Dimensions of Global Citizenship among Participants of Business School-Sponsored

International Experiences

Elizabeth Newton Monograph

International Comparative Education School of Education Stanford University

August 2010

ii

Stanford University School of Education

INTERNATIONAL COMPARATIVE EDUCATION

Dimensions of Global Citizenship among Participants of Business School-Sponsored

International Experiences

Elizabeth Newton

August 2010

A Monograph in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts

Approvals:

ICE/IEAPA Master’s Program Director: ____________________________________ Christine Min Wotipka, Ph.D., date Advisor: ____________________________________ Jennifer Adams, Ed.D., date

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would not be where I am today without inspiration, guidance, and encouragement from many directions. First, I am indebted to my faculty advisor, Jennifer Adams. Jennifer, I thank you for your thorough readings of my monograph as it took shape. My factor analysis “ah ha!” moment would not have happened without your encouragement to stretch my quantitative skills in a new and unfamiliar direction. I thank you, too, for conducting classes throughout the year that allowed me to grapple with the multifaceted challenges we face in international comparative education. Your teaching exposed me to ideas that will remain influential throughout my future career endeavors and my life. Thank you for encouraging my curiosity and for introducing me to how we might aim to bridge “the space between us”. I extend my gratitude to Christine Min Wotipka and Garnett Russell. Thank you for your constant support when I was unsure whether or not to set course with my monograph topic or to delve in a new direction. You encouraged me to persist, and I am grateful to have continued on a journey to more deeply understand the construct of global citizenship. I thank members of my ICE/IEAPA cohort for the camaraderie we shared from study hours to social hours. To Bin Tu, Chuan Huang, Fred Ngo, Yining Zhang, Alana Walker, and the rest of the class: thank you for your thorough feedback and comments that allowed me to improve my study along the way. I am indebted in particular to Kara Alfredson and Rachel Cota; thank you for laughter, for walks, for debriefs, and for true friendship. To Grace Yokoi, Liz Peintner, Irina Lechtchinskaia, Gina Jorasch, and Amanda Greco – thank you for your time, your willingness to partner with me, and your readiness to go out of your way to support this study. It simply would not have been possible without your commitment. I hope that you find portions of this research further inform the meaningful and significant work you do. To my parents, Tom and Pat, I thank you for honoring the value of an education. I thank you and Christina for helping me to maintain perspective throughout this year. Family has and will always remain foremost in my life. We shared many meaningful memories this year – both joyful and mournful. Through it all, I thank you for being my foundation. I simply love my spirited, intelligent, and caring family. And to my husband. This year would not have been possible without you, Evan. Thank you for the big and small ways you were with me. From proofreading papers in the autumn as I got my feet wet as a student once again to teaching me to dream big and to take risks in my future pursuits – you were my constant. Your unconditional support gave me the strength I needed to achieve this educational pursuit. Words are not enough. I love you and I thank you. This monograph is dedicated to my grandmother, Helen Mae Macholan, who left us in my final weeks as a master’s student. She was a woman of intelligence, a woman committed to service, a woman of strength and beauty. May her memory live on in the lives of those she held dear.

iv

My daughter has three passports. She was born in Peru, my husband is Ecuadorian, and I’m American. That to me is who people are today. She’s only eight months old, and who knows what language she will start speaking. More and more asking people where they are from is

not a one-word answer. That to me is where the world is going.

As it relates to business, you have to be able to deal with that. You have people who come from several cultures and who have people who don’t call a particular culture home.1

ABSTRACT Global citizenship is a construct that has been explored only modestly among business school graduates. This mixed methods study offers insight into the various dimensions of global citizenship and investigates the predictors of global citizenship. Building on established research, I offer a five-dimension model of global citizenship that includes Skills, Personal Actualization, Professional Actualization, Attitudes, and Knowledge. I used factor analysis in order to confirm the theorized components of global citizenship. Then, I estimated three OLS multiple regression models to explore relational qualities of global citizenship, especially as they relate to business school-sponsored global experiences. Finally, I conducted qualitative interviews to bring further voice to the quantitative findings. This research confirms theorized dimensions of global citizenship and illuminates the important relational aspects of global citizenship, especially as they are relevant to global programs in one particular US-based graduate institution of management education.

1 An interviewee (Participant F) commenting on how she views her eight-month old baby as a global citizen.

1

INTRODUCTION

Increasingly, graduate schools of management education are infusing curricula with global

concepts to educate future leaders as well-equipped, transformational agents of change in

international environments (Alon & McAllaster, 2009; Curie, Gilbert, & Matulich, 2004; Dyer,

Liebrenz-Himes, & Hassan, 2009; Kwok & Arpan, 2002). In such contexts, the idea of global

citizenship is becoming more predominant. The concept of global citizenship, an associational

status of citizenship that is distinct from border-binding national citizenship, is an ethical

disposition that guides one’s understanding of his or her relative responsibilities in the world at

large (Falk, 1994; Lagos, 2002). Persons who view themselves as “active…agents in an

interdependent world” (Lagos, 2002, p. 1) are referred to progressively more as global citizens.

Nearly two years after a resounding financial meltdown, our nation and our world are continuing

to grapple with the effects of the great recession of the 21st century. The financial crisis put into

perspective the vital role business plays in our economy and highlighted the external impacts

business has on society. Economists suggest this occurred in part because the financial sector

neglected to attend to its essential societal role in recent years (Stigletz, 2010). Globalization has

not only highlighted global economic dependencies but also emphasized our interconnectedness

as humanity. Now, business leaders are increasingly called upon to lead with an ethical

framework while managing profitable businesses in a complex and interconnected world;

competencies of global citizenship may be one way to equip them with the capacity to

successfully do so. Businesses that desire to participate competitively in the international market

may be more effective if they are cognizant of the complex relations that exist among us. Beyond

other more altruistic advantages, doing so might just make good business sense. These influential

2

institutions are comprised of men and women, many of whom are trained in management

techniques that will shape their leadership style and approach to international business. Such

individuals are often educated in graduate institutions of management education. Therefore,

business schools have the capacity to influence the global citizens who will someday be at the

helm of worldwide, influential organizations.

Past research has explored the ways in which business schools, in response to globalization, have

internationalized their curriculum through course content, experiential learning, immersion

programs, and diversity initiatives (Alon & McAllaster, 2009; Curie et al., 2004; Dyer et al.,

2009; Ghemawat, 2008). Some have considered how graduate institutions of management

education might strategically position themselves in the 21st century amidst rapid transformations

in information technology and in the global economy (Friga, Bettis, & Sullivan, 2003). This is

especially true as graduate schools prepare students to work in interdisciplinary settings to

address pressing global challenges such as environmental degradation, social injustice, and

epidemics such as HIV/AIDS. Researchers have also attempted to develop a working term of

global competency by gathering ideas and best practices from transnational groups of human

resource managers and international educators (Hunter, White, & Godbey, 2006) or by

evaluating these same competencies among a representative group from undergraduate

institutions (Grudzinski-Hall, 2007). While each of these studies attempts to understand myriad

aspects of how globalization is shaping our approaches to international education or understand

the ways in which we view global citizenship, they neglect to explore the concept of global

citizenship among students themselves.

3

This two-phase sequential mixed methods study examines the characteristics associated with

global citizenship among graduates of a full-time, Masters in Business Administration (MBA)

program in the United States. In the first phase, I collect survey data to explore the construct of

global citizenship. I investigate the theorized attributes – including knowledge, skills, attitudes,

and ultimately the actualization of these factors – of global citizenship using confirmatory factor

analysis.2 Then, I use multiple regression analysis to understand how individuals’ prior

international experiences affect their levels of global citizenship. Based on relational theory, I

also attempt to understand if students who participated in an International Service Trip3 as their

first business-school sponsored global experience might score higher on the global citizenship

index compared to those who participated first in other international programs. In the second

phase, I develop my findings further by employing semi-structured qualitative interviews to

investigate more deeply particular aspects of global citizenship. I have adopted a mixed methods

approach in order to contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of global citizenship that

not only employs a statistical analysis of global citizenship but that is further sustained through

the voices of former student participants.

BRIEF HISTORY OF GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP

Roots of global citizenship can be found as far back as the ancient Greek and Roman worlds.

Since the 3rd century BC, humans have been attracted to philosophy of the highest good where

2 Confirmatory factor analysis is a statistical technique used to verify a factor structure for a set of observed variables. For the purpose of this study, I employ theory and prior research to postulate a pattern between the variables a priori. I attempt to understand if the observed relationship of the underlying latent constructs of global citizenship corresponds to the hypothesized dimensions of global citizenship. 3 International Service Trips is a pseudonym. The program is, on average, 10 days in length. There is a strong service learning component to this program and students tend to focus on deeper, complex challenges that face the local communities. This is a program that creates space for empathy and integrates opportunities for reflection throughout the experience.

4

one of these virtues was of “cosmo-polities.” In recent centuries, global citizenship resurfaced in

the United States with the founding of the United World College in 1962; this new model of

global education aimed to educate students beyond traditional nation-state paradigms toward

global understanding that was both universal and relative (Peterson, 2003). One idea of present-

day global citizenship in line with Greco-Roman philosophy is that human beings are “citizens of

the world” (Dower & Williams, 2002, p. 1). “Global citizenship attests, then, to a certain view of

the world that is holistic in the sense that there are no essential reasons why barriers, borders,

diversity and the disparateness of the human condition render one person and their conditions

and actions irrelevant to any other” (Dower & Williams, 2002, p. 2). Another view posits that

global citizenship is seeing oneself in comparison and contrast to others and wherein one

balances personal realities with those that exist outside self-perceptions (McIntosh, 2005).

Finally, global citizenship has been associated with the emergence of a global civil society and

the development of a world market economy (Zolo, 2007). Herein, we see myriad definitions

attempting to define the same construct – one that is complex and fluid given the nature of

globalization itself. For the purpose of this study, I will look at global citizenship as a holistic

construct that maintains individuals are not bound by barriers and borders, are open to balancing

personal realities with those outside one’s own perceptions, and are prepared with knowledge,

skills, and attitudes to be active members of a global society and participants in the global

marketplace. I now turn to a review of the relevant literature.

CRITICAL LITERATURE REVIEW

Today’s global economy demands a closer integration of cultures and people, especially as the

barriers to trade continue to diminish (Stigletz, 2002). In an increasingly interdependent world,

5

business leaders are being called upon to not only handle typical business challenges, but to

address the complexities organizations face in cross-cultural contexts (Berrell, Teal, & Gloet,

2005). Because business schools are mediating organizations between future business leaders

and employers, institutions of management education are well positioned to implement programs

and curricula to develop global citizens. This critical literature review provides a foundation of

past research for this study in three interlaced sections. First, I discuss management education’s

response to globalization. Second, I place global citizenship within this context and describe how

previous management-focused research has addressed global competency. Finally, I illustrate the

emergence of global experiences in schools of management education and describe how such

programs aspire to build global citizenship.

The Influence of Globalization on Management Education

In the latter part of the 20th century and amidst broad globalization, American business schools

were not evolving apace with the internationalization of business (Muller, Porter, & Rehder,

1991). At this time, the Centers for International Business Education and Research, which

encouraged a greater emphasis on international business education in the United States, had been

established. As a result, by the end of the 20th century, some business schools in the United

States had increased international exposure for students by way of internationalizing the

curriculum (Manuel, Shooshtari, Fleming, & Wallwork, 2001). However, shortcomings in

preparing future business leaders for management roles to address such challenges remained.

There was criticism that business education was not educating students in what was beyond the

walls of business in pace with the globalization of business, such as understanding how complex,

internal business decisions affect the external communities they impact (Muller et al., 1991;

6

Zlotkowski, 1996). As a result, at the turn of the century, there was an invitation for change in

business school programs by various accrediting organizations and broad suggestions for how to

adapt to the forces of globalization, of increased competition, and of rapidly developing

information technology (Friga et al., 2003; Ghemawat, 2008; Hamilton, McFarland, &

Mirchandani, 2000). The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business, the European

Foundation for Management Development, and European Quality Improvement System called

for increased globalization of curricular offerings (A.A.C.S.B., 2003). Sixteen years following

the work of Muller et al. (1991), Stromquist (2007) suggests that universities at large have

responded to trends in globalization, and patterns of convergence toward internationalization are

emerging in management education. In addition, it has become increasingly accepted that – in

both theory and practice – business should be a force for good, and in some part, should play a

role in achieving worldwide initiatives such as the Millennium Development Goals and the

principles of the United Nations Global Compact (EFMD, 2005; Nelson & Prescott, 2008).

Today, though, trepidation among experts regarding the globalization of management curriculum

has surfaced. One argument is that there is too much emphasis on building global understanding

rather than focus on other important leadership competencies (Abraham & Karns, 2009).

Additionally, implementation concerns in global education in business schools also exist, such as

the following: unsystematic and incomplete review of efforts by program administrators; too

much focus on a single dimension of global education (reform of curriculum, implementation of

global programs, recruitment of international faculty and students, etc.); or lack of an

overarching global strategy for the school of management education (Alon & McAllaster, 2009).

7

In response to such concerns, Garcia (2009) discusses the importance of “reconceptualizing”

management curricula by encouraging students to become fully engaged, innovative leaders who

operate beyond short-term, narrow business considerations. In so doing, they might embrace

global interconnectedness, economic and societal progress, sustainable development, and

responsible leadership – characteristics competitive corporations of the 21st century demand

(EFMD, 2005). Schools of management education have an opportunity to educate business

school students to lead multinational corporations that have worldwide influence. In this study, I

address one way in which institutions of management education are preparing MBA students to

be committed global citizens. Before focusing on this, I first deconstruct and describe the

discourse around global citizenship.

Global Citizenship Deconstructed

Adler and Bartholomew (1992) were pioneers who explored the concept of global competencies,

which are aptitudes that have been linked to the construct of global citizenship, in the business

setting. Their work identifies ways in which human resource departments might prepare

“transnationally competent managers” (Adler & Bartholomew, 1992, p. 53). Their work presents

a set of skills managers might need to be globally competent and suggests a framework for

assessing global competence among firms’ human resource departments. However, the study

fails to address how schools of management education might also help to bridge the gap in

preparing global citizens to be leaders in multinational firms.

Recently, curricular trends in academia have contributed to the concept of global citizenship.

Programs in higher education focused on this construct have emerged across the United States

8

and around the world (Grudzinski-Hall, 2007; Nussbaum, 1997; Sullivan & Tu, 1995). Sullivan

and Tu (1995) use Adler and Bartholomew’s (1992) competencies to consider how professors

might use their position in management education to prepare students for management in the

global context. While these studies identify that students must be both adaptable and aware of

cultural differences, they neglect to define concrete characteristics students might harness to be

effective actors and agents of change in the international marketplace.

Knowledge, skills, and attitudes are three competencies that play significant roles in the global

competency equation (Hunter, 2004). Hunter facilitates a cross-industry focus group of

representatives and employs a Delphi technique, which is a systematic forecasting method that

attempts to summarize beliefs about a concept, in attempt to reach a consensus about the

knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are essential to becoming a globally competent citizen.4

Building on Hunter’s (2004) work and with the aim of creating uniform global citizenship goals

and competencies, Grudzinski-Hall (2007) uses a mixed methods approach to study twenty-five

global citizenship programs. One of this study’s major contributions to the field is its conclusion

that “global citizenship education requires that students, regardless of discipline, be engaged,

responsible, active, aware, and reflective individuals, while simultaneously collaborating with

their local and global communities” (p. 132). Yet both Hunter (2004) and Grudzinski-Hall fail to

address whether or not these agreed upon knowledge, skills, and attitudes are indeed outcomes

among students. Furthermore, they overlook what might be an opportunity to more readily

4 Examples of these components include the following: 1) Knowledge: Knowledge of current world events; 2) Skills: Ability to identify cultural differences in order to compete globally; 3) Attitudes: Coping with different cultures and attitudes (Hunter, 2004).

9

understand how global curricular and programmatic improvements in management education

might shape students’ perceptions of global citizenship.

Researchers have begun to explore the voices of individuals who adopt characteristics of global

citizenship (Lima & Brown, 2007; Schattle, 2008). Through qualitative exploration using book,

media, and interview coding, Schattle identifies three primary (awareness, responsibility, and

practice) and three secondary components (cross-cultural empathy, international mobility, and

personal achievement) of global citizenship. While many of these can be captured in the

knowledge, skills, and attitudes components detailed above, Schattle suggests that individuals

have the opportunity to further resolve ignorance through direct experience or what I refer to

henceforth as actualization. Examples of actualization include international mobility, voluntary

participation in local civil society, or adapting amidst culturally complex situations (Schattle,

2008). Researchers have begun to explore behaviors we associate with global citizens, such as

reading international news or volunteering time for other’s benefit (Lima & Brown, 2007).

Acknowledging that global experiences can help to build global citizenship, I now turn to the

types of experiences business schools are offering.

Global Experience Programs in Graduate-Level Management Education

In the early part of the 21st century, the sixth global survey of business school

internationalization sponsored by the Academy of International Business (AIB) found that global

experiences began to take shape as an integral piece of business school curriculum. Significant

progress had been made in the following ways: in the capacity of management institutions to

provide international opportunities; in the knowledge and capabilities of faculty in understanding

10

the complexities of globalization; and in overall school interest in building global awareness

among students (Kwok & Arpan, 2002). In 2004, for example, 42% of North American MBA

programs engaged students in an international travel component as a segment of their business

school experience (Curie et al., 2004). Similarly, findings from a content analysis of global

programming among both United States and non-US MBA programs indicate that over 70% of

the schools in the Financial Times’ top 30 operated study abroad or exchange programs (Dyer et

al., 2009). Furthermore, the programs, curriculum, and courses were found to be “rich and

varied” (Kwok & Arpan, 2002). The variation in programs certainly poses a challenge to

measurement across programs; with such broad strategies to address the influence of

globalization, researchers are faced with challenges in comparatively studying outcomes

(Lorange, 2003). In addition, few schools required opportunities such as international study trips,

international consulting, or international residency and none required international work

experience (Alon & McAllaster, 2009).

Regardless of limitations, researchers have demonstrated that having global programming is of

importance to full-time graduate schools of business and the students they educate (Alon &

McAllaster, 2009; Curie et al., 2004; Dyer et al., 2009; Kwok & Arpan, 2002). In an examination

of the global exposure being offered by the Financial Times’ top 100 MBA programs,

researchers found that having and promoting global experiences gives business schools a

competitive advantage recruiting potential students and engaging with future student employers

(Dyer et al., 2009). Moreover, business schools are being encouraged to deliver global programs

that contribute to graduates’ leadership competencies to be effective actors in the international

marketplace (Alon & McAllaster, 2009). However, these global experiences cannot stand alone;

11

instead they should be seen as a direct complement to classroom learning, a globally-competent

faculty, and a heterogeneous, multicultural peer group (Dyer et al., 2009). These global

experiences – such as internship experiences, exchange programs, single semester study abroad,

study trips, and service learning trips – should be viewed as a major “educational vehicle” for

enhanced learning (Dyer et al., 2009). The study, though, falls short of measuring how such

programs might be directly associated with global citizenship among students, which is where

this study fills the gap.

International service learning is another global experience model that has surfaced in recent

decades among business schools. This type of learning fuses traditional classroom experience

with hands-on fieldwork that allows learners to directly address pressing social challenges

(Godfrey, 1999). Service learning allows participants to directly address community needs while

simultaneously providing students the opportunity to enhance their problem-solving skills,

critically reflect on their values, and build a commitment to citizenship. Service learning

emphasizes social responsibility, reciprocity, and reflection (Jacoby, 1996; Kolenko, Porter,

Wheatley, & Colby, 1996). Furthermore, such experiences allow business school students to take

classic competencies such as marketing and entrepreneurship and use them to address complex

challenges through hands-on practice (Zlotkowski, 1996). By learning to solve multifaceted

problems, students will slowly become thoughtful citizens and future leaders who embrace the

challenges posed by economic, social, and political forces (Zlotkowski, 1996).

In this paper, I address some of the limitations of previous research to advance our understanding

of global citizenship among MBA students. First, the current research is limited in that it does

12

not measure global competence among MBA students despite the fact that, in practice,

businesses increasingly rely on these future leaders to navigate international complexities. Here,

I address this problem by offering an instrument that aims to capture MBA graduates’ levels of

global citizenship. Second, there is a lack of understanding of the specific characteristics students

might harness to be effective actors in the international marketplace. I attend to this shortcoming

by drawing on the components of global citizenship from the literature and conducting factor

analysis to explore which characteristics contribute to a person’s level of global citizenship.

Finally, past research has neglected to understand how prior international experiences and

relationships with others might shape an individual’s level of global citizenship. Through

multiple regression analysis and subsequent qualitative interviews, I offer a greater

understanding of how varying global experiences might equip students with universal and

relative understandings of the world, especially in their aspirations of becoming globally

competent leaders. In the next section, I describe the theoretical framework that defines my

approach to studying global citizenship in management education.

THEORETICAL AND CONCEPTUAL CONNECTIONS

Below I offer overviews of the construct of global citizenship and relational theory. Integrating

these areas of thought, I create a framework through which I holistically examine global

citizenship among graduates of a select school of management education.

The Construct of Global Citizenship

Several experts have traced myriad aspects of global citizenship (Burbules & Torres, 2000;

Carter, 2001; Torres, 1998). Broadly, Delanty (2007) argues that citizenship is comprised of

13

rights, duties, participation and identity. Given recent transformations in the world, citizenship

has changed due to variation in cultural perspectives and due to the fact that loyalties of the

citizen are no longer constrained by the nation-state. In effect, globalization has expanded

citizenship opportunities beyond the nation-state (Delanty, 2007; Ramirez, 1997). That is not to

say that global citizenship extinguishes a person’s identity within the local, national, and regional

contexts nor is it advocacy for a central, worldwide government (Schattle, 2008). Instead, global

citizenship allows for an additional layer of active participation beyond the boundaries of a

nation or region (Schattle, 2008). Furthermore, there is no insinuation that the relationship

between the components of global citizenship – knowledge, skills, attitudes, and actualization –

are steps along an increasing trajectory but rather are characterized by a fluid interplay. Global

citizenship is “rich, complex, and tangible” and can be a meaningful way to understand how

membership and participation can move beyond one’s own geographical, social, cultural, and

political spheres (Schattle, 2008, p. 159). While the concepts that make up global citizenship

provide the chief explanation for establishing one’s identity amidst shifts caused by

globalization, tying such constructs to relational theory helps to further explain individuals’

interactions in our global world.

Relational Theory

Through the lens of relational theory, we understand how exploring our relationships and

developing a sense of compassion might allow us to more actively participate in this global age.

In a relational world, humans understand that their interchange or what Buber (1969) calls the

“sphere of the between” can instill empathy, caring, and an appreciation of differences.

Historically, relational theory draws on feminist approaches to human development and

14

relationship building such as the ethics of care, respect, and empathy (Cockburn, 1998). Similar

to the theories surrounding global citizenship, relational theory allows for space to establish

identity that transcends national, cultural, and communal boundaries (Snauwaert, 2002). It

differs, though, in that it expects this identity will grow through a mutual understanding of

differences, dissonances, and estrangements thereby helping to bridge “the space between us”

(Cockburn, 1998; Ross, 2002). Regenerative acts of listening, caring, and learning are the crux of

reaching a copasetic relationship and appreciating differences. Education sits delicately in this

space, as what we learn inevitably drives our perceptions, actions, and assumptions.

“Deliberative examination of the vital connection between ourselves and others, the socially, and

historically constructed spaces between us, is what is missing from education – and what is

necessary to our task of reimagining global education” (Ross, 2002, p. 431). Knowledge alone

cannot achieve this; therefore, academic work must employ actualization so that education does

not remain isolated from practice or from people’s experiences (Ross, 2002). Additionally,

schools have the opportunity to become spaces where it is “both possible and attractive to be

good” (Noddings, 2002, p. xiii) and thus educating individuals toward meaningful moral action.

By creating space for dialogue, universities set an example that critical reflection is welcomed

and encouraged (Ross, 2002). Universities are in a unique position to deliver education that

offers students a sense of moral capacity to examine their differences and embrace their

likenesses. In the context of this study, I expect that International Service Trips may offer more

opportunity for reflection and greater chance for individuals to participate in a more relational

manner during the global experience. In sum, I expect deeper global citizenship could be gained

by allowing individuals to bridge that which divides us and embrace that which unites us.

15

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

This study focuses on graduates of a full-time, private American MBA program. Each participant

represents him or herself (e.g., gender, age, race) and brings his or her prior international

experiences to this study. Understanding the depth of these experiences helps me explore how

prior international exposure might influence one’s level of global citizenship. All individuals

participated in the same MBA program and, in general, experienced similar curriculum and the

same broad exposure to one cohort and faculty. I attempt to take into account the overall

experience and learning each person underwent during his or her tenure by surveying graduates

from the same full-time, MBA program in the United States.5 The main foci for this study are

individuals’ levels of global citizenship, previous international experiences, and relationships

formed during individuals’ first school-sponsored global experiences. Building on prior research,

I gauge students on four dimensions of global citizenship, which include the following: i)

knowledge, ii) skills, iii) attitudes, and iv) actualization. My main research questions and sub-

questions are the following:

Research Question 1: Are the theorized indicators of global citizenship – knowledge,

skills, attitudes, and actualization – among students who graduated from a full-time,

American MBA program confirmed through factor analysis?

Research Question 2: Are MBA students’ international experiences prior to business

school associated with their respective higher levels of global citizenship? Specifically,

do students who have more international experience have higher levels of global

citizenship on average controlling for factors such as gender, age, and race?

Research Question 3: Based on relational theory, do individuals who participated in an

International Service Trip have higher levels of global citizenship than other students on

average controlling for factors such as gender, age, and race?

5 I approach this research with the most parsimonious strategy available to me given the time constraints of this study. I acknowledge that, with more time, this research would be enhanced by exploring the construct of global citizenship at more than one institution of management education.

16

DATA, METHODS, AND MEASUREMENT

I investigate the above research questions by employing a sequential, explanatory mixed

methods research strategy. I adopt a mixed methods approach in order to contribute to a more

comprehensive understanding of global citizenship that not only employs a statistical analysis of

global citizenship but that is further enriched by the voices of former student participants. This

approach integrates both quantitative data collection and a qualitative interview phase. I expect

that the interview comments will complement and further enrich my quantitative findings. A

mixed methods approach is the most parsimonious for my research because it allows for more

insight into and an expanded understanding of my research problem (Creswell, 2009).

Data

For the purposes of data collection, I worked with a graduate school of management education at

a private research university on the West Coast of the United States.6 The sample itself was also

purposive; I had a criterion that the graduate school of management education offer robust global

programming options for its students. First, the school disseminated the online questionnaire, on

my behalf, to all MBA graduates from class years 2007 to 2009 who participated in at least one

of the school’s four global programs.7 The sample frame included the list of names and email

addresses of 705 graduates of the school who participated in a global program during their two-

year tenure as students at the institution. The business school identified the complete list of

persons who met the aforementioned criteria and administrators compiled the list of students on

6 Though ideally I would draw samples for both a more diverse selection and wider number of schools, I am limited by time and financial resource constraints. 7 To address the concern of non-response bias, I used a few methods to increase the response rate. First, the business school sent a survey reminder 10 days after the initial send date. In addition, I made completing the task clear and relatively simple so as to encourage those who might otherwise be deterred from answering intricate questions or from completing a lengthy questionnaire (Fowler, 2002).

17

my behalf. Each respondent received the same survey. First, I analyzed the data8 using

confirmatory factor analysis to understand the construct of global citizenship and then estimated

a series of multiple regression models to investigate individuals’ prior international experiences

and relational aspects of individuals who participated in an International Service Trip as their

first school-sponsored international experience. Finally, I purposefully selected and interviewed

seven graduates to provide more in-depth context that will further inform my research questions.

Measures

I designed the Global Experiences Questionnaire (GEQ), which captures a variety of information

about students who have graduated from full-time, MBA programs in the United States (see

Appendix 1). The questionnaire is derived from a variety of previously used surveys in other

research literature that focus on global competencies and global citizenship (see Grudzinski-Hall,

2007; Hunter, 2004; Lima, 2006; Schattle, 2008). The questionnaire includes mostly close-ended

questions related to an MBA graduate’s background and demographics, experience in school-

sponsored international programs, previous international experiences, and perceptions regarding

the concepts that I hypothesize make up global citizenship. It is distinct from those of previous

research among graduate schools of management, though, in that it directly asks the students

about the theorized four dimensions of the construct of global citizenship. These GEQ sections

are described in greater detail below.

As discussed in the theoretical framework section, I suggest that there are four dimensions of

global citizenship: knowledge, skills, attitudes, and actualization. These are the dimensions that 8 I used the statistical computer program, Stata 10, for the data analysis portion of my research. Prior to analyzing the data, I cleaned and coded the data by assigning number values, accounted for missing data, and ran descriptive statistics to understand initial trends among the survey respondents.

18

emerged after my evaluation of the global competency and global citizenship literature. The

GEQ evaluates the level of global citizenship with 43 items answered on a 5-point Likert scale

ranging from 1 indicating “Never” or “Strongly Disagree” to 5 indicating “Frequently” or

“Strongly Agree”. The GEQ is composed of four scales, including Knowledge (16 items), Skills,

(6 items), Attitudes (7 items), and Actualization (14 items).

Numerous variables of interest are also captured in the GEQ. The Average Number of Countries

Visited is a composite variable of the number of countries an individual indicated he or she

traveled to prior to attending the MBA program during his or her K-12 years, undergraduate

years, and post-university years. The number of languages spoken proficiently other than the

individual’s native language is captured in the Number of Foreign Languages Spoken

Proficiently variable. The Interactions of Organizations with Prominent International

Component captures whether or not a student interacted with an organization9 that is

international in natural before attending business school. US as Home Country is an indicator

variable that explains whether or not an individual was born in the United States. Similarly, US

as Country of Permanent Residence designates whether or not an individual is now permanently

living and working in the United States. Natural Log of the Number of Countries Lived In Away

from Home Country (one or more years) indicates whether or not the student ever lived away

from his or her home country for one or more years after the age of six and prior to attending the

MBA program. Moderate Relationships and Strong Relationships refer to the strength of

relationships the individual built with other individuals and group members in-country during his

or her first international experience, where, depending on the variable, a coding of 1 means a

9 Included full-time and/or part-time work, internship, board, and volunteer experience and without reference to for-profit, nonprofit, or government.

19

person established moderate or strong relationships. Lastly, First Experience: International

Service Trip indicates that an individual participated on this trip first. Control variables such as

age, gender, and race were also included in this study. Controlling for such factors allowed me to

hold constant factors that sometimes vary in the business school graduate population.

Method

The adequacy of the four-factor structure of global citizenship was examined using confirmatory

factor analysis from the knowledge, skills, attitudes, and actualization component questions from

the GEQ.10 This form of analysis is a useful statistical method to simplify a group of interrelated

variables; there are no dependent and independent variables (Afifi & Clark, 1996). I derived the

items that loaded significantly at 0.4 or greater on the various knowledge, skills, attitudes, and

actualization dimensions and transformed the remaining factors into new, uncorrelated variables

(Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). Confirmatory factor analysis is a valuable approach for this

research because it allows me to analyze the interrelationships of the aforementioned original

items divided into dimensions. Using this method, I obtained a composite global citizenship

variable that conveys the essential dimensions, or factors, of an individual’s global citizenship.

In order to investigate the remaining research questions, I estimated a series of multiple

regression models to explore the associations between an individual’s level of global citizenship

and explanatory variables including prior international experiences, gender, race, age, current job

location, and the relationships established during an individual’s first school-sponsored trip. The

dependent variable for the analysis was an individual’s level of global citizenship as determined

10 I used Stata 10 as the statistical tool for analysis.

20

by factor analysis. The independent variables, which were collected through various questions in

the GEQ, are detailed in the variable table (see Appendix 2) and described above. Below are the

multiple regression models, which help me to answer RQ2 and RQ3.

In the equation, β0 represents an individual’s level of global citizenship holding all other

variables in the model constant. Regression parameters β1 through β6 represent the main effects.

The δ coefficient represents the vector of the effects on control variable, Z, and ε is the usual

regression residual. I fit this model to my data using a standard OLS multiple regression routine

to estimate and test the model parameters. In the first model, I estimate and test the coefficients

on each of the prior international experience main effects (β1, β2, β3, β4, β5, β6) to determine

whether particular types of prior international experiences are associated with an individual’s

global citizenship score. For example, if the coefficient associated with orgs is both statistically

significant and positive, it demonstrates that individuals who have more experience interacting

with organizations that have an international component have higher levels of global citizenship

on average taking into account the other prior international experience and control variables in

the model. In the second model, I estimate the main effects of β7 to understand if an individual’s

participation in an International Service Trip11 as his or her first school-sponsored international

experience is associated with higher levels of global citizenship on average and holding all other

variables in the model constant. In the third model, I estimate the main effects of β8 and β9 in

attempt to understand how relationships established on the student’s first international

experience might be important in understanding global citizenship.

11 Students may have traveled on more than one trip during their tenure as MBA students.

!

(1) GlobalCitizenship = "0 + "1countriesvisit+ "2langs+ "3orgs+ "4home+ "5permres+ "6countrieslived+#$+%

(2) GlobalCitizenship = ... "7ist+#$+%

(3) GlobalCitizenship = ... "8relamed+ "9relastrong+#$+%

21

With the intention of further describing the motivational factors behind students’ participation in

activities that are typical of a global citizen, I conducted follow-up interviews with a small

number of participants from each program. The interview portion of the survey was comprised of

individual, semi-structured interviews (see Qualitative Interview Protocol in Appendix 5). I

purposefully chose these participants based on their global citizenship score as described by the

multiple regression modeling. I selected six participants – three who participated in a Global

Trip12 and three who participated in an International Service Trip – who voluntarily agreed to be

contacted for an interview. I selected three participants from each program – one with high,

moderate, and low levels of global citizenship, and I aimed for racial and gender diversity when

selecting these candidates. I also included one individual who did not indicate in which trip she

first participated but who had a much higher level of global citizenship than predicted. During

these interviews, students spent time reflecting on their prior international experiences, their

school-sponsored global experiences, and the construct of global citizenship as it relates to MBA

curriculum. The participants’ first-hand perceptions gathered during these interviews allowed me

to confirm and give voice to the quantitative findings (Creswell, 2009).

RESULTS

Descriptive Findings

A total of 136 MBA graduates (77 men and 56 women) between the ages of 27 and 32 years

(M=29.50, sd=2.14) served as participants in the quantitative portion of this study. The response

rate was 19.2%. Three individuals did not report their gender or age. Of the 132 persons in the

sample who reported their race, 42% were White. Eighteen percent of the sample (n=132) was 12 Global Trips is a pseudonym. I use Global Trips to distinguish a trips program that is on average 10 days in length. On these trips, participants visit many cities in one or more countries. Program curriculum tends of focus on visits with high-level organizational leaders and government officials.

22

Asian, 12% was Hispanic, 4% was Black, and the remainder was of other races. Sixty-two

percent of respondents (n=131) indicated the United States as their home country and 71%

(n=131) indicated they are permanent residents. Seventy-two percent (n=132) of respondents

indicated that their current job is based in the United States. Seventy-eight percent of the

respondents (n=133) had mothers who had completed a four-year college degree or more; 90%

had fathers who completed some college or more. Seventy-two percent of the respondents

(n=136) had lived outside their home country after age six and prior to attending the MBA

program. Of those that lived internationally (n=98), 45% had lived in one other country aside

from their home country and 95% had lived in five or less different countries. Thirty-eight

percent of those that lived internationally (n=98) did so for less than one year. Interestingly, only

one person who participated in the survey had never studied a foreign language. Forty-one

percent of the respondents (n=136) indicated that they speak one language, other than their

native language, proficiently; thirty-eight percent speak two or more languages other than their

native language proficiently. Sixty-two percent of respondents (n=131) indicated the United

States as their home country, 50 persons were from other countries around the world, and five

persons did not indicate their home country. Finally, 65 individuals participated in the Global

Trip as their first experience; forty-one individuals completed an International Service Trip as

their first school-sponsored experience.13

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

To evaluate the extent to which survey respondents grouped the four dimensions of global

13 One concern in this study is that of non-response bias and the potential for it to interact directly or indirectly with the survey content (Alreck & Settle, 2004). Those who were interested in the survey topic or motivated by another factor were the most likely to respond (Fowler, 2002). Perhaps respondents chose not to participate because they were not interested in the topic of study, were preoccupied with other obligations, or felt as if they have been over-surveyed by the business school.

23

citizenship from the 43-item questionnaire, I conducted a confirmatory factor analysis. In the

process, I applied the minimum eigenvalue criterion of 1.00 (Kaiser, 1960), which resulted in the

extraction of five factors. Factors were then rotated using the varimax orthogonal technique to

maximize the various groupings of items measured on the same concept. The resulting factor

structure is presented in Table 1. In the data analysis process, five factors emerged rather than the

expected four. However, two of the factors (Personal and Professional Actualization) can be

considered different dimensions of the actualization component; further explanation is offered in

the discussion section. In sum, the five factors account for 100% of the variance in global

citizenship. A factor is considered to load on a given dimension if, following the varimax

rotation, the factor loading is 0.4 or greater for that dimension and did not “crossload” (load at

0.32 or higher on two or more factors) on all other factor dimensions (Tabachnick & Fidell,

2001). No items violated the “crossload” criterion. Six items loaded on Factor 1, which I refer to

as Skills. Factors 2 and 3 comprise the “actualization” dimension. Seven items loaded onto

Personal Actualization (Factor 2) and four items loaded onto Professional Actualization (Factor

3). Nine items retained meaningful loadings on Factor 4, which I refer to as Attitudes.14 Five

items loaded on Factor 5; I refer to that item as Knowledge. I predicted dimension scores using

the items that loaded for each of the five dimensions. Table 1 also offers eigenvalues, %

variance, and alpha levels for each of the five factors. All had alpha levels over 0.660 (see Table

1). Finally, to create the composite Global Citizenship index variable, I computed the mean of

the five dimensions and divided by five. Global Citizenship (M=-9.83e-10; sd=0.4333687) has a

minimum value of -1.308758 and a maximum value of 1.017965.

14 Three items from the Knowledge scale loaded onto the Attitudes factor, which I address in the Discussion section.

24

While each of the factors contributes to the construct of global citizenship, the Skills dimension

is the largest contributing dimension of global citizenship according to this model

(eigenvalue=8.23; variance=28.82%). Each of the characteristics of this dimension and the other

four dimensions are included in Table 1. Personal Actualization (eigenvalue=2.938;

variance=20.98%) and Professional Actualization (eigenvalue=2.072; variance=19.40%) were

the next largest contributors. The Attitudes15 variable contributes 18.20% of the variance in

global citizenship according to this model (eigenvalue=1.585). Lastly, the Knowledge dimension

of global citizenship (eigenvalue=1.228; variance=12.60%) adds the least to global citizenship.

Descriptive statistics and Pearson zero-order correlation coefficients for the five-factor domains

and the composite global citizenship index are presented in Appendix 3. The global citizenship

composite score was positively and significantly (p<.001) correlated with each of the five

dimensions of Global Citizenship: Skills, Personal Actualization, Professional Actualization,

Attitudes, and Knowledge. There are no significant correlations among the factors, which reduces

the concern for multicollinearity and indicates separate dimensions of global citizenship are

being measured. After confirming the components of Global Citizenship, I next explore how

various characteristics of the sample might contribute to an individual’s level of global

citizenship. To do so, I estimated three OLS multiple regression models, which allowed me to

understand the main effects on the dependent variable, global citizenship.

15 Important to note as well is that three of the questions that were initially theorized as part of Knowledge loaded onto the Attitudes dimension. Reviewing this finding, though, reveals that perhaps the statements provided in the GEQ were written in such a way that they were more closely related to the Attitudes (i.e. “The idea of learning a foreign language is more exciting to me than it is unappealing”).

25

continued on next page

SkillsPersonal

Actualization

Professional

ActualizationAttitudes Knowledge

Label Name Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Uniqueness

I conduct research to better understand cultural

differences0.443 0.687

When I make an important decision, I look for

information from many sources0.528 0.692

I reflect on my past experiences to see what I can learn

from them0.609 0.590

I read the newspaper or online news to be informed

about current issues in the world0.423 0.801

I usually treat new situations as an opportunity to learn

something0.573 0.598

The idea of learning a foreign language is more exciting

to me than it is unappealing0.476 0.747

I do not need to learn about other cultures to be

successful in the world*0.464 0.775

I am knowledgeable about the international issues that

directly affect my area of career expertise0.688

I don't have time to worry about what is going on

outside my home country*0.603 0.557

Level of preparedness to live outside home country for

professional reasons0.664 0.382

Level of preparedness to identify cultural differences in

order to compete globally0.792 0.249

Level of preparedness to participate in business settings

around the world0.837 0.1650

Level of preparedness to navigate business complexities

in an international setting0.895 0.103

Level of preparedness to communicate in an

international setting0.849 0.227

Level of preparedness to build partnerships and

alliances in an international setting0.800 0.318

Meeting people from other cultures is stimulating 0.586 0.604

I have the capacity to use my business acumen to

positively contribute to global challenges0.405 0.672

Meeting people from other cultures is stressful* 0.507 0.676

Speaking a foreign language will help me get a better

job0.551 0.5580

I do not think of myself as a stakeholder in the

worldwide community*0.449 0.656

If the occasion arose, I would try to avoid speaking at

any length with someone who is not fluent in my native

language*

0.575 0.5940

Table 1: Rotated Factors of Global Citizenship (n = 136)

26

To examine differences in dimensions scores between individuals who participated in a Global

Trip first versus an International Service Trip first, I conducted a two-group mean comparing test

using global citizenship as the dependent variable. The t-test revealed that there is no statistically

significant difference between the means of the two groups (see Appendix 4). Given my

theoretical framework, this is counter to what I anticipated. This may be because while

relationships matter on the whole, they are not fostered in a more significant way in International

Service Trips compared to Global Trips. In the discussion section, I explore why relationships do

matter despite there being no significant differences in the mean scores of the two groups.

SkillsPersonal

Actualization

Professional

ActualizationAttitudes Knowledge

Label Name Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Uniqueness

I volunteer time to work for others' benefit 0.719 0.451

I step outside of my own culture to experience life as

'the other'0.429 0.575

I participate in local philanthropy 0.800 0.3530

I participate in international philanthropy 0.690 0.497

I collaborate with people of cultures different than my

own0.484 0.481

I travel internationally for work 0.846 0.211

I enter international markets for the benefit of my

organization0.909 0.090

I balance financial returns with social returns in my

professional life0.513 0.681

I develop business internationally 0.840 0.216

I participate in nonprofit or NGO board service 0.726 0.445

I spend time understanding the perspectives of

colleagues that are different from my own0.456 0.6110

Note: blanks represent abs(loading)<0.4

*recoded to reflect positive aspect

% Variance 28.82 20.98 19.40 18.20 12.60

Eigenvalues 8.230 2.938 2.072 1.585 1.228

Alpha 0.943 0.832 0.9006 0.787 0.660

27

Multiple Regression Analysis

To explore RQ2 and RQ3, I estimated three OLS multiple regression models, which are

presented in Table 2. Model 1 is a starting point to understand if prior international experiences

such as international travel or living outside one’s home country prior to business school account

for any variance in global citizenship. Controlling for age, race, and gender, Interactions with

Organizations with Prominent International Component, US as Country of Permanent

Residence, and the Natural Log of the Number of Countries Lived In Away from Home Country

(one or more years) are statistically significant.16

Model 1 as a whole accounts for 26.9% of the variance in global citizenship (adjusted R2=0.269).

The model suggests that interacting with organizations that have prominent international

components is associated with a 0.067 increase in global citizenship (p<.05) holding all other

variables in the model constant. All else equal, the model predicts that individuals who live as

permanent residents in the United States have lower levels of global citizenship than do persons

in other countries (β5= -0.330; p<.01). Natural Log of the Number of Countries Lived In Away

from Home Country (one or more years) helps to understand how, beyond travel, actually living

away from home affects one’s level of global citizenship. This variable is a statistically

significant (p<.05) predictor of global citizenship holding all other variables constant (β6=

0.166). All other variables are not statistically significant. Understanding how global citizenship

might be predicted for an individual in the sample regardless of school-sponsored global

experiences, I now turn to explore the models that account for the experiences – and

characteristics of those experiences – that are of interest in this study.

16 I estimated the regression using race and mother’s and father’s levels of education, and there were no findings that contributed significantly to the models. Therefore, they were not included in the final models.

28

Baseline CharacteristicsIncluding Participation in

International Service Trip

Including Strength of

Relationships

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Average Number of Countries Visited1 0.055 0.053 0.061

(0.040) (0.040) (0.039)

# of Foreign Languages Spoken

Proficiently2

0.072 0.068 0.075

(0.047) (0.047) (0.046)

Interactions with Organizations with

Prominent International Component 0.067* 0.068* 0.065*

(0.032) (0.032) (0.031)

US as Home Country 0.119 0.111 0.095

(0.103) (0.103) (0.101)

US as Country of Permanent Residence -0.330** -0.317** -0.287**

(0.104) (0.105) (0.103)

Natural Log of # of Countries Lived In

Other Than Home Country1

0.166* 0.172* 0.199**

(0.069) (0.069) (0.068)

Gender -0.078 -0.069 -0.078

(0.071) (0.072) (0.071)

Age 0.005 0.005 0.001

(0.019) (0.019) (0.018)

White 0.109 0.101 0.113

(0.149) (0.149) (0.146)

Black 0.394 0.355 0.376

(0.220) (0.226) (0.178)

Hispanic -0.035 -0.04 0.034

(0.181) (0.181) (0.178)

Asian 0.175 0.17 0.165

(0.164) (0.165) (0.161)

Native American or Indian -0.009 -0.01 0.045

(0.225) (0.225) (0.220)

First Experience: International Service

Trip0.062 0.074

(0.075) (0.073)

Moderate Relationships Built on First

School-Sponsored Experience0.124

(0.072)

Strong Relationships Built on First School-

Sponsored Experience0.296**

(0.102)

Constant -0.444 -0.44 -0.494

Adjusted R2 0.269 0.267 0.306

n 132 132 132

*p<.05 **p<.01

1 After age six and prior to attending the MBA program

2 Other than native language

Table 2: Modeling Global Citizenship Based on Prior International Experiences, Participation in an International Service

Trip, and Relationships with Others

29

Each one of the variables that is statistically significant in Model 1 remains a significant

contributor to an individual’s level of global citizenship in Models 2 and 3, though the

coefficients change slightly in these subsequent models. Model 2 as a whole accounts for 26.7%

of the variance in global citizenship (adjusted R2=0.267). In Model 2, I add the First Experience:

International Service Trip variable to explore if global citizenship scores among the students

who participated in the International Service Trip are statistically different than those who did

not. To recap, 41 students participated in an International Service Trip as their first school-

sponsored global experience. Individuals who participated first in an International Service Trip

have higher levels of global citizenship, on average, than other individuals. However, the model

reveals that this is not a statistically significant difference.

In Model 3, I add the Moderate Relationships and Strong Relationships variables to explore how

the relationships students create during their first school-sponsored global experience might

predict their levels of global citizenship. The addition of the Strong Relationships variable

reveals that individuals who build strong relationships with individuals in-country and with other

group members during their first school-sponsored global experience are a positive predictor of

global citizenship. An increase of one unit in Strong Relationships is associated with a 0.296 unit

increase in global citizenship (p<.01). This model as a whole accounts for 30.6% of the variance

in global citizenship. Furthermore, Model 3 accounts for more variance in global citizenship

(adjusted R2=0.306) than does Model 2 (adjusted R2=0.267). Therefore, I conclude that Model 3

is the most parsimonious model because it allows us to understand the factors that contribute the

most to the construct of global citizenship.

30

To ensure the statistical significance of the findings in Model 3, I conducted a chi-square test to

understand if the original relationship variables and the First Experience: International Service

Trip were correlated. The test revealed no statistically significant probability of correlation

among the variables. Therefore, it is unlikely that the relational variables are mediating variables

in the Model 3 estimation of global citizenship.

Qualitative Interviews

In order to improve my interpretation of the quantitative results, I conducted seven interviews

with participants from the sample. Descriptive statistics for these participants can be found in

Table 3. Each of the individuals is a citizen of his or her home country.

The students were selected based on their global citizenship score relative to the predicted

regression line to cover a broad range of individual perspectives. I explored themes such as prior

international experiences, global programming in business school, the role of global citizenship

in business, and relationships established with others during global experiences. I detail my

qualitative findings in the discussion section so as to bring to life my main conclusions.

Global

Citizenship ScoreHome Country Gender Age Race

# of Languages

Spoken

Proficiently*

Current Job Location

Participant A 1.018 Australia Male 28 Asian 2 Outside the US

Participant B -0.565 Canada Female 28 White 1 In the US

Participant C 0.330 Ireland Male 33 White 3 In the US

Participant D -0.829 United States Male 29 White 1 In the US

Participant E 0.043 Peru Male 29 Hispanic 2 Outside the US

Participant F 0.666 United States Female 31 White 2 Outside the US

Participant G 0.195 Thailand Female 29 Asian 1 In the US

*Other than native language

Table 3: Qualitative Interview Participants

31

DISCUSSION

Confirmed Components of Global Citizenship

Factor analysis revealed the global citizenship dimension structure is remarkably similar to that

which I initially theorized. Rather than the emergence of four dimensions, however, the analysis

revealed five meaningful factors: Skills, Personal Actualization, Professional Actualization,

Attitudes, and Knowledge. As previously mentioned, two of the factors comprise the theorized

actualization component and can be referred to as Personal Actualization (Factor 2) and

Professional Actualization (Factor 3). The resulting structure of the actualization component

reveals individuals’ behaviors have both personal and professional qualities that explain their

global citizenship levels.

In this study, factor analysis suggests that the Skills and Actualization components are the most

relevant in explaining global citizenship. An example of interpreting the Skills dimension is the

following: characteristics such as one’s level of professional preparedness to live outside their

home country, identify cultural differences to compete globally, and participate and

communicate in business settings around the world are strong identifiers of one’s level of global

citizenship. Harnessed with these skills, individuals are able to enact global citizenship. For

example, an individual’s level of global citizenship as it relates to Personal Actualization would

be further bolstered if he or she spent time volunteering for others’ benefit, participating in either

local or international philanthropy, and serving on a nonprofit or NGO board. Professional

Actualization draws more on business-oriented behaviors; for instance, traveling internationally

for work and developing business in a global setting are aspects of Professional Actualization

associated with global citizenship. Attitudes can be interpreted by exploring ideas such as how

32

comfortable a person is meeting people from other cultures or how interested an individual is in

learning about what is going on outside his or her home country. Finally, the Knowledge

dimension can be understood by exploring an individual’s interest in researching to learn more

about cultural differences.

Each of the aforementioned components is a relevant contributing global citizenship dimension.

In combination, these factors are the framework for a construct that future leaders might draw

upon in order to lead with an ethical framework while managing profitable businesses. By

embracing global citizenship as a factor in their educational pursuits, individuals in business

school will envision their future work as a “noble goal” that aims for economic activity in

harmony with what is equitable and sustainable in the global market (Post, 2002). As Participant

B, a Canadian female suggested, business schools play an important role in teaching students

how to participate – tied to the dimension of Professional Actualization – effectively in the

global business world. “[Business schools] play a role in building an understanding of the issues

that you will likely face or that you don’t expect to face.” In her reflections, Participant F, who

lives outside the US, stated, “I think it’s great [that global programming] exists at the school

because I don’t think that students would be prepared for their future without that type of global

experience.”

By offering global experiences that foster global citizenship, schools of management education

are preparing individuals to become the next generation of informed international leaders.

Individuals with high levels of global citizenship emphasized that being a global citizen was

important for their work. Participant C, an Irish male now working in the United States, stated,

33

“I’m working on a consumer product. If I were only looking at [expanding my product] in the

US, I would be short-sighted.” He has adopted skills and attitudes that align with a global citizen.

A couple of interview respondents cautioned, though, that even though they might be inclined

toward a curriculum that encourages global citizenship, not all business school students will have

an interest. Participant G, a Thai female who now lives in the United States, reflected, “as an

international student, I have an interest in learning about global business issues and how to

become a global leader in the future. But it might be different from people in the US whose main

interest is doing business in their own country.”

Understanding the Influence of Prior International Experiences on Global Citizenship

Second, prior international experiences matter quite a bit in predicting global citizenship among

students with similar characteristics to those in this study. My quantitative findings demonstrate

that the more long-term, international exposure one has prior to attending this full-time business

school program, the stronger his or her level of global citizenship. Accumulating diverse

international experiences seems to foster various dimensions of global citizenship. After

estimating OLS multiple regression models, findings revealed that individual characteristics,

such as living outside ones home country prior to business school, engaging with organizations

with international components, and living outside the US after business school were associated

with higher levels of global citizenship. The qualitative interviews further support this finding.

In general, individuals with higher levels of global citizenship had traveled extensively and lived

in many countries other than their home country. Five of the seven interviewees mentioned that

the first international experience sparked an interest in further international exploration.

34

Participant A, an Asian male who was born and raised in Australia, reflected on the importance

of living abroad: “[After that first experience], I was encouraged and motivated even more to

find out about other cultures I’d never even known about.” “It definitely generated my curiosity

about wanting to [do this again] somewhere else,” stated Participant E. Participant F, a white

female who now lives outside the US, referred to her first experience as “a life-changing event.”

She goes on to say, “I was 16 and it was a very impressionable age. You go and see how another

culture interacts and lives. After that I had the travel bug.”

Conversely, students with lower levels of global citizenship, such as Participant D, a male from

the United States who seemed more a low outlier in this sample, had opposing viewpoints.

Reflecting on his first experience, he stated, “I don’t know that it was revolutionary or anything

atypical that someone traveling for the first time out of the country would have experienced.”

When asked if he viewed himself as a global citizen, he stated:

I don’t. Most of what I do and most of the experiences that I have are very localized. I’m generally aware of what is going on inside my own country. I wouldn’t really call myself a global citizen. One of the things about being in the US is that we have this luxury of having this very nice and almost shielded life. You have a luxury of not having to engage in a broader way with the rest of the world.

This finding exposed a divergent viewpoint from others that attended the same MBA program;

however, it is in line with Participant D’s level of global citizenship. As I found in this study,

global citizenship is not necessarily predicted by one’s educational background but instead by

prior international experiences. The quote above brings to light this result.

Perhaps certain positive international experiences spark motivation in certain individuals to

pursue more experiences, which results in building bridges over “the space between us”

35

(Cockburn, 1998). But this may not happen for all individuals, such as Participant D. For many

in this study, though, the first experience seemed to invite a curiosity for understanding the

unfamiliar and an interest in transcending national and cultural boundaries (Snauwaert, 2002).

These bridge builders tend to score in line with or higher than predicted by the multiple

regression analysis; the more international experiences one gains, the more bridges one looks to

build – be they personal or professional – around the world. Not surprisingly, therefore,

Participant A, with a high global citizenship score, mentioned that he had traveled to fifty-four

countries in his lifetime, forty of which he had visited prior to attending business school.

Embracing Relationships for Deeper Global Citizenship

A final take-away from this study is for practitioners to understand the central role relationships

between group members and with individuals in-country play in predicting global citizenship.

This study demonstrated that global citizenship was bolstered when an individual fostered strong

relationships on his or her first global experience. This is an important distinction for future

leaders who will one day manage organizations whose work has inevitable societal implications.

As revealed in this study, relationships are an important predictor of global citizenship, though

not necessarily tied to the pedagogy of short-term, school-sponsored global experiences.

Multiple regression analysis revealed no statistically significant differences in levels of global

citizenship for individuals who first went on an International Service Trip. While the structure of

the trips may not have contributed to differing levels of global citizenship, fostering relationships

regardless of the trip type certainly did. In light of my findings from the GEQ and interviews,

strong relationships formed in-country or with group members with whom an individual travels

36

bolster one’s level of global citizenship. This corresponds to ideas of relational theory that

building relationships helps us to understand the vital link between others and ourselves.

Furthermore, nurturing international relationships encourages a growth of understanding

differences and bridging “the space between us” (Cockburn, 1998; Ross, 2002). On the whole,

respondents underscored the influence of relationships. As Participant C revealed, “knowing

people in other countries helps you get over the culture barrier. It lets you treat each other one on

one – as equals – and allows you to relate. It also gives you perspective.” While this variable was

not tied to a particular program as was one of my original posits, the significance of relationships

reveals that creating empathy, understanding the other, and engaging in regenerative acts of

listening and learning are vital elements to cultivating global citizenship. While this study only

captures the strength of relationships as a part of the first-school sponsored experience, it was

revealed in the qualitative interviews that generating relationships is an influential aspect of

global citizenship.

The female from Thailand commented on the valuable role the business school plays in offering

global programming that foster relationships when she stated, “I wanted to develop personally by

interacting with people from different backgrounds.” When I asked the male from Ireland who

now works in the United States what it meant to be a global citizen, he was quick to “bring it

back to the personal.” He went on to say that global citizens “begin to lose parochial

prejudices…and are less dismissive of other places and other countries.” Participant E tied the

importance of relationships to the role of future managers when he stated they “are going to be

dealing with people from different countries. It means being open to meeting new people and

being able to deal with them effectively.” When asked if being a global citizen was important for

37

future managers and leaders, Participant A responded:

That’s a definite yes. Managers in general probably look at their own little bucket a bit too much and not so much about the full breadth of what they are changing or what their decisions are affecting first of all within their company, and second of all within the country, and – even larger – on a global scale. And I think [the school] does a great job in making you realize that you are not just affecting your own lives and your own P&L and your own money but that you are affecting the lives of everyone in this world.17

Finally, one important factor I was surprised to hear mentioned time and time again in the

qualitative interviews was how fundamental the composition of the MBA class played in the

overall international experience the individuals faced during their tenure at school. Participant A

talked about it this way:

I think that [the school] does a very good job…with the actual intake of students. I think that they choose the students very well and that gives a wide range of backgrounds. I used to think ‘why don’t they just get all the management consultants because they have got the most to add in terms of value?’ But that was a very ignorant thing to think.

In fact, many individuals mentioned that the diverse, international student body was one of the

prime reasons they chose the school. “I knew that my network would be global,” stated

Participant F. Participant E, a Hispanic male originally from Peru, mentioned, “trying to increase

the interaction among Americans and international students benefits the whole program.” Dyer,

et al. (2009) alluded to this vital factor, acknowledging that global experiences should be seen as

a direct complement to, among other things, a heterogeneous, multicultural peer group. Future

studies could build on the extant research in this field and could explore how, in the MBA

setting, an international student body might influence student learning and interest in other

cultures and thus be associated with varying level of global citizenship.

17 Author’s emphasis

38

IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Overall, this study contributes to the wider body of research in understanding global citizenship

among MBA graduates from a private, full-time American MBA program. To date, schools have

invested resources in adopting global curricular components but have not explored the

components that contribute to an individual’s global citizenship. This study provides support for

the theorized dimensions of global citizenship existing in prior research and contributes to the

field by presenting an instrument to measure the construct of global citizenship among graduates

of full-time, American MBA programs. Furthermore, this research offers insight into the vital

role prior international experiences and relationships play in further comprehending an

individual’s level of global citizenship.

There are both fortes and limitations to this type of research. A strong suit of this research is that

it allows readers to understand the construct of global citizenship among students who went

through similar curricula during their tenure as students; this held constant a factor that is often

varied among graduate schools of management education. Furthermore, it gave me the

opportunity to investigate whether or not there were differences among graduates who

participated in two unique global programs. Future research, though, might explore the construct

of global citizenship by studying individuals who have graduated from varying institutions of

management education around the country. This would also provide the opportunity to test the

GEQ instrument for reliability over time and among other larger samples. The instrument could

also be modified for use internationally or for other higher education student populations. In

addition, future studies might expand on the current instrument to further define the

characteristics that make up global citizenship.

39

Undoubtedly, our interconnectedness poses challenges for educational institutions that seek to

prepare students for their future roles in the global economy (Arnove, 2003). Business schools

have a unique opportunity to educate future business leaders who will manage organizations as

global citizens in this increasingly complex world. This research has offered a framework to

better understand the predictors of global citizenship. Understanding characteristics that make up

one’s level of global citizenship, graduate schools of management education might consider how

to infuse curricula and global programs with elements that increase students’ skills and

knowledge, develop their attitudes, and encourage their behaviors toward positive and

meaningful global competency and participation. Such knowledge will be useful for business

schools that desire to educate future business leaders with a keen sense of their place in the

broader society. Suggestions to accomplish this are highlighted in Table 4.

Business schools have a unique opportunity to allow students to grapple with their own global

citizenship and to encourage them to become active global citizens in the international

marketplace. Some innovative schools have already begun down this path; institutions seeking to

follow suit will be a part of the sea change taking place in educating MBA students for global

leadership and citizenry. Either way, graduate schools of management education have the

opportunity to use this research to further enhance their curricula with elements that promote

global citizenship that will prove useful in creating a more sustainable business sector. In the

process, such institutions will provide an environment that reinforces the benefits of pairing a

concrete business education with forums that nurture empathy, embrace commonality, and

expand consciousness beyond borders. Strangers will become neighbors. Bridges will be built.

Business leaders will heed not only profits but also the perspectives and perceptions of those

whom their work inevitably reaches.

40

* promote the use of the local language, where possible, during students' international travels

* provide pre-trip opportunities to learn about the culture

* encourage students to build relationships and participate in deep, meaningful interactions with local persons they meet during the trip

* support students' willingness to step outside their comfort zones throughout the trip

* remind them of opportunities to engage post-trip in non-profit or NGO board service (where applicable)

* suggest that giving of their philanthropic portfolio - be it time, expertise, or resources - is a meaningful, post-trip engagement

* create and/or actively encourage post-trip collaborations with organizations visited during the global experiences

* offer students the opportunity during debrief sessions to discuss the social implications of doing business in the local context

* encourage students to ask questions during trip meetings to further understand the cultural nuances of doing business internationally

* promote a willingness among individuals to actively apply their business acumen to the scenarios they face during meetings and site visits

* foster interest among the students to seek out information on current events happening in the local context

* push students interest in connecting personally or professionally with at least one new individual in the local context each day

* encourage students to draw on their past international experiences to consider how to approach the cultural nuances of the trip at hand

* suggest students to conduct their own research on and be well-versed in the local context in advance of the trip

* remind students throughout the trip that this is an opportunity to engage in an experience that will enhance their business perspectives

Attitudes

Knowledge

Table 4: Fostering the Confirmed Dimensions of Global Citizenship

Skills

Personal

Actualization

Professional

Actualization

Global Citizenship Dimensions

41

Appendices Appendix 1: Global Experiences Questionnaire

42

43

44

45

Label Name M sd Min Max n Meaning

Global Citizenship 0.00 0.43 -1.31 1.02 136

Skills 0.00 0.96 -2.29 2.05 136

Personal Actulaization 0.00 0.93 -1.99 2.12 136

Professional Actualization 0.00 0.97 -1.74 1.98 136

Attitudes 0.00 0.88 -5.91 1.34 136

Knowledge 0.00 0.84 -2.32 1.43 136

Average Number of Countries Visited

(composite)1

2.51 0.97 1 5 136 1=0-2; 2=3-5; 3=6-8; 4=9-11; 5=12 or more

# of Countries Visited: K-12 Years 2.23 1.31 1 5 136 1=0-2; 2=3-5; 3=6-8; 4=9-11; 5=12 or more

# of Countries Visited:

Undergraduate Years2.43 1.30 1 5 136 1=0-2; 2=3-5; 3=6-8; 4=9-11; 5=12 or more

# of Countries Visited: Post-

University and Prior to MBA2.88 1.41 1 5 136 1=0-2; 2=3-5; 3=6-8; 4=9-11; 5=12 or more

Natural Log of # of Countries Lived In

Other Than Home Country1

0.40 0.58 0 2.08 136

# of Foreign Languages Spoken

Proficiently2

0.93 0.86 0 4 136 1-100

Interactions with Organizations with

Prominent International Component

(composite)

1.57 0.93 0 4 136Composite of interactions with organizations for Full-Time, Part-

Time, Internship, Nonprofit Board, or Volunteer positions

US as Home Country 0.60 0.49 0 1 136 1=Yes; 0=No

US as Country of Permanent

Residence0.68 0.47 0 1 136 1=Yes; 0=No

Gender 0.58 0.50 0 1 133 1=Male; 0=Female

Age 29.50 2.14 24 39 133

Race 2.23 1.72 1 7 132

1=White; 2=Black or African American; 3=Asian; 4=Hispanic

or Latino; 5=American Indian or Alaskan Native; 6=Other;

7=Mixed

First Experience: Global Trip 0.48 0.50 0 1 136 1=GST; 0=Other

First Experience: International Service

Trip0.30 0.46 0 1 136 1=IST; 0=Other

Moderate Relationships Built on First

School-Sponsored Experience0.49 0.50 0 1 136

1=Moderate Relationships Built; 0=Strong or Weak

Relationships

Strong Relationships Built on First

School-Sponsored Experience0.15 0.36 0 1 136

1=Strong Relationships Built; 0=Moderate or Weak

Relationships

2 Other than native language

1 After age six and prior to attending the MBA program

Appendix 2: Global Experience Questionnaire (GEQ) Variable List

46

M sd 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Skills 3.01E-10 0.9649298

2. Personal Actualization -1.59E-09 0.9257137 -0.0039

3. Professional Actualization -1.98E-09 0.9652072 0.0304 0.0101

4. Attitudes 8.56E-12 0.8843727 0.0458 0.0417 -0.0039

5. Knowledge -4.16E-09 0.8353948 0.0492 0.0597 0.0223 0.0546

6. Global Citizenship Index -9.83E-10 0.4333687 0.4948*** 0.4700*** 0.4703*** 0.4657*** 0.4651***

***p<.001

Appendix 3: Descriptive Statistics and Pearson Zero-Order Coefficients for Five-Factor Model Domains and Global Citizenship Index

(n=136)

Group n M Std. Err. sd 95% Confidence Interval

Global Trip 65 -0.033 0.058 0.466 -.1483612 .0823539

International Service Trip 41 0.069 0.070 0.447 -.0724929 .2096044

Combined 106 0.006 0.045 0.459 -.0821123 .0946698

Difference -0.102 0.091 -.2828733 .0797546

diff = mean(1) - mean(2) t = -1.1108

Ho: diff = 0 degrees of freedom = 104

Ha: diff < 0 Ha: diff != 0 Ha: diff > 0

Pr(T < t) = 0.1346 Pr(T > t) = 0.2692 Pr(T > t) = 0.8654

Appendix 4: Two-sample T-Test of Global Citizenship with Equal Variances (n=106)

47

Appendix 5: Qualitative Interview Protocol GOAL The purpose of this interview is to gather perceptions directly from students who participated in a global or international service trip during business school. This interview will primarily explore the your prior international experiences, school-sponsored global experience, and your perception of relationships built internationally. Questions will also be asked about the construct of global citizenship. The findings from this interview will further inform the quantitative data collected in the first phase of this research study. All interviews will be treated with the utmost confidentiality. Any findings used in the final monograph will not be connected to your name. I will be transcribing today’s interview; therefore, are you comfortable with me recording our conversation? DEFINITION OF GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP: A holistic construct that maintains individuals are not bound by barriers and borders, are open to balancing personal realities with those outside one’s own perceptions, and are prepared with knowledge, skills, and attitudes to be active members of a global society and participants in the global marketplace.

PRIOR INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCES ∗ Thinking back to your time prior to attending the MBA program, which international

experience do you believe had the greatest impact on your furthering your interest in other global issues?

∗ In what ways specifically did the experience impact your life? INDIVIDUAL AND GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP

∗ What comes to mind when you think of the ways in which a global citizen participates in society?

∗ Do you personally resonate with the term global citizen? Why or why not? If so, how does it aid you in being successful in your career?

SCHOOL-SPONSORED EXPERIENCES

∗ During your school-sponsored global experience(s), how much did you: o Interact with local people? o Interact with your student group? o Spend time in the local community outside of organized meetings?

∗ Could you talk about those relationships? ∗ Did your school-sponsored global experience(s) help you to more deeply understand

major business challenges in the community(ies) to which you traveled? If so, how? ∗ How, if at all, do you think your participation in your school-sponsored global experience

contributed to your global citizenship? BUSINESS SCHOOLS AND GLOBAL PROGRAMMING

∗ Do you think it is important for business schools to infuse global curricular components that encourage global citizenship? Why or why not?

∗ Is being a global citizen important for future managers/leaders? Why or why not?

48

References

A.A.C.S.B. (2003). Eligibility Procedures and Standards for Business Accreditation. Retrieved November 16, 2009, from www.aacsb.edu/accreditation/standards.asp.

Abraham, S. E., & Karns, L. A. (2009). Do Business Schools Value the Competencies That Businesses Value? Journal of Education for Business, 84(6), 350-356.

Adler, N. J., & Bartholomew, S. (1992). Managing Globally Competent People. The Executive, 6(3), 52-65.

Afifi, A. A., & Clark, V. (1996). Computer-Aided Multivariate Analysis (Third ed.): Chapman & Hall/CRC.

Alon, I., & McAllaster, C. M. (2009). Measuring the Global Footprint of an MBA. Journal of Studies in International Education, 13(4), 522-540.

Alreck, P. L., & Settle, R. B. (2004). The Survey Research Handbook (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Arnove, R. F. (2003). Introduction: Reframing Comparative Education. In R. F. Arnove & C. A. Torres (Eds.), Comparative Education: The Dialectic of the Global and the Local (Second ed., pp. 1-23). New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Berrell, M., Teal, G., & Gloet, M. (2005). Culture and Globalization in the Curriculum: Theory, Cases and Practice. Journal of New Business Ideas & Trends, 3(1), 1-8.

Buber, M. (1969). A Believing Humanism: Gleanings. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Burbules, N. C., & Torres, C. A. (2000). Globalization and Education: An Introduction. In N. C. Burbules & C. A. Torres (Eds.), Globalization and Education: Critical Perspectives. New York: Routledge.

Carter, A. (2001). The Political Theory of Global Citizenship. London: Routledge.

Cockburn, C. (1998). The Space Between Us: Negotiating Gender and National Identities in Conflict. London: Zed Books.

Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (Third ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Curie, D. M., Gilbert, J., & Matulich, S. (2004). Foreign Travel in North Americana MBA Programs. Journal of Teaching in International Business, 15(3), 45-60.

Delanty, G. (2007). Theorising Citizenship in a Global Age. In W. Hudson & S. Slaughter (Eds.), Globalisation and Citizenship: The Transational Challenge. New York: Routledge.

49

Dower, N., & Williams, J. (2002). Introduction. Global Citizenship: A Critical Introduction. New York: Rutledge.

Dyer, R., Liebrenz-Himes, M., & Hassan, S. (2009). Global Exposure in Leading MBA Programs Real Learning Opportunities at Business School and Beyond (Vol. 2). Netherlands: Springer.

EFMD. (2005). The Global Compact, Global Responsible Leadership: A Call for Engagement. Brussels: European Foundation for Management and Development.

Falk, R. (1994). The Making of Global Citizenship. In B. van Steenbergen (Ed.), The Condition of Citizenship. London: Sage Publications.

Fowler, F. J., Jr. (2002). "Non-response: Implementing a Sample Design." Survey Research Methods (Third ed., pp. 39-57). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Friga, P. N., Bettis, R. A., & Sullivan, R. S. (2003). Changes in Graduate Management Education and New Business School Strategies for the 21st Century. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 2(3), 233-249.

Garcia, E. J. (2009). Raising leadership criticality in MBAs. Higher Education, 58, 113-130.

Ghemawat, P. (2008). The globalization of business education: through the lens of semiglobalization. Journal of Management Development, 27(4), 391-414.

Godfrey, P. C. (1999). Service-Learning and Management Education: A Call to Action. Journal of Management Inquiry, 8(4), 363-378.

Grudzinski-Hall, M. N. (2007). How Do College and University Undergraduate Level Global Citizenship Programs Advance the Development and Experiences of Global Competencies? , Drexel University.

Hamilton, D., McFarland, D., & Mirchandani, D. (2000). A Decision Model for Integration Across the Business Curriculum in the 21st Century. Journal of Management Education, 24(1), 102-126.

Hunter, W. D. (2004). Knowledge, Skills, Attitudes, and Experiences Necessary to Become Globally Competent. Unpublished Dissertation, Lehigh University.

Hunter, W. D., White, G. P., & Godbey, G. C. (2006). What Does It Mean to Be Globally Competent? Journal of Studies in International Education, 10(3), 267-285.

Jacoby, B. (1996). Service-Learning in Today's Higher Education. In B. Jacoby & Associates (Eds.), Service-Learning in Higher Education (pp. 3-25). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The Application of Electronic Computers to Factor Analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 141-151.

50

Kolenko, T. A., Porter, G., Wheatley, W., & Colby, M. (1996). A Critique of Service Learning Projects in Management Education: Pedagogical Foundations, Barriers, and Guidelines. Journal of Business Ethics, 15(1), 133-142.

Kwok, C. C. Y., & Arpan, J. S. (2002). Internationalizing the Business School: A Global Survey in 2000. Journal of International Business Studies, 33(3), 571-581.

Lagos, T. G. (2002). Global Citizenship - Towards a Definition.

Lima, C. O. (2006). It’s Not All about Access: A Comparative Study of Global Citizenship and ICT Use between Brazilian and American Students Utilizing a Social Inclusion Framework. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Connecticut, Storrs.

Lima, C. O., & Brown, S. W. (2007). Global Citizenship and New Literacies Providing New Ways for Social Inclusion. Revista Semstral da Associacao Brasileira de Psicologia Escolar e Educacional (ABRAPEE), II(I), 13-20.

Lorange, P. (2003). Global Responsibility - Business Education and Business Schools - Roles in Promoting a Global Perspective. Corporate Governance, 3(3), 126-135.

Manuel, T. A., Shooshtari, N. H., Fleming, M. J., & Wallwork, S. S. (2001). Internationalization of the Business Curriculum at U.S. Colleges and Universities. Journal of Teaching in International Business, 12(3), 43-70.

McIntosh, P. (2005). Gender Perspectives on Educating for Global Citizenship. In N. Noddings (Ed.), Educating Citizens for Global Awareness (pp. 22-37). New York: Teacher's College Press.

Muller, H. J., Porter, J. L., & Rehder, R. R. (1991). Reinventing the MBA the European way—American business education needs revision. Business Horizons, 34(3), 83-92.

Nelson, J., & Prescott, D. (2008). Business and the Millennium Development Goals: A Framework for Action: UNDP and International Business Leaders Forum.

Noddings, N. (2002). Educating Moral People: A Caring Alternative to Character Education. New York: Teachers College Press.

Nussbaum, M. (1997). The Old Education and the Think-Academy. Cultivating Humanity: A Classical Defense of Reform in Liberal Education. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Peterson, A. D. C. (2003). Schools Across Frontiers: The Story of the International Baccalaureate and the United World Colleges (Second ed.). Peru, IL: Open Court.

Post, J. E. (2002). Global Corporate Citizenship: Principles to Live and Work by. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12(2), 143-153.

Ramirez, F. O. (1997). International Handbook of Education and Development: Preparing Schools, Students, and Nations for the Twenty-first Century. New York: Pergamon.

51

Ross, H. (2002). The Space Between Us. Comparative Education Review, 46(4), 407-433.

Schattle, H. (2008). The Practices of Global Citizenship. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Snauwaert, D. (2002). Cosmopolitan Democracy and Democratic Education. Current Issues in Comparative Education, 4(2).

Stigletz, J. (2002). Globalization and its Discontents. London: Penguin.

Stigletz, J. (2010). Incentives and the Performance of America's Financial Sector. House Committee on Financial Services.

Stromquist, N. P. (2007). Internationalization as a Response to Globalization: Radical Shifts in University Environments. Higher Education, 53(1), 81-105.

Sullivan, S. E., & Tu, H. S. (1995). Developing Globally Competent Students: A Review and Recommendations. Journal of Management Education, 19(4), 473-493.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using Multivariate Statistics. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Torres, C. A. (1998). Democracy, Education, and Multiculturalism: Dilemmas of Citizenship in a Global World. Comparative Education Review, 42(4), 421-447.

Zlotkowski, E. (1996). Opportunity for All: Linking Service-Learning and Business Education. Journal of Business Ethics, 15(1), 5-19.

Zolo, D. (2007). Global Citizenship: A Realist Critique. In W. Hudson & S. Slaughter (Eds.), Globalisation and Citizenship: The Transnational Challenge. New York: Routledge.