised this form of AR as cycles of inquiry that incorporate appropriate and repeated movements between what she calls the ‘inner and outer arcs of attention’. While the inner arcs focus on how the researcher perceives, makes sense of and frames issues, the outer arcs invite the researcher to look beyond his or her own perceptions to question issues collaboratively with students and to seek ways to test out new pedagogical ideas.

I discuss here a case that draws from a pedagogical development project conducted at the Faculty of Tourism and Business of the University of Lapland, Finland. By following Smith’s (2005: 358) recommendations, the initial aim of the project was to use PBL as a pedagogical tool for promoting students’ ability to define CSR dilemmas, identify related gaps in their knowledge regarding business–society relations, collect relevant information about CSR-related issues and simulate business decision making that considers economic, social and environmental objectives. However, the context and purpose of this study emerged from my first experiences with the implementation and facilitation of PBL within a CSR teaching context. It was through those experiences and the careful reading of the preliminary data that I realised that the students were not simply learning how to make responsible business decisions, but were engaged in the co-construction of what it means to act as a socially responsible organisation. By reflecting on these experiences and gaining further theoretical insights into CSR and PBL teaching practices, I began to think about possible changes in the PBL application that could support students even more in their attempts to construct CSR meanings.

Because of these reflections, I redefined the aim of the project to develop a hybrid PBL approach that both actively engages students in the construction of CSR and enables them to think more critically about the role of business in society. To that end, two Masters-level CSR courses – one focusing on business ethics and one on environmental marketing – were included in the project. Before the adoption of PBL, both courses were taught with a conventional pedagogy consisting of formal lectures and the use of case studies. On average, 15 to 20 students representing different business fields (e.g. management, marketing, human resource management, accounting and tourism) and nationalities (both European and non-European) attended each CSR course. Furthermore, as employees, employers, consumers, activists, politicians and above all, citizens, these students brought traces of wide discursive structures, ideologies and power relations into the learning process (see Cunliffe, 2002: 46). This wide array of voices offered a fertile ground for establishing dialogues that went beyond the realm of business. Despite the diversity of the students’ backgrounds, they all showed a desire to learn about CSR-related issues and techniques for managing organisations in a socially responsible way. It should be noted that both courses had a ‘non-obligatory’ status in the curriculum. The ages of the students were between 23 and 35, and both genders were equally represented. I was the instructor for both courses and the tutor facilitating all of the PBL meetings.

I began implementing PBL in these courses in 2007, and eight AR cycles took place from 2007 to 2010. These cycles, which describe the (re-)planning, implementation and evaluation of the hybrid PBL approach, can be illustrated according to the model suggested by Coghlan and Brannick (see Figure 1). The development of the hybrid PBL approach was further promoted by my effort to familiarise myself with the theoretical foundations of PBL, social-constructionist learning theories and social-constructionist approaches to CSR and my practice of establishing dialogues with peers and students. My role as an action researcher in developing the PBL approach is worthy of special attention; after all, students were only involved as collaborators and not as co-researchers, as is typically done in most AR studies. However, due to the power differences between teacher and students, a more collaborative form of AR might have been difficult (Reason, 1988). Furthermore, the participation of students would have been limited to only one AR cycle (the duration of a course).

Figure 1.

Action research cycle.

The project did not require ethics approval from the University’s Advisory Board on Research Ethics. It was enough that the Faculty of Tourism and Business gave consent for the project and that the study was performed in accordance with general principles of research ethics and good scientific practice. At the start of each course, I informed students briefly about the study and thus made them aware of the collection of empirical data during the course, assuring them that the data would only be used for research purposes. Anonymity was also guaranteed to students by omitting any information that could reveal their identity when using the material in any form of scientific publication. Students were asked for consent again before the video recording of PBL meetings, which took place during the last AR cycle.

Collecting the data

The data set was organised according to Marshall’s inner and outer arcs of attention. Keeping a fieldwork journal of my personal experiences, reflections and the research process as a whole was essential for engaging in the inner arcs of attention. By writing analytical notes in the fieldwork journal, I was able to engage in a reflexive process of questioning my understanding of CSR, my assumptions about learning, my relationship with the students, my teaching practices and my own position throughout the AR process (see Hammersley and Atkinson, 1996: 192).

I attended to the outer arcs of attention by taking notes on students’ comments and actions performed during the courses. Notes were made after each learning session to avoid disruption of class activities (Hammersley and Atkinson, 1996: 176). The main sources of data for this study included participants’ observations of the lectures; class assignments; PBL meetings (videotaped in 2010); presentations; and students’ interactions in a virtual learning environment. In addition to records of speech and action, the notes also include a description of the context, including actors, space, time, feelings and setting (Spradley, 1980: 78). The visual material consisted of six videos with a length of about 120 minutes each. The visual data helped reconstruct the PBL meetings that took place during the last AR cycle (see Collier, 2001). The videos were particularly useful in bringing to my attention such attributes as embodied positions, body movements, gestures, emotions, eye contact and other non-verbal elements I had possibly neglected when involved in the meetings as a tutor (see Probyn, 2004). Following Hammersley and Atkinson’s (1996: 185) advice, I also relied on my memory to fill in and re-contextualise recorded events and utterances.

The outer arcs of attention were further addressed by gathering feedback on the hybrid PBL approach. I asked students to fill out an evaluation form at the end of each course and to record their PBL experiences in their learning journals. Over 90% of the students fulfilled both requests. Learning journals were a powerful tool not only for receiving feedback on PBL but also for exploring how students engage in their own learning and develop critically reflexive capabilities (see Bickford and Van Vleck, 1997). As suggested by Cunliffe (2004), journals may encourage students to think about themselves from a subjective perspective, requiring them to be attentive to their assumptions, ways of being and acting and ways of relating. Verbal and written guidelines were provided to the students on how to write the learning journal. Special emphasis was placed on encouraging students to link personal experiences to the topics covered in the course, to question their assumptions, to explore their learning and to identify possibilities for self-development (see Cunliffe, 2004: 418–424).

Reflexivity was further promoted by giving each group the task to co-write a report in wiki format that described the hybrid PBL process and its results. The co-creation of such a narrative provides an opportunity to challenge hidden assumptions and thus influence the thinking of one’s colleagues in a more interactive way (Gabriel and Connell, 2010). In addition to students’ input, I received feedback on the study through the process of writing drafts of this report and presenting them in seminars and conferences. It was actually through feedback that students and other peers took part in constructing both the hybrid PBL approach and my facilitation practices as a teacher. All four steps of constructing, planning action, taking action and evaluating were repeated in course after course such that each course represents an AR cycle.

The use of multiple methods and sources of data in this study makes it possible to gain access to different types of knowledge and perspectives (Phillips and Jorgensen, 2002: 4) as well as a variety of situations where students exercise critical reflexivity and socially construct CSR meanings (see Moisander and Valtonen, 2006: 53). The dynamic nature of learning and the complex and ambiguous nature of CSR require that greater diversity and imagination be used in the application of research methodologies (Crane, 1999: 245). The compatibility of research methods with the aims of the study, the transparency of the whole research process and my involvement in a joint process of inquiry and learning linked to action in context were key criteria for judging the quality of this action research study (see Swantz, 2008: 43).

Analysing the data

The analysis of the data began with the first AR cycle and continued throughout the remaining AR cycles. The fieldwork journal was an essential tool for reflecting on the significance of the data and the implications for the research design and further data collection (Hammersley and Atkinson, 1996: 205–206). Indeed, the fieldwork journal helped me not only start with the analytical reading of the data but also develop the theoretical framework of the study (Rantala, 2011). As this study does not seek to explain individual learning experiences, the empirical material is analysed as social texts that are produced, shared and used in culturally specific and socially organised ways (see Moisander and Valtonen, 2006: 68).

To interpret the social texts produced in the AR process and to understand the logic of their production, I draw upon discourse analysis (Fairclough, 2003; Phillips and Jorgensen, 2002; Phillips and Hardy, 2002). By analysing how students talk about business and its relation to society, what they take for granted, what sort of meanings they contest and what they do not think about (Moisander and Valtonen, 2006: 108), discourse analysis helps to identify repertoires and discursive patterns that characterise the struggle over CSR that take place at the intersection of the dominant managerial discourse and the emerging CSR discourse. More specifically, this analytical framework highlights the way students used these discourses to question their assumptions about the role of business in society, giving them the opportunity to redefine or reaffirm their identity as business students. From this perspective, the analysis does not focus on determining what students say about social responsibility but rather how they socially construct knowledge about it.

The analysis involved the careful examination of observation notes, transcripts from the hybrid PBL setting, questionnaires and student-learning journals. The use of different data sources as well as the comparison of data collected from different phases and temporal points of the fieldwork gives added depth to the struggles over CSR meanings involved in the study (Hammersley and Atkinson, 1996: 230–231). To enhance the process of analysis, the observational data were organised around spatial dimensions (e.g. classroom, first meeting, blog, breaks) and episodic units (e.g. class exercises, watching movies, class discussions, presentations) (see Rantala, 2011: 158). This helped me link my field notes with the data available in the learning journals, transcripts and other documents.

Reading and re-reading the data made it possible to identify textual elements, such as recurrences, regularities, contrasts, paradoxes and irregularities that could be associated with the social, environmental, economic, ethical and political aspects of CSR. In the analysis, particular attention was given to moments that students found puzzling or controversial or that generated emotions (see Fairclough, 1992; Tomlinson and Egan, 2002). From the numerous examples examined, typical illustrations of discourse used in the social construction of CSR knowledge were singled out. Two discursive patterns that offer a good illustration of the struggles over CSR meanings that took place within the context of hybrid PBL were chosen for presentation in the next section.

Empirical analysis

This section illustrates how hybrid PBL allows room for engaging in critical reflexivity, discursive practices and the social construction of CSR meanings. Figure 2 illustrates the hybrid PBL approach developed and used in this study. After two introductory lectures, the class was divided into three groups of five to eight students. Each group was invited to attend the first meeting under my facilitation. As a tutor, I dedicated most of my efforts to smoothing out the PBL process by asking thought-provoking questions dealing with substance and by encouraging students to be attentive to their own assumptions, their sayings and doings and their ways of relating.

Figure 2.

Hybrid problem-based learning.

What is the problem?

The whole hybrid PBL process was organised around the so-called ‘vignette’, which describes a situation in an unstructured form. The vignette represented the trigger for CSR learning. In this case, the vignettes were memos describing a business situation in which values were in conflict (see Treviño and Nelson, 2007: 3). Students were asked to set the research strategy and learning objectives that were needed to deal with the situation. From the point of view of CSR education, improving the situation was not the goal; the goal was to trigger moral deliberation and critically reflexive engagement over unsettling assumptions about business practices and their impact on society and the natural environment. However, the term ‘problem’ in PBL tended to lead some students to approach the social and ecological challenges included in the vignettes as business problems that could be solved through the application of the right management tools (cf. Van Dam and Apeldoorn, 1996: 52).

I think that the problem-based exercise [PBL] was useful for learning about business ethics. It was a totally new way of solving problems for me. It helped me understand how ethical theories and CSR can be used to solve business problem. If I ever were a team leader of some sort, I could definitely see myself using this method for problem solving at my workplace. (Excerpt 1, journal)

We gathered information by doing research on real-life examples from the pharmacy industry, attitudes and ethical theories that may help us rationalise and justify our decision. At the end of the PBL-process, we decided to start producing the generic drugs, even if the market segment was considered risky and legal actions by patent holders were imminent. This however should not be a problem. According to the PBL case the government of the African country where our company happens to operate offered us unconditional political support against possible litigations related to the production of HIV-generic drugs. We saw that starting the production of generic HIV-drugs was the most ethical option available. (Excerpt 2, blog)

Excerpts 1 and 2 show how social concerns and CSR concepts were moulded in a direction that serves business objectives, despite the situation having more far-reaching connotations. Thus, the problem-solving aspect of PBL may indeed present CSR as a management tool for solving conflicts between business and society, downplaying its discursive power in shaping the society in which we want to live and work (see Burchell and Cook, 2006). As Masters-level students, course participants were already familiar with the business jargon. However, in the ‘learning trigger’ step, there was a need to clarify terms such as generics, sweatshops, stakeholders, greenwash, whistle-blower and non-governmental organisation (NGO). With a few exceptions, none of the students participating in both courses had attended a CSR course before. Theoretical concepts such as business ethics, sustainability and stakeholder theory were completely new to them. If, as Chia (1996: 418) argues, language plays a key role in representing and communicating our thoughts of reality, the students faced limitations in framing the situation in the vignette from a CSR perspective. Furthermore, students’ perceptions of responsible business and being a responsible manager could only be expressed and understood through the categories and meanings available to them inside the managerial discourse (cf. Katila and Meriläinen, 1999; Moisander, 2001). These factors had direct consequences on how students framed the situations in the vignettes.

Student 1:

Well, I think that we need to think about the savings that we can obtain by switching to the new supplier [company implementing a sweatshop strategy].

Student 2:

But it’s not only about costs … products have to be of high quality.

Student 1:

Yeah, changing suppliers is a tricky thing. It’s like getting divorced and married again [smile]. I mean, we need to start working on the relationship, and we don’t know whether it’ll work. (Excerpt 3, conversation first meeting)

As the excerpts above indicate, there was a tendency to examine the vignettes in terms of profit and efficiency. The students seemed to have assimilated a rational way of managing (Skålén et al., 2008) that made them immune to the social and environmental implications of business practices. Human beings and nature were seen as problems to be solved and objects to be framed within an organisational language in terms of competitive advantages and sales figures (Jones et al., 2005: 91). As I encouraged students to see beyond the financial, legal, marketing and managerial aspects of the case, some even resisted the idea of framing the case from a perspective other than that of business, as they have been taught during their studies.

We received a case on animal testing. The case itself was quite interesting, but it disregarded several important factors related to economy and running a company. Actually, this problem could have been solved very quickly even without engaging any ethical theories and the chosen option would still be ethical. (Excerpt 4, journal)

The PBL experience was terrible. We found a good solution for the problem right after we read the case, but we were not allowed to say that because we had to invent all kind of confusing problems [referring to animal rights, friendship, loyalty, etc.]. PBL made a simple business decision very complex. That doesn’t work in business. Everyone has their own ways to solve problems, and there was no opportunity for that. Business is about efficiency and profitability, and neither friendship nor emotions should play a role in it. (Excerpt 5, journal)

The students mentioned above resisted the idea of giving up the managerial attributes and dispositions that they acquired during their business studies and that made them business students in the first place (Du Gay et al., 1996). In doing so, they support and even defend the amoral nature of business (see Kallio, 2007). After three weeks of attending lectures and conducting research on the learning objectives set in the first meeting, each group met with me again to discuss and reflect upon their findings in relation to the situations presented in the vignettes. As I encouraged students to assess their findings from the perspective of group dynamics and learning relations, they were able to break down the assumptions that led them to frame the cases in the first meeting.

I don’t really understand how we were not able to see the bigger picture. It was in front of us. I remember that we were too focused on the reduction of costs, legal liability and whether our decision may fit our customer segment [referring to discussions in the first meeting]. How was it possible that we didn’t think of human life at first? [The vignette was built upon the ‘Ford Pinto’ case (see Gioia, 1992)]. The problem was much broader and complex than we initially thought; it went beyond a simple business decision. I think that in our conversations [referring to group discussions] we were able to question our initial thoughts. (Excerpt 6, conversation second meeting)

The role of discourse as a way of apprehending and reconstituting worldviews is central in Excerpt 6. As the example above indicates, discourse is not simply a matter of what is being said in the vignettes used in this study but also of how bits of information are ultimately interpreted and assembled into coherent stories or accounts (see Dryzek, 1997; Jonker and Marberg, 2007). The vignettes used in this study could thus be conceived differently depending on the discourse that is drawn upon.

The analysis of this discursive pattern first illustrated how the managerial discourse and the problem-solving nature of PBL influenced the way that business students framed and tackled the social and environmental challenges presented in the vignettes. The analysis then turned to a demonstration of how the CSR discourse offered students a new way of talking and understanding the PBL cases; thus, it enabled them to openly recognise critical issues that were not visible when relying only on the managerial discourse. At the same time, some examples showed how certain students distanced themselves from the CSR discourse in an attempt to maintain their professional identity (see Laine and Vaara, 2007: 145). They saw the social responsibility approach to business as problematic because they felt that it threatened and limited their ability to act as managers.

Puzzling with the managerial and corporate social responsibility discourse

The lectures, in-class exercises, documentaries, self-study and other learning activities that took place after the first meeting helped position students within the CSR discourse. In line with Fairclough (2003: 208), hybrid PBL became a process in which students were encouraged to act, think, talk and see themselves in terms of the CSR discourse. Hence, the hybrid PBL process served as a means to promote critical reflexivity and the social construction of CSR.

The CSR documentary showed during the lecture made me think many things about business. I felt that those Chinese workers were underpaid and working in poor conditions. I was surprised and embarrassed because many scenes we saw had been our reality in our country […] Only 20 years ago, the video was our own story. My mother worked in a small factory that made car seats. The factory was owned by a US-American. It was not easy for me to see mother’s face. She usually had to work 12–15 hours a day. It was a murderous work load. But she could not stop working. Otherwise, our family would not have lived together. Once I went to the factory to see her when I was eight years old. I was shocked. There was too much dust inside the factory and only one window to ventilate. My mother was covered in dust. I remembered that I cried in front of her […] Some classmates [European origin] laughed many times during the film. I thought they didn’t experience it indirectly or directly. But I couldn’t laugh because the reality in the video was very sorrowful […] China tries to attract many foreign companies to boost the economy, and I certainly understand that. Although economic development is important, nothing is more important than human life and dignity (Excerpt 7, journal).

The excerpt above illustrates how connecting the audio-visual material with personal experiences and a series of social relations from the past and the present stimulates critical reflexivity. Indeed, the documentary seemed to trigger a dialogue between the student and relatives, colleagues and the tutor himself, shaping his understanding of CSR and his notion of being and acting as a socially responsible company (see Cunliffe 2008: 130). Rather than simply connecting CSR theory with practice (Clemens and Hamakawa, 2010; Giacalone and Jurkiewicz, 2001), films play a crucial role in highlighting and legitimising voices that are usually excluded or silenced within a managerial context. While he accepts the importance of economic development, by drawing upon the CSR discourse he challenges the assumption that growth and profit maximisation are unquestionable. In line with Du Gay et al. (1996: 265), it can be argued that the CSR discourse provided a new language for talking about business and a way of producing a particular kind of knowledge about responsible business. After showing the documentary, European students – including some of the students who laughed – exchanged some thoughts on the film.

Student 3:

This is not so bad. I’m sure there are worse places in China.

Student 4:

Yeah, we have to accept that living conditions in those countries are lower. We cannot expect companies to pay the same salary as here in Europe. Anyway, we [Europeans] have experienced similar working conditions [referring to long working hours, low wages, etc.]. Industrial towns in England and Tampere [Finland] are examples of poor working conditions. It is how national economies develop. Countries like China will have a better quality of life in the future. Without this competitive advantage no one would invest in China.

Student 3:

It is ridiculous that they are concerned about the worker’s cantina and about storing chemicals together with the tea cups [issues that arose in the film]. I would be rather concerned about the company having three different accounting systems. This is not legal and could be the source of problems [another issue that became evident in the film].

Student 4:

Yeah … and the British manager who must have lost his job after the documentary was released [smiling]. He was so cynical … not good for the image of the supplier. (Excerpt 8, in-class conversation)

In contrast to Excerpt 7, the comments above sustain the contemporary managerial discourse. The students’ thoughts about both the role of business in society and their social world as business students are framed by the managerial discourse (see Skålén et al., 2008: 39). By comparing the company’s case to worse cases, student 3 seems to justify major managerial principles: competitiveness, growth, efficiency, flexibility and market orientation (see Du Gay et al., 1996). As the instructor, I was especially concerned about the lack of attention given to other social gaps presented in the film, such as gender differences (women workers and male managers), ethnic differences (Chinese workers and European managers), rural migration, the violation of individual rights and the role of western consumption patterns in driving the cost-efficiency of the production sites (see Banerjee, 2007). However, these aspects of the documentary were later addressed by some students in their learning journals, as shown in Excerpt 7.

While lectures, in-class exercises and the self-study period offered an opportunity for students to become familiar with CSR literature, they also served as the basis for students to question their own practices and assumptions as business students. CSR theory was thus used provocatively to encourage students to explore and evaluate ideas that could improve their professional practices (Ramsey, 2011). In particular, between the self-study period and the presentations (see Figure 2), students had the opportunity to experiment with those ideas and take actions that they had not previously considered.

I learned a lot from the picture which illustrated the connection between law and ethics and the idea of a grey area [referring to Matten and Crane, 2007: 7]. This is something that I have been thinking a lot about, but I haven’t been successful in drawing such a clear picture in my mind. When I see this picture, I start to ask my self as a management student: How many students – future managers – are aware of the difference between acting legally and ethically? How many are willing to do more than what is required by the law? […] The more I get into this CSR topic, the more I start to analyse my own behaviour and thoughts, my previous actions and experiences. (Excerpt 9, journal)

Students challenged but also sustained the managerial discourse in other situations. Although they were critical of mainstream business approaches, they were not willing to let them go. Furthermore, there were doubts about the CSR discourse when approached as a business case.

I disapprove of shareholder orientation as the exclusive approach. If managers’ single goal is profit maximisation, they have to ask themselves who are the people affected by their actions. Otherwise, there could be conflicts that damage the company’s image, and therefore decrease profits […] The stakeholder approach also includes an occult aspect I did not think about before: if a company is able to manage its influences on its stakeholders it can also try to manipulate and use customers as a means of reaching its goals. Of course, this is no longer ethically ‘right’ behaviour, as it can lead the company to exploit its stakeholders. (Excerpt 10, journal)

While the student in Excerpt 10 questions the idea of shareholder power, she saw image and profit maximisation as important, which is the case in the managerial discourse. This critical reflexive questioning is not limited to the shareholder approach but also includes the stakeholder approach. By drawing attention to the instrumental justification of stakeholder theory, the example reveals the potential contradictions and dilemmas present in the notion of CSR. The danger that stakeholder theory may reinforce the power and managerial structures in business organisations instead of changing and challenging them is clearly identified (see Banerjee, 2007: 40). Overall, the excerpt shows how assumptions about theoretical and practical features of the managerial and CSR discourse are unveiled as a basis for working toward more critical and ethical action (Cunliffe, 2004: 415).

This discursive pattern illustrated how the managerial and CSR discourses created room for talking about and critically reflecting upon issues that have been silenced or neglected during the business studies of the course participants. The analysis drew attention to the emotional side effects of using hybrid PBL to position students within the CSR discourse. Intimate experiences were called from memory, and discomfort and a sense of powerlessness became visible among students as their beliefs – once seeming unquestionable – were challenged (see Reynolds 1999: 549).

Negotiating tensions within hybrid problem-based learning

Discussions of social responsibility and ethics, especially in a business course, are bound to generate tensions, which the instructor should be prepared to ease. With this in mind, I started the hybrid PBL process with lectures discussing the relationships between business and society. Providing students with conceptual ideas and practical examples helped them realise that society, nature and ethical values are necessarily and explicitly a part of doing business, rather than being non-business oriented. This allowed me to reduce students’ anxiety and resistance at the beginning of the courses. However, resistance was inevitable during the first meeting and self-study period, in which students demanded ‘right’ answers from me, were preoccupied with familiar managerial practices or even bemoaned the fact that the issues discussed in the course may be irrelevant to their work in the ‘real world’ (Simpson et al., 2000: 462). As the tutor, I did not take any responsibility for addressing the situation in the vignette or helping to manage it in a socially responsible way. Rather than giving answers, I focused on carefully following group discussions and when appropriate, reframing questions for the students in a way that allowed them to find a common ground to work on the task (see Simpson et al., 2000: 466).

During the research process and courses, I was not always prepared to deal with emotions. My position as a researcher intensified the power difference between the students and myself (see Reason, 1988). While some students saw me as an expert whose knowledge was unquestionable, other students resisted my teaching and the PBL approach, even claiming in some cases that they were the victims of brainwashing. Questioning the managerial discourse resulted in disruptive emotional consequences. As this study shows, the disconfirmation of assumptions about business as well as the challenging of one’s own identity as a business student (something that once seemed to be unquestionable) led to a sense of anger, frustration and powerlessness. The resistance posed by students was associated with feelings of defensiveness in face of a perceived attack on their subjectivities. As Excerpt 5 reveals, sometimes I might have failed to deal adequately with these feelings, causing students to feel that I was silencing their voices and forcing them to give up their managerial rationality.

One way to work through these emotional dynamics was to establish relationships with students through listening to them and having out-of-class conversations (see Ramsey and Fitzgibbons, 2005). This helped me to step beyond my instructor role to position myself as a learner who was not only dealing with similar emotions but was also engaging with students in reflexive dialogues and collaborative learning practices (Cunliffe, 2002). Rather than indicating failure, emotions such as discomfort, powerlessness and suspicion with conceptual ideas became potential points of leverage for CSR learning. In some cases, the relationships and the learning process with students continued long after the conclusion of a course. As Vince (2011) points out, it can be argued that hybrid PBL offered an opportunity to exploit the learning space of the courses in their emotional complexity in the service of CSR learning. Students’ feelings, doings and sayings were a reliable mirror of the emotional and political dynamics that managers deal with when entering the CSR debate. As such, the tensions discussed above provided opportunities for understanding the complexities of CSR theory and practice.

After eight AR cycles, it is difficult to determine with precision how many students remain anchored in managerialism and how many attained a more sophisticated perspective on CSR issues. According to the PBL feedback gathered from 115 students using a 5-point Likert-type scale (1=very weak; 5=excellent), the hybrid PBL format was seen as suitable for promoting CSR learning (mean=4.42, standard deviation=0.691). However, a deeper assessment of the impact of hybrid PBL on students’ learning is possible through an analytical review of the learning journals, blog posts, wiki contributions and my field notes on PBL meetings, in-class and out-of-class discussions. These documents clearly indicate that the hybrid PBL approach created opportunities for questioning aspects of managerial practice that are typically taken for granted and thus experimenting with new ways of talking, acting and relating in the marketplace (see Cunliffe, 2004). For example, 76% of the learning journals include critically reflexive questioning of the way students act or are supposed to act as business practitioners. Furthermore, in discussions following the final presentations, students seemed to show signs of resistance to the dominant managerial discourse by addressing their concerns about the probabilities of being able to transform contemporary business practices. Indeed, while the skills and knowledge developed in the course were viewed as important and needed for the improvement of management practice, most students expressed a certain degree of disappointment with the fact that business does not value these skills and knowledge.

Conclusions

I have explored the use of hybrid PBL as a pedagogical tool for promoting critical reflexivity and the construction of social-responsibility meanings within CSR courses based on the interplay of managerial and CSR discourses. Within the PBL context, these discourses allowed for different voices and ways to produce, reproduce and transform meanings about being and acting as a socially responsible organisation (see Moisander and Valtonen, 2006). While hybrid PBL is presented as a useful tool for CSR teaching, the particular contribution of this study is that it draws attention to an often-neglected aspect of CSR education: the role of language in offering a certain way of thinking, valuing and acting in the world.

In this sense, the hybrid PBL approach outlined in this study creates a learning space that allows students to draw on the CSR discourse to critically question contemporary business practices and thus recognise themselves – their assumptions, doings and sayings – in relation to other members of society (see Cunliffe, 2002: 39–40). By reworking CSR learning from a reflective cognitive to a reflexive relational process, this study adds to our understanding of CSR education in theory and practice. Moreover, by illustrating the struggles over CSR meanings that take place within an educational context, the study improves the understanding of the complexities that are involved when business organisations assess their roles and responsibilities in society.

Although hybrid PBL seems to be a useful tool for CSR courses, there are some challenges that need to be considered. First, the strong emphasis of PBL on problem solving may lead students to frame environmental and social issues as simple business problems and thus perceive CSR as a strategic tool for solving them. By highlighting the business cases for CSR, problem solving may not only reproduce the managerial approach to CSR but also downplay the role of CSR as a multi-stakeholder process of moral deliberation, negotiation, transformation and learning with regard to how our society should be built. Second, hybrid PBL may result in considerable discomfort and distress for students who are used to traditional ways of learning and are new to the CSR discourse. Therefore, hybrid PBL requires a high degree of commitment from the instructor, who takes the primary responsibility for leading students beyond the problem-solving spectrum and for using the emotional dynamics generated in the course as a means for promoting CSR learning.

Third, it is crucial for CSR educators to become critically reflexive about their teaching practices and assumptions regarding the role of business in society. Progress towards greater social responsibility in business requires that critical aspects connected to business–society relations that are silenced by the managerial discourse become not only visible but the focus of class discussions. If business students are trained to maintain current managerial practices without questioning sensitive issues such as unlimited growth, the amoral nature of business and profit maximisation, they will be unable to develop new ways of thinking as future managers and thus be unable to transform old ways of organising, managing and relating to stakeholders (Cunliffe, 2002, 2004: 408; Kallio 2007: 173).

Based on the above, it can be concluded that struggles over CSR meanings in teaching practices surpass trying to help business students make sense of CSR. It is an attempt to help them become critical thinkers and moral practitioners able to transform existing business practices. Hybrid PBL has been demonstrated to be a suitable pedagogical tool to shake up the order of the managerial discourse by inviting business students to position themselves within the CSR discourse even if they do not feel a personal commitment to it (cf. Alanko-Turunen, 2005: 230). While the use of hybrid PBL in CSR courses will not necessarily change the prevailing business philosophy, it represents an important step on the way to reshaping our perceptions of the role of business in society.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Professor Anu Valtonen and the two anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments. He also thanks Professor Jukka Mäkinen for his comments on an earlier version of this article.

Funding

This work was supported by research grants funded by the Foundation for Economic Education (Ref.RGB31/2008–2009) and the Finnish Graduate School of Environmental Sociology.

Notes

References

Alanko-Turunen

(2005) Negotiating Interdiscursivity in a Problem-Based Learning Tutorial Site: A Case Study of an International Business Programme. Tampere: University of Tampere.

Banerjee

(2007) Corporate Social Responsibility: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Barrows

(1996) Problem-based learning in medicine and beyond: A brief overview. In: Wilkerson

Gijselaers

(eds) Bringing Problem-Based Learning to Higher Education: Theory and Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 3–12.

Barrows

(2000) Foreword. In: Evensen

Hmelo

(eds) Problem-Based Learning: A Research Perspective on Learning Interactions. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp.vii–ix.

Bickford

Van Vleck

(1997) Reflections on artful teaching. Journal of Management Education 21(4): 448–463.

Boud

Feletti

(1997) Changing problem-based learning: Introduction to the second edition. In: Boud

Feletti

(eds) The Challenge of Problem-Based Learning. London: Kogan Page, pp.1–14.

Burchell

Cook

(2006) Confronting the ‘corporate citizen’: Shaping the discourse of corporate social responsibility. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 26(3/2): 121–137.

Chia

(1996) Teaching paradigm shifting in management education: University business schools and the entrepreneurial imagination. Journal of Management Studies 33(4): 409–428.

Clemens

Hamakawa

(2010) Classroom as cinema: Using film to teach sustainability. Academy of Management Learning & Education 9(3): 561–563.

10.

Coghlan

Brannick

(2009) Doing Action Research in Your Own Organization. London: SAGE.

11.

Collier

(2001) Approaches to analysis in visual anthropology. In: Van Leeuwen

Jewitt

(eds) Handbook of Visual Analysis. London: SAGE, pp. 35–60.

12.

Coombs

Elden

(2004) Introduction to the Special Issue: Problem-based learning as social inquiry – PBL and management education. Journal of Management Education 28(5): 523–535.

13.

Crane

(1999) Are you ethical? Please tick yes or no on researching ethics in business organisation. Journal of Business Ethics 20(3): 237–248.

14.

Cunliffe

(2002) Reflexive dialogical practice in management learning. Management Learning 33(1): 35–61.

15.

Cunliffe

(2004) On becoming a critically reflexive practitioner. Journal of Management Education 28(4): 407–426.

16.

Cunliffe

(2008) Orientations to social constructionism: Relationally responsive social constructionism and its implications for knowledge and learning. Management Learning 39(2): 123–139.

17.

DesJardins

Diedrich

(2003) Learning what it really costs: Teaching business ethics with life-cycle case studies. Journal of Business Ethics 48(1): 33–42.

18.

Drinan

(1997) The limits of problem-based learning. In: Boud

Feletti

(eds) The Challenge of Problem-Based Learning. London: Kogan Page, pp.333–339.

19.

Dryzek

(1997) The Politics of the Earth: Environmental Discourses. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

20.

Du Gay

Salaman

Rees

(1996) The conduct of management and the management of conduct: Contemporary managerial discourse and the constitution of the ‘competent’ manager. Journal of Management Studies 33(3): 263–282.

21.

Fairclough

(1992) Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.

22.

Fairclough

(2003) Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. London: Routledge.

23.

Gabriel

Connell

NAD

(2010) Co-creating stories: Collaborative experiments in storytelling. Management Learning 41(5): 507–523.

24.

Galea

(ed.) (2007) Teaching Business Sustainability Vol. 2: Cases, Simulations and Experiential Approaches. Sheffield: Greenleaf.

25.

Giacalone

Jurkiewicz

(2001) Lights, camera, action: Teaching ethical decision making trough the cinematic experience. Teaching Business Ethics 5(1): 79–87.

26.

Gioia

(1992) Pinto fires and personal ethics: A script analysis of missed opportunities. Journal of Business Ethics 11(5/6): 379–389.

27.

Hallinger

(2011) Assessing the instructional effectiveness of problem-based management education in Thailand: A longitudinal evaluation. Management Learning 42(3): 279–299.

28.

Hammersley

Atkinson

(1996) Ethnography: Principles in Practice. London: Routledge.

29.

Hardless

Nilsson

Nuldén

(2005) Copernicus: Experiencing a failing project for reflection and learning. Management Learning 36(2): 181–217.

30.

Holman

(2000) Contemporary models of management education in the UK. Management Learning 31(2): 197–217.

31.

Holman

Pavlica

Thorpe

(1997) Rethinking Kolb’s theory of experiential learning in management education: The contribution of social constructionism and activity theory. Management Learning 28(2): 135–148.

32.

Jones

Ten Bos

Parker

(2005) For Business Ethics. London: Routledge.

33.

Jonker

Marberg

(2007) Corporate social responsibility – quo vadis? A critical inquiry into a discursive struggle. The Journal of Corporate Citizenship 27: 107–118.

34.

Kahn

O’Rourke

(2005) Understanding enquiry-based learning. In: Barret

Labhrainn

Fallon

(eds) Handbook of Inquiry and Problem Based Learning. Galway: CELT, pp.1–12.

35.

Kallio

(2007) Taboos in corporate social responsibility discourse. Journal of Business Ethics 74(2): 165–175.

36.

Katila

Meriläinen

(1999) A serious researcher or just another nice girl? Doing gender in a male-dominated scientific community. Gender, Work and Organisation 6(3): 163–173.

37.

Laine

Vaara

(2007) Struggling over subjectivity: A discursive analysis of strategic development in an engineering group. Human Relations 60(1): 29–58.

38.

Lewin

(1948) Resolving Social Conflicts: Selected Papers on Group Dynamics. New York: Harper and Row.

39.

Lindén

Alanko-Turunen

(2006) Deconstructing conceptions of problem-based learning. In: Poikela

Nummenmaa

(eds) Understanding Problem-Based Learning. Tampere: University of Tampere, pp.51–64.

40.

McWilliams

Nahavandi

(2006) Using live cases to teach ethics. Journal of Business Ethics 67(4): 421–433.

41.

Margetson

(1994) Current educational reform and the significance of problem-based learning. Studies in Higher Education 19(1): 5–20.

42.

Marshall

(2001) Self-reflective inquiry practices. In: Reason

Bradbury

(eds) Handbook of Action Research. London: SAGE, pp. 433–439.

43.

Marshall

(2004) Living systemic thinking: Exploring quality in first-person action research. Action Research 2(3): 305–325.

44.

Matten

Crane

(2007) Business Ethics: Managing Corporate Citizenship and Sustainability in the Age of Globalization. New York: Oxford University Press.

45.

Matten

Moon

(2004) Corporate social responsibility: Education in Europe. Journal of Business Ethics 54(4): 323–37.

46.

Moisander

(2001) Representations of Green Consumerism: A Constructionist Critique. Helsinki: Helsinki School of Economics.

47.

Moisander

Valtonen

(2006) Qualitative Marketing Research: A Cultural Approach. London: SAGE.

48.

Phillips

Jorgensen

(2002) Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method. London: SAGE.

49.

Phillips

Hardy

(2002) Discourse Analysis: Investigating Processes of Social Construction. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

50.

Portimojärvi

(2006) Synchronous and asynchronous communication in online problem-based learning. In: Poikela

Nummenmaa

(eds) Understanding Problem-Based Learning. Tampere: University of Tampere, pp. 91-104.

51.

Probyn

(2004) Teaching bodies: Affects in the classroom. Body & Society 10(4): 21–43.

52.

Ramsey

(2003) Using virtual learning environments to facilitate new learning relationships. International Journal of Management Education 3(2): 31–41.

53.

Ramsey

(2005) Narrative: From learning in reflection to learning in performance. Management Learning 36(2): 219–235.

54.

Ramsey

(2011) Provocative theory and a scholarship of practice. Management Learning 42(5): 469–483.

55.

Ramsey

Fitzgibbons

(2005) Being in the classroom. Journal of Management Education 29(2): 333–356.

56.

Rantala

(2011) An ethnographic approach to nature-based tourism. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism 11(2): 150–165.

57.

Reason

(1988) Human Inquiry in Action. London: SAGE.

58.

Reed

Anthony

(1992) Professionalizing management and managing professionalization: British management in the 1980s. Journal of Management Studies 29(5): 591–613.

59.

Reynolds

(1999) Critical reflection and management education: Rehabilitating less hierarchical approaches. Journal of Management Education 23(5): 537–53.

60.

Ryan

(1997) Ensuring that students develop an adequate and well-structured knowledge base. In: Boud

Feletti

(eds) The Challenge of Problem-Based Learning. London: Kogan Page, pp.125–136.

61.

Savery

(2006) Overview of problem-based learning: definitions and distinctions. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning 1(1): 9–20.

62.

Savery

Duffy

(1995) Problem-based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. Educational Technology 35(5): 31–38.

63.

Simpson

French

Vince

(2000) The upside of the downside: How utilizing defensive dynamics can support learning in groups. Management Learning 31(4): 457–470.

64.

Sims

(2002) Business ethics teaching for effective learning. Teaching Business Ethics 6(4): 393–410.

65.

Skålén

Fougère

Fellesson

(2008) Marketing Discourse: A Critical Perspective. London: Routledge.

66.

Smith

(2005) Problem-based learning: Can it improve managerial thinking? Journal of Management Education 29(2): 357–378.

67.

Spradley

(1980) Participant Observation. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

68.

Swantz

(2008) Participatory action research as practice. In: Reason

Bradbury

(eds) The SAGE Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice. London: SAGE, pp.31–48.

69.

Tomlinson

Egan

(2002) Organizational sensemaking in a culturally diverse setting: Limits to the valuing diversity discourse. Management Learning 33(1): 79–97.

70.

Treviño

Nelson

(2007) Managing Business Ethics: Straight Talk about How to Do it Right. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

71.

Usher

(1992) Experience in adult education: A post-modern critique. Journal of Philosophy of Education 26(2): 201–215.

72.

Van Dam

Apeldoorn

(1996) Sustainable marketing. Journal of Macromarketing 16(2): 45–56.

73.

Vince

(2011) The spatial psychodynamics of management learning. Management Learning 42(3): 333–347.

74.

Watson

(2001) The emergent manager and processes of management pre-learning. Management Learning 32(2): 221–235.

75.

Wee

LKN

Alexandria

Kek

. (2003) Transforming the marketing curriculum using problem-based learning: A case study. Journal of Marketing Education 25(2): 150–162.