Beyond Legitimacy: A Bold Agenda for MLE Scholarship

Abstract

Twenty years ago, Academy of Management Learning and Education (AMLE) was launched as a complement to the established suite of Academy journals, which focused on empirical scholarship (Academy of Management Journal), conceptual scholarship (Academy of Management Review), and management practice (Academy of Management Executive). Emerging from a task force recommendation, the Academy sought to introduce a journal that would “publish high-quality materials on management learning, education, and teaching” (Lewicki, 2002: 8). The AMLE editorial team envisioned a journal that would complement Journal of Management Education (JME) and Management Learning, which were already notable journals in the field, and, in so doing, further the legitimacy of management education in the Academy. The AMLE editors aspired to achieve this vision by “engaging the Academy’s best scholars and teachers in sustained dialogue and debate about their teaching philosophy and strategy, and, hopefully, to encourage them to apply their sophisticated analytical and research skills to the pressing matters of learning and education” (Lewicki, 2002: 8). At the time, “pressing matters” included evaluating the effectiveness of technological learning innovations such as “fancy” PowerPoint slides and streaming video and the impact of electronic versus paper submissions on publishing (Lewicki, 2002). \n \n

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 17 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.