A comparison of marketing teaching methods in North American and European universities

Abstract

Purpose

To compare marketing education methods in Europe and North America, and analyse the opinions about effectiveness underpinning educators' choices among available options.

Design/methodology/approach

E‐mail questionnaires distributed to a sampling frame extracted from the worldwide directory of the Academy of Marketing Science were completed by 93 marketing academics in North America and 42 in Europe: a 26 per cent overall return rate. Data were analysed by χ², ANOVA and correspondence analysis.

Findings

Three teaching‐and‐learning methods are most common in both environments: practical exercises, case studies and lectures. Europeans tend to rely on lectures and other traditional methods, while Americans make more use of technology‐based alternatives. The approach to the subject in Europe favours practical exercises, for their connection to the real world. Practice in North America reflects a cultural predisposition to personalised teaching, by emphasising face‐to‐face small‐group tutorials and one‐to‐one distance learning interaction. Teaching methods popular in the business world are little used across the sample, a somewhat paradoxical finding in a business‐school environment.

Research limitations/implications

The sample is comparatively small, and the European sub‐sample is not further broken down into cultural sub‐groups. Because the research instrument was adapted from one previous Spanish‐language survey, terminology may have influenced the responses.

Practical implications

The findings could be a useful input to planning of teaching and learning strategies, particularly in the international and distance‐learning contexts.

Originality/value

A rare comparative study of marketing education, suggesting fruitful directions for future research.

Citation

Küster, I. and Vila, N. (2006), "A comparison of marketing teaching methods in North American and European universities", Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 319-331. https://doi.org/10.1108/02634500610672071