Academia
Builds and tests knowledge through research, writing and teaching.
Education is in a period of transition. Some older practices deserve to be questioned; some newer practices deserve the same scrutiny. I do not see much value in choosing between tradition and innovation as identities. The more useful question is whether a method helps students do the kind of thinking the course requires.
A course needs structure: students should know what they are learning, why it matters, how their work will be judged and where they are expected to improve. Within that structure, the teaching method can change. A lecture may be the clearest way to establish a difficult foundation. A case may be better for interpretation. A project may reveal whether students can integrate several ideas at once. Discussion can be useful when disagreement itself exposes the assumptions behind a decision.
That is what I mean by structured flexibility. The structure protects clarity and fairness; the flexibility lets the method fit the objective.
Business education should develop people who are capable of understanding, managing, improving, creating and expanding organizations in different industries and across the full range of roles those people will actually occupy.
Builds and tests knowledge through research, writing and teaching.
Carries responsibility for an organization’s continuity, people, finances and improvement.
Creates and tests a new venture where demand, resources and outcomes are uncertain.
Works directly with clients and turns specialist judgment into a viable independent practice.
Contributes within an organization by coordinating expertise, decisions and responsibilities with others.
They ask how things connect, what drives outcomes and where models break down. Curiosity is teachable when it is modeled and rewarded, not merely mentioned.
Why I place feasibility, evidence, judgment and responsibility at the centre of business education, and why I do not expect every student to be moving toward the same professional path.
Read teaching ethos →How a course can move from foundations to synthesis without pretending that every subject needs the same weekly pattern.
See class structure →Why foundational knowledge and higher-level judgment should not be assessed in exactly the same way.
Read assessment approach →Build the concepts and language students need before they can analyse more complicated situations.
Use knowledge to carry out a task, interpret a situation or produce a defensible piece of work.
Examine whether an idea creates value, for whom, under what assumptions and with what constraints.
Develop the quantitative, analytical or tool-based competence required to work accurately.
I do not treat AI as automatically acceptable or automatically harmful. Its value depends on the task. If the objective is to practise a skill that the AI would perform in the student’s place, using it may defeat the purpose. If the objective is comparison, critique, exploration or checking alternatives, it may be useful. In either case, the student remains responsible for sources, calculations, claims and the final argument.
I should make expectations intelligible, provide material that students can actually work with, distinguish difficulty from unnecessary confusion, and apply standards consistently. Students should not have to guess what counts as good work. They should, however, still have to do the work of producing it.