Features of Business School Internationalization

been focused on consistently developing world-class universities since the 1990s, and Russia started following a similar strategy twenty years later. Second, not only the challenges and the goals in each country vary, but also the interest of the students studying in other BRICS countries as a result of the limited number of existing study programs in English. The only exception was China due to the availability of a range of English-taught programs. This is why the case of China was chosen for benchmarking within the present study. Thirdly, as shown above, the research-oriented excellence initiatives Project 211 and Project 985 have radically influenced the internationalization of Chinese higher education institutions both in terms of developing research and educational capacity. They also helped to improve visibility and competitiveness of Chinese universities across the world and they changed the academic culture in the country and the way universities’ stakeholders perceive internationalization processes.

Finally, the case of China illustrated that all the effects listed above were achieved over a longer period of time than the duration of Project 5-100. On the one hand, it shows that the chosen way could lead the Russian institutions to their desired results. On the other, it requires more time than the standard number of years of the Russian excellence initiative and could be achieved by consistently pursuing the chosen strategy for at least a decade.

2.5 Features of Business School Internationalization

(German) models, from the very beginning of their history were internationally-oriented and endorsed a global perspective (Kaplan, 2014, p. 530). The first

European business school, ESCP Europe, was initially created with an international scope and the aim of integrating the global perspective into the curriculum with ten languages available for joint business programs (Renouard, 1999). The same ideas and a similar curriculum were implemented in the first Belgian business school, the Belgium Higher Institute of Commerce in Antwerp (Grunzweig, 1977; Renouard, 1999) and the first Italian business institution, Ca’ Foscari (Kipping et al., 2004).

2. Increased independence of university business schools in comparison with other academic units. AACSB International identified four levels of

independence which characterize a single business unit (AACSB, 2020, pp.11-12):

a) independent branding which includes market positioning, promotion, naming, and other brand differentiation; b) external market perception; c) independent financial relationships with the Institution (own budget of business school and control over a large portion of available funds); d) business academic unit

autonomy which relates to own strategy, approval of key decisions, appointment of the business school head, geographical separation, and other autonomy

characteristics. This often leads to the development of the business school’s own services detached from the main university, including international services.

3. Prestigious business education rankings and accreditations which are

different from the leading world university rankings and have a high impact on their activity. Business education rankings include rankings by The Economist, Eduniversal, Financial Times, Business Week, The Wall Street Journal and others.

These rank entire business schools and specific programs such as MBAs or masters in management. Business schools pay great attention to the rankings in their field

since they strongly affect their operations and selectivity of admissions (Peters, 2007) and perform as an index of quality (Corley & Gioia, 2000; Drnevich et al., 2011). Aside from aiding potential students in their choice, rankings also

predetermine the selection of business school recruiters (Safón, 2007; Wuorio, 2001). Top international business schools are awarded the so-called “Triple Crown Accreditation”, namely the AACSB (by the Association of Advance Collegiate School of Business), EQUIS (by the European Foundation for Management Research), and AMBA (by the Association of MBAs). The process of receiving each of these accreditations takes from 2-3 to 7 years, and it leads to the gradual transformation of the school. Furthermore, the accreditation advertises the high quality of the business school education on the market (Okulova & Shakina, 2021).

International accreditations strongly drive internationalization processes and the international positioning of business schools (Wankel & DeFillippi, 2006), including Russian ones (Katkalo, 2009; Morsing & Rovira; 2011).

4. Applied nature of education and research which lead to the different qualification of teaching staff. Producing research is an integral part of the business schools’ activity, but research of this kind is mostly applied in its nature (i.e., case studies) and is strongly connected with companies’ operations. Bennis and O’Toole (2005, para. 2) criticized business schools which choose the research model that represents abstract analysis in economics and finances, statistical tools and laboratory studies due to its non-practical implications and lack of engagement with the real needs of businesses. The authors also noted that business school professors should have experience as practitioners and teachers of business disciplines should not just be researchers.

5. Different teaching methods. Due to the features of business education and its inseparable connection with practice, teaching methods in business schools vary from the rest of university academic units. Since the launch of the first European and American business schools, experiential learning methods, such as simulation and case studies, have been used for business education (Kaplan, 2014, p. 530).

These teaching methods, which involve the active participation of students, have been the most preferred teaching method by business students (Berényi & Deutsch, 2018; Farashahi & Tajeddin, 2018). The reason for this is that these methods contribute to the development of self-confidence (Tompson & Dass, 2000), soft skills (Bedwell et al., 2014) and decision-making skills among students (Coffey &

Anderson, 2006). Business education is also characterized by the increased attention to the development of interpersonal skills in the formal curriculum and extracurricular activities due to the expectations of the professional business world (Parente et al., 2012).

The distinguishing features of university business schools and their

internationalization should be taken into account when constructing the case study of GSEM in this thesis. This is worth great attention when studying the rationales of internationalization in particular, as described in the following section.

2.5.2 Rationales of Internationalization in Business Schools

Although business schools may be part of universities or stand-alone tertiary education institutions, the rationales of internationalization considered in section 2.3.2 can still be relevant for them. However, business schools act within a highly volatile business context and must possess specific features for carrying out research and teaching practices.

Thus, a number of studies have identified additional groups of rationales for the internationalization of business education academic units.

One of rationales stems from the fact that university business schools have to compete with private companies which provide their own business trainings. Multinational companies often conduct their own trainings for employees since in some cases higher education

business schools do not fill this gap completely and do not match their curriculum and programs with the real needs of global economy (Milhauser & Rahschulte, 2010; Prestwich

& Ho-Kim, 2007). Thus, business schools may internationalize not only with the aim to compete with other tertiary education units nationally and worldwide, but also with other local corporate providers of management education.

Filonovich et al. (2018) confirmed this trend in the Russian context and found that Russian companies are more interested in short-term programs than in the traditional long-term MBA programs of university business schools. It has been noted that the traditional scenario of management education changed after the emergence of corporate universities in big Russian companies, and universities had to take this experience into account when developing educational programs. In this regard, the internationalization of Russian business schools helps to stay competitive within the country and to prepare managers for the federal and international markets.

A second rationale was identified by Kedia and Englis (2011, p. 325), who found that university business schools pay great attention to the international dimension due to the trend of business education's internationalization to continue to train new global managers.

Descriptions of the growing gap between the outcomes of business school programs and the global skills set needed by real businesses started to appear at the end of the 1980s

(Aggarwal, 1989; Porter & McKibbin, 1988).

One more rationale was named by Bradford et al. (2017, pp. 436-437): the authors claimed that internationalization has become more common for business schools than for other university units because of the need to adapt to environmental pressures and

globalization. These demands are more intense in business education than in some other academic areas. In order to prove this, the authors applied the contingency theory with the general hypothesis that “organisations whose internal characteristics best fit their

environment’s demands will achieve the best adaptation” (Bradford et al., 2017, p. 439).

They showed that internationalization nowadays is a necessary requirement for business schools in order to adapt and thereby survive.

A final rationale for internationalization was identified by De Meyer (2012, p. 338), who emphasized that the drivers for efficient internationalization of business education should be defined according to internal strategic choices, but often this works in the opposite way: business schools decide to internationalize because of the pressure caused by outsiders (accreditation agencies, alumni or others).

Accreditations often perform as specific drivers for business school

internationalization. The three most prominent accrediting bodies in business education, also called the “Triple Crown”, are the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB), European Foundation for Management Development (EFMD) and the Association of MBAs (AMBA). ACCSB is the oldest accrediting organization among the three listed ones that originates from the USA and issues the cognominal accreditation. AACSB is a mission-driven accreditation system that reviews “a school's mission, faculty qualifications, curricula, and ability to provide the highest-quality programs” (AACSB International, 2022).

EFMD’s headquarter is in Belgium and offers two accreditations for business schools:

EQUIS for the institution and EPAS for programs. EFMD accreditations imply standards across the school’s or program’s activities and maintain a strong focus on the international dimension: “international standards in terms of governance, programs, students, faculty, research, internationalization, ethics, responsibility and sustainability, as well as engagement with the world of practice” (EFMD, 2022).

AMBA accreditation pays great attention to the students’ and graduates’ demand for postgraduate business programs in the international labor market. AMBA accreditation criteria cover impact, employability and learning outcomes and, namely, “teaching, learning and curriculum design; career development and employability; student, alumni and employer interaction” (The Association of MBAs, 2022).

Zhao and Ferran (2016, p. 52) suggested that “accreditation is no longer a luxury but a requirement for business schools”, but these have to choose among a range of accreditation agencies depending on the value and requirements of the accreditation. Internationalization became an integral and obligatory part of receiving international accreditations, specifically EFMD accreditations (Cornuel & Urgel 2009; Hommel 2007; Urgel 2007).

Currently, in Russia there are two schools that have obtained the EQUIS accreditation (the Graduate School of Management in St. Petersburg, SKOLKOVO Business School) and two schools with EPAS accreditation (HSE St. Petersburg School of Economics and

Management and GSEM at UrFU). Several years ago, the number of EPAS accredited schools was higher, but some of them have halted their EFMD accreditation process and are now on the way to obtaining AACSB accreditation. The only AACSB accredited business school at the moment is RANEPA Institute of Business Studies. More than 10 Russian business schools have AMBA accreditation.

According to the map of business school internationalization in Russia and the countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States (Tolmachev et al., 2020),

internationally visible business schools obtain one or several accreditations belonging to the

“triple-crown”, as a result of demonstrating high research performance and the development of international partnerships and double degree programs with high-ranked foreign

institutions. GSEM UrFU obtained EPAS EFMD accreditation and was on its way to AACSB accreditation at the beginning of 2022 (see section 7.1.2 for more details). On the

map, three business schools are international (Graduate School of Management SPbU, SKOLKOVO Business School and Institute of Business Studies RANEPA), 17 business schools are active on the global market (including GSEM UrFU), and 14 business schools are globally visible but do not have clear positioning.

Finally, in contrast with the studies reviewed above, Howe and Martin (1998, p. 448) argued against the idea that business schools must internationalize only in order to produce an

“’international manager’ who comes complete with a portable MBA tool kit of functional and cross-cultural competencies and a knowledge of international markets, finance and strategy”.

The authors added that this explanation is often used to mask other rationales such as

volatility in home markets, decrease in support for higher education by Western governments caused by crises and a desire to improve income that comes from university

management. Thus, business education also faces the same rationales which are relevant for other academic units in higher education institutions.

This section has illustrated the factors that may influence rationales of internationalization for business schools, in addition to other factors that impact any

academic unit and/or university as a whole. Understanding these factors is not only important for a further analysis of rationales in GSEM UrFU (chapter 7), but it will also help illustrate why the business school chose its strategy of internationalization and built its international dimension in accordance with the standards of EFMD and AACSB international

accreditations. In addition, this could provide further insight into why the business school focused on developing specific aspects of the international dimension in comparison with other studied UrFU academic units and chose its special way of positioning (see more about the development of its own brand in section 7.2.1.3). Despite the lack of consensus regarding the rationales of internationalization for business schools, researchers assume that the

business school’s rationales may differ from the ones of their universities, since they include

international accreditations, external pressure of alumni, requirement to produce international managers and compete with private companies and corporate educational structures which provide business education. At the same time, four traditional clusters of rationales

(academic, social/cultural, political, and economic ones) or their combinations have remained relevant for university business schools too. The rationales of internationalization for

business schools may also vary depending on the region or market. For this reason, it is worth taking into account the distinctive rationales of the business school’s internationalization, since these directly affect the chosen strategies in business education units and the specific characteristics of their positioning in comparison with other university academic units.