Abstract
The Journal of Management Inquiry astutely predicted in 2004 that the Americanization of business education would not just continue but increase. Ten years later, it is arguable that the acceleration of the Americanization of management education has exceeded all expectations. To theoretically build toward understanding how and why the American business education model has been adopted to different extents, this comparative study builds on the institutional logics perspective, arguing that different institutional logics can potentially explain the various forms and patterns of Americanization and how they are manifested in the world’s business schools.
Introduction
After the Second World War, the United States became a leading industrial power and an economic model for the rest of the Western world. As a result, American management ideas and practices were commonly believed to be universal and transferable, and American business schools became important enablers of and participants in the American economic model (Engwall, 2007; Locke, 1989, 1996; Locke & Spender, 2011; Üsdiken, 2007). Consequently, American business education served as a point of reference for the remainder of the world, reflecting the history, norms, and values of the U.S. academic system and economy.
A decade ago, the Journal of Management Inquiry made a significant contribution to the literature by publishing historical and comparative perspectives on the Americanization of management education (Engwall, 2004; Kieser, 2004; Kipping, Üsdiken, & Puig, 2004; Tiratsoo, 2004; Üsdiken, 2004). Americanization was understood as one of the key trends in management education, and it was predicted that the Americanization of management education would actually increase as a result of the proliferation of a variety of U.S. practices and norms related to business programs, accreditations, and rankings.
Ten years later, the American business school model has undoubtedly gained an even more dominant position than anticipated. We argue that due to the absence of a theoretical understanding of Americanization, how and why business schools in non-American countries adopt the American business school model to different extents and why there are differences in Americanization levels within specific countries is vaguely understood. As a result of this gap in the literature, researchers studying country-specific Americanization have largely ignored these questions (Dameron & Durand, 2008; Fauri, 1998; Gemelli, 1996; Gutiérrez & Ortega, 2008; Kieser, 2004; Kipping, 1998; Meyer, 1998; Neal & Finlay, 2008; Tiratsoo, 1998, 2004).
Following Kieser (2004), this article defines Americanization as an open-ended, complex, and selective process of acculturation through which non-American business schools adopt the American business school model. As Djelic and Amdam (2007) stated, “Americanization happens through a series of successive and complementary phases that follow upon and articulate with each other during the second half of the twentieth century” (p. 488). Thus, Americanization can be understood as one type of imitation of ideas and practices across time and space (Greve, 1998).
Based on previous research, we know Americanization is not a simple process of transferring a practice or a model directly from the United States to another context; instead, Americanization is a process of translation, selective emulation, custom adaptation, and hybridization, which emphasizes the complex influence of national institutions on the Americanization of management education in different countries (e.g., Kieser, 2004; Kipping et al., 2004; Locke, 1989, 1996; Locke & Spender, 2011; Srinivas, 2008). Furthermore, Americanization occurs through a diffusion process and responds to isomorphic pressures among business schools worldwide. For instance, Engwall (2000) noted that in small countries where only a few institutions have historically dominated higher education, these leading domestic institutions are likely to adopt models from countries with which they have a high level of cultural affinity. Furthermore, because of the common legal framework and mimetic pressures, other schools that are established later tend to imitate these domestic higher education leaders (Engwall, 2000).
Although the diffusion of role models explains the historical development of business schools in a number of countries, the acceleration of Americanization during the last decade, which has been propelled by the increasing globalization of management education, is less understood. Little empirical evidence exists of how Americanization has occurred in this new era, during which business education systems as we have come to know them since the early 20th century have been increasingly shaped by marketization and corporatization accompanied by the all-permeating commodification of higher education (Alajoutsijärvi, Juusola, & Lamberg, 2014). Although it is obvious that understanding Americanization in different parts of the world calls for contextual sensitivity, we maintain that by polarizing the business education between what we now consider “traditional business schools” and market-oriented management education providers allows us to distinguish the variety of patterns that business schools follow in their translations of the “American model.”
In institutional terms, the above-mentioned, interrelated mechanisms that move higher education toward the market can be described as an institutional logic shift from academic logic to market logic (see, for example, Gumport, 2000; Popp Berman, 2011; Thornton & Ocasio, 1999). In general, institutional logics are defined as socially and historically constructed patterns of practices, assumptions, values, beliefs, and rules that shape the rational, mindful behavior of individuals and organizations (Friedland & Alford, 1991; Jackall, 1988; Popp Berman, 2011; Thornton & Ocasio, 1999, 2008). Whereas research universities have traditionally operated under academic logic, dedicating themselves to a value-free search for truth, the emergence of market logic commodifies academic research and education to produce measurable outputs with direct market value (Bok, 2003; Slaughter & Rhoades, 2011), eventually changing the basis of “appropriate” individual and organizational behavior within the field of higher education (Popp Berman, 2011).
This study examines the Americanization of business school systems within two institutional logics: academic logic via a Finnish case study and market logic via a case study of the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Whereas Finland is a northern European, stable welfare state with centuries-old traditions in higher education, the volume and quality of which is regulated by the state, the UAE is an Arab, Middle Eastern country that has risen from poverty within the past three decades to become one of the richest nations in the world. Simultaneously, the UAE has established its decentralized higher education system entirely within the frameworks of globalization and neoliberalism and even built a global market-oriented educational hub with dozens of foreign institutions (Alajoutsijärvi, Juusola, & Siltaoja, 2013; Alajoutsijärvi, Juusola, & Lamberg, 2014; Juusola, 2015). As a response, in terms of management education and its emergence in these two countries, it is reasonable to expect that the developments should be different. In a country such as Finland, the first business schools were established in the beginning of the last century, meaning that the management education system in Finland is strongly influenced by the traditional Humboldtian idea of a research university (Kettunen, 2013). In a country such as the UAE, management education is a far more recent phenomenon that emerged in an era of a more practical, utilitarian, and economic growth-driven university environment of ideas and higher education policies. Therefore, the development of, for instance, financial services in Dubai in the mid-2000s played an important role in the expansion of business schools in the UAE.
The fact that the business education systems in Finland and the UAE emerged at different times in history has implications for their Americanization as well. Whereas Finnish business schools were early and, together with their European siblings, had to struggle their way to becoming accepted academic institutions, the emergence of UAE business schools was a part of a much later, worldwide expansion of management education. Indeed, the American model was gradually incorporated into the Finnish business education during the latter half of the 20th century (Alajoutsijärvi, Kettunen, & Tikkanen, 2012), whereas in the UAE, the U.S.-based business school model was imported much rapidly, more or less during the course of the 2000s, during which the institutional logic of the higher education field had already developed more favorably toward market-oriented solutions in organizing business education. As a corollary of this, the institutional logics that are socially and historically constructed in the business school systems in the two case countries are inherently very different. Owing to the fundamental nature of institutional logics in governing the actions of business schools, comparing Finland’s and the UAE’s business education systems from the institutional logics perspective has potential to shed new, interesting light on the various forms and patterns of Americanization, and how they are manifested in the world’s business schools.
On a conceptual level, owing largely to the differences in the age and development trajectories of their management education systems, Finland and the UAE represent two rather extreme cases that illustrate the aforementioned partially conflicting institutional logics of academia and the market, under which worldwide business schools operate (Popp Berman, 2011). In line with Eisenhardt and Graebner (2007), comparing the two institutional logics is particularly suitable for theoretical sampling purposes to illuminate and extend the understanding of complex phenomena, such as Americanization, to build theory. Therefore, the case countries were selected for the likelihood that because their education systems represent different institutional logics, the theoretical insights drawn from their comparison can go beyond what a single case study could provide (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). Having said this, we propose that although there are some inherent and obvious risks in simplifying, typecasting, and contrasting, at the same time, this exaggeration may be valuable in that it helps us to reflect the complexity of social reality—that is, the various forms of Americanization—that exists between the two extremes.
A Framework for Analyzing the Americanization of Business Education
We argue that the Americanization of business education is a highly complex and under-theorized phenomenon that calls for a more systematic and conceptual framework. The management education system in the United States consists of a wide spectrum of different types of business schools that vary from purely teaching-focused institutions, such as community colleges to high-profile, prestigious research institutions. Whereas contemporary research on the Americanization of management education acknowledges the difficulty in characterizing the “American business school model” (see, for example, Korpiaho, Päiviö, & Räsänen, 2007, p. 36), there is a wide-ranging consensus among management education scholars that the dominant point of reference for most of the world’s business schools is the research university model of the top U.S. business schools, such as Harvard, Wharton, Stanford, and Duke (see, for instance, Augier & March, 2011, p. 147; Wedlin, 2011, p. 212). In fact, owing to their international recognition and reputation, these schools have formed an exclusive group of world-class universities that has created a universal benchmark for other institutions across the world that aspire to their ranks (Salmi, 2009).
Although the emulation of American universities began after the Second World War, the U.S. education system has gone through significant changes, particularly since the 1970s, when even the traditional research universities were exposed to and were changed by the increasing pressures of market logic. These macro-trends have transformed the university structure and ethos in the United States, slowly eroding the traditional academic logic in favor of a more market-based ideology and gradually changing the dominant legitimating idea of public higher education from a social institution to an industry (Gumport, 2000; Popp Berman, 2011; Slaughter & Rhoades, 2011). Therefore, the American business school model that is referred to elsewhere represents an ideal type that is based on a handful of top-tier, U.S.-based research institutions that are not static but constantly reforming due to national education policies and global competition.
Building on the aforementioned top-tier research university model, this study elaborates on the previously vague notions of the American business school model by developing a systematic framework that enables the analysis of management education Americanization on three key dimensions: the superstructure, research, and education that capture the patterns of practices, assumptions, values, beliefs, and rules that shape the mindful behavior of business school organizations and their individual actors, such as researchers, teachers, students, and administrators. Although these selected dimensions are not completely independent of one another, they represent key concepts for the analysis because acceptance of the U.S. educational model and ethos implies the acceptance of certain ideas regarding business practices, business education, the necessary facilities of an academic institution, academic governance, financial resources, and faculty. In other words, institutional logic (whether academic or market) manifests itself in the array of business school practices in relation to which the Americanization of a business education system can be analyzed (see Table 1).
Constructing the American Business School Ideal.
Note. AACSB = Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business.
Superstructure
The top schools that are the foundation of the American model are typically non-profit private or public institutions. Their primary funding sources are large endowments, capital gains, tuition fees, and governmental support. A primary feature of the governance structure of these universities is an increasingly powerful board of trustees (Ginsberg, 2011; Tuchman, 2009). These top business schools often have renowned faculty and generate substantial income for their universities (Korpiaho et al., 2007; Wilson & McKiernan, 2011). Moreover, these top business schools are highly reputable institutions whose brands are internationally well known and valued, and most of these schools also have branch campuses (Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business [AACSB], 2011). These schools are highly ranked and serve as benchmarks for accreditation agencies such as the AACSB (Altbach, 2003; Wedlin, 2011). In general, the governance structure of top American business schools has shifted toward a greater market orientation and greater corporatization (Khurana, 2007; Slaughter & Rhoades, 2011; Tuchman, 2009). What is more, these business schools have a neoliberal-politicized ethos that responds to the growing belief that neoclassical economics is a foundational discipline of management education (Khurana & Penrice, 2011).
Research
The faculty members at top schools typically were educated in the United States and have published in top American journals. They earn promotions through open competition, and most prominent professors are tenured. The teaching load at top schools is low, and professors focus on producing publications for A-level journals (Schultz, 2010). Faculty members at top schools also tend to exclusively cite publications in A-level journals by their American colleagues (Engwall, 2000). In fact, top American business schools have “invented” the criteria for academically rigorous research by adapting the model used in the natural sciences (Schultz, 2010).
Education
Top schools can afford to be extremely selective in admitting students to their programs. These students are career-oriented “customers” who have invested in their degree so that they can acquire an executive position through the credentials and prestige that the degree will provide (Vaara & Fay, 2011). American business education has a two-tiered degree structure that includes a more general bachelor’s degree and a master’s degree, most typically from a highly rated MBA program, whereas MSc, DBA, and PhD degrees are rare (Antunes & Thomas, 2007). The curricula of the top schools are supposed to be demanding, and the course literature is mostly based on books with an American management ideology (Engwall, 2004). Programs typically include modular courses that address a wide array of managerial tools, and especially in MBA programs, teaching is typically case based.
Based on the ethos and practices of the “ideal type” of American business school, we can summarize the main dimensions of business education: the superstructure, which includes the governance structure and reputation sources; research, which comprises faculty research and teaching activities; and education, which connects the students, degrees, and curricula.
Relying on the notion that Americanization is essentially institutional isomorphism that responds to the global diffusion of U.S.-based business school practices, we claim that Americanization response variations can be best understood by observing the practice-level adoption of the U.S. model. To explain the variation in the ways in which American business school practices are implemented by non-U.S. business schools, we can reference two fundamental continuums (see Figure 1). A school’s position on the horizontal axis reflects the number of practices (low-high) that the school has adopted related to its superstructure and research and the education that it provides. More specifically, the American business school model can be adopted either selectively or across the entire system. A school’s position on the vertical axis, in turn, reflects the degree to which the school has adopted each of these practices (low-high). This continuum is therefore related to how closely an adopted practice resembles the American practice. In conclusion, the amount of adopted practices and degree of adoption result in different Americanization response types, which may vary from imitation to immunization, and different hybridization forms, namely, transmutation, compromization, and imposterization (see Figure 1).
Five business school responses to Americanization.
In the imitation (see Strandgaard Petersen & Dobbin, 2006) corner of the presented framework, a non-American business school implements the practices of the American business school model broadly and profoundly throughout the system. By contrast, an educational system that identifies but rejects foreign practices and persists in using its own traditional practices occupies the immunization (see Strandgaard Petersen & Dobbin, 2006) corner of the framework.
Although prior research describes Americanization simply as a hybridization process, we follow Pache and Santos (2013) and distinguish among various forms of Americanization using the concept of hybridization as an umbrella term for transmutation, compromization, and imposterization. A non-American business school that fully adopts one or more elements of the American model and implements them profoundly within its system, typically over a longer period of time, occupies the transmutation (see Strandgaard Petersen & Dobbin, 2006) corner of the framework. Compromization (see Pache & Santos, 2013) is the form of Americanization in which a non-U.S. business school partially blends national or original practices with American ones, resulting in a business school that resides somewhere between its “parent models.” Thus, through compromization, a business school tries to find acceptable balance between potentially conflicting American and national or original practices.
Finally, based on the market demand for American-style higher education, we introduce a new form of Americanization that we refer to as imposterization. Imposterization is a market- and demand-driven approach to selling American-style education in which a school superficially implements an extensive number of American business school practices to appear “American.” For instance, a business school can, symbolically or marketing-wise, endorse American practices without intending to implement the whole package that is associated with reputable American institutions. These schools typically lack the resources required to build prestige to transform into traditional research universities as represented by top-tier U.S. business schools (Altbach, 2009).
Our Research Setting
This study examines the Americanization of business education in Finland and in the UAE after the Second World War. The origins of the research project lie in our interest in studying the internationalization of management education, although we narrowed this focus to the American influence on business education in different countries. In comparing the internationalization of management education in different parts of the world, we noticed that business education in both Finland and the UAE has been strongly influenced by the American model.
Although Finland and the UAE differ geopolitically and politically, these two countries provide a useful basis for comparison because they share certain interesting similarities that likely reflect their responses to the dominant U.S. business school model. First, both Finland and the UAE were once occupied by other countries, which may have influenced to which countries they looked to for their business school models. Second, in both countries, considerable internationalization of domestic businesses occurred in the 1990s, creating incentives to develop management education. Third, there is strong state interference in the provision of higher education in both countries. Fourth, business education in both countries has a history of being dominated by a few pioneering institutions, namely, the Helsinki School of Economics (HSE) and the Swedish school of Economics (Hanken) in Finland, and the United Arab Emirates University (UAEU) in the UAE. However, these pioneering institutions in Finland were gradually influenced by the American model (Engwall, 2004, 2007), whereas the American model was implemented more recently and directly in the UAE.
In the Finnish context, all 10 business schools at universities were included in the study 1 (see also the appendix). In the UAE, although the higher education landscape includes dozens of business schools from federal, private, and international branch campuses (IBCs), only 20 of them are local Emirati schools and thus, they are the focus of our study 2 (see also the appendix). The empirical data concerning business education in the two countries were collected by the authors beginning in 2007. In the first phase of the analysis, we separately examined interview data, school histories, and other published material collected from spring 2007 to fall 2010 concerning Finland and the UAE, and we identified key events in the development of business education in these countries. We found that the key events highlighted in both the printed sources and the stories told by interviewees were often closely linked to some type of foreign influence that had entered the system and changed it.
Because the primary foreign influence that seemed to have altered both systems was the American model, we continued our data collection with another round of interviews in 2010-2011. These interviews with current and former rectors, deans, and senior managers, as well as professors and other faculty members (referred to in the analysis section as informants to preserve anonymity), had a more specific focus on the “internationalization” and “American influence” of business education. The third round of interviews, which was conducted in 2011-2014, consisted of interviews with current and former rectors, deans, and faculty members at all of the major business schools in Finland and the UAE. These interviews were intended to provide a micro perspective concerning the school-specific variations in Americanization and to analyze the institutional decisions driving these developments. The interviews were analyzed following the discussion of Americanization to identify implicit references by the interviewees to, for instance, “internationalization,” the “universal model,” or the concept of a “top university.” Finally, we constructed the two narrative accounts that address Americanization in terms of superstructure, faculty, and education. These narratives depict the essential periods in the Americanization of business education in these two countries and inform the theoretical discussion in the comparative analysis and our conclusions.
Reporting on business education in Finland is more transparent than such reporting is in the UAE and is organized by the state and by professional associations of business graduates (e.g., reports by the Association of Finnish Business School Graduates and the Ministry of Education were utilized in this research). Reporting in the UAE, by contrast, is less centralized and less systematic, which poses certain challenges for data collection. Due to these challenges and the large number of UAE schools, it was partially beyond this study’s scope to elaborate on each UAE school in detail in our analysis. During the data collection process for the UAE, we relied slightly more on interviews and business school visits. Overall, we held 30 interviews and informal discussions for Finland and 34 for the UAE.
The Americanization of Business Education in Finland
Imitation of German business education and the emerging American influence, 1945-1960
The first business schools in Finland were founded in the early 20th century: the Swedish School of Economics (the Hanken School of Economics) in 1909 and the HSE (known since 2010 as the Aalto University School of Business [ASB]) in 1911. At the time, the German research-based university system was in many respects the envied and imitated model for universities around the world, including those in the United States (Altbach, 2011; Augier & March, 2011). German universities in the 19th century differed from their counterparts in countries such as France and Britain, in that German universities were devoted to Wissenschaft (science) and the non-utilitarian Humboldtian tradition; they placed a relatively high value on scientific research and were therefore reluctant to accept applied business studies within their realm in the beginning (Locke, 1989). As a response, the stand-alone Handelshochschule was adopted as the primary organizational form first in Germany and later among its followers in Northern European countries (Alajoutsijärvi et al., 2012). In the field of business education, conformity to the Wissenschaft tradition meant establishing “business science,” Betriebswirtschaftslehre (BWL), which was practiced in Handelshochschulen (business schools), where ambitious individuals were expected to prove their research competence by completing a doctoral thesis and a professorial thesis or Habilitationsschrift (Locke, 1989).
Owing to their close cultural, political, and economic proximity to Germany, northern European countries such as Finland imitated the stand-alone Handelshochschule model as the organizational superstructure for their first business schools (see Engwall, 2000, 2004, 2007, 2009). Because the prevailing Finnish university system was already based on the Humboldtian tradition, adopting many German-based business school practices, both by transferring them to the Finnish system (e.g., school mission statement, professorial thesis) and by adjusting them to Finnish contextual realities, such as financial constraints (e.g., curriculum, estimated cost structure), was a rather natural development trajectory. Adopting these practices had a profound influence on Finnish business education for several decades, making those practices relatively immune to subsequent American influences. For instance, Hanken and HSE, and later, the Turku School of Economics (TSE) in 1950, were established as stand-alone business schools and have been until recently labeled in Finnish and Swedish as “kauppakorkeakoulu” or “handelshögskolan,” which are direct translations of the word “Handelshochschule,” and the students study “liiketaloustiede,” a translation of BWL. To fulfill their educational mission, the initial curricula of the first schools and their core textbooks were adopted from business schools in Cologne, Berlin, and Frankfurt (Järvinen, 1907). Likewise, three out of five doctoral dissertations on business prior to the Second World War were written in German, and they tended to be strongly based on the German accounting tradition.
As in many Nordic countries after the Second World War, the German influence on the Finnish academic system was diluted by Germany’s post-war recovery and the increasing political, economic, and cultural influence of the United States. As Vironmäki (2007) argued, the emerging post-war distrust of Germany was countered by the benevolent view of the United States, which at the time seemed to be “a homeland of everything that was new, big, fine, and good” (p. 114).
Nevertheless, during the Cold War, war-impoverished Finland found itself caught in a politically delicate position between the Western world and the Soviet Union. For instance, owing to Soviet pressure, unlike for many other European countries, it was not politically expedient for Finland to accelerate its social recovery by accepting direct monetary aid under the Marshall Plan. However, more indirect forms of support, such as library endowments, were allowed. Consequently, Finland started to use donations referred to as ASLA (Amerikan Suomen lainan apurahat) to procure American literature. The ASLA donations were made using the loan that Finland had accepted from the United States after the Second World War. Based on a decision by the U.S. Congress, the interest and amortization of the loan were paid to a fund that disbursed the money to university libraries in Finland (Mäkinen, 2000; United States Public Law no 265, 81st Congress, cited in Jokinen & Suominen, 2010). 3
Until the late 1950s, the dominant language used in Finnish business schools’ textbooks and doctoral dissertations was Finnish, Swedish, or German, whereas English was less common. In the post-war recovery period, Finnish university libraries, including business school libraries, suffered from a lack of contemporary literature: Although their connections to the outside world were now re-established, there was no money for them to acquire foreign publications (Mäkinen, 2000). Therefore, the ASLA donations played a significant role in rebuilding business school activities in Finland. For instance, the newly founded TSE received US$1,500 (currently worth approximately US$15,000) “for the purchase of American scientific, technical and scholarly books and books of American literature for higher educational and research institutions in Finland” (Jokinen & Suominen, 2010, p. 9). Illustrating the long-term influence of the program to TSE, for instance, the endowments continued from the date on which the school was established until 1965 (Jokinen & Suominen, 2010).
Owing to the nature of the ASLA program, the literature acquired using the endowment money was required to be American. In fact, the books that were acquired in this manner were identified with a specific ex libris that stated, “This book has been presented to Finland through ASLA funds by the Government of the United States of America […] as an expression of Friendship and Goodwill which the people of the United States hold for The People of Finland.” (Mäkinen, 2000, p. 16). Mäkinen (2000) noted that although the ASLA endowments could easily have been perceived as a part of the Cold War political game, avoiding Americanization would have left the academic system and the entire country in miserable conditions. According to the senior librarian at the University of Helsinki, who acted as a primary coordinator of the book donations in Finland, “[if] it is propaganda, then it is welcome and healthy propaganda” (Lauri O. Th. Tudeer, Senior Librarian 1884-1954, University of Helsinki, cited in Mäkinen, 2000, p. 14).
Compromising German traditions with American practices, 1960-1990
The 1960s and 1970s significantly expanded business education in Finland, as several new business schools were established within the existing universities in different parts of the country. The development of business education was accompanied by increasing governmental influence, and eventually, the entire business school sector, which had previously only been partly state funded, became state controlled. Although several inherently German academic structures and practices, such as administrative structures (the Handelshochschule model) and faculty promotions that were dependent on completing a Habilitationsschrift, persisted in the Finnish system, changes to how business schools approached research in the 1960s had a particular influence on research for doctoral dissertations. Whereas doctoral dissertations written prior to the 1960s followed the BWL tradition and were typically based on studies analyzing theoretical concepts, new approaches focused on empirical and often quantitative research. Transmutation to the new American style of empirical studies indicated a relatively rapid change in research activities, and many doctoral students had to change their methodological approach or even their topic during their doctoral research. One of the informants remembered the following: The Anglo-American influence entered Finnish business education in the 1960s. The change partially reflected the events of the year 1959 in the United States. It was at that time that the Ford Foundation and the Carnegie Corporation published a report concerning business education in the US. The report was exceptionally critical and demanded the scientification of educational content. In a world that was internationalizing and where scientific orientation was generally and increasingly directed towards the US, young researchers started to focus on American research. The requirements for doctoral dissertations changed as well and emphasized empirical, quantitative research. Problems emerged because many young researchers had to change the topics and the methods of their research projects from German-style conceptual research to quantitative research. It happened to me as well. (Informant A, 2012)
In response to Fulbright and ASLA scholarship programs and Ford Foundation grants, Finnish business school professors and doctoral students also started to visit the United States more frequently. The informant continued: I graduated with a bachelor’s degree in spring 1961. In the same spring, I received an ASLA scholarship and left for the US, the University of California, Berkeley campus, to take a look at business studies there. The year was great both personally and professionally. Familiarizing myself with the American accounting education and research at Berkeley left me with the impression that it wasn’t so exceptionally extraordinary or more difficult than it was in Finland. Altogether there were half a dozen Finnish scholarship students at Berkeley campus. (Informant A, 2012)
Simultaneously, visiting teachers from the United States made important contributions to the course portfolios of business schools, which suffered from a shortage of qualified professors at that time (e.g., Perälä, 1975; Saarsalmi, 1961; Sandström, 1977). For instance, marketing professor John R. Darling initially came to the HSE in 1974-1975, then lectured at several business schools and consulted with numerous firms during the next 30 years.
Executive education programs, organized primarily by the Finnish Institute of Management (LIFIM), began in 1964. LIFIM was administered jointly by Hanken, HSE, and the Helsinki University of Technology (Kässi, 1978). The objective of the institute was to imitate the Harvard Business School model in Finnish executive education. LIFIM was established as a result of a few enthusiastic professors’ visits to the United States, where they were inspired by American management training programs (Fellman, 2007). LIFIM’s expensive 1-year courses proved tremendously popular and gained elite status among Finnish corporate management. More than 6,000 top managers had completed the course by the late 1990s (Fellman, 2007). In the Finnish context, the establishment of LIFIM indicated the first steps toward the introduction of market logic in higher education. In 1960, Finnish business scholar Leo Ahlstedt wrote in the Finnish Journal of Business Economics: Additionally, in our country, technological development, structural changes in society and tightening competition are posing already now but in the future even more wide-ranging demands for the efficiency of corporate management in rapidly changing circumstances. This will result in a long-term demand for training that one should prepare for in time. The experiences and objectives of the Americans do not always fit us as such, but supposedly give us a plenty of valuable food for thought as we are planning Finnish executive education.
In the 1980s, Finnish business schools began to focus on their core activities, especially on developing their research. In previous decades, international cooperation had been sporadic; for instance, lectures were mostly given in Finnish, publication in international journals was very rare, and international student and faculty exchange was the exception rather than the rule. Finnish researchers had already begun to participate in international conferences in the 1970s, but those activities very seldom resulted in publication in refereed journals. In fact, the Habilitationsschrift persisted as a key criterion in professorial appointments and was not replaced with a focus on international publications until the 1990s. Even then, in practice, candidates had rarely published enough journal articles, and the positions were occupied by a group of acting professors.
The HSE became a national forerunner in the development of American-imported MBA and BBA programs, which it established in 1984 and 1989, respectively (Urmas, 2010). The programs were taught fully in English and mainly by American professors (Urmas, 2010). International student exchange started in the early 1980s as well, but because of the lack of established exchange programs and relationships with foreign business schools, student exchange had to be organized by the students themselves (Airila, 2010). The MBA program at HSE expanded international student exchange by increasing the number of courses offered in English (Airila, 2010).
In the 1980s, Finnish business schools started to show signs of integrating with the international research community; however, the number of internationally refereed publications at the HSE was still less than 10 per year (Ratilainen, 2010). The growing research orientation further increased Finnish business schools’ interest in the United States as increasingly more American textbooks were used (Seeck & Laakso, 2010; see also Engwall, 2004). The new international research focus was demonstrated already in 1973, when Jaakko Honko, the Rector of HSE, wrote the following in the school’s annual report: Also our internationalisation has its own development aspects. In the early days and until the Second World War, we had our most intense relationships with the Scandinavian countries and continental Europe, primarily Germany. After the Second World War, the artery of our international development divided into several channels and their coverage, our area of operations, has in this regards become wider. In addition to our earlier connections, Anglo-Saxon countries—both Great Britain and especially the United States—have clearly become among our closest relationships.
Dominating American influence, 1990-the present
Although internationalization in its different forms had been on the Finnish business school agenda for several decades, in the 1990s, another development occurred that increased the competition between different schools and provided the foundation for greater heterogenization within the system: The newer generation of business school faculty that had received professional experience or education in the United States started to gain leading academic and administrative positions in business schools and to promote the American business school ethos.
Well, it was the time when I and probably many others got a strong feeling that if you wanted to pursue a career in academia, you had to study abroad, in America in practice. Then, I looked at all kinds of places, and when the opportunity opened up, I went to Harvard Business School. And that was, of course, a revolutionary experience, a very big eye-opener when you see what the top university system really is about. So because of that, when I came here [HSE], I had two ideas. First, I had seen how this kind of top university works and what university education and research look like at their best. And, two, I had been exposed to shareholder value, which was not really out there in Finland. So, I had introduced myself to this way of thinking there [at HBS] and to how you can apply these ideas of modern finance or management control here [in Finland]. So, these were the kinds of things I brought with me when I came back. (Informant B, 2012)
The growing competition within the national system was fueled by emerging ideas of new public management that strengthened its position in Finnish university governance following the deep economic recession of the early 1990s. The reform led to increasing performance pressure on all Finnish universities, which forced them to acquire increasing amounts of external funding and to apply more corporate-style performance measures at both the institutional and the individual level.
Internationally, but especially in America, they had this system where you could negotiate your own salary, and you had a set of strict performance objectives, especially in the arena of publishing, but where it specifically came from, well, it was this new public management. It was said that Reagan and Thatcher’s era was the era of this new public management, which included profitability, performance evaluation and so on. (Informant C, 2012)
After Finland joined the EU in 1995, the international comparability of degree structures became an issue in the Finnish university sector. The Bologna Declaration was intended to standardize the European higher education system and increase its competitiveness against the presumably superior American education system. Beginning in 2005, Finnish universities attempted to imitate a U.S.-style two-tiered degree structure. However, thus far, the majority of university students still tend to prefer a master’s degree to a bachelor’s degree.
Starting in the late 1990s, rankings and accreditation became a topic of discussion in Finnish business schools. Of the Finnish schools, only the HSE was ranked among the top 75 schools in the recent European business school rankings (Financial Times, 2011). Hanken has held European Quality Improvement System (EQUIS) accreditation since 2000 and Association of MBAs (AMBA) accreditation since 2008, whereas the HSE now holds both AACSB accreditation (since 2007) and EQUIS accreditation (since 1998) as well as AMBA accreditation (since 1997). From other Finnish schools, Oulu Business School ([OBS], University of Oulu) gained AACSB accreditation in 2013. To date, the remaining schools have gained program-specific accreditations, such as AMBA and EPAS (European Foundation for Management Development [EFMD] Programme Accreditation System), and are increasingly seeking access to the EQUIS and AACSB accreditation processes. In fact, the AACSB’s member statistics (Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business International [AACSB International], 2015) indicate a significant increase in the Finnish business schools’ activity toward the accreditation agencies (see also the appendix). Whereas a couple of years ago there were only two member schools (HSE and Hanken) from Finland, today there are nine member schools, including eight university-based business schools and one university of applied sciences (AACSB International, 2015). Although some of these member schools have already applied for AACSB and/or EQUIS accreditation, they may encounter increasing competition from within the national system and may find it difficult to become accredited because both accreditation agencies eventually tend to exclude the majority of the business schools in a certain country.
International rankings and accreditations have encouraged the leading domestic business schools to adopt a wider variety of practices of top American business schools, such as measuring individual performance according to the number of publications that a person has achieved in A-level journals, using a highly competitive tenure-track system, extensively recruiting international faculty, and favoring research groups with narrow specializations.
Furthermore, international competitive pressures drove universities, including business schools, to form larger, more cost-effective university consortia, resulting in the partial dissolution of the traditional Handelshochschule model, as exemplified by the HSE’s becoming part of Aalto University and by TSE’s merging with the University of Turku in 2010.
It is indeed challenging. In Aalto, compared to, let’s say, what we had 5 years ago, we have gone so much deeper in that anything other than the A-level journal is nothing, which means that one’s research focus has to be very narrow and very deep in one’s field for one to achieve excellence in something. And, it is really the only measure that counts for young researchers and for anyone else who wants to have a career. It is the A-level journal, and there’s no mercy. If you don’t have A-level journal publications, you aren’t a proper researcher, and that’s it. (Informant B, 2012)
Regardless of their numerous accreditation initiatives, Finnish business schools do not necessarily view their focus on accreditation as a process of Americanization; rather, they view accreditation as a part of their normal agenda of internationalizing and improving the quality of the system.
If you think about the system [the AACSB], it has its clear origins in the mission […]I’m not afraid of the AACSB because you define what you want to do or what you do and what your vision is, and then, on that basis, the AACSB will look at whether the activities meet the set conditions […] It sort of supports regular activities, and we just write the AACSB text in such a way that it shows what we would have done anyway […] I’m not afraid of the Finnish or, let’s say, the Nordic business school profile somehow changing because of this; I don’t think it will. (Informant D, 2012)
Finnish Business School Responses to Americanization: Imitation, Transmutation, and Compromization
Our interpretation is that in their responses to Americanization, Finnish business schools fall into three groups (indicated as Tier 1, 2, and 3 schools; see Table 2) that are distinguished by how broadly and profoundly they have adopted and applied American business school practices. Thus, the responses of the different business school groups differ from one another and can therefore be characterized as imitation, transmutation, and compromization.
Americanization Under Academic Logic: Finland.
Note. ASB = Aalto University School of Business; OBS = Oulu Business School; LUT = Lappeenranta University of Technology; JSBE = Jyväskylä University School of Business and Economics; TSE = Turku School of Economics; ÅA = Handelshögskolan vid Åbo Akademi; UV = University of Vaasa; UEF = University of Eastern Finland; UTA = University of Tampere; AACSB = Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business.
Because the business school system in Finland tends to be highly homogeneous due to the strict, unifying state regulations (governance logic) that all of the university-level institutions in the country have been exposed to for a number of decades, the main factor that generates differences in the Tier 1, 2, and 3 business schools’ Americanization responses seems to be the schools’ efforts to build their reputations among international audiences (reputation sources). In building international brand and reputation, accreditation can be viewed as a necessary first step that many Finnish business schools have either taken or aspire to take. The AACSB accreditation in particular has a powerful influence on the schools’ faculty recruitment and promotion criteria (faculty, research, and teaching activities) as well as the study program structures and assurance of student learning (students, curriculum) during the accreditation process, particularly after the quality label has been awarded.
First, as also indicated by its accreditation activity, we define ASB (formerly the HSE) as a Tier 1 school. The “triple-crown” accredited ASB has imitated the American business school model in a very pedantic and enthusiastic manner. As the Finnish predecessor of business education, ASB also made the decision for its domestic imitators to a certain extent. This type of behavior has resulted in an incorporated American practice that then gradually gained symbolic and substantive acceptance across Finland. Similar to a Tier 1 school at the super-structural level, Aalto University was declared a national flagship project for developing a world-class research university in a short period of time. The new Universities Act propelled by the government and the Finnish Confederation of Industries created vast global reputation-building pressures (Aula & Tienari, 2011), thus accelerating the Americanization process. Furthermore, the new private form, exceptionally large endowments and public capitalizing enhanced ASB’s opportunities to strengthen its ranking position and brand, hire new world-class faculty and truly start a global campaign for climbing to the “top,” looking to Harvard Business School and MIT as its primary role models. In terms of research, the new tenure-track system formed the core of reforms. As a response, the renewal of contracts and promotions was based on publications primarily in American A-journals. Finally, along with superstructure and research reforms, the new educational agenda included the true implementation of the two-tier degree structure, a greater emphasis on master’s level education and a clearer course material focus on A-level American journals.
In contrast to the Tier 1 institution (ASB), the Tier 2 schools appear slightly more resistant to imitation of American business school practices. Hanken, for instance, has maintained its stand-alone governance structure and a tenure track and faculty promotion system with less American influence. The recently AACSB-accredited OBS may also be classified as a Tier 2 school, although its response to Americanization represents a somewhat clearer form of transmutation than that of Hanken. However, as the second AACSB-accredited school in the country, and similar to ASB, OBS has adopted and implemented a U.S.-based quality assurance system that is likely to spread the American influence across the remainder of the institutional superstructure and research and education-based practices.
In addition to the Tier 1 and Tier 2 schools that appear as forerunners of Americanization, other non-accredited business schools across the country are referred to as Tier 3 schools. These latecomers to Americanizationhave not received much government funding or industrial endowments, and neither school has compensated for this disadvantage by acquiring external project funding to complete the expensive accreditation process. This resource and endowment imbalance will likely further expand the gap between the different business school groups. Although it is still difficult to say how many Tier 3 schools (some of which are currently undergoing the AACSB accreditation process) will eventually be granted an AACSB quality label, as of now, these institutions appear to be following compromization-based Americanization approaches. Thus, their practices are blended versions that combine features from the traditional Finnish system and the American business school model translated by national forerunners, primarily ASB.
The Americanization of Business Education in the UAE
The establishment of the higher education system and the import of Western university practices, 1970-1995
When the UAE federation was formed in 1971, there was not a single university, and university-level education therefore had to be sought abroad (Mahani & Molki, 2011; Wilkins, 2010). Students typically went to neighboring Arab countries, where since the 1960s, universities had offered U.S.-style business education with American curricula delivered by U.S.-educated Egyptian–Iraqi academics (Ali & Camp, 1995; Findlow, 2005). Europe and the United States were also popular destinations. Returning students who had been exposed to American-style academic education tended to be employed in the public sector. In particular, several key Emirati officials went to Egypt to study, including a Cairo University alumnus, Abdulla Omar bin Taryam, who became the UAE’s first Minister of Education in 1972 (Findlow, 2005).
In the 1960s and 1970s, Gulf states began academic cooperation projects that involved initiatives such as international exchanges of professors and consultants, and there were even plans to establish joint Gulf Cooperation Council universities. However, these attempts decreased as the nationalist movements in the Gulf states arose. Consequently, these states started to establish national flagship universities in the 1970s to promote their national identities. Because of the lack of a university system, the newly established UAE suffered from a lack of knowledge about academic administration, and there was no strictly indigenous model or even infrastructure for modern higher education. Because the colonial experiences of the UAE were rather shallow and the nation had been exposed to many foreign, not only British, influences during the British supremacy period, it considered foreign influences to be mainly positive for its development. Therefore, the UAE looked to educational models from abroad in seeking to establish its first university. Unlike many other fully colonialized nations, UAE did not inherit the British education model, and because of its vast oil wealth, development aid did not play a role in the building of its educational system (Burden-Leahy, 2009). Thus, the UAE’s socio-economic status enabled it to freely choose elements for its education models.
Despite the ideal of promoting Arab national identity, the education system in the UAE was first planned around the British model. However, certain features of the French system were also considered (Findlow, 2006). When designing its first university in the 1970s, the UAE invited consultants from prestigious British universities such as Oxford and from the British Council to take part in the planning (Kirk & Napier, 2009). However, despite the strong British influence during the planning stage, the influence of the American model soon predominated due to regional pressures because the U.S. model was already being used in neighboring Arab countries (Findlow, 2005) and the fact that many key Emiratis had obtained their PhDs in the United States.
UAE nationals went to the US for higher education and to get their PhDs [in the past]. I think this could be one of the reasons why they implemented the American system here. Also, Americans are known for their business schools. They invented this science. (Informant E, 2011)
The first university, the UAEU, opened in 1976 with six schools, one of which was a business school. The UAEU was founded with the aim of developing a federal institution with an Arab-Islamic identity and a focus on intellect and science that would contribute significantly to the development of the modern UAE and that would utilize national resources—“the people, the heritage, Islamic values, as well as economic resources of the United Arab Emirates” (UAEU, 2011). Thus, the original mission of promoting local Emirati values was strong.
Because of the lack of domestic professors, the UAEU was largely staffed by expatriate professors from other Arab countries who had consistently produced a surplus of PhD graduates (Bahgat, 1999; Findlow, 2005). For example, four of the UAEU’s former seven vice chancellors were of Egyptian origin. Initially, the university only enrolled men, but a female-only campus was opened soon after (Burden-Leahy, 2009). Thus, the UAEU initially resembled the old Arab universities, such as those found in Egypt and Kuwait, featuring traditional Islamic norms such as gender-segregated campuses, which are still used at the undergraduate level. In addition, as late as the 1980s, all of the teaching conducted at the university was still in Arabic. Therefore, although the university had adopted certain elements of the U.K. and U.S. educational systems, namely in substance and organizational form, the Western influence was initially superficial and low.
The UAE system was indirectly influenced by the American model via other Arab states that had already adopted U.S. curricula, which were considered superior as a basis for business education at the time. Thus, imitating foreign models was considered part of educational modernization and was therefore politically acceptable (Burden-Leahy, 2009; Findlow, 2006). In fact, the American system was perceived as “the epitome of modernism and globalism,” which the UAE government regarded as a good direction for the future (Findlow, 2005, p. 298). Advanced and middle income developing countries seek out foreign educational models intentionally, often through the use of foreign experts or consultants (Johnson, 2006). In a similar manner, the UAE government has used the expertise of American consulting agencies and foreign educational advisors to modernize the country’s education at all levels, especially during the past two decades (Warnica, 2011).
The UAEU system is based on the American system, one hundred percent, but not from the very beginning. That happened only in the early nineties. The whole system [suddenly] transitioned to an American model, more or less. (Informant F, 2011)
The 1990s were a turning point in the UAE’s socio-economic development in many ways. The First Gulf War strengthened the political and economic ties between the UAE and the United States. Furthermore, economic growth and increasing demand for professional degrees required the expansion of higher education in the UAE. As a result, a second federal institution, the Higher Colleges of Technology (HCT), was established (Witte, 2010). Currently, the HCT includes 16 campuses around the UAE, and it now holds university status.
Until the 1990s, the Ministry of Education was largely staffed by Egyptians who favored more traditional Arab-style education (Findlow, 2005). After the establishment of the Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research (MoHESR) under the Ministry of Education in 1991, the education system was reformed. The influence of the more traditional Arab countries with established university systems was replaced by the influence of models found in the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Australia, and other Gulf states (Findlow, 2005), which affected the curriculum and teaching methods. One of the outcomes of this reform was a shift in the language of instruction from Arabic to English in certain fields. Although more traditional programs such as Sharia law and Islamic studies were still taught in Arabic by Arab professors, “modern” subjects such as business studies were taught in English by Western-educated Arab expatriates or by Westerners.
Because of the shift to English [as the language] of instruction, the UAEU was in a position to bring in American professors who didn’t speak Arabic or spoke only English. This created a whole different demographic within the university as far as professors are concerned. (Informant F, 2012)
Adopting English as a teaching language was more difficult in some of the more traditional universities, such as the UAEU, which were the institutions of choice for traditionally minded students and their families. In institutions such as the HCT, English was used almost exclusively from the beginning. Zayed University initially planned to teach equally in Arabic and English, but in practice, only a minority of subjects was taught in Arabic, as English had gained popularity. Furthermore, in business studies, adopting English-language instruction was even easier because English had become the lingua franca for business. The transition from Arabic to English instruction in business education in the UAE was therefore relatively rapid.
Attempts to imitate the American business school model, 1995-2005
The increasing number of students seeking admission to universities in the UAE created new challenges for the higher education system from the mid-1990s onward. Despite the opening of a third federal university, Zayed University, in 1998, capacity was substantially lower than demand. In addition, although expatriates represented the majority of the population, federal institutions were only allowed to enroll UAE citizens. The solution was to open the market to foreign universities and allow the foundation of private institutions. The UAE became the first Gulf country to authorize private higher education (Coffman, 2003).
The American business school model became a more dominant model for new business schools in the UAE from the mid-1990s onward. This was a straightforward, state-driven decision (but led by foreign advisors; see Warnica, 2011). For instance, at Zayed University, an American curriculum was used from the beginning (Mills, 2008). Moreover, several private universities, such as American University in Dubai and the American University of Sharjah (AUS), were established according to the American model, the latter as an affiliate of the American University in Washington via the American University of Beirut. In fact, between 1995 and 2000, five of the six new universities were established on an American model, 4 two of them even explicitly named as “American” universities (see also the appendix). These “American” universities are local, privately owned coeducational universities that have grown in number ever since. They follow U.S. curricula and teaching standards, use primarily English as the language of instruction, and have loose ties to the United States; some are even AACSB accredited. It is also typical for AACSB-accredited institutions to recruit North American faculty with PhDs from AACSB-accredited universities. For these “American” universities, Americanization involved an explicit decision to adopt most of the features of the U.S. model in terms of the superstructure and education. However, research activities have played a secondary role in these teaching-oriented institutions.
For example, the American University of Sharjah has an American system. They brought in the whole [U.S.] system and then just implemented it. There was really not [any gradual] evolution as occurred at the UAE University [in terms of Americanization]. (Informant G, 2011)
However, despite the adoption of the entire U.S. model at these “American” universities, in practice, the extensiveness of the adoption of the American model and ethos varies. Although some of the most prestigious local American universities in the UAE have broadly and profoundly imitated elements of the American system in superstructure and education, the level of adoption in other institutions is lower. In those schools, restrained by resources, the American practices are mainly limited to the substance of education (curricula, the language of instruction), but not to the superstructure or research.
Toward the late 1990s, despite the resistance of large proportions of Egyptian and Saudi staff, local institutions increasingly began to reflect Western educational principles. Several public and private local higher education institutions established high-profile partnerships with overseas institutions and commercial corporations. For instance, the HCT established affiliations with universities in the United Kingdom, Canada, France, Australia, and the United States (Findlow, 2005). One major reason for this international cooperation was the drive for international accreditation, especially accreditation by American institutions, which further drove the Americanization process.
The UAE University became accredited by AACSB. This is one of the means for [the university] to become an internationally recognized institution. [The university is] also forming partnerships with foreign universities, most recently with Cambridge University. They have joint programs that they offer together. And, of course, [the university hires] international faculty. Currently, international faculty members make up the largest portion of the faculty. Regarding students, because this is a federal university, it mainly serves UAE nationals, but it still accepts international students. Actually, that is one of the requirements for accreditation by AACSB [having international students, instructors and professors]. (Informant H, 2011)
At the turn of the millennium, superstructure-level Americanization, manifested in university rankings, reputation and accreditation issues, became increasingly important for universities in the UAE. All three federal institutions started to seek accreditation, first from U.S. regional accrediting bodies such as the North Central Accreditation body and later from international accrediting bodies, mainly the AACSB (Godwin, 2006; Findlow, 2005; Wilkins, 2010). AACSB accreditation was suddenly more achievable because the organization changed its evaluation criteria after 1992 as it went international, changing the evaluation of institutions based on their mission (Durand & McGuire, 2005). The first business school in the UAE to receive AACSB accreditation was the College of Business and Economics at the UAEU in 2000 as a teaching-oriented institution, according to its mission. Moreover, American quality assurance bodies were used as benchmarks for developing national quality assurance bodies under the Ministry of Education, thus revealing a wholesale use of the American accreditation standards as models for higher education institutions.
Dominating American influence, 2005-the present
After 2003, the number of new business schools in the UAE grew rapidly because of changes in Dubai’s economic policy and the establishment of free zones for the education and financial sectors (Lane, 2011). Newly established education-free zones were occupied largely by new entrants that were primarily foreign business schools. After the establishment of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) free zone in 2005, the growth in the UAE’s financial sector has been very rapid, creating a massive demand for U.S.-style MBA graduates, especially in the fields of banking and finance. Essentially, the purpose of DIFC was to make Dubai the central trading hub in the Middle East and to set up the Dubai Financial Exchange (Nasra & Dacin, 2010).
The nearly exponential growth in the number of business schools between 2005 and 2008 (see the appendix) is consistent with the overall economic growth of the UAE (Alajoutsijärvi, Juusola, & Lamberg, 2014). During this time, the UAE witnessed an educational gold rush as dozens of foreign universities, mainly business schools, entered the country, making it the world’s largest host of foreign branch campuses (Lane, 2011). Consequently, the local American-inspired business school system now operates alongside non-American, world-class business schools, such as the London Business School, INSEAD, and the Cass Business School as well as numerous other foreign universities and business schools that have opened branch campuses in the country.
Curiously, as the UAE education landscape has expanded largely via non-American branch campuses, local universities have begun to implement more American practices. Since the 1990s, Western-educated academics have increasingly filled the faculty positions at federal universities, and the proportion of Emiratis in academic faculty positions other than administrative positions is small (Mills, 2008). Furthermore, federal universities have experienced pressure to Americanize as foreign branch campuses increasingly appeal to UAE nationals as well as to expatriates.
The dominant education model here is the American model; that’s for sure. But then we have a little bit of everything else [as well], and then there is [for example] the American University in Dubai, but that’s more of a local university with ties to the USA. There’s no ban on using the word “American” there. (Informant F, 2012)
Part of the explanation for a more profound adaptation of the American model was related to external evaluations, namely the release of the World Economic Forum’s 2007 Global Competitiveness Report, which revealed the poor educational performance of Arab countries. After this report was released, to improve their quality, gaining international accreditation was made a mandate for local business schools by the UAE Ministry of Education (Mills, 2008). The UAE wanted to simultaneously establish itself as a knowledge-based economy and focused extensively on turning the flagship institution, the UAEU, into a world-class university. These modernization attempts to increase the overall quality of UAE’s higher education, coupled with their attempt to compete on a global scale and appear in global rankings, increased the recruitment of Western (mostly American) faculty and deans with professional experience at AACSB-accredited business schools. In addition, American corporate consultants were utilized in the re-structuring of UAEU and Zayed University in system-wide development, such as the implementation of more efficient management systems, the restructuring of the disciplinary departments, and also in adopting an outcomes-based academic program model.
The university hired outside consultants, but they were not consultants specializing in academic structures. Additionally, for example in the Chancellor’s office, they have advisers also. Most of these advisors are not local people. They are either hired from outside or they promote a [foreign] faculty member to become an advisor. (Informant I, 2014)
Currently, two local business schools appear in the QS World University rankings among the top 400 universities: UAEU and AUS, holding positions 385 and 390, respectively. Furthermore, four local business schools in the UAE hold AACSB accreditation: UAEU (in Business, since 2000; in Accounting, since 2014), the University of Dubai (in Business, since 2009; in Accounting, since 2014), AUS (in Business, since 2011), and Zayed University (in Business, since 2013; AACSB International, 2015). In addition, a vast majority of local business schools are non-accredited AACSB International (2015) members (see also the appendix). As more institutions have gained AACSB accreditation, or if they plan to pursue the accreditation, they have begun endorsing the American model and its American standards.
There are currently attempts to assess the success of implementation of foreign educational models in the UAE and finding a balance with the requirements of modernization through foreign influences while maintaining traditional Islamic values, which has sparked academic discussion on the current state of the education landscape.
Nobody has reviewed this objectively [whether the American education model is performing well]; the thing is that when you provide a [foreign] curriculum, you have to make changes in society to accommodate it. They should review [the American model] now and see whether it is working or not. (Informant F, 2012)
UAE Business School Responses to Americanization: Imitation, Compromization, Transmutation, and Imposterization
Compared with academic logic higher education systems, such as that in Finland, where we defined three tiers of business schools in terms of their Americanization, the business schools in the UAE can be divided into four groups (Tiers 1-4, see Table 3) based on different business school responses: imitation, transmutation, compromization, and imposterization.
Americanization Under Market Logic: The UAE.
Note. UAE = United Arab Emirates; UAEU = United Arab Emirates University; AUS = American University of Sharjah; GCC = Gulf Cooperation Council; AACSB = Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business; TOEFL = Test of English as a Foreign Language; IELTS = International English Language Testing System; GPA = Grade Point Average.
As a result of the market logic, the entire education system in the UAE has become more responsive to socio-economic development and needs due to the education system’s relative youth and the absence of long traditions; thus, it has produced mainly vocationally oriented degree programs, primarily in business. The entire higher education system in the UAE has been established completely within global markets and neoliberal frameworks (Warnica, 2011) that have been fruitful settings for different forms of Americanization. The UAE business school system currently consists of local universities and foreign business schools. The presence of foreign institutions has undeniably accelerated the rate of Americanization in local institutions.
Because the business school system in the UAE is highly heterogeneous, owing largely to the decentralized governance logic of higher education, which has enabled Emirate-specific legislation guiding the provision of higher education, the differences among the Tier 1, 2, 3 and 4 business schools are notable. Americanization responses seem to be defined largely by the resources of a given institution as well as its level of prestige (reputation sources) among internal audiences. The resources of an institution seem to determine whether a given institution is teaching or research-oriented and set boundaries for prestige building. Leading wealthy domestic business schools have been able to build their prestige further through international accreditations and media rankings.
The characteristics of Tier 1 schools, occupied by the national flagship institution, UAEU, are found on a superstructure-level. UAEU, financed entirely by the UAE government, aims to become a world-class, research-intensive institution closely imitating the ideal type of U.S. business school model. The school’s Americanized practices were previously only visible in the superstructure and education practice categories, but the institution is building its research activities to improve its rankings, a prerequisite for becoming a world-class institution.
Compared with Tier 1, Tier 2 business schools, through their superstructure, are more strained in their Americanization, resource-wise. Tier 2 is occupied by nationally prestigious, AACSB-accredited business schools: AUS, University of Dubai, and Zayed University. AUS is partly funded by the Ruler of Sharjah and the University of Dubai is partly funded by the Dubai Chamber of Commerce. Although Zayed University is a federal institution and fully funded by the UAE government, it is a liberal arts university and thus is not expected to compete in the global prestige race in the same manner as the domestic flagship school, UAEU. Thus, Zayed University is not as generously funded as UAEU. Due to limited resources, Tier 2 schools have not been able to implement all of the characteristics of the American ideal model. Instead, they have selectively focused on achieving the most prestigious signal of the American model: AACSB accreditation. This, in turn, has naturally required structural changes to the American model in the practice categories of research (preference for faculty members recruited from AACSB schools that have proven research merits). However, as part of the market logic, these institutions are not research-focused. Thus, their response to Americanization is in line with transmutation.
Tier 3 “Compromization” is rather similar to the transmutation response of Americanization. However, whereas Tier 2 schools are regarded as prestigious institutions because they are partly funded by highly legitimate sources, Tier 3 schools are largely self-funded, although sometimes supported by local industry or wealthy businessmen. Furthermore, these business schools are compromizations between local and foreign educational models. For example, British University in Dubai is a compromise with Emirati and British educational values and Canadian University of Dubai is a compromise between Emirati and Canadian educational values. The other schools in this category are compromises between Emirati and American models, which is visible in these business schools’ interest in becoming AACSB members (see the appendix) and in the fact that their programs are often developed in conjunction with North American Universities. Thus, Tier 3 business schools have adopted certain American practices that are feasible, but which either resource-wise or governance logic-wise have not implemented them as profoundly as the ones in the transmutation corner of the figure. They have mainly applied American practices in their curriculum, emphasizing American-style education and degrees (i.e., BBA, MBA).
Tier 4 consists of those local schools that have superficially implemented a large number of American practices, but because they are usually small, newly established schools with modest resources and local reputations, their response to Americanization has been superficial. An example is the American University in the Emirates, established in 2010. The schools in this category are teaching-oriented institutions with vocationally oriented, marketable undergraduate degree programs, mainly the BBA (Randall, 2011). The imposterization response is a result of borrowing American practices to appear “American” for marketing purposes. American-style education is in high demand among locals because many Emiratis hold a tremendous positive opinion of the American educational system. Thus, adoption of a large number of American practices, even naming the institution as an “American University,” is used as a selling point to signal modernity and a certain level of quality, and is used to appeal to students whom prefer American degrees. However, this type of Americanization, although broad in the number of adopted elements, does not resemble the ideal type of U.S. business school but rather a teaching-oriented U.S. trade school. These schools often engage in “pre-packaged” education, such as a fixed set of learning materials (occasionally even franchised from prestigious Western business schools) and standardized programs according to American curriculums.
Discussion and Conclusion
The selected case countries and their higher education systems represent two competing institutional logics: academic logic and market logic. Through our analysis of the two cases, we conceptualized how higher education systems built on these different institutional logics produce a variety of responses to Americanization. We were able to identify five different business school responses to Americanization based on previous literature on Americanization and our comparative analysis: imitation, transmutation, compromization, imposterization, and immunization. Due to the global spread of the U.S. management education model, the immunization form of Americanization hardly exists, whereas imitation, transmutation, and compromization are typical responses. Although an exact measurement of the Americanization of business schools in Finland and the UAE is not possible or even necessary, Figure 2 illustrates how different tiers of business schools tend to respond to Americanization.
Business school responses to Americanization in Finland and the UAE.
Imitation
Both countries’ national flagship institutions (Tier 1), which are typically leading research universities (Altbach, 2009) are often the first to adopt international practices and currently resemble imitation (see Figure 2). Education systems under academic logic, as illustrated by the Finnish case, tend to use top research-oriented American business schools as their primary role model. In both Finland and the UAE, the most recent state-created momentum for Americanization was created by the governments as they work toward transforming the national flagships universities into world-class universities. The aim of establishing world-class institutions typically requires vast resources and legal changes (Salmi, 2009). Curiously, even though both Aalto University and UAEU aim to become world-class institutions, they have different conceptions of how to do so. This is explained by the dominant institutional logic. Enabled by university legislation changes and an exceptional increase in resources, Aalto University was benchmarked against and developed in line with major U.S. research universities, particularly Harvard and MIT (Aula & Tienari, 2011). The euphoria surrounding Aalto University appears to have even created an opportunity for a “symbolic break with the past” (see Aula & Tienari, 2011, p. 13) and the development of a new American modus operandi. However, UAEU has made providing high-quality undergraduate education geared toward “preparing graduates to be pioneers and leaders in their areas of specialization,” its main tactic for achieving world-class institution (UAEU, 2014). Research activities come second in the order of importance and are focused “in the areas of national and regional importance” (UAEU, 2014).
Thus, there is a clear difference between business schools in these two countries in relation to their research emphases, which affects teaching loads and promotion practices. In market-oriented logic, such as in the UAE, teaching-oriented American universities or even community colleges are the primary role models. For instance, compared with any Finnish business school, the business schools in the UAE, including those calling themselves “research-intensive,” are still primarily focused on teaching. This difference reflects the Humboldtian origin of the Finnish higher education system and the Finnish interpretation of the U.S. business education model.
Transmutation, Compromization, and Imposterization
We argue that the academic logic that defines the original purpose and integrity of a university and its business school forms a buffer that will likely generate resistance to foreign influences on national university traditions; in contrast, market logic is inherently more open to all types of foreign influences aligned with profit-making. Depending on the institutional logic, adoption outcomes may vary from transmutation to compromization and to imposterization. Furthermore, although imitation, compromization, and transmutation responses occur both in Finland and the UAE, differences in these responses exist at the level of the adopted business school practices.
Typically, Tier 2 schools consciously imitate the practices of domestic Tier 1 schools and are also often fascinated with the concept of world-class institutions in their mission statements but are often in a poorer position in terms of their resources and prestige, which keeps them from reaching the same level of emulation as the Tier 1. Tiers 3 and 4 also imitate domestic Tier 1, but with even fewer resources and prestige. Thus, their realistic approach to Americanization is more superficial and narrower in terms of superstructure, research, and education. Consequently, depending on the amount and depth of adopted American practices, they resemble the compromization type of Americanization, and in the UAE, imposterization as well (see Figure 2).
The findings of our comparative study aimed to develop theory on Americanization. First, we reviewed the extant literature to develop a systematic framework for conceptualizing responses to Americanization. The framework aimed to conceptualize Americanization in different institutional logics in academic systems. Empirical evidence on Americanization in two conflicting institutional logics was found in both case constructs through the historical narratives of Finland and the UAE. The case narratives were analyzed through the framework to understand how and why business schools in non-American countries adopt the American business school model. The ultimate motives for Americanization were found in education policies and global competition for prestige that business schools, within the boundaries of their resources, aim to achieve. We also aimed to understand why differences in Americanization levels within specific countries exist. As the case narratives were translated through the framework, we were able to identify certain tiers of business schools with distinct responses to Americanization.
These findings supported our initial proposition that different institutional logics explain both the amount and depth of adopted American practices. In addition, the findings revealed an unusual and previously unidentified approach to Americanization: Imposterization, which is a natural response in market logic systems as a marketing strategy and a response to high demand for “American” education. However, we argue that such a type of Americanization is unlikely to emerge in education systems with academic logic. In countries with academic logic, institutions decoupling their true organizational practices from their façades would be short-lived due to the scrutiny of external referents.
Footnotes
Appendix
| Year | Business schools in Finland | Year | Business schools in The United Arab Emirates (country of origin) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1909 | Svenska Handelshögskolan (Hanken) a | ||
| 1911 | Helsinki School of Economics (Aalto University School of Business) b | ||
| 1927 | Handelshögskolan vid Åbo Akademi a | ||
| 1950 | Turku School of Economics a | ||
| 1965 | University of Tampere | ||
| 1966 | Vaasa School of Economics a | ||
| 1967 | University of Jyväskylä a | ||
| 1976 | United Arab Emirates University (UAE) b | ||
| 1988 | Higher Colleges of Technology (UAE), Ajman University of Science and Technology (UAE) a | ||
| 1990 | Emirates Aviation College (UAE) a | ||
| 1990 | Skyline University (UAE) a | ||
| 1991 | University of Oulu b | ||
| University of Lappeenranta a | |||
| 1993 | University of Wollongong (AU) a | ||
| 1995 | American University in Dubai (UAE) a , Strathclyde BS (UK) b , University of Bradford (UK) b | ||
| 1997 | University of Sharjah a (UAE), American University of Sharjah (UAE) b , University of Dubai (UAE) b | ||
| 1998 | Zayed University (UAE) b | ||
| 1999 | Al Ghurair University (UAE) | ||
| 2000 | BITS Pilani (IN), Manipal University (IN) | ||
| 2003 | Abu Dhabi University (UAE) a , Szabist (PK) a | ||
| 2004 | SP Jain (IN) a , Islamic Azad University (IR), British University of Dubai (UEA) | ||
| 2005 | Al Hosn University (UAE) a Al Ain University of Science and Technology (UAE) a , New York Institute of Technology (US) b , Middlesex University (UK), Heriot-Watt University (UK) | ||
| 2006 | Canadian University of Dubai (UAE), Manchester Business School (UK) b , Institute of Management Technology (IN) a | ||
| 2007 | London Business School (UK) b , Cass Business School (UK) b , INSEAD (FR) b | ||
| 2008 | Rochester Institute of Technology (US) b , Hult Business School (US) a , Duke University (Fuqua BS; US) b , Murdoch University (AU) a , Michigan State University (US) b | ||
| 2009 | Hamdan Bin Mohammed E-University (UAE) a American University of Ras al Khaimah (UAE) | ||
| 2010 | University of Eastern Finland | 2010 | American University in the Emirates (UAE) a |
| 2011 | Amity University (IN) a | ||
| 2012 | Abu Dhabi School of Management (UAE) |
Source. AACSB International website, January 2015.
Note. AACSB = Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business.
AACSB International membership.
AACSB International accredited.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to the editor and anonymous reviewers of Journal of Management Inquiry for their constructive comments and suggestions. We would like to express our gratitude to the Academy of Management, Management History Division, for the insightful and encouraging comments presented on the early version of the paper at the Academy of Management Annual Meeting, 2013. Moreover, thanks for important suggestions and observations are owed to our colleagues at the University of Jyväskylä and the University of Oulu. The present paper is based on the PhD theses of DSc. Katariina Juusola and DSc. Kerttu Kettunen who shared the main responsibility for data collection, and writing and revising the manuscript text. All authors equally contributed to the development of the initial, comparative research idea and the theoretical contributions.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.