E-Journal of Philosophy of Education:
International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 2, 2017

Reflection on Gaining Trust of Students with Careers:
Between Academic Expertise and Intellectual Pursuit
Shinichi TAKEUCHI
Tokushima Bunri University
Abstract
This paper discusses the author’s thoughts on gaining trust as an instructor from business school
students with careers. Unlike would-be researcher graduate students taking an academic path, themajority of students with careers do not consider researcher instructors to be career models, which
limits the authority of business schools and their faculty members. However, even when difficult for
researcher instructors at business schools—including the author—to gain the trust of students withcareers, for these students to learn effectively it is crucial to be worthy of respect as a person in theireyes. A question then emerged: How to become a respected instructor for students with careers. In theprocess of seeking an answer to this question, the author came to understand that he must contributeto business management practice as a researcher by walking side-by-side with business practitioners
from the researcher’s viewpoint. Moreover, a researcher must challenge students with careers in termsof attitude toward intellectual inquiry and always win them over. While business education conductedat business schools is clearly professional education, it is healthier to guide education practice toward
intellectual pursuit by seeking more universal values instead of directing it toward academic expertiseby seeking individual values of business education. Attainment of the above understanding wasfacilitated by the fact that the author is a practitioner and researcher of education that uses case methodof instruction. This unique teaching approach was inextricably linked to reflection about teaching at
business schools and planted the seeds of a philosophy.
Keywords
Business schools, students with careers, trust, respect, authority, case method

34

S. TAKEUCHI

Introduction“Several premises are required for education to work,” or so goes the hypothesis;
yet when the premises are questioned and uncertainty arises, educators must reconsider
criteria for establishment of education and rebuild the logic necessary for solid education.
If educators encounter situations that require reflection during the process, there may also
be an opportunity to generate a philosophy.
This paper has as its discussion stage the education of students with careers at abusiness school where the author taught for 10 years, and discusses the author’s thoughts
on gaining their trust. Setting aside the question of whether the author’s continuing
contemplation can be counted as a philosophy, the thoughts gained through instruction
experience at a business school are summarized here.
For this purpose, characteristics of business education and how it is pursued atbusiness schools as well as the author’s confusions, reflections, clues and discoveries arediscussed, in this order.
This paper does not employ research paper style discussion where knowledge isoverlaid based on the literature. While several references were cited and reviewed as partof an abstract draft for an academic conference where this proposition was published andfor slides used in its presentation, here the paper is structured with a focus on the author’sinternal reflection.
1. Business Education Market and Business Schools
Business education is characterized by its diverse providers. Companies or businessconductors usually have an internal education and training department. Employeesassigned to the department become trainers and provide internal education and training.
There are a number of business education and training companies of different sizes thatsell education to companies, as well as a great number of individual vendors1. Amidst theplethora of business education providers, universities maintain a certain presence, yet
traditional research universities’ presence is vague.
Countless corporations provide business education and severely compete in termsof education quality and price. Business education is a huge, big-money market of diverse
providers. There is market segmentation as well as competition strategies according to1

Freelance seminar trainers, etc.

Thematic Research: Educational Practices, from Which Philosophy Emerges: Frontiers of Philosophy of Education

Reflection on Gaining Trust of Students with Careers

35market position, and almost all education providers are evaluated, distinguished andweeded out by market mechanism.
Let’s now focus on business schools. Universities are the only institutions that
conduct business education based on academics, yet at business schools this does notnecessarily apply to all their education programs. Many business schools employ amixture of researchers and practitioners as faculty members, and which type takes thelead cannot be generalized. Among researcher instructors, some well-known professors
are in the forefront of business education, which bestows authority. Yet a number ofstudents with careers express a desire to learn from practitioner instructors rather thanresearcher instructors, because of the peace of mind inherent with the practical experienceof instructors.
If the author were to direct these arguments at researchers in the philosophy ofeducation, the main readers of this paper, he would first emphasize that the majority ofstudents taking business education do not consider researcher instructors to be careermodels. The number of students who anticipate a long-term relationship with a researcher
based on pursuit of academic research is also assumed to be relatively limited. It can also
be said that students with careers do not necessarily trust their school and instructors,
especially researcher instructors. This is because of difficulty believing that researchersof business administration can actually manage a business. Therefore, the authority ofbusiness schools and their instructors is limited for students with careers. This is the majordifference on the business education side when comparing education in philosophy ofeducation and business education. The difference, however, is also largely attributable tothe fact that the former is education to train researchers and the latter is education to train
practitioners.
2. Author’s confusions
One discovery after having started teaching is that business schools are an educationsite where instructors do not easily gain respect or trust. Despite a number of twists andturns in the author’s path to becoming a university instructor, his career has always beenspent in the position of educator, including time employed at a private company, and there
was a strong subconscious need to continue performing as an educator while satisfying
personal standards at university. While confident in his sophistication in fundamental
qualifications as a coursework educator—including basic teaching actions, giving clear

E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 2, 2017

36

S. TAKEUCHI

classroom direction2, and communication with students in and out of the classroom—
trial and error continued in the contemplation of fundamental values of education
activities and how to improve feasibility. Students in front of him included those alreadyassuming important roles at industry leader companies as well as promising“thoroughbreds” with a bright future, or people earning much more than university
faculty. The author was then unreservedly evaluated by these students based on theirindividually established evaluation scales. In circumstances where a great deal of courage
was required to teach every class, “establishing himself as an instructor throughquestioning his qualifications and repeated review” was an urgent matter.
In the author’s case, uncertainty over a career as a business school instructor madethe process of reflecting on what works and what doesn’t even more complex. Despiteteaching at a business school, business administration was not the author’s discipline, andhe could not take the standard path of a business school instructor career. Yet his school
traditionally used the approach of case method of instruction, and this provided an
opportunity for the author to build his own career—luckily, as a result of capitalizing on
the opportunity, the author finds himself in a position to write this paper. Nevertheless,not being able to take the standard path of a business school instructor was indeed a major
concern. Therefore, a breakthrough unique to the author—contributing to a businessschool through pedagogy—was needed, knowing it was probably unprecedented forbusiness school instructors. As such, the author, who had confidently referred to himself
as an “educator” for many years, experienced deep distress, until starting to see, albeitvaguely, the prospects for a breakthrough.
3. Contemplation to leave confusion behind
Despite having concerns, the author, originally a business management practitioner,
had a realistic understanding of the general mindset of students with careers. This
understanding provided clues to moving his thinking forward, and the author soon
grasped that it was no use to compete based on research achievements against students
who are confident about practical business performance achievements. Talking highly of
researchers based on different criteria from the evaluation scale used for confident
students would not lead to understanding nor would it motivate them to actively try tounderstand.
2

Expressed as “conveying directions” by primary and middle school teachers and “effectively establishingcontrol” by representatives of training companies.

Thematic Research: Educational Practices, from Which Philosophy Emerges: Frontiers of Philosophy of Education

Reflection on Gaining Trust of Students with Careers

37

Yet for students to effectively learn from the author, it was crucial to be worthy ofrespect as a person in their eyes. How to be a respected instructor for students withcareers—a clear, new question was revealed. While the process of solving this question
continues, a few answers have emerged.
First, the author pledged to contribute to business management practice as a
researcher by walking side-by-side with practical business practitioners from theviewpoint of a researcher. Here, it is important to accompany or support practitioners
without competing. Students with careers are not people researchers should compete with.
Researchers should only compete with other researchers. Instead of competing, theauthor often tried to send a message that “we are both working hard” to students withcareers. Instructors should challenge these business school students in terms of attitudes
toward intellectual inquiry. In this particular challenge, the author decided not to come insecond against students with careers. After gaining this understanding, the author seldom
accommodated students and was not greatly bothered by superficial student satisfaction
evaluation.
The next revelation was that while business education at business schools is clearly
professional education, it is healthier to guide education practice toward intellectual
pursuit by seeking more universal values instead of directing it toward academic expertiseby seeking individual values of business education. This understanding originates inlearning gained in an interview with Professor Emeritus Thomas R. Piper of Harvard
Business School3. According to Professor Emeritus Piper, “business education is training
in values, attitudes and skills, and it is essentially different from traditional graduate
school education that pursues science.” The author received this advice later in his
business school career, and it provided a valuable clue that enabled moving forward withhis thinking. While identifying with a shift in the axis of education values from expertise
to attitudes, the author had a glimpse of the mechanics of the shifting focus in education
at graduate schools for people with careers in the US, moving away from expertise
toward attitudes.
4. Case method of instruction, a teaching approach that triggers and supports
reflection
Case method of instruction is a teaching approach where students learn through3Interview with Professor Emeritus Piper, Thomas R., Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard
University, 2013/2/21 9:00-10:30, @Cumnock, Harvard Business School, Boston, MA.
E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 2, 2017

38

S. TAKEUCHI

spontaneous discussion with each other based on case materials. In this teaching approach,instructors do not give lectures but instead let students discuss. It is the core teachingapproach at Harvard Business School in the US and Keio Business School in Japan.
Moreover, it is representative of traditional teaching approaches at business schools. The
school where the author previously taught (Keio Business School) is a traditional school
where case method of instruction is utilized, and as the author himself mainly studied thisteaching approach for his research, case method of instruction has always been at the coreof his education practice.
While instructors have limited authority and building trust of students with careers
does not necessarily occur naturally at business schools as discussed previously, casemethod of instruction was another major factor that made it difficult to establish a “reasonfor instructors to be instructors.” This is because teaching what should be taught whileletting students freely discuss is a very difficult task for instructors. If an instructor tries
to forcefully move in a desired direction while calling for free discussion, it would
immediately be perceived as “no freedom in reality.” If an instructor winces after
continuing to suffer inconvenient comments, the atmosphere would instantly beperceived as “not all comments are welcome here.” An instructor who cannot smoothly
achieve both free discussion and education objectives is in a critical situation, and his or
her lack of confidence is revealed, or loss of composure could result in insufficientattention to students as well as create distance from the image of a respected instructor
for students. Using this teaching approach reveals the capabilities of instructors.
Therefore, it is not too much to say that instructors face risks as an instructor and as anintellectual.
With case method of instruction, there are few class scenes where instructors’comments take the spotlight on the basis of authority and information asymmetry. It iseducation practice similar to composite art, and uses educational resources—theexperience and awareness of issues of students with careers—as a driver, guiding
students to a place only they can go. At this point, a significant level of insight into people,
capability in terms of education technique and deep affection for students are essential
for instructors.
Advocating classes where instructors would realize their own inadequacies by
having students think requires substantial preparation on the part of instructors. Being
thoroughly prepared when appearing in the classroom would change students’
perceptions of university faculty who, at first glance, seem to have established careers.
Finally, respect and trust increase as “the teacher thinks that far ahead” and “is so well
prepared to teach our class.” When thinking this way, ultimately it is the instructor’s
Thematic Research: Educational Practices, from Which Philosophy Emerges: Frontiers of Philosophy of Education

Reflection on Gaining Trust of Students with Careers39

attitude toward intellectual inquiry that affects students’ mindset and motivates them toengage in true learning. Professional education for students with careers seems to be filledwith scenes where we realize such truths, because it is staged where a relationship of trust
between students and instructors does not smoothly function.
The circumstance of the author only being able to take the path of intellectual pursuit
due to difficulty pursuing academic inquiry of business administration may have been a
blessing in disguise. In addition, the author was grateful for the existence of case methodof instruction as a teaching approach and for personally being able to work on researchof education based on the method. It cannot be denied that case method of instruction
was an aporia for the author, but one that helped him move forward with reflection insome areas. This unique teaching approach was inextricably linked to reflection aboutteaching at business schools and planted the seeds of a philosophy.
Conclusion
The mechanism at issue in this paper seems to directly apply to professional degree
programs at graduate schools of education. Naturally, an aporia of gaining trust fromstudents with careers is not resolved for graduate-level professional education, advanced
business schools, or the business administration instructors who teach there. However, inthe process of professional degree programs at graduate schools of education gaining
greater presence as graduate schools for people with careers in the school administration
field, it is likely inevitable to face situations of overcoming authority and trust issues ineducation. When this occurs, some assistance may be afforded by senior scholars like
Professor Emeritus Piper who have sincerely and persistently contemplated such issues,or educators such as the author who have been bound by restraining factors or haverepeatedly held internal arguments based on educational thinking found within theteaching approach.
The author has noticed subconscious glimmers of a new ego emerging in recentyears as he examines the core attitude of intellectual pursuit against the possibility ofarrogance with increasing academic expertise. This will become an important asset inwinning future trust as a scholar.

E-Journal of Philosophy of Education: International Yearbook of the Philosophy of Education Society of Japan, Vol. 2, 2017