.___‘
-u------

V’lSlTlNG FOREIGN SCIENTISTS
IN THE UNITEB STATES!

THE IMPACT OF SYSTEMIC AND ROLE
CIRCUMSCREPUON AND DESSOCEATIVE
EXPERLENCES ON THE HOHOGENIETY OF THE
INTERM'FMML WHERE". COEKUNITY

Thests for “n 0:»th of pit. D.
MECHIGAN STATE UNIVERSHY
Christopher K. Vanderpool
1971

L.

I __ —.
t’i
(/4 5
£2

13, is? “a 1
MMMBM . K/ t. .5.”,m,. .,

3129301068124 LI}; {A R Y 2
Michigan State
““ University

 

        

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

Visiting Foreign Scientists in the United States:'
The Impact of Systemic and Role Circumscription
And Dissociative Experiences on the Homogeneity

0f the International Scientific Community.

presented by

Christopher K. Vanderpool

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

 

Ph.D. degreein Sociology

. . v ,
((76 AM/ Z / (327471 ; 2 ‘VJ

Major professor

Date January 26, 1971

 

0-7839

 

 

"—- -—~—4——-—r—-..-—". Ma

 

 

 

 

 

 

ti.)
“no: Y 2 . A
.55 bud rod

\vq own-Ar.

L‘J J‘Lbbx.

nv-L': "

Ho soc-J

' Au‘

6 V4591 :

“A'V'Vy-i L.
'U*--“.. y t

 

I ..
c.9251 a:

C‘JZSQV
of n4.
\r“
a
0. -2
ea

 

 

ABSTRACT

VISITING FOREIGN SCIENTISTS IN THE UNITED STATES:
THE IMPACT OF SYSTEMIC AND ROLE CIRCUMSCRIPTION
AND DISSOCIATIVE EXPERIENCES ON THE HOMOGENEITY
OF THE INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY

BY
Christopher K. Vanderpool

Prior studies in the sociology of science have
focused on the internal structure of the scientific
community and have only briefly touched upon the so-
cietal and transcultural dimensions of science. More-
over, these research endeavors have stressed that
science is essentially a homogeneous social structure
in which there is a uniformity of behavioral and atti-
tudinal patterns practiced by scientists throughout the
world. This dissertation, incontradistinction, attempts
to locate variations in the behavior and attitudes of
scientists. It examines: 1)the impact of systemic cir-
cumscription, as evidenced in the level of development
of educational and scientific institutions in a series
of nations, and role circumscription, as evidenced in
the types of work roles previously performed by scien-
tists, and 2)the exposure of scientists to dissociative
experiences, the movement of scientists from one social
system to another or their contact with the members of
an exogenous social system. These three are related to

the homogeneity of the international scientific community

Christopher K. Vanderpool

as evidenced in this sample of a population of foreign

scientists in one part of the United States.

Visiting foreign scientists in the United States
compose the population in this study. Using the C.I.C.
(Committee on Institutional Cooperation) universities*
as a site for the research, eighty-two interviews were
conducted using an open-ended interview schedule. A
questionnaire was constructed composed of fixed alter-
native questions and sent to scientists in several
universities in the Midwestern region. One hundred and
forty questionnaires were returned. The total N of the
study, then,is two hundred and twentyftwo. Because a
random sampling technique was not employed, Yule's Q,
contigency coefficients, and a comparison of percentage

differences are used in analyzing the results.

The data gathered indicate that systemic and role
circumscription are related to each other and to expo-
sure to dissociative experiences, societal social re-
sponsibility, to professional participation, and to
seeing differences between the social systems of work
in the United States and the home country. Their rela-
tionship to scientific social responsibility and non-
professional participation are, however, either incon-

clusive or weak. It is also shown that the greater the

 

* The C.I.C. universities are the Universities of Wisconsin,
Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Michigan, Chicago, Iowa, and
Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue, and Northwestern
universities.

““5 a

Unl- 'v

u...
U --..

 

 

Christopher K. Vanderpool

degree of role circumscription, the greater the degree

of exposure to dissociative experiences. This result
suggests that scientists from developing nations typically
go out of their home country to make themselves visible

to their colleagues abroad, to get information on current
developments in their fields, and to establish inter-
personal colleagial relationships with other scientists

in their field of work.

Scientists from developing nations and those scien-
tists who perform teaching, administrative, or consul-
ting roles in their countries of origin are more likely
to view the work situation in the United States as dif-
ferent from the social system of work in their home
countries than scientists from developed nations and
those who perform research, teaching-research, profes-
sional, or publication roles. As a consequence, the
former scientists have to redefine their roles and
social identities in the social system of work in the
united States. Such a role redefinition and a trans-
formation of social identities is less likely to occur

amongst the latter scientists.

Furthermore, scientists from developing nations
usually rank their home countries as a peripheral area
of scientificactivity in a ranking of nations in their
fields. Scientists from developed nations, on the other
hand, view their home countries as a center or leader

in their fields. Data are presented which indicate that

Biter‘ie
a unite
to 33:9

’ .‘t‘in

u 4...,

 

 

, 5

Christopher K. Vanderpool

those scientists from the periphery are more likely to
hold non-mainline positions (research assistant or as-
sociate) than mainline positions (instructor to full
professor) in the United States. The opposite is true
for scientists from developed nations in the centers
of their fields. Moreover, the scientists from devel—
oping nations are more likely to consider the systemic
linkage networks of exchanges of students, resources,
and information between their home countries and one
of the centers in their fields, the United States, as
being non-reciprocal than scientists from developed

nations who view these networks as reciprocal.

The results also show that exposure to dissociative
experiences fosters post-modernity, worldmindedness, and
a universalistic orientation to social interaction and,
to some degree, to future work location. But its effect
on third cultural network involvement and a universalis-
tic orientation to living location is mixed. Educational
and prior work experiences abroad are negatively corre—
lated with third cultural network involvement. Making
trips to foreign countries in the status of a profes-
sional scientists, however, stimulates such contact.
Exposure to dissociative experiences is related to a
particularistic, rather than universalistic, orientation
to living location. This finding suggests an evaluative
ability. By becoming aware of alternatives to their

society and culture, the majority of scientists make a

Christopher K. Vanderpool

preference for their home country or another country,

rather than having no preference.

Finally, the findings reveal that the majority
in this study share thte,same beliefs, perspectives and
orientations and behavs’in a similar fashion both in
and outside of the scientific community. This homogeneity
of responses give credence tdpthe idea of an interna-
tional scientific community, at least with regard to
these scientists. Science, therefore, is not a hetero—
geneous collectivity. Such a uniformity of behavior
and attitudes could only emerge out of a common social
structure and normative structure that transcends tradi-
tional societal and cultural differences. Science can

be considered, then, as a thirdfioulture.

«v‘

'1’:

.5.

I‘d

RY: nvcv -

05.4.!-

G

can-l ..\,,l

,s... "A‘
n. .-

 

VISITING FOREIGN SCIENTISTS IN THE UNITED STATES:
THE IMPACT OF SYSTEMIC AND ROLE
CIRCUMSCRIPTION AND DISSOCIATIVE EXPERIENCES ON
THE HOMOGENEITY OF THE INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC
COMMUNITY

By ‘_
Christopher Ki Vanderpool

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Sociology

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

A dissertation marks not only the culmination of
a research project which is hopefully a contribution
to an academic discipline, but also signifies the end
of a graduate education and the beginning of a pro-
fessional career. Several individuals have contributed
greatly to my fulfillment of these tasks: 1)the members
of my committee-_Professors William Form, Charles Loomis,
Frederick waisanen, and John Useem; 2)a silent member
of my committee-—Professor Ruth Hill Useem; 3)my col-
league and co-researcher——Sal P. Restivo; 4)several
fellow graduate students at Michigan State University--
Florence McCarthy, Arnold Holden, Susan Asch, Shelby
Stweman, Robert Shelly, Anne McMahon, and Michael
Loukinen; and 5)my wife and son--Lorraine and Aaron

Vanderpool.

William Form has been throughout my sociological
career a friend, a teacher, and a colleague. He a-
wakened in me and encouraged a strong appreciation of
the various facets of social structure and macro-
sociology and their ramifications on society and soc—
iology. In many ways, Professor Form is a "sociological
father" to a whole cohort of graduate students in soc-

iology and I hope he will be proud of his "sons and

ii

iii

daughters" achievements.

Charles Loomis first acquainted me with the con-
cept of systemic linkage and this dissertation re—
lies heavily on this important concept both explicitly
and implicitly. In several reading courses, Pro-
fessor Loomis allowed me to open up "Pandora's Box”
in sociological theory stimulating and encouraging
my interest in political sociology and classical and

contemporary’theory.

Frederick waisanen, as this dissertation in—
dicates, has had an important affect on my appreciation
of comparative sociology and social psychology. He
was always Willing to sit down with me to pound out
ideas and to criticize my fledgling knowledge of social
psycholOgy and social change. As a result of his
seminars, his colleagueship and friendship, Professor
Waisanen has been a "Dissociative experience" in my

graduate training.

John Useem, chairman of my doctoral committee,
has provided the guidance, understanding, and crit—
icism which is necessary in making a graduate ed-
ucation an intellectual and human experience. Always
encouraging a full exploration of a problem, a search
of the literature of sociology and allied areas of

inquiry, and a macroscopic analysis, Professor Useem

‘o
k|‘
(I)

AA?.:’\‘ ~

'---."JI

, .
Mun: no
. via .a

cw; Ivy-3n

{ION-1:7. n
- 1a ,

no“.
a a“ '1‘...
"'l l.‘_‘

3

, .

.r "...c, I
R‘.

“~p
i.::~”’a‘

CI)
5“
g. .1

 

 

 

l v

has stimulated what was once a dormant sociological
imagination. He was the first to acquaint me with the
areas of the sociology of science and comparative soc-
iology and the ways in which cross—societal and cultural
contact give rise to "third cultures." The untold

hours he has spent With me on this research project

and others have extended far beyond the usual teacher—

student relationship.

Professor RUth Hill Useem sat in on many of these
after hours seminars. Many of the points she raised
in these discussions have been incorporated in this
dissertation. Her criticisms and assistance have in

many ways made this research endeavor possible.

Sal P. Restivo has been my collaborator on this
study and a prior one. Through our many intellectual
battles and cooperative activities, we have established
a collegial and friendship relationship which will con-

tinue in our future professional careers.

My fellow graduate students at Michigan State
have also been a great assistance in the completion
of my doctorate education. Susan Asch and Florence
McCarthy tempered many of my crude ideas in the seminars
held at the home of the Useems. Arnold Holden ex-
plored with me the issues raised by Professor waisanen's

model of modernization and several times provided help

O
‘ A? N
y‘a'aiu.’
|1

me43964 [‘7
|

V‘Ahbufi vbv~
.

uvfi‘l A an.

VP‘ 5....
«AS .1"

A.~
"W “Va
U'Iye 5..“
”4 Va ,.
«ea;

 

v

in the statistical analysis. Michael Loukinen, Anne
McMahon, Robert Shelly and Shelby Stewman gave me soc—
ial and intellectual support throughout these last
five years.

I would like to also thank the National Science
Foundation, the National Institute of Mental Health
and the Hazen Foundation which has supported this
study financially. NSF provided a dissertation research
grant to cover expenses occured in the completion of
this research project. NIMH awarded a fellowship which
allowed me freedom from other tasks while completing
this study. The Hazen Foundation provided support for
many of secretarial expenses entailed in this report
and enabled comparative studies directly related to
this dissertation to be undertaken.

Finally, but not least, I am very grateful to my
wife and son for their understanding, patience and love.
Lorraine sacrificed much of her little spare time to
type and criticize numerous drafts of research proposals
and reports. We have traveled many social miles together
from the streets of the inner city of Chicago to our
current milieu. My family and I have found sustenance

and consciousness in this journey.

6 d
n§b

.iu

 

 

a. h. t

. i .1 9
M». ”H Rd u“

3 a.
I. a. a.
2. ‘II ad.
5. av Y...
13...;

Table of Contents
Page
Iii-St Of TableSOOOOOOOOO0.00.0.0....000.000...OViii
LiSt 0f FigureSOOOOOOOO0.00000000000000000.000 Xiv
Chapter 1: Explorations of the Sources of
Homogeneity and Heterogeneity in the
SCientiin community.oooooooooooooooooooooooo° 1
General Statement of the Problem......... 5
Specification of Variables............... 13
Dissociative Experiences................. 22
Additional Areas of Investigation........ 36
Research Design.......................... 39
Chapter 2: General Characteristics of the
Respondents and The Impact of Systemic and
Role Circumscription on Dissociative
EXPerienceS.OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.00.0...0.0.0o 51
Systemic Circumscription................. 52
Role Circumscription..................... 54

Dissociative Experiences................. 57

Systemic Circumscription and Role Cir-
cumscription vs. Dissociative Experiences. 67

Additional Characteristics and Background
Of the Respondents.0.0000000000000000.COOC 7""

Chapter 3: Center and Periphery in Science..... 89

Chapter A: Homogeneity and Heterogeneity in
the SCientifiC communitYooooooooooooooooooooooo109

Third Cultural Networks...................110
Post-Modern Orientation...................118

Universalistic Orientations to Work,
Social Interaction, and Living Location...124

vi

a. I
’V“
DJV-
" Q
WV"
A. J.
n
v2“.
0 "o i
q. .
rO“," ”
J. bye. ~
- . Q
I " T
uév'Eean U
Q u R
v“p’3 \'
UMAUVJ “i

 

 

vii

worldmindedneSSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.132
Social and Scientific Responsibility.....138

Professional and Non-professional
PartiCipationcoOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0011+?

Chapter 4: Further Exploration: Differences

Between Social Systems of Work in the

United States and the Home Country............153
Differences Between Students.............155
Differences in Authority Relations.......168

Differences Between Colleagues...........174

Differences in the Types of Work Roles
PerformedOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.o184

Further Exploration in Differences
Between Social Systems of Work...........196

Chapter 5: Summary of Results and Conclusions.203
Systemic and Role Circumscription........205

Dissociative Experiences.................214
Homogeneity in Science...................217

Appendix A: Interview Schedule and Questions

naireOOOOOOOCCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO220

Appendix B: Supplementary Tables..............274

Bibliography.ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo277

 

 

 

{rm :1. M» N... M“ Nu. m... “a. MC Av u a. n... .w.|n .I... . . .. .IN. . I . .
L .m; 1” .nv. Cu u: S.«J I. 3“ s D“ D” Ah 0-. .r. C C C s .I U,
in" lo 2 3 I“ 5 5 71
ms”
0
Q
.
.
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
o .
. .
. .
. . .
. . .
. C U
. .
. . .
0 I I \
a O Q 9 \.
. . . . . .
. . . u o s u
- - . . . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . 5 .

C. Wu Dual.

Pu t FOIL;

,r.

Table

10
11

viii

List of Tables

Initial Sampling Design: Level of
Development and Type of Science at
Three Midwestern Universities...........

Characteristics of Respondents: Type of
Science and Level of Development of the
Home CountryOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Systemic Circumscription: Level of
Development Of NationSooooooooooooooooco

Percentage Distribution of Degree of
Role Circumscription: Rank Order of

the Performance of Scientific Work

Roles in the Home Country...............

Role Circumscription in the Home
Country: Contigency Coefficient

Analysis of Rank Orders of the Per-
formance of Scientific Work Boles.......

Percentage Distribution and Correlation
of the Degree of Role Circumscription
of the Respondents in their Country of
Origin by their Degree of Systemic Cir-
scriptionOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0I...

Percentage Distribution of Level of
Exposure to Varying Types of Disso-
ciative Experiences.....................

Correlational Matrix of Systemic and
Role Circumscription and Dissociative
ExperienceSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Correlations Between Role Circumscrip-
tion and Dissociative Experiences:
Controlling for Systemic Circumscrip-

tionOO0.0.000...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Age Distribution of the Respondents.....

Percentage Distribution of Years in
Which the Doctorate was Received by
the Respondents.OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Page

42

47

52

54

55

56

62

65

69
71+

75

""""""""

.....

‘ | ' I o a

""""

33333

ooooo

Q A u I . ' .

I Q 1 fl . ,

Title

.4
\J‘

p _A
(—1.)

19

23

Ix)
*J

 

yer.
orffini
:“‘¢“
ne-
den.s.

 

O

 

Table
12

13

in

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

ix

Page
Percentage Distribution of Length of
Years Between Bachelor's Degree and
the Highest Degree Received by the
Respondents............................. 77

Systemic Circumscription and the Level

of Development of the Country in Which

the Bachelor's Degree was Received by

the RespondentSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0. 78

Systemic Circumscription and the Level

of Development of the Country in Which

the Master's Degree was Received by

the Respondents......................... 80

Systemic Circumscription and the Level

of Development of the Country in Which

the Doctorate was Received by the Re—
spondentSOOOO.0.0.0.0....OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 8O

Occupations of the Fathers, Mothers,

and Spouses of the Respondents in

Science and Other Academic Fields and

in Non-Scientific and Non-Academic
Occupations............................. 85

Percentage Distribution of the Type of
Organizations Which Employed the Respon-

dents.OOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 86

Systemic and Role Circumscription and
Perceived Position of the Home Country

in Relationship to the Leading Coun-

tries in the Respondents' Fields........ 92

Systemic and Role Circumscription and
Perceived Future Mobility of the Home
Country in Relationship to the Leading
Countries in the Respondents' Fields.... 94

Systemic and Role Circumscription and

the Position of the Respondents in the
Social System of Work in the United

States: Mainline vs. Non—Mainline Po-
SitionSOOOOOOOOO0.0000000000000000000.00 98

Systemic and Role Circumscription and

the Type of the Type of Exchanges Be—

tween the United States and the Home
Countries of the Respondents: Recipro-

cal and Non-Reciprocal Exchanges........ 103

o o o , o i l 1 o I c u n a o o

o u 0 i i C O I o O I o O I
o v 5 a s O O D I o o 9 o g 0 o
O O

Q I O O O O O O C O I ‘ Q I 't O D I I O O O 0 O U 0 O O 0 Q O O

O O O O 0

oust-vov-QOOOOOIOOOOOCO.

27

30

K» ’
r:

scoriefi
f‘ fin
.orre-s
ces to

V “'A?‘"
I‘eUnVA .’.

Eercent
tire C r
Post-E:

H v.4

b. I‘L

 

 

Table
22

23

2A

25

26

27

28

29
30
31

32

33

3%

Percentage Distribution of Involvement
in Third Cultural Networks by the Re—
spondentSOOOOOOOO0.0.0.0....000.00.00.00

Correlations of Dissociative Experien-
ces to Involvement in Third Cultural

Networks..0...OOOOOOOOOOOOCOCOOOOOOOOO.O

Percentage Distribution of Type of Fu—
ture Orientation of the Respondents:
Post-Modern and Non-Post-Modern Orien-

tationSooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Dissociative Experiences vs. Indices of
Post-Modern Orientation.................

Percentage Distribution of Respondents'
Type of Orientation to Work, Social In—
teraction, and Living Location: Univer-
salism and Particularism................

Dissociative Experiences vs. Universa—
listic Orientation to Work, Social In-
teraction, and Living Location..........

Percentage Distribution of the Variables
Affecting the Choice of a Work Location
and Their Level of Importance...........

Percentage Distribution of World View
Change: EffeCtooooooooooooooooooooooocoo

Percentage Distribution of World View
Change: Referent........................

Percentage Distribution of World View
Change: DireCtionOOOOOOOOOOOO00.00.00...

Dissociative Experiences vs. Worldmind—
edness: World View Change Effect, Re-
ferent, and DireCtionooooooooooooooooooo

Percentage Distribution of the Indices
of Social Responsibility at the Socie-
tal Level and Type of Responsibility....

Percentage Distribution of Social Re-
sponsibility at the Scientific Level:
Obligation to Next Generation of Scien-

tiStSOOOOOOOO...0.0.0000...OOOOOOOOOOOOO

Page

113

114

121

122

126

126

131

136

136

136

138

140

142

v s 9 v u I - - . > o I . . JGUL'J.- ‘

 

Ee"ce:t

A

\g.)
\)\

... .. ... .. ... .. snonsit
Level
bless r
of Res.

.7 -\
33 :erce:*
0 3‘
0‘ N 0rd

SFSte:

 

39 Percer
Profs:
Atten:
tior

 

 

‘__.
(-J
.‘f’
m‘
f.
D
I

‘41 3..

l
‘ I I 9 t O O t I of

coca... 42 S‘J‘.

“3 Svs

 

xi

Table Page

35 Percentage Distribution of Social Re-
sponsibility at the Scientific Level:
National and International Obligation
To Next Generation of Scientists........ 142

36 Percentage Distribution of Social Re-
sponsibility at the Scientific Level:
Level of Importance of Scientific Pro—
blems as a Factor in Influencing Choice
Of ResearCh TOPICSoooooooooooooooooooooo 1&3

37 Systemic and Role Circumscription vs.
Societal and Scientific Social Respon—
81bility0000000000.0.0.0....00......O... 141+

38 Percentage Distribution and Correlations
of Non-Professional Participation to
Systemic and Role Circumscription....... 149

39 Percentage Distribution of Level of
Professional Participation Indices:
Attendance at Meetings, Book Publica-
tion, Paper Publication................. 150

40 Systemic Circumscription vs. Profession-
al PartiCipationoooooooooooooooooooooooo 151

41 Systemic and Role Circumscription and
Differences Between the Social Systems
of Work in the Home Country and the
united States: Differences in Students.. 156

42 Systemic and Role Circumscription and
Differences Between American and Home
Country Students: Differences Based on
Collegial Professor-Student Relation—

ShipSOO00......OOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOO 158

43 Systemic and Role Circumscription and
Differences Between American and Home
Country Students: Differences Based on
Breadth of Knowledge of Field of Stu-

dentSOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0000......O 159

44 Systemic and Role Circumscription and
Differences Between American and Home
Country Students: Differences Based on
Work Habits of Students................. 160

tttttt

. ...............
e
U I Q..- oooooo
I no
0-1 s v Q
S 39‘ .......
Ol‘ 9'

.....

ooooo

(§.\

47

\J“
(‘5

N

53

Svsteri
the Per
the So:

“nuv‘”fil
Jul-Lo U. "

ences i
Author:

tion...

(f C) U)

:_3' H"‘3

(b ' ‘a m

"*J ( o—

,: (D (D

24 ‘1 E l
A A a?\ b

535’
:i
(‘D t
(b

 

 

 

Table
45

46

47

48

49

5O

51

52

53

54

xii

Systemic and Role Circumscription and
the Perception of Differences Between
the Social Systems of Work in the Home
Country and the United States: Differ-
ences in Relations with Persons in

Authority Positions in the Work Situa—

tionOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...

Systemic and Role Circumscription and
Differences of Authority Relations in
the United States and the Home Country:
Degree of Collegiality of Relationships
with Persons in Authority Positions in
the work SituationOOOOOOO000.00.00.00...

Percentage Distribution of Type of
Agreement with Selected Differences of
American and Home Country Colleagues....

Correlations Between Systemic and Role
Circumscription and Selected Differences
of American and Home Country Colleagues.

Systemic and Role Circumscription and
Type of Work Role Which is Central to
the Scientists' Fields in the Home

countryOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOC0.0000000000000.

Systemic and Role Circumscription and
Type of Work Role Which is Central to
the Scientists' Fields in the United

StateSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOO

Systemic and Role Circumscription and
Type of Work Role Performed in the Uni-
ted StateSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Role Circumscription and Presence or

Absence of Changes in the Type of Work
Roles Performed in the United States as
Compared to Those Performed in the Home

countrYOOOOOOO0.0.0.000....00....0......

Percentage Distribution of Types of
Differences in Work Involvement in the
United States as Compared to the Home
Country and the Acknowledgement of Dif-
ferences in Work Involvement............

Systemic and Role Circumscription and
Differences in Work Involvement in the
United States as Compared to the Home

Page

169

171

178

180

185

186

188

189

192

CountryOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.00.0.0.0...0..COO193-“

e

”M

.mu.

9...

(K
H

Ccrre

ES

5

b

Sta

C
u

of Dis

 

1

Table
55

xiii

Correlations of Differences Between
Social Systems of Work in the United
States and theHome Country and Type

of Dissociative Experience: Differen-
ces Between Students and in Relations
with Persons in Authority Positions.....

Appendix B
Number of Non-Respondents to the
Questionnaire: Type of Science and
InstitutionOOOOOOOOOOOOOO000.000.00.00O.

Percentage Distribution of Respondents
by Their Country of Origin..............

Page

198

275

276

xiv

List of Figures
Figure Page
1 The Points of Reference and Foci

of the Normative Structure of
SCienceOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0000...O. 7

Exploration

Ml :p‘pup

0")
‘un “v «V. v L v

 

 

 

Chapter 1

Explorations of the Sources Homogeneity
and Hetereogeneity in the Scientific Community

social ins ti

3 5..
vevfien scio

3: a SOCietV'r

 

 

One of the present general goals of in-
vestigations in the area of the sociology of
science is the development of concepts, pro-
positions, and models sufficiently abstract to
permit the comparison of different cultures and
societies in terms of an analysis of their social
institutions (De Gre, 1955: 6). This process of
conceptualization and model-building must, how-
ever, remain sufficiently concrete to enable an
exploration of the historical and ecological
dimensions of the emergence of science as a
social institution and of the systemic linkages
between science and the other social institutions
of a society. Since science is by nature inter-
national (Einstein, 1950; Gilpin, 1968; Parthasarathi,
1967), research and theorizing in the sociology of
science provides an adequate context for analyzing
the normative and behavioral patterns which emerge
in the process of scientists interacting with one
another across national, societal,and cultural
boundaries (Useem and Useem, 1968). Hence,the
study of the institution of science and its members
can yield information about such general social phe-
nomena as the process of institutionalization and
institution-building in varying societal settings,
the growth of a rational ethos throughout the world,

and the structure and development of international

|
33:2'inities .

£11 in exploré
the interrela‘.
the values an:

a variety of 2

”Isis iie:
have-var, has 2
research lite:
inquiry has p:
ture of the s
tented upon
3.’ science.

t. .
he: rigorous

 

3

communities. Substantively such studies can also be use—
ful in explorations of the structure of science,

the interrelationship of science and society, and

the values and activities shared by scientists from

a variety of societies and cultures.

This ideal goal of the sociOlogy of science,
however, has not been accomplished. Theoretical enui
research literature in this area of sociological
inquiry has primarily focused on the internal struc-
ture of the scientific community and has only briefly
touched upon the societal and transcultural dimensions
of science. The "autonomous” normative structure has
been rigorously defined, elaborated upon, and reform-
ulated in light of existing social theory and re-
search by Merton (1938 and 1957), Parsons (1951),
Barber (1952) and Storer (1966). But the delimitation
of the systemic linkages between science and society
and the effects of these relations on the structure
of the scientific institution, its members, and socie-

ties have not been theoretically or substantively

articulated in a comparative perspective.

Studies in the united States on the effect of
scientific breakthroughs on society (Price, 1963)
and the accommodation of scientists to industrial
and governmental bureaucracies (Corwin, 1966;
Kornhauser, 1962; Pelz and Andrews, 1967; Strauss

and Rainwater, 1962 ) have been the primary research

*‘rms which 1A

paw—V

9 O

»:"H .
u suglb‘on’ \
.: :&
mantles or.

.. I ' .
:csmies hav»

C"DI'\ *n
’9‘va rr;a

\L‘ )

X‘yg‘{on 1
‘1

.5. a
v‘ U.

 

the aiiustmer.

&
.he sciences '

,
3:1 &

 

{fists ‘11 ts.
fists. 2:
aftttif 0 c6
thigfie‘SOCial
13‘3‘3 ypof‘the
11M esp/Casi
SHEA 3‘1 be‘
We}: not or

4

themes which have touched upon this domain of inquiry.
In addition, the impact of governmental policies and
priorities on science in the United States and other
countries have been explored extensively by Dupree
(1957), Brooks (1968), Price (1967) and Shils (1968).
There also have been studies of scientific manpower
in other nations and the migration of scientists
from peripheral sectors of the international scien-
tific community to the centers of the scientific
enterprise (Beijer, 1969; Committee on International
Migration, 1970; Harbison and Myers, 1964). Finally,
the adjustment of foreign students and scholars in
the sciences to theitest and back home and to idea
systems generated in thetiest has been extensively
explored by Useem and Useem (1955), Kroche (1958)
and Swisher (1958). But the values, behavior, and
roles which link them to segments of their society
and to a series of international communities have

yet to be sociologically studied.1

This study of visiting foreign scientists in
the united States attempts to partially fill this

 

1 Hagstrom's study of the values and roles of 76 scien-
tists did touch upon this area in an examination of
the extent and operation of social control within the
scientific community (1965). However, his analysis

of the social influences in the scientific community
which produce conformity to scientific values and
norms emphasizes the internal dimensions of the be-
liefs and behavior of scientists. This study is con-
cérned not only with this aspect of the social life of
scientists, but also with cognitive and behavioral di-
mensions of scientific behavior in areas external to
science.

vaii 1‘? f 09115:
*‘cenonena: 1)*
Lists of thei!
4.- to‘reip natit
world communi‘
ceriences in
both here in
or these expe
Tithe signifi
of new social
tions. This

' :
szrlrsboard .

 

 

positions wh;

behavior and

 

CCitexts.
Zeneral Stat-

        
  
 

S-d theoriz 1;.

31:1 gilded t‘
EUROSEHEO‘QS

O
O

1

~ On tWoi

 

 

5

void by focusing its attention on three interrelated
phenomena: 1)the perspectives shared by foreign scien—
tists of their function in segments of their society,
in their national scientific communities and in the
world community of scientists; 2)their actual ex-
periences in the performance of scientific work roles
both here in the united States and abroad and the impact
of these experiences on their values and behavior; and
3)the significance of their participation in the creation
of new social patterns in developed and developing na-
tions. This investigation will hopefully provide a
springboard for the development of concepts and pro-
positions which will allow future comparisons of the
behavior and values of scientists in varying societal
contexts.
General Statement of the Problem. Current research
and theorizing in the sociology of science is stimulated
and guided by an underlying proposition: science, con-
sidered as an institution, estate, or community is
homogeneous in nature. Homogeneity is seen as exist-
ing on two interdependent levels, structural and norm-
ative.

Structural uniformity in science can be char-
acterized as a set of patterns of interaction, roles
and status positions centrally organized about the

maintenance, transmission, extension, or application

settings: 1)..
satians ulcer
sional organ'
fornals, ass
tenational c
le-ige is sitar
zetworks of s
tific fields

where, as in

irrational .
DCience Fonti
HYDRA \
h-Qvo, etc.’
{,2
“it‘d t0 fu:
tfiadvisorv g
'0‘!!-
‘ W“H.011 to
EC“: i. ..
(4.034). m1

of 30'“ +
”194';

 

0‘2: :
.3‘I‘iza I

t1012;

\I

 

6

of knowledge (Storer, 1966: 17; 75). This social
syste: manifests itself primarily in the following
settings: 1)workshops, laboratories, and field
stations where knowledge is produced; 2)profes-
sional organizations and their various organs (e.g.,
journals, associational meetings, committees, in-
ternational conferences, etc.) through which know-
ledge is shared, exchanged, and evaluated; 3)small
networks of scientists in subdisciplines of scien-
tific fields (e.g., ring theorists in mathematics)
where, as in professional organizations, knowledge
is transmitted and evaluated; 4)national and in-
ternational governmental agencies (e.g., National
Science Foundation, National Institute of Health,
UNESCO, etc.) from whibh financial support for the
creation and application of knowledge is dissem—
inated to future generations of knowledge creators;
6)advisory groups which provide scientific in-
formation to decision makers in the political,
economic, military and numerous other social sectors
of society; and 7)universities, industries and other
organizations where men perform research tasks as

well as other activities.

 

2Social system can be defined as the patterned in-
teraction of social actors "...whose relations to
each other are mutually oriented through the defini-
tion and mediation of a pattern of structured and
shzred symbols and expectations." (Loomis and Loomis,
19 5: 2 .

We f’mCtiO-ei

yank

' 1 'r’;
"a ro.e be. a

teractional r
'=.1‘ r I Q '
vivaceo-AAOJS

svsten of “or

AA

0' a. I
:r.a.e besavi

I

e‘ A‘\

ENS 0*

.13“! o ‘
. a. .

 

 

 

 

In each of these loci of activities relevant to
the functioning of science as an ongoing social process,
the role behavior of scientists in a series of in-
teractional networks and statuses is governed by the
”autonomous" normative structure of science. This
system of norms delimits the boundaries of appro-
priate behavior with regard to knowledge cultivation
(Merton, 1965: 113-114). Moreover, these norms speci-

fy the proper orientation and action of scientists
to the body of scientific knowledge, interaction
patterns among scientists, and their personal pys-
chological state (see Figure 1). If deviations from
these norms occur, the integrity of science's native
commodity, objective information, is endangered

(Storer, 1966: 39). According to this perspective,

Figure 1: The Points of Reference and
Foci of the Normative Structure
of Science*

Point of Reference:

The Body of Interaction The Scientists

 

 

 

Focus of Scientific Among Psychological

Norm: Knowledge Scientists State

Orient- -- Organized EmotionaIIi

ation Objectivity Scepticism Neutrality

Action General- Disinterest-
ization Communality edness

 

 

 

 

*Storer, 1966: 81.

scientists mus
are exte..sive
prise is (lest:
science :anif.
tists to a se
the. in the s
0H

t I
....S COR. 3PT.

SFStei of sci

Several
i“): assume”.

1:5319V‘Ae.

V0. V

A

{1:1 to the E

(D
d
(D
3
—

‘i .
"2;.

5 $07310.
14,. *
“‘~.{

 

 

8

scientists must conform to these norms, for if there
are extensive violations of them the scientific enter-
prise is destroyed. Thus, normative homogeneity of
science manifests itself in the conformity of scien-
tists to a set of norms controlling their participa—
tion in the scientific community and, in response to
this conformity, specifying the nature of the social

system of science.

Several disturbing consequences have followed
'from assuming structural and normative homogeneity

in science. First, relatively little attention is

paid to the external linkages of science and an over-
emphasis is placed on the internal structure of science.
Analyses of the systemic linkages of science to other
sectors of society have focused on those interrelation-
ships which contribute to the maintenance of science

as an ”autonomous” social structure. Policy studies

by sociologists, political scientists and others have
examined the resource linkages between science and
government, specifying what impact, if any, these
relations will have on the interacting parties. Some
strides in explicating these reciprocal effects have
been made by Shils (1968), Brooks (1968), Price (1967),
Greenberg (1967), and others. Their efforts, how-
ever, for the most part have been speculative, sensi-
tizing sociologists to the types of variations systemic

linkages may produce in science, without verifying these

5 mi"
Effec-IS e2.” “

iii values he
If variations

licensiois of

ative system
these norms e
eie on sole:

of scientist

In the
of conical:
lire under
research (3.;
the strivinr

‘

'93 0f scier.l

. )

yPONOti:

1’
fat
‘ 2.0

O
.orces sole

‘i
“‘1 the mom:

<

C
(D
’1
c+
:J‘

(D

H-

. ,3

‘ —-—- — __

 

 

effects empirically.

Secondly, the behavioral patterns enacted by
scientists within and outside of the scientific com-
munity, their function in varying societal contexts,
and values held by them are assumed to be similar.

If variations in the behavioral and attitudinal
dimensions of scientists do occur, these variations
are seen as a result of nonconformity to the norm—
ative system of science. Pressures to deviate from
these norms arise from either the contradictory demands
made on scientists by these norms or the accommodation

of scientists to extra—scientific organizations.

In the case of the former, for example, the norm
of communality specifies that scientists must freely
share under all circumstances the results of their
research (Glass, 1965: 97-8; Storer, 1966: 79). Yet
the striving for recognition given by the reward sys-
tem of science in terms of honors, scholarly prizes,
and promotion in Western based institutions often
forces scientists to be secretive of their work un—
til the moment of publication. These scientists may
cover their research in a cloak of secrecy to prevent
other scientists from "scooping" the results of their
experiments and reaping the scientific rewards to
which they are entitled (Merton, 1965; Reif, 1965:
142; Vanderpool, 1966: 23).

”he latt
soiatior.‘ of
12331023 (9.:
eateries) is
$1325 in $01»?
which s‘Mss

JOV

tists clash in

b‘k'eaucratic

hon t5

33332:,ojat i”

U .

5°V93'Tzenta1
:75 Moe 53‘
ticiQa-tion 1..
“Essening If

33
a ppMESS

31*:1 a
\- v‘ rd
A. SF

v'

 

 

 

haw

‘4 1933 ICC!

Po»
‘ exam
. .le,
18:».
"I has t'rv

C

. 13115 try

 

10

The latter case of the "conflict and accom-
modation" of scientists to extra—scientific organ—
izations (e.g., industrial and governmental lab—
oratories) is the most documented source of varia-
tions in scientific behavior. The norms of science
which stress the creativity, and autonomy of scien—
tists clash with the goals of product-oriented organ—
izations (Glaser, 1963; Kornhauser, 1962; Marcson,
1960; Pelz and Andrews, 1967). To reduce these
strains, organizational management has introduced
a set of practices, such as cooptation and the as—
signment of scientists to administrative positions,
which have "professionalized" the developmental and

bureaucratic tasks performed by scientists.

From the perspective of this study, however, the
accommodations scientists have made to industrial and
governmental research enterprises are more important.
The price scientists have had to pay for their par-
ticipation in these organizations in general has been
a lessening of their identification with a discipline
as a profession and a strengthening of their psycholo-
gical and social ties to organizational roles. They
have, in the words of Glaser, become more “localite'
and less "cosmopolitan" in orientation (1963: 259).
For example, of all the scientific disciplines, chem-
istry has the longest history of research employment
by industry and labor. The result of this heritage

of exposure t‘

h

o: :heais ts

chezists DC"

'...in their

chezistr'y arr?
sional recosr
by the: is b:
oragency, 8
salaries, in;

351-“ -~ I
“as Partit

 

11

of exposure to developmental research organizations

on chemists has been a shifting of their reference
groups. Rather than identifying solely with pro—
fessional chemical organizations and chemists,

chemists now identify with industry and government
'...in their most professionalized moments" (Strauss

and Rainwater, 1962: 171). No longer do chemists

see their prestige as resting entirely on their
contributions to the knowledge of the discipline of
chemistry and the rewards for their work as profes-
sional recognition. The recognition most appreciated
by them is based on their contribution to the company
or agency, a contribution which is rewarded by better
salaries, improved working conditions and more decision-
making participation in the organization. These changes
of professional priorities by some chemists violate

the norms of emotional neutrality and disinterestedness
and have usurped the reward system of science. Adap-
tation to organizational milieu is not limited to chem-
istry, varying kinds of accommodations have been made

by other disciplines.

In summary, the literature of the sociology of
science has proposed that science is structurally and
normatively homogeneous. Rather than viewing homo-
geneity as a problem, sociologists of science have
assumed it to be universal. As a result scant at-

tention is paid to the internal and external sources

of heterogene
tific cams:
immensity 1

prophecy in t

1910;}? of sci

The ass;
0? cience is
ieavor. Its
heterazeneoug
9333‘acterizei
0: similapii.
‘i°‘
V ~1le and th‘
in M 0
"‘35.! 0. 501
V.
we nature a,
3'2‘e 01' SCier
0f scientist.

hi m-
Uvévodce’ the

 

ii.
9‘ “
vi. fical e‘
4 T‘ H
slut,

12

of heterogeneity and/or homogeneity in the scien—
tific community. In short, structural and normative
homogeneity in science has become a self—fulfilling
prophecy in the research and theorizing in the soc-

iology of science.

The assumed structural and normative homogeneity
of science is the focal point of this research en—
deavor. Its main thesis proposes that science is a
heterogeneous rather than a homogeneous collectivity
characterized by varyinggsets of rolesi_statuses,_and
networks;gand its members maintain divergent patterns
of values and lifestyles. Given the overemphasis placed
on similarities in the behavior and attitudes of scien-
tists and their sources in the literature of the soc-
iology of science, this study will attempt to delimit
the nature and sources of dissimilarities in the struc-
ture of science and the behavioral and value patterns
of scientists. By stressing the variant aspects of
science, the areas of homogeneity or heterogeneity
in science will be demarcated. In so doing, the out-
come of this exploration in the area of the sociology
of science will be the specification of some of the
parameters of the international scientific community.
In short, this dissertation will hopefully answer
the following fundamental questions: is there any
empirical evidence of an international scientific

community as manifested in the selected population

iii, if so, is

eative, and ':

Strecificatior.
.___.___.
the degree of
its: a cost":
azine the fol

n3 LS L .
S a“ Us.

Vt‘vcb‘d-

‘ v
R ‘1'” .m

"I'E‘ *‘d, E
(Viv-rt"

Bud...“ ?, e-i‘ {j

0 .
3. SClentistJ

T“!e
- com“ 3;

 

13

and, if so, what are some of its structural, nor-

mative, and behavioral components?

§pecification of Variables. In an attempt to specify
the degree of homogeneity or heterogeneity in science
from a comparative perspective, this study will ex—
amine the folloWing dimensions of the behavior of
scientists: 1)similarities and dissimilarities in
background, e.g., level of development of the home
country, educational history, type of marriage, etc.;
2)variations in cross-cultural and societal ex-
periences, e.g., the nature and types of extra-
systemic contacts of scientists; 3)divergent or
convergent patterns in the performance of scientific
work roles and social roles, e.g., the social functions
of scientists with regard to social change in their
home country; and #)similarities and dissimilarities
in the scientific and social values held by these
foreign scientists, e.g., conformity to the norms

of science, attitudes toward social change, etc.

Two major sources of variations in these behavioral
and attitudinal dimensions will form the crucial
variables of this study. The first, the level of
development of a scientists country of origin, is

the major independent variable of this exploration.
The second source, the type of work role performed

by scientists, is the major intervening variable.

.1? 1 b
the lug
the be‘navmr
:ggests the".

for? nee of s

 

of lvouleige ,I
In the majoril

the energetics-

der the isms-cj

 

a” ,-
aya“. t‘fin ~.
A.V ‘1
Mr
‘I
he a

14

The literature on the structure of science and
the behavior of scientists in developing countries
suggests that there are major differences in the per—
formance of science's central task, the cultivation
of knowledge, in developing and developed countries.
In the majority of developing and non-Western countries,
the emergence of science as an institution occurs un-
der the impact of either a colonial experience, as in
the case of Latin American and sub-Saharan nations,
or from extensive non-colonial contact with Western
civilizations, as in the case of Japan. Only in
India, China, and a few of the Middle Eastern countries
was science an indigeneous, early development (Needham,
19h9). However, modern science in even these instances
stem predominantly from sources other than their his-

torical legacy.

In all of these societies, with the exception of
Japan, the growth of science has not coincided with
the development of their industrial and political sec-
tors. Science as it exists in developed nations has
been grafted into societies which do not have the com—
parable supportive institutions manifest in the dev-
eloped nations. As a result, the scientific enter-
prise in developing areas does not function at the
level it does in developed nations. Moreover, a
high proportion of scientists in many developing

countries have received their major professional

socializatiOT-
their 23‘3th
internship.
timing to er
:repared to p
'rei to confrc
szienee in ti
develapin" hi
with other i:

mine in a rt:

 

2.12,“.
s“. lv
a“ 3
0"; or
as

15

socialization to science in the developed world during
their graduate training and/or their post-doctbrate
internship. Expecting to begin performing or con-
tinuing to enact the roles in science they have been
prepared to play or have played, most scientists have
had to confront the low level of development of the
science in their home country. In short, science in
developing nations does not interact interdependently
with other institutional sectors of society, but re—
mains in a marginal and oftentimes unstable position.
Even though science is recognized by the leaders and
representatives of these countries as important for
the furtherance of modernization, science remains
relatively impoverished in comparison with science

in developed nations (de Solla Price, 1963: 101;
Dedijer, 1962: 783; Institute of Political and Social
Studies, 1967: 399-h00; united Nations, 1963a: 5 and
28; United Nations, 1963b: 17 and 31).

The general malaise of science in the developing
world has been characterized by a lower rate of devel-
opment of science in terms of the amount of resources
given to science in the forms of facilities, financial
support, and integration into the general developmental
planning of the nation, the number of scientists avail—
able to support research activities, and viable organ-
izations representing the scientific enterprise (Merton,

1965: #96). Moreover, the economic environment of

which conflic
suence. Sci
5‘ A
.re upper uni

getnerec r. t

jaws-49H- a:

urea...” L-
v.12: is char
lateratorieg

15:13:25 or i'

5'73"“ 0? a‘

it.

|
|A§l
:' n
U. ’u :"

.‘JJ‘e av

CM'
av
ivfiv..ce fro”

Sigma)?“
.1 .1c n
8‘:

 

 

16

resource scarcity and limited job opportunities

have generated behavioral patterns among scientists
which conflict with the normative structure of
science. Scientists from developing nations lack
the opportunity to share the information they have
gathered in their research. If they express in-
dependent opinions in a hierarchical work situation
which is characteristic of work relationships in
laboratories and universities in some developing
nations or in an authoritarian society, they pos—
sibly encounter difficulties in their future scien—
tific work. Such a work situation, fosters the
growth of alliances based on sponsorship or nepotism
rather than purely individual achievement in science
(Sinha, 1970; 178-9). In these "pre—research" so—
cieties, then, the demands for scientific output,
both pure and applied, are high yet the inputs to
science from society are modest (Dedijer, 1962: 787).

Beyond their struggle to build the scientific
enterprise without substantial societal support,
scientists in developing nations may find that
scientific research is hampered by the traditional
system of values and networks of social relation-
ships (Dedijer, 1962: 787; Sinha, 1970: 210). Auton-
omy in the selection of problems and techniques is

sometimes restricted by definitions of what is sacred

azi beyoni
lack of irate:
traiitioral s
finesse in t‘r.

tne abs»:

,
1 4

‘w’ithout
“3311., laCkiYif
‘in'fi
“lived emc
ation for me.

am ' ‘
Slerlt)' an:

deems 2‘0
‘1
.39» .

H

 

17

and beyond human understanding. In addition, the
lack of integration into the social networks of
traditional society where most of the social in—
fluence in these societies is embedded, combined
with the absence of an effective delivery system
for these groups, fail to provide scientists the
leverage needed to have much of an impact among

these groupings.

Without material and social support for their
work, lacking freedom in problem selection, and with
limited employment opportunities, the main consider-
ation for many of these scientistsene basic economic
security and the search for prestige or status. Such
security, prestige, and statusare sought by obtaining
work in other sectors of the society, e.g., govern—
mental laboratories, civil bureaucracies, state-
controlled institutions of higher education, etc.

The type of positions open to scientists in these
sectors are usually limited to administrative and/or
teaching roles. Basic and even applied research often
is subordinated to the other roles because relatively
little support is given for research and there is rel-
atively little utilization of results. The desire

for social change by developing nations leads them

to reward those work roles which have immediate sig—
nificance for development and modernization of the

other institutional sectors. For example, in Latin

I
9‘

f'et‘ican .2111.

iozirent wore:

L. e' 0
‘tfiaUlon ‘

‘ V

scientists i*
13': only resc

&
to perform t:

if new 19,9le

 

18

American universities, teaching becomes the pre-
dominant work role and research is shelved for the
duration of the scientists professional career
(Ribeiro, 1967: 3H9, 365). In short, in their
search for job security and status, many of the
scientists in developing nations have sacrificed
not only research autonomy, but also the ability

to perform tasks which are central to the production

of new knowledge (Jayasuriya, n.d.: 266).

Those scientists who wish to avoid these dif-
ficulties in the pursuit of research activities
often move across societal boundaries to societies
in which research roles are rewarded. Thus, the
phenomenon of the ”brain drain“ is related to the
malaise of science in the developing world (Beijer,
1969: 6; committee on International Migration of
Talent, 1970: #0).

Given these characteristics and consequences of
the systemic relationships of science to the develop-
ing societies of the world we can expect, therefore,
that many of the values and behavior of scientists
from developing countries will differ from the soc-

ial patterns of scientists from developed countries.

The second major source of variations in the
behavior and attitudes of scientists are the types
of work roles performed by scientists. The performance

by scientists of a set of work roles is only part of

the total co:
patterns acpr
tists, as def
locus of the
are cociitior
values, behat‘
scientist in
roles are afi
larger socie:
fan's capa‘oii

11.1 outside c

ix ideal e

fitted '4 H. .1

gut.)

 

 

 

'i
2) an. .

a)?

19

the total constellation of roles and behavioral
patterns appropriate to their occupation, scien-
tists, as defined by them and the institutional
locus of the work situation. These work roles
are conditioned by and have influence on the
values, behavior and other roles performed by the
scientist in his life-cycle. In addition, work
roles are affected by the dynamic state of the
larger society which modifies to a certain degree
man's capabilities, goals, and performance within

and outside of the organization of work.

Six ideal types of scientific work roles can.be
enacted within the variety of institutional sectors
where scientists are employed:

1) Research Role: a creative role aimed at
producing new knowledge, reformulating
existing knowledge, solving scientific
problems, and providing knowledge for
solving social and technical problems;

2) Teaching-research Role: a creative of new
knowledge and instructing role that is per-
formed within a researbh activity which is
carried on with one or more undergraduate,
graduate or post-graduate students for whom
this research involvement is part of their
formal educational program (Henle, 1965: 14);

3) Teaching Role: a disseminating role which

includes
students
mierrre
systen;
4) Aininisti
includes
tration
organize
5} Consult:
\—
|
cities t
191€€ tc
Power; f
lecture;

”Ofefrsi
K

I
SUCh 30:

C)‘
\__l

Duhsgiti'
P0153 bbion
”is: eva‘ds

W3

A} t Q

“Trev” a“ I
e, LY pg,

 

u)

5)

6)

7)

20

includes all activities related to instructing
students in formal and informal classes, both
undergraduate and graduate within a university
system;

Administrative Role: an organization role which
includes all activities related to the adminis—
tration of a university, industrial or governmental
organization, or research institutions and centers;
Consulting: an externally oriented role that in-
cludes those activities which disseminate know-

ledge to the civic culture and groups holding social
power; for example, consulting, delivering public
lectures, etc.;

Professional Role: a role whose performance includes
such activities as editing of journals, membership in
scientific associations and organizations, etc.;
Scientific Publication Role:3 a role which includes
all those activities related to the writing of
professional articles, books, reports of research

results, etc.

 

3Even though all of the other work roles may in-
volve writing and/or publication, the scientific
publication role has been separated from the other
roles because many of the respondents considered
writing and publication of professional articles
and books as the only work role they have or are
currently performing.

From the
I H ‘ ‘ r
5..ch dare 0o
seiner, teacr

central to 5'

other work r

— ' — — —

rational sec
scientists p

to vary ing (1.

researcher
!
tinistratc .

can POSit a

 

 

21

From the perspective of the traditional normative
structure of science on a world—wide scale, the roles of re-
search,teaching-research,professional,and publication are
central to science and are normatively valued. The
other work roles are central to the respective insti-
tutional sector and peripheral to science. Moreover,
scientists perform one or more of these work roles
to varying degree, i.e., some scientists are only
researchers, others are researchers, teachers, and
administrators at the same time. Accordingly, one
can posit a series of hypotheses relating the degree
to which these types of work roles are performed by
scientists and the behavior they enact, functions

they fulfill, and values they share.

In addition, these types of work roles are
important because of the variations which they pro-
duce on such phenomena as interaction patterns in
the world community of science, the international
movements of scientists, and the location of scien-
tists in the process of modernization in their re-
spective home countries. With reference to the world
community of scientists, formal and informal inter-
action patterns are established and maintained by
scientists according to the type of work roles they
perform. Researchers tend to interact with other
researchers and support organizations which act as

a focal point and context of scientific communication

of research i
hreover, as
stiz'ili to t1
ietal bonni'i
"train drain
providing a
Work roles (
131). Final

tribute to t

in ;
“Vesvizati:

 

tific work 1'

the Elobai

'1' . ,
a; agientls a

 

22

of research information (Kaplan and Storer, 1968).
Moreover, as was stated previously, one of the main
stimuli to the movement of scientists across soc-
ietal boundaries and the recurrent phenomenon of the
“brain drain“ is the failure of many societies in
providing a fruitful context in which to pursue these
work roles (Porter;,1968: 7; de Solla Price, 1963:
101). Finally, the manner in which scientists con-
tribute to the development of their specific society
is structured along work role line. Hence, this
einvestigation of the performance of types of scien-
‘tific work roles provides a useful base for viewing
1the global dimensions of the behavior and orientations

(:f scientists.

Le
JEDISsociative Experiences. The model of the development

of |'third cultural" networks and groupings as formulated
by Useem, Useem and Donoghue (1963) and the model of
ltnodernization constructed by waisanen (1969) provide
a useful scheme for explicating the effect of level

of development of a scientist's home country and the

 

The term “dissociative experience" has been used
Gaxtensively in the field of psychiatry. I am not
‘Iasing it in a psychological manner here, but I am
313efering to the sociological and social psychological
aspects of dissociative experiences. Thusly, on the
Tluext page I will define dissociative experiences as
Inovement from one social system to another or contact
"Vith the members of an exogeneous social system by
‘51 social actor.

work 13.3165 p)

1%?) Either
$93.5 lhich
rite” of d
mired in r e
to each othe
revelers-“rent

crar3“‘°”ize

v Vv‘

 

r. a-
«aelofig. U
do!
{4193 Hm
atone)
Sister ‘p
u CC
V 1
.4)
e ‘mfiou
or?
.y cav-

23

work roles performed by him on the dependent variables
to be discussed below. Both of these models emphasize
the importance of dissociative experiences (Waisanen,
1969) either in the formation of ”...cultural pat-
terns which are created, learned, and shared by the
members of different societies who are personally in-
volved in relating their societies, or sections thereof,
to each other“ (Useem and Useem, 1967: 130) or in the
development of modernization at an individual level
«characterized by innovativeness, knowledgeability and
«evaluation, future time orientation, commitment to
:Eflanning, and a belief in the calculability of events
éand their control through science and technology
(Waisanen and Kumata, 1969: 2).

Dissociative experiences can be specified as the
actual movement of a social actor from one social sys-
tem to another social system or series of social systems
and as exposure to the ideas, technology, and social
norms and cultural values of a "foreign" social system
or systems through contact with actors from other soc-
ieties and cultures, with the media of other systems,
Or with the material culture of adjacent or distant
Jnations. Hence, dissociative experiences are the ave—
3'lues through which the elements of two or more social
Systems become articulated (Loomis and Loomis, 1965:
‘1.6). Through physical and/or psychic mobility not
(Inly can social actors gain access to exogeneous so-

c331.611 and cultural milieu, they can also act as

representati

In thei
rial systems
tween the so
they share i
tractions s
end statuses
is in this xi
Sharing thy
iereloped,
031) 033.3051
EhZv'Sical ani
3r inputs ar

ca: be a re(

Whether
emeriER-n e S

c131 System

 

21+

representatives of their own social system.

In their encounters with members of other so-
cial systems, these individuals act as mediators be-
tween the social systems. As “men—in-the-middle,"
they share in their binational and multinational in—
teractions some of the values and life—styles, roles

and statuses, and technology of their society. It

is in this process of extra-systemic contact and
sharing that a set of third cultural social structures
developed. In short, dissociative experiences are not
only composed of inputs from one system to another.
Physical and psychic mobility also involve an exchange
Of inputs and outputs. Dissociative experiences, then,

can ‘be a reciprocal process of systemic interaction.

Whether a social actor is exposed to dissociative
experiences or not depends upon the nature of the so-
eial system he is in and the degree to which the actor
is embedded in that system, that is, circumscribed by
the system (Waisanen, 1969: 3-7). The social norma—
tiVe structure of the social system can either place
constraints on the degree to which social actors can
pa-:f‘1::icipate in systems exogeneous to itself or it may
act as a mobilizing agent pushing the actor into con-
tact with outside systems. Embeddedness in the social
8t’rs‘bem can be defined as the relationship of an actor
to the social system (Waisanen, 1969: 7). If the

actors participation in the social system encapsulates

:he actor to
eczess to 0t}
other hand, i
flexicle and
acial syste
ani actual p
reciaale ,t'n
the systemic

ex;erienee a

 

25
the actor totally in that social system, the actor's
access to other systems will be curtailed. If, on the
other hand, his relationship to the social system is
flexible and not fixed, his ability to encounter other
social systems in interpersonal relations, media use,
and actual physical movement is enhanced. The first
variable, the nature of the social system, delimits
the systemic boundaries of possible inter-systemic
experience and the second variable defines the role
boundaries of possible systemic linkage. The former
can be called systemic circumscription and the latter,
role circumscription.

In terms of the problem at hand, dissociative ex-
Periences are the first dependent variable of the study
and an intervening variable. Using level of development
or a scientist's home country as a index of systemic
circumscription, and the type of scientific work role
Performed by the scientist as an index of role circum-
scription, the degree‘ of a scientist's exposure to so-
cial systems outside of his home country will vary with
these variables.

Following the literature in the sociology of science
as discussed in the prior section, scientists who perform
research, teaching-research, and professional and publi—
cation roles will be more physically and psychically
In"mile than scientists who perform teaching, ad-

ministrative, and public roles. In other words,

the former a
latter. In
iepends upor.
co‘otm', sys

following for

Propositic

fiODOSit :‘

D
—- ’
— — — —

 

 

26

the former are less role circumscribed than the
latter. In addition, performance of these roles
depends upon the level of development of the home
country, systemic circumscription. Therefore, the
following propositions are proposed:
Proposition 1: The greater the systemic
' circumscription as evidenced
by the level of development
of the home country, then,
the greater the role circum-
scription, as exemplified in
performance of teaching, adm-
inistrative, and public roles.
Ifiwoposition 2: The greater the role circum-
scription, the lesser the ex-
posure to dissociative ex-
periences.

Systemic circumscription, as evidenced in level
0f development of home country, will be measured by
Harbison's and Myers' (1964) classification of nations
by levels of human resource development. Using a
comPosite index of human resource development, Harbison
and.PWer ranked 75 nations (1964: 26-3h). The index
is composed of nine measures: 1)number of teachers
P9P 10,000 population; 2)angineers and scientists
p31” 10,000 population; 3)physicians and dentists per
10.000 population; Mpuplls enrolled at first level
(PPimary) education as percentage of the estimated
pOpulation aged 5 to 11+ inclusive; 5)adjusted school
em'OIlment for first and second level (secondary)
education combined; 6)pupils enrolled at second level
edJJ.C:ation as a percentage of the estimated population

‘889d.15 to 19 inclusive, adjusted for length of schooling;

7Eertolleent

5 . .
a oercenage

fazultles 1r.
stoients eh.“

i 5
ins ans, 5

Hart 3:
developzent
nations. 1;
consider as
element. j
.3 for Elise:
as toe IVerl
112g bECWeer
it'lelopedl Y

Max:331

aa:

a

voctpiec v
“o

H"

 

 

'ifi

h

ovngr. 77'
«ne

'ka

ukltei

27

7)enrollment in third level (higher) education as
a percentage of age group 20 to 24; 8)percentage
of students enrolled in scientific and technical
faculties in a recent year; and 9)percentage of
students enrolled in faculties of humanities,

fine arts, and law in the same year.

Harbison and Myers formulated four levels of
development upon the basis of the scores of the
nations. Level 1 is composed of those nations they
consider as I‘underdeveloped" in human resource dev—
elopment. The range of scores in level 1 is from
.3 for Niger to 7.55 for Sudan with countries such
‘88 the Ivory Coast, Congo, Haiti and Senegal fal-
ling between these scores. Level 2, “partially
developed” nations range from Guatemala and
Indonesia at 10.7 to Iraq at 31.2. Between these
extremes lie such nations as Mainland China, Turkey,
Paraquay, and Pakistan. In level 3, "semi-advanced"
cOuntries, nations such as Czechoslovakia, Poland,
India, South Korea, Cuba, etc. fall between the
8cores of 33.0 for Mexico to 73.8 for Norway. Six-
teen nations are classified in level 4, "developed”,
with Denmark with a score of 77.1 at one extreme
"itfll the United States with a score of 261.3 at the
°ther. The country whose score is closest to the

United States is New Zealand at 147.3.

(*

Since
level 3 is r.
level it and
to thi net:
(see Interns
:ortries ir.

as developir.

siierei dove
the sixteen
as aivanced
as being fr:
scriptign).
nations m;
nations (hi:

een develor

«111 3d» H8“
filiapk. 8‘

been
+»
‘0 ‘
Iva?“

Ing’ k“
eseal‘ch
vv‘Vitieq
hOEe

 

28

Since the range of scores between level 1 and
level 3 is not as great as the range of scores in
level 4 and since most of the scientists who come
to this nation on visits are from levels 3 and u
(see International Institute of Education, 1968),
countries in level 1, 2, and 3 will be classified
as developing and countries in level it will be con-
sidered developed. Hence, foreign scientists from
the sixteen nations Harbison and Myers classified
as advanced will be considered in this investigation
as being from developed nations (low systemic circum-
scription). Foreign scientists from the 59 other
nations will be considered as coming from developing
nations (high systemic circumscription). The six-
teen developed nations, in descending rank order,
are United States, New Zealand, Australia, Netherlands,
Belgium, United Kingdom, Japan, France, Canada, U.S.S.R.,
F inland, West Germany, Israel, Argentina, Sweden and
Denmark. Since no scientists from the United States
are part of the population of this study, there are

only fifteen nations from the developed'levelo

Role circumscription will be measured by the
time and effort scientists estimate they spend in
team-1mg, basic research, applied research, teaching-
reSearch, administration, consulting, organizational
activities, and writing and publication while in their

home country (see questions 17 on the Questionnaire

an 28 and 2
peniix A).
their time a
|
l: eioinistr
circus-arise
and effort 1

research, or

(profession:

are consiier

Disses".
physical an:
“111 be sea-3|I

1. Couotr:
SCience
n81re e

I

20 Trips ‘
(quest:
scheduj

30 CrOSS--i

10’ qr‘il
rs.Vchic not:

03 these its

1" Intera<
Co‘mtr'
17: 111‘

2' Co‘mtm
sociatj
31 inte

T
2“} '
ctever‘actlh?

leek
“vet‘s-hips

0" .
'36? man e

\

3‘ ,., ..
‘ szcnlc ?

 

29
and 28 and 29 on the Interview Schedule in Ap—
pendix A). Those scientists who spend most of
their time and effort teaching, consulting, and
in administration will be considered as high role
circumscribed. Scientists who spend their time
and effort in basic and applied research, teaching—
research, organizational activities in science
(professional role), and writing and publication

are considered as low role circumscribed.

Dissociative experiences will be divided into
Physical and psychic mobility. Physical mobility
Will be measured by the following items:

‘1. Country or countries where socialization to
science has been received (question 9, question-
naire and interview schedule);

2. Trips to developed and developing countries
(question 11, questionnaire; 14, interview

schedule);

3. Cross-societal experience in work (question
10, questionnaire and interview schedule).

Psychic mobility, on the other hand, will be measured

by these items:

11. Interaction with foreigners in the home
country (question 12, uestionnaire and
17, interview schedule ;

2. Country of memberships in scientific as-
sociations (Question 46, questionnaire,
81 interview schedule).
Inter-acting with foreigners in the home country and
memberships in scientific associations in countries
other than the home country are regarded as indices

or Psychic mobility because ideas, values, and

of an exogef

AS Stat
are or“161211
social strué
attituies "E-
this study 1
dissociative
as a depenié
variable'

filth 1""
social strucl
.wsltiOn is

tropositi':

ial 3‘

social and ‘

they have h‘

ez‘2e“s of C
Se

#u

.res. "”
J19

of t‘

 

30

behavioral patterns of other social systems can

be obtained through such contact with the members

of an exogeneous social system.

As stated previously, dissociative experiences
are crucial to the development of third cultural
social structures networks and the formation of
attitudes which reflect individual modernity. Since
this study is concerned with both of these issues,
dissociative experiences will be considered not only
as a.<iependent variable, but also as an intervening
variable.

With regards to involvement in third cultural

social structures and networks, the following pro-

‘Position is suggested:

Proposition 3: The greater the exposure to
dissociative experiences, the
greater the involvement in third

cultural social structure and
networks.

That is, scientists who have been physically and
PSYChically mobile are expected to have participated
in social structures and networks which transcend
sOcsial and cultural boundaries and through

they have been relating segments of their society to

members of other societies.

Several items are selected as measures of in-
volvement in third cultural networks and social struc-
tux-es. The first measure is the nature of arrival

or these foreign scientists in the United States,

that is, wine
costly and

of'access (:

rather than
home count :2
as a lack of
Sizilarly, :

side or the

ivA

«.llviduals
tries (quest
all 47 inter
it a binatic

Setting, MC

 

$.70.

«o 1c aSSOC1
with Scientj
Interview sc

031 third CU]

Before

s .
Mame e)

CCEA

“v

Spt 0f 1

31

that is, what corridors between the scientists' home
country and the United States were used as avenues
of'access (question 14, questionnaire and 23, inter-
view schedule). Reliance on personal initiative
rather than contacts in the United States, in the
home country, or other countries will be considered
as a lack of involvement in third cultural networks.
Similarly, if these scientists' networks in and out-
side of the work situation in the United States are
characterized by exclusive interaction with indi-
viduals from their home country rather than with
individuals from the United States and other coun-
tries (questions 23 and 24, questionnaire, and 46
and 47 interview schedule), they are not participating
in a binational,multinational,or possibly a cultural
setting. Moreover, if their attendance at scien-
tific associational meetings in other countries has
not led to the establishment of communication ties
with scientists from other nations (question 101,
interview schedule), they will be considered as low

on third cultural involvement.

Before considering the relationship of dis-
sociative experiences to individual modernity, the
concept of post-modernity must be discussed. Apter
(1965), Bell (1968), Boulding (1964), Etzioni (1968)
and Miller and Form (1964), each suggest in different
ways that science and scientists will be important

for the one:

  
   

possibly a .3
fetal and c:
salistic as;
scientists 2
rain change
ioiern soci‘
the usual 5'
reeds to be

:oiern soci,

 

32

for the emergence of a post—modern society and

possibly a post-modern world. By straddling so;

(fletal and cultural differences through the univer-
salistic aspects of their knowledge and its application,
scientists are seen as the precursors and one of the
main change agents of the push fromrmflern to post-
modern societies. What they are suggesting is that

the usual societal continuum of tradition vs. modern
needs to be expanded to include the emerging post—

modern society.

Many of the writers have been concerned with
the value basis which predominates in the post-modern
society. The normative system is seen as being grounded
either in aesthetics and humanistic ethics or in the
growth of a technocratic ethos. Its cultural values
are for the most part boundless, that is, they are
expansive to the inclusion of new values and beliefs
and are open to probing and questioning. The only
boundaries that may possibly exist are the extent of
man's rationality and his imagination. The basic
goal of the belief system of the post-modern society
is the conquering of the physical and social environment
of the nation state and the world through a visualization
that the fate of both are interwined. Hence, international
tampering with both of these milieu is dominant and
directed change occurs at an international level. The ba-

sic result of the post -modern society, then,is the

transform:
direction 0
is towards '
an. ?or 0'
the prolife:
cratic soci:
society is e
liberation c
then comb:
and bureauc:

The so
the Cagney

as one of 11

 

 

 

 

33

transformation of society and the world. The
direction of this transformation for some authors
is towards the creation of a world community of
man. For others, the post—modern world entails
the proliferation of "garrison states" or techno-
cratic societies. In either case, the post-modern
society is end fixated, the end being either the
liberation of mankind and the realization of all
human capabilities or the growth of technocracy

and bureaucracy in a “military-industrial" state.

The modern society, on the other hand, has
the conquering of its national physical environment
as one of its major objective. Instrumental values
are dominant and national utilization of the phy-
sical environment occurs. Those social problems
which impede physical progress in terms of economic
and technological development are tackled and toyed
with while others such as nationalism, prejudice,
pollution are not. Essentially, the modern society
works on a trial and error basis and is means fix-
ated. Social ends are interpreted in physical terms
and society and technical knowledge are looked upon

as means o

According to this perspective, traditional
society is seen as a social structure where relatively

little conscious controlling of the physical and

social environment occurs. The value basis of

the society
and rituali.
ronnent are
absence of

its some *
occurs tire
ceilre. In
the means-e:

part at a 7

'fnetne
Similar to
ooiern, to:

W aSking t

5°Cieties (

5.3318 ES to

post'mil’iern

.A
ullowing ;

If dis

L

“1 ‘v
a“ ‘
“'1de 01;

M4
-‘ Q

J“m 0:516
3113

. 11151 alSC

. h’
‘5» SC

U

‘o
v "0211.?“

 

34

the society is predominant and stresses stability

and ritualism. Here the physical and social envi-
ronment are accepted as given and there is a relative
absence of directed change. When change does occur
its source is either external or, if internal, it
occurs through an accidental trial and error pro-
cedure. In short, folk knowledge is dominant and

the means-ends schema of the society is for the most

part at a non-rational level.

Whether or not scientists express attitudes
similar to what has been briefly sketched as post-
modern, modern, and traditional values is determined
by asking them questions about the future of their
societies (question 49, questionnaire). Their re-
sponses to these questions are 'be coded as either
post-modern or non post-modern, in orientation. The
following proposition is suggested:

Proposition 4: The greater the exposure to
dissociative experiences, the
greater the post—modernity.

If dissociative experiences lead to involvement
in third cultural networks and a fostering of a post-
modern orientation, physical and psychic mobility
should also be related to a universalistic orientation
to work, social interaction, and living location and
to world—mindedness therefore, the following propositions

are forwarded:

Proposition 5: The greater the exposure to
dissociative experiences, the

Proposi't

Prop-as 1‘.

Proposif

 

 

35
greater the universalistic
orientation to work.

Proposition 6: The greater the exposure to
dissociative experiences, the
greater the universalistic
orientation to social interaction.

Proposition 7: The greater the exposure to
dissociative experience, the
greater the universalistic
orientation to living location.

Proposition 8: The greater the exposure to
dissociative experiences, the
greater the world-mindedness.

universalistic orientation to work, social in—
teraction and living location acknowledges that soc-
ial actors are not bounded in any one system in terms
of where they would prefer to work,or with whom they would
like to interact with, or where they would prefer to
live. World-mindedness is a world view in which the
social actor defines his relationship to the world
to be characterized by a spirit of cooperation and
brotherhood where in national differences disappear
and the world community of man emerges and where
the actor stresses international cooperation among
nations in solving national and/or international
problems.

The following items are selected as measures
of these variables:

A. World-mindedness:

1. World view change (question 50,
questionnaire, and 234 interview

schedule).

B. Universalistic orientation to work:
1. Acceptance of work in other countries
(question 159 interview schedule, and
40 questionnaire).

 

viously, t‘n
ispact of d
and attitud
cover major
variations

3° Professi
conformity

nation in

In the

 

EOte

dtint.

.4
I J
'—
a.
’ —
—
i

 

36

C. universalistic orientation to social interaction:
1. Preference of persons in social interaction
(question 147, interview schedule).
D. Universalistic orientation to living location:
1. Variables affecting living location
(question 161 interview schedule).
Additional areas of investigation. As stated pre-
viously, this study is concerned not only with the
impact of dissociative experiences on the behavior
and attitudes of scientists. It also seeks to dis—
cover major variations and the sources of these
variations in the behavior of scientists with regard
to professional productivity, social responsibility,

conformity to the norms of science, and their partic-

ipation in extra-scientific affairs and organizations.

In the discussion of level of development as a
crucial independent variable and performance of scien-
tific work roles and an intervening variable, it was
noted that scientists in developing nations are ex-
pected by their leaders to play a viable role in the
development of their country and that the jobs scien—
tists perform in these nations are usually limited
to roles related to the economic and social develop-
ment of their nation or to roles other than re—
search. Moreover, it is often assumed that the
major reason scientists from developing nations
come to developed nations for advanced training is
to learn techniques and paradigms of knowledge which
will be instrumental in aiding their nations in their

37

push towards development. What these viewpoints
suggest is that scientists from developing nations
should manifest in their behavior and attitudes a
greater sense of social responsibility and more
involvement in extra—scientific organizations than

their counterparts in the developed world.

Social responsibility involves an awareness
and an acknowledgment by scientists of the inter-
dependent relationship of science and society, i.e.,
that the scientist be concerned with the possible
consequences of his work on society and should
acknowledge as one of the criteria used for the
selection of research problems, the “relevancy" of
his work for his nation and possibly the world.
Moreover, social responsibility has a second dimension
other than this societal dimension. Scientists should
also be concerned with the training and development of
new generations of scientists who also will be involved.rn the
production,cultivation and utilization of knowledge. This
is the scientific dimension of social responsibility.
Since the number of generations in the scientific
communities of developing nations is limited and
often there may exist only one generation, the current
one, scientists from developing nations should also
exhibit a greater responsibility in terms of this
scientific dimension than scientists from developed

nations. The following proposition, then, is suggested:

Propositi

A.Societ
1. Fe
(3.

7t

2. A“:
na

na

3. Scien‘:
1. 0‘;

 

 

38

Proposition 9: The greater the systemic
circumscription and role
circumscription, the greater
the social responsibility at
the societal and scientific
levels.

Social responsibility will be measured by the fol-
lowing items:
A. Societal social responsibility:

1. Perceived social responsibility
(guestion 29, questionnaire, and
7 , interview schedule);

2. Attitudes towards scientists in
national decision-making (question
31, questionnaire);

3. Variables affecting choice of re-
search problems (question 27, question—
naire).

E. Scientific social responsibility:
1. Obligation to next generation of
scientists (question 19, question-
naire, and 195 interview schedule).

As mentioned in the preceding passages, those
scientists who are systemically and role circum-
scribed are expected to be involved in extra-scien-
tific affairs and organizations. That is, they
participate in community organizations, political
parties, voluntary associations. Formally stated,

Proposition 10: The greater the systemic and
role circumscription, the
greater the involvement in
extra-scientific affairs and
associations.

The appropriate measure of this dependent variable
is non—professional participation (question 48,

questionnaire and 205, interview schedule).

activities
those who a
volved r. 5

suggest the

Propositi

 

39

If scientists who are circumscribed in terms of
their social system and roles are engaged in these
activities outside of science, one would expect that
those who are less circumscribed should be more in-
volved in activities within science. These ideas
suggest the following proposition:

Proposition 11: The lesser the systemic and role
circumscription, the greater the
professional productivity and
participation.

The items selected as measure of professional product-

ivity and participation are:

1. Paper publication rate (question 42, question-
naire and 90, interview schedule);

2. Book publication rate (question 43, question-
naire and 98, interview schedule);

3. Attendance at national scientific association
meetings (question 47, questionnaire and 85,
interview schedule).

In summary, in the presentation of findings rel-
evant to the proposition relating systemic and role
circumscription to the behavior and attitudes of
scientists, it is hoped that important areas of
homogeneity and/or heterogeneity in science will be
isolated. In this way, this dissertation aims at
specifying the parameters of an international scien-
tific community and the sources of variations within it.
Research Design. The universe of this study is com-
posed of foreign scholars in the united States who
hold the doctorate or its equivalent in the 1)phy-

sical, 2)biologica1 and 3)socia1 sciences and who

are at an .
Science 90‘
physical sv
istry, :iatl
ces, and p':
cczposed o:
environmen‘
physiologic
social scie

economic a:

t
vist-
«“3"»,
““Iup
tea:
K
J

40

are at an American university. Following the National
Science Foundation classification of disciplines,
physical sciences include astronomy, physics, chem-
istry, mathematics, atmopheric sciences, earth scien-
ces, and physical geography; biological sciences are
composed of such disciplines as cellular biology,
environmental and systematic biology, psychobiology,
physiological processes, and biological oceanography;
social sciences include anthropology, economics,
economic and social geography, history and philosophy
of science, political science, psychology, education,
social psychology and sociology. During the pilot
reconnaisance, a decision was made to include engineer-

{ing undertthe category of physical sciences and
medicine under biological sciences. These disciplines
are classified in this fashion because significant
numbers of foreign scientists in the United States
were in these fields and many of these visiting
. scholars were engaged in work which could not be
distinguished from the work being done by physical
or biological scientists.

The universe excludes all those foreign—born scien-
tists who have declared citizenship in the United
States and those who are in the process of so doing;5
It is restricted, then, to only those foreign scien-
tists who are here on a temporary basis as visitors

rather than permanent residents.

 

5 A legal definition of citizenship is being used.

In t
the in ti
scientist
Cooperati
Illinois,
and Mich:
Universit
their no:
liolmgica
scholars .
organizat.
C.I.C. are
one-third
L‘nitei Ste

‘4 intervj

 

41

In the planning stages of this research endeavor,
the initial plan was to draw a random sample of foreign
scientists in the C.I.C. (Committee on Institutional
Cooperation) Area, the Universities of Wisconsin,
Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Michigan, Chicago, Iowa,
and Michigan State, Ohio State, Purdue, and Northwestern
Universities, stratified by level of development of
their home countries and by type of science (physical,
biological, or social) from a list of visiting foreign
scholars in the United States provided by a national
organization which compiles such yearly data. The
C.I.C. area was selected as a sampling site because
one-third of all visiting foreign scientists in the
United States are in residence in C.I.C. universities.
An interview schedule was constructed (see Appendix A)
and three universities were selcted for interviewing
sites. These three universities were selected because
they had a large number of foreign scholars visiting
their institutions and they formed a meaningful con—
tinnum of the type of institutions in the Midwest.
On the one end, a pure research oriented private
university; a public pure research oriented university
as median point; and at the other end, a public service

research oriented university.

At each of these universities, an attempt was
made to rely on the figures provided by the national

organization to draw a random sample of visiting foreign

above.

a rarity
ally, so
populati
The size

in the f

42

scholars stratified along the two dimensions mentioned
above. The figures showed that social scientists were
a rarity at not only these universities but also nation-
ally, so a decision was made to try to get the entire
population of social scientists at these universities.
The size of the total sample was to be 150 stratified

in the following fashion:

Table 1: Initial Sampling Design: Level
of Development and Type of Science
at:three Midwestern Universities

Type of Science

Level of

Development Physical Biological Social
Developed 25 25 25
Developing 25 25 25

After arriving on these campuses and drawing the
sample, a high degree of unreliability in the lists of
foreign scientists on these campuses provided to us was
encountered. Only 25 per cent of the total population
listed at these universities were still on campus, 75
of the 303 scholars on the list. Two reasons can be
cited for this unreliability. First, the list was com-
piled in terms of those scientists who had been on their
campus during one year period, 1968-1969. Many of the
scientists had returned home during this time period
and this information was not part of the data com-
piled by the organization. Secondly, some of the
visiting scientists had become either permanent re-

sidents of the united States or citizens.

These
flexible a:
department
those scier
the total r
sizies was
lnterviewe:
both fixed
it? ndix a
basis of t‘:

Previous 1y

 

43

These difficulties forced a different and more
flexible approach upon the research design. In every
department on these campuses, an inquiry was made into
those scientists who are currently in residence and
the total number of scientists at the three univer-
sities was 100. Eighty-two of these scientists were
interviewed using an interview schedule composed of
both fixed alternative and open-ended questions (see
Appendix A). The questions were constructed on the
basis of the theoretical considerations mentioned
previously, prior studies in the sociology of science,
and suggestions which emerged in the pretesting of
the schedule. Three scientists refused to be in-
terviewed and four respondents failed to show up
at interviews after repeated assurances from them
that they were willing to be interviewed. Eleven

respondents could not be located.

This study of the international scientific
community was conducted by two researchers, the
author of this dissertation and Sal P. Restivo, a
fellow graduate student. The cooperative experience
of working together stimulated an exchange of ideas,
a tempering of crude thoughts, and enabled each of
us to extend the study beyond the scope which wouLd have
been possible has we worked alone. Since two of us
interviewed the scientists, during the course of the

interviewing stage of the study a comparison of the

 

responses
parability
To in

a question

 

the interv
of our var
responses
Peniix A).
forty-two
shied and
the Quest:
approximat

the questil

In 8i
L“sterviem
thSical’
miVeFSIt:
fishing 1
cagpuS "6‘
Films “11in
WW had l

on their r

 

an

responses to the questions was made to insure com-

parability of interviewing techniques.

To increase the generalizing ability of the study,
a questionnaire was constructed after we had completed
the interviews composed of the most sensitive measures
of our variables and new questions generated from the
responses gathered in the interview process (see Ap-
pendix A). The questionnaire contains fifty questions;
forty-two fixed alternative questions and eight open-
ended and projective questions. In the pretest of
the questionnaire, it was estimated that it would take
approximately thirty to forty-five minutes to complete

the questionnaire.

In addition to the three universities at which
interviews were conducted, all departments in the
physical, biological, and social sciences in the C.I.C.
universities who had reported a considerable number of
visiting foreign scientists in these fields on their
campus were selected for the mailed out questionnaires.
Four universities were excluded from this list because
they had reported very few scientists in our categories

on their campus.

Letters were sent to the department chairmen of
162 departments requesting the names of visiting foreign
scientists currently in residence., Sixty departments
sent the requested lists, one department chairman re-

fused to give us the necessary information and, 101

department
?rom these
obtained a.
“vie re
return rat
fem. to 'c
aii‘esses
lithout cc
we had ex:

lith Our r

 

 

 

 

r‘

45

departments had no visiting foreign scholars present,
From these departments the names of 278 scientists were

obtained and questionnaires were sent to all of them.

We received 1#0 completed questionnaires for a
return rate of 53%. Of the non-respondents, six were
found to be citizens of this country, nine moved to
addresses unknown, eight returned their questionnaires
without completing them,and 115 never responded. Since
we had experienced considerable rapport and cooperation
with our respondents when we worked together on our
M.A. research, this relatively high return rate could
have been increased had we extended our deadline for
completing the questionnaires from three to five weeks
possibly securing those who may not have been on campus
at the moment because of semester vacations and/or as-
sociational meetings and by sending out a second mail
out or contacting non—respondents by phone. Both time
and money factors prevented us from pursuing this ap-
proach.

The total number of respondents to both the
questionnaire and the interview schedule, then, is
222. The characteristics of these foreign scientists
with regards to the type of sciences with which they
are identified and the level of development of their

 

Non-respondents were equally distributed by scien—
tific disciplines and by institution (see Table 1,
Appendix B).

hows
t‘ecour‘
nere a O“
deve re
looir
p8“, . i;
slenee
i

seier-n
.es 8

we
1““? '
v$1031
4 a
medic
8

We
T1098
0

 

46

home country are summarized in Table 2. In all sciences,
there are more scientists from developed countries than
developing countries in our sample. As in our ex-
perience in the interviewing process, the social
sciences are again under-represented as compared to

the representation of the physical and biological scien—
ces. The degree of this under-representativeness is
only slightly higher than in the national figures.

Open Doors' (International Institute of Education;

1968) data revealed that 87 per cent of the visiting
foreign scientists in the United States are in the
physical and biological sciences (including engineering
and medical research) and 13 per cent in the social
sciences. Our figures, on the other hand, show that

95 per cent of our respondents are in the physical and

7
biological sciences and 6 per cent in the social sciences.

With regard to the major countries of origin of
visiting foreign scientists in the United States, ngn
Doors' data reVeal that 13.8 per cent are from the
United Kingdom, 11.3 per cent from Japan and 11 per
cent from India. All other nations are represented
by considerably smaller numbers of scientists, each
accounting for a half to one per cent of the national

total. In our study, 14 per cent of the scientists are

 

7.

The under—representation of the social sciences in this
study may be due in part to the fact that many of the
centers of social science research are located on the
East and West coast at such institutions as Harvard,
Princeton, Stanford, The University of California etc.

from the
11.6 per 0

with small

Level of
Develop2er.
of Howe

Sentry
Developed

Develonir..~-

~ . |
misterm-
{1339* u

m

.etal

‘l'odeterzi
311“ “.11,

  

 

 

 

47
from the United Kingdom, 12 per cent from Japan, and
11.6 per cent from India with all other nations again
with smaller number of scientists.
Table 2: Characteristics of Respondents:
Type of Science and Level of

Development of Home Country

Type of Science

Level of

Development

of Home

Country Physical Biological Social Total
Developed 52% 55% 58% 54%
Developing #5 44 #2 ##
Indetermi-

nate* 3 1 -— 2;
Total 100% 100% 100% 100%

(N=95) (N=115) (N=12) (N=222)

*Indeterminate refers to scientists from countries
which were not classified by Harbison and Myers, e.g.,
Burundi, Switzerland, etc.

In comparison to these aggregate national data on
visiting foreign scholars in the United States, then,
the characteristics of the respondents of this study are
fairly representative. As a result, even though this
study is restricted in its generalizing ability because
of the sample the conclusions drawn from this study
will have some relevancy to issues raised at the

national level.

By extending the study with data from question-
naires and adding tress data to tl‘nse which were gathered

in the interviews, as increase in the size of the sample

mi, as 3
results to
tists in t
sore disai
though the
as the mos
probes on

35?. a full

their inc;

 

queStiOTL'li
iifficult :
Finally, .~
0 q l
VXEI‘OratOr

terriewin,.'

48
and, as a consequence, the generalizability of the
results to the population of visiting foreign scien-
tists in the United States occurred. But there were
some disadvantages in this extention of the study. Even
though the questionnaire is composed of items we selected
as the most significant for our study, we did not ask
probes on these questions. In addition, we could not
ask a full range of questions on some dimensions because
their inclusion would have increased the size of the
questionnaire to such a point that it might have presented
difficulties for the respondents in answering the questions.
Finally, questionnaires prevent the researcher from asking
exploratory questions which may come to mind in the in-
terviewing process as a result of the responses given by
the scientist. For example, if in asking a question in
prior interviews most of the respondents replied in a
similar fashion, but the current respondent replied with
an anomalous answer, one can ask the respondent for the
factors which lie behind his response. But with question-
naire data one may lose the ability to probe into such a
deviant case.

There were advantages gained by using a question-
naire beyond those cited already. In constructing the
questionnaire, we were able to reformulate questions
which we felt were not giving the information we
desired in the interviews. Similarly, the question-

naire enabled us to focus more directly on those

questions
yielding i
gave us ti"

schedule a

 

for data c

i

' ea:
techniques
from the 1
is nominal

such as t;

 

ant Chi-S:
ing the p;
The anally
those spa

uSEd’ e02

A Yr
as 333130:

pmDOS it

49

questions which were having the highest profit in
yielding information. In short the questionnaire
gave us the opportunity to evaluate the interview
schedule and to proceed with a refined instrument

for data collection.

Because of the limitations of the data gathering
techniques in terms of the lack of random sampling
from the universe and since most of the data obtained
is nominal rather than ordinal, measures of association
such as the phi—coefficient, product-moment correlation,
and chi-square cannot be legitimately employed in test-
ing the propositions outlined in the previous selection.
The analysis of the data will therefore be limited to
those statistical techniques which can be appropriately

used, e.g., Yule's Q and contingency tables.

A Yule's Q correlation of .15 will be considered
as supportive of the relationships indicated in the
propositions. A correlation at this level is sig—
nificant using "t” as measure of significance. Since
the N of the tables on which the correlations are
based varies because some questions were asked of
the interview respondents which were not asked of
the questionnaire respondents and vice versa or the
same question was asked of both groups, a ”t" sig—

nificance test for each of these possible Ns was

C.
eozputed. ‘

529):

a .15 corr
when HZ,
($1.82),
gimp; ani

Size of bc

 

 

 

50
computed.8 Using the following formula (Hays, 1963:
529):

a .15 correlation is significant at .10 (t=1.37),

when N=82, the size of the interview group; at .05
(t=1.82), when N=1uO, the size of the questionnaire
group; and at .025 (t=2.17), when N=222, the composite

size of both groups.

 

8 The ”t“ test for significance does not make the same
assumptions about a sample as chi-square. It assumes
a normal distribution, but this assumption can be
circumvented with a large N (Hays, 1963: 308). Ns of

82, 140, 222 which are the basis of correlations on this

study are large enough to allow a circumvention of the
normal distribution assumption.

I.

"

 

12‘

”a
. ..
“writ“

 

Chapter 2

General Characteristics of the Respondents
and the Impact of Systemic and Role

Circumscription on Dissociative Experiences

51

L",-

 

In t:

major vary

 

role ciro
with regs:
scientist;
I
plore the
in the fi‘
Sistenic i

to exposu

if” or
‘UlI‘CumSC!

High
Law

the Com,

 

52

In this section, the characteristics of the three
major variables of the study, systemic circumscription,
role circumscription, and dissociative experience,
with regard to the population of visiting foreign
scientists will be discussed. Moreover, it will ex-
plore the results of the correlations of the variables
in the first two propositions of the study which relate
systemic circumscription and both of these variables
to exposure to dissociative experiences. Finally,
additional characteristics of the respondents in this

study will be presented.

Systemic Circumscription. As mentioned previously
in Chapter 1, the Harbison and Myers classifications
of nations by levels of human resource development
has been used to measure systemic circumscription.
The following table (3) reveals the breakdown of

Table 3: Systemic Circumscription:Level
of Development of Nations

Level of Systemic

Circumscription Number

High Developing 98

Low Developed 119
Indeterminate 5
Total: 222

the countries of the respondents of this study into

nations ac
in the st:

canons (~

Only
which coul
0f develo;
one from :
AI. attempt
nations 1:
I
33ers. 3;
they reliql
not be 10:"
per capital
VelOpgent I

1

t". . ‘ a
flue Inllc

may: SW:

 

 

 

53

the categories of developed, developing, and indeter-
minate.9 Visiting foreign scientists from developed
nations account for more than half of the respondents
in the study (53.6%), and scientists from developing

nations (4h.1%).

Only five scientists had countries of origin
which could not be classified into the categories
of developed and developing two from Switzerland,
one from Guyana, one from Nepal, and one from Okinawa.
An attempt was made to locate statistics on these
nations identical to those employed by Harbison and
Myers. Data on the five countries in the sources
they relied upon to produce their classification could
not be located. As a result, Gross National Product
per Capita is used as an index of their level of de—
velopment, since GNP per capita is highly correlated with
the indices which Harbison and Myers used. Accord—
ingly, Switzerland is classified as a developed nation
and the other three as developing. Therefore, 54.5%
(121) of the scientists in this study will be con-
sidered as coming from nations with low systemic circum-
scription, i.e., developed countries, and h5.5% (101)
from nations with high systemic circumscription, i.e.,

developing countries.

 

f9 For a breakdown of the percentage of respondents
by country see Table 2 in Appendix B.

Bole Ciro
were asks
they spen
home cow“.
was to be
are role

of the ho
proved to
due to th

2: 3 and

Tabl

 

510ml) .

 

 

50

Role Circumscription. The visiting foreign scientists
were asked to estimate the amount of time and effort
they spent in performing seven work roles in their
home country by ranking the work roles. This ranking
was to be used as a measure of the degree to which they
are role circumscribed within the scientific community
of the home country. As Table h, shows, only 1 rank
proved to be a meaningful measure of role circumscription
due to the large number of non—response rates for ranks
2, 3 and 0.

Table 4: Percentage Distribution of Degree of

Role Circumscription: Rank Order of

the Performance of Scientific Work
Roles in the Home Country

Degree of Bole
Circumscription in
Home Country: Rank 1 Rank 2 Rank 3 Rank 4

High: (teaching, con-
sulting, administra-
tion) 27.5% 28.8% 20.7% 14.9%

Low: (research, teach-
ing-research, publica—
tion, and profes-

sional) 60.8 45.1 37.# 26.5
Non-Response: 11.7 26.1 41.9 58.6
Total: 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

(N=222) (N=222) (N=222) (N=222)

Additional support is given to the importance of
rank 1 as a measure of role circumscription in Table 5.
The contigency coefficients reveal that there is a high

degree of consistency across each rank. In other words,

scientist
circumscr
a sciehti
teachirg,
effort to
Or in the
research
ba‘cly say
Search, 0
Featest
HOE-respo
ccnsister.

11
Sacred 5

Tab?

 

55

scientists usually maintain the same degree of role
circumscription across all four ranks. For example,
a scientist who says he spends most of his time in
teaching, will also say he considers his next major
effort to be spent in administration or consulting.
Or in the opposite case, a scientistrwho say basic
research is his primary activity in rank 1, will pro-
bably say that professional activities, teaching-re-
search, or publication in science take up his next
greatest amount of time and effort. Because of the
non-response rates for the other ranks and the high

consistency between rank orders, rank 1 will be con-

sidered as the measure of role circumscription.

Table 5: Role Circumscription in the Home
Country: Contigency Coefficient
Analysis of Rank Orders of the
Performance of Scientific Work

Boles

Rank: 1 2 3 #

gum...

.733

.681
.739

.614
.721
.731

The finding of both of these tables reveal that
the majority of the visiting foreign scientists in
the study have a low degree of role circumscription.
There seems to be at work, then, a selection process of
scientists who come to this country for further training,

research collaboration, teaching and any of the other

major res
'i’ne resul
low role
this cour.
scriptior:
port to t

82121 dissc

In ;
varying in
it'll-S rela

tiStS are

*
V

.3‘

e Poles
is Supper
ports Dre

Scriptiozi

'9
a:
U"

 

 

major reasons f

The results pos

56
or visitation in the United States.
sibly indicate that scientists with

low role circumscription are more likely to enter

this country than scientists with high role circum—

scription. Hence, this finding gives preliminary sup-

port to the relationship between role circumscription

and dissociativ

In proposi

e experiences as stated in proposition 2.

tion 1, role circumscription is seen as

varying with the degree of systemic circumscription.

This relationship between the manner in which scien-

tists are bounded within a social system because of

the roles they perform within the scientific community

is supported in

Table 6. The positive correlation sup—

ports proposition 1, the greater the systemic circum-

scription, the greater the role circumscription.

Table 6:

Degree of Role
Circumscription
in the Country
of Origin

High: (teaching

Percentage Distribution and Correlation
of the Degree of Role Circumscription

of the Respondents in their Country of
Origin by their Degree of Systemic Circum-
scription

Degree of Systemic Circumscription

ministration, con-

suiting)

’Low: (research,

ing-research, profession-

al, publication
Non-response

Total

(Devglgging) (Deagloped)
, ad-
34.7% 21.5%
teach-
) 50.5 71.1
10.8 7.4
(1338?? (1333’?

Q=+ .388

U'WMvXJ (1'5"; '" ‘

 

brother
are more
of work 1
teaching-
scientif:
from deve
developiz

in such 1

 

57

In other words, scientists from developed nations
are more likely to participate in the performance

of work roles such as basic and applied research,
teaching-research, professional activities, and in
scientific writing and publication than scientists
from developing countries; whereas scientists from
developing countries participate to a greater degree
in such roles as teaching, administration, and con-

sulting than their colleagues from developed countries.

Dissociative Experiences. In Chapter 1, the function
of systemic and role circumscription in acting as a
stimulus to exposure to dissociative experiences was
analyzed at a theoretical level. Proposition 2 was
offered as a point of departure. In that proposition,
exposure to dissociative experiences was related to
role circumscription, i.e., the greater the role
circumscription, the lesser the exposure to dis-
sociative experiences. In this section, the empir-
ical findings probing into this proposed relationship
between performance of varying work roles in the scien-
tific community and psychic and physical mobility will
be presented. Before an analysis of these results,
however, the relationship among the dissociative ex-

perience variables will be explored.’

The physical mobility indices are composed of the
following elements: 1)Foreign Ph.D. Educational Experience,
10
2)Trips to Developed Countries, 3)Trips to Developing

 

10 The trips to developed and developing countries where
usually made by the respondents in a professional capacity.

Countries
Ph.D. Eda
of the sc
doctorate
received
country 0

siiered a

"hip

Co‘mtr

*4
(D
(I)

were in o
ences ab
trip to t
tists in
twice, nu
Country I:
to Countr
Such tri;
motility.
oping Tia:

sociative

‘ySical

 

 

58

Countries, and 4)Foreign Work Experience. Foreign
Ph.D. Educational Experience refers to the location
of the school in which the scientists received their
doctorate or its equivalent. If the doctorate was
received in a nation which is different from the home
country of the scientists, the scientists are con-

sidered as having a dissociative experience.

Trips to Developed Countries and Trips to Developing
Countries were used to ascertain whether the scientists
were in other countries besides their possible experi-

ences abroad in graduate education and their current
trip to the United States. Since most of the scien-
tists in the study have made such trips only once or
twice, number of trips to a developed or developing
country proved to be a meaningless measure. Travelling_
to countries abroad, irrespective of the number of times
such trips have been made, is a measure of physical
mobility. The lack of movement to developed or devel-
oping nations is accordingly the absence of a dis-

sociative experience.

Foreign Work Experience, the final measure of
physical mobility, refers to the cross-societal work
experiences the scientists have had. If they have
worked in countries other than their home country,
their work experiences are regarded as a case of
physical mobility. Those scientists who have worked
only in their home country will be considered as having

no cross-societal work experience.

 

to deter."

contact '.

  
 
     

countrier
cultural
sociativ
be viewe
With inc:
is cons:

through

59

Interaction with Foreigners in the home country
and Memberships in Foreign Scientific Associations, are
the two indices of psychic mobility. The former is used
to determine whether or not the respondents have had
contact with foreigners while they were in their home
countries. The participation in this form of a cross—
cultural social relationship will be regarded as a dis—
sociative experience, whereas the non—participation will
be viewed as a lack of psychic mobility. Interaction
with individuals from a country other than one's own
is considered to be psychic mobility variable, because
through such contact knowledge of social structures and
normative patterns of other societies and cultures is
acquired and also third cultural experiences. This
information may be supportive of one's socio-cultural
mileu or in opposition to it. In either case, one has

gained knowledge of a non-indigeneous system.

For identical reasons, the latter variable, Member-
ships in Foreign Scientific Associations, is seen as
an index of psychic mobility. Belonging to scientific
associations in countries other than a scientist's home
country is dissociative because through such memberships
scientists become aware of current scientific and social
activities of scientists in other nations, and the prob-
lems and issues confronting science and its relationship
to other institutions in varying societies. Such in-

formation is gained through the publications and meetings

of these
scientist
for the r
aware of

in the UT

between i
and lan.
lishien
associat.

dissocia‘

A 1:
0f eXpoS~
indicate.

SChOlars

 

60

of these associations. For example, any foreign
scientist who belongs to the American Association
for the Advancement of Science would have become
aware of the current employment crisis of scientists
in the United States, the debate occurring in the
scientific community on such issues as biological and
chemical warfare, technological development and pol-
lution of the environment, and the growing strain
between the current administration of this country
and large segments of the American scientific estab-
lishment. Accordingly, memberships in scientific
associations in other nations will be considered a
dissociative experience and a lack of such member-

ships as an absence of a dissociative experience.

A large percentage of respondents have a low level
of exposure to dissociative experiences. As Table 7
indicates, more than half of the visiting foreign
scholars did not receive their doctorate in a foreign
country, were employed only in organizations located
in their home country, made no trips to developed or
developing countries, had no contact with individuals
from other countries, and belonged to scientific as-
sociations only in their home country. Table 7 also
shows that more scientists have been exposed to psy-
chically mobile events than physical mobility situations.
This result occurs because it is only in the psychic

mobility category of Interaction with Foreigners in

the home
per cent
experienc
come near

Com-tries

report t
and 22.9

COR-tide

Ir.

 

Emilie...

with the

I
I
I
I
I

s
‘ I

O
‘ \

 

61
the home country that a majority of respondents 53.2
per cent had a high level of exposure to dissociative
experience. The only physical mobility index which
come near to this percentage is Trips to Developed
Countries, where 43.2 per cent of the respondents

have made such trips and 46.8 per cent did not.

Table 7 also indicates that only in the categories
of Trips to Developing Countries and Memberships in
Foreign Scientific Associations, the percentage of
respondents with a high level of exposure drops below
30.0 per cent. Only 17.1 per cent of the scientists
report that they have made trips to developing countries
and 22.9 per cent belong to scientific associations in

countries other than their home country organizations.

In summary, the visiting foreign scientists do
not have professional histories of considerable physical
mobility. Their educational and work experiences, along
with their physical movement and participation in scien—
tific organizations, are embedded in the social structure
of their home country. It is only in their contact with
individuals from other nations in their home country that
the scientists exhibit a high degree of exposure to dis-
sociative experience. These scientists are, in terms
of the indices of dissociative experience, one nation
social actors, i.e., they do not have extensive experience

in other nations.

Table 8, which presents a Yule's Q correlational

I I I I II I ll
INwliulq I a ti lil l I l|r|1l I'll

ICOAVW CHAOVOL DLOEWOLOL 0c "ml—LL. Cu mfifiLL. EuCLCl .Q.£L wamrmhvl LC spsbteN

Ca madnmLODEvz new}
SOdnvOflfnmUQC—H

 

"OOCQfiLQQKW 0>d00fi0000fl3 ho onkg

oouhmvdrnmwaxufl Okrdwbflwfiocmnufl: 1H0 mumvnnknbw ..l~x~d>.eufl~> Gnu
fwohwfiphoanxvfl .H 1U>svl~ LC who .H 3 Wish dfhnu .04: fiv..r\-.\m~ :eCLeafi u \. eqnu I}?

 

ANNNuzv
Ro.ooH

0.3a

@.N
3.00
ao.mm
macapmao
somma ones»

Inmaom swaonom
a“ mmanmaoneoz

No

Ammmuzv Ammmuzv Ammmuzv Ammmuzv Ammmuzv
mo.00H Ro.oofi mo.ooa fio.cofi Ro.oofi
'III IIIII II'I. Ill' m o H
e.m m.n o.oH o.m o.sfi
m.ms m.mu w.ws m.mw :.ws
mm.mm &H.sfi mm.ms mm.om ms.mm
hpussoo oaom mofiupssoo moappssoo ooqodaoaxm cocoapoaxm
on» :« wsfimoaosmn uonoao>oa xpoz Hmsoflpmozdm
macswfioaom on wedge on agape smfioaom .Q.:m cwdopom
spa:
scapompcpsH

“moaoaamaxm o>apmd00mman he came

mosoanodxm cpapmHOOmmHQ mo momma wsaznm> on
onshoawm Ho>oq mo scapunanpman omouscopom “a canoe

"Hosea

mQHSmamneoe
02\.Q.£m oz

omsoamomrsoz
30g
swam

"ooaoaaoaxm
o>apmHoOmmaa
no Hc>oq

matrix of
physical (
systemic a
iissociati

correlate:

 

 

63

matrix of the relationships among the psychic and
physical mobility variables and their connection to
systemic and role circumscription, discloses that the
dissociative experience variables are for the most part
correlated with one another in a positive direction.
Obtaining a doctorate in a foreign country is positively
correlated with Foreign Work Experience, Trips to Devel-
oping Country, Interaction with Foreigners, and Member-
ships in Foreign Scientific Associations, and weakly
associated with Trips to Developed Countries. Making
trips to developed countries is positively associated
with Trips to Developing Countries, Interaction with
Foreigners, and Memberships Country. Similarly, making
trips to developing countries is positively correlated
with interaction in the home country with individuals
from other nations, and belonging to scientific as-
sociations in other nations. Only in two sets of cor-

relations do negative associations appear.

Working in a foreign country is negatively
correlated with belonging to foreign scientific as-
sociations, negatively associated in weak manner with
Trips to Developing Countries, and unrelated to Trips
to Developed Countries and Interaction with Foreigners.
In other words, those scientists who have worked abroad
before the present period tend to belong only to their
home country scientific associations and have made no

prior trips to developed countries.

One 7
lie in th
quite you
reason gi'
by the re
s. iately
tation gr;
by the co
or its so
work EXpe

abroad , t

_|
a:

 

 

64

One possible explanation for this occurrence may
lie in the fact that the scientists in the sample are
quite young, mean age of 32, and the most frequent
reason given for the cross-national work experience
by the respondents is that they were employed im—
mediately after obtaining the doctorate by the insti-
tution granting the degree. The latter is supported
by the correlation of .618 between receiving a Ph.D.
or its equivalent in a foreign country and foreign
work experience. After working for a year or two
abroad, they return home for a brief period and are
again physically mobile, as evidencedby their current
stay in the united States. During their short stay
at home and given their very brief professional career; they
have had neither . the time nor experience to develop
those networks which would stimulate both physical
and psychic mobility. One would expect, however, that
upon their return to the home country after this trip
to the united States and after they have established
a professional career in their nation, their exper-
iences abroad would stimulate their capacity to be

exposed to other types of dissociative experiences.

The second set of variables which reveal a neg-
ative relationship with one another are the two psychic
mobility indices. Interacting with foreigners in the
home country coincides with belonging to scientific

associations only in the home country. Again this

 

 

 

l lllllllll|l|llllllllulllall . |.lll| II I .. ..
virithfiféa {tractLtan ca thLL. Cu tCrLL. thwECk .Qtzl CkaLOk IESDLfiD OHOQ OfiEGQD>W

 

nCOCDdLOQKE ObdulAOOnndQ “In! COflOQfiLODESEflU
s. CH0: 1:! 035000on .HO undLOl—l HIECfiO'H-YHLCU ~mw DHDOK.

.sowpdfiAomsfikoo each so coapwozw on» on momsoamohuco: mo sundown .wma ma soapmahomESoaHo
each you 2 one .coapnwhomsaonwo mach mo mcoapmaohhoo can you uaooxo .NNN ma cane» wasp you 2 one *

mmm.u In---
mmm. mmm.
mam. no“.
mom.u wmo.u
ohm. om".
om n. RH?
moo. mmo.
mcoapuwoomm<
oamapcofiom naocwaohom
:32“; fl as“:

madcmhanoz :cauouthCH

*

moosouuoawm c>apqwoommaa was sowvmahon2§ondo

New. IIIII
:Na.u duo.
cum. Now.
can. odfi.
Hms. mmo.u
moaup

Icaco mad noahpsdoo

Iaoam>oa podoacboa

op amass on adage

mac.

as:

mma.

oOCOflhon
Ixm xhoz
cwaouom

Nmo.c

mom.

oocoahoawm
Hucoaveospm
dam a398,.“ -5230 30m

wwm.

coavaahon

oaom 8. 3239mm mo fist: Héfipflofioo .m tapas

uIIuI mcoapsaoommd
owmfiucowom :wdchom
CH emanmhanoz

IuIII myocwacnom
new: cowpocaoch

niece moahpndoo meadoa
Imboa op mafiae

IeIII mcfihpcfioo pcmoa
uc>on on nudge

ennui ooccwhomxm
0733 :waohom

IIIII cocoahomxm
Hucoapuospm

ohm-Sm fiWflgoh

IIIuI coavdfihom
1.50%an OHOm

IIIII soapmahom

nadohfio oesopmmm

cowuddhon
assuage
edSopuhm

eopirica'
of the r-
negative
pretatic
systemic
Scientif
developi

sociati:

 

 

66

empirical relationship is opposite of the expectations
of the researcher. A tentative explanation of this
negative relationship can be offered through an inter—
pretation of the very strong association of .903 between
systemic circumscription and Memberships in Foreign
Scientific Associations in Table 8. Scientists from
developing countries often belong to scientific as-
sociations outside of their home country. This rela_
tionship implies that,given a low level of development
of the scientific and educational institutions of the
home country, scientists must go out of their home
country to participate in scientific associations which
may or may not exist in wemrown country. The scientist
from a developed nation does not need to do this. He
can remain in the home country to receive and contribute
information about current developments in the field.
Moreover, he does not need to establish interaction
patterns with foreigners. The scientist from a devel-
oped nation can rely upon his own countrymen for the
information he desires and for colleagues. In short,
scientists from developing nations must go out of their
home country to keep up with current developments in
the field and to make themselves known to and come to
know the larger scientific community. The scientists
from developed nations, on the other hand, can rely

on their home country's scientific and educational assets.

67

Systemic and Role Circumscription vs. Dissociative Ex-
perience. Table 8 also presents the correlations among
systemic and role circumscription and the dissociative
experience variables. In examining the results presented
in the table, one finds that systemic circumscription
and role circumscription is related to the dissociative
experience variables in a reverse direction than ex-
pected, i.e., the higher the systemic and role circum-
scription, the higher the level of exposure to dis-
sociative experiences. In addition, the correlations
between systemic circumscription and the dissociative
experience indices are greater than the relationship

of role circumscription to dissociative experiences.
Systemic circumscription is related to Foreign Ph.D.
Educational Experience, Foreign Work Experience, Trips

to Developing Countries, and Memberships in Foreign
Scientific Associations and unrelated to Trips to Devel-
oped Countries and Interaction with Foreigners. Role
circumscription is related to Trips to Developing Coun-
tries and Memberships in Foreign Scientific Associations,
slightly associated with Trips to Developed Countries
and Interaction with Foreigners, and unrelated to Foreign
Ph.D. Educational Experience and Foreign Work Experience.
In other words scientists from developing nations have
cross-societal educational and work experiences, make
trips to other developing nations and belong to asso-

ciations in other countries (a point which has been

68

discussed previously). Moreover, those scientists who
teach, administrate, or consult in their home country
have made trips to developing countries and belong to
scienfitic organizations in other countries. They
also possibly make trips to developed countries and
do not necessarily interact with foreigners in their
home countries. No relationship exists between their
performance of these work roles and cores—societal
educational and work experiences.

Given these findings, Proposition 2: The greater
the role circumscription, the lesser the exposure to
dissociative experience cannot be accepted nor re-
jected and in fact leans towards rejection. However,
the association between systemic circumscription and
role circumscription may be confounding these results.
In order to show if in fact this is the case, Table 9
was constructed in which level of systemic circumscrip—
tion is controlled.

Controlling for a high level of systemic circum-
scription, the relationship between role circumscrip-
tion and exposure to dissociative experiences is strength-
ened. Scientists from developing nations who perform
teaching, administrative or consulting roles are more
likely to be physically and psychically mobile than
those who perform research, teaching—research, organ-
ization and publication roles. This result is the

reverse of the relationship implied in proposition 2.

H v r» at

«v.0«L...E:CO KCTLO~C>Qly she:
cofiunaLcc520Lfio antum>m

COfiquLOEESCLfiU OfiEOQTRW
LO-“ .QCAHqOLUCOO .. 002.0 7.512734 C> «.useuCOQEWQ
uhCHDfiAL— FLUIEW—CLIF.O [ENIGMA :nficznfibVTfi anhAU «\U ~..NN-ELLPVU

u 0 OHS 5.5

BOA

wmm.

msoHpmaoOmma
canapsoaom
smaoaoa

ca anaempmneoz

one.

mSOapmHUOmw<
camapsmfiom
smfionom

:H maanmponeoz

mmd.

mpmsmaosom

Spa:
seapomsmpaH

as .

mamsmaopom

£ua3
scapomsopsH

mm

.mcfipflpz dam :oHpmoaHpsa camapsmfiom cam
.mmapfi>apom Hmsofimmomoam .ncpmommpiwsasomop .30LMmmmu madmaosa aofipaaaomssopflo mace
.pHSmsoo so .mpmgpmasaeem .sommp on: emcee mmuSHosfi scapaasomesoaao macs sweat

:mm.u mum. NHH. mam.l
mmampnsoo moappssoo mosmdamaxm mosoapomxm
weamoac>om dmaoao>om xnoz HonoHpmozcm
cs mange on waste essence .q.:m
swfiopom

Asmsuzv

Amoflppqsoo concao>mmv sou

mmH. «ms. was.u mmfi.
mofiapssoo moaapssoo mosmapomxm mommapoaxm
mammofio>oa emaoam>oa xpoz HmaofimeSUm
as waste op waste essence .a.:m
Qwfioaom
Afiofiuzv

mmoaoapoaxm o>apmH60mmHQ
Amoappnsoo mammoao>omv swam
cofiumapOmezopao caempmam

sowpaHLOmesopao oweopmmm
pom weaaaospsoo "moscapcaxm m>apmH00mmHo

cam sodpmapomesopdo oHom gmozpom msofipmaoshoo no canoe

escapafipom
easonao maom

escapmaaom
Iezoafio oaom

Only wit
work Ex:
proposit
of role

societai

Tr ;

and exp:
SUSIE?
. I.
tists 1‘:
312112131
to deve

belong

Opposit

 

70

Only with reference to work experience abroad, Foreign
Work Experience, is the association supportive of the
proposition, i.e., those scientists with a high level
of role circumscription are less likely to have cross-

societal work experiences.

The relationship between role circumscription
and exposure to dissociative experience is again
strengthened for low systemic circumscription. Scien-
tists from developed nations who perform teaching,
administrative or consulting roles usually make trips
to developed countries, interact with foreigners, and
belong to scientific associations in other nations. In
opposition to the finding that scientists from devel-
oping nations who have a high level of role circum--
scription have less cross-societal work experiences,
Table 9 shows that Foreign Work Experience is slightly
associated with role circumscription for those scien-
tists from developed nations. Moreover the correlations
between role circumscription and Foreign Ph.D. Educational
Experience and Trips to Developing Countries are in the
reverse direction for low systemically circumscribed scien—
tists. Scientists who are from developed nations and who
perform teaching, administrative, or consulting roles are
less likely to go abroad for their doctorate or its equi-
valent and are less likely to make trips to developing coun-
tries. Both of these findings are supportive of prop-

osition 2. However, caution is needed in interpreting

the corr

and role

 

of syste
scienti:
to make
tists f:
from de'

may be 1

Table 8
t0 impl
role c1
fDr‘mula
of role

pOS‘fl-J‘e

 

 

 

71

the correlation between Trips to Developing Countries
and role circumscription because of the relationship

of systemic circumscription to this variable. Since
scientists from a developing nation are more likely

to make trips to other developing nations than scien—
tists from developed nations (only thirteen scientists
from developed nations made such trips), the correlation

may be meaningless for scientists from developed nations.

These results along with the finding presented in
Table 8 indicate that proposition 2 needs to be recast
to imply a reverse direction of the relationship between
role circumscription and dissociative experiences. Re-
formulated proposition 2 states, the higher the level
of role circumscription, the higher the level of ex—

posure to dissociative experiences.

This reformulation of proposition 2 when viewed
in conjunction with proposition 1 implies that scien—
tists from developing countries who perform teaching,
administrative, or consulting roles are more likely to
be exposed to dissociative experiences than their col-
leagues who perform research, teaching-research, pro-
fessional, and publication roles. Moreover, in a sim-
ilar fashion, scientists from developed nations with
a high level of role circumscription are more physically
and psychically mobile than their colleagues who perform

roles which have been categorized as low level role

.‘C I
V
n.”
.‘I'
. -

 

C.
lI‘CUTS

Tl?

 

72

circumscription.

The confirmation of proposition 1 supports the
argument made in the theoretical section of the study
that scientists from developing countries perform
teaching, administrative, or consulting roles, in part,
because of the lack of available resources to support
the other scientific work roles. Given the low level
of development of educational and scientific institutions,
many of these scientists must go out of their countries
to make themselves visible to their field, to get in-
formation on current developments, and to establish

colleagial relationships with other scientists.

It may also be possible that the performance of
teaching, administrative, or consulting roles opens
avenues through which experiences in other societies
and with members of these societies can be gained.

Since these roles are organizationally embedded, the
scientist can rely upon the functional position he
occupies in the organization to give him access to
cross-societal experiences or he can use his position

to obtain such access. Such a scientist is more “visible"
than the research scientist whose visibility is determined
by his periodic publications in his home country journals
and the recognition accorded to them. For example, when
visitors from other nations arrive at a research or ed—
ucational institution for a tour of its facilities, they

will most likely meet in extensive contact administrators

may rel
obtain
ihether

.‘V‘

be pros

 

 

 

73

or teachers rather than the researchers in the lab—
oratory. Or the administrator or consultant may

make trips to other nations to observe other organ-
izations perform their tasks, whereas the researcher
may rely more heavily on written communication to
obtain information about work being done elsewhere.
Whether this explanation is tenable or not can only

be proved in future research in which a stress is
placed on the visibility of the performance of varying

types of scientific work roles.

In summary, these findings indicate that there
are differences in the behavioral patterns of scien-
tists. Some of them have had more exposure to dis-
sociative experiences than others. The differences
in exposure to varying types of experiences in other
societies and with their members is related to the
level of development of the respondents home countries
(systemic circumscription) and the type of work roles
they have performed in their countries of origin (role
circumscription). Moreover, scientists from developing coun-
tries perform :roles in the work situation which are
different from those played by scientists from devel-
oped nations. These results support the ideas that
level of development of the scientists' home country
and the types of work roles performed by them are
important sources of variations in the behavior of

scientists in the international scientific community.

ucation

Th
in that
cent of
Years 0

thirtyi

 

 

 

74

Additional Characteristics and Backgrounds of the
Respondents. In this chapter, we have already analyzed
portions of the background and characteristics of the
visiting foreign scientists in this study. It has been
shown that they have not been, as a whole, physically
and psychically mobile and that they usually perform

in their home countries roles which have been defined
as low role circumscribing. This section explores
additional attributes of the respondents with reference
to their marital and familial backgrounds, their ed-

ucational experiences, and their employment histories.

The first major characteristic of the respondents
in the study is their age. As Table 10 shows, 40.1 per
cent of the scientists are between twenty-six and thirty
years of age and 29.8 per cent between thirty-one and

thirty-five. Only 6.7 per cent are over forty. With

Table 10: Age Distribution of the Respondents

Age Grouping of

the Respondents Per Cent
Under 25 5.8%
26-30 40.1
31-35 29.8
36-40 16.7
41 and Over 6.7
Non-Response .9
Total 100.0%
(N=222)

Mean age = 32.0

Y—_

 

a mean a

;
genera ..

   

ferenee

 

nation:

 

75
a mean age of 32, then, we are dealing with a younger
generation of scientists. There are no significant dif-
ferences between scientists from developed and developing
nations in terms of age. Our study has tapped a generational
segment in the international scientific community which is
post-war and, in many cases, post-independence in terms of
the scientists from former colonial nations.
In addition, given their youth, these scientists
have been involved in the scientific and professional
activities of their fields for only a short period.
Most of the respondents received their doctorate after
the 1955, as Table 11 indicates. Only 3.7 per cent of
the respondents obtained their Ph.D. before 1956. Since
this study was conducted in 1969, the maximum number of
Table 11: Percentage Distribution of Years in
Which the Doctorate was Received by
the Respondents

Years in which Doctorate
was Received by the

Respondents: Per Cent
Prior 1950 1.4%
1950-1955 2.3
1956-1960 7.2
1961-1965 24.3
1966 and Over 40.5
Doctorate in Progress 5.4
No Doctorate 2-3
Non-Response 16.6
Total 100.0%

(N=222)

 

  
   

years n
profess
status
in this

are pro

76
years most respondents could have been active in a
professional life after their emergence from a student
status is twelve years. As a result, the respondents
in this study are not only young in age, but also they

11
are professionally young.

The visiting foreign scholars usually complete
their highest degree within a relatively short period
of time after receiving their bachelor's degree. Four-
tenths obtained their highest degree one to five years
after they obtained their first degree, as Table 12 dis-
closes. Only 10.0 per cent take longer than ten years
to finish the educational process. These results in-
dicate that the majority of the respondents do not ex-
perience any breaks between their undergraduate and
graduate education. Those scientists who do take longer
to complete their highest degree generally cite such
factors as military service and lack of financial assets
as the major reasons why they did not go directly on
into graduate school. Others pointed to another reason,
they were unsure of their career goals and vocations
after they received their bachelor's degree and, as a
consequence, delayed going into graduate school until
they had arrived at what they considered to be an ap—
propriate decision. For these scientists, the gap
between graduate and undergraduate education is a
trial and error period in which they are employed in
a variety of tasks in and outside of the scientific

11 The respondents are also almost all males. Only twelve
of the scientists are females.

.4
I

r.‘

*3

 

 

 

77

community exploring alternative career routes.

Table 12: Percentage Distribution of Length
of Years Between Bachelor's Degree
and the Highest Degree Received by
the Respondents

Length of Years Between
Bachelor's Degree and
Highest Degree Received

by the Respondents: Per Cent
1-5 Years 43.7%
6—10 Years 34.2
11-15 Years 7.?
16Years and Over 2.3
Non-Response 12.1
Total: 100.0%
(N=222)

In the section on dissociative experiences,
foreign educational experience at the doctoral level
was examined. No reference was made, however, to
the level of development of the countries in which
the scientists received their Ph.D. Here we will
explore not only the level of development of the
country in which the doctorate was obtained, but
also of those countries in which the bachelor's and

master's degrees were received.

Table 13 examines the relationship of the re-
spondents' systemic circumscription, i.e., the level
of development of the country of origin, and the level
of development of the country in which they received
their undergraduate degree. Almost all of the scien-

tists receive their undergraduate training in their

 

 

 

 

 

8'53
.1 WS

haVe

78

home countries. In addition, only eleven of the
respondents took their bachelor's degree in coun-
tries other than their home countries. In thier
undergraduate training the scientists in this study

do not cross national boundaries.

Table 13: Systemic Circumscription and the
Level of Development of the Country
in Which the Bachelor's Degree was
Received by the Respondents

Level of Development
of the Country in

Which the Bachelor's Systemic Circumscription

Degree was Received

by the Respondents High (Developing) Low (Developed)
Developing 82.2% 4.1%
Developed 5.9 78.5
Non-Response 11.9 17.4
Total: 100.0% 100.0%

(N=101) (N=121)

At the master's level, the scientists again usually
receive their degree in countries having a similar level
of development as their home country. But as Table 14
shows, none of the scientists from developed countries
have completed their master's in developing countries.

23.1 per cent of the respondents from developing countries,
on the ohter hand, went to developed countries for their
initial graduate training. In probes on the question of
the country in which the master's degree was received,
thirteen of the scientists from developed countries

obtained their M.A.'s or M.S.'s in developed countries

79

different from their home countries. None of the
scientists from developing nations received their
master's degrees in foreign developing nations. These
probes reveal that scientists from developing countries
are less likely to go to nations with a similar level
of development for their initial graduate training than
scientists from developed nations. Scientists from
developing nations, however, are more cross-development

mobile than scientists from developed nations.

At the doctoral level, we find in Table 15 that
scientists from developing nations go to developed
nations for their Ph.D.‘s, but none of the scientists
from developed countries receive their doctorate in
developing nations. The probes to the question revealed
that only one scientist from a developing country went
to another developing country for his doctorate. In
contradistinction, thirty scientists from developed
nations travelled to other developed countries for their
Ph.D. Therefore, if scientists from developing countries
go abroad for their graduate training at both the master's
and doctoral level, they usually go to a developed country
and not to a developing country. Scientists from devel-
oped countries avoid any of the developing countries for
a graduate educational experience. If they go abroad,
they will go to a country having a similar level of
development as their own. At the bachelor's level,
both the scientists from developed and developing nations

do not generally have foreign educational experience.

T4?

 

Lew:
2? a.
900th

b3" ti?

 

80

Table 14: Systemic Circumscription and the
Level of Development of the Country
in Which the Master's Degree was
Received by the Respondents

Level of Development
of Country in Which

the Master's Degree Systemic Circumscription

was Received by the

Respondnets High (Developing) Low (Developed)
Developing 49.0% - - -
Developed 23.1 42.1
No Degree 4.8 17.1
Non—Response 23.1 40.8
Total: 100.0% 100.0%

(N=101) (N=121)

Table 15: Systemic Circumscription and the
Level of Development of the Country
in Which the Doctorate was Received
by the Respondents

Level of Development

of Country in Which the
Doctorate was Received
by the Respondents High (Developing) Low (Developed)

Systemic Circumscription

Developing 39.3% _-_-
Developed 33.6 91.6
No Degree 1.9 .8
Non-Response 25.2 7.6
Total: 100.0% 100.0%

(N=101) (N=121)

111

youthf‘

the re

"-—

with n'

 

are 31:
71.2 p
per cc
and 6.|

quarts

 

81

Besides being young in age and professionally
youthful with varying educational experiences abroad,
the respondents in the study generally are married
with no children. Only 27.5 per cent of the respondents
are single and .9 per cent are divorced. Of those
71.2 per cent of the respondents who are married, 15.3
per cent have one to two children in their families
and 6.8 per cent have three or more children. Three-

quarters of the respondents, then, are childless.

In the interview schedule, the respondents were
asked if their spouses and children accompanied them
on their current trip to the United States. Almost
all of them replied in the affirmative. When the
scientists were asked why their families made the
journey with them, the most frequent response was that
they wanted their families to have an experience in
a foreign country and to see the splendor of, as one
Indian biologist related, “super rich America.“ Only
a few scientists' spouses travelled with them for pro-
fessional purposes. In general, then, for the families
of these scientists the current stay in the United States

is a vacation, visit, or sightseeing tour.

Given this purpose, many of the scientists mentioned,
in passing comments, that they felt obligated to their
spouse and children to show them the varying aspects
of American culture and life. As one Australian math-

ematical biologist said, "on weekends, my wife and two

t..'-;)!-u1-—a—

 

sons 1
the s;
and 0f

seeker

 

 

 

also

Spous

82

sons take off in our microbus and tour the city and

the suburbs. Often we take trips to Indiana, Wisconsin,
and other neighboring states. When I have to work the
weekends, I feel I have disappointed my family. All
week their cooped up in the apartment. This is the
only time they get to see the country and its people.
We're planing to delay our return home for several
weeks so that we can make up for lost sightseeing."

This scientist and several others discussed the

tension of their conflict with work and family. But

the general pattern seems to be an absence of conflict
between the world of work and family in the current stay

in the United States.

On the interview schedule, the scientists were
also asked to give background information on their
spouses, and parents (questions 11, 12, 13, interview
schedule). The first item of information deals with
the citizenship of these individuals. Only two scien-
tists from developed countries married spouses from
foreign developed nations and none of the scientists
from developing countries married a spouse from a
foreign country. With regard to their parents, only
five of the eighty-two respondents to this interview
schedule have mothers whose citizenship differs from
theirs. Of these five scientists, four are from devel-
oped countries and one from a developing country.

Similarly, only four of the respondents' fathers are

 

backghl
point

$90324

 

respoy

feren;

83

from countries different from theirs. Three of the
scientists are from developed countries and one from

a developing country. In general, the respondents in

the study, do not have cross-cultural marriages or paren—
tage, although 11 per cent have cross-cultural marriages.

The second type of data on spouse and familial
background probes into their birthplace. Here the
point of interest is whether or not their parents or
spouses were cross-societally mobile. Only six of the
respondents' spouses had citizenships which were dif-
ferent then their birthplace. Seven of the respondents'
mothers and nine of the respondents' fathers were born
in countries different from the nations in which they
currently hold citizenships. There are no differences
between the scientists from developed and developing
nations on the mobility of their parents or spouses.

In general, then, they do not marry cross—culturally
and their family backgrounds are usually limited to one
society, their home country.

The third item of information on the familial and
spouse characteristics is their occupational back-
grounds. Table 16 presents the occupations of the
fathers, mothers, and spouses of the respondents.

Since an important aspect of the occupational back-
grounds of these individuals is whether or not they
are in scientific fields identical or different from
the respondents or in other academic, non-scientific

fields, the occupational categories have been divided

 

I- "'1 a!

into twc
fields,
cupatioz

As

have fa:

science
0f the 1
into thi
e.g,, i:
0? the 1
are in 5
majorit;

Spouses

In
the majc
“SinesE
gOVepnmE

of their

84

into two categories: a)science and other academic
fields, and b)non-scientific and non-academic oc-
cupations.

As Table 16, shows, 7.3 per cent of the respondents
have fathers and spouses in the same field of science
as they are in. Only 1.2 per cent have mothers in a
field identical to their own. In terms of fields in
science different from the respondents, 9.8 per cent
of the fathers, and 13.4 per cent of their spouses fall
into this category. In non-scientific academic positons,
e.g., in the humanities, history, etc., only 1.2 per cent
of the fathers and mothers and 6.1 per cent of the spouses
are in such fields. These results indicate that the
majority of scientists in this study have parents or

spouses who are not in scientific and academic occupations.

In the non-scientific and non-academic category,
the major occupations of the scientists' fathers are
business, government service, e.g., federal officer,
government bureaucrat, etc., and labor (worker). Most
of their mothers and spouses are unemployed. Of those
who are employed, the major categories of employment are
laborer, and school teacher for mothers and school teacher
for spouses. Using the data on fathers' occupation as
a crude index of class background of the respondents,
one can conclude the majority of respondents come from
a white-collar and a professional class. There were

no discernible differences between scientists from

Table 16: Occupations of the Fathers, Mothers,

85

and Spouses of the Respondents in
Science and Other Academic Fields
and in Non-Scientific and Non-

Academic Occupations

Occupation:

a)Science and
other Academic
Fields

Scientists in

the same field
as the Respon—
dent

Scientist in

Different Field
from the Respon-

dent

Academician in
Other scholarly
Field

b)Non—Scientific

and Non-Academic

Occupations
Businessman
Clerk

Government
Service

Laborer
Lawyer
Librarian
Physician

School Teacher
(primary or
secondary)

Other
c)Unemployed
Total:

Father

7.3%

9.8

1.2

14.6
4.9

20.7
15.9
3.7

6.1

100.0%
(N=82)

Mother

1.2%

1.2

2.4

7.3

6.1
7.3

63.5

100.0%
(N=82)

Spouse

7.3%

13.4

6.1

1.2

2.4

6.1

74.5

100.0%
(N=82)

 

developi

occupati

To:
respond-
discuss
of res;
What is

which e

h?

86

developing and developed nations with regard to the

occupational backgrounds of their parents and spouses.

Turning now to the employment histories of the
respondents, the section on dissociative experience
discussed briefly foreign work experience. The majority
of respondents did not have corss-societal employment.
What is of interest here is the type of organization
which employed the respondents in their home countries.

Table 17: Percentage Distribution of the

Type of Organizations Which
Employed the Respondents in

Thier Home Countries

Type of Organization
Which Employed the

Respondents Per Cent
Industry 4.5%
Government 11.7
University 78.8
Other 1.4
Unemployed 3.6
Total: 100.0%
(N=222)

As Table 17 shows, eigth-tenths of the re-
spondents worked in a university before their arrival
to the United States. Governmental organizations
employed one-tenth of the scientists and 4.5 per cent
had jobs in industry. There were no major differences

between scientists from developed and developing countries.

As we have already seen in the section on role

circumscrip'
forming rese
publication
tists who we
usually stat:
schedule the.
was Primaril-
other hand,

identified t

In Sump;
this study 1

orientations

 

developed an
Periences 312'
Sitiese Wher
P0183 and W?

One fur
characteris‘

they OQCupy

the typ e or

87

circumscription, the majority of scientists were per-
forming research, teaching-research, professional, and
publication roles in these organizations. Those scien—
tists who were employed in industry and government
usually stated in response to probes on the interview
schedule that the nature of their research involvement
was primarily in R & D or applied research. On the
other hand, those employed by universities usually

identified basic research.

In summing the characteristics of the respondents,
this study is looking at the behavior, values, and
orientations of a younger generation of scientists from
developed and developing nations who have limited ex-
periences abroad, who are primarily employed by univer-
sities, where they enact primarily low circumscribing
roles and who do not have a cross-cultural familial

and spouse backgrounds.

One further take-off point of inquiry into the
characteristics of the respondents are the positions
they occupy in the work situation in the United States,
the type of exchange networks that existed between their
national scientific community and the United States, and
their experiences in the social system of work in this
country. In Chapter 3 the respondents' positions in
this country and the exchange networks will be related
to a ranking of nations in terms of scientific output

and prestige. A discussion of the social system of work

in this cou‘
scientists'

Chapter 5.

 

88

in this country as compared to the visiting foreign
scientists' home countries will be presented in

Chapter 5.

Center

 

Chapter 3

Center and Periphery in Science

89,

Throug}
scientific .2
research at
existing pa:
in a proces.
centers are
scientific
articles fr
presence in
In additiOr.
their stude‘
SClentists
In this way
a 'P‘dll " t
endeavors.

Outsid
01’ 30181193.
on here and
can DOSSibl
Seientlfic
is 10,, beca
and reSOurC
and in term
Thus, the PI

poveriShed

 

 

90

Throughout the world, one can identify centers of
scientific activity in a variety of disciplines where
research at the forefront of knowledge is transforming
existing paradigms or, in some cases, overthrowing them
in a process of scientific revolution. Usually these
centers are also the major locations of prestigious
scientific journals and associations which attract
articles from scientists in other countries or their
presence in national scientific associational meetings.
In addition, scientists outside of the centers send
their students to them for socialization under those
scientists conducting strategic research in a field.

In this way, the centers of scientific activity exert
a "pull " towards its vortex of scientific prestigious
endeavors.

Outside of these centers lie the peripheral areas
of science. When major work in a field is being carried
on here and, if such work is successful, the periphery
can possibly change its position to a focal point of
scientific research. But the likelihood of this occurwence
is low because the prestige of the centers begets power
and resources in the forms of financial and social support
and in terms of a flow of highly trained manpower to it.
Thus, the peripheral regions of science are often im-
poverished and this poverty limits its possible upward
mobility in the ranking of nations as centers of scien—

tific activity in a field.

To
study we
and perf
were as}
the fore
to disce
to the I
tions 3i

interviI

91

To find out whether or not the scientists in the
study were conscious of a distinction between centers
and peripheries of research in their field, the respondents
were asked to identify the nations in which research at
the forefront of their fields is being accomplished and
to discern the position of their home country relative
to the leaders in their area of scientific inquiry(ques-
tions 34, 35, 36, questionnaire and 125, 126, 127, 130

interview schedule).

The scientists identify most frequently as centers
of research the United States, the Soviet Union, France,
Great Britain, and Japan. Furthermore, the United States
is, in general, acknowledged as the leader of their fields.
The positions of the other four nations usually are seen
as being interchangeable in position. As one Canadian
scientist pointed out, "except for the United States
which is the highest country, there isn't much dif-

ference in the nations which are near her."

In terms of locating the position of their home
countries in relationship to the ranking they presented,
the respondents either see their home country as being
among or close behind the leading nations or they view
it as lagging behind the leading countries in their
fields. As Table 18 reveals, scientists from devel—
oping nations (high systemic circumscription) usually
identify their nations as a peripheral area of scientific

activity, i.e., lagging behind the leaders. Scientists

Perceiv
Positio
of the
Hone
Country

4

Close

hind t?
1835.121;
3‘I'c'itions

.4
nDOEE C
t

92

Table 18: Systemic and Role Circumscription and
Perceived Position of the Home Country
in Relationship to the Leading Countries
in the Respondents Fields

Systemic Role
Circumscription Circumscription*
Perceived
Position High (teach- Low (re-
of the High Low ing, admin- search, teach—
Home (Devel— (Devel- istration, ing-research,
Country oping) oped) consulting) Publication, etc)
Among or
close Be-
hind the
Leading
Nations 36.1% 82.5% 44.3% 72.6%
Lagging Be—
hind the
Leading
Nations 63.9 17.5 55.7 27.4
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
(N=101) (N=121) (N=61 ) (N=137)
Q=—.786 Q= ..540

*The total N for Role Circumscription equals 198 and
not 222 because of 24 non-responses to the question
on role circumscription.

from developed nations (low systemic circumscription), on
the other hand, rank their home countries as among or close
behind the leading nations. Similarly, scientists who
perform teaching, administrative, or consulting roles
usually discern the rank of their home country to be lag-
ging behind, whereas, those scientists who perform re-
search, teaching-research, publication, or professional

roles locate the position of their country of origin as

among or close behind the top countries in their field.

ln,gener
role cir
of the h

tries in

93

In general, therefore, the greater the systemic and
role circumscription, the lower the perceived position
of the home country in relationship to the leading coun-

tries in a field.

The respondents were also asked if they thought
their national scientific community will be upwardly
mobile in the future in terms of their ranking of top
countries in their fields. The majority of scientists
as Table 19 indicates, express confidence. in the future
mobility of their home country. What is interesting,
however, is that scientists from developing nations are
more likely to acknowledge the possibility of future
mobility than scientists from developed nations. There
is no relationship between role circumscription (type of
work role performed in the home country) and a perception

of the future mobility of the home country.

Several reasons can be given for the relationship
of systemic circumscription (level of development) and
perceived future mobility of the home country. Many
scientists from developing countries, are conscious of
the overall "lowness" of the position of their home coun-
try, i.e., they see their country as so far behind the
top nations in their fields that downward mobility is
an impossibility. As a microbiologist from Greece noted,
"my country is so distant from the leaders and so are
other nations similar to mine, we can only move up. Down

is where we are at.“ For others, there is an inherent

Future
Mobility
of Hone
Country
Yes

No

Total

*Ihe tot
not 222
on role
opment (

Curing :

94

Systemic and Role Circumscription and

Perceived Future Mobility of the Home
Country in Relationship to the Leading
Countries in the Respondents Fields

Table 19:
Systemic
Circumscription
Future
Mobility High Low
of Home (Devel- (Devel-
Country oping) oped)
Yes 72.6% 50.5%
N0 270“ 4905
Total 100.0% 100.0%
(N=101) (N=121)
Q= .445

High (teach-
ing, admin-

Role
Circumscription*

Low (re-
search, teach-

istration, ing-research,
consulting) Publication, etc”)
60.3% 62.2%
3907 3708
100.0% 100.0%
(N=61) (N=137)
Q= --039

*The total N for role circumscription equals 198 and
not 222 because of 24 non-responses to the question

on role circumscription.

optimism based on the types of advancement in the devel—

opment of an adequate scientific community they see oc-

curing in the home country.

These scientists point out

that tremendous strides in self—improvement are underway

and a better quality of scientist is becoming predominant

in their fields in the home country.

Moreover, they often

cite increased financial and social support being given

to their fields by the public and power centers of their

society.

It is only a matter of time and the building

of a critical mass of scientists for these scientists

before their nations narrow the gap between the leading

countries and them.

Some scientists share this optimism, but temper

it with a (
nobility or
in the am;
0T prestig.
a180 discer
a POSitlon
their fielfyl
taking pla:
they Hill r
and thEm, y

 

 

ThOse
not see an},
usually ciI
students 1:
absentee Of
of financi
and the di
in the ho;
these SCie
is th 11}
SCientifi(
the dispel:

Scie

95

it with a cognizance of the possibilities of future
mobility on the part of the top nations. They believe
in the ability of their countries to climb the ladder

of prestige and power in the scientific community, but
also discern the failure of their nations to achieve

a position of equal rank with the current leaders in
their fields because of the advancements in their fields
taking place amongst the top nations. They feel that
they will narrow somewhat the gap between the leaders
and them, but at the same time acknowledge that the

distance will never be fully closed.

Those scientists from developing nations who do
not see any future mobility of their home countries
usually cite the lack of dedicated scientists and
students in their fields in the home country, the
absence of adequate equipment and facilities, low level
of financial and social support given to their work,
and the disinterest in creativity in the work situation
in the home country as the sources of immobility. For
these scientists, the improvement of these conditions
is not likely to occur. Rather the “malaise“ of their
scientific community will remain and,hence, increase
the disparity between their nations and the top countries
in their field.

Scientists from developed nations, on the other
hand, have a lower rate of perceiving future mobility

on the part of their home countries than scientists

from develc
their home
For some of
in which tr
Rather, thj
of scientif
reference t
catch up w:
those natic
180k "qual:
337? to Sur
the scient:
“En thougkl
.. ' I
tney outlir
main stable
because Of

them. AS C

 

96

from developing countries because they usually see

their home country as among or close behind the leaders.
For some of them,they cannot visualize any circumstances
in which their country could experience downward mobility.
Rather, they see their countries as "permanent" centers

of scientific activities in their fields. Others made
reference to the inability of nations behind them to

catch up with their nations in the ranking system, because
those nations who are not of an equivalent or better rank
lack "quality" scientists, equipment, and support neces-
sary to surpass their home countries. Finally, some of
the scientists from developed nations acknowledge that
even though their countries are high in the ranking system
they outlined, the position of the home country will re—
main stable because of no competitors from periphery and
because of the further advancement of those nations above
them. As one British chemist stated, "Britain will always
be number two. The United States and Russia will always
be ahead of us, but no nation can take second place from

us in the forseeable future."

The scientists from developing nations who see
their countries as being mobile in the future usually
identify the strengths of their national scientific
community as the sources of their mobility. Given their
strength, they visualize that many of the major break-
throughs in their fields will occur in their home country.

These successes will enhance the leadership position of

their nati:
areas of s:
as a resulf

their home

A crif
between sci
is the imp:
scientists
the scienti
States as T
in their f:
cmmtries 3

their fieli

  

scientists

 

97

their nations and increase their "centrality" in their
areas of scientific inquiry. Those nations below them,
as a result, will not be able to move close to or above

their home countries.

A critical issue to raise in terms of this difference
between scientists in developing and developed nations
is the impact of the ranking system of nations on the
scientists in this study. As has already pointed out,
the scientists in the study usually regard the united
States as the center or a center of scientific activity
in their fields. Given that scientists from developing
countries see their national scientific community in
their fields as far behind the leading nations and that
scientists from developed nations cast their national
scientific community among or close behind the leaders,
how does this perspective of the home country's place
relative to the United States, affect the scientists
in this study? Two areas of possible impact are the
positions held by the scientists in the social system
of work in the United States and the type of exchange
networks which exist between their home country and

the United States.

Concerning the former, the scientists were asked
to identify the type of position they are occupying in
the universities during their current stay (questions
6, questionnaire and 7, interview schedule). The positions

they hold vary from research assistant to full professor.

Generally '
professor '
search ass.
are consid-
been retai:
classified

Table

 

 

 

98
Generally the rank of instructorzand assistant to full
professor can be regarded as “mainline“ positions. Re-
search assistant and associate, on the other hand, usually
are considered to be "non-mainline“. This distinction has
been retained in the analysis and the respondents have been
classified into mainline and non-mainline positions.

Table 20: Systemic and Role Circumscription
and the Position of the Respondnets
in the Social S stem of Work in the
United States: ainline vs. Non-
Mainline Positions

Position of Systemic Role
328t§eifi°tfie Circumscription Circumscriptiigw (re-
Social System High (Teach- search, teach-
of work in High Low ing, admin- ing-research,
the united (Devel- (Devel- istration, professional
States oping) oped) consulting) publications)
Mainline
(Instructor,
Assistant, Asso-
ciate or Full
Professor) 13.8% 30.6% 28.1% 18.3%
Non-Mainline
(Research As-
sistant, Re-
search Asso-
ciate) 79.2 69.4 71.9 80.3
Non-
Response 7.0 ---- ---- ----
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

(N=1o1) (N=121) ( N=61 ) (N=137)

Q= -.4313 Q= +.2651

Furthermore, mainline positions often are regarded

as more prestigious than the non-mainline

 

12Sometimes the position of instructor is regarded in some
departments as a non-mainline position. Unfortunately data
was not obtained which could determine the rank of instructor
in the departments studied.

category. r
monetary r
sitions.
for those
than for s
13
position.
involvenen
d8partment
POSitions
Finally, t
varying de
the part 0;
With Stude:

 

Table
to the Dos)
of Work in
tists fPOm
nmkmainli
countries.
aiministra
positions
PeSearch’
home count
circumscpj
mainline I
3651th t}
t

99
category. In addition to the prestige factor, is the
monetary reimbursement differences between these po-
sitions. Usually, the financial rewards are higher
for those scientists in instructor to professional rank
than for scientists in the research assistant or associate
position? Moreover, the mainline positions entail greater
involvement in the decision-making structures of the
department and greater access to individuals in authority
positions in the departments than non-mainline positions.
Finally, the difference in positions may also involve
varying definitions of roles and social identities on

the part of the scientists in terms of their interaction

with students and colleagues.

Table 20 relates systemic and role circumscription
to the positions of the respondents in the social system
of work in the United States. Here one finds that scien-
tists from developing countries are more likely to hold
non-mainline positions than scientists from developed
countries. In addition, scientists who perform teaching,
administrative, or consulting role hold more mainline
positions than scientists who perform research, teaching—
research, professional, or publication roles in their
home countries. Therefore, the greater the systemic
circumscription, the greater the tendency to occupy non-
mainline positions in the United States. However, the
greater the role circumscription, the greater the tendency

to occupy mainline positions.

 

13In some universities, the position of reserach associate can
be quite prestigeful and financially rewarding. Data on such
university differences were not gathered.

In te
viously, t
peripheral
low status
tific ende
tists from
leaders in
will hold i

I
implies th:

 

PQCEiVe. 1

ranking of

 

 

the scient.
Role 4
OCCupied b}
in the Unit
Wolved i]
roles eanc'
°°untry. 1
of team-uni
Positions,
research.

blicatiOn '

100

In terms of the ranking of nations presented pre-
viously, these results imply that scientists from the
peripheral ranking countries will occupy positions of a
low status in one of the high ranking centers of scien—
tific endeavor in their field, the united States. Scien-
tists from nations which are close behind or among the
leaders in their field when travelling to another center
will hold positions which are of a high status. This
implies that many of the scientists from developing nations
do not receive the same level of reward, prestige, and role
involvement as many of the scientists from developed nations
receive. Language proficiency may also be a factor. The
ranking of the home country, therefore, has an effect on
the scientist in the study.

Role circumscription has an impact on the position
occupied by the scientists in the social system of work
in the United States because of the similarity of tasks
involved in mainline and non-mainline positions to the
roles eancted in the social system of work in the home
country. Mainline positions often entail the performance
of teaching and administrative roles. The non-mainline
positions, on the other hand, are directly related to
research, teaching-research, and to some degree pub—
blication roles. In other words, there is a continuity
of positions for those scientists who perform teaching,
administrative, or consulting roles in their home country
and in the United States and also for those scientists

who enact research, teaching-research, publication, and

profession

more eVide

The SI
periphery 1
do the sci!
country 8311'
the United
if there a
country an
of informa
trarsferenc
sponsorhip
notificati
iability (3
country (QI
types of e'
iSting bet'

sources, CI

to this as

 

 

 

101

professional roles. This point will be supported with
more evidence in Chapter 5 where it will be shown that
the work roles performed in the United States correspond
highly with the types of work roles performed in the
home country.

The second area of interest related to the center-
periphery ranking of nations is what type of exchanges
do the scientists see as existing between their home
country and one of the centers of scientific activity
the United States? The respondents were asked to identify
if there are any networks of exchanges between their home
country and the United States in terms of communication
of information in journals and exchanges of journals,
tramference of financial and other forms of resources,
sponsorhip of students, work contacts with scientists,
notification of current news and gossip and of the avail—
iability of positions in the United States and the home
country (question 39, interview schedule). The major
types of exchanges the scientists acknowledge as ex—
isting between the two countries are exchanges of re-
sources, students, and journals. What is of interest

to this discussion is the direction of these exchanges,

 

In An attempt was made also to identify the roles scien-
tists enacted in the exchanges between their home country
and the United States (question to, interview schedule).
four-tenths of the eighty-two scientists gave non—
responses to the question and 1.5 per cent said they
didn't know if they played any role. As a result, this
question did not yield any results which could have
given insight into differences between scientists in
systemic linkage roles.

i.e., are
and does p
and role c
reciprocal
a)one way
country an
to the Uni

Table
nations ar
changes to
Oped natio
changes as
tists fr07
Changes 0:"
of the hor
from this

°f ”Chan:

United Ste}
Hm Opposil

Scierl
or consultl
of exchan;l
0n the otki

by-

b

-_

 

102

i.e., are the exchanges reciprocal or non-reciprocal

and does perception of reciprocity vary with the systemic
and role circumscription of the scientists? Non—
reciprocal exchanges have been divided into two types:
a)one way exchanges from the United States to the home
country and b)one way exchanges from the home country

to the United States.

Table 21 indicates that scientists from developing
nations are more likely to view the network of ex—
changes to be non-reciprocal than scientists from devel-
oped nations. The latter scientists regard the ex-
changes as being reciprocal. In addition, more scien-
tists from developing nations see the direction of ex-
changes of a non-reciprocal nature to be flowing out
of the home country to the United States rather than
from this country to their nation. For those scien-
tists from developed nations who see non-reciprocity
of exchanges, the one way exchange is initiated by the
United States towards the home country rather than in
the opposite direction.

Scientists who perform teaching, administrative,
or consulting roles also identify non-reciprocal forms
of exchanges. Their low role circumscribed counterparts,
on the other hand, see reciprocal exchanges existing
between the home country and the United States. Of the
high role circumscribed scientists, 28.6 per cent see

direction of the non—reciprocal networks to be from the

Table 21:

Types of
Exchanges
Between th
Unitei
States and
the Home
Country

Becip-
rocal

Non-3601p-
rocal
&)0ne way
EXChaRges
From U.S,
t0 the How
Country

b)one way
~Cnanges
from home
Country to
the U.s.

 

NOn-
ReSDOHSe

TOtal

Or
queStiOn ‘

103

Table 21: Systemic and Role Circumscription and
the Type of Exchanges Between the United
States and the Home Countries of the
Respondents: Reciprocal and Non-Reciprocal

Exchanges
gigginggs Systemic Role Circumscription*
Circumscription

Between the Low (Re-
United High (teach- search, teach-
States and High Low ing, Admin- ing-research,
the Home (Devel- (Devel- istration, Publication,
Country oping) eloped) Consulting) Professional)
Recip-
rocal 50.0% 67.3% h7.6% 73.7%
Non-Recip-
rocal
a)0ne way
Exchanges
From U.S.
to the Home
Country 23.5 15.4 28.6 17.5
b)One way
Exchanges
from Home
Country to
the U.S. 26.5 11.5 23.8 7.0
Non-
Response ---- 3.8 ---- 1.8
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

(N=30) (N=52) (N=21) (N=57)

*The N does not equal 82 because of non—responses to
question of work roles.

United States towards the home country and 23.8 per cent
say the exchanges are directed out of their country of
origin to the United States. Similarly, 19.7 per cent
of these scientists who perform research, teaching—
research, publication and professional roles specify

one way exchanges from this country to theirs as the

direction
8.2 per ce

from the i

Cauti
the small
one can cc
Peripheral
in a field

0? the exc

Vise versa

 

 

 

104

direction of the non-reciprocal network, whereas only
8.2 per cent identify an opposite directional flow,

from the home country to the United States.

Cautiously interpreting these findings because of
the small number of scientists involved in this analysis,
one can conclude that the systemic linkages between the
peripheral nations and the centers of scientific activity
in a field are of a non-reciprocal nature and the direction
of the exchange is from the center to the periphery or
vise versa. Between equal ranked nations, in the leader
or close behind the leader, ranks the exchanges are
reciprocal, i.e., both nations share in the initiating
and receiving of resources, information and students.

Two statements made by scientists yield an adequate
description of this difference between center and periph-
ery in exchange networks.

Describing the reciprocity of the systemic linkage
exchanges between his country and the United States, a
scientist from West Germany said: "every week scientists
in my department receive letters from Americans. Sometimes
they even call each other on the phone for critical dis-
cussions on a research problem. We often tell them of
promising students who are interested in their areas
and we arrange for these students to work in the United
States. The Americans also send students to us. We
also receive journals from your country and we send
ours to yours. So I must say in answer to your question

on direction, it occurs both ways."

AChilean
0f exchan.
we are a :
with us a:
United Sta
but Aneri<
they recef
letters tc
areas that
replies.
say 'what'
few of on:
do not Pet
thongh Our
cardiOlOgj
run into c
dynamic PE
want me t:
water Peg:
In s:

and thOSe

adm

 

inistre
Identify J

rank ing 0 I

I
countrieS
searCheps

)

3103131 SC <I

i

105

AChilean cardiologist described the non-reciprocity
of exchanges in the following manner: "to Americans,
we are a scientific backwater region. No one bothers
with us and no one knows that we even exist in the
United States. Sure we get journals from the U.S.,
but Americans don't read ours. I'm not even sure if
they receive them. When my colleagues and I write
letters to Americans telling them of our interest in
areas that they are working in, some never receive
replies. If they do, as I did, the Americans always
say 'what the hell are you doing in Chile.‘ Relatively
few of our students go abroad to this country and, many
do not return. We never had any American students, even
though our work is quite good. Sometimes American
cardiologists visit Chile for a vacation and, if they
run into one of us, they are quite surprised at the
dynamic research we are doing. My colleagues here dOn't
want me to return home. But I will. I like the back-
water region."

In summary, scientists from developing nations
and those who are highly role circumscribed (teacher,
administrators, or consultants) in their home country
identify the positions of their home countries in a
ranking of nations as low or peripheral to the centers
of research in their fields. Scientists from developed
countries and those who are low role cricumscribed (re—
searchers, teaching-researchers, publishers and profes-

sional scientists), on the other hand, see their nations

106
as centers or leaders in their fields. The peripheral
or center rank of their home country affects the type
of positions they occupy when they are employed in one
of the centers of activity in their field and the type
of exchanges they see as existing between their home
countries and the United States. These findings imply
that scientists from the periphery do not receive the
same level of support as do scientists from the center
in the United States and in the systemic linkages between
their nations and the United States. The consequences
of the stratification of nations in fields of science
then, are quite broad.

The evidenceIpresented here suggests that future
research in the sociology of science must take into
account the differential status of nations in science
and the functions of rank for the center and periphery.
Such a line of inquiry may clearly demarcate zones of
power and influence between national scientific com-
munities, differential reward structures, and the
processes which lead to the maintenance of a status
position in the international scientific community.

It also raises the question of how can peripheral
nations become upwardly mobile in a system where ex—
isting power,privilege and prestige, generates future
power, privilege and prestige. Can peripheral nations
be individually upwardly mobile or must they use a

process similar to "sanskritization" to change their

 

posti
nobi
of t
crit

and

not
of

8V!

in
81‘
the
Pet
301
the

Pet

107

position to that of a center? The latter avenue to
mobility is suggested implicitly in the advocacy

of the development of regional centers of research in
critical areas of the field by scientists, politicians,

and change of agents in the developing world.

Another critical question is the following: If
mobility is no longer possible in some fields because
of the strength of the leading nations, might not an
avenue of mobility for a peripheral nation be investment
of financial and social support in another field in
which there are no leaders? For example, in one of the
interviews, a biologist stated that Red China is now
giving enormous support to the biological sciences in
the hope of becoming the center of the biological
revolution in the next century. In this way, China
moves ahead of the Western nations who have been in
the past the center of research for the physical science
revolution. Since both the physical and biological
sciences require enormous expenditures from the gross
national products of nations to support adequate re-
search and educational institutions in these fields,
the majority of developing nations can never compete
head on with the developed nations in these areas.
The only hope for these nations is either the formation
of coalitions in the form of regional science institutions,
as has already been suggested, or investment in the social
sciences or other fields in the physical and biological

sciences untouched by the centers, where the level of

 

sup:

ins

inq‘
0an

sci

not

and

108

support needed to give birth to and sustain such

institutions is still relatively small.

Research aimed at explorations in this domain of
inquiry in the sociology of science could yield, not
only critical information on variations in the international
scientific community, but also knowledge of international
stratification systems and of such stratification phe-
nomena as mobility patterns, caste and class formation,

and status crystallization among nations.

Chapter 4

Homogeneity and Heterogeneity
in the Scientific Community

109

110

In Chapter 2, a considerable degree of homogeneity
was seen as existing in this group of visiting foreign
scientists with reference to their exposure to disso-
ciative experiences and role circumscription. This
section of the dissertation will probe into the degree
of homogeneity of the respondents in terms of their in-
volvement in third cultural networks, their orientation
to work, social interaction and living location, their
post-modern perspectives, their worldmindedness, their
societal and scientific responsibility, and their profes-
sional and non-professional behavior. Variations in the
behavior and attitudes of scientists with regard to these
variables will be explained by either the scientists'
degree of exposure to dissociative experiences or by
their systemic and role circumscription in the home

country, as proposed in propositions 4 through 11.

Third Cultural Networks,L Proposition 3 relates the level
of exposure to dissociative experiences to involvement

in third cultural networks in the following fashion: the
greater the level of exposure to dissociative experiences,
the greater the involvement in third cultural networks.
The point of emphasis in this proposition is that phy-
sical mobility and psychic mobility act as stimuli to

the establishment of social relationships which transcend
the cultures of the actors involved. While participating
in such relationships, the various actors perform roles

as cross-cultural mediators. In this section of Chapter 4

 

cv-

rn

111
the degree of third cultural involvement of the

visiting foreign scientists will be explored.

Table 22 indicates that the respondents in '
this study participated in situations previously
described as third cultural. The visiting foreign
scientists have through their participation in meet-
ings of scientific associations established collegial
and friendship ties with scientists in other nations,
and their networks in their work situations in the
United States -characterized by interaction with
scientists from countries other than their own. With
regard to their networks outside of the work situation
in the United States, their social relationships have
been divided into four categories: 1)interaction with
people who work at the same place, 2)interaction with
people who work elsewhere, 3)interaction with people
in the same field as the respondents', and 4)interaction
with people outside of the respondents' fields. This
categorization was made to find out whether or not the
third cultural networks outside of the work setting
were composed primarily of individuals who work with
the scientists in the same laboratory or office and
to determine whether or not they were limited to
individuals in the same field. The results indicate
that across all four of these categories, the scien-
tists have established social relationships with

individuals from other countries. The high non—response

112

rate in the category of interaction with people who
work elsewhere indicates that it is with these indi-
viduals that the respondnets tend to have the weakest
contact.

Table 22 also shows that the respondents split
almost evenly on the variable Nature of Arrival in
the United States. Nearly one-half of the scientists
had their current trip to this country sponsored and
47.8 per cent relied on personal resources. Hence,
it is only on this index of third cultural involvement
that there is a marked degree of variation. The other
indices again reveal the homogeneity of the behavior
of the scientists.

The relationship of the various indices of level
of exposure to dissociative experiences and the indices.
of third cultural network involvement is explored in
Table 23. The results presented in this table are quite

mixed in terms of their support of proposition 3.

Looking at all of the correlations of dissociative
experiences to involvement in third cultural networks
as a whole, one can only say that it appears that the
two are unrelated to one another. In spite of the fact
that a definite statement cannot be made concerning the
status of proposition 3, some conclusions concerning the
relationship of dissociative experiences to involvement

in third cultural networks can be made.

MHH

immmuzv lossuzv iosnuzv assauzv Assnuzv losfiuzv A «maze
Ro.ooH Ro.oofi Ro.oofi wo.oofi wo.oofi mo.oofi mo.oofi Hmpoa
m.m o.oH o.oH n.3m «.mfi o.m o.sfi ooooooomuooz
m.m: H.mm w.oH 0.0m w.mH n.mm N.mm unmeo>ao>
IzH ngSpHso
unaseuzoz
Rm.m: mm.©m mm.mu mm.ms Rm.uo R:.Hu mm.mo pnoeo>ao>
12H Hogan
IHSO chase
.m.D ca daofim odam Uaoam ogonzomao woman meow xpoz ca mwnapooz pm pqoeo>ao>nH
Hm>fipp< Ipso ma xpoz on: no xpoz mxpozpmz oommdnopp< mo mama
mo madamz oHQooQ mamoog mamoom on: oaaoom
npfisAc npazfio npaznn nuazAm
xeo: mo ooampzo mxpozpoz
"mxpozpoz HmASpHso chase ho mooHUQH
mpnoosommom exp an mxpozpoz HmASpHso usage
a“ pmoso>ao>aH no scapsnappmaa owmpsooaom "mm canoe

:oo.

moo.

:Ho.l

mom.

500.1

omo.l

ANNNuzv
.m.D ca
Hm>ann<

ho 0&5pr

woo.

omo.

NHH.

0H3.

mmfi.n

moo.u

Aodfluzo

oaodm
ooampso
oaaooa
suaon

omm.u oom.u
one. moo.
omH. meo.u
mam. oofl.
ooe.u oom.u
003.: mom.u
Aoofiuzo Aoofiuzo
cacao oposzomao
:H xpoz on:
oaaooa oHQooQ
sofion opdzfln

sHH
mam.

moo.

mom.

How.

mom.u

:H:.I

Aoafiuzv
woman oemm
pm ago:
on: oHQooQ
nuazfim

x903 mo moamuso mxnozpoz

Mao.

OOH.

mmo.n

dNHO'

omo.

mom.l

Aofiauzv
goo: on
mxaozuoz

"mxpozpoz Hmthaso chase ca usoso>ao>sH

mxpozpoz Homopaso define a“ pcoso>ao>nH
op moosoaaomxm o>HpmHoommHQ mo macapmaonnoo

Nan.

omm.

mom.

wan.

mmm.1

can.

Amouzo
mwnapooz pm
monmocopp<

"mm manme

muoHpmHOOmm¢
caudpnoaom
mmfiopom 2H
mmfismponeoz

mam
nomnoooa so“:
:oHpompoch

moappssoo
mnwmoao>oa
on mmdpa

mofiapnsoo
oomoao>on
on moans

cocoapomxm

xpoz
:waopom

ooamapoqu
Honoapoosom
.o.om owfiooom

“moozofipomxm
o>dpma00mmao

115

First of all, those scientists who have had
cross-societal educational and work experiences
commonly interact with people from their home country
in and outside of the work situation in the United
States. Hence, prior work and educational experiences
abroad have not stimulated the growth of third cultural
networks in the respondents' current trip to the United
States. Moreover, cross-societal work experiences have
not been of assistance to the respondents in the establish-
ment of communication and friendship ties with scientists
from other nations at meetings. In contradistinction,
educational experiences abroad, along with making trips
to developed and developing countries, interacting with
foreigners in the home country and belonging to scien—
tific associations in other nations have enabled these
scientists to use scientific associations as a setting

for the development of third cultural social relationships.

Secondly, making trips to developed countries
appears to be the most functional of the dissociative
experiences for the development of third cultural net-
works in and out of the work situation and for obtaining
sponsorship for the current stay in the United States.
This finding indicates that the making of trips to coun-
tries has most likely given scientists who have been
abroad appropriate experience in establishing social
ties with nationals from other countries in the United

States. Relying on their cross—societal background,

116

these scientists seek out individuals not from their
home country for interaction. The same conclusion can
be drawn for those scientists who have been abroad to
developing countries with reference to interaction
patterns outside of the work situation with people

who work at the same place as the respondents and who

are in the same field as they are.

Additional support is given to this conclusion
in the findings presented in Table 8 in Chapter 1.
There, educational and work experiences abroad were
unrelated to making trips to developed and developing
nations. These results indicate that possibly foreign
educational and work experience does not give the ex-
periental base for participation in third cultural
networks as does the foreign experience abroad apart
from educational and work purposes. Educational and
work experience abroad may in fact not be a stimuli
for participation in third cultures at least with
reference to third cultural network involvement.
Since these experiences were only temporary and time
consuming, the respondents may not have been involved
with members from other countries and may not have
absorbed the cultural patterns which were divergent
from their home countries while obtaining their doctor-
ate or its equivalent or working. EVen though the
trips scientists made to developed and developing coun-

tries were also temporary (usually less than a month),

117

the respondents were heavily involved in cross-cultural
interaction. The majority of the respondents who made
such trips stated the purpose of their journey abroad
to be contacting scientists from other nations who
were engaged in similar work as theirs. They saw them
at conferences or in the scientists' laboratories. In
addition, they used such periods to vacation and to see
another country.

An additional variable of importance is status.
During the foreign educationaland work experiences,
the scientists are students and do not have established
professional identities in the social system of work.
However, during their trips to developed and developing
countries, they are interacting as colleagues with the
scientists they visited, rather than as students with
their professors. Hence, the making of trips abroad
may be more dissociative than foreign educational and
work experiences because of the divergent status positions

held by the scientists in each of these experiences.

Finally, the relationship among the psychic mobility
indices of dissociative experiences and the involvement
of the visiting foreign scientists in third cultural net-
works ié quite mixed. Interacting with foreigners in the
home country is not related to sponsorship of the current
trip to the United States nor to participation in third
cultural networks in and outside of the work situation.

Yet, it is functional for the establishment of third

118

cultural networks at scientific association meetings.
Similarly, membership in associations in other countries
besides the home country'is functional for third cultural
involvement at meetings and also for such involvement with
people who work at the same place but outside of the work
situation. Respondents who hold such memberships, on the
other hand, tend to interact only with people from their
home country when their interaction partners work else-
where or are in their field. Language facility in English
may be a factor here. A lack of facility in English may
account for participation with individuals from the home
country rather than with a binational and multinational
groups. Upon this evidence, one can conclude that only

in certain situations does peychic mobility in the home

country stimulate involvement in third cultural networks.

Post-Modern Orientation. As previously noted, Waisanen

has proposed that exposure to dissociative experiences
enables a social actor to transcend his social—cultural
milieu and through this process develop attitudes Which
can be called trans—national. Following this thesis, the
first chapter proposed that for the population in this
study such dissociative experiences would foster the
growth of a "post-modern” orientation. Accordingly,
proposition 4 was developed to explore this relation—

ship: the greater the exposure to dissociative experiences,

the greater the post-modern orientation.

“A v.4

“HQ II 1(

 

119

Questions 67 and 69 in the interview schedule

were used to develop a set of fixed alternative ques—

tions which could measure post-modern orientations.

These questions were incorporated in question 49 on

the questionnaire (see Appendix A).

Agreement or Dis-

agreement with the items in the question were scored

as post-modern or non-post-modern in the following

manner 3

Statement

"My country should stay
as it is, ie., it should
not change."

”What my country needs
most is greater eco-
nomic development."

”A greater effort in
my home country must
be placed on a re-
discovery of its past."

"The values of science
should influence the
values and ways of life
of the people and leaders
of my country.”

”The problems of con—
fronting my country
must be seen as in-
ternational in
nature.“

”My country should
follow and develop its
own course thru history
and not copy other
nations."

”There should be more
international co-
operation between

My country and other
nations."

Agreement

Non-Post
Modern

15

Post-Modern

Non-Post—
Modern

Post-Modern

Post-Modern

Non-Post-

Modern

Post—Modern

Disagreement

Post-Modern

Non—Post-
Modern

Post—Modern

Non-Post-
Modern

Non-Post-
Modern

Post-Modern

Non-Post
Modern

 

15 Agreement on this item is essentially indicative of a
transitional stage prior to the emergence of a post-modern

orientation.

120

Following this scoring scheme, Table 24 reveals
that the majority of scientists have a post-modern
orientation. They view the future of their home coun-
try in dynamic terms rather than static and reject a
nostalgic perspective for their home country. They
also see the future of their home country from an
international viewpoint stressing that the problems
facing their home country are international in nature.
Accordingly, their nation along with other countries
cannot develop their own course in history but must
work together with a spirit of international coop-
eration. These visiting foreign, scientists also
emphasize a need for a proliferation of the values
of science, rationality and experimentation through
the general masses and leadership of their home coun-
tries. This type of future orientation is, as described
earlier, post-modern.

The relationship of post-modern orientation to
dissociative experience as formulated in proposition
4 is supported in Table 25. Four of the six indices
of level of exposure to dissociative experiences are
in the main positively correlated with post-modern
orientation items. Work experience abroad, making
trips to developed countries, and the two psychic
Inobility indices (interacting with foreigners in the
luome country and memberships in scientific associations

:Ln.other countries) have fostered the growth of post-modern

&o.ooa
o.m

o.oH
o.m

&m.mm

soapmnomooo
Hm:0apmmpou
InH one:

mo.oofi
a.m

o.mH
o.mm

Rm.dm

mLOpmHm :«
ompsoo n30
moao>om

HNH

mo.ooH mo.oofi Ro.oofi
H.m o.m m.s
H.afi e.oH n.mm
m.oa o.0H H.NN
mfi.ao eo.mo no.5:
Hmnofip monofiom pmmm mo
Imapoan mo hpo>oomaoom
one 02Hm> popmoao
msoapopm

"nowpmpzoapo spooozupmom go mooaonH

Aoéfiuzv mzoapmpnoapo apooozlpmomnnoz one

mnmoozupmom "mpnooqonmom 0:» mo noapmpnodno

onspzm no make mo soapsnahpman owmpqoohom

mo.ooH mo.ooa
m.e H.m
o.n o.m
n.0m m.s
mfi.ao we.mm
unmade mnpmsoo
IHo>oQ oeom
caeozoom oHnmpm
Lopmopo
"3m canoe

Hoooe

monommom
Inoz

dmdwomdflb

apoooz
upmomunoz

unmoozupmom

scapmpnoaao
no some

NNH

oom. mum. omm.1 mun. moo. How. mmm. maoapmfio
10mm< camap

unmaom swaopom

2H madnmponao:

omfi. oom.- soo.: aofi. HNN. ohm. one. mooomhonoa
so“:

sofipomuoan

Hoo.- com. ooo.u mmm.s Hos. moo.- oom.- moan»

1:500 wnamo
IHoboa 0» means

dam. one. How.1 moo.l mom. Hofi.1 oom. moan»
unsoo oomo

IHoboa on agape

mom. man. mom. now. own. :oH.I man. oosoapomxm

xaoz awaonom

mac. oom.: on.u moo.u ono.c mom. non.u ooooahooxm

HmnoHpmosom

.o.sm omfiopoa

nofipmpoaooo encumam a“ ammodpwshop oosoaom pmmm pacemo hhpssou moonoanomxm

ammoapwspop owesoo :30 12H can no osam> mo mamp nHo>om oaom o>apmaoommaa
IcH mac: moao>on meoanopm lOOmHoom oasoaoom manmpm

Lopmoao seasons

"sofipmunoapo apooozlpmom mo mooaonH

Aoaauzv aofipmpnoapo :LoUOZIpmom mo
moofiomH .m> mooaoapomxm o>dpma00mmao "mm canoe

123

orientation. Obtaining a doctorate and its equivalent
in another country and making trips to a developing
country are in general negatively correlated with this
type of perspective on the future. Educational ex-
perience abroad is related to a post—modern orientation
only with reference to greater economic development.
The only index of such a perspective which is related
to making trips to developing countries is a rejection
of an isolationist view of the historical development
of the home country.

Table 25 also reveals that those scientists who
have been physically and psychically mobile commonly
reject the viewpoint that the problems confronting their
home country are international in origin. Rather, they
usually view the problems of their nation as being in—
digeneous to it. This result indicates that exposure
to socio-cultural patterns of other nations makes in-
dividuals more conscious of the divergence of their own
social system from others. Instead of identifying the
similarities amongst their system and others, these
respondents emphasize the uniqueness of their society
relative to others. Such an emphasis implies that these
individuals have used other nations as yardsticks of
comparison with their home country. This comparative
perspective can be characterized as an evaluative ability.

Evaluation of one's own system and others is an outcome

of dissociative experience and is in keeping with the

124

model that Waisanen has proposed (1969: 7). Since
evaluation is a result of exposure to other systems

and because only 10.7 per cent of the respondents had
non-post—modern orientation on this item, these negative
correlations will be considered as supportive of the

proposed relationship.

In summary, proposition 4, the greater the exposure
to dissociative experiences, the greater the post—modernity,
has been supported. Those scientists who have been phy-
sically and psychically mobile view the future of their
home country in a post-modern manner i.e., the physical
and social environment of the home country and the world
are conquered through the application of science at an
international level or the application of international

science at the national level.

Universalistic Orientations to Work4_Social Interaction
and LivinggLocation. Earlier it was suggested that scien-
tists who were physically and psychically mobile would

be more universalistically oriented than scientists who
did not have such an exposure to dissociative experiences.
Accordingly, it was proposed the following propositions:

Proposition 5: The greater the dissociative
experiences, the greater the
universalistic orientation to
work 0

Proposition 6: The greater the dissociative
experiences, the greater the
universalistic orientation to
social interaction.

Proposition 7: The greater the dissociative
experiences, the greater the
universalistic orientation to
living location.

125

Universalistic orientation to work, social interaction,
and living location has been defined previously as a
lack of boundedness in one social system in terms of
where a social actor would work, who he would associate
with, or where he would prefer to live. To measure the
first item of a universalistic orientation,vnaselected
questions 159 on the interview schedule and 40 on the
questionnaire. Both of these questions ask the re-
spondent if he has a preference to where he works.
Similarly, with reference to a universalistic orienta-
tion to social interaction and living location, the
visiting foreigm.scientists where asked if they had

a preference of persons with whom they would interact
with (question 147, interview schedule) and a pre-
ference on which country or countries they would pos—

sibly live in (question 161).

Table 26 reveals that the majority of scientists
are universalistically oriented with reference to work
and social interaction, but particularistically orien-
ed to living location. The 74.4 per cent of the re-
spondents on the interview who are particularistically
oriented made a preference for either their home country
or the United States. These respondents selected their
home country for several reasons. First and primarily,
they had identified their nation as their home society.
Moving to another country would entail for them a loss

of familial and friendship ties which they valued highly.

126

Table 26: Percentage Distribution of Respondents
Type of Orientation to Work, Social
Interaction, and Living Location:
Universalism and Particularism

Type of Social

Orientation Work Interaction Living Location

Universal-

istic 66.7% 54.9% 18.3%

Particular-

istic 29.3 30.5 74.4

Non-

Response 4.0 14.6 7.3

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
(n=222) (N=82) (N=82)

Table 27: Dissociative Experiences vs.
Universalistic Orientation to
Work, Social Interaction, and
Living Location

Type of Universalistic Orientation

Dissociative Social

Experiences Work Interaction Living Location
(N=222) (n=82) (N=82)

Foreign Ph.D.

Educational

Experience -.390 .260 -.356

Foreign Work

Experience .307 .030 -.465

Trips to Devel-

oped Countries .031 .301 .216

Trips to Devel-

oping Countries .091 .359 .247

Interaction with

Foreigners .153 -.488 -.383

Memberships in
Foreign Scientific
Associations .024 .525 -.469

127

Secondly, some respondents felt that they would have
difficulty in adjusting to cultural patterns in another
country. Moreover, some of these respondents cherished
their cultural heritage over the culture of others. They
believed their society had something to offer which others
did not. Along thse lines, some respondents felt other
cultures, specifically the United States, over stressed
the Protestant Ethic of work over enjoyment with an
overemphasis on work. As one scientist from Australia
said, ”I'd rather have a beer with friends and play the
horses, than work all the time like these Americans."
Others saw their home country as being more rewarding

for raising children because from their perspective their
culture stressed healthier attitudes toward life, e.g.,

a lack of stress on violence; or occupational success

is not the only important thing in life.

Those foreign scientists who made a preference
for a nation other than their home country picked some
highly developed nation such as the United States, England,
or West Germany as their choice of a living location. The
major factor at work in this selection was a desire to
partake of the riches and comforts of a technological
society. Their vision of these countries were similar to
the images held by early immigrants to the United States,
namely, the highly developed nation is a "land of oppor-
tunity," where material and social success is readily

possible in one's life time. Some of these respondents

128

united their work location choice with this selection
of a residential site. In these more developed coun-
tries, they felt they could achieve the best of both
worlds: they could find funds and colleagues for work
and, at the same time, enjoy the comforts of life.

The preference of a highly developed nation for a

living location, as can be expected, was usually made

by those scientists who came from developing nations.

These particularistic orientations to living
location are in general associated with an exposure
to dissociative experience, as Table 27 reveals. Two
of the physical mobility indices, educational and work
experience abroad, and both of the psychic mobility
indices (interacting with foreigners in the home coun-
try and memberships in foreign scientific associations)
are negatively correlated with a universalistic orien-
tation to living location. Only the making of trips
to developed and developing countries in a professional
status seem to foster a universalistic orientation,
ie., having no preference for a residential site. These
results indicate that exposure to dissociative experiences,
save for journeys to other nations apart from working and
receiving an education, foster an awareness of specific
choices of a living location. As in the prior section
on post-modernity, this finding suggests an evaluative
ability. By becoming conscious of alternatives to the

socio-cultural patterns, those scientists who have been

129

exposed to dissociative experiences are selective in
identifying the place where they would like to live.
Accordingly, proposition 6 should be reformulated in
light of this evaluative component: the greater the
dissociative experiences, the lesser the universalistic
orientation to living location.

The relationship of exposure to dissociative ex-
periences and a universalistic orientation to social
interaction, on the other hand, is supported in Table
2?. Scientists who have had physically and psychically
mobile experiences commonly make no preferences by
general categories of human identity in their choices
of interaction partners in their social life. Most of
the respondents felt that cultural differences, political
background, race or any other similar categories did not
affect their decision as to whom they prefer to or actually
interact with.

In contrast, proposition 5 is only weakly sup-
ported in Table 27. Accepting employment in another
country or countries is positively associated with work
experiences abroad and interacting with foreigners, not
associated with making trips to developed and developing
countries and memberships in foreign associations, and
negatively correlated with obtaining a doctorate or its
equivalent in another country. This weak association of
dissociative experience and universalistic orientation

to work can be clarified through an examination of Table 28.

130

The respondents were asked on the questionnaire
to identify how important or unimportant the following
items were in their decisions on where they would work:
country, salary, quality of scientists, quality of re-
search facilities, and preferences of their wives and/or
children (question 41, questionnaire). As Table 28 dis—
closes, the majority regard each of these factors to be
important in their initial choice. The quality of scien-
tists and research facilities are the most important

and familial desires the least important.

Interview respondents were asked a similar question
(question 160, interview schedule) and again a similar
distribution emerges. The majority of respondents, 70.6
per cent identified professional factors, such as avail-
able funding for research projects, the quality of scien-
tists, students, and research facilities, etc. as important
in their preference of a country to work in. The next
major factor was the country, 18.9 per cent of the in-
terview respondents. Idiosyncratic desires, e.g., ability
to make friends, personal likes and dislikes, accounted
for 5.2 per cent. Familial reasons were given by 3.3
per cent and 2.0 per cent of the responses were uncodable.
These results convey that there are definite factors which
are incorporated in the decision of a location for employ-
ment. The uniformity of selections of these factors by
the scientists accounts for the low association between

dissociative experience and a universalistic orientation

mo.oofi

m.mH

o.om
em.am
maaeom

Hma

mo.ooa mo.ooa mo.ooH mo.ooH
o.m o.m m.e m.m
a.oH H.NH m.m« o.oH
we.ow mo.mm me.oa mo.aa
moapaaaomm mpmapnmaom hemamm hppqsoo
cosmomom mo mpHHmsd
co soflaoso

"godpmooq xpoz mo meaozo weapoomo< moapmaam>

Aodauzv cosmopOQEH mo Hoboq Edens one
oonooooq ago: o oo oohoso moo monsooaoa
moapmahm> one no soapsoappmam ommpnoopom "mm canoe

Hmpoe
omcoamom
Inoz
unmpLOQEHQD
unoppogeH

monophomeH
mo Ho>oq

-‘m

“1 “I

 

132

to work.

In summary, exposure to dissociative experiences
is related to a universalistic orientation to social
interaction and to a particularistic orientation to
living location. Its relation to a universalistic
orientation to work, however, is weak and is in part
attributable to the factors the visiting foreign scien-
tists have identified as important in their selection

of a locus of employment.

Worldmindedness. The relationship of dissociative
experiences to this orientation was supported in the
section on the post-modern orientation of scientists.

In addition, the visiting foreing scientists, in general,
stressed an international perspective on the future i.e.,
international cooperation in solving problems is stressed.
This section explores a related issue: the degree of
worldmindedness of the respondents and the relation-
ship of worldmimiedness to exposure to dissociative
experiences as forwarded in proposition 8. As pre—
viosuly stated, worldnimdedness is condfiered to be

a "world view“ in which the social actor defines his
relationship to the world to be characterized by a
spirit of cooperation where national differences dis—
appear and the world community of man emerges and where
cooperation between nations in the solution of common
problems takes precedence over an isolationist and na—

tionalistic perspective.

133

The respondents were asked in the interview and
the questionnaire the open-ended question: "What affect
have your experiences here and in other countries had
on the way you view people, societies, and the world?”
(Qustion 50, questionnaire, and question 234, interview
schedule). Several items of information derived from
responses to this question are relevant to a consideration
of worldmindedness. First of all, did this trip to the
United States and prior journeys to other countries have
an effect on the world view of the visiting foreign scien-
tists? This portion of the data is called "world view
change: effect". In this category, responses to the
question are coded: 1)a world view change did occur
and it was described; 2)a world view change occurred,
but no description of the change was given; and 3)no

change in the world view was reported.

The second item of information concerned the ref-
erent of the world view change, i.e., was the world
view change either country or transnationally oriented?
This information is called "world view change: ref—
erent". Responses which were similar to the following
were coded as a trans-national orientation: "I have
become conscious of the similarities amongst people
throughout the world." “The globe seems smaller to
me." ”I have found a common humanity to exist and I
know we will be able to solve the problems facing us."

This referent to the world view change is a country

134

orientation when the scientists made statements similar
to these: "I know how far behind our country is from
other countries in terms of its progress.“ "I have be-
come conscious of the grandeur of the history and culture
of my nation.” "After being in the United States, I

have seen what the difference is between the 'haves'

and the 'have nots'.“

The final piece of data is most relevant to world-
mindedness and is entitled “world view change: direction."
Here responses to the question were coded with reference
to whether or not the change in the world view led to
an increase of worldnnmdedness or nationalsim. If the
respondent said that as a result of his trips to another
nation, he has become knowledgeable of the common humanity
of man, or that he now feels that the similarities amongst
men are more important than the differences, or that his
political, religious, and racial backgrounds no longer
interfere from his standpoint in his interaction with
people from other nations, I have coded his response
as worldmindedness. If on the other hand, his responses
were similar to the following I have coded his reply as
nationalism: "My nation is more important than others.”

"Only people in my home country know how to live."

As Tables 29, 30, 31 show, the majority of respondents
have recorded changes in their world views as a result of
cross-societal movement. Only 7.2 per cent of these

scientists could not and did not depict the nature of

135

the change. In describing the referent of the change,
73.5 per cent of the respondents used the world rather
than a country as the main point of their discussion.
Finally, the impact of cross—societal journeys on the
direction of the world view change is reported as being
towards worldmindedness rather than nationalism.

World view change is, in general, negatively cor—
related with exposure to dissociative experiences, i.e.,
the lesser the exposure to dissociative experiences, the
greater the world view change as Table 32 indicates. The
implications of this finding is that the current trip to
the United States for those scientists who have not been
exposed to the various types of dissociative experience
has had a greater effect upon them than those who have
had such experiences. For these scientists, then their
stay has been quite dissociative. This finding implies
that the first trip results in greater change than sub—
sequent trips. Future trips, therefore, become routinized.

The second implication of the results is that scien-
tists who have made trips to developing countries and
who have interacted with foreigners in the home country
have had changes occur in their world views as a result
of this trip to the United States and other trips they
made abroad prior to their current journey. Changes
did not occur in those scientists who have educational
and work experiences abroad, made journey to developed
countries, and belong to associations in other countries.
Concerning "world view change: effect," one must be

cautious in arriving at a conclusion with reference to

136

Table 29: Percentage Distribution of World
View Change: Effect

World View Change:

Effect Per Cent

Change Described 69.8%

Change not Described 7.2

No Change 8.1

Non-Response 14.9

Total 100.0%
(N=222)

Table 30: Percentage Distribution of World
View Change: Referent

World View Change:

Referent Per Cent
Trans-national Orientation 73.5%
Country Orientation 25.8
Non-Response .7
Total 100.0%
(N=155)*

*The N does not equal 222 because of the respondents
who did not describe the change in their world views
--16, who did not have any change --18, and the 33
who did not respond to the question.

Table 31: Percentage Distribution of World
View Change: Direction

World View Change:

Direction Per Cent
Worldmindedness 67.7%
Nationalism 25.8
Non-Response 7.1
Total 100.0%
(N=155)*

'The N does not equal 222 because of the respondents who
did not describe the change in their world views--16, who
did not have any change--18, and the 33 who did not
respond to the question.

137

the relationship of dissociative experience to it
because only 8.1 per cent of the respondents identified
no change as occuring.

A transnational referent, however, is;also associated
with exposure to dissociative experiences. Those scien—
tists who have not had these experiences cast their
description of the type of effect trips to other nations
have on them in terms of a country referent, i.e., their
orientation identifies a change in attitude toward a
particular country, its people, and its culture. Those
scientists who have been exposed to dissociative ex-
periences, on the other hand, use a trans-national
orientation to describe the changes in their world
view, i.e., they have become conscious of the similar-

ities of people throughout the world.

In addition, exposure to dissociative experiences
is weakly correlated in a positive direction with a
growth of worldmindedness rather than nationalism. Those
scientists who have such experiences say that they have
become more conscious of the international and trans-
cultural nature of the world and their place in it.
Scientists who have not had dissociative experiences,

on the other hand, see the world in an opposite manner.

Considering the positive correlations between
dissociative experience and world view change referent
and direction together, one can conclude that proposition

8 has been substantiated: the greater the dissociative

138

Table 32: Dissociative Experiences vs.
Worldmindedness: World View
Change Effect, Referent and
Direction

World View Change:

Dissociative Effect Referent Direction
Experiences (N=222) (N=155) (N=155)
Foreign Ph.D.

Educational

Experience -.277 .230 .099
Foreign Work

Experience -.292 -.120 -.300
Trips to Devel—

oped Countries -.233 .355 .249
Trips to Devel-

oping Countries .260 .177 .091
Interaction

With

Foreigners .212 .362 -.080

Memberships in

Foreign Scien-

tific Asso-

ciations -.448 .364 .504

experience, the greater the worldmindedness.

Social and Scientific Responsibility.. In Chapter 1,
several repercussions of systemic and role circum-
scription were analyzed at a theoretical level. One
of the effects of being system and role bounded was
identified as a greater commitment to social respon-
sibility, i.e., an awareness and acknowledgment of

the interdependent relationship of science and society.
Two dimensions to social responsibility were indicated.

The first is a societal dimension in which the scientist

139

is concerned with the possible consequences of his
work on his society and the world. The second dimen-
sion is a scientific responsibility towards the scien—
tific community in terms of a commitment to the train—
ing of future generations of scientists. In light
of this discussion, the following proposition was
outlined: The greater the systemic and role circum—
scription, the greater the social responsibility at

the societal and scientific levels.

To measure the first dimension of social respon-
sibility, scientists were asked: 1)if they felt a
sense of responsibility for the possible social con-
sequences of their research (questions 29, questionnaire
and 76, interview schedule), 2)if they approved of the
involvement of scientists in national decision making
(question 31, questionnaire), and 3)if they determined
their choice of a research topic on the basis of problems
facing mankind, or facing their home country, or scien-
tific problems (question 27, questionnaire). The scien—
tific dimension of social responsibility is measured
by the questions which asked if the scientists felt
they had an obligation tx>the training of future gener-
ations of scientists (questions 19, questionnaire and
195, interview schedule) and why they felt obligated
(question 196, interview schedule). In addition, if
the scientists chose research topics as the basis of

scientific problems rather than problems facing mankind

140

or their home country, this choice will be considered

as a measure of scientific social responsibility.

Table 33: Percentage Distribution of the
Indices of Social Responsibility
at the Societal Level and Type
of Responsibility

Indices of Societal Social Responsibility:

Attitude
Toward Choosing Choosing
Perceived Scien— Problems Problems
Type of Soc. Bes- tists in Relevant Relevant
Respon— ponsibil Decision to Man- to Home
sibility: ity Making kind Country
Social
Respon- .
sibility 85.6% 53.6% 70.0% 67.9%
No Respon-
sibility 10.8 24.3 25.0 26.4
Un-
decided ---- 22.1 ---- -_--
No Res-
ponse 3.6 1.0 5.0 5.7
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
(N=222) (N=140) (N=140) (N=140)

The majority of scientists, as Table 33 reveals,
feel socially responsible at the societal level: 85.6
per cent feel a sense of responsibility for the pos-
sible social consequences of their work, 53.6 per cent
approve of the involvement of scientists in national
decision-making structures, and 70 per cent and 67.9
per cent respectively say that the problems facing

mankind and their home country are important in their

selection of a research topic. Again there is a striking

141

uniformity of attitudes shared by these scientists.
Even though there is this uniformity of a belief in
social responsibility, these scientists do not act

out this belief except with referenc?6to factors
influencing a choice of research problems. When

they were asked if they belong to any organizations
which promote an awareness amongst scientists of their
possible social responsibility, e.g., the Bulletin

of Atomic Scientists, only seven of them hold such
memberships. Moreover, the scientists were asked

if they were involved in any way in changing their
home country. Only eight said they had acted as
change agents. When asked why they were not involved
in changing their society, the replied were either
“I'm too involved in my work to bother with it,“ or
"It's outside my role as a scientist." In short,
social responsibility at the societal level is an
attitudinal rather than a behavioral norm for these
scientists, except with reference to factors affecting

the choice of research topics.

 

jbln the next section the non-professional participation

of these scientists will be examined and the results will
show that the majority of scientists do not participate
in extra—scientific affairs. This non—participation and
the lack of a behavioral dimension to social respon-
sibility indicate that the visiting foreign scientists
can be considered I’social celibates.“ All of their act-
ivities are oriented around the scientific community and
this orientation requires a large investment of time and
energy. Involvement in extra-scientific affairs at the
community and national level would detract from their

investment capabilities in the scientific community in
(continued on next page)

142

Table 34: Percentage Distribution of Social
Responsibility at the Scientific
Level: Obligation to Next Generation
of Scientists

Obligation to
Next Generation

of Scientists Per Cent
Yes 85.2%
No 7.2
Non-Response 7.6
Total . 100.0%
(N=222)

Table 35: Percentage Distribution of Social
Responsibility at the Scientific
Level: National and International
Obligation to Next Generation of
Scientists

Type of Obligation
to Next Generation

of Scientists Per Cent
National 23.2%
International 52.4
Don't Know 4.9
Non-Response 19.5
Total 100.0%
(N=82 )

 

, ra5fltragga-frum-grevtous—paga7
1.é’terms of researc product v ty as PPObeS on these

questions indicated. By restricting their activities

to science, they feel they increase their productivity
level. Moreover, as the above section reported, many
scientists feel extra-scientific involvement is outside

of their role as a scientist. In this way, the lack of
participation in activities outside of the scientific com—
munity resembles the function of celibacy in the Catholic
Church at an "ideal" level where priests restrict their
duties to their roles as a priest by avoiding participation
in outside organizations and marriage, having more time to
devote to their priestly functions.

143

Table 36: Percentage Distribution of Social
Responsibility at the Scientific
Level: Level of Importance of Scien—
tific Problems as a Factor in In—
fluencing Choice of Research Topics

Level of Importance
of Scientific Problems
as a Factor Influencing

Choice of Research Problems: Per Cent
Important 91.5%
Unimportant 7.3
Undecided --_-
Non-Response 1.2
Total 100.0%

(N=140)

On the scientific dimension to social respon-
sibility, Tables 34, 35, and 36 indicate that most
of the scientists used scientific problems as a
criterixlfor the selection of a research topic and
expressed an obligation to the next generation of
scientists. When asked why they had this obligation,
two major types of responses emerged. The majority
said they are engaged in or would engage in training
a future generation of scientists because of a com—
mitment to the growth of the international community
of scientists. A minority said that they were obligated
because they needed to build up science in their home
country. The former is called in Table 35, an in-
ternational obligation and the latter a national obliga-

tion.

144

Table 37: Systemic and Role Circumscription vs.
Societal and Scientific Social Respon-
sibility

Type of Circumscription:

Type of
Responsibility Systemic Role

a) Societal
Perceived Social
Responsibility (N=222) .492 .150

Attitude Toward Scientists
in Decision Making (N=140) .265 .13?

Choosing Problems Relevant to
Mankind (N=140) -.090 -.300

Choosing Problems Relevant to
Home Country (N=140) .404 .137

b) Scientific
Obligation to Next
Generation (N=222) -.136 .187

Type of Obligation to Next
Generation (N=82) .258 —.015

Choosing Problems Relevant
to Scientific Problems
(N=140) .450 -.675
The national obligation to the next generation
of scientists from developing nations adds further
insight into the differences between the peripheral
ranking of their home countries and those nations who
are ranked as centers of scientific activity presented
in Chapter 3. An emphasis on building the national
scientific community in one's field, rather than the
international scientific community, is one way of achieving
mobility in the stratification system. A stress on strength—

ening of science throughout the world by scientists from

145

developed nations may be considered as a new form of
colonialism. Because those outside of the center have
relatively little chance to improve their position,
the growth of viable research institutes in the per-
ipheral nations will provide more scientists for the
centers and thus increase the dominance of the centers

over the periphery.

The low correlation of role circumscription to
type of obligation to the next generation indicates
that the performance of varying types of high and low
role circumscribing activities to an international or
national commitment is unrelated. It is the level of
educational and scientific development of the country
of origin, then, which is crucial in determining the

form of an obligation to the next generation.

Because of the very smallinmmer of scientists
who were uncommitted to future generations, and who
did not select scientific problems as a criteria for
a choice of research problems, only an implication of
the direction of the relationships amongst systemic
and role circumscription and scientific social respon-
sibility can be given. The slight negative correlation
of systemic circumscription to obligation to the next
generation indicated that scientists from developed
nations may be more socially responsible than scien-
tists from developing nations on this index. The

latter, however, are more likely to use scientific

146

problems as a criteria for problem selection. Con-
cerning role circumscription, scientists who perform
teaching, administrative or consulting roles are more
obligated to the future generation, but less prone to
use scientific problems for selecting a research topic
than scientists who perform research, teaching-re—
search, professional, or publication roles. The re-
sults, therefore, are inconclusive concerning the pro-
posed relationship of systemic and role circumscription
to the scientific level of social responsibility as
stated in proposition 9.

Proposition 9, however, is supported in ref-
erence to societal social responsibility. Systemic
and role circumscription is positively correlated with
all the indices, except for the use of problems facing
mankind. Here the slight negative correlation of
systemic circumscription and the negative correlation
of role circumscription to this index reveal that
scientists from developed nations and scientists who
perform low circumscribing roles claim more global
ramifications for their research than scientists from
developing nations and scientists who perform high
circumscribing roles. The latter, on the other hand,
are more conscious of problems facing their home coun-
try as previously noted. Proposition 9, then, can be
accepted with reference to societal social respon-
sibility and is inconclusive with reference to scien-

tific social responsibility.

147

Professional and Non-Professional Participation.
Propositions 10 and 11 explore issues related to

societal and scientific social responsibility. The

first attempts to find out whether or not scientists

who are systemically and role circumscribed in their
systems participated more in extra—scientific activities
and affairs than those scientists who are not bounded.
The second implies a reverse relationship, i.e., those
scientists who are not circumscribed in their system

and the roles they perform have higher rates of par-
ticipation in scientific activities than scientists

who are systemically and role bounded. To measure
participation in non-professional activities, the
visiting foreignlscientists were asked if they are

or have been members of any civic, charitable, relig—
ious, political, and non-professional organizations

in their country (question 48, questionnaire and 205,
interview schedule). As Table 38 indicates, the majority
are not and/or were not involved in such activities and
only a few are participating in and/or were participating
in non—professional organizations. Most scientists in
the study, therefore, are not in non-professional
organizations in their own country. This finding

implies that the scientists restrict theirorganized social

life to the scientific community.

Table 38 also includes the correlations of non-
professional participation to systemic and role circum-

scription. Systemic circumscription is weakly positively

148

correlated with it. This result reveals that the
development of the home country educational and scien-
tific institutions and the types of roles performed

by scientists do not influence their non-professional
participation. Rather lack of participation in these
activities appears to be a characteristic of the gene-
ral behavior of scientists in the scientific community.
Hence, proposition 10 has not been supported by the
data.

The extent of professional participation of these
scientists was determined by asking the respondents the
following: how frequently they attended national scien-
tific meetings, how many books they have published,
and how many papers and articles they have published.
With regard to the attendance at scientific asso-
ciational meetings, scientists were asked if they
attended every meeting, most meetings, some meetings,
and none of the meetings. Attendance at every meeting
was given a score of 3, most meetings 2, some meetings
1, no meetings 0. The mean score of the scientists in
the study, 1.67, is used to determine level of pro—
fessional participation on this measure. Those who
scored above the mean are considered as having a high
professional participation; those below the mean, low
professional participation.

The mean rate of paper and book publication is

also used to categorize scientists as high or low.

149

Table 38: Percentage Distribution and
Correlations of Non—Professional
Participation to Systemic and
Role Circumscription

Systemic Role
Circumscription Circumscription*
Low (Research,

Non—Pro- High (Teach- Teaching-Re—
fessional High Low ing, Admini- search, Pro-
Partici- (Devel- (Devel- stration, fessional,
pation oping) oped) Consulting) Publication)
Yes 31.7% 33.9% 37.7% 33.6%
No 61.4 64.5 59.0 63.5
Non-
Response 6.9 1.6 3.3 2.9
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

(N=101) (N=121) (N=61) (N=137)

*The total N for Role Circumscription equals 198 because
of 24 non-responses to the question on role circumscription.

Publication of eleven or more papers and articles was
given a score of 3, six to ten 2, one to five 1, no
articles or papers 0. The publication of seven or

more books was scored as 3, four to six books 2, one

to three books 1, and no books as 0. Scientists are
considered as being high in professional participation

if they published.one or more books (mean is .28 for book
publication in sample) or two or more papers or“
articles (mean is 1.44 for paper and article publica—
tion).

150

Table 39: Percentage Distribution of Level
of Professional Participation
Indices: Attendance at Meetings,
Book Publication, and Paper
Publication

Indices of Professional Participation:

Level of

Pro-

fessional Attendance

Partici- at Book Paper

pation Meetings Publication Publication

High 40.7% 17.6% 41.0%

Low 39.2 82.4 46.4

Non—

Response 20.1 ---- 12.6

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
(N=222) (N=222) (N=222)

Mean: 1.67 .28 1.44

As Table 39 records, the majority of scientists
have a high level of professional participation in
attendance at scientific meetings. Most of them,
82.4 per cent, however, have not published any books.
In terms of paper publication, 41.0 per cent of the
visiting foreign scientists have published six or
more articles. Therefore, the scientists in this

study are not high producers.

Systemic and role circumscription are in general
negatively correlated with professional participation.
Table 40 reveals that scientists from developed nations
have higher level of attendance at meetings and paper

publication and a greater book publication rate than

151

scientists from developing nations. Similarly, scien-
tists who perform roles which have been described as

low circumscribing role have higher rates of attendance
at meetings and paper and article publication than scien-
tists who perform high circumscribing roles. The latter,
however, tend to have a higher rate of book publication.
These findings support the relationship of systemic and
role circumscription as described in proposition 11: The
lesser the systemic and role circumscription, the greater

the professional productivity and participation.

Table 40: Systemic and Role Circumscription
vs. Professional Participation

Type of Circumscription

Type of

Professional

Participation Systemic Role
(N=222) (N=198)

Attendance at

Meetings -.286 -.337

Book Publication -.O75 .161

Paper Publication -.142 -.218

In summary, proposition 10 has not been sub—
stantiated. Systemic and role circumscription are
not related to participation in activities and organ-
izations outside of the scientific community. They
are, however, correlated with the indices of prof-
essional participation, affirming the hypothesis that
the higher the systemic and role circumscription, the

152

lower the professional participation. Level of
development of the home country and the types of

work roles performed in home country, then, affect

the respondents' participation in the international
scientific community, but do not affect their partici-

pation in social activities outside of science.

Chapter 5

Further Exploration: Differences Between
Social Systems of Work in the United States
and the Home Country

153

154

Dissociative Experiences has been defined pre-
viously in Chapter 1 as the movement from one social
system to another and as exposure to the ideas, values,
and members from another social system. In this section,
the point of departure rests on the following question:
Is the current stay of these visiting foreign scien-
tists a movement from one social system of work to
another or is the current cross-societal work ex-
periences identical to the work experiences of these
scientists in their current country? The emphasis
here is on whether or not the current stay in the
United States is a dissociative experience. In order
to answer this query, respondents were asked to compare
their work experiences in the United States to those
they had in their home country along several dimensions:
1)differences between American and home country students
(Questions 20, questionnaire and 42, 43, interview
schedule), 2)differences in the relations they had
with persons in authority positions in the work situa—
tion (questions 21, questionnaire and 44, 45, inter-
view schedule), 3)differences between their American
and home country colleagues (question 25, questionnaire),
4)differences in their work involvement in the United
States and the home country (question 22, questionnaire
and 52, interview schedule), and 5)differences in the
type of work roles they performed in the United States

and the home country (question 17, questionnaire and

155

30 and 31 interview schedule).

Differences Between Students. Comparing students in

the home country to those in the United States, the
majority of visiting foreign scientists see a dif-
ference between the students as Table 41 shows. This
table also discloses the relationship of systemic circum-
scription (level of development) and role circumscription
(type of work role performed in the home country) to
acknowledgement of a difference between students. The
results imply that scientists from developed countries
are more likely to identify a difference between American
and their home country students than scientists from
developing countries. Type of work role performed in

the home country (role circumscription) is unrelated

to perceiving such a difference.

The respondents were also asked to specify what
type or types of differences there were between their
home country and American students. Three major types
emerged from the analysis of responses. First of all,
American students and home country students differ in
terms of the type of professor—student relationships
in the work situation. For some scientists, the in-
teraction patterns between student and professor were
more collegial in the United States than in the home
country, i.e., professors and students treat each
other as colleagues rather than in terms of a super-

ordinate-subordinate authority relationship. For

156

Table 41: Systemic and Role Circumscription
and Differences Between the Social
Systems of Work in the Home Country
and the United States: Differences
in Students

Differ-
ences
Between Systemic Role
Social Circumscription Circumscription*
Systems
of Work: High (Teach- Low (Research,
Student High Low ing, Admini- Teaching-Re—
Differ— (Devel- (Devel- stration, search, Publi—
ences oping) oped) Consulting) cation, etc.)
Yes 65.3% 63.6% 60.7% 65.0%
No 22.8 16.5 21.3 19.?
Non-
Response 11.9 19.9 18.0 15.3
Total 100.0%’ 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
(N=101) (N=121) (N=61 ) (N=137)
Q= --438 Q: -.0732

*The total N for Role Circumscription equals 198 and

not 222 because of 24 non-responses to the question

on role circumscription.

other respondents, the opposite is true. Secondly other
scientists mention that the students differ in the breadth
of knowledge they have of the field, i.e., the extent of
their knowledge of the theory and techniques of their
respective fields. Some scientists said their home
country students had a broader knowledge of their fields
than did American students. Incontradistinction, other
scientists indicated that American students had a better
grasp of the theoretical and methodological issues of
their fields than their home country students. This point
will be elaborated later in this chapter.

 

 

157

The third type of difference between students
identified by a portion of the respondents is based
on the divergent work habits of American and Home
country students. Either American students were
seen as working harder than their counterparts in the
home country or home country students were viewed as

expending more effort in their work than American students.

The N's in Tables 42, 43, and 44 show that more
scientists compared the students in terms of the type
of professor—student relationship (N=64) than with
reference to the breadth of knowledge of the field
possessed by students (N=49) and the work habits of
the students (N=45). The interaction patterns between
students and professors are generally more salient to
the scientists than the ”quality" of the student in
comparing students in the home country to students in
the united States. With reference to students, then,
the differences between the social systems of work is
primarily structural.

Tables 42, 43, and 44 also portray the relation-
ship of systemic and role circumscription to these three
types. Scientists from developing nations are more likely
to view the professor-student relationship in the home
country as being collegial in comparison to such relation-
ships in the United States than scientists from devel—

oped nations. Moreover, for scientists from developing

oma

doo. no omm.1 ud

Ammuzo Afimuzo Ammuzo Aamuzo
mo.ooH mo.oofi mo.oofi mo.oofi Hence
o.:o o.ao o.mm o.Hm mapssoo
osom 03p :a mQaSmmoapmHom
osmosumupommomoam Hmfiwoflaoo
&H.mm ma.om Re.me mo.om .m.D on» Ga maasmsoaumaom
uncoopmuaommomonm Hmawoaaoo
A.opo .soapmo AmmapHSmsoo Aooaoao>oav AmmaQOHo>omo aspnsoo 0803 one .m.D esp
ndaosm .sopmom .QOAomapmasaeoa son swam :« moanmsoapmaom uncoopw
.1omuwsdnomoe .wsasomoev swam Inommomopm Hmawoaaoo
soamomomo son :0 no Useem masoUSpm

Humanomssopao

sowpaapomesoawo oHom oesopmzm zoozuom moowopomoan

Aaonzv moanmaoapoaom

uncoopwuLOmmomopm Hmawoafloo so oommm moonoaom

Imam "mucoUSpm zpossoo osom one smeaaos< soozpom
neoconommfim one scapaanomesoaao oHom use oasopmmm "we canoe

omfi

Hoo. no mom. no
Ammuzv Aoanzv Ammnzo Aamuzv

mo.ooH mo.ooH mo.ooH mo.ooa Hence
H.mm o.o: m.oo o.om mpsooSpm mwpqaoo oaom can»
odoam mo swooazosm hoomoam m
obmm mpsooSpm haunzoo oaom
mo.od mo.oo mn.om me.Hm mpaooSpm Kpsegoo oeom ammo
cacao mo swooazomx godmonm
m obs: monoUSpm smoapos<
A.ouo .soHumo AmmapHszoo Aooaoaosoav Ammaaoaopoov damam mo swooa
IHHnsm .xopmom .aowpmapmanaso¢ 309 swam Izonx mo :pommpm so oommm
nomuwcasomoa .wsazomoev swam mpsoozpm hpussoo meow one
.Soamomomv 30A smodaos< soozpom moononommfio

soapaaaomssoaflo oaom :ofipaanomESopHo ofisoumzm

Amanzv wanna go

swooazosx monoUSpm mo noomopm so ommmm moosopom

than "monoUSum zapssoo oeom one smoagos¢ :oozpom
moosopommaa one scapaasomssopao oaom one ofiempmmm "no manna

00H

amm.a no mmH.: no
Ammuzo Aaauzo Ammnzo A mmuzv
mo.ooH Ro.oofi mo.oofi mo.oofi Hmpoe
“.mm m.ma o.am 0.0a mosoozam sooasosa
can» poopmm xmoz
mucooSpm zapqsoo meow
ao.no mm.:m Rm.mo ma.mm monoosom
hapszoo osom amen Loopmm
ago: wpsoospm smoapms<
n.0uo .soHpmoHHnom AwsHpHSmsoo Aooaoao>omv Ammam0H0>0Qv mpapmm ago: so oommm
noamommmuwnasomoe soHpmnpmasasoa 30A swam musoospm zapnsoo oeom dam
.nopmomomv 30a .wmazomoev swam smoapoe< noozpom mooaopohmaa
scapaaaomasopwo oaom scaumanomESopHo owsopmmm

Amauzv mpsoosom go moans: ago: so oommm moomopom
Imam "noncompm appszoo oeom use smoanoe< moospom
moososommdo one scapaapomssondo oaom use oasoummm "a: edema

161

nations, American students have a broader knowledge of

the field than the students in their home country. Scien-

tists from developed nations, on the other hand, believe

that their home country students' knowledge of the theo—

retical and methodological issues confronting the field

is greater than students in the United States. Systemic
circumscription (level of development) is unrelated to perceived

differences between students based on work habits.

Role circumscription is unrelated hoperceived differences
between students based on collegial professor-student
relationships and breadth of knowledge. Type of work
role performed in the home country is however, related
to differences based on the work habits of students.

Those scientists who perform teaching, administrative,

or consulting roles (high role circumscription) see

their home country students expending more effort in
their work than students in the United States. Scien-
tists who perform research, teaching-research, scien-
tific publication writing, or participate in the pro-
fessional activities in science (low role circumscription)
view the American student as working harder than the home
country student.

The general implications of these findings is that
the scientist from developing countries has a greater
adjustment to make in moving ix) the social system of
work in the United States, with reference to the students

he works with. From this perspective, the students he

162

interacts with in this country have a broader know—
ledge of the field he is in and, as a result,they may
be more challenging to him. Moreover, he has to con—
front a new set of interaction patterns between student
and professor. In the United States, these patterns
are for him less collegial than in his home country.
As a result, he has to redefine his role in relation-
ship to the students he works with. In his home coun-
try, his role is that of a senior colleague and his
students are junior colleagues. But in the United
States, this relationship is of a superordinate-
subordinate form and requires a transformation of the
definition of his role and that of his students. For
the scientists from developed nations such role re-
definitions and possible challenges from students are
less likely to occur.

Similarly, teachers, administrators, or consultants
may find the increased work effort of students in the
United States demanding and/or rewarding. American
students by working harder possibly complete projects
assigned to them quicker than these scientists haVe
been used to in their home countries. As a result,
the scientists are required to find additional work
for the students who work under them. The search for
the projects may place a strain on the scientist toward
more output than he has experienced with home country
students. But the work habits of the American student

may also be rewarding to the scientists in the sense that

163

his work assigned to students arrives at completion
faster than in the home country. Therefore, he can

be more flexible in the directions his research takes
him. In either case, the increased work effort of
American students may also entail a redefinition of

the roles of the scholar and his student as mentioned
above with reference to the professor-student relation-
ship.

Such a role redefinition on the part of teachers,
administrators, and consultants could occur for another
reason. The roles they performed in the home country
were not of the research type, as we shall see later in
this chapter. In the United States, they are performing,
for the most part, research roles. Their patterns of in-
teraction in the home country with students would be in
terms of the roles they had performed. But in the United
States, the roles they are enacting are of a different
type and, hence, require a different definition of their
role and the role of the student. Thus, the transition
in the type of roles they perform may be an additional
source of accommodation to the social system of work.

Beyond the question of the adjustment of scientists
to the students in the United States, one has to ask why
did these scientists regard collegial relationships be-
tween student and professor to be more prevalent in their
home country than in the United States? In probing on the

differences between students, several scientists from

164

developed and developing countries outlined the struc-
ture of interaction patterns between students and fa—
culty in the United States in terms of a hierarchy of
quality of these patterns. They stated that undergra-
duate students working in the laboratories are viewed
by the faculty as embryonic technicians who are assigned
menial research tasks. The role of the faculty member
with relationship to the undergraduate student is that
of a manager of research technicians. Most of the in-
teraction which occurs between the two is limited to
suggestions on how to improve a particular laboratory
process or technique. Only the brightest of these stu-
dents are welcomed to explore theoretical issues with
the faculty member.

Graduate students are above the undergraduates
in the hierarchy. They are assigned tasks more central
to the research endeavor in terms of theory and less in
terms of technique. The faculty member here is again
viewed as the manager of the research enterprise and his
graduate students his employees. As with the undergraduate
students, only the brightest of the graduate students are
allowed to have more intimate and frequent contact with
the faculty member in discussions of the theoretical
issues of the research project.

Above these students are the post-doctorates who
are in collegial relationships with the permanent members

of the faculty. The post-doctorates are usually the

165

scientists who have most contact with the graduate and
undergraduate students. They oversee the research pro-
ject and guide the students in their work. The permanent
faculty members manage the financial sides of the project
and have frequent conversations with the post—doctorates
on the theoretical and methodological problems and suc-
cesses of the research project. It is only in the inter-
action relationships between permanent faculty and the
post-doctorates that collegial relationships are dominant.

In their home countries, these scientists stated
that both undergraduate and graduate students are treated
more as junior colleagues and less as technicians. More
frequent discussions and debates over the theoretical im—
plications of research occur between them than between
students and faculty in the United States. This relation—
ship is viewed by many of the scientists as a master-
apprentice relationship. For them, the social system of
work in the United States resembles, as one scientist
stated, a "factory'I which stresses efficiency and effec-
tiveness of a research project over the benefits students
can derive from participation in the project. However,as
we shall see shortly, the relationships of faculty members
to each other in the home country are less likely to be
collegial as they are in the United States and more likely
to be of a superordinate-subordinate type.

The system of professor-student relationships in the

United States may explain why these scientists identified

166

American students as working harder than their home
country counterparts. In a rigid hierarchical system
where there seems to be a pecking order of students,
undergraduate and graduate students are driven to in-
crease their work effort in order that- they may enter
into a more meaningful set of relationships with facul-
ty members. For example, one scientist from Australia
mentioned that there are frequent colloquia in which
famous scholars are invited to discuss problems at the
threshold of a field. After the scholar makes his pre-
sentation, informal conversations are held. All stu-
dents receive invitations to hear the speaker, but
only those who are acknowledged as being "good" and
"bright" students are allowed to partake in these in—
formal discussions. Hence a student must work hard to
surpass his colleagues to receive such a reward.

Several scientists from developing nations offered
another reason why collegial professor—student relation-
ships are more prevalent in the home country than in the
United States. For many of them, the only colleagues they
have are their students. The absence of other faculty mem-
bers to discuss issues central to their fields requires a
greater reliance upon students. They are, in some cases,
the only audience the scholar has to discuss with, criti-
cize, and evaluate his ideas. In the United States, facul-
ty members provide this functbn for the scientists and the

result is a decrease, from their perspective, in frequency

167

of communication with students and a change in the
quality of interaction patterns between students and
professors.

Some scientists from developing nations also ex—
plained why they regarded their students as working
harder than American students on the basis of the facili-
ties available to the student. In the home country,
equipment and technology available for carrying on re-
search is limited. In addition, the libraries students
have access to are inadequate. As a result, their stu-
dents must work harder to fulfill the same task that
American students may be doing. The level of develop-
ment of the scientific community in the home country,
therefore, is critical in understanding the differences
between students in the United States and the home coun-
try.

In summary, for the majority in this study there is
a difference between the social systems of work in the
home country and the Uhited States with reference to stu-
dents. The scientists are not moving across societal
boundaries into a system identical to their own, but are
moving into a work situation which is divergent from
their own. The difference between the systems is greater
for scientists from developing nations (high systemic
circumscription) and less for scientists from developed
nations (low systemic circumscription). Bole circumscrip-

tion (type of work role performed in the home country)

168

is important for the differences between social
systems only in terms of differences in the work

habits of students.

Differences in Authority Relations. Another important
aspect of the movement of scientists from one social
system of work to another is the type of relationships
the scientists have to persons in positions of authority
in the work situation, e.g., department chairmen, deans,
administrators, etc. To determine whether or not the
interaction patterns scientists had with such indivi—
duals is different in the United States as compared

to the home country, respondents were asked the fol-
lowing question: ”Do you find that there is a dif-
ference in the way you interact with persons in authority
here (e.g., department chairmen, deans, etc.) as com—
pared with the way you interacted with similar indivi—
duals back home?" (question 21, questionnaire and 4#
and #5 interview schedule). Table 45 presents the re-
sults and the relationship of the perception of dif-

ferences to systemic and role circumscription.

The majority of scientists in the study acknowledge
a difference in the way they interact with persons in
authority positions in the work situation in the United
States and in the home country. Both systemic and role
circumscription are related to the perception of dif-
ferences in the social system of work. Scientists from

developing countries perceive a difference to a slightly

169

Table 45: Systemic and Role Circumscription and
the Perception of Differences Between
the Social Systems of Work in the Home
Country and the United States: Dif-
ferences in Relations with Persons in
Authority Positions in the Work Situation

Perception
of Dif-
ferences
Between Systemic Bole
Social Circumscription Circumscription*
Systems: High (Teach- Low (Research,
Authority High Low ing, Admini- Teaching-Re-
Relation (Devel- (Devel- stration, search, Publi—
Differences oping) oped) Consulting) cation, etc.)

Yes 58.u% 50.4% 55.7% 51.1%

No 32.7 38.8 29.5 40.9
Non-Response 8.9 10.8 1h.8 8.0
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

(N=101) (N=121) (N=61 ) (N=137)
Q: 0155 Q: 0201"

*The total N for Role Circumscription equals 198 and

not 222 because of 2h non-responses to the question

on role circumscription.

greater degree than scientists from developed countries.
Similarly, scientists who have performed teaching, admini—
strative, or consulting roles also have a greater fre-
quency of noting differing authority relations in the

United States than scientists who enact research,teach-

ing-research, and other low circumscribing roles.

When asked to identify the nature of the dif—
ference in interaction patterns with persons in the

authority positions, the respondents noted only one

170

type of difference: either the authority relations in

the home country are less collegial than in the United
States or the authority relations in the home country

are more collegial than in the United States. No ref-
erence to the quality or characteristics of the persons
occupying positions of authority in the work situation
was made by the scientists. The major difference between
the United States and the home country in terms of the
relationship of the scientists to persons in authority

positions is, then, structural.

As Table 46 shows, systemic circumscription is
related to the viewing the nature of the difference
between authority relations in terms of the degree of
collegiality of interaction patterns with persons in
authority position in the work situations of the United
States and the home country, but role circumscription is
unrelated to it. That is, scientists from developing
countries see the authority relations in the home coun-
try as less collegial than in the United States, whereas
scientists from developed countries are more likely to
view them as more collegial in the home country than in
the United States. Table #6 also reveals that the majority
of scientists regard their interaction patterns with dep-
artment chairmen, deans, etc. to be less collegial in the

home country than in the United States.

In the interviews, scientists were asked why the

degree of collegiality varied in both societies. Most

171

Table 46: Systemic and Role Circumscription and
Differences of Authority Relations in
the United States and the Home Country:
Degree of Collegiality of Relationships
with Persons in Authority Positions in
the Work Situation.*

Differences

Systemic Role

g£i€;t2;la_ Circumscription Circumscription
tionships High (Teach— Low (Research,
in the U.S. High Low ing, Admini- Teaching—Re-
and Home (Devel- (Devel- stration, search, Publi—
Country oping oped) Consulting) cation, etc.)
Authority
Relations in
the Home Coun-
try are less
Collegial than
in the United
States 67.0% 51.1% 53.1% 56.8%
Authority
Relations in
the Home Coun-
try are more
Collegial
than in the
United States 33.0 49.9 46.9 43.2
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

(N=78) (N=90) (N=49) (N=102)

Q: .351 Q: .077

*The N's do not equal 222 because of non-responses and
those respondents who did not see a difference in the
authority relations in the United States and the Home
Country were included in the analysis.

scientists state that the hierarchy of authority in the
social system of work in the home country is based on
seniority and age rather than accomplishments in the

field. In the United States, seniority and age are

seen by them as relatively unimportant in comparison to

172

the creativity and productivity of the scientists.

As a consequence, the scientists feel that in the

home country they are required to show deference to
department chairmen, deans, administrators because they
have been employed longer than they have or because of their
senior age. Defference is expressed by maintaining a
strictly formal relationship with the person in the
authority position. In the United States, on the other
hand, many of the people for whom they work are

near the same age as the respondents and their relation—
ships are quite informal. For example, one scientist
from Germany said, "I call my 'boss' here, Bob, and we
go out for a beer now and then. In Germany, I call my
department chairman, Dr. '30 and so' and we restrict

our talk to departmental matters.“ For these scien-
tists, the social system of work in the home country

resembles a formal gerontocracy.

Scientists from developing nations freqfinmly cite
an additional reason for the lack of collegiality in
the home country. Most of their deans, department chair—
men and administrators received their education many
years ago and they have not kept up with the current
developments in the field. The persons in authority
positions maintain paradigms of their field which are
outmoded. When the young faculty approaches them with
a new idea, it is rejected outright because it does not

fit into the conception of the field they possess.

173

Moreover, for many of these scientists, traditional
cultural variables entered into these relationships
with reference to age. As one Indian biologists said,
"In my country, one has to pay homage to the aged, no
matter if they are wrong or right." The quality of a
scientists' project is not evaluated according to its
scientific merits, but are viewed with suspicion because
they came from a "youngster." These factors may account
for the higher percentage of scientists from developing
countries, as compared to scientists from developed coun-
tries, who point out that the authority relations in
the home country are less collegial than in the United
States.

Those scientists who viewed their interaction
with persons in authority positions as being more
collegial in the home country than in the United
States usually make reference to the inaccessibility
of contact with department chairmen, deans, and admini—
strators. The only time they meet with these people
are when they arrive and when they leave. Many felt
that their leaders didn't even know of their presence.
For example, one scientist related the following ex-
perience: "I made an appointment to see the department
chairman laazweek because I am leaving in three weeks.
I wanted to thank him for giving me the opportunity to
work here. When I went into his office, he said to me,

I'd like to welcome you to our staff and I hope you

174

enjoy your stay with us." Moreover, what contact they
have had with American's authority positions is limited
to discussions of their work andznever goes beyond a
strictly formal interaction. The important variable

in the work situation for these scientists is the size
of the department they are in as compared to the size

of the staff in their home country. All of them believe
that the presence of so many faculty members and students
in the department in the united States prevent the emer-
gence of meaningful formal and informal contacts with
people in authority relations.

In both cases, where scientists view their relations
with persons in authority as being more collegial in the
United States than in the home country or vise versa,
an adjustment in the social identity of the scientists
is likely to occur. In the former, the scientists must
redefine their role as one of a colleague with the dep-
artment chairmen, deans, etc. In the latter, the scien—
tist must regard himself as one of the many members on
a large staff. In short, these scientists are moving
from one social system of work to another with reference
to authority relations and must accommodate themselves

to the differences in these systems.

jDifferences Between Colleagues. In the preceding sec-
tions, the differences between the social systems of
work in the home country and the United States per-

ceived by the respondents with reference to those below

175

them in rank (students) and those above them (dep-
artment chairmen, deans, etc.) were analyzed. In

this part, the analysis focuses on the variations
scientists view as existing between scientists who

are of an equivalent rank to them in the work situation
in the home country and the United States, their col-
leagues.

On the interview schedule, the visiting foreign
scholars were asked if they sawzxy differences in the
work habits of their American counterparts as compared
to their colleagues back home (question 55, interview
schedule) and what was the nature of these differences
(question 56, interview schedule). Fifty-three scien—
tists saw such a difference, twenty-two did not, and
seven did not respond.

Those scientists who said their colleagues differed,
outlined several dimensions of variations. Some regarded
their American colleagues as working harder than their fel-
low scientists in the home country. For example, one
Australian scientist said, "My colleagues in Australia
like to play the 'hoofies" (horses), but all these Americans
can do is work hard. They don't know how to enjoy life."
Others felt that their home country colleagues worked
longer hours than American scientists because of the
low level of research technology available in the home
country. Some felt that Americans were not as dedicated

to their work as their home country colleagues. Their

176

home country colleagues consider their work as central
to their life, whereas for Americans work is, as one
Japanese meteorologist related, "a nine to five job."
Other respondents mentioned that Americans had less of
an understanding of the problems confronting their field
than their home country scientists because Americans were
more interested in the technical aspects of a research
project and less concerned with the theoretical and
philosophical issues involved in a problem. Finally,
some of the visiting foreigglscientists believed that
Americans were more organized in their work than their
home country colleagues due to the varying levels of
technology and the financial support available for re-
search in the United States as compared to the home
country.

On the basis of these responses, question 25 on
the questionnaire was developed. Respondents were asked
to determine the degree of their agreement or dis-
agreement with the following statements: 1)"Americans
in my field work harder than my colleagues back home“;
2)"My colleagues back home work longer hours than their
American counterparts“: 3)"Americans are not as dedicated
to their work as my home country colleagues“; 4)"The degree
of understanding that Americans have of the problems con-
fronting my field is less than that of my colleagues back
home"; 5)“Americans are more organized in their work than

my colleagues back home". The fequency distribution of

177

the type of agreement with these selected differences
of American and home country colleagues is presented
in Table 47.

The majority agree that their American colleagues
work harder and are more organized in their work than
their home country colleagues. But they disagree with
the statements that their home country colleagues work
longer than Americans, that Americans are not as dedicated
in their work as their home country counterparts, and that
Americans have less of an understanding of the problems
confronting their field than their home country scien-
tists. Hence, it is only with reference to the work
efforts of scientists and.organization in.their work
‘Untthese scientists regard their colleagues in the United

States and the home country as differing.

Systemic and role circumscription are related to
agreement and disagreement on these items as Table 48
indicates. Scientists from developing nations agree that
Americans work harder than their home country colleagues,
that their home country colleagues work longer hours than
their American counterparts and that Americans are more
organized in their work than their country colleagues.
Scientists from developed nations usually disagree with
these statements. Scientists who performed teaching,
administrative, or consulting roles also see Americans
as working harder and being more organized in their

work efforts than their home country colleagues. Those

Ro.ooa

m.m

o.mm
N.Nm
as.am

mmswmoaaoo
maunsoo

maom a: some
xao: passe ca
confismmao who:
was mmmoHamsm

mo.ooa

m.m

m.mH
0.50
RH.m

mmswmmaaoo
mapssoo

meom a:

smne caoam

a: wsapsoam
Isoo meoanoam
mo wsaesmpmaou
1:: cm ac mmoa
m>mm msmoaaoa<

mmfi

Ro.ooa Ro.oofi

m.: m.:

:.eH a.mm

m.ea a.om

Ro.m mm.mfi
mmsmmmaaoo msmoaama<
hapssoo msom sane mszom
m< xaoz passe cs Lowsoq xao:
doumoaemn mm poz mmzwmoaaoo

ops mzmoanos< mapqsoo meom

mmswmoafloo soozpmm monopommHQ mo came

Aoafiuzv mmswmoaaoo

mapqsoo oaom cam amoaaoa< mo moosopommfin empooaom
and: unmamoaw< no 0959 mo scapsndaumaa owmpsmoaom

Ro.ooa

N.N

m.mm

H.~m

No.0:
mmsmmoaaoo
zapnzoo msom

zone smeamm

ago:
msmofiaoa<

"as manta

Hence
mmzommmm
Icoz
UoUHomcss
mmswmmfia
omam<

nonmemoLw¢
mo mama

179

respondents who perform research, teaching-research,
and other low circumscribing roles, on the other hand,
generally disagree with these statements, but believe
that their home country colleagues work longer hours
than Americans.

Only tentative conclusions can be drawn con-
cerning the degree of dedication in work and the under—
standing of problems confronting a field of scientists
in the United States and the home country because of
the one-sided distribution of responses to these items.
Scientists from developing nations and those scientists
who perform high circumscribing roles, (teaching, admini-
stration, or consulting) view Americans as more dedicated
in their work and as having less of an understanding of
problems confronting a field than their home country
colleagues. Scientists from developed nations and those
who perform low circumscribing roles disagree with these
statements.

The relationship of level of development (systemic
circumscription) to the acknowledgement of differences
between colleagues can be explained by the differences
in the conditions of work in the countries where the
educational and scientific development is low compared
to high. In the developed nations, rewards are given
for high levels of output in terms of completion of re-
search projects and for publication of the results. In

comparison, many of the developing nations such rewards

omfi
.sofipmmsu

macs xsoz esp on momsoammsuso: no omsmoop scapaaaomesosfio oaaopmzm pom omOSp ems» aozoa mam
msoapmamaaoo scapaasomesopao macs pom 2 one .mammamsm mega scam doggone mamas Sofia: momsommma
1:0: was momsoamoa emeaomcq: omsmoon oaa Hmsco pom mood soflpmampaoo some mom 2 annoy mn9*

Ammuzv AooHuzv mmsmmoaaoo hangsoo
mma. ems. meom a: sane ego: games as
cowasmwao who: mam mumoaaos<

Ammuzv Amoauzv mozwmmaaoo hapqsoo seem as
saw. oom. mesa cause as msapzosczoo
mamanoam mo madczmpmamesb
so no mama ops: msmofisoe<

Asmuzv AwOHuzv mmsmmmaaoo appssoo meow mm

ems. 30:. ago: games 0» topmosetm

mm no: mam mamoHpms<

Aemuzv Asmuzv msmoauma< step mssom smmsoq

mmm.1 mmfi. xao: mmswmoaaoo aspnsoo maom

Ammuzv Amauzv mesmmoaaoo essence

mom. mmm. msom 2mg» amcamm xaoz msmofiams¢

Amaom xaoz mo mahsv Apnoeaoam>oa go Ho>mqv mmswmmaaoo mapqsoo oeom cam
soapaaaomasoaao oaom soapadaomesoafio caeopmmm smofipos< mo moosoaomman empomamm

*mosmmmaaoo mppnzoo msom cum smoaaoe< mo
moosopmumaa empomamm dam soapafisomssopao
oaom cam anmpmzm nomzuom maofipmaoaaoo "m: manme

181

are absent. Secondly, in the United States, as in

other similarly developed countries, there are more
scientists competing for the same set of rewards, than
in the developing nations. Hence, there are pressures
placed on the scientist in developed nations to be pro-
ductive which may be absent in the developing nations.
These factors, account in part, for the reason why scien-
tists from developing nations are more likely to see
American scientists in their field as working harder

than their home country scientists.

Scientists from developing nations see their home
country colleagues working longer hours and as less
organized than Americans primarily because of the tech-
nological and financial supports available for completing
research tasks germane to a field. Without these forms
of support, scientists from developing nations spend more
time trying to complete the same jobs that scientists from
developed nations are working on. In addition, the lack
of technology and finances often make for a "patch-work"
performance of work roles because the scientist pulls
together from disparate sources support for his projects
and spends time in maintaining any support he receives.
Moreover, the lack of colleagues who can assist in the
research endeavor critically affects the organization
of the research enterprise. The scientists have relatively
few people to whem they can turn for critiques and evaluations

of their work.

182

As a result, many of the weaknesses and the strengths
of the design of a research problem may be undetected.
Such problems are less likely to occur in countries where

there are such supports and colleagues.

The relationship of type of work role performed in
the home country (role circumscription) to the perception
of differences between colleagues reflect the changes in
the type of work role performed in the United States as
compared to the home country. As will be shown shortly,
those scientists who performed teaching, administrative,
or consulting roles are more likely to experience a change
in the type of roles they perform in the united States than
scientists who have performed research, teaching-research,
and.other low circumscribing roles. Scientists who are high-
1y“ role circumscribed may be comparing scientists in
their home country who perform similar roles, i.e., teach-
ing, administrative or consulting roles, to scientists in
the United States who are performing low circumscribing
roles, i.e., researchers, teaching-researchers, pro-
fessional role players, and publication scientists. In
so doing, the scientists are comparing across types of
roles rather than within one form of role. So the dif-
ferences they are viewing may be actually comparisons
of types of roles and not general characteristics of

American and home country scientists in their field.

Unfortunately questions were not asked of these

scientists to compare their colleagues in the United

 

 

 

183

States and their home country in terms of comparable
roles. Some support of this argument can be given

indirectly, however, if we examine the following data.

On the interview schedule, the scientists were
asked to identify those types of work roles which they
regarded as being most central to their field in the
home country and in the United States (questions 33
and 34). As tables 49 and 50 reveal, scientists
identify the type of work role they perform in the
home country to be the same as the type they regard
as most central to their field in the home country{

That is, teachers, administrators, or consultants say
their roles are most central to their field in the home
country and those scientists who enact work roles such
as basic and applied research, teaching-research, pro-
fessional and publication roles in science see their
roles astmost central in the home country. However,

the former and the latter both agree that low circum-
scribing roles (research, teaching-research, etc.) are
most central to their field in the United States. This
difference in the centrality of work roles in the United
States as compared to the home country provides tentative

support to my argument that scientists who perform teaching,

 

17'These results must be cautiously interpreted because
of the high rate of non-responses to the questions. The
discussion which follows, as a consequence, deals with
trends.

184

administrative, or consulting roles may be comparing
differences in colleagues on the basis of types of roles
they perform rather than in terms of general character-
istics of American and home country scientists in their
field.

Tables 49 and 50 also indicate that for scientists
from developing nations teaching, administrative, or con-
sulting roles are central to their field in the home coun-
try. Scientists from developed nations, on the other
hand, acknowledge research, teaching—research, organ-
izational roles and activities in science, and scien-
tific publication writing, as most central. Level of
development of the home country is unrelated to type

of work role centrality seen in the United States.

Given these results on the centrality of work roles
in the United States as compared to the home country and
the differences of colleagues in these societies, one
can conclude, that scientists from developing nations
and those who perform teaching, administrative, or con-
sulting roles are moving from one social system of work
to another and that scientists from developed countries
and those who perform low circumscribing roles may not
necessarily be moving into a social system of work which

is divergent from their home country work situation.

Differences in the Type of Work Role Performed. In the
prior sections of this chapter, the focus has been on

the type of differences the visiting foreign scientists

mmfi

.maoa xaoz no

sofipmmsv on momsommoalso: : go mmzmoop mm assoc no: mooc soflpmflaomasoaao macs pom 2 mass

was. "a 50¢. "a
Aanuzv Afimuzv Ammuzv Aomuzv
wo.oofi so.oofi mo.oofi mo.ooa
m.mm p.53 3.0: a.mm
m.Hm m.sfi 0.3m m.mm
mfi.mm mfi.mm mo.mm no.0:
A.ouo sow» AwsfipHSmsoo nemaoam>omv 30a Amsaaoaobomv swam

Imonanzm .noammm .soapmppmasase<
Immuwsasomoa .msasoMoev swam
.nohmmmmmv sou

*soHpaHaomesoaHo maom sofipaaaomssoaao oasopmzm
hapssoo oeom on»

ad meHon .mpmfipsmaom map 0» Hmppsoo ma nods: oaom
xao: mo mama use sodpaaaomesosfio maom cam oasmpmhm no:

Hence

omsoamomlsoz

“.0po .soHpmoHanm
scammmmmlwsasomma
.soamomomv wsanaaom
uazoaao maom sou

Awsapazm

usoo .sodpmspmasfiaem
.wnfinomoav wsdnaaom
uesosso oaom swam

mapssoo meom a“

mamas on flamenco
mHom xao: no mama

oanma

wwfi

.mmaoa xaoz so soapmmSU one
on momsoammalsos such mo mmsmoon mm Hmzvm no: mood scapaaaomesosao macs ace 2 one*

gamuzv Afimuzv Ammuzv Aomuze

ao.ooH so.oofi so.ooH mo.oos Hence
«.mm m.as s.os s.mm mmsocmmmuzoz
a.mm s.mm 0.0m m.mm m.opm .sodpsonflnsm

scammmmmlwsanomme
.soamommmv wzflnapom

lemonao mHom son

mo.sfi am.s at.m mm.mfi Awdapasm
1:00 .soapmnpmaqaad<

.wsfisomopv maanaaom

nanosfio oHom swam

A.0po .soap Awsapazmsoo Admaoam>mmv 30g Amsaaoam>mov swam mopmom Bonds: 0:»
utonansm .nosmmm .coHpmspmHnHeea ‘ as oaths op
Immuwsflzomma .msasommav swam HmApsoo oaom
.nosmommmv 30a xaoz mo maze
#:OapafiaomESosHo mHom soHpQHLOmasoaHo ofismpmmm

mmpmpm wands: 0:» ca mUHon
.mpmapsmaom 0:» on Hmapsmo ma moan: mHom x903
wo make cam scapmaaomezoaao maom dam oHEopmmm "om canoe

187

seen as existing between the social systems of work in
the home country and the United States. This part
analyzes the transitions in the types or work roles
performed in the United States as compared to the home
country.

Respondents were asked to identify the type of
work role they performed in this country (question 17,
questionnaire and 30 and 31, interview schedule). These
work roles were classified according as either
high role circumscribing or low role circumscribing. These
two types were subsequently analyzed with reference to
level of development (systemic circumscription) and type
of work role performed in the home country (role circum-
scription). Table 51 summarizes the results of this
analysis.

Almost all of the scientists are performing low
circumscribing roles in the united States. Scientists
from developing nations have a slightly greater tendency
to perform teaching, administrative, or consulting roles
in the United States, than scientists from developed nations.
unfortunately, a control table could not be constructed
which would control for systemic circumscription (level
of development) in order to establish whether scien—
tists from developed or developing nations have greater
transitions in the roles they play when they moved from
the social system of work in the home country to that in

the United States because of empty cells. However, since

 

wma

mmt. "a mam. no
AamHuzv Afiwuzv Aflmfiuzv AHoHuzv
Ro.ooH Ro.ooa Ro.ooa Ro.ooH Hmpoe
m.m m.m 3.5 m.oH omsoammmlsoz
0.0m m.om 0.0m N.mu A.opo .oosmaom

a“ :oHpmoHHnsm
.noamomomlmsasomme
.noammmomv :oHuaHaom

nanosao mHom 304
sm.a mm.em me.o am.m Ammapasm

usoo .soHpmppmHsHEc<
.wsanommav soapaaaom
nanotao oHom swam

A.0po .soHp AwsfipHSmsoo Aomaon>on 30A Awsfiaoao>oov swam mmpmum ocean: esp
twoaflnsm .zopmom soapmapmasa8d< ma mosaompmm
Immuwsasomoa A.msH£omm9v swam maom xpoz no make

a
soamomomv 30A scapafipomasopao maom scuyadsomasoaao oasmpmmm

mopmpm coeds: ms» ca omeaomamm oHom xaoz
mo mama dam soaumasomssoaao oaom cam ofisopmhm "Hm magma

189

we have already shown that systemic circumscription is
related to the types of work roles performed in the home
country (role circumscription), we can tentatively con—
clude that scientists from developing nations are more
likely to experience a change in the type of work role

they perform when they begin their work in the United

It"; :-

States than the scientists from developed nations.

Table 52: Role Circumscription and Presence or
Absence of Changes in the Type of Work
Roles Performed in the United States
as Compared to Those Performed in the

Home Country

 

Presence or Absence

of Changes in Types
of Work Roles Per-

Role Circumscription

formed in the United High Low (Research,

States as Compared (Teaching, Teaching-Re-

to Those Performed Administration, search, Publica—

in the Home Country Consulting) tion, etc.)

Change in Type of

Work Role Per-

formed 70.5% 7.3%

No Change in Type of

Work Role Per-

formed 26.2 86.9

Non-Response 3.3 5.8

Total 100.0% 100.0%
(N=61) (N=137)

Q= .969

Type of work role performed in the home country is

also positively related to the type of work role per—

formed in the United States, that is, those scientists

who perform high or low circumscribing roles in the home

190

country to some degree enact similar roles in the United
States. This relationship which expresses a continuity
in the roles played here and at home obscures the fact
that scientists who perform teaching, administrative,

or consulting roles usually enact research, teaching-
research, professional activities, and roles in science,
or scientific publication writing in the United States.
Over seventy per cent of these scientists experience

a transition of roles whereas only seven per cent of
those scientists who were researchers, teaching-re—
searchers, scientific publication writing . and those
who emphasized professional activities in science ex-

perience such a change in roles.

To indicate this absence or presence of changes
in roles in the United States as compared to the home
country, Table 52 was developed. .The relationship of
role circumscription to transitions in the type of work
roles performed in the united States clearly shows that
scientists who perform high circumscribing roles in the
home country generally experience a change in roles in
the work situation in the United States and those who
are low on role circumscription usually do not ex—
perience such a transition.

These results indicate, therefore, that scien-
tists who are low on role circumscription are moving,
not only between societies, when they enter the social

system of work in the United States during their current

 

191

stay, but also they are being placed into roles which
they have not been performing in the home country.
Given the difference these scientists observe as ex—
isting between students, and colleagues, the variations
in their interactions patterns with individuals in
authority positions, and the transitions they make

in work roles , the experiences these scientists have
in the social system of work are considerably divergent.
from those they are likely to have in their home coun—

tries. On the other hand, those scientists who are

 

performing roles similar or identical to those WhiCh
they have enacted in their home country will have ex-
periences in this country comparable to those in their
home country. Support or nonsupport for this.argument
will rest on the results presented in the next section

of this chapter.

Differences in Work Involvement. A useful index of

 

the changes which occur in the behavior of scientists
as a result of participation in a social system of

work that has characteristics which are divergent from
the social system of work they have prior experience

in are the changes in the degree of work involvement
the scientists have in the United States as compared

to the home country. The respondents were asked if
they worked longer hours, if they worked less, and

if they were more dedicated to their work in the United

States or in their countries of origin (questions 22

192

questionnaire and 52, interview schedule). Affirmative

responses to these questions can be regarded as a change
in the behavior of the scientists and negative responses
as no change in behavior in the work situation in the

United States.

Table 53: Percentage Distribution of Types of Ir?
Differences in Work Involvement in
the United States as Compared to the
Home Country and the Acknowledgement
of Differences in Work Involvement

Acknowledge- a)Working b)Working c)More Dedication

 

ment Dif— Longer Hours Less in the to Work in the ;fi
ferences in in the U.S. U.S. than in U.S. than in "
Work In- than in the the Home the Home
volvement Home Country Country Country

Yes 41.4% 9.0% 35.6%

No 46.0 67.1 43.2
Non—Response 12.6 23.9 21.2
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

(N=222) (N=222) (N=222)

The frequency distribution of responses to these
questions which appear in Table 53 indicated that the
majority of scientists in this study did not ex-
perience any changes in their work involvement during
their stay in the United States. Generally, they
said they were not wofidng longer hours, working
less, or had no more dedication to their work in this
country than in their home country. However, systemic
and role circumscription both affect the changes in

work involvement.

193

Table 54: Systemic and Role Circumscription and
Differences in Work Involvement in the
United States as Compared to the Home

 

Country
Systemic Low
Circumscription Circumscription
Low (Research,
TeachingsRe—
Differences High Low High (Teaching, search, W“*
in Work (Devel- (Devel- Administration, Publication,
Involvement oping) oped) Consulting) etc.)
a)Working
Longer hrs. ,
in the U.S. E
than in the 1
Home Coun- is
try "
Yes 52.5% 30.6% 44.3% 38.0%
No 29.7 58.6 41.0 51.8
None
Response 17.8 12.8 14.7 10.2
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
(N=101) (N=121) (N=61) (N=137)
Q= .544 Q= .192
b)Working less
in the U.S. than
in the Home Coun-
try
Yes 4.0% 13.2% 8.2% 9.5%
No 62.4 70.2 65.6 71.5
Non-
Response 33.6 16.6 26.2 19.0
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
(N=101) (N=121) (N=61) (N=137)

Q: 0496 Q “0030

194

(Table 54: Systemic and Role Circumscription and
(cont. Differences in Work Infolvement in the
United States as Compared to the Home

Country
Systemic Low
Circumscription Circumscription
Low (Research,
Teaching—

Differences High Low High (Teaching, Research,
in Work (Devel- (Devel— Administration, Publication,
Involvement oping) oped) Consulting) etc.)
c)More
Dedication
to Work in
the U.S. than
in the Home
Country

Yes 45.5% 27.3% 37.7% 34.3%

No 30.7 52.9 34.4 49.6
Non-
Response 23.8 19.8 27.9 16.1
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

(N=101) (N=121) (N=61) (N=137)
Q= .484 Q= .226

As Table 54 shows, scientists from developing
nations and those who performed teaching, administrative,
or consulting roles in the home country see themselves
as working longer hours in the United States as com-
pared to the time they spent working in their home
country. In addition, they express a greater dedica—
tion to work here than they did back home. Scientists from
developed nations and those who enact research, teaching—
research, and other low circumscribing roles do not ex-

perience such transitions in work involvement.

195

The high degree of homogeneity of responses on
the item "working less in the United States than in
the home country“ prevents the formation of any con-
clusions concerning the relationship of responses to
the item and systemic and role circumscription. The
N8 in the yes category cells are too small, for ex-
ample, only one person from a developing nation
said he was working less in the United States as com—
pared to his home country. Moreover, the non-responses
affect the direction of the relationship. As a conse-
quence,there is no basis for interpretation of results
on this item.

On the basis of the other findings in this table,
however, we can conclude that those scientists who
are systemically circumscribed and role circumscribed
will experience a change in the level of their work
involvement in the United States. As has been suggested
previously, such transitions occur because these scien-
tists are in the process of redefining their role identi-
ties in relationship to the students and colleagues they
work with and to department chairmen, deans, and other
persons in authority positions in the work situation in
the United States. Since their interaction patterns with
these groups and because their group attributes differ
from their counterparts in the home country, these scien-
tists increase their work efforts and dedication. Such

a response is also due to the transitions in the types of

196
work roles they perform as a result of moving from one
social system of work to another.
Further Exploration in Differences Between Social Systems
of Work. Exposure to dissociative experience may have
important consequences for the acknowledgement of variations
in the work situation in the United States as compared to
the home country. To explore this possible relationship,
correlations of the perception of differences between
students and in relations with persons in authority positions
to the varying types of dissociative experiences were computed

and the results are presented in Table 55.

In general, the acknowledgement of differences in
relations with persons in authority positions and type
of dissociative experience is unrelated. Only those
scientists who have made trips to developing nations
have a greater rate of seeing such a difference than
scientists who have not made such journeys. Since it
has already been shows that scientists from developing
nations are more likely to make trips to ohter develop-
ing nations than scientists from developed nations, the
correlation of trips to developing nations and differen—
ces in authority relations is supportive of the argu—
ment made previously that scientists from developing na-
tions are moving into a divergent social system of work in

the united States than scientists from developed nations.

197

Except for this relationship, then, we can conclude that
prior physical and psychic mobility has no effect on the
perception of differences in the work situations in the
United States and the home country with reference to
authority relations. This finding implies that the sys-
tem of authority relations in the United States is unique
to this country and that prior experiences in other coun-
tries or with their members does not necessarily prepare
the respondents for the type of experiences with persons
in authority positions they encounter in the united
States.

The perception of differences between students in
the United States and the home country, in comparison,
is related to types of dissociative experiences but in
varying directions. Those scientists who have had fo-
reign educational experiences, contact with foreigners
in the home country, belong to foreign scientific asso-
ciations, or who have made journeys to developed coun-
tries usually see no difference between students here
and at home. The respondents who have worked abroad be-
fore or who have taken trips to developing countries,
on the other hand, generally say that students in the
United States are different than their counterparts
in the home country. This finding indicates that certain
forms of prior physical and psychic mobility acquaint
scientists with a range of divergent patterns of student-
professor relationships and varying characteristics of

students in other countries similar to those which exist

Table 55:

Types of
Dissocia-

tive Ex-
periences

Foreign Ph.D.
Educational
Experience

Foreign Work
Experience

Trips to De—
veloped Coun-
tries

Trips to De-
veloping
Countries

Interaction
with Foreign-
ers

Memberships
in Foreign
Scientific
Associations

198

Correlations of Differences Between
Social Systems of Work in the united
States and the Home Country and Type
of Dissociative Experience: Differen-
ces Between Students and in Relations
with Persons in Authority Positions

Differences Between Social Systems
of Work in the united States and
the Home Country:

Differences Differences in
Between Authority
Student§ Relations
(N=186) (N=200)*

-0365 .126
.199 -.041
-.277 -.041
.263 .159
-.173 -.O78
-0298 -.017

* The Ns do not equal 222 because of non-responses to
the questions dealing with differences between students
and authority relations.

in the united States. Foreign work experience and making

trips to developing countries does not seem to yield such

information.

Previously, it has been shown that systemic and role

circumscription are related to dissociative experience,

that is, scientists from developing countries and those

199

who perform teaching, administrative, or consulting
roles in the home country are more likely to be phy-
sically and psychically mobile than scientists from
developed countries and those who enact research,
teaching-research, professional, or publication roles.
In this chapter, we have also seen that these scientists
usually acknowledge a difference between students in the
home country and the united States. .These findings and
the results presented above indicate that prior educa—
tional experience abroad, interaction with foreigners in
the home country, memberships in foreign scientific
associations, and trips to developed countries by scientists
from developing countries and those who perform teaching,
administrative, or consulting roles prepare these scientists
for the type of experiences they encounter in the social
system of work with reference to students. Accordingly,
these scientists have less of an adjustment to make
to the work situation in the united States than scien—
tists who have not had these forms of prior psychic and
physical mobility.

Such an occurrence was related in the interviews by
a scientist from India who had been to Great Britain for
his doctorate and who had made several trips to the Uni-
ted States, France, and England. On a probe to the ques-
tion on differences between students, he said the follow-
ing:4Ewmy time I've been abroad I have met students in

the countries I visited. Qverall, they are the same in

200
every country. They treat their professors in a simi-
lar manner and are very similar in the way they work
in the laboratory. Indian students do the same work
as British, French, and American students in my field.
There is no difference between them. I don't have
any problems at all with students."

Those scientists who have had some forms of dis-
sociative experience, then, are less likely to see a
difference between students in the home country as
compared to American students than scientists who have
not had these experiences. Prior experience in foreign
countries and with their members, on the other hand,
have no effect on differences scientists see in their
relations with persons in authority positions.

In summary, this chapter has shown that many scien—
tiSts regard the work situation in the united States as
being considerably different than the work milieu in the
home country. It differs in terms of the types of rela—
tionships they establish with students, colleagues and
those persons who occupy authority positions in the
social system of work. The work situation also varies
with reference to the work habits and dedication of
the people they encounter in these settings. We have
also seen that the work roles they perform in one sys-
tem may not necessarily be the same they perform in
another. In short, for many of the respondents the
current stay in the united States is a movement from

one social system of work to Another which is unlike

201

the social system of origin. They are not moving
into an identical system. On this basis, we can
conclude that for many of the respondents the
current stay in the united States is a dissociative
experience.

Scientists from developing nations and those
scientists who perform administrative, teaching, or
consulting roles usually view the work situation in
the united States as divergent from the social system
of work in the home country, experience a change in
the type of work roles they perform in the united States,
and increase their involvement in work in the united
States. For scientists from developed countries and
those who perform research, teaching—research, profes-
sional, and publication roles, on the other hand, the
work situation in the united States, the type of work
roles they enact, and the degree of their work involve-
ment are, in general, comparable to the home country.
Therefore, the following proposition holds for this
group of visiting foreign scientists: The greater the
systemic and role circumscription, the greater the
difference of the social system of work in the united
States as compared to the home country. This proposi-
tion implies that the social system of work in the
United States is more likely to be dissociative for
scientists from developing countries and those who

perform teaching, administrative, or consulting roles

202

in the home country than for scientists who are from
developed nations and those who enact research, teach—
ing-research, publication, or professional roles in

the home country.

Chapter 6

Summary of Results and Conclusions

203

204

This study attempted to locate variations in the
behavior and attitudes of a sample of visiting foreign
scientists from developed and developing countries. In
addition, several variables were suggested as some of
the sources of these divergent interaction patterns
and orientations. Three major conclusions can be drawn
from the results presented in preceding chapters: 1)
systemic circumscription (level of development of the
educational and scientific institutions of the home
country) and role circumscription (type of work role
performed in the home country) have an impact on the
social relationships, prior experience, and current
behavior and perspectives of the visiting foreign
scientists; 2) exposure to dissociative experiences
(movement from one social system to another social
system and exposure to the ideas, technology, or cultu-
ral values of a ”foreign" social system or systems
through contact with the actors of another system) fos-
ters post—modernity, worldmindedness, and a universa-
listic orientation to social interaction, and, to some
degree, work location, but its effect on third cultural
network involvement and a universaliStic orientation to
living location is mixed; and 3) the remarkable degree
of uniformity in the behavior and attitudes of these
scientists gives some evidence of a trans-societal and

cultural scientific community.

205

Systemic and Role Circumscription. Systemic and
role circumscription, as evidenced in the level of
development of the home country and the type of

work roles performed respectively, are related to
each other and to exposure to dissociative experien—
ces, societal social responsibility, professional
participation, perspectives on a stratification of
nations in scientific fields, and the differences
between the social systems of work in the united
States as compared to the home countries of the
respondents. Their relationship to scientific social
responsibility and non-professional responsibility are,
however, either inconclusive or unrelated.

The relationship of systemic circumscription to
role circumscription implies that scientists from de-
veloping nations are more likely to perform teaching,
administrative, or consulting roles than their collea-
gues in the developed world. In those countries with
a low level of development of educational and scienti—
fic institutions, there is inadequate support given
for those roles which are most central to the creation
and utilization of scientific knowledge. Basic and even
applied research often take a back seat to teaching,
administration, or consulting. As Dedijer has pointed
out (1962) and as these results confirm, many scientists

are from segments of “pre-research"cultures or societies.

206

Given the conditions of the home country com-
bined with the lack of availability of research and
professional roles in science, and the relatively
little support given to research productivity and
publication and the utilization of these results,
visiting foreign scientists from developing nations
who are highly role circumscribed have experiences
in other societies and with their members. That is,
the greater the role circumscription, the greater
the exposure to dissociative experiences. They have
been abroad for educational reasons, have made jour-
neys to other nations, interact with foreigners in
the home country, and belong to scientific associa-
tions in nations other than their home country orga-
nizations. Through such activities, they keep up with
the current developments in their field, make them—
selves visible to scientists in other nations, and
establish collegial relationships with them. Their
performance of teaching, administrative or consulting
roles, however, hinders their chances of employment
in other nations as the negative correlation of the
performance of these types of highly circumscribing
roles to cross-societal work experiences, controlling
for systemic circumscription,has shown.

Similarly, scientists from developed nations who
perform teaching, administrative, or consulting roles
make trips to developed countries, interact with

foreigners and belong to scientific associations in

207

other nations. But their colleagues in developed na-
tions who enact research, teaching—research, profes-
sional, or publication roles have been abroad for
their doctorate and have made trips to developing
nations.

Systemic and role circumscription are also
related to social responsibility at a societal level.
Scientists from developing nations and scientists
who perform teaching, administrative, or consulting
roles are concerned with the possible implications
of their work on their society and others. In addi-
tion, they often use the current problems facing their
home country as a criterion for the selection of a
research problem were feasible. Moreover, they give
approval to the involvement of scientists in national
decision-making. Incontradistinction, scientists from
developed nations and those who perform research, teaching—
research, professional, or publication roles in their
home countries are commonly low on societal social
responsibility.

Concerning the second level of social responsibility,
the scientific, the results are inconclusive. Most of the
scientists in the study express an obligation to the next
generation of scientists. They also choose problems rele-
vant to science for research topics. Because of the low
rate of disagreement to these indices of scientific
social responsibility, a generalization concerning their

relationship to systemic and role circumscription cannot

208

be made. The results show, however, that the type

of obligation to the next generation is correlated
in a positive direction to systemic circumscription.
That is, scientists from developing nations are com—
mitted to the growth of science in their own nations,
whereas scientists from developed nations state that
their obligation to the next generation is in refer-
ence to the international scientific community. The
scientific social responsibility of scientists, then,
is particularistic for scientists from developing
nations, but universalistic for scientists from deve-
loped nations.

This obligation by scientists from developing
countries to build the national scientific community
in their field rather than the international scienti-
fic community is one way of achieving mobility in the
stratification system of science described by the re-
spondents. Scientists from developed nations and those
who perform teaching-research, research, professional,
or publishing roles in their home countries see their
nations as centers or leaders in their fields. Scien-
tists from developing countries and those who perform
teaching, administrative, or consulting roles identify
the positions of their home country in a ranking of
nations as low or peripheral to the centers of research
in their fields. The peripheral or center rank of the
respondents' home countries affects the type of positions

they occupy when they are employed in one of the centers

209

in their fields, the united States, and the type
of exchanges they see existing between their home
countries and the united States. As a consequence,
scientists from the periphery do not receive the
same level of support as do scientists from the
center in the united States and in the systemic lin-
kages between their nations and the united States.
To compete as equals with the centers, those scien—
tists from the periphery must support the growth
of viable research institutes in their countries.
Thus scientists from developing countries are committed
to the next generation of scientists in their country
and not throughout the world.

A strengthening of science internationally desired
by scientists from developed nations may be considered
as a form of neo-colonialism. Because those outside
of the centers of science in their fields have relatively
little chance to improve their position, the growth of
viable research institutes in the peripheral nations will
provide more scientists for the centers and thus increase
the dominance of the centers over the periphery.

Furthermore, those scientists from the periphery,i.e.,
the developing nations, are more likely to hold non-main-
line positions (research assistant and associate) than
mainline positions (instructor to full professor) in the
United States. The opposite is true for scientists from

the center, i.e., developed nations. Moreover, scientists

210

from developing nations are more likely to consider
the systemic linkage networks of exchanges of students,
resources, and information between their home countries
and one of the centers in then? fields, the united
States, as being non—reciprocal than scientists from
developed nations whoview these networks as reciprocal.
The stress placed on problems facing the home
country as a criterion for a choice of research pro-
blems and the emphasis on training future generations
to create and further the national scientific institu-
tions by systemically and/or role circumscribed scien-
tists would lead one to expect that this societal and social
responsibility would foster participation in extra—
scientific affairs and activities. It does not.Scien—
tists from developing nations or those who perform
teaching, administrative, orconsulting roles do not
participate in civic, political, religious, etc. groups
more than scientists from developed nations and those
who perform research, teaching-research, professional,
or publication roles. The lack of participation of
scientists in these organizations and activities and
in any form of social action which would lead to change
in their society implies that these visiting foreign
scientists restrict most of their activities to the
scientific community. Any involvement in social change
and in activities outside of science by these scientists,
if it occurs at all, is possible only as a direct or in-

direct outcome of the research they are engaged in or

211

some activity within the social system of science.
This group of visiting foreign scientists in the
United States are, in short, one system actors.

Systemic and role circumscription are, however,
correlated in a reverse direction to participation
in scientific activities as proposed in Proposition
11. Scientists from developed nations and those who
are teachers, administrators, or consultants have
higher rates of attendance at national scientific
meetings and of paper and article publication than
scientists from developing nations and those who
enact research, teaching-research, professional, or
publication roles. Of the few scientists who have
published books, most are teachers, administrators,
or consultants.

These results support the analysis of the impact
of systemic and role circumscription on the behavior
of scientists in the first chapter. In developing
nations, little support is given to research output
in terms of inputs from society to science, yet such
an output is demanded. Moreover, most of the avail—
able roles in science that scientists from these nations
can perform are those which do not lead to research
productivity in terms of scientific publications. In
addition, the positive correlations of systemic and
role circumscription to memberships in scientific asso-

ciatons in other nations and their negative correlation

212

to attendance at national scientific meetings implies

that scientists from developing nations consider scien—
tific associations in other countries as more important

to their career than the associations in their home country
in terms of accessibility to information concerning current

developments in their fields and to meet colleagues. Without

viable or highly developed scientific associations in
their home country these scientists use memberships in
associations in other nations as a systemic linkage

to the larger scientific community. Scientists from
developing nation and those scientists who perform
teaching, administrative, or consulting roles view

the work situation in the united States as different

from the social system of work in their home countries.
The social systems of work varies in the interaction
patterns these scientists have with students, col-
leagues, and persons in authority positions (e.g.,
department chairmen, deans, supervisors) and in terms

of the characteristics students and colleagues in their
home countries and the united States. In addition, these
scientists experience a change in the type of work roles
they perform in the united States as compared to those
they enacted in the home country. In this country, they
usually perform research, teaching-research, professional,
or publication roles. In their countries of origin they
generally enact teaching, administrative or consulting

roles. Moreover, in response to the differences in the

213

social systems of work, these scientists increase their
work involvement in the united States and, as has been
suggested, must redefine their roles and social iden—
titles with their American colleagues, students, and
supervisors.

For scientists from developed nations and those
who perform research, teaching-research, professional,
or publication roles, the work situation in the united
States is quite similar to the social system of work
in their home countries in terms of students, colleagues,
persons in authority positions and relation with them,
the type of work roles they enact here, as compared
to their home country, and the degree of their work
involvement. On the basis of these findings, the fol-
lowing propostion is formulated: the greater the systemic
and role circumscription, the greater the difference of
the social system of work in the united States as com-
pared to the home country. Hence, the social system of
work in the united States is now likely to be dissociative
for scientists from developing countries and those who
perform teaching, administrative, or consulting roles
in their home country than for scientists who are from
developed nations and those who enact research, teaching—
research, publication, or pfoessional roles in the home
country.

In conclusion, the level of development of the

educational and scientific institutions in the home

214

country and the type of role performed by scientists
are important variables determining the possibilities
of exposure to dissociative experiences, social respon—
sibility at the societal level, the type of obligation
to future generations of scientists, and experiences

in the social system of work in the united States.

Dissociative Experiences. Exposure to dissociative
experiences, i.e., foreign educational and work ex-

perience and trips to developed and developing coun-

 

tries (physical mobility) and interaction with foreign-
ers in the home country and memberships in foreign
scientific associations (psychic mobility), is also

a significant source for explaining variations in

the perspectives and orientations of the scientists

in this study. Psychic mobility and physical mobility
contributes to the growth of a post-modern perspective
on the future of the home country, fosters interna-
tionality, and a universalistic orientation to social

interaction, and to work.

The relationship of dissociative experience to
third cultural network involvement is, however, mixed.
Only two of the four physical mobility indices, trips
to developed and developing nations, are strongly re-
lated to such involvement. The data suggests that
these journeys given an experiential base for in-

teraction with members from other societies that

215

educational and work experience do not give. This
explanation is feasible in one considers the purpose
of the trips to these nations and the nature of the
educational and work experiences and the status-
roles of the persons making these trips. The scien-
tists who made trips to other countries did so as in
peers for the purpose of directly contacting scientists
from other nations or to become acquaiuied with a
socio-cultural milieu different from their own. Either

purpose implies co—equal participation of the respon—

 

dents with selective members from another society.
Educational and work experiences abroad would seem
to involve such participaton. However getting a
higher degree in a foreign insititution or working
in a foreign nation is seemingly quite restricting.
WOrking towards a degree or being employed for a
certain period of time may require a total commit-
ment to these tasks obliterating the chance to
participate in social and professional relation-
ships with members of the host and other societies
and to absorb social and cultural patterns of the pro-
fession in the host society. Therefore, when these
scientists went abroad for advanced educational and
work purposes, their most significant and enduring
contacts with people from societies other than their
own are limited to the classroom or the laboratory

or the equivalent and does not extend outside of

216

these settings. During these experiences, the nature
of interaction is restricted to scientific matters
and does not run over into social areas. This is

especially true if there are linguistic problems.

The two psychic mobility indices are also ambi-
valently related to third cultural network participa- 377
tion. Interacting with foreigners in the home country
is functional for using scientific meetings and con—

ferences as a setting for persmal social relation—

 

ships with people from other societies, but not for
establishing networks at work or outside of work in

the united States. Belonging to associations in other
nations, on the other hand, does lead to third cultural
social relationships outside of the work situation

with people who work at the same place of work and

for interaction with people from other nations at
scientific meetings. It leads to non-third cultural
relationships outside of work with people who work

18
elsewhere or who are in the same field as the respondent.

Given these results, proposition 3, the greater
the exposure to dissociative experiences, the greater
the involvement in third cultural networks, can be
accepted only with reservations. That is, only in
specific situations and only with some types of dis—
sociative experiences does third cultural network in-

volvement follow from exposure to dissociative eXperienceS.

 

18 Interaction with members from the home country in a dif-
ferent society acting only with each other can be part of
a third culture insofar as they are mediating the two

cultures and are sharing norms which transcend both societies.

 

217

Exposure to dissociative experiences is also
related to a particularistic orientation to living
location, i.e., scientists are selective in choosing
residential site. Only trips to other nations apart
from educational and work experiences has led to such
a universalistic orientation, i.e., no preference for
a living location. This finding suggests an evaluative
ability on the part of those actors who have had these
experiences. By becoming more fully aware of alterna-
tives to their society and culture in their status as
professional scholar, the majority make a preference

for their home country or another country.

Exposure to dissociative experiences, in summary,
has had an effect on the way these scientists view
the world and their relationship to it, their per-
spective on the future of their home country, and their
orientation to where they would like to live or work
and who they would interact with. In general, this
effect has been in the direction of increasing the
post-modernity, worldmindedness, and universalistic

orientation of the visiting foreign scientists.

Homogeneity in Science. In Chapter 1, the main point
of emphasis was an exploration of the variations in
the behavior and attitudes of the scientists and the
sources of this heterogeneity. The variations that

have been found to exist on the selected behavioral

—

 

218

and attitudinal dimensions has been related to systemiC'
and role circumscription and exposure to dissociative
experiences. Yet, there is one finding as consistent

as the others: the majority shared the same beliefs,
perspectives, and orientations and tended to behave

in a similar fashion both in and outside of the scien-
tific community.

These visiting foreign scientists have, for the

'- "u ILA-1‘21: J”. \ _ ’
é
I

most part, experiences in other societies or with :

 

people from them. They are involved in thrid cultural

.1 I!" m A
’o
..

networks and their world views have changed in the
direction of increasing worldmindedness as a result

of these contacts. Moreover, they visualize the future
of their home country in dynamic post-modern terms
wherein their nation acts in cooperation with other
nations to shape the future of the world. They believe
that they are socially responsible to their society

and the world and to the international and their nation—
al scientific communities. In addition, they use the
same criteria for selecting a location for work, yet
they are universalistically oriented to a locus of work.
They share a particularistic orientation to a living
location, but express a universalism with regard to whom
they are willing to associate with. They participate
readily in their national scientific associations, and
have similar publication rates. Finally, they tend to
be non—participants in extra-scientific organizations

and activities.

l!

219

This homogeneity of responses gives credence to
the idea that there is an international scientific
community, at least with regards to these scientists.
Such a uniformity in behavior and attitudes could only
emerge out of a common social and normative structure.
The main thesis of this study, therefore, must be re—
vised. Science is not a heterogeneous collectivity.
It is a homogeneous collectivity characterized by
varying levels of systemic and role circumscription,
in which scientists share the same beliefs, per-
spective, and life styles, the world, their socie—
ties, and their place in them. The scientific com-
munity, therefore transcends societal and cultural
differences resulting in, what one may call, a third

culture of science.

Appendix A

Interview Schedule and

Questionnaire

220

.wvh "J. 4} fiifilimn
7‘

y

, y

A STUDY IN THE socromsr OF SCIENCE

INTERVIEW SCHEDULE

221

 

T"

Sal P. Restivo

C.K. VanderPool

Dept. of Sociology
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan

222

 

 

 

 

Page one
FACE SHEET
1. Sex: M F
2. Age
3. Marital Status: S M D W
4. Number of children:
5. Birthplace:
6. Citizenship:
7. Current Position: Visiting Nonvisiting
Instructor Professor
Ass't. Professor Research Assoc.
Assoc. Professor Other (specify)
8. Field:
9. Educational Background: Country Field Degree& Year

A. UNDERGRADUATE:

 

 

B. GRADUATE:

 

 

 

 

 

 

C. POST-GRADUATE:

 

 

 

Page one

o‘. .4 c..."

 

 

 

 

 

 

o - n ,- . , -
o
, -
I
a",
w...- .a
.- _—fi.
0. . ._
.~ ‘- ». » ..- —
, .
. (Lo 3.”
i ‘— ~—.—~»—-

- -v-‘u -

1....
0‘1

-o-

\w

10.

11.

12.

13.

1223

Career History for LAST FIVE YEARS:

A. Organization:

Industry
Government
University

Other (specify)

Page two

 

 

8. Countries:

C. Positions:

 

IF MARRIED: Background of Spouse:

A. CITIZENSHIP:

B. BIRTHPLACE:

r”!

 

. .— r1"

 

 

0. 22911211121:

Background of Mother:

A. CITIZENSHIP:

 

 

B. BIRTHPLACE:
C. OCCUPATION:

Background of Father:

A. gunners:

 

B. BIRTHPLACE:

 

c. scam:

 

Page two

   

. ~Io—
.. ‘

 

 

-

__.- ~

"“4
‘ . -.
a as»
..-’

.- ‘
-. ‘
_..,..
.Ih -
v
a

0
...--
.u.
"

t
n
.14.’

 

.-~ .

1
‘.
...-

s

224

Page three

14. Not counting this trip, what foreign countries have
you visited in the last five years for reasons related
to your work?

COUNTRY LENGTH OF STAY

 

 

 

 

 

 

-3 \_ "L .4 ‘ .c’ “.7!

 

15. IF MARRIED: Is your wife with you? YES NO

1 u‘m‘l_

16. IF MARRIED: Are your children with you? YES NO

17. Do you interact regularly with foreigners in your home
country?
YES NO IF NO, GO TO 21

18. WHAT COUNTRIES WERE THEY FROM?

19. WHAT WERE THEIR OCCUPATIONS?

20. WHY DID YOU INTERACT WITH THEM?

Page three

22.

23.

24.

2255
Page four

21. .IF RESPONDENT HA3 CONTACTED SCIENTISTS; WHAT WERE
YOUR OBLIGATIONSHAND”RESPONSIBILITIES TO THEM?

How did you happen to come to this country?

A. To do research with colleagues

8. To learn about new technioues

C. To see America

D. To communicate results with
colleagues

E. To do research which could not
be done at home

F. To teach

C. Other (specify)

\\ \ \\\

 

How did you happen to come to this university?

A. I was invited by colleagues

B. Invitation by university

C. University provided funds to do
what I want to do

D. A friend of mine was here before

E. Exchange program

F. Other (specify)

\H H

 

What do you plan to do after your stay here?

25. WHY?

Page four

”WP

 

K I--

 

Ai\--. .

226
Page five C

TEACHING WORKTROLE

IF THE RESPONDENT HAS TAUGHT BEFORE
AND IS CURRENTLY TEACHING, ADMINISTER
THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS

1. What level courses are you teaching?

2. What are the differences you have experienced in teaching
here as compared to teaching in your home country?

3. What do you like most about teaching here?
4. What do you like least?
5. In your field, when does a man reach his peak as a teacher?

6. What impact does teaching have on your professional
career, e.g. is it detrimental to your status in the

field, etc.?

7. DOES THIS VARY IF YOU TEA H IN YOUR HOME COUNTRY
AS COMPARED TO TEACHING THE UNITED STATES?

IF YES:
8. IN WHAT WAYS:

9. Is there a difference in the way you teach

 

(field)
here as compared to your home country?

(Probe for materials added to a course which are
not part of the general subject matter of the

course.)

 

 

ll.

12.

227
Page five B

WORK ROLE UNITED STATES
Teaching formal courses and seminars
(Including preparation time)
Basic research

Applied research

Hll

Research and develOpment

Teaching-Research (that kind of research
carried on with one or more apprentice
researchers for whom this research in-
volvement is part of their formal
training)

I |

Administration within an organization

Public service activities (speeches to
general public, appearances on T.V.

and radio, papularization of science
representing your field at civil functions,

etc.)

Consultant to public organisations

IH

Consultant to private organizations

Organizational activities in science
(editing, membership participation,
committee participation in scientific
organizations, etc.)

Writing and publication

1

Other (specify)

 

Page five B.

 

., ~. .

10.

ll.

12.

228

WORK ROLE HOME COUNTRY

Teaching formal courses and seminars
(Including preparation time)

Basic research

Applied research

Research and deveIOpment
Teaching-Research (that kind of research
carried on with one or more apprentice

researchers for whom this research in-
volvement is part of their formal train-

ing.
Administration within an organization

Public service activities (apeaches
to general public, appearances on T.V.
and radio, populariaation of science,
representing your field at civil fun-
ctions, etc.)

Consultant to public organizations
Consultant to private organizations
Organizational activities in science
(editing, membership participation,
committee participation in scientific
organisations etc.)

Writing and publication

Other (specify)

Page five A.

 

Page five A

 

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

229

Page five

Who provided the financial support for your trip here
at this time?

Home country U.S. Other
A. Government:
B. Industry:
C. Foundation:
D. University:
E. U.N. Agencies:
F. Personal resources:
G. Other (specify):

 

 

 

 

 

Who supports your work here?

WORK ROLE

On this sheet are a list of activities scientists sometimes
perform. CHECK THOSE ACTIVITIES YOU PERFORM BACK HOME.
(GET RANK ORDER)

WHICH ACTIVITIES TOOK UP MOST OF YOUR TIME?
(GET RANK.ORDER)

Here is a sheet identical to the one I just gave you.
CHECK THOSE ACTIVITIES WHICH YOU PERFORM HERE. (GET
RANK ORDER)

WHICH ACTIVITIES TAKE UP MOST OF YOUR TIME HERE? (GET
RANK ORDER)

Page five

T‘- -s<-~—It m E. nurses—mm
I

v...-.-_.

*~o-~—
.. w..

. . I _

‘ .I . <

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

23C)

Page six

Which of the above activites, do you regard as most
central to your role as a FIELD?

 

Which of the above activities are most central to FIELD

 

in your home country?

 

Which of the above activities are most central to FIELD

 

in the United states?

 

 

What types of activities will you perform when you go
back home?

A. The same as before
8. The same as here
C. Different (specify

 

As a result of this trip to the United States, do you

plan to change the way you perform your activities?
YES NO Ig:NO. GO TO 39.

37. IN WHAT WAYS WILL YOU CHANGE YOUR ACTIVITIES?

Page six

o
‘
,,,,,_

.w,

231

Page seven

38. DO YOU PLAN TO CONTINUE TO WORK IN THE SAME FIELD?

39. What are the networks of exchanges between American
and H,C, Field?

A. Jobs
B. Money

C. Resources

 

D. Journals

E
Q!

E. Equipment

F. Students

lllllll

G. News and gossip

H. Work contacts with
other scientists

 

QROBE FOR DIRECTION OF EXCHANGES)

40. WHAT IS YOUR ROLE IN THESE NETWORKS?

(PROBE FOR OBLIGATIONS g: PROFESSIONAL COMMUNITY)

41. Have you interacted with students in your home country?
YES NO IF NO: GO TO 44

Page seven

-- «‘e

‘ " fl-upo-

1 ”234.

Page eight

42. DO YOU FIND THAT THERE Is A DIFFERENCE IN THE WAY
YOU INTERACT WITH STUDENTS HERE As COMPARED TO
YOUR INTERACTION WITH STUDENTS BACK HOME?
YES NO IF NO: GO TO 44

43. WHAT IS THE NATURE OF THE DIFFERENCE?

hes-I I
4

44. Do you find that there is a difference in the way you
interact with persons in authority positions here
(6.3. Dept. chairman, Deans, etc.) as compared with the
way you interact with similar individuals back home?
YES NO IF NO: GO TO 46

 

45. WHAT IS THE NATURE OF THE DIFFERENCE?

46. In your current stay here who are the nationals you most
frequently interact with?

47. WHAT DO YOU USUALLY TALK ABOUT?

a. work (research)
b. social matters
c. other (Specify)

 

 

48. Did you know these scientists personally before you came
to this country? YES NO
IF NO: GO TO 51

49. HOW DID YOU GET TO KNOW THEM?

50. HOW WELL DO YOU KNOW THEM?

Page eight

 

51.

52.

53.

55.

57.

58.

59.

60.

235

Page nine

Some individuals are completely involved in their research ---
absorbed by it night and day. For others their work is

simply one of several interests. IN YOUR HOME COUNTRY,

HOW INVOLVED WERE YOU IN RESEARCH?

Completely involved Somewhat involved
Not much invloved

Has the level of your work involvement changed since
you've been here?

Is there anything about your work experiences here which
you did not expect before coming here?
YES‘ NO IF NO: GO TO 55

_ '1. 11 d‘

 

1!.‘4 x

54. WHAT DIDN'T YOU EXPECT?

Are the work habits of your American colleagues different
from the work habits of your colleagues back home?
YES NO IF NO: GO TO 57

56. IN WHAT WAYS ARE THEY DIFFERENT?

What do you like most about working with Americans?

What do you like least about working with Americans?

COMMITTMENT TO SOCIAL CHANGE
Are you involved in bringing about change in your country?
YES NO IF NO: GO TO 65

What type of change are you working for?

Page nine

61.

62.

63.

£236

Why are you involved?

a. It is my duty to my country

b. Every scientist must

c. To better mankind

d. My work role necessitates it

e. It's an Opportunity for advancement
f. Other (Specify)

Page

ten

 

What is the nature of your involvement?
8. Membership in political groups

b. Applied research

c. Planning groups

d. Basic research

e. Teaching

f. Consulting
3. Kinship and friendship groups
b. Other (specify)

IHIHII

Are there any constraints placed on your involve-

ment?
YES

64. WHAT ARE THESE CONSTRAINTS AND WHO IMPOSES

THEM?
A. Constraints:
a. Social values cannot be
investigated
b. Cannot attack groups in
power
c. Cannot criticise ideology
d. Cannot invistigate cer-
tain physical problems
e. Illegal to pursue these
activities
f. Other (specify)

NO IF NO: GO TO 66

 

Page ten

 

65.

66.

67.

237

Page eleven

B. Imposers:

a.
b.

Co
d.
3.

GO TO 66

Public in general
Government and other
authorities
Religious groups
Traditional leaders
Other (specify)

 

Why aren't you involved?
a. Outside the role of a scientist

b. Too involved in my work to bother

with it

c. Fear the reprisals of such invol-

vement

d. Cannot because others prevent me

HH

e. Other (specify)

 

IF RESPONDENT ANSWERS WITH STATEMENTS SIMILAR TO
c&d, PROBE THE CONSTRAINTS AND THE IMPOSERS OF

CONSTRAINTS.

How do you feel about scientists who are directly
involved in bringing about change in your society?

IMAGES OF THE FUTURE

If you could picture your country in the best possible
form, how would things look about ten Years from now?

Page eleven

 

.memnvr5'x. ".

—— 39"—
' H‘_—._ ‘2“

 

68.

69.

70.

71.

74.

238%

Page twelve

What models do you use to construct this ideal picture
of your country?

What segments of your society share such models?

Are the scientists in your country important for
achieving this future?

Do you think this ideal future will be achieved
by your country? YES NO

72. IF NO: WHY NOT?

73. IF YES: WHY?

Are you pessimistic or Optimistic about the future
of the world? PESSIMISTIC OPTIMISTIC

75. WHAT IS THE BASIS OF YOUR PESSIMISM OR OPTIMISM?

Page twelve

via; ,.

 

Ir£!~'a
.

76.

80.

239

Page thirteen

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

Some scientists are concerned about the effects of
their work on society (e.g., the atomic scientists
who expressed concern about the use of atomic wea-
pons, biologists who are concerned about indiscrim-
inate crOp Spraying). Other scientists are not
concerned (e.g., mathematicians working on theoret~
ical problems which have no applied sapects). Are
you concerned about the effects of your work on
society?

YES In what way?

No Why not?

IF YES,GO TO PROBE 77. IF NO, GO TO 78.

78. Are you a member of any associations or group
of Scientists interested in the effects of
scientific research on society?

YES (names of organizations)

NO

IF NO, GO TO 79.

79. Would you be interested in joining such an
organization? WHY OR WHY NOT?

KINSHIP

How have your family and relatives influenced your
professional career?

Page thirteen

 

81.

82.

83.

85.

86.

240

Page fourteen

ORGANIZATIONAL PARTICIPATION

What scientific organizationcb you belong to?

Is there a viable scientific association in your
field in your home country?

What are the goals of the scientific organizations
you belong to?

84. WHAT ARE THEIR SOCIETAL FUNCTIONS?

How often do you attend meetings at the

very often often seldom never
a. Regional
level .
b. National
level
c. International
level

What meetings have you attended in the U.S.?

Page fourteen

 

89.

90.

91.

93.

241
Page fifteen

87. WHY DO YOU ATTEND THESE MEETINGS?

a. To meet old friends

b. To establish new relations

c. To advance my career

d. To meet with other peOple doing
the same research

e. To advance the career of students

f. To keep up with develOpments
of the field

3. Other (specify)

 

88. WHAT LANGUAGES ARE USED AT THE INTERNATIONAL
MEETINGS YOU HAVE ATTENDED?

How would your colleagues describe your role in the
profession?

How many papers have you published in journals?
l-lO ll-20 Over 20 None

Where do you usually publish?

92. WHY DO YOU PUBLISH IN THESE PLACES?

In what languages do you write for publication?

Page fifteen

 

dn-mmem )- .'. _' A.

96.

97.

98.

99.

242

Page sixteen

94. HAS YOUR WORK BEEN TRANSLATED INTO OTHER LANG-
UAGES?

95. DO YOU TRANSLATE PUBLISHED WORKS?

Who reads what you publish?

To whom would you send preprints and reprints of
your articles? PROBE FOR COUNTRY.

How many books have you published?
1-5 6-10 Over 10 None

Have you published papers and books in subjects other
than your own? YES NO IF NO: GO TO 101.

100. IN WHAT AREAS?

Page sixteen

 

101.

243

Page seventeen

THIRD CULTURAL RELATIONS

Have scientific gatherings in nations other than
your home country enabled you to establish personal
and communication ties wiht scientists from other
nations? YES NO IF NO: GO TO 108.

 

102. WHERE WERE THEY HELD?
103. WHAT LANGUAGES WERE SPOKEN?
104. WHAT NATIONS DID THE SCIENTISTS COME FROM?
105. HOW DO YOU KEEP IN TOUCH?

a. Letters

b. Visits

c. Other meetings

d. Other (Specify)
106. WHAT DO YOU USUALLY TALK ABOUT?
107. HOW WELL DO YOU KNOW THEM?
GO TO 109.

Page seventeen

 

241+

Page eighteen

108. How do you establish such relationships?

109. Do you ever visit a country specifically to meet
with scientists in your field?

 

.
d
b
I
a
-.
.
.
is
I .
Ir.‘
a!
E
:5

110. When visiting another country, do you look up scien-
tists? YES______ NO____ ENQQQIQIIZ'

111. WHY?

112. Have any of the Scientists you met abroad visited

you here in the U.S.? YES NO IF NO:
GO TO 116.
113. FHY?

114. WHAT WERE YOUR OBLIGATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES
TO THEM?

115. WHICH COUNTRIES WERE THEY FROM?

Page eighteen

116.

117.

118.

122.

245

Page nineteen

In your relations with foreign scientists, is your

national identity a liability or an asset?

8. Liability

b. Asset

c. Both

d. Doesn't make a
difference

e. Don't know

 

Pi
in.
(b

GO TO 124.

WHY?

DOES THIS PROBLEM ARISE WITH SCIENTISTS FROM CERTAIN
NATIONS? YES NO LE N0: GO TO 122.

119. WHICH NATIONS?

121. WHY?

DOES THIS HAVE ANY AFFECT ON YOUR CAREER PLANS?
YES NO IF NO: GO TO 124.

 

123. WHAT AFFECT?

1 nineteen

FE.

 

 

 

124.

125.

126.

246

Page twenty-

COGNATIVE MAP

What are the essential characteristics of a science?
ALTERNATE: WHAT DISTINGUISHES THE SCIENCES FROM
OTHER SUBJECTS, FOR EXAMPLE, FROM LITERATURE, OR
ART, 0R PHILOSOPHY?

Which are the leading countries in your field?

 

HOW WOULD YOU RANK THESE COUNTRIES?

IF HOME COUNTRY IS NOT'MENTIONED IN 125, PROBE 127--OTHERWISE
GO TO 128.

128.

130.

127. WHAT ABOUT YOUR HOME COUNTRY? IS IT AMONG
THE LEADERS, CLOSE BEHIND, LAGGING EAR BET
HIND, OR NOT IN THE PICTURE AT ALL?

Has there been any change in the position of your
home country during the past decade? YES NO
IF YES, PROBE 129. IF NO GO TO 130.

 

129. HOW HAS IT CHANGED?

Do you anticipate any change in the position of your
home country in the forseeable future? YES NO

 

'"enty

 

 

fi‘

132.

133.

135.

244’

Page twenty-one

131. WHY OR WHY NOT?

If you had an outstanding student which country would
you send him to for the best possible professional
training in your field?

Which are the leading journals in your field?

134. WHICH COUNTRIES ARE THEY PUBLISHED IN?

Is there any country-or are there any countries-
which makes it difficult or impossible for you to
learn what its scientists in your field are doing?
YES NO IF YES, PROBE 136, 137. IF

NO, GO To 138.

136. WHICH COUNTRY(IES)?

137. WHY IS IT DIFFICULT OR IMPOSSIBLE TO LEARN
WHAT SCIENTISTS IN THIS COUNTRY(IES) ARE DOING?

"' va-one

 

138.

141.

143.

248

Page twenty-two

Is there any country(ies) whose scientists you would
not share your work with? IF YES, PROBE 139, 140.
IF NO, GO TO 141.

139. WHICH COUNTRY(IES)? F

140. WHY WOULDN'T YOU SHARE YOUR WORK?

 

Are there any conditions under which you would not
share your work with scientists in another country(ies)?
YES NO IF YES, PROBE 142. IF NO,

GO TO 143.

142. WHAT CONDITIONS?

In evaluating a scientific statement, journal article,
etc., by a scientist in your field do you ever take
into account the fact that he is from a particular
country--does his nationality affect your evaluation
in any way? YES NO IF YES, PROBE 144.
IF NO, GO TO 145.

144. HOW DOES THIS ENTER INTO YOUR EVALUATION?

‘ ~ cm twenty-two

145.

147.

149.

249

Page twenty-éhfee

Think of all the countries you have worked in and

all the scientists you have worked with. ‘which count-
ry's scientists would you most prefer to work with?

IF PREFERENCE EXPRESSED, PROBE 146. IF NO PREFERENCE,
GO TO 147.

14 6 0 WHY ?

 

‘21" Im'fliln‘f

Which country's scientists would you most prefer
to socialize with? IF PREFERENCE EXPRESSED, PROBE
148. IF NO PREFERENCE, GO TO 149.

148. WHY?

Which persons outside of your field do you consider
to be part of your audience-~persons you want to
share your knowledge with in one way or another?
IF NONE, GO TO 153. OTHERWISE, PROBE 150, 151, 152.

150. PROBE NATIONAL, EI-NATIONAL, MULTI-NATIONAL,
INTERNATIONAL.

151. WHICH SEGMENTS IN SOCIETY DO THEY REPRESENT?

‘ twenty-- three

153.

157.

159.

1250

Page twenty-four

152. WHY DO YOU WANT To INCLUDE THEM IN YOUR AUDIENCE?

Which persons outside of your field would you explic-
itly exclude from your audience? IF NONE, GO TO 151.
OTHERWISE, PROBE 154, 155, 156.

154. PROBE NATIONAL, III-NATIONAL, Mun—NATIONAL,
INTERNATIONAL

155. WHICH SEGMENTS IN SOCIETY DO THEY REPRESENT?

156. WHY DO YOU’WANT TO EXCLUDE THEM FROM YOUR
AUDIENCE?

How many persons in your field are there in your

home country?

158. HOW MANY DO YOU KNOW PERSONALLY?

Does it make any difference to you what country
you work in? YES NO

"Four

. Mfi‘.l."*. .l." .3 '

 

161.

163.

164.

166 O

251
Page twenty-five

160. WHY OR WHY NOT?

Does it make any difference to you what country
you live in? YES NO

 

162. WHY OR WHY NOT?

Think of the best possible conditions for carrying
out the work you are interested in. Is there any
one country (or countries) in which you would be
able to work under approximately such conditions?

Are there any limits placed on the kind of work you
can do in your home country? IF YES, PROBE 165.
IF NO, GO TO 166.

165. WHAT KINDS OF LIMITS?

Are there any limits placed on the kind of work you
can do here? IF YES, PROBE 167. IF NO, GO TO 168.

167. WHAT KINDS OF LIMITS?

"-nty-five

 

‘ *8; :7-l&.ud.‘uuw ' -'l J
a

168.

172.

2252
Page twenty-six

Are there any other persons from your home country
in this department? YES NO

DON'T KNOW IF YES, PROBE 169. IF NO OR
DON'T KNOW, GO To 173.

170. DO YOU KNOW THEM PERSONALLY?

YES NO KNOW SOME
IF YES, OR KNOW SOME, PROBE 171. IF No,
GO TO 172.

171. WHAT DID YOU TALK ABOUT THE LAST TIME YOU
GOT TOGETHER WITH SOME OR ALL OF THEM?

Are there any other persons from your home country
at this university? YES NO DON'T KNOW
IF YES, PROBE 173. IF NO, OR DON'T KNOW, GO TO 175.

173. DO YOU KNOW THEM PERSONALLY? YES
NO KNOW SOME IF YES, OR KNOW
SOME, PROBE 174. IF NO GO TO 175.

174. WHAT DID YOU TALK ABOUT THE LAST TIME YOU
GOT TOGETHER?

‘tv-six

' “ .‘zL. J; v;‘_ 7. fig,
r

 

V“. .Sn‘. n

253

Page twenty-seven

175. Are there any other persons form your home country
in your field visiting in the United States? YES
NO KON'T KNOW

176. When you retire, or nearing the end of your career,
what would you like peOple in general to remember
you for?

177. WHICH PERSONS WOULD YOU LIKE TO BE REMEMBERED
BY IN PARTICULAR?

178. Some scientists believe that the criteria for truth
and verification in science will never change.
Do you agree with them? YES NO

179. WHY OR WHY NOT?

180. What would you say are the most productive years
for a scientist in your field?

181. If you could change your profession today, would
you? IF YES, PROBE 182. IF NO, PROBE 183.

:ven

 

1254
Page twenty-eight

182. WHAT WOULD YOU CHANGE TO, AND WHY?

183. WHY NOT?

IF RESPONDENT HAS BEEN ABROAD BEFORE ASK.QUESTIONS 184,
185, 186. IF THIS IS HIS FIRST TRIP ABROAD GO TO 187.

184.

187.

188.

Upon returning to your home country did you (or do
you usually) discuss your visit with peOple in your
field? YES NO IF YES, PROBE 185.

IF NO, PROBE 186.

185. WHY?

186. WHY NOT?

Have you tried to arrange for one or more of your
colleagues and/or students to visit abroad? YES
NO

 

Have you tried to arrange visits to your home country
for scientists you met abroad? YES NO

 

 

255

Page twenty-nine

189. For each of the following types of scientists indicate
the extent to which you feel you have something in
common with them by virtue of being a scientist.

7'7

Physical scientists

GREAT DEAL IN COMMON SOMETHINGS IN COMMON
A FEW THINGS IN COMMON, BUT NOT MANY NOTHING
AT ALL IN COMMON

Biological scientists

GREAT DEAL IN COMMON SOMEATHINGS IN COMMON
A FEW THINGS IN COMMON, BUT NOT MANY NOTHING
AT ALL IN COMMON

Social scientists

GREAT DEAL IN COMMON SOME THINGS IN COMMON
A FEW THINGS IN COMMON, BUT NOT MANY NOTHING AT
ALL IN COMMON

Dana f‘annfv-n‘i n9,

190.

191.

192.

256
Page thirty

Of the following, which best characterizes your
present work?

a. Specifically related to physical and/or biological
problems indigenous to my home country

b. Specifically related to economic, social, and/or
political problems of my home country

c. Specifically related to physical and/or biological
problems indigenous to a specific region (e.g.,
Southeast Asia)

d. Specifically related to economic, social, and/or
political problems of a specific region (e.g.,
Southeast Asia)

e. Specifically related to physical and/or bio-

logical problems affecting the world as a whole

f. Specifically related to economic, social and/or
political problems which involve all nations

3. Has no relationship to national or geographic
boundaries

On the basis of your reSponse to the last question,
what effect does the character of your work have

on the nature of your career, if any? Is it an asset,
a liability, or irrelevant to getting ahead in your
field, making a name or reputation, etc?

PROBE FOR CAREER REFERENT - HOME COUNTRY, UNITED
STATES, INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY...

GENERATIONS

How many generations can you identify in your field
in your home country? PROBE FOR REFERENT: IS IT
SOCIETAL, OR SCIENTIFIC?

 

 

193.

194.

195.

197.

257
Page thirty-one

Which generation do you belong to?

Are there any significant differences between the
generations you have identified?

PROBE FOR COMMITMENT To BUILDING A SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY
(NATIONAL, BI-NATIONAL, MULTINATIONAL OR INTERNATIONAL)
AND CONCERN FOR PROBLEMS OF DEVELOPMENT, MODERNIZATION,
AND POST-MODERNIZATION.

Do you feel any obligations to the next generation
of Scientists in your home country? YES NO

 

196. WHY OR WHY NOT?

CONDITIONS OF WORK
4-

During the last five years where have you Spent
most of your working hours?

a. Laboratory

b. Firld (social surveys, geological or geo-
graphic surveys, etc.)

c. Clinic_______
d. Library._____
e. Office _____
f. Other __

IF MORE THAN ONE OF THE ABOVE IS RELEVANT, RANK.ORDER
YOUR RESPONSES

MW 1'“

 

v. \4.

1358

Page thirty-two

198. Indicate the extent to which each of the following
has characterized your work over the last five years.

a. Theoretical: Definitely characteristic
Somewhat characteristic Not characteristic

b. Methodological: Definitely characteristic
Somewhat characteristic Not characteristic

C. Experimental: Definitely characteristic
Somewhat characteristic Not characteristic

d. Technological (including applied work, research
and deveIOpment, etc.): Derinitely character-
istic Somewhat characteristic Not
Characteristic

e. Clinical: Definitely characteristic Some-
what characteristic Not characterisitc

f. Empirical: Definitely characteristic
Somewhat chaacterist Not characteristic

199. During the last five years, how many peOple have
you usually worked with on wach of your studies?
IF RESPONDENT HAS WORKED ALONE, GO TO 201. OTHER-
WISE, PROBE 200.

200. WHAT KIND OF RELATIONSHIP DID YOU HAVE WITH
THE PERSON(S) YOU WORKED WITH - WERE THEY
COLLEAGUES, TECHNICIANS, SUPERVISORS...?

201. What would you say are the most important tools and
resources in your work - things you must have in
order to carry out your research?

na-Amtr—‘T

 

232.

203.

204.

259

Page thirty-three

How well organized is your field in terms of a body
of empirically corroborated hypotheses, systematic the-
ories, etc.?

Some scientists are working on the forefronts of know- 'T““
ledge, in fields or subfields that are just beginning j
to receive attention; others are involved in research i
that is peripheral to the main concerns of men in their é

field; still other scientists may fit somewhere between
these two extremes. How would you characterize your
work with reference to your field in general? 1

 

 

To what extent does your work entail financial costs
requiring large-scale funding (e.g., government funding)?

COMMUNITY AND PUBLIC ACTIVITIES (REFERENT IS HOME COUNTRY UNLESS
OTHERWISE SPECIFIED)

205.

Have you been involved in any non-scientific organiz-
ations or activities (for example, as an elected public
official, a public lecturer, a civic leader, etc.) at

the local level (e.g., in your community) during the last
five years? IF YES, PROBE 206-216. IF NO, PROBE 217.

236. WHAT ACTIVITIES AND ORGANIZATIONS, AND IN WHAT
CAPACITY?

207. ARE YOU STILL INVOLVED IN THESE ACTIVITIES AND
ORGANIZATIONS?

Page thirty-three

260

Page thirty-four

208. DO YOU INTEND TO REMAIN INVOLVED?

209. WHEN YOU ARE ENGAGED IN THESE ACTIVITIES DO YOU
THINK OF YOURSELF PROMARILY As A /respondent's
field/, A SCIENTIST, A CITIZEN...?

 

~.;
I
Q
4
g .
b
fl
|

210. D0 OTHERS THINK OF YOU IN THE SAME WAY?

I 4'2... (2.1.: m 4‘

211. WHAT DO COLLEAGUES IN YOUR FIELD THTNK ABOUT YOUR
PARTICIPATION IN THESE ACTIVITIES?

212. WHY DO YOU ENGAGE IN THESE ACTIVITIES?

213. BY VIRTUE OF BEING A SCIENTIST, IS THERE ANYTHING
THAT ESPECIALLY QUALIFIES you To ENGAGE IN THESE
ACTIVITIES? YES NO IF YES, PROBE 214.
IF NO, GO To 215.

214. WHAT IN PARTICULAR?

Page thirty-four

218.

220.

261

Page thirty-five

215. WHEN PARTICIPATING IN THESE ACTIVITIES DO YOU
THINK OF YOURSELF AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF A SPECIFIC
GROUP OR ORGANIZATION, FOR EXAMPLE THE SCIENTIFIC
COMMUNITY, YOUR HOME COUNTRY...?

216. WHAT IMPACT, IF ANY, HAS YOUR PARTICIPATION IN
THESE ACTIVITIES HAD ON YOUR PROFESSIONAL CAREER?

GO TO 218.

 

_&A§K: "IGNI-Iir . ‘. O... ~ _

i In. -f'n

217. WHY AREN'T YOU ENGAGED IN SUCH ACTIVITIES?

Do you think scientists in general should become invol-
ved in the kinds of activities we have been discussing?
YES NO

 

219. WHY 0R WHY NOT?

Have you participated in decision-making at the national
level during the last five years? YES NO
IF YES, PROBE 221-231. IF NO, PROBE 232.

221. WHAT ACTIVITIES IN PARTICULAR, AND IN WHAT CAP-
ACITIES?

222.

223.

224.

225.

226.

227.

228.

229.

262

Page thirty-six

ARE YOU STILL INVOLVED IN THESE ACTIVITIES?

DO YOU INTEND TO REMAIN INVOLVED?

WHEN YOU ARE ENGAGED IN THESE ACTIVITIES DO YOU
THINK OF YOURSELF PRIMARILY AS A /respondent's
field/, A SCIENTIST, A CITIZEN...?

 

DO OTHERS THINK OF YOU IN THE SAME WAY?

WHAT DO COLLEAGUES IN YOUR FIELD THINK.ABOUT YOUR
PARTICIPATION IN THESE ACTIVITIES?

WHY DO YOU ENGAGE IN THESE ACTIVITIES?

BY VIRTUE OF BEING A SCIENTIST, IS THERE ANYTH2HG
THAT ESPECIALLY QUALIFIES YOU TO ENGAGE IN THESI
ACTIVITIES? YES No 1F YES, PROBE 2;9.
IF NO, GO TO 230.

WHAT IN PARTICULAR?

233.

234.

235.

263

Page thirty-seven

230. WHEN PARTICIPATING IN THESE ACTIVITIES DO YOU
THINK OF YOURSELF AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF A SPEC-
IFIC GROUP OR ORGANIZATION, FOR EXAMPLE, THE SCI-
ENTIFIC COMMUNITY, YOUR HOME COUNTRY»..?

231. WHAT IMPACT, IF ANY HAS YOUR PARTICIPATION IN
THESE ACTIVITIES HAD ON YOUR CAREER?

 

GO TO 233.

'n m.:a- .g
u
1

232. WHY AREN'T YOU ENGAGED IN SUCH ACTIVITIES?

Do you think scientists in general should become invol-
ved in the kinds of activities we have been discussing?
YES NO

Looking over all your experiences here, in other
countries and back home, what affect have they had on
the way you view man, society and the world?

Are there any questions I did not ask which I should?
have asked?

VISITING FOREIGN SCIENTISTS AND SCHOLARS:

A STUDY IN THE SOCIOLOGY OF SCIENCE

QUESTIONNAIRE

 

Sal P. Restivo

C.K. Vanderpool
Department of Sociology
Michigan State University
Summer 1969

261+

1.
2.

3.

u.

6.

7.
8.

10.

265

 

 

 

 

Sex: Male Female
Age:
Marital Status: Single_____ Married_____
Divorced___ Widowedh_~__
Birthplace:
Citizenship: __ A_ {II

 

Current Position: Visiting Instructor
Visiting Assistant Professor,_______ .
Visiting Associate Professor i
Visiting Research Associate T
Other (specify)__

 

What is your field?__r' 49

What are your areas of Specialization?

 

 

Indicate the academic degrees you have earned.

Bachelors Degree (or equivalent): Year
Country
Subject

 

Masters Degree (or equivalent): Year
Country
Subject

 

 

Ph.D. (or equivalent) Year
Country
Subject

 

 

 

In the last five years, where have you been employed?

a. Organization: Industry
Government
University
Other (Specify)__

b. Country(s)

 

c. Position(s)

 

ll.

12.

13.

1h.

15.

266

(2)
Not counting this trip to the U.S., what foreign
countries have you visited in the last five years
for reasons related to your work?

Countries Length of Stays

 

 

 

“I

 

 

Did you interact regularly with foreigners in your f
home country?
Yes No

 

Why did you come to this country? (Check as many as
applicable).

 

a. To do research with colleagues

b. To learn about new techniques

c. To do research which could not
be done at home

d. To teach

e. Other (specify)

 

 

—-—v w

How did you happen to come to this university? (Check
as many as applicable).

a. I was invited by American
colleagues I met in my home
country.

b. I was invited by a colleague
in the U.S. who knew of my work
in my field.

0. A former teacher recommended me
for a position.

d. Personal initiative.

e. A friend of mine was here before

f. Other (specify):

 

What do you plan to do after your stay here?

a. Stay in the U.S.

b. Return home

c. Not certain

d. Other (specify): "_

16.

17.

18.

267
(3)

What types of activities will you perform after your
stay here?

a. The same as before I left my home country
b. The same as I perform here in the U.S.

 

 

c. Other (specify)

‘ _

The following list is composed of activities scientists
sometimes perform. Please rank each activity in terms
of the amount of time and effort you exPend in them
while in your home country and now in the U.S. (For
example, teaching 2 , Basic research 1. , Organiza-
tional activities 3 , etc.). If you haven’t performed
the activity please eave the space blank.

Home Country U.S. :
a. Teaching formal courses
and seminars (including
preparation time) g
b. Basic research
0. Applied research __
d. Teaching-Research (that
kind of research carried
on with one or more appren-
tice researchers for whom
this research involvement
is part of their formal
training).
e. Administration within an
organization
f. Consultant to public and/or
private organizations
g. Organizational activities in
science (editing, membership
participation, committee par-
ticipation, in science orga-
nization, etc.)
h. Writing and publication i_ _ii

—— “

 

 

 

 

“
~—
“—

 

 

1. Other (specify) ___

Which of the following statements concerning teaching
and a career in your field do you agree or disagree
with?

Use the following rating: 1=Strongly Agree; 2=Agree;
3=Neither agree, nor disagree; h=disagree3 5=Strongly
disagree.

a. A combination of teaching and research helps
a person in my field to be successful.

b. Teaching without an emphasis on research is
detrimental to a career in my field.

0. Teaching detracts from time and effort that
should be spent in research.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

268

(4)

In terms of your ability to teach science, do you feel
any obligation to or responsibility for the next
generation of scientists in your home country?

Definitely Somewhat None

Comparing your eXperience here in the U.S. and back.

home, do you find that there is a difference between

American students and students from your home country?

Yes No __

 

If Yes: What is the difference? __ i

 

Do you find that there is a difference in the way you
interact with persons in authority here (e.g. Depart~
ment Chairmen, Deans, etc.) as compared with the way
you interacted with similar individuals back home?

Yes No

It

 

 

If Yes: What is the difference?

 

Has the level of your involvement in work changed since
you°ve been here in the following ways?

a. Working longer hours Yes No
b. Working less that before Yes No
0. More dedication to work Yes No

d. Other (specify):

 

Please indicate which of the groups below include mest
of the persons you work with.

a. Americans 1) in my field
2) not in my field
b. Persons from my home country
1) in my field
2) not in my field____
c. Persons from other countries
L) in my field
2) not in my field

 

 

 

2h.

25.

26.

269
(5)

Please indicate which one of the groups below includes
most of the friends you see socially, i.e., away from
Work 0

a. People in my field who Work where I do and are from
1) the United States
2) my home country
3) other countries

b. People in my field Who work elsewhere and are from if
1) the United States I
2) my home country
3) other countries

0. People not in my field Who work where I do and are
from
1) the United States
2) my home country
3) other countries

 

d. People not in my field who work elsewhere and are
from
1) the United States
2) my home country
3) other countries

Indicate the extent of your agreement or disagreement
with the following statements. Use the following
rating: l=8trongly agree: 2=Agree; 3=Neither Agree
nor disagree; H=Disagreeg 5=Strongly Disagree.

a. Americans in my field work harder than my
colleagues back home.

b. My colleagues back home work longer hours
than their American counterparts.

c. Americans are not as dedicated to their work
as my home country colleagues.

d. The degree of understanding that Americans
have of the problems confronting my field
is less than that of my colleagues back home.

e. Americans are more organized in their work
than my colleagues back home. ____u_

Please indicate the extent to which each of the
following has been a part of your scientific work
over the past five years.

a. Theory construction:great part__some part__no part_
b. Mathematics and ,

Statistics: great part__some part__no part_
0. Methodology: great part__some part__no part_
d. EXperimentation: great part__some part__no part_
e. Clinical work: great part__some part__no part_

f. Engineering: great part__some part__no part_

’1‘.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

270

(6)

How important is each of the following in determin-
ing your choice of a research problem to work on?

a. Problems facing Mankind(e.g, world pOpulation
crisis, international conflicts)
very important__somewhat important__not at all
important__

b. problems facing my home country(e. . economic
deve10pment, problems in education)
very important__somewhat important__not at all
important__

c. scientific problems(e.g.theory, methodology)
very important__somewhat important__not at all
important__

What do you consider as the single most important
factor affecting your choice of a research problem?

Do you feel a sense of responsibility for the possible
social consequences of your research?
Definitely Somewhat Not at all

How do you think the research you are doing will
affect mankind?
a. will definitely be of great benifit
b. will definitely have adverse affects
c. will definitely have no effect on
society in the forseeable future

Some scientists and scholars maintain that every
scientist and scholar should be directly involved
in the decision-making process of their country.
Do you agree or disagree with them?

Strongly agree___ Agree Neither Agree nor
disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree

To what extent does your work entail financial costs
requiring large-scale funding by major foundations
or government agencies?

to a great extent to some extent not at all

During the last five years where have you spent most
of your working hours? If more than one of the
following categories is relevant, please clarify by
rank ordering them in terms of the amount of time
and effort you spent in each setting.

a. Laboratory b. Fie1d(socia1 surveys, geological
surveys) c. Clinic d. Library
e. Office f. Home g. Other(Specify)

 

An - .1.‘fll‘.n‘['&";._o . "|.".:. . _

3“.

35¢

36.

37.

38.

39.

#0.

41.

271

(7)

Please list the leading countries in your field, in
ralk order if possible.

Leading Country(s)
2nd
3rd
4th
5th

 

 

 

 

 

If your home country is NOT mentioned in question 3#,

please answer this question: Where does your home

country fit into the picture?

a. Among the leaders_ B. Close behind the leaders_

0. Lagging behind the leaders“ d. Not at all in
the picture_

Do you anticipate any improvement in the position of
your home country in the forseeable future? Yes No

What country or countries are the scientists you most
frequently communicate with from?

 

 

 

__ ___ — ——

How do you communicate with them? Rank order the
following in terms of their importance as a means
of communication.

a. Letters_ ' b. Telephone c.Associational
meetings_ d. Pre-prints/reprints_ e. Personal
visits_ f. Other(specify)

 

Is there any country (or countries) whose scientists
and scholars it is difficult or impossible for you to
communicate regularly and freely with? Yes No

 

If yes: List the countries:

 

What revents regular and free communication?
1) Language
2) Politics
3) Other (specify)

 

Would you accept a permanent job outside of your home
country? Yes No Haybe

 

Rate the importance of each of the following items as
they would affect your decisions about where you work
in terms of the following scale: .=very imfigrtant;
2=somewhat important: 3=hardly important: not impor-
1:81:11: 0

a. Country_ b. Salary_ c. Quality of scientists___
d. Quality* of research facilities_ e. Likes and
dislikes of my wife and/or children: f. Other (Specb
ify

 

 

_—___—.-_‘_—

 

 

#2.

#3.

##.

#5.

#6 .

#7.

272

(8)
How many papers have you published in your field?

1-5 6-10 11 or more none

 

How many books or monographs have you published in
your field?

1'3 #-6______ 7 or more______ none

 

What countries do you usually publish your works in?

In evaluating a scientific statement, Journal article,
etc. by a person in your field, do you ever take into
account the fact that he is from a particular country?
Yes No

If yes: In what way:

 

Please list the names of the scientific and scholarly
societies you belong to and the countries they are
located in.

Name of Country Name of Society

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How often do you attend the meetings of these societies?

Name of Society

every meeting most meetings
some meetings no meetings

 

g__ every meeting most meetings
some meetings no meetings

every meeting most meetings
some meetings no meetings

 

every meeting most meetings

 

some meetings no meetings

 

#8 .

#9.

SO.

273
(9)

Are you, or have you been a member of any non—professio-

nal organization (civic, charitable, religious, polit—
ical, etc.) in your home country? Yes No

 

To what extent do you support the following statements?
Use the following rating: l=Strongly agree: 2-Agree;

3=Neither agree nor disagree; #=Disagree; 5=Strongly

disagree.

a. My country should stay as it is, i.e. it
should not change.

b. What my country needs most is greater
economic development.

c. A greater effort in my home country must
be placed on a rediscovery of its past.

d. The values of science should influence
the values and ways of life of the people
and leaders of my home country. '

e. The problems confronting my country must

~» be seen as international in nature.

f. My country should follow and develop its
own course thru history and not copy other
nations.

g. There should be more international coopera-
tion between my country and other nations.

HHI

What affect have your experiences here and in other
countries had on.theway you view peOple, societies,
and the world?

 

 

 

 

1‘ - 14. .""'_’-_A -__..

 

fin.

Appendix B

Supplementary Tables

27#

Th”

 

 

 

275

Table 1: Number of non-respondents to the
Questionnaire: Type of Science
and Institution.

Type of Science

Institution Physical Biological Social Total

 

Wisconsin 22 29 1 52

Purdue 27 13 1 41 ?
Em

Minnesota* 13 4 2 19

Illinois* 7 14 5 26

Total 69 6O 9 138

*Minnesota and Illinois have less foreign scien-
tists on their campuses than Wisconsin and

Purdue (see International Infiitute of Education;
1968 .

276

Table 2: Percentage Distribution of Respondents
by Their Country of Origin

Percentage Percentage
Countries Distribution Countries Distribution
England 15.3% Norway .9
India 13.9 Spain .9
Japan 12.1 Burma .5
Germany 7.6 Costa Rica .5
China* 6.5 Guyana .5
Australia #.6 Indonesia .5
Canada 3.? Iran .5
Israel 3.7 Ireland .5
Czechoslovakia 2.8 Jordan .5
Korea 2.3 Malaysia .5
Switzerland 2.3 Nepal .5
Italy 2.3 New Zealand .5
Chile 1.9 Okinawa .5
France 1.9 Peru .5
Egypt 1.9 Philippines .5
Pakistan 1.# South Africa .5
Poland i.# Sweden .5
Turkey 1.# Syria .5
Brazil .9 Thailand .5
Colombia .9 Venezuela .5
Greece .9 Yugoslavia .5
Hong Kong .9
Total 100.0%

Netherlands .9 (N=222)

*The figures are for China unspecified and the Republic
of China. Our figures include both categories. Only
two respondents were classified as China unspecified.

 

.w‘rm..- .;5'_r‘. - - . e h v. n
.1.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

277

PM“-

 

e 1-7

Bibliography

Apter, David E.
1965 The Politics of Modernization. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.

Barber, Bernard.
1952 Science and the Social Order. New York: 5
The Free Press. '

Beijer, G. ;
1969 "Brain Drain as a Burden, a Stimulus and a
Challenge to European Integration."
Pp. #-30 in F. Bechhofer, Population Growth
and the Brain Drain. Chicago: Aldine Pub-
lishing Company.

 

Bell, Daniel.
1968 "The Measurement of Knowledge and Technology."
Pp. 1#5-2#6, in Eleanor B. Sheldon and
Wilbert E. Moore (eds.), Indicators of Social
Change, New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Boulding, Kenneth.
196# The Meaning of the Twentieth Century. New
York: Harper and How.

Brooks, Harvey.
1968 The Government of Science. Cambridge:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.

The Committee on The International Migration of Talent.
1970 Modernization and the Migration of Talent.
Education and World Affairs.

Corwin, R.G.
1961 "The Professional Employee.” American Journal
of Sociology, 66: 60#—615.

Dedijer, Stevan.
1962 "Measuring The Growth of Science." Science
138 (November): 781-788.

DeGre, Gerard.
1955 Science as a Social Institution. New York:
Random House.

278

279

de Solla Price, Derek J.
1963 Little Science, Big Science. New York:
Columbia University Press.

Dupree, A. Hunter.
1957 Science in The Federal Government. New
York: Harper and Row.

Einstein, Albert.
1950 Essays on Humanism. New York: Philosophical
Library.

Etzioni, Amitai.
1968 The Active Society. New York: The Free Press.

Gerth, Hans and C. Wright Mills.
1953 Character and Social Structure. New York:
Harcourt, Brace and World.

Gilpin Robert.
196A France in The Age of The Scientific State.
Priceton, New Jersey: Priceton University
Press.

Glaser, Barney G.
1963 "The Local-Cosmopolitan Scientists."
American Journal of Sociology 69
(November): 2#9-259.

Glass, Bentley.
1965 Science and Ethical Values. Chapel Hill,
North Carolina: The University of North
Carolina Press.

Greenberg, Daniel S.
1967 The Politics of Pure Science. New York:
The New American Library.

Hagstrom, Warren D.
1965 The Scientific Community. New York: Basic
Books Incorporated.

Harbison, Frederick and Charles A. Myers.
196# Education, Manpower, and Economic Growth.
New York: McGraw-Hill.

Hays, William L.
1963 Statistics for Psychologists. New York:
Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Henle, R.J.
1965 Final Report on The Project To Devise and
Test Simplified Adequate Systems of Measuring

 

 

280

and Reporting Fincancial, Manpower Facilities,
Research and Other Activities in Colleges and
Universities. washington: National Science
Foundation and National Institute of Health
(June).

The Institute of Political and Social Studies.

1967

"Indian Scientific Policy II." Pp. 387-#00
in A.B. Shah (ed.), Education, Scientific
Policy and Developing Societies. Bombay:
Manaktalas.

International Institute of Education.

1968

Open Doors. New York: International
Institute of Education.

Jayasuriya, D.L.

N.D.

"Ceylonese Research Scientists." Pp. 227-
3#8 in Surajit Sinha (ed), Science and
Technology in Relation to Cultural Values
and Institutions of South and Southeast
Asia: India and Ceylon. Unpublished
Manuscript.

Kaplan, Norman and Norman W. Storer.

1968

"Scientific Communication." In International
Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences.v New
York: Macmillan.

Kornhauser, William.

1962

Scientists in Industry. Berkely: University
of California Press.

Kroche Jr., E.A.

1958

“The Changing Role of The Chinese Intel-
lectual." Comparative Studies in Society
and History, 1: 23-25.

Loomis, Charles P. and Zone K. Loomis.

1965

Modern Social Theories. Princeton: D. Van
Nostraud Company.

Marcson, Simon.

1960

The Scientist in American Industry. Priceton
Princeton University Press.

Merton, Robert K.

1938

1957

“Science, Technology and Society in Seven-
teenth Century England." OSIRIS IV: 360-632.

"Science and the Social Order." Pp. 537-5#9,
in Robert K. Merton (ed.), Social Theory and
Social Structure, rev. ed., New York: The
Free Press.

1965

Miller
196$

Needham, Joseph.
Science and International Relations. Oxford: re
Blockwell Scientific Publications.

1949

Parsons, Talcott.

1951

Problem of The 'Role of Ideas'.” pp. 326—

281

"The Ambivalence of Scientists.” Pp. 112-

132 in Norman Kaplan (ed.), Science and
Society, Chicago: Rand McNally and Co.

Delbert C. and William H. Form.

Industrial Sociology. New York: Harper

and Row.

"Belief-System and The Social System: The

383, in Talcott Parsons, The Social System,
New York: The Free Press.

.' ' 1'
Pp!”

 

Parthasarati, Ashok.

1967

”India's 'Brain-Drain' and International
Norms.“ International Education and
Cultural Exchange, U.S. Advisory Com-
mission, Summer.

Pelz, D.C. and F.M. Andrews.

1967

Scientists in Organizations. New York:
John Wiley and Sons.

Porter, John.

1968

“The Future of Upward Mobility." American
Sociological Review, 33: 5-19.

Price, Donald K.

1967

Reif, F.
1965

The Scientific Estate. Cambridge: Belknap
Press.

"The Competitive World of The Pure Scientist."
Pp. 133-1#5 in Norman Kaplan (ed.), Science
and Society, Chicago: Rand McNally and Co,

Ribeiro, Darcy.

1967

“Universities and Social Development."
Pp. 3#3-381 in Seymour N. Lipset and Aldo
Solari (eds.), Elites in Latin America.
New York: Oxford University Press.

Shils, Edward.

1968

”Introduction." Pp. V-XIV in Edward Shils
(ed.), Criteria fbr Scientific Development.
Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Tech—
nology Press.

282

Sinha, Surajit.

1970 "Indian Scientists: The Socio-Cultural
and Organizational Context of Their Pro-
fessional Environment.“ Pp. 159-225 in
Surajit Sinha (ed.), Science, Technology
and Culture. New Delhi, India: Research
Council on the Study of Culture in In-
ternational Relations. _ .

Storer, Norman W.
1966 The Social System of Science. Chicago:
Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Strauss, Anselm and Lee Rainwater.
1962 The Professional Scientists. Chicago:
Aldine Publishing Company.

Swisher Jr., Earle.
1958 ”Chinese Intellectuals under Western
Impact, 1838--1900.'| Comparative Studies
in Society and History, 1: 26-37.

United Nations.
1963a. Science and Technology for Development:
Report on the United Nations Conference on
The Application of Science and Technology
for the Benefit of The Less Developed Areas.
Science and Planning: Vol. VII. New York:
United Nations.

1963b. Science and Technology for Development: Re-
port of The United Nations Conference on
The Application of Science and Technology
for The Benefit of Less Developed Areas.
Plenary Proceedings: Vol. VIII. New York:
United Nations.

Useem, John and Ruth Hill Useem.
1955 The Western Educated Man in India. New York:
Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

1967 I'The Interfaces of a Binational Third Cul-
ture: A Study of The American Community in
India." The Journal of Social Issues, 23,

1, 130-13#.

1968 ICross-Cultural Studies of The Scientific
Community.” Unpublished Manuscript.

Useem, John, Ruth Hill Useem, and John Donoghue.

1963 “Men in the Middle of the Third Culture: The
Roles of American and Non-Western Peoples in
Cross-Cultural Administration.” Human Organi-
zation, 22: 169-179.

283

Vanderpool, Christopher K.
1966 "Conceptions of Science and its Inter-
relationships with Society." Michigan
State University: Unpublished M.A. Thesis.

Waisanen, Frederick E.
1969 ”Actors, Social Systems, and The Moderni-
zation Process.“ Paper Presented at the
Carnegie Seminar, Indiana University:
April, 1968, Bloomington Indiana: Depart-
ment of Government, Indiana university.

Waisanen, Frederick E. and Hideya Kumata.

1969 “Education, Functional Literacy and Parti-
cipation in Development.“ Paper Presented
to The Annual Meeting of The Society for
Applied Anthropology: April, Mexico City,
Mexico.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC ADDENDUM

Form, William H. and Delber C. Miller.
1960 Industry, Labor, and Community. New York:
Harper and Row

Inkeles, Alex.
1960 "Industrial Man: The Relation of Status to

Experience, Perception and Value," American
Journal of Sociology, LXVI, No. 1 (July)

PD. 1-31-