amle.2021.0244

Academy of Management Learning & Education
R
er
Pe
Impact and University Business Training Courses Delivered
to the Marginalized: A Systematic Review
ie
ev
Journal: Academy of Management Learning & Education
Manuscript ID AMLE-2021-0244-SISI.R3
Manuscript Type: Special Issue on Scholarly Impact
w
Pr
Course design, Cross-cultural issues in management education, ESubmission Keywords: learning, Management education, Outcome assessment, Diversity and
management education
f-
oo
Scholars, practitioners, policymakers, and accreditors challenge business
schools to extend their impact beyond academia and into the real world.
Many management academics have responded by becoming involved in
business training programs that seek to improve the well-being of
marginalized individuals. However, work that conceptualizes and
measures the efficacy of these activities has not been systematically
analyzed. In this article, we provide the first review. We find that the
research is dominated by examinations of short-term, individual-level
Abstract: outcomes, such as securing employment. Yet little is written about the
impact of business training programs (especially over time) at either a
collective or system level. We use our review to argue for theoreticallyinformed approaches to redress this gap, highlighting underemphasized
directions for future research. We also provide recommendations to
assist program design, noting that good practice involves hybrid models
of education that build capacity within marginalized communities.
Further, program designs ought to support broader social goals, such as
helping these communities to thrive.
n
sio
er
lV
ina
tF
No
Page 1 of 42
Impact and University Business Training Courses Delivered to the
Marginalized: A Systematic Review
R
er
Pe
Tracey Dodd
University of Adelaide
[email protected]
w
ie
ev
Chris Graves
University of Adelaide
Pr
[email protected]
f-
oo
Janin Hentzen
No
[email protected]
Acknowledgments
er
lV
ina
tF
The authors thank Professors Tyrone Pitsis and Usha Haley and the three anonymous
n
sio
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Academy of Management Learning & Education
reviewers for their excellent guidance and support throughout the development of the
manuscript.
Academy of Management Learning & Education
Impact and University Business Training Courses Delivered to the
R
er
Pe
Marginalized: A Systematic Review
Abstract
Scholars, practitioners, policymakers, and accreditors challenge business schools to extend
ie
ev
their impact beyond academia and into the real world. Many management academics have
responded by becoming involved in business training programs that seek to improve the
w
well-being of marginalized individuals. However, work that conceptualizes and measures
the efficacy of these activities has not been systematically analyzed. In this article, we
Pr
provide the first review. We find that the research is dominated by examinations of short-
oo
term, individual-level outcomes, such as securing employment. Yet little is written about
f-
the impact of business training programs (especially over time) at either a collective or
system level. We use our review to argue for theoretically-informed approaches to redress
No
this gap, highlighting underemphasized directions for future research. We also provide
tF
recommendations to assist program design, noting that good practice involves hybrid
models of education that build capacity within marginalized communities. Further,
lV
ina
program designs ought to support broader social goals, such as helping these communities
to thrive.
n
sio
er
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 2 of 42
Academy of Management Learning & Education
Page 3 of 42
INTRODUCTION
Scholars, policymakers, accreditors, and others have argued that management education
R
er
Pe
can play a critical role in economic and social development (Spicer, Jaser, & Wiertz, 2021).
To this end, many business schools are making a concerted effort to offer management
training to marginalized individuals – the idea being that learning these skills will work to
ie
ev
the betterment of the marginalized person’s well-being while helping to redress significant
social problems. Examples of these programs abound, including at some of the QS Worldranked universities. For instance, there is the University of Toronto’s Rise Asset
w
Development program, which aims to increase self-efficacy among vulnerable populations
Pr
between the age of 16 to 29. There is also New York University’s Veterans
oo
Entrepreneurship Training program, which aims to upskill military personnel, veterans,
and their spouses who wish to pursue business ventures. However, there is no consensus
f-
on whether such offerings are, in fact, effective (Fayolle, 2013; Productivity Commission,
No
2019). Indeed, defining and measuring the impact of such programs could be highly
contested due to the many tensions and trade-offs that emerge between individual short-
tF
term outcomes, such as employment, and longer-term impacts such as overall well-being
at a social and collective level.
lV
ina
We thus seek to advance understanding of these issues by critically analyzing peerreviewed studies on how society can reduce marginalization through university business
er
training courses. Three questions are answered in the process: (i) How do scholars
n
sio
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
conceptualize and evaluate the outcomes and associated impact of business training
delivered to marginalized individuals?; (ii) What is the current state of knowledge
regarding the theory of change and pedagogy of these programs, including the relationships
Page 4 of 42
Academy of Management Learning & Education
between program design, outcomes, and impact?; and (iii) How can future research and
practice be improved?
R
er
Pe
These questions are answered through a problematizing review (Alvesson & Sandberg,
2020). Before outlining the review method, findings, and discussion on the implications
for the domain of scholarly impact, we first provide further detail of the research context.
ie
ev
RESEARCH CONTEXT
Business schools face pressure to engage with the real world in more meaningful ways
w
(Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business, AACSB, 2022; Kitchener &
Pr
Delbridge, 2020). Yet methods for assessing the impact these efforts are having are lacking
(MacIntosh, Beech, Bartunek, Mason, Cooke, & Denyer, 2017). The most used metrics
oo
include research publications, citation counts (Aguinis, Shapiro, Antonacopoulou, &
f-
Cummings, 2014), and journal rankings (Özbilgin, 2009). But these shed little light on the
broader definition of impact – meaning change – either at a system or an individual level
No
(Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2021). Haley,
tF
Cooper, Hoffman, Pitsis, & Greenberg (2020) warn that this knowledge gap threatens the
future legitimacy of business schools and management education research (also see Haley,
Page, Pitsis, Rivas, & Yu, 2017).
lV
ina
More specifically, there is a dearth of insight regarding the impact of university-based
er
training programs for the marginalized (i.e., people who are underrepresented in the higher
education system) (Sitzmann & Wienhardt, 2019). This includes non-degree awarding
n
sio
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
programs, short courses, and other micro-credentials delivered either by or in partnership
with a higher education institution (Wang, 2020). Training interventions offer a site of
direct interaction and impact (Kirkpatrick, 1976; 1994; MacIntosh et al., 2017). However,
Page 5 of 42
recent efforts to conceptualize and advance understanding of impact in the context of
teaching (e.g., Ford, 2021) do not comprehensively consider the marginalized.
R
er
Pe
Addressing this omission is timely. As stated earlier, universities engage with marginalized
cohorts to reduce inequality through such programs. These endeavors are based on the
prevailing view that further education will reduce poverty and increase well-being
ie
ev
(Chakravarty, Lundberg, Nikolov, & Zenker, 2019) – views that are supported by
policymakers and others (AACSB, 2022; OECD, 2020; Salmi, 2020). Yet while these
w
efforts align with calls to reform business schools for the betterment of social goals
(Kitchener & Delbridge, 2020), if there is no proper gauge as to the impact of these
Pr
programs, society cannot know if such actions are indeed effective and whether said
oo
training programs are achieving optimal results.
f-
Knowledge of whether (and how) training can address the structural issues that cause
marginalization, such as systemic racism or excessive economic and social inequality, is
No
nascent (Piketty, 2020; Prieto, Phipps, Stott, & Giugni, 2021). Marginalized individuals
tF
are not homogeneous (Sitzmann & Campbell, 2021) and business methodologies and ways
of seeing the world are not necessarily compatible with different knowledge systems,
lV
ina
approaches, and cultures (Doucette, Gladstone, & Carter, 2021; Simpson, 2006). While
training for the marginalized can sometimes increase employment (Fayolle, 2013), wealth
(Fairlie & Krashinsky, 2012), and self-determination (Scott, Dolan, Johnstone-Lois,
er
Sugden, & Wu, 2012), many unintended consequences can also emerge. For example,
n
sio
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Academy of Management Learning & Education
training programs may entrench existing bias in the community, such as relegating the
marginalized to entry-level employment positions (Girei, 2017). Increased employment,
wealth, and economic growth can also place additional pressure on natural systems, as
Page 6 of 42
Academy of Management Learning & Education
currently witnessed in the climate crisis (Hickel, 2021). Hence, while scholars have shown
that business training must balance the tension between individual liberty and
R
er
Pe
social/collective welfare, gaps in our knowledge of how to do this remain (Prieto et al.,
2021). Additionally, further studies are required to unpack and resolve the
counterproductive assumptions that might underpin such training programs, like the
ie
ev
assumption that participants have access to the resources required to complete the program
(e.g., internet access, time, financial capacity, etc.) or that the needs of marginalized are
homogeneous. That said, defining impact in a way that all agree on could be a highly
w
contested task. It could certainly be classified as a wicked problem and may even be
Pr
impossible to solve (Rittel & Webber, 1973). Taking a more optimistic approach, we would
oo
prefer to frame the task as a “grand challenge” (Spicer et al., 2021). This is because grand
challenges, while complex, are solvable if the stakeholders who are impacted (or who can
f-
impact the problem) harness their expertise and knowledge. To this end, we undertook a
No
review of peer-reviewed research to uncover and problematize these tensions and tradeoffs and chart ways forward.
lV
ina
METHOD
tF
Our review spanned Web of Science and Scopus (Paul & Criado, 2020) and employed a
range of search terms used in the literature regarding marginalization and relevant training
programs (see Appendix 1).1 We selected peer-reviewed journals as they adhere to
er
scholarly standards, including transparent data collection and reflexivity, which examine
n
sio
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
underlying the tensions and trade-offs that emerge in our setting. Additionally, unlike grey
1
Articles relating specifically to the completion of university degrees or post-graduate (i.e., award) programs were
excluded, as these have been covered elsewhere (e.g., Rodríguez-Hernández, Cascallar & Knydt, 2020).
Page 7 of 42
material, such as peer-reviewed conference papers and grant reports, which are not publicly
available, peer-reviewed journals are readily available and can be accessed by anyone
R
er
Pe
wishing to analyze them. We limited the search to English articles and excluded books,
book chapters, non-peer-reviewed articles, and conference papers.2
As shown in Appendix 1, we filtered the search results down to a final corpus of 43. This
ie
ev
review process involved all authors analyzing the titles and abstracts of relevant papers and
excluding articles that did not reference business-related training. Team consensus was
w
sought to decide and determine whether the article met our inclusion criteria of involving
a non-degree awarding university training program that included business content
Pr
delivered to marginalized groups or individuals. We recognize that a small sample frame
oo
could be viewed as a limitation of our review and highlight that, consistent with Bacq,
f-
Drover, and Kim (2021, p. 2), small sample frames (e.g., “21–30 articles”) are indeed
appropriate when scholars seek to provide deep analysis to problematize and advance a
No
field of research (also see Alvesson & Sandberg, 2020).
tF
Selected articles were uploaded into NVivo12 and coded. All authors helped with the
coding, coming together as a team to discuss and agree on the final coding scheme using
lV
ina
abductive logic. Abductive coding involves analyzing data to identify how emerging
themes are similar or different from existing research. Three levels of coding were
employed: first-order codes, second-order themes, and third-order concepts.
n
sio
er
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Academy of Management Learning & Education
2 At the suggestion of an anonymous reviewer, we did look at books and book chapters. While we identified 11 books
and book chapters, none of these met our inclusion criteria. Thus, we retained our original search strategy.
Page 8 of 42
Academy of Management Learning & Education
In refining labels for second-order themes, we noted that many of the first-order codes
listed in Appendix 2 were consistent with the integral pheno-practice of well-being (IPW)
R
er
Pe
framework, specifically the version put forward by Painter-Morland, Demuijnck, & Ornati
(2017). The IPW framework considers four levels of influence: individual-objective
outcomes (e.g., employment attainment), intra-subjective outcomes (e.g., improved life
ie
ev
satisfaction), collective impacts (e.g., social capital), and system-level impacts (e.g.,
improved governance). The IPW framework allows scholars to consider how people
interact within systems. For example, does positive change at the micro-level (e.g., for one
w
group of marginalized people) result in meso-level change across a community (e.g.,
Pr
increased social capital and cohesion), or does it result in conflict and new tensions such
oo
as increased competition for resources? Further, how do changes at the micro and mesolevels influence macro-change at a social level? Does the tide rise evenly through improved
f-
community governance and respect for nature or do social and environmental systems
No
suffer as individuals and communities change? This view is critical as work examined
within our review (e.g., Halkic & Arnold, 2019; Prieto et al., 2021) and beyond (e.g., Bhatt,
tF
Qureshi, & Sutter, 2022) show that social interventions designed to reduce marginalization
lV
ina
can (re)produce rather than reduce social inequalities. What is highlighted is that dominant
groups and classes may emerge; thus positive change at the individual level for one
marginalized group cannot guarantee a collective positive impact across other marginalized
groups (Bhatt et al., 2022).
n
sio
er
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Further, there is an increasing acceptance in the literature of the need to consider subjective
and non-monetary impact variables (Painter-Morland et al., 2017). As such, our codebook
(Appendix 2) and emerging framework provided us with a conceptual contribution that let
Academy of Management Learning & Education
Page 9 of 42
us examine the tensions and trade-offs in the literature. The IPW framework conceptualizes
impact in a way that moves away from “rational calculative decision-making” to entertain
R
er
Pe
alternative frames and different world views, along with intergenerational impacts –
perspectives that one does not see in short-term, individual-oriented evaluations (PainterMorland et al., 2017, p. 296). While we did not commence our review with a specific
ie
ev
framework in mind, through reflexive analysis, the IPW framework emerged as an
appropriate organizing framework for us to label second-order themes. The IPW
framework also urges scholars to consider the temporal implications of change, mapping
w
how results at the individual level result in collective and social impact. Thus, and as shown
Pr
in Figure 1, first-order codes that considered individual-objective outcomes were assigned
oo
to a second-order theme of “behavioral and cognitive outcomes.” Intra-subjective
outcomes were coded as “consciousness,” inter-subjective (group level) impacts were
f-
coded as “collective social,” and broader impacts, such as improved governance, were
No
coded as “system” (inter-objective). These second-order themes are consistent with the
conceptualization of “outcomes” and “impact” as used within the broader evaluation
literature (Newcomer, Hatry, & Wholey, 2015).
lV
ina
tF
-----------------------------------Insert Figure 1 about here
------------------------------------
As the IPW framework does not consider the design of training programs, we sought out
er
additional education evaluation frameworks to refine other codes. Through this process,
n
sio
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
we found that codes relating to program design aligned neatly with the integrated teaching
model (Nabi, Liñán, Fayolle, Krueger, & Walmsley, 2017). Hence, programs using simple
reproduction methods as their teaching models, such as lectures, readings, and exercises
(Chen, Davis, Krause, Aivaloglou, Hauff, & Houben, 2018), were coded as “supply-based
Page 10 of 42
Academy of Management Learning & Education
approaches” (Nabi et al., 2017). Programs whose pedagogy involves regular classes, guest
speakers, building student networks, and one-on-one mentoring (Taylor, Jones, & Boles,
R
er
Pe
2004) were coded as “demand-based approaches” (Nabi et al., 2017). Programs that
incorporate action methods for teaching where students apply what they have learned in a
real-world setting and receive feedback on the competencies they have learned (Alaref,
ie
ev
Brodmann, & Premand, 2020) were coded as “competency-based approaches” (Nabi et al.,
2017). Programs involving a combination of these pedagogical approaches were coded as
“hybrid” (Nabi et al., 2017).
w
Pr
We also used the integrated teaching model to finalize the first-order codes for the research
methods used in empirical studies. Articles that included current and ongoing measures
oo
during the program (e.g., course grades) were coded as Level 1. Articles that included pre-
f-
and post-program measures (e.g., course completion and leadership capabilities) were
coded as Level 2. Articles that included measures between 0 and 5 years post-program
No
(e.g., the number and type of start-ups, increases in business performance, etc.) were coded
tF
as Level 3. And articles that included measures 3 to 10 years post-program (e.g., the
survival of start-ups) were coded as Level 4. Interestingly, Nabi et al. (2017, p. 279) discuss
lV
ina
a code for Level 5 articles, which measure impact 10+ years post-program, including
contributions to society and the economy. However, none of the studies in our results
included data past 10 years.
er
The final data structures relevant to program design also included second-order themes
n
sio
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
related to the “theory of change” and “forms of marginalization” (see Appendix 2). In terms
of the theory of change, we coded for the explicit theory used in the article as well as
implicit assumptions, such as the assumed needs of the marginalized that informed the
Academy of Management Learning & Education
Page 11 of 42
program design. Regarding forms of marginalization, four first-order codes emerged:
disadvantaged (persons with disabilities and/or low literacy and socioeconomic status);
R
er
Pe
underrepresented (gender, ethnicity, Indigenous); developing nation; and unemployed.
When a study addressed two forms of marginalization, we listed it under the most
prominent first-order code.
ie
ev
Thus, ultimately, while our organizing framework draws on the problematizing approach
(Alvesson & Sandberg, 2020), it is also consistent with structured approaches to reviews,
w
such as the Theory, Construct, Characteristics, and Methodology (TCCM) approach.
TCCM uses literal coding to identify trends and patterns in the data (Paul & Criado, 2020).
Pr
We combined abductive and literal coding to provide a transparent and structured coding
oo
process that can be reproduced. This hybrid approach overcomes the limitations of
f-
structured approaches as stand-alone methods which Alvesson and Sandberg (2020)
caution may not encourage authors to dig deeper into the meanings behind and limitations
of existing work.
tF
No
FINDINGS
lV
ina
To provide context for the core contributions identified, this section begins with an
overview of the articles in our review.
Characteristics of the Studies
er
Our data consists of 43 articles published predominantly in education (47%) and
n
sio
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
management journals (17%) from 1980 to 2021, with around 40% published in the past
five years. Outside of education and management, articles were also published in journals
concerned with entrepreneurship, economics, information systems, sociology, and social
Academy of Management Learning & Education
work. Additionally, several journals were multidisciplinary. Thirty-eight articles were
empirical, with the remaining five being conceptual (Table 1). Most articles primarily
R
er
Pe
focused on programs delivered to the disadvantaged (e.g., socially excluded due to a
disability, low literacy, or low socioeconomic status) (37%), underrepresented groups (e.g.,
gender or ethnicity) (35%), people who are unemployed (14%), and developing nations
ie
ev
(14%). The contexts covered included country-specific programs (85%) and cross-national
studies (15%), with most articles relating to the United States (35%), followed by African
countries (26%). Common training programs included entrepreneurial training (42%),
w
multidisciplinary training (19%), professional development (9%), leadership (7%), and
economics (7%).
oo
Pr
Turning to our findings, Table 1 provides a summary.
f-
-----------------------------------Table 1 about here
------------------------------------
tF
No
Conceptualization, Measurement, and Achievement of Outcomes
The body of work examined suggests that individual behavioral outcomes, cognitive
lV
ina
outcomes, and consciousness outcomes are pertinent to programs, with individual
behavioral and cognitive outcomes being the dominant focus. All articles considered
individual behavioral and cognitive outcomes, while just over half (58%) provided insight
er
into consciousness outcomes. Commonly listed individual behavioral and cognitive
n
sio
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 12 of 42
outcomes included the development of capabilities (e.g., acquiring communication skills,
building up knowledge skills, and business literacy) (91%), educational attainment (51%),
Page 13 of 42
and employment (42%). The consciousness outcomes considered included improved
choice (33%), perceived freedom (28%), identity (26%), and life satisfaction (7%).
R
er
Pe
Interestingly, our results show that educators misestimate the potential outcomes that can
be achieved when designing and delivering business training programs. Of the 38 empirical
articles, 68% reported that the training programs had achieved their intended individual
ie
ev
behavioral and cognitive outcomes, while 42% reported that the programs achieved their
intended consciousness outcomes. Eight percent additionally reported individual-objective
w
outcomes greater than intended (Anosike, 2018; Bulger, Bright, & Cobo, 2015; Majee,
Long, & Smith, 2012), but none reported consciousness outcomes greater than intended.
Pr
Conversely, 16% reported individual behavioral and cognitive outcomes less than that
oo
intended (Co & Mitchell, 2006; Dillahunt, Wang, & Teasley, 2014; Macleod, Haywood,
f-
Woodgate, & Alkhatnai, 2015), and 5% reported consciousness outcomes less than
intended. Some noteworthy examples include a community leadership program evaluated
No
by Majee et al. (2012), which achieved the unintended outcome of improved employability
tF
in addition to the intended outcome of developing leadership capabilities. This program
“had a ripple effect of opening ‘wider doors’ for program graduates” and, consequently job
lV
ina
opportunities (Majee et al., 2012, p. 91). Further, it seems that empirical work may
overemphasize individual behavioral and cognitive outcomes, resulting in lower evidence
of subjective outcomes. For example, Riebe (2012) and Halkic and Arnold (2019) suggest
er
that programs can increase autonomy and perceived freedom among the marginalized,
n
sio
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Academy of Management Learning & Education
including females and refugees, yet the authors provide no empirical support.
However, the above results regarding efficacy (or lack thereof) require us to consider
research rigor. Our analysis of the empirical studies suggests that whether training
Academy of Management Learning & Education
programs report achieving or exceeding their intended outcomes may be partially
influenced by the data collection methods used. For example, Riebe (2012) evaluates a
R
er
Pe
university-based training program evaluated for women entrepreneurs. The intended
outcomes of the program included employment, perceived autonomy, and freedom of
choice, but it was unclear whether these objectives were achieved. In fact, close to a quarter
ie
ev
of the empirical studies (24%) did not identify the data collection methods used, and some
did not report on whether the program’s intended outcomes were achieved. Further, while
many authors identify the potential for training programs to contribute to outcomes, few
w
consider incorporating these outcomes into the design and evaluation of their programs.
Pr
For example, Halkic and Arnold (2019) articulate how the MOOC model can further
oo
educational choices for refugees, but they do not evaluate this type of outcome in their
study. As another example, Anosike (2019) finds that entrepreneurship education is
f-
effective for improving the capabilities and employment prospects of youth in conflict-torn
No
northern Nigeria. But the finding is based on only a small cohort of ten interviewed
participants, and it does not include a longitudinal analysis to ascertain whether the
tF
employment outcomes were sustained. Alaref et al. (2020), who did employ a longitudinal
lV
ina
analysis to study the same type of program, found that outcomes such as capabilities and
employment prospects were not sustained over time. More specifically, these authors saw
improvements one year post-program, but by four years these positive effects had
er
evaporated. This suggests some outcomes may be time-sensitive, which is a concern given
n
sio
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 14 of 42
that nearly half (45%) of these empirical studies use data collected only during the program.
Conceptualization, Measurement, and Achievement of Impact
Page 15 of 42
Regarding impacts, we find that collective social and system impacts are salient, with
greater attention paid to collective social impacts. 72% of the articles considered collective
R
er
Pe
social impacts, while 53% considered system impacts. Social cohesion (28%), social
relationships (26%), stable professional partnerships (26%), and developing social
capital—including expanded social networks (23%) and overcoming or avoiding
ie
ev
loneliness (5%)—were the most commonly-mentioned collective social impacts. System
impacts included community benefits (40%), community resources (26%), and good
governance (14%).
w
In relation to efficacy, 29% of the empirical papers report their training programs achieved
Pr
the intended system impacts, 26% report collective social impacts being achieved, and 13%
oo
report positive unintended collective social impacts. Notably, Wang (2020) highlights that
f-
training programs for the marginalized are efforts to improve social equity and observes
that they provide a domain for the higher education system to create an improved social
No
contract with the community. Halkic and Arnold (2019, p. 361) add that this is a “complex
tF
endeavor” that required business schools to address barriers to participation (e.g., access to
the internet and financial support). However, as with the outcomes, many authors did not
lV
ina
engage in this reflective practice. For example, Habel and Whitman (2016, p. 82) state that:
“Universities need to adopt more sophisticated approaches to evaluating access and
enabling programs rather than simply focusing on quantitative outcomes of throughput and
er
grade point averages.” Yet, the authors themselves do not reflect on the measures employed
n
sio
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Academy of Management Learning & Education
in their study to consider impact. 11 of the 38 empirical papers conceptualize collective
social impacts without empirically examining them, and 6 for system impacts. For
example, Anosike (2019) discusses how entrepreneurship education could help to develop
Academy of Management Learning & Education
human capital and consequently reduce youth unemployment and vulnerability, but
provides no evidence of these potential impacts. This suggests that although many authors
R
er
Pe
identify the potential for training programs to achieve impact, considering and
incorporating them into the design and scholarly evaluation of programs is nascent.
Potential Insight into How and Why Programs Contribute to Positive Outcomes and
ie
ev
Impact: Pedagogy
In relation to how and why programs contribute to positive outcomes and impact, we found
w
emerging themes relating to program design. Theory was explicitly used and implicit
Pr
assumptions were made that informed the types of training offered to different
marginalized groups.
f-
Explicit theory of change
oo
We found explicit theories of change were used to explain how pedagogy was selected and
No
evaluated in around three-quarters of the studies. This included social capital theory
(Jackson, Colvin, & Bullock, 2020; Taylor et al., 2004), entrepreneurship theory (Anosike
tF
2018, 2019), self-regulated learning theory (Archibald, Muhammad, & Estreet, 2016; Chen
lV
ina
et al., 2018), the theory of planned behavior (Karimi, Biemans, Lans, Chizari, & Mulder,
2016), and learning theory (Bulger et al., 2015). However, the scholarly application of
these theories was underdeveloped and rarely used to provide deep insights into impact.
er
For example, Hinson and Amidu (2006) examine internet adoption in Ghana and whether
n
sio
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 16 of 42
training had increased the participants’ skills in information seeking. Yet, the authors draw
on the “Internet Benefit Model” (Hinson & Amidu, 2006, p. 315) to support their results
and do not consider any of the broader impacts that these capabilities may influence—
Page 17 of 42
despite arguing that one of the main reasons for building participant internet skills was to
access online resources to benefit the community. Ideally, the authors would have used this
R
er
Pe
opportunity to reflect on the overall program design and the program’s impact; however,
we found the need for further work.
Few scholars took an abductive and reflexive perspective. For example, most authors treat
ie
ev
training as a well-defined solution to problems facing the marginalized (e.g.,
unemployment). Analysis in these papers is limited and focuses on the correct
implementation of training programs in ways that assist the marginalized to adapt to
w
existing social norms. For example, Mishra (2014) examines how a program introduces
Pr
“hygiene, sanitation, and routine discipline[s]” to assist the marginalized in fitting existing
oo
cultural workplace expectations. In contrast, examples such as Prieto et al. (2021) accept
that marginalization is an ill-defined and potentially wicked problem. Studies that adopt
f-
this view argue that programs can be used to advance self-determination to redress
inclusion barriers such as structural racism.
No
Even when a theory was discussed, few studies sought to understand the underlying
tF
mechanisms that would contribute to either intended or actual change, and even fewer
lV
ina
sought to build theory related to the domain of scholarly impact. This omission is
noteworthy because the authors that did engage in reflective practice pointed to the need
for further work to better understand the needs of marginalized individuals. Most
er
mentioned the need to unpack the implicit assumptions underlying the relationship between
n
sio
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Academy of Management Learning & Education
training and change. In terms of pedagogical design, Littenberg-Tobias and Reich (2020)
also suggest that marginalized individuals may lack the self-regulated study patterns
required to succeed in MOOCs. Alaref et al. (2020, p.12) illustrate that the findings of
Academy of Management Learning & Education
authors such as Mishra (2014), who call for a nuanced approach to the needs of the
marginalized, may be lacking. The authors examine an unsuccessful program in Tunisia,
R
er
Pe
concluding that additional research is required to examine “alternative design modalities
that may enhance program e ectiveness” (Alaref et al., 2020, p.12).
Implicit assumptions relating to the types of training for different marginalized groups
ie
ev
We found that the training offered seemed to differ across forms of marginalization. For
example, in papers where socioeconomic status (Andrewartha & Harvey, 2017; Mishra,
2014), unemployment (Anosike, 2018; Nafukho, Machuma, & Muyia, 2010), and
w
developing nation (Co & Mitchell, 2006; Hope, 2012)3 were the primary forms of
Pr
marginalization, there appeared to be an implicit assumption that increased employment
oo
and education could redress income inequities. However, these articles provided little
empirical evidence to support these assumptions, as they primarily focused on capability
f-
outcome measures with little attention to impact. Regarding gender, programs were
No
predominantly designed to increase female engagement in higher education to increase
economic and social contributions beyond domestic duties (Ibeh & Debrah, 2011; Wang,
tF
2020). They also sought to overcome perceived barriers to increased economic
lV
ina
engagement, such as a lack of assertiveness (Morgan & Leung, 1980; Riebe, 2012). While
this may be appropriate for certain types of marginalized programs, it was unclear as to
whether these were real needs supported by evidence or simply assumptions drawn from
er
unconscious bias and neoliberal ideals. By contrast, where persons with disabilities were
3
n
sio
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 18 of 42
This includes three developing countries or areas: Kenya (Hope, 2012), Tunisia (Alaref et al., 2020), and Sub-Saharan
Africa (Kabongo & Okpara, 2010). It also included Iran (Karimi et al., 2016) and South Africa (Co & Mitchell, 2006),
who are transitioning from "developing" to "developed" nations, as well as Mexico (Calderon, Cunha, & De Giorgi,
2020).
Page 19 of 42
the primary form of marginalization, the papers reported empirical support focused on
building confidence and social capital as well as improving community resources (Morgan
R
er
Pe
& Leung, 1980). Importantly, this includes qualitative studies that include the voice of
persons with disabilities in the results (Rodríguez, Izuzquiza, & Cabrera, 2021; Shaheen,
2016).
ie
ev
It is also worthwhile noting that 79% of the articles included an author who shared a
geographic link with the focal country,4 which may indicate bias in what contexts training
programs for marginalized groups are studied.
w
Pr
Pedagogy Design, Outcomes, and Impact
oo
Across the empirical articles, 28 provided sufficient detail to determine the pedagogy
underpinning the training program. Of these, 20 used one dominant form of pedagogy, with
f-
the most common being supply (13), followed by competency-based (4), and then demand-
No
based (3). The other 8 articles providing detail on pedagogy employed a hybrid approach,
combining either supply and demand (4), supply and competency (2), demand and
competency (1), or all three (1).
lV
ina
tF
Programs that failed to achieve their intended objectives were more likely to exclusively
use a supply-based pedagogy. Almost three-quarters of the studies that specified pedagogy
(71%) examined a supply-based approach either exclusively or in combination with
er
demand-based and/or a competency model. Supply-based approaches were typically used
n
sio
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Academy of Management Learning & Education
by MOOCs (e.g., Bulger et al., 2015; Chen et al., 2018) of less than one year in duration
4
65% of the articles, the geographical location of the first author's university matched that of the country of analysis.
The remaining papers included another co-author with a geographic link.
Academy of Management Learning & Education
and the instructors were not trained to cater to the specific needs of marginalized groups.
In fact, the articles in our corpus suggest that supply-based programs may exacerbate
R
er
Pe
marginalization (see Dillahunt et al., 2014; Halkic & Arnold, 2019; Littenberg-Tobias &
Reich, 2020). This is because of implicit assumptions in the program’s design, like the
assumption that participants have access to the resources required to complete the program,
ie
ev
internet access, time, financial capacity, etc. (Dillahunt et al., 2014), or that the needs of
the marginalized are homogeneous (Halkic & Arnold, 2019) or that those needs are the
same as non-marginalized students (Littenberg-Tobias & Reich 2020).
w
By contrast, programs using a hybrid approach achieved better results. These programs
Pr
were more likely to achieve their outcomes and impacts than supply-based approaches,
oo
particularly in terms of well-being. They also used delivery partners to tailor the program
to address specific learning needs or target barriers marginalized groups experience
f-
(Shaheen, 2016). These programs included internships and worksite visits (Co & Mitchell,
No
2006; Shaheen, 2016) and involved educators who had experience or specific training
pertinent to the needs of the targeted marginalized group (Anosike, 2019; Jackson et al.,
tF
2020). As an interesting example, Kizilcec and Kambhampaty (2020) found that increasing
lV
ina
gender diversity in training instructors (i.e., increasing the number of female instructors),
also increased the enrolment of women and was a stronger predictor than other diversity
cues, such as the instructor’s skin color. Other common elements of good practice included
er
financial support for people to participate (Chen et al., 2018), “action learning” methods
n
sio
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 20 of 42
(Taylor et al., 2004) including “community engagement-based learning methods” (Jackson
et al., 2020; Prieto et al., 2021), goal alignment between the program and social mission of
the university (Archibald et al., 2016; O’Brien et al., 2019; Subotzky 1999), as well as
Page 21 of 42
mentoring and other social networks (Bjorvatn & Tungodden, 2010; Payton,
Suarez Brown, & Smith Lamar, 2012).
R
er
Pe
DISCUSSION
Our analysis of the peer-reviewed research yields new insight for designing and delivering
courses to the marginalized relevant for academics, business schools, educators,
ie
ev
accreditors, and funders. These insights can be packaged into three opportunities relating
to the overall grand challenge of reframing how the outcomes and impacts of such
w
programs are measured. They involve conceptualizing impact, designing for impact, and
sharing knowledge regarding impact. Each of these opportunities is discussed in turn along
Pr
with their central contribution to the field of scholarly impact and theory, followed by
oo
recommendations for practice.
f-
Opportunity 1: Conceptualizing Impact Related to Programs
No
As a pertinent contribution to the field of scholarly impact, we show evidence that, if
programs are appropriately designed, business schools can contribute to positive outcomes
tF
and impacts to reduce social exclusion (Taylor et al., 2004). Despite criticism that business
lV
ina
schools reinforce rather than redress social exclusion (Özbilgin, 2009; Vijay & Nair, 2021),
we provide a new perspective illustrating that programs can provide a positive impact.
However, we only provide a starting point and further work is required.
er
Specifically, to achieve a positive impact that can be sustained, we show the need to address
n
sio
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Academy of Management Learning & Education
paradoxical tensions that may emerge regarding the programs themselves. For instance,
outside our review, scholars such as Easterlin (1974) show that levels of happiness and
well-being do not significantly correlate with increased income and GDP. Further, while
Academy of Management Learning & Education
training can be instrumental in overcoming some social barriers, it cannot address all the
structural issues that cause marginalization, such as systemic racism (Prieto et al., 2021;
R
er
Pe
Vijay & Nair, 2021). Thus, business schools need to ensure that training for marginalized
individuals not only results in new capabilities and expanded social networks but also
ensures that marginalized individuals are not segregated to, and entrenched in, low-grade
ie
ev
employment. Program should also seek to advance overall social well-being.
To inform future conceptualization of how further information on tensions regarding
w
individual and social well-being can be uncovered, we draw on and extend the IPW
framework. The ‘analysis grid’ provided in Figure 1 shows the different types of individual
Pr
outcomes and impacts mentioned in existing work, as well as temporal considerations and
oo
different levels of impact (e.g., interpersonal, societal) that should be considered in future
f-
work. This is consistent with our abductive approach, where the conceptual model is
refined and further developed by analyzing the findings. Notably, by abductively adapting
No
the IPW framework, we show that scholars should consider how education influences
tF
individual empowerment and a sense of choice, which in turn may build social capital
within marginalized communities. Ultimately, and as shown in some of the studies in our
lV
ina
corpus (e.g., Prieto et al., 2021; Shaheen, 2016), this can lead to greater social cohesion
and improved governance toward that goal.
Through our thematic analysis, we offer a theoretical contribution to the field of scholarly
er
impact by developing a new coherent model and by using and extending the IPW
n
sio
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 22 of 42
framework to show the range of outcomes and impacts that future programs (and the
evaluations of those programs) might consider. This expansive framework highlights how
scholars can show evidence and the promise of impact beyond the short-term
Page 23 of 42
individualistic measures used in other evaluation frameworks. The codebook provided in
Appendix 2 provides a comprehensive overview of the types of outcomes and impacts that
R
er
Pe
scholars may wish to consider when conceptualizing impact in relation to such programs.
While training evaluation frameworks (e.g., Ford, 2021) discuss subjective considerations,
such as satisfaction with training, learning, transfer of training to the workplace, improved
ie
ev
job performance, and return on investment, there is little work that examines collective and
system-level change. Our work thus provides a novel conceptual contribution.
w
Our contribution is salient as the training literature largely focuses on short-term individual
learner considerations, such as verbal knowledge measured through recall and motivation
Pr
or self-evaluation (Kraiger, Ford, & Salas, 1993; Krathwohl, 2002). Broader well-being
oo
outcomes are ignored, except perhaps tangentially in the more recent work on informal
f-
learning (e.g., Cerasoli, Alliger, Donsbach, Mathieu, Tannenbaum, & Orvis, 2018; Tews,
Noe, Scheurer, & Michel, 2016). Indeed, while education frameworks, such as that offered
No
by Nabi et al. (2017, p. 278) include some longer-term measures such as “venture creation”
tF
and “business performance,” the authors acknowledge the limitations of their
categorization system and call for “increased research on higher-level impact indicators”
lV
ina
(Nabi et al., 2017, p. 289). Our expanded IPW framework responds and illuminates how
traditional and salient measures such as employment, training, and income can be
integrated with longitudinal measures that show impact. In short, we highlight how society
er
and scholars can move beyond the economic and rational measures of impact typically
n
sio
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Academy of Management Learning & Education
associated with training for the marginalized to show meaningful impact across a broad
range of well-being indicators.
Opportunity 2: Program Design
Academy of Management Learning & Education
We also find evidence that further work is required to design programs for impact. Our
review indicates that some supply-based programs, such as the MOOC models examined,
R
er
Pe
increase rather than decrease disparity. By contrast, hybrid models show greater evidence
of impact. Thus, when designing for impact, scholars should be cognizant that when used
exclusively supply-based models appear to fall short in terms of what is required to redress
ie
ev
social exclusion. This is concerning as despite calls two decades ago to adopt pedagogies
that center on shared meaning and collaborative learning (Kraiger, 2008), our study shows
that supply-based pedagogies continue to dominate instruction to marginalized groups.
w
Consistent with Kraiger and Ford (2021), we also find the need for more theory-driven
Pr
approaches to pedagogy. We highlight the need for further work to examine the underlying
oo
relationships between programs and what is achieved through training, noting that this must
f-
be done through a better understanding of the needs of the marginalized and by using
theory. For example, we uncover trends that may point to bias within business schools,
No
such as the business content offered not being directed toward objective community needs.
tF
In essence, theory regarding these assumptions, which may be informed by neoliberal
ideals (such as well-being equals wealth), is lacking across the field. Further development
lV
ina
of pedagogy is needed to ensure that implicit assumptions related to the characteristics and
needs of marginalized individuals and communities are clearly articulated and tested.
Future work should examine the influence adopting such ideas has on their institution. The
er
results of our analysis thus offer room to advance the literature, contributing to future
n
sio
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 24 of 42
understanding of the theory of change that sits behind program design. The literature may
also broaden in terms of the implicit assumptions that underpin the programs. Studies that
Page 25 of 42
adopted this reflective approach show that it was these implicit assumptions that influenced
program outcomes and impact.
R
er
Pe
In addition, we show that program success requires the voice of the marginalized to be
integrated into programs (Rodríguez-Hernández, Cascallar, & Knydt, 2020). Programs
need to be undertaken “with the community, not to the community” (O’Brien et al., 2019,
ie
ev
p. 399). Indeed, community-based participatory models offer great promise (see Wang,
2020; Prieto et al., 2021). For many business schools, that represents a shift toward "joint
w
ownership" models that meet the needs and interests of the community and collaborating
partners (Subotzky, 1999, p. 427). Our review shows that business schools may be well
Pr
placed to do this; however, the research-practice lag must be addressed to integrate lessons
oo
learned more broadly across the field.
f-
Opportunity 3: Sharing Knowledge Regarding Impact
No
Our findings also show the need for more research as results in the field currently lack
cohesion. As argued earlier, researchers must acknowledge the complex nature of the
tF
environment in which these programs operate. They must allow for a feedback loop
lV
ina
between the results that scholars perceive as possible at the outset of the program versus
what was achieved, and that includes both positive and unintended negative consequences.
However, we find that the field is currently dominated by incoherent interpretations and an
er
over-emphasis on short-term outcomes at the individual level. Scant literature relates to
n
sio
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Academy of Management Learning & Education
individual and system-level impacts, such as respect for nature and sustainable
development (apart from the study by Hope, 2012). We also find a lack of attention to
broader social implications, which raises the need for an expansive and coherent view of
Academy of Management Learning & Education
impacts that considers the full range of stakeholders involved, not to mention the tensions
that might arise.
R
er
Pe
We also find shortcomings in studies published to date. While we do not seek to engage in
the debate regarding the merits of the academic publication process, we do highlight that
peer-reviewed journals provide a sample source to understand tensions and trade-offs that
ie
ev
emerge when conceptualizing impact. It is disappointing that more studies have not yet
been published in this field. It is also concerning that a quarter of the empirical studies
w
(24%) did not identify the data collection methods used given that all articles included in
our sample feature in peer-reviewed outlets and should be subject to scholarly standards
Pr
that command transparency and replicability. We hope that our review inspires scholars to
oo
engage in high-quality research that can be reviewed and ultimately shared through the
peer-review process.
f-
In addressing this gap, our analysis specifically reveals the need for more studies related to
No
consciousness outcome measures. While all articles analyzed refer to the achievement of
tF
individual behavioral and cognitive outcomes, other studies suggest that these changes can
result in (and are supported by) positive consciousness outcomes. However, the latter is
lV
ina
less studied than the former. We also highlight the need for further longitudinal studies in
peer-reviewed research. Such studies should consider the range of stakeholders involved,
including the marginalized, the community, and the scholars delivering the programs. The
er
expanded conceptual framework that we develop in this review, as summarized in Figure
n
sio
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 26 of 42
1, shows the range of outcome and impact measures that such studies could examine.
Institutional influences also warrant further attention. Most studies examine US data, and
no studies pertain to China or Indonesia, which is concerning given these nations are among
Academy of Management Learning & Education
Page 27 of 42
the most populated in the world. We also find limited research across classifications of
marginalization, such as people who identify as LGBT, military veterans, and Indigenous
R
er
Pe
people. Gaps also remain in relation to other salient settings, such as economic shocks or
natural disasters. Future research could be well-suited to large-scale statistical analysis.
We highlight that research, while not perfect, does provide a powerful means of uncovering
ie
ev
new knowledge—knowledge that is rooted in theoretical advancement. Research also helps
us understand how the life circumstances of marginalized people across the world can be
w
advanced according to the principles of sustainable development (Painter-Morland et al.,
2017). Our review and critical analysis thus provide a platform for future program design
Pr
that allows for the integration of these areas and further ongoing evaluation to assess the
oo
appropriateness of teaching goals, the knowledge emphasized, the impact on the educators
f-
and business schools involved, and the pedagogy design. Our examination shows that some
management scholars indeed seek to use knowledge from our discipline to advance and
No
achieve social good and to publish and disseminate this information. However, as argued
above, further studies are needed.
lV
ina
Implications for Practice
tF
Beyond the field of scholarly impact, our results offer insight for practitioners. Our review
highlights the need for future attention assessing the seriousness of training provider efforts
er
in delivering positive outcomes and impacts at the individual, collective, and societal levels
n
sio
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
for marginalized people across the world and over time. It is possible that such initiatives
are simply forms of marketing spin—lip-service paid to the espoused social
sustainability/justice purposes of the institution (Subotzky, 1999; Wang, 2020). Our results
Academy of Management Learning & Education
highlight that it is important to engage in further work to identify elements that demonstrate
a substantive attempt at achieving tangible improvements in social outcomes (e.g.,
R
er
Pe
resourcing). Notably, the objectives discussed in the papers that we examined were broader
than existing educational evaluation frameworks, such as those offered by Kraiger et al.
(1993) and in Bloom’s taxonomy (Krathwohl, 2002).
ie
ev
For education accreditation agencies such as the AACSB, our research provides new
insight into strategies that may nudge higher education institutions toward greater social
w
inclusion. Specifically, we find that goal alignment is important (Subotzky, 1999). Namely,
scholars within the field argue that successful programs require reciprocity, meaning that
Pr
the program needs to deliver benefits to both the community and the higher education
oo
provider, or even the system itself. As an illustration, in considering how a university’s
f-
entrepreneurial ecosystem could be expanded to include underrepresented communities,
O’Brien et al. (2019, p. 399), find that a university’s involvement in such programs
No
typically rests on the “core values, mission, attributes, objectives and culture of a
tF
university.” Accreditation agencies, such as the AACSB (2022, para. 1), provide platforms
to create conditions under which this may occur by encouraging “a shared sense of
lV
ina
responsibility to have a positive impact on society.” The opportunity exists to strengthen
the evidence as to whether this goal is being achieved, as offering programs alone is not
sufficient to have an impact. Greater attention needs to be paid to associated consciousness
er
outcomes and collective social and system impacts to improve current practice.
n
sio
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 28 of 42
For policymakers and other entities like NGOs and philanthropists who wish to fund
training programs for the marginalized, we offer two important insights. First, we find that
supply-based models achieve limited outcomes and rarely consider or achieve
Page 29 of 42
consciousness outcomes and collective social and system impacts. To address inequality,
funding agencies may wish to consider hybrid models that include action or community-
R
er
Pe
based learning (Jackson et al., 2020; Prieto et al., 2021). Further, funders may wish to
include a requirement of community involvement in the design and delivery of programs
(O'Brien et al., 2019; Rodríguez-Hernández et al., 2020). Second, funders can heed our call
ie
ev
for further research when allocating their resources. Further knowledge is required, given
several of the programs examined either over or underachieved in their initial goals. Thus,
it is prudent for funders to invest in generating further knowledge to establish programs
w
that are both realistic and transparent in relation to the associated outcomes and impact.
Pr
We also show that an opportunity exists for these evaluations to be undertaken in a
oo
systematic and peer-reviewed fashion in collaboration with academics to advance both
practice and theory. Toward this goal, one avenue may include creating a special issue
f-
group (e.g., within the Academy of Management or Principles for Responsible
No
Management Education (2022) networks) through which program results are exchanged.
Authors should also submit data files within journal submissions to allow scholars to
tF
analyze and compare results across programs and contexts. Such action may support further
lV
ina
understanding of the global dimensions of business school training programs delivered to
marginalized individuals and their impacts.
Like all studies, our findings are subject to limitations that point to areas for further
er
investigation. The most significant is the scope of our review, which was confined to peer-
n
sio
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Academy of Management Learning & Education
reviewed research that examined business training programs delivered to marginalized
individuals. The benefit of this approach is that it provides the first complete map of the
literature on which scholars can build. Specifically, we show what has been studied, by
Page 30 of 42
Academy of Management Learning & Education
who, how, and over what time. However, we acknowledge that peer-reviewed research is
subject to limitations, including potential “selection biases,” in those journals might seek
R
er
Pe
to publish positive results (Kunisch et al., 2018, p. 521). While we did not find this (e.g.,
as shown in Table 1 and noted above, studies report negative results), we nevertheless
accept this limitation and suggest that future studies could expand our work to include
ie
ev
unpublished work (i.e., grey material) in the fashion of a meta-analysis. While it is beyond
the scope of our review to conclude that the limitations that we observed in the sample
would extend to grey material, we provide a fruitful analysis of the tensions and trade-offs
w
that future examinations of such work could consider. Scholars could also conduct new
Pr
empirical work to examine if business schools across the world have access to in-house
oo
program evaluations that could be empirically examined. However, authors pursuing this
avenue should take care to ensure that the view of the marginalized is appropriately
f-
captured in their voice (see Bhatt et al., 2022; Rodríguez-Hernández et al., 2020).
No
Another limitation pertains to the IPW framework itself. The framework put forward by
tF
Painter-Morland et al. (2017) and expanded here requires further consideration. More
information needs to be collected to assess how efforts to harmonize tensions and trade-
lV
ina
offs unfold over time. Future studies could therefore undertake a cross-comparison analysis
to consider the outcomes and impacts achieved across different cohorts and different
methods of delivery options, such as business schools versus community-based training
er
providers. Another option to extend our work is to examine complementary activities, such
n
sio
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
as pre-entry university programs that provide social support to assist students to adapt to
university life. While Thomas (2011) provides a review of the literature in this domain, the
authors find limited research regarding scholarly impact, including evaluations on the
Page 31 of 42
effect of pre-entry interventions on students’ retention and success in higher education.
More recent work by scholars such as Rodríguez, Tinajero and Páramo (2017) supports
R
er
Pe
that this remains a knowledge gap.
ie
ev
CONCLUSION
It is our aim with this paper to map the literature to show how scholars conceptualize impact
w
in the context of university business training delivered to marginalized individuals as well
as the ends achieved. We find incoherence in the field that requires synthesis. We also
Pr
reveal the need for a broader view of evaluations that extends beyond traditional education
oo
frameworks to consider individual, collective, and system-level subjective outcomes and
f-
impacts. Using this framework, we highlight that future training requires new knowledge
contextualized to the person as well as the environment in which they live. We also find
No
teaching methods that engage the marginalized in the design and delivery of programs and
tF
tailor the forms of communication, as well as use of education technologies, are more likely
to achieve their intended impacts than traditional supply-based modes of learning.
lV
ina
Scholars, educators, accreditor agencies, funding agencies, and policymakers can draw on
our findings to advance future research and practice that seeks to use business education to
redress social inequality.
n
sio
er
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Academy of Management Learning & Education
Academy of Management Learning & Education
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Pe
FIGURE 1:
er
Re
First-order codes*
Capabilities
Education
Employment
Financial security
Health
vie
Choice
Perceived freedom
Identity
Life satisfaction
Level 1: Measures during the program
Level 2: Pre- and post-program measures
Level 3: Measures between 0 and 3 years
Level 4: Measures between 3 to 10 years
Explicit theory
Implicit assumptions about marginalized
individuals
Disadvantage
Underrepresented
Developing nation
Unemployed **
Page 32 of 42
Emerging data structure
w
Third-order Core concepts
Second-order themes
Pr
Individual behavioral
and cognitive
(Individual objective)
Individual consciousness
(Intra-subjective)
Evaluation
Individual Outcomes
Collective Impact
(short-term measures)
(longitudinal measures)
Behavioral and
cognitive outcomes
(Individual objective)
Collective social
(Inter-subjective)
Consciousness
(Intra-subjective)
System
(Inter-objective)
oo
f-
No
Research Design
Theory of change
Program Design
Forms of marginalization
First-order codes*
Second-order themes
Analysis grid examining the relationship between individuallevel outcomes and collective impact
Overcoming or avoiding
loneliness
Social capital
Social cohesion
Social relationships
Collective social
(Inter-subjective)
Community benefits
Good governance
Community resources
Respect for nature
tF
System
(Inter-objective)
ina
lV
Pedagogy/
Teaching model
ers
Supply
Demand
Competency
Hybrid
*Illustrative text provided in Appendix 2
ion
Page 33 of 42
References
Aguinis, H., Shapiro, D., Antonacopoulou, E., & Cummings, T. 2014. Scholarly impact: A pluralist
conceptualization. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 13(4): 623–639.
Alaref, J., Brodmann, S., & Premand, P. 2020. The medium-term impact of entrepreneurship education
on labor market outcomes: Experimental evidence from university graduates in Tunisia. Labour
Economics, 62(C): 1–18.
Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. 2020. The problematizing review: A counterpoint to Elsbach and Van
Knippenberg’s argument for integrative reviews. Journal of Management Studies, 57(6): 1290–1304.
Andrewartha, L., & Harvey, A. 2017. Employability and student equity in higher education: The role of
university careers services. Australian Journal of Career Development, 26(2), 71–80.
Anosike, P. 2018. Entrepreneurship education knowledge transfer in a conflict Sub-Saharan African
context. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 25(4): 591–608.
Anosike, P. 2019. Entrepreneurship education as human capital: Implications for youth self-employment
and conflict mitigation in Sub-Saharan Africa. Industry and Higher Education, 33(1): 42–54.
Archibald, P., Muhammad, O., & Estreet, A. 2016. Business in social work education: A historically
black university’s social work entrepreneurship project. Journal of Social Work Education, 52(1): 79–
94.
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB). 2022. AACSB Accreditation
Overview. https://www.aacsb.edu/educators/accreditation/business-accreditation.
Bacq, S., Drover, W., & Kim, P. 2021. Writing bold, broad, and rigorous review articles in
entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 36(6): 1–8.
Bhatt, B., Qureshi, I., & Sutter, C. (2022). How do intermediaries build inclusive markets? The role of
the social context. Journal of Management Studies, 59(4), 925–957.
Bjorvatn, K., & Tungodden, B. 2010. Teaching business in Tanzania: Evaluating participation and
performance. Journal of the European Economic Association, 8(2-3): 561–570.
Bulger, M., Bright, J., & Cobo, C. 2015. The real component of virtual learning: Motivations for faceto-face MOOC meetings in developing and industrialised countries. Information, Communication &
Society, 18(10): 1200–1216.
Calderon, G., Cunha, J. M., & De Giorgi, G. 2020. Business literacy and development: Evidence from a
randomized controlled trial in rural Mexico. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 68(2): 507–
540.
Cerasoli, C. P., Alliger, G. M., Donsbach, J. S., Mathieu, J. E., Tannenbaum, S. I., & Orvis, K. A. 2018.
Antecedents and outcomes of informal learning behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 33(2), 203–230.
Chakravarty, S., Lundberg, M., Nikolov, P., & Zenker, J. 2019. Vocational training programs and youth
labor market outcomes: Evidence from Nepal. Journal of Development Economics, 136(C): 71–110.
Chen, G., Davis, D., Krause, M., Aivaloglou, E., Hauff, C., & Houben, G. 2018. From learners to earners:
Enabling MOOC learners to apply their skills and earn money in an online market place. IEEE
Transactions on Learning Technologies, 11(2): 264–274.
Co, M. J., & Mitchell, B. 2006. Entrepreneurship education in South Africa: A nationwide survey.
Education + Training, 48(5): 348–359.
Dillahunt, T., Wang, B., & Teasley, S. 2014. Democratizing higher education: Exploring MOOC use
among those who cannot afford a formal education. The International Review of Research in Open and
Distributed Learning, 15(5): 177–196.
Doucette, M., Gladstone, J., & Carter, T. 2021. Indigenous conversational approach to history and
business education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 20(3): 473–484.
Easterlin, R. A. (1974). Does economic growth improve the human lot? Some empirical evidence. In P.
A. David & M. W. Reder (Eds.), Nations and households in economic growth: Essays in honor of
Moses Abramovitz. New York: Academic Press.
Fairlie, R., & Krashinsky, A. 2012. Liquidity constraints, household wealth, and entrepreneurship
revisited. The Review of Income and Wealth, 58(2): 279–306.
Fayolle, A. 2013. Personal views on the future of entrepreneurship education. Entrepreneurship &
Regional Development, 25(7-8): 692–701.
Ford, J. K. (2021). Learning in organizations: An evidence-based approach. New York: Routledge.
Gainsford, A., & Evans, M. 2021. Integrating andragogical philosophy with Indigenous teaching and
learning. Management Learning, 52(5): 559–580.
Girei, E. 2017. Decolonising management knowledge: A reflexive journey as practitioner and researcher
in Uganda. Management Learning, 48(4): 453–470.
Habel, C., & Whitman, K. 2016. Opening spaces of academic culture: Doors of perception; heaven and
hell. Higher Education Research & Development, 35(1): 71–83.
w
ie
ev
R
er
Pe
f-
oo
Pr
n
sio
er
lV
ina
tF
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Academy of Management Learning & Education
Academy of Management Learning & Education
Haley, U., Cooper, C., Hoffman, A., Pitsis, T., & Greenberg, D. 2020. Learning and education strategies
for scholarly impact: Influencing regulation, policy and society through research. Academy of
Management Learning & Education Special Issue Call. https://aom.org/docs/defaultsource/publishing-withaom/amle_special_issue_call_strategies_for_scholarly_impact.pdf?sfvrsn=713ff196_2. Accessed 21
May 2021.
Haley, U., Page, M., Pitsis, T., Rivas, J., & Yu, K. 2017. Measuring and achieving scholarly impact: A
report from the Academy of Management’s practice theme committee. Academy of Management, Briar
Cliff,
New
York.
http://aom.org/About-AOM/StrategicPlan/Scholarly-ImpactReport.aspx?terms=measuring%20and%20achieving%20scholarly%20impact. Accessed 21 May 2021.
Halkic, B., & Arnold, P. 2019. Refugees and online education: Student perspectives on need and support
in the context of (online) higher education. Learning, Media and Technology, 44(3): 345–364.
Hickel, J. (2021). What does degrowth mean? A few points of clarification. Globalizations, 18(7): 1105–
1111.
Hinson, R., & Amidu, M. 2006. Internet adoption amongst final year students in Ghana’s oldest business
school. Library Review, 55(5): 314–323.
Hope, K. 2012. Engaging the youth in Kenya: Empowerment, education, and employment. International
Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 17(4): 221–236.
Ibeh, K., & Debrah, Y. A. 2011. Female talent development and African business schools. Journal of
World Business, 46(1), 42–49.
Jackson, M., Colvin, A., & Bullock, A. 2020. Development of a pre-college program for foster youth:
Opportunities and challenges of program implementation. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal,
37(3): 411–423.
Kabongo, J., & Okpara, J. 2010. Entrepreneurship education in Sub Saharan African universities.
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 16(4): 296–308.
Karimi, S., Biemans, H., Lans, T., Chizari, M., & Mulder, M. 2016. The impact of entrepreneurship
education: A study of Iranian students’ entrepreneurial intentions and opportunity identification. Journal
of Small Business Management, 54(1): 187–209.
Kirkpatrick, D. L. 1976. Evaluation of training. In R L. Craig (Ed.), Training and Development
Handbook. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Kirkpatrick, D. L. 1994. Evaluating training programs: The four levels. Oakland, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Kitchener, M., & Delbridge, R. (2020). Lessons from creating a business school for public good:
Obliquity, waysetting, and wayfinding in substantively rational change. Academy of Management
Learning & Education, 19(3), 307–322.
Kizilcec, R., & Kambhampaty, A. 2020. Identifying course characteristics associated with
sociodemographic variation in enrolments across 159 online courses from 20 institutions. PLoS ONE,
15(10): 1–19.
Kraiger, K. 2008. Transforming our models of learning and development: Web-based instruction as
enabler of third-generation instruction. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1(4): 454-467.
Kraiger, K., Ford, J., & Salas, E. 1993. Application of cognitive, skill-based, and affective theories of
learning outcomes to new methods of training evaluation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(2): 311–
328.
Kraiger, K., & Ford, J. K. 2021. The science of workplace instruction: Learning and development applied
to work. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 8(1): 45–72.
Krathwohl, D. 2002. A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4): 212–
218.
Kunisch, S., Menz, M., Bartunek, J. M., Cardinal, L. B., & Denyer, D. (2018). Feature topic at
organizational research methods: How to conduct rigorous and impactful literature reviews?.
Organizational Research Methods, 21(3), 519–523.
Littenberg-Tobias, J., & Reich, J. 2020. Evaluating access, quality, and equity in online learning: A case
study of a MOOC-based blended professional degree program. The Internet and Higher Education, 47:
1–11.
Loviscek, A., & Cloutier, N. 1997. Supplemental instruction and the enhancement of student
performance in economics principles. The American Economist, 41(2): 70–76.
MacIntosh, R., Beech, N., Bartunek, J., Mason, K., Cooke, B., & Denyer, D. 2017. Impact and
management research: Exploring relationships between temporality, dialogue, reflexivity and praxis.
British Journal of Management, 28(1): 3–13.
Majee, W., Long, S., & Smith, D. 2012. Engaging the underserved in community leadership
development: Step up to leadership graduates in northwest Missouri tell their stories. Community
Development, 43(1), 80–94.
w
ie
ev
R
er
Pe
f-
oo
Pr
n
sio
er
lV
ina
tF
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 34 of 42
Page 35 of 42
Macleod, H., Haywood, J., Woodgate, A., & Alkhatnai, M. 2015. Emerging patterns in MOOCs:
Learners, course designs and directions. TechTrends, 59(1): 56–63.
Mishra, M. 2014. Vertically integrated skill development and vocational training for socioeconomically
marginalized youth: The experience at Gram Tarang and Centurion University, India. Prospects, 44(2):
297–316.
Morgan, B., & Leung, P. 1980. Effects of assertion training on acceptance of disability by physically
disabled university students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 27(2): 209.
Nabi, G., Liñán, F., Fayolle, A., Krueger, N., & Walmsley, A. 2017. The impact of entrepreneurship
education in higher education: A systematic review and research agenda. Academy of Management
Learning & Education, 16(2): 277–299.
Nafukho, F., Machuma, A., & Muyia, M. 2010. Entrepreneurship and socio-economic development in
Africa: A reality or myth? Journal of European Industrial Training, 34(2): 96–109.
Newcomer, K., Hatry, H., & Wholey, J. 2015. Handbook of practical program evaluation. New Jersey:
John Wiley & Sons.
O’Brien, E., Cooney, T., & Blenker, P. 2019. Expanding university entrepreneurial ecosystems to underrepresented communities. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy, 8(3): 384–407.
OECD. 2020. Tackling coronavirus (COVID-19): Focus on social challenges. OECD.
https://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/en/themes/social-challenges. Accessed 19 May 2021.
OECD. 2021. Social impact measurement for the social and solidarity economy. https://www.oecdilibrary.org/docserver/d20a57acen.pdf?expires=1635725289&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=1CED329D2355CC7D36BE8FB166
3CA2B4. Accessed 1 November 2021.
Özbilgin, M. 2009. From journal rankings to making sense of the world. Academy of Management
Learning & Education, 8(1): 113–121.
Painter-Morland, M., Demuijnck, G., & Ornati, S. 2017. Sustainable development and well-being: A
philosophical challenge. Journal of Business Ethics, 146(2): 295–311.
Paul, J., & Criado, A. R. 2020. The art of writing literature review: What do we know and what do we
need to know?. International Business Review, 29(4), 1–7.
Payton, F., Suarez-Brown, T., & Smith Lamar, C. 2012. Applying IRSS theory: The Clark Atlanta
University exemplar. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 10(4): 495–513.
Piketty, T. 2020. Capital and ideology. Cambridge, MS: Harvard University Press.
Prieto, L., Phipps, S., Stott, N., & Giugni, L. 2021. Teaching (cooperative) business: The ‘Bluefield
Experiment’ and the future of black business schools. Academy of Management Learning & Education,
20(3): 320–341.
Principles for Responsible Management Education (PRME). 2022. What is PRME.
https://www.unprme.org/about. Accessed 18 June 2022.
Productivity Commission. 2019. The demand driven university system: A mixed report card.
Commission Research Paper, Canberra.
Riebe, M. 2012. A place of her own: The case for university-based centers for women entrepreneurs.
Journal of Education for Business, 87(4): 241–246.
Rittel, H., & Webber, M. 1973. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4: 155–169.
Rodríguez, P., Izuzquiza, D., & Cabrera, A. 2021. Inclusive education at a Spanish university: The
voice of students with intellectual disability. Disability & Society, 36(3), 376–398.
Rodríguez, M., Tinajero, C., & Páramo, M. 2017. Pre-entry characteristics, perceived social support,
adjustment and academic achievement in first-year Spanish university students: A path model. The
Journal of Psychology, 151(8): 722–738.
Rodríguez-Hernández, C., Cascallar, E., & Knydt, E. 2020. Socio-economic status and academic
performance in higher education: A systematic review. Educational Research Review, 29(100305): 2–
24.
Salmi, J. 2020. COVID’s lessons for global higher education. Lumina Foundation,
https://www.luminafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/covids-lessons-for-global-highereducation.pdf. Accessed 19 May 2021.
Scott, L., Dolan, C., Johnstone-Lois, M., Sugden, K., Wu, M. 2012. Enterprise and inequality: A study
of Avon in South Africa. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(3): 544–568.
Shaheen, G. 2016. Inclusive entrepreneurship: A process for improving self-employment for people with
disabilities. Journal of Policy Practice, 15(1-2): 58–81.
Simpson, R. 2006. Masculinity and management education: Feminizing the MBA. Academy of
Management Learning & Education, 5(2): 182–193.
Sitzmann, T., & Campbell, E. 2021. The hidden cost of prayer: Religiosity and the gender wage
gap. Academy of Management Journal, 64(4): 1016–1048.
w
ie
ev
R
er
Pe
f-
oo
Pr
n
sio
er
lV
ina
tF
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Academy of Management Learning & Education
Academy of Management Learning & Education
Sitzmann, T., & Weinhardt, J. M. 2019. Approaching evaluation from a multilevel perspective: A
comprehensive analysis of the indicators of training effectiveness. Human Resource Management
Review, 29(2): 253-269.
Spicer, A., Jaser, Z., & Wiertz, C. 2021. The future of the business school: Finding hope in alternative
pasts. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 20(3): 459–466.
Subotzky, G. 1999. Alternatives to the entrepreneurial university: New modes of knowledge production
in community service programs, Higher Education, 38(4): 401–440.
Taylor, D., Jones, O., & Boles, K. 2004. Building social capital through action learning: An insight into
the entrepreneur, Education + Training, 46(5): 226–235.
Tews, M. J., Noe, R. A., Scheurer, A. J., & Michel, J. W. 2016. The relationships of work–family conflict
and core self-evaluations with informal learning in a managerial context. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 89(1), 92–110.
Thomas, L. 2011. Do pre entry interventions such as ‘Aim higher’ impact on student retention and
success? A review of the literature. Higher Education Quarterly, 65(3): 230–250.
Vijay, D., & Nair, V. G. 2021. In the name of merit: Ethical violence and inequality at a business school.
Journal of Business Ethics. Ahead of print: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551-02104824-1
Vitartas, P., Ambrose, K., Millar, H., & Dang, T. 2015. Fostering Indigenous students’ participation in
business education. International Journal of Learning in Social Contexts, 17: 84–94.
Wang, Q. 2020. Higher education institutions and entrepreneurship in underserved communities. Higher
Education, 2(9): 1–19.
Wilson, B., & Rossig, S. 2014. Does supplemental instruction for principles of economics improve
outcomes for traditionally underrepresented minorities? International Review of Economics Education,
17(C): 98–108.
w
ie
ev
R
er
Pe
f-
oo
Pr
n
sio
er
lV
ina
tF
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 36 of 42
Page 37 of 42
Cons.
Beh.
Cul.
Sys.
L4
X
A=I
X
X
Andrewartha
& Harvey
2017
PD
Australia
No theory
NA
NA
A=I
X
NA
Anosike
2019
ENT
Nigeria
Entrepreneurship
Education
L1
X
A=I
A
X
Anosike
2018
ENT
Nigeria
Entrepreneurship
Education
L1
X
I<A
A
NA
2016
ENT
USA
Self-directed
theory
L2
X
A=I
A
A
2010
ENT
Tanzania
No theory
L1
NA
A=I
NA
NA
Bulger et al.
2015
MD
Global
Learning theory
L2
NA
I<A
A=I
X
Calderon et
al.
2020
ENT
Mexico
No theory
L3
NA
A=I
X
A=I
Chen et al.
2018
DA
Global
Self-Regulated
Learning
L2
X
A=I
NA
NA
2006
ENT
South
Africa
No theory
NA
NA
I>A
A
A
2014
MD
USA
MOOC model
L1
NA
I>A
NA
NA
Doyle
2011
PD
Australia
NA
X
X
X
X
Gainsford &
Evans
2021
MD
Australia
L3
X
A=I
A=I
A=I
Garcia
2021
LD
USA
NS
L2
X
A=I
A=I
A=I
Habel &
Whitman
2016
MD
Australia
NS
L1
X
I
I>A
A=I
Halkic &
Arnold
2019
MD
Germany
L2
X
A=I
A=I
I
Hinson &
Amidu
2006
IT
Ghana
Internet Benefit
Model
NS
L1
NA
A=I
A=I
A=I
Hope
2012
ENT
Kenya
No theory
NA
Ibeh et al.
2008
MGT
Global
No theory
NS
Ibeh &
Debrah
2011
BUS
SubSaharan
Africa
No theory
NS
Jackson et al.
2020
LD
USA
Social Capital
Theory
No theory
w
Pedagogy
(iii)
Pr
Iran
Kizilcec &
Kambhampat
y
2020
MD
Global
Kolb
1981
PD
USA
LittenbergTobias &
Reich
2020
SCM
USA
Theory of
Planned
Behavior
Psychologically
inclusive design
cues
X
X
NA
NA
NA
NA
A=I
A=I
A=I
L1
X
A=I
A=I
A=I
NA
X
A=I
X
A=I
NA
NA
L2
A=I
L1
X
No theory
L1
A=I
Grounded
theory
L1
X
A=I
NA
NA
n
sio
ENT
NA
er
2016
lV
ina
Karimi et al.
NS
tF
ENT
NA
No
2010
Systems theory
& Personcentered theory
Indigenous
Standpoint
Theory
Participation
Action
Research
Bourdieuian
framework
Innovative
Academic
Model
f-
Kabongo &
Okpara
SubSaharan
Africa
NS
oo
Co &
Mitchell
Dillahunt et
al.
ie
ev
Archibald et
al.
Bjorvatn &
Tungodden
Sys.
Theory of
Change
Cul.
Tunisia
Beh.
ENT
Cons.
2020
Data Coll.
Method
Country of
Analysis
Alaref et al.
Theoretical
Perspective
Discipline
(i)
Outcome/Impact Achieved
(v)
Publication
Year
Research
Method (iv)
Conceptualized
Outcome/
Impact
Authors
Marginalized
Group (ii)
TABLE 1: Details of articles included in study
R
er
Pe
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Academy of Management Learning & Education
A=I
A
NA
A=I
A=I
NA
A=I
X
NA
A=I
X
X
Academy of Management Learning & Education
w
ie
ev
R
er
Pe
f-
oo
Pr
n
sio
er
lV
ina
tF
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 38 of 42
Page 39 of 42
APPENDIX 1: Corpus selection*
Journal search using Web of Science
and Scopus databases
Search 1
Search 2
Search 3
Keywords (First Search)
"Disadvantaged" OR “Marginalized”
OR “At-risk” OR “Underrepresented”
AND "University" AND "Training"
OR "Short course" OR "Certificate"
OR "Diploma" OR "Advanced
Diploma" OR "Micro-credentials" OR
"Pre-entry" OR "MOOCs" OR
"SPOCs"
Keywords (Second Search)
"Disadvantaged" OR “Marginalized”
OR “At-risk” OR “Underrepresented”
AND "University" AND "Pre-college
program" OR "Supplemental
Instruction course" OR "School
Outreach Program" OR "Information
skills" OR "Foundation studies"
Keywords (Third Search) "University"
OR "Business School" AND
"Training" OR "Program" AND
"Indigenous" OR "Disabled" OR
"Low socio*economic status" OR
"Military veteran" OR "lesbian" OR
"gay" OR "homosexual" OR
"bisexual" OR "intersex"
Step 1. Database search results (Excluding book chapters, non-English articles and
conference proceedings)
ie
ev
R
er
Pe
Step 1. Database search results (Excluding non-English
articles and conference proceedings)
n = 1806
n = 577
Exclude
Step 3. Exclusion
based on subject
area n = 124
Pr
Step 4. Title &
Abstract Review
n = 398
Step 3. Exclusion
based on subject
area n = 759
Exclude
Step 4. Title &
Abstract Review n
= 336
oo
Exclude
Step 2. Duplicates
n= 85
Exclude
Step 3. Exclusion
based on subject
area n = 875
Exclude
n = 1143
Step 2. Duplicates
n = 36
Step 2. Duplicates
n = 514
w
Step 4. Title &
Abstract Review n
= 384
Exclude
Articles approved for coding
n = 100
19 articles selected
Articles approved for coding
n=8
81 articles selected
f-
Step 5. Comprehensive review, exclusion of
= 84
Articles included
n = 16
Step 6. Additional reference search
n = 15 included
Step 5. Comprehensive review,
exclusion of n = 3
Articles included n = 5
Step 6. Additional reference search
n = 7 included
Total articles included n =12
tF
Total articles included
n = 31 (1st & 2nd search)
n
No
Total articles included in
Review n = 43
lV
ina
* Subject areas such as business, management, accounting, economics, econometrics and finance were included,
but areas such as medicine and science were not.
n
sio
er
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Academy of Management Learning & Education
Academy of Management Learning & Education
APPENDIX 2: Coding scheme
First-order codes
1.1 Capabilities
Illustrative text and statements from articles coded
New skills and knowledge, including: Ability to control emotions; ability to excel; avoiding risky
behaviors; business literacy; cognitive skills; college readiness; communication;
competencies/performance; completing a business plan or ability to navigate services; creativity; critical
thinking; employment skill development; entrepreneurial intention; healthy relationship skill
development; healthy behaviors; independence; information-seeking skills; intellectual growth; leadership
skills; not being defined by a disability; note-taking skills; perseverance; problem-solving; resilience; selfmanagement; self-regulation; self-efficacy; social competence; soft skills; stress management; study
skills; teamwork; test-taking skills; time management; work ethic; volunteering
Participation, and completion of an education or training program, including: Completion; decreased
absenteeism; educational attainment; educational outcomes; enrolment; grades; participation in training
and/or education
Capacity to gain and sustain employment, including: Ability to gain employment; career development;
entry-level; employability; increases in employment; reduction in unemployment; self-employed; small
business start-up
Achievement of financial independence, financial self-interest, securing basic resources to sustain life,
including: Access to capital; debt; decreased vulnerability to poverty; income; microfinance;
understanding of (and agency in relation to) labor laws, including fair and minimum wages
Positive physical health; positive mental health
Understanding and enactment of alternative options available: Awareness about employer (or other)
expectations; choice of rehabilitation plan for people with a disability; decreased vulnerability to
involvement in armed conflict; discussing highlights or challenges; empowerment; increased awareness of
the negative social and economic consequences of self-action; life path chosen; not forced down one path
career choice; minimizing displeasure (pain avoidance); reduction in bullying behavior and mobbing;
positive intentions; volition
Level of autonomy; freedom to make the choice; motivation; opportunity identification and/or
exploitation; options; participating in economic, social, political, cultural and religious life without fear or
favor; self-efficacy
Perceptions of self-worth, confidence in oneself, sense of purpose, improved understanding of self,
including: Accountability; confidence; lessons learned; moral character; not being defined by a disability;
participants ability to identify environments where they might do better based upon the knowledge and
skills obtained during the program; self-insight through reflection, self-worth; sense of purpose
Happiness; increased satisfaction; the consistent presence of positive mood; the consistent absence of
negative mood; positive emotions
Inclusion; no longer being alone; no longer feeling excluded; inclusion; reduction in isolation through
social activities
R
er
Pe
1.2 Education
1.3 Employment
1.4 Financial
security
1.5 Health
2.1 Choice
w
ie
ev
2.2 Perceived
freedom
Improvement for the larger community, including: Business creation; decreased turn-over; citizens realize
their fullest potential; development of toolkits and other resources that could be used by the community;
improved economy through business success and profits; increased employment; Millennium
Development Goals; reduced crime; social innovation; social/national development process; social
renewal; winning grants that benefit the community
Individuals know how to conduct themselves and business properly, including climate of trust;
compliance with the rule of law; collective respect of cultural belief systems and ethical values; control of
corruption; equal opportunity; equity and accessibility of services; individuals understand written and
unwritten laws; quality of institutions; rights of people with a disability upheld
Improved resources and services for the marginalized, including: Attraction of investors or large
employers into a region based on social and/or human capital; capacity of training staff; democratization
of higher education; introduction and/or sustained services for specific groups (such as people with a
disability); involvement in and/or improved functioning of business incubators; role of business
schools/universities in improving social and/or human capital; supportive non-government organizations;
universities becoming more relevant to the needs of society/the community; access to online services and
resources
n
sio
er
4.3 Community
resources
Connectedness and solidarity among groups in society, including: Belonging within an institution or
social context; reduction in conflict
Developing personal relationships, improved with relationships friends and family; meeting new people;
making new friends
Ability to gain an employee reference; meeting classmates for social gatherings; positive mentorship
experiences, professional relationships and network relationships
lV
ina
4.2 Good
governance
Changed social perceptions towards marginalized individuals; shared value system; social networks,
societal norms; employment references; societal connections
tF
3.3 Social
cohesion
3.4 Social
relationships
3.5 Stable
professional
relationships
4.1 Community
benefits
No
2.4 Life
satisfaction
3.1 Overcoming
or avoiding
loneliness
3.2 Social capital
f-
2.3 Identity
oo
Pr
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 40 of 42
Page 41 of 42
First-order codes
4.4 Respect for
nature
Illustrative text and statements from articles coded
Increased or improved human/environment interactions, including: Introduction of environmental
stewardship programs, local community initiatives to improve natural habitats or environment; respect for
nature
Current and ongoing measures during the program (e.g., course grades), including: Qualitative (e.g., focus
group, interviews); mixed methods (e.g., database analysis, survey data and interviews); quantitative (e.g.,
database & content analysis, survey); case study
R
er
Pe
5.1 Level 1
5.2 Level 2
Pre- and post-program measures (e.g., course completion, leadership capabilities), including: Mixed
methods (e.g., survey – cross-sectional & case study, interviews and focus group, database analysis);
qualitative (e.g., content analysis); quantitative (e.g., experimental design, survey)
5.3 Level 3
Measures between 0 and 3 years post-program (e.g., number and type of start-ups, increase in business
performance), including: Quantitative (e.g., survey longitudinal & randomized control trial); mixed
methods (e.g., interviews & survey- longitudinal)
Measures between 3 to 10 years post-program (e.g., survival of start-ups, ongoing self-employment),
including: Quantitative (e.g., survey – longitudinal, randomized control trial)
Social capital theory, entrepreneurship theory, self-regulated learning theory, theory of change, theory of
planned behavior, learning theory
Access to resources, e.g., the internet, required to engage in training, redress income inequities through
increased employment and education, redress social exclusion based on representation through increased
confidence and social capital
Individuals impacted by armed conflict; people with a disability; people who are homeless or in foster
care; people with low literacy &/or SES status; refugees; prisoners
Ethnicity; gender; Indigenous
5.4 Level 4
6.1 Explicit
theory
6.2 Implicit
assumptions
Individuals excluded from or outside of labor force; low labor force participation rates; high
unemployment rates; youth unemployment
Reproduction methods; lectures, readings, exams
Active problem-solving; real-life situations; action learning
Participative methods; exploration; discussion; experimentation
Supply + demand, supply + competency, demand + competency, supply + demand + competency
f-
Supply
Competency
Demand
Hybrid
Iran; Kenya; Mexico; South Africa Sub-Saharan Africa; Tunisia
oo
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
Pr
7.1
Disadvantaged
7.2
Underrepresented
7.3 Developing
nation
7.4 Unemployed
w
ie
ev
n
sio
er
lV
ina
tF
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Academy of Management Learning & Education
Academy of Management Learning & Education
Tracey Dodd ([email protected]) is a Senior Lecturer with the Adelaide
R
er
Pe
Business School, University of Adelaide and Honorary Senior Research Fellow,
University of Exeter. Her research interests intersect responsible management and
Environmental, Social, Governance (ESG). She earned her PhD from the University
of South Australia.
ie
ev
Chris Graves ([email protected]) is an Associate Professor with the
Adelaide Business School, University of Adelaide and Director of the Family
Business Education & Research Group. His research interests include
entrepreneurship and family enterprise. He earned his PhD from the University of
Adelaide.
w
Pr
Janin Hentzen ([email protected]) is a Strategy Analyst with St. John
oo
of God Health Care. Her research spans business management, financial technology,
and consumer experience. She earned her PhD from the University of Adelaide.
fn
sio
er
lV
ina
tF
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Page 42 of 42