"may... i r .. ..,

 

)

F3! J .

 

‘
ﬂﬁmw
: 2.

Hi ‘
mu“ ‘
{gm

9

I. .\
. Hunt.” .3

... . 1\

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 ' LIBRARY
2% Michigan State ,

University

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

Do We Belong Here?
An Exploration of Foreign-Born Faculty’s Organizational
Attachment at a US. Research University

presented by
Na Wei

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

PhD. __ degree in Educational Administration

 

 

Major Professor’s Signature

_____’_3_/ ’319004

Date

 

MSU is an affirmative-action, equal Opportunity employer

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 KilProleoc8iPresIClRCIDateDue.indd

DO WE BELONG IIERE‘.’
AN EXPLORATION OF FOREIGN-BORN FACULTY’S ORGANIZATIONAL
ATTACHMENT AT A US. RESEARCH UNIVERSITY
By

Na Wei

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
In partial fulﬁllment of the requirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Educational Administration

2007

ABSTRACT

DO WE BELONG HERE?
AN EXPLORATION OF FOREING-BORN FACULTY‘S ORGANIZATIONAL
ATTACHMENT AT A us. RESEARCH UNIVERSITY
By

Na Wei

Given the increasing number of foreign-born faculty in US. colleges and
universities and a general acknowledgement ofthe role ofa diversiﬁed faculty in
promoting students’ learning, many institutions are exploring effective organizational
strategies to recruit, retain, and develop faculty from other cultural backgrounds. This
study, emerging from limited existing literature on experiences of foreign-born faculty in
the United States and relevant theories oforganizational behaviors. investigates foreign-
born faculty’s organizational attachment to their employing institution and explores
institutional and individual factors that affect their attachment by looking into how
foreign-bom faculty made meaning oftheir work experiences at a US. research
university. This study employs qualitative interviews and document analysis as the
primary research methods. The ﬁndings revealed that (l) foreign-born faculty generally
feel alienated from the majority and demonstrate passive organizational attachment; (2)
institutional factors are identified to impact foreign-born faculty’s organizational
attachment, including organizational culture, unit demographic composition, perceived
organizational suppon, perceived external prestige. and perceived effectiveness of
institutional initiatives; (3) personal factors are identified to impact foreign—born faculty’s
organizational attachment, including organizational tenure/career stage. national culture,

gender, foreign-born faculty’s attitude toward diversity, and acculturation. The results of

the study provide insight into the experiences of foreign-born faculty and shed light on
institutional policy making and implementation concerning the recruitment, retention,
and development of foreign-born faculty at higher educational institutions in the United

States.

Copynghtby
hhtVVei

2007

This dissertation is dedicated to my family.

I hope I deserve your love and pride.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This dissertation would never be done without my excellent committee. I am most
appreciative of the support and encouragement from my chaiiperson, advisor, and
mentor, Dr. Reitumetse hilabokela. I also want to thank Dr. Ellen Kossek for her
wonderful classes and valuable guidance for my research interest in organizational
behavior. Dr. Roger Baldwin opens a wonderful world of research topics on faculty
issues in higher education. I shall always remember Dr. John Dirhx’s urges ofcritical
thinking in my future academic pursuits. Every member made special contributions to
this project for which I am deeply indebted.

The data used in this study were made available through the cooperation of
foreign-bom faculty across the research site. I thank every participant for shan'ng his/her
professional experiences.

Drs. Jeremy Hernandez and Christina Dokter made special contributions to this
work through thoughtful comments and exchange ofinformation and ideas. I thank all
my cohorts and friends at Michigan State University for their consideration and supports
in different ways.

To my dearest Mom for leaving all her own life back in China to take care ofmy
daughter and me during this critical period. To my wonderful daughter and son for
helping me understand the significance of motherhood. To all other family members for
being with me and all sacriﬁces you made as I pursued my degree.

You know I appreciate your love and pride!

v i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................. ix
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................. x
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... I
Background ofthe Problem ..................................................................... 1
Purpose Statement ................................................................................ 7
Problem Statement ................................................................................ 8
Research Questions ................................................................................. 9
Significance ofthe Study ....................................................................... 9
Organization of the Study ..................................................................... 1 1
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................... 12
Theories ofAcculturation ...................................................................... 12
Theories ofOrganizational Attachment ...................................................... 18
Construct of Organizational Attachment .................................................... 18
Identified Factors that may Impact Organizational Attachment ......................... 26
Theoretical Framework ......................................................................... 36
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY .............................................. 38
Research Design ................................................................................. 38
Methods .......................................................................................... 40
General Description ofthe Institution ........................................................ 41
Study Participants ............................................................................... 43
Data Collection ................................................................................. 46
Semi-Structured Interviews ............................................................... 46
Document Analysis ........................................................................ 49
Data Analysis .................................................................................... SI
Triangulation .................................................................................... 52
Limitations ...................................................................................... 53

CHAPTER FOUR

THEMATIC FINDINGS ........................................................................... 56
Low and Passive Organizational Attachment: Fish in a Pond ............................ 57
Individual Factors ............................................................................... 62

Acculturation: No Signpost in the Sea ................................................... 62
Gender: A Matter that Matters ........................................................... 72
Organizational Tenure/Career Stage: A Di fferenee that Makes a
Difference .................................................................................. 73

Foreign-Born Faculty’s Attitude toward Diversity: Indifference for the

Different ..................................................................................... 74
National Culture: Something that Keeps them Away ................................. 76
Institutional Factors .............................................................................. 78
Unit Demographic Composition: The More, the Better .............................. 78
Organizational Culture: Subtle Perceptions ............................................. 79
Perceived Organizational Support: Cultural Diversity Undervalued. . . 81
Perceived External Prestige: A Pride in Membership ................................. 83
Perceived Effectiveness ofInstitutional Initiatives: Mixed Feelings ............... 84
CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSION ....................................................................................... 88
An Emerging Model ofForeign-Born Faculty’s Organizational Attachment. ........... 88
Institutional Factors ........................................................................ 89
Individual Factors .......................................................................... 92
Implications ...................................................................................... 95
Implications for Practice .................................................................. 96
Implication for Research ................................................................. 103
Conclusion ...................................................................................... 104
APPENDIX A: Intewiew Protocol for Foreign—Born Faculty .............................. 106
APPENDIX B: Informed Consent Form for Foreign-Born Interviewees .................. 109
BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................. I I '1

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table l: Participants by Unit Demographic Composition .................................... 44
Table 2: Participants by Organizational Tenure ............................... . ................ 44
Table 3: Participants by Academic Rank ........................................................ 45
Table 4: Participants by Gender .................................................................. 45
Table 5: Participants by Country ofOrigin ...................................................... 45

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: A theoretical framework of foreign—born faculty’s organizational
attachment ............................................................................................ 37

Figure 2: A New Model of Foreign-Born Faculty’s Organizational Attachment
......................................................................................................... 89

Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Background of the Problem

The alarming scarcity of research on foreign-bom faculty against the background
of an increased number of foreign-born faculty and prosperity of literature in diversity
issues has aroused my interest to explore the experiences of foreign-bom faculty in US.
higher education where diversity is, or at least claimed to be, highly valued in mission
statements and promoted in practices at institutions of higher education. The higher
education sector in the United States enjoys a reputation as the leader in attracting
culturally diversified intellectuals. According to the Institute of International Education,
there were 514,000 international students enrolled in US. higher education institutions
. during the academic year 1999-2000 (Davis, 2000). National Science Board (2006)
reported enrollment of and degrees awarded to foreign students in the year of 2003. More
than half (55%) of engineering doctorates were awarded to students on temporary visas.
Students on temporary visas earned 43%—44% of US. doctorates in mathematics,
computer sciences, and agricultural sciences. Noncitizens accounted for 58% of Science
and Engineering (S&E) postdiocs in 2003 (N88, 2006). Finkelstein, Seal and Sehuster
(1999), when studying radical changes in the academic profession, asserted that more
women, foreign—born, and minority scholars are becoming college professors. Faculty
who are not native-bom US. citizens constituted 17% of the new cohort (25% in the
natural sciences), 12% of the senior cohort (14% in the natural sciences), and 13% of the
full-time faculty overall (US. Department of Education, 1993). In the period from 1992

to 1995, 68% of foreign S&E doctoral degree recipients stated they planned to remain in

the United States after receiving their degrees and 74% intended to stay in the United
States by 2000-03 (NSB, 2006). Therefore, it is safe for us to predict an even sharper
increase in the number of foreign-hem faculty in the US. higher education in the very
near future. According to the National Center for Education Statistics (1999), when
taking institutional type into consideration, most foreign—bom faculty (including
naturalized US. citizens, permanent residents, and temporary residents) work at research
universities. The sharp increase in the diversification of the faculty and student
population has been highlighted in the sector ofhigher education. When addressing a
1998 campus climate for diversity survey of a major research university in the southern
US, Brown (2004) concluded that the diversiﬁcation of the faculty and student
population can no longer be “a peripheral activity, but must be reflective ofthe

' institution’s commitment to diversity” (p.21).

The benefits of having an ethnically diverse faculty in higher education
institutions have been well explored and documented by many researchers. This
diversiﬁcation would indicate anend of long-standing discrimination against the
historically marginalized faulty (Cole & Barber, 2003) who serve as role models and
sympathetic mentors for diversiﬁed college students (Cole & Barber, 2003; Irvine, 1992;
Louque, 1994), educate organizational members to be more tolerant of differences, and
promote innovations in their organizations.

Cox (2001) argued that the prevalent growth of a diversified workforce does not
by itself guarantee organizational excellence nor does it guarantee qualitative social and
creative improvements. Describing diversity as “a double-edged sword” that poses not

only opportunities but also challenges, Cox (2001) admitted that diversity may potentially

reduce the effectiveness of communication, increase conflicts among workers, lower
levels of social attraction and levels of commitment to the group, and increase
organizational costs with identity harassment and discrimination behaviors.

The increasing diversity ofthe faculty in the US. and the mixed effects of
diversity on organizational life have resulted in an emerging literature that addresses
diversity issues in academic settings. A large proportion ofthe literature on diversity in
higher education focuses on underrepresented faculty groups such as minorities and
women. Brown (1988) claimed that “both women and minorities in professorial roles
characterize their experiences in terms like hardship and victimization. These faculty
members are oﬁen made to feel overworked and inefficient, incompetent, invisible, and
unwelcome” (p. 291). In studying working experience and the environment, the literature
detected inequities and structural barriers that have negative effects on the
underrepresented faculty’sjob satisfaction and productivity. For example, Tumer, Myers,
and Creswell (1999) found a pattem of under-representation and exclusion of faculty of
color despite their elite status in the Midwestern institutions, civil rights legislation, and
programs developed at higher education institutions. In their investigation of successful
stories of faculty of color, Turner et al. (1999) pointed out that the predominant barrier is
a pervasive racial and ethnic bias that contributes to unwelcoming and unsupportive work
environments for faculty of color that discouraged them from becoming productive and
satisﬁed members of the professoriate. In general, research relays a dismal picture for
minority and women faculty in the US. universities and colleges. The Minority Equity
Committee of University of Pennsylvania (2005) reported that even though statistics

regarding the sheer number, participation, and salaries were optimistic for the Asian

Paciﬁc American faculty, they reported exclusion as a reality of their working lives.
Besides occupational stress. devaluation of“minority” research. the “token hire”
misconception, inequities in recruiting and promotion process, and lack of advancement
opportunities, it is widely reported that minorities and women faculty share the reality
that they are in greater need of support networks, such as mentoring, etc. (Alger, 1998;
Blackwell, 1989; Boice, 1993; TieIney, Minor, & Venegas, 2004; Olsen, Maple, & Stage,
1995; Sax, Astin, Arredondo, & Korn, 1996; Spann, 1990; Tumer and Myers, 2000). For
example, Alger (1998) reported that the traditional criteria applied in evaluations for
promotion and tenure often appearing to be neutral, they may have a disparate effect on
minority scholars in practice. In evaluation processes, “collegiality” denotes the fact that
higher education institutions favor “candidates with backgrounds, interests, and political
' and social perspectives similar to one’s own” (Alger, 1998, p. 71). Ards, Brintnall, and
Woodard (1997) argued that race and gender are independent variables that determine
whether or not a faculty member receives tenure.

Despite the growing literature examining the diversity issues in higher education,
these extant studies either focus on U.S.-bom racial and ethnic minorities (Jones, 2000)
or fail to differentiate the native-born from the foreign-born (Kossek & Zonia, 1994). In
studying racial and ethnic heterogeneity at an American public research university,
Kossek and Zonia (1994) suggested the attitudes of people of color who were foreign-
born may systematically differ from the attitudes of minorities who have grown up in this
country. Even though foreign—bom faculty comprise a signiﬁcant percentage of the

diverse workforce, they have been ignored as a whole in the literature.

Very few studies systematically examine experiences of foreign-born faculty in
US. universities. Except for those describing the demographics of foreign-bom faculty
(e.g. Finkelstein, Seal & Schuster, 1998), only a couple of unpublished doctoral
dissertations (Basti, 1996; Liu, 2001) explicitly categorize foreign-bom faculty as a
distinct group from their peers and systematically explore their unique experience in US.
colleges and universities. Moreover, these studies have produced conflicting results.

In studying the adaptation and experience of foreign-bom faculty members in the
United States, Liu (2001) used acculturation theories and found a general pattern of
satisfaction among foreign-born faculty members working in the United States. The
faculty in her study agreed that American higher education institutions have been
receptive and have treated them fairly. This study claimed but failed to demonstrate the
’ factors that may have contributed to their job satisfaction. In addition, the ﬁndings of this
study contradict the prior ﬁndings about the experience of ethnic and racial minority
faculty. Almost unanimously. studies on faculty ofcolor presented evidence that ethnic
and racial minority group members experience severe marginalization on campuses
(Aguirre, Hernandez, & Martinez, 1994; Boice, 1993; Nakanishi, 1993; Olivas, 1988).
The research participants in these studies cited everyday interactions, both social and
professional, that make them feel unwelcome, unappreciated, and unwanted. They
perceived a prevalent assumption among their colleagues that they were hired for
afﬁnnative action purposes and felt pressured to work hard to prove continually that they
deserve their positions (Menges & Exum, 1983; Reyes & Halcon, 1988). Basti (1996)
studied key factors that foreign-bom faculty members perceive as having an impact on

their professional job satisfaction and found differences in the ways foreign-bom faculty

experienced their academic life. However, this qualitative study only interviewed two
foreign-bom professors at one university to examine the perceptions that foreign-bom
faculty formed about themselves, their profession and the culture ofthe university. The
small sample size greatly impairs the validity ofthis study.

Due to the scarcity of research on the issues of foreign-bom faculty, it is hard to
assume that there are some parallels between the experiences of minorities and women
faculty and foreign-born faculty. However, members of these underrepresented groups
are frequently temted together as “minorities” as opposed to their “majority” members
like their white colleagues in the organization. Sometimes foreign-born faculty may also
qualify as a “minority” or “women” faculty member. The literature on faculty of color,
minorities, and women faculty may shed some light on studies of the experiences of
' foreign-bom faculty.

My passion for this dissertation study came from a series of questions concerning
foreign-born faculty: How is the institutional climate for foreign-bom faculty in the US.
higher education? Are their experiences different from their colleagues who were born
and brought up in the US. culture? Do they really enjoy their life and work in the US?
Do they have a sense of belonging in the US. academia? What can be done to help them?

The scope of the study is limited to examination of organizational attachment of
foreign-bom faculty. Organizational attachment is deﬁned as an individual’s
psychological and behavioral involvement in a social group or unit of which he or she is a
member (Tsui, Egan & O’Reilly, I992). Clair (2000) developed the concept of
organizational attachment and suggested that organizational attachment styles can be

used to predict how employees will perceive and respond'to situations that may threaten

their relationship to their employing organization. These different attachment styles
reflect individual’s beliefs and expectations about themselves in relation to the broader
social system (Clair, 2000). Empirical studies have consistently shown that employees
who feel attached to their organizations exhibit higher rates of productivity (Barker &
Tompkins, I994; Bullis & Bach, 1989; Cheney, 1983; Tompkins & Cheney, I985), lower
rates oftumover (Barker & Tompkins, 1994; Bullis & Bach, 1989; Cheney, I983;
Tompkins & Cheney, 1985; Scott, 1999), and absenteeism (Mowday, Porter, & Steers,
1982; for a review, see Meyer & Allen, 1997). Employees with increased organizational
attachment also uphold organizational interest as their foremost pn'ority (Cheney, 1983),
enjoy higherjob satisfaction (Russo, 1998), and display work autonomy (Russo, 1998).

Based on existing literature, "the conceptualization of organizational attachment in
' this dissertation study covers four major dimensions: job satisfaction, organizational
commitment, organizational identiﬁcation, and intent to quit the organization. By
exploring how and why foreign-bom faculty express their attachment to the institution of
higher education under investigation, I hOpe to improve studies on institutional diversity
initiatives for better recruitment, retention, and development of foreign-bom faculty.

Purpose Statement

The purpose of this dissertation study was two-fold. The ﬁrst was to better
understand foreign-born faculty’s professional experiences by investigating their
attachment to their organization (in this case the university where they are employed).
The second was to explore individual and institutional factors that impact foreign-bom
faculty’s organizational attachment. The ﬁndings from this study will enrich theories of

organizational attachment of foreign-born faculty. This study also discusses implications

for future research on foreign-bom faculty’s organizational behavior and for institutional
administrative practices regarding foreign-bom faculty recruitment, retention, and
development.

Problem Statement

Green (1989) pointed out that “faculty are the core ofthe institution. . .A diverse
faculty is essential to a pluralistic campus. . .Faculty create the curriculum [they also
create and legitimize knowledge] and determine the quality of experience in every
classroom and in every department” (p.81). This study explored foreign-bom faculty’s
experiences in their working environment through lens oftheir organizational attachment
and examined personal and institutional factors at a research university in the United
States.

The population under investigation in this study is deﬁned as faculty members
who were born in foreign countries and hold immigration status as naturalized US.
citizens, pemtanent residents, or temporary residents in the United States. In particular,
this study looks at those who pursued their bachelor’s degree in their home countries and
came to US. for more advanced degrees. I assumed people with such experience have a
good amount of exposure to their home culture and educational system and their
background may possibly influence their adjustment process and psychological and
behavioral attachment to the educational institutions in a foreign culture such as the
United States.

A review of prior literature on organizational behavior suggests that a cluster of
variables may influence organizational attachment of employees in general. Based on

limited literature on foreign—bom faculty, it is assumed these variables may have different

impacts on foreign-born faculty than on domestic-bom faculty. Through this study, I
' strived to investigate foreign-bom faculty’s unique professional experience as reflected in
their psychological and behavioral attachment to their employing institution in a foreign
culture. In addition, by identifying variables that may contribute to foreign-born faculty’s
organizational attachment, I offer recommendations to improve institutional practice. I
also hope to advise future research investigating recruitment, retention, and development
of foreign-born faculty as a unique workforce in the academia.

Research Questions

Three fundamental questions that guided this study were:

1. How do foreign-born faculty express attachment to their employing institution?
7. What personal factors may promote/impair foreign-bom faculty’s

organizational attachment?

3. What institutional factors may promote/impair foreign-born faculty’s

organizational attachment?

This study was conducted with selected foreign-born faculty at a research
university in the Midwest. To answer the research questions, I primarily employed
various qualitative research methods, such as open-ended, semi-structured interviews
with foreign-born participants and review of relevant institutional and personal archival
documents.

Significance of the Study

Foreign-bom faculty have contributed immensely to the success of higher

education in the United States. These foreign-born faculty facilitate the offering of

various academic programs, serve as mentors for students, and produce “hot papers” that

have higher than average citation rate (Gwynne, 1999). This study contributes to the

following:

I.

b)

It provides a better understanding of the professional experiences of foreign-
bom faculty in US. higher education, which is surprisingly neglected in
research. The ﬁndings ofthis study contribute to a signiﬁcant gap in the
literature by speciﬁcally addressing foreign-born faculty with their unique
cultural background and organizational behavior;

At the institutional level, the present study provides important insights into
human resource management issues concerning foreign-born faculty. The
ﬁndings of this study may inform the institutional administration about the
signiﬁcance of a culturally responsive organizational culture and effectiveness
ofinstitutional diversity initiative. Such ﬁndings may lead to institutions’
providing a more supportive work environment for foreign-bom faculty.

At the individual level, this study hopes to invite foreign-born faculty to
reflect more on their work environment and the quality oftheir experiences.
Knowing that they share some of the structural and cultural barriers as other
marginalized populations on campus, they may learn to cope with these
barriers in a collective manner, and with a stronger voice.

Through this study, I wish that the colleagues of foreign-bom faculty could
learn about how foreign-born faculty strive and yearn to ﬁnd a place of
belonging in this foreign culture. Their understanding is a prerequisite for any
diversity initiatives to be effective in every ﬁber of organizational life and

ensures a better working place for foreign-born faculty.

10

Organization of the Study

The rest of the dissertation is organized as follows. Chapter 2 reviews the existing
theories on adjustment and acculturation process, the construct of“organizational
attachment”, and potentially influential factors on organizational attachment of
employees in general. Chapter 3 discusses the research design and rationale for speciﬁc
research methods employed in this study. Chapter 4 reports the thematic ﬁndings that
emerged from the data collected for this dissertation study. Chapter 5 proposes an
emerging model for promoting organizational attachment of foreign-born faculty. In

addition, the implications of this study for future research and practice are discussed in

Chapter 5.

ll

Chapter 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

This study explored the professional experiences of foreign-born faculty at a US.
research university through an investigation of their organizational attachment. This
study also sought to identify factors that might impact foreign-bom faculty’s
psychological and behavioral attachment to the organization they worked for at both
institutional and individual levels. Given the scarcity ofliterature addressing
organizational behaviors of foreign-bom faculty, this study is exploratory by nature and
primarily draws on two bodies of literature. The ﬁrst body of literature focuses on the
development of theories of acculturation, which is assumed to be an inﬂuential individual
factor that impacts how foreign—bom faculty feel attached to their employing institution.
The second body of literature investigates existing theories on the construct of
organizational attachment and related factors that impact organizational attachment of
employees in general.

Theories of Acculturation

Blomstedt, Hylander, & Sundquist (2007) asserted that it is essential to account
for acculturation in any research conducted in multicultural populations. The concept of
“acculturation” has been well explored since the beginning ofthe last century.
Acculturation has been deﬁned as end points of a cultural confrontation, a process of
adaptation, or adaptive strategies, describing how diverse individuals react to a new,
dominant culture. This study assumed foreign-born faculty in the US. academia, at
different stages ofacculturation, and/or demonstrated different degrees of organizational

attachment. This section ﬁrst reviews the development ofacculturation theories and then

12

discusses how foreign-born faculty’s acculturation was investigated in the present study
based on these existing theories.

Redﬁeld, Lenton and Herskovits’ (1936) deﬁned acculturation as a process which
occurs as the result of ﬁrst-hand contact between autonomous groups leading to changes
either or both of the cultures. Redﬁeld, Lenton and Herskovits’ (1936) pointed out that
attention should be focused on the conditions of intercultural contact and its results as
acculturation results “when groups of individuals having different cultures come into
continuous ﬁrsthand contact (p. 149). Marden and Meyer (1968) considered
individual-level acculturation as “the change in individuals whose primary leaming has
been in one culture and who take over traits from another culture” (p.36). Spindler (1977)
argued that acculturation is not a process leading to assimilation, but should be deﬁned as
“adaptive strategies used by people who have to cope with the economic, social and
political disadvantages oftheir positions as minorities . . . including reafﬁmration of
seemingly traditional values and behavior patterns, biculturalism , cultural synthesis of
conﬂicting cultural elements, and managed identities” (p. 33). Cox (2001) deﬁned the
term acculturation as the way “cultural differences are handled when parties from
different cultural traditions are merged into one group” (p. 66).

The outcomes of acculturation have been summarized into different categories.
Some major theories are mentioned below.

Dohrenwend and Smith (1962) proposed that four kinds of changes are possible
when an individual is in contact with a different culture: (a) alienation, change on the part
ofmembers ofone culture away from the rules goveming their traditional structured

activities without internalization ofthe rules ofthe other culture; (b) reorientation, a

13

process of abandoning rules of the old culture and change towards the rules governing the
structured activities ofthe other culture; (c) reafﬁrmation, conscious, organized attempt
to preserve, revive, or perpetuate the rules ofthe cultural heritage; and (d) reconstitution,
“the creation, by one group, of rules which existed in neither culture prior to contact”
(Dohrenwend & Smith, 1962, p. 35). Dohrenwend and Smith (1962) also pointed out that
assimilation and fusion are two different end-points of acculturative contact. In
assimilation, the contact situation is marked by recruitment of members of culture A into
the structured activities of culture B in positions of equal status. The pervasive mode of
change resulting from contact is the reorientation of members of culture A accompanying
this recruitment. In fusion, the members of culture A are admitted into the structured
activities of culture B at positions of high and/or equal status and, conceivably, vice versa.
' The pervasive mode of change accompanying this contact in both cultures is that of
reconstitution (p.35). Based on such a theoretical framework, Dohrenwend and Smith
(1962) concluded that individual’s degree and kind of acculturation must be assessed
relative to the pattern of strertgthjparity-wealoress shown by his culture when in the
contact situation.

Marden and Meyer (1968) proposed a typology of acculturation, which indicated
that (a) external acculturation entails adopting the material culture, language, and secular
roles necessary for participation in the public spheres of life in the dominant society.
while keeping ﬁrst-culture norms for private spheres oflife; (b) internal acculturation
entails adopting the values and attitudes of the dominant society; and (c) nativism
consists of ethnocentrism by either the dominant group or the minority, in reaction

against acculturative changes (as cited in Rudrnin, 2003).'Marden and Meyer (1968)

suggested stabilized acculturation requires external acculturation, enhanced minority
group “respectability” by public recognition of their achievements, and adaptation by
minority institutions to become coherent with dominant norms, such that “within this
frame ofacculturation there persists a preference for intimate associations with people
whose cultural and/or religious and racial heritage is like one's own” (p. 49, as cited in
Rudmin, 2003). Marginality occurs when an individual has abandoned ﬁrst-culture
nonns and behaviors but is not accepted by the dominant society, which “usually makes
him to a greater or lesser degree, an ‘outsider’ to both groups” (p. 45, as cited in Rudmin,
2003)

Berry (1976) deﬁned four acculturation constructs by whether the traditional
culture was valued and to be retained, and whether positive relations with the larger
- society were to be sought. In further investigation ofthese four constructs, Berry (1980)
introduced the concept of"adaptation" as a useful concept for these four varieties of
adaptation: assimilation, integration, rejection, and deculturation. Assimilation entails no
preference for maintenance of traditional culture, but positive relations with the larger
society. Integration entailed preference and positive attitudes for both cultures. Rejection
entailed preference for maintenance oftraditional culture but rejection ofthe larger
society. In a later study, Berry (1983) elaborated and reﬁned his fourfold acculturation
construct and the concepts of deculturation and marginality were adjusted from previous
fonnulations:

Finally, there is an option which is difﬁcult to deﬁne precisely, possibly because

it is accompanied by a good deal of collective and individual confusion and

anxiety. It is characterized by striking out against the larger society and by

15

feelings of alienation, loss ofidentity, and what has been tenned acculturative

stress. This option is deculturation, in which groups are out of cultural and

psychological contact with either their traditional culture or the larger society. . .

When stabilized in a non-dominant group, it constitutes the classical situation of

‘marginality’. (p. 69)

Robert Schumann (1976) studied acculturation model of second-language
learners. He used the temI "integration" for "acculturation". Based on whether the second
language leamer gives up his own life style and values and adopts those of the target
language group, Schumann (1976) suggested three acculturation strategies: assimilation,
preservation, and adaptation. The ﬁrst strategy, assimilation maximizes contact between
the two groups and enhances acquisition of the target language as the learners’ own life
' style. Moreover, their values are abandoned and substituted with those in the new culture.
Preservation represents a strategy at the other extreme. Adaptation refers to a strategy that
adapts to the life style and values ofthe target language group, but maintains its own life
style and values for intra—group use.

Cox (2001) posited that possible outcomes of acculturation include separation,
assimilations and pluralism. Separation occured when each party or group retained its
own identity and made little movement toward the work nomts, values, and beliefs of the
other group. Assimilation refers to cases where the norms, values. and beliefs ofthe
stronger, more dominant party or group are imposed on the other, less powerful party.
Pluralism was deﬁned as each party being open to movement toward the culture of the

other. In pluralism the best traditions of each culture are carefully considered for adoption

l6

by the total enterprise, and each party retains some oftheir identity with the pre-merger
culture (Cox, 2001, p.66).

The theories reviewed suggest that when coming into contact with a new culture,
individrrals exhibit different attitudes, employ different strategies, and experience
different outcomes when managing cultural conflicts. These theories shed light on the
study of experiences of foreign-born faculty in the US, who may be struck with anxiety
and disorientation when encountering a foreign culture (Schumann, 1986). For foreign-
born faculty, as behaviors and coping mechanisms from the ﬁrst-culture often do not
work well in the new context, this situation “can cause disorientation, stress, anxiety and
fear [and] the learner, in attempting to ﬁnd a cause for his disorientation, may reject
himself, his own culture, the organization for which he is working and the people of the
' host country” (Schumann, 1986, p. 383). Cox (1994) asserted that the quality of
employees’ experience highly depends on the organization’s tolerance for ambiguity, the
value placed on cultural diversity, the demand for conformity, cultural ﬁt, and any
targeted acculturation.

Based on the above theories, it is assumed that individual foreign-born faculty,
when working and socializing in a non-native, dominant culture may have different
acculturation experiences. That is, they may have varied experiences interacting with
people ofthe dominant culture and employ different strategies to adapt to and thus be
found at different stages of acculturation. Therefore, in this study, foreign-bom faculty’s
acculturation was explored through their own reflections and descriptions to ﬁnd out
about its effect on organizational attachment of the participants, whose borne cultural

values were well established before they came to study and work in US. higher education.

Self-reported integration has been found to be a proxy for exploring acculturation
(Blomstedt, Hylander, & Sundquist, 2007). In this study, the participants’ acculturation
experiences were explored with regards to how foreign-born faculty preserved their
original culture and how they were assimilated into US. culture in terms oftheir attitudes
and behaviors in the work place. I decided to use qualitative self-reports instead of
quantitative measurement when studying acculturation for the following reasons: (a)
acculturation is a dynamic, continuous, and complex process that sheer numbers could
hardly provide a full picture offoreign-born faculty’s professional experience in
adjusting to the US. culture; and (b) acculturation involves adopting different strategies
to deal with varied situations that deserve a more detailed description and deeper
exploration. Based on the theories ofdimensions of acculturation, I studied the
participants’ acculturation from the following aspects: language use, information
resources, years of residence, ties to country of origin, cultural identity, psychological
well-being, and social relations.

Theories of Organizational Attachment

Although organizational attachment has been well explored in existing literature,
the research participants in these studies rarely have any cross-national backgrounds. This
mitigates the generalizability of research ﬁndings. In addition, little research has been
conducted on organizational attachment of faculty whose job and workplace
characteristics vary. This section, therefore, drawing on existing literature on
organizational attachment of employees in general, explains the construct of
organizational attachment and reviews factors that impact organizational attachment.

Construct of Organizational Attachment

l8

Organizational attachment is deﬁned as an individual’s psychological and
behavioral involvement in a social group or unit ofwhich he or she is a member (Tsui,
Egan & O’Reilly, 1992). It reﬂects a worker’s interest in continuing to work for his or her
organization rather than leaving to take anotherjob with another employer (Kasheﬁ,
2004). When understood through the theoretical framework of social-exchange theory,
organizational attachment indicates that people enter into relationships to acquire
valuable resources. These resources consist not only of material goods, such as pay and
fringe beneﬁts, but also social goods, such as approval, trust, esteem, and prestige (Blau,
1964). Prior research has conceptualized and studied organizational attachment through
organizational commitment (e.g., Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982),job satisfaction (e.g.,
Ashforth & Saks, 1996), absenteeism (e.g., Rhodes & Steers, 1990), organizational
identiﬁcation (Ashforth & Mael, 1989) and intent to leave (e.g., Rusbult, Farrell, Rogers,
& Mainouss, 1988) as behavioral and psychological responses to the reduced
attractiveness ofa particular social category as a psychological group (Tsui, Egan, &
O'Reilly, 1992). Given this study primarily relied on self-reports by foreign-born faculty
through semi-structured interviews, the expected difﬁculty of reporting absenteeism by
the participants has justiﬁed the focus ofthis research on four indicators oforganizational
attachment: job satisfaction, organizational commitment, organizational identiﬁcation,
and intent to quit the organization.

Job Satisfaction

Spector (1997) deﬁned job satisfaction as “the extent to which people like
[satisfaction] or dislike [dissatisfaction] theirjobs” (p. 2), which “can be considered as a

global feeling about the job or as a related constellation of attitudes about various aspects

19

or facets of the job” (p2). Locke (1976) suggested that job satisfaction is the “pleasurable
or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal ofone'sjob orjob experiences”
(p. 1300). The construct ofjob satisfaction has multiple dimensions, which may include
attributes of work environment, supervision, coworkers, and pay (Griffeth, Hom, &
Gaertner, 2000). Prior research indicated that job satisfaction is related to organizational
commitment (Porter, Steers, & Mowday, I974), reduced intent to leave the organization
(Mowday, Koberg, & McArthur, 1984), and rates of absenteeism (Porter & Steers, 1973).

Antony and Valadez (2000) suggested that measures ofsatisfaction should
capture the multi-dimensionality of this psychological construct. As job satisfaction was
used to investigate foreign~bom faculty’s experiences as one of the dimensions of
organizational attachment in the present study, job satisfaction was explored using open-
' ended interview questions adapted from Spector’s (1985) Job Satisfaction Survey. The
interview questions began with a general inquiry about the participants’ overall
satisfaction with his or her current job and invited participant to self-report their
satisfaction in the work place. Additional speciﬁc questions were also pursued
afterwards. The speciﬁc questiOns covered multiple aspects, including pay, promotion,
supervision, beneﬁts, contingent rewards, Operating procedures, colleagues, nature of
work, development, and communication.

Organizational Commitment

Generally, organizational commitment has been described as a “multidimensional
construct” (Morrow, 1993). Meyer and Allen (1991) described organizational
commitment as a psychological state that “characterizes the employee's relationships with

the organization”, and “has implications for the decision to continue membership in the

20

organization” (p. 67). Becker (1960) considered commitment as the tendency to engage
in “consistent lines of activity” (p. 33) in the organization because ofthe perceived cost
of doing otherwise. Organizational commitment indicates the strength ofindividrrals’
identiﬁcation with and involvement in a particular organization (Mowday, Porter, &
Steers, 1982).

Three constructs have been used to classify types of organizational commitment:
affective, continuous, and normative (Meyer & Allen, 1991):

Affective commitment refers to the employee’s emotional attachment to,

identiﬁcation with, and involvement with the organization. Employees with a

strong affective commitment continue employment with the organization because

they want to do so. Continuance commitment refers to an awareness of the costs
associated with leaving the organization. Employees whose primary link to the
organization is based on continuance commitment remain because they need to do
so. Finally, normative commitment reﬂects a feeling of obligation to continue
employment. Employees with a high level of normative commitment feel that

they ought to remain with the organization. (p. 67)

According to O’Reilly and Caldwell (1981), affective commitment is highly
related with intrinsic interest in thejob, one’s own feelings about ajob, job responsibility,
opportunity for advancement, family pressure, job location, and salary. Meyer and
Herscoviteh (2001) suggested personal characteristics, work experience, along with value
congruence or personal-culture ﬁt are the antecedents of affective organizational
commitment. Perceptions ofthe costs ofleaving the organization and lack ofaltematives

have impacts on continuance commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1991). Weincr (1982) posited

21

that nonnative commitment is the result of a combination of internalized experiences
resulting from cultural and early organizational socialization experiences,

The core ofthe relationships can be summarized as follows: beliefs and

instrumental beliefs concerning organization-related behaviors lead to

organizational commitment and instrumental motivation, respectively.

Instrumental motivation and commitment, in tum, simultaneously determine

organizational-related intentions and behaviors. (p. 420)

Organizational commitment has been found to relate positively to a variety of
desirable work attitudes and behaviors such asjob satisfaction, motivation, perfomrance,
turnover, absenteeism, and tenure. (see Mathieu & Zaj ac, 1990, for a review; Meyer &
Allen, 1997).

As compared tojob satisfaction, organization commitment is a more global
response to the employing organization as opposed to speciﬁc tasks, environmental
factors, and the location where the duties are performed (Mowday et al., 1982; Porter et
al., 1974). Therefore, commitment should be more consistent than job satisfaction over
time. In some literature, organizational commitment is referred to as the employee's
psychological attachment to their employing organization, which can be used
interchangeably with organizational attachment. However, based on Meyer and Allen’s
assertions (1991), affective commitment denotes a sense ofbelonging and emotional
attachment to the organization, whereas continuance commitment and normative
commitment emphasize behavioral attachment due to either the perceived costs of

leaving the organization or the perceived obligation to remain with the organization.

22

In the present study of foreign-born faculty’s organizational attachment,
organizational commitment was investigated with open-ended interview questions
adapted from Mowday, Porter, and Steers' (1982) Organizational Commitment
Questionnaire and Meyer and Allen’s (1997) scales of measuring three components of
organizational commitment. The questions covered such topics as work values,
socialization at the workplace, work experience, perfomrance, investment, expressed
loyalty to the organization, willingness to exert effort on behalfofthe organization, and
availability of alternatives.

Organizational Identiﬁcation

Organizational identiﬁcation is one form ofpsychological attachment that occurs
when members adopt the deﬁning characteristics of the organization as deﬁning
' characteristics for themselves (Dutton, Dukerich, & Harquail, I994). Pratt (1998)
presented identiﬁcation as a process of either afﬁnity (believing that the organization has
values similar to one’s own) or emulation (adjusting your own values to match those of
the organization). Through organizational identiﬁcation, organization members fulﬁll
such psychological needs as safety, afﬁliation, self-enhancement, and self-actualization,
while the organization gets members who are more likely to act in ways congruent with
organizational goals and needs. Ashforth and Mac] (1989) described organizational
identiﬁcation as a process ofself-categorization. They proposed that organizational
identiﬁcation strengthens when members categorize themselves into a social group (e.g.,
an organization that has distinctive, central, and enduring attributes). Hatch and Schultz
(1997) viewed organizational identity as “grounded in local meanings and organizational

symbols and thus embedded in organizational culture, which we see as the internal

to
b.)

symbolic context for the development and maintenance oforganizational identity” (p.
358)

As part ofthe commitment process, the level oforganizational identiﬁcation
indicates the degree to which people come to see the organization as part of themselves
(Dutton et al., 1994). Organizational identiﬁcation is different from organizational
commitment in that it involves a cognitive connection with the organization and describes
the relationship between the individual and the organization in terms of the individual’s
self-concept (Pratt, 1998). Mael and Ashforth (I995) distinguished organizational
identiﬁcation from organizational commitment as follows:

Although identiﬁcation is necessarily organization-speciﬁc, commitment may not

be. The focal organization’s goals and values may be shared by other

organizations, such that one could score high on commitment without perceiving

a shared destiny with that particular organization. With proper incentives, the

individual could readily transfer his or her commitment to a different, even

competing organization with similar goals and values. However, ifone identiﬁed
with the organization, then he or she would necessaril y experience some psychic

loss upon leaving the organization. (p. 312)

Organizations beneﬁt from fostering identiﬁcation among employees because it
provides “greater assurance that employees will decide with organizational interests
uppermost in mind” (Cheney, 1983, p. 158). Therefore, organizational identiﬁcation
increases behaviors that are congruent with organizational identity and values (Cheney,
1983). Research has shown that organizational identiﬁcation is linked with extra-role

prosocial behaviors, job satisfaction, motivation, performance, loyalty, and intentions to

24

quit (Mael & Ashforth, 1992; O'Reilly & Chatman, 1986; Pratt, I998; Shamir, 1990;
Wan Huggins, Riordan, & Griffeth, 1998).

Drawing on the above review ofrelevant theories and Mael and Ashforth’s (I992)
scale, I designed semi-structured interviews to explore foreign-bom faculty’s
organizational identiﬁcation. The interview questions explored how participants
identiﬁed themselves with the institution they worked for.

Intent to Quit

Research has identiﬁed voluntary turnover as one of the outcomes and indicators
of low organizational attachment (e.g., Whithey & Cooper, 1989). Wagner, Pfeffer, and
O'Reilly (1984) suggested groups are less likely to turn over when members are “tightly
linked and integrated” (p.77). There are other behavioral and psychological forms of
' decreased attachment where extemal factors, such as external labor market conditions
and personal constraints (Mobley, Homer, & Hollingsworth, 1978), prevent individuals
from leaving the organization. Individuals may exhibit increased absence or withdrawal
(Rhodes and Steers, 1990), reduced psychological commitment (Mowday et al., 1982).
and cognitions or thoughts ofleaving the social unit (Rtrsbult et al., 1988).

To improve the validity and reliability ofthe interview questions, I am using
intent to leave rather than voluntary turnover to invite participants’ self report of
decreased organizational attachment. The intent to leave refers to more of an individual’s
perception rather than behavior. It is seen as a contemplative stage, linking the attitudinal
component ofjob satisfaction with the behavioral component ofturnover (Alexander,

Lichtenstein, Oh, & Ulrnan, 1998; Parasurnan, 1981).

The intent to leave the institution was explored in the present study using different
interview questions depending on the rapport during the interview. lfa trust was felt to
have been established between the participant and myself, I asked if he or she ever
considered exploring other career opportunities. Otherwise, the investigative question
was like “How would you like to refer your best friend to work for this institution”.

Identiﬁed Factors that may Impact Organizational Attachment

Factors that may impact organizational attachment have been extensively
examined in literature on organizational behavior and social psychology. In summary,
studies have identiﬁed that organizational attachment is related to some organizational
characteristics. such as demography and culture (e. g., Kossek & Zonia, 1994; Marsden et
al., 1993). It has also been argued that perceived organizational support and perceived
' external prestige can be used as predictors of organizational attachment for university
faculty, staff, and administrators (Fuller, Hester, Barnett, Frey, & Relyea, 2006). Evans
(2000) identiﬁed national culture as a key factor in explaining organizational
perfonnance. Therefore, national-culture is presumed in this particular study as a factor
that may affect organizational attachment offoreign-born faculty. Organizational tenure
is also identiﬁed to be related to employees’ emotional and cognitive attachment to their
employing organization (e.g., Harrison, Price, & Bell, 1998; Stem, 1988). These factors
that have been identiﬁed in prior literature are categorized in the present study at two
levels: institutional and individual. The institutional factors include organizational culture,
unit demographic composition, perceived organizational support, and perceived external

prestige. The individual factors include organizational tenure/career stage and national

culture.

26

Ii'zstitutional Factors

Organizational culture. The concept ofculture may refer to collectively shared
forms ofideas and cognition, symbols and meanings, values and ideologies, rules and
nomrs, emotions and expressiveness, the collective unconscious, behavior pattems, and
structures and practices (Alvesson, 2002). Hatch (2000) explained that it is the
interrelationship ofindividual experiences across organizational space and time that
deﬁnes what we label as culture.

Taking organizational culture as a contextual factor, Smircich (1985) suggested
that organizational culture is central to organizational functioning because of the
pro found importance of shared meanings, taken for granted ideas, beliefs and meanings
for any coordinated action and for continuing organized activity. Shared values, ideas,

' understandings, and expressiveness embody and explain the nature of interpersonal
connection at work. It also accommodates the development of the way people interact
and through that interaction gives meaning to their social reality. In that sense, culture
plays an important role in the construction and maintenance of high-quality relationships
in organizations, and thus in terms of social performance.

Since cultural meaning is socially constructed and it guides thinking, feeling and
acting in the organization, organizational culture affects the way people organize their
attachment to the organization and to their work. Understanding, experiencing and
feeling in an organizational context allows people to develop multiple forms of
attachment. Collaboration, coordination, learning, adaptation, commitment, trust and

loyalty take place in organizational daily activities based on these multiple attachments.

27

Organizations depend on these processes to perform in an innovative and coordinated
way. Performance is the consequence of the meaning that these social attachments take.

Participants’ perceptions of organizational culture in the current study was
investigated mainly through how participants made sense of importance of institutional
symbolism (e.g. rituals, myths, stories and legends), how they viewed institutional
responses to their needs, and how they interpreted critical events, ideas, and experiences
that were inﬂuenced and shaped by the groups within which they worked. Speciﬁc topics
include leadership, prioritization ofinstitutional goals, rewards, shared norms and
expectations that guide thinking and behavior, inter-group relations, congruence between
espoused and enacted culture, teamwork, critical events regarding diversity, accessibility
to resources and infonnation, and involvement.

Unit demographic con-rposition. Organizational demography has been treated as
an important variable in the research on the effects ofdiversity (e.g. O'Reilly, Caldwell,
& Barnett, 1989; Schreiber, 1979). Demographic characteristics have been identiﬁed to
relate to work outcomes and processes (Chatman, Polzer, Barsade, & Neale, 1998;
Waldman & Avolio, 1986), attitudes (Kossek & Zonia, 1994), interpersonal relations
(Tsui & O’Reilly, I989), hiring and promotion decisions (McIntire, Moberg, & Posner,
1980), and voluntary turnover (Mobley, Homer, & Hollingsworth, 1978).

Many researchers have supported the idea that demographic heterogeneity
beneﬁts organizations by increasing the variance in perspectives and approaches to work
that members ofdifferent identity groups can bring (e.g., Blau, 1977; Hoffman & Maier,
1961; Thomas and Ely, 1996). However, empirical research on how diversity affects

performance has generated little consensus (Watson, Kumar, 8: Michaelsen, 1993). Some

28

researchers have found evidence that heterogeneous groups are less socially integrated
and experience more communication problems, more conﬂict, and higher turnover rates
than homogeneous groups (O'Reilly, Caldwell, & Barnett, 1989; Zenger & Lawrence,
1989). Additionally, demographic minorities have reported negative experiences and less
organizational attachment (Tsui, Egan, & O'Reilly, 1992). Most ofthe above research
used the similarity-attraction approach in analyzing the effects of organizational
demography (Byrne, 1971), which hypothesized that similarity is a major source of
attraction between individuals. High interpersonal attraction may result in high social
integration and a desire to maintain group afﬁliation, and thus low turnover (Tsui et al.,
1992). Also based on this theory, Kanter (1977) argued that the ratio of majority group
members to minority group members negatively affects the behavior of those in the

' minority. Kanter (1977) hypothesized that race relations will improve as the proportion of
minorities increases, as “organizations with a better balance of people would be more
tolerant of the differences among them” (p. 283).

Although there is a consensus in the existing research that numbers alone, without
altering power relations withinthe organization, are unlikely to alter the position of
traditionally underrepresented groups substantially (Konrad, Winter, & Gutek, 1992),
some scholars asserted that a critical number is also necessary to alter power relations and
improve the underrepresented groups’ experience (Harlan & Weiss, 1981; Deaux &
Ullman, 1983; Toren & Kraus, 1987). Research has consistently shown that numerical
representativeness affects social relations (Stephan, I978), satisfaction and turnover (e.g.,
O'Reilly, Caldwell, & Barnett, 1989; Pettigrew, 1980; Tsui et al., 1992), and attitudes

towards diversity (Kossek & Zonia, 1994) on both the parts ofthe majority and the

29

minority. It is suggested that the majority are tolerant ofdifference when minorities only
account for a small fraction ofthe group (Pettigrew, 1980). However, Tsui et a1. (1992)
suggested that the majority may begin to show psychological discomfort, as expressed in
lower attachment, even when the minority proportion is very small. Tsui et a1. (1992)
argued that for minorities, research found that discrimination by the majority will
increase as the proportion of the minority increases (Blalock, 195 7), as contact between
unequal groups inevitably results in conﬂict, with increased numbers of minorities
leading to stronger reactions from the majority (Messick & Mackie, 1989; Pettigrew,
1980). This may also be a result ofa tendency toward decreased frequency in
interpersonal communication as minority composition increased (Hoffman, 1985, as cited
in Tsui et al., 1992). In summary, the race composition of an organization affects

‘ workers’ cross-group contact and relationship and thus has impacts on employees’
attitudes as indicated by stress, and satisfaction (Reskin, McBrier, & Kmec, 1999).

The concept of relational demography has been adopted in the literature studying
its impact on social process at the workplace (Tsui & O'Reilly, 1989). Relational
demography refers to the degree to which individuals are similar in their demographic
attributes, such as gender, race, and age (Tsui & O'Reilly, 1989). Tsui et al. (1992)
proposed that, beyond the effect of simple demographics, psychological commitment
may be inﬂuenced further by the extent to which an individual is different from others in
a social unit on demographic attributes. Such a concept builds on a premise that
differences among group members have a negative impact on group functioning. The
reasoning is that a common background will be more likely to result in parallel language

patterns, more communication and less misunderstanding (Zenger & Lawrence, 1989).

30

Perceived organizational support. Perceived organizational support (POS) refers
to employees’ belief that the organization values their contributions and cares about their
well—being (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, and Sowa, 1986). POS has important
implications for employee behavior and attitudes.

Theories of POS draw heavily on social-exchange theory (Blau, 1964) and theory
of reciprocity (Gorrldner, 1960). Social-exchange theory posits that people enter into
relationships to acquire valuable resources. These resources include not only material
goods, such as pay and fringe beneﬁts, but also social goods, such as approval, trust,
esteem, and prestige (Blau, 1964). The norm ofreciprocity (Gouldner, 1960) requires
recipients of valued resources to repay the party who provided those beneﬁts. Therefore,
if individuals believe an organization is committed to them, they will have a feeling of
obligation to care about the organization's well-being and put forth effort that helps the
organization achieve its goals (Eisenberger et al., 1986).

Management behaviors, organizational policies and practices have been identiﬁed
to impact employees’ interpretation of organizational support (Rhoades & Eisenberger,
2002). Research indicated that P08 is related to organizational commitment, job
satisfaction, and job performance withdrawal, absenteeism, and voluntary turnover
(Allen, Shore, & Griffeth, 2003; Eisenberger et al., 1986; Fuller, Hester, Barnett, Frey, &
Relyea, 2006; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002).

Drawing on Eisenberger et al.’s (1986) Survey of Perceived Organizational
Support (SPOS), I explored participants’ perceptions oforganizational support with
interview questions related to how the institution valued their well-being and

contributions with their distinct cultural resources.

31

Perceived externalprestige. March and Simon (1958) proposed that individuals
tend to become attached to organizations that they believe are held in high esteem by
people outside the organization. The perceived status ofthe organization by
organizational outsiders has been deﬁned as the perceived external prestige (Smidts,
Pruyn, & Van Riel. 2001 ). Fuller et al. (2006) suggested that individuals may indirectly
form their exchange relationship with their employing organization from the
organizational outsiders’ evaluation of their employing organization. Perceived external
prestige is a status-related evaluation that is thought to fulﬁll socio-emotional needs, such
as the need for esteem (Fuller et al., 2006).

Research has shown that perceived external prestige is related to organizational
attachment. Prestige reﬂects the categorical self and is related to the motivation to
' achieve and maintain a positive social identity (Tyler & Blader, 2003). According to the
group engagement model, the perceived prestige of the organization contributes to the
degree to which the individual cognitively merges his or her self—identity and self-worth
with the organization’s characteristics and status, or organizational identiﬁcation (Tyler
& Blader, 2003). According to Ashforth and Mael (1989), perceived external prestige
positively inﬂuences an individual's attachment to the organization because it inﬂuences
their self-esteem, and individuals tend to become attached to organizations that enhance
the individuals' self-image.

Perceived external prestige was investigated in this study through interview
questions. The questions explored how evaluations ofthe institution under investigation

by the participants’ community would affect their attitude.

Individual Factors

32

Organizational tenure/career stages. In differentiating diversity as surface-level
(visible or physical, such as gender and race) and deep-level (invisible, such as cognition
and values), Harrison, Price, & Bell (1998) pointed out the length of time group members
worked together weakened the effects of surface-level diversity and strengthened the
effects of deep-level diversity as group members had the opportunity to engage in
meaningful interactions. Theoretical perspectives from organizational behavior,
sociology, and social psychology suggested that group members base an initial superﬁcial
categorization of other group members on stereotypes and subsequently modify or
replace those stereotypes with deeper-level knowledge of the psychological features of
the other individuals as time passes. Such knowledge forms the basis for continued
attraction and afﬁliation. Over time, as people acquire more infomration, their
' perceptions are based more on observed behavior and less on stereotypes prompted by
overt characteristics. Stern (1988) proposed that organizational members are exposed
more and more to artifacts that may remind them oftheir union with the organization
over their stay in the organization. As they interact with other members, the minorities
may change their level of inclusion in an organization, moving from the periphery of the
organization to the center of things (Van Maanen & Schein, 1979). As members
experience increasing inclusion and contact with the organization, the attractiveness of
the perceived organizational identity increases, strengthening organizational
identiﬁcation (Dutton et al., 1994). A study conducted by O'Reilly and Chatrnan (1986)
provided indirect support for this logic. They found a positive relationship between

tenure in a university and the degree of pride and ownership that people felt with respect

to their employing organization.

Faculty members go through several career stages as their organizational tenure
progresses. The career stages are characterized with different roles, responsibilities,
demands, enthusiasm for the profession, different learning styles, priorities, and
dilemmas (Baldwin, 1990). Based on adult development theories, Baldwin (1990)
divided faculty career into four different stages: career entry, early career, midcareer, and
late career. He ftrrther explained that the for novice professors, their major concern is
competence. The entry period is a time of “intense pressure and considerable growth” to
build a solid base for a successful career in the academic world, with multiple
responsibilities and demands to master professional skills and many other competing
demands. Baldwin (1990) characterized early academic career as settling down and
making a name, a stage between career entry and full membership in the academic ranks.
' Even with accumulated professional experiences, early-career faculty members feel more
pressured as they need to seek more conﬁmration from external professional networks,
associations, editorial boards, and other service roles. Midcareer stages, according to
Baldwin (1990), is a very productive and rewarding phase when professors enjoy
maximum professional inﬂuence and begin to seek more balance among life’s competing
roles. It is also pointed out that midcareer frequently parallels the onset of a career
plateau as they may lack the concrete goals and clear sense of direction that characterized
their early career. At the last phase of an academic career, late career, professors enjoy a
respected position but they may also feel isolated, neglected and underappreciated.
Baldwin (1990) also mentioned in his study of career stages that career stage patterns

may vary for professors from different ﬁelds, institutions, genders, and ethnic groups.

34

National culture. Hofstede (1991) maintained that national culture inﬂuences
behavior. He deﬁned culture as the set of“collective programming ofthe mind which
distinguishes the members of one human group from another... the interactive aggregate
of common characteristics that inﬂuence a human group's response to its environment”
(1980, p. 25). Hofstede’s cultural model (1984) has been considered as “a watershed
conceptrral foundation for many subsequent cross-national research endeavors”
(Fernandez et al., 1997, pp. 43-44). Hofstede’s deﬁnitions and descriptions ofthese
dimensions of national cultures have been widely used to measure culture, as these
dimensions captured general aspects ofa country’s values and attitudes with a focus on
work-related values.

I used Hofstede’s (1984) cultural model to ﬁnd out how different national cultures
' affect organizational attachment of foreign-born faculty in this study. Hofstede
conceptualized culture in his cultural model (1984) as embodying four dimensions:
power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism, and masculinity-femininity. These
four dimensions are suggested to vary by culture. In this framework, Hofstede (1984)
proposed that: (a) power distance refers to the extent to which the less powerful members
of institutions and organizatiOns within a country expect and accept that power is
distributed unequally; (b) uncertainty avoidance refers to the degree to which the
members of a culture feel threatened by uncertain or unknown situations, which can be
determined with three indicators: rule orientation, employment stability, and stress; (c)
individualism, as opposed to collectivism, characterizes societies in which the ties
between individuals are loose, which can be measured with responses to questions

positively related to personal time, freedom, and challenge, and negatively related to use

35

ofskills, physical conditions. and training opportunities; and (d) masculinity, as opposed
to feminity, indicates the degree to which achievement and assertiveness were valued.
Hofstede ranked nations with scores in each ofthese four dimensions.

Hofstede’s (1984, 1991) proposition with respects to the effects of national
culture has been consistently conﬁrmed by other researchers in the sense that differences
in cultures may inﬂuence work-related attitudes, behaviors, values (see the reviews by
Barrett & Bass, 1976; Price-Williams, 1986), group processes, and outcomes (Ely &
Thomas, 2001; Gibson and Zellmer-Bruhn, 2001). For example, Markus and Kitayama
(1991) suggested that in different cultures people develop construals of themselves as
connected to others as opposed to distinct ﬁ'om others. In a society where there is an
emphasis on individualism (Triandis, 1989; Markus and Kitayama, 1991) relationships
are viewed as mutable. In cultures fostering interdependent self-construals, Markus and
Kitayama (1991) suggested that people focus on the fundamental connectedness of
human beings to each other. An important implication of the distinction between people
with interdependent versus independent self-construals is that the former assign greater
signiﬁcance to their social exchanges (Markus & Kitayama, 1991).

Foreign-bom faculty, with much of their shaping period spent in different home
cultures, which foster in them varying beliefs and values, may accordingly possess
varying cognitions, emotions, and behaviors as results of different cultural impacts (e.g.,
Hofstede, 1980). In this study, national culture was taken into account when investigating
faculty member’s organizational attachment.

Theoretical Fra mework

36

Based on the above review of relevant theories, the prior literature has identiﬁed
institutional and individual factors that may contribute or impair employees’
organizational attachment. The institutional factors are organizational culture,
demographic composition, perceived organizational support, and perceived extemal
prestige. The individual factors are organizational tenure/career stage and national culture.
These factors are used in the present study as a theoretical framework to approach
research questions concerning foreign-born faculty. The research questions are:

1. How do foreign-bom faculty express attachment to their employing institution?

2. What personal factors may promote/impair foreign-born faculty’s

organizational attachment?

3. What institutional factors may promote/impair foreign-bdrn faculty’s

organizational attachment?

The theoretical framework is indicated in Figure 1.

Organizational
Cullure

  

En.".9.‘ZE‘99£§PI‘1‘L99IU.PO§EIQU -- .. . .A .
Framer-f5!Praamzeﬁeearl.@9995! i5- "lsuu‘ﬁonal ”9°13 'Q’I

r
'1

Organizational

 
 
 
     

Organizational
Commitment

       
  
 

l’ercervsat-neuritireslns. :

Organizational TenureiCareer Stage 2*
hatrorralCulture - lndrvrdual Factors -V

. -h. . -—. p—._..—_—._ _...._.....

  

Attachment

Figure 1 A theoretical framework of foreign-born faculty’s organizational attachment

37

Chapter 3
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

This study explored how foreign-bom faculty at a Midwestern research university
feel attached to their employing institution. In this chapter I discuss the research design
and methods employed in this study. Regarding research design, I present the rationales
for adopting qualitative approaches to answer the research questions and to achieve the
purposes ofthis study. As for the research methods, I talk about description ofthe
institution, study participants, data collection procedures, data analysis procedures,
triangulation of the research, and limitations of the study. Speciﬁcally, two techniques
were employed for data collection: semi-structured interviews of individual participants
and analysis ofrelevant organizational documents and archival data about participants’
professional experiences.

Research Design

This study addressed the expressed need for research on workplace experiences of
foreign-born faculty. Three fundamental questions that guided this study were:

1. How do foreign-born faculty express attachment to their employing institution?

2. What personal factors may promote/impair foreign-born faculty’s

organizational attachment?
3. What institutional factors may promote/impair foreign-bom faculty’s
organizational attachment?

The available literature on faculty work experience rarely addresses a pOpulation

of academics who were born into and have grown up in a culture different from the US.,

a factor assumed to be signiﬁcantly inﬂuential in foreign-born faculty’s work attitudes

38

and experiences. Given the limited literature examining the experiences of foreign-born
in US. universities and the exploratory nature ofthis study, the research questions were
approached through the use of qualitative inquiry. This exploratory research is qualitative
ﬁrst because it is a topic where exact variables and a theory base are unknown for this
speciﬁc population. Morse (1991) indicated that characteristics ofa qualitative research
problem are:
(a) the concept is “immature” due to a conspicuous lack of theory and previous
research; (b) a notion that the available theory may be inaccurate, inappropriate,
incorrect, or biased; (c) a need exists to explore and describe the phenomena and
to develop theory; (d) the nature ofthe phenomenon may not be suited to
quantitative measures. (p. 120)
” Second, in studying experiences, I believe that knowledge is socially constructed and
individuals seek understanding ofthe world in which they live and work. Qualitative
methodology is characterized by an emphasis on describing in detail the context in which
people’s perspectives are beingshaped and shared. Third, participants develop subjective
meanings of their experiences._ The topic being addressed in this study, as well as the
multiple meanings participants attach to their daily behavior and socialization deserve
detailed description and deep exploration. Qualitative research, as explained by Van
Maanen (1979), covers “an array ofinterpretive techniques which seek to describe.
decode, translate, and otherwise come to terms with the meaning of naturally occurring
phenomena in the social world” (p. 520). Therefore, to address the research questions

concerning foreign-born faculty’s experiences at their workplace, a qualitative approach

39

was utilized as it allowed me to work with particulars and be open to continual
reﬁnement ofquestions based on knowledge gained as the study proceeded.
Methods

The two main components ofdata collection for this research were semi-
structured interviews of individual participants, and analysis of relevant organizational
documents and archival data about participants’ professional experiences. Guba and
Lincoln (1981) suggested that a researcher should choose methods by determining which
techniques might provide more and better data at lower cost and which techniques could
provide clues as to the nature ofthe context. For this study, based on the nature ofthe
research questions, the use of semi-structured interviews was adopted as the primary data
collection method. Most of the research data came from open-ended intensive interviews
’ at a Midwestern research university with participating foreign-born faculty members,
who varied in gender, disciplinary background, home culture, career stage, and
organizational tenure. As suggested by Patton (1990), documents, interviews, and
observations should be used to supplement, complement, and reinforce one another in
order to obtain as complete a picture ofthe setting or phenomena being studied as
possible. Therefore, document analysis was also employed as a way to subsidize the
interview data. Document analysis provided this study with rich information regarding
organizational culture and other environmental factors that inﬂuence the quality of
foreign-bom faculty’s professional attitudes and experiences. Observation was also used

during the process ofinterviews to help understand and interpret the participants’

expressions and responses.

40

The process of data collection and analysis were conducted concurrently. By
conducting data collection and analysis simultaneously, the initial results ofdata analysis
were used to adjust data collection strategies in order to provide a focus for future data
collection so that needless repetition and overwhelming quantities ofdata were
minimized (Merriam, 1988). Collecting and analyzing data at the same time also allowed
me to ﬁll gaps in my knowledge and understanding as they emerged (Lincoln, & Guba,
1985).

General Description of the Institution

Hardy (1996) emphasized the signiﬁcance ofunderstanding institutional context
when a researcher attempts to draw coherent patterns of meaning from information
obtained dtrring a qualitative organizational investigation. This study explored how
foreign-born faculty felt attached to their employing institutiorr—~—a large, public, land-
grant research university in the Midwest ofthe United States. As a land-grant institution,
it claims to be “an internationally esteemed university. offering a comprehensive
spectrum of programs and attracting gifted professors, staff members, and students from
diverse backgrounds.” As envisioned by most presidents of this institution since the
middle of last century, this university aspires to become a leader in incorporating global
perspectives into the traditional land—grant philosophy. The institution publicly
acknowledges that “an excellent and diverse faculty insures the superior quality of
academic programs, and contributes to the expansion ofknowledge and its application in
the public interest by bringing in new and different perspectives and experiences from
their respective countries which expand the walls ofthe acaderne.” Therefore, it is

articulated by the management that “recruitment, retention. and development ofan

4r

excellent faculty with richlydiverse talents, interests, and backgrounds are essential to
the University's present and future success.”

In recent years, the central administration has supported a number ofinstitution-
wide initiatives as well as customized self-studies to promote diversity among campus
communities. In light ofthe stated goal of being a university with a global reach in a time
of global change, these initiatives comprehensively cover many aspects of the
organization, such as mission, research, curriculum, and student and faculty issues. These
efforts, as the central administration wishes, will promote a climate favorable to a diverse
workforce at this institution.

When data was collected for this study, many documents were published by the
institutional administration, articulating the prioritization of internationalizing the
university from the managerial perspective. The role of international faculty and staff in
achieving the articulated institutional mission ofintemationalizing the university is
positively acknowledged at different levels of administration. Documents detailed how
international faculty could contribute to the institution with their distinct perspectives and
experiences from their respective home countries. Numerous recommendations were
made and communicated to the public. However, no statistical data was available
regarding which recommendations were adoptedand implemented by speciﬁc units or
which departments were held accountable. A number of workshops and small grants
designed for promoting diversity were also visible. Based on this evidence, it could be
reasonably concluded that the administration had been actively engaged in bringing

forward institutional strategies to foster organizational change in diversity. However,

42

actual changes or the effectiveness of the university’s commitment to diversity were not
well tracked or documented.
Study Participants

As this is an exploratory study of an under-investigated population, I was seeking
a heterogeneous sample of participants. Therefore, a purposeful, theoretical two-stage
snowball sampling strategy was employed for this research to collect as much rich data as
possible. The initial sampling was done through personal connections and based on
relevant theories in existing literature regarding organizational attachment in general. At
the ﬁrst stage of data collection, I used personal connections to identify ﬁve Chinese-bom
faculty. These Chinese professors referred me to other foreign-born faculty in their
departments. 1 then selected the referred faculty members based on the theoretical
’ framework presented in Chapter 2, which indicates institutional and individual factors
that have been identiﬁed to impact organizational attachment. The institutional factors are
organizational culture, demographic composition, perceived organizational support, and
perceived external prestige. The individual factors are organizational tenure/career stage
and national culture. According to these criteria. I selected participants from different
colleges/departments with varied proportions of foreign-born faculty, with different years
of work at the investigated institution, with different academic ranks, and from different
countries. Secondary sampling was based on emerging themes from data collected from
initial participants to strengthen the emerging themes by deﬁning the properties ofthe
categories. Gender was identiﬁed as a potential inﬂuential factor based on ﬁndings ﬁ'om
the interviews at the ﬁrst stage of data collection. I then enlarged the sample size by using

an additional criterion for secondary sampling, gender.

43

For the purpose of gaining a whole picture offoreign—born faculty’s psychological
and behavioral attachment to the university, a maximum variation sample was selected to
include diverse experiences ofthe participants during the qualitative interviews (Merriam,
1998, p. 62). To investigate the research questions, I trsed two criteria for determining
interview sample size (Seidman, 1998):

l. Sufﬁcient number to reﬂect the variation of the group to be investigated.

2. Saturation of infonnation, that is, hearing the same comments from different

participants.
Ofthe 32 interviews conducted, only 25 were used for analysis in this research. Seven of
the interviews were not used due to uncooperative responses, too much silence, and/or

resistance from the respondents. The composition of the study participants can be

’ described in Tables 1-5.

 

Number of Participants Proportion of Foreign-Born Faculty in the

Department (%)

 

 

 

 

4 _ 0-15
7 15-35
14 ' . 35-60

 

 

Table 1 Participants by Unit Demographic Composition

 

 

 

 

 

 

Number of Participants Organizational Tenure (Years)
9 0 - 6
9 7 - 10
3 l l — 20
2 .. .. 20 — 30
2 30 +

 

 

 

44

 

 

Table 2 Participants by Organizational Tenure

 

Number of Participants

Academic Rank

 

 

 

 

8 Assistant Professor
9 Associate Professor
8 Full Professor

 

 

Table 3 Participants by Academic Rank

 

 

 

 

Number of Participants Gender
16 Male
9 Female

 

 

Table 4 Participants by Gender

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Number of Participants Country of Origin
6 China
4 India
2 Korea
1 Iran
1 Turkey
1 Argentina
2 Russia
2 Canada
1 Columbia
2 UK
1 France
1 Greece
1 Mexico

 

 

Table 5 Participants by Country of Origin

45

 

 

 

Data Collection

Two strategies for data collection were employed for this study. They were semi-
structured interviews, and analysis of archival documents regarding the individual study
participants and the organizational environment in general.

Semi-Structured Interviews

Semi—structured interviews were employed as the primary data collection method
in this dissertation study. The nature ofthe research problem and a lack of relevant
literature together legitimized a qualitative research method to investigate the experiences
of the participants and the meaning they make of their experiences. Strategically,
interviews were conducted with purposefully selected participants to gain insights into
how individuals attend to, perceive, or otherwise deal with incidents relevant to
organizational attachment at their work place.

A semi-structured interview protocol was used to provide a general framework for
the interviews to (a) engage the subjects in critical reﬂection concerning institutional and
personal factors that facilitate orinhibit their organizational attachment, and (b) elicit
unanticipated but relevant issues that might be brought up by the interviewees. All
interview participants were informed ofthe purpose ofthis study as well as the
methodology employed beforehand. Also, to enhance the openness in their responses, I
assured the participants that the data will be collected without disclosing their name and
private concerns and will not be used in any other fashion without their consent. In
response to some participants’ request, some interviews were not audio-taped in order to
encourage the participants to talk more freely and openly. In such cases, ﬁeld notes were

taken in a detailed fashion during the interviews and were typed following the interview.

46

The interview transcripts and typed notes were then sent to the participants for their
review to ensure accuracy. As I am a native Chinese Speaker, sonre Chinese interviewees
requested to respond to the interview questions in Chinese. I accommodated this request,
translated the transcripts into English, and then sent them to the interviewees to ensure
accuracy ofthe translation.

The face-to—face interview method also allowed me to work with different levels
of communication, including verbal and nonverbal, as some of the participants were not
very talkative and others were suspicious or mistrustful. Constant observations,
clariﬁcations and explanations, and adjustment of lines of questioning were made to
achieve the highest level of understanding and openness as possible during the
interviews. I acknowledge my limited knowledge about the experiences of foreign-bout
faculty in the US. academe. Having this in mind, I employed a strategy of making the
questions broad enough to stimulate participants’ thinking. The funnel technique
(Bouchard, 1976) was used to elicit valid and uncontaminated impressions from
participants in the interviews. The funnel technique is characterized with a loosely
structured line of inquiry beginning with general questions and unspeciﬁed response
options. After establishing rapport, initial understanding, and familiarity with
conceptualizations, the interviewer then moves to more speciﬁc questions, modifying
them so as to be appropriate in language and direction. The interview questions are open-
ended. Many ofthem began with “Could you describe...” or “Could you say something
about. . I also made efforts to avoid questions with implications for a preferred answer,
such as “Do you think...” or “do you agree?” In most interviews, the inquiries were

directed to address the research questions: (a) How do foreign-born faculty express

47

attachment to their employing institution? (b) What personal factors may promote/impair
foreign-born faculty’s organizational attachment? (0) What institutional factors may
promote/impair foreign-born faculty’s organizational attachment? As suggested in the
literature review and explained in the theoretical framework in Chapter 2, the interview
questions covered different dimensions of the construct of organizational attachment and
a variety ofpossible inﬂuencing factors at both institutional and individual levels. The
construct oforganizational attachment was investigated through four dimensions: job
satisfaction, organizational commitment, organizational identiﬁcation. and intent to leave.
Such sensitive t0pics as a person’s intent to leave were adjusted in language depending
on the ﬂow and the rapport during the interviews. For example, the intent to leave may be
identiﬁed with a question like “How would you like to refer foreign-born candidates/your
best friend to this organization?” Besides asking about the factors that have been
identified in prior literature regarding how they impact the participants’ feeling of
attachment to the employing institution, I invited free narratives, talks, and comments
with respect to their sense ofbelonging as a general topic. That is to say, the newly
identiﬁed factors in this study all originated from the natural ﬂow of interview
conversations with the participants.

Great caution was taken to protect the human subjects involved in this study. In
accordance with the institution’s Human Research Protection (HRP), data collection only
commenced upon the approval from the University Committee on Research Involving
Human Subjects (UCRIHS). Anonymity ofthe subjects was secured throughout this
study, including the conﬁdentiality of any personal information about the subjects.

Conﬁdentiality was a high priority, given that the foreign-born faculty constituted a small

48

portion of faculty in their work unit. The names and other details that might be used to
identify them were concealed.
Document Analysis

This qualitative study attempted to derive a holistic general picture ofthe
institutional context as it relates to diversity from a historical perspective. Speciﬁcally,
relevant policies and programs announced and implemented in the organization under
study since 1990 were identiﬁed and mapped through document analysis with regards to
its history, mission, vision, values, implementation, and desired outcomes. In addition, to
gain a better understanding ofthe participants, I collected their professional curricula
vitae on the website and asked for personal written accounts of critical events with
respects to diversity issues at the institution.

Document analysis was employed in this research as it enabled the researcher to
discover information, insights, and meanings, relevant to my research purposes (Men'iam,
1988; Whitt & Kuh, 1991). It ﬁts this study with the following advantages:

1. It is “unobtrusive” (Fetterman, 1989, p. 68). Document analysis is relatively
invisible to and requires minimal cooperation from persons within the setting being
studied (Whitt, 1992).

2. Documents are primary data sources that provide direct information about
events, decisions, activities, and processes (Patton, 1990). Data, such as institution’s
mission, academic policies, programs, and staff, can provide insights into institutional
processes, values, and participants (Goetz & LeCompete, 1984). Institutional histories

often identify traditions that the researcher ought to observe ﬁrsthand in order to

understand campus life.

49

3. Information from document analysis can also be used to identify key
participants, to generate survey items and interview questions during the investigation
(Whitt & Kuh, 1991).

4. Even though less active or interactive when compared with other forms of
qualitative (or verbal) data collection such as interviews, Merriam (1988) considered
documents as a useful and “ready-made source of data, easily accessible to the
imaginative and resourceful investigator” (p. 104).

Documents are deﬁned as “any written or recorded material” (Lincoln & Guba,
1985, p. 27) not prepared for the purposes of the research or at the request of the inquirer,
including written records or communications, physical evidence, and audio and video
recordings (Men‘iam, 1988). Documents may be either public records or personal
’ accounts (Guba & Lincoln, 1981). Public records are materials created and kept for the
purpose of“attesting to an event or providing an accounting” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985. p.
277). Personal documents are ﬁrst—person accounts of events and experiences (Merriam,
1988).

In this study, both public records and personal documents were collected and
analyzed. Public documents included any written, published information relevant to
diversity on the campus, such as mission statements, newsletters, and meeting minutes.
Personal documents included professional curricula vitae and some participants’
descriptions of critical events.

I examined these documents for infomration concerning the administration’s
commitment to promote diversity at the institution, how these efforts were perceived as

reported in the public media and as reﬂected by the participating foreign-born faculty,

50

and how the participants accounted for their psychological and emotional responses to
certain events concerning diversity issues on campus. A number of aSpects were noted
when analyzing the documents (Fettemran, 1989; Goetz & LeCompete 1984; Whitt &
Ktrh, 1991; Whitt, 1992). These included the titles ofthe documents, the targeted readers,
the documents’ purposes, nature ofthe information, emerging themes or patterns relevant
to the research questions, signiﬁcance and desired outcomes of the document,
implications, and consistency with other sOurces of information.

With the availability, accessibility, stability, and potential richness of documents,
I hoped to obtain information regarding how the administration’s commitment to
diversity on the campus, including the content of relevant policies and educational
programs designed to promote diversity, foreign-born faculty’s participation and
involvement in these initiatives, feedbacks from foreign—born faculty, organizational
structures to promote diversity, and historical human resource data. In addition, the
documents were examined for information concerning institutional characteristics.
values, plans, processes, priorities and concerns.

Data Analysis

The interpretive framework for this study used content analysis (Patton, 1980) and
the constant comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) to achieve the purposes ofthe
study. The process of data analysis was overlapped with data collection. The sample pool
was identiﬁed and enlarged through theoretical sampling and analysis results. Such a
strategy not only enhanced the diversity of my sample with different properties but also

reconﬁrmed the themes that were emerging from previously collected data.

51

This study used a data coding scheme to categorize data. Coding was done with
qualitative software, NVivo. Emerging themes were identiﬁed to make sense of the data.
Data were continuously interpreted in the light ofthe situation, additional interviews,
relevant literature, and the emerging theories. I used a coding system involving codes and
subcodes (Bogdan & Biklen, 2003). First, I did open coding ofthe interview transcripts
and ﬁeld notes to identify initial themes and patterns. The transcripts and ﬁeld notes
captured works, phrases, sentences, and non-verbal languages that revealed the personal
experiences ofthe participants. Based on the existing organizational attachment theory, I
had anticipated that the identiﬁed factors would be found to be relevant to foreign-born
faculty’s organizational attachment as well as they do on employees in general. In
addition, I also looked for new factors emerging from the data. During the coding process,
I attended to the use of metaphors (Lakoff, 1987; Lakoff& Johnson, 1980) and narrative
(Haraway, 1989, 1997). I also considered the ways in which speech acts themselves
constitute power relations, especially in institutional sites, paying attention to the ways in
which one discourse comes to prevail over another and how routine activities shape
identity, ethics, and values (Fairclough, 1995).

Triangulation

Methods triangulation involves the use ofrnultiple research methods in a single
study so that one type of data veriﬁes or supplements another, providing a more accurate
interpretation. The reliability and validity of this study was addressed with techniques of
triangulation (Creswell, 2001): member check, audit trial (Lincoln & Guba, 1985), and
thick description of contexts and personal accounts of experiences (Lincoln & Denzin,

1994). I also collected documents for content analysis toltriangulate the ﬁndings ofthe

52

study. The documents included organizational records (directories, websites, CVs ofthe
participants, handbooks, pamphlets and ﬂyers, policies, newsletters, newspapers), which
were related to foreign-born faculty’s professional experiences or institutional diversity
initiatives. Initial themes were continuously identiﬁed while data was being collected.
Theory triangulation was also used in this study, which relied on research in the ﬁelds of
psychology, sociology, organizational behavior, and higher education to triangulate the
data. During the process of data analysis, I was concerned about how my own identity as
a future foreign-born facrrlty might have inﬂuenced my data collection and coding. I
therefore enlisted two PhD students in education, one white and the other minority, both
US-born, to code two transcripts. They independently agreed with my major code
categories, and each also made suggestions for slightly modifying subcodes. I also
conducted member checks by selecting two study participants to review and analyze
working themes to see if they resonated with their individual experiences, and then
incorporated the feedback into the ﬁnal narrative (.lanesick, 2000; Guba & Lincoln, 1981).
I maintained an audit trial by keeping detailed records at all stages of data collection and
analysis.
Limitations

There are several inherent methodological limitations ofthis dissertation study
due to the nature ofthe research questions, scope ofthe study, and the role ofthe
researcher. The ﬁrst limitation is that the research questions proposed in this study were
laden with emotion, as this research examined personal experiences with prejudice and

discrimination. Some interview questions concerned deeply personal topics that the some

53

ofthe participants were not very willing to share. The interviews were likely subject to
mood and subjective comparison or even individual reactions to me as an interviewer.

A second limitation ofthe study was that this research was conducted at a single
institution. Even though this is a research university with a well-articulated mission ofan
international orientation and a fair number of foreign-born faculty working to achieve
that mission, this institution may not be representative of other institutions in the United
States. Some more institutional factors may also come into play in foreign-born faculty’s
organizational attachment, such as type, location, community relations ofthe university.
Most interviews and observations were limited to single meetings with participants and
limited availability ofarchival documents, which could also have brought about
prejudiced ﬁndings and interpretations. In addition, this study was concerned only with
selected faculty members, which might be subject to sampling errors. It is very likely that
there are foreign-born faculty in the investigated institution who may have quite different
experiences and perceptions regarding the research questions in this study.

Third, as a former faculty. member in a foreign country and a current PhD student
in the United States, I have a deep-rooted passion for studies in organizational behavior
of foreign-born faculty at US. institutions ofhigher education. In addition, I have a
strong empathy for those foreign-bom faculty members who are searching for a place of
belonging in the US. academia. My interpretations ofthe data may be subject to my
personal and professional background. Besides, participants have varied national and
cultural backgrounds. This also posed challenges to me as a researcher and an individual

who was brought up in a different culture. Some cultural hints might not have been

properly received and interpreted.

54

Fourth, the participants only included foreign-born faculty. Their accounts of
personal experiences and impressions of events and people may be perceived differently

by their colleagues.

55

Chapter 4
THEMATIC FINDINGS

This chapter details the thematic ﬁndings that emerged from the data regarding
organizational attachment of foreign-bom faculty at a US. research university in the
Midwest. The identiﬁed themes addressed the following research questions proposed for
this study:

1. How do foreign-born faculty express attachment to their employing institution?

2. What personal factors may promote/impair foreign—born faculty’s

organizational attachment?

L...)

What institutional factors may promote/impair foreign-born faculty’s
organizational attachment?

The ﬁndings ofthis study are subject to the characteristics ofthe organization in
which this research was conducted. Each of the themes discussed represents the
perspectives of the participants along certain dimensions of how they feel attached to
their employing organization. The themes are organized into three sections. The ﬁrst
section articulates how foreign-born faculty express attachment to their organization; the
second section identiﬁes personal factors that impact the participants’ organizational
attachment; and the third section reports institutional factors found to have inﬂuence over
participants’ organizational attachment. The thematic ﬁndings are: (a) low and passive
organizational attachment: ﬁsh in a pond; (b) acculturation: no signpost in the sea; (c)
gender: a matter that matters; ((1) organizational tenure/career stage: a difference that
makes a difference; (e) foreign-born faculty’s attitude toward diversity: indifference for

the different; (I) national culture: something that keeps them away; (g) unit demographic

56

composition: the nrore the better; (h) organizational culture: subtle perceptions; (i)
perceived organizational support: cultural diversity undervalued; (j) perceived external
prestige: a pride in membership; and (k) perceived effectiveness ofinstitutional initiatives:
mixed feelings.

Low and Passive Organizational Attachment: Fish in a Pond

One ofthe primary purposes ofthis dissertation is to examine how the
participants demonstrated attachment to their current employing organization.
Organizational attachment was ﬁrst explored with the participants in a general manner
and then further examined with speciﬁc interview questions regarding four dimensions of
the construct: job satisfaction, organizational commitment, organizational identiﬁcation,
and intent to leave. Based on the interview data collected, I conclude that the participants
demonstrate low and passive organizational attachment to the university.

When asked in a general mamrer, almost every participant interviewed was
positive that they felt emotionally attached to the university they worked for to a high
degree. However, when presented with speciﬁc questions regarding each dimension of
organizational attachment, participants provided conﬂicting answers.

In terms ofjob satisfaction, many participants expressed general job satisfaction.
However, they did not think the work environment was supportive and some participants
reported occasional attritions and biases when interacting with their supervisors and
colleagues. When asked whether he felt accepted by his colleagues, one participant (an
assistant professor) was very positive and then confessed that he often kept to himself

given the nature and priority of hisjob was to research heavily on his own. Such a pattem

57

was found in many ofthe participants, especially those at the entry stage oftheir careers.
A junior faculty member reported,

[I am] . . . basically satisﬁed with my peer relations. . . . Well, [I do] not really

[think I am perceived different than others], as we have so many foreign-born

faculty in our department. I never participated in any activities outside of my

department. But here foreign-bom is no longer a temr for minority. . . . I don’t
know ifl am integrated... I never think about this. I don’t socialize a lot with them

[colleagues]. At least, I never feel I am isolated, but ofcourse, I never feel I am

part of them. It is very simple. You work on your own, you meet and say “hello”,

and that’s it!

Most participants indicated that they did not perceive salary inequity for foreign—
borrr faculty. “So long as you do yourjob [salary will not be an issue]!” as was
summarized by a participant. Ofthe 25 participants, 19 stated they never perceived any
bias against foreign-born faculty in terms of advancement in academic rank. However, a
fair number of the participants claimed they never thought about getting into
administrative ranks due to their inadequate knowledge about institutional operations and
lack ofchannels to establish good “connections” with the administrative leaders. One
participant said,

We may be disadvantaged [in the review process], but 1 don’t think we are biased

due to our international background. In some respects, we arejust not as good

as they [US-born colleagues] are. Brrt we are good at research. Research
expertise is what they are looking for. So I don’t think we are biased.

However, another participant reported otherwise,

58

It is a political game. It is absolutely not a fair game. If you play it [the game]
well . . . I mean you should know who always has the power and you’d better
always behave . . . 1 don’t think international faculty could easily win the game.
You make extra efforts. Sometimes, you don’t know what is going on behind [the
scenes] You should be very close to them [peOple with power]. Otherwise,
you’ll be out. It looks like you are enjoying the same thing as they [US
colleagues] do. Btrt that’s the case when you don’t compete [with them].

Most participants in this study, tentrred or on the tenure track throughout the

interviews, reiterated how hard they worked to gain acceptance and recognition from

their colleagues. They were proud of their academic accomplishments. They, very

frequently, referred to their publications and labs during conversations. In sharp contrast,

few ofthe participants mentioned their interactions with the students or how the students

rated their teaching. One of the participants was promoted to a center directorship

because of his excellence in research and grant generation. He took great pride in what he

had achieved:

1 think our university provides me with very good work environment. . . . Well, I
can concentrate on my own work and I get rewarded because of my performance.
There is plenty ofacadernic freedom; it is good for those who love research. Look,
we have three foreign-born faculty in my unit and all of them excel in research. I
can’t recall any foreign-born faculty here who don’t get tenured. They work
extremely hard. I read an article the other day saying that Asian-born faculty earn
the highest salaries in research universities. . . . Salary is related to performance,

but not necessarily advancement. Management is'a big weakness for those who

59

were brought up in a foreign culture. Take me as an example. I am much better at

research instead of management. I am learning to manage; but communication is

always the problem. . . . I nrean you [foreign-born] grew up [in] and were shaped
by another culture. For example, in XX [his home culture], we were taught in
school and university that we need to be highly specialized to compete in research.

And we have different pedagogy in our classroom where listening instead of

talking is greatly valued. I always feel incompetent when giving public speeches.

I can feel the [glass ceiling]. Yes, that is the word I am seeking. Btrt I am still

trying. But I know I am much better at research, so I will keep focused on

[research] work. It is good that it does not take too much of my time to manage

such a small center. Even so, sometimes I feel it is a headache when I have to

allocate some time to interacting with people. That is why I rely so much on my
secretary [laughs, pointing to the white female secretary in the other room]. She
does a lot for me.

Participants spoke highlyof their commitment to the organization, as indicated by
their productivity. They emphasized how hard they worked towards achieving the
organizational goals even though many of them didn’t care about Operations and
administrative activities at the institution. Some participants claimed that they always
identiﬁed themselves with their institution and valued their membership. Only a small
number, ﬁve, of the participants, told me that they cared about the well-being of the
organization. I noticed that all the ﬁve participants were tenured professors who had been

with the organizational for over ten years. Two ofthem said they gave suggestions to

60

their department chair but they did not think they would do the same thing for
institutional leaders. A junior faculty member said,

This university is not different from any others. . . . You see the ladder there. All

you need to do is climb tip. It is same everywhere. I choose to work here because

it offered me ajob with a good pay. I mean I choose thejob, not THE university. I

don’t see anything special about it. . . . No, I don’t feel it’s like a family. . . . I

don’t think much about that [institutional operations and prospects]. I amjrrst an

employee here, working for a living.
His feeling was shared by another participant,

I talk about this university with others, on different occasions, as this is my work

place. I don’t care ifthey [others] criticize or praise the university. I don’t use

either “we” or “they”. I say “the university” or XX [the name ofthe university]. I

say “it” [laughs].

One participant, who had been working at the university for over 30 years, said,
“That [institutional operations and prospects] is beyond my knowledge and
responsibility.” In addition, based on their professional curricular vitae and self-reports of
their work load, I found most foreign-born faculty in the junior ranks and some of those
tenured exhibited very low involvement in non-academic activities.

Discussing the intent to leave was a very sensitive interview topic. Many
participants laughed to avoid an answer. Many hesitated when asked about their intent to
quit the organization ifgiven more extrinsic incentives (e.g. more research funding and
higher salaries). When I persisted, most ofthem came up with afﬁrmative answers

attributed to reasons such as their family and tenure period. However, none ofthe

61

participants indicated they would stay because the institution valued cultural diversity. A
female participant gave a metaphor: “We are like ﬁsh in a pond. We make a living in the
water, clear or not. There is no escape. So long as there is enough supply to survive, we
stay. . . until we see a better place to make a living.”

Based on the theoretical framework in Chapter Two, I designed the interview
protocol with questions concerning factors that have been identiﬁed as having an impact
on employees’ organizational attachment and explored new factors that may impact
foreign-born faculty from another culture. Those identiﬁed factors were found to affect
foreign-born facrrltyjust as they do for organizational members in general. Meanwhile,
several new inﬂuential factors emerged from the data ofthis study of foreign-born
faculty’s organizational attachment. These factors are presented at two different levels,
individual and institutional.

Individual Factors

This section addresses individual factors that emerged from the interview data.
These factors were found to impact foreign-born faculty’s organizational attachment at
the investigated institution. As. suggested in prior literature, organizational tenure/career
stage and national culture exhibited an inﬂuence on the participants’ attachment to their
employing institution. In addition, this study found that foreign-born faculty’s
organizational attachment was affected by their acculturation experiences. gender, and
their attitude towards diversity.

A cculturation: No Signpost in the Sea
In studying the impact of participants’ acculturation in the new culture they chose

to work in, I ﬁrst inquired about participants’ general perceptions oftheir acculturation

62

 

process, strategies, and outcomes. This topic was further investigated through speciﬁc
questions concerning their usage ofEnglish as a second language, information resources,
personal ties to their country of origin, length of US. residency, cultural identity,
psychological well-being, and social relations. The self-report data were gained from
open-ended interview questions.

Overall, participants in this study held that acculturation is a longjoumey full of
cultural clashes, stresses, and even sacriﬁces. One ofthem reﬂected with a nostalgic
metaphor,

It is like ajoumey across the sea. It is foggy and you know you need to survive, as

there is no way back. You are in the middle ofnowhere. You are expected to

succeed, with no way to turn back. You ask me how I feel about this? I tell you I

feel lost. Am I assimilated? I might be, when I retire. I mean that takes too much

time and you never know what else it takes. Or it may take forever. It is like the
horizon. You see it, but it is an illusion, a fantasy. How can you remove your
history? It is IN you. . . . Ifit is gone, you are gone with it. . . . No, you’ll never
know how you are acculturated. When they give you smiles, you’ll think, “Look,

I am so well accepted.” They can also make you feel insigniﬁcant, you are always

something that can be replaced at any time, you don’t know what your value to

the department is, and you don’t work well.

Eight ofthe participants in this study were born in countries where English is used
either as a ﬁrst or ofﬁcial language. They were from the UK, Canada, and India.
Participants from the UK. and Canada were excluded from interview questions about

speaking English. Among those for whom English is a second language and was acquired

63

through their school education instead of daily interactions, a very good number of
participants claimed they felt more comfortable using their native language, especially on
informal occasions. Some Chinese-born faculty members even asked to have the
interviews condrrcted in Chinese, as they thought they could more be at ease and speak
better for themselves in their native language. I also observed that some participants used
their home language for emotional expressions, sometimes even without knowing it. A
Chinese scholar, who has resided in the US. for about 20 years, exclaimed,
Of course I feel more comfortable using Chinese. I speak Chinese in dreams
[laughs]. My wife and I quarreled in Chinese [laughs]. There were times that I got
really tired ofusing English. I was thinking: when is there an end to this? You
see, it is not that you can’t use it [English]. You have to watch your tongue [when
using it]. Grammar, the right words, etc. And you have to think what is proper to
say. This is not a fair game [laughs]. You can never speak as well as they
[domestic faculty] do. They were born with this [English].
Another participant, ajunior faculty member said,
So I worked hard on my research. This is the only, or the quickest way to achieve
excellence. You don’t have to say much when you do research. Yes, you have to
present research, btrt that is something you are so familiar with. It’s not like daily
conversations. I don’t fear fonnal occasions, as people say the same thing over
and over again. But on informal occasions, you have to make people interested in
what you are talking about. Every time I come across colleagues in the con'idor or
in the elevator, I feel that I am like in a trap. You have to say something, don’t

you? I guess my colleagues would take me as a cold face, as I seldom chat with

64

them. I pretend to be busy with work when someone passes by my door, btrt it is
not that I don’t like them. Ijust don’t know how to begin a conversation and keep
it going. It is easier for me to communicate with Chinese people. Lucky me, I
have many Chinese colleagues around. Yes, I wish for more!
Anotherjunior faculty member shared an incident that he regretted for a long time,
I once received an email, saying a professor in our department hadjust lost his
parents in a car accident. I felt so sad for him. I felt I needed to send him
something to comfort him. I tried to compose an email but I just did not know
what to say. In XXX [his borne country], we would just say: “Don't’ be sad!” I
was ﬁguring this might sound weird to them [colleagues]. How could you not be
sad when losing parents? I did not try to ﬁnd out. I feared they would laugh at me.
Ijust ended rip not sending the email. I went to the supermarket and bought a
card, and Ijust signed my name to it.
It was noticeable that proﬁciency in English as a language did not equal a high
degree ofacculturation, as indicated by one Indian-born faculty,
Yes, I feel comfortable using English at any time. I began speaking English since
my secondary school'days. I don’t have any trouble speaking English. But ifyou
really want me to choose between English and XXX [his home language], I prefer
the latter. I feel safe. Maybe it is not about the language, it is about who you are
speaking to.
Twelve ofthe participants reported their English proﬁciency was a major barrier
when socializing with their colleagues. “Sometimes you are not saying what you really

want to say.” An associate professor laughed with bittem’ess, “but thank God you don’t

65

have to do it [talking to colleagues] every day... It hurts when you have to have them
repeat until you understand.” Such a social barrier was reported by the participants to be
something that impaired their job satisfaction.

Most participants indicated that they had gotten into a habit of reading local and
national newspapers to obtain information. Many of them paid close attention to what
was happening worldwide, especially in their borne countries. Ajunior faculty member
confessed,

I am well exposed to media here. I mean it is an important part of my life.

Everyone is connected to one another. Thanks to information technology today,

the world is getting smaller. I also read on the internet about news in XXX [his

home country], not only out ofinterest, but it’s something emotional. And of
course I read faster in XXX [his home language]. . . . [I don’t watch TV] for
entertainment, but only for news. For entertainment, I trim to those programs in

XXX [his home language]. I watch TV mostly to keep myself updated with what

is happening around here. and partly to learn English.

However, many participants admitted that they lack in fomral channels ofinformation,

I rarely chat with my colleagues. I don’t feel comfortable chatting a lot to know a

little. If something happens, it will just appear in the newsletter. I might always be

the last one to know, but anyway, the important things will arrive eventually.
This associate professor received tenure ﬁve years ago. He also admitted that the lack of
informal channels ofinformation had negative impacts on his relations with his
colleagues, “They have no interest talking to you, as they know you have nothing to tell.

But that is no problem for rnyjob.”

66

Open-ended questions were also asked to ﬁnd out how participants felt about their
private and professional ties to their home country. The data suggested mixed ﬁndings 011
the impact ofthis factor on par'ticipants’ organizational attachment. Ajunior faculty
member felt caught between his home culture and the US. culture. He said cultural

difference between his home country and the United States had nrade it impossible to

match the two, I
You choose to work here, then you should forget about there. It is too hard for F
you to manage this [two cultures]. I mean, especially [when] it has something to E;

do with your life, and career, especially [that] it is always the case that people

think differently here and there. Oh, I have a handful ofexperiences. I bet every

one, who wants to ride between, has numerous lessons. It isjust mission
impossible. You can never please both [cultures].

Another interviewee, who was a distinguished professor famous for conducting
cross-national work and research, held opposite views. He asserted that it was due to his
strong ties to his home countrythat he could earn his prestige in the institution,

It helps with your career, as you can do better than others [by working

internationally]. I have very good relations with professionals and ofﬁcials in

XXX [his home country]. They fund some ofmy projects. Ofcourse the

university values that: you bring in . . . a lot [of money] with those [international

efforts]. That counts a lot here! You won’t be neglected if you are internationally
well-known. There is a saying in my home country, to the effect: ﬂowers inside

the wall have their scent outside the wall.

67

 

When I read this professor’s vita, I found a long list ofcollaborative projects

oriented towards the interests ofhis home country. A good proportion ofhis grants also

came from that area. However, this professor did not only focus on issues in his home

country but also issues set in the context of the United States. He admitted that his

connections with his home country were greatly valued by the institution and this

promoted his emotional attachment to his work place.

As I selected participants purposefully by their organizational tenure and career

stage, the participants had varied years of US. residency. Many ofthe participants,

though, indicated their lack of knowledge of American culture despite the length of their

residency. Such a deﬁcit of cultural knowledge impaired their relationship with

colleagues. A male associate professor said,

I came to this country 15 years ago. I still feel that I am an outsider here. I mean I
am very talkative when it is about my research areas. It is on informal occasions
that I feel nervous and awkward. I am not one who always approaches others. I’d
rather wait till someone comes to me and talks. You know, there may be one or
two who just greet me. and ask some superﬁcial questions, and sometimes some
minor talks about food... but then they will get together [and] talk about
sornethingl don’t know a lot about. For example, football. You know how
passionate they are about sports. Btrt me, I don’t have time for this, and of course,
I can’t say anything. They laugh; when they laugh, Ijust stand there, holding a
glass, smiling, no idea what they are laughing about. That is not a rare case. I was

determined that I should participate and learn about what they [Americans] are

68

interested in. But it takes too mtrch time and Idon’t know if this is worthwhile. I

just got tenure. Maybe it is time now.

Most foreign-born faculty came to the United States for advanced degrees and
they spent mrrch oftheir time in labs and libraries. They either show no interest or have
no access to resources in local community lives and other cultural values. Such cultural
knowledge deﬁcits exhibited negative impact on their teaching and socializing
experiences of participants. A junior faculty said,

I don’t like teaching at all, especially undergraduate courses. You have to deal

with the young guys who show no manners in class. In XX [his home country],

students dare not. They have to be obedient. Otherwise, they fail the class [laughs].

I am not good at teaching. I prefer research, where you don’t have to deal with

real people. You don’t have to ﬁgure out why they laugh at you while you do

nothing. Sometimes, they say something in class, and I don’t know what they talk
about
This study found that participants’ acculturation should not be indicated by length of
residency in the US, but with their acceptance and knowledge of their new culture in the
US.

I asked participants to identify themselves in terms of cultural orientations. Many
ofthe participants expressed that their home culture had a profound inﬂuence on their
attitude and behaviors. As it was explained by a Muslim woman professor who had
resided in the US. for almost 20 years,

It is there, even you don’t think about it. It is deeply rooted. You let it go when it

makes no trouble. Once there is a clash between the two [home cultural values

69

and US. cultural values], you know where you stand. I wear hijab [veil] on
campus. I know some of my colleagues are curious about this. They may think,
‘Look, you are a professor now. Do you still want to show your subservience to
men?’ This may have resulted in some distance between me and my colleagues.
They think by appearance I am already different from them. [They assume] I am
very conservative, a difﬁcult one to deal with. But I am proud ofthis, of my
Islamic identity, even after 9-1 1 [laughs].

An Indian faculty mentioned an unhappy event due to his preference for Indian food,
I think it is too hard for me to be Americanized. I can’t live on American food. I
cook Indian food every day and bring it over for lunch and dinner. But once there
was a time when my lunch was still in the microwave, I overheard someone in the
lunch room say, “This stinks!” I mean that hurts a lot. Sometimes their food
smells too.

A Chinese woman professor reported,
People have to leam each other, culturally. I remember in my second year here,
my dean canre to my ofﬁce room and said a lot ofgood things about my work. I
listened with a smile until he ﬁnished. I SAID ‘thank you’. And I thought that was
the end ofthe conversation. Hejust stood there, [seemingly] waiting for me to say
something else. Brit 1 don’t know what else to say. In China, we would deﬁnitely
say, ‘Oh, you over-praised me. I should work harder. I don’t deserve it. But I
knew it was not good to say this at that time. Wejust remained silent for a long,
longtime, until he took off. After that, he never praised me again! [laughs] . . . In

China, people would know that I appreciated his encouragement and recognition.

70

No need to say it out loud. Ifyou say it out loud, [it] seems that you are polishing
an apple.
Such incidents of cultural clashes were reported by many participants. Meanwhile, these
participants also eXpressed a preference to their borne culture and their confusions and
anxiety when there was a confrontation with the US. culture at their work place.
Participants were asked about their interpersonal network composition to ﬁnd out
proportions oftheir friends from different cultural backgrounds. I found that friends with
similar cultural background constituted a major proportion of the participants’ social
relations. Ajunior faculty member reported.
I go to a XXX [ofhis home culture] Church, where we meet and worship together.
Most ofmy friends are from that church. We care about each other. It is a home
away from home [smiles]. Yes, it gives me a sense of borne. I feel very
comfortable and safe there. I also have American friends, but most of them are
just colleagues and our connections are loose. . . . [Because] it is easy to
understand [people withsirnilar background]. You know what is right, what is
wrong. You don’t have to explain too much when you are with your own peOple.
A female faculty married to a U.S.-bom white man reported that her social
relations mostly consisted of white people. She also perceived herselfas well assimilated
into American culture,
It was not a happy process, though. I should thank my husband for this
[assimilation]. I. feel at home here. I don’t have home anywhere else. But they
[colleagues] still take me as intemational, because of my accent, maybe, and my

names. I didn’t change my name after marriage. . . . 1 think I am more assimilated

71

than other foreign-borns. I am not suffering as they are, such as identities, those

sorts ofthings. But you can’t expect yourselfto be totally acculturated. You can’t

shake off everything. They [borne cultural traces] have been part of you.

Difﬁculties in the process of acculturation were reported by the participants in this
study. Their emotional and behavioral responses to these difﬁculties greatly interrupted
their social process at their work place and thus impaired their organizational attachment.

Gender: A Matter that Matters

The interview data revealed female foreign-born faculty members were even more
disadvantaged due to gender biases at their work place. The participants indicated that
gender sometimes put much more pressure on their work as compared to their
intemational background.

There were altogether eight female professors in this study of foreign-born
faculty’s organizational attachment. Ofthe eight women interviewees, all ofthem
indicated that their gender further disadvantaged their work experience. Passive
attachment is demonstrated through one woman professor’s account of her experience:

You are international, AND a WOMAN. So you are not playing with them. Do

you ever hear about the “Old White Boy’s Club”? No matter where you are ﬁ‘om,

you are out. I have been here for almost 30 years, I’ve seen too much ofthis. . . .

I’ve been staying here even though it is not so good. It is not that it is so bad that I

want to leave it. This institution is not alone. Quitting does not solve the problem.

Peoplejust don’t care [about women]. There is no ideal place. I do feel I belong to

this institution. I value my membership. This does not cover problems however.

72

Even women leaders prejudice against women. Why? They think you are not as

competent as men.

The theme is obvious, based on the interview data, that gender emerged as a more
salient role than the participants’ international background in affecting their
organizational attachment in this study.

Organizational Tenure/Career Stage: A Difference that Makes a Difference

In this study, I found organizational tenure and career stage have a great impact
on organizational attachment of foreign-born faculty. Many senior participants said they
would choose to stay regardless of extrinsic factors. These participants mentioned they
felt likely to stay with the institution as their family had settled down here and they had
been used to the life here,

I would stay. Family is a major reason. But I don't feel like I would love to move

to another city. I know this city so well. I know this university so well. It is part of

my life: this is the 23"” year that I’ve been working here. . . . Well, sometimes [I

feel lam part ofthe university]. But deﬁnitely it is part of me [laughs]. I grew

OLD here... Oh, yeah, sure [I feel obligated to stay]!

However, younger prOfessors, on their tenure track, indicated a hesitation to
leaving when thinking about the costs of leaving and alternative employment
opportunities, as stated by an assistant professor in nratbernatics who graduated from an
Ivy League institution,

No, I will think about leaving only when I am assured ofa better prospect at

another institution. I don’t want to spend time adjusting to a new job [institution].

It takes too long. And I don’t think I could get a betterjob. . . . IfI could? [H

73

were in finance or business, I might probably think about this. Yes, salary is what

I am concerned about. And tenure, too. After that, I can’t say. That depends on

whether I could get better offers.

Affective commitment and normative commitment were only found in tenured
faculty who have been working for the institution for over ten years, whereas continuance
commitment were more reported by junior faculty members.

F oreign-Born Faculty '3 Attitude toward Diversity: Indifference for the Different

Unexpectedly, most participants expressed a strong wish not to be regarded or
treated in a different manner than their U.S-bom colleagues, as they believed they could
do as well as their colleagues. Special accommodations targeted at foreign-born faculty,
as some participants held ﬁrmly, would attract even more biases and other negative
feelings from their colleagues.

Despite the participants’ nationality, a theme of attempting to minimize their
foreign identity at their work place was expressed. A distinguished professor claimed, “1
don’t think they view us differently. We are producing [just as well] as they do [are];
sometimes even better.” Theparticipants all stressed it was their diligence and excellent
work that won them recognitions. An associate professor detailed,

It is a fair play. The rules are simple. You take it or leave it. Once you are here, it

is a race. The winner takes everything. Don’t think about where you were born,

whether you are different, how they look at you. . . . That’s nothing. All you need
to do is survive! It is not that whether others accept you. You make them accept,

with your achievement. They will never reject a person with one-million-dollar

74

research fund. They never reject someone who developed a famous model. Just do
yourjob. That is all about it. This is the case everyx-vhere. No exceptions.

Even though some foreign-bom faculty members confirmed that they were not
regarded as different from their colleagues, these faculty members also expressed a wish
not to be regarded as being different. They emphasized that they could do as well as
others, though they were brought up in another culture and had gone through difficulties
in adjusting to life in the US. They reiterated that they did not need institutional
accommodations especially those targeting at foreign-bom faculty.

Everything is good enough. Recalling my work experience in XX [his home
country], I had to spend so much time dealing with peOple. It is so good that
research alone speaks well for your perfomiance here. Special accommodations
will harm their recognitions ofour abilities. They will say, ‘Look, we invested so
much for them; it is not a fair game.’ Or they may look down upon us, even
exclude us ifresource supplies are not equal. We don’t need that at all. Look how
well the foreign-born faculty members in my unit are doing right now. They know
what they have to andthey can do it. We arejust doing as well as they are doing.
As faculty members, the participants did not think there had been any

differentiated policies or rules for recruitment and evaluation. They were fully aware that
such differentiation was against the law. However, they did not agree that this meant
equal opportunities for them to advance to a managerial position. When it came to
advancement and managerial roles, they complained about lack ofopportunities and
training. Among the participants, two were distinguished professors who had their own

lab/center. Both ofthem admitted that they needed further development in management

75

 

 

skills. They also noticed that the institution was providing development programs like
workshops, in leadership, but these programs were oriented for all employees. “You
never start from the same line." one ofthem commented, “But ifyou were put ahead of
others, you’ll be the target of everyone.”
National Culture: Something that Keeps t/rem Away

Before collecting data for this study, I had expected that faculty born in countries
that were very close to the United States in terms ofcultural distance, such as the UK.
and Canada, would express higher levels oforganizational attachment, as they were
assumed to share some common cultural traits with their U.S.—bom colleagues. Interviews
with the two participants ﬁ°om Canada revealed that they rarely had any negative social or
professional experiences at the investigated institution and they were very positive that
their international background would not reduce their feeling ofbelonging to the
institution. As explained by one ofthem,

I don’t feel any difference, I mean, [between] here and Canada, especially in

terms ofworking at universities. I was an instructor and I taught at two

universities in Canada. Institutional cultures might be somewhat different, but I

don’t think it is because ofmy international identity. I feel very satisﬁed with

how Iam treated here. Yes, I feel I belong. I have very good relationship with

my colleagues. We get along.

When I was interviewing the two foreign-born faculty members from the UK,
however, I heard stories different from their Canadian counterparts. A senior, British

male professor in social sciences who came to the United States about 20 years ago.

76

I came here when green cards were really green. It was not easy for me to feel at
home here. . . . I know they feel funny when I speak with accent. Anything
different, they feel it. . . . I have our national character I would say
acculturation is very important. You have to be like them. . . . Idon’t think I am
assimilated. It is not easy. I changed in some way, but I know I value my old stuff.
I don’t care how they look at me. . . . I had some unhappy experience when
dealing with them, but not much. Why do I choose to stay? Because it is not bad
enough [laughs].
Among the other participants, they all reported that their different national cultures
had been a barrier to feeling as attached to the institution as their colleagues did. A
Colombian professor said in a sad tone,
I am sure I am in the normal line. I always feel that I should get away from them;
otherwise, I will be used. . . . I am used, this is how I feel. I work and they
earn. . . . collaboration is the name they give to it. At least you survive because
you can still produce. They come to you as they know you will keep silent when
you see something unfair. . . . I choose to . . . or I have to . . . I bet you don’t want
to step into it because politically you are not able to handle that. You have to hang
on with thorn . . . they have resources.
It was noticeable that a full professor looked at this issue from a different angle,
It makes sense ifyou were treated differently. It is the rule ofthe game. The ﬁttest
survive. But you should believe you need something different. Being different can

be good. But you should not compete with them. You can be good at something

77

else. If it makes them feel safe; then you are safe and sound. They will give you

your share.

It was suggested by most participants that the distance between cultures had been
a separating line between them and their U.S.-born colleagues. Many foreign-born faculty
members considered such distance between cultures was unconquerable as their home
culture was “deeply engraved.”

Institutional Factors

Existing literature has identiﬁed that organizational demography, organizational
culture, perceived organizational support, and perceived external prestige impact
employees’ organizational attachment. This study found that these factors also influenced
foreign-born faculty’s organizational attachment. Perceived effectiveness of institutional
initiatives was also identiﬁed as affecting how foreign-born faculty feel attached to their
employing institution.

Unit Demographic C omposition: The More. the Better

The samples were selected across colleges/departments with different
representation of foreign-born faculty. The foreign-born faculty participants were
concentrated in science, technologies, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines
and accounted for a relatively small percentage in the social sciences and humanities.
Taking into account the number of foreign-born faculty members, this study found the
demographic composition in the working unit affects organizational attachment of the
investigated foreign—born faculty. As it is claimed by ajunior faculty in a STEM ﬁeld,

I am NO different. lfl am, so many are. Over half. . . or at least halfofthe

faculty are from foreign countries. Our clean is a foreign-born, too. I don’t even

78

 

feel I am working in the US. except that most of your students are white...

[laughs]. My international background won’t affect anything at my work. My

accent might [laughs]. I don’t have any pressure. So many ofmy foreign-bom

colleagues, they don’t speak as well as I do... [laughs].

The response was different when I interviewed an associate professor in social
sciences. She said emotionally,

I am one of the only two foreign-bom [faculty members] in our department. I

have to be very careful. I try to get away from anything political. Yes, sometimes

I feel tired from this. You certainly feel you are excluded from some things. [try

to be sociable, but it is only on a superﬁcial level. The distance is always there.

They are polite because they know you are not a threat to their interest . . .

because you are marginal. It makes them feel safe, and it makes me feel safe, too.

As it was reported by these two participants, different representations of foreign-
bom faculty at their work places accounted for the difference in their social experiences.
Unit demographic composition plays a role in how participants are satisﬁed with their
work environment and peer relations.

Organizational Culture: Subtle Perceptions

Organizational culture was reported to affect the participants’ organizational
attachment in this study. Many participants said they perceived their international
background as a disadvantage in their pro fessional experiences, even though in terms of
formal structure and policy they werejust treated equally and fairly. However, a chilly
climate could be felt by the participating foreign-born faculty as shown in their fear of

receiving favorable policies. They insisted that “it [favorable policy] may attract hostility

79

from others.” “We don’t want to be different!” This was a strong statement from the
participants in this study.

Most foreign-born faculty members in this study were research-oriented. Given
the type ofthe institution in this study is classiﬁed as a research I university, the reward
structure is very favorable for the faculty members who are productive in terms of
research. This provided a sense of security for the foreign-born faculty in this study. An
associate professor expressed his concern about receiving favorable policies,

We don’t want to be treated with preferable policies. We don’t need that. You

know why? Because we know we have to work hard to earn respect. And this is

what we do. If you don’t work hard enough, you’ll be out, and you’d better be out.

They [colleagues] fear us about this. You are from outside. How can you get my

stuff? They will rise to defend their own interest. Foreign-born will be the target,

not the minorities, because you [foreign-born] faculty lack voice, lack power, lack
connections, lack conﬁdence. The only thing you are good at is to be productive.

Wejust want a peaceful life. So please forget that we are different.

This concern was echoed in a woman professor, who exclaimed emotionally,

It is not stated, but you always feel it. You’d better behave to make yourself safe.

Everywhere is a mineﬁled. Don't’ touch it. It explodes. No one will stand out to

protect you. They will say, “Hey, you! What are you doing here?” No, they won’t

be saying this. They will . . . [be] very defensive. I know where I am and who I

am. I am smart enough to keep away. I am not expecting the good things. But

anything bad won’t never come to me. . . . Because I am INVISIBLE!

80

The prevalent sense of insecurity among foreign-born faculty was a direct
reﬂection of their perceptions of the organizational culture. The participants stated that
being productive, but not assertive or aggressive at their work place, would provide a
peaceful work environment for themselves.

Perceived Organizational Support: Cultural Diversity Undervalued

Some participants in the current study reported sporadic organizational support to
promote the value oftheir diverse cultural resources at the institution. These participants
were mostly ﬁ'om departments ofsocial sciences. A participant who worked at an area
studies center described,

I think this institution values foreign-born faculty’s contribution of bringing in

different cultures onto the campus. I participated in some seminars last semester. I

talked about . . . issues in my home country. They [the seminar organizers] got

some small grants for these activities, btrt I believe not much. . . . The
participation was unsatisfactory. We prepared food and beverage ‘cause it was
lunch time, but only ﬁve or six graduate students were there. No, I didn’t see any
faculty members or staff. . . . I mean it was good to have these seminars . . . with
funding from the university, but we should do more than that. Low participation is
always discouraging.

Participants were convinced that their academic achievement was valued by the
institution, but not their distinct cultural backgrounds. Ajunior faculty in social sciences
said,

. . . I thought about weaving something of XX [her home culture] into my

teaching and research. But you know, that is not in'the mainstream. Students may

8]

show some interest, but they will get bored ifyou keep telling about your culture.

They will think you are from another planet. Who will read this? Who is

interested? People will say, ‘See, she can’t do what WE can. Do you think I can

still get thisjob at this big institution by doing that?’ Sometimes I feel my heart is
calling me to do something. but I’d rather put it off ‘til I get tenured.

An associate professor. also in social sciences expressed dissatisfaction with the
enrollment when she taught an elective course where she cited issues and cases in her
home country. She was known for her research in her home country. But she admitted
that she had to do some U.S.-based research to be visible to her colleagues. “You’ve got

,9

to have something in common with them [U.S. colleagues], she added. This was also

echoed by a center director,
[a deep sigh] . . . Of course we [foreign—born faculty] are disadvantaged. You
always have too much to learn. You have to work harder. But I don’t think we
should focus on this. We should turn this into something favorable. As we always
say, pressure makes progress. We XX [people from his culture] are reluctant to
change. We always accept [the situation] as it is. Don’t mention you like it or
dislike it. You need to survive. No negotiation. You have to move along.

Most foreign-born faculty members in STEM disciplines said they did not perceive any

institutional support on campus to celebrate their cultural diversity, except for some

international academic exchanges. A senior professor said,

The institution encourages international activities. Top leaders welcome those.

They [the administration] understand the importance of interacting with the world.

“£57535“qu <~

 

They sponsor faculty to reach out, which is good. But I think we [foreign-bom

faculty] can do more over here.

Participants agreed that their different cultural background should not only be
taken as a disadvantage at their work place. Their cultural diversity should be fully
appreciated and supported, which would contribute to their psychological attachment to
the institution that values diversity in a true sense.

Perceived External Prestige: A Pride in Membership

Participants in this study were asked to indicate how the institution was evaluated
in their professional communities. I also examined how the status ofthe institution would
affect their organizational attachment. Foreign-bom faculty in different disciplines rated
the perceived external prestige ofthe organization differently. However, it was agreed
that the visibility and success ofthe organization contribute, to a great extent, employees’
organizational attachment. A junior professor’s statement was typical among the
participants,

It [the prestige this institution enjoys] conﬁrms my decision in choosing this job

and this organization. lfthe organization is valued by the peer professionals, I

take pride in this and I feel gloriﬁed. I feel myself valued and respected because I

belong to this organization. The more important your organization is, the more

prestigious your organization is, the more opportunities you will have. They
believe in your competence even without knowing you. You don’t reject

something like this.

Perceived Effectiveness of Institutional li‘ritiatives: Mixed Feelings

The research university in this study, in the last 20 years, has been communicating
efforts to promote values ofdiversity on campus. Administrative departments and ofﬁces
have been established and focused on services for international communities. Diversity
initiatives (i.e., policies and training programs) designed for international scholars, are
great in numbers. However, despite the presence ofthese institutional efforts, the
participants were not well aware ofand/or had mixed feelings for such initiatives.

Participants claimed that they received emails and read posts about workshops
and policies that aimed to support minority and intemational students and scholars.
However, they showed negligence as they believed in futility of these institutional efforts.
Such negligence was found in most junior faculty members, who were on the tenure track,
had great pressure on their academic productivity. Many assistant professors did not
' answer any interview questions regarding institutional initiatives for international faculty.
“I don’t know and I don’t care.” A response given by one assistant professor was typical
in this group.

I don’t care at all; ...no one ever talked to me about that. How could I know?

No, I might have read some [flyers on the corridor wall] but they don’t impress

me much. I have no interest...and ofcourse I don’t have time. Well, maybe [there

are emails]. But I just deleted them [emails] if there were any. . .if the topics were
not related to my work. You see the papers in the room? Why do they do that

[diversity initiatives]? I have no clue. I never thought about this. I am on tenure

track. I can’t be distracted too much.

84

A full professor perceived some changes on the campus in terms ofintuitional
commitment to support faculty from diverse cultural background. However, he was not
positive about the impact on individual faculty member’s feelings and professional life.

Every year, there are welcome parties at the President’s house. I am not sure if

they are for foreign-born faculty, it might be [for] all minorities. There are some

other activities; I think they are institution-wide. We have Asian-Paciﬁc Graduate

Student Association, I am not quite sure about the name, but we call it XXX

[program name]. We have some ofﬁces on campus too. The one that Ijust read

about is an advisory ofﬁce giving minorities help when in trouble. They also

provide counseling services. But I don’t know how well they work. I don’t know
if anyone was there for help. I mean we know the office is there, but I don’t think

people [minorities] will go for help. I don’t know; I am speaking for myself. I

think we are pretty much treated same as them [majority]. I don’t see anything

different, especially in our department.

Some senior professors claimed that they were aware of the institutional
initiatives and they showed cynical attitudes towards these initiatives. A professor
criticized, ’

Those [initiatives] werejust talk shows. They [administrative departments] need

to do that to show they are working, but God knows how. Empty. . .no, they

[initiatives] never come down to us. They will say, look, this is what we have. We

value this and that. But nothing real shows up. They keep talking. No one

listens. . . . Theyjust want to look good.

It was suggested in the interviews that the exclaimed institutional diversity
initiatives did not successfully improve the workplace climate for foreign-born faculty

and they instead impaired foreign-born faculty’s sense ofbelonging.

The thematic ﬁndings of research reveal foreign-born faculty’s low and passive
psychological and behavioral attachment to their employing institution. Individual and
institutional factors were identiﬁed to have impact on foreign-horn faculty’s
organizational attachment. The individual factors were acculturation, gender,
organizational tenure/career stage, foreign-bom faculty’s attitude toward diversity, and
national culture. The institutional factors included organizational culture, unit
demographic compositions, perceived organizational support, perceived external prestige,
and perceived effectiveness ofinstitutional initiatives.

The ﬁndings of this study revealed professional experiences of foreign-born
faculty at a research university with respect to their attachment to the organization. When
referring to existing literature addressing faculty experience, we may ﬁnd that some of
the themes identiﬁed in this research may be shared beyond the group of foreign-bom
faculty. .lunior faculty members faced cultural challenges in their socialization processes
(e. g., Reynolds, 1992). Native-bom women and minority faculty also reported subtle
institutional discriminations inherent in their organizational life, mixed feelings for
diversity initiatives, and perceived insufﬁciency ofinstitutional support (e.g., Clark &
Corcoran, 1996; Cole, 1979; Exum, 1983; Finkelstein, 1988; Mickelson & Oliver, 1996).
In addition to the challenges posed for their peer colleagues. foreign-born faculty

members have to address problems and expectations dtrring'their acculturation process

86

and make extra efforts to search for their place and manage their cultural and social

identities in their organization.

87

Chapter 5
DISCUSSION
There were two major objectives of this study. The ﬁrst was to increase the

understanding offoreign-born faculty’s professional experiences through their expression
of attachment to their working place and the second was to identify influencing factors
that could either increase or impair their organizational attachment. Based on the key
ﬁndings discussed in the previous chapter, I concluded that foreign-bom faculty members
interviewed for this study generally demonstrated low and passive attachment to their
employing institution. The influencing factors are presented in this last chapter in an
emerging model of foreign-born faculty’s organizational attachment. This model shows
how factors at both institutional and individual levels were found to affect foreign-born
faculty’s organizational attachment. When describing the key ﬁndings of this study, I
offer recommendations for institutional practices regarding recruitment, development and
retention offoreign-born faculty, as well as implications for future research addressing
organizational behavior of foreign-bom faculty.

An Emerging Model of Foreign-Born Faculty’s Organizational Attachment

The themes that emerged from the data collected address the proposed research

questions with regards to influencing factors on foreign-bom faculty’s organizational
attachment. This research conﬁrmed factors identiﬁed in prior literature as impacting
American employees also affected foreign-born faculty’s organizational attachment.
More importantly, this study also identiﬁed additional variables that need to be taken into

consideration when examining this topic in the future. The newly identiﬁed factors in this

88

study (flagged), along with those suggested in prior literature, appeared to influence

foreign-born faculty’s organizational attachment as illustrated in Figure 2:

Organizational
99!!!!”1.

  

,_'_~_J,',‘_'_l pem53§l39m5 "C“ornposruon .

 
  
   
 

Organizational

3955391960rganizationaléuppong . _. . _ ..
Bereaved External Prestige ll’?!’.‘.”.“?’.’3_' 589m“ . " "”4"“;

/

    

Organizational
Commitment

  

 

 
 

Perceived Effectiveness of
.-Eli‘él'lfrllgfélﬂl‘tfiiﬁllt-_'_'.!.!_!!.E’}!};'f?§. 1

Organizational Tenuro!Career Stage

National Culture f

.~ wm—--~.-.—.u.-~ m,[

isl- .- f ”a
;f KuNlC‘?! .-_ ..--. . - ._
. -.m... t..- -_-._._.._._., \

’ "3”3“3"~50m i uteri-..“s Attrtzrce "f lndivrdual Factors -
an. lowards Diversrry

  

Attachment

"'3‘ f‘x-fCtJturalion

 

Figure 2 A new model of foreign-born faculty’s organizational attachment
Institutional Factors

This study identiﬁed ﬁve institutional factors impacting foreign-born faculty’s
organizational attachment. They are organizational culture, unit demographic
composition, perceived organizational support, perceived external prestige, and perceived
effectiveness of institutional diversity initiatives.

It is important to identify and deﬁne the connection between faculty and
institutional culture to better understand the role ofdiversity in higher education (Lee,
2002). In this present study of foreign-born faculty’s organizational attachment,
participants reported their perceptions ofthe organizational culture as being intolerant
and unsupportive ofcultural diversity. Subtle hostility was manifested through foreign-
born faculty’ accounts oftheir socialization process, experiences of cultural clashes, and

attitudes toward diversity policies and programs at the investigated institution. As a

89

    

contextual variable, such an intolerant, unsupportive organizational culture inhibited
foreign-born faculty’s organizational attachment. This ﬁnding supports prior literature
which demonstrated that a hostile culture and climate impair successful recruitment,
tenure and promotion offaculty ofcolor (de la Luz Reyes & Halcon, I988; Johnsrud &
Des Iarlais, 1994; Johnsnrd & Sadao, 1998; Menges & Exum, 1983).

It was noted in both collected institutional documents and from participants’
statements that there had been some structural changes in promoting diversity at the
institution in recent years. Such changes were reflected with an increase in the
representation of foreign~born faculty on campus. At the time ofthis study, some STEM
colleges/departments had a percentage of foreign-bom faculty exceeding 50 percent. I
found that participants, who worked in units where foreign-born faculty accounted for
over 35% ofthe whole faculty team, exhibited a higher level of organizational
attachment, as compared to those working in colleges/departments with less
representation of foreign-born faculty. Participants reported they perceived themselves
“no different than others” in theirimmediate work environment where there was a higher
percentage (over 35%) of people from various cultural backgrounds. This ﬁnding
conﬁrms prior research in the sense that increasing the structural diversity of an
institution is an important initial step toward improving the climate for a diverse faculty
team (Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-Pederson, & Allen, 1998; lbarra, 2001; Pike & Kuh,
2006). This ﬁnding also agrees with Kanter’s (1977) theory oftokenism. Kanter argued
that increases in the number of diverse individuals would transform into better
experiences for minorities in an organization, because the representation of minorities

shapes the dynamics of social interaction and a high proportion of White employees

90

provides limited Opportunities for interactions and learning experiences across
race/ethnicity.

Participants in this study reported that foreign-born faculty’s diverse cultural
resources were undervalued at the institution. Seeing that their research productivity was
highly prioritized and supported, participants believed that organizational support was
essential to ensure diversity was embraced across campus populations. Institutional
support and appreciation of foreign-born faculty’s contribution to the cultural diversity on
campus will greatly increase foreign-born faculty’s organizational commitment by
boosting theirjob satisfaction and organizational commitment. This ﬁnding agrees with
Maertz, Griffeth, Campbell, and Allen’s (2007) argument that perceived organizational
support had signiﬁcant effects on tumover mediated through normative commitment, as
well as affective organizational commitment.

Participating foreign-born faculty reported how they would take into account the
external prestige ofthe institution when making decisions aboutjob choices and retention.
Participants were convinced that an awareness ofthe status ofthe institution and their
association with the institution would have an impact on their own personal social
identity by conferring institutional qualities upon their professional life. This supports the
prior literature in that the external image and reputation of an organization affected
organizational identity (Maertz et al., 2007).

Perceived effectiveness ofinstitutional initiatives was identiﬁed in this study as a
new factor having a profound effect on how foreign-born faculty view the climate in their
work environment. The participants’ institution had designed and implemented a series of

initiatives to promote diversity among campus communities over the last twenty years.

9]

Participants in this study, however, did not show any appreciation for these initiatives as
they failed to perceive any impacts on their campus life. Such a negative impression
impaired their trust in the administration’s values and commitment to diversity. This
mistrust reduced their involvement in these initiatives and impaired their organizational
commitment.
Individual Factors

This study identiﬁed ﬁve individual factors having impact on foreign—born
faculty’s organizational attachment. They are organizational tenure/career stage, national
culture, gender, foreign-born faculty’s attitude toward diversity, and acculturation.

It was found in this study thatjunior foreign-born faculty members reported the
least organizational attachment as they perceived themselves as the most unwelcomed
_ and vulnerable in the organization due primarily to cultural barriers and professional
stressors. A sense of belonging could only be found in a few senior participants. The
more senior faculty also expressed an increased nomrative organizational commitment.
This could be partly explained by Becker’s (1960) rationale for his theory of“side-bets.”
Side bets refer to an employees’ investment of time, effort, or money into a particular job,
which would be lost or devalued ifthe employee were to quit thejob or organization
(Becker, 1960). As employees accumulate side bets by remaining with an organization,
they gain more beneﬁts, which discourages them from seeking employment alternatives.
The ﬁnding also supports the argument that an individual will have a feeling of increased
inclusion with more information channels and more inter-personal interactions over the

time of their employment with the organization (Stern, 1988; Van Maanen & Schein,

r979).

92

 

 

The ﬁndings suggested that national culture provided foreign-born faculty with
deeply—rooted values and such values affected the participants’ interpretations oftheir
professional experiences and. then affected their relationships with their colleagues and
their employing institutions as well. The impact of one’s home culture, however, as
indicated by the participants, changed with their acculturation process and outcomes.
Participants reported that ifthey felt reluctant or failed to give up their home culture, they

would experience alienation or detachment at the work place. Many foreign-born faculty

- “IMMI n 7‘

members in this study expressed appreciation for their home culture. They also reported

 

h. -4 -
n;

uneasiness when juggling two different cultures and felt a clash between their own values
and enacted institution values. Such uneasiness resulted in reduced organizational
commitment and lessjob satisfaction. This theme suggests that there is a relationship
between speciﬁc cultural values and certain aspects of attitude and behavior (Cateora &
Graham, 1999).

Gender was identiﬁed in this study as a new factor that affected organizational
attachment of foreign-born faculty. Women participants reported an intensiﬁed sense of
alienation and more limited access to promotion and power than their male colleagues.
This contradicted Marsden, Kalleberg, and Cook’s (1993) ﬁnding that the correlates of
organizational commitment were not appreciably different for men and women. Marsden
et al. (l993) explained that ifmen displayed higher organizational commitment that was
because men are more likely than women to hold jobs with commitment-enhancing
features. Marsden et al. (I 993) concluded that when job attributes, career variables, and
family ties were simultaneously controlled, women tended to exhibit slightly greater

organizational commitment.

 

Foreign-born faculty’s attitude towards diversity is another new factor identiﬁed
in this study that impacted their organizational attachment. Foreign-born faculty members
at the investigated institution were found to hold an indifferent and cynical attitude
towards diversity. The participants reported that this resulted ﬁ'om a psychological
anxiety over their colleagues’ fear of reverse discrimination and even hostility due to
limited resources. In a sense, they did not believe that diversity was truly valued through
their perceptions oftheir social interactions, the investigated institution’s reward
structures, and other management practices. Such a negative attitude directly impaired i»
their organizational commitment and organizational identity due to incongruence of in:
values. Organizational members’ attitudes towards diversity are considered as one ofthe
major components of organizational culture. Prior research indicated that race/ethnicity
signiﬁcantly explained differences in attitudes toward human resource policies fostering
diversity held by faculty at a large public university in the US. (Kossek & Zonia, 1994).
Koseek and Zonia (1994) indicated that whites’ attitude were less positive regarding
diversity programs than minorities. The minorities’ attitudes toward diversity are
neglected in relevant literature. As a reflection of perceived organizational culture,
foreign-born faculty’s attitude toward diversity is a good indicator to predict their
psychological and behavioral attachment to their employing organization.

Acculturation of the participants was investigated through their language usage,
information resources, ties to country oforigin, length ofU.S. residency, cultural identity,
psychological well—being, and social relations. Except for length of US. residency, these

different aspects ofacculturation were reported by the participants to have impacted their

organizational attachment. The participants’ acculturation was reported to be a long and

94

difﬁcult process. They expressed views of depression and anxiety as they felt the
necessity and difﬁculties ofbeing assimilated into American culture.

Research asserted that the relationship between language and culture is important
in detemiining the degree of acculturation (e.g., Schumann, 1986). Participants’
preference for using their native language in this study indicated their reluctance to adjust
to the values ofthe majority group and a wish to maintain their own. According to
Fishman (1989), choice and use oflanguage for communication represents a code of
identity. Fasold (1984) argued that choice oflanguage and its use solidiﬁes group identity
by establishing and maintaining social networks. Milroy (1987) explained that this sense
of social networks enables a group to resist linguistic and social pressure.

Participants ofthis study showed their resistance and anxiety of being assimilated
into the dominant culture at the cost of abandoning their own. This theme supported the
argument that the concept of“melting pot” is becoming a problematic ideology (Cox,
1994; Brislin, 1990; Pedersen, 1991). Pedersen (1991) pointed out that the “melting pot”
metaphor made the mistake ofoveremphasizing universal common ground
generalizations that are shared across cultures to the neglect of culturally unique
perspectives” (p. 6). As a result of demographic shifts, racial and ethnic minorities are
increasingly vocal in their demands for respect oftheir cultures and cultural identities
(Thomas, 1996).

Implications

This study provides rich data to convey foreign-born faculty’s experiences at a

US. research university in temis oftheir attachment to their employing institution. The

results have implications for administrative practices geared toward improving foreign-

95

born faculty’s professional experiences. The ﬁndings also serve as the groundwork for
future inquiry on this topic.
Implications for Practice

Based on the ﬁndings regarding foreign-born faculty’s organizational attachment
at a US. public research university, it is imperative for the administration to pay attention
to the professional experiences of the neglected group and initiate organizational change
to create a more inclusive environment. To achieve the goal of better recruitment,
retention, and development of foreign-bom faculty at US. research universities, several
recommendations for administrative practices have emerged from the present study. The
institution is recommended to: (a) create a critical mass, (b) embed an inclusive
organizational culture, (0) have a change-oriented leadership, ((1) identify and build
cultural capital for foreign-born faculty, (e) take tailored diversity initiatives, and (i)
make on-going measurement plans.
A Critical Mass

This study found participants from units with different percentages of foreign—
born faculty had different perceptions ofthe climate oftheir immediate work place.
According to Allport’s (1954.) theory ofsocial contact. more opportunities for interaction
with members ofother social groups will reduce stereotypes. Kanter’s (1977) work on
tokenism and tipping points within groups argued that minor demographic shifts may not
improve group climate and that negative social psychological processes, such as subtle
discrimination, are minimized only when minority presentation reaches a critical mass.
Kanter (1977) also suggested that tokenism occurs when minorities represent less than 15

percent ofthe group and only when the representation ofminorities reaches 35 percent

96

could the social climate for diversity be improved. Different levels of administration,
therefore, should pursue more representation of foreign-born faculty to improve the
quality oftheir professional experiences and increase their organizational attachment at
the institution.

An Inclusive Organizational Culture

The ﬁndings ofthis study suggested that increasing the number alone was not a
guarantee ofoverall satisfaction or increased organizational attachment among foreign-
born faculty. Participants indicated that preferable institutional policies could even trigger
fears ofreverse discrimination, group conflict, and resistance among the majority.
Kossek, Markel, and McHugh (2003) suggested that even with a signiﬁcant increase in
the overall representation ofwhite women and minorities, work group members in units
with the greatest change did not necessarily agree nor hold positive perceptions regarding
human resource changes.

In this study, the administration at the investigated institution had fully
documented the mission, vision, organizational philosophy for promoting diversity.
Language was not an issue and structured training programs were in place. Small grants
were prepared and rewards and promotion criteria had been recommended to include
international dimensions. The institution’s value ofdiversity was physically manifested
with visible artifacts. However, participating foreign-born faculty perceived gaps
between espoused and enacted values, which signiﬁcantly in ﬁuenced their attitudes and
organizational attachment. According to Kreitner and Kinicki (2007), espoused value
represents aspirations that are explicitly communicated to employees from the

management, who wish that those values will directly influence employee behavior.

97

However, aspirations do not automatically produce the desired behavior unless
employees ascribe to organizational values based on their observations of people, events
and their daily social interactions. As suggested by Kossek et al. (2003), the institutional
administration should go beyond structural diversity and initiate pro found organizational
change in basic assumptions embedded among employees to create a more inclusive and
tolerant work environment for foreign-born faculty.

Chan ge-Oriented Leadership

This study revealed that even though the institutional administration’s vision for a
diversiﬁed campus was well communicated, profound change was yet to be perceived at
individual level. A vision is important as it provides a sense of direction for the members
and it also provides ﬁ'ames of reference for measuring what has been achieved. However,
organizational goals are less likely to be achieved when employees perceive an
inconsistency between the articulated values and practiced norms.

Cox (2001) suggested that leadership is the most essential element in the context
oforganizational change, as it is “behavior that establishes a direction or goal for change
[a vision], provides a sense ofurgency and importance for the vision, facilitates the
motivation of others, and cultivates necessary conditions for achievement of the vision”
(p.18). It was suggested by Dovido, Gaetner, and Bachman (2001) that inherent in the
leader’s expectation is the notion that minority workers will assimilate into the
organization’s dominant culture. Participants in this study demonstrated resistance and
anxiety over assimilation. They expressed their wish fora full appreciation oftheir own
cultures. Therefore, to be change-oriented leaders, the administrators should examine

their own basic assumptions about foreign—born faculty.

98

Madsen and Mabokela (2005) proposed that leaders need to understand cultural
differences among groups and their implications for interpersonal and organizational
outcomes and processes. Madsen and Mabokela (2003) suggested that leadership skills
should include not only interpersonal skills in responding to issues of diversity but also a
competent understanding and the importance of culture and group identities. When
working with members of different ethnic backgrounds, leaders need to recognize
cultural differences in their followers and understand how these differences may affect
the ways in which relationships among followers are developed and negotiated (Madsen
& Mabokela, 2005). Madsen and Mabokela (2005) further proposed four leadership skills
to address intergroup differences:

1. A leader’s capacity to understand his or her own cultural identity and its

influence on interactions with others who are racially and ethnically different

form him or her;

1\)

A leader’s capacity to create an organizational direction that responds to how
the school is perceived by its diverse constituency;

3. A leader’s ability to implement a relational identity orientation in order to
promote interpersonal cooperation and create dense and integrated networks
among and between school participants; and

4. A leader’s ability to establish an organizational structure that adapts to the
changing needs of diverse students and teacher participants.

Cultural Capital for Foreign-Born Faculty
This study revealed that foreign—born faculty experienced nervousness and

awkwardness when they perceived a lack ofknowledge about the dominant culture. They

99

 

either chose to remain marginalized by focusing on professional activities (e.g. research)
that demanded less cultural capital or make extra efforts to eam acceptability into areas
controlled by the dominant group (for instance, a participant said he watched TV to be
able to better communicate with colleagues but not for personal entertainment). The
participants expressed anxiety and stress over their acculturation process. Meanwhile,
they felt marginalized when their own cultural resources were undervalued at the
institution. It is recommended that the administration should challenge their deep-
ernbedded assumptions about diversity and help identify and build cultural capital for
foreign-born faculty.

Ibarra (2001) identiﬁed several basic assumptions about diversity. Besides an
overestimated signiﬁcance of a critical mass of unden'epresented populations, it is
believed that underrepresented populations would eventually assimilate into the dominant
culture and they were disadvantaged and in need of remediation as they lacked skills,
experiences, and resources. The ﬁndings ofthis research challenged these assumptions.
This research showed reluctance among foreign-born faculty to embrace assimilation as
was evidenced by their refusal to receive institutional assistance even though they
demonstrated a lack of access to the dominant group’s cultural capital.

Cultural capital was ﬁrst deﬁned by Bourdieu (1979) as high cultural knowledge
that ultimately redounds to the owner's ﬁnancial and social advantage. Capital, as
articulated by Bourdieu (1986), acts as a social relation within a system of exchange that
includes the accumulated cultural knowledge, skill, education that could be converted to
success, privileges, power, and status. Bourdieu’s (1979) narrow deﬁnition ofcultural

capital ofa society’s elite class has been expanded by more recent research which argued

100

 

that cultural capital is not marked with a single exclusive standard any longer and refers
to an accumulation of different forms ofknowledge, skills and abilities that are valued in
society (Bryson, 1996; Franklin, 2002; Peterson and Kern, 1996). For example, Franklin
(2002) deﬁned cultural capital as “the sense of group consciousness and collective
identity” that serves as a resource “aimed at the advancement ofan entire group” (p.
177).

In an inclusive and supportive work environment, the administration should not
only facilitate foreign-born faculty in getting access to cultural capital of the dominant
group by designing both structured and informal activities (e. g. mentor programs and
social events with local communities), but also help foreign-born faculty identify and
build up their own cultural capital by promoting foreign—born faculty’s pride in their
home cultures and celebrate multiculturalism. Speciﬁcally, this can be achieved by
recognizing, valuing, and rewarding integration of diversity into every ﬁber of
organizational life in the academe, such as development of course content with
multicultural knowledge. This would not only build up foreign-born faculty’s self-
conﬁdence but also communicate the value system of the institution. Meanwhile, it
provides the majority group with more exposure to multiculturalism. The institution will
beneﬁt from making full use of rich and diverse cultures on campus and an increased
organizational attachment among its foreign-born faculty.

Tailored Diversity Initiatives

To address the lack of participation and involvement of foreign-born faculty in

institutional diversity initiatives as identiﬁed in this study, the institution should conduct

systematic research to identify the reasons for the prevalent indifference toward diversity

101

among its members. Based on research ﬁndings, the administration should design and
implement tailored diversity initiatives to attract and motivate foreign-born faculty by
addressing their Speciﬁc needs. The training team should be more culturally responsive
and incorporate people ofdifferent cultural knowledge and backgrounds. The content of
training should address concerns and problems in foreign-born faculty’s professional
lives. It is also recommended that the institution establish an easily accessible repository
of culturally-appropriate resource materials and experiential programs. Beneﬁts of
knowing more about another culture should be communicated to every member of the
campus community to identify and confront the stereotypes and myths that people have
about those who are different from themselves.
On-Goin g Measurement Plans

Participants in this study reported they failed to realize how that institutional
diversity initiatives had impacted their campus lives. This ﬁnding should serves as a
reminder to the administration that on-going measurement plans should be made and
implemented at different levels. The measurement plans may include tracking ofthe
implementation process of diversity initiatives, collecting feedback from diverse
populations, and updating impact data over time. Cox (2001) asserted that change must
be data-driven. Accurate data are essential for understanding the experiences of diverse
populations, diagnosing organization’s climate for diversity, adjusting implementations
ofdiversity initiatives, and encouraging faculty’s enthusiasm in building a more inclusive
campus. It is also suggested that when measuring progress it is vitally important to have a
consistently effective communication plan that keeps people informed of action steps and

the results achieved (Cox, 2001).

102

Implications for Research

The current study provides empirical evidence on foreign-born faculty’s

perceptions oftheir professional experiences at a US. research university through their

expressions of attachment to the employing institution. In addition, the investigation

helps identify institutiOnal and individual factors that impact organizational attachment of

the participants. Built on these. I propose four areas of opportunities for future research

and inquiry. These areas are:

1.

It is suggested to include U.S.-born faculty members and administrators in future
studies of foreign-born faculty’s organizational attachment.

By including U.S.-born faculty members, we could examine whether they
perceive organizational culture and attachment differently than foreign-born
faculty. This could provide us a better picture ofthe work environment and social
process in higher education institutions.

Longitudinal studies are needed to further examine the impacts of diversity
initiatives on foreign-born faculty.

This study only presents self-reports of the participants on how effectively
they perceive the institutional diversity policies and programs are helping them
with the quality oftheir experiences in the US. Due to the short time frame under
investigation and the nature of the research methods, there may be some
unidentiﬁed beneﬁts ofthe diversity initiatives that were either neglected or
misunderstood by the participants. The impact ofsuch a huge institutional
investment should be better studied. It may take longer for the effectiveness of

policies and programs to be perceived and felt by targeted individual faculty

103

members. A longitudinal design that employs repeated measures over a length of
time may come up with contradictory results as social and psychological research
shows that as membership changes, interpersonal interactions, and perfonnance
over time can yield entirely new insights about work groups.

3. Future research may examine the experiences of foreign-born faculty in different

institutional settings.

This research was set in a single research university with its own unique

 

historic and institutional characteristics. The type of academic institution and
traditions may play a signiﬁcant role in shaping foreign-born faculty’s
organizational attachment, which could contribute more to the development of
theories on foreign-born faculty’s organizational behavior.

4. Large-scale quantitative studies of foreign-born faculty’s organizational
attachment are desired to test the proposed model that emerged from the ﬁndings
ofthis study.

The exploratory nature and the scope of this study only allowed a small
sample size. Cross-sectional, quantitative investigations with a larger sample size
are necessary for the following purposes: (1) to measure the direction and
strengths of the relationship between identified factors and foreign-born faculty’s
organizational attachment; and (2) to test the external validity of this study and
produce more generalizable research results with implications for policy making.

Conclusion
This study is an initial step toward understanding foreign—born faculty’s

experiences in the US. higher education system through expressions of attachment to

104

their employing institution. The model proposed in this study may be incomplete and
biased due to the small sample size and subjective interpretations. However, given the
early stages of research on this topic, the ﬁndings that emerged provide a preliminary
foundation for a better understanding of this long-neglected population in US. higher
education institutions and a launching pointifor further inquiry into the psychological
conditions and organizational behavior of foreign-born faculty. Organizational
attachment, as a psychological and behavioral construct, is a result of interpersonal
processes and group dynamics. This empirical foundation for future research suggests, in
the context of diversity, that foreign-born faculty’s organizational attachment is worthy of
a closer examination as it relates to foreign-born faculty’s work attitudes, behaviors, as
well as perfonnance. This research also reminds us ofthe importance ofcreating a
tolerant, collegial, and inclusive organizational culture where foreign-born faculty may
utilize their distinct cultural experiences as a form of capital to succeed in the US.
academia. To achieve this, university administrations should be more culturally

responsive and pay more attention to the impacts of diversity initiatives on campus.

105

APPENDIX A

Interview Protocol for Foreign-Born Faculty

Demographic Data:

Gender:

Years of Residence in the United States:
Years of Service with the Institution:
Home Country:

Unit Demography Composition:

Title:

In general, how do you feel attached to this institution?

Job Satisfaction:

99%?)

How do you perceive the amount and fairness or equity ofsalary for foreign-born
faculty at this institution?

How do you think about opportunities and fairness ofpromotions for foreign-bom
faculty at this institution?

Could you say something about your relationship with your supervisor?

Are you satisﬁed with your insurance, vacation, and other fringe beneﬁts?

Could you describe how you are accommodated by the organization?

As a foreign-bom faculty, how do you feel being respected, recognized, and
appreciated?

How do you perceive policies, procedures, rules, or some other operating procedures
regarding diversity at this institution?

Could you describe your relations with your colleagues?

How do you enjoy your work here? Do you feel stressed with your workload?

. How do you feel the institution is providing opportunities for your professional

development?

. How do you think about you are communicated with information at this institution,

both verbally and in writing? How do you learn about events on campus? Are you
always aware ofwhat is going on with the institution?

Organizational Commitment:

Do you feel hard to quit yourjob right now? Please explain.

Do you feel you are obligated to remain here? If so, why?

Do you feel enjoying your career and life here?

Ifyou were given better pay and resources, do you consider leaving this

institution?

Do you feel a strong sense ofbelonging to this institution?

6. Do you feel like “part ofthe family” here? Are you proud to be a member ofthis
institution?

7. How do you feel this institution deserves your loyalty?

PWP?‘

kl!

106

00

Could you say something about what this job at this institution means to you?

9. How are you concerned with the current operations of the organization to manage
diversity?

10. How are you concerned with the prOSpects ofthis institution? Would you make
extra efforts to help the institution to succeed?

I 1. Do you ﬁnd that your values and the organization’s values are very similar"?

12. How do you ﬁnd this institution may inspire the best in you in the way ofjob
performance?

13. Could you say something about how this institution’s policies on important

matters are related to the employees and foreign-born faculty?

Organizational Identiﬁcation:

Could you describe your feelings when hearing negative statements ofthis
institution?

Do you feel complimented when you hear praises ofthe institution?

Do you feel interested talking about this institution with others? Why and why not?
Do you always speak well of the organizational you work for on public/private

occasions?
When you are referring to the institution, do you say “we” or “they”?

Intent to Leave:

MIQ—

Have you ever considered exploring other career opportunities?
How much would you prefer anotherjob than the one you currently work in?
How would you like to refer your best friend to work for this institution?

Organizational Culture:

8999?”

How do you feel you are encouraged to provide comments and feedback to the
administration? .

Do you know where to ﬁnd and ask for help when you are in trouble with your work?
Do you feel comfortable asking for help?

How do you think your colleagues embrace difference in terms ofculture?

Are you being perceived as “different” in your working environment?

How are you being accepted by your colleagues?

Could you describe how cultural identity is valued at this institution?

How do you think diversity is valued and promoted at this institution? How can you
tell?

Have you participated in any diversity initiatives (workshops, meetings, activities,
policy-making, etc.) on campus? Could you say something about these initiatives?
Which administrator at this institution do you think deserves your respect and
appreciation most? Or which administrator is most contributive to this institution?

. What is mostly valued in this institution? How do you orient your plans and efforts

accordingly?

107

Perceived Organizational Support:

1.

How do you think the institution (your supervisor) value your contribution to its well-

being?
Do you think the institution (your supervisor) pays attention to your feelings or your

well-being?
Do you think this institution (your supervisor) takes pride in my accomplishments at

work?

Perceived External Prestige:

1.

How do you take pride in the reputation of your institution?

 

2. Do peOple in your community think highly of graduates ofthis university?

Acculturation:

1. Do you perceive your competence of using English in communication with your
colleagues? Do you feel comfortable using English on different occasions?

2. Which media do you rely most on to obtain information?

3. How do you think about your ties to your home country?

4. Which culture do you feel you belong to? Do you consider yourself as bi-cultural? Or
do you feel caught between the two cultures? Why? Why not?

5. How do you feel like working in the United States? What are your problems, if any?

6. Do your closest friends share the same cultural background with you? How do you

describe the people who you have interacted with most?

108

APPENDIX B

Consent Form for Foreign—Born Interviewees

Project Title: Do We Belong Here? An exploration of foreign—born faculty’s
organizational attachment at a US. research university
Study Description: You are invited to participate in a dissertation project to study the
experiences of foreign-born faculty through perspectives on their organizational
attachment to your institution. This study explores factors that inﬂuence organizational
attachment of foreign-born faculty at both institutional and individual levels. The purpose
ofthis explorative study is to shed light to institutional policymaking and implementation
by contributing to literature regarding experiences of foreign-born faculty in research
universities in the United States.
Procedures: I am requesting that you participate in a 90-minute interview. I will ask
about your personal adjustment process and how you feel you are attached to the
organization. With your permission, I will audiotape the interview to assist me with data
analysis. Tapes will be stored at my property and will be destroyed at the end ofthe
study. Only the project investigators will be interacting with the subjects, accessing and
abstracting data from your records. The study will take place at your institution.
Individuals not associated with the research study will not be present during the consent
process and the conduct ofthe study. The results will help me assess the working
environment for foreign-born faculty at the institution.
Potential Risks and Beneﬁts: The risks that may be incurred by participating in this
study are minimal. Your conﬁdentiality will be maintained by the investigators. Your
private information will not be shared with others outside of the research team, and you
will not be identiﬁable in any reports or ﬁndings unless you have provided your prior
written permission to the investigator. This study may provide you with an idea of how
the institution is accommodating foreign-born faculty and giving full play to their cultural
diversity. , .
Subject’s Rig/its: Your participation in this study is voluntary and you have the right to
withdraw your consent or discontinue participation at any time without penalty. You
have the right to refuse to answer particular questions. Your privacy will be protected to
the maximum extent allowable by law. I will contact you directly to gain your consent,
however, before attributing any quotations to you in any reports resulting from this study.
Your comments will not be shared with your colleagues. Subjects are not identiﬁable in
the ﬁnal ﬁndings and report of the study. If you have any questions about this study,
please contact the responsible project investigator:

Reitumetse Mabokela

Room 425 Erickson Hall

Michigan State University

East Lansing, MI 48824

Phone: 517-353-6676

Email: mabokela@msu.edu
Or the project investigator:

109

Na Wei

401E Erickson Hall

Michigan State University

East Lansing, MI 48824

Phone: 517-256-9500

Email: weina@msu.edu
If you have any questions or concerns regarding your rights as a study participant, or are
dissatisﬁed at any time with any aspect ofthis study, you may anonymously contact:

Peter Vasilenko

Ph.D., Director ofthe Human Subject Protection Programs

202 Olds Hall

Michigan State University

East Lansing, MI 48824

Phone: (517) 355-2180

Fax: (517)432-4503

Email: irb@msu.edu

I voluntarily agree to participate in this study:

 

Signature Date
The extra copy is for you to keep.

110

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adler, N. .I. (1991). International dimensions oforganizational behavior. Boston,
MA: PWS-Kent Publishing Company.

Aguirre, A., Hernandez, A. & Martinez, R. (1994). Perceptions ofthe workplace:
Focus on minority women faculty. Initiatives, 56(3), 41-50.

Alderfer, C. (1983). Intergroup relations and organizations. In .I. R. Hackman, E.
Lawler, & L. Porter (Eds), Perspectives on behavior in organizations (pp. 408-
416). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Alger, J. R. (1998). Minority faculty and measuring merit: Start by playing fair.
Academe, July/August, 71 .

Allard, M. J. (2002). Theoretical underpinnings ofdiversity. In C. Harvey and M. J.
Allard (Eds), Uiulerstanding and managing diversity (pp. 3-27). New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall.

Allen, D. G., Shore, L. M., & Griffeth R. W. (2003). The role ofperceived
organizational support and supportive human resource practices in the turnover
process. Journal of Management, 29(1), 99-1 18.

Alvesson, M. (2002). Understaiuling organizational culture. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.

Antony, I. S., & Valadez, J. R. (2000). Exploring the satisfaction ofpart-time
college faculty in the United States. The Review oing/rer Education, 26(1), 41-
56.

Ards, S., Brintnall, M, & Wdodard, M. (1997). The road to tenure and beyond for
African American political scientists. The Journal of Negro Education, 66(2),
159-171.

Ashforth, B.E., & Saks, AM. (1996). Socialization tactics: Longitudinal effects on
newcomer adjustments. Academy of Management Journal. 39. 149-178.

Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization.
Academy ofManagement Review, 14(1), 20-39.

Baldwin, R. G. (1990). Faculty vitality beyond the research university: Extending a
contextual concept. Journal 0ingher Education, 61(2), 160-180.

Barker, J. R., & Tompkins, P. K. (1994). Identiﬁcation in the self—managing
organization: Characteristics of target and tenure. Human Com/nunication
Research, 21 , 247-264.

111

Barrett, G. V., & Bass, B. M. (1976). Cross-cultural issues in industrial and
organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette, (Ed), Handbook ofindustrial and
organizationalpsychology, (pp. 1639-1686). Chicago: Rand-McNally.

Basti, Carol Frances. (1996). A study of the professoriate from the perspective of
selected foreign-born faculty. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northern

Illinois University.

Becker, HS. (1960). Notes on the concept of commitment. American Journal of
Sociology, 66, 32-42.

Berry, .1. W. (1980). Acculturation as varieties of adaptation. In A. M. Padilla (Ed),
Acculturation: Theory, models, and some newfrndings (pp. 9-25), Boulder, CO:
Westview.

Blackwell, I. E. (1989). Mentoring: An action strategy for increasing minority
faculty. Academe, 75(5), 8-14.

Blalock, Hubert M., Jr. (1957). Percent non-white and discrimination in the South.
American Sociological Review. 21. 584-588.

Blau, P. M. (1977). Inequality and Heterogeneity. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: Wiley.

Blornstedt, Y., Hylander, I., & Sundquist, .I. (2007). Self-reported integration as a
proxy for acculturation: A qualitative study. Nursing Research. 56(1), 63-69.

Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2003). Qualitative researchfor education: An
introduction to theories and methods (4th ed.), Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Boice, R. (1993). Early turning points in professorial careers ofwornen and
minorities. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 53, 71 -80.

Bouchard, T. J. (1976). Field research methods: interviewing, questionnaires,
participant observation, unobtrusive measures. In M. D. Dunnette (ed),
Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 363-414), Chicago:
Rand-McNally College Publishing Company.

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The Fomrs ofCapital. In J. E. Richardson (ed) Handbook of
Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education (241 -258), Westpor't:
Greenwood Press.

Brislin, R. W. (1990). Applied cross-cultural psychology: An introduction. In R. W.
Brislin (Ed.), Applied cross-cultural psychology (pp. 9-33). Newbury Park, CA:
Sage. ~

112

Brown, L1 (2004). Diversity: The challenge for higher education. Race Ethnicity
and Education, 7(1), 21-34.

Brown, S. V. (1988). Increasing minorityfaculty: An elusive goal. A Research
Report ofthe Minority Graduate Education Project. Princeton, NJ: Educational

Testing Service.

Buchanan, B. (1974). Building organizational commitment: The socialization of
managers in work organizations, Administrative Science Quarterly, 19, 533-546.

Bullis. C. A., & Bach, B. W. (1991). An explication and test ofcommunication
network content and rnultiplexity as predictors oforganizational identiﬁcation.
Western Journal of Speech Communication, 55, 180-197.

Byrne, D. (1971). The ubiquitous relationship: attitude similarity and attraction.
Human Relations, 24(3), 201-207.

Carsten, J.M. & Spector, PE. (1987). Unemployment, job satisfaction, and
employee turnover: A meta-analytic test ofthe Muchinsky model. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 72, 374-381.

Cateora, P. R., & Graham, J. (1999). Interrurtional marketing (10th ed.). Boston:
Irwin/McGraw-Hill.

Chang, M., Witt, D., Jones, J., & Hakuta, K. (2003). Compelling interest: Examining
the evidence on racial dynamics in higher education. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford
University Press.

Chatman, J., Polzer, J., Barsade, S. & Neale, M. (1998). Being different yet feeling
similar: The influence ofdernographic composition and organizational culture on
work processes and outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(4), pp. 749-
780.

Cheney, G. (1983). The rhetoric ofidentiﬁcation and the study oforganizational
communication, Quarterly Journal of Speech, 69, 143—158.

Clair, L. St. (2000). Organizational Attachment: Exploring the Psychodynamics of
the Employment Relations/up. Working paper.

Clark, S. M. & Corcoran, M. (1986). Perspectives on the professional socialization
ofwornen fauclty: A case ofaccurnulative disadvantage? Journal oing/ier
Education, 57(1), 20-43.

Cole, J. R. (1979). Fair science: Women in the scientiﬁc community. NY: The Free
Press.

Cole, S. & Barber, E. (2003). Increasing Faculty Diversity. Harvard University
Press.

113

Comer, D. R., & Soliman, CE. (1996). Organizational efforts to manage diversity:
Do they really work? Journal ofManagerial Issues, 8, 470-483.

Cox, T. H., & Blake, S. (2002). Managing cultural diversity: Implications for
organizational competitiveness. In C. Harvey and M.J. Allard (Eds),
Understanding and managing diversity (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Cox, T. (2001). Creating the multicultural organization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Cox, T., Jr. (1994). Cultural diversity in organizations: T heory, research, and
practice. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Creswell, .l. W. (2001). Educational Research: Planning, C onducting, and
Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Boston: Pearson Education.

Davis, T. (2000). Open Doors. New York, NY: Institute oflnternational Education.
Deaux, K., & Ullman, J. (1983). Women ofSteel. New York: Praeger.

de la Luz Reyes, M., & Halcon, J. J. (1988). Racism in academia: The old wolf
revisited. Harvard Educational Review, 58(3), 299-314.

Di Maggio, P. (1982). Cultural Capital and School Success. American Sociological
Review, 47(2),189-201.

Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Bachman, B. A. (2001). Racial bias in
organizations: The role ofgroup processes in its causes and cures. In M. Turner
(Ed), Groups at work: Advances in theory and research (pp. 133 - I48).
Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum.

Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M. &— Harquail, C. V. (1994). Organizational images and
member identiﬁcation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(2), 239-263.

Eisenberger, R., Hungtington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived
organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 7]. 500-507.

Ely, R. J., and Thomas, D. A. (2001). Cultural diversity at work: The moderating
effects of work group perspectives on diversity. Administrative Science
Quarterly, June, 46, 229-273.

Exum, W. H. (1983). Climbing the crystal stair: Values, Afﬁrmative Action and
minority faculty. Social Problems. 30, 383—399.

Evans, J. (2000). The relationship between psychic distance and organizational
performance: An analysis of international retailing operations. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Monash University. -

F airclou gh, N. (1995). Discourse and social change. Polity Press.

114

 

Fasold, R. (1984). The sociolinguistics ofsociety. Oxford, England; New York, NY:
Basil Blackwell.

Fetterman, D. M. (1989). Ethnography: Step by step. Newbury Park CA: Sage.

Finkelstein, M. J. (1988). The status of academic women: An assessment of ﬁve
competing explanations. The Review of Higher Education, 7, 223-246.

Finkelstein, M. J., Seal, Robert K., & Schuster, J. (1998). The new academic
generation: A profession in transformation. Johns Hopkins University Press.

Fishman, J. (1989). Language, ethnicity, and racism. In N. Coupland & A. Jaworski
(Eds). (1997), Sociolinguistics: A reader (pp. 329-340). NY: St. Martin’s.

Fuller, J. B., Hester, K., Barnett, T., Frey, L., & Relyea, C. (2006). Perceived
organizational support and perceived external prestige: Predicting organizational
attachment for University faculty, staff, and administrators. Journal of Social
Psychology, 146(3), 327-347.

Gibson, CB. and Zellmer-Bruhn, M. (2001) Metaphor and Meaning: An intercultural
analysis of the concept of teamwork. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 274-303.

Glaser, B. and Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery ofgrounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.

Goetz, .I. P., & LeComptc, M. D. (1984). Ethnography and qualitative design in
educational research. Orlando, FL: Academic.

Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American
Sociological Review, 25, 161-178.

Green, M. (1989). Minorities on campus: A handbook for enhancing diversity.
Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

Griffeth, R. W., Hom, P. W., & Gaertner, S. (2000). A meta-analysis ofantecedents and
correlates of employee turnover: Update, moderator tests, and research implications
for the next millennium. Journal of Management, 26, 463-488.

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (l 981). Effective evaluation: Improving the usefulness
of evaluation results through responsive and naturalistic approaches. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Haraway, D. (1989). Primate visions: Gender, race and nature in the world of
modern science. New York, NY: Routledge, Chapman & Hall.

Hardy, C. (1996). The politics ofcollegiality. Canada: McGill-Queen’s University
Press.

115

Harlan, A., & C. Weiss. (1981). Moving up: Women in managerial careers.
Wellesley, MA: Wellesley College: Center for Research on Women.

Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., & Bell, M. P. (1998). Beyond relational demography:
Time and the effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on work group
cohesion. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 96—107.

Harvey, C.P., & Allard, M.J. (2002). Understanding and managing diversity:
Readings, cases, and exercises. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Hatch, M. J. (2000). The cultural dynamics of organizing and change. In N. M.
Ashkanasy, C. P. M. Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson (Eds), Handbook of
organizational culture and climate (pp. 245-260). Thousand Oaks: Sage

Publications

Hatch, M. J., & Schultz, M. (1997) Relations between organizational culture,
identity and image. European Journal of Marketing, 31(5/6), 356-365.

Hoffman, E., (1985). The effect of race-ratio composition on the frequency of
organizational communication. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48, 17-26

Hoffman, L. R., and Maier, N. R. F. (1961). Quality and acceptance of problem
solutions by members of homogeneous and heterogeneous groups. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62, 401 -407.

Hofstede, G. H. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. New
York: McGraw Hill.

Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture’s consequences: international differences in work-
related values, Abridged version, London: Sage.

Hofstede, G. ( I980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-
related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publication.

Hurtado, S., Milem, J. F., Clayton-Pederson, A., & Allen, W. A, (1998). Enhancing
campus climates for racial/ethnic diversity: Educational policy and practice.
Review of Higher Education, 21(3), 279-302.

Iban'a, RA. (2001). Beyond A fﬁrmative Action: Reframing the Context of Higher
Education. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

Irvine, J. J. (1992). Making teacher education culturally responsive. In M. Dilworth
(Ed), Diversity in Teacher Education (pp. 79-92). Washington, DC: American
Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.

Jackson, S. E., Brett, J. F., Sessa, V. 1., Cooper, D. M., Julin, J. A., & Peyronnin K.
(1991). Some differences make a difference: Individual dissimilarity and group

116

 

heterogeneity as correlates of recruitment, promotion and turnover. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 79(5), 675-689.

Janesick, V. J. (2000). The choreography of qualitative research design. In N. K.
Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 379-399).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Jones, Lee. (2000). Brothers of the academy: Up and coming black scholars earning
our way in higher education. Stylus Publishing.

Johnsrud, L. K., & Sadao, K. C. (1998). The common experience of "otherness .
Ethnic and racial minority faculty in academy. Review of Higher Education,

21(4), 315-342.

Johnsrud, L. K., & Des Jarlais, C. D. (1994). Ban‘iers to retention and tenure for
women and minorities. Review oingher Education, 17(4), 335-353.

Kanter, R. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.

Kasheﬁ, M. (2004). Racial differences on organizational attachment? Structural
explanation of attitude differences between White and African American
employees. Journal of Black Studies, 34(5), 702-718.

Kogut, B., & Singh, H. (1988). The effect ofnational culture on the choice of entry
mode._Journal of International Business Studies, Fall, 41 1-432.

Konrad, A. M., Winter, S., & Barbara A. G. (1992). Diversity in work group sex
composition: Implications for majority and minority members. Research in the
Sociology of Organizations. 10, 115-40.

Kossek, E. E., Markel, K. ”&MCHugh P. (2003). Increasing diversity as aHR
change strategy. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 16(2), 328-

352.

Kossek, E. E., & Zonia, S. (1994). The effects ofrace and ethnicity on perceptions of
human resource policies and climate regarding diversity. Journal of Business and
Technical Communication, 8, 319- 334.

Kreitner, R., & Kinicki, A. (2007). Organizational behavior (7lh ed). New York,
NY: McGraw-HiIl/Irwing.

Lakoff, George. (1987). Women, ﬁre, and dangerous things: What categories reveal
about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lakoff, G, &Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by Chicago, University of
Chicago Press.

117

Lee, W. Y. (2002). Culture and institutional climate: Inﬂuences on diversity in
higher education. The Review oingher Education. 25(3), 359-368.

Lincoln, Y. S. & Denzin, N. K. (1994). The ﬁfth moment. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S.
Lincoln (Eds), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 576-586). Thousand Oaks:

Sage.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc.

Liu, Mann-Chun. (2001). The adaptation and experience of foreign-born faculty
members in the United States. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The Claremont

Graduate University.

Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes ofjob satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette
(Ed), Hand-book of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1297-1350).
Chicago: Rand McNally.

Loden, M. 8: Rosener, J. B. (1991). Workforce America: Managing employee
diversity as a vital resource. Homewood, Ill.: Usiness One Irwin.

Louque, A. (1994). The participation of minorities in higher education. Unpublished
dissertation. Pepperdine University, Malibu, CA.

Madsen, J. A., & Mabokela, R. O. (2005). Culturally relevant schools: Creating
positive workplace relationships and preventing intergroup differences. New
York: Routledge Press.

Mael, F. A., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of
the refonnulated model of organizational identiﬁcation.Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 13, 103-123.

Maertz Jr, C. P., Griffeth, R. .W., Campbell, N. S., & Allen D. G. (2007). The effects
of perceived organizational support and perceived supervisor support on
employee turnover. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 28(8), 1059-1075.

March, .I. G., and H. A. Simon. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley.

Marden, C. F., & Meyer, G. (1968). Minorities in American society (3rd ed). New
York : American Book Company.

Markus, H., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition,
emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253.

Marsden, P. V., Kalleberg, A. L., & Cook, C. R. (1993). Gender differences in

organizational commitment: Work positions, family roles, and selection into the labor
force. Work and Occupations: An International SociologicalJournal, (20), 368-390.

118

Marshall, C. & Rossman, G. B. (1989). Designing Qualitative Research. Sage
Publications, Inc.

Mathieu, J.E. & Zajac, D. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents,
correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin,

108,171-194.

McIntire, S., Moberg, D. J., & Posner, B. Z. (1980). Preferential treatment in preselection
decisions according to sex and race. Academy of Management Journal, 23, 738-749.

Menges, R. J., & Exum, W. H. (1983).Barriers to the progress of women and minority
faculty. Journal oingher Education, 54(2), 123-144.

Merriam, S. B. ( l 998): Qualitative research and case studies applications in education.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publications.

Men'iam. S. B. ( l 988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San
Francisco: .Iossey-Bass.

Messick, D. M., & Mackie, D. M. (1989). Intergroup Relations. Annual Review of
Psychology. 40, 45-81.

Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and
application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of
organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 61-89.

Meyer, J. P., & Herscoviteh, L. (2001). Commitment in the workplace: Toward a general
model. Human Resource Management Review, 1 1, 299-326.

Mickelson, R. A. & Oliver, M. L. (1991). Making the short list: Black candidates and the
faculty recruitment process. In P.G. Altbach & K. Lomotey (Eds), The racial crisis
in American higher education (pp. 149-166). SUNY Press.

Minority Equity Committee of University ofPennsylvania, The. (2005). Minority equity
report. Retrieved on December 11, 2005 from www.upenn.edu/almanac/volumes/
v5l/n3I/pdf_n31/minority_equity.pdf.

Milroy, L. (1987). Language and social networks (2rd ed). Ox ford: Basil Blackwell Ltd.

Mitchell, TR. (1979). Organizational behavior. Annual Review ofPsychology, 30, 243-
281.

Mobley, W. H., Homer, S. O., & Hollingsworth, A. T. (1978). An evaluation of
precursors of hospital employee tumover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 408-

414. "

119

Moody, J. (2004). Faculty diversity: Problems and solutions. New York: Taylor and
Francis Books, Inc.

Morosini, Piero. (1994). Effects of national culture differences on post-cross-border
acquisition performance in Italy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of

Pennsylvania

Morse, .I. (1991). Approaches to qualitative-quantitative methodological triangulation.
Nursing Research, 40(1), 120-123.

Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1982). Employee-organization linkages:
The psychology of commitment, absenteeism, and turnover. New York: Academic

Press.

Nakanishi, D. T. (1993). Surviving democracy's "mistake": Japanese-Americans & the
enduring legacy of Executive Order 9066. America Journal, 19(1), 7-35.

National Center for Education Statistics. (1999). National study of postsecondary faculty.
Machine-readable datafrle, Washington, DC.

National Science Board. (2006). Science and Engineering Indicators 2006. Two volumes.
Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation (volume 1, NSB 06-01; volume 2, NSB

06-01 A).

National Science Foundation. ( I 998). Science and engineering indicators. Retrieved on
October 12, 2005 from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind98/frameshtm.

Nemetz, R., & Christensen, S. (1996). The challenge ofcultural diversity: Harnessing a
diversity of views to understand multiculturalism. Academy of management review,

21(2), 434-462.

O'Grady, Shawna, and Henry'W. Lane. (1996). The psychic distance paradox. Journal of
International Business Studies. 27, 309-333.

Olivas, M. A. (1988). Latino faculty at the border: Increasing numbers key to more
Hispanic access. Change, (May/June), 6-9.

Olsen, D., Maple, S. A., Stage, F. K. (1995). Women and minority faculty job
satisfaction: Professional role interests, professional satisfactions, and institutional ﬁt.
Journal of Higher Education, 66, 267-292.

O’Reilly, C. A. and Caldwell, D. F. (1981). The commitment and job tenure ofnew
employees: Some evidence of postdecisional justiﬁcation. Administrative Science
Quarterly. 26(4), 597-616.

O'Reilly, Charles A., Caldwell, D., & Barnett, W. P. (1989). Work group demography,
social integration, and turnover. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 21-37.

120

O'Reilly, C.. & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological
attachment: The effects ofcornpliance, identiﬁcation, and internalization on prosocial

behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71 (3), 492-499.

Ostroff, C., Kinickin, A. J., & Tamkins, M. M. (2003). Organizational culture and
climate. In W. C. Borman, & D. R. Ilgen (Eds), Handbook of psychology: Industrial
and organizational psychology (pp. 565-593). New York, NY: John Wiley.

Orlikowski, W. J. (1993). CASE Tools as Organizational Change: Investigating
Incremental and Radical Changes in Systems Development, MIS Quarterly, 17(3),

309-340.

Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage Publishing.

Pedersen, P. (1991). Multiculturalism as a fourth force in counseling. Journal of
Counseling and Development, 70, 6-12

Pctti grew, T. (1980). The sociology of race relations. Cambridge: Harvard.

Pfeffer, J. (1983). Organizational demography. Research in Organizational Behavior, 5,
299-357.

Pierce, J. L., Gardner, D. G., Cummings, L. L., & Dunharn, R. B. (1989). Organization-
based self-esteem: Construct deﬁnition, measurement, and validation. Academy of
Management Journal, 32, 622-648.

Pike, G. R., & Kuh, G. D. (2006). Relationships among Structural Diversity, Informal
Peer Interactions and Perceptions of the Campus Environment. The Review of Higher
Education. 29(4), 425-450.

Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., & Boulian, P. V. (1974). Organizational
commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 59, 603-609.

Pratt, Michael G., (1998). To be or not to be: Central questions in organizational
identiﬁcation. In D. Whetten, & P. Godfrey (Eds), Identity in Organizations:
Building Theory Through Conversations (pp. 171-207). Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.

Price-Williams, D. R. (1986). Cultural Psychology. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds),
Handbook ofsocial psychology (pp. 993-1042). New York: Random House.

Redﬁeld, R., Linton, R., & Herskovits, M. (1936). Memorandum on the study of
acculturation. American Anthropologist, 38, 149-152.

Reskin, Barbara, Debra B. McBrier, and Julie A. Kmec. (1999). The determinants and
consequences of workplace sex and race composition,.A mural Review of Sociology.
25, 335-361.

121

Reyes, M.L., and Halcon, J]. (1988). Racism in academia: the old wolf revisited.
Harvard Educational Review, 58, 229-314

Reyes, M., & Halcon, J. (1988). Racism in America: The old wolfrevisited. Harvard
Educational Review, 58(3), 299-314.

Reynolds, A. (1992). Charting the changes injunior faculty: Relationships among
socialization, acculturation, and gender. Journal of Higher Education, 63(6), 637-

652.

Rhoades, L., and Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of
the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 698 - 714.

Rhodes, 3., & Steers, R. (1990). Managing employee absenteeism. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley. ‘

Rossman, G. B., and B. L. Wilson. (1985). Numbers and words: Combining quantitative
and qualitative methods in a single large scale evaluation study. Evaluation Review,

9, 627-643.

Rossett, A. & Bickham, T. (1994). Diversity training: Hope, faith and cynicism. Training,
31(1), 40-46.

Rudmin, F. W. (2003). Catalogue of acculturation constructs: Descriptions of 126
taxonomies, 1918-2003. In W. J. Lonner, D. L. Dinnel, S. A. Hayes, & D. N. Sattler
(Eds), Online Readings in Psychology and Culture (Unit 8, Chapter 8),
(http://www.wwu.edu/~culture), Center for Cross-Cultural Research, Western
Washington University, Bellingham, Washington.

Rusbult, C. E., Farrell, D., Rogers, G., & Mainous, A. G. (1988). Impact of exchange
variables on exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect: An integrative model of responses to
declining job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 31(3), 599-627.

Russo, TC. (1998). Organizational and professional identiﬁcation: A case ofnewspaper
journalists. Management Communication Quarterly, 12, 72-1 1 1.

Sagiv, L., & Schwartz, S. H. (2000). National cultures: Implications for organizational
structure and behavior. In N. N. Ashkanasy, C. Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson (Eds),
The handbook of organizational culture and climate (pp. 417-436). Newbury Park,

CA: Sage.

Sax, L. J., Astin, A. W., Arredondo, M., & Korn, W. (1996). The American college
teacher: National norms for the 1995-96 HER] faculty survey. Los Angeles: Higher
Education Research Institute, UCLA.

Schreiber, C. T. (1979). Changing places: Men and women in transitional occupations.
Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.

Schumann, I. H. (1986). Research on the acculturation model of second language
acquisition. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 7, 379-392.

122

Schumann. J. H. (1976). Second language acquisition: The pidginization hypothesis.
Language Learning, 26, 391-408.

Scott, CR. (1999). The impacts ofcommunication and multiple identiﬁcations ofintent
to leave: A multimethodological exploration. ll/Ianagement Communication

Quarterly, 12, 400-435.

Seidman, I. (1998). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in
education and the social sciences. New York: Teachers College Press.

Shamir, B. (1990). Calculations, values, and identities: The sources of collectivist work
motivation. Human Relations, 43, 313-332.

Smidts, A., A.Th.H. Pruyn and C.B.M. van Riel (2001). The impact ofernployee
communication and perceived external prestige on organizational identiﬁcation.
Academy of Management Journal, 49(5), 1051-1062.

Smircich, L. (1985). Is the concept of culture a paradigm for understanding organizations
and ourselves. In P. J. Frost, L. F. Moore, M. R. Louis, C. C. Lundberg, & J. Martin
(eds), Organizational culture (pp. 55-72). Newburk Park, California: Sage.

Spann, J. (1990). Retaining and promoting minority faculty members: Problems and
possibilities. Madison: The University of Wisconsin System.

Spector, P. E. ( 1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, cause, and
consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Spector, P. E. (1985). Measurement of human service job satisfaction: Development of
the job satisfaction survey. American Journal of Conununity Psychology, 13, 693-
712.

Spindler, L. S. (1977). Culture change and modernization. Montreal: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston.

Steers, R.M. & Mowday, RT: (1981). Employee turnover and post-decision
accommodation processes. In B. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds), Research in
organizational behavior (pp. 235-281), Vol. 3. Greenwich, CT: J A] Press.

Stephan, W. G. (1978). School desegregation: An evaluation of predictions made in
Brown vs. the Board of Education. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 217-238.

Stern, S. (1988). A symbolic representation oforganizational identity. In M. Jones, M. D.
Moore, & R. C. Snyder (eds), Inside Organizations (pp. 281-295). Newbury Park,

CA: Sage.

Sussmann, M. & Vechio, RP. (1982). A social influence interpretation ofworker
motivation. Academy of Management Review, 7, 177-186.

Sweet, 8., Pitt-Catsouphes, M., & Kossek, E. (2006). How Diverse Methodologies
Inform Understandings of Work and Family Relations. In M. Pitt-Catsouphes, E.

123

 

E. Kossek, & S. Sweet (Eds), The handbook Of work-family: Multi-disciplinary
perspectives, methods, and approaches (pp. 361-366). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates Press.

Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining the
qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Thomas, D. A., & Ely, R. (1996). Making differences matter: A new paradigm for
managing diversity. Harvard Business Review, 74(5), 79-90.

Thomas, D., & Alderfer, C. P. (1989). The influence ofrace on career dynamics:
Theory and research on minority career experiences. In M. B. Arthur, D. T. Hall,
& B. S. Lawrence (Eds), Handbook of career theory, (pp.l33-158). New York:
Cambridge University Press.

Thomas, P. (1995). A cultural rapport model. In Griggs L., & L. Louv (eds). Valuing
diversity: New tools for a new reality (pp. I-14). New York: McGraw-Hill Inc.

Thomas, R. (1996). Redefining diversity. New York: American Management
Association.

Tierney, W. G., Minor, J. T., & Venegas, K. M. (2004). Color and the academy.
Educational Researcher. 33, 31-36.

Tompkins, P. K., & Cheney, G. (1985). Communication and unobtrusive control in
contemporary organizations. In R. D. McPhee & P. K. Tompkins (Eds),
Organizational communication: Traditional themes and new directions (pp. 179-
210). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Toren, N., and Kraus, V. (1987). The effects ofrninority size on women's position in
academia. Social Forces. 65,.1090-1 100.

Triandis, H. C., McCusker, C, & Hui, C. H. (1990). Multimethod probes of
individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

59, 1006-1020.

Triandis, H. C. (1989). The selfand social behavior in differing cultural contexts.
Psychological Review. 96. 506-520.

Tsui, A. S., & O'Reilly, C. A. (1989). Beyond simple demographic effects: The
importance of relational demography in superior-subordinate dyads. Acadenry of
Management Journal, 32(2), 402-423.

Tsui, A., Egan, R., & O'Reilly C. III. (1992). Being different: Relational
demography and organizational attachment. Administrative Science Quarterly,

37, 549-579.

124

Tumer, C. S. V., & Myers, J r., S. (2000). Faculty of color in academe: Bittersweet
success. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Turner, C. S. V., Myers, 8., Jr., & Creswell, J. W. (1999). Exploring
underrepresentation: The case of faculty ofcolor in the Midwest. Journal of

Higher Education, 70(1), 27-59.

Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2003), The group engagement model: Procedural
justice, social identity, and cooperative behavior. Personality and Social

Psychology Review, 7, 349-362.

Tyler, T. R. (1999). Why people cooperate with organizations. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 21, 201-246.

U. S. Department ofEducation. (1993). National Study ofPostseconda/y Faculty.
Washington DC.

Van Maanen, J. (1979). Reclaiming qualitative methods for organizational research:
A preface. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 520-526.

Van Maanen, .I. & Schein, E. H. (1979). Toward oftheory oforganizational
socialization. Research in Organizational Behavior, 1, 209-264.

Wagner. W. G., Pfeffer, .I.. & O'Reilly, C. A. (1984). Organizational demography
and turnover in 10p management groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29,

74-92.

Waldman, D. A., & Avolio, B. J. (1986). A meta-analysis ofage differences in job
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 33-38.

Wan-Huggins, V. N., Riordan,‘C. M., and Griffeth, R. W. (1998). The development
and longitudinal test ofa model oforganizational identiﬁcation. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 28(8), 724 - 749.

Watson, W. E., Kumar, K. and Michaelsen, L. K. (1993). Cultural diversity's impact
on interaction process and perfomrance: Comparing homogeneous and diverse
task groups. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 590-602.

Wharton, AS. (1992). The social construction of gender and race in organizations:
A social identity and group mobilization perspective. In P.S. Tolbert & S.
Bacharach (eds). Research in the Sociology of Organizations (pp. 55-84), v.10.
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Weber, M. (1968). Economics and society. New York: Bedrninister Press

Weiner, Y. (1982). Commitment in organizations: A normative view. Academy of
Management Review, 7, 418-428.

125

 

 

Whitt, E. J. (1992). Document analysis. In C. F. Conrad, J. G. Haworth, & L. R.
Lattuca (eds). Qualitative research in higher education: Expanding perspectives
(pp. 447-454). Boston, MA: Pearson Custom Publishing.

Whitt, E. J. & Kuh, G. D. (1991). The use of qualitative methods in a team approach
to multiple institution studies. The Review oingher Education, 14, 317-337.

Withey, M.J. & W.H. COOper. (1989). Predicting exit, voice, loyalty and neglect.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 521—539.

Zenger, T. R. & Lawrence, B. S. (1989). Organizational demography: The
differential effects of age and tenure distributions on technical communication.
Academy of Management Journal, 32, 353—376.

126

iirrirrrjiirrijiririrrr