A few weeks ago I interviewed three business school doctoral program directors, two from the U.S. and one from Latin America. These conversations revealed widely divergent opinions about the role of international study in doctoral education.
Differences across schools are expected, even encouraged. Schools have different missions, emphases, and approaches. But I was still surprised to discover how different the opinions about doctoral-level study abroad actually were. Although all of the programs emphasized research, indicating it as a top priority in their program objectives, the U.S. perspective (based on this comparison) remained that going abroad presents a disruption to students rather than a benefit. Throughout the conversation, Ph.D. programs were depicted as being in a category of their own (compared to MBA programs), making it more difficult for them to respond to globalization. With research constituting such an integral part of the doctoral education, students would not have access to the required resources if they were to lose a semester abroad, only unless the faculty mentor or dissertation chair was also at that same location.
However, the impression I got after discussing this topic with the South American b-school representative was very different. For example, within that school's doctoral program, a six-month study abroad period is compulsory for students; the sentiments behind the component were very positive; the experience was described as being "Amazing!" and not in the bit least regarded as a disruption to research and study. The idea of internationalizing students and immersing them into international academic communities appeared to be one of the program's biggest goals, priorities, and draws.
Beyond the Americas, based on earlier interviews and b-school collaboration research, a growing number of European business schools are starting to link up with Asian schools, even at the doctoral level. One interesting example is a DBA distance delivery program between two schools in Europe and Asia. This program adopted a "dual supervisory arrangement" aiming to appease fears (as mentioned above) of students lacking adequate access to their thesis supervisor. Students have two supervisors, one in each country, helping with their research. Having a second supervisor also allows for sharing of his or her local networks and helping to create context-specific knowledge about discipline and professional practice related matters.
Looking at AACSB's Collaboration Data, based on the responses of 2009-2010 BSQ participants representing 695 Schools, 21 collaborations were found in the form of a Study Abroad/ Student Exchange at the doctoral level. Of these 21 collaborations, only three U.S. schools were involved.
The academic, organizational, and even social culture in business schools varies from region to region and school to school; suggesting one approach is better than another would not be helpful. The context within which a school finds itself is a major factor determining whether scholars believe sending students abroad, even if it may cause breaks in valuable research, would be beneficial or not. Some programs are more established and confident in their knowledge and approach. Others are in earlier stages of development and more focused on establishing their position in the global academic community. However, it is safe to say that to expand doctoral students' global experiences and perspectives is a question that increasing numbers of business schools will ask, and more and more will decide the answer is "yes."
what a question! when you go for doctoral degree, its either you are eccentric or just a plane bored. LOL
Posted by: study abroad asia | 23 September 2011 at 04:53