Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Journal of Education for Business
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
Using Cultural Diversity in Teaching Economics:
Global Business Implications
Darryl J. Mitry
To cite this article: Darryl J. Mitry (2008) Using Cultural Diversity in Teaching Economics: Global Business Implications, Journal of Education for Business, 84:2, 84-89, DOI: 10.3200/ JOEB.84.2.84-89
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.84.2.84-89
Published online: 07 Aug 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 46
View related articles
he 21st century’s expansion and convergenceoftechnologyandthe burgeoning entry of developing econo-miesintotheglobalsupplychainhave broughtforthanewconcept:Theworld is flat (Friedman, 2005). Much press has been given to the idea that ubiq-uitous inexpensive telecommunications networks and lower cost transportation eliminated the major impediments to international competition. Indeed, the wordglobalization and the termflat worldhavebecomeanessentialpartof the common vocabulary. Therefore, I hypothesizedthatgrowthinglobalbusi-nessdevelopsamoreculturallydiverse environmentandrequiresamoreworld-ly approach in teaching principles of economicscourses.Ibeganbylooking at the educational core of economics andstandardpedagogicalpractices.
StandardPedagogicalPractices
There are currently 3,375 universi-tiesintheUnitedStates(Cybermetrics Lab,2008).Moreover,Americahashad significant influence on curricula and pedagogical practices in several thou-sand additional universities around the world. Most often at the educational corearethecustomaryclassesonprin-ciples of microeconomics and macro-economics. On campuses across the UnitedStatesandWesternworld,there
isaratherunifiedapproachtopresenta-tionsofthebasictheoriesofeconomics: thedescriptionsofdemandandsupply, underlying relations, capitalist ideolo-gy,andinstitutionalinfrastructure.This type of presentation is infused within themostdominanttextbooksdistributed throughouttheworld.
Historically, the shared values of Westernculturehaveprovidedafunda- mentalandcommonlevelofunderstand-ing between students and professors of economics. Therefore, in the class-rooms, students and instructors have probably paid too little attention to the elementary ceteris paribus assump-tions that so often refer to—but leave somewhatunattended—theassumptions dependentonunderlyingculturaldiver-sity. For example, when an economics instructorpresentsthedemandfunction, heorsheoftenreferstotastesorprefer-ences as one of the causal factors, yet explores it no more deeply than to say that people may have different tastes. When the instructors present Indiffer-ence Curve analysis, the students are intriguedorperhapsmesmerizedbythe technical aspects, but they may gain no greater understanding of the nature of the underlying culturally dependant factors. However, there are variables relatedtoculturaldiversitythatarepow-erfully explanatory. In an earlier time, when developed countries were mostly concerned with Western homogeneous societies, the single-culture practice
UsingCulturalDiversityinTeaching
Economics:GlobalBusinessImplications
DARRYLJ.MITRY NORWICHUNIVERSITY NORTHFIELD,VERMONT
T
ABSTRACT.
Globalizationandincreas- ingcross-culturalinteractivityhaveimpli-cationsforeducationingeneralandmay alsopresentvaluablepedagogicalopportu-nitiesinthepracticeofteachingeconomics forbusinessstudents.Therefore,theauthor investigatedthispropositionandoffers someempiricalobservationsfromresearch andteachingexperiments.Inthisarticle, theauthordescribesaprocedureforusing cultural-diversitymeasuresinteaching economicprinciplescourses.Theauthor performedexperimentstotesttheimpact ofateachingapproachthatexplicitly includescultural-diversitymeasurements inclassroomdiscussionsandstatistically testedstudent-learningoutcomesusingthis approach.Thefindingssupporttheconten-tionthatavaluableopportunityexiststo enhancetraditionalteachingapproachesby introducingmeasuresofculturaldiversity. Theauthorconcludeswithanalyticalcom-mentsandsuggestionsforfurtherresearch.Keywords:culture,economics, globalization,teaching
Copyright©2008HeldrefPublications
may have been quite adequate. Dur-ing classroom presentations, almost everyone could sleepily ignore some of the underlying substance of models without much concern. Most students came from Western cultures, sharing similar customs, beliefs, and practices, andtheycouldunderstandablyrelateto thebroadertheory,asitappliedtotheir domesticeconomies,withoutexploring thedetailsofthebasicculturalassump-tions (hidden deep in the mysterious
ceterisparibusconditions).
However, the globalization of busi-ness, growth of online distance edu-cation, and the new entrants into the Western world of capitalism are cause forawakening.Atleasttwomajorcon-ditions violate the assumptions in the usualapproach;wemaybroadlyidenti-even a casual observation would indi-cate that many students are not doing wellinthisregard.Inaddition,national standardized test results show that stu-dents’ overall test performance in eco-nomics has been lower than in other subjects,withtheexceptionofsciences such as physics (Educational Testing Services, 2006). Today, students also need to learn how to synthesize eco-nomics with other business tools in a global context. The other disciplines associated with the functional areas of business have been avidly incorporat-ingtheimplicationsofglobalizationfor teaching(e.g.,coursesinfinance,man-agement, accounting, and marketing). More importantly, these areas of busi-ness study have classroom discussions that tendto encompass the practical applicationofglobalcultures.However, for most students in the principles of economics courses, this same atten-tion to diversity is not part of the pre-sentation. Of course, students can take courses in international trade theory and learn about international exchange rates,trade-offercurves,andbalanceof payments, but again the presentations rarely,ifever,includeexplorationofthe
ceterisparibusfromagloballydiverse culturalperspective.Thisimposesalim-itationonstudents’abilitytolearnand
applythetheoreticaltoolsofeconomic analysis in a practical and insightful way.Becausestudentshavelessunder-standing of cross-cultural implications ofthetheories,wecanunderstandwhy they would have less understanding of the applicability of the models, both domesticallyandinternationally.
Furthermore, the cognitive task of integrating economics with the global businessdisciplinesisoftenleftentirely tothestudent.Somegraduatesofbusi-ness schools have assumed executive positionsinglobalcorporateenterprise andblunderedbecausetheyneverreally learned how to use the power of the economic models. This is regrettable and may be costly to corporations and economies in general. Therefore, in teachingeconomics,instructorsneedto better prepare the students by offering themaframeworkwithsimplesynergy among the disciplinary languages of economics,business,andculturalstud-ies. This requires a slight modification of the usual approach. For example, I have studied the reforming economies ofEasternEuropeformanyyears.My researchhasuncoveredinterestingfind-ings that are quite useful for under-standing management problems and economicthinking.Suchresearchoften involves collating not only economic aggregates but also surveys of cultural values (Hofstede, 1980, 1991, 1998, 2003).Theseindexesofculturaldimen-sions, as identified by Hofstede and others,arequiteusefultoresearchersin thehumansciencesbecausetheinstru-ments are well documented, validated, andhavealonghistory(Bradley,1999). Therefore,Idecidedtoutilizesuchdata duringusualpresentationsofeconomic principles. Essentially, the data of cul-turaldistinctionsisusedtoidentifyand explain the underlyingceteris paribus conditions during the presentation of theeconomicmodels.
UseofCultural-DiversityIndexes
Oneofthereasonsprofessorsofeco-nomics have tended to shy away from explicit consideration of the impact of cultural diversity has been the per-ception that useful quantifiable data is unavailable.Thesummariesofcultural data presented herein came from more
than 5,000 survey participants in Rus-sia,Belarus,andUkraine.Discussionof themethodologyforimplementationof thesesurveysisreportedindetailelse-where(Bradley,1999;Hofstede,1991). These instruments have more than 4 decadesofprogressivedevelopmentand applicationinthestudyofculture.The mostimportantconsiderationforteach-ingeconomicsisthatthedatasupporta quantifiable means to incorporate dis- cussionsofculturaldifferencesunderly-ingeconomicvariables.Themostrecent data, discussions, and implications for teachingeconomicsarefirstreportedin thisarticle.
ApplicationofDiversitytothe ClassroomExperience
When considering the tradition-al approach to teaching demand and supply functions, I found that student understandingofnonpricedeterminants isgreatlyenhancedwhenthediscussion of how cultural differences may affect theparametersofthemodelsareinclud-ed.Similarly,thediscussionsrevealhow thesefactorsmayimpedetheprogressof economic development in these differ-ent countries. I used cultural-diversity discussionsintheclassroomtoexplore the framework of economic theory by introducingthecultural-valuemeasures, particularly those of Hofstede. There, the details are customarily identified asfollows:
1.Uncertainty Avoidance (UA) mea-sures the extent to which ambiguity anduncertaintyaretolerated.
2.Power Distance (PD) measures the extent to which unequal distribution ofpowerisaccepted.
3.Individualism (IND) measures the extent to which the culture is based onindividualinterest.
4.Masculinity(M)measurestheextent towhichvalueisplacedonassertive-ness and a focus on ambition and materialgoods.
5.Long-Term Orientation (LTO) measures the value thatis placed ontime.
Forexample,Table1showsthemuch lower scores on IND and M from the culturesoftheEasternEuropeancoun-triesascomparedwiththeUnitedStates.
Economic theory in the United States is grounded on the IND score’s being high,butthescoreonINDisfoundto beverylowfortheRussianandEastern European economies. Therefore, with lowINDscores,theincrementalmate-rial rewards commonly used as pro-ductiveinducementinWesterncultures may not work as well in this type of Easternculture.Theconclusionismore than inference when viewed side-by-side with the other cultural differences ascomparedwiththeUnitedStates.
For example, there is a strongly negative opposition of the measure for MaterialisticmotivesandSelf-assertive-ness (which are subsumed within M) for the Russian culture as compared with that of the United States (a large differencebetweenscoresof–5and62, respectively). This helps the students to see the implications for the con-sumers’demandfunctionsasrelatedto thedisciplineandpracticeofmarketing in a global environment. Discussions takeonamoreanimatedthoughtfulness when the subject of demand and price elasticity are addressed in light of cul-turaldiversity.Likewise,thisdatahelps thestudentstounderstandthemanage-rial practices that may influence the supplyfunctions.Thedifficultyofman-agement practices associated with the supplyfunctionsoflaborinthisglobal context is illuminated and explained. Forexample,thescoresfoundinRussia are definitely not associated with the same level of ambition for acquisition of material goods; therefore, the labor supply responses to incremental mate-rial rewards could be expected to be weaker.Asstudentsconsiderthesetypes ofimplications,theygainunderstanding from the thoughtful contemplation of cultural diversity. Therefore, students’
understandingofnonpricedeterminants is significantly enhanced by including thediscussionofhowculturaldiversity may affect the parameters of the eco- nomicmodelsandconsequentimplica-tionsfordevelopment.
Theculturalscoresinthepresentarti-clerevealthattheEasternculturesplace alowvalueonindependentaction,asser-tiveness, accountability, and individual performance.TheWesternexpectations forentrepreneurialbehaviorandperson-al accountability will likely clash with the culturally determined response of workersintheseculturesandtherefore affect the shape of the supply function forlabor.
Another example can be found in the measure of UA in Russia, which is extraordinarily high when compared with that of the United States (103 vs. 46). Therefore, Russia exhibits a low tolerance for uncertainty and the risk taking that is clearly associated with Western business practices. The Rus-sians would prefer to avoid the higher risks normally associated with eco-nomic development (e.g., investment, marketing, management practices). In accordance, we find that the low score onINDcorrespondstoandischaracter-isticofriskavoidancebehavior.Ahigh tolerance for risk taking is a hallmark ofWesterncapitalists’approachtobusi- ness,management,andeconomicdevel-opment,butitisantitheticaltocultural dimensions found in Russia (or Belar-us). Once again, I would expect that this type of information and culturally augmented approach would be helpful to students learning economics as they becomeawareofthetheoryofeconom-icsandallthenonpricedeterminantsin the equations. The importance of the
ceterisparibus
assumptionsineconom-icfunctionsbecomesmoreapparentto thestudentsconfrontedwiththeseglob-aldistinctionsanddiverserealities.The students can better understand some of the reasons for the higher material standardoflivingintheUnitedStates. They come to more fully appreciate why American workers are so materi-ally productive and consumptive. It is culturally understandable. Of course, from a purely theoretical standpoint, it doesnotmatterwhetherthesemeasures replicate cultural diversity exactly; it only matters that relative differences exist, so cultural diversity can be used intheclassroomtoexploretheimplica-tionsofapplyingeconomicmodels.
This type of cross-cultural analysis, presentation, and discussion assists the studentsastheyattempttoconceivethe implications for other economic con-cepts as well, such as those of produc-tionfunctionsandproductionpossibility frontiers. Therefore, I expect that this typeofinformationandcultural-diversity approach to teaching will be helpful to professorsandtheirstudents.
Cross-culturalanalysisisatechnique that embraces an integrative approach bydiscussingtheimplicationsofcross-culturaldifferencesonthefundamental modelsofeconomics(suchanapproach isdependentonneithertheideaofcultur-alconvergencenorthatofdivergence). The traditional approach to presenting economictheoryintheclassroomdoes not effectively transcend the diverse culturalaspectsofthemanyemerging, reforming, and developing economies. Likewise,itfailstoilluminatetheweak performance of many economies. As Bogorya (1985) stated, people attach to communications their own system of values, beliefs, and attitudes, which combine with their culturally deter-mined behavioral code and create an ethnocentric unilateral system prevent-ing genuine understanding. However, with quantifiable measures, such com-parisons are more easily grasped, and thepowerofeconomictheoryleadstoa higherlevelofunderstanding.
Eachcultureperceivestheinformation inadifferentcontext,resultingnotonly in confusion but wasteful mistakes. In thepast,Westernbusinessandeconom-icthoughtdidnothavetodealwithsuch acomplexarrayofculturalperceptions
TABLE1.DifferencesinCulturalValuesMeasures
Country IND PD UA M LTO
UnitedStates 91 40 46 62 29
Russia 31 43 103 –5 24
Belarus 58 44 100 –3 22
Ukraine 51 23 57 13 56
Note.IND=individualism;PD=powerdistance;UA=uncertaintyavoidance;M=masculinity; LTO=long-termorientation.
in a global organizational pluralism. However, globalization means that understandings of these factors influ-enceoureconomicaxiomsandarevery important.Byincorporatingthesetypes of cultural-diversity discussions in the context of teaching economic theory, instructors do a better job of commu-nicating the universal realities of our economicmodelsandtheirapplicability andusefulness.
In recent years, economists discov-eredthatnaturalandculturalgeography is an important area of study (Fujita & Krugman, 1995). This should have been expected in light of the increas-ing globalization of business. In the classroom, students can be introduced to data files of cultural–geographic information and then be asked to con-sider the relations to the constructs of economic models. If this opportunity arises, I find that the students swiftly conclude that physical and cultural geography are complementary to their economicstudies.Theyunderstandthat underlying factors in economic theory, as well as empirical findings in ques-tions of economic development. This isastronglyintegrativeperceptionand helps the student to develop a broader perspective capable of including more knowledge into every equation. Like-wise, cultural attitudes toward savings andinvestmentaffectdevelopmentpos-sibilities, as do (a) cultural attitudes towardlaborversusleisureand(b)the cultural choices derived from the indi-vidual tendencies versus the collective tendencies. However, most economic educators have not yet discovered the significant nuances in cross-cultural value differences and—often unaware thatsuchquantifiabledataexists—they continuetoteachtheprinciplesfromthe bibles of domestic Western textbooks withamuchnarrowerviewofpeoples and places than reality would warrant. Eventheupperdivisioncourses,suchas comparative economics, tend to exam-ine only the institutional differences
among economies without addressing theunderlyingculturaldeterminants.In schools acrossAmerica, even graduate business students are not well versed in the application of economic mod-els because they have only gained a minimal understanding of the models under the strictceteris paribus condi-tions,whichareoftenunexplored.Many times I have heard students and even somebusinessprofessorssay,“Theeco-nomicmodelsareinapplicablebecause they are unrealistic.” Such unfortunate pronouncementswouldnotbethecase if they learned the real power in the economic models. In the 21st century, teaching practices are moving more toward interactive pedagogy (Becker, 2000). Classroom discussions on these cultural-diversity issues offer much opportunity for deeper exploration and understanding. a priori arguments. Nevertheless, a question remains: What is the extent of impact on the students of economic principles and their learning experi-ence? To investigate whether students learn any better with this approach, I tested undergraduate business students ineconomicprinciplesclasses.
For the experiment, I tested two groupsofstudentsinprinciplesofeco-nomics classes. The first group was treatedtotheusuallevelofpresentation anddiscussion,andthesecondreceived treatments that included discussions of cultural diversity (as described in the presentarticle).Fortheculturaldiscus-sions, I used the cultural-value dimen-sionsfrommystudiesandotherscited inthepresentarticle.
The research testing methodology thatIusedissupportedbymyinvolve-mentwiththeexperiment,hashistorical groundinginthecasestudymethods— as suggested inYin (1994)—and with the developmental research methodol-ogyconsideredbyGummesson(1991), Andersen (1995), and many others. In this approach, the researcher plays a dual role, because in such research,
a valuable input is typically provided through the researchers’ experiences. I havemanyyearsofexperienceinteach-ingeconomics.
The students in Group 2 encountered the same basic principles presentations but with the addition of the cultural- diversitydata,andtheywereencouraged todiscusstheunderlyingimplicationsfor thecustomaryceterisparibusconditions. To ensure comparability of classes, it wasimportanttodetermineifeachofthe groupswasequivalentforpurposesofthe studyorifothervariablesneededconsid-eration. Therefore, the group member-shipswerecomparedalongdemographic lines and academic backgrounds. Vari-ablescollectedincludedgender,ethnicity, age,andacademicbackgroundbasedon GPA.A profile of the students reflected the homogeneous nature of the general student population in the school. The GPA, variance, and distributions were essentiallythesameforbothgroupswith nosignificantdifference.Thisisnotsur-prising, because the student population is characterized by specific standards of university enrollment serving a popula-tion of business students with a rather narrowagerangewithinthesameschool. Atfirst,therosterhadshownthatamuch older student had enrolled in one of the classes,butthisstudentdroppedtheclass beforethefirstmeeting.
Therefore, the characteristics of the twogroupsofstudentswerefoundtobe equivalent for purposes of the experi-ment. The character of these students reflected the profile of the overall stu-dent population enrolled in the basic economics courses. Both study groups receivedthesamelecturepresentations, withtheonlyexceptionbeingthatGroup 2 students were exposed to cultural-diversityvalues.Bothgroupsweregiven thesamestandardobjectiveeconomics exam questions, and these exams did not include any explicit references to theculturaldataorrelatedmaterials.All the exams were the typical objective-based economics tests, with all ques-tionstakenfromthetextbook’sstandard test-banks as supplied by the textbook publisher. I admit that some questions in these standard exams may not be the best evaluators of students’ abili- tiestoapplyeconomicanalysis(Buck-les & Siegfried, 2006). Nevertheless,
thelargescaleandubiquitousnatureof these standard exams serves to support theuniversalityoftheresearchfindings.
The student standard economics examscomprised80observationson40 studentsintheexperiment.
HypothesisTesting
The null hypothesis tested was the following:“Themeanscoreofstudents receivingculturaldiversityaugmentation equalsthemeanscoreofstudentsreceiv-ing the usual instructional presentation,
ceterisparibus.”Therefore,Ihadthenull hypothesis and straightforward inferen-tialanalysestestingthestandarderrorof thestatisticandusingthetdistributionat the.05levelofsignificance.Thediffer-ences in mean scores were statistically significant, therefore rejecting the null hypothesis where the computedt(38) value was 2.03 and exceeded the criti-calvalueof1.69.Thesedifferencesand scoresindicatethatthedegreeoflearn-ingwasindeeddifferentbetweenthetwo groupsofstudentsandthatthestudents in the cultural augmentation Group 2 scored significantly better on the stan-dardeconomicstests.
Of course, one would intuitively tend to agree, given the difference in scoresforthesetests.Furthermore,the additional responses to student-learn-ingenrichmentquestionsonanentirely separate posttest of student responses to their learning experience showed thatGroup2ratedhigherthanGroup1 in learning experience. Because these enrichment results were measured as ordinaldatainLikert-typescalescores rangingfrom1(lowest)to5(highest), theappropriatemeasureofcentralten-dencyisthesimplemode,andnotthe mean. Thus, the students in the usual course scored 4, whereas the students inthesecondgroupscored5.Notethat these responses, higher for Group 2, areconsistentwiththeaforementioned objective test scores on the standard-izedeconomicstests.Theself-reported data might otherwise be considered anecdotal, but alongside the objective economics test scores, these learning outcomes are supportive. Neverthe-less, the finding that the students in Group 2 consistently surpassed those in Group 1 in their understanding of
economic principles, as determined fromthestandardizedeconomicstests, ismoreimportant.Itisastrongerindi-cationthatthisglobalcultural-diversity approachbetterservesthestudentsand providesthemwithmaterialthathelps them to master the standard learning objectives.
Weekslater,anothertestwasadmin-istered.Theposttestscoresshowedthat groupperformancewasagainmeaning-fullydifferent,witht(38)= 2.20exceed-ingthecriticalvalueforsignificanceat .05.Therefore, posttests indicated that, on average, the culturally augmented Group 2 students were better able to remember the economic concepts and usethetoolsofeconomicstosolvetest problems (as per differences in mean scores). Moreover, the statistical find-ingsupportsthelogicaljustificationof increasedretention.
After the conclusion of this experi-ment, I performed a replication of the study abroad. The research design for examining this teaching approach was identical to the U.S. experience and was undertaken at the State Financial Economics Institute, Crimea, Ukraine. The procedures were the same except that the local instructor of economics taughtbothoftheseclassesinhisnative language. (Class size was similar to the U.S. size, with approximately 20 students per class.) Once again, the differencesinmeanscoreswerestatis-ticallysignificantatthe.05level.This replication further supports the impor-tance and universality of this teaching approach.
Conclusion
Inthepresentarticle,Ireportedfind-ings of research on teaching econom-ics by using information on cultural diversity.Idemonstratedhowacultural- diversityapproachtoteachingeconom-icprinciplesmaysignificantlyimprove student learning of the principles of economicsandbetteraddresstheissues ofglobalization.Theoutcomesbetween the traditional approach and this cul-tural-diversity approach were com-pared, and implications for economics intheglobalbusinessenvironmenthave been pointed out. The findings sup-port the contention that in the present
global economy, the practice of rela-tivelyculture-freeteachingofeconomic fessors of economics to replicate this approach in research and education and perhaps provide further evidence similar to the findings of this study. Certainly, such further research would be interesting. There are many oppor-tunities for theoretical and empirical studiesinpedagogy.Attheuniversities where the present research was under-taken,theclasssizesweresmallerthan some at larger campuses elsewhere, and this is a limitation of the present experiments. Such limitation implies merit for replication of the pedagogi-cal experiment by teachers with larger class enrollments. Irrespective of the outcome of our pedagogical research, thisarticleindicatesthatthereisaneed for economists to adopt perspectives thatprovideexplicitculturalaugmenta-tion in their future research and peda-gogy.UnderlyingtheWesterncapitalist system is an economic ideology with a set of cultural distinctions that help definethereasonsforglobaleconomic activity and relative rates of economic growth.Inthisnewageofglobalization, tobetteradviseandassistthestruggling economiesoftheworldandsimultane-ously strengthen and defend our own systems, we need to understand the implications of cultural diversity and betterilluminatethestrengthandpower of economic theory and analysis.With thisbroadereconomicperspectiveanda moreglobalframework,wecanexpect largergainsfromresearch:educational, theoretical, and empirical. Such per-spective,framework,andresearchgains
canbetterserveourstudents.
NOTES
Dr. Darryl J. Mitry is a former university department chair and Fulbright Senior Scholar. He continues to teach, and his research is con-cerned with emerging economies and questions of sustainable economic growth in the fields of economic development, international trade, and laborandindustrialorganization.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dr. Darryl J. Mitry, 38180 Del WebbBlvd,PalmDesert,CA92211,USA.
E-mail:dmitryusa@msn.com
REFERENCES
Andersen, I. (1995).On the art of doing field studies: An experience-based action research methodology. Copenhagen, Denmark: Han-delshøjskolensForlag.
Becker,W.E.(2000).Teachingeconomicsinthe 21st century.Journal of Economic Education,
14,109–119.
Bogorya,Y.(1985).Interculturaltrainingforman-agers involved in international business. Jour-nalofManagementDevelopment,4(2),17–25. Bradley,T. L. (1999). Cultural values of Russia:
Implications for international companies in a changing economy.Thunderbird International BusinessReview,41(1),49–67.
Buckles, S., & Siegfried, J. J. (2006). Using
multiple-choice questions to evaluate in-depth learning of economics.Journal of Economic Education,37,48–57.
Cybermetrics Lab. (2008).Catalogue of world universities. Retrieved September 23, 2008, from http://www.webometrics.info/university_ by_country.asp?country=us
Educational Testing Services. (2006).Student instructional reportII (SIR II). Comparative data guide (pp. 22–86). Retrieved August 12, 2007,fromhttp://www.ets.org/portal/site/et Friedman,T.L.(2005).Theworldisflat:Abrief
history of the twenty-first century. NewYork: Farrar,StrausandGiroux.
Fujita, M., & Krugman, P. (1995). When is the economy monocentric?Regional Science and UrbanEconomics,25,202–528.
Gummesson,E.(1991). Qualitativemethodsinman-agementresearch.ThousandOaks,CA:Sage. Hofstede, G. (1980). Motivation, leadership, and
organization: Do American theories apply abroad?OrganizationalDynamics,9(1),42–63. Hofstede,G.(1991).Culturesandorganizations.
NewYork:McGraw-Hill.
Hofstede,G.(1998).Acaseforcomparingapples with oranges: International differences in val-ues.International Journal of Comparative Sociology,39(1),16–31.
Hofstede, G. (2003).Culture’s consequences: Comparingvalues,behaviors,institutions,and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
Yin, R. K. (1994).Case study research: Design andmethods.ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.
������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
���������� ������ ����
������� �������� �������
����������������������� ������������������������������� ������������������������������������������
������������������������������������������������������������� ������������������������������
�����������������
��������������������
�������������������������������������������
������������ � ������ �� ��� ������
����������� �� ���������� �� ��������������� ������������
������������������������������ ���������������
