‘—

 

 

SOCIAL SiMILARHY, THE AMERICAN MELIEU
AND FORBSN STUDENT SOCiAL iNTERACT-ION

Thesis for the Segree of M. A.
MICHIGAN STATE UNEVERSETY
R. SATYANARAYANA
1967

 

 

 

'“ |\\|\\\\\|\\\l||\\\| \\\\\|\1\\fi“fl\\ W \\ W \|\\\\ Will

3 1 93 54 759

 

 

 

0-“.

ABSTRACT

SOCIAL SIMILARITY, THE AMERICAN MILIEU
AND FOREIGN STUDENT SOCIAL INTERACTION

by R. Satyanarayana

The general hypothesis to be tested is that similarity of background
of foreign students with their American Milieu will make for greater in-
teraction of these students with Americans than dissimilar backgrounds.
Situational factors in the United States such as dormitory versus off-
campus living, length of stay, degree of favorable attitudes, age, marital
status, and the major field of study, are also manipulated and run against
degrees of interaction. The total sample consisted of all the Indian
students enrolled at Michigan State University in the spring quarter of
1966. (N. = 92). In all cases of testing the influenCe of various back-
ground and situational factors on the degree of interaction, the hypothesis

was substantiated.

SOCIAL SIMILARITY, THE AMERICAN MILIEU

AND FOREIGN STUDENT SOCIAL INTERACTION
8v

n/

R. Satyanarayana

A THESIS

Sulvnil { ed to
Michigan State UniVersity
'in.1)arfi‘ial ful [illintw1t ¢)f {Jie Ifl?QlliF<iU€FflT5
for the dwgtvu Of

MASlhR OF ARTS

Department of Sociology

190 I)

INTRODUCTION

The study of a foreign person's encounter with a cultural environ-
ment different from his own has a distinct and valuable place in socio-
logical research. How a person (stranger) interacts when he encounters
a different culture has been an issue which has held the curiosity and
interest of sociologists ever since Georg Simmel.l

A glance at the research done on foreign students in America shows
that there is no well-established body of theory on the cross-cultural
interaction of foreign students in a host society. Scientific under-
standing of cross-cultural interaction necessitates the develOpment of
such a theory. Yet, very little is known about the factors which have
direct effect on foreign scudents' interaction in a host society. Among
the various qUestions which have emerged in the realm of cross-cultural
interaction, the present research is limited to the study of several ques-
tions relevant to the interaction of Indian students within the American
society.

Specifically, this study is primarily concerned with the relation-
ship hetween the socio—economic and urban backgrounds of Indian students
at home and their interaction within American society. A limited study
such as this, howeVur, cannot undertake the task of developing an ela-
borate theory of cross—cultural interaction. Instead, I am concerned with
testing certain hypOthrHtS. Nevertheless, the results could give impetus
for further'xn'search ennl thus might tWNlLFIHHtE to tine formulatimn1.3f such

a theory.

 

1Cf. Georg Simmel, ”The Stranger” in The Sociology of George Simmel.
Edited and translated by Kurt Wolf, Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press.

 

In addition to social-scientific concerns, much of the importance
of such a study lies in its pragmatic value. For instance, ellUCthu
interaction between foreign students and Americans is crucial in apprais-

ing the success or failure of the exchange experienCe.

RELATED EMPIRICAL STUDlES

Previous studies which have dealt with questions similar to those
considered in thy present research have been inadequate in so far as they
haVe not focused on specitic and relevant behavioral factors. n most
of these studies the main concerns were generally of three kinds: (a) con-
tentration on changes occurring in foreign students over a period of time
as a result of their sojourn experience, (b) issues related to the prob—
lems alkltjllflCLHlfh‘S of faunxign stiuhuits whilc= thev .nn: in Ameritxt, and
(c) attitudinal and environmental factors affecting toriegn students'
adjustments in American society.1 In the last instance, most studies
h-JVe focused only if. a minor Wit}; on eatvirmmuant‘al and time [actors found
tts iiifltteru:e Llh‘ liittnfiictiitui nt’ t:irtzigti stttdtsitas Mllfll Anniricgarts.

fihirris' study'tif fortiini SlUdtilLS at. the ihiiverwsity L)l Calidlarnia
.it IA‘S Angunles frunnl that' fort-tun sttnh=nts ah veltuw incrtvisingiy' inttuISe

2

V

stnfial. rcltttiruis vxith EXmew item‘s .ivtnf tn«- ptm‘iod til tlneit :stax' in (huei'ica.
Sellt‘iz':; resn~ircii st<itess that toiw«ie.. stuchwits' inttwuactiinn trith inheritwans

increases with the lens h of Americar residence. Goldsen. in research

 

l -- ,. . . . ,. .
l{otiet‘t ll. Slh.il,v1‘ arid ‘Ltww l{. “2H4l_llfl;, ftfift412£fl Stiidt~nt.s Lintl llteiif
Arctican Student Friends (unpublishtd research, Indiana University. 1956),

 

 

p. 22. _,
Queue“
2 t
Richard T. Morris. Nuilundl Status in Foreign Students' Adjustment
(Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. l960), p. 215.

rWM/J 1047/} ‘.

3Cited in Claire Sclltiz. rt dl., Attitude and Social Relations of
Foreign Students in the United States (Minneapolis: University o1 Minne-
sota Press, 1963), pp. 65-66.

 

done on {oriegn students at Cornell University, lends additional support
7 - . 1 . 1 , . . .
to the loregOing JypotheSLS. ln contrast to these findings, in a study
- ' . 2 .

conducted by Lambert and Bresslcr on indian students, it was obServed
that the Indian students were more eager to meet Americans during their
first year of stay. Moreover, after their first year, their social re—
lations with Americans decreased as their length of stay increaSed.

Clearly, Lambert and Bressler'

s findings do not conform to the findings
of Selltiz and Morris, and therefore, pose a problem in arriving at an
empirical generalization in this regard.

Besides the foregoing variable. ”length of stay," the research has
also investigated the behavioral effects of varying environmental condi-
tions. Stiltiz found that type of living, arrangements haw a bearing on
interaction as they provide opportunities which facilitate to varying
degrees social relations heth n foreign students and Americans. Speci-
fically, she {mind that fC‘l'L ign students have more social relations with
Ameriiwuns wheni they liAwe in a inuise ni‘iw:sidencc-ifliere Annm’icans Lilso
., 3 q A .. . ., . ._
live. hdldsen states that the ioreign students who stay in uniVersity

{
donnitories hth more social ingtltions with Americans tharithilfin; stu-

dents who live in Off—Campus housing.

 

llbid.

2Richard Lumber: and Marvin Bressier, Indian Students on an American
Campus (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1956).

 

3Selltiz. ui al.. op. Cit., p. 103.

 

4Ibid. , pp. Elli-E03,

Lt

Other variables have also been investigated. For example, Sewell
. 1 . , , -

and Dav1dson studied 40 SCandlndVldn students and tound that the Scan—
dinavians who have more contact with Americans scored high on an index
comprising the following items: (a) less foreign looking, (b) higher
English speaking ability, (c) higher socio-economic Status at home,
(d) more urban residential background, (c) more prior contact with Ameri-
cans, and (f) more likely to be in liberal arts than in the physical and
biological sciences. Also in other research, previous foreign experience,
willingness to become acquainted with Americans, English Speaking ability,
and world area {rim which the student came, have been considered as in-
fluences on foreign student interaction with Americans. Most findings,
hncher, haVe been social psychological. They haVe heen generally con~
ccrned with the relationship bethen attitudinal characteristics of
foreign students toward America and the foreign experiences and attitudes
of Americans interacting with foreign students as they both affect in-
tensity of interaction. lhis research, however, differs from most prior
staidiz;s irl LlLlC it forwisa:s I‘Flindl'illf gin thee SCNSitll liaci<grniurul \if tlie

foreign students rather than of Americans, looking at the behavioral out—

 

t‘iwno; Hi. this.

lHBORY AND HYPUWHUSES
'Hie [inviawnuital iuroyuu;iriiwi ol {Jiis In:searxni is tfliat in SC‘ far the

two or more social milieux drv similar, an individual moving lrom one

:niiitwi to arvditer vfiii tend [xi intramust withiii Lhk‘\)thcr nunmr frtwpiontly

 

1Williaml-l. Suwuii ainl()r4l M. llvuidsen, '“Hic Adjustnnnuf<if Scan-
dinavian Students,” Journal of Social Issues, vol. l2, #1, l956, pp. 9-19.

than if the milieux in qUestion were dissimilar. The problem of concern
here will involve the testing of this hypothesis with a sample lndian
students studying at Michigan State University. It will determine the
extent to which their interaction with Americans increases as a function
of the similarity oi their Indian background with that of their American
sitxiatiioti.

To detennine the similarity of the social background of Indian stu-

dents to that of American 'society,' the following American model, con~
structed for the purpose of comparison,will be postulated. The American
situation is Viewed as a highly urbanized culture in which most occupa~
tions are of an urban rather than rural type. Most of the families in
this culture belong to middle income groups, and the majority of people
arr relatiVely well educated. Thus, if an Indian student comes from a
large cit}, if his lather has a relatively substantial education, a good
income, and an urban rather than rural occupation, the student is con-
sidered as having a background similar to the American counterpart.

The sample of lndians will be divided into two groups: those who
(in their backgrounds) are most line and those who are least like Ameri-

1
cans.‘ On the basis of this. the hwpithesis will be tested as to whether
Chufv is higher interaction of lndian students as a iunction of degree of
similarity of background with that of Americans. Each one of the four

background factors (parents' occupation, parents' income, parents' edu-

cation, and the HlZA.‘ of the town from which the respondent came) is also

 

l . . . . — , . _ .
American is leiincd with relerencc to the general bacxground of
native students attending Michigan State UniVersity.

\

\

(3

tested independently in ordur to determine how much influence each tdctor
relativcly has on lndian students' interaction with Americans.

Based on thv rovivw of thSt studies whith have investigated environ-
mental factors and their impdct un fartign students' interartiun, certain
hypotthvs Hth hour dUVtiOpud to be tvsted. Thcse are: (l) foruign

hdvv a mere {avorahle attitudc toward Americans wiii tvnd to

students who
interact muro with them, (2) [oreign students who iivw in dnrmitorics
interact mar; with Americans than Lht students who iiVe in off—campus
rusithnices, (3) Lip: uxttwit nf' forid;nz stimbxnts' inttqalctiini witjigknurfituans

hu length of stay in Amtfifld, and (A) social Sciunyy stu-

iiit'l'i‘db‘tfs wi t1". t
(tints interacttnuvre withzhruritmnis thdrtirirural scicwuxa students. :Ksidc
Erin) pruxvitnxs 1:vstxirc?i fizidi:y;s, it \VULlUJ zilSk‘AJppLalf {list aagc cind xndrfital
Stultiifi :uiidxt Euavi- sinne- irifixztnicc‘ 071 iiitiu”dt?tii)n \ditiiifl ari al_ier1 scw:i¢~ty.
{twischvnti§g (3) unmarrizwi Jndians HHS: :qnnid morv of ttugir free timu

with Amvrirans than wouid LHE Mdrrivd szwdcnts. and (b) the younger in

(322L , til'e EI-tfidi,*‘l‘ illx' ilii i-rzlt'? 1.1n .

Thc':nzhjvcts tn- this st'hhxafiursistiwlrwf all tiie Indi H: stud(iuwa uh‘

Vniuvrsity in iHv Spring ONJFFEY, 1906. Th05u

l‘i)i ltxtl ill b1jc‘lii ggdzi ESL 1!‘<
lruhanis at M.S.LH inuw wert-iti rtsidnzux 3“ {acuity'ig search smfiu3h1rs were
r‘rxciudvd. 'i'i'xw film} smut-Iv rims tnM‘Isistvd nf d t‘utal of HO Indifin stu-
(h3nts. 'Ihc Inhnus HEN} 1dd1kgfik'w an !n rfiflfljuctfi 0f r‘.e stint» wt11= ohtxlined
trnun thv oiiitl‘ H die fortikwi stndrnt turrisnr. A11 \if thm iide iii

East Inuwsing, «fifnh r izixiniVawu<ity resichniCus, innivvrsitg'{narriimitunising,

or off-campus I‘umnb and Lipéll‘i‘mvnts.

Th? questionnaires were administered to each individual directly,
in my presenCe. Atter the questionnaire had been answered, 1 verified
that every item was properly completed. Hclp was limited to clarifying
the wording and meaning of various questions.

About 18 students did not answer the questionnaire. Among the 18,
ciéht of them did not wish to anchr it, two of them had gone back to
india for a short visit, one of them was in England, four of them coujd
not otherwise he reached, in spite of eVery effort, and the addresses of
the remaining three students could not be traced as they were living in
\f’tht'f‘ Citlt'b‘.

Information on both socio-economic background at home, and inter~
.‘u Lion with Americans was elicited as responses to closed—endud qucstions
(See questionnaire in Appendix). in questions referring to participation
or interaction with Americans, the andUUtS were asked how often they
engaged in each activity with Americans. in order to get specific es-
timates to frrqucncy of interaction with Americans, the student was asked
to answer for each activity whether Mr had taken part in it every day,
mor~ than onCc a week, oncr a Wuck, once a month, or never. For certain
qquClUQS, the rrSpOHdunt wAs asked whwther he had participatrd very
izfzcn, Ofttdl, somvtinuns, rarcig, in? ievcrn 1M1 index of itfitnnhction was
c‘mpilcd from several items 0! participation in American lilc. Scores
werc given on wart-r}: itjt-rn (qucstion) ranging from O upwards. By cozilputing
Chr mean of all scores, the total numhcr of students was divided into two
tinxtuns, tlnnst- h:N;iiu; iiigli aiid YHKJSC‘ h {villa .lovv iriternact itni.

Qurstions whirl“. i't'QlElfL‘d prtiercnt‘ial ordering and rankingoi“ items

giVen were asked to examine the lndians' desire for participating in

."x 1

various activities either with Americans, non-Americans, Indians from own
state, Indians in general, or other foreign students. Degree of preference
for interaction with Americans was indicated by scoring from one to seven,
scven being the greatest preference. Various activities such as preference
to study with, to spend free time, to date, to discuss problems, and
preferenCes for a roommate, were asked of the students. One point was
given for each time an American was the first choice. On the basis of
total scores for each person on all the questions of preference, every
respondent was placed either as having a high, moderate, or low preference.

With regard to socio-economic background of subjects to separate
cases similar and dissimilar'tu» that of American miliiw1, scores were
giVen on each of four background factors (father's income, father's edu-
cation, father's occupation and the siZe of the town of subject's youth).
The scoring progressed on each item from one point upwards for each
degree of similarity of indian background to that of the American milieu.
lhe higher thr scare, the more similar their background is to that imputed
for rhncriiuhis wild: whim; th«dr.irc- likely' to initermu t. lflien cinisidtncing
these categories in combination, those who scored high on this unit arr
treated as highly similar to Americans: the remainder comprisc the least
similar group.

The data emerging iifivn Hue tAbuiatiLNii)f the questionnaire responses

Weft analyzed onlv with FcScht to consistency in the direction of and

relationship between the variables concerned. chCc. when findings are
snid to be significant, a statistical meaning is not intended but rather

uniiorm consistency. The general hypothesis is rejected if greathcr con-

sistency is not found between similarity of socio—economic background of

Indian students with imputed typical American background and higher in-
teraction. The same is the case with all the subordinate hypotheses

inVOchd.

DESCRIPTION OF THE SAMPLE

The following seven tuhics describe pertinent background characteris-
tics of the subjects oi this study, all of whom are graduate students
with the exception of two undergraduates. A detailed examination of the
dirvct relevanCc of some of those characteristics to the main thvsis (or
interaction) is DECSVHCVd in the Scction on [indings.

'flio tables prostatcd bviow doscribc thc distrih -ion of rcspoudents
according {4 socio~oconom'c buckgrownd oi parents, tho size of the place
whyrc Twspnndvfit spcnt his youth, tho major ficlds of study, agw, and the
tract.- or" I‘vsidt-nt‘t‘ at Michigan State. University.

TABLE 1 - Numhvr and Per Cent by Incomo Levcis of the Fathers of Indian
Studtwnnsilt M.S.lh

 

 

 

[ricomc Numhvr Percentage
1. Under 4000 Rupees (22) 23.9
.i’ . 4000-8000 Rupees (25+) 26 . 1
3. Bffifii)-§(),() H) l<1niiw~s (I 2) 1.3.()
Q. U).000-12.Lwh} Rup0cs ( 8) 8.7
3. jZ,000—}4,000 Ripous ( 8) 8.7
h Over 34,000 Ruvas (18) 19.6
TUCJ] (92) 1.00 .0

 

In this SAWpiw half of the famiiivs are within some portion of the

group whose fathers' income {Hits somvwhorc betwecn £000 to 8000 Rupees.

The remainder falls in middle income group (8000-12,000) and upper income

group (l2,000 and over).

TABLE 2 - Number and Per Cent of Indian tudents at M.S.U. by Occupational
Levels of the Fathvrs

 

 

 

Type of Occupation Number Porcentago
1. Professional (28) 30.4
2. Management (executive, business owner) (24) 26.1
3. Clerical or OffiCc Worker (government) (17) 18.5
a. Sales ( '3) 3-3
3. StuflJiCeS ( 2) 2.2
b. Fanning (18) 19.6
Total (92) 100.0

 

The majority of fathers of tho indians at Michigan Statc University
Iirt professicnuils. Second, tinixi, and fourfifii in rank are nuhmageridl,
Iarminrx clerical, and governmvnt officc workers, respectively. As
Tablc 2 shOWs. pctcontugvs uro Vva small in wither sdlcs or service oc-
iwnméticwuxl catt¢h>rics.

‘Thc lslrgcsLL1uhnbcr‘«Jf stlmhnits (WTflv [turn the lglrgcst «titiiws, that
is, of over 500,000 population (Sow Tuhlc 3). However, thurv arc nearly
onc~tlrird who ixrm‘ from snmll txnnns. cdilimi\1illngcs, ixi India. ”010
smdilcst numbcr of studwnts comp from towns having a population of l0,000
to 20,000. Oh tho WhUiL. tho deUF1t\ of the students cun he said to
thV come from urban urea .

Regarding socio-cconomic background (fathcr's income), the results
disclOSc that all in. students can be said to have come from middle-cldss

Families. According to standards of living in lndid those who warn from

ll

3000 to 14,000 Rupees would fall within some portion of the middle-class
(lower-middle, middle-middle, upper-middle). In this study no fathers

of Indian students were making less than 3000 rupecs. With reSpect to
the education and occupation of parents, the data shows that the majority
of fathers have relatiVely good educations and also are mostly engaged

in some kind of urban occupation.

TABLE 3 — Number and Per Cent oi the Indian Students at M.S.U. by Size
of Town in Which They Spent Their Youth

 

 

 

Size of the Town (POpuZation) Number Percentage
1. Under 5000 (15) in.)
2. 3000 to 10,000 (10) l0.9
3. 10,000 to. 20,000 (i 3) 3.3
A. ZO,Lth LC‘ 50,(N)O ( R) 8.7
3. 30,000 to l00,000 (ll) 12.0
6. i00.000 to 300,000 (15) l6.3
7. Over 300,000 (30) 32.6
Total (92) 100.0

 

As lable 4 indicates, about linu‘.n1r 0t ten of the fathers of thc
subjects oi this sample are college or university graduates. About one
thiiul hauu- hurl swan-iiiid: SChLN)l ediuwati.ui or luaVc a1 hjgfli stlujol (nzrtilfi-
catc. Only dbowt 1i pcr cent of the iathcrs hJVr not gone beyond cle-
mentary school.

There ars morc ingineering students in the sample (see Table 5)
than students in any other field oi study. lndia‘s urgent need [or

specialists of this kind is reflected in the predominance of applied

science students over the number of Indians studying non-applied subjects.

I...

TABLE 4 - Number and For Cent of Indian Students

Levcls of Fathers

at M.S.U. by Educational

 

 

 

 

Level of Education Number Percentag%‘
1. Elementary school (10) l0.9
2. Some high school (15) l6.)
3. High school graduate (13) 16.3
4. Some college (13) 14.1
5. Collegv 0r UanErSlty graduate (39) 42.4
Total (92) 100.0
TABLE 5 - Numbcr and Per Cent of Indian Students at M.S.U. by Major Field

of Study

 

 

 

 

Ficld oi ‘tudy Number Percentage
l. Social Sciencvs ( 9) 9.8
2. Businvss Administration (21) 22.8
5. Edruyition ( 3) 3.3
4. Luinguagnes ( 1) 1..l
5. Muthvmatics; Physical, Natural or
Vi-ti-rinury St‘lUHCL‘S (36) 28.3
6. Eilglnt-L‘l‘lllg (Z3) 25.0
7. Agricullturc ( 6) 6.5
H. FOUd Sk'lt.‘nCU ( 3) 3.3
iota} (92) 100.0
Scarly half oi thc studl-nts arc bthcen the dgvS of 25°29. The
sccond largest out urwup is compriscd or those 20—26 years of agc. Only

two students arw abUYL the dug of 40.
cent of the sumplc urn above thy ago of
the students at. ln-low :hc out of 29.
tllt' djgt‘ ()5 2?).

Tablc 6 also shows that 90 pct

years. Almost two-thirds of

TMKflIty-Illflt‘ stJJdcuits {irt’LIbOXWJ

TAHLE 6 - Number and For Ccnt of Indian Students at M.S.U. According

to Age

 

 

 

Agt Number Percentage
1. 20—24 years (20) 21.7
2. 25-29 years (43) 46.7
3. 30-34 years (16) 17.4
A. 35-39 years (11) 12.0
5. 40 years or more ( 2) 2.2
Total (92) 100.0

 

The majority of the studcnts residc either in apartments in town

wt in the graduatc residence hall (see Table 7). Rooms in privatc homes

dud univcrsity married housing are also largo categorics.
cxpuctemiéhmfing stmuhuits prtwhnninantly'.xf graduattn status,
Silldtdlts lixu: l1} aii uxuicrin:ad1uitc (iormiiteryu

(listributitni of .wtsvs of (wrwnanus arui<3ff-cannnis housiru; -

resynw;tivedj/.

TABLE 7 - Numbcr and PF? Cunt 0f

Tpr'S Oi: Rt'Sl dt‘llk' L‘

As would be
only thrwu-

Thcrc is almost an equal

and 47.

Indian Studcnts at M.S.U. by Various

 

 

 

Rcsidcncc Number PerContagc

l. Graduatx‘iu‘sidwncc hall (26) 28.3

2. Undergraduatr dormitory ( 3) 3.3

3. Apartment in town (26) 28.3

1+. Room iriirrivatL-lhrnv (19) 20.7
University married housing (18) 1?.6

Total (92) 100.0

 

F4
43..

Having the distribution of the subjects with rESpoct to particular
l)4—!Ck;.§i‘oiihd vari.’,1blvs, it is now possihlu to examine the relationship of
these variables to degree oi interaction.

n Table 8 thy students wha scorcd high on an index made on four
background factors (fathur's income, father's occupational status. tathcr's
cducation, and the sizc of thc town cl subject's youth) arr considcrcd
(3-; having a background highiy similar to the American milieu and the

rchrse is true of students who scorcd low.

TABLE 8 ~ Interaction with Americans by Similarity oi Background

 

Interaction
illéil Lind Trotjll
Simiiarity No. 7 No. 1 No. X

 

High (31) 63 (l8) 37 (49) l00

Low (13) 35 (28) 65 (43) 300

 

'Vutal ($6) 30 (46) 30 (92) 100

 

In this table (Table 8) nvarly twice as many Indian students with
backgrounds highly similar to the im ntrd American background mad highvr

intvraction as did thHSc siudcnts who wvrc less similar. This would in-

cihylte that thcrv is a strong rviationship hctwccn similarity of background

 

In ()rdtn: Lt: dtWfl’ffllch‘ thy“ soci.3-n«:nxuxnic haifligrxnind (if :nlhjiw‘ts,
StQDCE‘S ivcin: {giNWHl in? ruicil 01' Llio foiir laati<ginnin1d inc:t<wrs (flitiivif's «;diical—
Lion, {Ather's incomv. father's iconp¢tion, 1nd thc sign of the town of
(wSporuhnit's ywnith}. 'Uie ¥MW)rlnu_lJKff8dSthiclS Chr’ lUVti «‘f {atlh4*'s cdu-
cation, lCVUl of fithcr's incnnv. urban character oi Iathcr's occupation,
Jrul thtf Sixtfklf tin tonnieif fL”flNWndt”lC'S j;fiutli intmnwises. 'Fh=-l1ightn‘ the
CumpflsliJf score, [jHJInOfL'E$Pnil3F thtg'sire said ti>in3 to Amerirrni'iiic.

of Indian students to that of their Amtrican social milieu and their in—

H1

teractions with Americans. ihus the major hypothesis that the extent of
foreign studrnts' interattion with Americans increases as a function of
the similarity of their background with that of their American situation,
‘is Siflistarniidttwlliere.

Having presented evidence which shows a strong relationship between
background factors in total, and interaction within the host society
(American), let us now examine to what extent each one of these four
components (factors) of background independently affects interaction of
Indian students with Americans. Then we can determine which factors have
the greater effect on interaction.

Each of these following four factors (iather‘s education, father's
income. father's occupation and the size of the town of subject's youth)
is considered in a minor or sub—proposition tested to find out the. degree
0f relationship to interaction within American society. These minor
propositions are: (l) the extent of foreign stndtnt's interaction with
:hnericans iruwnsases as tht-liiUier's lionsl of twhicatiini increasiwg (2) the
degree of foreign students' interaction increases as a function of in-
creasing income of his {ather. (3) the interaction of lndian students
increases it they come from largtr cities in India, and (4) foreign stu—
dents' interaction with Americans increases if their fathers are engaged
iii itifl).2ri [1% tlitftf til<lll Ifiii‘i l :‘(j(‘tlfL3 t i()LI.

Table 9 indicates that the higher the inthcr's educational level,
the larger is the pCfCHnLflflv of Indian students who have greater inter-

action with Mnericans. Only 28 per cent of those students whose fathers

had elementary or some high school education interacted highly, while

80 par cent of thosr students whose fathers had a high school certificate
or: scxnt: Ctllirigt‘ CCthJIleJH, alld Em; iicr‘ ctnit «it 'ih(‘St’ stiidtnits ldht7St ldtflieirs
had a college degree, intcrdcled highly. This supports the minor pro-
ianltitHl that: thy exitent a-f i n+4rsctixni incrwuaSes 8:5 lathawf's ltwnvl of

cducation advanCes.

lAbLE 9 - interaction with Americans by Father's Education

 

Interaction

hdiumitional High LouI Total
Batdtgrtwind No. ‘Z No. i; No.

 

Elementary school or

some high school ( 7) 39 (l8) 7'] (2"?) l‘J-U

 

 

Hill: schlnil and runny (nwllwct' (lfll 50 (14) SO (28) 100
(lolleyy graduate (1‘3) 434 (l4) )3 (39) 100
total (4'0) 30 (3+5) 3O (93) IOU

’lht‘ dii:ct't l3uclfll1fl \diit h tru' le grin: til ¢;din;at_ioii hais iipain tht‘ Lh‘flIW:C
of interaction otters trinlorcwmint to the validity ol the general hy—
pothesis. Also tnmpatihie with our hypothesis are thw risoits of the
invcstigatiini (in lahlt lily: incerning the relatiinnn u) brichfl intrr-
atl-itni aini liltiuur'54 ign3oruu. :\s 'tlnil- .(l F8\Nfdlls, 5 )ft‘ 1nclld1? stxidtWits
idioSL: fattuars luad a in idtixuuly liigh i;n-onn¢ (ahtnu- d.thh) quMJUS) inttn‘-
iu:tcd nnire hiidily lfliln diti thcwn» Stldhfilts \diose‘ lfillfler' inctmnrs wiqul
lower than 8.000 Rupees. Sixty-Seven per Cent ol thosc students whose
zkitliCI‘s l‘e'ltnig; : v niidtiit- dlld izpiitt' llltzflnt‘ tuittrgtrrit»s: tls (tHUPcth‘d Lt) 35

per Ct‘llt UL t'l‘u‘sr' Student's Who». fathers belong to {he lowt‘t' immuni-

category, interacted highly. Thus it is seen that there is a relation-
ship netWeen father's economic background and lndian students' inter-

ac. tion with Americans.

TABLE l0 - Interaction with AmcriCans by Fathcr's Income

 

Interaction

 

 

High Low Total
Income No. X No. X No. 7
Less than 8,000 Rupees (15) 33 (31) b7 (46) 100
8,000 — l2,UOO (15) 75 ( 5) 25 (20) 100
l2,0UO - 14,000 and over (lo) 61 (l0) 38 (2b) 100
'lotal (46) 50 (46) 3O (92) lOO

 

The impact of the size of home town (Table ll) is in a similar direc-

titin \ditll a Slilnivil(kint' dt4;rtw o1 rcléitlJNISlllp.

TABLE ll - [I'lLt‘F-thl.‘i_()ll with Anwticdn Students hy Population oi Home Town

 

Interaction

 

 

 

 

 

H l til“. Luw TOt‘d i
Paqinl.ititni No. " Ni). 2_ No. 1
xo.ooo or loss (35) in (37) 60 (62) 100
“er 30,000 (ll) [U ( 9) 30 (30) 100
lotal (qt) 5“ (46) 30 (02) 100

 

 

lndidn studtWts [tom tlllrs of over 50,000 population interacted

with Americans to a considerahly higher degree than those studcnts who

 

.‘lIiIII

 

 

came trom towns of 30,000 or less. vaenty per cent of those students
who came irom towns of over 50,000, as QppOScd to 40 per cent of thosc
students who camu irom tho towns of 30,000 or less population, interacted
highly. The results in Table ll suggust a strong relationship bQCWUun
the size of thu home town oi Indian students and degree of their intcr-
action with Amvr i cans.

A similar outcomu is sccn in Table 12; here a strong relationship
between typos oi occupations of fathers of Indian students and their in-
teraction with Amuricans is revealed. The Indian students whose fathers
hvlongcd to clerical, sales and service professions had greatcr inter-
action to professiwna] and managcmcnt jobs and th so whose fathers belong
to farming occupations. The studtnts whose [athers are farmers had the

least intcravtion.

TABLE 12 — Interaction by Fathers' Occupational Status

 

lnluerac‘tiinw

 

 

H i uh Low To ta l
Cuwnlpatirunil Statin: No. Z No. 'A No. K
Professional and Management (23) 48 (27) 7- (32) 100
Clvrical‘ Salcs and Survin (l@) 64 ( H) 37 (32) 100
Farming ( 7) 39 (ll) 61 (l8) 100
Total (as) 30 (46) 50 (92) 100

Thu L‘lvflCLfl {ind tLllQS (witcpory' Ulighl}“lerarl in InrHei) arnl the
Limning category vwidcnced (qnnuiite degrees of intvravtion with Amcricans,

farmers' sons having considvrahly low inter3ction. The profcssional and

19

management catcgory falls hctwccn these two categories in dcgrtc of in-
teraction. Sixty-ono per ccnt of those students whOSc fathers belonged
to eithvr clerical, SdlcS and service or professional, and management
professions, as comparud to 39 pcr Cent of those students whose fathers
belonged to farming proicssions, interacted high; conSequcntiv, this
proposition has prom-d to by indvpendcntly influential on interaction.

(thClIldlfu; frrmi thc‘«flJHVL‘(‘ViLLJnC(7, itfzappiwars tluxt iiicrer is a
diiinite rclationship hctwcun the Indian students' social background (how
similar to that of the American) and their interaction in a host society
(American). This pattern cmcrged from thc rUSpOHSrS given in tctal as
aw ll eas iii cacdi iIKllVILhIdl cinnpornant iTlctXfir (if tin) baid<trcuinci;\I Inclian
stiidcuits.

Thus, having tvsttd fhv validity of thy gcnvral hypothesis, wc will
now turn to thc hypothvscs which concern several Situational and other
factors such as Chc rulalionships bctwvcn lndian studcnts desircd intwr-
action And thilr actanl intrraction.

As MH‘EiSSJmcd, tin lr<pothtwsis which (hails with time cxtent id; Lidian
stinhwits' prcikannu:c frq‘xkncric.ri lift'éflld thtdif dtgrtx‘Kflf intewuugzion
inJS bind] Siunmartiwi. itdilw 1 $ IHJIkIILtS :1 pivsitixul rul¢iIiIMlShir)}VcCVhWJn
Indlihl studcntcfl (L‘grui Gl-}H3'rvfun0c’ Lar Amuratxni iifc and tin: dcgrce
oi stated inlcraction. Sva l -cight pvt Ccnt oi the studcnts of high
;)ruil:reqici- as .ipiwisccl to 57 iw'r Lw;nl of. thc' liuv prkatTIflltt' grinip, iht(;r—
JCtt d Iiigliiy.

Iri pt?€\?l(NIS st_utiiz s tlii- t‘ljlfC‘t (if tiic Iiitx7rélct.l()n ptitcanl.i;1l k)f- l ixririg
arrangements on thi dvvclvpv:nt oi social rclatious hchtvn foreign stu-

«Jents anad Anuw7icazn+xwas invewu'igattwi. Tin; result k‘i this inesearxli with

regard to type of residence and its effects on interaction is in the
same direction as previous studies. Selltiz, et al.1 found that the
dormitory is one of the most conducive places for creating social rela-
tions between foreign and American students. The dormitory situation
had either high or medium interaction—potential. GoldSen2 (IQSS) in
her study of foreign students at Cornell, reported that those who live
in dormitories had higher interaction with Americans than those students
who IiVe otf campus. The Indian students (Table 14) who live in dormi-
tories have greater interaction with Americans than those students who
liVe in oil-campus housing and university married housing. Seventy-two
per cent of the Indian students who lle in dormitories, as OppOStd to
40 per cent of the Indian students living in oil—campus or university
married housing, interacted highly. Among those who liVe in oft~campus
housing and university mdrtlcd student housing, the former interacted

un>re (liari tht‘ StWIdEWIIS idio l iVetI in nuirriexd lHDUSIJIg.

TABLE 13 - Interaction by Degree ut Preference

 

Interaction

 

 

Iii alt Inéiv 'l-iteil
Degree 0 f Pre Terence No . 7. No . 7.. No . 7;,
High (M) 79 ( :4) 3] (i9) 100
Moderate (lg) 57 ( 9) 4% (El) LOO
Low (IQ) 57 (33) 63 (52) 100
'I‘otal (4.6) St (4b) 30 (92) 100

 

ISeIItiz, t al., :‘E. tie, p. 103.

)
“Ibid., p. :03.

TABLE 14 - Interaction with Americans by the Type of Residence

 

 

 

Interaction
High Low Total
Residence No. Z No. Z No. %
Dormitory (21) 72 ( 8) 28 (29) 100
Off-campus (19) 42 (26) 58 (45) 100
University married housing ( 6) 33 (12) 67 (18) 100
Total (46) 50 (46) 50 (92) 100

 

Probably the reason for this is that the Indian students who live
in married student housing spend most of their free time with their
families. Off-campus students do not have the dormitory conditions of
”mixed” and "forced" student interaction which would have a tendency to
further interaction.

Table 15 shows that those students who stayed in America one year
or more interacted more highly than those students who have been in the
U.S. less than a year. Morris1 and Selltiz, et 31.2 also found, in their
studies of foreign students in America, that the longer the foreign stu-
dent stays in America, the more he interacts with Americans. TheSe [ind-
ings are consistent with our results.

In order to discover the relationship between academic major and
interaction, all academic majors were classified into two groups. The

group of social science included social science, business administration,

 

 

education and language majors. The group of natural science included
mathematics, statistics, physical science, natural sciences, veterinary

science, engineering, agriculture, and food science.

TABLE 15 - Interaction with Americans by Duration of Stay

 

Interaction

 

 

High Low Total
Duration of Stay No. X No. X No. 1
Less than year (10) 25 (30) 75 (40) 100
One year or more (36) 69 (lb) 31 (52) 100
Total (46) 50 (46) 50 (92) 100

 

More social science majors interacted highly than did natural science
majors. Sixty-two per cent (Table 16) as compared to 43 per cent of social
science students interacted highly, while 57 per Cent of the natural
science students, as opposed to 38 per cent of social science students
interacted low. Morris1 also found that his reSearch on foreign students
at U.C.L.A. that iorcign students who are in social sciences made more
friends than the students who are in natural sciences. This difference
in the degrew (Di interaction leMMWWI dieSe two categoriewscai students
might be due to the differences in the nature of their fields of speciali—
zation or to other variables which cannot be controlled in this study such

as length of stay.

 

l . . .-,
Morris, 0 . C1C., p. lib.

23

TABLE 16 - Interaction with Americans by Major Field of Study

 

 

 

Interaction
Major Field High Low Total
of Study No. % No. Z No. 1
Social Science (21) 62 (13) 38 (34) 100
Natural Science (25) 43 (33) 57 (58) 100
Total (46) 50 (46) 50 (92) 100

 

As might be expected, more unmarried students interacted highly than
did the married students. This is probably due to the fact that married
students generally have less free time to spend with others outside of
the family.

Table 17 shows that 59 per cent of those who were single had high
interaction, and only 39 per Cent of those who were married interacted
highly, substantiating the hypothesis that the single students interact

more than the married ones.

TABLE 17 - Interaction with Americans by Marital Status

 

Interaction

 

High Low Total
Marital Status No. '7. NO. 70 No. ‘73
Married (16) 39 (25) 61 (41) 100
Single (30) 59 (21) 41 (51) 100

 

Total (46) 50 (46) 50 (92) 100

 

I“)

With regard to age and interaction, our guess would be that younger
Indian students have higher interaction than those who are older. Fifty-
six per cent (Table 18) of those who were 29 years or age or less as
compared to 38 per cent of those who were 30 years or less interacted
highly. This would indicate that the lower the age of an Indian student,
the more he tends to interact with Americans. However, age, in most
cases, is related to other variables which indirectly have contributed
to the results of Table 18. For instance, younger students are more
likely to not be married and thus, in a sense, are forced to interact
more (see Table 17). Moreover, unmarried students have a greater likeli-
hood of living in a donnitory, a factor which has already been indicated

as making for greater interaction.

TABLE 18 ~ Interaction with Americans by Age of Respondent

 

Interaction

 

 

High Low Total
Age No. Z No. X No. X
29 years or less (35) 56 (28) 44 (63) 100
30 years or more (ll) 38 (l8) 62 (29) 100
Total (46) 5o (46) 50 (92) 100

 

IMPLICATIONS

As previously stated, the general hypothesis relating to social
similarity and interaction was tested in its totality (of social simi-
larity) as well as in its individual components (father's income, father's

occupational status, father's education, and the size of the home town).

25

The division into such components, i.e. substructuring of the general
hypothesis into subordinate propositions, made feasible the possibility
of testing the general hypothesis HI more specific terms.

The approach used to test the overall validity of our general hy-
pothesis involved a reverse procedure, a working backward from the results
through each of the minor prOpositions. This more or less additive pro-
cess leads to positive conclusions about the general hypothesis. Conse-
quently, the preposition oi social similarity enhancing interaction, as
it relates to findings stated in the above section, is upheld.

Also, the investigation regarding the situational and environmental
factors (place of residence, marital status, degree of preferenCe for
American life, academic major, duration of stay, and age) consistently
emerged as being consistent with the expected results.

Among the situational factors, duration of stay and place of resi—
dence had a considerable effect on iorcign students' interaction in this
study as Well as previous studies. These two iactors, occurring after
the. student has: .erLVed in the L‘.S., may be operating to change the rela-
tionship beLWeen the independent variable (social background of lndian
student) and.tlus dependent varialntJ (interaction), i.e:., tactors that
between the arrival oi Chi s‘udent and the administration of the ques-
tionnaire may have increased or decreased the process of interaction.
TheSe should haVe been used as controls when running the background vari-
ables against interaction. However, the number of caSes in our sample
was too small to make possible such an operation. Further research of
this kind should takc into consideration this problem of size of sample

and the use of control variables.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Goldsen, Rose K; Suehman, Edward A.; and Williams, Robin M., "Factors
Associated with the Development of Cross-Cultural Social Inter-
action," Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 12, No. l, 1956, pp. 26-33.

 

Keill, Norman, "Attitude of Foreign Students," Journal of Higher Education,
Vol. 22, No. 4, April, 195}, pp. 188-194.

 

Lambert, Richard D., and Brcsslur, Marvin. Indian Students on an American
Camgus. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1956.

 

Lazarsfeld, Paul (Ed.), ”Interpretation of Statistical Relations as a
Research Operation” in The Language of Social Research. Glencoe,
Illinois: Free Press, pp. 115-125.

QTWC ’Wh {nu/VIM:

Morris, Richard T. Nationai Status in Foreign Students' Adjustment.

Minneapolis: University oi Minnesota Press, 1960.

 

 

Seiltiz, Claire, et a1. Attitudes and Social Relations of Foreign Students
in the United States. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press,
1963, p. 431+.

 

 

SeWell, William H., and Davidson, Olaf M., ”The Adjustment of Scandinavian
Students,” Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 12, No. l, 1956, pp. 9-19.

 

Sewell. William H.,and Davidson, Olaf M. Scandinavian Students on an
American Campus. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1961.‘

 

 

Shaffer, Robert H., and Bowling, Leo R., "Foreign Students and Their
American Student Friends,” unpublished research, Indiana University,
1966, pp. 1-105.

Stmnel, Georg., "The Stranger” in The Sociology of Georg Simmel. Edited
and translated by Kurt Wolf, Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press.

 

Zicscl, Hans. Say It with Figures. New York: Harper & Row, 1957.

 

QUESIlONNAIRE

Department of Sociology Spring, 1966

The following is a qULSflonnder designed to study some aspects of
the behavior of foreign students--particularly those from lndia--with
respect to important social characteristics of their background. The
information collected will be kvpt in confidence and used solely for the
purpose of research.

Part 1: Please answer the following questions according to the response
choices at the right.

L. How often would you estimate that you visited American homes in the

I

last six months?

No . A
a . (3) 3 More than once per week
b. ll 12 Once a Week
C. 25 27 OUCL’élIUUHCh
d. 1+1 J4 S Rarcly
L—t . 12 I } NE’VUI‘
2. How many times would you estimate that you normally visit American

students' rooms or apartmrnts per month?

a. 7 8 Over 20 times
b. £6} 6 lO-LO times
C. 16 i7 3‘10 il’l‘u'S
d. 42) 46 1-5 times
a
9. 2i 23 Do not Visit at All

28
In a usual week, how often would you estimate that American students
visit your room or apartment?
a. 9 10 Over 10 times
b. S72 8 5-10 times
c. 50 54 1-5 times
d. 26 28 None

How often would you estimate that you have had dinner or lunch with
American students in the last month?

a. 20 22 Very often

b. 12 13 Often

c. 34 37 Sometimes

d. 12 13 Rarely

e. 14 15 Never

How often would you estimate that you have dated American girls?
a. 5 5 Very often

b. 9 10 Often

c. {72 8 Sometimes

d. 13 14 Rarely

e. 54 59 Never

How often do you go to dances with American friends?
a. $3} 3 Very often

'b. S42 4 Often ‘

c. lb 17 Sometimes

d. 15 16 Rarely

e. 52 56 Never

10.

How often do you normally go to movies with American friends?
a. 322 2 Very often

b. 10 11 Often

c. 21 23 Sometimes

d. 30 33 Rarely

e. £272 29 Never

In problems or questions involving your school work, whom do you
usually consult?

a. 24 26 Americans

b. 10 11 Indians

c. fl! 1 Other foreign students

d. 31 34 Both Americans and Indians

e. 26 28 Americans, Indians and other foreign students

How often do you estimate that you converse with American students
in your classes?

a. 45 49 Very often
b. 30 3} Often

C. 15) 16 Sometimes

d. $12 1 Rarely
c . <1 2 1 Never

What part of your free time (approximately) do you spend with Ameri-
cans? (ln dining ball. lounges, social events, in conversation after
dances, on dates, talking about the problems in your school work,
talking about politics. etc.)

a. 16 17 Most of the time

b. 13 14 More than half
C. 20 22' E; to 1;; time.
d. 36 39 Less than time'-

9. 7 8 None

ll.

yd

[w

b)

b)

Do you sometimes go to bars to have a drink?

‘53) 58 Yes 39 42 No

If yes, do you generally go:

a. l6 17 Mostly with Americans

b. 17 18 Equally with Americans and Indians
c. 17 18 Mostly with Indians

d. {32 3 Mostly with other foreign students

While in tht United States, have you been to church?
S61! 66 Yes S31! 34 NO

If yes, how often have you gone to church?

Very often

b. £32 3 OfLun

C. 19 21 Sometimes

U1

8. D

d. 34 37 Rarely

I";

4}

31

Part II
ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS AT THE RIGHT
1. Rank the following from 1 to 3 according to which you would prefer

doing. (1 being the most preferred)
a) Attending a foreign student party
b) American students social gathering
c) Indian students social gathering

If you had an opportunity to invite someone to visit your home in
India, would you prefer to invite someone from:

a) United States

b) Your own country

(‘2
v

Persons from another foreign country

If you were given an opportunity, would you choose to remain in the
United States after your studies or return to India?

a) Remain in the U.S.
b) Return to India
In doing the iollowing things, do you prefer to do them with fellow
Indians from yotr own state in India, Indians in general, other
foreign students, or Americans. Check your preference—~number in
order or preferchc from 1 to a (1 being the most preterred).
a) To study with:
3. Indian students from your own state
b. Indians in generil
c. Other foreign students
(1. American students
b) To spend your true time with:
a. Indian students from your own state
b. Indians in general
c. Other [oreign students

d. American students

C)

d)

8.

To discuss your problems with:
a. Indian students from your
b. Indians in general

C. Other foreign students

d. American students

For roommates:

3. Indian students from your
b. Indians in general

c. Other foreign students

d. American students
Dating:_

a. Indian students from your
b. Indians in general

c. Other foreign students

d. American students

PC

own state

own state

own state

Part 111

\l'

RESPONDENT'S PERSONAL BACKGROUND

(chewsk Line)

Where do you live?
a. Graduate residence hall (Owen Hail)
b. Apartment in town

c. Undergraduate dormitory

d. Room in a private home

University married housing

a.

a) DO you hi1VE‘ 8- r0011 Halttj? V93

0’

b) if you have a roommate, what is his nationaiity?

f

What is your agef
Sex: mull female

From vdihflfi SCJCL'IJI India (lbi you cuxne?

hfltit. is; yrulr Inotfliet‘ tauigin-T

n O

 

 

 

Other than your mother tongue, what other Indian languages can you

Spo‘flk?

 

 

 

Previous to your PFVSVUC residenc‘ as recorded shove,

I

places EMV: you ,Ei‘nw; in?

C

a. GIddUdLr rrsiuvncc haii (UWen dull)
i) . [\I);1IT[LJIL'IIL. iii i:\)\v7i

c. Undergraduatt dormitcu5'

(1. Room in priv51l'e home

L'. Lhiinuw4itp'rm1rrii d inwusilig

Other (spwtiLV)

*‘I

what other

10.

13.

34

Are you married? yus no

 

a. If you are married, are you married to an American ,
Indian , or othur fortign student ?

b. If you are married, is your husband or wifc in the U.S.
with you? yes no

What is your religion?
a. HilKhl

b. Muslim

C. Christian

d. Sikh

e. Jain

i. Other (specify)

 

If you wont to voilugu in lndia, what do rec did you obtain?

a) Did you work in India befort you came to the United States?
yes no

b) If you workod, what kind of ioh was it?

 

c) How long did you work on this job?

 

d) Did you work at this job in a city , big town ,
small town _, or village 7

,3.

e) If it is a ig city, write thv name of the city.

 

Toward which dvgree arr vou wrrking now?

a. BatflioitW"s (chi%:c

b. Master's d urvt

c. D0tstor'ss dtgzrvt-

d. Non-(MHWFCC :n‘iwram
n a

e. Other (specify)

What is your maior Iitid of study?

 

15.

16.

19.

20.

2i.

it)

How long have you been in the United States?

 

Have you ever visited the United States before this visit?
yes no

a. If yes, how many previous visits?

b. Previous to this visit, when was the last visit to the United
States?

 

c. How long did the last visit last?

 

3. Have you been in any other foreign countries for more than one
month? yes no

b. If ves, what are those countries?

.4

 

 

Do you have any difficulty in understanding or speaking English with
Americans? yes no

Do you find that Americans have difficulty in understanding your
Ehigl isii? yth {10

Indicate the size of the village, town or city in India from which
you came. (check one)

a. Under 5,000

b. 5,000—10.000

c. l0,000-£0,000

d. 20,000-50,000

c. 50,000-l00,000

f. 100,000—500,000

g. Over 500.000

What is your father's educational background?
a. Elementary school

b. Somtiliigh sclMMfil

c. High school certificati
d. Some. college

e. College graduate

f. University graduate

|’\.J
I“)

‘J
a

l»
v"

State the degrees obtained by your father.

 

What is "our father's occupation?

 

How much money does your father make a year? (check one)
a. Under 4,000 Rupcws
b. 4,000-8,000 Rupees
C. 8,(MM)~l0,ChM) Rupees
d. l0,000-l2,000 Rupees
c. lZ,OOO-lé,000 Rupees

i. OVer 14,000 Rupees

 

a. (\re you [Hfl’sentl3’ijnplUyLKlVfliilG attxuuiing Micfliigan SLUIQ‘
University? yes no

b. If yes, where do you work?

 

c. If employed by the UniVersity, are you a:
Teaching assistant
ReSearch assistant
Working on an hourly basis

OlleE (siucci (y)

MICHIGQN STQTE UNIV. LIBRQRIES

132 31 03547596