Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] Date: 11 January 2016, At: 22:13
Journal of Education for Business
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
Using Typologies to Interpret Study Abroad
Preferences of American Business Students:
Applying a Tourism Framework to International
Education
Peter W. Cardon , Bryan Marshall & Amit Poddar
To cite this article: Peter W. Cardon , Bryan Marshall & Amit Poddar (2011) Using Typologies to Interpret Study Abroad Preferences of American Business Students: Applying a Tourism Framework to International Education, Journal of Education for Business, 86:2, 111-118, DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2010.482949
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2010.482949
Published online: 23 Dec 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 170
View related articles
CopyrightC Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 0883-2323
DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2010.482949
Using Typologies to Interpret Study Abroad
Preferences of American Business Students:
Applying a Tourism Framework to International
Education
Peter W. Cardon
University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, USA
Bryan Marshall and Amit Poddar
Georgia College and State University, Milledgeville, Georgia, USA
The authors describe research that applies a tourist framework to study abroad attitudes and preferences. A total of 371 university business students in the Southern region of the United States completed a survey that included the International Tourist Role scale and study abroad attitudes and preferences. These students were grouped into one of 4 international tourist typologies: familiarity seekers, controlled exposure seekers, spontaneous dissimilarity seekers, and cultural dissimilarity seekers. Identifying the combination of travel preferences held by members of these 4 typologies can help business educators and study abroad professionals design, develop, and market study abroad programs for business students.
Keywords: global business education, international education, program marketing, study abroad, tourist typologies
INTRODUCTION
In a 2000 survey of college-bound American students, half of students stated that they wanted to study abroad. Ultimately, only 5% of them did, which has been labeled a “frustrated ideal” (American Council on Education [ACE], 2008, p. 1). In the most recent round of this survey in 2007, 81% of respondents stated that they wanted to study abroad, and 55% were certain or fairly certain that they would study abroad. The authors stated that their survey research
Demonstrate[s] conclusively that the interest of college-bound students in international learning experiences is ex-traordinarily high. The nature of the international experiences they seek is expansive, including not only study abroad, but also internships, cultural immersions, and fluency in a foreign language. (p. 1)
Correspondence should be addressed to Peter W. Cardon, University of South Carolina, Integrated Information Technology Program, 120 Carolina Coliseum, Columbia, SC 29208, USA. E-mail: [email protected]
In an attempt to avoid the frustrated ideal of high desire to study abroad yet low participation in study abroad, we con-ducted this research project to categorize business students by their study abroad preferences. Because study abroad is a tourism activity, we applied a tourism framework to identify typologies of study abroad preferences. We believe this ap-proach can lead to more effective program development and marketing for study abroad programs, which in turn can lead to higher participation rates. Throughout this paper, we use the termstudy abroad professionalsloosely, not just referring to staff members of formal study abroad offices. Rather, we use the term to also refer to business college administrators, faculty members, and other staff members who are actively involved in the design, promotion, and implementation of study abroad programs.
Literature Review
The World Tourism Organization (1995) defined tourism
as “the activities of persons traveling to and staying in places outside their usual environment for not more than one consecutive year for leisure, business and other purposes”
112 P. W. CARDON ET AL.
(p. 1). Because study abroad is a form of tourism, utilizing tourism frameworks can be a helpful means of analyzing study abroad. Tourism literature contains many fields that could be of interest to study abroad professionals and busi-ness educators, such as destination management and desti-nation marketing.
Although study abroad is tourism, tourism frameworks have rarely been used to examine study abroad (Cohen, 2003; Michael, Armstrong, & King, 2004). There are sev-eral explanations for this. First, most study abroad profes-sionals have little or no background in the tourism field. Second, and perhaps more importantly, the termtourismhas a negative connotation among some study abroad profession-als because it conjures up images of merely visiting tourist sites, gaining little if any cultural immersion, and generally obtaining superficial experiences. For this reason, the term
glorified tourism has at times been used as a pejorative in international education circles (i.e., Janes, 2008). In fact, tourism literature provides well-developed instruments that can be applied to advance understanding of how potential study abroad participants select study abroad destinations and programs.
One of the classic tourism frameworks in which to classify international tourists is along the familiarity–novelty con-tinuum. This means that tourists prefer varying degrees of familiarity—some prefer experiences that are similar to their home environments whereas others prefer experiences vastly different from their home environments. Cohen (1972) was the first tourism scholar to classify tourists along this con-tinuum. He identified the following types of tourists: (a) the organized mass tourist, (b) the individual mass tourist, (c) the explorer, and (d) the drifter. The organized mass tourist seeks group tours that are scheduled carefully and with little or no real exposure to the authentic life of locals. Individual mass tourists are also largely dependent on travel agents and tour guides to define their travel experiences, yet they exercise some control of their travel activities. Explorers attempt to get off the beaten path and interact with locals, but they also prefer the option to step back into the confines of comfort-able hotels, restaurants, and other familiar situations. Drifters attempt to completely integrate themselves into the lives of locals.
In the tourism literature, it has been recognized for over three decades that psychographic variables are better pre-dictors of travel behavior than are demographic variables (Woodside & Pitts, 1976). In other words, demographic vari-ables such as gender and income are less predictive of travel behaviors than psychographic classifications that rely on lifestyle preferences. In order to assess lifestyle preferences relevant to tourism, a number of traveler typologies have been developed. Several sets of researchers have developed scales of traveler typologies (Lee & Crompton, 1992; Mo, Howard, & Havitz, 1993). These scales focus group travelers based on underlying motivations for travel rather than by demographic variables (Keng & Cheng, 1999).
Prior studies of study abroad preferences have focused on differences based on demographic variables (Kash-lak & Jones, 1996) or students’ majors (Toncar, Reid, & Anderson, 2005). In many cases, this has yielded either none or small differences in study abroad preferences. In some cases, scholars have advocated one-size-fits-all study pro-grams as a result. For example, Toncar et al. (2005) exam-ined the study abroad motivations and preferences of business versus nonbusiness students. They found that although there were slight differences in motivations, there were virtually no differences in study abroad preferences, thus conclud-ing “their study-abroad needs may be satisfied by a sconclud-ingle, carefully designed program” (Toncar et al., p. 61). Although empirical research does not exist to demonstrate the need for different types of programs, many study abroad professionals recognize the need for diverse programs (Kelley, 2007; Ko-ernig, 2007). In fact, many study abroad professionals believe there is increasingly a gap between what study abroad pro-grams offer and what study abroad propro-grams should provide (Vande Berg, 2007). We believe that study abroad program developers could benefit from segmentation of university stu-dents along psychographic rather than just demographic vari-ables. Such analysis may yield useful ways of developing and marketing various types of programs to meet diverse needs of students.
METHOD
The primary purpose of our research was to cluster business students based on international travel preferences (psycho-graphic variable) and identify corresponding study abroad preferences and intentions. The study was modeled after the recent work of Keng and Cheng (1999), who used the International Tourist Role (ITR) scale, developed by Mo et al. (1993), to cluster types of international travelers in Singapore. We are unaware of any efforts to cluster univer-sity students based on their international travel preferences; however, clustering has been used in the international education literature. For example, Albers-Miller, Sigerstad, and Straughan (2000) clustered business recruiters based on their preferences for international and study abroad experience among potential employees.
Our survey included several sections. In the first section, we collected background information about the university students, including demographic variables and prior interna-tional experience. In the second section, we asked students about their study abroad preferences related to destinations of choice, price acceptability, length of program, and so on. In the final section, students took the 20-item ITR survey as constructed by Mo, Howard, and Havitz (1993).
As far as destinations of choice, students chose their top three countries. We then grouped the countries chosen by the students into the following regions: Western Europe, Other Europe, Australia/New Zealand, Asia, Latin America,
Caribbean, Africa, Oceania, and Americas. For the most part, these classifications follow conventions of the United Nations (UN) with several exceptions. First, Australia and Oceania is one geographic region in the UN classification. We di-vided this region into Australia/New Zealand and Oceania because Australia and New Zealand are strong preferences for study abroad, whereas the remaining Oceania locations are not and reflect a vastly different study abroad environ-ment in terms of cultural differences and tourism infrastruc-ture. Second, we divided Europe into two regions: Western Europe and Other Europe. In Western Europe, we combined the UN subregions of Western Europe, Southern Europe, and the United Kingdom. This reflects many common groupings of Western Europe and includes the most common tourist and study abroad destinations in Europe. The Western Eu-ropean countries also share common cultural and political heritage with the United States. Recent studies show the strong preference for Western European countries for Amer-icans studying abroad. In 2007, 57% of all American study abroad students went to Europe (primarily Western Europe), followed by 15% to Latin America, 10% to Asia, 6% to Oceania (including Australia), 4% to Africa, and 1% to the Middle East. For countries, the top 10 destinations were the United Kingdom (32,705), Italy (27,831), Spain (24,005), France (17,233), China (11,064), Australia (10,747), Mexico (9,461), Germany (7,355), Ireland (5,785), and Costa Rica (5,383; Bhandari & Chow, 2008).
We also made groupings of countries based on strategic business and political interests. We grouped the top 5 and top 10 trading partners of the United States based on 2008 data. We also grouped the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China) due to their rising importance in international commerce. The BRIC countries, which collectively account for approximately 40% of the world’s population, have only recently started integrating with Western economies. Within the past one or two decades, political and economic reforms have accelerated the growth of these economies. The BRIC economies are estimated to be larger than those of the G8 countries (United States, United Kingdom, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and Russia) within 40 years (Wilson & Purushothaman, 2003). We also grouped Muslim and Arabic countries due to their important role in international politi-cal issues and the deficiency of qualified professionals with cultural and language background in these countries. Finally, we included a grouping of English-speaking countries. We did this to in part because we were interested in the issue of novelty. Presumably, countries with English as the primary language have more similar cultures. We also did this because we believe many students are fearful of studying abroad in non-English-speaking locations. In our experience recruiting students for international programs, we frequently encounter students who are concerned about not being able to adjust in non-English environments. Our experience is primarily in the Southern United States.
We surveyed business and management students from one university in South Carolina and one university in Georgia. We were able to survey a wide range of students because we administered the surveys in classes that were required of all business majors. The survey was conducted anonymously on-line and students were offered extra credit to take the survey (students could demonstrate that they had taken the survey by providing information contained on a web site they were directed to upon completion of the survey—there was no pos-sibility of the researchers knowing the students’ identity). A total of 371 students took the survey out of 381 students in the courses, yielding a participation rate of 97.4%. There were 218 (58.8%) men and 153 women (41.2%) who took the sur-vey. In terms of class standing, most respondents were juniors (42.9%) or seniors (34.8%), with freshman, sophomores, and graduate students comprising 2.4%, 17.5%, and 2.4% of the sample, respectively. Students in the sample represented a broad range of business and management disciplines with the leading majors being management (24.5%), marketing (17.5%), and management of information systems (15.9%). About two thirds of the students (65.0%) self-identified as coming from upper middle income families, and about one quarter (26.7%) self-identified as coming from lower middle income families. Few students self-identified as coming from low- or high-income families (2.4% and 5.7%, respectively). Generally speaking, these two universities are reflective of middle- to upper-class students in the Southern United States.
RESULTS
We present our findings in four sections. First, we provide descriptive statistics about prior international travel experi-ence and preferred destinations for study abroad. Second, we describe our cluster analysis based on the ITR scale. Third, we describe demographic composition within each cluster. Finally, we examine differences in study abroad preferences and attitudes based on cluster membership.
Prior International Travel and Preferred Destinations for Study Abroad
Overall, approximately 71% of our respondents had trav-elled internationally. The most common destinations were the Caribbean (37%) and Mexico (32%). Excluding travel to the Caribbean, Mexico, and Canada, approximately 38% of students had traveled internationally. Outside of North America, the primary destination of travel was Western Europe (30%). Few students had traveled to destinations in Latin America (excluding Mexico; 10%), Asia (7%), and Africa (3%).
The top five first choices of participants for a study abroad location by country were Australia (21%), Italy (15%), Spain (10%), the United Kingdom (6%), and France (6%).
114 P. W. CARDON ET AL.
TABLE 1
Factor Analysis With Varimax Rotation
Factor Eigenvalue % of variance Cumulative %
1 5.07 17.91 17.91
2 3.57 13.45 31.36
3 1.86 13.09 44.46
4 1.14 9.91 54.37
5 1.00 8.81 63.18
Collectively, these five countries accounted for nearly 60% of all first choices. Furthermore, the vast majority of respon-dents (74%) chose Western Europe or Australia/New Zealand as their first choice. Notably, other regions held little interest for the vast majority of respondents. Just 7% of respondents indicated that a country in Asia would be their first choice, 6% for Latin America, and 3% for Africa. Just 5% of respon-dents chose BRIC countries, and just under 2% chose Arab countries.
Cluster Analysis of International Travel Preferences
Similar to Keng and Cheng’s (1999) use of the ITR scale to cluster international tourists in Singapore, we first conducted
a factor analysis of the ITR scale. We derived five factors as did Keng and Cheng in their study, and as a result, we adopted their factor names for this study: a social contact di-mension (SCD), a tourist infrastructure didi-mension (TID), a travel services dimension (TSD), a culture similarity dimen-sion (CSD), and a pretrip planning dimendimen-sion (PPD). The SCD refers to the degree to which tourists want to interact with locals. The TID refers to the degree to which tourists prefer a similar tourist infrastructure (i.e., hotel chains and transportation systems) to their home countries. The TSD refers to the degree to which tourists want others (i.e., travel agencies or tour guides) to control their experience. The CSD refers to the degree to which tourists prefer cultures similar to their own. The PPD refers to the degree to which tourists want to have preplanned itineraries. These dimensions fac-tored just as did Keng and Cheng’s with the exception of items 10 and 11, which factored into the TID dimension in their study. In our study, these items factored into the TSD dimension. Sampling adequacy was demonstrated with the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure, which equaled .843,χ2(190, N=367)=2559.09,p=.00. Cumulatively, the five factors accounted for 63% of the variance (see Table 1). Alpha re-liability coefficients ranged from .683 to .856, and all items were retained because they each had factor loadings above .4 (see Table 2).
TABLE 2
Factor Analysis of ITR Items
M SD
Factor loading
Reliability coefficient
Social contact dimension (SCD)
I prefer to associate with the local people when traveling in a foreign country. (3) 5.09 1.23 .788 .856
I prefer to live the way the people I visit do, by sharing their shelter, food, and customs during my stay. (6) 4.46 1.42 .665
I prefer to seek excitement of complete novelty by engaging in direct contact with a wide variety of new and different people. (9)
4.04 1.50 .775
If I find a place that particularly pleases me, I may stop there long enough for social involvement in the life of the place to occur. (13)
4.88 1.18 .655
I prefer to make friends with the local people when traveling in a foreign country. (17) 5.01 1.28 .818
I prefer to have as much contact with the local people as possible when traveling in a foreign country. (19) 4.90 1.31 .832
Tourist infrastructure dimension (TID)
I prefer to travel to countries where there are international hotel chains. (7) 4.53 1.16 .741 .727
I prefer to travel to countries where they have the same transportation system as in my country. (14) 3.97 1.29 .504
I prefer to travel to countries that are popular tourist destinations. (16) 4.47 1.24 .634
I prefer to travel to countries with well-developed travel industries. (20) 4.68 1.19 .693
Travel services dimension (TSD)
I prefer to be on a guided tour when traveling in a foreign country. (2) 4.28 1.51 .714 .737
I prefer to make all my major travel arrangements through travel agencies when traveling in a foreign country. (5) 4.28 1.35 .727
I prefer to have travel agencies take complete care of me, from beginning to end, when traveling in a foreign country. (8)
4.04 1.50 .720
I prefer to travel to countries where they have the same tourist infrastructure as in my country. (10) 3.89 1.15 .597
I prefer to travel to countries where there are restaurants familiar to me. (11) 3.75 1.46 .625
Culture similarity dimension (CSD)
I prefer to travel to countries where the people are of the same ethnic group as mine. (1) 3.66 1.41 .765 .683
I prefer to travel to countries where the culture is similar to mine. (4) 3.75 1.32 .790
I put high priority on familiarity when thinking of travel destinations. (18) 3.97 1.27 .422
Pretrip planning dimension (PPD)
I prefer to start a trip with no preplanned or definite timetable when traveling in a foreign country. (12) 3.62 1.72 .896 .791
I prefer to start a trip with no preplanned or definite routes when traveling in a foreign country. (15) 3.52 1.65 .882
TABLE 3
Cluster Analysis of Respondents
Cluster Name % n
1 Familiarity seekers (FS) 13.4 49
2 Controlled exposure seekers (CES) 36.0 132
3 Spontaneous dissimilarity seekers (SDS) 32.7 120
4 Culture dissimilarity seekers (CDS) 18.0 66
Next, we conducted cluster analysis in order to segment students into tourist typologies. We used K-means cluster-ing based on individual-level mean scores for each of the five factors. We considered a four-factor solution the most appropriate classification due to theoretical rationale. Prior tourist typologies have typically segmented travelers into four groups, and Keng and Cheng’s (1999) clustering of in-ternational travelers based on the ITR scale also used four clusters.
The four cluster groups include familiarity seekers (13%), controlled exposure seekers (36%), spontaneous dissimilar-ity seekers (33%), and culture dissimilardissimilar-ity seekers (18%; see Table 3). We use the termsfamiliarity seekersand cul-ture dissimilarity seekersas did Keng and Cheng (1999) as extremes in the familiarity–novelty continuum. However, we created distinct labels for our two middle groups, as they showed unique characteristics compared to the sample of Singaporean tourists in their study. Familiarity seekers are similar to Cohen’s (1972) organized mass tourist. They seek familiarity in every regard except social contact. In other words, they seek to travel to international destinations with similar cultures and tourist infrastructures in a highly con-trolled manner. Concon-trolled exposure seekers seek the least so-cial contact but also seek cultures dissimilar to their own more so than familiarity seekers. Compared to familiarity seekers, they are also less concerned about pretrip planning, tourist in-frastructure, and infrastructure travel services. Spontaneous dissimilarity seekers are similar to controlled exposure seek-ers in terms of wanting similar tourist infrastructures and
travel services; however, they want more social contact with less similar cultures. Perhaps the trait that most distinguishes this group is their strong aversion to pretrip planning. Com-pared to any other group, they do not want to be bound to itineraries and schedules, thus their travel preferences are highly spontaneous. The final group is culture dissimilarity seekers, who most strongly desire going to destinations with highly dissimilar cultures, tourist infrastructures, and travel services. In other words, they desire a truly novel experience. Similar to familiarity seekers, however, they desire a lot of pretrip planning.
All factors significantly influenced membership in clus-ters as shown in the analysis of variance (ANOVA) in Table 4. Furthermore, each cluster contained at least three of the five dimensions that were significantly different than all other clusters. Thus, the clusters can be considered distinct typologies of international travel preferences.
Demographic Composition of Clusters
We examined the demographic composition of each cluster in terms of gender, academic class, and income. The only significant difference was gender. Women tended to be more on the novelty end of the continuum. Although there were essentially similar numbers of cultural dissimilarity seekers among women (18%) and men (18%), women were much more likely to be in the spontaneous dissimilarity seekers cluster (43% compared to 26% for men), whereas men were more likely to be in the controlled exposure (40% to 31% for women) and familiarity seekers (17% to 9%) clusters (see Table 5).
Study Abroad Preferences and Attitudes Based on Cluster Membership
For most of the items about the impact of study abroad on careers and study abroad preferences, there were significant differences among clusters. For career-related beliefs, famil-iarity seekers and cultural dissimilarity seekers tended to
TABLE 4
ANOVA of ITR Mean Scores, by Cluster
1 (FS) 2 (CES) 3 (SDS) 4 (CDS)
Variable M SD M SD M SD M SD F p
Social contact 5.47 0.86c 4.35 0.70a 4.95 0.96b 5.71 0.74c 48.64 .00∗∗
Culture similarity 4.82 1.19d 4.03 0.66c 3.68 0.91b 2.76 0.84a 59.09 .00∗∗
Pretrip planning 5.96 1.14c 3.90 0.78b 1.90 0.74a 4.87 1.24c 220.49 .00∗∗
Tourist infrastructure 5.66 0.61c 4.33 0.58b 4.47 0.82b 3.58 0.73a 83.43 .00∗∗
Travel services 5.35 0.69c 4.12 0.62b 4.01 0.83b 3.00 0.78a 96.4 .00∗∗
Note.Means with the same superscripts are not different based on Tukey post hoc tests. Superscripts with lower letters indicate lower endorsement, whereas superscripts with higher letters indicate higher endorsement. Higher mean scores indicate more agreement: in all cases except culture similarity, this indicates less novelty-seeking preferences.
∗p <.05. ∗∗p
<.01.
116 P. W. CARDON ET AL.
TABLE 5
Demographic Characteristics, by Cluster
1 (FS) 2 (CES) 3 (SDS) 4 (CDS)
Variable % n % n % n % n χ2 p
Gender 14.34 .00∗∗
Male 16.8 36 39.7 85 25.7 55 17.8 38
Female 8.5 13 30.7 47 42.5 65 18.3 28
Class 6.79 .34
Freshman/sophomore 13.5 10 35.1 26 32.4 24 18.9 14
Juniors 9.6 15 39.7 62 30.1 47 20.5 32
Seniors/graduate 17.5 24 32.1 44 35.8 49 14.6 20
Income 6.30 .39
Low income/lower middle income 16.7 18 31.5 34 29.6 32 22.2 24
Upper middle income 12.2 29 36.6 87 34.9 83 16.4 39
High income 9.5 2 52.4 11 23.8 21 14.3 3
believe more strongly that studying abroad would help them get jobs, be helpful in their careers, and that working with members of other cultures is important in their future indus-tries. These two groups were also more likely to want a study abroad program of one semester or longer. Not surprising, cultural dissimilarity seekers were less likely than all other groups to be nervous about studying abroad (see Table 6).
Interestingly, the unique aspect of familiarity seekers and cultural dissimilarity seekers is their desire for social con-tact with locals. Perhaps it is this dimension that is related to their stronger belief that studying abroad is helpful in their careers. Ironically, it is these groups that comprise the smallest clusters (13% and 18%, respectively). All groups with the exception of cultural dissimilarity seekers (which account for just one fifth of respondents) exhibited strong anxiety to studying where English is not the first language.
As far as destination choices broken down by region, country, trading relationships, emerging economies, and
sev-eral other categories, a number of trends emerge. Familiarity seekers and cultural dissimilarity seekers were more likely to place Asia in their top choices, less likely to place European countries among their top choices, and less likely to select English-speaking countries among their top choices. Cul-tural dissimilarity seekers were least likely to select a top 10 trading partner of the United States among their top choices. Familiarity seekers were most likely to place predominantly Muslim countries among their top countries (albeit at just 16%).
As far as first-choice study abroad countries, cultural dis-similarity seekers were the only cluster not to select Australia as their top choice. Rather, by a 2:1 margin, they chose Italy over Australia. Furthermore, cultural dissimilarity seekers were the only group to have a country from Asia (Japan), Latin America (Costa Rica), and Oceania (Fiji) among their top five overall choices and were the only group to select countries in which there were non-European languages.
TABLE 6
ANOVA of Study Abroad Statements, by Cluster
1 (FS) 2 (CES) 3 (SDS) 4 (CDS)
Survey item M SD M SD M SD M SD F p
Studying abroad will help me get a job. 4.942 1.56 4.231,4 1.23 4.524 1.41 5.142,3 1.36 7.86 .00∗∗
Studying abroad will be helpful for my career. 5.352 1.55 4.551,4 1.29 5.00 1.52 5.552 1.41 8.49 .00∗∗
I want to study abroad while I am a university student.
4.944 1.94 4.563,4 1.58 5.162 1.90 5.771,2 1.33 7.70 .00∗∗
Studying abroad is too expensive for me. 4.86 1.53 4.49 1.46 4.50 1.88 4.54 1.71 0.65 .58
It is important for people in my (future) industry to be able to work with members of other cultures.
5.962 1.11 5.244 1.45 5.68 1.40 6.352 0.92 11.45 .00∗∗
I would be nervous studying abroad in places where English is not the first language.
5.064 1.56 4.454 1.53 4.534 1.81 3.441,2,3 1.87 9.86 .00∗∗
I would prefer a study abroad program that is one semester or longer.
4.532,3 1.56 3.791,4 1.38 3.741,4 1.75 4.552,3 1.39 6.74 .00∗∗
I would prefer a study abroad program that is part of a group from my school.
5.37 1.52 4.89 1.40 5.07 1.52 4.88 1.23 1.60 .19
Note. Superscripts indicate the cluster numbers for which there are statistical differences based on Tukey post-hoc tests by cluster.
∗p <.05. ∗∗p
<.01.
FIGURE 1 Study abroad typologies along the familiarity–novelty continuum.
DISCUSSION
One challenge that university personnel managing study abroad must address is how to develop and promote pro-grams that appeal to various students. An understanding of typologies of international travel preferences can allow study abroad professionals to develop and promote far more effec-tive study abroad programs. This study showed that business students in the Southern United States can be clustered into four distinct typologies of travel preferences. In this section, we discuss each of these four typologies and conclude with how study abroad professionals might integrate this under-standing into how they develop and promote programs.
The familiarity–novelty continuum, often used in tourism literature, is a useful tool for analyzing the typologies. In terms of this continuum, we arranged the groups in the fol-lowing order: familiarity seekers, controlled exposure seek-ers, spontaneous dissimilarity seekseek-ers, and culture dissimi-larity seekers. In this scheme, three of the five dimensions move progressively from familiarity to novelty along the con-tinuum: culture similarity, tourist infrastructure, and travel services. These dimensions identify the degree to which so-cietal differences are sought in international travel. Two of the five dimensions form parabolas along the continuum of cluster groups with familiarity seekers and dissimilarity seek-ers most desiring social contact with locals and most desiring extensive pre-trip planning (see Figure 1). Roughly one third of business students were controlled exposure seekers and one third were spontaneous dissimilarity seekers. Therefore, about two thirds of students were in the middle ground of the continuum on most travel dimensions. Far fewer students comprised the extremes on the scale, with familiarity seek-ers preferring familiarity and culture dissimilarity seekseek-ers hoping for novelty.
Some unanticipated results from this study were the many similarities between the two groups on each end of the familiarity–novelty continuum. Cultural dissimilarity seek-ers, who seek novelty in nearly all aspects of international travel, seek for familiarity in pretrip planning to the same
degree as familiarity seekers. On the other hand, familiar-ity seekers, who seek familiarfamiliar-ity for nearly every dimension, seek maximum novelty for social contact on par with cultural dissimilarity seekers. For study abroad attitudes and prefer-ences, these two groups likewise exhibited several common tendencies. They most strongly believed that study abroad would positively influence their careers and were most likely to want semester or longer study abroad programs. Both groups were also more likely to choose Asia among their top choices, less likely to choose Europe among their top choices, and less likely to choose English-speaking countries among their top choices.
In determining how to promote and develop various pro-grams, we begin with discussing some of the ironies and un-expected combinations of preferences. To identify how these unanticipated findings may influence study abroad participa-tion, we generalize most American study abroad programs. The majority of programs, particularly those provided by external providers, aim to provide some exposure to other cultures in a highly organized manner. They are designed to allow some interaction with locals but are generally tightly controlled: they provide housing for American students to stay together; they are guided, taught, or mediated through an American professor or bicultural local professional; and are scheduled precisely (beginning and end dates, excur-sions). Of course, there is some variation, particularly for students studying a foreign language. These students are far more likely to have a less tightly designed program and are more likely to be immersed in the local culture.
We did not anticipate that the typologies on either end of the familiarity–novelty spectrum would have commonalities in terms of social contact and pretrip planning. Furthermore, we did not anticipate that these groups would share so many study abroad attitudes and preferences. In fact, this shatters some common stereotypes among study abroad profession-als. For example, many of these professionals view the most adventurous of students (cultural dissimilarity seekers) as flexible in every regard—not wanting to be confined to set dates and places for their travels. The typical image of this type of students it that of the backpacker. Yet, our results show the opposite. As another example of unexpected results, most study abroad professionals view those students least inter-ested in other cultures (familiarity seekers) as those that need the most convincing to study abroad. Yet, this group along with culture dissimilarity seekers most believed that study abroad programs would benefit their careers, most wanted to study abroad for more than a semester, and most wanted to become immersed in the local culture. For these two groups, the primary mismatch of most programs is social contact. Both groups want maximum novelty in meeting and spend-ing time with locals. Yet, most study abroad programs are not designed to meet this strong desire.
Second, we were surprised that the majority of students, who tend to be in the middle of the familiarity–novelty con-tinuum on most dimensions (controlled exposure seekers and
118 P. W. CARDON ET AL.
spontaneous dissimilarity seekers), were so adverse to pre-trip planning. Generally speaking, it is to these two groups that most programs most match needs. For these two groups, however, one of their travel preferences is generally unmet, particularly by external providers. Both of these groups prefer less pretrip planning—they prefer flexibility in travel dates. It is possible that the lack of perceived flexibility of study abroad programs contributes to the frustrated ideal.
Study abroad professionals can use the typologies in other ways of increasing program effectiveness. In terms of mar-keting, it may make sense to develop and market various types of programs that fit the various typologies and adver-tise accordingly. Advertising should focus on emphasizing those program aspects that most appeal to a particular typol-ogy and explicitly identifying how the program deals with the associated concerns and worries. For example, a program designed for culture dissimilarity seekers could emphasize the novel aspects of the culture, its infrastructure, its travel services, and the abundant opportunity for social contact. However, the advertising would be incomplete without em-phasizing the carefully and precisely planned nature of the study abroad trip, which is what this group most worries about. Furthermore, most study abroad professionals pro-vide some type of pre- and posttrip training and orienta-tion for students. These sessions can be most effective by considering the strongest worries and concerns. For con-trolled exposure seekers, there may be anxiety about not being in a group of their own culture and interacting ex-tensively with locals. For familiarity seekers, this is not a concern. Rather, they are more concerned about issues such as living in a similar culture with similar infrastructure and services.
In terms of further research, we recommend that this re-search be replicated in other contexts, particularly in other cultures (we focused on the Southern region of the United States). Of particular interest in future studies would be iden-tifying explanations about why cultural dissimilarity seekers and familiarity seekers had so many common study abroad attitudes and beliefs. We recommend the continued use of tourism research instruments to enhance understanding of study abroad interests and intentions. Using tourism con-structs, such as tourist typologies, can enhance the ability of study abroad professionals to deliver meaningful study abroad experiences to and increase study abroad participa-tion among business students.
SUMMARY
This article has described research that applies a tourist framework to study abroad attitudes and preferences. We found that business students can be grouped into one of four international tourist typologies: familiarity seekers,
con-trolled exposure seekers, spontaneous dissimilarity seekers, and cultural dissimilarity seekers. The familiarity–novelty continuum is a useful means of categorizing these groups for preferences in culture similarity, tourist infrastructure, and travel services. Identifying the combination of travel pref-erences held by members of these four typologies can help study abroad professionals design, develop, market, and train for study abroad programs.
REFERENCES
Albers-Miller, N. D., Sigerstad, T. D., & Straughan, R. D. (2000). Inter-nationalization of the undergraduate curriculum: Insight from recruiters. Journal of Teaching in International Business,11(4), 55–80.
American Council on Education, Art & Science Group, & the College
Board. 2008.College-bound students’ interests in study abroad and other
international learning activities. Washington, DC: Author.
Bhandari, R., & Chow, P. (2008).Open doors 2008: Report on
interna-tional educainterna-tional exchange. New York, NY: Institute of International Education.
Cohen, E. H. (1972). Toward a sociology of international tourism.Social
Research,39, 164–182.
Cohen, E. H. (2003). Tourism and religion: A case study—visiting students in Israeli universities.Journal of Travel Research,42(1), 36–47. Janes, D. (2008). Beyond the tourist gaze? Cultural learning on an
Amer-ican ‘semester abroad’ programme in London.Journal of Research in
International Education,7(1), 21–35.
Kashlak, R. J., & Jones, R. M. (1996). Internationalizing business educa-tion: Factors affecting student participation in overseas study programs. Journal of Teaching in International Business,8(2), 57–75.
Kelley, C. A. (2007). Assessing the trends and challenges of teaching
mar-keting abroad: A Delphi approach.Journal of Marketing Education,29,
201–209.
Keng, K. A., & Cheng, J. L. L. (1999). Determining tourist role
typolo-gies: An exploratory study of Singapore vacationers.Journal of Travel
Research,37, 382–390.
Koernig, S. K. (2007). Planning, organizing, and conducting a 2-week study abroad trip for undergraduate students: Guidelines for first-time faculty. Journal of Marketing Education,29, 210–217.
Lee, T. H., & Crompton, J. (1992). Measuring novelty seeking tourism. Annals of Tourism Research,19, 732–751.
Michael, I., Armstrong, A., & King, B. (2004). The travel behavior of international students: The relationship between studying abroad and their
choice of tourist destinations.Journal of Vacation of Marketing,10(1),
57–66.
Mo, C. M., Howard, D. R., & Havitz, M. E. (1993). Testing an international
tourist role typology.Annals of Tourism Research,20, 319–335.
Toncar, M. F., Reid, J. S., & Anderson, C. E. (2005). Perceptions and preferences of study abroad: Do business students have different needs? Journal of Teaching in International Business,17(1/2), 61–80. Vande Berg, M. (2007). Intervening in the learning of U.S. students abroad.
Journal of Studies in International Education,11, 392–399.
Wilson, D., & Purushothaman, R. (2003).Dreaming with the BRICs: The
path to 2050. Global Economics Paper No: 99. Goldman Sachs. Retrieved from http://www2.goldmansachs.com/insight/research/reports/99.pdf Woodside, A. G., & Pitts, R. E. (1976). Effects of consumer lifestyles,
de-mographics and travel activities on foreign and domestic travel behavior. Annals of Tourism Research,19, 287–303.
World Tourism Organization. (1995).Collection of tourism expenditure
statistics. Madrid, Spain: Author.
