No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Purpose This paper aims to discuss the consequences for responsible management education and learning (RMEL) as an enduring feature of the post-COVID-19 world: increased inequality and increased vulnerable individuals living in poverty. Because of this, responsible management education and learning (RMEL) must integrate poverty as a threshold concept on which students’ cognitive frame is built. Design/methodology/approach This paper advocates for poverty to be taught as a multidimensional threshold concept that encompasses a person’s freedoms and capabilities, in addition to their income (Sen, 1999). Further, this paper provides a framework for integration into all curricula grounded in RMEL’s unique domain of inquiry and study: the integration of ethics, responsibility and sustainability. Findings Threshold concepts transform student learning in durable, immutable ways. When poverty is taught as such, students develop more elaborate poverty cognitive frames that they can apply across their entire course of study. This paper describes how to: (1) reframe poverty as a threshold concept; (2) apply Biggs’ (2003) framework of constructive alignment to assure the integrity of course learning objectives and the curriculum; (3) create poverty-related assignments that are emotionally engaging and relevant for students (Dart, 2008); and (4) use this proposed framework of including poverty in business classes. Research limitations/implications Without an integrated multidimensional understanding of poverty, students will not emerge as managers competent in addressing these critical issues from within a business context (Grimm,2020). It will be imperative in future research to evaluate the outcomes of doing so and to determine whether this solution creates responsible managers more competent in addressing poverty-rooted issues. Originality/value This paper brings together two elements of student learning central to understanding poverty: threshold concepts and cognitive frames. This paper also uses Biggs’ (2003) constructive alignment framework to assure that curricular and course changes have both internal coherence and explicit learning outcomes.