THE JOSIP JURAJ STROSSMAYER UNIVERSITY OF OSIJEK, FACULTY OF ECONOMICS IN OSIJEK -

CROATIA HOCHSCHULE PFORZHEIM UNIVERSITY

INTERDISCIPLINARY MANAGEMENT RESEARCH VIII INTERDISZIPLINARE MANAGEMENTFORSCHUNG VIII

Opatija2012.Published by:Josip Juraj Strossmayer University in Osijek, Faculty of Economics in Osijek, Croatia Postgraduate Studies "Management" Hochschule Pforzheim University

For the Publisher:Ulrich Jautz, Ph.D., Dean, Germany Zeljko Turkalj, Ph.D., Dean, Croatia

Editors:Urban Bacher, Ph.D., Pforzheim University, Business School, GermanyDrazen Barkovic, Ph.D., Faculty of Economics in Osijek, CroatiaKarl - Heinz Dernoscheg, Ph.D., International Business School Styria, AustriaMaja Lamza - Maronic, Ph.D., Faculty of Economics in Osijek, CroatiaBranko Matic, Ph.D., Faculty of Economics in Osijek, CroatiaNorbert Pap, Ph.D., University of Pecs, Hungary

Bodo Runzheimer, Ph.D., Pforzheim

University, Business School, Germany

Review Committee:Luka Crnkovic, Ph.D., Faculty of Economics in Osijek, Croatia Ivan Ferencak, Ph.D., Faculty of Economics in Osijek, CroatiaNino Grau, Ph.D. University of Applied Sciences, Fachhochschule Giesen-Friedberg, Germany Slavo Kukic, Ph.D., University of Mostar, Faculty of Economics in Mostar, Bosnia and Hercegovina Hartmut Loffler, Ph.D., Pforzheim University, Business School, Germany

Brano Markic, Ph.D., University of Mostar, Faculty of Economics in Mostar, Bosnia and HercegovinaRenata Peric, Ph.D., Faculty of Law in Osijek, CroatiaBela Orosdy, Ph.D., University of Pecs, Faculty of Business and Economics, Hungary Ivan Pavlovic, Ph.D., University of Mostar, Faculty of Economics in Mostar, Bosnia and HercegovinaSlavica Singer, Ph.D., Faculty of Economics in Osijek, Croatia Vladimir Srb, Ph.D., Faculty of Economics in Osijek, Croatia Jusuf Sehanovic, Ph.D., Juraj Dobrila University of Pula, Croatia Dirk Wentzel, Ph.D., Hochschule Pforzheim University, Germany

Technical editors:Jerko Glavas, Ph.D. candidate, Faculty of Economics in Osijek, Croatia Hrvoje Serdarusic, Ph.D. candidate, Faculty of Economics in Osijek, Croatia

Language Editing and Proofreading:Ljerka Rados, Faculty of Economics in Osijek, Croatia

CIP zap is dostupan u racunalnom katalogu Gradske i sveucilisne knjiznice Osijek pod brojem 130421087

ISSN 1847-0408ISBN 978-953-253-105-3Indexed in: EBSCOhost, RePEc, EconPapers, SocionetProgram committee:Mate Babic, Ph.D., University of Zagreb, Faculty of Economics in Zagreb, CroatiaHeinrich Badura, Ph.D., President, The European Academy for Life Research, Integration andCivil Society, AustriaFirouz Gahvari, Ph.D., University of Illinois at Urbana-Campaign, Department of Economics, USAGunther Gottlieb, Ph.D., University of Augsburg, GermanyRupert Huth, Ph.D., Pforzheim University, Business School, GermanyZoran Jasic, Ph.D., Ambassador of the Republic of Croatia to the Republic of Austria

Zlatko Kramaric, Ph.D., Ambassador of the Republic of Croatia to the Republic of KosovoUlrich Jautz, Ph.D., Pforzheim University, Business School, GermanyZeljko Turkalj, Ph.D., Faculty of Economics in Osijek, CroatiaMladen Vedris, Ph.D., University of Zagreb, Faculty of Law, CroatiaJozo KrajinaTHE IMPORTANCE AND ROLE OF MANAGEMENTIN HIGHER EDUCATION.......................................................................

Valentina LadicDESTINATION MANAGEMENT AND DESTINATION MANAGINGPROBLEMS - EXAMPLE VINICA COUNTY............................................

Maja Lamza-Maronic, Jerko Glavas, Igor MavrinTOWARDS A NEW MODEL OF CULTURAL MANAGEMENT - THEEUROPEAN CAPITAL OF CULTURE PROGRAMME..............................

Barbara Marusnik, Boris MarjanovicPERFORMANCE OF CROATIAN ECONOMY MEASUREDWITH KNOWLEDGE-BASED ECONOMY PARAMETERS.......................

Josip Mesaric, Stjepan Rudan, Joze KuzicMETHODOLOGICAL PROBLEMS AND APPROACH TOINNOVATING AND BUILDING THE CURRICULUM OF GENERALMANAGEMENT......................................................................................

Monika R. Molnar, Istvan AndrasEMBEDDEDNESS OF MULTINATIONAL COMPANIES IN LOCALCOMMUNITIES: THE COMPLEX CULTURE AND COMMUNICATIONRESEARCH PROJECT.............................................................................

Ninoslav Novak, Mirko CobovicBUSINESS IMPROVEMENT USING CLOUD COMPUTING INCOMPANIES IN THE REPUBLIC OF CROATIA.....................................

Rajko OdobasaCOMMERCIALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION AND CHANGES IN THE MANAGEMENT OF PUBLIC EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS: EXAMPLES AND LESSONS FROMANGLO-AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES......................................................

Mirko PesicCRISIS AS A CHANCE TO REORGANIZE THE GROWTHAND DEVELOPMENT.............................................................................

Milan Puvaca, Ivica Zdrilic

RESISTANCE TO CHANGE IN EDUCATIONAL

PROCESS ADAPTATION Ivana Sandrk NukicCOMPETITIVENESS OF CONSTRUCTION FIRMS:CASE STUDY OF „GRADNJA Ltd" OSIJEK.............................................

Ana Skledar Matijevic, Zlatko Barilovic, Igor VreckoTHE POSSIBILITIES OF USING ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING FORDEVELOPING PROJECT MANAGEMENT COMPETENCES.....................................................................................

Marko SostarTHE ROLE OF DEVELOPMENT AGENCIESIN REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT.............................................................

METHODOLOGICAL PROBLEMS AND APPROACH TO

INNOVATING AND BUILDING THE CURRICULUM OF GENERAL

MANAGEMENT

Josip Mesaric, Ph.D. \ Stjepan Rudan, B.Sc.2, Joze Kuzic, Ph.D.3 llosip Juraj

StrossmayerUniversity, Faculty of Economics in Osijek, Croatia, mesaric@efos.hr institute for

Public Health of Osijek-Baranja County, Croatia 3Monach University, Melbourne, Australia,

Joze.Kuzic@monash.edu

ABSTRACTThe development and / or analysis of the

curriculum are based on knowledge of specific areas in which the curriculum is made and model used for its design. There are several different approaches and each has its advantages and disadvantages. The paper analyzes four approaches for the development of general management curriculum innovation. We analyzed few curriculum of American, European, Australian and Croatian studies in general management on bachelor and graduate (master) level. Study of general management at the undergraduate level of

American, Australian and some European universities differ significantly from the Croatian Schools in number as well as in the methodological, core and major courses. At higher levels of education (graduate and master) the differences are even more obvious. Based on the performed analysis we tried to estimate the balance of the curriculum in terms of key aspects of the curriculum: the role of managers, the ap-plication of pedagogy, the methodological basis, the level of research, process and content and the domains and areas.

JEL Classification: 123,125

Keywords: Curriculum, general management, undergraduate, graduate

1. INTRODUCTIONIn the last ten years a large number of

management schools have been opened all over the world, and the Republic of Croatia has not been bypassed by this trend. In many of these schools, the curricula based on which formal management education is acquired, haven't been built using adequate methodological apparatus, without firm goals, relevant domain knowledge and appropriate pedagogy. Very often (especially in schools which do not have solid managerial tradition in the environment in which they were established), curricula are the result of uncritical copying of content of curricula of world-famous schools and their adaptation to local limited conditions and capabilities. Therefore, from time to time the curricula need to be subjected to critical analysis and adapted to new conditions in the environment, as well as to institutions upon whose foundations educational processes are carried out.

There are several problems that arise in connection with reviewing and innovating curricula:

Formal problems in changes of up to 20% of content and the repeated procedure of

accreditation of the innovated program, which is the case in the Republic of Croatia,

• Change of social conditions for which the managers have been trained, and usability of managerial knowledge,

Problems related to the obsolescence of the acquired knowledge,

* Problems related to change of management paradigms.

Curricula can be built, developed and analysed based on different approaches and using different methodologies, each of which has its advantages and disadvantages, depending on domain knowledge, volume (scope) of knowledge, and level of goals.

Since achievements based on a curriculum are not only the question of the curriculum concerned, but also of the totality of pedagogical practice and educators' abilities, as well as of learners' perception and abilities, the acquired knowledge cannot be judged solely on the basis of curriculum. What can be assessed, however, is the balance of the curriculum and the potential for integration of knowledge and skills and indirectly acquired knowledge and the desirability of institution through the level of salaries and the positions of of graduated students. Since there is no unified curriculum of general management, several schools have been investigated so as to determine the key common content in the function of managerial knowledge. Twenty curricula at the undergraduate and a few less at the graduate and master's level have been selected for research and comparison. Specifically, comparative lists of courses have been created (syllabuses, but not of their content, pedagogical practice, quality of teachers and students and criteria for goal achievement). Based on comparative analyses, certain guidelines for review, development and innovation of curriculum of any of the analysed curricula can be given.

Below, an overview of the key characteristics of managerial knowledge and suitability of individual methodological approaches for building management curriculum will be presented, after which comparative analyses of groups and individual curricula of general management on selected cases will be performed.

2. CHARACTERISTICS OF MANAGERIAL KNOWLEDGE

Managerial knowledge is very often fuzzy (soft, without clear boundaries) knowledge. Managerial knowledge is paradigmatic for the most part. This means that the attributes of managerial knowledge are the results of the change and the acquisitions of various paradigms within managerial practice and academic community. There are many cases where it can be noticed that curricula do not aspire to become overly scientific (without causal methods, mathematical-statistical apparatus and robust evidence), so that it seems (to paraphrase Ghoshal) that "business could not be treated as a science, and we would have to fall back on the wisdom of common sense that combines information on "what" is with the imagination of "what ought to" to develop both a practical understanding of and some pragmatic prescription for "phenomena of organized complexity" that the issue of corporate governance represents. This too is schooling that yields theory that does pretend to be scientific laws but merely serves as temporary "walking sticks" in Fritz Roeth-lisbergers (1977) terms - to aid sense making as long as we go along, to be used only until a better walking stick can be found (cited in Ghoshal, 2005). Besides, these new paradigms which serve to corporate capital and private prestige are often deprived of any moral norms and ethical principles. This raised some concerns among several scholars about the current state of management research and pedagogy (Mintzberg & Gosling, 2002; Donaldson, 2002; Ghoshal, 2005).

3. CREATION AND ANALYSES OF CURRICULUM OF GENERAL MANAGEMENTTHROUGH DIFFERENT APPROACHESIn formal education, a curriculum usually means

a formal set of knowledge that is offered (and that is expected to be chosen) in a certain educational institution (Webster, 2010). Knowledge is formed into domain sets and shaped into courses and course systems (syllabuses) that have to be realised - transmitted within a is for the curriculum to be designed outside of the classroom or school. The second problem of this approach is evaluation. In order to measure, things have to be broken down into smaller and smaller units. This is of utmost importance nowadays, when we exceedingly fragmentise but not synthesise, not only managerial knowledge. What we are inclined to measure, such as achievements in any university curriculum, has been more than often reduced to the quality of interpretation. Successful interpreters frequently fail to manipulate their knowledge in real life, which is often the case with managers due to the paradigms acquired over several years of education, when in practice such paradigms tend to change rapidly. The use of the acquired, but no longer relevant paradigms will result in poor performance of managerial knowledge in practice. Smith points to the third problem of this approach, "a real problem when we come to examine what educators actually do in the classroom". Much of the research concerning teacher thinking and classroom interaction, and curriculum innovation has pointed to the lack of impact on actual pedagogic practice of objectives (Stenhouse 1974), (Cornbleth 1990).

3.3. Management curriculum as a process and development

Curriculum as a process 'is a way of translating any educational idea into a hypothesis testable in practice. It invites critical testing rather than acceptance' (Stenhouse, 1975). At first glance, this

is an ideal model desired by managers. Nev-ertheless, at least two problems may occur.

The first problem is the experiment with the socio-economic systems and the nature of realising managerial decisions. A system where an idea, hypothesis or decision can be tested within a reasonable time period and with acceptable conse-quences simply does not exist, since it is not possible in a certain moment (a phase of a business cycle) or it can trigger unexpected, risky or adverse consequences. The use of mathematical models and simulation techniques or managerial simulation games is more and more becoming a key to these problems. Their shortcoming is that they have to simplify reality and are, as a rule, often directed towards the problems in managerial efficiency, i.e. only certain functions of management. This approach to the theory of curriculum, because it places meaning-making and thinking at its core and treats learners as subjects rather than objects, can lead to very different means being employed in classrooms and a high degree of variety in content. As Stenhouse comments, the process model is essentially a critical model, not a marking model (Stenhouse, 1975).3.4. Curriculum through a hexagonal prism

According to hexagonal prism, proposed by (Mesaric, Kuzic, Dovedan, 2011 curriculum (of general management) is developed/analysed through integration of six interrelated domains (Figure 1.)

Philosophy andmethodologyframeworks:Based on: Economics Sociology Laws and ethics Mathematics and statistics Language and symbolic models

Scholarship;

Level of knowledge/ educationTeaching (Pedagogy) Practices (Application) Discovery (Research) integration (Synthesis)

Level:StrategicTacticalOperationalOrganizationalNationalInternational

GENERAL MANAGEMENT CURRICULUM

Roles and scopeDecision making

OrganizingPlanningLeadingNegotiatingResourcingStaffingMotivatingAnalyzingIntegratingProcesses and contents:Identification of-Value added opportunity

- Problem Vision, goals, objectives Proces definition LifecycieChange perception Communication Measures Performance

^eas, domains, _and objectsBusiness

Business functions Finance Marketing,,, Business areas Business objects Information Technology Products/services Non business/ nonprofit Government Education, Health, Environment,...

Figure 1. Curriculum domains through hexagonal prism (Source: Mesaric, Kuzic, Dovedan)

Creating and/or revising curriculum can begin from any aspect (elementary prisms), depending on goals and initial assumptions. Thus the starting point in the revision of curriculum of Yale school of Management was the prism of role manager would find himself in the environment. The creation of curriculum of management at management schools in the Republic of Croatia was started from the point of BOK, that is, philosophical-methodological elementary prism (because of which content is overloaded with economies of all kinds, as well as with other content, which typically belongs to higher levels of education).4. ANALYSIS OF THE SELECTED CURRICULA

In order to establish if there is a general consensus, and what is the minimum core knowledge offered (i.e. required) by general management curriculum at different educational levels, we have analysed 20 general management curricula at bachelor level (8 American, 5 European and 7 Croatian) and 27 MBA or gradu-ate programs (12 American, 8 European, one Australian and 6 Croatian). All the courses were listed (for some universities only core, major or concentration courses, without electives) in a single MS Excel table, and then submitted to data analysis from different aspects. Alphabetical listing and additional key word searches revealed common features in general management curricula at undergraduate and graduate levels respectively.

At undergraduate level all the programs have these core (mandatory) courses: (Introductory) Management, Accounting and Marketing. Most American and European programs (11 out of 13) have also Finance, Corporate Finance or Financial Management, and for the majority (9 out of 13) Business Law and Human Resources Management (HRM) are also core courses. Analysed through hexagonal prism, approaches to curriculum of general management at undergraduate level are significantly different in American, Australian and European studies in relation to Croatian studies of general management.

Analysed through prism, US and European curriculum have starting point in domain and objects - more specifically, the business system and its characteristics and core business functions (Accounting, Business Finance, Marketing). The philosophical aspect is focused on Business Law, and the level on business organisation. Man-agement in its roles and scope primarily relates to those topics. The number of courses is lower than the number of courses at Croatian programmes, the length of studying is generally the same, which means that the depth of studying is more pronounced.

The starting point of study of general management in Croatian studies is the philosophical-methodological aspect, where the study is fraught with economic courses (General Economics, Microeconomics, Macroeconomics, National Economy, International Economics, and Mathematics, Statistics, Informatics and Law). Two business functions are covered: Accounting and Marketing, while Business Finance are rarely studied, but Public Finances and Financial markets are compulsory, which, by nature of things, should be courses of higher levels of education.

At higher tertiary level (graduate and MBA) the similarities (the number of common core/major courses) are significantly decreased, whereas the number of electives is increased. Elective courses

are intended to allow students to shape their managerial4. ANALYSIS OF THE SELECTED CURRICULA

In order to establish if there is a general consensus, and what is the minimum core knowledge offered (i.e. required) by general management curriculum at different educational levels, we have analysed 20 general management curricula at bachelor level (8 American, 5 European and 7 Croatian) and 27 MBA or gradu-ate programs (12 American, 8 European, one Australian and 6 Croatian). All the courses were listed (for some universities only core, major or concentration courses, without electives) in a single MS Excel table, and then submitted to data analysis from different aspects. Alphabetical listing and additional key word searches revealed common features in general management curricula at undergraduate and graduate levels respectively.

At undergraduate level all the programs have these core (mandatory) courses: (Introductory) Management, Accounting and Marketing. Most American and European programs (11 out of 13) have also Finance, Corporate Finance or Financial Management, and for the majority (9 out of 13) Business Law and Human Resources Management (HRM) are also core courses. Analysed through hexagonal prism, approaches to curriculum of general management at undergraduate level are significantly different in American, Australian and European studies in relation to Croatian studies of general management.

Analysed through prism, US and European curriculum have starting point in domain and objects - more specifically, the business system and its characteristics and core business functions (Accounting, Business Finance, Marketing). The philosophical aspect is focused on Business Law, and the level on business organisation. Man-agement in its roles and scope primarily relates to those topics. The number of courses is lower than the number of courses at Croatian programmes, the length of studying is generally the same, which

means that the depth of studying is more pronounced.

The starting point of study of general management in Croatian studies is the philosophical-methodological aspect, where the study is fraught with economic courses (General Economics, Microeconomics, Macroeconomics, National Economy, International Economics, and Mathematics, Statistics, Informatics and Law). Two business functions are covered: Accounting and Marketing, while Business Finance are rarely studied, but Public Finances and Financial markets are compulsory, which, by nature of things, should be courses of higher levels of education.

At higher tertiary level (graduate and MBA) the similarities (the number of common core/major courses) are significantly decreased, whereas the number of electives is increased. Elective courses are intended to allow students to shape their managerial knowledge according to their own interests and goals. The courses with the highest common denominator at American, European and Australian programs taken together are Marketing, Leadership, and HRM (10 out of 21 universities). One third of programs offer Higher-level Accounting, Operational and Strategic Management. The remaining courses are quite varied both in titles and the areas they cover.

Graduate and MBA general management programs in the Republic of Croatia have hardly any common features. The courses that might be viewed as common appear at two universities at the most. There are also significant differences in comparison to the analysed universities abroad.

Management study programs are distinctively divergent, encompassing a large number of courses which are different in terms of their subject matter, depth and width of study, object of management, etc. As we analysed the course titles, the word management was found in combination with almost 60 different concepts. In some of those combinations the word management

is superfluous, or somehow at odds with the other concept.

Unless the approach taken in designing the general management curriculum is explicitly stated elsewhere, it can be discerned from the list of courses (syllabus). As for Croatian graduate programmes, there are three courses that appear in more than half of syllabuses we investigated: Financial management, Operational management and Strategic management, whereas all other content is highly differentiated, with no common course names. At postgraduate and specialist postgraduate studies it is impossible to find a course that would be common for more than two of the six investigated postgraduate programmes (except for Marketing management occurring twice).

The above-mentioned analyses indicate that management studies at selected management programmes in the USA, Europe and Australia are more firmly founded on managerial practice with an emphasis on leadership as a key managerial function, human resources and operational management, with strategic orientation and internationalisation of business operations. These principles indirectly reveal the dominant forms of schooling. In the first case this is probably the orientation of curriculum towards practice and integration, and in the process and content towards newly-created value and performance of managers.

Looking at curricula in Croatia, schooling is apparently dominated by traditional teaching methods and weak practice orientation. Managerial roles will necessarily be only declarative and the processes covert.5. CONCLUDING REMARKS

The analysis of numerous general management curricula created by different business schools and schools of management has shown that there is no one common, universally accepted general management curriculum - neither in terms of content or in terms of educational level,

regardless of the geographical location of the schools. It seems that European and American business schools agree that undergraduate programs should include general education in management, accompanied by basic knowledge in accounting, marketing, human resources manage-ment, business law, and business finances. At universities with a shorter tradition of managerial education, such as Croatian universities, there are other core courses in addition to principles of management, accounting and marketing.

The differences at higher levels of education are of such a scope that it becomes difficult to recognize the common features of general management programs at different graduate and MBA schools.

Management curricula depend on the context and not on some acquired scientific theories nor generally accepted philosophical concepts; general management is not the same in different environments and its contents on the one hand and its realisation on the other hand strongly depend on the institution and its social, economic and cultural environment, as well as strategic objectives and positions of the institution - the school of management.

The fundamental functions and roles of management (planning, organising, leading, coordinating, controlling, staffing, motivating, resourcing) are in some cases designed as separate courses which implicitly emphasises the importance of some aspect of managerial function, but at the same time makes that general man-agement curriculum unbalanced. Revision of managerial curriculum of particular university, although timely consuming, will give best results by using methodology (approach) of hexagonal prism.

REFERENCESCornbleth, C. (1990) Curriculum in Context, Basingstoke: Falmer Press.p.27

Dexter, H., Davies, I. (2009) An Ontology-Based Curriculum Knowledgebase for Managing Complexity and Change, Ninth IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, 2009, icalt, pp.136-140.

Dicheva, D. & Dichev, C. (2006). TM4L: Creating and Browsing Educational Topic Maps, British Journal of Educational Technology - BJET, 37(3), 391-404. Retrieved March 07, 2010 from http://compsci.wssu.edu/iis/nsdl/Publications/ BJET06-Dicheva-Dichev-Submitted.pdf

Dicheva, D. et al. (2004) Ontological Web Portal for Educational Ontologies, Retrieved February 26, 2010 from http://www.win.tue.nl/SW-EL/2005/swel05-aied05/proceedings/4-Dicheva-final-full.pdf

Donaldson, L. (2002). Damned by our own theories: Contradictions between theories and management education, Academy of Management Review, 15 (3), 369-381.

Ghoshal,S. (2005). Bad Management Theories Are Destroying Good Management Practice, Academy of Management Learning & Education, 2005, 4 (1), 75-91.

Grundy, S. (1987). Curriculum: product or praxis? Lewes: Falmer Press.

Kelly, V. (2009). The Curriculum: Theory and Practice, Sage Publications Ltd; Sixth Edition edition (February 3, 2009), ISBN-10: 1847872751

Mesaric, J.,Kuzic,J., Dovedan, Z. (2011),Proceedings of INSITE Conference 2011, Novi Sad, 18-23.06..2011. Publisher Informing Science Institute, Editors: E. Cohen, S. Boyd

Mintzberg, H. & Gosling, J. (2002). Educating managers beyond borders, Academy of Management Learning and Education 1 (1), 64-76

Smith, M. K. (1996, 2000), Curriculum theory and practice. The encyclopaedia of informal education, Retrieved February 23, 2010 www.infed.org/biblio/b-curric.htm

Stenhouse, L. (1975) An introduction to Curriculum Research and Development, London: Heineman

Taba, H. (1962). Curriculum Development: Theory and practice, New York: Harcourt Brace and World.

Webster, M. Webster dictionary, Retrieved November 27, 2010 from http:// www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/curriculum

Dicheva, D. & Dichev, C. (2006). TM4L: Creating and Browsing Educational Topic Maps, British Journal of Educational Technology - BJET, 37(3), 391-404. Retrieved March 07, 2010 from http://compsci.wssu.edu/iis/nsdl/Publications/ BJET06-Dicheva-Dichev-Submitted.pdf

Dicheva, D. et al. (2004) Ontological Web Portal for Educational Ontologies, Retrieved February 26, 2010 from http://www.win.tue.nl/SW-EL/2005/swel05-aied05/proceedings/4-Dicheva-final-full.pdf

Donaldson, L. (2002). Damned by our own theories: Contradictions between theories and management education, Academy of Management Review, 15 (3), 369-381.

Ghoshal,S. (2005). Bad Management Theories Are Destroying Good Management Practice, Academy of Management Learning & Education, 2005, 4 (1), 75-91.

Grundy, S. (1987). Curriculum: product or praxis? Lewes: Falmer Press.

Kelly, V. (2009). The Curriculum: Theory and Practice, Sage Publications Ltd; Sixth Edition edition (February 3, 2009), ISBN-10: 1847872751

Mesaric, J.,Kuzic,J., Dovedan, Z. (2011),Proceedings of INSITE Conference 2011, Novi Sad, 18-23.06..2011. Publisher Informing Science Institute, Editors: E. Cohen, S. Boyd

Mintzberg, H. & Gosling, J. (2002). Educating managers beyond borders, Academy of Management Learning and Education 1 (1), 64-76

Smith, M. K. (1996, 2000), Curriculum theory and practice. The encyclopaedia of informal education, Retrieved February 23, 2010 www.infed.org/biblio/b-curric.htm

Stenhouse, L. (1975) An introduction to Curriculum Research and Development, London: Heineman

Taba, H. (1962). Curriculum Development: Theory and practice, New York: Harcourt Brace and World.

Webster, M. Webster dictionary, Retrieved November 27, 2010 from http:// www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/curriculum