The Purpose of the Business School:

Alternative Views and Implications for

the Future Edward W. Miles
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/the-purpose-of-the-business-school-alternative-views-
and-implications-for-the-future-edward-w-miles/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

The Past, Present, and Future of the Business School

1st Edition Edward W. Miles (Auth.)

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-past-present-and-future-of-
the-business-school-1st-edition-edward-w-miles-auth/

Healthcare Digital Transformation How Consumerism

Technology and Pandemic are Accelerating the Future 1st
Edition Edward W. Marx

https://textbookfull.com/product/healthcare-digital-
transformation-how-consumerism-technology-and-pandemic-are-
accelerating-the-future-1st-edition-edward-w-marx/

The Future Of ISIS Regional And International

Implications Feisal Al-Istrabadi

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-future-of-isis-regional-and-
international-implications-feisal-al-istrabadi/

Making the most of medical school : the alternative

guide First Edition Barnett-Vanes

https://textbookfull.com/product/making-the-most-of-medical-
school-the-alternative-guide-first-edition-barnett-vanes/
Energy Efficiency and the Future of Real Estate 1st
Edition N. Edward Coulson

https://textbookfull.com/product/energy-efficiency-and-the-
future-of-real-estate-1st-edition-n-edward-coulson/

Inspiring Greatness in Education A School of the 21st

Century Model at the Independence School District 1st
Edition Edward Zigler

https://textbookfull.com/product/inspiring-greatness-in-
education-a-school-of-the-21st-century-model-at-the-independence-
school-district-1st-edition-edward-zigler/

Decoding Blockchain For Business: Understand The Tech

And Prepare For The Blockchain Future Stijn Van Hijfte

https://textbookfull.com/product/decoding-blockchain-for-
business-understand-the-tech-and-prepare-for-the-blockchain-
future-stijn-van-hijfte/

Sustainability Human Well Being and the Future of

Education Justin W Cook

https://textbookfull.com/product/sustainability-human-well-being-
and-the-future-of-education-justin-w-cook/

Sustainability, Human Well-Being, and the Future of

Education Justin W. Cook

https://textbookfull.com/product/sustainability-human-well-being-
and-the-future-of-education-justin-w-cook-2/
The Purpose of
the Business School
Alternative Views
and Implications
for the Future

Edward W. Miles
The Purpose of the Business School
 Edward W. Miles

The Purpose of the

Business School
Alternative Views and Implications
for the Future
Edward W. Miles
Georgia State University
Atlanta, GA, USA

ISBN 978-3-030-15780-7 ISBN 978-3-030-15781-4 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15781-4

Library of Congress Control Number: 2019935562

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer
Nature Switzerland AG 2019
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights
of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction
on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and
retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are
exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and
information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication.
Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied,
with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have
been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published
maps and institutional affiliations.

Cover illustration: © John Rawsterne/patternhead.com

This Palgrave Pivot imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature
Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
 In memory of my parents,
Oscar and Gladys Miles
(even though Mom really didn’t like her first name)
 Preface

In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas Kuhn (2012 [1962])

discusses the typical sequence of a scientific revolution. A scientific para-
digm is generally accepted. Scientists are doing “normal science,” flesh-
ing out the details of the paradigm. Scientific anomalies occur—findings
that appear to be inconsistent with the accepted paradigm. However,
individual anomalies usually do not threaten the overall paradigm unless
the number or centrality of them begins to grow.
In some ways, normal science is analogous to a 1000-piece jigsaw
puzzle. The accepted paradigm has provided the outer perimeter of the
puzzle and has declared what the overall image of the greater picture is
(e.g., the Heidelberg Castle). Normal science involves fitting the remain-
ing puzzle pieces where they belong. Anomalies are individual puzzle
pieces that do not seem to be consistent with a German castle. Science
continues when there are anomalies. The “puzzle solver” continues
when there are a few puzzle pieces that don’t look like a German castle.
However, if the puzzle solver gets 20 or 30 puzzle pieces that look more
like the Eiffel Tower in Paris or the Brooklyn Bridge in New York City,
she/he may stop working on the puzzle and start trying to determine
why so many puzzle pieces look foreign and anachronistic to a German
castle.
As phrased by Lewens (2016, p. 64):

Science enters a phase of self-doubt. Since scientists are no longer confi-

dent that recognizable styles of work will account for these troubling

vii
viii    Preface

phenomena, they stop working…and begin to speculate about what proper

scientific method should be like….In other words, they spend less time
doing science and more time doing philosophy.

Although they are not perfectly analogous to sciences, I propose

that institutions can follow a similar paradigm shift as do sciences. For
example, the Christian church of Europe was moving along very well
through the Dark Ages and Middles Ages. Then, in the early 1500s, the
Provincial Vicar of Saxony and Thuringia “looked up from his work” and
started to question the direction of the institution. In 1517, that Vicar,
Martin Luther, is said to have nailed a copy of his concerns to a church
door in Wittenberg, Germany. The ensuing Protestant Reformation was
a paradigm shift for the institution of Christianity. I propose that univer-
sity-based business schools are entering a similar phase of self-doubt. For
about 40–50 years, there has been general consensus about the roles of
the business school, what its faculty should be doing, and how to accom-
plish its purposes. There have been anomalies along the way, but, by and
large, these anomalies have been held at bay for most of the past 50 years.
However, I propose that, as business schools, we are entering a phase
of self-doubt in which some of the leading scholars are questioning the
established paradigm. These scholars are beginning to take time away
from their “normal science” research and to question whether our para-
digm of the role, methods, and purposes of the university-based business
school is the appropriate paradigm or whether it has too many anoma-
lies to survive. In lieu of nailing their “Ninety-Five Theses” to a business
school door, they have published their concerns in academic and profes-
sional journals.
Certainly, there have been voices over the past 50 years claiming to
see anomalies in the trajectory of the twentieth-century and ­ twenty-
first-century business school (e.g., Behrman & Levin, 1984; Leavitt,
1989; Livingston, 1971; Oviatt & Miller, 1989). However, the individ-
ual “anomalies,” just like those in scientific paradigms, have been put
aside as insufficient to threaten the accepted paradigm. But are we enter-
ing a phase in which the voices are getting so strong that the paradigm is
at risk?
Some of the names of these doubters, for example, Henry Mintzberg
(2004), Jeffrey Pfeffer (Pfeffer & Fong, 2002), Warren Bennis (Bennis
& O’Toole, 2005), Joel Podolny (2009), and James G. March (Augier
& March, 2011), are ones who hold considerable credibility in the field.
 Preface    ix

If they are questioning whether the operational paradigm of universi-

ty-based business schools is unable to stand up to the anomalies, there is
reason for the more “rank-and-file” business school researchers to “look
up from their puzzle solving” and consider the merits of the self-doubt-
ing logic raised by these scholars. In the phrasing of Lewens, perhaps we
as business school faculty members need to do more philosophy and less
puzzle solving if we are to move forward.

Lawrenceville, GA, USA Edward W. Miles

February 2019

References
Augier, M., & March, J. G. (2011). The roots, rituals, and rhetorics of change:
North American business schools after the Second World War. Stanford: Stanford
Business Books.
Behrman, J. N., & Levin, R. I. (1984, January–February). Are business schools
doing their job? Harvard Business Review, 62, 140–147.
Bennis, W. G., & O’Toole, J. (2005, May). How business schools lost their way.
Harvard Business Review, 83, 96–104.
Kuhn, T. S. (2012 [1962]). The structure of scientific revolutions (4th ed.).
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Leavitt, H. J. (1989). Educating our MBAs: On teaching what we have not
taught. California Management Review, 31(3), 38–50.
Lewens, T. (2016). The meaning of science: An introduction to the philosophy of
science. New York: Basic Books.
Livingston, J. S. (1971, January–February). Myth of the well-educated manager.
Harvard Business Review, 49, 79–89.
Mintzberg, H. (2004). Managers not MBAs: A hard look at the soft practice of
managing and management development. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Oviatt, B. M., & Miller, W. D. (1989). Irrelevance, intransigence, and business
professors. Academy of Management Executive, 3(4), 304–332.
Pfeffer, J., & Fong, C. T. (2002). The end of business schools? Less success
than meets the eye. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 1(1),
78–95.
Podolny, J. M. (2009, June). The buck stops (and starts) at business school.
Harvard Business Review, 87, 62–67.
 Acknowledgements

My thinking on the topics in this book has been influenced by engag-

ing conversations with numerous thoughtful colleagues. For this inter-
action, I am quite grateful to Richard C. Huseman, Wesley King, Brett
Matherne, Richard Baskerville, Deborah Butler, Kay Bunch, Lucy
McClurg, Jeff Schatten, A. J. Corner, John Hocking, John Hall, John
Lough, Ebb Oakley, Stan Smits, Bill Jones, Richard Deane, Chip Ryan,
Dave Forquer, Julian Diaz, Mike Crino, Sônia Calado Dias, Uli Zeyer,
Tom Queisser, and John D. Hatfield, among many others. Of course, all
flaws in the book are entirely the responsibility of the author.

xi
 Contents

Part I Introduction

1 Let’s Don’t Start Here 3

2 Shifting Emphases Among Aristotle’s Criteria:

Two Key Historical Occurrences 11

Part II The Search for Knowledge

3 Wissenschaft 23

4 Approaching the Study of Business and Management

as Science 39

5 But Is Business Management a Science? 55

6 Part II Epilogue 67

xiii
xiv    Contents

Part III Business as a Profession

7 Approaching the Study of Business and Management

as a Profession 87

8 But Is Business Management a Profession? 99

9 Part III Epilogue 109

Part IV Conclusion

10 SWOT Analysis of Four Espoused Business School Goals 117

11 How Are We Doing 60 Years Later? 135

Index 145
 List of Tables

Table 4.1 A non-exhaustive, illustrative set of sciences in hierarchical

sequence 43
Table 6.1 Comparison of physics to social science 77

xv
 PART I

Introduction
 CHAPTER 1

Let’s Don’t Start Here

Abstract Claims from various writers about potential purposes of the

university-based business school put us in an odd quandary. (1) One
belief is that business schools should be engaged in the systematic discov-
ery of knowledge through a scientific method. (2) Another belief is that
a scientific method is insufficient to provide an understanding of central
phenomena because a portion of those phenomena will not be under-
stood through those means. (3) Therefore, the business school should
more appropriately be viewed as a professional school. (4) Business is not
a profession; therefore, logically a business school is not a professional
school. (5) Although it may not be a profession, business and manage-
ment act like a profession.

Keywords Business school · Multiversity · Business as a profession ·

Rigor versus relevance

In recent decades, we have seen concerned writers lament that univer-

sity-based business schools are engaged in research that does not influ-
ence the practice of business (e.g., Bennis & O’Toole, 2005; Pfeffer &
Fong, 2002; Podolny, 2009; Witzel, 2017), are providing an education
that fails to prepare students effectively for the practice of management
(e.g., Grey, 2004; Mintzberg, 2004; Parker, 2018), and are populated
by a faculty that is not interested in the problems that face business today

© The Author(s) 2019 3

E. W. Miles, The Purpose of the Business School,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15781-4_1
4 E. W. MILES

or in taking a role in solving those problems (e.g., Bennis & O’Toole,

2005; Thomas & Wilson, 2011). Likewise, in recent decades, writers in
management and business (e.g., Gulati, 2007; Learmonth, Lockett, &
Dowd, 2012; Palmer, Dick, & Freiburger, 2009; Wolf & Rosenberg,
2012) have discussed the virtues of “rigor versus relevance.” This discus-
sion debates the degree to which business school research should have
academic rigor versus relevance to the practice of business.
All of these topics, while quite important discussions to under-
take, mask a more rudimentary underlying question that is not being
addressed sufficiently: What is the purpose of the twenty-first-­century
university-based business school? Each of these authors has made
assumptions about that purpose, although the assumptions frequently
are not explicitly articulated or justified. For example, in the discussions
mentioned above, some writers are assuming that a purpose of the busi-
ness school is to influence the practice of business; others are assuming
that scientific curiosity and the unbiased search for knowledge by a sys-
tematic process is the purpose. My intent is not necessarily to challenge
any of those assumed purposes; my intent is to say that all criticisms of
business schools are rooted in assumptions about what the purposes of
the business school appropriately are and that many of those assumptions
are unstated and not subjected to debate.
According to erotetic logic (the subfield of logic that deals with ask-
ing questions), all questions embody presuppositions—contentions that
are inherent in the question and frequently are implicit (Rescher, 2000).
For example, the question “What is the melting point of silver?” implies
that silver indeed does melt, and that it melts at a predictable tempera-
ture that does not vary. The question “What is the purpose of business
schools?” implies that business schools indeed do have a purpose and
that it can be articulated. The questions “What do business schools wish
to accomplish?” and “How do they wish to accomplish it?” imply that
business schools do wish to accomplish something identifiable and that
they have a plan of the means to accomplish those desired outcomes.
My assertion is that the presuppositions to these rudimentary questions
are not sufficiently clear and that an explicit discussion of them is war-
ranted. This is not necessarily to say that the literature is silent on this
issue; however, a common occurrence (e.g., Dameron & Durand, 2011,
p. xiv; Khurana, 2007, p. 312; Van de Ven & Johnson, 2006, p. 830) is
to assert the purpose as a secondary point (sometimes with or without
explanation) in route to pursuing a different primary agenda.
 1 LET’S DON’T START HERE 5

The question of the purpose of the university-based business school

has its parallels in the greater university going back for centuries. Over
2000 years ago, Aristotle (translated by Jowett, 1885, p. 245) observed,
regarding education, that

[T]he existing practice is perplexing; no one knows on what principle it

should proceed—should the useful in life, or should virtue, or should the
higher knowledge, be the aim of our training; all three opinions have been
entertained. Again, about the means there is no agreement.

In universities based on the European tradition, this discussion has

continued in more recent centuries. The wording of important titles in
this stream of discussion reflect that this literature has been very open
and direct about discussing purpose: The Idea of a University by John
Henry Newman (1996 [1859]); über die innere und äußere Organisation
der höheren wissenschaftlichen Anstalten zu Berlin (On the Spirit of and
the Organizational Framework of Intellectual Institutions in Berlin)
by Wilhelm von Humboldt (c. 1809); The Uses of the University by
Clark Kerr (2001 [1963]); and What Are Universities For? by Stephan
Collini (2012). Newman saw the purpose of the university as being the
repository of society’s culture—a “finishing school” for gentlemen—
assuring that young men about to take their station in society were well-
schooled in literature, history, philosophy, and other essential domains.
Humboldt saw the purpose of the university as the unbiased discovery of
knowledge.
Kerr points out that, while Newman’s and Humboldt’s views bring to
mind very romantic images of the university, neither is particularly com-
plete. Kerr coined the term “multiversity” to describe today’s university.
The multiversity has a myriad of purposes; a sampling of these purposes
includes researching plovers and other shorebirds; providing vocational
training for the next generation of accountants, tuba players, and jour-
nalists; informing key policy decisions regarding the economy and nutri-
tion; conducting research desired by external funders such as the military
and the National Institutes of Health (NIH); fielding a competitive foot-
ball team; currying favor with constituents who can provide or facilitate
financial support; maintaining rigorous academic standards; and deriving
income from services provided such as teaching hospitals.
Collini (2012) notes that these various purposes were added to the
university’s portfolio at different times in history, for different reasons,
6 E. W. MILES

and at the behest of different constituents. Therefore, it should come as

no surprise that many of these purposes are not synergistic while others
are overtly conflicting. For example, fielding a competitive football team
is frequently in conflict with maintaining rigorous academic standards.
Some of the business school critics seem to be implying that the
university-based business school has a singular purpose—in the tra-
dition of Newman (1996 [1859]) or Humboldt (c. 1809)—rather
than acknowledging Kerr’s (2001 [1963]) concept of the multiversity.
However, like the greater university, the university-based business school
has multiple purposes, and likewise, those purposes are not necessarily
synergistic. For example, the age-old debate about whether hiring fac-
ulty members who are productive researchers—but have never been
employed as (for example) accountants or financial analysts—conflicts
with providing the best training for future accountants or financial
analysts shows no sign of subsiding. Just as the greater university, the
­university-based business school has multiple purposes accepted at differ-
ent points in time, for the benefit of different valued constituents.
Most of the proposed purposes of the university-based business
school fall under the three headings outlined by Aristotle: (1) seeking
higher knowledge; (2) promoting the virtuous practice of business;
and (3) addressing topics that have utility to the practice of business.
Additionally, as Aristotle points out, there is also a lack of consensus on
the means to achieve any of those outcomes.
Proponents of the “seeking higher learning” purpose are following
Humboldt’s nineteenth-century vision of the mission of the university.
The goal of the university is to discover knowledge that is immune to
the biases of political, religious, or other outside influences. Specifically
applied to university-based business schools, this vision implies that
the business school should be engaged in the systematic understanding
and explaining of causality of phenomena in the domain of business.
A strictly Humboldtian view is that such a purpose is sufficient to justify
the existence of the business school. As a modified view, some current
business school faculty members would assert that seeking higher knowl-
edge is the means to informing effective practice in business rather than
singularly being an end in itself.
The systematic manner followed for the past half-century entails
approaching discovery of knowledge by the scientific method. Critics
of this approach are pessimistic that management and business can
 1 LET’S DON’T START HERE 7

be sufficiently understood in such a manner. These voices (e.g., Datar,

Garvin, & Cullen, 2010; Mintzberg, 1996; Simon, 1967; Spender,
2007, 2016; Witzel, 2017) view the practice of business management
to have a component that is unanalyzable “art” or “craft.” Such critics
assert that—unlike physics and chemistry—art or craft cannot be fully
understood by systematically unraveling and documenting phenomena
not yet understood. They see business and management as more aligned
with the professions of medicine, law, and engineering—rooted in objec-
tive study, but containing an unanalyzable element that is not purely
science. In that regard, this contingent sees the business school as a pro-
fessional school that trains entrants to a profession as do medical and
engineering schools (e.g., Bennis & O’Toole, 2005).
Critics of this position (e.g., Barker, 2010; Flexner, 1967 [1930])
assert that business is not a profession. Therefore, an extrapolation of
this assertion is that the business school logically cannot be a professional
school. As phrased by Augier and March (2011, p. 276), “Business
schools are professional schools by categorization edicts of North
American universities, but they do not train professionals as that term
is normally understood.” There are multiple reasons for the claim that
business is not a profession; one of the primary concerns (cf. Abbott,
1988) is that business does not assert a unique and exclusive claim to
an identifiable body of knowledge and the application of that knowledge
(e.g., as the dental profession asserts).
While I would concur with the claim that business does not unequiv-
ocally meet all of the criteria to be classified as a “profession,” I would
also point out that business and management act like a profession.
A professional provides expertise and services on a situation-specific basis
(Abbott, 1988; Hughes, 1963). For example, an orthopedic surgeon
must tell a patient whether she/he recommends knee replacement sur-
gery in that specific patient’s set of circumstances. An attorney recom-
mends specific actions for a specific client in a specific situation. Likewise,
a manager provides services on a situation-specific basis. The manager
decides budget allocations, hiring choices, and sales campaigns for spe-
cific organizations in specific situations.
These claims about potential purposes of the university-based business
school put us in an odd quandary. (1) One belief is that business schools
should be engaged in the systematic discovery of knowledge related to
business. (2) Another belief is that systematic discovery by a scientific
8 E. W. MILES

method is insufficient to provide an understanding of central phenomena

because a portion of those phenomena will not be understood through
scientific means. (3) Therefore, the business school should more appro-
priately be viewed as a professional school. (4) Business is not a pro-
fession; therefore, a business school logically cannot be a professional
school. (5) Although it may not be a profession, business and manage-
ment acts like a profession. (6) Although it may not be a professional
school, the university-based business school acts like it is.
The intent of my book is to unravel this quandary. What is the pur-
pose of the university-based business school? Parallel to Kerr’s (2001
[1963]) “multiversity,” a university-based business school has multiple
purposes. In that regard, the more appropriate question is: What are the
purposes of the business school? By what means should those purposes
be pursued? Where those purposes conflict, what should be the path
forward?

References
Abbott, A. (1988). The system of professions: An essay on the division of expert
labor. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Aristotle. (1885). Politics (B. Jowett, Trans.). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Augier, M., & March, J. G. (2011). The roots, rituals, and rhetorics of change:
North American business schools after the Second World War. Stanford: Stanford
Business Books.
Barker, R. (2010, July–August). No, management is not a profession. Harvard
Business Review, 88, 52–60.
Bennis, W. G., & O’Toole, J. (2005, May). How business schools lost their way.
Harvard Business Review, 83, 96–104.
Collini, S. (2012). What are universities for? London: Penguin Books.
Dameron, S., & Durand, T. (2011). Introduction: The story in short. In
S. Dameron & T. Durand (Eds.), Redesigning management education
and research: Challenging proposals from European scholars (pp. ix–xviii).
Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Datar, S. M., Garvin, D. A., & Cullen, P. G. (2010). Rethinking the MBA:
Business education at a crossroads. Boston: Harvard Business Press.
Flexner, A. (1967 [1930]). Universities: American, English, German. New York:
Teachers College Press, Columbia University.
Grey, C. (2004). Reinventing business schools: The contribution of critical man-
agement education. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 3(2),
178–186.
 1 LET’S DON’T START HERE 9

Gulati, R. (2007). Tent poles, tribalism, and boundary spanning: The rigor-
relevance debate in management research. Academy of Management Journal,
50(4), 775–782.
Hughes, E. C. (1963). Professions. Daedalus, 92(4), 655–668.
Kerr, C. (2001 [1963]). The uses of the university. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Khurana, R. (2007). From higher aims to hired hands: The social transformation of
American business schools and the unfulfilled promise of management as a profes-
sion. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Learmonth, M., Lockett, A., & Dowd, K. (2012). Promoting scholarship that
matters: The uselessness of useful research and the usefulness of useless
research. British Journal of Management, 23(1), 35–44.
Mintzberg, H. (1996, July–August). Musings on management: Ten ideas
designed to rile everyone who cares about management. Harvard Business
Review, 74, 61–67.
Mintzberg, H. (2004). Managers not MBAs: A hard look at the soft practice of
managing and management development. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Newman, J. H. (1996 [1859]) The idea of a university. New Haven: Yale
University Press.
Palmer, D., Dick, B., & Freiburger, N. (2009). Rigor and relevance in organiza-
tional studies. Journal of Management Inquiry, 18(4), 265–272.
Parker, M. (2018). Shut down the business school: What’s wrong with management
education. London: Pluto Press.
Pfeffer, J., & Fong, C. T. (2002). The end of business schools? Less success
than meets the eye. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 1(1),
78–95.
Podolny, J. M. (2009, June). The buck stops (and starts) at business school.
Harvard Business Review, 87, 62–67.
Rescher, N. (2000). Inquiry dynamics. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
Simon, H. A. (1967). The business school: A problem in organizational design.
Journal of Management Studies, 4(1), 1–16.
Spender, J. C. (2007). Management as a regulated profession: An essay. Journal
of Management Inquiry, 16(1), 32–42.
Spender, J. C. (2016, February 23). How management education’s past
shapes it present. BizEd. Retrieved from http://www.bizedmagazine.com/
archives/2016/2/features/how-management-education-past-shapes-present.
Thomas, H., & Wilson, A. D. (2011). ‘Physics envy’, cognitive legitimacy or
practical relevance: Dilemmas in the evolution of management research in the
UK. British Journal of Management, 22(3), 443–456.
Van de Ven, A. H., & Johnson, P. E. (2006). Nice try Bill, but…there you go
again. Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 830–832.
10 E. W. MILES

von Humboldt, W. (c. 1809). über die innere und äußere Organisation der
höheren wissenschaftlichen Anstalten zu Berlin (On the spirit of and the
organizational framework of intellectual institutions in Berlin). Minerva, 8(1),
242–250 (Translated by E. Shils [1970]).
Witzel, M. (2017). A history of management thought (2nd ed.). London:
Routledge.
Wolf, J., & Rosenberg, T. (2012). How individual scholars can reduce the rig-
or-relevance gap in management research. Business Research, 5(2), 178–196.
 CHAPTER 2

Shifting Emphases Among Aristotle’s

Criteria: Two Key Historical Occurrences

Abstract Applying criteria originating from Aristotle to university-based

business schools indicates three emphases: (1) seeking higher learning;
(2) promoting the virtuous practice of business; and (3) addressing top-
ics that have utility for the effective practice of business. Two occur-
rences in the history of business schools are noteworthy because they
made attempts to establish or shift the degree to which these three cri-
teria were emphasized. The first event was the founding of the first US
business school at the University of Pennsylvania. The second event was
mid-twentieth-century “soul-searching” by US business schools culmi-
nating in the release in 1959 of reports by the Carnegie Foundation and
the Ford Foundation.

Keywords Ford Foundation · Carnegie Foundation · Principal-agent

theory · Joseph Wharton

Applying Aristotle’s criteria to university-based business schools indicates

three emphases: (1) seeking higher learning; (2) promoting the virtuous
practice of business; and (3) addressing topics that have utility for the
effective practice of business. Two occurrences in the history of business
schools are noteworthy because they made attempts to establish or shift
the degree to which each of the three criteria was emphasized.

© The Author(s) 2019 11

E. W. Miles, The Purpose of the Business School,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15781-4_2
12 E. W. MILES

The First US University-Based Business School

Although it can certainly be debated, most observers (e.g., Bok, 2015;
Daniel, 1998; Khurana, 2007; Marshall, 1928; Pierson, 1959) view
the Wharton School of Finance and Economy at the University of
Pennsylvania as the first business school established in the USA. The
year was 1881, and the advocate was Joseph Wharton, a successful busi-
nessperson from an established Philadelphia family. Mr. Wharton had a
vision that

drew upon the prestige of science, the professions, and the university itself
in arguing that management could be conceived as a science and trans-
formed into a profession on the model of the “high” professions of med-
icine, law, and divinity, which had all been part of the Western university
from its medieval origins. (Khurana & Penrice, 2011, pp. 31–32)

This vision encompassed all three of Aristotle’s criteria—higher learn-

ing, virtue, and useful in life. Wharton desired a school whose graduates
would see business in the greater social context and would conduct busi-
ness in a socially responsible manner.
After the Wharton School, the number of business schools in the
USA mushroomed so quickly that historian Carter Daniel (1998) labe-
led the exponential growth as one of the most important occurrences in
American higher education of the twentieth century. However, the abil-
ity to deliver on all three of Aristotle’s criteria was questioned almost
from the very beginning. The University of Pennsylvania 1885 yearbook
was direct and unequivocal in alleging that the Wharton School was “for
those who find the arts too severe” (cited in Daniel, 1998, p. 29). Some
respected scholars of the early twentieth century (e.g., Flexner, 1967
[1930]; Veblen, 1918) were quite adamant that business was not a legit-
imate domain of study and, therefore, could make no claims to higher
learning with a legitimate home in the university. Voices from outside the
university also were skeptical; for example, in a New Republic article enti-
tled “The College of Money Changing,” Ayres (1925, p. 280) asserted
that business is not a legitimate profession because it has no identifiable
body of knowledge.
Khurana (2007) concludes that Wharton’s vision of business schools
producing graduates who will see business in its greater social context
and conduct business as a higher calling such as medicine or law has
 2 SHIFTING EMPHASES AMONG ARISTOTLE’S CRITERIA … 13

not materialized. Khurana (p. 364) attributes this failure to the business
school’s acceptance of principal-agent theory as the primary interpreta-
tion of the manager’s role.

Instead of being responsible to multiple stakeholders for the long-term

well-being of the corporation, managers were now said to be responsible
only to shareholders, a group whose composition changed continually and
that was focused entirely on short-term gains. Meanwhile, business school
professors instructed thousands of students and executives on how to use
financial engineering tools, like leverage and stock options, to align corpo-
rate actions with the goal of maximizing shareholder value.

Such a view of the role of business schools leads Parker (2018, p. ix) to
conclude that the business school promotes the mindset “that the pur-
pose of learning about taxation laws [for example] is to evade taxation.”
Because of the principal-agent view, Starkey and Tempest (2005, p. 65)
assert that “The business school is charged with teaching in a moral and
cultural vacuum.”
Part of the challenge in desiring that business schools impart what
Aristotle characterized as “virtue” is that the greater university accepts no
common definition of virtue. In Newman’s (1996 [1859]) time, the uni-
versity was closely linked to the church and therefore shared the church’s
common vision of virtue. Therefore, it was possible for universities to be
the repository of society’s culture because there was a set of common
beliefs regarding that culture. As the university jettisoned its linkages to
the church, no common definition of virtue or society’s culture has been
possible (Lucas, 1996; Readings, 1996). Therefore, universities—and
university-based business schools—being able to inculcate the mindset of
acting in the interest of the greater society is a shaky proposition. Bok
(2015, p. 286) questions whether any professional school can accomplish
this task:

It is less certain whether law professors will discover how to help their stu-
dents acquire greater ethical judgment and a firmer commitment to fur-
thering the ideals of their profession and the interests of society. On this
score, they face the same challenge as professors of medicine and busi-
ness….Teaching ethics to students is one thing; giving them the ideals and
strengthening their character are much more difficult. Whether any profes-
sional school can accomplish such feats remains an open question.
14 E. W. MILES

In drawing from the medical school context, Bosk (1979, p. 60) quotes
one clinical professor of surgery as declaring, “Look, I could teach a
gorilla to operate in six months, but I can’t teach honesty and respon-
sibility. It’s the people who have these qualities who make outstanding
surgeons.”
Krooss and Drucker (1969, p. 22) suggest that one appropriate
role for the business school is to be a critic of business—the arbiter of
Aristotle’s principle of virtue as it relates to the practice of business. This
line of thinking would suggest that, if business is not acting responsi-
bly in the interest of the greater society, business school voices should be
leading the charge in making this case to the greater population. With
their tremendous critical mass of intellectual ability, analytical skills, and
insight, business schools should have predicted the banking meltdown
of 2009 as a “house of cards” that was not sustainable and should have
sounded the alarm before that “house” collapsed (cf. Elliott, 2017).
Regrettably, the current orientation of the twenty-first-century universi-
ty-based business school (Khurana, 2007) has made performing the role
of critic unlikely.
Some critics of business schools (not to be confused with critics of
business) would say that not sounding the alarm before 2009 is more
evidence that university-based business schools are “fiddling while Rome
burns” (e.g., Tourish, 2017). Of course, such an interpretation implies
that Aristotle’s principle of promoting the virtuous practice of business is
indeed a strongly accepted purpose of the business school, which is cer-
tainly in doubt (Khurana, 2007; Podolny, 2009).

Mid-Twentieth-Century Shift
A common attitude in the early twentieth century (e.g., Flexner, 1967
[1930]; Veblen, 1918) was that the business school was an illegitimate
interloper in the university. By that point in time, the Humboldtian
view (Humboldt, c. 1809) was common: The purpose of the univer-
sity was the unbiased pursuit of knowledge. Flexner was quite adamant
that business had no identifiable base of knowledge and was not even a
profession. By contrast, medical schools were welcome in the university
because they were based on identifiable academic disciplines such as anat-
omy, physiology, pharmacology, and organic chemistry. As part of their
curriculum, medical students were taught these underlying disciplines. A
common belief of the time—often quite accurate—was that, having no
 2 SHIFTING EMPHASES AMONG ARISTOTLE’S CRITERIA … 15

strong connection to underlying disciplines, business schools were focus-

ing almost exclusively on Aristotle’s criterion of teaching the principles of
effective practice of business.
Of course, if a domain is not rooted in objective, identifiable disci-
plines, it is rather questionable what the basis of these alleged principles
of effective practice was. After World War II, business schools began to
wrestle with this question (Augier & March, 2011; Daniel, 1998; Datar
et al., 2010; Hugstad, 1983). Daniel (p. 142) quotes speakers at 1946
AACSB meetings who realized that these bases needed to be clarified.
The dean of the business school at Columbia University was very candid:

But what are these fundamentals? What qualifications make for compe-
tence in the careers for which we train? Frankly, I do not know, and can
think of no one who does. But it is high time we found out.

The University of Southern California’s dean concluded that “We should

develop as rapidly as possible a body of recognized standard concepts.”
Particularly in a university context—where explaining and predicting
phenomena are highly valued—admitting that one’s school is based on
the knowledge that has not been identified and codified is a precarious
position to hold.
This period of soul-searching for university-based business schools
culminated in two unflattering reports on the state of business education
in the USA being released in 1959. One was sponsored by the Carnegie
Foundation (Pierson, 1959) and the other by the Ford Foundation
(Gordon & Howell, 1959). Although prepared independently, the two
reports reached quite similar conclusions. Some of the most relevant
ones for our current discussion were:

1. Business school students had less academic ability than students in

other units of the university.
2. The proportion of business school faculty with terminal degrees
was less than the university proportion. There was over-dependence
on adjunct and part-time faculty.
3. The intellectual atmosphere of business schools compared unfa-
vorably to other academic units of the university. In part, the
dependence on part-time instructors resulted in a faculty that was
not trained in, had little interest in, and did not energetically pur-
sue research.
16 E. W. MILES

As phrased by Gordon and Howell (p. 6), “What passes as the going
standard of acceptability among business schools is embarrassingly low,
and many schools of business do not meet even these low standards.”
Additionally, because the time was 1959, Pierson was quite concerned
that, with the imminent university entry of the larger “baby boom”
generation, enrollment increases would occur, and the situation would
worsen if no corrective action were taken.
Again, the 1959 foundation reports did not occur in isolation (Daniel,
1998; Hugstad, 1983; Khurana, 2007). They were part of a discussion
that had been occurring for over 15 years. However, they were a cata-
lyst in bringing about changes that still influence business schools today.
Additionally, the Ford Foundation provided financial support to facilitate
implementation of changes that it advocated. Khurana (2007, p. 238)
estimates that amount at over $35 million (over $200 million in 2019
dollars).
The response of business schools was multifaceted, but one key ele-
ment was to move toward a full-time faculty of Ph.D.-qualified scholars
who did embrace the value of research and were able to conduct rig-
orous research. As admonished by Gordon and Howell (1959, p. 377),
“if the business school belongs in the university, then research belongs
in the business school.” Business schools that wanted to make this shift
in faculty had a fortuitous windfall opportunity caused partially by the
influx of the baby boom generation into the university student ranks.
Between 1959 and 1979, the USA saw an unprecedented threefold
growth in university enrollments—from 3.6 million in 1959 to 11.6
million in 1979 (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2012). This
threefold increase occurred in the UK during that same time window
as well (Bolton, 2012). Because growth in student body necessitates
growth in faculty, many universities used this growth as an opportunity
to recruit a different profile of business school faculty that embraced the
values of a research culture more than the previous generation. Within a
“faculty generation,” many business schools achieved faculties that were
serious and enthusiastic about conducting research and had the train-
ing to do so in a manner the university generally viewed as sufficiently
rigorous.
Of course, we get plenty of business school criticisms in the
twenty-first century (e.g., Bennis & O’Toole, 2005; Parker, 2018;
Pfeffer & Fong, 2002; Podolny, 2009). However, one difference
today—compared to 1959—is that many of the criticisms seem to be
 2 SHIFTING EMPHASES AMONG ARISTOTLE’S CRITERIA … 17

ignored by business schools that continue forward with “business school

as usual.” As phrased by Pfeffer and Fong (p. 89):

Although much of the foregoing argument may at first glance appear to be

controversial or provocative, in fact it is neither—the problems are at once
well recognized and simply not frequently acknowledged or discussed.

The primary damning factor of these 1959 reports—and the reason they
were not ignored in the same way Pfeffer and Fong’s concerns have fre-
quently been ignored—was that they were written by academics who
questioned the legitimacy of the business school within the university.
Accusing the business school of not accepting the research values of
the university was accusing it of being an illegitimate interloper in the
university.
A key (though certainly not singular) outcome of the mid-century
soul-searching by business schools was that they moved to a closer align-
ment with the values and preferences of the university. This movement
was accompanied with a movement away from being attentive to the
values and preferences of business. In terms of the criteria we drew ear-
lier from Aristotle, the business school of the mid-century and prior was
focused primarily on addressing topics that had utility for the practice of
business. After changes that resulted from having their legitimacy within
the university questioned, business schools shifted toward a stronger
focus on the criterion of seeking higher learning. Any university-based
professional school is pulled between the preferences of the profession
and the preferences of the university (Augier & March, 2011; Bok,
2015; Burrage, 2006); since the mid-twentieth century, the universi-
ty-based business school has moved closer to the preferences of the uni-
versity and further away from the preferences of business.

Summary
The vision of Joseph Wharton was to value all three of the emphases
identified by Aristotle. Although Wharton envisioned business school
graduates who would promote the virtuous practice of business taking
the greater social context in consideration, Khurana (2007) ­concludes
that such is a “failed” and “abandoned” initiative. Early business
schools placed significant emphasis on addressing topics that had utility
to the practice of business. However, since the mid-twentieth century,
18 E. W. MILES

business schools have moved toward embracing higher learning over

immediate utility to the practice of business.
Criticisms from the 1950s resonated within the university because they
accused the business school of not embracing the preferences of the uni-
versity. Criticisms of the twenty-first century do not resonate strongly
within the university because these voices are saying that business schools
have chosen the preferences of the university over the preferences of
business. In the mindset of the university, this choice is not problematic.

References
Augier, M., & March, J. G. (2011). The roots, rituals, and rhetorics of change:
North American business schools after the Second World War. Stanford: Stanford
Business Books.
Ayres, C. E. (1925, February 4). The college of money changing: II. Is business
a profession? The New Republic, 41, 280–283.
Bennis, W. G., & O’Toole, J. (2005, May). How business schools lost their way.
Harvard Business Review, 83, 96–104.
Bok, D. (2015). Higher education in America (Rev ed.). Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Bolton, P. (2012). Education: Historical statistics. House of Commons Library.
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN04252/
SN04252.pdf.
Bosk, C. L. (1979). Forgive and remember: Managing medical failure. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Burrage, M. (2006). Revolution and the making of the contemporary legal profes-
sion: England, France, and the United States. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Daniel, C. A. (1998). MBA: The first century. Lewisburg, PA: Bucknell
University Press.
Datar, S. M., Garvin, D. A., & Cullen, P. G. (2010). Rethinking the MBA:
Business education at a crossroads. Boston: Harvard Business Press.
Elliott, L. (2017, December 17). Heretics welcome! Economics needs a
new reformation. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/business/
2017/dec/17/heretics-welcome-economics-needs-a-new-reformation.
Accessed January 22, 2018.
Flexner, A. (1967 [1930]). Universities: American, English, German. New York:
Teachers College Press, Columbia University.
Gordon, R. A., & Howell, J. H. (1959). Higher education for business. New
York: Columbia University Press.
Hugstad, P. S. (1983). The business school in the 1980s: Liberalism versus vocation-
alism. New York: Praeger Publishers.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
Emir Ikenukhen, 244, 504, 505

Fabu, 67
Fafa, 194, 197, 250, 379
Faguibine, Lake, 33
Faidherbe, General, 17, 24, 352, 500
Fandu, 314, 316
Fanta, 380
Farca, 268, 270, 272, 273
Farimake, 372
Fatimata Azzer’a, 237
Faure, Felix, President, 176
Festing, Major, 474-477, 481, 482, 487, 490
Fily or Fili Kanté, 97, 304, 333, 337, 340, 469, 480
Fituka, 316
Flatters, 114, 145, 244, 391
Flint, Mr., 490
Fogne, 443
Fonssagrives, 458, 474
Footah, 66, 280, 352
Forcades, The, 495
Forcados, 492, 495
Forgo, 164
Fort Archinard, 39, 298, 302, 306, 317, 320-325, 332-337, 339, 344, 348, 356,
360, 371, 387, 392, 398-400, 403, 508
Fort Arenberg or Taubman-Goldie, 470, 471, 473
Fort Goree, 21
Froger, Naval-Ensign, 7
Fulahs or Peuls, the, 3, 65, 75, 78, 129, 166, 181, 194, 202, 251, 271, 280,
309, 312, 314, 316, 325, 351, 352, 359, 362, 363, 368, 379, 386, 394, 396,
408, 422, 436, 454
Futanis, the, 406, 408, 411, 426
Futankés, the, 282, 290, 385, 406

Gaberos, the, 181, 315, 316, 382, 384

Gabibi, the, 216
Gagno, 422
Galam, 496
Gallieni, Colonel, 67, 284, 500
Gambia, the, 6
Gando, 428, 429, 438, 454
Gao or Garo, 165-167, 268, 279, 506, 507
Gao-Wâdy, 242, 243
Garafiri, 462, 467
Garama, 166
Garamantes, the, 166
Gardio, 140
Garnier, Francis, 511
Gauthiot, M., 36, 37, 170
Geba, 471-476, 481, 486
Geigelia, 93
Gheres, 237
Gherinecha, 237, 238
Gilua, 439
Giraudon, M. de, 352
Girris, 427-429, 435
Gober or Sinder, 207, 313, 507
Gomba, 433, 436, 437
Goruberi, 411, 414, 420, 424
Gorubi, 412
Gourma, 316, 317, 328
Grodet, M., 20, 28, 32, 289
Grunner, Dr , 428, 438
Guadjibo or Badjibo, 470, 471, 473, 476
Guinina, 67
Gumba, 405
Gundam, 129
Gungi, 134, 136, 140
Guni, 62
Gurao, 74, 77, 334
Gurienisi, the, 325
Gurma, 354, 366, 387

Ha, 163
Habés, the, 367
Habibulaye, 78, 80, 81
Hacquart, Father, 83, 87, 94, 97, 103, 107, 118, 136, 145, 156-158, 172-174,
258, 272, 278, 279, 283, 290, 303, 324, 338, 340, 341, 351, 398, 427, 430,
432, 510
Hadji Hamet, 427, 428, 430, 432, 435
Hamadi, 80, 87, 89
Hamda-Allahi, 76, 78, 314, 365
Hameit, a sheriff, 104, 135, 140
Hamma Tansa, 392
Hanotaux, Commandant, 228
Haussa, 222, 325, 381, 395, 411, 429, 430, 439, 482
Hoggars, the, 81, 114, 136, 144-146, 231, 244-246
Hombori, 367, 373
Hugo, 282-284, 393

Ibnu, 118, 119

Ibrahim, 155, 161, 397
Ibrahim Bubakar, 342
Ibrahim Galadio, 288, 312-314, 351, 360, 362-367, 371, 372, 382
Idris, 192, 194
Ifoghas, the, 190, 192, 241
Igga, 440, 454, 479, 485
Igharghar, 243
Igwadaren, the, 91, 104, 106, 116-135, 142-145, 148, 209, 217, 240
Ihaggaren, the, 144, 215, 225, 227, 230, 231, 240, 249
Ikum, 440
Ilo, 426, 430, 431, 434-437, 474
Ioraghen, the, 129
Iregnaten, the, 129
Issa, 434
Issa-Ber, 33

Jenné, 52, 73, 96, 352

Jesero, 438
Joffre, Colonel, 33
Joliba or Upper Niger, 5
Jouenne, Dr., 8

Kabara, 81, 83, 90, 91, 93, 102, 121

Kagha, 90, 100, 107, 108, 174
Kaheide, 30
Kale, 392
Kambaris, the, 440
Kandji, 462
Kardieba, 127, 148
Karma, 281, 282, 313, 414
Karu, 251, 257
Kayes, 27, 30, 38, 39, 41, 49, 73, 476, 500
Kebbi, 317, 377, 409, 411, 413, 439
Kel Ahara, the, 238, 240, 241
Kel Air, the, 168, 177, 180
Kel Antassar, the, 33, 103, 118, 125
Kel Avis, the, 192
Kel Es Suk, the, 104, 121, 136, 162, 182-186, 207, 208, 217, 269, 270
Kel Gheres, the, 231, 237, 243, 246, 282
Kel Gossi, the, 100, 101, 107, 241
Kel Kumeden, the, 238, 240, 241
Kel Owi, the, 122, 142, 143
Kel Tedjiuane, the, 238, 240, 241
Kel Temulai, the, 102, 104, 106-110, 114, 173, 209, 375
Kendadji, 265, 438
Kibtachi, 296, 313, 381-384, 403, 405
Kieka-Sanké, 62-64
Kisira, 445
Kita, 9, 50, 51, 54, 408
Koa, 100
Kokoro, 276
Kolikoro, 8, 12, 22, 52-59, 62, 63, 73
Koly Mody, 373
Kompa, 282, 405-408, 411, 417, 420, 424
Kongu, 124
Konnari, 394
Konotasi, 462, 467
Koridjuga, 62
Koriomé, 8, 81
Koyraberos, the, 306, 309, 311, 323, 324, 361, 381, 508
Kpatachi, 462
Kuka, 491
Kunari, 373
Kundji, 438
Kunta, 108
Kuntas, the, 77, 81, 87-91, 100-103, 105, 106, 140, 141, 146, 152, 172, 177
Kurteyes, the, 181, 268, 271, 274, 278, 282, 316, 326, 382, 393, 425, 434, 435
Kutkuole, 282
Kutungu, 265

Labezenga, 193, 252, 257, 260, 261, 264, 370, 406

Lamothe, M. de, 23, 27
Lander, Richard, 472
Lankafu, 438
Laperrine, Captain, 145
Larba, 312
Lat-Dior, 23
Lavigerie, Mgr., 84
Leba, 453, 456, 457, 470, 471, 473, 476
Lefort, Sub-lieutenant, 8
Lemta or Lemtuma, 204, 240
Liptako, 372
Logomaten, the, 218, 242, 252, 270, 312
Lokodja, 344, 473, 475, 479, 480-485, 488

M’Pal, 23
Ma, 55, 56
Mabrok, 90
Madani, 292
Madecali, 420, 423-426, 434
Mademba Seye, 66-69, 71, 73
Madidu, Chief of the Awellimiden, 104-107, 136, 154, 155, 164-168, 170-180,
183, 192, 194-196, 217, 219, 240, 247, 265, 266, 271, 277, 286, 312, 368,
372, 382, 387, 426
Madunia, 102, 112
Mage, The, 9, 10, 74
Malet, Sir Edward, 10, 413
Malinke, the, 54
Malo, 277
Mamadu, 97
Mamé, 96, 97, 109, 259, 260, 263, 434
Manambugu, 8, 9, 52
Mandao, Osmane, 17, 26
Marchand, 36, 38
Marka, 274
Massala, 56
Massenya, 1
Massina, 8, 280, 312, 314, 316, 353, 367, 371, 372, 386, 394, 405
Matam, 30
Matar Samba, 87, 95
Mattei, Commandant, 483, 484, 488
Mauri, 313, 377, 413
Maussinissa, 202
Milali, 107
Mizon, 451, 470, 482
Modibo Konna, 394, 396, 397
Mohamed Askia, 165
Mohamed ben Eddain, 208
Mohamed Uld Mbirikat, 118, 121-123, 127, 130, 134, 136, 140
Mohammed ben Abdallah, 88, 201
Mohammed Djebbo, 385
Monteil, Colonel, 6, 7, 11, 17, 285, 360, 412, 413, 421
Mopti, 34, 140, 386, 394, 405
Mores, 474
Morning Star, The, 472
Morocco, 144, 204, 208, 209, 216
Mosi, 216
Mossi, 39, 65, 66, 316, 325, 353, 354, 373, 375, 377-379
Mount Davoust, 440
Mount Delagarde, 440
Mount Kolikoro, 56, 57
Mount Tondibi, 163
Moyadikoira, 147
Mumi, 386, 387
Mungo Park, 5, 6, 9, 165, 439, 500
Mussa, 97, 337
Mycenæ, 118

Naba of Wagadugu, 378

Nabi Mussa or Mises, 375
Namantugu Mame, 412
Neschrun, 185, 186
Ngiti-Sokoto, the, 243
Ngouna, 33
Ngubi-Sokoto, the, 437
N’Guna, 103, 105
Niger, the, 2, 5-14, 17, 18, 22, 23, 32, 33, 36-39, 42, 44, 52, 54, 56, 72-74, 78,
82, 84, 94, 96, 99, 101, 105, 116, 128, 129, 142, 146, 152, 157, 160, 163,
165-168, 176, 182, 185, 191, 193, 202, 209, 210, 242, 243, 262, 263, 269,
271, 273, 279, 281, 289, 290, 294, 295, 298, 314, 334, 344, 350, 353, 368,
386, 393, 404, 405-408, 411-415, 421, 440, 453, 458, 460, 464, 470, 472,
477, 483, 488, 492, 493, 495, 498, 499, 504, 507, 508, 510
Niger, The, 9, 10, 74
Nigotte, Captain, 218
Nigritian, The, 479
Nikki, 474
Nioro, 68, 100, 280, 282, 312, 313, 316
Niugui, 372
Nuhu, 8
Nupé, 477
Nupé, The, 490

Olinda, The, 495

Onitcha, 490
Osman, 277, 306-308, 325, 327, 353, 368, 376-378, 384-386, 389, 391
Osterman, 59
Othman dan Fodio, 78, 395
Oursi Beli, 243

Patanis, the, 452, 470, 491

Pontoise, 298
Porto Novo, 495
Port Said, 484
Prince de Polignac, 197
Pullo Sidibé or Khalifa, 306-308, 351, 360, 363, 364, 368, 376, 382, 386

Rabba, 378, 476, 477

R’abbas, 109, 112
Raha, 436
R’alif, 109, 112
R’alli, 121-125, 138-140
Regard, Captain, 218
Reichala, daughter of Madidu, 219
Rejou, M., Commandant, 83, 89, 90
René Caillie, The, 470
Rhâdames, 197, 244, 505
Rhat, 207, 278
Rhergo, 102, 107, 114, 116, 118, 119
Ribago, The, 479, 485, 487, 490
Richardson, 505
Rimaibes, the, 316
R’isa, 237
Rocher, M. Du, 23
Rufisque, 22
Rupia, 440-442, 451

Saga, 283, 328

Sahara, the, 8, 82, 136, 160, 204
Said, 89
St. Louis, 17, 22-27, 39, 67, 281, 352, 496
Sakhaui or Sarrawi, 90, 91, 104, 116, 118, 131, 134, 138, 144, 145
Sakhib, 104, 126-128, 130, 131, 134, 135, 147
Saldé, 30
Salla Uld Kara, 88, 104, 149-155, 161
Samba Demba, 300, 337, 338, 468
Samba Laobé, 23, 319
Samba Sumaré, 123
Samory, 54, 67, 299, 301, 310, 313, 314, 330, 331, 377
Sansanding, 66-69, 72-74, 87
Sansan-Haussa, 191, 278, 306, 377
Saraféré, 78
Sarankeni, 331
Sarayamo, 367
Saredina, 74-76, 140, 141
Sarracolais, the, 27, 28, 96, 274, 300, 316, 496,
Satoni, 269, 270
Sauzereau, 38, 39, 41, 59
Say, 32, 74, 75, 96, 99, 174, 180, 219, 240, 250, 274, 277, 280, 282, 285, 289,
290, 293-297, 299, 300, 306-308, 310-328, 333-335, 337, 347, 351, 352,
356, 358, 363, 365-369, 372, 375-378, 381, 384-390, 397, 405, 406, 413,
422, 437, 439, 474, 476, 479, 499, 508
Seba, 450
Sego, 37, 39, 52, 64, 66, 68, 78, 98, 301, 312, 314
Senegal, the, 4, 6, 7, 17, 27, 44, 66, 97, 274, 280, 316, 317, 334, 381, 482,
496, 504, 507
Senegambia, 23, 24
Senussis, the, 201
Sergoe, 377, 388
Serki Kebbi, 378, 406, 409, 411-413, 421
Sidi Alluata, 79, 80, 100-103, 107
Sidibés, the, 316, 361, 382-384
Sidi el Amin, 146
Sidi Hamet, 89-91, 100, 117, 118, 120-122, 127, 148, 149, 151, 153
Sidi Hamet Beckay, 74-77, 79-81, 88, 101, 105, 121, 129, 140, 141, 146, 153-
155, 184
Sidi Moktar, 79, 105
Sidi Okha, 78
Sikasso, 330
Silla, 5
Sillabés, the, 274, 316, 382, 392
Sinder, 180, 207, 218, 266, 269, 272-275, 278, 283, 312, 316
Skobeleff, General, 262
Sokkoto, The, 483
Sokoto, 75, 174, 313, 372, 377, 395, 412, 413, 484
Somangoro, 54-57
Songhay, 96, 109, 161, 163-166, 182, 191-194, 202, 208, 209, 216, 217, 274,
306, 309, 312, 316, 324, 325, 351, 354, 430
Soninkés, the, 54-56, 71, 100, 274
Sorbo, 278, 281, 282
Soule, 423-425
Spahis, the, 23, 319
Stanley, 504
Sudan, the, 7, 14, 19, 22, 32, 37, 43, 49, 50, 52, 67-69, 79, 81, 82, 138, 172,
201, 210, 213, 252, 273, 284, 300, 336, 337, 345, 372, 411, 417, 441, 505
Sudan, The, 475
Sudan, French, 6, 17, 34, 38, 42, 44, 51, 77, 100, 126, 138, 210, 273, 299, 373,
451, 488, 489, 503
Sudan, Western, 76, 100, 165, 166, 193, 406, 498
Suleyman Foutanke, 280, 281, 290, 323, 352, 357, 381, 399, 400, 416, 430
Suleyman Gundiamu, 41, 95, 286, 287, 292, 329, 331, 373, 397, 430, 483
Sultan of Fez, 208
Sultan of Segu, 37, 314
Sundiata, 47, 54, 56
Surgu, 202

Taburet, Dr., 38, 52, 58, 60, 87, 94, 97, 118, 123, 134, 135, 158, 277, 278, 281,
290, 303, 327, 328, 332, 333, 338, 348, 393, 416-419, 474, 476, 484, 486,
510
Tacubaos, the, 218
Taddemekka, 182, 207
Tademeket, the, 104, 131, 148, 152, 154-158, 160-162, 168, 170, 201, 241,
269
Tahar, 121, 140
Talibia, 296-298, 360, 379, 381, 387, 388
Ta-Masheg or Tamschek, 109, 173, 202, 220, 222, 226, 228, 229, 509
Tankisso, 404
Tarik, 203
Tarka, 203
Tarkai-Tamut, 203
Tayoro, 394-398
Tchad, Lake, 28, 165, 247, 352, 372, 507
Tchakatchi, 438-440, 499
Tedian Diarra, 358
Tenda, 414-416, 420-424, 430, 447
Tenger Eguedeche, the, 162-164, 168, 170
Tenguereguif, the, 173, 209, 218
Thies, 23
Tieba, 330, 331
Tillé, 389
Timbuktu, 7, 8, 32, 33, 41, 69, 73, 75, 78-84, 87-91, 98, 102, 103, 106, 114-
120, 122, 126, 129, 130, 134, 136, 138, 142, 148, 245, 273, 279, 288, 309,
331, 335, 344, 351, 352, 368, 369, 427, 473, 495, 498, 499, 507
Tinalschiden, 149
Tintellust, 207
Tioko, 372
Togoland, 428
Tolimandio, 52
Tombuttu, 423, 424
Torodi, 312, 313, 315, 382, 384
Toron, 54
Tosaye or Sala Koira, 88, 89, 104, 128, 131, 148-153, 158, 162, 201, 219
Toucouleurs, the, 3, 8, 41, 62, 63, 66, 67, 73, 75, 76, 79, 105, 129, 130, 140,
152, 209, 218, 271, 279-282, 284, 285, 287-290, 299, 304, 312-314, 360,
382, 384, 386-393, 397, 405, 411, 414, 417, 419, 423
Toutée, Captain, 266, 269, 272, 273, 278, 282, 286, 290, 447, 457, 470
Towdeyni, 83
Trentinian, Colonel de, 34, 38, 138
Tripoli, 216, 505
Tuaregs, the, 8, 18, 33, 37, 65, 75, 78-80, 84, 88, 89, 98, 100, 101, 104, 106,
108, 114, 119-134, 138, 142, 144, 149-178, 182, 189-194, 197, 199-249,
251, 256, 257, 266, 269, 270-273, 275, 283, 307, 312, 315, 351, 368, 372,
379, 383, 388, 394, 397, 434, 470, 505-506, 509
Tuat, 78, 79, 81, 88, 216, 310
Tumaré, 268

Ubangi, the, 11
Uro Galadio, 37

Vermesch, 285
Vinet-Laprade, 24

Wadalen, the, 242

Wagadugu, 373, 375
Wagniaka, 372, 394
Wagobés, the, 269, 270, 272, 274, 316, 377
Walaldé, 30
Wali, 48
Wallace, Mr., 474, 475, 479, 480, 485, 490
Wari, 12, 491-494
Watagunu, 251
Wemé, the, 358
Wolof, 96, 280, 282, 320

Yakare, 71
Yangbassu, 458
Yauri, 377, 439
Yemen, 78
Yoba, 368
Yola, 479, 482
Yuli, 382
Yunes, 104, 156, 219
Yusuf Osman, 281, 282

Zarhoi, 122, 126, 139, 144

 Richard Clay & Sons, Limited, London & Bungay.

FOOTNOTES:

[1]A popular French dance.—Trans.

[2]The translator thinks it best to give the actual words of this
celebrated despatch, which caused so much excitement at the
time.
[3]A griot is a superior negro, who acts as interpreter, etc.—
Trans.
[4]Bamana Dankun had replied to Monson who had called him,
“I will come; when I have finished the sacrifices I am offering, I will
come.” Hence the anger of the Fama.
[5]I have failed to ascertain the meaning of the word Jaribata.
The griots sometimes use words in their songs, which the present
natives of Bambara do not themselves understand, and which
may perhaps be survivals of a now extinct language.
[6]The singular of Ihaggaren is Ahaggar, and of Imrad, Amrid.
[7]It will be understood that the translations in the English text
of the free translations of the originals can only give an
approximate idea of the poems quoted.—Trans.
[8]These are the slang names for members of the secret police
in France.—Trans.
[9]I make a special point of the exact situation of Farca.
Captain Toutée says in a note to his book on Dahomey, the Niger,
and the Tuaregs, that he believed it to be much nearer Timbuktu,
but he had not taken any astronomical observations, and he had
made a mistake of a day in his journal. This rectification will
appear somewhat tardy after the articles published on his return
in the newspapers, and in the Bulletin of the Comité de L’Afrique
française, which led to its being supposed that Farca is on the
outskirts of the last French post in the Sudan. Had this been so,
the results of our expedition would have been greatly minimized.
Suum cuique.
 On the subject of the recognition of the French protectorate by
the people of Farca, there must have been, to say the least, a
very great error of interpretation. Our readers have been able to
discover for themselves that unfortunately French influence does
not extend so far. Indeed, the hostile attitude of the people of
Sinder, who are the relations and feudal superiors of those of
Farca, and who attacked Captain Toutée, would have been
enough to prove it without anything else.
[10]The occupation of Say is now an accomplished fact, and
Amadu has fled in a north-westerly direction; but the French must
be more than ever careful to be on their guard against his forces,
aided by those of the Emir of Sokoto. We must be especially on
the watch against offensive action on the part of Samory, for does
not a certain section of the English press talk of arming and
rousing against us that monster in human form who under pretext
of a holy war is responsible for the destruction of thousands of his
fellow-creatures?
[11]Louis Blanc, ‘Histoire de Dix Ans.’ The sentence quoted is
quite untranslatable, but “We don’t care a rap for you,” perhaps
fairly represents it.—Trans.
[12]I must add that of the 373 miles of railway that I ask for,
125 are already made, and are in full work, so that the worst
difficulties are overcome.
 Transcriber's note:

pg 120 Changed: of the Tauregs to: Tuaregs

pg 121 Changed: letter from Sakhuai to: Sakhaui
pg 200 Changed: the Tauregs alone to: Tuaregs
pg 428 Changed: In is, in fact to: It is
pg 516 Changed: Galan to: Galam
Other spelling inconsistencies have been left unchanged.
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK FRENCH
ENTERPRISE IN AFRICA ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions

will be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S.

copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright
in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and
distribute it in the United States without permission and without
paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General
Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and
distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the
PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project
Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if
you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the
trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the
Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is
very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such
as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and
printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in
the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright
law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially
commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
 PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the

free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this
work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase
“Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of
the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or
online at www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and

Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand,
agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual
property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to
abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using
and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for
obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™
electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms
of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only

be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by
people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.
There are a few things that you can do with most Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the
full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There
are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™
electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and
help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.