Business School Search

  2. All regions
home››green mba rankings - beyond grey pinstripes 2009-2010 research methodology

Green MBA Rankings - Beyond Grey Pinstripes 2009-2010 Research Methodology

Outreach

In the fall of 2008, initial invitations to participate in the 2009-2010 edition of Beyond Grey Pinstripes were sent out to 590 business schools worldwide.  Working with the AACSB and other international accrediting associations, only in-person MBA program with full-time enrollment were considered eligible in this survey cycle.  All U.S.-based schools must have AACSB accreditation to participate.  An exhaustive outreach effort took place over the following months to assure that each business school that had not replied to our initial invitation received further information via email and, in many cases, personal phone calls from Aspen Institute Center for Business Education staff.

Schools that met our eligibility criteria and also communicated an interest in participating in the survey were given a personalized username and password that granted their staff access to the Beyond Grey Pinstripes online survey site.  Pinstripes survey questions have been refined every two years.  In 2008, Aspen CBE staff updated questions in consultation with an advisory group of thirty business school faculty.  Two online tutorials were offered by Aspen CBE staff at the beginning of the survey period to offer schools an overview of how to use the survey tool and to answer any outstanding questions.  Throughout the data collection period, support was available to all participating schools via email and telephone.

Data Collection / Survey

Data were collected in three broad categories, similar to surveys from prior editions: Coursework, Faculty Research and Institutional Support.  All information collected that is deemed relevant to the mission of the survey is available for viewing on www.BeyondGreyPinstripes.org.

MBA Coursework: This section focuses on core and elective courses that include social, environmental o ethical topics (The Aspen Institute uses the umbrella term “Social Impact Management”).  To clarify the context, submission of either supporting syllabi, course descriptions or a URL link was required, with syllabi preferred.  The schools were asked what percentage of each of the courses submitted contained some “relevant” content—i.e. individual class sessions or modules on pertinent topics.  The survey also asked schools to indicate the department, instructor, number of MBA student enrolled in each course, credit hours for each courses, and total school enrollment figures.

Faculty Research: Schools were asked to submit an Excel spreadsheet containing all scholarly articles written by faculty members in peer-reviewed, business journals in calendar years 2007 and 2008.

Institutional Support at the School: Institutions were asked to report exemplary non-curricular activities and programs that specifically address social impact management and environmental management.  Information was requested about external speakers, internships and consulting programs, student clubs and groups, career development services, university institutes and centers, joint degrees, specializations, and other relevant activities.  All of this information is available for comparison and review in the www.BeyondGreyPinstripes.org database.  Information on Institutional Support is not used in calculating the rank of each school.

The schools were also asked to submit a summary of their program’s approach to addressing social, environmental and ethical issues on campus.

63% of this survey cycle’s 149 participating schools are located in the United States, the remaining 37% are located in 24 countries, from South Korea to Venezuela, from Australia to Finland.

Data Cleaning

An attempt was made to “clean” all data for obvious errors.  For example, in certain instances, such as if a rural school reported an MBA student enrollment of 10,000, Aspen CBE staff contacted the school in an attempt to correct this obvious mistake.  Other than obvious errors, staff at Aspen CBE does not attempt to assess the validity of all self-reported data.  To support the transparency and accuracy of data reporting we:

1. Require an online signature from the reporter, pledging honesty and accuracy.  Data indicates that such pledges have a real effect on reporting.

2. Make nearly all reported data available so that peer schools, students, and alumni can review reported data.

Scoring/Ranking Calculations

Coursework and Research data were used in the ranking calculations; the ranking is tabulated from the self-reported data.

Some survey metrics are calculated directly from data reported, while others require a subjective review of courses or research.  For subjective reviews, Aspen CBE used a team of twelve Ph.D. and DPA Research Fellows, selected in a competitive process from leading institutions around the world.  Research Fellows were trained carefully on the survey protocol.  In any review by Research Fellows, scoring was done “blind” (to the extent possible, without school or faculty names associated with data) and in pairs.  This was done to obtain inter-rater reliability (consistency) and to minimize possible biases.

The calculated and reviewed data were aggregated into four “raw score” metrics, as follows:

Availability of Relevant Courses counts the number of courses offered that contain social, environmental or ethical content.  How much opportunity do students have to take courses with this content?

Student Exposure measures teaching hours and student enrollment in these courses.  To what extent are students actually exposed to such content?  The formula for each course is [(percent of course time dedicated to such issues) x (course credits / total degree credits) x (course enrollment / total school enrollment)].  Thus, all things equal, longer courses, or dedicated courses, or courses with higher enrollments (whether required or simply popular electives) will be worth more in our calculations.

Relevant Courses on For-Profit Impact is a simple count of the number of courses that not only demonstrate their relevance to the survey (see “Availability of Relevant Courses” above), but specifically address the intersection of social and environmental issues in mainstream, for-profit business.  Do any of the courses being taught on campus explicitly discuss how business can be an engine for improving social and environmental conditions?  This metric reflects the focus of Aspen CBE on how business plays a role in society.  For example, course content that focused on the nonprofit sector or on a philosophical approach to ethics would get credit in the “Availability of Relevant Courses” metric, but would likely not get credit in this metric.  However, a Finance course that addresses models for pricing the cost of carbon would likely get credit for this metric.

Faculty Research counts the number of scholarly articles containing some degree of social, environmental or ethical content being published in peer-reviewed, business journals.  To what extent do professors on campus explore these issues in their own research?  Research Fellows reviewed all article titles and abstracts using similar criteria to the “Availability of Relevant Courses” metric.

The “raw score” metrics were adjusted by using a statistical smoothing process called square-root standard deviation about the mean, which produces numerical values that represent how well a school has done, relative to the other schools in the survey.  Each of these four values, or z-scores, was weighted at 25% and then summed to arrive at an overall point total.  The final ranking is an ordinal list of the top 100 schools, by total points received.