08832323.2014.973826
Journal of Education for Business
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
The ROOT and STEM of a Fruitful Business
Education
Frank Badua
To cite this article: Frank Badua (2015) The ROOT and STEM of a Fruitful Business Education,
Journal of Education for Business, 90:1, 50-55, DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2014.973826
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2014.973826
Published online: 21 Nov 2014.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 96
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji]
Date: 11 January 2016, At: 19:04
JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS, 90: 50–55, 2015
Copyright Ó Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0883-2323 print / 1940-3356 online
DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2014.973826
The ROOT and STEM of a Fruitful Business
Education
Frank Badua
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 19:04 11 January 2016
Lamar University, Beaumont, Texas, USA
The author discusses the role of the liberal arts in a business curriculum for an increasingly
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)–centered world. The author
introduces the rhetoric, orthography, ontology, and teleology (ROOT) disciplines, and links
them to the traditional liberal arts foundation of higher education. The expanded role of the
ROOTs in a business curriculum and its contribution to the STEM disciplines is explored.
Finally different approaches for integrating ROOTs into the business curriculum are considered.
Keywords: classical education, critical thinking, humanities, liberal arts, STEM, writing
Despite the increasing relevance of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education, it must not be
forgotten that the humanities are an essential component of a
business curriculum, and arguably a necessary foundation of
the STEM disciplines. This paper will analyze what comprises
the humanities or liberal arts, and introduce the concept of the
rhetoric, orthography, ontology, and teleology (ROOT) disciplines. Here I consider the role of the ROOTs in a business
curriculum, their contribution to STEM disciplines, and suggest different ways by which ROOTs could be integrated into
the business curriculum.
The relevance of STEM education to the business disciplines is patent. Business school students of all majors are
typically required to take business calculus and statistics
courses. Courses focusing on computer technology for business functions exist throughout the business school catalog,
taught by faculty in every business major. Degree programs
such as accounting information systems and management
engineering dealing with the nexus of technology and business have been carved out and soldered together from various disciplines. However, here I show that the humanities
can contribute much to the business curriculum also.
HUMANITIES OR LIBERAL ARTS AND ITS ROOT
COMPONENTS
The ROOTs are the humanities complement to STEM. They
extend the horticultural metaphor in the other (right-brained)
Correspondence should be addressed to Frank Badua, Lamar University, College of Business, 4400 MLK Parkway, Beaumont, TX 77710,
USA. E-mail: frank.badua@lamar.edu
direction, and are of classical Greek provenance. The acronym is thus a reminder of the philological fields that are
overshadowed in the thicket of STEMs, despite the fact that
the modern academic system was founded on them. The
ROOT disciplines are inspired by, and are an amplification
and extension of, the Classical Trivium, which historically
formed the basis of a university education (Rait, 2010), and
consists of rhetoric, grammar, and logic (Joseph, 2002). Both
curricular schemes include rhetoric, which develops the ability to communicate in order to inform and persuade. However, as explained in subsequent sections of this article,
while grammar is akin to orthography, the latter is broader,
and is relevant to more than just philology or languages. Furthermore, while logic encompasses ontology and teleology,
the distinctions made in the ROOT schema between the latter subjects allows for a more precise guidance for the direction of school curricula. Such precision is especially
important in dealing with a curriculum as broad and dynamic
as that of a business school. While none of the ROOT fields
corresponds exactly to particular college majors, they are
found in many humanities or liberal arts courses that some
have considered phasing out from a business education
(Cohan, 2012; Wecker, 2012).
Rhetoric is most often associated with speech making,
but encompasses much more. It includes mastery of logic,
ability to sway hearts and minds, and elegance and economy in exposition.
Orthography is narrowly taken to mean spelling, but etymologically it is a portmanteau of Greek words meaning
correct writing. It also includes grammar and style, and has
applications even in poetry where verbal idiosyncrasies
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 19:04 11 January 2016
THE ROOT AND STEM OF A FRUITFUL BUSINESS EDUCATION
abound, but internal consistency in rhythm and rhyme are
required.
Ontology is the study of existence and essences, concerned with what it means to be, and abstracting general
principles by observing specific examples. This is where
philosophy meets science, the pivot point at which the troglodyte in Plato’s cave turns away from the shadows and
sees reality.
Teleology is the study of causes, the history of everything from the Big Bang onward. The philosopher and the
theologian will extend the teleological timeline as far back
as possible to the (perhaps) divine Ultimate Cause, whose
design of the universe and will for humankind are supposedly the final cause, the reason or goal for which all phenomena occur. The historian and scientist will also be
concerned with causation, focusing on how events and
institutions came about, via the operation of efficient
causes, the natural, social, or mechanical means by which
phenomena occur. Although teleology was originally conceived as the study of final causes, in recent years, it has
come to embrace efficient causes as well (Allen, 2009).
These ROOT disciplines were once envisioned as exclusively for independently wealthy men, seeking profound
wisdom and broad knowledge, rather than preparing for
employment. However, paradoxically, the ROOT disciplines can benefit those who aspire to wealth and are preparing to be business professionals.
THE GREAT UPROOTING AND THE RECENT
REPLANTING: CHANGES IN ATTITUDES TOWARD
LIBERAL ARTS IN EDUCATION AND BUSINESS
The humanities or liberal arts were once considered the
foundation of a university’s curriculum (Dirks, 1997).
These disciplines were referred to as the humanities
because of their focus on what is essential to human identity, values, and culture, as reflected in historical, linguistic,
and philosophical artifacts of great classical civilizations all
over the world. They were also called liberal arts because
they were meant for a liber, a free person whose socioeconomic situation was such that he (typically) would not need
employment because he was a wealthy gentleman of leisure, and therefore did not require the commercially practical, narrowly specialized, technically detailed education
that poorer men might pursue in order to obtain work
beyond the farm or factory.
The Industrial Revolution and the rise of self-made men
whose wealth and social standing were earned in business
brought a new attitude regarding the old humanities curriculum. Steel and rail magnate Andrew Carnegie and elevator
manufacturer Richard Teller Crane broadcasted their disdain for the traditionally educated gentleman’s suitability
for business, urging reform of the university (Donoghue,
2004). They recommended uprooting the liberal arts from
51
the curriculum, replacing them with more professionally
and technically oriented courses.
Ironically in the 21st century, when the accumulated
technologies of the Industrial and Digital Revolutions
enable the professional and personal pursuits of the world’s
population, there is a call for an about-face, and a reintegration of the humanities into business schools (Colby, Ehrlich, Sullivan, & Dolle, 2011). Universities are exploring
ways by to do so, by inviting philosophy faculty to give
workshops in business schools (Kim, 2013) and creating
degree programs that combine the liberal arts and business
curricula (Jay and Graff, 2012). They have realized ROOT
disciplines are relevant to business, and essential to the
STEMs.
However, although there is evidently a revived awareness of the vital necessity of ROOT disciplines to a business education, there seems to be no consensus about the
way in which the ROOTs should be replanted into the curriculum. Indeed the variety of ways alluded to above in
which business schools are attempting the task is symptomatic of the problem (Colby, 2007).
Nevertheless, simply relying on the existing liberal arts
curriculum as offered in other colleges in the university or
other pre–School of Business institutions is insufficient for
several reasons. For one, there appears to be a mutual distrust between liberal arts and other faculty, with the former
viewing the latter as parvenus and interlopers, coming
between the educator and the student with newfangled, narrowly focused, technical curricula, that interferes in the
task of providing a true, broad-based, skills-imparting (as
opposed to knowledge-imparting) liberal education (Van
Sandt, 2007). Furthermore, even when a liberal arts curriculum is included as part of the preprofessional, general education curriculum that preceded a student’s entry into
business or professional programs, the lag between the time
a student completed these courses and the time he/she
enters business school, and the apparent exogeneity of one
curriculum to the other, causes the student to develop but a
fragile understanding of the humanities, which would easily
crumble away with the passage of time and the introduction
of more technical, occupationally specific material (Colby,
2007). Finally, the necessarily different foci in topics and
teaching between the ROOT disciplines as taught in a general purpose course within the liberal arts curriculum versus
as an integrated part of a business school curriculum
(Fogarty, 1991).
ROOT’s Role in the Business School
Every ROOT discipline is necessary to a business education. Rhetoric, orthography, ontology, and teleology all
play a role in business, and should be inculcated in the business student.
It is easy to connect rhetoric to business. Marketing is evidently concerned with what moves minds and markets. A lot
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 19:04 11 January 2016
52
F. BADUA
of the techniques of advertising and consumer persuasion are
of Aristotelian provenance (Heller, 2012). But the relevance
of rhetoric to the business world is not limited to the selling
side. In economics and finance good investors see through the
irrational exuberance or Chicken Little panic that often bedevils capital markets to rationally assess a stock’s true value.
They parse out the appeals to pathos that appear in annual
reports, headlines, and corporate prospectuses, and focus on
the logos, the valid, rational arguments that ought to determine
the prudent allocation of funds to businesses that are run sensibly and ethically (ethos plays a part as well). The choices that
analysts, investors, and managers make are the products of
internal debate.
Orthography too remains relevant to business. Correct use
of language remains important in the business world (Jerald,
2009; Wecker, 2012). The Bureau of Labor Statistics (2008)
identified a strong positive correlation between the increase in
required prose literacy levels for job categories and the growth
rate in those job categories. The jobs to be created in the future
will be for the more literate workers. But orthography does
not necessarily imply Ciceronian circumlocution. An email or
memo consisting of concise but grammatical and intelligible
sentences is what is demanded and impressive in the modern
corporate environment. Orthographic standards have evolved
from classical times, but those that are in place enable quick,
clear, and unambiguous transmission of the writer’s thoughts
to the reader.
Ontology and teleology are essential elements of critical
thinking. Critical thinking was defined by Das (1994) as the
skill to deduce from all available evidence and prior knowledge what is true or what should be done in order to achieve
a certain result. Therefore, because ontology involves identifying the essence of things, it is needed in determining
what is true of business phenomena based on individual
examples, as well as identifying exceptions. Also, because
teleology focuses on causation, it is fundamental to analyzing who or what causes certain effects, and are not merely
coincident with them, and what ought to be done in order to
achieve desired effects or avoid undesirable ones.
A traditional business education focuses mainly on content-based as opposed to skill-based instruction and is
poorly configured to inculcate critical thinking (Snyder &
Snyder, 2008). This deficiency is more acutely felt in the
modern business environment that is fast-evolving and
globally oriented. Merely teaching students what is true
about business without inculcating the ontological skill of
determining the truth futile because the information taught
is susceptible to obsolescence and they are at risk of information overload and cognitive dissonance (Badua, 2008;
Festinger, 1957). The result is professionals whose positions are obsolete or outsourced before they have earned
enough to pay their college loans, advertising campaigns
that do not translate well from one culture to another, and
macroeconomic policies that cause prosperity in one place
or at one time, and poverty in others. Most importantly,
ethics, so sorely needed in business as demonstrated by the
accounting scandals at the end of the 20th century and the
financial scandals at the beginning of the 21st century, are
most effectively taught as a special application of ontology
and teleology. Paul (1988) asserted that teaching morality
and ethics to students without critical thinking would be
indoctrination, the imposition of a set of rules whose validity would never be evaluated by the recipient, and whose
applicability in different circumstances the student could
never discern.
ROOT Before STEM
The ROOTs also nourish STEM disciplines. Each of the
ROOTs is important to the study and practice of STEM
subjects.
Science is not necessarily what is true about a certain
phenomenon or field, but merely what is predominantly
believed to be true about it. Thus, rhetoric is the tool and
province of the scientist who does not merely collect data
about observed phenomena and formulates theories to
explain them, but also presents the findings and proposed
theories persuasively (Gross, 2006).
Orthography’s connection to STEM is fundamental and
pervasive. Math and statistics are as orthographic as literature is, as anyone who has misplaced parentheses or
switched the order of subtrahends can acknowledge. Programmers obey programming language syntax. And beyond
mere grammatical norms, programming has styles as well.
Hierarchical and object-oriented programs are as distinct as
the haiku and the ode.
The ontologies of the STEMs are narrow, because they
are hierarchically oriented and reductionist in method. But
for philosophers and scientists, ontology determines relevance and context. Ontology informs the scientist’s efforts
to solve the scientific jigsaw puzzle by helping him/her
decide where the piece in his or her hand would fit, or if it
is even a piece of that particular puzzle. Much of the
research work of scientists is observing data, reconciling it
to the current ontological framework, and if necessary
reworking that framework or building a new one.
Similar to philosophers, scientists are also concerned with
their stretch of the teleological track, albeit that stretch tends
to be short, attributing causation to a “What” rather than to a
divine “Who.” Newton showed what made things move or
stay, stop, and start. Darwin explained what makes organisms
attain their characteristics. Pasteur found what makes us sick,
and what can be done to prevent sickness. Again, the scientist’s focus is narrower but similar, finding causes.
Most importantly, the same questions that are broached
narrowly in the STEMs, are approached broadly in the
ROOTs. That discursiveness limits the length travelled
along a particular intellectual road, but makes it easier to
detect alternative routes. A person trained exclusively in
THE ROOT AND STEM OF A FRUITFUL BUSINESS EDUCATION
the STEMs is less likely to think beyond ontological
boundaries.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 19:04 11 January 2016
SETTING DOWN ROOTS ONCE MORE
The approaches that various institutions have used (e.g.,
workshops, dove-tailing degree programs) differ from one
another, and would differ from those of other institutions
pursuing the same goal. This article considers several
approaches developed by Fogarty (1991) for integrating
course material across disciplines to help these efforts.
These approaches include those with little, moderate,
and significant integration. Low integration is typical of
current business school undergraduate and master of business administration curricula, while near total integration
typifies PhD curricula for business specializations. Other
approaches where integration is moderate and targeted best
serve the goal of reintegrating the ROOT disciplines.
The fragmented model considers courses separate and
distinct, taught without explicit reference to others. For
example, while a business school may offer a writing
course (the rhetoric and ontology component of ROOT),
and business calculus or statistics courses (STEM subjects),
along with more business oriented courses in accounting,
finance, management, and marketing), instructors in these
courses would make no effort to link the curricula. They
assume the students had absorbed and retained content in
other courses, and give assignments accordingly, such as
essays that require adherence to appropriate grammar and
style and the use of data analysis. The connected model is
barely more integrated, with the instructor perfunctorily
referring to related courses when teaching those portions of
a course that are based on or related to those courses. Thus,
the instructor in this example may require that the assignment use a template learned in the writing course (e.g., the
issue-rule-analysis-conclusion [IRAC] format), and that
summary statistics or exploratory data analysis be deployed
when applicable. The instructor would otherwise never
mention writing or statistics courses when teaching his/ her
subject. Such limited integration would fail to achieve the
desired result of inculcating a deep and lasting ROOT (or
STEM) foundation in the student, who might relapse into
habits of sloppy writing or inadequate analysis.
High integration models, while quite useful in training
PhDs, are infeasible for most other business students. In the
immersed model, the student is exposed to all aspects of a
particular discipline. Every subject that contributes to that
discipline’s store of knowledge is in the curriculum. Various orthographies and rhetorics pertinent to an academic’s
writing tasks, which include writing reviews, research
papers, and books, would be discussed. Diverse research
methods and modes of reasoning would be taught for gathering and analyzing all sorts of data. These would exist side
by side with subject-specific courses relevant to the PhD
53
specialization. The networked model would entail similar
subject variety, but the student would independently pursue
non–discipline-specific ROOT and STEM courses relevant
to the specialization. Obviously, such catholic approaches
as these would be infeasible for undergraduates lacking the
maturity to persevere in such a comprehensive curriculum.
This leaves the moderately integrated approaches available for the replanting of the ROOTs. These approaches are
discussed individually in the following paragraphs.
The web model is built around a central, non–disciplinespecific theme, with courses from different disciplines contributing perspectives on that theme. The central theme is
the hub of the web, and the contributing courses are spokes.
At some point discussion in each spoke-subject intersects
the central hub theme. The webbed model’s integration is
relatively small, because the point of intersection with the
hub is usually reached at just one point during each of the
component course’s curriculum. However, it is more integrated than the connected model since all courses are linked
to the thematic hub, rather than having individual pairs of
courses occasionally being linked through a briefly discussed common topic. In a business school context, the
ROOTs could provide the thematic hub, with the business
subjects being the spokes. For example, with the ROOT discipline orthography as a thematic hub, various business
courses involving the presentation of data and information
according to a structured format would comprise the web
spokes. These would easily include courses in accounting,
which is primarily concerned with the preparation of financial statements and tax returns, marketing, which relies
heavily on strengths-weaknesses-opportunities-threats
(SWOT) analyses, and finance, where structured business
plans are presented to banks and other lenders in order to
obtain capital.
The threaded model stresses the development of skills
rather than coverage of topics. Thus, the ability to perform
tasks is given priority over the memorization of facts and
definitions. In every subject taught, various pedagogically
valuable skills are inculcated (i.e., threaded through the curriculum), adapting the discipline specific curricula of those
subjects to the teaching of the desired skill sets. Because of
the rapidly changing nature of business, economics, and
technology, the specific skill sets required of students will
change radically within a few years. However, the ability to
write correctly and convincingly, analyze and integrate
concepts and information according to various frameworks,
and uncover causal factors and surmise future developments, abilities developed by the ROOTs, will always be
relevant, even if the specific manifestations of those skills
change over time.
The nested approach assumes that there is a broad
mother discipline that nestles more applied or specific subjects, all of which are taught as special varieties of the
mother discipline. Business schools could use the nested
with the ROOTs as the mother discipline, and the various
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 19:04 11 January 2016
54
F. BADUA
business courses as the nestling children. For example, various marketing and financial reporting courses could be
framed as specific applications of rhetoric, concerned with
the task of influencing the public, whether potential customers or potential investors. Each aspect of these business
functions would be framed and analyzed according to the
concepts of ethos (truth in advertising, fair representation
of financial position), logos (the earnings response coefficient), and pathos (using Maslow’s hierarchy for segmenting markets), with constant reference to these underlying
concepts throughout these courses. Teleology would inform
many courses, especially those related to business ethics
(business law, organizational behavior) and those analyzing
the cause–effect relationships between business policies
and outcomes (logistics management, cost accounting,
business statistics).
In the sequenced approach, the courses are organized
according to a series of themes, each of which provides
frameworks that the courses use to select and structure
topics. One might consider the sequenced approach as an
implementation of the nested approach in series. Each of
the themes would lead to the next one, with the courses
comprising last theme serving as capstones for the curriculum. Business curricula could thus use the ROOTs as the
organizing themes, with the business subjects and STEMbased service courses comprising the subjects in the theme.
For example, the curriculum could start with ontology and
orthography as the initial theme, to provide the students
with a grounding in the formalisms and strictures with
which business information is conceptualized and communicated, move on to teleology, to expose the students to the
dynamics and mechanics that govern business and the economy, and end with rhetoric, which utilizes the concepts discussed in the previous themes to equip the students to
effectively interact with the market for capital or revenue.
Such factors as faculty resistance to change, the resources available to the institution, and the type of business
major curriculum wherein integration occurs will influence
the choice of integration approach. These factors are discussed in the following paragraphs.
The current curricular setup in business schools mirrors
the fragmented or perfunctorily connected approaches of
integration discussed previously. Thus, this implies that
academic inertia, a hallmark of educational institutions
according to Dirks (1997), will resist any initiatives toward
greater integration. Therefore, for institutions where faculty
resistance to change is high, or where integration is in a
very preliminary stage, those approaches wherein there is a
modicum of integration should be used (webbed and
threaded). On the other hand, institutions where the faculty
are more open to change would benefit from those
approaches that fostered greater integration (shared, integrated, nested, and sequenced).
The availability of university resources for the integration of the ROOTs into the curriculum will also determine
the appropriate model. There are many kinds of resources
needed by a university, but arguably the most important of
these is faculty expertise. Institutions wherein the faculty is
comprised of academics with a broad and profound knowledge of both the liberal arts and business specific disciplines, could use the most integrated approaches, where
every course is suffused with ROOTs. Business schools at
the other extreme, staffed primarily with profession-based
practitioners, with very strong backgrounds in their business discipline, but with moderate training in the liberal
arts, extensive integration would be infeasible. However, it
would still be possible to integrate with the webbed and
threaded models. With proper coordination and an openness
to partnering with liberal arts faculty, even the shared and
integrated models might be implemented.
A final aspect that needs to be considered is the extent
and manner which integration initiatives should be implemented in different business majors. There is a great difference in the degree to which different majors are comprised
of courses and topics that are conceptual or technical. The
extent to which these majors are able to be integrated with
others will vary (Gackowski, 2004). Technical majors will
admit only moderate integration, because most of its topics
will necessarily be specific to the major, and cannot be
framed or linked to those of other disciplines, including the
ROOTs. For such majors, the webbed model would be an
easy choice to use, since, as explained in preceding sections, there is at least a tangential connection between the
ROOTs and every other discipline, no matter how technical. However, the threaded model would be feasible with a
little effort on the part of the faculty, and greatly benefit the
students because of the skills developed by exposure to the
ROOTs.
CONCLUSION
Business is meant to be the mutually profitable intercourse
between humans. This would be impossible without the
skills of communication, persuasion, analysis, and evaluation that a ROOT education directly attempts to supply.
Nor is there is a contradiction or conflict between ROOT
and STEM. The former is the foundation of the latter.
When budgets, teachers, time, and student attention are
scarce, administrators must make choices, but before they
get caught up with their pruning of the pedagogical program, let them consider the present horticultural analogy.
Let it not be forgotten that there would neither be fruit nor
STEM without the ROOT.
REFERENCES
Allen, C. (2009). Teleological notions in biology. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The
Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Retrieved from http://plato.
stanford.edu/entries/teleology-biology/
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 19:04 11 January 2016
THE ROOT AND STEM OF A FRUITFUL BUSINESS EDUCATION
Badua, F. (2008). Pedagogy and the PC. Journal of Education for Business,
83:5, 259–264.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2008). Occupational projections and
training data, 2008–2009 edition. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor.
Cohan, P. (2012, May 29). To boost post-college prospects, cut humanities
departments. Forbes. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/
petercohan/2012/05/29/to-boost-post-college-prospects-cut-humanitiesdepartments/
Colby, A. (2007, May). Business entrepreneurship and liberal learning.
Paper presented at the Council of Independent Colleges and Universities
Symposium on the Liberal Arts and Business, Chicago, IL.
Colby, A., Ehrlich, T., Sullivan, W., & Dolle, J. (2011). Rethinking undergraduate business education: Liberal learning for the profession. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Das, T. (1994). Educating tomorrow’s managers: The role of critical
thinking. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 2, 333–
360.
Dirks, A. (1997, June 22). The liberal curriculum and the canon. Retrieved
from http://webhost.bridgew.edu/adirks/ald/papers/libcan.htm
Donoghue, F. (2004). The uneasy relationship between business and the
humanities. American Academic, 1, 93–109.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Fogarty, R. (1991). Ten ways to integrate curriculum. Educational Leadership, 49, 61–65.
Gackowski, Z. J. (2004). What to teach business students in MIS courses
about data and information. Issues in Informing Science and Information
Technology, 1, 845–878.
Gross, A. G. (2006). Starring the text: The place of rhetoric in science
studies. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
55
Heller, P. (2012, March 15). Powers of persuasion. Bloomberg Businessweek. Retrieved from http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-0314/jay-heinrichss-powers-of-persuasion
Jay, P., & Graff, J. (2012, January 5). Fear of being useful. Inside Higher
Ed. Retrieved from http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2012/01/05/
essay-new-approach-defend-value-humanities
Jerald, C. (2009). Defining a 21st century education. Center for Public
Education. Retrieved from http://www.centerforpubliceducation.
org/main-menu/policies/21st-century/defining-a-21st-century-educationfull-report-pdf.pdf
Joseph, M. (2002). The Trivium: The liberal arts of logic, grammar, and
rhetoric. Philadelphia, PA: Paul Dry Books, Inc.
Kim, S. (2013, July 9). Humanities in business education. Huffington Post.
Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sunmin-kim/
humanities-in-business-ed_b_3565403.html
Paul, R. (1988). Ethics without indoctrination. Educational Leadership, 45,
10–19.
Pierson, F. (1959). The education of American businessmen. New York,
NY: McGraw-Hill.
Rait, R. (2010). Life in a medieval university. London, UK: Forgotten
Books.
Snyder, L., & Snyder, M. (2008). Teaching critical thinking and problem
solving skills. Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 50, 90–99.
Van Sandt, C. (2007, May). Augustana College: Devising a new curriculum to bridge two worlds. Paper presented at the Council of Independent
Colleges and Universities Symposium on the Liberal Arts and Business,
Chicago, IL.
Wecker, M. (2012, July 11). B-schools seem to downplay writing skills.
U.S. News and World Report. Retrieved from http://www.usnews.com/
education/best-graduate-schools/top-business-schools/articles/2012/07/11/
b-schools-seem-to-downplay-writing-skills
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
The ROOT and STEM of a Fruitful Business
Education
Frank Badua
To cite this article: Frank Badua (2015) The ROOT and STEM of a Fruitful Business Education,
Journal of Education for Business, 90:1, 50-55, DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2014.973826
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2014.973826
Published online: 21 Nov 2014.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 96
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji]
Date: 11 January 2016, At: 19:04
JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS, 90: 50–55, 2015
Copyright Ó Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0883-2323 print / 1940-3356 online
DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2014.973826
The ROOT and STEM of a Fruitful Business
Education
Frank Badua
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 19:04 11 January 2016
Lamar University, Beaumont, Texas, USA
The author discusses the role of the liberal arts in a business curriculum for an increasingly
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)–centered world. The author
introduces the rhetoric, orthography, ontology, and teleology (ROOT) disciplines, and links
them to the traditional liberal arts foundation of higher education. The expanded role of the
ROOTs in a business curriculum and its contribution to the STEM disciplines is explored.
Finally different approaches for integrating ROOTs into the business curriculum are considered.
Keywords: classical education, critical thinking, humanities, liberal arts, STEM, writing
Despite the increasing relevance of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education, it must not be
forgotten that the humanities are an essential component of a
business curriculum, and arguably a necessary foundation of
the STEM disciplines. This paper will analyze what comprises
the humanities or liberal arts, and introduce the concept of the
rhetoric, orthography, ontology, and teleology (ROOT) disciplines. Here I consider the role of the ROOTs in a business
curriculum, their contribution to STEM disciplines, and suggest different ways by which ROOTs could be integrated into
the business curriculum.
The relevance of STEM education to the business disciplines is patent. Business school students of all majors are
typically required to take business calculus and statistics
courses. Courses focusing on computer technology for business functions exist throughout the business school catalog,
taught by faculty in every business major. Degree programs
such as accounting information systems and management
engineering dealing with the nexus of technology and business have been carved out and soldered together from various disciplines. However, here I show that the humanities
can contribute much to the business curriculum also.
HUMANITIES OR LIBERAL ARTS AND ITS ROOT
COMPONENTS
The ROOTs are the humanities complement to STEM. They
extend the horticultural metaphor in the other (right-brained)
Correspondence should be addressed to Frank Badua, Lamar University, College of Business, 4400 MLK Parkway, Beaumont, TX 77710,
USA. E-mail: frank.badua@lamar.edu
direction, and are of classical Greek provenance. The acronym is thus a reminder of the philological fields that are
overshadowed in the thicket of STEMs, despite the fact that
the modern academic system was founded on them. The
ROOT disciplines are inspired by, and are an amplification
and extension of, the Classical Trivium, which historically
formed the basis of a university education (Rait, 2010), and
consists of rhetoric, grammar, and logic (Joseph, 2002). Both
curricular schemes include rhetoric, which develops the ability to communicate in order to inform and persuade. However, as explained in subsequent sections of this article,
while grammar is akin to orthography, the latter is broader,
and is relevant to more than just philology or languages. Furthermore, while logic encompasses ontology and teleology,
the distinctions made in the ROOT schema between the latter subjects allows for a more precise guidance for the direction of school curricula. Such precision is especially
important in dealing with a curriculum as broad and dynamic
as that of a business school. While none of the ROOT fields
corresponds exactly to particular college majors, they are
found in many humanities or liberal arts courses that some
have considered phasing out from a business education
(Cohan, 2012; Wecker, 2012).
Rhetoric is most often associated with speech making,
but encompasses much more. It includes mastery of logic,
ability to sway hearts and minds, and elegance and economy in exposition.
Orthography is narrowly taken to mean spelling, but etymologically it is a portmanteau of Greek words meaning
correct writing. It also includes grammar and style, and has
applications even in poetry where verbal idiosyncrasies
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 19:04 11 January 2016
THE ROOT AND STEM OF A FRUITFUL BUSINESS EDUCATION
abound, but internal consistency in rhythm and rhyme are
required.
Ontology is the study of existence and essences, concerned with what it means to be, and abstracting general
principles by observing specific examples. This is where
philosophy meets science, the pivot point at which the troglodyte in Plato’s cave turns away from the shadows and
sees reality.
Teleology is the study of causes, the history of everything from the Big Bang onward. The philosopher and the
theologian will extend the teleological timeline as far back
as possible to the (perhaps) divine Ultimate Cause, whose
design of the universe and will for humankind are supposedly the final cause, the reason or goal for which all phenomena occur. The historian and scientist will also be
concerned with causation, focusing on how events and
institutions came about, via the operation of efficient
causes, the natural, social, or mechanical means by which
phenomena occur. Although teleology was originally conceived as the study of final causes, in recent years, it has
come to embrace efficient causes as well (Allen, 2009).
These ROOT disciplines were once envisioned as exclusively for independently wealthy men, seeking profound
wisdom and broad knowledge, rather than preparing for
employment. However, paradoxically, the ROOT disciplines can benefit those who aspire to wealth and are preparing to be business professionals.
THE GREAT UPROOTING AND THE RECENT
REPLANTING: CHANGES IN ATTITUDES TOWARD
LIBERAL ARTS IN EDUCATION AND BUSINESS
The humanities or liberal arts were once considered the
foundation of a university’s curriculum (Dirks, 1997).
These disciplines were referred to as the humanities
because of their focus on what is essential to human identity, values, and culture, as reflected in historical, linguistic,
and philosophical artifacts of great classical civilizations all
over the world. They were also called liberal arts because
they were meant for a liber, a free person whose socioeconomic situation was such that he (typically) would not need
employment because he was a wealthy gentleman of leisure, and therefore did not require the commercially practical, narrowly specialized, technically detailed education
that poorer men might pursue in order to obtain work
beyond the farm or factory.
The Industrial Revolution and the rise of self-made men
whose wealth and social standing were earned in business
brought a new attitude regarding the old humanities curriculum. Steel and rail magnate Andrew Carnegie and elevator
manufacturer Richard Teller Crane broadcasted their disdain for the traditionally educated gentleman’s suitability
for business, urging reform of the university (Donoghue,
2004). They recommended uprooting the liberal arts from
51
the curriculum, replacing them with more professionally
and technically oriented courses.
Ironically in the 21st century, when the accumulated
technologies of the Industrial and Digital Revolutions
enable the professional and personal pursuits of the world’s
population, there is a call for an about-face, and a reintegration of the humanities into business schools (Colby, Ehrlich, Sullivan, & Dolle, 2011). Universities are exploring
ways by to do so, by inviting philosophy faculty to give
workshops in business schools (Kim, 2013) and creating
degree programs that combine the liberal arts and business
curricula (Jay and Graff, 2012). They have realized ROOT
disciplines are relevant to business, and essential to the
STEMs.
However, although there is evidently a revived awareness of the vital necessity of ROOT disciplines to a business education, there seems to be no consensus about the
way in which the ROOTs should be replanted into the curriculum. Indeed the variety of ways alluded to above in
which business schools are attempting the task is symptomatic of the problem (Colby, 2007).
Nevertheless, simply relying on the existing liberal arts
curriculum as offered in other colleges in the university or
other pre–School of Business institutions is insufficient for
several reasons. For one, there appears to be a mutual distrust between liberal arts and other faculty, with the former
viewing the latter as parvenus and interlopers, coming
between the educator and the student with newfangled, narrowly focused, technical curricula, that interferes in the
task of providing a true, broad-based, skills-imparting (as
opposed to knowledge-imparting) liberal education (Van
Sandt, 2007). Furthermore, even when a liberal arts curriculum is included as part of the preprofessional, general education curriculum that preceded a student’s entry into
business or professional programs, the lag between the time
a student completed these courses and the time he/she
enters business school, and the apparent exogeneity of one
curriculum to the other, causes the student to develop but a
fragile understanding of the humanities, which would easily
crumble away with the passage of time and the introduction
of more technical, occupationally specific material (Colby,
2007). Finally, the necessarily different foci in topics and
teaching between the ROOT disciplines as taught in a general purpose course within the liberal arts curriculum versus
as an integrated part of a business school curriculum
(Fogarty, 1991).
ROOT’s Role in the Business School
Every ROOT discipline is necessary to a business education. Rhetoric, orthography, ontology, and teleology all
play a role in business, and should be inculcated in the business student.
It is easy to connect rhetoric to business. Marketing is evidently concerned with what moves minds and markets. A lot
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 19:04 11 January 2016
52
F. BADUA
of the techniques of advertising and consumer persuasion are
of Aristotelian provenance (Heller, 2012). But the relevance
of rhetoric to the business world is not limited to the selling
side. In economics and finance good investors see through the
irrational exuberance or Chicken Little panic that often bedevils capital markets to rationally assess a stock’s true value.
They parse out the appeals to pathos that appear in annual
reports, headlines, and corporate prospectuses, and focus on
the logos, the valid, rational arguments that ought to determine
the prudent allocation of funds to businesses that are run sensibly and ethically (ethos plays a part as well). The choices that
analysts, investors, and managers make are the products of
internal debate.
Orthography too remains relevant to business. Correct use
of language remains important in the business world (Jerald,
2009; Wecker, 2012). The Bureau of Labor Statistics (2008)
identified a strong positive correlation between the increase in
required prose literacy levels for job categories and the growth
rate in those job categories. The jobs to be created in the future
will be for the more literate workers. But orthography does
not necessarily imply Ciceronian circumlocution. An email or
memo consisting of concise but grammatical and intelligible
sentences is what is demanded and impressive in the modern
corporate environment. Orthographic standards have evolved
from classical times, but those that are in place enable quick,
clear, and unambiguous transmission of the writer’s thoughts
to the reader.
Ontology and teleology are essential elements of critical
thinking. Critical thinking was defined by Das (1994) as the
skill to deduce from all available evidence and prior knowledge what is true or what should be done in order to achieve
a certain result. Therefore, because ontology involves identifying the essence of things, it is needed in determining
what is true of business phenomena based on individual
examples, as well as identifying exceptions. Also, because
teleology focuses on causation, it is fundamental to analyzing who or what causes certain effects, and are not merely
coincident with them, and what ought to be done in order to
achieve desired effects or avoid undesirable ones.
A traditional business education focuses mainly on content-based as opposed to skill-based instruction and is
poorly configured to inculcate critical thinking (Snyder &
Snyder, 2008). This deficiency is more acutely felt in the
modern business environment that is fast-evolving and
globally oriented. Merely teaching students what is true
about business without inculcating the ontological skill of
determining the truth futile because the information taught
is susceptible to obsolescence and they are at risk of information overload and cognitive dissonance (Badua, 2008;
Festinger, 1957). The result is professionals whose positions are obsolete or outsourced before they have earned
enough to pay their college loans, advertising campaigns
that do not translate well from one culture to another, and
macroeconomic policies that cause prosperity in one place
or at one time, and poverty in others. Most importantly,
ethics, so sorely needed in business as demonstrated by the
accounting scandals at the end of the 20th century and the
financial scandals at the beginning of the 21st century, are
most effectively taught as a special application of ontology
and teleology. Paul (1988) asserted that teaching morality
and ethics to students without critical thinking would be
indoctrination, the imposition of a set of rules whose validity would never be evaluated by the recipient, and whose
applicability in different circumstances the student could
never discern.
ROOT Before STEM
The ROOTs also nourish STEM disciplines. Each of the
ROOTs is important to the study and practice of STEM
subjects.
Science is not necessarily what is true about a certain
phenomenon or field, but merely what is predominantly
believed to be true about it. Thus, rhetoric is the tool and
province of the scientist who does not merely collect data
about observed phenomena and formulates theories to
explain them, but also presents the findings and proposed
theories persuasively (Gross, 2006).
Orthography’s connection to STEM is fundamental and
pervasive. Math and statistics are as orthographic as literature is, as anyone who has misplaced parentheses or
switched the order of subtrahends can acknowledge. Programmers obey programming language syntax. And beyond
mere grammatical norms, programming has styles as well.
Hierarchical and object-oriented programs are as distinct as
the haiku and the ode.
The ontologies of the STEMs are narrow, because they
are hierarchically oriented and reductionist in method. But
for philosophers and scientists, ontology determines relevance and context. Ontology informs the scientist’s efforts
to solve the scientific jigsaw puzzle by helping him/her
decide where the piece in his or her hand would fit, or if it
is even a piece of that particular puzzle. Much of the
research work of scientists is observing data, reconciling it
to the current ontological framework, and if necessary
reworking that framework or building a new one.
Similar to philosophers, scientists are also concerned with
their stretch of the teleological track, albeit that stretch tends
to be short, attributing causation to a “What” rather than to a
divine “Who.” Newton showed what made things move or
stay, stop, and start. Darwin explained what makes organisms
attain their characteristics. Pasteur found what makes us sick,
and what can be done to prevent sickness. Again, the scientist’s focus is narrower but similar, finding causes.
Most importantly, the same questions that are broached
narrowly in the STEMs, are approached broadly in the
ROOTs. That discursiveness limits the length travelled
along a particular intellectual road, but makes it easier to
detect alternative routes. A person trained exclusively in
THE ROOT AND STEM OF A FRUITFUL BUSINESS EDUCATION
the STEMs is less likely to think beyond ontological
boundaries.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 19:04 11 January 2016
SETTING DOWN ROOTS ONCE MORE
The approaches that various institutions have used (e.g.,
workshops, dove-tailing degree programs) differ from one
another, and would differ from those of other institutions
pursuing the same goal. This article considers several
approaches developed by Fogarty (1991) for integrating
course material across disciplines to help these efforts.
These approaches include those with little, moderate,
and significant integration. Low integration is typical of
current business school undergraduate and master of business administration curricula, while near total integration
typifies PhD curricula for business specializations. Other
approaches where integration is moderate and targeted best
serve the goal of reintegrating the ROOT disciplines.
The fragmented model considers courses separate and
distinct, taught without explicit reference to others. For
example, while a business school may offer a writing
course (the rhetoric and ontology component of ROOT),
and business calculus or statistics courses (STEM subjects),
along with more business oriented courses in accounting,
finance, management, and marketing), instructors in these
courses would make no effort to link the curricula. They
assume the students had absorbed and retained content in
other courses, and give assignments accordingly, such as
essays that require adherence to appropriate grammar and
style and the use of data analysis. The connected model is
barely more integrated, with the instructor perfunctorily
referring to related courses when teaching those portions of
a course that are based on or related to those courses. Thus,
the instructor in this example may require that the assignment use a template learned in the writing course (e.g., the
issue-rule-analysis-conclusion [IRAC] format), and that
summary statistics or exploratory data analysis be deployed
when applicable. The instructor would otherwise never
mention writing or statistics courses when teaching his/ her
subject. Such limited integration would fail to achieve the
desired result of inculcating a deep and lasting ROOT (or
STEM) foundation in the student, who might relapse into
habits of sloppy writing or inadequate analysis.
High integration models, while quite useful in training
PhDs, are infeasible for most other business students. In the
immersed model, the student is exposed to all aspects of a
particular discipline. Every subject that contributes to that
discipline’s store of knowledge is in the curriculum. Various orthographies and rhetorics pertinent to an academic’s
writing tasks, which include writing reviews, research
papers, and books, would be discussed. Diverse research
methods and modes of reasoning would be taught for gathering and analyzing all sorts of data. These would exist side
by side with subject-specific courses relevant to the PhD
53
specialization. The networked model would entail similar
subject variety, but the student would independently pursue
non–discipline-specific ROOT and STEM courses relevant
to the specialization. Obviously, such catholic approaches
as these would be infeasible for undergraduates lacking the
maturity to persevere in such a comprehensive curriculum.
This leaves the moderately integrated approaches available for the replanting of the ROOTs. These approaches are
discussed individually in the following paragraphs.
The web model is built around a central, non–disciplinespecific theme, with courses from different disciplines contributing perspectives on that theme. The central theme is
the hub of the web, and the contributing courses are spokes.
At some point discussion in each spoke-subject intersects
the central hub theme. The webbed model’s integration is
relatively small, because the point of intersection with the
hub is usually reached at just one point during each of the
component course’s curriculum. However, it is more integrated than the connected model since all courses are linked
to the thematic hub, rather than having individual pairs of
courses occasionally being linked through a briefly discussed common topic. In a business school context, the
ROOTs could provide the thematic hub, with the business
subjects being the spokes. For example, with the ROOT discipline orthography as a thematic hub, various business
courses involving the presentation of data and information
according to a structured format would comprise the web
spokes. These would easily include courses in accounting,
which is primarily concerned with the preparation of financial statements and tax returns, marketing, which relies
heavily on strengths-weaknesses-opportunities-threats
(SWOT) analyses, and finance, where structured business
plans are presented to banks and other lenders in order to
obtain capital.
The threaded model stresses the development of skills
rather than coverage of topics. Thus, the ability to perform
tasks is given priority over the memorization of facts and
definitions. In every subject taught, various pedagogically
valuable skills are inculcated (i.e., threaded through the curriculum), adapting the discipline specific curricula of those
subjects to the teaching of the desired skill sets. Because of
the rapidly changing nature of business, economics, and
technology, the specific skill sets required of students will
change radically within a few years. However, the ability to
write correctly and convincingly, analyze and integrate
concepts and information according to various frameworks,
and uncover causal factors and surmise future developments, abilities developed by the ROOTs, will always be
relevant, even if the specific manifestations of those skills
change over time.
The nested approach assumes that there is a broad
mother discipline that nestles more applied or specific subjects, all of which are taught as special varieties of the
mother discipline. Business schools could use the nested
with the ROOTs as the mother discipline, and the various
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 19:04 11 January 2016
54
F. BADUA
business courses as the nestling children. For example, various marketing and financial reporting courses could be
framed as specific applications of rhetoric, concerned with
the task of influencing the public, whether potential customers or potential investors. Each aspect of these business
functions would be framed and analyzed according to the
concepts of ethos (truth in advertising, fair representation
of financial position), logos (the earnings response coefficient), and pathos (using Maslow’s hierarchy for segmenting markets), with constant reference to these underlying
concepts throughout these courses. Teleology would inform
many courses, especially those related to business ethics
(business law, organizational behavior) and those analyzing
the cause–effect relationships between business policies
and outcomes (logistics management, cost accounting,
business statistics).
In the sequenced approach, the courses are organized
according to a series of themes, each of which provides
frameworks that the courses use to select and structure
topics. One might consider the sequenced approach as an
implementation of the nested approach in series. Each of
the themes would lead to the next one, with the courses
comprising last theme serving as capstones for the curriculum. Business curricula could thus use the ROOTs as the
organizing themes, with the business subjects and STEMbased service courses comprising the subjects in the theme.
For example, the curriculum could start with ontology and
orthography as the initial theme, to provide the students
with a grounding in the formalisms and strictures with
which business information is conceptualized and communicated, move on to teleology, to expose the students to the
dynamics and mechanics that govern business and the economy, and end with rhetoric, which utilizes the concepts discussed in the previous themes to equip the students to
effectively interact with the market for capital or revenue.
Such factors as faculty resistance to change, the resources available to the institution, and the type of business
major curriculum wherein integration occurs will influence
the choice of integration approach. These factors are discussed in the following paragraphs.
The current curricular setup in business schools mirrors
the fragmented or perfunctorily connected approaches of
integration discussed previously. Thus, this implies that
academic inertia, a hallmark of educational institutions
according to Dirks (1997), will resist any initiatives toward
greater integration. Therefore, for institutions where faculty
resistance to change is high, or where integration is in a
very preliminary stage, those approaches wherein there is a
modicum of integration should be used (webbed and
threaded). On the other hand, institutions where the faculty
are more open to change would benefit from those
approaches that fostered greater integration (shared, integrated, nested, and sequenced).
The availability of university resources for the integration of the ROOTs into the curriculum will also determine
the appropriate model. There are many kinds of resources
needed by a university, but arguably the most important of
these is faculty expertise. Institutions wherein the faculty is
comprised of academics with a broad and profound knowledge of both the liberal arts and business specific disciplines, could use the most integrated approaches, where
every course is suffused with ROOTs. Business schools at
the other extreme, staffed primarily with profession-based
practitioners, with very strong backgrounds in their business discipline, but with moderate training in the liberal
arts, extensive integration would be infeasible. However, it
would still be possible to integrate with the webbed and
threaded models. With proper coordination and an openness
to partnering with liberal arts faculty, even the shared and
integrated models might be implemented.
A final aspect that needs to be considered is the extent
and manner which integration initiatives should be implemented in different business majors. There is a great difference in the degree to which different majors are comprised
of courses and topics that are conceptual or technical. The
extent to which these majors are able to be integrated with
others will vary (Gackowski, 2004). Technical majors will
admit only moderate integration, because most of its topics
will necessarily be specific to the major, and cannot be
framed or linked to those of other disciplines, including the
ROOTs. For such majors, the webbed model would be an
easy choice to use, since, as explained in preceding sections, there is at least a tangential connection between the
ROOTs and every other discipline, no matter how technical. However, the threaded model would be feasible with a
little effort on the part of the faculty, and greatly benefit the
students because of the skills developed by exposure to the
ROOTs.
CONCLUSION
Business is meant to be the mutually profitable intercourse
between humans. This would be impossible without the
skills of communication, persuasion, analysis, and evaluation that a ROOT education directly attempts to supply.
Nor is there is a contradiction or conflict between ROOT
and STEM. The former is the foundation of the latter.
When budgets, teachers, time, and student attention are
scarce, administrators must make choices, but before they
get caught up with their pruning of the pedagogical program, let them consider the present horticultural analogy.
Let it not be forgotten that there would neither be fruit nor
STEM without the ROOT.
REFERENCES
Allen, C. (2009). Teleological notions in biology. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The
Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Retrieved from http://plato.
stanford.edu/entries/teleology-biology/
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 19:04 11 January 2016
THE ROOT AND STEM OF A FRUITFUL BUSINESS EDUCATION
Badua, F. (2008). Pedagogy and the PC. Journal of Education for Business,
83:5, 259–264.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2008). Occupational projections and
training data, 2008–2009 edition. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor.
Cohan, P. (2012, May 29). To boost post-college prospects, cut humanities
departments. Forbes. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/
petercohan/2012/05/29/to-boost-post-college-prospects-cut-humanitiesdepartments/
Colby, A. (2007, May). Business entrepreneurship and liberal learning.
Paper presented at the Council of Independent Colleges and Universities
Symposium on the Liberal Arts and Business, Chicago, IL.
Colby, A., Ehrlich, T., Sullivan, W., & Dolle, J. (2011). Rethinking undergraduate business education: Liberal learning for the profession. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Das, T. (1994). Educating tomorrow’s managers: The role of critical
thinking. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 2, 333–
360.
Dirks, A. (1997, June 22). The liberal curriculum and the canon. Retrieved
from http://webhost.bridgew.edu/adirks/ald/papers/libcan.htm
Donoghue, F. (2004). The uneasy relationship between business and the
humanities. American Academic, 1, 93–109.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Fogarty, R. (1991). Ten ways to integrate curriculum. Educational Leadership, 49, 61–65.
Gackowski, Z. J. (2004). What to teach business students in MIS courses
about data and information. Issues in Informing Science and Information
Technology, 1, 845–878.
Gross, A. G. (2006). Starring the text: The place of rhetoric in science
studies. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
55
Heller, P. (2012, March 15). Powers of persuasion. Bloomberg Businessweek. Retrieved from http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-0314/jay-heinrichss-powers-of-persuasion
Jay, P., & Graff, J. (2012, January 5). Fear of being useful. Inside Higher
Ed. Retrieved from http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2012/01/05/
essay-new-approach-defend-value-humanities
Jerald, C. (2009). Defining a 21st century education. Center for Public
Education. Retrieved from http://www.centerforpubliceducation.
org/main-menu/policies/21st-century/defining-a-21st-century-educationfull-report-pdf.pdf
Joseph, M. (2002). The Trivium: The liberal arts of logic, grammar, and
rhetoric. Philadelphia, PA: Paul Dry Books, Inc.
Kim, S. (2013, July 9). Humanities in business education. Huffington Post.
Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sunmin-kim/
humanities-in-business-ed_b_3565403.html
Paul, R. (1988). Ethics without indoctrination. Educational Leadership, 45,
10–19.
Pierson, F. (1959). The education of American businessmen. New York,
NY: McGraw-Hill.
Rait, R. (2010). Life in a medieval university. London, UK: Forgotten
Books.
Snyder, L., & Snyder, M. (2008). Teaching critical thinking and problem
solving skills. Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 50, 90–99.
Van Sandt, C. (2007, May). Augustana College: Devising a new curriculum to bridge two worlds. Paper presented at the Council of Independent
Colleges and Universities Symposium on the Liberal Arts and Business,
Chicago, IL.
Wecker, M. (2012, July 11). B-schools seem to downplay writing skills.
U.S. News and World Report. Retrieved from http://www.usnews.com/
education/best-graduate-schools/top-business-schools/articles/2012/07/11/
b-schools-seem-to-downplay-writing-skills