Internationalization of doctoral programs: is foreign-made better than domestic?

ABSTRACT

The authors conducted a global survey of AACSB accredited doctoral business programs during the spring of 2004. The study compared U.S. programs to their foreign counterparts on a number of faculty, student, and program variables. The results show that programs in foreign countries have significantly more faculty who (a) are bilingual; (b) grew up in a foreign country, but now have citizenship in the country where they teach; (c) have rived abroad long enough to be well grounded in another country's culture; and (d) have published international business research or scholarship. In addition, more foreign students have conducted international business research; spent a semester/quarter abroad teaching, studying or working; and participated in international business seminars, workshops, or conferences. Foreign schools also have more programs with a language requirement and stress a greater amount of international business knowledge and skills in concentrations, such as finance, economics, and policy/strategy. U.S. doctoral programs, on the other hand, have more bilingual students, students whose major concentration is in international business, and students who majored and minored in international business at the master's or undergraduate level. Overall, foreign business schools' doctoral faculty and students appear to have significantly more international exposure and education than their U.S. counterparts, and foreign curricula appear to be more international in scope and have greater international content and exposure.

Keywords: Internationalization of Doctoral Programs; Global Doctoral Business Education; Internationalizing Doctoral Programs; Global Doctoral Business Curricula.

1. INTRODUCTION

Brickbats, batons and barricades. Riot troops, tear gas and barbed wire. Armored vehicles, rocks and bottles and ambulances. Is this Palestine, Baghdad, Lebanon, or Haiti? No, it is just a meeting of the G7 or the World Trade Organization discussing globalization of world trade. The activists on the street are not rebels or terrorists. They are the average college students, intellectual or organized workers who are protesting the inevitable tide of world exchange and free trade that is bringing people closer together, intertwining societies and economies, and, supposedly, laying the groundwork for world peace. Is it ignorance or knowledge, protectionism or patriarchy, distrust and manipulation, or lack of understanding? Those wise pundits and analysts believe it is all the above and a belief harbored in the late 1960's that students and activists could change the world. These early activists are now a well-ingrained part of the capitalist establishment.

Who should society turn to for abolishing ignorance? Explaining world trade and the benefits of economic exchange across borders and oceans? One of the answers lies in the business schools of the world and the internationalization of business programs that are responsible for preparing children to become adults with the skills, knowledge and critical thinking to be successful in the field of business. Moreover, the most esteemed accrediting body in the business field, the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) International has mandated that accredited business programs be internationalized through curriculum offerings, experiences, and exposure to global business practices. The power to internationalize programs is in the hands of the faculty. They reflect the training received in doctoral programs in the U.S. and around the world. However, only recently has the AACSB endeavored to accredit doctoral programs, and then with an emphasis upon research, tools and techniques, teaching and placement of the doctoral students. Begging the question is: Where is internationalization in the doctoral program? Is it better to be educated in the U.S. or another country (foreign) if a doctoral student desires a truly international exposure to business? This paper attempts to address and compare the international nature of doctoral programs that have been accredited by the AACSB International and assess whether a doctoral program in the U.S. or another country better meets the needs for a globally trained faculty member.

2. BACKGROUND

The issue of internationalizing the business curriculum is not virgin territory but has been espoused and demanded by business leaders for decades. In a recent study of international business managers, Webb, Mayer, Pioche, and Allen (1999) found that business schools still do not graduate an adequate number of students trained for international business activities. Likewise, business programs have been studied for their international content and delivery over the last few decades with little differences found in how business curricula have dramatically changed (Terpstra, 1969; Daniels and Radebaugh, 1974; Grosse and Perritt, 1980; Thanopoulos and Leonard, 1986; Kwok, Arpan, and Folks, Jr., 1994; and Webb, Mayer and Pioche, 1997). While this stream of research has focused on undergraduate and graduate programs, little research has fully examined the international component of doctoral programs.

Doctoral programs in business represent the mother spring of doctoral-qualified faculty who are charged with the internationalization of business programs. Thus, if doctoral programs are not internationally driven in content and perspective, then it is even more difficult to have the same people charged with internationalizing these business programs. This, in turn, may lead to a cultural bias transmitted by the senior faculty to junior, doctoral students who in turn focus on the wishes of their mentors. Research in the area of international doctoral business education has suffered in deference to research on undergraduate and master-level programs as witnessed by the research cited above. Early research by Nehrt (1987) indicated that international business was given only slight attention in many of the largest U.S. doctoral programs. Similar findings were later reported by Kuhne (1990), Rose (1994), and Kwok, Arpan and Folks, Jr. (1994). In the most recent studies on doctoral business education, Kwok and Arpan (2002) report that there has been progress in the internationalization of business schools' programs, including doctoral programs. However, in a sharply focused study of AACSB doctoral programs throughout the world, Webb and Allen (2005) report that international business is an often overlooked, and a poor stepchild to the other elements of doctoral business education. In light of the fact that Webb and Allen included foreign as well as domestic programs, the prognosis is not good for international content in doctoral programs.

Exposure to persons of other cultures, language, business training and international experience can overcome the lack of formal training in a specific area. In that the doctoral student learns from others, and self, rather than in the formal classroom, does not diminish the value of this form of education. More importantly, this experiential form of education can be more enduring and have a greater impact upon the individual than formal, classroom education. To this end, this research examines the degree of internationalization of doctoral programs in foreign countries versus those found in the more insular U.S. One would hypothesize that with the advent of the European Union, Australasian trade, NAFTA, and the growing importance of international trade to foreign countries, doctoral programs in other parts of the world would be more international in scope and have greater international content and exposure in their programs than in the U.S.

The research presented here examines all AACSB accredited doctoral programs throughout the world. The purpose is to compare U.S. doctoral programs on a number of dimensions to those found in other countries (foreign). Of primary interest is the international training and perspective of the faculty, students, and their backgrounds and experience in U.S. doctoral programs versus their foreign counterparts. And, would one be better advised to acquire their doctoral education in a foreign environment if the desire was to be better qualified in the international dimension.

3. METHODOLOGY

The research methodology section describes the process used to develop, refine, and test the questionnaire in this study. In addition, the sample population of interest, response rates, and survey administration are presented.

3.1 Questionnaire

The researchers constructed a questionnaire after a thorough review of the empirical research on doctoral business programs, faculty, and students. The first three sections of the survey employed the Percentage Rating Scale, which is composed of 27 items that pertain to the characteristics of doctoral faculty and students. For convenience in collecting and analyzing the data, the researchers collapsed the percentages into categories--1-49% and 50% or more. The second three sections of the survey contained 14 items that pertained to the current status of doctoral programs, and required a "yes" or "no" response. In the final section, a Likert Scale was used to measure doctoral administrators' perceptions about the level of international business stressed in various concentrations. Experts in the field, including an AACSB representative, reviewed the survey. Following this distillation process, the researchers revised, pilot tested, refined, and then emailed the questionnaire to the target population.

3.2 Population and Survey Responses

AACSB provided a complete list of its accredited doctoral business programs (148). A standard cover letter was designed, personalized, and emailed with an attached survey instrument to each of the 148 accredited doctoral business programs. The contact person at each of the business schools were either the vice, associate, or assistant dean; director, associate or assistant director; doctoral committee chairperson; or program administrator or coordinator. The researchers sent the first set of e-mailings on March 19-20, 2004, to which 31 respondents returned completed questionnaires. The second set of emailings was sent on April 9-10, 2004 to non-respondents, to which 27 returned a completed questionnaire. The third wave of e-mailings was sent on April 20, 2004 to the remaining non-respondents, to which 12 returned a completed questionnaire. Seventy completed questionnaires were returned within four weeks for a return rate of 47.3%.

4. RESULTS

The respondents came from the following five regions and represented 24 countries: Australia (Queensland), Asia (Israel and Singapore), Europe (France, Germany, Ireland, London, Netherlands, Switzerland, and United Kingdom), North America (Canada, Mexico, and United States), and South America (Brazil). The researchers performed rigorous analyses to determine whether the differences they found were significant when comparing U.S. to their foreign counterparts. Sixty-seven percent of the respondents were from the U.S. and 33 percent were from the other countries (foreign).

4.1 Faculty Characteristics

As Table 1 shows, U.S. and foreign respondents showed significant differences from each other on five of eleven variables concerning the characteristics of their faculty. They included the percentage of faculty who (a) are bilingual (p<0.000); (b) have citizenship in a country other than the one in which they were born (p<0.005); (c) lived abroad long enough to be well-grounded in another (foreign) culture (p<0.008); (d) published international business research or scholarship (p<0.081); and, (e)were members of an international business organization, such as the Academy of International Business (p<0.045). On each of these factors, the significance was found to be in the direction of the foreign rather than the U.S doctoral business programs. The foreign programs have significantly more faculty members who are bilingual, have citizenship in a country other than in the country where they were born, have lived abroad long enough to be well grounded in another country's culture, have published international business research or scholarship, and are members of an international business organization.

4.2 Student Characteristics

Table 2, Part "a" presents eleven characteristics of doctoral business students. Of interest were the percentages of doctoral business students in U.S. and foreign schools with these characteristics. The respondents in the U.S. and those in other countries responded significantly differently to the following characteristics: (a) bilingual (p<0.001); (b) major concentration in international business (p<0.011); (c) majored in international business at the master's or undergraduate level (p<0.057); and, (d) minored in international business at the master's or undergraduate level (p<0.030). As expected, the significances were in the direction of the U.S. The U.S. programs were found to have significantly more bilingual students than their foreign counterparts, more students whose major concentration is in international business, and more students who majored and minored in international business at the master's or undergraduate levels.

Table 2, Part "b" highlights six international business activities that students would be exposed to by graduation that could potentially enhance their internationality. Significant differences were found between U.S. and foreign schools on the following three activities that students would have completed by graduation: (a) conducted international business research (p<0.086); (b) spent a semester/quarter abroad teaching, studying, or working (p<0.049); and, (c) participated in international business seminars, workshops, or conferences (p<0.000). These differences favored foreign schools. By graduation, a greater percentage of foreign students will have conducted international business research; spent a semester/quarter abroad teaching, studying, or working; and participated in international business seminars, workshops, or conferences.

4.3 Doctoral Program Characteristics

The researchers investigated a variety of characteristics of doctoral business programs, as Table 3 shows. Part "a" showcases the results as they relate to the approaches business schools use to internationalize their curricula. Of the seven variables examined, only one was found to be significantly different between U.S. and foreign schools. It was "Have no specific approach, but encourage faculty to incorporate international material" (p<0.040). Doctoral programs in the U.S. were found to have a greater percentage of programs with no specific approach to internationalizing the curricula.

Table 3, Part "b" presents the findings on program offerings, in terms of international business courses. U.S. and foreign programs did not differ significantly in the percentage of schools that offered international marketing, finance, accounting, management, and international business, but the programs did differ significantly on international strategy. Foreign schools were found to have a greater percentage of schools that offer international strategy (p<0.011).

Do U.S. and foreign schools differ significantly in their offerings of a joint-degree program with schools in another country and their language requirement? Table 3, Part "c" shows that while U.S. and foreign schools did not differ significantly on the joint-degree program variable, they did differ significantly on language requirement (p<0.000). A greater percentage of foreign schools have a language requirement than those in the U.S.

As Table 3, Part "d" shows, business schools in the U.S. responded significantly different than foreign schools on four of seven variables when asked, "How heavily is international business knowledge and skills stressed in concentrations offered by the doctoral business program?" The countries differed in their responses on the subject areas of finance ((p<0.068), policy/strategy (p<0.095), economics (p<0.064), and organizational behavior (p<0.098). U.S. schools have a significantly greater percentage of schools that integrate a heavy amount of international business in finance in their programs, whereas foreign schools have a significantly greater percentage of programs that have a heavy emphasis on international business in policy/strategy, economics, and organizational behavior.

5. IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

The implications derived from this research are not as clear and concise as would be desired. At times, the results are somewhat contrary to the thinking that U.S. doctoral programs are more insular than those found in other parts of the world. However, one could theorize that the results of this research can be explained by several phenomena that are operational across boundaries.

First is the homogenizing effect of the AACSB accreditation process. In essence, the AACSB looks at the same criteria for determining whether or not to accredit a doctoral program. While there may be differences across programs, the degrees of freedom allowed by the AACSB are few, rather than manifold. Thus, by seeking legitimacy, one also gets conformity to the standards applied for accreditation. Second, students in today's doctoral programs are multinational in background as witnessed by the large influx of "foreign" students in U.S. programs and the cross-cultural, cross-pollinated student populations found in Europe, Australia and New Zealand. Third, faculty tends to be more international in perspective, if not in practice. Many faculty members have left their home country to establish their careers and families in countries that hold out greater promise than the country in which they were born. Those that stay in their home country have been indoctrinated with the concept of "being international." As the world shrinks, countries become intertwined economically, socially and politically. Likewise, faculties of business find themselves explaining markets not domestically, but internationally. The inevitable has happened; we have become globalized without knowing it.

To answer the question that was first addressed in this research as to whether a new doctoral student should be mentored to attend a U.S. or foreign doctoral program for a greater international perspective, the answer is either program. A student who wants a more internationally diverse faculty will need to go beyond the U.S. On the other hand, if a student seeks a cross section of international students, then it is a toss-up. By attending U.S. programs, there will be more international students than elsewhere. However, a student who is a U.S. domestic is advised to get more international exposure by going abroad. Curricula are somewhat the same no matter where students choose to go. It does appear, however, that there is more emphasis across the board on international business in foreign doctoral programs. A better question for mentors to ask students is where they will like to practice. If it is in the U.S., then they should go to a U.S. program; if in a foreign institution, then the choices are more diverse.

The final choice is truly determined by students' fields of study, and where students believe they will find the best fit, education and experience. Ultimately, the success or failure is due to the individual student and not the institutions granting the degrees.

6. LIMITATIONS

Unlike many studies, this research has a well-defined population of interest and it is easily enumerated. The major limitation of the sampling of the total population is the non-response exhibited by AACSB schools. While the response rate of over 47% is quite good, the results would have been clearer if all had responded. The other shortcoming is found in the research instrument itself. The researchers did strive to make the questionnaire easy to understand, complete and eliciting valid responses; hindsight would suggest, as always, that improvements could have been made in wording, construction, and scaling. On the Percentage Range Scale used in the study, the percentage categories were somewhat broad. This aside, the authors are confident that the results provided in this study will help doctoral faculty, students and administrators delve deeper into the developmental issues of faculty and program content to further enhance their programs; and, ultimately, the true internationalization of all their business programs. In which case, this research study would not have been necessary.

REFERENCES

Daniels, John D. and Radebaugh, Lee H., "International Business Curriculum Survey", Academy of international Business, 1974

Grosse, Robert and Perritt, Gerald W., "International Business Curricula: A Global Survey", Academy of International Business, 1980

Kuhne, Robert, "Comparative analysis of U.S. Doctoral programs in International Business", Journal of International Business, Vol. 1 (3/4), 85-99, 1990

Kwok, Chuck C.Y. and Arpan, Jeffrey S., "Internationalizing the Business School: A Global Survey in 2000", Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 33 (3), 3rd Quarter, 2002

Kwok, Chuck C.Y., Arpan, Jeffrey S., and Folks, Jr., W.R., "A Global Survey of International

Business Education in the 1990s", Journal of International Business Studies, 1994

Nehrt, Lee C., "The Internationalization of the Curriculum", Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 18 (1), 83-90, spring 1987

Rose, Peter S., "Internationalizing Business Ph.D. Programs: How Much Progress Have We Made", Internationalizing Doctoral Education in Business, edited by S. Tamer Cavusgil and Nancy E. Horn, Michigan State University Press, East Lancing, 7-23, 1997

Terpstra, Vern, "University Education for International Business", Association for Education in International Business, 1969

Thanopoulos, John and Leonard, Joseph W., "International Business Curricula: A Global Survey", Academy of International Business, 1986

Webb, Marion and Allen, Lida, "A Global Survey of AACSB Accredited Doctoral Programs--2004", Journal of Teaching in International Business, Vol. 16 (3), 2005

Webb, Marion, Mayer, Kenneth, and Pioche, Virginie, "An analysis of U.S. Business Schools' Catalogs, Application Packages, and Program Materials from an International Perspective", Journal of Marketing for Education, 1997

Webb, Marion, Mayer, Kenneth, Pioche, Virginie & Allen, L., "Internationalization of American Business Education", Management International Review, Vol. 39 (4), 379-397, 1999

Marion Stanton Webb, Cleveland State University, Business, Cleveland, Ohio, USA

William J. Lundstrom, Cleveland State University, Business, Cleveland, Ohio, USA

Dr. Marion Stanton Webb earned her Ph.D. at The University of Akron, Ohio in 1990, and completed post-doctoral coursework in marketing at Kent State University, Ohio. Currently, she is an associate professor of general business in the Department of Marketing at Cleveland State University, where she served as interim chairperson for 2 1/2 years. Her research area of interest is the internationalization of master's and doctoral programs.

Dr. William J. Lundstrom earned his Ph.D. at the University of Colorado, Boulder in 1974. He is currently professor of marketing at Cleveland State University. Former chair of the American Marketing Association Global Marketing Special Interest Group he serves on its Board of Directors and is a member of the District Export Council of Northern Ohio.

TABLE 1. CHARACTERISTICS OF DOCTORAL BUSINESS FACULTY

                             U.S. vs. Foreign Schools

What percentage of your      N   [X.sup.2]  df  * Asymp  Direction
doctoral business faculty                       Sig.     of Sig.
members

are bilingual?               62  13.697     1   .000     foreign

are foreign nationals?
(citizenship in a foreign
country)                     63  8.036      1   .005     Foreign

grew up in a foreign
country, but now have
citizenship in the country
where our school is
located?                     60  1.434      1   --       --

are visiting professors
from foreign colleges or
universities?                63  1.367      1   --       --

lived abroad long enough to
be well-grounded in a
foreign culture?             62  6.988      1   .008     foreign

have published
international business
research or scholarship?     60  3.052      1   .081     foreign

have international
business work or consulting
experience?                  57  0.628      1   --       --

majored in international
business at the master's or
undergraduate level?         36  --         --  --       --

minored in international
business at the master's or
undergraduate level?         31  2.170      1   --       --

have taken one or more
international business
courses?                     30  1.632      1   --

are members of an
international business
organization, such as
the Academy of
International
Business?                    43  4.029      1   .045     foreign

* Asymp Sig. are for U.S. and foreign (other countries) doctoral
programs and are reported only when p<=0.1. Coded Responses:
0 = 0%-49%; 1 = 50 or more

TABLE 2. CHARACTERISTICS OF DOCTORAL BUSINESS STUDENTS

                           U.S. vs. Foreign Schools

Part a: What percentage    N   [X.sup.2]  df  * Asymp    Direction
of your doctoral business                     Sig.       of Sig.
students

are bilingual?             67  10.674     1   .001       U.S.

are foreign nationals?
(citizenship in a foreign
country)                   68  .033       1   --         --

grew up in a foreign
country, but now have
citizenship in the count
where our school is
located?                   57  .048       1   --         --

have international
business work or
consulting experience?     54  .742       1   --         --

members of an
international business
organization, such as the
Academy of International
Business?                  28  1.020      1   --         --

major concentration is in
international business?    60  6.494      1   .011       U.S.

minor concentration is in
international business?    53  2.307      1   --         --

majored in international
business at the master's
or undergraduate level?    38  3.619      1   .057       U.S.

minored in international
business at the master's
or undergraduate level?    32  4.693      1   .030       U.S.

have taken one or more
international business
courses?                   44  .154       1   --         --

Part b. By graduation,
what percentage of your
doctoral business
students would have

interacted at least twice
a week over an entire
semester/quarter with
foreign people, such as
faculty, guest lecturers,
and students?              63  .094       1   --         --

conducted international
business research?         60  2.955      1   .086       foreign

spent a semester/quarter
abroad teaching,
studying, or working?      64  3.865      1   .049       foreign

lived abroad long enough
to be well-grounded in a
foreign culture?           61  2.042      1   --         --

participated in
international business
seminars, workshops,or
conferences?               58  13.877     1   .000       foreign

studied the global
economic environments of
organizations?             45  20.444     1   --         --

* Asymp Sig. are for foreign and U.S. doctoral programs and are
reported only when p<=0.1. Coded responses: 0 = 0%-49%; 1 = 50 or more

TABLE 3. CHARACTERISTICS OF DOCTORAL BUSINESS CURRICULA

                           U.S vs. Foreign Schools

Part a. Which of the       N   [X.sup.2]  df  * Asymp    Direction
following approaches is                       Sig.       of sig.
used to internationalize
your doctoral business
curriculum?

Include the international
dimension in the business
core courses.              66  .015       1   --         --

Require one general
international business
course.                    66  .011       1   --         --

Require one course from a
list of international
business courses.          66  1.796      1   --         --

Require one international
business course in the
area of concentration.     65  .100       1   --         --

Require students to take   64  ---        --  --         --
one internationally
oriented course outside
the business school.

Have no specific
approach, but encourage
faculty to incorporate
international material.    61  4.238      1   .040       U.S.

Part b. Does your
doctoral business program
offer the following
courses?

International Marketing.   66  .169       1   --         --

International Finance      64  .382       1   --         --

International Accounting   65  1.671      1   --         --

International Management   64  .008       1   --         --

International Strategy     65  6.424      1   .011       foreign

International Business     65  .151       1   --         --

Part c. Does our doctoral
business program

offer a joint degree with
one or more business
schools in another
country?                   63  2.185      1   --         --

have a second language
requirement?               69  15.486     1   .000       foreign

Part d. How heavily is
international business
knowledge and skills
stressed in the following
concentrations:

Marketing                  55  1.089      1   --         --
Finance                    55  3.320      1   .068       U.S.
Accounting                 46  1.513      1   --         --
Management                 51  1.545      1   --         --
Policy/Strategy            50  2.794      1   .095       foreign
Economics                  33  3.422      1   .064       foreign
Organizational Behavior    49  2.731      1   .098       foreign

* Asymp Sig. are for U.S. and foreign doctoral programs and are
reported only when p<=0.1.