Vol. 2026 No. 1 (2026): 2026 Continuous Issue
Articles

Aligning Faculty Dynamic Capabilities and Institutional Legitimacy in AI-Enabled Business Analytics Pedagogy: A Conceptual Framework and Research Agenda

PDF
  • Anusha Vissapragada
Anusha Vissapragada
Hult International Business School

Published 2026-02-22

Keywords

  • generative AI; large language models; business analytics education; institutional legitimacy; dynamic capabilities

How to Cite

Vissapragada, A. (2026). Aligning Faculty Dynamic Capabilities and Institutional Legitimacy in AI-Enabled Business Analytics Pedagogy: A Conceptual Framework and Research Agenda. International Journal of AI in Pedagogy, Innovation, and Learning Futures, 2026(1). Retrieved from https://journals.calstate.edu/ijaipil/article/view/6903

Copyright (c) 2026 Anusha Vissapragada

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Abstract

We derive three propositions and outline a focused mixed-methods research agenda that operationalizes institutional pressures, faculty capabilities, and strategic choice, while foregrounding ethics, consent, and integrity guardrails. The article shifts AI-enabled business analytics education beyond descriptive adoption accounts toward theory-driven explanation of when and why learning value is created.

PDF

References

  1. Arthur, M. M. L. (2025). Metamimesis: Consultants as a mechanism of institutional isomorphism in higher education. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, 25(3), 131–146. https://doi.org/10.21818/001c.151680.
  2. Barney, J. (1991). Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management, 17, 99-120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108.
  3. Bommasani, R., Hudson, D. A., Adeli, E., Altman, R., Arora, S., von Arx, S., ... & Liang, P. (2021). On the opportunities and risks of foundation models. Stanford Center for Research on Foundation Models. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2108.07258.
  4. Child, J. (1972). Organizational structure, environment and performance: The role of strategic choice. Sociology, 6(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/003803857200600101.
  5. DiMaggio, P.J. and Powell, W.W. (1983). The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147-160.
  6. Dumitru, V. F., Stanciu, A., Dumitru, M., & Feleagă, L. (2014). Pressure and isomorphism in business education. Amfiteatru Economic Journal, 16(37), 784–799.
  7. Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2.
  8. Meyer, J., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340-363.
  9. Oliver, C. (1997). Sustainable Competitive Advantage: Combining Institutional and Resource-Based Views. Strategic Management Journal, 18(9), 697–713. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3088134.
  10. Patnaik, S., Munjal, S., Varma, A., & Sinha, S. (2022). Extending the resource-based view through the lens of the institution-based view: A longitudinal case study of an Indian higher educational institution. Journal of Business Research, 147, 124–141. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.03.091.
  11. Penrose, E. (1959). The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
  12. Scott, W.R., & Davis, G.F. (2000). Organizations and Organizing: Rational, Natural and Open Systems Perspectives (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315663371.
  13. Teece, D.J., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 509-533.
  14. Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W. (1999). Institutional Logics and the Historical Contingency of Power in Organizations: Executive Succession in the Higher Education Publishing Industry, 1958–1990. American Journal of Sociology, 105(3), 801–843. https://doi.org/10.1086/210361