{EQWmu‘ ABSTRACT A FACTORIAL STUDY OF INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION AND PROFESSIONAL CONSEQUENCES REPORTED BY FULBRIGHT AND SMITH-MUNDT GRANTEES, 1947-1957 by Jeanne E. Gullahorn This analysis of survey data from over 5,300 Fulbright and Smith-Mundt grantees provides evidence con- cerning the impact of overseas experiences on grantees' roles as professionals and as cross-cultural communicators, and also presents comparisons of different methods of dimensionalizing the data and of assessing relations be- tween background information and dependent dimensions. Grantees selecting roles as Lecturers and Teachers generally reported more extensive interaction and communi- cation both abroad and after their return than did faculty Research Scholars and graduate Students. Within the different groups. grantees in natural sciences or humanities reported less interaction than those in social science and professional social ‘service. Furthermore, grantees from small towns reported more enduring relationships With individuals abroad; Whereas those from metropolitan areas lasted more post-return public appearances concerning their sojourn experiences. .- as) A-Jl ~~a . .5— but! In. "1., Day. 6" 1; . I‘L . . N n... 'h *- ‘~ u“ ' i \‘-‘ b '- . 1“»- - Jeanne E. Gullahorn. While older. more established faculty members enumerated more communication opportunities and maintained nwre contacts with foreign colleagues. the younger less “mlleknown academicians from institutions outside of high prestige areas reported the greatest professional capital accruing from their awards. Moreover, the relative prestige of overseas experience varied with grantees' field of work--the sojourns were viewed as beneficial to those in humanities and arts. but as less relevant to natural scientists. While Students' evaluations of pro— fessional development were related to their reports of scholarly achievements, among faculty members these aspectxs of professional consequences were virtually unrelated—- for them. professional productivity seemed to be a relatiAnely routine aspect of role performance rather than an indicator- of role fulfillment. While appraisals concerning professional develop- ment and prestige were closely related to faculty members' and Teachers' assessments of personal development and over- all satisfaction with their award experiences, for Students these were alternative outcomes of study abroad. Among Studentsé those reporting extensive interaction overseas and greater satisfaction with their sojourns tended to be less Settled in adult roles and less committed to academic goals than were Students who indicated their professional Careers had been furthered by their work abroad. nv-v . I... o \t) . 9-... ..J ll ‘RR a .- Bil. . A. I \ 0‘ : a: . a '1 . u Jeanne E. Gullahorn The patternings of questionnaire items concerning grantees' international communication experiences, the pro- fessional consequences of their awards, and their personal satisfaction with their sojourns were summarized in terms of Guttman scales. rotated factors, and Tryon clusters. In general, the three methods showed remarkable agreement in identifying dependent dimensions. Reconciling divergences between the Guttman and factoring approaches provided additional insight into the organization of items defining the dimensions. Instances of a lack of numerical invariance made the Tryon clustering less satisfactory than the principal components factor analysis: however. as a group of integrated programmed procedures. the Tryon system appeared superior to current factor analysis computer programs. ‘Assessments of relationships between grantees' background characteristics and outcomes of their award experiences included analyses of correlations between factor scores from separate factorings of background and dependent variables; cluster analyses of the two subsets of variables together as though they formed a single battery; a series of within- and across-group clusterings of dimensions from previous analyses of subsets of variables; and analyses of the canonical correlations between back— ground data and dependent dimensions. Of these methods. the cluster analysis of dimensions contributed the most information concerning relationships Jeanne E. Gullahorn among variables within and across the different groups of grantees. In examining associations between individual characteristics and dependent dimensions, multiple regression analyses and cluster analyses assessing the relative loadings of background items on independently-defined outcome dimensions were most useful. Incorporating a methodological comparison in an exploration of substantive relationships assisted in inter— preting empirical findings by producing different organizations of the data; furthermore, consistencies in the analytic replications provided greater confidence in conclusions concerning the structuring of relationships among variables. Copyright by JEANNE ERARD GULLAHORN 1965 A FACTORIAL STUDY OF INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION AND PROFESSIONAL CONSEQUENCES REPORTED BY FULBRIGHT AND SMITH-MUNDT GRANTEES: 1947-1957 BY .r .5 Jeanne E? Gullahorn A THESIS Submitted to ‘Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Psychology 1964 R \H. him. A ~37. - V.: o r 0.‘ A) [p i DEDICATION To the following HUMAN GROUPS whose members facilitated the data analysis on which this dissertation is based: My family: Survey Research Center, University of California, Berkeley: Computer Center, University of California. Berkeley: Claremont Day Nursery, Berkeley, California: My Guidance Committee. Michigan State University, East Lansing: Reva Thompson Play Center. Lansing, Michigan ii u...» .54.! 5 .. ..'_.' in ... n' , Inna... 4 “”4-du. 'Vugvu‘ a . I " :A A; ‘0" U\ ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 'My primary debt is to the Fulbright and Smith- Mnndt grantees whose cooperation furnished the survey data on which this investigation is based, and to the International Educational Exchange Service of the U.S. Department of State, who sponsored the original study. The research was designed and conducted jointly with John T. Gullahorn, who also consulted in designing and interpreting the secondary analysis of data reported here. Many other individuals and organizations facilitated this endeavor. The comparative investigation of methods of data analysis was possible because both the Survey Research Center and the Computer Center at the University of California, Berkeley, provided free use of data processing equipment. I am particularly indebted to Hanan Selvin, Travis Hirschi, and Alan Wilson of the Survey Research Center for their assistance regarding the use of the factor analysis and correlation analysis programs and for their willingness to spend time discussing the substantive findings. In addition. Mr. Gehrke, Mr. Fredrickson, and members of the technical staff of the Survey Research Center facilitated much of the data processing. I am grateful also for the assistance given by members of the Computer Center staff, and in particular to Eleanor Krasnow for iii - ,.-~:"‘; unnV““" l .:}~ w ~- o-s!‘u~_ .mntouuu i . . ' in a." fi_ .3: nudvuu»: ‘.':V r. U-‘vb h; guidance in use of the Guttman scalogram program. Daniel Bailey deserves particular thanks for the time he spent assisting in all phases of the use of the Tryon system for multidimensional analysis and in the interpretation of the findings. For guidance in organizing this report as a dialogue between substantive and methodological findings, I am indebted to Eugene Jacobson, my thesis adviser. He and other members of my committee--Erwin Bettinghaus, M. Ray Denny, and Charles Wrigley--assisted in interpreting the findings and exhibited great fortitude in digesting the masses of data involved in the comparative analyses. iv q a , Den.- 4 _ “unit bi . 7T 5;. .Y‘ yl‘ 5“. \~ 4. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. THE FOCUS AND METHODOLOGY OF THE IMSTIGATION C O O O O O O O O I O O O O O 1 Focus of the Present Investigation 4 Strategy of Analysis 7 Description of Alternative Mbdes of Analysis 8 Choosing Among the Methods 22 Analyses of Outcomes of Award Experiences 3O Analyses Relating Background and Outcome Variables 35 II. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE GRANTEES . . . . . . . 42 Interrelations Among Background Variables 66 III. OVERSEAS EXPERIENCES OF GRANTEES . . . . . . . 76 Analyses Dimensionalizing Overseas . Interaction 85 Guttman Scale Analysis 86 Factor Analysis 93 Cluster Analysis 96 Relation of Overseas Interaction to Background Variables 99 IV. SUBSEQUENT INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION . . . . 128 Continued Interaction with Best Nationals 128 Sharing Overseas Experiences with Fellow Americans 132 Analyses Dimensionalizing Subsequent Communication 135 Guttman Scaling 135 Factor Analysis 147 Cluster Analysis 155 ‘ fl..aoA‘ . U UuA'V" . n In 'J’T‘ 1“. Chapter Page Relation of Background Variables to Post-award Communication Dimensions 157 V. PROFESSIONAL CONSEQUENCES . . . . . . . . . . 176 Analyses Dimensionalizing Professional Consequences 177 Guttman Scaling 177 Factor Analysis 182 Cluster Analysis 187 Summated Achievement Scale 194 Relation of Background Variables to Professional Outcome Dimensions 195 Professional Achievements 216 VI. OTHER EVALUATIONS OF THE AWARD EXPERIENCES . . 221 Analyses Dimensionalizing Personal Development and Satisfaction 222 Guttman Scaling 222 Factor Analysis 229 Cluster Analysis 229 Summated Scaling 234 Relation of Background Variables to Satisfaction Dimensions 235 VII. RELATIONS AMONG BACKGROUND VARIABLES AND OUTCOME DIMENSIONS . . . . . . . . . . 247 Canonical Correlation of Antecedents and Outcomes 248 Cluster Analyses Involving Background and Outcome Variables 264 VIII. SUBSTANTIVE AND METHODOLOGICAL CONCLUSIONS . . 305 Comparison of Results of Different Medes of Analysis 306 Description of Dimensions and Association with Background Data 307 Associations Among Major Dependent Dimensions 340 vi 'l‘. sat: VJ: 5‘- Chapter Page Summary of Substantive Findings Concerning Fulbright and Smith-Mundt Grantees 359 Conclusions Regarding Different Methods of Analysis 368 Analyses of the Organization of Dependent Dimensions 369 Analyses Relating Background Data and Dependent Dimensions 376 BIBI’IOGMPHY O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 392 APPEmICES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 398 vii Ty ‘\ &:L~ ‘ ? £4~ Is “ Table II’l o II-Z. 11-3. 11-4 0 11-50 11-6. 11-7. II-Bo II—go 11-10 0 II‘ll o II-12. 11-13 0 II-l4o 11—15 0 II—16 o III-l o III-’2 0 LIST OF TABLES Percentage distribution of men and Wome n O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Percentage age distribution . . . . . . . . Distribution of grantees among census divisions at award time . . . . . . . . POSt-award mObilitY o o o o o o o o o o o a Distribution among urban and rural centers at award t ime O C O O O O O O O O O O 0 Reasons for award application . . . . . . . Period of award . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Distribution by geographic region of host country . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Distribution by field of work abroad . . . Grantees“ occupations at time of award . . Grantees' post-award occupations . . . . . Teachers' and Students' highest earned degrees C O C O C C O O O C C C C O O . Grantees' self—rated proficiency in host countries' language . . . . . . . . . . Background items: orthogonal factor loadings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Background items: cluster loadings . . . . 1Correlationsamong oblique clusters . . . . Number of friendships established abroad . Interaction abroad: Guttman scale analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii Page 43 45 46 48 50 51 53 53 55 57 58 6O 63 67 69 72 78 87 99. F I} sl.‘C 11:4 § ‘s 3 ‘ -- e‘ c Iv. - ?v. ills‘ Table III-3 0 111-4 0 III-5. III-6. III‘7 o III-8 o III-9 o III-11. III-12. III-13. IV—l o IV—Z. Iv-3. IV-4 0 Interaction abroad: distribution of respondents among the Guttman scale types . . . . . . . . . . . . Interaction abroad: factor loadings . Interaction abroad: cluster loadings . Interaction abroad: multiple regression analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . Loadings of background variables on the interaction abroad cluster dimension Relation of age to Guttman interaction abroad scale scores . . . . . . . . Relation of field of work overseas to Guttman interaction abroad scale scores 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Relation of geographic region of host country to Guttman interaction abroad scale scores . . . . . . . . Relation of selected host countries to Guttman interaction abroad scale scores 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Relation of language competence to Guttman interaction abroad scale scores 0 O O O O C O O C O O O I 0 Relation of award period to Guttman interaction abroad scale scores . . Continued foreign interaction: Guttman scale analysis . . . . . . Continued foreign interaction: distri- bution of respondents among the Guttman scale types . . . . . . . . Internationally-oriented communication with Americans: Guttman scale analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . Internationally-oriented communication with Americans: distribution of respondents among the Guttman scale types . . . . . . . .7. . . . . . . ix Page 90 94 97 102 103 105 107 110 111 115 125 136 139 142 145 IT! 9yy 1:- Qt. it“. Pi-I ra.‘ ‘ A V. 99 V“ Table IV—S o IV—6 o IV—7 o IV-8. IV-9 o IV‘lo o IV-ll o IV-12. IV_13 o v-3. V—4. V-So V-6. V-7. Page Interpersonal international communication: factor loadings . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 International public relations: factor loadings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 International public relations: cluster loadings . . . . . . . . . . . 156 Guttman continued foreign interaction scales: multiple regression analyses C I O O O O O O O O O O O O O 160 Guttman internationally-oriented communi- cation with Americansscales: multiple regression analyses . . . . . . . . . . 162 Interpersonal international communication factors: multiple regression analyses . 164 International public relations factors: multiple regression analyses . . . . . 166 Loadings of background variables on the interpersonal international communication cluster dimension . . . . 168 Loadings of background variableson the international public relations cluster dimension . . . . . . . . . . 169 Professional consequences: Guttman scale analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . 178 Professional consequences: distribution of respondents among the Guttman scale types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 Professional development: factor loadings O O I O O O O O O O O 0 O O O 184 Professional prestige: factor loadings O O O O O O C I O O O O O O O 185 Enduring professional relations: factor loadings . . . . . . . . . . . . 188 Professional development: cluster loadings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 Professional prestige: cluster loadings . 190 . - I Table V-8. v-9. V-lo o V-ll o V-12. V-13. V-l4. V—lS. V-16 0 v1.1 0 VI-Z o V1-30 VI-4o VI-‘S o VI-6 o Other professional outcome clusters: loadings from oblique rotation . . Guttman professional consequences scales: multiple regression analyses . . . Professional development factors: multiple regression analyses . . . Professional prestige factors: multiple regression analyses . . . Professional achievement summated index: multiple regression analyses . . . Enduring professional relations factor: multiple regression analysis . . . Loadings of background variables on the professional development cluster dimenSionS O O O I O O O O O O O O Loadings of background variables on the professional prestige cluster dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . Loadings of background variables on other professional outcome clusters . . . Professional satisfaction: Guttman scale analysis . . . . . . . . . . Personal satisfaction: distribution of respondents among the Guttman scale types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Personal development and satisfaction: factor loadings . . . . . . . . . . Personal development and satisfaction: cluster loadings . . . . . . . . . Other general evaluation clusters: loadings from Oblique rotation . . Guttman satisfaction scales: multiple regression analyses . . . . . . . . Personal development and satisfaction factors: multiple regression analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi Page 192 197 198 200 202 205 206 207 208 223 230 231 233 234 237 239 VI - 1711’ 97?. “'1‘. 'Q’. i;.'s Y'TT - I u .‘ ' 'O’. ’ ‘ A o... VII-7 . m I ‘A 61“ L . V Table VI-8. VI‘go VII-l. VII-2 o VII-3 o VII—4o VII-5 o VII—6 o VII-7 o VII-8. VII-9 o Page Loadings of background variables on the personal development and satisfaction cluster dimensions . . . . . . . . . . 241 Loadings of background variables on other general evaluation clusters . . . . . . 242 Lecturers: canonical correlations of background variables x dependent variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249 Research Scholars: canonical correlations of badkground variables x dependent variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251 Teachers: canonical correlations of background variables x dependent variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253 Students: canonical correlations of background variables x dependent variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255 Dimensions extracted in the combined variable cluster analysis . . . . . . . 266 Lecturers: cluster analysis of dimensions extracted in previous analyses of background. dependent and combined variables . . . . . . . . 273 Research Scholars: cluster analysis of dimensions extracted in previous analyses of background, dependent, and combined variables . . . . . . . . 275 Teachers: cluster analysis of dimensions extracted in previous analyses of background dependent. and combined variables . . . . . . . . 277 Students: cluster analysis of dimensions extracted in previous analyses of background. dependent, and combined variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279 Across-groups cluster analysis of background dimensions . . . . . . . . . 297 xii n. sz 5:713 ...~.\- VII' '0'. 311’ W": “Olod Y O. V ..‘ 3 ‘9 I.;‘- "q. . I..I- 9W ,. MNL- 8“-| Table VII-11. VIII-3. VIII-4. VIIIr6. VIII-7. VIII-8. VIII-9. VIII-10. Across-groups cluster analysis of dependentdimensions. . . . . . . . . . Across-groups cluster analysis of dimensions from combined background and dependent variable analyses . . . . . . . . . . . Correlations among overseas interaction and post-award communication dimenSionS O O C O O O C O O O O O O 0 Summary of multiple regression and cluster loading data regarding associations between grantees' characteristics and dimensions concerning their interaction and communication experiences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Correlations between background factor scores and communication factor scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . Correlations among professional outcome dimensions . . . . . . . . . . Summary of multiple regression and cluster loading data regarding associations between grantees' characteristics and dimensions concerning professional outcomes of their award experiences . . . . . . Correlations between background factor scores and professional outcome factor scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . Correlationsamong satisfaction dimensions . Summary of multiple regression and cluster loading data regarding associations between grantees' characteristics and dimensions concerning their satisfaction with their sojourn experiences . . . . Correlations between background factor scores and satisfaction factor scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . Correlations between communication and professional outcome dimensions . . xiii Page 298 300 308 312 314 322 324 326 333 335 337 342 1" 5. 9 - I. D 9...- I31. Table Page ‘VIII—ll. Correlations between communication and satisfaction dimensions . . . . . . . . 348 ‘VIII-12. Correlations between professional out- come and satisfaction dimensions . . . 354 xiv 1 ., D'Ann. . _ ‘ .WH‘.‘“. 0. LIST OF APPENDICES Append ix Page I. DESCRIPTION OF THE RESEARCH . . . . . . . . 399 II. QUESTIONNAIRE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 417 III. CODING OF BACKGROUND VARIABLES FOR MULTIVARIATE ANALYSES . . . . . . . . . . 431 XV q H u I .(I) no D 1 . l ‘1‘ «.5 i‘ . ‘5 1 AA. ”4.. ‘4‘ 9.. ‘ 4" ‘ “ ‘4‘ :‘u ‘ n . :z‘ 3"?" \“~‘ 6 ' . A,“ v. y‘ 'JM: ‘h '4, '5“ t .A . 1:. .. h" .1; :I.\-. V... .: a u ‘! d‘yi‘ t CHAPTER I THE FOCUS AND METHODOLOGY OF THE INVESTIGATION In the history of education large-scale travel abroad in pursuit of learning dates back to the development of universities in the twelfth century (Metraux, 1952). Organized programs of international educational exchange designed to advance intergovernmental objectives, however, appear to be a social novelty. Since WOrld War II there has been a vast expansion in such programs and in the number of participants involved. In 1960 one publication listed over 75,000 fellowships sponsored by government agencies, private foundations. and educational institutions available for study throughout the world (Study Abroad). Excluding students in the Iron Curtain countries, for whom reliable data are not available, about one—fourth of the remaining individuals who study outside their home countries come to the United States. As early as 1950 almost 30,000 foreign students annually attended institutions of higher education in the United States, and today the number has risen to approximately 60,000. As to the migration of Americans, in 1962 official records showed about 19,000 Americans enrolled as students overseas (Open Doors, 1962). 0 ‘U‘ wlv‘fl ... I Jo' n“; 5-- Clw ”v 3“"? ydlp..‘.l ‘ 0. tan 1, ‘5... v“ “‘5 va. II. .t; . ..._ _ 7‘ ‘fioa‘iul While the students account for most of the personnel involved in educational exchange, the numbers of teachers and college professors participating in cross-cultural exchange are not trivial. One informed estimate is that under current programs over 5,000 senior scholars enter the United States and approximately 3,000 American senior scholars venture abroad (Open Doors, 1962). These figures do not include the yearly average of 7,000 foreign physicians in American hospitals and certain other technical personnel. Furthermore, the data do not include individuals carrying out research or other educational activities on their own funds, nor those whose stay in an alien culture is for a period of less than six months. American institutions sponsoring educational exchanges cite as their objectives the promotion of "international understanding": the development of friends and supporters for the United States: assistance in economic, social, or political development of other countries: and educational development of outstanding individuals (The Goals of Student Exchange, 1955).1 Partly as a reflection of these goals and partly as a consequence of current interest among social scientists in the influence process, much of the 1It is interesting to note that the goals of individuals participating in educational exchange do not appear to parallel those of the sponsoring agencies. For example, interview and questionnaire data indicate that educational and personal development are most salient among the reasons for venturing abroad cited by American students in France (Gullahorn and Gullahorn, 1956 and 1958a). g q-q + I find so. I u 2"“? V1.9». . . nvgc n‘ “of. V O «.2. . a"! gun.» I. t" “no "‘-».... ‘ Is... 5 “CL.“ ‘Y'WRQ‘ -Q_‘-_c ’tsh. . “‘9”; “"va, 5 §¢.“- H O K c . :11 . ‘ “‘d ‘~ A“ . v: luz‘: ‘ evaluational research in cross-cultural education has focused--ethnocentrically--on whether foreign sojourners do in fact develop more positive attitudes toward Americans and the United States in general as a consequence of their experiences here. Aside from the practical interest in attempting to give operational clarification to and an assessment of the achievement of the goals of sponsoring agencies, social scientists have been interested in the foreign scholar as a natural object for investigations of international com- munication, stereotype persistence and modification, personality concomitants of the acculturation process, and intergroup interaction. Situations of cross-cultural contact offer unique opportunities to test the generality and limitations of hypotheses developed in one cultural context: furthermore, the research may contribute to the discovery of hitherto unanticipated interactions among variables (cf. Jacobson, et a1., 1960). In the field of intergroup relations, for example, most generalizations have been developed from studies in one cultural setting where a common language and an overall reference framework of commonly acknowledged values and norms may be taken for granted. Such assumed "constants" become variables whose relative influence must be assessed when one shifts to contact situations involving nationals from different cultures. Thus, in the final study of the series sponsored by the Social Science Research Council, attention focused :m‘.. .. C '5 in. I) in ’z‘wa an.“b \ o ”‘ ‘k. a, MA"; ‘."a“ u,‘-‘ ‘1 ‘V" - UV";~ ‘V‘ 7“» ‘ .1“: c I'- 'TA‘ LNG I ~‘q . t-‘h‘ 5‘ 6"?“ 3 a ‘\ \u. k in, ‘é. not only on the association between variables relating to interaction between foreign students and Americans and to the students' subsequent attitudes concerning the United States, but also on the impact of the students' language ‘proficiency and other background characteristics on the variables investigated (Selltiz, et a1., 1963). Focus of the Present Investigation Similar variables concerning social interaction and affective evaluations are involved in the present research 'which also explores background influences on these variables. Instead of gathering data from foreign sojourners in the United States, however, this investigation extends the range of knowledge regarding educational contacts across cultures by eliciting information from Americans who sojourned in all areas of the world under sponsorship of the International Educational Exchange Service of the United States Department of State. A full description of the study appears in Appendix I. The present report concentrates on the questionnaire data gathered from over 5,300 American Fulbright and Smith-Mundt grantees whose awards toOk them abroad during the 1947-1957 period. Illustrative material from interviews as well as comments added on the questionnaires are also included. The questionnaire respondents represent four types of award holders under State Department sponsorship, comprising 785 Lecturers, 744 Research Scholars, 1,082 Teachers, and 2,659 Students. The first two categories ant ‘Ai ll 5‘ s“ db . . YD“ :,- our-" u. ' ""706 visa... d 1 u. ‘ h «.53: N) . LA.) 0 of ”senior? grantees include American college professors whose awards affiliated them with universities abroad. Typically the Lecturers focused on teaching in their host institutions, whereas the Research Scholars conducted research, often in collaboration with host colleagues. The Teacher category is composed of American elementary and secondary school teachers who frequently participated in actual exchange relationships, wherein the Americans _rep1aced counterparts from the host schools who in turn taught in the United States. The Student category consists of college graduates who pursued graduate studies in universities overseas. Specifically, the questionnaire information elicited from these four groups of grantees concern the following aspects of their award experiences: 1. Overseas interaction, focusing on the frequency, range and depth of the grantees' interaction with host nationals: 2. Continued foreign interaction, focusing on the maintenance of contacts and continued collabor— ation between grantees and host nationals; 3. Internationally-oriented communication with Americans, focusing on efforts of former grantees to disseminate information regarding their award experiences and to assist fellow Americans in cross-cultural educational activities: 4. Professional consequences, focusing on two related aspects--the professional development of grantees, including their acquisition of new skills or of data for subsequent analysis: and the professional prestige accruing to the grantees, including recognition from administrators and colleagues, promotions, fellowships, etc.; (J! Ravflgr A“ v5¥ was i one“. U‘ .‘\ Q 1' ~- ‘7', I J .13.: F‘I‘A . i u , Sac-Hy \ . a 3“:". :- th‘~.~ 1.-:7 ‘ U.” . x 9‘ kg: 7. w ‘ ‘ 3. n 51. “ h..: .. 'u . ‘RA; . _ ‘N5 I '5 a; ‘ .1; Pa, . s.‘: ‘n‘; . "f V. ‘~a‘ 7‘: 4“ . ”a ‘h J- ‘~ U s, \ a: N“. ‘ ‘ . ‘qu. ‘. a. . "b.- He. h.“ 5. Personal satisfaction and development, focusing on the grantees' assessments of the contributions of the award experiences on their self-perceptions and their general perspectives on their home and host countries. In the present report we shall discuss the behavior jpatterns describing each of these outcome areas and explore Ineans of dimensionalizing them such that we may rank-order respondents in a meaningful manner with respect to each dimension. In addition, we shall analyze the interrelation- ships among these dimensions. To a limited extent this will enable us to compare findings with available data from other research and thus broaden our knowledge regarding concomitants of cross-cultural educational exchange. For example, other investigators studying foreign students on American campuses have noted a positive association between the extent of the students' participation in American life and the quality of their academic adjustment as well as the degree of favorableness of their attitudes regarding their host country (Sewell and Davidsen, 1961). In terms of related variables in the present investigation we may ask whether overseas interaction is associated with one or both aspects of professional consequences and with personal satisfaction for the Students--and for the grantees in the other award categories as well. Besides describing and interrelating these five general outcomes of the award experiences for each group of grantees we shall examine the relationship between these dimensions and available data concerning the grantees' ,1, 33355 Sod: uldv Q.”‘\: us-U- 3‘ "r .vq a: «I 1 (I) background characteristics. Again, comparisons for the Student group can be made with data from studies of foreign students in the United States. Strategy of Analysis An overview of the principles guiding the construction of the questionnaire is presented in Appendix I. Items were selected such that the granteesf responses would vary with respect to their positions on the set of award outcomes just described. As inspection of the questionnaire will verify (see Appendix II), the items have a manifest rather than a latent relationship to the topics of interest. The initial step in quantifying these data involves a simple enumeration of the frequency functions of the item categories. Since, as already indicated, we wish to assess the covariation of the dimensions within the questionnaire as well as the covariation between these dimensions and certain external variables, it is obvious that treating the items individually would be a laborious and unparsimonious procedure. HOW then should we combine itemsso that individuals may be assigned to numerical positions representing distinctions in the degree of their endorsement of each dimension? We shall go into some detail in exploring alternative methods of analysis inasmuch as this report is designed not only to describe a set of outcomes of cross-cultural educational experiences but also to assess the utility of different modes of analysis for survey material of the type represented here. Typically, two principal methods are employed to accomplish the data reduction sought here--a subject— centered mode of analysis involving constructing summated indices, or a response-centered technique involving develop- ing cumulative unidimensional scales. Factor analysis or cluster analysis are other possible alternatives, although for reasons to be discussed later these methods have been applied less in survey data analysis than the two other approaches. Let us now consider the general logic of each of these alternatives as well as their relative merits. Description of Alternative Medes of Analysis Summated Scaling In its more popular form in survey analysis the subject-centered approach involves some variation on the Likert technique (1932). Actually, many items in the present questionnaire were phrased in the recommended format for such analysis. For example, the items dealing with general evaluations of the award experiences were selected to increase individual differences on a continuum related to satisfaction. For each item four response options ranging from FAgree Strongly? to FDisagree Strongly" were available. The grantees' task was to respond to each item on the basis of the extent to which they were willing to endorse it. A. ~ 31:3”: 5' A I N .3: ., “ b : as. a. :4 1;. ind “ 9" A: as ' \ n ‘3. ”rs b-:.‘.|. “ ‘ v “sne A. V) n ‘14.? J! o‘ h‘ . :1.» . "Ma. (Lb 'w‘ 1!) J "t 4i .J' 2‘ Ll) () "1 Ru J To score the items in the simplest manner, scores ranging from 4 to 1 may be assigned to the response categories of each item, with the 4 being assigned to the extreme favorable position (either the Agree Strongly or Disagree Strongly category, depending on the direction implied by the wording of the item). An individual's score on the set of items could then be calculated by summing the integers into which his responses had thus been mapped. As Goode and Hatt note, such a simple scoring technique is based on two assumptions regarding the weighting of items and the weighting of each response within an item (1952, ch. 17). The items are treated as equivalent: therefore, differences in extremes of favorableness may not be reflected by assigning a score of 4 to strong endorsement of different items. Would it be preferable to weight items differentially rather than arbitrarily to class them as the same? NOt only does equal weighting assume an equality between similar responses to all items, but it also assumes that the distance between ?Strongly Agree? and "Agree Somewhat" equals one unit and therefore is the same as the distance between ?Agree Somewhat? and ?Disagree Somewhat.? Both items and responses may be weighted dif- ferentially on the basis of intuitive criteria. A more rigorous empirical approach involves using the standard deviations of the distributions of the items. Actually, however, research has indicated that the converted sigma technique correlates about .99 with the arbitrary scoring ‘ s‘nfi?‘ $GJUoé ~Hv-v :Vfcaac . 10 of the simpler method (Murphy and Likert, 1938: Goode and Hatt, 1952, pp. 273-274). Since before the advent of electronic computers calculating sigma scores was more laborious than assigning arbitrary weights, the evidence just cited apparently has tended to promote reliance on arbitrary scoring. Perhaps the most cogent critic of the summated index approach is Louis Guttman who claims that omitting a scale analysis (as he defines the procedure) and developing a single arbitrary index may completely obfuscate the purpose of the research. A Guttman scale analysis will determine whether a set of items ?comprises but a single factor in the sense that from but a single set of scores (on this factor) the responses to each of the items can be reproduced? (Stouffer, et a1., 1950, p. 181). Since only an intuitive assessment of unidimensionality is involved in the summated scaling procedure, Guttman claims arbitrary indices are subject to five basic defects (Stouffer, et a1., 1950, ch. 6). 1) Lack of descriptive meaning. The summated score cannot reproduce a person’s responses to the items. Different behaviors can yield the same score. Since reproducibility is the foremost criterion in Guttman scaling, his condemnation of this shortcoming in the Likert approach is obvious. Defenders of the latter approach have suggested, however, that the same behavior may be determined by different patterns of antecedent C0331 '1 C0-.€ my A: \v» b. b 5C:.u : A“ ‘U.l R I .53: ‘ w...“ ‘ ) ‘ A ”i” :5" \.'\ “ . ‘- 41: 7Q. N.‘ U“ I “.1: ‘1“ -.‘~ I‘Jk 11 conditions. From reactions to an apparently heterogeneous collection of items one might develop an index of some process reflecting a tendency to positive or negative action: therefore, two persons agreeing with different statements may in fact be comparable with respect to the strength and direction of this tendency to act in a given manner. ?We do not know as yet that independent measures of the same unidimensional processes in different people furnish the best means to the prediction of behavior" (Peak, 1953, p. 260). 2) NO criterion for weights. Guttman notes that by changing weights in the arbitrary indices persons who are ?equal" according to one set will probably not receive the same scores according to another set. Persons with higher scores than others according to one set of weights may be lower on the other set. Decisions among sets of weights might be made according to subjective or empirical criteria. It is not unlikely that different sets of weights will be selected in different replications: hence there are serious problems of reliability. 3) Sampling of items and description. Guttman con— tends that index scores can change if different items from a ?nonscalable? area are used. According to him, if an area forms a Guttman scale then any sample of items from the area will yield essentially the same rank order for the people as any other set of items. Actually, Guttman has not presented evidence concerning this superiority fiH-fi-‘ at u bl.“ 12 of his method. Torgerson presents a detailed discussion of the limitations in the statistical sampling analogy Guttman presents regarding the ?universe of content" from which the researcher ?samples" items--obviously in a non- random manner (1958, ch. 12). 4) Improper weights forgprediction. Guttman claims that an arbitrary index generally underestimates the predictability of any criterion from the items. According to him, the index can have practically a zero correlation with a given criterion, whereas if an actual multiple correlation of the items were determined, the items could be found to correlate very highly with the criterion. 5) Sampling of items and prediction. Guttman's comments on this apparent shortcoming develop some of the points already mentioned. He notes, If the area is scalable, then it is known that not only the multiple correlation of the thing being predicted with the set of items is essentially the correlation of that thing with the scale scores, but also it is known that adding more items to the sample from the same scalable universe will not increase the multiple correlation. That is why relatively few items can be used from a scalable area for prediction purposes, yet the predictive power of the infinite number of items from which this sample was drawn is being fully realized (Stouffer, et a1., 1950, p. 179, italics in original). According to Guttman, the five defects just described apply in particular to arbitrary summated indices developed from items which do not scale according to his criteria. Indeed, he concludes, 0—. rr W?‘“n ; Io‘y ‘“3':=. "' Own A V~ ’ :20 '1 O s... a .‘, . | G._b C l ., ’ '2 3s, h‘""~. 13 It is true that if an area is scalable, then the resulting scale scores will correlate very highly with any index obtained by arbitrary weights, provided the weights are in the right direction. Scale theory proves that there is no harm in obtaining an apparently arbitrary index from a scalable area, either for descriptive or predictive purposes (Stouffer, et a1., 1950, p. 175). If one has gone to the trouble, however, of ascertaining whether a set of items satisfies the criteria for a Guttman scale, then selecting arbitrary index scores-- which actually carry less information than Guttman scale scores-—seemsunsatisfactory. The reason the simple scoring procedure is recommended (cf. Riley, et a1., 1954, ch. 12), however, is that generally tests for unidimension- ality are done with only a sub-sample of respondents: therefore, with a desk calculator or an IBM 101, ascertaining Guttman scale scores for the total sample requires more time and effort than does computing summated scores. It is interesting to note that the development of computer technology within the past five years has made this simple scoring procedure for Guttman scales, as well as many of the other recommendations included in the Rutgers volume published just ten years ago, virtually obsolete. In actual practice Guttman's recommendations appear to be ignored. That is, arbitrary indices seem to be the most popular means of dimensionalizing survey data, and in the reports of such applications one generally will not find evidence of the items' scalability (in the Guttman sense). As noted previously, however, there is not consensus among social scientists regarding the necessity (a) U 09‘ a I are . budd. Aw. &. ULL. an 31 n; I (I) (h ‘C n‘v 14 of Guttman's criteria: furthermore, apparently many researchers are satisfied with the pragmatic consequences of develop- ing summated scales for the dimensions assessed in their studies. Let us turn now to a more detailed consideration of Guttman scaling. Guttman Scaling Like the summated scaling technique just considered, Guttman's procedure adheres to the logical structure of an ordinal scale--that is, it makes possible a ranking of respondents in terms of the favorableness of their attitude toward a given object, but it does not provide a basis for saying how much more favorable one person is than another. ?The result of a Guttman analysis on data which satisfy the necessary conditions is an ordinal scale with the stimuli and the response patterns of the individuals simply ordered? (Coombs, 1953, p. 526). In a Guttman scale analysis the following questions are explored: Do the set of items and the set of subjects together form a scale? Can the subjects and/or the items be ordered along a continuum such that responses of subjects to items can be accounted for by this order? Can responses to items be considered dependent on a single, though perhaps complex, attribute? (cf. Torgerson, 1958, pp. 301-302.) If a set of dichotomous items forms a perfect scale, then of the Zn possible response patterns, only n+1 of WA 4...: by ,..¢ Au» ills Q» a My. n _ vi: 8 9:1 p .u '5 33: . « la 8. A s r \ R\b R 4 ~ ,§ 51‘ Ilv 15 these non-overlapping patterns will occur. It is the relative non-occurrence of the deviant patterns that enables the Guttman scaling procedure to recover from the observed data the order of the individuals and the category boundaries of the underlying continuum. For example, a perfect seven item Guttman scale will have the following eight scale types associated with it. Item Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 o o o o o o o o 1 1 o o o o o o 2 1 1 o o o o 0 Scale 3 1 1 1 o o o 0 Type 4 1 1 1 1 o o o 5 1 1 1 1 1 o o 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 o 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 The j-th scale type, therefore, is a set of dichotomized scores such that the responses to the first j items in the Guttman scale are all positive, and the responses to the last n-j items are all negative. Since scale analysis regards the score as a representation of the items, each respondent can be assigned a scale score corresponding to scale types 0 to n. A score of j means the response pattern for a respondent is €105 . :1 a u \ VH4 ".dh . A c L... ‘0“ I Y.‘ a..\ 1d 17 v n C- A ,a.‘ p- H ‘\ 16 closest to the j—th scale type. In other words, the ordering of the items in a Guttman scale is such that individuals who respond positively to a given item have higher rank scores than do those who respond negatively to that item. Furthermore, if an individual responds positively to an item of a certain rank, then he will respond positively to all items of a lower rank. NOt only is there a perfect positive correlation between the scale type and the number of items responded to positively, but there is also a perfect inverse correlation between the order of the items and the item marginals (the positive frequency functions for each item). I So far our discussion has concentrated on the ideal model of the perfect Guttman scale. Since Guttman's deterministic approach makes no provision for error or unsystematic variance, in principle one variant observation is sufficient to reject the hypothesis that an area is scalable. In practice the problem addressed in scaling analysis is not that of testing whether a perfect scale exists-~it usually does not—-but rather of checking certain criteria to determine whether the observed approxi- mation is close enough to treat the data as if they constituted a perfect scale. Of central importance in measuring the amount of error in Observed scale scores is the concept of reproduci- bility. According to Guttman, ’1 .- he I: III Ihi 1 A -l\ 14 II ‘ '1. INJI . RI Q ' r I Av «J a» £1 .. s C a wt ~\~ flu. v . 1|. r} .s e a: a: A 5. fly 3‘. 2M I a... a u. a: . L 9n F nan r. A: AK ~\U AV 5. AV 2.: 3 v j N . uh. ?- .D .1. t a v. n» . . ‘5 '«l .0 u.‘ ..~ ‘6 51% RH- ...\ 17 Scale analysis tests the hypothesis that a group of people can be arranged in an internally meaning- ful rank order with respect to an area of qualitative data. .A rank order of people is meaningful if, from the person's rank order, one knows precisely his responses to each of the questions or acts included in the scale (Stouffer, et a1., 1950, p. 88). An error thus is an error in reproducibility, occurring when the response predicted from an individual's total score does not agree with his actual answer to a given item. The reproducibility for a given item, therefore, is the proportion of responses to the item which can correctly be reproduced. The over-all reproducibility of a Guttman scale is the average of the item reproducibilities. That is, if Ei represents the item error (taken over N respondents) for the i-th interval of a Guttman scale of n items, the reproducibility of the scale is defined as m 2 E. . 1 . . . _ i=1 0 Reproduc1bility — l -—ET§T——-x 100% In early work on Guttman scaling a reproducibility coefficient of .85 was considered adequate (Guttman, 1947); later, however, a Reproducibility coefficient of .90 was was recommended for judging a cumulative scale unidimensional (Guttman, 1950, ch. 3). Thus, of all the responses of all the surveyed sample to all of the items in a scale, no more than 10% should correspond to errors of reproducibility. Inasmuch as the reproducibility coefficient may be inflated spuriously by extreme dichotomizations in the item marginals, auxiliary criteria are necessary to assess the unidimensionality of a set of items. For example, if a dish: and 3‘. repro: 18 dichotomous item has 92%.of the respondents in one category and 8% in the other, there cannot be less than 92% reproducibility for that particular item, regardless of its relationship to other items or to the total score. Guttman therefore recommends that a wide range of marginal distributions be represented by the items-—inc1uding items with marginals around 50-50. The smaller the number of items included in a scale the more the reproducibility is affected by the item marginals; consequently, Guttman recommends including ten items (Stouffer, et a1., 1950, chs. 3, 4, 5). As Stouffer and associates note, in practice four or five item Guttman scales are developed more frequently than the desirably longer scales (1962, p. 276). Indeed, most of the scales reported by the Rutgers researchers are composed of three or four items (Riley, et a1., 1954, p. 83). Further criteria for judging the goodness of fit between the observed scaling and the ideal model include recommendations that no individual item have less than 85% reproducibility and that no item in the scale have moreerror than non—error. Some methodologists have objected to the relative subjectivity in the general rules of thumb advanced to assist in judgment of unidimensionality (cf. Peak, 1953). A more direct attack on the problem of assessing the possible contamination of the reproduci- bility coefficient is illustrated in the work of the Rutgers researchers who determine for each scale a 1 5.3 fl )- 5C3. file‘- ‘I $.g "1 L4“ DI 1 l9 coefficient representing the reproducibility by chance, calculated from the item marginals (Riley, et a1., 1954). In comparison with summated indexing, Guttman scaling provides a less ambiguous approach to studying the organization among items; furthermore, when items are shown to scale a rational method of weighting items is provided. Changing weights will not change the relative positions of the scores if the weights assigned are equal or if they increase or decrease consistently with the scale position of the item. Factor Analysis The general purpose of scale analysis and factor analysis are similar. Indeed, Guttman describes his technique as ”a single-factor theory for qualitative data" (Stouffer, et a1., 1950, p. 192). While scale analysis deals directly with item marginals, however, factor analysis begins with the matrix of item intercorrelations and is designed to find the smallest set of dimensions sufficient to account mathematically for the observed correlations. The computations involved in factor analysis involve an assumption of an interval scale level of measurement: thus from this viewpoint it seems less defensible than the more conservative ordinal level in- volved in Guttman scale analysis--or in summated indexing. Hewever, it should be noted that in practice, unless the researcher relies solely on contingency table analyses ine sca'. 3.4 cu. 20 in exploring relationships between his Guttman or summated scales.and other variables, he does in fact treat the scale scores as if they comprised an equal interval scale—-for example in computations of correlations, multiple regressions, etc. This does not, of course, answer the question concern- ing the consequences of making strong assumptions regarding measurement levels in the beginning of the data reduction process. At present there seems to be much speculation but a relative paucity of actual data concerning this issue. As indicated previously, factor analysis has been less popular in survey data analysis than the summated or Guttman scaling techniques. Selvin's recent application of the method in studying leadership climates is a noteworthy exception (1960). As suggested above, in part the relative neglect of factor analysis may stem from relative conser— vatism regarding the measurement level assumptions of the technique--an attitude that receives reinforcement from Guttman's dictum: From a scale analysis it can be known what a factor analysis will show. The converse is not true; from a factor analysis it will be difficult, if not impossible, to know what a scale analysis will show (Stouffer, et a1., 1950, p. 192, italics in original). Another reason, of course, for the relatively in— frequent application of factor analysis to survey data involves the time and labor expended on matrix computations with a desk calculator when questionnaires are composed of large numbers of items. This practical limitation apparently has also been a deterrent to the application of cluster 21 analysis, a variant of factor analysis which we shall now describe briefly. Cluster Analysis Like the other methods of analysis just considered, the general objectives of cluster analysis are to search out, conceptualize, and score general groups of variables which are operationally alike in the sense that they order individuals in the same general manner (cf. Tryon, 1958b). The clustering technique, like factor analysis, focuses on the intercorrelations of items in attempting to group the total number of variables into a reduced number of general dimensions that are most independent and that best predict the scores of the respondents on the total number of variables. Two principal criteria are involved in the clustering procedure: maximal congruence of the correlation profiles, and maximal independence from other variables (Tryon, 1958a). Two variables are considered congruent if their n-2 matched correlation coefficients are proportional. The Index of Proportionality is defined as follows: 2 (Zr .r .) 2 11 2 . P = 2 l 2 for 1 = (3' 4' 0 0 0 I n) Zr . Zr . 11 21 The degree of independence of a variable is assessed in terms of the variance of its n-l squared correlation coefficients in the matrix (or2)2. V:- e 7.3" M‘m.‘ "J.4‘:J 22 In actual practice cluster analysis has received even less attention in survey data processing than has factor analysis. Indeed, only a small cluster of researchers working with Tryon have been developing the technique, and the method has been virtually neglected in mosttreatises on factor analysis. Choosing Among the Methods In order to dramatize the impact of computer technology on current decisions regarding approaches to data analysis, let us describe what our decision dilemma would have been only five years ago. At that time it would have been necessary to choose among the four alternatives just discussed, and our decision would have been heavily influenced by practical considerations relating to the cost of analysis and the time expenditure involved. In effect, we would have constructed a payoff matrix in which we assigned probabilities for success with each method of analysis on the basis of available infonmation, intuitive hunches, advice from colleagues, etc. Had our decision rules involved minimaxing the regret function, we would have selected the more conservative--but possibly less desirable—- technique of summated scaling. Let us go into some detail concerning our decision procedure. In our previous discussion of the apparent short- comings of summated indexing as contrasted to Guttman scaling, we concluded that the Guttman method provides a more systematic means of studying the organization among E H ... 0 1.. t s v!" “H ‘ ow va l, 83 v . JF ‘RY ‘4‘ a}. the t .31' ‘v- 23 items. Factor analytic techniques also seem preferable to summated scaling in terms of relative objectivity, since the procedures operate on observed correlations independently of the investigator's preconceptions. With reference to the two types of factoring methods considered, a principal components factor analysis seems preferable because of the paucity of information currently available regarding applications and critical evaluations of cluster analysis. Our decision space thus might be narrowed to two preferred methods--Guttman scaling and factor analysis. Unfortunately, information from comparative studies involving the two techniques is not available to assist us in further assessing their relative merits. One reason for this deficiency is that in the past, when the principal tools for data analysis consisted of the desk calculator and the IBM 101, applying either Guttman scaling or factor analysis required a considerable investment of time, effort, and money; consequently, subjecting the same data to both procedures was not practicable.1 1It is interesting to note that the amount of tedious labor involved in these two techniques——along with their methodological rigor--apparently has contri- buted toward their relative prestige. Indeed, at times the reinforcement accorded for ?doing? one of these analyses seems to be granted in recognition of the labor involved in applying the Vsophisticated? methods,without reference to their appropriateness or relevance. 24 -Inasmuch as empirical comparisons are not avail- able to influence our choice between Guttman scaling and factor analysis, let us turn to specific considerations pertaining to our present data. As noted previously, the survey questionnaire was designed to elicit information concerning a number of consequences of Fulbright and Smith-Mundt grantees' award experiences. Practical limitations precluded our developing sets of pre-tested cumulative scales for each dimension. Thus, while we would expect the items pertaining to each subject area to combine into meaningful complex dimensions, it does not seem highly probable that they would in fact exhibit the cumulative quality of the Guttman model. Given limited funds and limited time, and a low probability of success in applying the method, we would conclude that a Guttman scalogram exploration of our data using a desk calculator or an IBM 101 would not be worthwhile. Would factor analysis then be selected by default? Hopefully, our questionnaire measured what we proposed to measure; therefore, the factoring process should retrieve the dimensions of interest and thus enable us to score respondents on these factors. Of course, we might feel uneasy about the consequence of assuming interval level measurement and applying factor analysis to qualitative data-—Guttman's criticisms, even when supporting evidence is absent, are not to be dismissed lightly. However, if we put a risk component in our decision rules we might natu. nairq 25 tentatively decide that factor analysis would be a potentially worthwhile investment. That is, the probability of a meaning— ful outcome from factor analysis seems reasOnably high; whereas the probability of developing acceptable uni— dimensional Guttman scales seems relatively lower. But what about practical limitations involving the nature of our data? In order to factor analyze the question— naire items regarding the outcome experiences, a correlation matrix of approximately the order 60 by 60 must be processed. A principal components solution for a 20 variable problem is in itself considered a tour de force on a desk calculator; consequently, the labor involved in thus processing our present problem would be prohibitive (cf. Harman, 1960, ch. 9). It should be recalled that in this discussion of our decision procedure we are referring in particular to the situation we would have confronted five years ago. At that time, of course, electronic digital computers were available commercially, and programs to perform the matrix calculations of factor analysis had been developed. Memory storage capacities of most of the hardware available five years ago were limited, however; consequently a principal components analysis of a matrix of the order involved in our present data generally would have been unfeasible. Thus, as indicated at the beginning of this discussion, considerations involving high costs and low probability of success lead us to reject a Guttman explor- ation of our data; and considerations concerning costs and pract the I reje: data. £5 . lg‘V‘e 26 practical limitations along with some questions regarding the relative appropriateness of the procedure lead us to reject the factor analytic method of dimensionalizing our data. Given this structuring of the situation--as it was five years ago--we conclude that the maximum regret from our decision regarding data analysis will be minimized if we choose summated scaling--an operation guaranteed to provide numerical positions for our respondents on the dimensions we select. Perhaps the payoff matrices developed by other researchers in making decisions regarding modes of analysis are not too dissimilar from that just described. As noted before, the most popular method of scaling data appears to involve applications of arbitrary indices. For example, summated scales are used in such exemplars of contemporary research as the Lipset, Trow, and Coleman study of Enign Democracy (1956) and the Lazarsfeld and Thelens study of The Academic Mind (1958). Of course, the relative popu- larity of summated scaling may stem from actual preference for the procedure based on researchers' satisfaction with the pragmatic consequences of this approach, rather than from a choice by default when applications of other more desirable methods are impracticable or their outcomes are unattainable (as in the Lazarsfeld and Thelens study where summated scaling apparently was applied only after attempts to develop cumulative unidimensional scales failed). But whatever the reasons for the popularity of the summated scali limit 0 Vlrt'd relat 55:: the 0 tan} )Ivvsu' B); r. I . ‘ it; 27 scaling technique-—pragmatic Fsatisficing,? practical limitations, or uncertain payoffsr-it is unfortunate that virtually no comparative data are available concerning the relative merits of the three other methods of analysis. Having described the cognitive dissonance inherent in the necessity of choosing what seems to be a less desirable method of analysis because practical considerations defining the situation five years ago precluded applying the other approaches, let us turn now to the impact of technological change on the decision situation one year ago. By that time computer developments in two areas--in the increased speed and memory capacities of the modern hardware as well as in the development of accompanying software, or libraries of programs—-meant that the methods previously judged too slow and too expensive for the expected payoff actually were faster and cheaper than summated scaling on the IBM 101. Thus, because we had access to a powerful computer (the IBM 7090) and a well-developed library of programs at the University of California Berkeley campus, our decision regarding data analysis did not have to be determined primarily by the practical limitations previously described. A computer program was available for Guttman scale analysis (Krasnow and Schutz, 1961), another was available for a principal components factor analysis (Wilson, 1963), and a set of programs was available for processing Tryon's system of cluster analysis (Tryon, et a1., 1963). Since it 1c 3052 311’ U-Dnl app 6 to cho no ion an ”01‘; orevio . actua “Ht ‘ 3r 2r<~ § . H ‘. Ali‘ct ~n5‘ "s ‘ WC‘ 4‘: 28 actually was practicable to choose any of the four methods previously described,what should we do? As suggested before, we might confine our decision to choosing between Guttman scaling or the principal components factor analysis. Since practical limitations no longer are a deterrent to either procedure what consider- ations should influence our decision? In the absence of empirical comparisons of the two techniques, our decision might reflect relative allegiances to certain reference groups as well as relative systems of beliefs regarding measurement theology. That is, there seem to be relatively non-overlapping sociological groupings of researchers who do Guttman analyses as opposed to those who perform factor analyses. While Guttman, himself, has contributed to both approaches, as noted previously, he considers factor analysis inappropriate for qualitative data—-although he does not present empirical evidence to support his viewpoint. Since our reference groups are multiple and our beliefs amenable to change, these considerations do not produce a particularly strong preference. We might consider the following decision tree: Try Guttman scaling; if unidimensional scales are developed for areas of interest, proceed to other processing involving badkground data; if cumulative dimensions cannot be developed, proceed to factor analysis: if the factors identified assist in describing the dimensions of interest or lead to further insights, proceed to other processing involving background scaling be sati own int to othe " 1 39.025: 5‘: . - M" ""~ ‘IGIE 3' * v n: 3*!” 29 data; if the factors seem uninterpretable, Tryon's system probably would not help either, so return to the summated scaling decision and hope the pragmatic consequences will be satisfactory. But while such a decision network might satisfy our own interests in data analysis, what would it contribute to other researchers? Hepefully, the research might demonstrate the insights to be gained from application of a procedure other than summated scaling and thus might assist others in decisions regarding analyses of comparable data. However, the procedure just outlined would not help fill the hiatus in the research literature previously described--it would not necessarily generate data from comparative analyses. Actually, therefore, our purposes in processing our own data would be served and a potential contribution to the research literature would be forthcoming if, instead of essentially choosing between Guttman scaling and factor analysis, we applied both approaches. Indeed, for a relatively small additional expenditure of time and effort a three-way comparison could be undertaken in order to gain information concerning Tryon's cluster analysis--a relatively neglected procedure to date, but one which soon will be in the public domain with the publication of a manual and distribution of system tapes for computer processing of Tryon's multidimensional analysis. ‘r-.___,~..___,...-_. _“r... h.——. v - ~ —~-."b - 30 It is interesting to note that actually our initial structuring of the decision situation such that we sought to decide among the alternatives and virtually neglected the possible decision of doing more than one analysis (except in the case where a selected method failed) reflects a decision necessity imposed by limitations of the past and not by present contingencies. We are not here advocating indiscriminate applications of different methods simply because they are available. Hewever, when on the basis of present knowledge different techniques appear to be reasonable approaches to data analysis, it seems desirable that researchers expend the extra time and effort to experi- ment with different methods so that a body of actual empirical comparisons will be developed to contribute to the field of research methodology. Let us now outline our strategy in analyzing the survey material from our study of American grantees. First we shall describe the analyses of the questionnaire data regarding consequences of the grantees' award experiences: then we shall describe the analyses used to relate these outcomes to the available information concerning the grantees? background characteristics. Analyses of Outcomes of Award Experiences 1. Guttman Scaling. For each category of grantees-- Lecturers, Research Scholars, Teachers, and Studentsr-we attempted to develop cumulative unidimensional scales for the f: contin orient 31 the following areas of interest: overseas interaction: continued interaction with foreigners; internationally— oriented communication with fellow Americans: professional consequences of the awards; and overall evaluations or satisfaction regarding the award experiences. Scales were judged acceptable if the following criteria were met: 1. The reproducibility coefficient was .90 or more. 2. The reproducibility coefficient differed signifi- cantly from chance. 3. No item had a reproducibility of less than .85. 4. No item had more error than non-error--that is, the percentage error for a single item could not exceed 1/2 of the percentage accepting the item or 1/2 of the percentage rejecting the item, whichever was smaller. 5. Item marginals were distributed over a wide range, and the scale included items with marginals around 50%. 6. At least six items--and preferably more-—were included in the scale. Chapters III through VI incorporate Guttman scale data relating to the dimensions listed above. Details regarding items, item errors and reproducibilities, and scale reproducibilities are included. 1The computer program used did not calculate the chance reproducibilities for the scales developed. Such figures were computed on a desk calculator for a sample of scales. Actually, with the large populations involved in the present study, it was found that the other general rules of thumb outlined above provided adequate guides for developing scales with reproducibility coefficients significantly different from chance expectations. 2. same 5 analys analys of ma: é‘mn‘ Commu: multi; variah common 2957). two or varima 32 2. Factor Analysis. For each category of grantees the same 58 questionnaire items used for the Guttman scale analysis were subjected to a principal components factor analysis--a method preferred for its "elegance and precision of mathematical form? in obtaining the initial factor structure of a correlation matrix (Harman, 1960, p. 179). Communalities were estimated by calculating the squared multiple correlation of each variable with the remaining 57 variables, thus providing a measure of the proportion of common variance in the given set of variables (cf. wrigley, 1957). Once the initial set of reference axes was determined, two orthogonal rotational schemes were employed: Kaiser‘s varimax rotation and the Neuhaus and Wrigley quartimax rotation. we decided to use both rotations for the following reason. While available evidence suggests that the varimax rotation provides a better approximation to ?simple structure" than does the quartimax method (Harman, 1960, ch. 14), one of the so—called shortcomings of the quartimax solution-- a tendency toward a general factor--appeared to be an attraction vis-a—vis the present data. That is, it seemed worthwhile to explorethe data in such a manner that a possible general factor of high interaction (be it overseas or subsequent to the award experiences) might appear. Aside from this consideration, performing the two rotations on the same factor matrix provided additional comparative data con- cerning the two methods. Factor loadings for the two orthogonal rotations are presented in Chapters III through VI 33 'where individual dimensions relating to award outcomes are discussed. In determining the number of common factors that were necessary and meaningful in explaining the observed item intercorrelations, we generally followed Kaiser's criterion that the number of common factors should be equal to the number of eigenvalues of the correlation matrix greater than one (cited in Harman, 1960, ch. 17). It so happened that in all but two instances this criterion led to an identifi- cation of factors corresponding to the previously listed dimensions that we sought to explore in our survey. One factor regarding professional outcomes fell short of the Kaiser criterion in the analyses for Teacher and Students. As noted in Chapter V, we decided nevertheless to include information concerning this dimension for those groups for purposes of general comparisons among the four groups. Factor scores on the dimensions thus identified in the varimax rotation were computed by the ”complete estimation method? (Harman, 1960, pp. 338-348), and were used in some of the canonical correlation analyses discussed in Chapter VII. An oblique solution was also obtained for the factor matrix, and oblique factor scores were used in conjunction with background data in the multiple regression analyses discussed in Chapters III through VI. Oblique factor scores were also used in exploring inter- relations among the dimensions, discussed in Chapter VIII. 3. same 5 factor closte includ Conver: each d. correl- ( n... ~su8te] 34 3. Cluster Analysis. For each category of grantees the same 58 questionnaire items used for the Guttman scaling and factor analysis were input in a cumulative communality key cluster analysis (Tryon, 1958a). An additional analysis included 13 items enumerating the grantees' professional achievements resulting from their award experiences along with the 58 other outcome variables (see the publications section of the questionnaire in Appendix II for the 13 items). Communalities were estimated from the most collinear sub— sets of variables, and clustering was terminated on the dimension at which the sum of predetermined communalities converged. As described previously, pivot variables for each dimension were selected by the variance of the squared correlation method, and up to three additional collinear cluster variables were selected per dimension by application of the index of proportionality. Once the subset of variables defining the cluster dimensions had been obtained, an oblique rotation was performed. Cluster loadings for the initial clustering as well as the oblique rotation are presented in discussions of the outcome dimensions in Chapters III through VI. Data from the oblique rotation were used in further analyses discussed in Chapter VII. 4. Summated Scaling. Since we decided to focus the analysis on the other three methods, arbitrary indexing was Virtually neglected in this investigatiOn. Before we had access to a suitable computer and programs, however, we had developed a summated index for the satisfaction outcome dime inde ' ~11 up. .1. pro" Au Vb WU. ac piv y ‘3311 f H‘ \": $ \ 35 dimension; therefore, some comparisons of scores from the index and comparable dimensions from the other analyses are presented in Chapters VI and VIII. In order to get a summary measure for the enumerations of the grantees' professional publications and artistic accomplishments, we also developed a summated index of professional achievements, and data from this scale are included in Chapters V and VIII. As noted previously, the professional achievement items were also included in one of the cluster analyses discussed in Chapter V. Analyses Relating Background and Outcome Variables In seeking to interrelate available information re— garding background characteristics of the grantees with the dimensions pertaining to outcomes of the award experiences, we decided to follow the same general strategy finally advocated in the analysis of the outcome dimensions. That is, rather than choose among a number of apparently reasonable approaches we decided to subject the data to several methods of analysis in order to gain comparative data. Since most of the baCkground information gathered from the grantees concerned attributes rather than continuous variables, for purposes of the analyses to be described below it was necessary to transform many items into dummy variables, scored either 1 or 0 according to the presence or absence of a selected characteristic or combination of Viriai indiv; are i] 36 attributes. The coding applied to the background items appears in Appendix III. The transformed variables were used in the following analyses. 1. Factor and Cluster Analyses of Background Items. Although the number of background items was small so that the variables could be handled individually in procedures associating them with the outcome dimensions, for some of the analyses the additional data reduction provided by the factoring process seemed desirable. Thus, the background items were input in a rotated principal components factor analysis and in a cumulative communality cluster analysis. The results of these factorings are presented in Chapter II. In sub- ” sequent descriptions of analyses associating background variables and outcome dimensions we shall specify whether individual background items or the factor or cluster data are involved. 2. Multiple Regression Analysis. In a series of multiple regression analyses, scores on the different Guttman scales as well as scores on comparable factors were input as the dependent criterion measures to be predicted separately from a set of individual background items. These analyses provided an assessment of the relative importance of different background characteristics in the set available for predicting scores of grantees in each category on the outcome dimensions. A program based on Efroymson's stepwise procedure for multiple regression analyses was used (1960). This procedure enters variables u--- ., _—-——h_.' ‘F- —- 37 into the regression one at a time, using an analysis of variance in selecting the order of variables,so that the I variable chosen in a single iteration is the one which produces the greatest reduction in the variance of the dependent variable. At each step variables are evaluated and may be removed from the equation if they are no longer significant. Only significant independent variables, there- fore, are included in the final regression equation computed. In Chapters III through VI results of multiple regression analyses are presented in discussions of the relationship between the grantees' background characteristics and their award outcomes. The tables summarizing the results of the regression analyses for each group of grantees include the following information: (1) The first figure reported is the coefficient of multiple determination, Rz,‘which provides a measure of the proportion of the total variance in the dependent variable that can be predicted from the known variance in the background items. (2) Along with R2 the probability value is reported for the F ratio obtained in evaluating the significance of R2. (3) The standard error of the dependent variable, Y, is presented next. (4) Information for calculating a raw score regression equation is included in the tables. Thus, the intercept constant for such an equation is presented. (5) In the body of the tables the significant back- ground variables in the regression equation are identified in the first column where they are rank—ordered in terms of the magnitude of their Student tfs listed in the fourth column. The final column in the tables presents the Beta coefficients—-i.e., the weights for the variables regre COME ‘TA’ , W; ‘16 .3. 3' 3. L) 1'»- s v. —.-——~—w 38 in the normalized regression equations. Weights for the raw score regression equations are also presented in the second column labelled Fcoefficient," and a measure of the reliability of each of the weights for raw scores appears in the third column labelled Fstandard error of coefficient.” 3. Canonical Correlation Analysis. In the multiple regression analyses just described we considered each out- come dimension separately in its association with the set of badkground items. In order to assess the maximum cor- relation between the set of background variables and the total set of outcome dimensions, we performed a canonical correlation analysis. The general purpose of this procedure seemed attractive—-instead of considering outcomes one at a time we were enabled to evaluate the multiple composite of outcome dimensions as well as the composite of background variables. Because of the complexity of the calculations in- volved in the canonical correlation procedure, to date the method has received relatively little application-—indeed, as Kendall notes, Fthere is a shortage of good illustrations. Theory, though far from complete has outrun practice"(l957, p. 81). With the development of computer technology, how- ever, programs now are available to perform canonical analyses, and recent publications on computer applications in behavioral science include discussions of the canonical procedure (Cooley and Lohnes, 1962, ch. 3; Koons, 1962). In the present investigation three separate canonical correlations were computed for each group of grantees: one 53038 L outco SCCIE ~— .q—v-~... v“... ‘4 39 interrelating the background items with the Guttman scale scores; another interrelating the background items with the outcome factor scores: and finally one interrelating factor scores from the analysis of the background items with the factor scores from the analysis of the outcome items. Data from these analyses appear in Chapter VII, along with further details regarding the procedure. 4. Cluster Analyses Involving Background and Outcome Variables. Two separate cluster analyses involving both background and outcome items were performed. In both, the items concerning background characteristics of the grantees were input along with the items regarding outcomes (i.e., along with the same items used in the cluster analysis of depen— dent variables described previously). In one procedure all of these items were cluster analyzed together in order to ascertain whether both background items and outcome items would cluster together on the same dimensions. Data from this combined analysis appear in Chapter VII. In the other procedure, while the background items were input along with the dependent items in the initial correlation matrix, an option in the Tryon system made it possible temporarily to delete these variables from the correlation matrix until the clustering of the dependent items had been completed. Thus the suppressed background Variables in no way influenced the clusterings for the outcome dimensions. Once the intermediate cumulative communality cluster analysis had been completed, however, DJ '_ 1 F4 4H5: ‘11:} Clue Vari 40 factor coefficients were computed for these suppressed variables. Thus we obtained an assessment of the relative loadings of each background item on all of the dependent dimensions. These data are incorporated in the discussions of the individual outcome dimensions in Chapters III through VI. In order further to explore interrelations among background and dependent dimensions, data from three separate cluster analyses were used in two additional applications of the cluster technique. First, for each group of grantees, a within-groups type of analysis was performed by cluster analyzing the oblique dimensions from the following previous analyses: the cluster analysis of background items; the cluster.analysis of outcome items; and the cluster analysis of combined items (with none suppressed). We thus obtained a clustering of oblique cluster dimensions with respect to all (background and outcome) variables, providing additional information regarding the structuring of the dimensions within each group. These data are discussed in Chapter VII. In addition to the within-groups analysis of clusters, another exploration of the data focused on variable classifications across subject groups in order to compare the cluster domain structure of each group with that of the other groups. One of these analyses involved clustering the oblique dimensions obtained from the Lecturers', Research Scholars', Teachers‘, and Students' analyses of background items. Another across-groups analysis fo it 511 an art fi: 41 focused on the four groups' cluster analyses of the outcome items; and still another concerned their cluster analyses of combined background and dependent items (with none suppressed). These data appear in Chapter VII. As indicated in our description of the methods of analysis employed in this investigation, comparative data are incorporated in the discussions of the substantive findings in Chapters II through VII. Chapter VIII presents a general overview of the implicationsof the analyses. CHAPTER II CHARACTERISTICS OF THE GRANTEES Americans of many types have represented the United States abroad under sponsorship of educational awards adminis— tered by the Department of State. The present chapter will describe some of their background characteristics as these were reported in the questionnaires. Ninety-two per cent of the survey respondents were abroad under Fulbright awards; 3% went under Smith-Mundt sponsorship; and 5%»noted other types of supplementary grants. The distribution of respondents among the four major award categories exhibited the following pattern: 785 Lecturers, 744 Research Scholars, 1082 Teachers, and 2659 Students. Since the expectations for role performance involved in the four status categories often result in different experiences and opportunities, data generally will be presented for each group separately. .gex. Table II-l presents the percentage distribution tof men and women in the award categories, along with <:omparable figures for the total American population during 'the 1954 and 1955 academic years—-a midpoint in terms of 'the time span in period of awards covered by this study. In comparison with the resident instructional staff for 42 ti e) of Tai Cr‘ Qh~ 43 degree-credit courses in American colleges and universities, women are underrepresented among the Lecturers and parti- cularly among the Research Scholars included in this study. Our data do not include information to indicate whether this discrepancy reflects a lack of motivation for overseas experience among women faculty members or a relative lack of opportunity. Table II-l. Percentage distribution of men and women. Men Women Lecturers 85%. 15% Research Scholars 90 10 Teachers 37 63 Students 66 34 Faculty in American Colleges & Universitiesl 77 23 Teachers in Public Elementary & Secondary Schoolsl 24 76 Graduating College Seniors1 64 36 Recipients of Master's Degrees2 67 33 1These data are for the midpoint (1954 and 1955) in terms of the period covered by this study and were compiled from the U.S. Office of Education Digest of Educational Statistics, 1962. 2These data are from the WOrld Almanac, 1958. Among the Teachers the same situation prevails——men are overrepresented in terms of the distribution of the sexes in public elementary and secondary schools. Students, on the other hand, resemble both the graduating college seniors, among whom the distribution is 64%.ma1e and 36%.female, as we am fi Th- th. re: is 44 well as the recipients of second level (master's)degrees, among whom the breakdown is 67% male and 33% female. The highest proportions of male grantees occurred among those in agriculture (93%), technical and professional fields (90%), and the natural sciences and mathematics (83%). The highest proportions of women were in languages other than English (50%), professional social service (60%), and English or American studies (39%). These figures seem to reflect American cultural definitions of what subject matter is appropriate for members of each sex. With reference to grantees' host countries, the highest representation of women was among grantees to Nbrthwestern Europe (37%), and this group included over half the women grantees. Women were most underrepresented in Latin America and the Near and Middle East, with each having 21%. .Agg. Awards under the educational exchange program provide opportunities for Americans in all age groups subsequent to graduation from college, and the distribution of grantees according to age at the time they received their awards indicates that members of all eligible age groups do participate (Table II-2). Twenty Students were in the precocious group who received grants when under 20 years of age; 250 members of the other three categories were past 55 years of age, with the largest proportion among Lecturers. Table 25 a 26 t: 31 t< 36 t! 41 t 46 b 51 t: Over MEdi; 45 Table II-2. Percentage age distribution. Research Lecturers Scholars Teachers Students 25 and under 1% 4% 6% 58% 26 to 30 3 8 14 27 31 to 35 8 17 14 ll 36 to 40 14 21 15 3 41 to 45 19 18 19 46 to 50 22 13 18 -- 51 to 55 16 10 9 -— Over 55 17 9 5 -- Median Age 42.2 36.1 36.1 24.3 In terms of geographic distribution, the younger grantees were most likely to be assigned to Europe or to Oceania. All regions other than these had a larger proportion than average of grantees 51 years of age and older--ranging from 19% for South America and 22%.for Central America to 31% for the Near and Middle East. This compares with the 11% of grantees who were within these age brackets. Heme State at Time of Award. All 50 states were represented by the grantees sojourning overseas under State Department auspices. Table II—3 presents the percentage distribution of grantees from the different census regions and also gives comparable data in parentheses indicating the percentages of members of the same category in the American population (college faculty members, instructional staff of public elementary and secondary schools, and degree-credit coll figu or 1 Amer cate Tabl II (I) 5‘? 46 college students). Since the table is rather complex, the figures are underlined where there is a difference of 4% or larger between the proportion of grantees and of all Americans who would fall within their same occupational categories. Table II-3. Distribution of grantees among census divisions at award time. Lecturers 32:51::2 Teachers Students New England 9% ( 8%) 11% ( 8%) 10% ( 6% 11% ( 7%) Nfiddle Atlantic 19 (20) 20 (20) 18 (17) 26 (19) East North Central l9 (19) 21 (19) 20 (l9) 16 (20) west Nerth Central 14 (10) 15 (10) 14 (ll) 15 ( 9) South Atlantic 10 (13) 7 (13) . 9 (15) 10 (12) East South Central 3 ( 6) 2 ( 6) i 3 (,8) 4 ( 5) west South Central 3 (y8) 4 ( 8) g 5 (10) 6 (10) Mbuntain 5 ( 4) 3 ( 4) i 4 ( 4) 3 ( 4) i 17 (10) 8 (14) Pacific 16 (12) i 16 (12) A; 1Data in parentheses represent the 1954 figures for resident degree-credit faculty of American colleges and universities, instructional staff of public elementary and secondary schools, and degree—credit student enrollment in American institutions of higher education (see the U.S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1959). New Englanders are slightly more represented among grantees than in the total population of teachers and students in the United States. The Middle Atlantic region has 26% of the Student grantees but only 18% of total college enrollment in the country. The west Nbrth Central region is somewhat overrepresented among grantees in all categories. 0n lar gra reg awa but 47 On the other hand the South Atlantic region contains a larger proportion of members for each category than it has of grantees, and the same trend appears for both South Central regions. The Pacific region has a larger proportion of award holders than of college faculty members and teachers, but it is underrepresented among Student grantees. Present Hgme State and Post—Award Geographic Mbbility. Since their awards some grantees, particularly Students, have changed their places of residence. In general, the shifts to and from various census regions left the proportions about the same in each. Two regions, however, had note- worthy changes. The West North Central region lost 4%, moving from 15%.to 11% of the total; and the Pacific region gained 3%, moving from 12% to 15%. In both instances the loss and gain held for all categories of grantees. One other change in region of residence appeared of interest. Despite the fact that a follow—up was not made for grantees who were known to be overseas during the study, about four and a half times as many respondents were then overseas or in the territories as was true at the time they received awards. The strongest influences accounting for this change appear to be the number of grantees who have gone into foreign service, either for the government or for business as a result of their award experiences; the number of Students who have remained abroad to complete work on a higher degree, and the Students who have been inducted into military service upon completion of their awards. Vi t: Ts : \ L 3% 5...». any. \ 48 As Table II-4 indicates, about one-third of the respondents have moved from the home state in which they resided when they received their awards. In general Lecturers and Teachers seem to be the most established group, and Students the most mobile. Another interesting fact is demonstrated in this table. Academic people seem to follow different patterns of migration from those characteristic of other Americans. In a classic paper Samuel Stouffer pointed out that Americans migrate in accordance with certain principles, and he named his obser- vation the theory of intervening opportunities (1962, ch. 4). That is, people move to new communities in a pattern which maximizes opportunities and minimizes distance--they may reject a better opportunity at a great distance in order to take advantage of a lesser one nearer home. For academic people, however, the terminal point for those who move seems to be determined by the opportunity available rather than the distance, for when they move at all they are almost five times as likely to move to a new census region as to move to another state within the same census region. Table II-4. Post-award mobility. Present Home State Same as Same Census Different Before Award Division Census Division Lecturers 87% 2% l 1% Research Scholars 80 4 16 Teachers 85 5 10 Students 53 8 38 49 Population of Home City. While the greatest dif- ference between grantees and the population at large would undoubtedly lie within the areas of level of education and occupation being pursued, another striking variation occurs in the strong overrepresentation of large urban centers as well as of cities between 10,000 and 49,999 in population. Table II-5 shows the distribution of grantees among urban and rural centers at the time they received their awards. In general there have been no major changes when one compares the size of city where grantees live now. In both instances 23% of all grantees live in cities of one million or over; 19% in the next largest group; 20% in those from 50,000 to 249,999; and 5% in communities under 2,500. Cities between 10,000 and 49,999 have gained from 22% to 23%; and those between 2,500 and 9,999 have lost from 10% to 9%. Both Research Scholars and Students cluster most highly in the large metropolitan areas. Lecturers, too, are well represented in these urban centers. Teachers, on the other hand, tend to come from communities between 10,000 and 49,999. In general both creative artists and non-academic technical and professional practitioners are highly represented in cities of one million or over-- with 37%.and 33%»respective1y. 50 .mmma .moumum copes: osu mo uomuumnm Hmoflumflumum .momcmo on» mo smousm .m.D osu Eonm mmma How ooumfiflumo mama H mm m h o w oom.m Hops: 0H m ma 0 m mmm.m ou oom.m ma ma mm mm om www.mw ou 000.0H ma ON ON ma om www.mwm on ooo.om NH ma om ma om www.mmm 0» ooo.omm $3” Axomwm Xma Xmm Rum H95 pom COHHHHE a .¢.m.D mo mnmaosom HQOHumHsmom musocsum muosomoe commommm muousuooq .oEflu oumBm um muoucoo Hanan mom can“: moose coeusnfluumfln .mIHH magma W1 Co A 4" suh l ‘ 4 51 Reason for Applicatign. Former award holders were aSked to respond to a questionnaire item, “What led you to apply for an award as a government—sponsored grantee?9 The pattern of their replies to the response options is shown in Table II-6. Lecturers have the largest number who were requested either by an American agency administering the program or by a university or agency overseas. Students, with 34%, make up the majority of the group who applied at the instigation or encouragement of professors or others in their home universities. Table II-6. Reasons for award application. Research Lecturers Scholars Teachers Students I initiated the application independently 52% 75% 76%» 64% Colleagues, professors, etc. suggested it 5 10 13 34 Requested by an American agency 12 2 4 -— Requested by an over- seas university, school, or agency 28 12 5 1 Other reason 3 1 2 1 Comments from two individuals who were requested for service abroad illustrate some of the consequences of the contacts as well as their great number: 52 I received a Fulbright grant for a visiting professor- ship in Torino. . . . This was the result of a formal invitation from the University of Torino Medical School, to hold there a post-graduate course on the Surgical Pathology of neoplastic diseases. I held that course--I believe 18 1ectures--apparently with success, since it was attended by large numbers of local surgeons, specialists and pathologists; and then I repeated some of these lectures in the Universities of Milano, Parma, and Bari, upon their invitation. No publications of any kind have re- sulted from that project, but I have reason to think that my course, as well as frequent consultations held with Italian colleagues during my stay in Italy, have resulted in a definite modernization of their ?Surgical Pathology? services. When Dr. ----- . . . went to India in 1949 to serve on the University Commission, he felt India needed small shops and industries in which the villagers could learn modern techniques as well as how to produce useful articles. The fact that I had done similar work for UN in China helped influence his decision to send me to India. . . . My task was to build and put into operation . . . a small machine shop, foundry, tin shop, and carpenter shop. Tooling was set up to make pressure cookers (to save fuel). I introduced the centrifugal spinning of castings to India. . . . The school shop still operates for both production and education. Period of Award and Host Country. Table II-7 presents the percentage distribution of grantees according to the period of their awards. As the data indicate, a larger proportion of the respondents sojourned overseas after 1953. During the 1947-1957 period covered by the present study Americans participated in educational activities under government auspices in nearly all parts of the world. One grantee even wrote of accompanying a group from his host country on an IGY expedition to the South Polar region. Table II-8 presents the distribution of geographic regions for each category of award holders. 53 Table II—7. Period of award. 1947- 1949- 1951- 1953- 1955- 1949 1951 1953 1955 1957 Lecturers 1% 8% 21% 30% 40% ‘Research Scholars -- 17 21 29 33 Teachers 2 15 24 28 31 Students —- 13 21 32 34 Table II—8. Distribution by geographic region of host country. Research Lecturers Scholars Teachers Students Far East 24% 11% 8% 3% Near and Middle East 11 l 5 1 Northwestern Europe 45 60 74 80 Other Europe 9 15 6 10 South America Central America 3 2 l 1 Africa (without Egypt) 1 2 l -- Oceania 5 8 4 4 54 Within the Far East, Lecturers were most likely to sojourn in India, Japan, the Philippines, or Pakistan. The few Research Scholars in that region were concentrated in Japan and India. In Northwestern Europe the three countries with the largest proportions of Lecturers and Research Scholars were the British Isles, France, and Germany. For Teachers the third most popular country was the Netherlands, followed by Germany. Among the Students the rank-ordering placed France first, followed by the British Isles and Germany. Of the other European countries Italy had the highest proportion of Lecturers, Research Scholars, and Students. Withneference to the Teachers, however, Greece had over three times as many grantees as did Italy. The geographic regions where award holders in various fields of work sojourned varied considerably. In the Far East there was a relative concentration of social scientists, professional social service workers, and natural scientists. In Oceania there were large proportions of natural scientists, social scientists, and professional social service personnel as well as agriculturists. Creative artists, on the other hand, tended to cluster in Europe more than any other group except the students of foreign languages. Over 92% from these two groups spent their award years in Europe. Field of work. Almost every aspect of educational activity common to our country is represented by the grantees in this study. As Table II—9 indicates, two-thirds of Se: te; or am on th: Sci lax C61 Otis 55 of the Teachers were included in Professional Social Service (a category incorporating elementary or secondary teaching if no particular field was emphasized) and English or American Studies. Among Lecturers, Research Scholars, and Students, Social and Political Sciences ranked first. Only a one per cent difference occurred, however, between this field and Natural Sciences or Mathematics for Research Scholars and between the first—ranked field and foreign languages for Students. Among the humanists in the Lecturer category those specializing in English or American studies showed the highest representation. Table II—9. Distribution by field of work abroad. Research Lecturers Scholars Teachers Students Natural Science or Mathematics 15%. 24% 7% 12% Social or Political Science 22 25 8 20 Foreign Languages 3 7 9 19 English or American Studies 17 5 33 6 Other Humanities 4 l4 1 13 Creative Arts 7 6 2 13 Agriculture 2 3 l 1 Professional Social Service 17 6 36 3 Other Technical or Professional 12 8 1 Other 4 2 2 2 ma}: 56 On the whole, grantees reported relatively few changes between the fields of work they pursued overseas and those in which they were currently engaged at home. 'There was a slight shift away from English and American Studies, but this might have been anticipated since Americans specializing in other related areas at home occasionally are requested to meet a need for American Studies on an overseas assignment. This shift was parti- cularly marked among Teachers, where the percentage concen- trating in the field decreased from 33% to 18%. Along with this change, specialization in Foreign Languages gained from 9% to 13%. Among Student grantees, Creative Arts held first place in post-award fields with 17% reporting current con- centration in that area. Professional Social Service increased from 3% to 9% in the Student reports, reflecting the large number who have entered elementary and secondary teaching as well as those who have gone into civil service positions. The fields of Social and Political Science as well as of Foreign Languages both lost 6%: so that currently 14% and 13% of the Students grantees are specializing in these areas. Occupatignal Orientation of Grantees. Although the majority of grantees were recruited from the ranks of college faculty members and students as well as elementary and secondary school teachers, still a number of individuals outside of traditional academic disciplines were included. 57 For example, respondents included 118 professional or technical practitioners such as physicians or engineers; 21 agricultural specialists not connected with universities: 53 civil servants, public health workers, and others in various areas of social service; 82 educational adminis— trators; and 117 creative artists. Table II-10 summarizes the distribution of grantees among different occupational statuses at the time of their awards. Table II-ll presents comparable data concerning the grantees' current occupations. Table II-10. Grantees' occupations at time of award. Lecturers Research Teachers Students Scholars Teacher or researcher in college or university 84% 80% 17% 9% Teacher in elementary or secondary school 1 1 73 6 Student 1 5 y 5 72 Professional or technical practi- tioner 3 3 1 3 Agricultural specialist -- 2 -- —- Social service practitioner 1 l l 2 Educational adminis- trator 6 2 2 -- Actor, artist, musician, writer, etc. 1 1 -- Other 3 5 1 58 Table II—ll. Grantees' post—award occupations. Research Lecturers Scholars Teachers Students Teacher or researcher in college or university 79% 76% 20% 33% Teacher in elementary or secondary school 1 l 64 9 Student -- 1 l 19 Professional or technical practitioner 3 4 l 9 Agricultural specialist -— 2 —— 1 Social Service practitioner 2 2 l 4 Businessman -- l —- 2 Educational adminis- trator 7 3 7 1 Actor, artist, musician, writer, etc. 1 2 -- 7 Housewife -- -- 2 5 Other 5 7 3 9 Not employed 1 l 1 l As might be expected, the greatest difference between pre- and post-award statuses occurs for those listing their occupations as students. Where have the students turned professionally? A glance at the fourth column of Table II-ll indicates that one third are now faculty membersiin colleges or universities--the single occupation experiencing the greatest gain. Almost one in ten students can be found in each of two fields--elementary and secondary school teaching or in professional or technical practice. One fifth of the 59 students are still pursuing graduate studies. For the senior grantees relatively few changes in status have occurred since their sojourn overseas. The one field showing noteworthy gain for Teachers in particular is that of educational administration. The category Other for occupations in Tables II-lO and II-ll includes a number of positions grantees did not wish to place under the titles provided--e.g., librarian, officer in the armed forces, newspaper reporter, industrial researcher or private researcher, administrator with an international health organization, museum director, freelance cartographer, foundation executive, editor and translator, secretary in a foundation engaged in international philanthropic activities. Highest Earned Degree. By its very nature the educational exchange program deals with a highly select population. For most aspects of the program it is assumed that the applicant will have graduated from college, and for senior awards it is expected that in most academic disciplines the applicant will hold a doctoral degree. Of course, there are exceptions; for example, in certain areas of the fine arts, graduate degrees are less of a prerequisite. As the data regarding the increase in the number of Teachers now teaching in universities as well as the number of Students now engaged in professional teaching and university roles indicate (Table II-ll), a number of grantees in these two categories have earned higher degrees subsequent to their awards. Indeed, as Table II-12 CU 2P Be nah DU 60 demonstrates, 13% of the Teachers and 42%.of the Students have earned further degrees since their work overseas. Among the Teachers 10% have earned master's degrees, 2% have gone from master's to doctor's degrees, and 1% have made the hurdle from bachelor‘s to doctor's degrees. Among the Students, 21%.have earned master's level degrees, 14% have proceeded from masterfs to doctorates, and 6% have gone from bachelor's to doctor's degrees. Table II-12. Teachers' and Students' highest earned degrees. Pre-award Post-award Teachers Students Bachelor's Bachelor's 20%. 27% Master's Master‘s 56 25 Doctor's Doctor's 10 Other Other 1 2 Bachelor‘s Master's 10 19 Bachelor's Other ' -- 2 Master's Other —- 1 Master's Doctor's 2 14 Bachelor‘s Doctor‘s 1 6 “Language Competence. According to many of the grantees interviewed in this study, one of the most important background variables for anyone sojourning in non-English speaking areas is the level of the individualfs competence in his host country's language. Indeed, the questionnaire item pertaining to a self—evaluation of language proficiency 61 drew forth more comments from respondents than did any other single statement included in the survey. Representative of these comments were the following: I cannot overemphasize the great need for more language Skills on the part of U.S. grantees. It is the grossest kind of exaggeration that foreigners (or foreign scholars) generally speak English. They generally do not, and, in any event, expect educated Americans to speak if not some non-major or esoteric language, at least one of the "normal? languages of international communications. In Italy, for example, if an American scholar does not speak Italian, he should be able to handle French or Spanish. All too often we appear to be illiterate and inarticulate when this is not necessarily the case. As a teacher of languages with some years' experience, I feel the following to be extremely important. There is, in this country at least, a prevalent and wide- spread belief that the panacea for language learning is to throw a person into the foreign country and that by being there he will be automatically trans- formed into a good speaker of that language. This is not the case. After observing the progress of dozens of fellow Americans abroad it is evident to me that only the person with a solid foundation in the language can benefit from contact with native speakers. From the group of students sent over with only the usual inadequate college language preparation, I do not know of one in my experience who did not finally become frustrated and isolated from non-English speaking foreigners. . . . How— ever, I think it pointless to stiffen the language requirements for the awards. Rather a solution will be achieved when language training in this country rises to that achieved in European schools. In response to the language question (Item 70), 64% of the grantees evaluated their competence in the language of their host countries as Fadequate to permit ease in social interaction"; 63% considered it adequate to facilitate achieving the professional purpose of their awards; 14% considered their language proficiency inadequate for ease in social interaction; and 6% evaluated it as 62 inadequate to facilitate achieving the professional purpose of their awards. Since grantees were asked to check all response options which applied to them, the percentages just listed exceed a total of 100%. The figures as given are somewhat difficult to interpret since a large proportion of grantees sojourned in English-speaking countries. Approxi— mately one fifth of the grantees to other lands, however, admitted to inadequacies in their command of the language of their host countries. Table II-l3 summarizes the self- reports of the grantees according to the geographic region of their host countries. Data for the British Isles are not included with the tabulation for Europe; similarly, data concerning Oceania are omitted. Students, with 92%, and Research Scholars, with 88% in the two high score categories evaluated their proficiency higher than did the Teachers, with 80%, and the Lecturers, with 79% in the high score range. Like all self-assessments, these data are subject to individual response idiosyncrasies. It may be that on the whole Students and Research Scholars were more realistically prepared in language Skills for their roles abroad; furthermore, those pursuing rather isolated library research might have experienced fewer confrontations that would lead them to question their overall proficiency. Lecturers and Teachers, on the other hand, generally are involved in situations of higher interaction potential and might therefore have their inadequacies highlighted. 63 mm an vmm mmHUzmbommh ZEDAOU o 3 m 3 new 3 muouommmflpmmco maouflcflmon Ha m m 3» can a JV .3 huouummmflummco hahflmm pm we 3 3 93 m .m .3 muouummmflumm hanflmm x3 x3 x3 3 98 H 203% mmcommmfi mnouommmflumm maouflcflmmn mafiuoaé cuoom cam Hmnucoo ummm Hmm AmonH cmfluwum .MOflHmm .ummm oaocflz com Mmoz poocufl3v mmousm mumHocom commemom Haflxm ommsmcmq mo Ho>mq mm fiwm mm mm 80H wwa can 0 m ma HH mm we Row Ram mmHDZMDommh ZZDAOU 3. can. 3 mnouommmfiummcs haouacwmwn :4 com a .v .3 huouommmflummso manflmm Am com m .m 73 muouummmflumn hauflmm Am pom H mcoaumo uncommomv huouommmflumm Maouficflmon moanoem cuoom + “mom mavwflz ummm Hmm AmmHmH cmfluflum Haaxm ommomcmq mo Ho>oq Hmuucou .moflumm pom Hmoz usocuHBV mmousm muousyooq .mommsmcma .moflnpcooo umoc CH mocoHOHmoum ooumnlmamm .moouomnw .mHIHH magma mm mm Xmo 64 m5 ma hm *mm wmma N m Hm Xao mnemosum mmHUZMDommm ZSDAOU Ae can we huouommmfiummcs haoUchme Le cam H .e .mc mnouommmflummcs >Hnflmm im new m .m .Hc anouommmwumm maufimm Am com A mc0fiumo oncommomv mnouommmaumm maouwsflmon NH ow Ram ma mm Xmm Ha om Xmm muocomoe mfiHUZMDommm ZSDQOU Aw cam my whouommmflummcs maouficwmon Le new a .4 .mc auouommmflummcs maufimm Am com m .m .HV huouommmfiumm wauwmm Am com A mcowumo oncommomv muouummmflumm samuflcnmmo 65 One further limitation of these data should be mentioned. While the language question specifically referred to the language of the grantees' host countries, it may be that some sojourners in India and parts of Africa considered English language proficiency sufficient. The problem is not confined to former colonies: indeed, there is controversy among sojourners in Scandinavian countries and in the Netherlands regarding the necessity for competence in the particular countries' languages. As one former award holder commented, As a Fulbright in Denmark, I found that some grantees did not bother to learn the language, "since almost all Danes speak English.9 That may be true, but language is more than a means of communicating thoughts. It sums up the whole culture of a country, the attitudes of its people, the character of its institutions. I met a lot of older Danes who couldn't speak English; so my fluency in Danish helped there. But more important, I cannot conceive my really knowing Denmark and its people--and becoming a part of it—-without knowing the language. The Danes are different people when they express themselves in English. Their national characteristics, such as their own kind of humor, do not come through clearly. Living in Denmark without knowing Danish means that you see the country through cloudy glasses--you see most of it, but something always eludes you. In discussing the grantees' overseas interaction in the next chapter and in Chapter VIII, we shall present suggestions for research concerning the influence of dif- ferent levels of language competence. O] a] 66 Interrelations Among Badkground Variables Having described the characteristics of questionnaire respondents in terms of the individual items relating to background information, let us turn now to a more systematic analysis of the relations among the background variables themselves. Tables II—l4 and II-15 present the results of a factor analysis and a cluster analysis of the background items. In general, much the same information is produced by either factoring technique. That is, both methods agree in the item composition of four dimensions for the same groups--the dimension relating to home state and language competence; that concerning essentially the combination of being a male and taking one's family abroad; the clustering of items regarding degree change and mobility for Students; and the dimension relating to degrees and present occupation for Teachers (though the items in one analysis are the reflection of those in the other). In two situations--the doublet of items on city size and the combination of items on relative youth and mobility--the two methods of analysis agree in the identification of the dimensions, but the cluster analysis does not isolate these for as many groups as does the factor analysis. A greater discrepancy in the outputs of the two factoring techniques occurs in two situations where a separate dimension identified by the factor analysis does not appear in the cluster analysis. In one case, the factor for Students relating to relative maturity and a 67 l omcmcu ooumon .mn x mm Hm. om. om. H oEHu cum3m um om¢ muHHHQOE ouanuumom «Honfipz wouUMh .mm .mm mm. II II Hm.l 0%.! 0%.! Hm. m%. H%. HHH >H > ON.I II II II mm. II II II OH.I om.l II II II mH. mm. II II II %N. Hm. mm. mm. mm.7 on. 0%.. Ho. mm. Ob. >H >H HHH HHH mm. %b. mm. mm. om. mm. mm. mm. > > HH HH %%. m%. mm. II 00. %m. mh. om. Oh. mm. mm. om. HHH H H H muu< H.moHuHcmE:m conumoflaomm omumHuHcH %uucsoo umoc Ho QOHmmm oum3m mo powwow A.moumv GOHHMQSUUO ucomoum AonEV xom .0m .00 .mm cmouhm ashamm goes .veuHH ”Honssz Houowm oNHm muflu macs ucmmoum oEHu pamBm um oNHm muHO "nonfisz Houumm mucouomfioo mmmsmcmn oumum ofioc ucmmonm oEHu cnm3m um oumum 080m "Honfisz uouomm I"I||'I-l""l""'l"'l"|'-'lIll"-"l|'l""l'llllll'l'l'| mucoc muoco usum ImoB mHMHocom muouou commomom Iowa coaumuom meHpHmoo mason muoco mHMHonom muonsu loam Iowa commomom noon coaumuom meHHm> .mmCHcmoH Houomm Hmcomocuuo umeuH pssoumxbmm .aauHH magma .HHH chcomgm mom moHanHm> mafisc oucH mEouH ocsonmxoma muonHuuum Ho OQHooo Homm .coHuDHom meHunsv ecu ou mcHoHooom .Houomm m on coHusaHHucoo ESEmeE HHosu mcmeE mEouH How ch0 co>Hm mum mmcHomoH HOHUmmH mm. mm. coca monmoc unocmHm .NF 0%. H%. mEHu pnm3m um om¢ .mm HH HH "Honfioz Houomm NN.I ‘ n mm.| oum3m Ho oOHHom .00 mm. mm. >UHHHQOE oanmuumom .mm %m. mm. Anommomoumv .ooo ucomoum .mw an. . up. 30c ooumoo pmocmHm .mn mm. Hm. omomco ooumon .mh x .Nb H H _ "Honesz Houomm bH.I mH.I GOHumoHHmmm pouMHuHcH .Hh Hm.l mN.I Amocomouv .Ooo ucomoum .mo mm. mm. cos» wonmoc umocmHm .mh %m. mm. 30c oommoo unocmHm .mn H HH "Hmnfioz Houomm II mm. II mm. mucouomeoo ommsmswq .on %m. mm. mm. on. topmosvou GOHHMUHHQQH .Hh mm.| Hm. mm.l mm. muud + moHuHcmEom .mm om.| mm. om.l mm. MHcmooO + omousm .mm > >H > >H «Honfinz Houomm I"I|I|I'l'|"|lllII'll'I||'Il|||||""l|'l""|||l"|'ll'll'l'|'|I|"'I|'l|llll"'lll'l: or. H m%.! 0m.! mm. HHH %m. 55. HH mm. 0%. mm.! %m.! >H HHH mm. mm. on. Nb. Hm. om. HH HHH HH mm. !! !! mm. 55. mm. mm. 00. H0. H H H 0m.! 0%.! 0%. HHH N0. %m. H0. or. HHH HH 0%. N%. 0m.! %m.! >H HHH N%. !! !! !! 0%. !! mm. I! mm. 05. mm. m5. 0m. Db. 0h. 05. HH HH HHH HH !! I! !! mm. %m. mm. mm. 0m. 00. I! 55. mm. 0b. we. 00. H0. H H H H cocu ooumoo unocmHm 30s omumoo ummsmHm Amocommuv COHummsooo ucomoum «Honfisz MonmoHU oNHm huHo oEoc ucomonm oEHu oumzm um oNHm muHO «Honasz noumsHO muHHHQOE 0Hm3MIumom oEHu UHmBm um omd "Honfisz HoumsHO coco moumop unocmHm oEHu 0Hm3m um om¢ A.H0Hmv coHummoooo ucommum AonEv xom ]"'II'II"I'l'|ll|'|||lllllll|'l|||l'l"""'l"l||'|'|l'|'l .mm omouhw Hangmm xooe .aeuHH «Honeoz HoumsHO topmoswou COHHMOHHQQG mucouomfioo ommomcmq oumum mEoc ucomohm oEHu 0Hm3m um oumum meow H u HTQESZ HTHMDHU mucop muoco mHMHocom mumusu lsum Imoe concomom IooH COHumuom msUHHQO mucoc mnoco mHmHocom muouou Isum Iowa commomom Iowa mannmumsHo HmHuHcH .mmcHomoH noumsHo unsouH Undoumxomm .mHIHH OHQMB 7O .HHH xHUGmmmm mom moHQMHHm> meant oucH mEouH ccsoumxomn ouanHuum Ho msHooo Mom !! mucouomfiou ommsmcMH .05 %m. huHHHQOE pum3MIumom .mm mm.! cOHumoHHmmm noumHuHcH .Hb mm. so: moumoc umocmHm .Nn 0m. omcmco ooumon .mh x No >H «Honasz HoumoHO 71 higher academic degree at award time (factor number II for Students in Table II-l4) appears in the cluster analysis as part of the dimension concerning taking the family and being a male (cluster number II in Table II-lS). In the other situation the factor for Lecturers and Research Scholars relating to host country, reason for application, and field of work abroad does not appear in the cluster analysis either separately or as a part of the principal definition of another dimension. These items do, however, load highly on the cluster concerning home state and language. Since an oblique rotation was not performed for the background factor analysis data, we ladk information concerning the correlations among the background factors. On the basis of the information from the cluster analysis, however, we would expect the following relationships to appear in an oblique rotation of the factor matrix: factor number II for Students would be highly associated with factor number IV for that group: factor numbers IV and I would be positively correlated for Lecturers; and factor numbers V and I would be highly related for Research Scholars (see Table II-l4). As indicated in Table II-15, an oblique rotation was obtained for the cluster data. The correlations among the cluster dimensions for each group of grantees are presented in Table II-l6. It is interesting to note that for Lecturers and Research Scholars the dimension concerning relative youth and mobility correlates negatively with that relating to taking the family and being a male. The association CHETCLH 72 Table II-l6. Correlations among oblique clusters. .4. - __ - Lecturers Home state, Took family, Age, Cluster description: language male mobility Home state, language -- .15 .02 Todk family, male -— -.10 Age, post—award mobility __ ‘-—_—--~“fl‘fl~-~-*----“--_-*-~fl—-—"-"‘__—-fl---’fl‘u‘n-_"~“-- Research Scholars . . . State, City Family, Age, Cluster description. language size male mobility Home state, language -— -.04 .12 .04 City size then and now -- .14 .01 TOOk family, male —- —.26 Age, post-award mobility -- Teachers Home state, Todk family, Teacher, Cluster description: language male degree Home state, language -- -.01 .48 Todk family, male -- -.46 Teacher, degree . -— Students Home Family, City Language, Cluster description: state degree then size degree now Home state then and now -- —.06 -.19 .50 Todk family, degree then -- .13 -.09 City size then and now -- .06 Language, degree now -- 1A more detailed description of the oblique clusters appearsin.Table II—15. 73 seems reasonable since on the whole the older senior scholars with family responsibilities are likely to be more settled in their home environments. For the Teachers the cluster relating to present occupation along with relatively low level academic degrees (with no subsequent change in degrees) correlates positively with the dimension concerning home state and negatively with that relating to taking the family and being a male. The negative relationship is consonant with other data we shall discuss in Chapter V. That is, among Teachers being a male and achieving a higher academic degree are associated with not being a school teacher now in the multiple regres- sion prediction of professional prestige emanating from the awards. For the Students the highest correlation occurs be— tween the dimension on home state and that concerning degree change and language competence. On the latter dimension relating to degree change (cluster number IV, Table II-15), a high loading item concerns post-award mobility. Thus, the negative correlation between this cluster (IV) and that concerning taking the family, being a male, and being older (cluster number II, Table II-lS) agrees with the patterning of attributes previously ob- served for Lecturers and Research Scholars. As we shall see in subsequent chapters, the factor- ings of the data concerning outcomes of the grantees' award experiences produced more information than was 74 obtained in the present instance involving the background items. With so few background items to begin with, some of the data reduction produced rather trivial doublets-v for example, in the combination of being a male and taking onefs family abroad. Similarly, the doublet regarding city size before and after the award period is readily obvious since the majority of grantees have not moved. The same is true for the clustering of the items concerning census division of home state before and after the awards; however, in this instance the association of these items with high scores on language proficiency suggests that grantees from states including many of the more prestigeful universities (see combination of census attributes in Appendix III) apparently have received what they consider more adequate language preparation. Among the other dimensions, that combining relative youth and post-award mobility seems relatively obvious for college faculty members, as noted previously; however, it is interesting to nOte that for Teachers the main component of this factor involves earning a higher academic degree. Similarly, on a related dimension for Students (factor number I or cluster number IV) a meaningful syndrome appears from the combination of earning a higher degree, becoming a college professor, and moving to a new locale. Since graduate work generally is a lengthy process it is reason- able that period of award loads negatively on this dimension. 75 With reference to the factor for Lecturers and Research Scholars pertaining to host country, reason for application, and field of work, interesting differences appear in the direction of the correlations between the items and the factor for each group. That is, while in both in— stances having one's application requested loaded positively, the groups differed with respect to host country and field, with the Lecturers included in the Europe and Oceania group of professors in the Humanities and Arts, and the Research Scholars including those sojourning in other areas and representing other academic disciplines. Data from the factor and cluster analyses of back— ground items just described are incorporated in other analyses to be discussed in Chapter VII. In Chapters III through VI analyses interrelating dimensions concerning outcomes of the awards and background characteristics of the grantees involve the individual background items. CHAPTER III OVERSEAS EXPERIENCES OF GRANTEES Interviews conducted with Fulbright and Smith-Mundt grantees in nine Midwestern states indicated that the grantees' feelings about the personal relationships they established abroad very much colored their formal and informal dis- cussions of their host countries. Furthermore, the tenor of these overseas experiences influenced the grantees’ continued professional and personal contacts with foreign nationals. This chapter, therefore, will review the award holders' assessments of the number and quality of friend- ships formed abroad as well as their reports of other opportunities to communicate with nationals of their host countries. At first glance, some of the figures to be reported below seem to be gross exaggerations. However, it should be noted that some grantees were in situations of unusual interaction potential--and since, from all appearances, many were gregarious and energetic individuals, their rate of interpersonal communication was high. For example, in commenting on her reactions to some of the questionnaire items to be considered in this chapter, one grantee noted, 76 iI‘r ‘\ Si' .1; 77 It is difficult for me even to estimate numbers in I-19 to I—27. . . . it was arranged that every one of the 300 students enrolled be in my classes. I supervised all student teachers and was expected to lecture or give a demonstration class to every one of their classes and to all other teachers in the school. Many of my students, all of the other college teachers, and the . . . head masters and mistresses invited me to tea. Every educational organization, many service clubs, USIS, etc. invited me to lecture. . . . I organized the first workshops. I was in ten centers, lived in village homes, taught, and talked constantly. Since my return, I receive an average of ten friendly letters from teachers, pupils, and acquaintances every week. I am notified of and send gifts to their weddings, births of babies, etc., etc. We discuss friendly, family matters and professional problems. Our inquiry concerning experiences abroad focused on three correlated aspects of interaction: the frequency of the grantees' interaction with their hosts: the range of their contacts with various kinds of people overseas: and the depth of friendship in their associations (cf. HOmans, 1950). Before considering the summary scaling and factoring of these items let us examine response distributions to certain individual items as well as representative comments from grantees clarifying the personal significance of their answers. Friendships Abroag. Table 111-1 summarizes the percentage distribution of responses to the question, ?While you were abroad, with how many foreign citizens did you establish friendships you expect to be 1asting?? (Item I-l9, Appendix II). The figures are impressive in indicating the extent of relatively close personal relation- ships established between grantees and their hosts. Of 78 Table III-1. Number of friendships established abroad. One to Six to Over Row None Five Ten Ten Frequency Lecturers 2% 19% 37% 42% 785 Research Scholars l 19 37 42 744 Teachers 1 17 39 42 1082 Students 4 36 36 24 2659 Othersl 4 4o 16 38 57 Total %. 3 28 36 32 5327 Column Frequency 140 1484 1926 1734 52842 Total Friendships3 -- 4452 15,408 33,747 53,607 1The FOthersF category includes grantees abroad under special State Department grants. Because of the small number this group was not included in the Guttman, Factor, and Cluster analyses. 2The row frequency does not equal the total number because 43 grantees did not respond to this questionnaire item. 3The figures representing total friendships established abroad were computed by multiplying the total frequency of responses for each column by the median of the number of friends indicated by that column. For example, 1,484 grantees checked the response ?one to five." Multi— plying l,484 by 3 (the median) gives 4,452. The figure 33,747 for the rover ten? column was calculated by adding the numbers which the grantees checking this category wrote in on their questionnaires. Space was provided after this and also after other questions for such write-ins (see questionnaire in Appendix II). 79 course, these data reflect only the grantees' perceptions. Our research design precluded investigating their hosts' attitudes. However, as we shall indicate in subsequent chapters, we do have some evidence supporting the belief that host nationals as well as grantees value the relation- ships established. In general we may assume that relation- ships which are trivial or unrewarding will be terminated when it becomes convenient to do so, or when the cost of continuing them increases. Yet grantees maintain relation- ships after their return home--and this implies cooperation of the host nationals in at least responding to communi- cations, and in some instances in assuming the more active role in maintaining contact. Perhaps we should note one further qualification regarding the figures reported in Table 111-1. Even within our relatively homogeneous grouping of American award holders we may expect divergences in definitions of ?lasting" friendships. Some grantees might consider annual exchange of Christmas notes a sufficient index of an enduring relation— ship. Others, however, delineate further criteria: I consider a lasting friendship . . . someone with whom I would stay in Europe, or who would stay with me if visiting America, and with whom I correspond more than once a year. we have some Norwegian guests every year here in New Ybrk. I have more first-name friends in Oslo, NOrway, than in New York City! Grantees‘ reports of close friendships are influenced not only by their individual expectations but also by the L4. .43 (I) 80 particular cultural definitions of friendship relationships they encountered abroad. Across cultures there is consider- able variance in the length of acquaintance preceding the establishment of first-name relationships as well as in the introduction of a stranger into one’s home; furthermore, there are differences in the degree of intimacy of friend- ship implied by such behavior (cf. Lewin, 1948, ch. 1). In many of the countries where the grantees sojourned, invitations into homes are accorded to outsiders only when they are considered close friends of the family. Thus it is not surprising to find that responses to a questionnaire item aSking the number of homes grantees were entertained in closely parallel answers to the friendship question.l Only 1%.reported no such experiences; 24% had visited one to five foreign homes; 32% had been received in six to ten homes abroad; and 42%)had been entertained in over ten homes of foreign citizens during their sdjourns. In all, grantees were entertained in approximately 61,200 homes overseas. On the average, therefore, each grantee established close friendships with 10 foreign nationals and was entertained by his hosts in an average of 12 homes abroad. Some indication of the personal significance of these figures is given by the following comments from grantees: 1The correlation between these items (I-19 and I-20) was .47 for Lecturers, .54 for Research Scholars, .49 for Teachers, and .52 for Students--all significant 5's. "(1 81 I lived with a wonderful French family and spent many, many hours each week with . . . my landlady, and with her friends who included me in all their activities-—a vernissage; chasse a courre; an after- noon at the Tribunal. . .; tea for an artist, the nephew of Monet: a French wedding and later reception in the groom's home; Concours Hippique National . . .; the International Electrical Engineers' Convention at Paris--activities arranged for the women guests or couples; trips; concerts: lectures; plays; and so forth. The French pastor and his family, and four or five other French families also ”adopted" me. One may well imagine that the day I left to come home was one of the saddest days in my life. I told them at the end that I did not want them to spend any money having elaborate farewell dinners for me . . . but they went right ahead and did so. I remember it was very hard for them to get out to the airport . . . but nevertheless, those teachers got out there. . . . They were all there and they gave me . . . their famous gold embroidery, and they presented me with this flag, which is perhaps the most touching thing. On one side is embroidered the Turkish flag and on the other side is the American flag. This, they said, symbolized the close friendship that we had; and it certainly did. To me, this was one of the most touching moments. I still keep in contact with these people. They write me about their problems and ask for advice, and they keep me informed about what they are doing in their schools. I have some very, very close friends in Turkey, and I certainly cherish them. Professional Contacts. A large percentage of the personal friendships grantees established abroad were with professional colleagues.l Approximately 83,300 foreign professionals were in frequent, face-to-face contact with lAgain, responses on the friendship item (I-l9) correlated significantly with those on the inquiry regarding the number of frequent, face-to—face contacts with foreign professionals (I-21). The observed E's were .33 for Lecturers, .48 for Research Scholars, .35 for Teachers, and .35 for Students. gran fore prof of t inde 11% join of t know by t .H'OO'Um'z-tr-r. 82 grantees represented in this survey. On the average, there- fore, each grantee interacted frequently with about 16 professional colleagues during his stay overseas. Many of these contacts involved actual collaboration on research; indeed 38% of the Lecturers, 61% of the Research Scholars, 11% of the Teachers, and 29%.of the Students reported such joint endeavors with foreign colleagues or students. Some of the far—reaching consequences for the advancement of knowledge emanating from such collaboration are indicated by the following reports from grantees: During my stay at the Institute of Theoretical Physics, . . . I developed a Nuclear Chemistry laboratory. . . . In addition, the newly formed Danish Atomic Energy Commission asked me to train their nuclear chemists. . . . The contribution of the Nuclear Chemistry group to experimental research at the Institute occurs in several realms. The preparation of radio-active sources and the study of radioactive decay schemes, the preparation of Van de Graaf targets, the preparation of chemicals for the isotope separator, and the preparation of targets and chemical separations necessary for the cyclotron group are all regions in which the newly formed Chemistry group works. Therefore, in spite of the great professional gain to me, I feel that my Fulbright Awards and my experience in Europe have been of a considerable benefit to Denmark. . . . I was able to get a Nuclear Chemistry group function- ing which is destined to continue to make a research contribution. I would like to add here that my second year abroad . . . permitted me to make a modest contribution to the development of the social sciences in Italy. For example, I helped to organize both a national and regional Social Science Association. I participated in the first professional meetings of these groups. I persuaded l4 scholars to collaborate in the conduct of empirical research in connection with elections, etc. 83 Classroom Contacts. Over 217,300 foreign students were in classes conducted by American grantees included in this study. On the average, therefore, each grantee who taught abroad had a total of slightly over 100 foreign students. The diversity of teaching experiences ranging from institutionalized seminars to informal classes is represented by the following reports from grantees: I was so impressed with the superior quality of my students at Marburg that I published the following work: Studies in Walt Whitman's "Leaves of Grass,” written by students at Philipps-Universitat, Marburg/ Lahn, Western Germany, Winter Semester, 1953-1954. Gainesville, Florida: Scholars' Facsimiles and Reprints, 1954. -The institution with which I was affiliated had not yet set up administrative organization, nor had they received the anticipated funds necessary for establishing a course in Rehabilitation Therapies, in which I was to teach. Instead, another Fulbright grantee and I expanded the out-patient treatment center for cerebral palsied children and also did much informal clinical teaching and demonstration, trans- lated medical record forms into Italian, had special therapy equipment made, and taught parents of the children to carry on a home exercise program as a supplement to clinic treatment. In general, we aided in laying the ground-work for the university of Rome's course in Rehabilitation, which is now proceeding successfully—-and to which grantees are still being sent. Two other Fulbright grantees and I conducted bi- weekly English conversation classes at the . . . USIS library. Our groups included people from all walks of life, eager for this contact since the host city . . . was without other formal English- speaking representation. . . . our meetings were devoted to discussion of every aspect of American culture, from the arts to farming and the use of umbrellas. (I) ’(J ’(J 84 Z Other Contacts Overseas. In addition to classroom and research contacts, most of the award holders met fre— quently with foreign students on an informal basis. Indeed, grantees reported frequent, extracurricular contact with over 78,300 foreign students, making an average of approxi- mately 15 informal student contacts per grantee. So far we have considered only relatively close relationships between grantees and their hosts. With reference to more casual contacts, grantees reported interacting informally with over 103,600 foreign acquaintances-- an average of about 20 per grantee. While many of these contacts were characterized by relatively frequent inter- action--e.g., with shopkeepers—-in general the depth was such that only casual conversations regarding local customs, American life, etc., ensued. Public Appearances Abroad. With the possible exception of classroom contacts, the relationships discussed thus far have been of a person-to-person nature. wa data will be presented concerning the appearances of grantees before audiences of foreign nationals. Grantees in this survey presented almost 30,000 professional lectures, concerts, art exhibits, etc., to foreign audiences total- ing over 1,400,000 foreign nationals. On the average ten presentations were made by each award holder reporting such appearances; the average attendance per grantee participating in these functions was slightly over 500; 85 and the average number of foreign guests at each function was approximately 50. With reference to other talks of a less professional nature--e.g., on general topics about American culture--it is interesting to note that grantees made approximately the same number of presentations. Approximately 30,000 talks on general topics about American culture were presented to foreign audiences-—an average of about eleven appearances per award holder reporting such presentations. As compared with the numbers attending professional presentations of the award holders, smaller gatherings appeared at each function. Total attendance was approximately 775,500, making an average of 26 foreign nationals per talk. Analyses Dimensionalizing Overseas Interaction Having presented a summary enumeration of responses to items concerning the grantees' overseas interaction with foreign nationals as well as some explanation of the personal significance of these experiences, let us now consider whether grantees can be arranged in an internally meaning- ful rank order with respect to interaction abroad. First we shall present results from a Guttman scaling of these data. Then we shall consider comparable factor and cluster dimensions. 86 Guttman Scale Analysis For the Guttman scale analysis, items concerning the size of classes taught by the grantees and the size of audiences attending their public appearances were not included. While these data were of importance for the research, in terms of the dimension relating to the grantees' overseas interaction, these items seemed more dependent on fortuitous circumstances than were the others. Table III—2 presents the best scales for each group. For Lecturers, Research Scholars, and Teachers, seven-item cumulative scales were developed; for Students, only six of the items satisfied the criteria for unidimensionality listed in Chapter I. As these data illustrate, unidimen— sionality reflects the patterning of experiences in a given group of individuals and is not a property of the measuring instrument, per se (cf. Selltiz, et a1., 1962, ch. 10). Variations in the experiences of the four groups of grantees resulted in different patternings of the items. For example, Item 22 concerning collaboration with foreign researchers scaled reliably only for Research Scholars. While the patterning of items in the four scales is unique for each group, some trends across groups may be noted. For all groups Item 19 occurs after Item 20--that is, grantees who reported establishing close friendships with a number of foreign citizens also indicated they had been entertained in at least the same number of homes over- seas. Thus interaction within the more intimate setting 7 8 no um whomoumo oncommmu m mxooco on HH EmuH on“ umooom ou .mfiouH ecu ou >Ho>HuHmom mchcommoH muoonnsm Ho omnucoonom omnucoonom HOHHm co>Hm ecu mcHuOmuqum Mn cmumHoono on Mme moHHHHHQHuoconoH EmUH oHHmccoHummoU on“ mom mcHoHo3 HHSH Hom .BOHoQ co>Hm mH mEouH .XOOH EOHH % .Ho>oH Hmousu coumcmHmoc osu 0co>on nonopHmcoo mH ucmpcommou fl ecu oHMOHocH mHmchHmE mse m N .HH xHocomm4 cH ocu Ho ucoucoo Honocom one H sm.~m “HHHHHmHoooommmm _aH.Hm "HBHHHmHoooommmm xH.Hm "HBHHHmHoooommmm as.Hm "HHHHHmHoooommmm l s.m a 6H mm 1 m.m a «H on m.m m .HH om o.m m m mm W s.~H m 04 mm w a.» m mm mm m.s m om Hm H.0H a «m Hm _ H.~H a ma mH W H.o m mm Hm «.HH a we mm, H.0H a mm «m m.OH a we mm a.m a we mH o.OH m me am o.m a mm mm W m.m a mo om o.mH N Ho mm m.HH m mm mm H.s m om mH M ¢.h a He Hm 6.HH m we on m.m m an mH xH.o m x66 om $8.6 m xmm am Axm.m m nan om so.m m saw om Hounm HHo Hm EmuH _Houum Hmo Hm EmUH Honum Hmo Hm EouH Hounm mHHo Hm EouH luau IchHmz m luoo Ichumz luoo IchHmz % Ipso lawman: H mflfimflflflm l MHGSUMTB MHMHOSUM SUMMGWQM MHGHSHUTQ .mHmmHmcm onom cmfiuusw nonounm GOHuomnoucH .NIHHH OHQME 88 .mmemue>o ceucemeum mmeu Hecuo Ho Heuficz .mNIH .meoceHosm cmHeuom ou oeucemeum .eue .muHQche .muueocoo .meusuoeH Hecoummemoum Ho Heuficz .omlH .mGOHuoeHeucH HMSmeU cu ceuoeucoo hHucesweHH mceNHuHo cmHeHOH Hecuo Ho Hecficz .mNIH .mcoHuesuHm HmHsoHuHsoeHuxe cu >Huceoweum oeuoeucoo muceuuum cmuenom Ho Heufisz .%~!H A.mHmmHece chu CH emcommeu e>Huemec m mcHumOHocH .H oeuoom eue3 eHHeccoHumesv ecu co m use N eeHuomeumo “EeuH ecu ou encommeu e>HuHmom e meueoumca m Hmouso ecu .eHoHeHecu HmHmMHmce ecu How ueuoeHHeu ee3 EeuH chBv .coumemeu co mnecmHeHom cuH3 couueHOQMHHOO .NNIH .mHuceJUeHH oeuoeucoo mHecOHmmeHoum :mHeHOH Ho Hecfisz .HNIH .meeeue>o cu oechuHeuce meEoc Ho Henfisz .omlH .mceNHuHo cmHeHoH cuHB cecmHHnmume mchmoceHHH mcHHsoce Ho Hecficz .mHIH umSmBH ho BZHBZOU Hflmmzmw 89 of a foreign citizen's home appears to be an important condition for the establishment of a close and meaningful friendship. It is interesting to note, furthermore, that in three scales (Lecturers, Research Scholars, and Students) Item 20 at cutoff level 3 is the first item. That is, in terms of the scalings for the given set of items, the minimum interaction experience reported by these groups involved being entertained in at least six homes of foreign citizens during their sojourns. In the Teachers' scale, this group's institutional relationships are reflected in the patterning of the first two items: the minimum interaction involved frequent extracurricular contact with foreign students (Item 24): the next level concerned frequent contact with at least sixteen foreign professional colleagues (Item 21). For all groups, presenting a number of professional lectures, concerts, or art exhibits (Item 26) represented the maximum point on the scales. Grantees reporting a relatively large number of such appearances also tended to report all the other interaction experiences included in the dimension. If we examine the distribution of respondents within each group among the scale types, some interesting differences appear (Table III-3). Interaction rates were higher for those grantees whose roles overseas focused on teaching. Thus if we divide the Guttman scales at the midpoint (combining scores 0, l, 2, and 3 asopposed to scores 4, 5, 6, and 7 for the three professional groups 90 HH mHH h 0 %% h M m %0 h e HHH o w oH msH 6 OH me m 0H smH o m can m m NH mmH m m hm m mH oHH m m mum a 1 0H moH a 6H HNH a HH em a mH mmm m w NH mmH m 1 mm osH m mH oHH m «N mmo m eH oeH m m mH eHH m 6H mMH m mH mam H mH ooH H . 0H as H n mm H x3 85 0 8H MHH o m me mm o *2 mm 0 WWW“ honesqeum enoom WNW“ hoceswenm encomw WNW“ accesveum eHoom WNW“ mucesveum euoom muceusum mnecomee » eHeHocOm commemem mneusuoeq .memhu eHeoe cefiuusw ecu maofie euceocommeu Ho coHusQHHuch «peouue GOHuoeHeucH .MIHHH eHuea 91 and combining scores 0, l, and 2 as opposed to scores 3, 4, 5, and 6 for the Students), we find approximately 50%950% split for the Lecturers and Teachers as contrasted to a 60%r40%.difference between low and high scores for the Research Scholars and a 66%P34%»difference for the Students. The differential rates of interaction among the four groups make sense in terms of the different expectations involved in their statuses. For example, as the following comment indicates, Lecturers often were asked to teach only one course at their foreign uniVersities: When I got to the Netherlands they refused to give me two courses; they said I could teach only one course. This meant that I gave only one lecture a week. I did my best to try to get a second course, but they refused. One reason was that they had no course under the title I suggested, and it's almost impossible to introduce a new course in The Netherlands. But the thing that was finally deciding--they said, ”Why no, we can't give it to you at the hour it was planned because we have another course being offered at that hour, and there are no free hours left.” I was incredulous about this. I said, ”Do you mean to tell me that you don't offer two courses at the same time?” They replied, ”No, not within the same faculty.” Obviously, for those faculty members who had not planned to do extensive research during the tenure of their lectureships, official teaching requirements often left much time for interaction with colleagues and others overseas. Possibly this factor also made the Lecturers more available for public appearances. Even more than the Lecturers, the Teachers appeared to be in situations of high interaction potential, surrounded 92 by large numbers of colleagues and frequently being invited to address local groups.' Through interaction with their students they were enabled to become acquainted with the pupils' families and other townspeople during their sojourns. For Research Scholars, on the other hand, the focus of their energies abroad often led to solitary pursuits or to intensive interaction with small numbers of foreign colleagues and students. Particularly for those in the Humanities, the opportunity to gain access to rare manu- scripts or other artifacts available only in the host country meant that the grantees spent relatively little time in more casual interaction with foreign citizens or in presenting non-professional talks to foreign audiences. Among the four groups, the Students apparently were in situations involving the lowest degree of interaction potential. For one thing, ”foreign students” are not a novelty in most of the countries where large numbers of American students sojourn (England, France, Germany, Italy). Particularly in the large metropolitan centers, American students are not likely to be called upon for talks con— cerning American culture; indeed, only those well advanced in their graduate research or those in the arts are likely to have opportunity for public appearances. For those who are particularly goal-oriented—-e.g., students in the Humanities gathering dissertation data from libraries, or students in the Arts, endeavoring to perfect Skills under 93 the direction of foreign masters--extracurricular interaction may be relatively slight. Furthermore, as we shall note in relating the interaction dimension to background factors, the Students‘ language competence also has a significant effect on the extent of their interaction with their hosts. Factor Analysis As noted in Chapter I, the same items used in the various Guttman scaling procedures were factor analyzed in an effort to see whether the observed relationships among variables could be accounted for by a more fundamental set of dimensions and to ascertain whether such dimensions would correspond to those hypothesized in the initial attempts at scaling the data. In the factoring procedure a factor corresponding to our dimension concerning overseas inter- action was extracted. As indicated previously, two ortho- gonal rotations were performed on the factor matrix. Since the quartimax method simplifies the description of each row in the factor matrix, we used information from this rotation to identify the factor on which a variable made its maximum contribution. Table III-4 summarizes the loadings of items on the interaction abroad factor for both the varimax and the quartimax rotations. .Data are presented only for the items making their maximum contribution to this factor, according to the quartimax solution. As in the Guttman scaling, differences across groups may be observed in the compositions of the factors and in 94 mm. Hm. 5%. 00. H0. 0%. mm. N0. mm. mm. 00. H0. N%. %%. mm. %m. Hm. mm. 00. 00. %m. 0%. mm. mm. 00. mm. 00. mm. hm. 0%. 0%. m0. hm. m%. mm. mm. mm. %m. %0. mm. mm. N%. mm. %m. %N. mo. 00. H0. mm. 0m. mm. %0. mm. %m. mm. %%. meumum oeuuco ecu ou muHmH> mCHmCeHHm CH mCeNHuHU CmHeHom peumHmem e>ec 0Hm3e eoCHm mmemne>o oeuCemeHQ mmeu Hecuo oeoune peuCemenm .Uue .muHuche .muHeOCoo .meusuoeH HMCOHemeHOHm mCOHuoeHeuCH HeCmmo CH ueuoeuCoo mHuCeCUeHH eCeNHuHo CmHeHom Hecuo mCOHuesuHm HMHCUHHHCoeHuxe CH hHuCeCUeHH oeuoeu ICoo euCecCum CmHeuom commemen Co mHeCmHeHOH # # nqu coHumuoanHoo >HuCesveHH ueuoeuCoo mHMCOHmmemonm cmHeHOH ememue>o CH oeCHeuHeuCe meEoc mCeNHuHU CmHeHOH cuH3 mchmoceHHH mCHHCoCe # # # .ONIHH .mNIH .0NIH .mNIH .%N!H .NNIH .HNIH .0NIH .mHIH muCec Isum HH eueco Ines H mHeHocom coueemem H eueusu leeH H muCeo Iflum H mneco mHeHocom lees coueemem HHH HH mneusuoeH IveH H coHueuom meHuHeso ili Ii COHueuom erHHe> H .mmCHoeoH Houoem N "Hecficz Houoem eEeuH Ho uCeuCoo HmueCeO "ceOHQe COHuomueuCH .%!HHH eHQeB 95 .HH xHoCemmm CH eHHMCCOHumeCw ecu eem mEeuH ecu Ho mCH©H03 HHCH Com m .COHusHOm meHuueCU ecu ou mCHououoe uouoew ecu ou COHuCQHuuCOU ECEmeE uHecu exmfi coHc3 mEeuH ecu Mom HHCo Ce>Hm eum mmCHcMOH uouuemH mm.m mm.m mm.m mo.m om.m HH.N mm.m mm.m "mammoom mo Ebm mm. om. mm. mm. Hm. mH. Hm. mm. meemue>o mCoHueNHCemHo Ho mQCHo cuH3 uomuCou oeCHmuCHmE e>mm .bNIHH I! I! mm. I! I! I! on. I! mHmec HMCOHmweHoum e Co ceouum mHescH>H©CH cuHB uoeuCoo oeCHmuCHeE e>em .mNIHH I! !! mm. mm. !! I! Hm. mH. mCoHusuHumCH umoc cuHB uomucoo oeCHeuCHmE e>em .%NIHH 96 the compositions of the factors and in the relative loadings. Again, collaboration with foreigners on research conducted overseas is involved in the definition of this dimension only for Research Scholars. It is interesting to note that some items relating to continued interaction with foreigners also load on this factor, particularly for Lecturers and Research Scholars. In terms of their factor coefficients, however, these items are relatively less important than the items regarding overseas experiences in determining scores on the factor. Cluster Analysis For purposes of further comparison let us turn to the output of a cumulative communality cluster analysis of the same items. Again, a cluster corresponding to our dimension concerning overseas interaction was extracted. Table III-5 presents the cluster coefficients (analogous to factor loadings) for items included in the identification of this dimension in the initial clustering (where four collinear items per dimension are the maximum) and in the oblique rotation of the cluster matrix. As inspection of the tables will verify, for this dimension concerning overseas interaction the results of the cluster analysis show close agreement with those of the factor analysis. In both of these factorings the highest loading items generally pertain to person-to-person (I‘ .f ‘(ELQI‘CIHW MHIIHHH! iv N .fiwN EFF 97 .HH xHoCemmC CH eHHeCCoHumer ecu eem mEeuH ecu Ho mCHcHOB HHCH Com H I! II I! mm. I! I! I! I! mneCmHeHom oCe mCeoHHeEC CeeBuen eoCeU ICommeHHoo oemCmnue e>em .bHIHH I! I! II mm. I! I! I! I! COHuCuHueCH umoc cuH3 uoeuCoo oeCHeuCHeE e>mm .%NIHH I! 5%. I! ~%. I! II I! II ememue>o ceuCemeHm mmeu Hecuo # .mNIH II I! m%. mm. I! I! I! II oeouue ceuCeeeHm .oue .muHQHch ~muHeOCoo .meHCuUeH HeCOHmmemoum # .mmlH mo. om. om. on. %m. mm. mm. %m. mCOHuoeHeuCH Hesmeo CH ceuueucoo mHuCeCUeHH mCeNHuHU CmHeHoH Hecuo # .mNIH w%. N%. I! mm. m%. I! I! I! eCoHueCuHm HMHCOHHHCoeHuxe CH MHuCeCUeHH ueuomu ICoo muCeoCum CmHeHom # .%N!H %m. mm. mm. mm. I! mm. mm. mm. mHuCeCUeHH oeuoeuCoo mHMCOHmmeHOHm CmHeHom # .HNIH on. me. on. me. cm. on. he. om. meemne>o CH ceCHeuneuCe eefioc # .ONIH me. me. on. me. om. om. me. me. mcmquHo amHmuom cuHs mchmcCeHuH mCHHCCCe # .mHIH muCec mueco mHMHocom mueusu muCeo mueco mHeHocem mHeHCu eEeuH Ho uCeuCou HmueCeO Isum IeeB commemem IoeH Ioum ImeE commemem IoeH H xH > >H HH> xH > >H HH> «Heufiuz HeueCHO CoHueuom eCUHHQO mCHueumsHO HeHuHCH .mmCHoeoH HeuesHo «peonne COHuUeHeuCH .mIHHH OHQMB 98 contacts. Indeed, in the Tryon analysis it is these items which are included in the initial clusterings for all groups. This finding concerning the relative importance of the person-to-person contacts in describing the behaviors involved in the overseas interaction dimension is consonant with the Guttman scaling data where we observed that such items were in the more popular scale categories, appearing as the minimum levels of interaction reported by relatively large numbers in each group, in contrast to the items relating to public appearances which generally represented the maximum points on the scales. For purposes of further comparison of the factoring techniques we selected items which loaded on the inter- action abroad dimension in both of the orthogonal rotations of the factor matrix as well as in the oblique rotation of the cluster matrix. The selected items then were rank- ordered for each of the three rotations in terms of the magnitude of their factor or cluster coefficients. The overall association-among the three representations of the correlation structure of the items appeared quite strong. As one might expect, the rank orderings of item load- ings for the varimax and quartimax rotations of the factor matrix generally correlated higher than did those for one of the orthogonal factor rotations and the oblique rotation of the cluster matrix. In one exception, the Spearman rank correlation between the varimax and quartimax loadings n: 99 for Lecturers was qu = .68; whereas the rank correlation between the quartimax loadings and the oblique clustering was ch = .71. The rank correlation between the Lecturers' varimax and cluster loadings was lower, however, (RvC = .60). For Research Scholars the three rank correlation coefficients were the same (qu = RVc = ch = .82). In the data for Teachers and Students the association between the two ortho— gonal rotations was almost perfect; correspondingly, the rank correlations involving each orthogonal rotation and the oblique cluster rotation were equal. That is, for Teachers qu = .94, and RVC = .83. For Students qu = .98, and Rye = ch = .88. As indicated in Chapter I, one reason for performing two orthogonal rotations of the factor matrix was to observe their correspondence and to see whether a general factor would occur in the quartimax solution. As it turned out, no general factor was developed by the quartimax analysis. In fact, as we shall see in the next three chapters--and as the data just cited indicate-—the correspondence between the two orthogonal rotations of the factor matrix was quite close. Relation of Overseas Interaction to Background Variables In describing the samples of grantees included in the present study, we presented data in Chapter II concerning a variety of background variables. we shall now explore the 100 relationship between these background characteristics of grantees and the extent of their interaction abroad. First we shall present data from a multiple regression analysis assessing the relative importance of background items antecedent to the overseas experiences in predicting scores on the interaction abroad factor. Then we shall consider the relative loadings of these same background items on the cluster dimension relating to overseas interaction. Finally, in discussing the observed relationships we shall present additional data from cross-tabulations involving individual background items and scores from the Guttman interaction abroad scale. In computing the multiple regression of background variables on the dependent factor scores for overseas inter- action, we selected background items pertaining to character— istics and experiences of grantees antecedent to their sojourns abroad. That is, information regarding post- award changes in residence, in academic degrees, etc. were not included. There were slight differences in the items included in this analysis for each group. Information con- cerning highest academic degree at award time was omitted for senior scholars (almost all had doctorates), but it was included for Teachers and Students. For Teachers the three dummy variables relating to field of work overseas were not included (see item 66 in Appendix III), since a ”professional social service” classification of their roles abroad generally seemed more appropriate. For Students information concerning In 101 geographic region of host country was not included since almost all had sojourned in Europe. Thus, of the sixteen variables described in Appendix III, twelve were input in the analysis for Lecturers and Research Scholars (items 63, 69, 72, and 72 x 73 were omitted). Ten independent variables were included in the Teachers' analysis (items 63, 69, 72 x 73, and the three representations of item 66 were omitted). For Students twelve baCkground items were input (items 55, 63, 69, and 72 x 73 were omitted). Table III-6 summarizes the results of the multiple regression analyses, presenting the best least squares values for the weighting coefficients for variables making signifi- cant contributions in the regression equations (see Chapter I for further details concerning the tabular data). Before discussing the multiple regressions let us also present data concerning the relative loadings of the same background items on each group's cluster dimension relating to interaction abroad (Table III-7). As noted in Chapter I, in cluster analyzing the outcome variables it was possible to assess the relative contributions of back- ground variables on the dependent dimensions without the background itemsf influencing the actual clustering process. As inspection of Tables III—6 and III-7 will verify, there is relatively good agreement between the two analyses in identification of important background characteristics vis-a-vis the factor and cluster representations of the 102 Table III—6. Interaction abroad: multiple regression analysis. Lecturers Coefficient of Multiple Determination = .04, p_< .0005 Standard Error of Dependent Interaction Abroad Factor, Y = 9.84 Intercept Constant = 46.27 Standard Error of Co- Co- Student Beta Variable efficient efficient .3 Coefficient Language competence 1.39 .38 3.62 .13 Todk family abroad -2.29 .82 -2.78 —.10 Natural Sciences -2.51 .99 -2.55 -.09 Europe + Oceania —1.57 .73 -2.14 —.08 Age .45 .21 2.13 .08 Research Scholars Coefficient of Multiple Determination = .08, p_< .0005 Standard Error of Dependent Interation Abroad Factor, Y = 9.66 Intercept Constant = 46.66 Standard Error of Co- Co- Student Beta variable efficient efficient up Coefficient Humanities + Arts -3.91 .79 -4.92 -.18 Age .58 .20 2.92 .10 Application requested 3.18 1-14’ 2.80 .10 Male -2.94 1.22 -2.41 -.09 Europe + Oceania -1.84 .97 -l.90 -.07 Teachers Coefficient of MMltiple Determination = .04, p_< .0005 Standard Error of Dependent Interaction Abroad Factor, Y = 9.85 Intercept Constant = 46.35 Standard Error of Co- Co- Student Beta Variable efficient efficient .E Coefficient Age .74 .17 4.39 .14 British Isles 1.62 .78 2.07 .08 Home state then -l.35 .66 -2.03 -.06 103 Table III-6.--Continued Students Coefficient of Multiple Determination = .04, p_< .0005 Standard Error Dependent Interaction Abroad Factor, Y = 9.83 Intercept Constant = 50.96 Standard Error of Co- Co- Student Beta Variable efficient efficient .3 Coefficient Humanities + Arts -4.09 .54 -7.54 -.20 Language competence 1.57 .24 6.41 .13 Natural Sciences -2.95 .73 -4.04 -.09 Period of award - .33 .09 -3.63 -.07 Social Sciences -2.05 .63 -3.24 -.08 Home state then —l.35 .42 -3.20 -.07 Degree then - .73 .36 -2.05 -.04 Table III-7. Loadings of background variables on the interaction abroad cluster dimension. 1 Research Background Items: Lecturers Scholars Teachers Students 55. Host country -.03 -.09 .08 --- 58. Sex: male -.07 -.12 -.08 .003 59. Age at award time .04 .09 .13 -.09 60. Period of award -.03 -.04 -.06 -.06 61. Home state at award time —.03 .000 -.06 -.06 64. Size of home city then .04 -.001 .04 .Ol 66. Natural Sciences -.06 .01 --- -.01 66. Social Sciences .04 .02 --- .05 66. Humanities + Arts -.04 —.16 --- -.12 70. Language competence .12 .02 .04 .08 71. Reason for appli— ‘cation .03 .ll .06 -.05 72. Highest degree then --- —-- -.04 -.10 II—44. Took family abroad -.09 -.02 .03 -.06 1 See Appendix III for coding of background items. n: fix an the 1'0: 104 overseas interaction dimension. As we shall see in subse- quent tables, these findings generally are consonant with data from cross-tabulations involving background items and Guttman interaction abroad scale scores. In some instances, however, it appears that in the multiple regression and cluster loading analyses involving combined attributes in some of the dummy variables--e.g., in the combined fields of Humanities with the Creative Arts--the combined variables actually masked interesting differences uncovered by the straight- forward cross-tabulations which did not combine attributes of background items. In the multiple regression analysis, age appears as a significant predictor of overseas interaction for the three professional groups. The relative magnitudes of the cluster coefficients also suggest the importance of the age variable for these groups: furthermore, the relatively high negative loading for this characteristic on the Student dimension indicates that for this group relative youth rather than increasing age contributes to more extensive interaction abroad. These findings are further illustrated in Table III-8 which summarizes cross tabulations involving the age variable and high and low levels of Guttman interaction abroad scale 1 scores. lPerhaps had the age discrimination categories been finer the relationship between age and extent of interaction among Students would have been clearer. The general trend in these data is consonant with Sewell and Davidsen's report that younger Scandinavian students on an American campus scored higher in the extent of their participation in American life (1961). 105 Table III—8. Relation of age to Guttman interaction abroad scale scores. Lecturers Interaction Scale Scores Age Under 30 31-40 41-50 Over 51 Row % Low (0, l, 2, 3) 52% 53% 49% 49% 50% High (4,5,6,7) 48 47 51 51 50 Column Frequencies 31 174 317 259 781 Research Scholars Under 30 31—40 41-50 Over 51 Row % Low (0,1,2,3) 73% 63% 59% 50% 60% High (4,5,6,7) 27 37 41 50 40 Column Frequencies 95 274 228 141 738 Teachers Under 30 31-40 41—50 Over 51 Row % Low (0, l, 2, 3) 60% 51% 49% 45% 51% High (4,5,6,7) 40 49 51 55 49 Column Frequencies 220 317 390 150 1077 Students Under 25 26—30 Over 30 Row % Low (0,1,2) 65% 67% 67% 66% High (3,4,5,6) 35 33 33 34 Column Frequencies 1532 716 405 2653 In the multiple regression analysis, field of work abroad also contributes significantly to scores on the interaction abroad factor for Lecturers, Research Scholars, and Students. As noted earlier, the three dummy variables representing the general areas of Natural Sciences, Social Sciences, and Humanities + Arts were not included in the analysis for Teachers. In general the multiple regression 106 assessments agree with the cluster coefficient data, where Natural Sciences has a relatively high negative loading for Lecturers and where Humanities + Arts have relatively high negative loadings for Research Scholars and Students. These findings also are supported by the data in Table III—9, summarizing the relationship between high and low scores on the Guttman interaction abroad scale and field of work over- seas for the relevant groups. In the cross-tabular data (Table III-9), however, it is interesting to note that while Lecturers in Languages, English or American Studies tend to be low on the extent of their interaction abroad, those in the Arts score appreciably higher. Thus in this instance the combined dummy variable used in the other analyses apparently cancels out interesting differences for the Lecturers. While the Research Scholars in the Arts tend to score higher on the Guttman scale than their peers in the various combined fields of the Humanities, their interaction scores are not higher than the average for their group as a whole; therefore, the combined Humanities + Arts attribute does not seem to mask important differences for Research Scholars in the multiple regression or cluster loading analyses. With reference to the Students' regression analysis, all three attributes relating to field of work abroad have negative weightings in relation to interaction factor scores. In the cluster coefficient data, however, Social Sciences has a low positive loading, a finding closer to the Guttman NmmN we osH mm 6N New cam «HH eve Ham Rom mmHoamse Ieum CECHOO am we ow me No mm om ow mN mm om coHuomumu IcH cmHm me am 06 am mm Ho on om me No on coHuomueu ICH 30H muCeosum mNN oH mm we NN He «OH mN me mmH msH mmHocmsv Ienm CECHOO ow mm mm om as am mN Nm mm mm me aoHuomnmu IcH cmHm om we N6 om mN Ho me we so No Hm aoHuomumu ICH 30H mHeHocom commemem mes Nm mm emH mH oN Nm oNH NH msH mHH mmHocmse Ieum CECHOU om om we we Hm mm mm we mm mm mm coHuomumu IcH cmHm x3 x3 *3. so... new xmm XS me x8 x2. x3 663633 ICH 30H X 30m Hecuo HeCOHm eOH>Hem eHCuHCo muHC meHu meHcCum emmsmCeH meoCeHom meOCeHom Imemoum HeHoom IHHmfl e>HumeHU IHCeesm CeOHHeEG HMHuom Heusuez Ho HeCOHm HecuO Ho HMUHG ImOMOHm SmHHme Icons umsuo eHeCCquH .eeuoom eHeOe peonnm COHuoeHeuCH CeEuuCO ou meeene>o HHOS Ho UHeHH Ho COHueHem .mlHHH OHQMB 108 data summarized in Table III-9. As the Guttman data indicate, however, vis-a-vis Students in Agriculture, Professional Social Service, and other fields, those in the more traditional academic disciplines tend to score lower. It is interesting to relate these data to those from the study of foreign students in America conducted by Selltiz, and associates (1963). These researchers found that European students engaged in more extensive social relations with Americans than did Asians. Among the badkground factors confounded with cultural background, however, was one relating to field of work. European students tended to be majoring in social sciences or humanities in contrast to the Asians who were more likely to concentrate in natural sciences (Selltiz, et a1., 1963, ch. 4). In our study, also, Students in Natural Sciences tend to exhibit low interaction with their hosts, whereas those in the Social Sciences appear relatively more gregarious. Because of the variance across the sub-fields, however, it is not possible to characterize Students in the Humanities as generally high or low—-rather, they are ”variable” in the extent of their interaction overseas. According to the regression analyses and the direction of the relative loadings on the cluster dimensions, Lecturers and Research Scholars sojourning in Europe and Oceania tend to exhibit less extensive interaction with their hosts than do their peers in other areas: however, Teachers in the British Isles seem to be the high scorers for their group. 109 Table III-10 gives further data in terms of the relationship between geographic region of host country and Guttman inter- action abroad scale scores. As the data in Table III—10 suggest, the conclusion from the multiple regression and cluster analyses concerning the association between host country and interaction applies more appropriately to Europe than to a combination of Europe and Oceania. That is, grantees in Oceania actually seem to have more extensive interaction with their hosts than is generally true for those in Europe—-a relationship which is especially marked for Research Scholars. Thus the decision to combine Europe and Oceania--based on general cultural similarities, especially between England and Oceania as well as on interview data--apparently was unwise. One might conclude that English language facility is the relevant correlated characteristic accounting for the apparent supremacy in interaction of the grantees to Oceania vis-a-vis those to Europe as a whole. Indeed, as Table III-ll indicates, Lecturers in the British Isles exhibit the same interaction scores as their colleagues in Oceania. This pattern, however, is not characteristic of the other groups. Research Scholars in the British Isles actually do not score appreciably higher than their peers in other European countries. While Teachers and Students in the British Isles exhibit relatively higher interaction scores than their counterparts in other European countries, the difference is not so great as that between the interaction scores for meHUCeCUeHm CECHOO COHuoeHeuCH cmHm CoHuoeHeuCH 30H mH N0 005 um 0% 0% m5 Nm Hm mmwmmmwm. 0 0HH Nm% 0m mm 0m 0m N0 N0 meHUCeCUeHm CECHOO COHuomueuCH cmHm COHuUeHeuCH 30H 000H H% 0% Mb Hm hm N%h 00 0% mm 00 Nm N05 0% 0m mm Xom Xme 0H 0 mb mm mm 50 mH NH 0% mm 00 mm m %N 0m 0m nRow Rum 0H 00 0%m 0m 0m 5% ARom RNO nRoma.“ %m mm mm 0% 00 Hm 0 0h NN N% 05 mm 50 00H %% %0 nRom $0M meHoCeCUeHm CECHOO CoHuoeHeuCH cmHm COHuUeHeuCH 30H x 30m eHCmeUO MUHHHC MOHHeEC HeuuCeO MUHHeEC emousm emousm cusom Hecuo CueumeB Icuuoz mHGHDHUGQ ummm ummm 3632 0Ce .mez meuoom eHeUm oeounm COHuueHeuCH CmEuusw ou muquoo ueoc Ho C0H0eH OHcmenmoem Ho COHumHem .OHIHHH eHQeB %m we 0% %mm Hmm 0mm m0% mm om meHoCesveum CECHOU me am me mN mm mN He mH hm aoHuomHmunH cmHm Rum Roe Rum RNA. “Rum 8mm. Ram me Xmm CoHuoeHeuCH 30H eHCeeoO moCMHuecuez hmzuoz meuH MCeEHew eUCeHm meHmH Cemeb eHuCH cmHanm muCeosum be em NH mH am am «He «N mmHoamsvmum assHoo mm be 66 NN ea NH mm Ha coHuumnmucH cmHm $m% XMm 8mm fine I $%m x00 &m% x0m COHuoeHeuCH 30H eoeeuw muCeHHecuez mmBHoz HHeuH mCeEHew eUCeHm meHmH CMQMb cmHuHum mueceeea Nm mm Nm ms NOH Hm mH mmHocmswmum cesHoo om mm NN mm pm we mN coHuomumucH zmHm om be me be mm mm he COHuoeHeuCH 30H mHeHocom commemem 5N Na . we am mm Hm oa mmHocmsemum casHoo me me be me am we om quuumneucH amHm nRNA.“ 85m nRmm Rum $m% RN»). ARom COHuoeHeuCH 30H mm3uoz hHmuH mcefiueo eoCeHm meHmH Cemeb eHoCH cmHuHum muensuoeH .mOHOUm GHMUm CMOHQM COanUMHmHCH CMEHHSU ou meHHquoo umoc ueuoeHee Ho COHueHem .HHIHHH OHQMB 112 Europe as a whole and for Oceania, where the Teachers and Students are markedly above the averages for their groups. Thus language alone does not account for the observed dif— ferences. we might speculate that Americans generally are more of a novelty in Oceania than in Europe and therefore might be sought out more. Furthermore, since Oceania resembles the United States in its historical status as a frontier region, there may be greater rapport between grantees sojourning there and their hosts than is true generally in Europe. These post hoc suggestions do not, however, account for the deviance of the Lecturers from the other grantees. More careful research focusing on grantees within specific countries will be necessary to clarify the significant factors contributing to the Observed differences. Before going on to a more detailed consideration of the relationship between language competence and extent of interaction, let us call attention to the relatively high interaction scores exhibited by Lecturers in the Far East (Table III—10). This pattern is most marked for those in India (Table III-ll); however, Lecturers in associated areas also show high interaction scores: 68%.of the Lecturers in Pakistan, 62%.of those in Ceylon, 55% of those in Thailand, and 55% of those in the Philippines are in the high inter— action category. Part of the reason for the higher inter— action rates of Lecturers in the Far East as contrasted to those in Europe may reside in cultural differences regarding expectations for role relationships. That is, in terms of 113 one of Parson's pattern variables, role relationships in the countries of the Far East generally are characterized by particularistic rather than universalistic criteria (1951, Part 2, ch. 1). Particularistic criteria are dominant, for example, when primary consideration in selecting a person for a given position within a social system is given to cathectic standards--that is, to kinship or friendship relationships between the chosen incumbent and the selector. Universalistic normative patterns, on the other hand, imply the primacy of cognitive standards. That is, universalistic selection criteria involve the application of generalized evaluative measures rather than consideration of particular relationships between the aspirant and relevant power figures. The dilemma involved in trying to balance particu- laristic expectations of a host culture with the universal- istic patterns prevalent in American society is well described in the following commentary on his ”popularity” by a social scientist: I was sought out most of the time I was in India and have been since my return by people who want to come to the U.S. to study. Of course, I'd like to help, but they are unaware of the difficulties involved in securing fellowships. . . . They believe that a personal contact here is the primary means of secur- ing an appointment. They feel that because I am a member of an American university faculty a mere letter from me to any department—-say, geology or biology—-will get a fellowship or an assistantship for them. It was embarrassing in India when children of my friends would come and talk with me about coming here. . . . thhing that I could say or do would convince them that a letter from me would not automatically win them a scholarship. Let us turn now to a consideration of the influence of language competence on interaction overseas—-an important 114 background variable for Lecturers and Students in terms of relative weightings in the regression prediction of factor scores and relative loadings on the cluster dimension (Tables III-6 and III-7). Since for some grantees there are interesting differences in interaction rates among those sojourning in the Far East as opposed to Europe, the data in Table III—12 have incorporated geographic area in an additional cross-tabulation. That is, separate tabulations of high and low Guttman interaction scores appear for European as opposed to Far Eastern sojourners exhibiting high and low scores in their self-reports of language competence (see Appendix III for language scoring). It should further be noted that the data for Europe in Table III—l2 do not include those for the British Isles. For Lecturers and Students a positive relationship between level of language competence and extent of inter- action occurs for both the European and the Far Eastern sojourners. The importance of the geographic region on the Lecturers' interaction rate is even more apparent in these data. That is, Far Eastern Lecturers reporting relatively high competence in their host countriesi languages exhibit the highest interaction scores among the whole group. Furthermore, even the less fluent Far Eastern Lecturers score notably higher on the interaction Scale than the high proficiency group of European Lecturers. The data regarding the positive association between language proficiency and extent of interaction for Students 115 Table III-12. Relation of language competence to Guttman interaction abroad scale scores. Lecturers Europe (Without British Isles) Far East Language Competence Language Competence Low High Low High (Scores (Scores (Scores (Scores 1,2), 3.4) 1.2) 3.4) Low Interaction: (Scores 0,1,2,3) 64% 56% 39% 24% High Interaction: (Scores 4,5,6,7) 36 44 61 76 Column Frequencies 46 248 39 125 Research Scholars Low Interaction: (Scores 0,1,2,3) 68%. 62% 48%. 64% High Interaction: (Scores 4,5,6,7) 32 38 52 36 Column Frequencies 26 328 13 58 Teachers Low Interaction: (Scores 0,1,2,3) 59% 62%. 47% 44% High Interaction: . (Scores 4,5,6,7) 41 38 53 56 Column Frequencies 51 254 19 50 Students Low Interaction: (Scores 0,1,2) 76% 70% 79% 66% High Interaction: (Scores 3,4,5,6) 24 30 21 34 Column Frequencies 124 1460 14 61 116 are consistent with findings from several studies of foreign students in the United States. Among Scandinavian students at a midwestern university (Sewell and Davidsen, 1961) as well as among foreign students at UCLA (Morris, 1960), those rated higher in English language facility by inter- viewers also scored higher on measuresof participation in American life than did those considered less fluent. In another investigation, Goldsen found that foreign students at Cornell who scored high on measures of association with Americans also tended to report no difficulty in understanding American English and to rate themselves as fluent in the host language (unpublished data cited in Selltiz, et a1., 1963). A more extensive recent study of foreign students in the United States also reports a positive relationship between interviewers' ratings of the students' English language skill and the extent of their social relations with Americans (Selltiz, et a1., 1963). In Table III-12 certain discrepancies appear in the patterns exhibited by Teachers and by Research Scholars-- and these may clarify why language does not appear as an important background variable in the regression and cluster loading analyses for these two groups. Like the Lecturers, both Teachers and Research Scholars in the Far East exhibit generally higher interaction scores than do their colleagues sojourning in Europe. For Teachers in the Far East, the relationship between language skill and extent of interaction is positive; for Research Scholars, however, 117 the relationship is reversed. Conversely, with reference to the European sojourners, the relationship between language competence and extent of interaction is positive for Research Scholars but reversed for Teachers. Accounting for the deviant cases is difficult. Of course, the size of the deviant groups is relatively small--especially in the case of the less fluent Far Eastern Research Scholars--therefore, the findings may represent sampling idiosyncrasies. Such a conclusion seems gratuitous, however. Let us consider some alternative post hoc suggestions. For Teachers the absolute percentage differences between low and high language proficiency groups are smaller (only 3%) than those observed in any other group. It may be that the conditions surrounding the status of exchange teacher--relatively high environmental interaction potential coupled with relatively low pressures for research and writing--afford this group of grantees more free time to develop language skills. A type of compensatory mechanism may operate--that is, those assessing their fluency as low may seek out host nationals in an effort to improve their conversational skills. Why would this mechanism operate noticeably more in Europe than in the Far East? Perhaps teachers in Europe feel freer (because of relative cultural familiarity) to initiate and maintain contacts designed to provide language practice. The overall high rate of interaction characteristic of Teachers in the Far East would seem to refute this supposition--un1ess we make 118 the additional hypothesis that the high interaction in the Far East generally is initiated and maintained more by host nationals: hence grantees with greater language skills are more likely to be sought out. Further sojourn research within different cultural areas would illuminate the hypo- thesized processes. In particular, it seems important to obtain data regarding the reciprocities in the interaction between grantees and their hosts and to assess the relative frequencies with which each initiates contacts and follows-up on interactions. With reference to the Research Scholars it is note— worthy that the Far Eastern group reporting low language Skill exhibits the highest interaction scores among all the subsamples of Research Scholars considered. Accounting for this markedly deviant group is difficult. As suggested previously, because of the focus of their roles overseas Research Scholars seem to be less visible and less avail- able generally than their colleagues in lectureship status, a difference reflected in the differential patterning of interaction scores in the two groups. Thus, among the Research Scholars in Europe an increase in language skill level is not associated with as much of an increase in inter- action scores as is true for the Lecturers. It may be that because of the possibly greater information available con- cerning resources, etc. in Europe, as well as the possibly more stringent selection reviews, grantees sojourning on the continent may have a more realistic assessment of what 119 they can accomplish given their level of language proficiency. Research in some fields such as mathematics, creative arts, or natural sciences may actually not require high level proficiency. In the Far East, on the other hand, where institutional norms may be relatively more difficult for grantees to comprehend, lack of language skill may impede the Research Scholars from securing necessary data or gaining access to necessary materials. In such a situation the grantees may develop alternative goals--including increasing their language competence and gaining greater familiarity with their host culture; consequently, they would exhibit more extensive interaction than is generally characteristic for Research Scholars. Another possible interpretation of the observed discrepancy involves consideration of the fact that relative to Europe many Far Eastern countries are ”hardship" areas: thus competition for grants may not be so keen as is characteristic for European awards: hence standards in evaluating research proposals may be more lenient. If this were the case, then perhaps the small group under consideration represents a more dilettantish segment of the population of grantees--a group motivated more by desires for adventure and general cross-cultural living experience than by serious research commitments. Of course, the validity of these post hoc suggestions remains to be tested. In Chapter VIII we shall present further suggestions regarding research concerning the influence of language 120 proficiency on interaction. Let us turn now to a discussion of other badkground variables significantly associated with interaction factor scores (Table III-6). The negative weighting for the attribute involving the Lecturers' taking their families abroad was unexpected from interview data and is difficult to explain. In all, 75% of the Lecturers were accompanied by their families overseas. Interview and questionnaire comments from representativesof this group generally were favorable concerning the roles of their families in establishing rapport with host nationals (Gullahorn and Gullahorn, 1960b, ch. 4). Apparently, how— ever, the unencumbered Lecturers were freer to establish relationships with a variety of host nationals and to travel more to make public appearances. To a lesser extent the same appears to be true of Research Scholars and Students, as indicated by the negative loadings for the family variable on their cluster dimensions (Table III-7). Then, too, experiences such as the following from a disgruntled grantee would tend to lower the scores for the married group as a whole: I cannot too strongly recommend that any adults accompanying overseas grantees bend every effort, both before and during the stay abroad, to learn the language of the country. expecially if those adults are generally very dependent upon the grantee. Ideally, the grantee's life abroad should revolve around his work and his contacts with citizens of the country he is visiting. If his relatives, however, are rendered incapable by their ignorance of the language, of taking care of or amusing themselves, then he must devote a dis- proportionate amount of time to being with them and taking care of the affairs of day-to—day living 121 which, with a working knowledge of the language, other members of the family could see to themselves. Quite frankly, I found that I had to spend more time at home than I would have liked because my wife could not make satisfactory social contacts for herself and hence needed me for company. Further- more, our social contacts would have been more extensive and more rewarding had she been able to participate more fully in them. Social life is so organized that it is difficult enough to make family—to-family contacts without having the difficulties compounded by one member of the American family's not being at home in the language. For Research Scholars the attribute sex is signifi— cant as a predictor of interaction factor scores (Table III—6): furthermore, the attribute has the second highest absolute loading among background characteristics on that groups interaction cluster dimension (Table III-7). (In the Guttman scaling only 38% of the male Research Scholars are in the high score range in contrast to 51%Iof the females. Though differences in factor scores between the sexes are not significant for the other groups, it is interesting to note that among Lecturers and Teachers as well, males score lower than females (cf. the negative loadings of the sex variable on these groups' clusters in Table III-7). For Lecturers the high Guttman scale scorers include 49% of the males as opposed to 55%)of the females. For Teachers the distribution of high scorers comprises 46%.of the males in contrast to 50% of the females. Among the Students the sex attribute seems unimportant vis-a-vis interaction overseas (cf. Table III-7): indeed, in the Guttman data only a 1%.difference appears between the sexes-~34% of the males as opposed to 35% of the females are in the high 122 Guttman score range. Another significant predictor of interaction factor scores for Research Scholars involves the reason for their seeking a government grant (Table III-6). For the senior scholars this dummy variable is represented by a combination of two possible responses--having one'sepplication requested by an American agency administering the program or having it requested by a university or agency abroad. The multiple regression finding for Research Scholars is confirmed by the high loading of this dummy variable on the group's interaction cluster dimension (Table III-7), as well as by the Guttman data where 50% of those whose applications were requested by either an American or a foreign agency are in the high interaction score range, in contrast to 37%.of those stating they initiated the application independently and 31% report- ing they applied as a result of recommendations and encourage- ment from colleagues or administrators. As indicated in Appendix III, the reason for appli— cation variable for Teachers and Students is represented by a different response option from those involved in the senior scholars' coding. That is, for Teachers and Students initiat- ing the application for their awards independently is the relevant defining attribute. In terms of the interaction abroad cluster dimension, it is interesting to note that this dummy variable has a negative loading for Students (Table III-7). The Guttman scale data indicate that only 31%.of the Students who initiated their applications independently 123 were in the high interaction category, in contrast to 37% of those who applied because of recommendations from professors and 52% of the small group who indicated their applications were requested by a university or agency over— seas. The last group probably includes participants in exchange relationships with host institutions--a group likely to receive more attention and have more interaction opportunities than is generally characteristic for students abroad. For Teachers and Students the census division of their home states has predictive significance vis-a-vis interaction factor scores: furthermore, this attribute is identified as a relatively important background item on the interaction cluster dimension (Tables III-6 and III-7). The negative regression weightings and the negative loadings suggest that Teachers and Students from the states selected for the dummy variable because they included many of the outstanding American universities tend‘to exhibit less extensive inter- action abroad than is characteristic of their peers from other states. The distribution of Guttman interaction scores according to this background variable reveals that Teachers from two areas score higher than the group average: 60% of those from West South Central states and 71% of the Teachers from the Mountain states are in the high score range. The Mountain states are represented by high scorers among the Students as well, with 44% in the high category. One other region differs markedly from the group average in 124 Guttman interaction scores for Students: 42%.of those from the East South Central states are in the high score range. Another background variable significantly associated with interaction factor scores for Students concerns the highest earned degree at award time (Table III-6). As the negative regression weighting and the high negative loading for this item on the Students' interaction cluster dimension suggest (Table III-7), Students with bachelor's degrees tend to interact more with their hosts than do those with higher degrees. Indeed, high scorers on the Guttman interaction abroad scale include 36%.of those with bachelor's degrees in contrast to 30%.of those with master's degrees and 31%Iof those with doctorates. It seems likely that the more advanced students concentrate more seriously on specific professional pursuits. Among Teachers the distribution of high Guttman interaction scale scores comprises 50% of those with bachelor's degrees, 49% of those with master's degrees, and only 40%.of those with doctorates. Period of award is another significant predictor of Students' overseas interaction factor scores (Table III-6). In fact, as suggested by the negative loadings for this background variable on all of the groups' cluster dimensions (Table III-7), and as indicated by the data in Table III-l3 relating to Guttman scale scores, the pre-l950 sojourners in all award categories tended to interact more extensively with their hosts than did grantees venturing abroad in subsequent years. Our interview data suggest that those 125 sojourning during this immediate post-war period were more popular and sought after by host nationals than was character- istic for grantees in subsequent years. Table III—l3. Relation of award period to Guttman interaction abroad scale scores. Lecturers Award Period 1947-1950 1950-1954 1954—1957 Row % Low Interaction 46% 52% 49% 50% High Interaction 54 48 51 50 Column Frequencies 28 316 438 782 Research Scholars Low Interaction 57% 62% 60%» 60% High Interaction 43 38 40 40 Column Frequencies 51 331 358 740 Teachers Low Interaction 42%) 52% 52% 51% High Interaction 58 48 48 49 Column Frequencies 92 503 482 1077 Students Low Interaction 57% 67% 65% 66% High Interaction 43 33 35 34 Column Frequencies 166 1135 1341 2642 Actually, the data in Table III-l3 give some evidence of a curvilinear trend in interaction. Our interview data had led us to expect such a relationship; in fact the cutting points for combining categories for this item were selected to probe expected differences. The middle category in Table III-13 represents the era when MCCarthyism reached its peak (1950-1954), with overseas inspections of libraries 126 added to extensive investigations of alleged subversives in the United States. As other researchers have noted, a sojourner's national status becomes a salient aspect of his self-definition in an alien culture (Lambert and Bressler, 1956: Morris, 1960: Selltiz, et a1., 1963). Events such as those occurring during the McCarthy era thus may have notable repercussions for Americans overseas. Among our interview respondents who had been abroad during this period, many indicated that they had experienced feelings akin to those reported by foreigners in this country who believe their hosts harbor a negative image of their homelands--an image which accords their homelands lower status than the sojourners consider warranted. Thus, constraints were introduced in the interactions between some Americans and their hosts during the McCarthy period. Some felt excluded: others wished to be in order to avoid the necessity hf ”explaining” this example of American democracy. Of course, more detailed interviews with grantees sojourning abroad in each of the periods considered here as well as interviews with their hosts overseas would be necessary for more conclusive determination of the impact of McCarthyism on granteesi interactions abroad. Nevertheless, the available data lend some support to the expectation that an event which lowers the status of American democracy in the perceptions of foreigners will adversely affect the relations between representatives of the United States sojourning overseas and host nationals. 127 This concludes our exploration of the relationship between background variables and interaction overseas. Since interaction abroad is a variable occurring prior to the dependent variables to be considered in Chapters IV, V, and VI, the relative importance of overseas interaction scores on subsequent international communication, professional consequences, and evaluations of the award experiences will be assessed along with data concerning other background variables. CHAPTER IV SUBSEQUENT INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION Having noted the efforts of Fulbright and Smith- Mundt grantees to interact with individuals overseas, we shall now consider the grantees' post-award experiences in maintaining relationships established abroad and in communicating with fellow Americans about their host countries. First let us present comments from grantees concerning the personal significance of the experiences summarized in the Guttman scales, rotated factors, and clusters to be discussed later. Continued Interaction with Host Nationals Over 93%.of the questionnaire respondents stated that they had maintained contact with individuals abroad on an informal or personal basis. The warmth of some of these enduring relationships is indicated by the following remarks: I maintain personal contact with my former French students. In 1957 on the occasion of the graduation of five of my students from l'Ecole des Artes Decoratifs in Strasbourg I sent each one personal congratulations in the form of an art text-book. Periodically I receive letters from all students. This brings a special pleasure to me because I have valued my personal contacts with the students as highly 128 129 as our work together in the classroom. I returned to England to the town where I taught, this summer . . . I was received most cordially and entertained by many of the families of my students. I visited with all the members of our staff. . . . I felt as though I had never left the town and was greeted by tradespeople and churchgoers most cordially. I‘d love to go back and spend another year in the Same place. I was so pleased to see my former students had grown into lovely young teenagers and proud that so many of them had been admitted into the English Grammar Schools. In continuing professional relationships established overseas, grantees have not only maintained contact person— ally, but three-fourths of the Lecturers and Research Scholars and approximately half of the Teachers and Students have consulted with host nationals concerning educational oppor— tunities in the United States. Almost half of the Lecturers and two-fifths of the Research Scholars have actually made arrangements with American institutions for students and colleagues from abroad to come to the United States: The director of the English Seminar at the University of Hamburg and I have made arrange- ments to exchange graduate assistants on a university-sponsored basis. As a result of the friendships that were established, at least three of the people whom I knew in Holland have come to this country-—two for study and one for research and lecturing. And some day I hope to bring the man who was my superior because he can make a great contribution to us. . . . Aside from assistance in direct contacts, former award holders have arranged other means of communication 130 between individuals abroad and Americans.‘ Teachers have been particularly active in introducing pen—pals among their pupils. The correspondence relationships fostered by over half of the senior grantees, however, have obvious implications for the development of continued professional communication across national boundaries and the dissemin— ation of knowledge. I have put some of my colleagues in touch with a French professor who has done some unusually perceptive work on Melville, and I think all have profited from their exchange of ideas. One professional pleasure resulting from my foreign grant is the fact that I have been able to offer assistance of various sorts to scholars in my host university. I arranged for a French member of the Section d'Anglais to contribute regularly to an American scholarly bibliography, and I had the pleasure of finding an American reviewer for the recently published doctoral thesis (Sorbonne) for another colleague. Further, I have been able to arrange a lecture at my present college by a French poet now visiting this country. Some-of the continued professional relationships between American grantees and their hosts have contributed directly to educational institutions and libraries overseas as well as to the individuals and disciplines involved: As a result of my trip to India, I was invited to Nepal to become educational advisor to His Majesty's Government. . . . Specifically, I have helped: (a) the National Education Planning Commission produce its report, Education in Nepal; (b) establish a teacher training system including ten normal schools, a degree college, a $100,000 printing press, a demonstration school, etc.; (c) organize and develop a national university: (d) train 37 participants in the U.S. 131 The Fulbright request was for one year . . . after which the Egyptian Government requested my University . . . to allow me to stay in Egypt as advisor to the Egyptian Government. Request was granted: thereupon I became a member of the Egyptian Council on Health and Social Welfare Services in charge of Dentistry in Education, Public Health, and Public Schools. Result: Dental education is set up along American lines, a new school will be completed in September, 1959, and at the present time there are eight Egyptians doing graduate work in the U.S.A. with the purpose of becoming teachers in the new school. I have been working on a project dealing with an exchange of library resources. . . . When I got back I went through the History Department and gathered all the old volumes on American history that were not of much use to us but would be extremely helpful there. I got the old files of journals, sent all of my own copies of old journals--I had complete files of at least three journals going back for about twenty years. I sent all this to Amsterdam, and it helped fill in many spots on their shelves. It was parti- cularly important since they would have to buy these works with dollars, and they simply cannot find the dollars to pay for them. . . . I might add that in return for this we have received numerous publications from the Netherlands. These data attest to the personal and international significance of some of the relationships maintained by grantees and their hosts. Furthermore, the efforts exerted by former award holders in assisting their host institutions, colleagues, students, and other friends abroad give some indication of the commitment of many grantees to the goahaof international exchange-—and in particular to the advancement of knowledge. 132 Sharing Overseas Experiences with Fellow Americans Let us turn now to the post-award experiences of grantees in disseminating information regarding their over- seas experiences to fellow Americans. During the course of interviews conducted in the nine-state survey (see Appendix I), many former award holders and educational administrators commented on the impact of the grantees on their home and university communities. A majority felt that the grantees and their families had accomplished a great deal in creating greater international awareness—— and possibly even understanding-—among students, colleagues, and others in their communities. As one university administrator commented, I think the main thing we can say about the impact of the Fulbright and Smith-Mundt programs . . . is that it has turned this small midwestern city into one of the most internationally—minded communities that I know about. For example, we encourage foreign students to come here and have established exchange scholarships to insure our having foreign students on campus. We also invite visiting professors from other countries who are at nearby universities to come here to give talks, to meet with small groups, and to discuss their countries in any other way possible to help us acquire a deeper under- standing. All this was stimulated in part by our former grantees who have brought us aware- ness of things that are going on all over the world. Of course, communications between grantees and their fellows at home are not always smooth. Those experiencing relatively severe reacculturation shock often cannot help implying to their peers that overseas practices are 133 superior (cf. Gullahorn & Gullahorn, 1963b): During my stay in a European university I came to appreciate the amount of time given to faculty members just for reflection. Instead of being harassed by all sorts of committee duties, I was able to concentrate on my research. I think that as a result my work abroad was one of the most significant contributions I have been able to make to my profession. During the first months after my return I wanted very badly to devote myself to more writing concerning my overseas work. But soon all the annoying committee obligations cropped up again. I really resented these intrusions on the little free time I have, and I'm afraid that in that frame of mind I wasn't the most cooperative committee member on campus. Apparently, however, the resistance to resocializa- tion is a transitional state, as suggested by the fact that three-fifths of the questionnaire respondents indicate they have engaged in extensive informal communication with friends concerning their overseas experiences. With reference to formal presentations,75% of the former award holders have given approximately 65,000 talks of a some— what popular appeal—-making an average of 16 speeches per grantee reporting such presentations. In coping with problems stemming from a lack of a common reference framework between them and their audiences, some grantees have relied extensively on visual aids for communication, whereas others have sought to highlight personal analogies in their discussions of life overseas: I have found one approach which is extremely help- ful and, I think, quite meaningful to many people. In discussing Germany, I use my landlord as a sort of ”case.” I trace his family from, oh, 1896. . . . Of course, one can't generalize too much, but I 134 think that in his life one can find reflected much of the life of Germany. . . . He has been in the past war and was now back in the army as a major. One could see in his life--in the life of the German family of today--the same tensions that are reflected on the broader social and political scene. That is, they are outwardly prosperous, endeavoring to regain their economic position: however, inwardly they are extremely insecure. And I think Americans can understand this sort of presentationr-I think it has been quite meaningful to the unsophisticated audiences. Of course, with academicians, one has to use a different approach. One can't indulge in such generalities and generalizations. Audiences in attendance at formal presentations by grantees total over 2,700,000. On the average, therefore, grantees giving such talks have spoken to groups totalling almost 700, with each affair averaging about 40 persons in attendance. Aside from appearances at various gatherings of clubs, church and civic groups, approximately one—fifth of the Lecturers, Research Scholars, and Teachers have made radio and TV appearances related to their overseas experiences. Newspaper articles have been another avenue of communication for a majority of former award holders. In addition to sharing details of their experiences and observations on life abroad in informal ways with friends, in public appearances, and through various mass media, over 90%.of the grantees in all categories have used their knowledge in advising others about opportunities for study and research abroad. Furthermore, about four— fifths of the senior grantees and over three-fifths of .135 the Teachers and Students have devoted extra time in helping Americans complete their applications for overseas grants. While most of the assistance former grantees pro- vide to students and colleagues applying for overseas awards is done on a relatively informal basis, 16% of the Lecturers and 13% of the Research Scholars have served in an official capacity as Fulbright Advisers in their colleges or universities. Having presented an overview of the data concerning grantees' post-award international communication experiences, let us now consider findings from the Guttman, factor, and cluster analyses. Analyses Dimensionalizing Subsequent International Communication Guttman Scaling Continued Interaction with Host Nationals. Table IV—l presents the Guttman scale patterns for each group of grantees with reference to questionnaire items pertaining to con- tinued foreign interaction. As in the Interaction Abroad Guttman scale, different patterningsof items appear for the various groups: furthermore, in the present instance the four groups differ with respect to the number of items included in their scales—-eeven items scale for Lecturers, eight for Research Scholars, and six for both Teachers and Students. 136 50CH30HH0H ecu Ho mCe memeuceouem Houue Ce>H0 ecu 0CHuomuuQCm an oeueHsoHeO en Nee .emCommeH e>HuHmom m .euomeuecu “oeuoeHHeu Ceec e>ec oCe esoEouocOHp eum meHmom .mEeuH ecu ou 5He>HuHmom 0CH0CommeH muoencsm Ho e0muCeouem ecu eHHeCCOHume50 ecu eem 0CH0H03 HHCH Hom .BoHeQ Ce>H0 mH mEeuH ecu \ eCoo 50> e>ec Cusueu Mao» eOCHm "mSmEH m0 Bszzoo Hmmmzmw .XOOH Scum meHuHHHHHUCUOHQeH EeuH% m eeueoHoCH =N: Ho euoom HHouCO emecu CH mEeuH ecu HHdm eumUHUCH mHMCH0HmE ecBN .HH xHoCemmc CH Ho uCeuCOO HeueCem ecBH smHm "333058658 nxNHm “NnHHHcHUsooummm x38 "333856658 1 $5.8 “333356688 1 _ _ 0.5 N 0H 5N _ M m.HH N 0m 0H _ m.¢ N 0H 5N 0.m N 0H 0H m.% N mH 0H u 5.0H N N% 0N . %.0 N H% 0N H.0H N 5N 0N 0.0H N 0m 0N m 0.%H N om %N %.0H N Nm 5H 0.HH N mm 5H m.NH N Hm 0N _ 0.HH N N0 5H . 5.HH N 90 %N 0.0H N m% 0H 5.0H N 5m 0H _ 0.5 N 05 0H " H.m N 55 mN m.0 N mm NN 5.0 N 05 NN . 5.5 N N0 NN _ m.5 N mm 0H Nmfi N 55 NH nx.%.5 N n5mm NH “KHAN N Ax00 NH .x.%.m N 0x50 NH HMO He Hmo He HMO He mmmo NHm uouum IuCU ICHmuez EeuH uouum Iuso ICHmueS EeuH uouum Iuso ICHmumE EeuH %uouum IuCU ICHmuez HEeuH muCeosum r muecoeea mueHocOm commemem mueuCuUeH i .mHeNHeCe eHeUm CeEuuCO "COHuomueuCH C0Heuom peCCHuCoo .H!>H eHceB 137 mmeHumucHH C0Heuom ou .oue .mHmOHcOHuee .mxoon e>H0 ou muecuo How muceEemceHue ecmE Ho oeueCoo 50> e>mm .0moucm mCOHueNHCemuo Ho mcCHo cqu .eHmec HeCOHmmeHoum e Co oeouce mHeCuH>HUCH cuHB .peoucm COHuCuHueCH umoc NCO» cqu .0NIHH .5NIHH .mNIHH .%N!HH 50CH30HHOH ecu Ho NCm cuH3 uomuCoo ueCHeuCHmE so» e>mm .mmemue>o euecuo an 505 ou penumfieu eueB oc3 uo techno ueE so» mCeNHuHo CmHeuom eEoc use» CH ceCHeuuequ .memomuom Hecuo Com meumum oeuHCD ecu 0CHuHmH> CH eCeNHuHU C0Heuom ceumHmm< .meueum oeuHCD ecu ou eEoo ou euecuo uo mucecsum C0Heuom How muCeEemceuum uoeuHc eon: .meHuH>Huoe HeCOHumospe How meumum ceuHCD ecu ou eEoo ou mCOHumoHHmee uHecu 0CHoum0eu peoucm Eoum mcCeHuH Ho .mesmmeHHoo .euceosum cuH3 oeuHCmCOO .cmouce muecuo cuHB Nuucsoo chu CH mesmmeHHoo Ho muCeoCum Cee3uec eoceUComeeuuoo oemcmuufi .mpCeHHH Ho mesmeeHHoo C0Heuou ou peonfle 0CH00 mCMOHHefid ceuuemem .NNIHH .0N!HH .0HIHH .mHIHH .5HIHH .NHIHH 138 For all groups, the minimum level of continued communication with host nationals involves encouraging further interaction between fellow Americans going abroad and indi— viduals overseas (Item 12). For three of the groups, reciprocating the hospitality enjoyed abroad scales as the second item (Item 22), followed by consulting with host nationals regarding educational opportunities available in the United States (Item 18). In general, therefore, person— to-person types of contacts characterize the minimum levels of the Guttman scales. In general, the maximum interaction levels involve relations with social institutions, sometimes on behalf of individuals. That is, among the Lecturers and Research Scholars, those who have maintained contact with overseas professional societies or other organizations (Item 27) tend to report all the other continued inter- action experiences included in their scales. For Teachers and Students, the maximum level of continued interaction with foreigners involvesmaking direct arrangements with schools, universities, or other agencies for host nationals to sojourn in the United States (Item 19). Table IVe2 summarizes the distribution of respondents among the scale types within each group. For purposes of comparison, let us consider the percentages of grantees in each category with scale scores of 4 or higher. In contrast to the distribution of respondents in the Interaction Abroad Guttman scale, Lecturers and Research Scholars are 139 OH N5 O OH meH N eH mHH 5 m OaH O O OO e HH mm m 1 ON 5mH o NH mHm m OH mOH m mH OOH m 1 0H mNH m NH mHm a OH .mOH a NH OO a 5H ONH a aH «Om m N mH ooH m . HH mm H OH NOH m 5H va N 1 5H omH N r O mo N m we N HN aom H M OH HHH H N on H m mm H xOH NHm O cme NMH O No me O *5 5m O uCeoHem NOCeseeum euoom_uCeUuem muCeCUeum euoom uCeOHem Nocenveum euoom uCeOHem NUCeCUeHm euoom muCeoCum muecomee mHMHocom commemem mueusuoeH .memxu eHmom ceEuusw ecu 0C0Ee muceccommeu Ho COHuCQHHumHo «COHuoeueuCH C0HeuoH peacHuCOU .N!>H eHceB 140 both characterized by a two-thirds majority in the high score range of the Continued Foreign Interaction dimension. Thus, while the particular focus of their roles overseas tends to differentiate Lecturers and Research Scholars in terms of the extent of their interaction with host nationals, the overall similarity of their statuses as professors in American colleges and universities does not appear to exert differential pressures that would be reflected in mainte- nance of established relationships. In comparison with their distribution on the Inter— action Abroad Guttman scale, the Teachers have a slightly lower percentage--45%—-in the high score range of the continued foreign interaction dimension. Students, too, show a decrease in comparison with the previous scale--only 27% have scores of 4 or higher in the present instance. The concentration of Student grantees in the lower scale categories is not surprising since relatively few graduate students or fledgling Ph.D.'s have opportunity to influence organizational decisions about foreign candidates. Correspond- ing with friends abroad regarding educational opportunities, however, appears to be a frequent mode of continued contact and service, as is the arranging of introductions between subsequent grantees and friends overseas. Sharing Overseas Experiences with Fellow Americans. Data concerning another aspect of the grantees' subsequent international communication are summarized in the Guttman 141 scales concerning Internationally-Oriented Communication with Americans in Table IV—3. The number of items scaling for this dimension is the same for all groups; furthermore, there is rather close correspondence in the patterning of items in the scales for the Lecturers, Research Scholars, and Students. As was the case with the scale concerning continued foreign interaction, the minimum interaction level for all groups in the present scale involves encouraging further interaction between Americans venturing abroad and host nationals (Item 12). For three groups the second scale level item involves possibly more active interpersonal assistance in international communication in the form of helping fellow Americans complete applications for overseas grants (Item 14). The maximum interaction represented on the scales for three of the groups involves presenting talks to American audiences concerning sojourn experiences or observations regarding overseas affairs (Item 7). It is interesting to note that the cutoff poinuson this item are highest for the teaching grantees, suggesting a possibly greater personal interest in mass communication among those who select roles focusing on interaction with groups of students. Thus, as the Guttman scale data indicate, Teachers who have made over 50 presentations and Lecturers who have made over 25 such public appearances tend to report all the other interaction experiences included in the scales. For Research Scholars, on the other hand, the 142 .$00H EOHM memmuceouem uouue ce>H0 ecu 0CHuueuucsm 5c ceueHsoHeO ec Nee meHuHHHQHODUOumeu EeuH% .emCommeu e>HuHmom m meueOHucH :N: MO euooe MMousU m umcu om uequHMeu Ceec e>ec UCe msofiouocOHp eue 5H 0Cm .%H .NH .HH .0H mEeuH .He>eH MMouCO ceuecmHmec ecu UCONec Ho ue 5H00eume emCOQmeH e exoecu ec MH EeuH ecu umeooe Ou ceuepHmCoo mH uCepCOQmeH Cm .mEeuH ecu ou 5He>HuHmom 0CH0COQmeu muueflcse MO emeuCeoueQ ecu euMOHCCH mHeCH0HeE ecBN .HH xHUCemmd CH euHeCCOHumeae ecu eem 0CHUHOB HHCM Com .BOHeu Ce>H0 mH eEeuH ecu MO uCeuCOO HeueCem ecB H 1_ c $0.00 "NuHHHcHOCCOHQem $5.00 "NuHHHcHUCUOumem $H.N0 «NuHHHcHosuoumemM $H.H0 “NuHHHcHOCUOumem 0.0 N 0H 0H 0.% 0 HH 5 0. m % 5H 5 w m.% m 0H 5 0.0 m mN 5 0.5 N HN 0H 5. 5 N NN 0H _ %.0 N %N 0H %.0 m 0N 0 0.NH % %m mN 0.5 % 0m 0 %.0 % 0% 0 5.NH N m% HH m.%H % %m 0 0.0 N Nm HH m.mH 0 5m 0N 5.%H N 00 mN 0.HH N mm %H m. %H N mm mN m.HH N %0 HH %.%H N 00 %H H.NH N %5 5H 5. m N %0 %H %.0 N 00 %H $0.0 N $55 NH $0.5 N $m0 NH $0.% N $00 NH $0.m N $50 NH Houum MMO Hm EeuH “Houum MMO He EeuH uouum MMO He EeuH uouum mMMO NHe EeuH IuCU ICH0ue2 w IuCU ICHmuez v Iuso ICHmumz % Iuso ICHmuez H mucecsum 1 euecoeee r mueHocum commemem W mueuzuoeH il .mHmmHeCm eHeOm ceEuusw umCeOHHeEC cuHB COHueOHCCEEOU oeuCeHHOINHHeCOHueCHeuCH .MI>H eHceB 143 .AeHmNHMCm chu HOM ceuoeHMeu meHuomeumo emcommeuv mCOHueNHCe0HO ceuceHHOINHHeCOHuMCHeuCH CH Cusueu eOCHm muH>Huu¢ .eueCmHeuOM cce mCMOHHeEC Cee3uec eOCecCommeuuoo oemCmuHe e>mc Cusueu eOCHm .ueouce 00 Cu muCeu0 HOM mHmmm mCeUHHeEC pemHec e>ec Cusueu eUCH0 .mcCeHHM Ho meC0meHHoo C0HeHOM ou cmouce 0CHO0 mCMUHueEm venueMeu e>ec Cusueu eOCHm .Umouce meoceHuemxe 0CHCHeOCOO muuomeu Hemmmm3ez .eeOCeHuemxe meemue>o ou ceueHeu meOCeHeemme >9 no OHcmm .meQNu euoE HO eeucB n % “mem5u 039 n m unexoeco e05u eCO n N neCoz u H euoom .0emmeucom nmsoum MO memmu CH e0Cmm .meOCeHOCm CMOHueac Ou ueuCemeum meoceHuemxe meemue>o 0CHCHeOCoo mxHeu Mo Hecfisz .mNIHH .5HIHH .%H!HH .NHIHH .HHIHH .0HIHH .0IHH .5IHH «mSmBH m0 BZHBZOU Admmzmw 144 cutoff point for this maximum interaction item occurs at the level of 15 public presentations. Among the Students thisitem at the cutoff level representing over five American public appearances is second highest on their scale. Their maximum American interaction experience among the scaled items involves radio or TV appearances related to their sojourns abroad. I Table IV-4 presents the distribution of respondents among the scale types within each group. As was the case in the overseas interaction Guttman scale, Lecturers tend to have a higher percentage of respondents in the high score range (4 and above) than do Research Scholars. Vis-a-vis continued foreign interaction, however, the two faculty groups had much the same distribution of respondents among the scale types. These group differences in distri- butions on the scales may be accounted for in terms of the focus of the items concerning interaction experiences. That is, items on the continued foreign interaction scale mainly concern interpersonal interaction, including efforts to continue established work relationships. Both the overseas interaction and the American interaction scales, on the other hand, include items relating to public appearances. As noted previously, the item regarding non- professional talks to foreign audiences scaled for Lecturers but not for Research Scholars on the interaction abroad dimension. Furthermore, on the American interaction scale 145 0 NH 0 0H 0H 0H NH $mH 00H 5 0 0N0 0 0 00H m 0H HN% % HN NH0 0 0H 000 N 0H 0N0 H 1 OH 000 0 l $HH H 00 00 NOH mMN N5H %%H m0H 5HH 5 HH 0 0 0 HH % “ 0H m 0H N NN H 5 0 $0 N0 50 00 H%H mHH 50H Nm 0% OI-INMQ‘l-DKOF 0H 0 5H, 5H NH 0H 5 x0 00 00 %MH 00H 00 m%H mm 00 -Or-|NMQ‘LOKDI\ uCeouem NOCesveum euoom uCeouem NOCesveum euoom uCeouem NOCesweum enoom uCeouem NUCeCUeum euoom mucmogum muecoeee mueHocom commemem mueuCuoeH Ho :OHHOQHHumHO .memmu eHmom ceEuuCO ecu 0COEm muCeuCommeu «mCeOHueEC cuH3 COHueOHCCEEOO ceuCeHHOI5HHMCOHueCHeuCH .%!>H eHQeB 146 the cutoff level for the maximum interaction was considerably higher for Lecturers than for Research Scholars—~involving over 25 talks to American audiences as opposed to 15 or more. Thus it appears that Lecturers tend to be called upon--or tend to accept or even solicit--such public appearances more than Research Scholars. It seemed plausible to explain group differences in overseas interaction in terms of differential pressures and expectations in the two statuses. We could similarly suggest that following their award experiences Research Scholars tend to devote their free time to further data analysis or publication of results emanating from their work abroad; hence they are not so readily available for talks to university, community, and other groups as are their colleagues among the Lecturers. More- over, to the extent that Research Scholars focused their overseas studies on relatively esoteric topics, they might have less to report to community audiences than would the Lecturers who spent more time observing their host communities. Vis-a-vis general talks to professional societies, as well, the Lecturers who spent more time inter— acting with a range of professionals overseas would have more to report concerning current developments in their disciplines abroad than would Research Scholars who had focused on rather restricted topics. Aside from these considerations, a further possi— bility suggested by the data concerning group experience in 147 different interaction behaviors is that on the whole Lecturers and Research Scholars are recruited from dif— ferent types of academicians, with those seeking or accepting lectureship opportunities oriented more toward mass communication in contrast to the possibly more data- oriented researchers. In future studies it would be interesting to explore whether the two groups do actually differ in occupational orientation and commitment. On all the dimensions considered thus far, Teachers exhibit a fairly even distribution between low and high scorers--indeed, in the present case involving internationally- oriented communication with fellow Americans there is a 50%w50% split. While Students still tend to be low on this dimension, with only 39% in the high score range of 4 or above, this percentage is higher than those observed in the other two scales. It is not surprising that on the whole the Students' home environments offer more opportunities for public talks--or even radio or TV appearances—-before community or university groups and provide newspaper publicity concerning their sojourn experiences. Factor Analysis In the exploration of the grantees' overseas experiences we found that the Guttman scale and the factor dimension relating to interaction experiences showed a reasonably close correspondence in terms of item content. In the present instance regarding subsequent international communi- cation, interesting differences in emphases appear in the 148 factor dimensions. Tables IV—5 and IV—6 present the orthogonal loadings on the two relevant factors. In testing items for Guttman scalability we made a logical distinction between statements referring to post— award interaction with foreigners as contrasted with internationally-oriented interaction with fellow Americans. As Tables IV-5 and IV—6 indicate, a different configuration appears in the factor analysis. On one factor high loading items pertain to interpersonal international communication with both foreigners and Americans (Table IVHS). In con- trast to this factor involving personal assistance to individuals interested in cross-cultural educational exchange, the other factor involving post-award communication has more of a mass public relations focus, with high loading items relating to appearances before different types of audiences as well as publicity emanating from other communication media (Table IV—6). Perhaps the differences in orientation in these two dimensions may best be illustrated by comments from two grantees. One Teacher thus summarized the assistance she had given foreign and American colleagues. Since my Fulbright Teacher's grant . . . I have: Helped guide the in-coming group around New Ybrk three different years: Served on the interviewing committee to appraise American teacher applicants one year; Helped three American teachers and two English teachers obtain Fulbright or British grants Since; Had reunions with Dr. Edith Ford (British Isles Fulbright administrator) on four different visits to Washington and New York: 149 III vm. III III III mm. III III .COHpCpHumCH “mo: CuH3 uomuCoo cmCHmuCHmz .CNIHH III NN. III III III 5N. III III .mQCHo pquwHHo . ImHHmCOHHMCHmuCH CH >pH>Huo¢ .MNIHH 5m. mm. mm. NC. Cw. ow. NC. Cw. .wEOC C30 . CH meCmHmHom meHmunmqu .NNIHH Nm. Hm. III III mm. 5m. III III .muHmH> mmxu _ Congo CH mHmCmHmHom UwumHmmG .ONIHH mm. In- em. we. r mm. In- an. «a. .mumcmflmuom Com m .>HCC CuH3 mquEmmCmuum mom: .mHIHH Hg. Hv. Hg. mg. m mg. mg. mg. Hm. .CoHumosum M m: mu meCmHmHom UmuHCmCOU .mHIHH mm. 5N. mg. NC. t mg. mm. Nm. 0%. .mUCmoCommmHHoo nmemHH¢ .5HIHH mN. mH. III mN. 5N. wH. III mN.smmmuuHEEou CoHuumvam Co Um>umm .mHIHH mm. Hm. ow. He. mm. mm. He. me. .mucmnm How >Hmmm mCmoHHmfid UmmHmm .wHIHH Hm. gm. mg. mm. mm. Hg. mg. mg. .pmounm monHHm ou mCmoHHmE¢ Umuummmm .NHIHH mqup mumCU mHMHOCom mumusp mqup mHmCo mCMHOCom mumHCu mEmuH mo qupCou Hmumme ICum ImmB Coummmmm Iowa ICum Iowa Coummmmm Iowa N H> >H > > >H H >H u H @9852 MOO. 0mm CoHumuom meHuHmCO COHpmuom meHHm> 1H“ .mmCHUmoH Houomw H "COHumUHCCEEoo HmCOHuMCHmpCH HmComHmmnmuCH .mI>H OHQMB 150 .HH xHoCmmm¢ CH wHHMCCOHummCU wCu mom mEmuH map mo mCHuHOS HHCM Mom N .CoHuCHOm meHqusv mCu on mCHUHooum Houomm map Op COHuDQHHuCoo ECEmeE HHmCu mme CUHC3 meuH mnu Mom >HCo Cm>Hm mum mmCHUmoH HouommH vo.H w5.H ¢¢.H vm.H Nm.H 5m.N mm.H HN.N «mmm¢DOm mo EDm II. we. om. em. II- me. om. Hm. .cmounm mmflnm ICoHumeH HMCOHmmwmoum 3oz .wMIH HN. mm. III III mN. mm. III III .meHmnnHH CmHmHom ou mCoHumCon .mNIHH III Hw. III mm. III wv. III mm. .pmounm mHmCOHmmmmoum CHHB uomuCoo owCHmuCHmE .mNIHH 151 .EmuH mHCp on mmmCommmu mo mCHHoom How mI>H mHQme mom m .HH xHOCmmgm CH mHHMCCOHumma on» mom mEmuH mnu mo mCH0H03 HHCM HomN .COHuCHom meHuHmsv mCu ou mCHpuooum Couomm me ou COHuCQHHUCoo ECEmeE HHwCu mxmfi CUHC3 mEmuH map How mHCo Cm>Hm mum mmCHom0H nouommH Hm.H mm.H mH.N NH.N mo.H m¢.H MH.N mN.N «mummbam mo 29m III III 5N. Hm. III III mN. Nm. .mmHHmuQHH CmHmHom mCOHuMCon .mNIHH mN. III mm. mm. mH. III mm. Cm. .mQCHU pmuCoHHo INHHMCOHumCkuCH CH huH>Huu< .mNIHH am. He. em. mm. mm. mm. mm. Hm. .mmocmflummxm oumsm mo munommh memmm3mC mD .HHIHH om. mm. Hg. 5w. om. mm. mg. mg. .mwoCmummmmm >9 Ho 0H©mn mD .OHIHH 05. mg. mm. mm. 50. ow. Ho. 5m. m.mD CH pmmmmuoom .mmm mo mmmhu CH memm .mIHH up. mo. ms. «a. mu. mm. mm. ms. .umms cnmzm on mCmUHHmEC ou mmeu HmEHom # .5IHH III mm. mm. mm. III mm. mm. 5m. .mmUCmHHmmxm mmmm Inw>o on mmeu HmEMomCH .oIHH mquo mumCo mHmHOCum muonsu mquo mumCo mHMHOCUm meHCM mEmuH mo quuCoo Hmumaw Isum ImmB Coummmmm Iomq Isum Imma Conmmmmm Iowa N HHH > HHH HHH H> > HHH HHH «HOQECZ Houomm COHumvom meHHHMCO COHumuQm meHHm> H .mmCHcmoH Houomm «mCOHHMHmH UHHQCQ HMCOHumCHmuCH .@I>H OHQmB 152 Entertained personally in my home for several days each, at least six incoming English teachers and five American teachers going to Britain to teach; Established more than five hundred pen friend contacts between English and American school children: in fact, I am still arranging at least 30 at the present time; Entertained three times this year an English exchange teacher of art. . . . An educational administrator, on the other hand, gave this description of his post-award communication experiences: While I was in Turkey I took many photographs. In- deed, I had more than 6,000 Kodachrome slides. I felt that I owed a great debt to the Fulbright people and to the teaching profession and to the people of Turkey and indeed to the world, and that I was under obligation to share my trip with others. Out of personal funds I purchased a fine projector and two screens—-good visual equipment-- and during the twelve months that followed my return I addressed more than ninety meetings or groups. Seventy-five of these I addressed at my own expense, paying my own transportation, providing my own equipment, etc. . . . Where real distance was involved I accepted a fee. . . . I deliberately, systematically put in a rugged, strenuous year, sharing my fine experience with interested people. The brother of one of the teachers I knew in Turkey is now studying here. . . I've taken him around to many of the meetings at which I've spoken,and at the end of my talks I've always asked him, VHave I presented your country correctly?§ And he would always agree that I had done a very sympathetic job .in this. As a result of my taking him around, people began asking him to talk, and he often asked me to go along to his talks to make sure that he had represented his views of American life or his interpretations of it correctly. we developed a very close friendship, and I think a lot of people were influenced by our talks. The results of the analyses presented thus far seem to undermine Guttman's contention that from a scale analysis it can be known what a factor analysis will show. 153 Clearly, no one-to-one correspondence appears between the unidimensional Guttman scales and the orthogonal factors. Logical considerations guiding the choice of items to input into the Guttman model produced one type of cumulative principle for classifying items and grantees in terms of their post-award interaction with foreigners on the one hand, and with Americans on the other. The mathematical factor analysis model, operating on the observed intercorrelations of the items rather than on the investi- gator's preconceptions, revealed a different summary principle for classifying the measures and respondents. In terms of the present research, both analyses produced meaningful dimensions--and rather than suggest that one analysis is fbetter? than the other, we would contend that doing both types of analyses is worthwhile. This is not saying that the analyses should be relied on to salvage the results of poorly conceptualized research. In such instances cumulative scales will probably not be found, and the out- put of the factor analysis may fresemble sausage meat that has failed to pass the pure food and health inspectionV--a not uncommon outcome of indiscriminate application of factor analysis (Allport, 1958, p. 251). Let us turn to a more detailed comparison of the dimensions revealed by the two types of analyses. As noted previously, the Guttman Continued Foreign Interaction Scales consist primarily of items relating to interpersonal 154 assistance to friends and colleagues abroad. Thus it is not surprising that correlations between scores on this dimension and those on the factor relating to interpersonal international communication range from r = .72 for Lecturers and Teachers to r = .86 for Students. These figures contrast with the correlations between scores on the Guttman Continued Foreign Interaction Scales and those on the International Public Relations factor, which average around r = .27. The Guttman Internationally-Oriented Communication with Americans dimension includes items concerning inter— personal assistance to Americans interested in cross— cultural educational exchange as well as items relating to mass communication. However, it is interesting to note that these two types of items are not intermingled--the assistance items cluster at the bottom of the scales followed by the mass communication items (Table IV43). Thus the Guttman patterning gives us an insight into the data not provided by the factor analysis. Individuals who make public appearances and use mass media to communicate with fellow Americans also tend to offer individual assistance. The converse, however, is not true--only a small proportion of those engaging in interpersonal interaction regarding international exchange report the mass communication activity. While the correlations between scores on this Guttman dimension and those on the factor concerning international public relations are higher, averaging around r = .72, 155 there is still a non—trivial association between the scale and the factor relating to interpersonal international communication, with correlations averaging around r = .45. As to the interrelationships of the dimensions within each mode of analysis, correlations between scores on the Guttman Continued Foreign Interaction and the American Interaction scales range from r = .32 for Lecturers to r = .39 for Teachers. On the two related factors, the correlation (from scores computed for an oblique solution) between the Interpersonal International Communication and the Public Relations factors range from r = .24 for Lecturers to r = .38 for Teachers. Cluster Analysis As Table IV—7 indicates, there is a close correspondence between the cluster relating to international public relations and the comparable factor. In both analyses the high loading items pertain to formal talks to a variety of groups as well as to other communication media. The mass communication emphasis of this dimension is further underscored in the oblique cluster for Research Scholars, where an item relating to non-professional talks overseas is also included in the cluster space. In this Tryon Cluster Analysis involving dependent items, a dimension comparable to the interpersonal inter- national communication factor appears only for the Students. The rank ordering of loadings on the cluster items is 156 EmuH HMHCoHuHmm mHCB .HHOB mm mmusuomH HMCOHmmmmoum mmCCHUCH 5IHH .Hm>m30CIImmoCmHUCw CmoHHwEC ow mmeu mum>oo 5IHH EmuH wHHMCCOHumev mUCHm qupCspmu umnzmfiom mH 5HHmsuom AHH xHOCmeC mmmv umem sumo UHCQmumoHHQHQ wnu Bonn .mHmeMCm umumCHU mHCu CH meuH quUCwmmo Hmcuo mCu CuH3 omUCHUCH mnm3 mxuo3 nonuo OCm .mmnsuomH ~muHQHme .mpHmUCou .mCOHumoHHQCm o» mCHuMHmH mEmuH Eoum meUCvamnm N .HH waCmmmd CH mHHMCCOHpmmDU may mom mEmuH mo mCH©Ho3 HHCM HomH III III Cm. III III III III III .mmwmnm>o mmeu HMCOHmmmHOHmICOZ .mNIH mm. mm. No. om. I mm. mm. mm. III ..CHCumH _ mUCHm mmusuooH HMConmmmoumICoz .NIm III III III Nv. W III III III 0v. .mQCHo omquHHo m INHHMCOHHMCHmUCH CH >HH>Huum .MNIHH III we. me. me. I am. me. me. me. .mmucwnummxm onmzm w mo muuommu MwmmmmBmC mD .HHIHH III III Cw. 5v. III III III III .mmUCmummmmm >9 Ho 0H©mu mD .OHIHH om. Co. 95. 5m. om. No. mm. III .mD CH pmmmwucom H . .mmm mo mommy CH mmCmm .mIHH am. on. am. am. W am. as. ms. om. .umms numzm mu " mCmUHHmEm ou mmeu Hmfiuom.# .5IHH III III III 5v. M III III III ow. .mmUCmHHmme mmmm . Inm>o on mmeu HmEHOMCH .mIHH mqup mHmCU mHMHOCUm meHCu mquo mHmCo mMmHOCom meHCu mEmuH mo quuCOU Hmnmme Isum ImmB Coummmmm Iowa Isum Iowa Conmmmmm Iowa H H >H H> HH H >H H> HH "HmQECz HmCmCHU COHumuom mCUHHQO mCHHmumCHU HmHuHCH .mmCHmeH HmumCHU umCOHHMHmH UHHQDQ HMCOHHMCHmuCH .5I>H mHnme 157 similar to that for the related factor. It is not obvious why the cluster analysis did not include this dimension for the other three groups. The summary of cluster loadings indicates that for these groups the items pertaining to interpersonal international communication have their highest loadings on the overseas interaction cluster. As we shall note in Chapter VIII, in another cluster analysis involving the full matrix of background and dependent items, the interpersonal international communication cluster is isolated in the Research Scholars’ analysis, as well as in the Students' clustering: furthermore, this dimension appears as part of a composite cluster extracted in the Teachers' analysis. For Lecturers, however, the dimension does not appear as a separate cluster in any analysis. Relation of Background Variables to PoSt-award Communication Dimensions In exploring the relationship between certain characteristics of grantees and their subsequent inter— national communication experiences, we shall consider data from three sources: multiple regression analyses involving background items and the two Guttman scales as well as the two factors just discussed: analyses concerning the relative loadings of background items on dependent cluster dimensions: and cross-tabular analyses involving background items and scores on the Guttman scales. 158 The multiple regression analyses concerning post- award experiences include items regarding subsequent changes in residence and in academic degrees, in addition to the information regarding characteristics of grantees antecedent to their sojourns abroad. As in the analysis concerning overseas interaction, information regarding academic degrees is omitted for the senior scholars (inasmuch as the item concerning degree change is essentially a zero-variance variable for Lecturers and Research Scholars); however, the item concerning post-award changes in academic degree is included in the Teachers' and Students' analyses. Similarly, information regarding present occupation is absent in the senior scholarsf analyses (since most were college faculty members), but it appears for Teachers and Students. As in the case of the multiple regression analysis of overseas interaction, the three dummy variables concerning field of work abroad are not included in the Teachers' analysis, and the item regarding geographic region of host country is omitted in the Students' analysis. Since the overseas interaction dimension is ante- cedent to the post-award dimensions, the multiple regression analyses of subsequent communication experiences include scores from the interaction abroad factor along with other items concerning antecedent or concurrent characteristics of grantees. Thus, in addition to the overseas interaction scores, thirteen of the sixteen variables 159 described in Appendix III were input in the analysis for Lecturers and Research Scholars (items 69, 72, and 72 x 73 were omitted); twelve independent variables were included in the Teachers' analysis (item 72 and the three represen— tations of item 66 were omitted); and fourteen were involved in the Students’ analysis (items 55 and 72 were excluded). Tables IV—8 through IV-ll summarize the results of the multiple regression analyses involving the background items just described and each of the four dimensions per— taining to the grantees' post-award communication experiences. As indicated in Chapter I, the tables present the best least squares values for the weighting coefficients for variables making significant contributions in the regression equations. For all categories of award holders, scores on the Interaction Abroad factor dimension are significantly associated with scores on all four of the subsequent inter- action indices. Before considering other associations among independent variables and dependent dimensions, let us also present data concerning the relative loadings of the same background items on the cluster relating to interpersonal international communication (Table IV-12) as well as on the cluster pertaining to international public relations (Table IVH13). As we shall note in the following discussion of some of the major findings of these analyses, there is relatively close agreement among the multiple regression, cluster loading, and Guttman cross- tabular data in the identification of associations among 00.- wa.~- ma. mm.I mng + mmflpncmssm 160 mo. Nm.N NN. No. pmummsvmu COHumoHHmmd 0H. Cm.m 0H. mm. amounm saflsmm xooe HH.I sn.mu mo. NH.I cnmzm mo ooHumm Hm. ma.mH Ho. ma. nmomgm COHuumuoucH ucmHonmmoo mumm .m ucmcsum ucmHonmmoo pcoHUHmmmoo mHCmHum> mo nonum unapCmum mm.HH n “CmumCoo umwoumuCH om.H n 5 .mHmom Cmfiwpsw pCmUCmme mo Hounm GHMVCmum mooo. v.m .mm. H coHumcHsumumo wamfluaas mo ucmHonmmoo mHMHosom Coummmmm mo. mm.H MH. mN. Umpmmsvwn COHumoHHmmm mo. mm.m NH. mm. chmmuo + mmousm mo.u Hm.mu Co. HH.I awn» muflm suflo mo.I mm.NI mH. mC.I mmoCmHom HMHoom CH.I Nm.CI CH. ©®.I ovum + meuHCmECm 5m. Co.mH Ho. NH. omounm COHuomnmUCH quHUHmmmoo mumm M.pCm©Cum “CmHonmmoo quHoHHmwoo mHQMHHm> mo Houum pumoCmum 5H.HI H quumCoo umwonmuCH om.H u m ~0Hmom Cmanusw UprCmmmn mo Houum pnmoCmum mooo. v.m .mm. H COHumCHEHmme mHmHuHCS mo UCmHUHmmooo mHmHCuomq .mmmmHMCm COHmmmHmmu mHmHuHCE umemom COHuUmHmuCH CmHmuom UmCCHuCOU CmEuusw .wI>H wHQMB 161 mo Hounm GHMQCmum os.a u s mooo.v.m .HH. meCommB mo. os.m Co. ma. mmC mo. mo.m Co. MH. mmCmno mmummfl Ho.I No.CI mo. mo.u corp muHm sync oa.- mo.m- mo. mo.u numzm mo ooHumm ma. mo.em moo. mo. cmouhm cofluomumucH “CwHUHmmwOU mgmm M.quUCum quHUHmmmoo quHUHmmmou mHQmHHm> mo Honum pnmchum quumCou unonGUCH Co.H n 5 .mHmom CmEuusw quUCwmmn mo HOHHm pnmchum mooo. v m .Hm. coflumcflaumumo mamfipasz mo ucmHUHmmmoo mucmnsum 60.- mH.mI Ha. mm.u mmHmH :mHanm mo. mm.m Ha. Hm. swap mumum mo.u Co.mu Ha. Cm.u 3oz umnomme NH.I Ho.CI mo. mo.I oumzm mo noHnmm CH. mm.¢ mo. CH. mm« mm. mm.HH Ho. mo. nmounm :oHuomumuqH ucmHonmmoo mumm m.ucmnsum ucmfloflmmmoo uanUHmmmoo mHQMHnm> “CmumCou umuoumuCH ~mHmom Cmfiuusw qupCmmmn mo Hounm cumchum COHumCHEHmqu mHmHuHsz mo quHUHmmmou mo.I om.NI mo. mo.I UHMBM mo UOHme mo. mn.~ ma. CC. nmougm saflsmm xooe OH.I om.NI mH. Hm.I MHCmmoo + mmousm CH.I mH.CI 0H. mo.I meCmHom Hmnsumz mm. m5.m Ho. 00. omouflm COHuUmnmuCH uanonmmoo mumm m.ucmusum uanonmmoo ucmHonmmoo manmflnm> mo nouum UHmGCmum mC.5 u quumCoo umwoumpCH Hm.H u 5 .mHmom CmEuqu quchmwn mo Honum pumchum mooo. v.m .oH. u CoHumsHEkuwQ mHmHUHCz mo quHUHmmwOU mHmHOCom Coummmmm mo. mC.N Co. HH. Cos» mNHm wuHU mo.I Hm.NI mH. mm.I muud + meuHCmECm CH.I mC.CI mH. mw.I mmoCmHom HmuCumz NN.I HH.5I mH. Cm.I MHmeUO + mmousm mm. 5C.NH Ho. mo. Umounm COHpomumuCH quHonmwou mumm .M qupsum quHonmmoo quHonmmoo mHQmHHm> mo Honhm GHMCCmum CH. u “Cmprou umooumuCH Hm.H n 5 .me0m CmEuqu qupCmmmn mo Houum pumpCmum mooo. V.m ~mN. n COHumCHEHmqu mHmHuHCZ mo quHonwmou muonsuqu .mmmmHMCm COHmmemmH mHmHuHCE "mmHmom mCmoHHmEC CHHS CoHumoHCCEEoo pmuCoHHOImHHMCOHHMCHmuCH CmEuqu .mI>H mHQma 163 Co.I Cm.NI mo. mH.I mHmz mo.I o5.NI mo. HN.I CmCu muwum mEom mo.I NH.mI mo. om.u coflumoflammm omuMHuncH mo. 5m.m mo. mN. 30C Mommmmoum 5o.I Cm.MI No. 5o.I chasm mo UOHnmm mo. mC.C No. HH. Cmsu mNHm muHU mo.I mm.CI NH. mm.I mmoCmHum Hmuspmz NH. NC.@ mo. Cm. mmd mN. mH.mH Coo. mo. pmouflm COHuomumuCH UCmHonmwou mumm M.qu©Cpm quHonmmoo quHonmwoo mHQMHHm> mo uonum UHMUCMpm 0N. u quumCoo umwonmuCH mm.H u m .mHmom CmEuuCO “CmoCmmwn mo Conan UHCOCmum mooo. V.m_~mH. u COHumCHEHmumn mHmHuHCS mo “CmHonmmoo mqupCum mo. H5.N NH. mm. Con» mumum meow mo. mm.N mo. mH. oUCwummfioo mmmsmCmq mo.I mm.NI No. 5o.I pumBm mo coHuwm NH. mm.C mo. mH. mud Nm. Co.HH Ho. mo. pmouflm COHuomnmuCH ucmHUHmmmoo mumm m.unmosum uanonmmoo ucwHonmmoo mHQmHum> mo nouum pumpCmum 5m.I n quumCoo ummuuquH Hm...” H % swdmum Human—.050 pflmflfiwmwfl m0 HOHHH UHGUGMHm mooo. v.m..mH. n coHumaHsumumo mHmHuH22 mo ucmHonmmoo mumsomma 5o. mo.N 0N.H mC.N mez NH.I mo.mu CH. mm.u oumzm mo Coflnmm CH. mm.m mm.. om.m omonnm saflsmm xooe om. mm.mH mo. om. amounm qofluomnwucH UCwHUHmmwoo muwm M.quwCum quHUHHmwOU quHUHmwwoo mHQMHHm> mo Hongm QCMUCmum Nm.N5 n quumCou ummoumuCH 5 .Couomm quprmmn mo HOHHm onmvaum COHCMCHECwqu mHQHuHCS mo uCoHonwmoo mC.w mooo. v m..mm. mumHOCom Coumwmmm 4 6| IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII l 5o.I Cm.NI C5. N5.HI munm + mmHuHCmECm Ho. mm.m om. om.H wmumwswmn COHumoHHCCC 5o.I mC.NI NN. Nm.I Con» 5uHo mo mNHm 0H. Hm.m mm. Nm.N mmonHom Hmnspmz 0H. 0C.m mo. mH.N MHmeoo + mmousm Hm. Ho.oH mo. Hm. cwouflm COHuomnquH UCmHonmmoo mumm .M quUCum quHUHmmmou quHonwmou mHQmHHm> mo Hounm UHMpCmum mo.CN n “Cameou pmmoumuCH Cm.m 5 .Houumm quUCwmmn mo Hounm pnmoCmum mooo. v.m .mN. u COHumCHEkumQ mHmHuHCS mo quHonmmou mumusuomq .mmm5HMCm ConmmummH mHQHHHCE "mnouumm COHumoHCDEEoo HCCOHHMCHmuCH HMCOmHmmHmuCH .OHI>H mHQmB 165 Co. CN.N mm. 5m. 30C Hommmmonm Co.I CC.NI mm. mN.HI mmoCmHom Hmusumz Co. 5C.N HN. Hm. monummEoo mmMCmCmq mo. mm.m Hm. mm. mmcmnu mmnmmo Co.I on.mu CH. HC.I away suHu mo muHm OH. mo.m mN. mm.H wmfl CH.I mm.5I mo. mo.I ©Cm3m mo COHCmm mC. mo.5N No. oC. pmounm COHuomHmuCH ucmHonmmoo mumm I.ucmcsum ucmHonmmoo ucmHUHmmmoo mHQmHum> mo Conum pumpCmum 0N.5N u quumCoo umwuuquH C©.m n 5.uou0mm “CmpCmmmn mo Conan wnmchum mooo. V.m .5N. u COHumCHEHmumn mHmHuHCS mo quHonmwoo mqupsum mo.I NH.NI mm. oH.HI mmHmH CmHuHum mo.I mH.NI mo. NC.HI COHumoHHmmm omHMHuHCH mo. 5N.N mm. oN.H CmCu mumum meow mH. CN.5 CH. Ho.H mmd 5C. m5.5H mo. 5C. nmouflm CoHuomumuCH “CwHonmmoo mumm M.quUsum prHonmmoo quHonmmoo mHQMHum> mo uounm pumnCmum mm.NN u quumCou ummoumUCH I mm.m u 5 .HOpomm uCopCmmmn mo Honum pumpCmum mooo.v.m .mm. coHumCHsnmumo mHCHuHsz mo ucmHUHmmmoo mHmCommB mo.I mN.NI mC. HH.HI 5uHHHQOE ©Hm3mIpmom mo.I mC.NI 55. mm.HI meCmHom Hmusumz mH.I Hm.mu om. Hm.CI mHCmmuo + amousm 5m. HH.HH mo. 5m. pmounm COHuomumuCH “CwHonmmou mumm M.qu©Cum quHonmmoo quHonmmoo GHQMHHM> mo Houum UHCCCmum Hm.m5 n quumCoo ummoumUCH Ho.m n 5 .Houomm quoComwn mo Houum puprmum mooo. v.m ~ON. n COHHMCHEHmqu mHmHuHCz mo quHonmmoo mHMHOCUm Coummmmm 5o.I mC.NI No. mm.HI pmummsvmu COHumoHHmmd CH.I MC.MI mm. 5m.NI munm + mmHuHCmECm HH. mm.m ON. m5. Cmnu mNHm 5uHU mH.I mm.CI mm. HH.CI mmUCmHom kusumz 5m.I mm.NHI mm. CC.5I mHCmmUO + mmonsm mm. 5o.mH mo. mm. vmonnm COHuumumuCH pamfloflmmooo mumm m.ucmmsum ucmHonmmoo uanonmmoo manmflum> mo Conga pHMUCmum Nm.Cm n #CmumCoo unmonUCH No.m n 5 .Houomm “CmUCome mo Conan UHMUCmum mooo. V.m .mm. H CoHuMCHEHmqu mHmHuHCz mo quHonmmou mnmnsuomn .mmm5HMCm ConmmHmmH mHmHuHCE umHouomm mCOHumHmH UHHQSQ HMCOHHMCkuCH .HHI>H mHQmB CE. I. “CH“.EHEH Co.I 3.”- 0C. mmf % 60.- oo.mu mm. CH.HI Co.I mm.m- mo. mo.m- mmoqmnom Hmuzumz 50.- mm.m- mo. Cm.u oumzm mo Coflnmm 0H.I ms.m- 0C. om.~I cosumonammm omumHuHcH CH. 50.5 NH. mm. Cmsu wNHm 5UHU ma. Hm.OH mm. om.m «CC Hm. mo.mH mo. Hm. amounm cofluomumuaH quHonmwoo mumm M.qu©Cum quHonmmoo uCOHUHmmmou GHQMHHM> no woman UCMOCmum . mm.Co n quumCoo umwunmuCH Nm.m u 5 .Houumm “CmOCmmwn mo Counm pumchum m mooo. v.m .mH. n COHumCHEHmumn mHmHuHsz mo quHonmmoo l mUCmoCum 5o.I N5.NI 5m. Cm.HI mHmz mo. m5.N Nm. mm. moCmpmeoo mmmsmCmH mo. NH.m om. 5m.H Conn mumum meow mo.I Hm.mI NH. 0C.I nnmzm mo UOHMmm HH. mH.C mH. m5. CmCu mNHm 5uHo 0N. om.5 mH. mo.H mod mm. mm.HH mo. mm. pmounm CoHHUCHCUCH UCwHonmmoo mumm m.qupCum pCmHonmmoo quHonmmoo mHQMHHm> mo Monum pumquum NN.C5 u quumCou ummoumuCH 5 ~Houomm quCCmmmn no woman UnmpCmum COHumCHEHmqu mHmHuHsz mo quHonmmou om.m mooo. v.m .HN. mHmCommB Table IV412. 168 Loadings of background variables on the interpersonal international communication cluster dimension. Research Scholars Teachers1 Students Background Item:2 55. HOst country .09 —.57 --- 58. Sex: male .07 .28 .Ol 59. Age at award time -.01 .30 .09 60. Period of award -.13 -.05 -.18 61. Hbme state at award time .01 -.03 .06 63. Post-award mobility -.10 .13 .02 64. Size of home city then -.02 -.12 -.08 66. Natural Sciences -.08 --- -.04 66. Social Sciences .08 --— .04 66. Humanities + Arts -.05 -—- -.06 69. Present occupation --- —.38 .03 70. Language competence .03 -.31 .13 71. Reason for application .05 —.20 -.05 72 x 73. Degree change --- -.01 .08 II—44. Took family abroad .10 .21 .05 1The loadings for Research Scholars and Teachers are from the cluster analysis of the full set of background and dependent items (see Chapter VII), inasmuch as this dimension appears only for Students in the cluster analysis of dependent variables. The dimension was not isolated in any of the analyses for Lecturers. 2See Appendix III for coding of background items. 169 Table IVH13. Loadings of background variables on the international public relations cluster dimension. 1 Research Background Items: Lecturers Scholars Teachers Students 55. HOst country -.43 -.24 -.15 —-- 59. Age at award time .09 .16 .25 .19 60. Period of award -.01 .Ol -.06 —.09 61. Home state at award time -.10 .06 .16 -.04 63. Post—award 64. Size of home city then .15 .08 .13 .15 66. Natural Sciences -.13 -.06 --- -.08 66. Social Sciences .04 .08 --- .02 66. Humanities + Arts -.16 —.05 —-— -.02 69. Present occupation --- --- .09 .06 70. Language competence -.O8 .07 .23 .08 71. Reason for appli— cation -.18 .04 -.03 -.12 72 x 73. Degree change -—- —-- —.04 .05 II-44. Todk family abroad -.10 .10 -.Ol .03 1See Appendix III for coding of background items. 170 background variables and dependent communication dimensions. With reference to the grantees' host countries, interesting differences appear in relation to the post- award interaction indices. While Lecturers who sojourned in Europe and Oceania tend to be the high scorers for their group on the Guttman continued foreign interaction scale and on the interpersonal international communication factor (see the multiple regression data in Tables IVH8 and IVH10), the converse is true on the Guttman American interaction dimension and on the factor as well as the cluster dimensions concerning international public relations (Tables IVC9, IV-ll, and IVH13). Indeed, cross-tabulations involving the host country item and Guttman scale data indicate that among the Lecturers, approximately four-fifths of these sojourning in Europe or in Oceania scored high on the continued foreign interaction dimension, in contrast to 57% who scored high on the Guttman American interaction index. On the latter dimension, 73% of the Lecturers who sojourned in the Far East and in the Near and Middle East were among the high scorers. Much the samepattern appears for Research Scholars. As the multiple regression and cluster loading data indicate, host country makes an important difference in post-award communication with fellow Americans (Tables IV-9, IVHll, and IV—l3). According to cross—tabulations involving host country and the Guttman American interaction scale, Research Scholars who sojourned in Europe and Oceania have fewer high scorers 171 than do those whose awards took them to the Far East (50% vs. 60%). Withreference to continued foreign interaction and interpersonal international communication, the differences between Research Scholars who sojourned in Europe or Oceania and those in other regions is not identified as significant in the multiple regression analyses; however, the positive loading for host country on the interpersonal international communication cluster (Table IV-12) suggests the same trend in relationship as observed for the Lecturers. This general trend is also supported by the cross-tabular data, which indicates that Research Scholars sojourning in Europeand Oceania score slightly higher on the Guttman continued foreign interaction scale than do their colleagues in the Far East (75%.vs. 71%»among the high scorers). As was true of the senior scholars, Teachers sojourn- ing in Far Eastern countries also tend to have more high scorers on the Guttman American interaction scale than do those in Europe and Oceania (61% vs. 55%). This relative concentration of Far Eastern grantees among the high scorers on the American interaction scale probably reflects a greater interest by American audiences in learning more about less familiar countries. For Teachers and Students a consistent linear relationship appears between age and scores on all four communication dimensions. The findings of the multiple regression and cluster loading analyses (Tables IVC8 through IVH13) are confirmed by the cross-tabular data which indicate 172 that high scorers on the Guttman continued foreign interaction scale include 61% of the Teachers over 51 but only 28% of those under 30, and high scorers on the Guttman American interaction scale comprise 56% of the Teachers over 51 in contrast to 40% of those under 30. Similarly for Students, the Guttman continued foreign interaction scale includes 46% of those over 30 and 41% of those under 25 in the high score range, and high scorers on the Students' Guttman American interaction scale comprise 51% of those over 30 as opposed to 37%Iof those under 25. Irregularities appear in the relationship between age and subsequent interaction for Lecturers and Research Scholars. For these groups a middle age category tends to have higher scores, particularly with reference to the dimensions concerning communication with fellow Americans. That is, on the Guttman American interaction scale a higher proportion of Lecturers and Research Scholars in the 40 to 50 age range are among the high scorers (60% and 56%, respectively) than is true of their peers under 30 (48% and 37%, respectively, among the high scorers) or of their colleagues over 51 (55% and 48%, respectively, in the high range). With reference to the sex attribute, interesting differences appear in the grantees' post-award communication patterns. While the attribute "male" is identified as significant only for Research Scholars in the multiple regression analysis concerning interpersonal international 173 communhzations (Table IVHlO), the cluster loading data suggest a similar association for Teachers (Table IV-lZ), and high scorers on the Students' Guttman continued foreign inter- action scale also include slightly more males than females (44% vs. 40%). The pattern is reversed on the Guttman continued foreign interaction scale for Lecturers, however, with 76% of the females as contrasted to 66%Iof the males among the high scorers. As to the dimensions concerning internationally- oriented communication with fellow Americans, females tend to be the high scorers among all categories of grantees. While this relationship is identified as significant in multiple regression analyses only for Teachers (Table IVCll) and Students (Tables IV-9 and IV-ll), the negative loadings of the sex attribute on the public relations cluster suggest a similar trend for Lecturers and Research Scholars, as well (Table IVH13). These findings are confirmed in the distri— butions of respondents on the Guttman American interaction scales, where females consistently have higher proportions among the high scorers--64%»vs. 54%Ifor Lecturers: 57%»vs. 48% for Research Scholars: 54% vs. 44%.for Teachers: and 44%.vs. 37% for Students. Another background variable showing significant association with some of the subsequent communication indices concerns the reason for the grantees' applications (Tables IV-8 through IVHll). Among Lecturers, Research Scholars, and Teachers high scorers on the dimensions concerning 174 continued foreign interaction and interpersonal international communication tend to come from those whose applications were requested--and in particular requested by an overseas university, school, or agency (see also the cluster loading data in Table IV—12). On the Guttman continued foreign interaction scale, high scorers include 70%»of the Lecturers, 88% of the Research Scholars, and 78% of the Teachers whose applications were requested by institutions abroad. Since this subsample of grantees presumably was selected to consult or collaborate on relatively specific topics of importance to their host institutions, it is not surprising that the 'consultancy and collaboration has continued even after the grantees' return. According to the cluster loading data (Table IV-l3) and to the multiple regression analysis for Research Scholars (Table IVHll), post-award mobility tends to have a negative effect on internationally-oriented public relations. In general, grantees who have moved to a different census region since their sojourns report fewer communication experiences-—probably because they are less well known in their new environments and possibly less available for public appearances because of other pressures involved in resettling. On the Guttman American interaction scales the following differences appear in the distribution of high scorers among those residing in the same state as they had before their awards as contrasted to those who have moved to a new census division: 58% vs. 48% for Lecturers: 51% vs. 175 48% for Lecturers; 51% vs. 39% for Research Scholars; 57% vs. 45%.for Teachers: and 40% vs. 36%.for Students. Another post-award variable affecting the opportunities for Students to share their experiences with fellow Americans involves their subsequent occupational choices (see Tables IVH9 and IV-13). In general, those who are currently involved in educational roles report more communication experiences than do their peers following other pursuits.. On the Guttman American interaction scale, for example, high scorers include 43%.of the Students who are now college professors, 56% who are now Teachers, and 72%.who are educational administrators, in contrast to 35% of the group now in business, and 28% of the professional practitioners (physicians, engineers, architects, etc.). Much of the post-award internationally—related interaction considered in this chapter has involved communi- cation relevant to the grantees' professional roles. In the next chapter we shall concentrate specifically on the impact of the sojourn experiences on the grantees' profession- al development and advancement. CHAPTER V PROFESSIONAL CONSEQUENCES Among the most significant outcomes of international educational exchange of persons are those related to the grantees’ professional contributions. While few former award holders have dramatic discoveries to report, still the cumulative amassing of new knowledge and the insights shared with colleagues and students both at home and overseas are of tremendous significance. Indication of the impact of some of the research collaboration made possible by the exchange program for the betterment of human welfare is given by the following observations from one researcher: I feel that the Fulbright Commission, the American Cancer Society, the cause of cancer research, and I myself have been more than adequately served by my years abroad. There is no way to measure its value, but I feel that this grant may materially shorten the world's wait for cancer control. It has given me a perspective which, through journals I write for and personal contacts with many hundreds of scientists, I have been able to pass along. In this chapter we shall consider the grantees? reports concerning the contributions of their award experiences to their professional development, advancement, and achievements. 176 177 Analyses Dimensionalizing Professional Consequences Guttman Scaling Almost all of the respondents concurred that a new perspective on their work was one of the major professional benefits derived from their overseas experiences. As the Guttman scales summarized in Table V—l indicate, items pertaining to new insights and materials for courses and related professional work appear in the most popular score categories for all groups. Among those commenting on the significance of such professional assets were the following: If it had not been for the Fulbright award about one-fifth of my volumes would not be here. Many of them are rare books that I could have found no- where except in Italy: they are not available even in good American libraries. Then these file drawers contain original manuscripts and notes on Florentine art, plus the hundreds of photographs of original paintings that the grant made it possible for me to take. These data are absolutely essential for the monographs I am preparing, but it will take several years. Of equal importance are the new ideas and insights that come from intensive study of the original works in their settings: nothing can replace that. Learning to apply our advanced knowledge and skills in a culture where modern equipment and drugs are not available has given me deeper insight into the essential aspects of therapy. This sort of pers- pective is necessary for training general practitioners for rural areas in our country, and it is certainly a prerequisite for providing adequate training for students from underdeveloped countries who will return to practice medicine in their homelands. When we train people in our schools, we should have men on the faculty who have had actual experience in the countries from which the students come. Otherwise we will train them in skills that will be impossible for them to apply when they go home. 178 mommquUHmm nouns C0>Hm mCu mCHuomanCm 5Q omHMHCUHmo on 5mE .mEMUH may on 5Hm>HUHmom mCHpCommmn muomhnsm mo mmmquonm may .mmCommwn 0>HuHmom m .muomewCu “owuowHku Coon w>ms va mCOEODOCoHU mum mmHmom wumoHcCH mHmCHmnmE 0C9 .meOH EOHM C mmHuHHHnHosCoummu smuH m moumoHUCH :N: no muoum mmouso mmmnu CH msmuH ms» HHC m N .HH xHunmmmC CH mHHmCCOHumeU mCu mom mCHUno3 HHCm mom .30Hmn Cm>Hm mH mECUH may no quuCoo Hmumam mCBH Ca.mm "NuHHHnHosooummm sm.mm usuflflflnflosooummm x~.~m "suflaflnfloscoummm sm.mm “suflaflnflosooumum H.CH N Nm HC C.CH N 5m Nm o.m N 0H Hm m.H N m Hm m.HH N 5C mm N.5 N HN Hm m.0H N 0C Nm m.m N 5N Nm m.mH N mm NC w.C N NN Nm m.HH N mm mm o.m N mC mC 5.NH N om mm C.C N 5m mC H.m N mm CC o.m N mm CC m.m N C5 om H.m N 05 CC m.5 N mm NC 5.0 N Nw om m.N N Hm 0C m.mH N N5 Cm m.m N mm mm m.m N mm 0C .55 . m N nxuNm Om No .C N n5mm mm .50 . m N XNm 0C Rm . C N Rom om mmo Hm mmo Hm mmo Hm mmmo NHm Couum IHCU ICHmHmz EmuH uonum luau ICHmumz EmuH Honum IuCU ICHmHmz EmuH Chounm IUCU ICHmumz HEmuH mqupsum mHmCommB mHmHOCUm Coummmmm luv mumHCuumH .mHm5HMCm mHmom CmEuusw "mmoCmswmmCou HCCOHmmmmoum .HI> mHQms 179 .ouw .mmsmmmHHoo HmConmwmonm Comm COHpHCmoomH CHOE CH pwuHsmmn mumsd .mHOHHmmsm m>HumuumHCHEUm Eonw CoHuHCmoomH mHoE CH cmuHCmmH cumzd .uum Ho mxuoz .mCoHuHmomEoo .Coummmmu UCvammnsm mom mmeH Co mumm cmCmHCHCm .mHmmCu m Com HmHumumE vmoH>oum .xno? mo mHmHH Co m>Huommmumm 30C m>mm mUCmHummxm .mD ms“ CH mCOHumHmH HmCOHmmmHoum 30C mHQHmmom mmmE moCmHummxm .omounm mCOHumHmH HmCOHmmmHoum 3mC mmUH>oum mUCmHHmmxm .xnoB no mmmusoo Com mCoHumumumumuCH ch HmHnmumE 3mC ommH>0Hm .wms 30C H CUHC3 mHHme BmC we cmoaommm mUCmHHmmxm .mmmeUCH 5HmHmm .COHuoeonm pamBou wmuCQHHUCou mumsm .oum .mHCm30HHmH ~COHuHmom 3wC m mCHuumm CH pmmHmC cumsd .HmHUHHowQ 5HHmC0Hmmmmoum UHm3m may mCH>HmowH m>mHme .CCIH .mCIH .NCIH .HCIH .OCIH .mMIH .mmIH .QMIH .CmIH .NMIH .HMIH .OMIH umEmEH m0 BZMBZOU Hfimmzmw 180 As this comment indicates, many former award holders are strongly committed to using their new insights in serving their professions and advancing knowledge both at home and overseas. In the previous chapter we discussed some aspects of the continued interaction between American grantees and host nationals. The following description from a natural scientist provides further evidence of the extensive communication networks sometimes developed to continue collaboration on research initiated during a grantee's sojourn: The programs of study of "fundamental particles" utilizing photographic emulsion techniques which were undertaken at Padova, Italy have continued since my departure. There has been a close collaboration between the emulsion groups at Wisconsin and Padova for the past one and a half years. Photographic emulsions have been exposed to the atomic accelerator . . . at Berkeley, processed at Wisconsin, and one half of the processed stock has always been sent to Padova. The results have been combined with those from Wisconsin and published together. The collaboration has been a very successful one in terms of results and new ideas. It has been particularly helpful for Padova since the only large accelerator that is accessible (there is one in Russia) is the accelerator at Berkeley. If eXposures were not made by someone in the United States, the group at Padova could not work on these problems. . . . It is expected that the collaboration with Padova will continue. . . . In addition to acquiring knowledge and skills con- tributing to their professional development-—and to their professions, as well--some grantees report actual professional advancement accruing from their overseas experiences and subsequent publications. Indeed, items pertaining to professional prestige and tangible evidence of recognition 181 such as promotions, new opportunities, etc. scale at the maximum end of the Guttman dimensions for all groups. Thus, respondents reporting such recognition also indicate that the awards contributed to their professional development. One Teacher enumerated some of the benefits included in this dimension as follows: Professional advantages and contributions resulting from the award: (1) An understanding and appreciation of the methods of teaching a foreign language in the French schools reSulting in a desire to improve our foreign language teaching in the United States, in particular in my community where I had been teaching: (2) Recognition on the part of school administrators of the value of my experience and a chance provided to introduce a French program in the elementary schools; (3) Development of a FLES program, grades 3- 12, in our community under my direction . . .: (4) Offer to be an instructor in charge of a summer session workshop on the teaching of foreign languages in elementary schools at a state university--position gladly accepted!: (5) Numerous appointments on professional committees as a result of the above work which grew largely out of my experience and knowledge gained as an exchange teacher. While invitations to give professional papers and serve on certain types of committees provide former grantees with some criteria by which to judge the possible increment in professional prestige resulting from their work abroad, assessing reactions from administrators often proves more difficult. It is interesting to note that the item per- taining to administrative recognition scales only for Lecturers and Teachers. Interviews with educational adminis— trators indicate that while the awards have a secondary reinforcement value for some faculty members, inasmuch as the grants provide an outside source of confirmation 182 regarding the competence of the personnel the administrators selected, in general the main effect of the awards is to make the grantees more visible in their home settings so that evaluations of their subsequent publications become more salient——a factor having obvious implications for professional advancement. Table V—2 presents the distribution of grantees among the Guttman scale types for the professional consequences dimension. As might be expected, Research Scholars have the highest proportions in the high score categories, with 68% scoring 4 or above. Lecturers are not far behind, with 63% in this range: Teachers, however, are again close to an even split among low and high scorers. In contrast to the distribution of respondents on the interaction and communi— cation dimensions, Students have a larger proportion in the high range of the Guttman professional consequences scale, with 58% scoring 5 or higher. Factor Analysis As already indicated, the Guttman professional consequencesscales include items concerning two related aspects of professional outcomes of the awards--the contri- butions to the grantees‘ insight into their field, as well as the recognition accorded them as a result of their work abroad. In the factor analysis of dependent variables, however, items pertaining to each of these two consequences load on separate factors (Tables VH3 and V-4). As in the 183 5H mmC m NH mmm 5 OH C5 5 5 cm 5 mH mmm @ MH OCH 0 MN C5H o mH omH m CH mom m m Hm m 0H mCH m ON CmH m m CMN C Hm 5mm C 0H 5HH C 5H NMH C MH mmm m CH wCH m 9H HNH m NN m5H m CH mmN N oH N5H N 0 HC N C mm N C mHH H 0 mm H C mm H m mm H Rm mCH o nRm mm 0 Km HC 0 *0 5C 0 “Coonmm 50Cmsvmnm muoom “Coouwm 50Cmswmum mnoum UConmm 50Cmsvmum mnoum quUme 50Cmsvmum wuoum mquoCum mCmCUmmB mHmHOCom Coummmmm mumHCuomH .mwm5u meUm CmEuuCU pr mCOEm mquoCommoH Ho COHHCQHHumHo «mmUCmswmmCoo HmCOHmmwmonm .NI> mHQmB 184 COHuCQHCuCoo ECEmeE HHmCu mme CUHC3 mEmuH mCu How 5HC0 Cm>Hm mum mmCHomOH Houomm .HH xHoCommm CH mHHmCCoHummsq may mom mEmuH on» Ho mCHoHOB HHCH Com N .COHuCHom meHuHva on“ on mCHoCooom Honomm may on H mm. 5N.H 0C.H mo.H H5.H 5m.H om.H m5.H «mmmeom mo ZDm II II oC. mC. II II mC. NC. .mxuo3 UCmCUmeCm mom mmon Ho mumo omCmHCusm .NCIH 6C. mC. Hm. mm. mm. om. Cm. om. .chHm CHo m>Huommmumm 3mC m>mm CUCmHHmmxm .OCIH mC. oo. NC. No. 5m. om. om. mo. .xno3 oCm mmmHCoo Com HmHumumE BmC oooH>onm .mmIH 5N. mm. om. mm. Nm. om. om. mm. .mm: 30C H mHHme 30C m8 omonommm moCmHuomxm .CmIH 0C. 0C. om. 0C. NC. NC. mm. mC. .HmHUHmmCmQ 5HHmConmmmonm oum3m o>mHHmm .ONIH mquo muoCo mHmHOCom mnmusu mquo mCoCo mHmHOCom mnmusu NumEmuH Ho uCoUCoo HmHome Isum ImmB Coummmmm Iowa Isum Imoe Coummmom Iowa HH> HH> H> H> > H> H> H> “HmHECz uouumm COHumuom meHuHmCO COHumuom meHHm> H .mmCHomoH Honomm uquECOHm>mo HmCOHmmmHoum .mI> mHQmB 185 .HH xHoComm¢ CH oHHmCCoHumma 03» wow mEmuH oCu mo mCHoH03 HHCH mom N .COHuCHom meHunva may on mCHoHooom Houomm on» on COHuCQHuuCoo ECEmeE HHmCu mme CUHC3 mEmpH wsu mom 5HC0 Cm>Hm mum mmCHomOH Houomm H mm.H mm.H 55.H mo.N 5o.H Nm.H 5o.H mm.H “mmMCbom mo Sow NC. Nm. mm. Nm. CC. mC. mm. om. .HamuH owuomHHoHV msumum HmCOHmmmm Iona Co uommmm pruHH om; mmC moumzm mo omHummum .mCIH mm. mm. mm. mm. Cm. mm. mm. mm. mmsmmmHHou EOHH COHuHCmoumu who: .CCIH mm. mm. 5o. 05. Ho. Co. mo. mo. .mnoumuumHCHEom . Comm COHUHCmoomH who: .mCIH II Nm. Hm. om. II om. mN. 5N. .deCmCOHpmHmv.H HmCOHmmmHonm ms BmC CH owuHCmom .mmIH mC. mm. oC. mm. 5C. mm. mC. mm. .mmHmu .noHuosoum . oumzou omUCQHHuCOU .NmIH HC. I- Hm. mm. mm. I- mH. mm. .mflnmonHmm .coHuHmom 3mC pom ommHmC oum3< .HmIH mquo mHmCu mHmHOCom mumusu mquo mumCo mHmHOCow muons» "mEmuH Ho “Cquoo HmHmCmO Isum Imma Coummmmm IUoH Isum ImmB Commommm IUoH N >H HHH >H >H HH> >H > > "uwnECz Houomm COHumHQM meHuHmCO COHumuom meHHm> .mmCHomOH Houomm ”mmHumwnm HmCOHmmmHOHm .CI5 mHQNN 186 divergence between the Guttman scaling and the factor dimensions concerning subsequent international communication, the dif- ferences observed here are rather easily reconciled. Inspection of the patterning of items in the Guttman scales in Table V-l reveals that on the whole the Guttman scaling preserves the integrity of the item clusters. As indicated earlier, items concerning professional development occur at the low end of the scales, followed by those pertaining to prestige and recognition. For Students, however, the pattern is not so clear as it is for the other grantees since only one item pertaining directly to professional advancement (item 32) appears in their dimension, followed by the maximum item on their scale--concerning provision of dissertation material (item 41). According to the factor analysis, the professional development factor is not an important contributor in accounting for the Teachers' and Students' dependent item intercorrelations. That is, for these two groups the eigenvalues for the professional development factors (the seventh factor in each analysis in terms of the rank ordering for the total variance accounted for by the factors) fall below the Kaiser criterion described in Chapter I. That is, the seventh eigenvalue is .79 for Teachers and .74 for Students. Indeed, for Teachers only five factors meet the Kaiser criterion, since the sixth eigenvalue is only .88. The sixth factor for Teachers consists of a triplet of items 187 involving a denial of negative assessments concerning the professional value of experience abroad (items I-52, I-53, and II-4l in the questionnaire in Appendix II). For the Students, however, six factors meet the Kaiser criterion. We have already discussed four of these factors, and another will be described in the next chapter concerning general evaluations of the award experiences. The remaining dimension is a unique one to the Student group, so far as the factor analyses are concerned. This factor is highly loaded with items concerning professional relations Students established overseas and have maintained since their return (Table V-5). The instrumental, task- orientation involved in this factor is suggested by the items concerning collaborating with host nationals on research abroad, collecting data for subsequent professional work and for dissertations in particular, and even presenting professional lectures or exhibits while overseas. This professional goal emphasis is further underlined by the lack of relationship between the factor and the item concerning the number of foreign students contacted on an extracurricular basis overseas (Item I—24, loading —.06). Cluster Analysis As Tables VH6 and VC7 indicate, the cluster analysis of dependent variables agrees with the factor analysis in extracting essentially the same groupings of items relating Table VH5. 188 loadings. Enduring professional relations: factor Students General Content of Items1 Varimax Quartimax Rotation Rotation Factor-Number: III I I—22. Collaboration with foreigners on research abroad. .37 .39 I—26. # of professional lectures, concerts, exhibits presented overseas. .28 .29 I-38. Experience made possible new professional relationships abroad. .60 .68 I—39. It made possible new professional relationships in the US. .34 .41 I-41. Furnished material for a thesis. .17 .28 I—42. Furnished data or ideas used in subsequent work since return. .31 .43 II—24. Have maintained contact with host institution abroad. .34 .36 II-25. Have maintained contact with professionals overseas. .61 .67 1For full wording of items see the Appendix II. questionnaire in 189 .HH xHoCommC CH mHHmCCoHumva mCu mom mEmuH mo mCHoHOB HHCH HomH NC. II HC. oC. II II II II .mxuo3 UCmCUmeCm Com mmmoH no mumo omCmHCHCm .NCIH mm. mm. om. mm. mm. om. 05. mm. .onHm Co w>Huowmmumm 3mC m>mm mUCMHHmmxm .CCIH mm. mm. mC. H5. mC. mm. mm. om. .Huo3 oCm mmmusoo Com mHmHnmumE BmC omoH>oum .oMIH II HC. II oC. II II II mm. .mm: 30C H mHHHHm 30C m8 omonommm mUCmHHmmxm .CmIH mm. oC. II mC. Nm. 5m. Nm. om. .HmHOHmman 5HHmC0Hmmmm0Cm oum3m m>mHHmm .omIH mquo mHmCu mumHOCom mumps“ mquo mHmCo mumHOCUm muons» umEmUH Ho quUCoo HmumaU Isum Imma Commommm Iowa Isum Imma Coummmmm IomH H Hx HHH> NH > Hx HHH> NH > «umHECz HmumCHU COHumuom vaHHQO maHumumsHo HmHuHcH .mmCHomoH HoumCHo uuCoEm0H0>mo HmCOHmmmmoum .0I> OHQmB 190 .HH xHoCmmmC CH mHHmCCOHumma me mom meUH Ho mCHoHo3 HHCH Com H mC. mm. mm. mm. II mC. mC. Hm. .AEmuH omuumHHmuv msumum HmCOHmmmmoum Co uowmmm mHuuHH omC mmC moum3m Ho meummHm .mCIH mm. m5. Co. Co. Hm. om. Cm. om. .mmsmmmHHoo . Eoum COHuHCmoomH who: .CCIH C5. m5. om. Nm. 05. mo. N5. m5. .mHopmHumHCHEom Eoum COHuHCmoomH who: .mCIH II II mm. 5m. II II II II .mmHCmCOHumHmH HmCOHmmmmoum mD 30C CH omuHCmmm .mmIH Cm. I- om. mm. mC. I- mC. mm. .mmHmn .coHuosoum oumzou omuCQHuuCoo .NMIH II II II II mm. II II II .mHCmsoHHmH .COHuHmom 30C pom oomHmC ohmsm .HmIH mquo mumsu mumHOCom muons» mquo mumno mHmHOCom muons» mEmuH Ho quUCOU HmHmme Isum Imus noummmmm IomH ICum ImmB Coummmmm IUMH H >H H> HH> HHH >H H> HH> HHH “HwQECz HmumCHo coHumuom msvHHno mCHHmumCHU HmHuHCH .mmCHomoH HmumCHo “mmHummum HmCOHmmmHonm .5I> OHQmB 191 to professional development and prestige. In addition, in the Students' analysis one of the clusters isolated corresponds to the enduring professional relations dimension in terms of item content. It is interesting to note that the cluster analysis for Lecturers also identifies a dimension per- taining to maintained professional relations. This cluster consists of a doublet of items concerning establishment of professional relationships abroad and maintenance of these contacts (items I-38 and II-ZS, Appendix II). In the factor analysis these particular items load as part of the interpersonal international communication dimension for Lecturers-—a dimension absent in the cluster analyses for this group (see Chapter IV). In terms of relative loadings, these two items concerning professional relationships are not the most important definers of the interpersonal international communication factor: therefore, we cannot consider this doublet a representation of that dimension-— in fact, loadings of other items differ on the two clusters. Actually, in terms of relative rankings of cluster coefficients, the Lecturers' doublet concerning maintained professional relations comes closest to the Students' enduring professional relations cluster--although for the senior group the item concerning material for a thesis is not relevant and receives an essentially zero loading. Table VC8 summarizes data pertaining to the professional relations clusters for Students and Lecturers, II om. II mC. .mmwooum CH mmHUHuu< .NHIm II Nm. II II .mmmooum CH mxoom .HHIm H5. Cm. mm. mm. .mBmH>wH .mmHoHuHm ooumHmfioo .mIm oC. II II II .mCmmHNOCoE Ho mxoon oouonEoo .CIm Hm. II mC. mo. .mummmm HmConmmHonm .HIm umCOHumUHHme HMCOHmmmwoum mm. .mmHmH .COHHOEOHQ m musumm we oomem .NNIH Co. .COHuHmom 3mC m now we ommHmC onzm .HmIH «COHHOEOHQ .COHmeOQ 3oz om. .quEmoCm>om HmCOHmmeoum oo5mHmo oumsm .omIH 5C. .Cuummmmn CHHz omnomumuCH omounm mCHow .mCIH NumoCmHmHHmuCH Hmmumo mo HmHCmn mm. Hm. m5. mm. .Cuoz H mCmCs mmcummmn mHCmHC HoC .me .mmIH mm. om. m5. Cm. .mHmHm as CH mmcummmn 5HCmHC uoC .me .mmuH Naomonnm mUCmHnmmwo Ho oCHm>Iww0HQI30H 5CmQ mm. mm. .Cmounm .mHoCC CCHs uomucoo mmCHmuCHmz .mNIHH CC. II .umCH umon CUH3 uomuCoo omCHmuCHmz .CNIHH CC. II .m.D CH mCOHumHmH .monm 3oz .mmIH 5@. oo. .omounm mCOHumHoH .Houm 3oz .mmIH mm. II .omounm muumoCou .mmeu .HOHQ # .oNIH HC. II .Coummmmn Co omonnm COHumHonHHoo .NNIH «mCOHumHmm HmCOHmmmHOHm muCooCum mumCommH mHmHOCom mumusuomq mEmuH Ho quuCoo HmHmme Coummmmm H .COHumuou waHHQo EOHH mmCHomOH «meumCHo mEouuCo HmCOHmmwmonm HmCuo .mI> mHQmB mopmoHoCH mCHomOH m>HuHmom m .mnomouosu umHm5HmCm mHCu CH omuomHmmH 0903 mEmuH 0mmCB .UCmEmumum on» no HmHCmo m N .HH xHonmmd CH oooCHUCH nomCm mumo UHCmmHmOHHQHH on» Comm mum =m= m CuHs mmHHHHCmCH mCmCH H .mmmooum CH mmHoHuHC .Nqu .MH03 mmmmnm>o Comm mCHuHCmmH mHmmCB .mIm .HmHHmumE mHmmCH omCmHCHCH omounm .mxm .HCIH «mommCB mm. .omounm .mxm Eoum mCHuHCmmH mmmHCoo 3oz .5Im N5. .mmHCoo 3mC moCoOHuCH ou 0E omHQmCm .mxm .5mIH .HH xHoComm< CH mHHmCCOHummCU on» mom meuH Ho mCHoHOB HHCH Com «mmmusoo 3mz .mmHUHuHm Hmmmmm3mz .mmmoonm CH mCOHuHmomEOU .mxho3 und .muHHHme .mHmUHUmH .muuooCoo .mCOHuHmOQEOU .mxno3 Hum omumHmEoo .w'm .mHIm .m'm owlm “mquadeHmEooumI0HumHuHC 194 along with other clusters relating to professional outcomes. Among the dimensions extracted in the cluster analysis of dependent items, a doublet involving denial of low professional evaluations of overseas experience appears for all groups. Another doublet defined in the Student clustering concerns a denial of career interference resulting from the sojourn. For Teachers two items relating to prestige effects of the awards (securing a new position, promotion, or salary increase) are isolated in a separate cluster. In the analysis of dependent variables including the frequency data from the bibliographic data sheet concerning professional accomplishments grantees attribute to their award experiences, several dimensions concerning publications, artistic achieve- ments, new courses, and theses also are extracted from the correlation matrix. Data from these clusters are included Summated Achievement Scale In addition to the cluster analyses incorporating information regarding the grantees' professional achievements, an index was developed to provide a summary measure for the enumerations of publications and other accomplishments compiled in five volumes of bibliographic data (Gullahorn and Gullahorn, 1958b and 1960b). Later in this chapter we shall present additional information concerning these data. Further discussion of the grantees' professional achievements in relation to the other dimensions regarding professional 195 outcomes of the sojourn experiences appear in Chapters VII and VIII. Let us now consider the relationship between background variables and the professional achievement index as well as the other major dimensions concerning professional consequences of the grantees' award experiences. Relation of Background Variables to Professional Outcome Dimensions As in the analyses of associations between grantees' characteristics and the communication dimensions, our discussion here will include data from multiple regression analyses, analyses concerning the relative loadings of background items on dependent clusters, and cross-tabular information involving Guttman scale scores. The same background items used in the multiple regression analyses involving post— award international communication (see Chapter IV) were input in the present analyses. That is, the multiple regression analyses pertaining to dependent professional outcome dimensions include the interaction abroad factor along with thirteen of the sixteen independent variables listed in Appendix III for Lecturers and Research Scholars (items 69, 72, and 72 x 73 were omitted); twelve additional items for Teachers (item 72 and the three repre- sentations of item 66 were excluded): and fourteen other independent variables for Students (items 55 and 72 were omitted). Tables V-9 through VHlZ summarize the results of the multiple regression analyses for all groups with reference to 196 mo. mC.N mo. 0N. wUCwummEoo mmmCmCmH mH.I 5m.MI oH. om.I mmoCmHom Hmnsumz CH.I mo.mI mH. om.I CmCu mumum meow CH.I Hm.MI HN. Nw.I omumwsvwn COHumoHHmmC CH. mm.m Ho. mo. omounm COHuUmeuCH mH.I mH.CI Co. mH.I mod uCoHUHHmmoo muom .M quoCum quHonmooo quHoHHHmou mHQmHHm> Ho Houum onoCmum HH.o u UCmumCOU umwouquH om.H u 5 ~mHmom CmEuqu quoComon Ho Houum osmoCmum mooo. v.m..0H. u COHumCHEHmqu mHmHuHCS Ho quHoHHHmOU mHmHOCom Cuummmmm 5opI Co.NI mH. oN.I Corp mumum meow NH.I mo.mI mH. Co.I mmoCmHom Hmnsumz 5H. Ho.m Ho. mo. omoan COHuomHmuCH NN.I 5m.oI Co. CN.I 0mm quHoHHmmoo muom H.9Coospm uCoHoHHHmOU quHUHHHmOU mHHmHHm> Ho Houum onoCmum om.m u quumCoo ummoamuCH m5.H n 5 ~mHmom CmEupr “CmoCmme no woman oumoCmum mooo. v.m ~0H. u COHumCHEHmumn mHmHuHCS Ho UCmHUHHHmOU mHmHCuUmH .mmm5HmCm COHmmonmH mHmHuHCE umemUm mmoCvameoo HmConmmHonm CmEuuCO .mI> mHQmB Co.I Ho.mu mo. CN.I CoHCmoHHCCC omumHHHCH Co.I oC.NI mo. NN.I CoCu oumum meow mo. mC.N mo. mm. mHHC + mmHuHCmCCm Co.I mC.mI mo. 0H.I CoCu wuHm 5HHo Co.I mH.CI CH. omgu mmoCmHum HmCCpmz mo. Hm.C 0H. MC. mHmz mo. mm.C HH. mm. mmouhm 5HHCmH Coos HH. HH.o mo. Nm. mmCmCo Common CH. HN.5 mo. CC. mom mH. mm.5 0H. 05. 30C Cowmmmonm om. mC.HH Coo. mo. mmounm CoHuumCmuCH quHonmooo muom H.quoCum quHoHHHmoo uCoHoHHHwoo oHHmHHm> W Ho HOHHM onoCmpm l n quumCoo amounmuCH mH.N u 5 .mHmum CmEuusw pCmoCmmmn Ho Honum onoCmum mooo. v .m.~5H. COHumCHEHmumC mHCHuHCz mo quHoHHHmou mqumCum mo. mH.N HH. CN. mHmz 5o.I Nm.NI HH. oN.I mmHCH CmHuHHm mo. Ho.N Ho. Ho. omounm COHuomHmuCH mo. Hm.N MH. mm. mmCmCU mmummn 0H.I om.mI mo. 0H.I mom quHonmmoo mumm M.quoCum quHonHmoo quHonmwoo oHHmHHm> HO .HOHHN UHMUGMUm oo.N u quumCoo umounmuCH m5.H u 5 .me0m CmEuqu uCooCmmon Ho nonum onoCmum mooo. v.m.Co. mHmComwB COHumCHEHmuon meHuHCz mo UCmHUHHHGOU 198 mo.I mC.NI o5. om.HI Conn mumum mEQm NH.I mC.mI mm. m5.HI muHHHCoC oumzmnumom MH. Cm.m mo. NH. omounm COHuumHmuCH mH.I mH.CI mm. NC.mI mCUCmHUm HmHCumz mH.I No.mI mH.H mo.mI omummsvou COHumUHHmmd uCoHonHwou mumm M.quosum quHoHHHwOU quHonmmoo wHQmHHm> we gonna onmoCmum mm.oo n qume00 HQmUHCUCH 5m.m n 5 .Houomm quoCmmmn Ho Houum onoCmpm mooo. v.m ~0H. n COHumCHECmqu onHuHCz Ho UCmHoHHmoou mCmHOCom Coummmmm mo. NN.N mm. 5H.N mHmz mo. mm.N mm. mH.N mmoCmHom HmHUom HH.I mN.mI 5m. mH.mI moonHom HmHCumz mH.I mo.CI 0N. NN.I mmm mN. om.m mo. mN. omonnm COHuumHmuCH uCoHonmmou mumm M.UCoosum quHoHHmmou quHoHHHoOU mHanHm> Ho Houum oumoCmum Cm.5m u quumCoo umoonouCH om.m n 5 ~Houomm quoCmmon Ho HOHHm onoCmum mooo. v.m..CH. u COHumCHEkumQ mHmHuHsz Ho uCoHoHHHmoo muonsuomq .wmm5HmCm COHmmmHmmC mHmHuHCE «muouomm UCmEQOHm>mo HmCOHmmeOHm .OHI> mHQmB Co. CH.N mo. mH. ohmsm Ho oOHHmm mo. mm.m NN. 5m. mmCmCo Common HH. o5.m 0C. NN.N muum + meuHCmECm NH.I ON.oI No. mm.MI mmoCmHom Hmnsumz NH. ow.o No. NH. omOHHm COHuUmHoUCH mH. Ho.m mm. mo.m mmC mH. CH.N NC. mm.m 30C Hammmmoum o; quHonmmoo mumm M.pCmoCum UCmHonmmou UCmHUHHmmoo anmHHm> w mo Houum onmoCmum mm.mm u quumCoo umwonquH NC.m u .Houomm quoCmmmn mo HOHHm onoCmum mooo. v.m_.mH. u CoHumCHCCmumC mHCHuHCz Ho quHoHHHmoo mquosum mo. mo.m 05. HC.H mmCmCu mmummn oo. mo.N Co. Hm.H mHmS HH. 55.m mo. HH. omonnm COHuomHmUCH oH. mH.m Co. mm.m 30C HmCommB “CoHonmooo mumm M.quoCum quHonmmou quHoHHmmou mHQmHHm> Ho Houum onoCmum mooo. v m mHoCommB N5.m Q¢o o om.mm n quumCoo ummonouCH 5 .Houomh quoCmmmn Ho Houum onoCmpm COHumCHEHmqu wHQHuHCz mo uCoHoHHHmoo 200 mo. Ho.N mC. om. ooCmummEoo ommCmCmH CH.I Co.NI mH.H CC.NI omummsvou COHumoHHmmC CH.I N5.NI Nm. CN.NI Cmsu wumum mEQm MH. mm.m Co. mH. omonnm COHuomHmuCH 5H.I mo.CI 0N. mm.I mmC quHonHoou mumm quoCum uCoHUHHmoOU UCmHoHHHmoo mHQmHHm> Ho Hounm onoCmum mo.OC n quumCOU ummUHmuCH C5.m n 5 .Houumm quonme Ho Honum onoCmnm mooo. V_m..5o. n COHumCHEHmqu mHmHuHCz Ho quHoHHHwoo mHmHOCom Commommm mo.I mm.NI 5m. mm.I monummfioo mmmCmCmH mo.I mo.NI om. mm.NI mwoCmHom HmHCumz oH. oo.C mo. oH. omonnm COHuomHouCH HN.I NH.oI 0N. mN.HI mod pCmHoHHHoOU muwm quoCum quHUHHHoOU quHonHmoo mHHmHHm> mo Houum onoCmum m5.om n quumCou ummonouCH 5m.m n 5 .Houomm UCooCmmmo Ho Hounm oumoCmum mooo. v_m .mo. n COHumCHEHoumn mHmHuHCz Ho quHoHHmmoo mHmHCuomH .mom5HmCm COHmmonmH mHmHuHCE "mnouomm omHummHm HmCOHmmmHOHm .HHI> mHQmE 201 Co. mo.N mC. Ho.H mmoCmHom HmHoom mo. Ho.N HC. mo.H mHmE oo. CN.N 5N. o5. omd mo... 8. NI NC. CN.HI CoHpmoHHCCm mmumHuHCH 5o. Ho.m mN. Cm. mmCmCo mmnmwn 5o.I N5.MI No. NN.NI mmonHom Hmnsumz mo.I 0N.CI 0C. mo.HI Con» mumum meow 0H. om.C mC. wH.N 30C Hommmmoum MH. Hm.m No. NH. omounm COHuomumuCH quHonmmoo muom H.9Cmosum quHoHHmmou UCwHUHHmmOU mHanHm> mo Houum onoCmum oo.5m u quumCOU umeHCUCH o5.m n 5 .Couomm “CooCommn Ho nonum onoCmum mooo. v_m_.oo. u COHumCHECouwn mHmHuHCS mo quHUHHHmOU mquoCum mo.I Hm.HI mo. CN.HI mmHmH CmHuHHm oo. mo.N C5. Nm.H mmCmCo mmummn mo. 5o.N mm. NN.H 5uHHHQoE oum3mlumom 5o.I mN.NI 5o. om.HI 30C HmCommB moi mm.~.. S. C... mmC mo. 5o.N mo. mo. omonnm COHuomHmeH quHoHHHmou mumm M.UCmoCum UCmHUHHHmou quHoHHHoou mHHmHHm> Ho Honnm onoCmum Com mooo.v C .CO. mnmnomms mm.mC u quumCoo ummoumuCH 5 .Houomh uCooCmme mo Hounm ohmoCmum COHumCHEHou on mHmHuHsS Ho “CmHUHmmmoo mo. mm.m HH. Hm. amouam 5HHCCH Coos MH. mo.m NH. mC. mmoCmHom HmHuom CH.I 5m.CI mH. mm.I mHCmmuO + mmousm mH. HC.m HH. No. wand + mmeHCmECm mN. mo.o oo. 0C. wonuomEou mmmCmCmH 5N. mo.5 HH. Cm. CmCu mumpm meow quHonmmou muwm .M UCwonm quHonmooo quHUHmmooo oHQmHHm> Ho Honum onoCmum 5m. n UCmumCoo ummonmuCH om.H u 5 ~xmoCH ooumEECm quoComwn mo Honnm oumoCmum mooo. v.m .mN. n COHumCHEHmqu onHquz mo quHonHmoo mHmHOCom Conmmmmm mo.I mm.HI mo. mo.I wmm mo.I CN.NI mo. HN.I mHCmmoo + omensm mo. mm.N OH. mN. muud + meuHCmfiflm mH. CH.m mo. oN. woCmummfioo mmmCmCmH mH. om.m 0H. mm. CmCu mumum 080m mN. 55.@ C00. mo. omounm COHuumHmuCH quHonHmoo mumm M.quoCum quHUHHHwOU UCmHoHHHooo mHQmHHm> Ho HOHHM onoCmum mo.I u quumCoo ummonuCH mN.H n 5 .xmoCH ooumfifism UCmoCmme Ho nonum onoCmum mooo. v_m_.mH. u CoHumCHCCwuwC mHCHuHCs mo quHoHHmmoo mHmHCuUmH .mmm5HmCm COHmmonmH mHmHuHCE uxmoCH omumEECm quEm>mHCom HmCOHmmeoum .NHI> mHQmB .I .m. mo. HH.I CoHumoHHCCm mmumHuHCH ww.u m .m. Ho. Co.I CwCu muHm suHo 5o. m5.m mo. CN. mmUCmHum HmHoom 5o. CH.C mo. 0N. mHmz mo. oN.C No. HH. 5uHHHHOE oumBqumom mo. Cm.C mo. NN. CwCu mumum meow mo. mm.C mo. mm. mmoupm 5HHCCH Coos HH. NC.o Noo. Ho. omonnm COHuomumuCH CH. mH.5 mo. mm. munfi + meuHCmECm mH. mN.5 mo. mN. mod CH. CC.5 mo. NN. mUCmummEoo wmmCmCmH oH. mm.m mo. CC. 30C Hommomonm om. CC.oH mo. mm. mmCmCo moCmmC uCoHonHmou mumm M.quosum “CmHoHHHooo UCmHUHHHmOU mHHmHHm> Ho Hounm onoCmum n pCmumCou ummoumuCH mm.C u 5 .xmoCH omumfifism quoCmmmn mo Conan osmoCmum m mooo. v.m_.m~. CoHumCHCCmumC mHCHHHCz mo pCmHoHHHmoo 2 mquoCum . 5o.I Nm.NI mo. mH.I 30C HmComoB mo. 5m.N No. CC. mmd mo. mm.N mo. mH. omounm 5HHEmH x008 HH. mC.m mo. NN. Con» mumum meow HH.I Nm.mI 5o. oN.I COHumoHHmmm omumHuHCH mH.I mN.CI 5o. Nm.I mmHmH CmHuHHm oH. mN.C Co. mH. CUCmuwmfioo mmmCmCmH mH. HC.C moo. Ho. omounm COHuumHmuCH quHoHHHmoo mumm M.proCum quHoHHHmov “CmHUHHHmOU mHQmHHm> mo HOHHM onoCmum u quumCOU ummoumuCH mm. H 5 ~xmoCH ooumEECm “CmoCmmon Ho Honum onoCmpm mooo. v_m_.mo. mumsomma CoHumCHCCmumC mHCHuHCs Ho HCmHonmooo 204 the Guttman professional consequences scales, the profes- sional development and professional prestige factors, and the professional achievement summated index. Table V-13 presents the multiple regression of background items on the Students' factor concerning enduring professional relations. As indicated in Chapter I, the tables present the best least squares values for the weighting coefficients for variables making significant contributions in the regression equations. In all but one of the analyses (Professional Achievement for Research Scholars, Table V-12), scores on the overseas interaction factor are significantly associated with professional outcomes of the grantees' award experiences. For Students this finding is consonant with Sewell and Davidsen's investigation of related variables, in which they noted a significant correlation between the extent of Scandinavian students' participation in American life and their academic adjustment at a midwestern university (1961). Before considering other associations among independent variables and dependent dimensions, let us also present data concerning the relative loadings of the same background items on the clusters relation to profession— al development (Table V-l4) and professional prestige (Table VHlS), as well as on the other professional outcome dimensions extracted in the cluster analysis (Table V—l6). 205 mo. m5.N Nm. CC.H mmoCoHom Hmusumz mo. mm.C 5m. CC.H mHmz Co.I m5.CI HH. mH.mI CmCu muHm suHo OH. 05.m NC. 5H.N mmouhm 5HHCCH Coos OH. NO.@ mH. 5H.H omCmCo omummn mH. 5C.m mm. NN.m 30C Hommmmoum mH. mm.0H mm. mm.~ mam mm. Cm.mm mo. mm. mmoCCm CoHuomCmuCH quHUHHHooo mpmm w.qumCum ucmHoHHHmoo quHonmmoo wHCmHCm> Ho Hounm onmoCmum 0H.mN n quumCou umoonmuCH 5 .Houomm quoCmmmn Ho HOHHm onoCmum COHumCHEHmqu meHuHCS mo UCmHUHmHmoo HC.C mooo. v_m..om. mUCmosum .mHm5HmCm COHmmmHmmn meHuHCE "Houomm mCOHumHmH HmCOHmmmmoum mCHHCoCm .mHI> mHHmB 206 Table V-l4. Loadings of background variables on the professional development cluster dimensions. 1 Research Background Items: Lecturers Scholars Teachers Students 55. Hust country .02 .09 .14 -- 58. Sex: male .04 -.01 .001 .07 59. Age at award time —.18 .Ol .02 .26 60. Period of award ‘ .04 .04 .08 -.04 61. Home state at 63. Post-award 64. Size of home city then -003 .03 .03 -.04 66. Natural Sciences —.17 -.21 -- -.20 66. Social Sciences .13 .08 -- -.04 66. Humanities + Arts .04 .07 —- .17 69. Present occupation —- —- .17 .30 70. Language competence .02 -.03 .03 .002 71. Reason for appli— 72 x 73. Degree change -- —- .05 .13 II-44. Took family 1 See Appendix III for coding of background items. 207 Table V-15. Loadings of background variables on the professional prestige cluster dimensions. 1 Research Background Items: Lecturers Scholars Teachers Students 55. Epst country —.03 .03 -.06 -- 58. Sex: male -.04 -.04 .05 .10 59. Age at award time -.l9 -.17 -.05 .09 61. Home state at award time -.08 -.10 -.03 —.09 63. Post—award 64. Size of home city then .07 -.01 .03 -.Ol 66. Natural Sciences —.09 -.O6 00 -.05 66. Social Sciences .06 -.02 -- -.Ol 66. Humanities + Arts .03 .05 -— -.OOl 69. Present occupation -— -— -.09 .21 70. Language competence—.06 .06 —.02 -.01 71. Reason for application -.05 -.14 -.04 —.O6 72 x 73. Degree change -- —- .08 .13 II-44. ToOk family abroad .01 -.03 .04 .10 1 See Appendix III for coding of background items. 208 1 mo.l mm.l II oo.I mO.I1HH.I II oo.I OO.I II 50. NH. OH.I II oo.I mO.I 0H. NH. mmUCmHUm . _ HmH .1 . 1 Igumz 090 mo.I_~o.I1Co. 1Co.I mo. 1HH. NO.I Co.I oo.I oo.I mo.I mo.I Ho.I mo. Ho. mo. 5o.I CH.I CmCH _ _ mNHm 1 1 5CH0 .Cm 5H. _mO.I1ON. m0. m0. .NO. NO.I NO. OH. NO. mo.I NO.I HO.I HH. 00. NO.) CO. 00. 5uHHHQOE 1 1 onBm 1 1 _ lumom .mo 1 1 1 mo. mo. ”mo. HO.I oo.I OH. CO. 50. NH. CO. mN. HN. 1NO. CO. CO. CO. NO. mo. C039 1 . mumum 1 . OBOE .HO HO.I_mH.I mO.I.mO. NO. _HO. HH. mo. mH.I NO. 00. mO. mo.I OH.I mo. NO. oo.I mo. UHmBm mo 1 1 moHCmm .om 1 . HH. NO. Umm.l ON. HN.I 50. NO.I NO.I NN. mo. HO. mO.I NO.I Co.I 50. CO. MN. NO. 08H» 1 H onm3m ” _ . um mmC .mm CH. mH.I CH. 50. mo. wmo. mo. Ho.I1mH. HH. mo. mo. 1mo.I NO.I oo.I mo. mH. Co. mHmC _ 1 1 uxmm .mm II .II “8. II mo.I II oo.I 0H.I1II OH.I oH.I oH.I II NO.I NO.I mH. II mH. NCHCCou . . .1 1 Dmom .mm m 1 m a 1 m H 1 m e C . m a C H m s m H m C NumsmuH 1 1 oCCoumxomm mHmmCE1HmmH Heb _ mmmuzoo . mxnoz and 1 mCOHpmoHHQCm omounm .mxm mo mCHm> .mmHmm 1Imo 302 P .Houm .moum 30H 5Com .monm H.mumumCHo mfioouCo HmCOHmmmmoum HmCuo Co mmHQmHHm> oCCOmeomn Ho mmCHomOH .oHI> mHQmH 209 .meuH OCsoumxomH Ho OCHoou How HHH xHOCwmmm .mumumCHo mmonu mo “CmuCoo EwuH How OI> mHQmB 00m mom HN. ON. OO. oo.I1Ho. ON. 5N. HO.I OH. “50. ”OO. MCN. 1N0. Co. 15m. OO. mO.I NO.I mO. CO. OO.I mH. “Co.I 5o.I ON. 50. CH. NO. HH.I OH. mO.I ON. 00. mO. mo. .oo.I Co.I mO.I NO. 5H. OO.I mo. 1 1 1mo.I mO.I .50. 1mo. ____.__._.__ ..__... .._-1 -. _ OH. _mO. mo. 00. OH.I mO.I mo. CH. mO. NO. OO. HO.I1 OO. 50. OH. OH. mO. OH. NN. OH.I HO. omounm 5HHCmH H009 .CCIHH mmCmCo mmnmma .m5 x N5 COHu ImoHHmmm Mom Cow Immm .H5 mUCmu Immfioo mmmsm ICmH .O5 COHu Immsouo uCom Imum .mO muué + moHuH ICmECm .OO Co.ImmoCmHom HmHUOm .OO HO. OH. ON. mO.I 210 As we shall note in the following discussion of some of the major findings of these analyses, there is relatively close agreement among the multiple regression, cluster loading, and Guttman cross-tabular data in identification of associations among background variables and dependent professional outcome dimensions. As might be expected, the award experiences generally are perceived as more beneficial professionally by faculty members and teachers in the earlier states of their careers. The multiple regression analyses identify the age variable (weighted negatively) as a significant predictor of all four dimensions for Lecturers, and of the Guttman and pro- fessional prestige dimensions for Research Scholars and Teachers. These findings agree with the negative loading of the age variable for Lecturers on the professional develop— ment cluster (Table V—l4), and for all three professional groups on the professional prestige cluster (Table V—15). In addition, age is loaded negatively on the Lecturers' cluster relating to new courses and on the Teachers‘ cluster concerning new job opportunities (Table V-l6). On the Guttman professional consequences scales, over 70% of the Lecturers and Research Scholars in the 30-40 age group are in the high score range, in contrast to around 55%»among the high scorers from the senior grantees over 50 years of age. Similarly, younger Teachers also are overrepresented 211 among the high scorers on the Guttman scale, with 59% of those under 30 in the high range as opposed to 49% of those over 50. According to the multiple regression data (Table V-12), unlike the Lecturers, older Teachers tend to report more publications and other achievements resulting from their overseas experiences, a result suggested also by the positive loading of the age variable on the Teachers' cluster concerning professional publications (Table V-l6). In contrast to the professional groups, the Students' multiple regression analyses disclose a consistent signifi— cant relationship between relative maturity and all five of this group's major professional outcome dimensions (Tables V>9 through V-19). These findings agree with the positive loadings for the age variable on clusters concern— ing professional development and prestige (Tables V—l4 and V—lS) as well as on the clusters pertaining to enduring professional relations, professional publications, new courses, and theses (Table V—l6). With reference to the apparent discrepancy between Students and the professional groups, it should be noted that "relative maturity" for Students generally involves being in the 26-35 age range. Thus, the age differentiation in the Students' analyses probably reflects a difference in professional goal orientation among the older graduate students asopposed to the group who have just completed Bachelor's degrees. 212 Except for the significant association between the attribute, ?male,? and the professional development factor for Lecturers (Table VH10), for senior scholars the sex attribute does not seem to be an important or consistent predictor of professional outcomes. Among Teachers and Students, however, there is a tendency for men to score higher on a number of dimensions. The multiple regression analyses identify sex as a significant predictor of scores on the Guttman professional consequences scale for Teachers and Students (Table VH9), on the professional development factor for Teachers (Table VHlO), and on the professional prestige factor for Students (Table V411). Among Teachers, the cluster loading data indicate that men also tend to report more professional publications and new job opportunities (Table VH16). For Students the patterning of associations between the sex attribute and the professional outcome dimensions suggests that in general male students are more seriously professionally goal-oriented than are females. We have already noted the differences on the Guttman professional consequences scale--a finding illustrated by the fact that 64% of the male Students in contraSt to only 48% of the females score in the high range of the Guttman scale. The multiple regression data concerning the association between sex and professional prestige is confirmed by the Students' cluster loading data concerning prestige (Table VHIS). 213 In addition, male Students score higher than females on the professional achievement index (Table VH12), on the enduring professional relations factor and cluster (Table V-l3 and V—l6), as well as on clusters relating to professional publications, new courses and theses (Table V416). Female Students, however, are more likely to deny that the sojourn interfered with their careers (Table V-l6). It is interest- ing to note, however, that this particular dimension does not appear to relate to Students engaged in professional pursuits. That is, items concerning present occupation as a professor and post-award change in academic degree receive zero loadings on this career-interference cluster. These data, in addition to those concerning fields of work abroad (with Natural Sciences loaded negatively and Humanities and Arts positively) suggest that this dimension refers in particular to general cultural development resulting from the sojourn experience rather than to specific professional preparation. Another background characteristic showing variable association with the outcome indices concerns the census division of the grantees' home states. The multiple regres- sion analyses identify this attribute (weighted negatively) as a significant predictor of scores on the Guttman professional consequences scales for Lecturers, Research Scholars, and Students (Table VC9), as well as of factor scores relating to professional development and prestige for Research Scholars (Tables VHlO and VCll and also cluster -214 loading data in Tables VC14 and VClS). High scorers on the Guttman professional consequences scales include proportionately more Lecturers and Research Scholars from the south central and mountain regions and Students from the west north central division. It is interesting to note, however, that for all four groups of grantees, the home state dummy variable is weighted positively as a significant predictor of scores on the professional achievement summated index (Table V—12). The census divisions included in the home state dummy variable were selected because they included more of the high-prestige universities than did the others: thus it is interesting that this rather crude variable does in fact have predictive value with reference to professional productivity. According to the multiple regression data, grantees in the Natural Sciences tend to score lower than those in other fields on the Guttman professional consequences scales and on the factors related to professional develop- ment and prestige (Tables V-9 through Vell). These findings are confirmed by the cluster loading data in Tables VHl4 and V—lS. On the Guttman professional conse- quences scales Lecturers and Research SchOlars in social science, creative arts, and professional social service have much higher proportions (around 70%) among high scorers than ($1 their peers in the natural sciences. In general the senior award holders in various fields of Humanities also score higher than their colleagues in natural science. 215 Much the same pattern appears also for Students, with creative artists and those in philosophy having about a 70%»repre- sentation among the top scorers of the Guttman scale--a result confirmed by the significant association between the combined variable of Humanities and Arts and the professional development factor and cluster (Tables V—lO and V—l4) as well as the professional achievement index (Table VHlZ). In contrast to these findings, the dimensions pertaining to maintained professional relations for Students and Lecturers indicate that natural scientists score higher than their peers in other disciplines (Tables V-l3 and VHl6). Thus, while natural scientists do not perceive their awards to be so professionally gratifying in terms of development and prestige as do their colleagues in other fields, it appears that after their return they do maintain contact and, in some cases, continue collaborating with colleagues overseas. In concluding our discussion of associations between background characteristics and professional outcomes, let us concentrate in particular on the Students' dimensions. For this group, a rather consistent relationship appears between the professional outcome dimensions--i.e., between the Guttman professional consequences scale, the factors and clusters pertaining to professional development and prestige as well as enduring professional relations, the professional achievement index, and the clusters concerning professional publications, new courses, and theses--and the 216 following independent variables: male, age, language competence, took family abroad, present occupation as a professor, and post-award degree change. In addition, scores on the overseas interaction factor are significantly associated with a number of the outcome dimensions. Thus among Students, older men with family responsibilities, who had sufficient language proficiency to be active in inter- acting with their hosts overseas, possibly collaborating on research, and who earned higher degrees upon their return and are now professors or researchers in American colleges and universities comprise the group evidencing the greatest gains in terms of professional development, advancement, and productivity. Professional Achievements In closing our discussion of professional outcomes of the grantees' award experiences, let us give more con- sideration tothe achievements comprising the summated index as well as some of the clusters pertaining to professional productivity. In contrast to most of the information summarized in the Guttman scales as well as in the factors and clusters relating to professional consequences of the awards, the publications, art works, and other accomplish- ments resulting from the grantees‘ overseas work provide relatively tangible evidence of the benefits accruing to individuals, educational institutions, and various fields of learning. Five volumes totalling l,186 pages were 217 necessary to list the achievements grantees attributed to their sojourn experiences. Following is a brief summary enumerating the publications and other accomplishments which have professional relevance: I. II. III. IV. VI. 470 grantees reported the titles of 750 books or monographs which they have published as a result of their award experiences. Adding the 63 books and one documentary film reported in the pilot survey brings the total toEfl4 major publications. 1,207 grantees submitted the titles of 3,300 articles and book reviews emanating from the work abroad and already published or accepted for publication. The 593 such published works plus the four filmstrips reported in the nine— state study brings the total for these shorter publications to 1,804. 214 grantees gave the names or descriptions of 831 paintings, sculptures, musical compositions, or other completed works of art which were influenced by their award experiences. Adding the 243 such art works reported in the initial survey brings the total for major artistic creations to 1,074. Actual titles of theses completed for academic degrees were submitted by 506 grantees. Of these 25 gathered materials or completed research during their award years which enabled them to write theses for two academic degrees. Including the 89 theses and dissertations reported in the first survey brings the thesis total to 595. 350 grantees sent the names of 478 academic courses (introduced at levels ranging from elementary school through graduate programs in universities) which they were able to introduce as a result of knowledge gained during their sojourns overseas. With the 54 new courses listed in the nine-state survey the total for new courses is 404. 951 grantees presented 2,181 papers to professional societies as a consequence of their work abroad. Including the 437 professional papers reported in the initial survey brings the total for professional papers to 2,618. 218 VII. 424 grantees reported writing 673 newspaper articles concerning their experiences abroad. The total for this type of communication, including the 155 news articles listed by grantees in the earlier study, is 828. VIII. Information was furnished by 337 grantees describing l,l6l concerts, recitals, or exhibits they have participated in since their return and which they feel were significantly influenced by their award experiences. Including the 441 such performances listed by respondents in the nine-state survey brings the total for such artistic performances to 1. 602 0 IX. In addition to the completed items just listed grantees reported the following works in process: 846 books and monographs: 841 articles and book reviews; 256 works of art; 404 theses or dissertations for academic degrees. All of these were considered to have been influenced by the educational experiences abroad. Such an impressive amount of scholarly or artistic achievement emanating in some way from the Fulbright and Smith-Mundt awards gives some indication of the significance of educational exchange for scholarship in America--and, indeed, the world. Reference to some of the major works named in the appendices listing these accomplishments (see Gullahorn and Gullahorn, 1958b and 1960b) will establish that in quality as well as in quantity some of the achievements are so great as to be difficult to evaluate. In View of the apparently high productivity reported by the grantees, the question remains as to whether the listings exaggerate the impact of the award experiences. Have returned grantees included every publication, for instance, even if there is no relationship between some articles and what happened to them under the grant? In 219 some instances this may be the case. However, it is un- likely that many academicians would voluntarily include for publication information their colleagues would perceive as inaccurate. For example, one grantee who listed six short stories and poems on the bibliographic data sheet added this observation: I am a novelist first and a general man of letters second, i.e., poet, essayist, reviewer. All of the work I have done since returning from Wales five years ago was influenced to a more or less extent by my studies there and notions of literature which I acquired there. This influence, then, is reflected in one novel, a critical anthology of essays, some fifty reviews, a dozen poems, several short stories, and several hundred lectures on prose to students from the freshman to graduate level. There is no point in setting down here titles which apparently do not pertain to Wales. However, I would like it plain that my work in general was influenced by Wales, and that I have made this influence apparent to those interested in my work. Many respondents wrote comparable statements, suggesting that the achievements listed are, in some cases at least, conservative estimates of the professional impact of the award experiences. As might be expected, creative artists reported more difficulty in assessing what works were related directly to a given experience, yet most who commented attested to the importance of their work abroad for their creative development. Representative of their responses was the following: In architectural practice, it is difficult to trace specific influences. Rather, one's study and experience of foreign buildings and cities become part of the total resources upon which one 220 draws while designing. Nevertheless, foreign study is unquestionably of great value to the architect for, more than any other form of creative activity, architecture must be experienced to be understood. Having considered some of the consequences of the award experiences for the grantees' professional roles-- and for their disciplines as well--in the next chapter we shall discuss the influence of the award year on the grantees' personal development and their overall evaluations of their sojourns abroad. CHAPTER VI OTHER EVALUATIONS OF THE AWARD EXPERIENCES Evaluating the overall personal significance of overseas experiences is a formidable task. As one grantee commented, ”If you attempt to compile a list of things one gains through having a scholarship abroad, you will miss the essential thing--. wa can you classify 'l'esprit'?" Fortunately, members of our sample were particularly respon- sive in adding comments to clarify the personal meaning of their answers to questions regarding general assessments of their award experiences. The following summary statement by a professor of philosophy is representative of the feelings of many former grantees: I doubt that any other experience of my life has had so much effect on my work, but this influence has been of a general rather than of a specific nature. For me the value of the trip was quite different from what I had expected. I had expected to gather material in European libraries and to profit from discussions with European experts in my field, I did this, but I feel that the real value of the year abroad lies in what it did to me §§.a person. It illuminated history for me, gave me the ability to think in another language, gave me perspective on the customs of the society in which I live, and gave me a number of interesting friends I would not other— wise have had. I have no doubt that my professional work will be better as a result. Further comments illustrating the personal significance of their award experiences will be included in the following 221 222 discussion of dimensions summarizing grantees' reports concerning personal development and satisfaction. Analyses Dimensionalizing Personal Development and Satisfaction Guttman Scaling In evaluating the overall impact of their sojourn experiences, approximately three-fourths of the senior scholars and over four-fifths of the Teachers and Students strongly agreed that their stay abroad "was one of the most valuable experiences" in their lives. As the data summarized in Table VI-l indicate, this item (II-33) scored in the more popular scale categories in the Guttman satisfaction dimension for all groups. Included among the grantees' explanations of their responses was the following affirmation from a senior scholar: I am a professor at Harvard and retire in two years. I think the Fulbright award was a highlight in my professional career. In summarizing her appraisal of the value of exchange teaching, one Teacher commented: As I wrote in the English teachers! national magazine-- "To one who has studied and taught England's liter- ature and history for years, a year spent in England is like a dream come true." One Student grantee now engaged in his life work added the following remark to his questionnaire: Although my Fulbright year was not productive in terms of research, publications, etc. it was perhaps the most valuable one in my entire life—-even my academic life. Perhaps it is precisely because I had a number 223 .ROOH Scum mommquonm uonnm Cmme wcu OCHuomHuQCm 5Q ooumHsono on 5mE mmHuHHHQHUCoonmmH EmpHC .COHumo mmCommmH :5HmCouum mmummmHn: man on mnwmmu mm “COHumo :5HmConum mmHOCC mcu ou mummmu mm «moHHomoumU mmCommmH wfiouuxm on» um muo3 mmmouso mHmom mHCu CHm .mEmuH mcu ou 5Hm>HuHmom OCHOCommmH muomnnsm Ho mmmpCmonm on» oumoHOCH mHmCHmHmE OCBN .HH xHOCmmmC CH oHHmCCoHumva ocu mom OCHOHOB HHCH Com .30Hmn Cw>HO mH mEmuH on“ no pCmuCOU HmeCmm one H so.om «suHHHCHoCCoCCmC 5m.Hm "suHHHCHoCCoCCmm CC.Hm "suHHHCHoCCoCCmm 5m.om .5CHHHCHoCmoCCmC m.HH mm mm HC 5.m mC mm HC m.mH mm mm HC m.~H mC Hm HC m.HH CC mm Cm m.m ma 5N 0C m.OH mC mm mm m.mH CC mm Cm 5.HH CC om 5m m.OH mC mm Cm H.m mC mm 5m «.5 mm Cm mm o.HH mm mm mm 0.0H mC C5 mm C.C mm 5m om 5.HH mm mm 5m 5.0H mm 55 om 5.oH mC m5 5m m.5 CC C5 mm m.OH CC H5 om m.5 mC m5 Hm m.5 mC mm Hm 5.m mm mm mm 0.5 mC C5 mm 5m . m mC n55m m m so . m mC .58 mm 5m . m CC .58 NC 5m . m 2 n55m NC .HOHHM HMO Hm EOHH .HOHHmH HMO Hm EOHH .HOHHMH HMO Hm EOHH CHOHHH mmmo NHM EOHH Iuso ICHmHmz Iuso ICHmHmS IHCU ICHmHmS Iuso ICHmHmE H mquosum mHmCommB mHmHOCom Coumwmmm mumusHowH .mHm5HmCm mHmUm CmEuuCO "COHuomHmHumm HmComHmm .HIH> mHHmH 224 .mmHuH>Hp0m HmCOHumosow Com omounm 0m 0» quHO Hocu0Cm mxHH OHCOZ .omounm xuoz 0:» COMM mCoHpCHHHuCOU HmHquuom 58 m0 0mmqu>om HHCH memu u0C mmc 5uHmH0>HCC C30 52 .mmHuHHHQm OCm mmoCmHummxm 5E m0 own ECEmeE mme 90C OHo 5HuC500 umom .omounm QEHH 5E CmCu anmCHm> whoa C009 0>mc OH503 5uHmH0>HC5 CmUHH0E¢ Cm um Hm05 C .5Hquoo umoc 5E oum30u 5Cummfi5m whoa 0>mc 302 .mmumum o0UHCD 0Cu C0 0>Hu00mmnmm mHan0OHmC00 owCHmw .musuHCU CmoHH03C mCHoummmu mumCmHmnom 080m 5H OHmc mmm5uomumum msomCOHH0 080m uomnnoo 0p 0HHm mm3 .meH 5E H0 mmonHHmmxo mHnmsHm> umoa wcu H0 0C0 mm3 omounm 5mum .mCHHCumE :HmCmHmnom m mm OCH>HHC H0 00C0Hummx0 may OCsom .mHHmHHm HmC0HumCH0uCH CH ammuopCH 5E owmmmnoCH omonnm OCH>HH .NCIHH .HCIHH .OCIHH .OMIHH .5MIHH .OmIHH .CMIHH .MMIHH .HMIHH .OmIHH umfiwuH m0 quuCOU Hmumme 225 foreign friendships which were fruitful . . . in ideas, new outlodks, greater understanding, etc., and because I genuinely tried to live a French life. . . . All this is equally true of my wife, now teaching French also. We feel that our year has paid off (in the altruistic sense) in what our American students get from us in class. Another questionnaire item pertaining to general personal development stimulated by the sojourn experiences (Item II—3l) drew strong agreement from two-thirds of the senior scholars and about four-fifths of the TeaChers and Students. This item specifying the "maturing" effect of "living as a foreigner? scaled reliably only for Teachers and Students, however. Perhaps the wording of the item was such as to deter strong affirmation from some of the more sophisticated senior scholars. Then, too, their higher median age might have made some hesitant about such an evaluation. As one Lecturer nearing retirement remarked, “It may be presumptuous to feel that one has ever reached complete maturity: however, if this has not occurred by the age at which I held my grant, then it probably never will." Among the specific effects of their sojourn experiences over two-thirds of the grantees reported an increased interest in international affairs, an item which scaled for Lecturers, Research Scholars, and Students (Item II-30). A related item, which appears in the Guttman dimensions for all groups, concerns an increase in sympathy for their host countries (II-37). While most of the grantees who commented on their responses indicated a greater appreciation of their 226 host countries based on an already favorable predisposition, for some the overseas experience provided a marked reorienta- tion in attitudes: very frankly and simply, before I went to Egypt I thought the Middle East was pestiferous, decadent, and very much of an international nuisance. I certain- ly changed my mind as a result of the reading I did in its history, cultures, problems, and importance in preparation for my assignment, before I went to Egypt. The additional briefing and instruction we got as Fulbrighters in Egypt before assuming our tasks further enlightened me. Contact with the native professional people I met, with the students I lectured to, with the generous and hospitable people in city, village, and countryside completed my education and brought about a new and appreciative understanding of Egypt and the Middle East. I am forever indebted to the Fulbright assignment and its opportunity for this complete re-orientation of my understanding and appreciation of Egypt and the Middle East. Unfortunately our questionnaire data do not include infor— mation which would enable us to differentiate among grantees with different degrees of favorable preconceptions regarding their host countries. Another aspect of the increased international awareness reported by many grantees pertains to the perspective on the United States provided by the sojourn overseas, an item which appears on the Guttman scales for all groups (II-36). As the response marginals indicate, Teachers and Students tended to agree with this item more strongly than did the senior scholars (Table VI-l). Some of the comments grantees added concerning this effect of their awards expressed rather chauvinistic platitudes: 227 . . . this experience made me a much more loyal and satisfied American citizen. I have tried to stress in talks and conversations what a wonderful standard of living we have merely because our country is bigger and has more resources than the European nations. We should realize how fortunate we are, be grateful, and do whatever we can to preserve our way of life. Others, however, presented more thoughtful evaluations: The greatest benefit I received from my experience overseas was a fuller realization that people are basically alike the world over--without doubt school children are. A public school system must of necessity be an outgrowth of the total culture and history of a people. A system which is best for one country is not necessarily best for another: however, we could learn much from one another. A year spent abroad helps one to view his own school system. Some of the methods which he accepted as more or less infallible before, he now questions. He learns that there is more than one way to achieve the same goal. In developing greater perspective regarding their homelands and host countries, some grantees also sought to correct erroneous stereotypes concerning the United States. While most stressed the importance of their daily behavior in showing their hosts "what Americans are really like," as indicated in Chapter III, many presented lectures to large audiences and engaged in extensive informal dis- cussions concerning American life with neighbors and others whom they met in the course of daily living. Among the questionnaire respondents, about half of the senior scholars and Students and three—fifths of the Teachers reported that they had been able to correct some erroneous stereotypes held by foreign citizens regarding American culture (Item II-34). As the data in Table VI-l indicate, 228 this item scaled reliably for only three of the groups and was not included in the Guttman satisfaction dimension for Research Scholars. Again, this divergence probably reflects differences in the focus of the Research Scholars’roles—- their primary purpose was to conduct research rather than communicate with others, particularly with an intent to modify their attitudes. As indicated in Chapter III, fewer Research Scholars than Lecturers presented general talks concerning American culture to foreign audiences: furthermore, the questionnaire item pertaining to such public appearances did not scale in the Research Scholars' overseas interaction Guttman dimension. As the data summarized in Table VI—l indicate, the item concerning correcting stereotypes scales near‘the maximum end of the Guttman dimensions for the relevant groups. For all categories of grantees, the maximum level of overall satisfaction with the results of their sojourn experiences involves a strong denial that their home universities or present employers are not taking advantage of potential contributions resulting from their work abroad (Item II—4l). Thus, those who are able to integrate their overseas experiences in their current roles tend to have the most favorable perceptions of the overall personal development stimulated by their sojourns abroad. On the whole, the statements concerning general evaluations of the award experiences elicited more con- sistently favorable responses than any others included in 229 the survey questionnaire. Indeed, according to the distri- bution of respondents among the Guttman scale types, about two—thirds of the grantees in all categories score in the high range of the satisfaction dimensions (i.e., score 4 or above, Table VI—2). Factor Analysis As was true with reference to the dimensions con- cerning overseas interaction, there is relatively close agreement in the item descriptions of the Guttman and factor representations of the satisfaction dimension (Table VI—3). On both orthogonally rotated factors, high loading items pertain to personal development and perspective regarding the grantees’ host countries and homeland. It is interesting to note that communicating informally with fellow Americans concerning the sojourn experiences is also associated with the satisfaction dimension for Students. Among Teachers items involving a denial of negative evaluations of the award benefits also load on the satisfaction factor. We shall discuss these items further in the next section con- cerning the cluster representation of the personal development and satisfaction dimension. Cluster Analysis Like the dimensions extracted in the factor analysis, the clustenspertaining to satisfaction for all groups of grantees are heavily loaded with items concerning personal 230 OH O5C 5 HH MNH 5 CN O5H 5 OH NNH 5 mN 5HO O NH ONH O NN COH O CN OOH O mH OOm O 5m HHC O O O5 O NH 5O O OH OON C NH ONH C OH N5 C NH NO C 5 OOH m 5 O5 m OH m5 O O HO m O OCH N O OO N O NO N O OC N O H5H H O NO H O 5C H OH OO H n55H 5CC O .YoO CO O nRHH OO O «CH OOH O “Cmoumm 50Cmswmum muoom quoumm 50CmCOmHm muoom quoumm 50C05Omnm muoom UCmoumm 50C05O0Hm whoom mquosum . mumcomma mHmHocom conmmmmm muonsuomq .m0m5u mHmom Cmfiuusw 0C» OCOEm muCOOCommwu H0 COHUCQHHumHo “COHuommmHumm HmComnmm .NIH> mHHmB 231 .HH xHOCmmmd CH mHHmCCOHummsv may mmm mEmuH mcu mo OCHOHOS HHCH HomN .COHHCHOm meHuHmCO man on OCHonooom Houomm OCH 0» COHHCQHHHCOU ECEmeE Hchu mHmE C0HC3 mEmuH 0Cu HOH 5HC0 CwbHO mum mOCHomOH HouommH NN. II II II CN. II II II mmonHHmmxo mmmm IH0>0 mu mmeu HmEHOHCH om Iqumonm 0>mc Cusumu 00CHm .OIHH om. mm. Cm. Cm. om. 5m. mm. Hm. CHmmm quHO m C0 omounm 0O OHCOS .NCIHH II ON. II II II OH. II II HomaomHHoHV quHO CH om>H0>CH OHCmoumC UHEOCoom .OmIHH II Om. II II II Om. II II AfiouH omuomHmouv mHanmmwum 5uHmHm>HCC .O.D CH .H5 .OmIHH 5C. mm. mm. mm. 5C. mm. mm. mm. 30C 5CHCCoo umoc How 5Cvmmfi5m wHofi .5mIHH OC. Om. OO. mO. Om. HO. Om. NO. .m.D C0 m>Hu00mmH0m owCHmO .OmIHH mm. mm. OC. mm. HC. mm. OC. Cm. .O.D mumom5uomHmHm omuomnuoo .CmIHH OC. Om. OO. Om. OC. mm. mm. mm. m00CmHH0mxw mHHH mHHmCHm> umOE H0 0C0 5mum .mmIHH mm. mm. O5. OO. Om. 5m. OO. OO. OCHHCumE mg on OUCOHHmmxm OCCOH .HmIHH CO. mm. 50. NO. mm. OO. 50. mO. ommmmnu ICH mHHmHHm HmCOHme InmuCH CH ummuquH .OmIHH mquo mnoco mHmHocom muons» mquo muoco mHmHocom muwnsu mEmuH m0 quuCOU HmHmCmo Isum Imma cuummmmm IomH Isum Imme coummmwm I00H N > HH HH HH HH HH HH HH «HmQECz Houomm C0Humuom meHuHmCo COHumuom meHHm> H.mOCHom0H Houomm "COHuomHmHumm OCm uCOEm0H0>mO HmCOmumm .mIH> mHQmB 232 development and international perspective (Table VI-4). In addition to the personal satisfaction cluster, two other dimensions composed of items denying negative evaluations of the award experiences were isolated in the clustering of dependent variables for certain groups (Table VI-5). These clusters are highly interrelated (r = .38 for Lecturers and r = .33 for Students): however, they are differentially related to the personal development and satisfaction cluster. That is, while the dimension involving denial of other negative evaluations is substantially correlated with the satisfaction cluster (r - .26 in the analyses for both Lecturers and Students), the other cluster concerning denial of a lack of institutional support is more highly associated with the overseas interaction cluster (correlations average r = .30 for senior scholars and r = .20 for Students) than it is with the satisfaction dimension (correlations average .16 for all relevant groups). Actually, the factor analysis also identified the dimension concerning denial of a lack of institutional support for all groups ofgrantees. In addition, the dimension per— taining to denial of other negative evaluations was extracted for Lecturers. (For Students the items defining this cluster loaded on the institutional support factor.) These factors, however, account for a negligible amount of variance, and the eigenvalues for these factors fall considerably below the Kaiser criterion (see Chapter I). We shall, however, include some further information regarding the cluster representations of these dimensions. 233 .HH xHOCwmm¢ CH muHmCCOHummsU 0C» 000 mEmuH H0 OCHono3 HHCH H05 H 5C. 5m. Hm. Cm. mC. Nm. om. NC. 30C suuCCou umoc H0O 5CquE5m whoa .5mIHH mm. Nm. H0. O0. Nm. II HO. mm. .m.D C0 0>Huommmumm omCHmO .OmIHH CC. II mC. II II II II II .O.D 0H mmm5uomumum omuomuuoo .CmIHH 5C. Hm. mm. Hm. II mC. II II mmoCmHCmme mHHH 0HHmCHm> umOE m0 0C0 5mum .mmIHH NO. NO. C5. H5. mm. mm. N5. mm. OCHHCumE on on 00C0HH0QX0 OCCOM .HmIHH HO. NO. N5. 50. H0. Om. C5. O0. oommwuo ICH mHHmmmm HmCOHHmC InquH CH ummumuCH .OmIHH musmo mumco mHmHOCom mumusu mquo mnwso mHmHocom muons» mfimuH mo uCouCoo Hmumme Isum Imma CUHmmmmm I00H Isuw Imoa Coummmmm Iowa H . HH> HH> HHH . H> HH> HH> HHH H> "Hmcfisz HoumsHU CoHumuom mCOHHQO mCHCmumCHo HmHuHCH .mOCHomOH HoumCHo "CoHuomHmHumm OCm quem0H0>0o HmComnmm .CIH> 0Hnma 234 Table VI-5. Other general evaluation clusters: loadings from oblique rotation. 1 Research General Content of Items Lecturers scholars Students Denial of lack of institutional support: II-32. Hbst institution uncooperative .69 .74 .82 II-40. Hests did not utilize abilities fully. .67 .54 .97 II-4l. Heme university or employer not maxi— mizing potential contribution. .32 -- .81 Denial of other negative evaluations: II-35. Low standard of - living unpleasant. .47 .42 II-38. Yr. in U.S. university preferable. .48 -- II-39. Economic hardship of award. .58 .52 1 For full wording ot items see the questionnaire in Appendix II. Responses to all of these items have been reflected; therefore, a positive loading indicates a denial of the statement. Summated Scaling As noted in Chapter I, before we had access to an appropriate computer and library of programs for Guttman scaling and factor analysis, we developed a summated scale for the satisfaction dimension. This index comprises questionnaire items II-30 through II-42 (see Appendix II). All items were weighted equally, and response options within items were scored from one through four. In Chapter VIII we 235 shall present additional data comparing scores on this sum- mated index with those on the Guttman satisfaction scale and the satisfaction factor. For the present let us note that the summated index is highly correlated with both of the other types of dimensions, with Pearson 5's ranging from .59 to .66 Relation of Background Variables to Satisfaction Dimensions As in the analyses of associations between grantees' characteristics and the communication and professional outcome dimensions, our discussion of the satisfaction dimensions will include data from multiple regression analyses, analyses concerning the relative loadings of background items on dependent clusters, and cross-tabular information involving Guttman scalesnores. The same background items used in the multiple regression analyses discussed in Chapters IV and V were input in the present analyses. That is, the multiple regression analyses per- taining to the dependent satisfaction dimensions include the interaction abroad factor along with thirteen of the sixteen_independent variables listed in Appendix III for the senior scholars (items 69, 72, and 72 x 73 were omitted): twelve additional items for Teachers (item 72 and the three representations of item 66 were excluded); and fourteen other independent variables for Students (items 55 and 72 were omitted). 236 Tables VI—6 and VI-7 summarize data concerning the multiple regression of independent variables on the dependent Guttman satisfaction scale scores and on the dependent satisfaction factor scores for all groups of grantees. As indicated in Chapter I, the tables present the best least square values for the weighting coefficients for variables making significant contributions in the regression equations. For all groups, scores on the overseas interaction factor are significantly related to scores on the Guttman and factor representations of the satisfaction dimension. For Students this finding agrees with data from Morris' investigation of related variables, in which he found that the volume, range, and depth of contact between foreign students at UCLA and Americans was significantly correlated with the students‘ satisfaction with their stay in the United States (1960). Similarly, Sewell and Davidsen noted a significant correlation between the extent of Scandinavian students’ participation in American life and their satis— faction with their sojourns (1961). Before considering other associations among in- dependent variables and the satisfaction dimensions, let us also present data concerning the relative loadings of the same background items on the cluster relating to personal development and satisfaction (Table VI-8) as well as on the clusters concerning other general evaluations of the award experiences (Table VI-9). As we shall note in the following OO.I ON.NI Omo OO.I OHMS HH. NO.m OH. Om. muufl + 00HUHCmECm NH.I CN.mI mO. OH.I mmd mH. OO.C HO. CO. omounm CoHuomuquH HCmHonmmoo mumm M.quoCum quHonwwoo quHonmon 0HHmHHm> H0 Houum oumOCmuO 55.5 n quumCoo ummoumuCH Cm.N n 5 .0Hm0O CmEuHCO HCOOCmmmn m0 HOHHH oanCmuO mOOO. V.m..OO. fl COHumCHfiumumn mHmHuHCS Ho UCmHUHHHOOU mHmHocom Conmmmmm OO.I 5m.NI 5H. HC.I mHCmmuo + mmousm OO.I NC.NI mO. NH.I 0O4 OO.I H0.NI CN. mO.I 0Hmz ON. O5.m HO. mO. omonnm COHuomnquH quHonmooo mumm .M quoCuO quHUHmmwoo quHonmmoo 0HHmHHm> H0 Houum oumOCmuO 0O.N n quumCou ummouquH mm.N n 5 .0Hmom CmEuuCO 9C0OC0O09 H0 Houum oumOCmum mOOO. v.m .00. u CoHumCHfiuwumn 0HmHuHsS H0 “CmHonmooo mumnspooH .m0m5HmCm C0H000HO0H OHOHUHCE "mmHmum COHuomHmHumm Cmfiuusw .0IH> mHnt 238 Co.I HO.NI 0O. mH.I 0OO CO.I ON.NI OH. NN.I Cmnu mumum 080m mO. OO.N mO. OO. szu muHm 5uHU mO.I HO.NI OH. ON.I CoHumoHHmmm omumHuHCH OO. ON.m OH. Cm. 30C Hommmmoum 5O.I Cm.mI OH. 0m.I 0Hmz 5O.I m5.mI NH. CC.I mmonHUO HmHoom OH. O0.0 HO. mO. omounm C0Hu0mH0uCH quHonmmoo muom CCwoCuO quHonmmou CC0H0HmH000 mHanHm> Ho Houum osmOCmum Hm.N u quumCou umwuuquH mC.N u 5 .0Hm0m CmEpqu CC0OC0C0Q H0 HOHHO OHmOCmuO mOOO. v.m..0O. n COHumCHsumumn mHmHuHCS H0 quHonmmoo mquoCuO 5o . mm. . H OH. Nm . mmoHCm 5HHsmH Coon. OO. Cm.N NH. Nm. memH CmHuHHm OO.I m0.NI . . NH. mm.I Cmcu mumum 080m HH.I HO.mI mH. 5C.I 0Hmz CN. 0H.O HO. mO. omonnm COHvomumuCH uCoHonmmoo muom HCmoCuO quHonmooo quHonmmoo 0HQmHHm> m0 Hanna oumOCmuO NO.N u quumCoo ummonmuCH NO.H u 5 .0Hmom CmEuuCO uCOOCmmma no woman OHmOCmuO mOOO. v.m .OO. n C0HumCHEH090Q meHuHCS H0 quHUHHmmoo mumnumma 239 OO. Om.N 50. mN.N .mHCmmoo + mmonsm OO. CC.N OH. 0O.m oumBm H0 OOHuwm OO.I mC.NI CC. OO.HI 00C0u0m800 0OmCOCmH HH.I 5H.mI OO. Cm.NI 000C0HUO HmHuom NH.I 5N.mI ON.H NO.mI 0Hmz mH.I Cm.mI O5. HO.NI Cmcu mumum 080m mH.I O5.mI OH. m5.I 0O¢ OH. Om.m CO. OH. omouflm COHuomH0UCH uCoHonmmoo mpmm M.quoCum “CmHOHHmmoo quHoHHmmoo 0HQmHHm> H0 Conum OHmOCmuO mO.Hm u quumCOU um00H0UCH HC.O n .Houomm CC0OC0O0C H0 Houum OHmOCmuO mOOO. V.m .NH. u C0HumCHEH0u0Q 0HmHuHCz Ho quHonmooo mHmHOCUO Coummmmm 5O.I mO.NI OO. NO.HI mmoCmHUO HmHUOO OO.I mC.NI O5. H5.HI Cmsu mumum 0Com NH.I HC.mI OO. 5NNmI 0Hmz NH.I CC.mI ON. 5O.I 0OC OH.I CO.CI O0. Hm.mI mHCmooo + mmonsm 0N. 50.5 mO. mN. omonnm COHuomumuCH uCoHonmmoo mumm M.quoCum quHonmmoo UCmHUHmmmoo mHanHm> H0 Houum oumOCmum 5H.N mooo. v m .2. mnwusuomq ON.OC n quumCoo ummoumuCH 5 .Houumm quonmmn H0 nonum oanCmaO COHumCHfinmuwn 0HQHUHCS H0 quHonmmoo .mmm5HmCm COHmm0HO0H mHmHuHCE "muouumm COHuomHmHumm OCm qufim0H0>0o HmC00H0m .5IH> OHQmB 240 CO.I mO.NI mm. OO.HI mmquHUO HmHoom mo. mm.N NH. Nm. CmCu muHm NuHo OO. 50.N CC. Om.H OHHO + mOHuHCmECm OO.I OC.mI Om. Nm.HI Cmcu mumum meow OO.I Om.mI mN. 5O.I 0OC mH.I NO.OI Om. 5m.NI 0Hm2 mN. m0.mH NO. mN. omounm COHuomumuCH quHonmwoo mumm UCOOCCO quHUHmmon quHonmmoU 0HQmHHm> H0 Honum OHmOCmum m0.0m n quumCoo ummummuCH mC.O n .Houomm quonmwn m0 HOHHM oumOCmuO mooo. v_m_.OH. u CoHumCHCCmumo oHCHuHCC Ho quHoHHmmoo mqumCum mo. mm.H H5. mm.H CoHumoHHmmm mmumHuHCH mo. 0C.N 55. CC.H mmoCCm 1HHHCCH Coos OO. 0C.N C0. Om.H 30C Hmcomma mH.I NC.mI O5. Cm.NI mHms NN. mN.5 mO. ON. omonflm COHuomu0UCH pCmHoHCHmoo mumm qumCum HCmHOHHHmou quHonmmoo mHCmHCm> MO .HOHHO CHM USMHW NH.m mooo. v.m..mo. mHOCUmOB OH.Om n pCmumCoo ummoumuCH .Couomm quoCommn H0 HOHHO oanCmuO COHumCHaumumn 0HQHUHCE m0 quHUHHHOOU 241 Table VI—8. Loadings of background variables on the personal development and satisfaction cluster dimensions. 1 Research Background Items: Lecturers Scholars Teachers Students 58. Sex: male -.17 -.12 -.10 -.14 59. Age at award time —.09 -.ll .05 -.10 60. Period of award -.01 .03 -.04 -.02 61. Heme state at award time -.13 -.19 -.10 —.08 63. Post-award 64. Size of home 66. Natural Sciences -.03 .02 --- -.01 66. Social Sciences -.09 -.12 --- -.09 66. Humanities + Arts -.06 -.001 -—- .06 69. Present occupation --- --- .06 -.08 70. Language competence—.13 -.15 -.07 -.03 71. Reason for appli- 72 x 73. Degree change -—- -—- -.02 -.07 II-44. Todk family 1 See Appendix III for coding of background items. 242 .meuH OCCOHOHUmH m0 OCHooo How HHH xHOCwmm< 00m N .mumumCHo mmmnu m0 quuCoo EmuH How OIH> mHnt mmmH CN.I CH.I Hoo. Co. mo.I mmounm 5HHsmm Coos .CCIHH Hooo.I III HH. III III mmCmCo mouomo .m5 x N5 mo.I 0o.I Ho.I NH. 5H. CoHumoHHCCm Com Commmm .H5 mO. OO. NH. OO. 0H. 00Cmuwmfiou 0OmCOCmH .05 OH.I III OO. III III C0Humm5000 qummnm .OO Co.I mo.I mo.I mo.I NH.I muHC + mmHuHCmsCC .00 mo. Co.I Co. mo.I 0o.I mmoCmHom HmHoom .00 moo. Co.I 0o. CH. HH. mmoCmHom HmCCumz .00 Ho. 0o.I Co. No. mo.I CmCu muHo msoC 0o muHm .C0 0o.I mo. Ho. 5o.I Co. NHHHHCOC oumzqumoC .m0 Ho. Ho.I Co. HH. ooo. msHu mmmzm pm 00000 mean .H0 0o.I Ho. mo.I mo.I CH.I .oumsm Ho moHCmC .o0 oN.I mo. Ho.I oH. 0o. msHu mumzm um mmC .mm mH.I oN.I No. mo.I mo.I mHms «x00 .mm III No. III Co.I 0o. NuuCCoo 000C .mm mquosam mamasuomq mquoCuO mHmHOCUO Cunmmmmm mumnsuomq umfimuH OCCOHOxumm mCOHumCHm>m unommsm HmCOHHCuHumCH m0 HomH m0 HmHCwn N 0>HumO02 Hmnuo mo HmHCmn H o mHGDmHHHU GOHHMSHMNVO Hmuowm Hmnuo Co mmHanHm> OCCOHOxomH Ho mOCHomOH .OIH> mHQmB 243 discussion of some of the major findings of finese analyses, there is relatively close agreement among the results of the different analyses. .According to the multiple regression analyses, females in all groups tend to score higher than males on both the Guttman and factor representations of the satis- faction dimension (Tables VI-6 and VI-7). These findings agree with the negative loadings for the sex attribute on the satisfaction cluster dimension (Table VI-8). High scorers on the Guttman satisfaction scale show the following con- centrations among males and females: 61%Ivs. 78%Ifor Lecturers; 63% vs. 77% for Research Scholars; 69% vs. 75% for Teachers; and 62% vs. 68% for Students. In addition to this sex difference on the satisfaction dimension, females tend to score higher than males on the cluster con- cerning denial of other negative evaluations regarding their award experiences (Table VI—9). Another badkground variable showing rather a con- sistent relationship with the Guttman and factor satisfaction dimensions for three of the groups concerns the grantees' age at award time. According to the multiple regression and cluster loading data, younger Lecturers, Research Scholars, and Students tend to report greater overall satisfaction with their sojourn experiences (Tables VI—6 through VI—8). This finding is further illustrated by cross-tabular data which show over 70% of the senior scholars under 30 years of age in the high score range of the Guttman 244 satisfaction scale, in contrast to around 60%»of those over 50 years of age. High scorers on this dimension for Students include 67% of those under 25 as opposed to around 60% of those 26 and older. In contrast to the other groups, Teachers in the 40-50 age range tend to score higher than their younger or older colleagues. As the multiple regression and cluster loading data indicate (Tables VI—6 through VI-8), the geographic region of their host countries has a differential impact on the satisfaction dimensions for Lecturers as opposed to Research Scholars. These differences are further illustrated by the cross-tabular data involving the Guttman satisfaction scales, which show over 70%Iof the Lecturers sojourning in the Far East and the Near and Middle East in the high score range, in contrast to approximately 60% of those whose awards t00k them to Europe and 50%Iof those stourning in Oceania. For Research Scholars this pattern is reversed, with only 54% of those sojourning in the Far East scoring in the high range, as opposed to 70% of the researchers in Europe as well as in Oceania. In Chapter VIII we shall present some tentative suggestions regarding these differences. Another sojourn variable associated with the grantees' general evaluations of their award experiences involves their fields of work overseas. According to the multiple regres- sion and cluster loading data, senior scholars and Students in the social sciences tend to score lower on the factor and cluster representations of the satisfaction dimension 245 than do their peers in other fields (Table VI-6 and VI-8). The Guttman satisfaction scale also indicates that relative to their colleagues in the arts, professional social service, agriculture, and other technical or professional specialties, the social scientists among the senior scholars and Students have smaller representations among the high scorers. Only for Students, however, was this Guttman scale difference identified as significant in the multiple regression analysis (Table VI-7). These data suggest that grantees in the arts or in roles involving service to host nationals feel greater gratification with reference to the personal develop- ment accruing to them as a consequence of their sojourn experiences. It is also possible that the more sophisticated grantees in the social sciences are more reluctant to indi- cate strong agreement with some of the questionnaire state- ments included in the satisfaction dimensions. As the relatively high position loadings for the Natural Sciences item suggest, field of work abroad is also associated with the cluster concerning denial of a lack of institutional support (Table VI-9). This finding, in con— junction with the data concerning the loadings of other background items on this dimension, provides some insight into the different emphasis of this cluster as contrasted with the satisfaction dimension. We have already noted the relatively low association between these clusters. Let us now summarize the patterning of loadings on the two dimensions. In general, high scorers on the satisfaction dimension are typically younger single females, who come from states not 246 included in the category comprising the high prestige univer- sities, whose applications for awards are initiated indepen— dently or upon the encouragement of colleagues, whose language proficiency is not fluent, and whose fields of work generally involve concentration in the arts or profes— sional social service (Table VI-8). There is a suggestion in this patterning that sojourning abroad has a greater impact on grantees with relatively lower background status character— istics. In contras: to this patterning, the loadings on the cluster concerning denial of a lack of institutional support indicate that the older faculty members in the natural sciences, who are sufficiently established in their fields that their applications are requested by American or foreign institutions, and who have good command of their host countries‘ languages seem to be more easily integrated into professional roles at their host institutions (Table VI-9). Further discussion of the patterning of associations among background characteristics of grantees and outcomes of their sojourn experiences will be included in the follow- ing two chapters. CHAPTER,VII RELATIONS AMONG BACKGROUND VARIABLES AND OUTCOME DIMENSIONS In Chapters III through VI we explored the relation— ship between grantees‘ background characteristics (described in Chapter II) and certain outcomes of their award experiences by means of three types of analyses. In a series of multiple regression analyses we assessed the relative importance of background items in predicting scores on outcome dimensions represented by rotated factors and Guttman scales. We also considered the relative loadings of these same ante— cedent characteristics of grantees on comparable outcome cluster dimensions. Finally, we presented data from cross- tabulations involving individual background items and Guttman scale scores. The next chapter will include a comparison of these methods of analysis. For the present let us turn to still other methods of relating background variables and outcome dimensions. First we shall discuss some results from a series of canonical correlation analyses. Then we shall consider data from a series of cluster analyses in- volving both background and Outcome variables. 247 248 Canonical Correlation of Antecedents and Outcomes As noted above, thus far in our exploration of the relationship between the grantees‘ background characteristics and the outcomes of their award experiences, we have con- sidered each outcome dimension separately in its association with the set of background items. In effect, therefore, while our analyses of the separate sets of antecedent and outcome variables have been multivariate, our treatment of the relations among the antecedents and outcomes has been only partially multivariate since we have considered the combination of multiple measures only for the background items and have treated each outcome dimension individually, in a univariate manner so far as the multiple regressions are concerned. Let us now consider the results of analyzing the total set of background variables in relation to the total set of outcome dimensions by means of canonical cor- relation. Tables VII-l through VII-4 present three separate canonical correlations for each group of grantees: one relating the background items with the Guttman scale scores as well as the summated professiOnal achievement index scores: another relating the badkground items with the dependent factor scores: and finally one relating the factor scores from the analysis of the background items with the factor scores from the analysis of the outcome items. In each instance vectors from only the first canonical variates are presented. The figures listed in the canonical 9 4 2 NO. uC0800H0>0o HmCOHmm0monm mO.I COHuommmHumO CO. omouflm COHu0mH0uCH CO.I mCOHCmH0.H 0HHHCO mO.I C0Hum0HC08 I800 HmC0HumC IH0CCH HmComC0mH0uCH mO. 0OHum0Hm HmCOHmm0H0Cm m0HanHm> UC0OC0Q0Q OO.I muua + 00HuHCmECm 5o.I mom OO. omouflm 5HHCCC Coos OH.I 0Hmz mH. C0Cp 0umum 080m CH.I 000C0HUO HmHCumz NN. oumBm H0 ooHH0m mN.I 000C0Hom HmHUOO ON. C0cu 0NHm 5uHo ON. mHCm000 + 0moudm Om. 00C0u0m I800 0OmCOCmH Hm.I o0um0CO0H COHumoHHQQO m0HQmHHm> uC0OCmm0OCH WHOHUO> HMUHCOCGU CO. "COHumH0HHOU Hm0HC0Cm0 1 Co.I 000C0CU0mC00 HmCOHmmmmoum NH.I COHuommmHumO HC. omoan COHuumH0uCH 0C. x0OCH uC080>0HC04 5C.I COHuumH0uCH COH0H0m o0CCHuCOU N0. COHuom IH0uCH Cm0HH084 m0HQmHHm> “C0OC0Q0Q No. 0O< CO. mHCm000 + 0&0H0m OO.I 0Hm2 OH.I muud + m0HuHCm8Cm OH. 000C0HUO HmH00O OH.I o0pm050 I09 CoHumoHHmmd OH. 00C0u0m I800 0OmCOCmH CN.I omounm 5HH8mH x009 mN. C0Cu 0NHm 5uHU Om.I oum3m H0 00HH0O 0C. C0cu 0umum 080$ Om.I 000C0HUO Hmnsumz m0HQmHHm> “C0OC0C0OCH 0H0u00> Hm0HC0Cm0 Om. «GOHUNHOHHOU HMUflCOCMU WOHOUW XOUGH #GQEO>0H£U¢ HMCOHWMOMOHQ GQHMEESM 0C4 m0uoom Houomm x 080CH OCCOHOHUmO m0uoom 0HmUO Cm8uqu x 080uH OCCOCOxomO .m0HQmHHm> UC0OC0Q0o x mmHanHm> OCCOHOxomQ m0 mCoHumH0HH00 Hm0HC0Cm0 “0H0HCHU0H .HIHH> 0Hnm8 250 NO.I OO.I OH.I ON.I Om.I OO. COHumUHC58800 HO.I Homm0moum .5HH8mH x00» .0Hmz HmCOHumCH0uCH HmComH0mH0uCH NO.I 30C OCm C0Cu 0umum 080m omounm COHuomH0UCH NO. o0um0CO0H COHumUHHmmm .munm COHHUmHmHumO + m0HuHCmECm .00C0u0m800 mCOHumH0H 0HHQCO 0OmCOCmH ~mHCm000 + 0mousm uC0800H0>0o HmCOHmm0H0Hm mO. 30C OCm C0Cu 0NH0 5uHU 0OHum0Hm HmCOHmm0H0Hm 0H. 5uHHHH08 .HIV 0O¢ muou0mm uC0OC0m0Q mnouumm UC0OC0Q0OCH 0H0u00> Hm0HC0Cm0 0C. "CoHumH0HHOU Hm0HC0Cm0 00H00O Hou0mm uC0OC0Q0Q x 00Hoom Houomm OCCOHOxumm 251 HOO. 000C0HUO HmHuom COO. mHHC + m0HpHCm85m Ho . 03 Ho . 03026 5O. o0um0CO I0H CoHumUHHQOC I0H CoHumUHHCCC mO.I mHCm000 + 0mon5m OO. 00C0H0m OH. 0Hmfi I800 0mmCOCmH OH. omonflm OH. omOHHm COO.0OHH00HQ HmCOHmmmmoum OO.I chu 0NHm 5uHo COHCUmH0uCH 5HH8mm x009 HO. COHuommmHumO NH. munfi + m0HuHCm85m HH.I C0H00m NH. C0Cu 0NHm 5uHU CO. uC08 OH.I m00C0Hum Hmnoumz IC0uCH Cm0HH08C mH° 00C0u0m ImoH0>0o HmCOHmm0H0Hm ON. omounm OH.I C0Hu0mmmHumO I800 0Om5OCmH OO.I omonnm CoHpomuquH 5HH8mH x009 HN. C0Hp0mu0uCH CH. 000C0HUO HmHCumz mH.I COHumoHCCE Hm.I C0cu wumum 080$ COH0HOO o0CCHpCoo ON. 0mm I800 HmC0HumCH0p Hm.I 0Hmz 0m.I 000C05000 Om. oumzm Ho ooHC0m ICH HmCOmH0mH0HCH Om.I mHCm000 + 0&0HCO IC00 HmCOHmm0HOCm 0m. 000C0HUO HmHoom 0H. mCoHumH0H oHHQCm mm. oum3m H0 ooHH0C OO. X0OCH CC080>0HC0< H5. C000 0umum 080m 00HQmHCm> m0HQmHHm> 00HQmHHm> m0HQmHCm> uC0OC0m0Q uCOOC0m0OCH UCO0COQOQ uCOOC0m0OCH mu0u00> Hm0HC0Cm0 mH0u00> Hm0HC0Cm0 NC. “CoHumH0Cuoo Hm0HC0Cm0 Hm. "COHumH0HH00 Hm0HC0Cm0 m0n00m Houomm x mE0uH OCCOHOxumO 00Hoom x0OCH uC080>0HC0C HmCOHmm0HOHm owum88sm OCC m0uoom 0HmUO Cm8HHCO x m80uH OCCOHOxomO .m0HQmHHm> uCOOC0m0o x m0HQmHHm> OCCOHOMUmQ m0 mCOHumH0HH00 Hm0HC0Cm0 "mHmHOCUO conm0m0m .NIHH> 0HQmB 252 NOO. HO. OO. OO. OO.I 55.I C0Hum0HC58800 HmC0HumCH0uCH HmCOmC0mH0uCH mCOHumH0H 0HHHCO COHuommmHumm 0C0800H0>0o HmCOHmmmmoum 0OHum0Hm HmCOHmm0H0Hm omonnm C0Hp0mu0uCH muou0mm uC0OC0m0Q mu0u00> Hm0HC0Cm0 Ho.I No. OO. OO.I ON.I 30C OCm C0Cu 0NHm 5uHo 00C0u0m800 0OmCOCmH ~30C OCm C0Cu 0umum 30C HOmm0HOHm .0Hm8 ~5HH8mH x009 HIV mom .NCHHHCCC HIV muHC + m0HuHCm8Cm .HIV mHCm000 + 0monsm .o0um0CO0H COHumoHHOQC mnouumm uC0OC0mmoCH "COHumH0HHOU Hm0HC0Cm0 m0noom H0u0mm 0C00C0m0n x m0noom Houumm OCCOHOxomO 3 5 2 HO.I omounm C0H00m000CH mO.I C0H00mHmH0mO mO. 0C0800H0>0o HmCOHmm0HOHO mO. 0OH0m0Hm HmCOHmm0moum OO.I C0H0m0HC58 I800 HmC0H0mC IC00CH HmCOmH0mH00CH OO. mCoH0mH0H 0HHQCO m0HQmHHm> 0C0OC0Q0Q 0C0000> Hm0HC0Cm0 Om. mo. HH.I OH. 5H., NN. 5N.I NO.I 5O.I Om. OO. m0HmH CmH0HHm 0O¢ omounm 5HH8mH x009 0Hm2 C0c0 000O0o 0m0COHm 00C000Q I800 0OmCOCmH C0H0m0 IHHCCm omumHuHCH C030 0NHm 50Ho C0C0 00000 080m oumBm mo 00Hu0m m0HQmHHm> 0C0OC0Q0OCH "C0H0mH00000 Hm0HC0Cm0 CH.I C0H00mmmH0mO HN.I omounm C0H00mH00CH Cm. x0OCH 0C080>0HC0< NC. C0H00mH00CH COHOHOH o0CCH0COU NO.I m00COCO0m IC00 HmCOHmm0Honm OO. C0H00m IC00CH Cm0HH08C m0HHmHHm> 0COOC0®0Q 0H0000> Hm0HC0Cm0 HO. HO.I OO.I 5O.I OH.I OH. ON.I ON. OC. mC. CO. 00C000m I800 0OmCOCmH 0HmS oumzm Ho 00HHOO omouflm 5HHsmm Coos C0C0 00HO0o 000COHO m0HmH C0H0HCO C0C0 0NHm 50HU 0O¢ C0H0m0 IHHCCm omumHuHCH C000 00m0m 080m m0HQmHHm> 0C0OC0Q0OCH "GOHDMHGHHOU HMUHQOCMU MOHOUm HOHUNM X mfiwflH UCSOHOMUmm wQHOUm XGUCH HCGEO>0H£U¢ HMGOHmmwMOHm WWHMEESM UG‘ m0uoom 0Hm0O Cm800sw x 0800H OCCOHOHUmm .m0HQmHHm> 0C0OC000o x m0HQmHHm> OCCOCOH0mQ Ho mC0H0mH00000 Hm0HC0Cm0 "00000m08 .mIHH> 0HQmB 254 CO. OO.I HH. CH. OC.I 5O.I NOO. oumBm 00 OOHH0O .HIV 00H< + 00H0HCm80m .HIV 00HOH CmHuHum .5HHsmm vH000 .mHmz Co.I 30C OCm C000 0NH0 50HU 0C0H0mH0H 0HHQCC mO.I HIV 0mm ~50HHH008 C0H00m00H0mm oum3mI0mom ~0OCmco 00HO0Q C0H0m0HC58800 5O. 00C0000800 0OmCOCmH HmC0H0mCH00CH HmC0000mH00CH .30C OCm C0C0 00m0m 0C0800H0>0o HmC0H000monm OO. C0H0m0HHmmm 0OH000HQ HmC0H000HOHm o00mH0HCH .HIV 30C H0com0B omonnm C0H00mu00CH ~C0C0 OCm 30C 00HO0Q 00000mm 0C0OC0O0Q 00000mm 0C0OC0Q0OCH 0H0000> Hm0HC0Cm0 5N . uCOH¥MHOHHOU HMUHGOGMU 000000 0000mm 0C0OC0Q0Q x 000000 0000mm OCCOHOxumm 5 5 2 mOO.I C0H0m0HC08 I800 HmC0H0mC000CH HmC0000m000CH HO. 0C08®0H0>0o HmC0H000HO0m CO.I 0C0H0mH00 0HHHCO CO.I 0OH0000Q HmC0H000Ho0m OO.I om000m C0H00m000CH CH.I C0H00m00H0m0 ON. 0C0H0mH0m Hm IC0H000000O OCH0COC0 00HHmH0m> 0C0OC0Q0Q mo.I 0000 + meuHCmsCC mO. 000C0H00 Hm0s0mz CO.I o0m3m mo o0H00nHH CO. C0H0mo IHHmmm o00mHOHCH CO. om00nm 5HH8mm #008 OO.I C000 00m00 0800 OH. 000000m I800 0OmCOCmH OH. C000 0NH0 50HU OH.I 000C0H00 HmH000. CN. 000 ON. C000 1 000O0o 0000OH0. H5. 0Hm2_ 00HHmH0m> 0C0oC0Q0OCH MHOHU®> HMUHCOCMU NC. 000000 0000mm x 0800H OCCO0OHUmO "C0H0mH00000 Hm0HCOCmU1 OO. om00Qm C0H00m000CH OH.I C0H00m00H0m0 OH. x0OCH 0C080>0H00¢ ON. 000C0CO00C00 , HmCOH000Oo0m 1 5C.I C0H00m I000CH Cm0H008< CO.I C0H00m000CH COH00OH o0CCH0COU 00HQmH0m> 0C0OCwm0Q C000 000000 0000OHm NO. mHCm000 + 000050 mO.I C000 00m00 0800 50. C0H0m0 IHHCCm omumHuHCH OO. 000C0H00 Hm0s0mz oH.I CoCu mNHm 50Ho NH. 000C0H00 HmH000 NH. 0000 + 00H0HCm8Cm 5H. 0Hmz ON. 00C000m I800 0OmCOCmH HN.I om000m 5HHCCH xooe ON. 000 m0. o0m3m mo 00H00m 00Han0m> 0C0OC0000CH 000000> Hm0HC0Cm0 OC. 1 «COHUMHOHHOU HMUHCOGMU 000000 x0OCH 0C080>0H00< HmCoH000Ho0m o00m8850 0C0 000000 0Hm00 Cm80050 x 0800H OCCO0OHUmO .00HQmH0m> 0C0OC0m0o x 00HQmH0m> OCCO0OMUm0 Ho 0C0H0mH00000 Hm0HCOCm0 "mqumsum .CIHH> mHCme 256 5O.I OH. HH.I 5H. CM. CC.I HO.I C0H0m0HCC8800 HmC0H0mC000CH HmC0000m000CH 0C0H0mH00 0HHHCO 0C0H0mH00 HmC0H000mo0m 0CH0COCm C0H00m00H0m0 0C0800H0>0o HmC0H000mo0m 00H0000m HmC0H000wo0m omo00m C0H00m000CH 00000mm 0C0OC0O0Q MOO. COO. mo.I CO. OO. HIV 00030 no moHCmC .50HHHnos o0m3mI0000 .30C 000000000 .30C 000000 .00Cm00 000000 00C0000800 00m00CmH ~30C OCm C000 00m00 C0H0m0HHmmm o00mH0HCH ~0Hm8 ~5HH8mH 0009 30C OCm C000 0NH0 50HU 00m ~C000 000000 00000mm 0C0OC0O0OCH 000000> Hm0HC0Cm0 OC. "C0H0mH00000 Hm0HCOCm0 000000 0000mm 0C00C000Q x 000000 0000mm OCCO0Ox0mm 257 vectors give the weightings for each background and each outcome variable which produce the maximum correlation be- tween the two sets. In the course of computing a canonical correlation, the elements in each set are transformed to new variables which are mutually orthogonal. Then the correlations be- tween certain members of the two sets are maximized while others are reduced to near zero (cf. Kendall, 1957, ch. 5). For example, the canonical correlation analysis of back- ground factor scores and dependent factor scores for Lecturers (Table VII-l) essentially concerns an association between the most highly weighted background factor pairing items regarding relative youth and post-award mobility and the most highly weighted dependent factor concerning pro— fessional prestige derived from the award experiences. Relatively less weighting is given the other factors in each set. It is interesting to note that the weightings and directions of the associations in this example agree with the findings from the multiple regression analysis and the relative loadings of badkground items on the dependent cluster concerning professional prestige (Chapter V). Interpreting the negative weighting for the professional development factor on the dependent vector poses some problems, however, and we shall return to this analysis later. Another example of the canonical procedure's maximi- zation of certain associations among the two sets of variables 258 (in general agreement with the multiple regression and cluster loading data) along with the reduction of other associations (sometimes producing divergences from earlier findings) is provided in the analysis of background items and factor scores for Students (Table VII-4). Let us consider the most highly weighted variables in each vector. In general the weightings and their directions agree with data presented in Chapter V where we noted that high scorers on the Enduring Professional Relations factor tended to be older male Students in natural sciences or in disciplines other than the social sciences or humanities and arts. Furthermore, in conjunction with the data on the back- ground vectors, the negative weighting for the Satisfaction _factor on the canonical outcome vector agrees with the previous finding that younger females scored higher, but it diverges from the previous indication that Students in disciplines other than social science scored higher (Chapter VI). .The sign of the weighting for city size on the canonical background vector disagrees with the multiple regression and cluster loading findings for both the Enduring Professional Relations and the Satisfaction dependent factors. The example just discussed illustratasthe point that considering the dependent factor or scale scores separately--as in a series of multiple regression analyses-- produces different information from that obtained in treating these dependent scores as a set--as in canonical correlation. 259 The obvious primary reason for divergences, of course, lies in the fact that the canonical correlation procedure weights the whole battery of dependent elements in addition to weight- ing the predictors, as is done in multiple regression analysis. Furthermore, as noted previously, the elements in each set of data are transformed into mutually independent (orthogonal) variables in the canonical correlation procedure: therefore, while the final weightings tend to maximize certain associations between the sets of transformed elements they are not affected by within set correlations of variables, as are the Beta weights in the multiple regression analysis. With reference to this last point, we should again note that in the multiple regressions for the outcomes occurring subsequent to the grantees' overseas experiences, scores on the interaction abroad factor were considered along with the other antecedents: therefore, the Beta weightings from the post—award multiple regressions were affected by correlations of background items with the overseas interaction factor as well as by the correlations of each antecedent with the particular outcome being analyzed. Let us turn now to some problems of interpreting the canonical correlation data. In discussing the analysis of background factor scores and dependent factor scores for Lecturers (Table VII-l), we noted previously that while the highest positive weighting was given to scores on the professional prestige factor, a relatively high negative 260 weighting was given to those on the professional development factor. Such differential weightings——in addition to those for the other dependent factors--resulted in a maximal correlation with the composite of weighted background factors. But is this mathematical representation of these sets of data reasonable or helpful? From other information we have regarding the association between professional prestige and professional development, an outcome in which prestige is weighted positively and development negatively seems relatively im- probable. As we shall see in the next chapter the two factors are highly positively correlated. Furthermore, in Chapter V we noted that items from both factors combined in the Guttman Professional Consequences Scale in such a manner that the items regarding prestige were at the maximum end of the scale, indicating that grantees who answered affirmatively to the prestige items also agreed with the professional development statements. Thus the canonical analysis seems to be isolating an outcome contrary to the earlier findings--an outcome wherein a grantee experiences the prestige effects without reporting the professional development. An apparent resolution of this dilemma may be accomplished by reflecting the signs of the weightings in both of the canonical vectors--a trivial operation which does not affect the canonical correlation coefficient. 261 Then the predicted outcome is composed of a high negative weighting on prestige and a positive weighting on develop- ment. While this pattern appears to be in a less dissonant relationship with our Guttman information it still seems substantively unsatisfactory. That is, in this situation we might have two individuals with the same professional development experiences but who differed with respect to prestige contributions--one reporting such benefits and the other not. The weightings then would penalize the individual who had received recognition for his development and would give a higher score to the grantee who reported the same amount of development without the prestige effects. It appears that the most predictable composite criterion in this instance is not particularly meaningful--it penalizes for high scores on the prestige factor but assigns some importance to scores on the development, public relations, and satisfaction factors. What seems to be implied is that in this composite new perspectives and personal development are important for the grantee as is his communicating these to others in his home environment-— provided he does not receive professional recognition for his development. Overseas interaction experiences and subsequent follow-ups on relationships established abroad are neglected in this particular composite. Let us take another example—-again from the analysis for Lecturers in Table VII-l—-to illustrate problems of interpreting the canonical correlation data. The maximum 262 correlation--.39-—between the background items and a set of outcomes comprised of the Guttman scales and the summated professional achievement index is produced primarily by a combination of background characteristics involving not being a natural scientist, coming from the states with many of the more productive universities, and going abroad early in the 1947-1957 period in conjunction with a combination of outcomes involving scoring high on the Guttman scale relating to internationally-oriented communication with fellow Americans, scoring low on the continued foreign interaction dimension, scoring high on the summated achievement index, and scoring high on the Guttman interaction abroad scale. Is this a meaningful representation of the data? Again our problems of interpretation center on the composite outcome vector. For attribute data of the type included in the antecedent vector different combinations of weightings and signs generally do not pose serious problems of inter- pretation. But the patternings of the behaviors involved in the scores on the outcome dimensions connote more meaning, and in this instance an overall outcome of the awards in- volving low scores on continued interaction with foreigners coupled with high scores on interaction overseas and high scores on internationally-oriented communication with fellow Americans does not seem to be a reasonable--or desirable--syndrome. Empirically, such a patterning of 263 outcomes does not seem highly probable since, as we shall see in the next chapter, among the other Guttman scales the continued foreign interaction dimension has its highest positive correlation with the interaction abroad scale and its second highest positive correlation with the American interaction scale. Of course, as noted before, these within set correlations do not affect the canonical correlation. What the present canonical correlation suggests is that the best linear association between the given antecedents and outcomes occurs when we weight the variables ad indicated so that the important behaviors in the composite award out- come involve a large amount of communication between grantees and significant others in their immediate environment--be it overseas, as reflected in the interaction abroad scale, or at home, as manifested in the American interaction scale-- along with relatively little follow-up vis-a—vis the relation- ships established (as evidenced by the negative weighting for the continued foreign interaction scale). While some critics of the "superficiality" of American friendship patterns might claim that such a syndrome is typical of gregarious Americans who interact a great deal but do not form many deep and enduring relations, the pattern hardly seems to be the type of composite outcome an administrator of exchange programs would wish to foster. In our examples of problems involved in interpreting the canonical correlation data we have been addressing ourselves 264 to questions raised by Kendall who notes that theory has outrun practice with this technique: therefore, it is not yet clear for what types of problems the canonical cor- relation model is most appropriate. As he so cogently concludes, after using this technique we have to face the question "whether our new variables have any obvious interpretation and can be identified with something 'real,‘ or whether they are to remain artefacts brought out by the mathematics" (1957, p. 81). Our general conclusion is that vis-a—vis the present data the latter is the situation. In the next chapter we shall develop this discussion further. Cluster Analyses Involving Background and Outcome Variables Compined Variable Cluster Analyses. In discussing the individual outcome dimensions in Chapters III through VI, we incorporated findings from one cluster analysis involving the background as well as the dependent variables. In that particular analysis, however, the background items were temporarily deleted from the correlation matrix during the clustering process so that the dimensions evolved actually accounted for the correlation structure of the dependent items alone. Once the dependent clusters were extracted, then the relative loadings of the background items on these dimensions were calculated. 265 Let us now consider another application of cluster analysis to the entire matrix of background and dependent items--with no variables suppressed during the clustering process. This analysis includes the thirteen items pertaining to professional achievements along with the other information concerning outcomes of the award experiences. A summary description of the clusters extracted in the combined variable analysis for each group of grantees appears in Table VII-5. In terms of item content and relative loadings, most of the clusters identified in the combined analysis correspond to those extracted in the analyses of separate subsets of badkground or outcome variables (see the clusters designated by "XX"). In only one instance is there a definitely composite cluster, combining a background and an outcome dimension (see the two clusters identified by "C" in Table VII-5). In a number of cases in the present analysis, how- ever, clusters similar to those extracted in previous analyses of subsets of items include variables from the previously excluded set (see the clusters identified by a "+" in Table VII-5). For example, in the combined variable analysis for Research Scholars, the dependent item concerning the attainment of a new position loads positively as part of the background cluster relating to age and post-award mobility. In the identification of the major dependent clusters in the combined analysis, the background item 266 HH>V 0C0H0m5Hm>0 0>H0m00C 00000 5C0n HH>V 0000050 HmC0H050H00CH mo xomH 5C0n “>0 00C0800HH08000m 0H00H00¢ H>O mmmmCe 00H0H00m 030C ~000C00000 0000mm H30 0C0H0m0HH050 HmCOH000HO00 H>V 0000500 302 H30 C0H008000 ~C0H0H000 302 H>O 0C0H0mH00 HmC0H0000000 302 H30 00C0000000CH 0000m0 5C0Q H>V 00C0H000X0 Ho 05Hm> .0000 30H 5C0Q M000005HU 0C00C0000 00000 HH>O C0H00000H000 H>V 0C0H0mH0m HmCOH000Ho00 0CH050C0 H30 00H00000 HmC0H0000000 H>V 000800H0>0Q HmC0H000mo00 H>HV 0C0H0mH0m 0HH050 HmC0H0mC000CH H>Hv .8800 .H0mC000CH HmC00000000CH HHHHV 0m0000 C0H00m000CH m000005HU 0C00C0000 0Cmm2 0OCm00 000000 ~00m50CmH 000000 ~C0H0m05000 0C00000 50HHH008 00m3mI0000 .000 30C 0Cm C000 50H0 0800 0Hm8 ~0m00on 5HH8mH 0009 300 0Cm C000 00m00 0800 N000005HU 0C5000¥0mm + §1§1§0111§§ + 2022218 filifiifixxfiii CCCCCIC fiiiixoiigfii fifiéfifififi QoIIQ fiiéfifilfi C§§$:: fifixoii fiofiilo fiixio: 00C00500 00000m09 00mH0000 000050000 000m000m H.0H05HmCm 00005H0 0H0mH0m> 00CH0800 000 CH 0000m00x0 0C0H0C08HQ .OIHH> 0H0mH 267 .000050000 00 0000500 000 00003 0000000 000 00 00000 00000000000000 0000500 0000 000300000 00000000000 00 00000850 009 .00 0000000 000 00000500 00000 00 00000000000 00000800 00000000 00 05000 0005000000 0 000 00000000 000 00 000 00 000000000 000 0000500 0 00000000 0000000> 00000800 000 00 000000800 000000000 0 000 0050000000 0 000000800 0000500 0 00000000 0000500 0000000> 00000800 000 00 0000000000 000 00 00000000> 00 000050 0000000 8000 08000 00050000 00003 050 .000000800 0000000x0 000500>000 0 00 0000800 0000500 0 00000000 0000500 0000000> 00000800 000 00 0000000x0 000 050 00000000 0500>000 0 00 00000000 0000500 0 00000000 0500>000 0 00 0000000x0 000 050 00000000 0000000> 00000800 000 00 0000000000 0000500 0 00000000 0000500 0000000> 00000800 000 00 00 0003 00 00000000 0500>000 0 00 0000000x0 0000500 0 "000000000 000300000 000 0>00 00000 0000 00 0005 m m .H0 00 268 concerning host country loads negatively as part of the Lecturers‘ International Public Relations dimension; and the items pertaining to age at award time and to present occupation as a professor load positively as elements in the Students' Professional Development cluster. In both instances these findings agree with results from the multiple regression analyses as well as with data concerning the relative loadings of background items on dependent clusters (see Chapters IV and V). Among the other dependent clusters which include background items in the dimensions extracted from the com- bined variable analysis are the following: In the Research Scholars' and Students' cluster concerning artistic accomplish- ments. the field of work dummy variable for Humanities and Arts loads positively. In the Students' professional publi— cations cluster the item pertaining to change in academic degree loads positively, as it does in their cluster concerning theses, which also includes the item concerning present occupation as professor. For Teachers the previous doublet of items concerning the attainment of a new position and a promotion is expanded in the present analysis by inclusion of the age variable. loaded negatively. As expected, these data also agree with information from the previous analyses regarding relative loadings of background items on clusters extracted from the matrix of outcome variables alone. These particular dimensions were not used in multiple regression analyses. 269 As the data in Table VII-5 indicate, in some instances—-e.g., the age. mobility background cluster for Lecturers--a cluster identified in a previous analysis does not appear in the combined variable analysis (see the clusters designated by "0"). In the Students' analysis this discrepancy might result from the fact that 15 clusters represent the maximum cutoff in the Tryon program. Thus. since 4 clusters had been extracted in the clustering of the subsets of background variables and 15 had been isolated in the analysis of dependent variables, then--given the cut- off rule--all of the former clusters could not appear in the present clustering of the full set of items. The converse situation also occurs in the present analysis. That is. in some instances such as the background cluster concerning city size for Lecturers and Teachers, clusters which were not isolatedfor particular groups in previous analyses appear in the combined variable analysis (see the clusters designated by "X" in Table VII-5). It is particularly interesting to note that in the combined variable analysis the dimension concerning Interpersonal International Communication appears as part of the cluster domain structure for Research Scholars, but it is still absent in the Lecturers' cluster structure. A cluster including the Interpersonal International Communication dimension also appears for the first time in the combined analysis for Teachers. This cluster represents the single occurrence of a definitely combined dimension, 270 composed of a previously extracted background dimension (concerning present occupation and academic degree) as well as the currently isolated dependent dimension concerning interpersonal international communication. In this composite cluster the items in the background dimension are reflected so that negative loadings on present occupation as a teacher and on host country and language Skill as well as positive loadings on academic degree combine with positive loadings on the dependent items concerning inter— personal international communication. This composite agrees with the multiple regression data discussed in Chapter IV, and suggests that relatively high academic status (as indicated by academic degree) and an administra- tive position (suggested by the fact that these grantees are not currently teaching in elementary or secondary schools) facilitate interpersonal international communication. The negative loadings on items concerning host country and language skill suggest the following possibilities. With reference to internationally-related interaction with fellow Americans. the Teachers who have sojourned in countries on the Continent or in other areas of the world may be sought out in particular by prospective grantees needing information concerning institutional practices, local conditions, etc. Vis-a-vis continued relationships with host nationals, it may be that Teachers scoring high on the composite dimension receive most communications from foreigners who are competent in English and who hope 271 these Teachers can exert influence to make possible the foreigners? engaging in educational pursuits in the United States. With the one exception of the composite dimension just discussed. in general the combined variable cluster analysis does not provide much additional information vis-a-vis the present data. Most of the clusters extracted in the present analysis were identified in previous cluster— ings of subsets of the variables. Furthermore, data con- cerning the inclusion of variables from one subset of items along with those defining a dimension composed primarily of items from a different subset agree with findings reported previously from multiple regression analyses and analyses of the relative loadings of background items on clusters extracted from the matrix of outcome variables alone. In a few instances the combined variable analysis detects clusters not isolated previously for certain groups; however, the converse situation also occurs--indeed. the fifteen cluster cutoff in the Tryon program seems to impose an arbitrary restriction on the amount of information elicited.. Further discussion of the combined variable analysis is included in the report of findings from additional cluster analyses which we shall now discuss. Within—Groups Cluster Structure Analysis. In further exploring relations among background and outcome dimensions for each group of grantees, we performed a cluster analysis 272 of the oblique dimensions extracted from three separate analyses--the cluster analysis of the subset of back- ground items; the cluster analysis of the subset of outcome items; and the analysis just discussed of the full set of items (with none suppressed during the clustering). Tables VII—6 through VII-9 summarize the loadings of the dimensions from previous analyses on the clusters extracted in this analysis for each group of grantees. The tables also present correlation matrices summarizing the associations among the rotated oblique clusters identified for each group in the present analysis. While some of the clusters extracted in the present analysis merely involve doublets consisting of a dimension identified in an analysis of a subset of items as well as the analogous dimension isolated in the combined variable analysis, other clusters provide more information concerning relationships among several dimensions. Let us consider the cluster structure suggested by the present analysis for each group. For the Lecturers the Interaction Abroad dimension appears in combination with the dimension consisting of a doublet involving new professional relations established overseas and maintenance of these professional contacts (Cluster Number 7. Table VII-6). The Professional Development dimension combines with other dependent dimensions concerning tangible consequences of the grantees' development 273 0m. AHHHV 000000 00000000000 .0 0m. 000000 00000000000 .0 00. A>v 000000000 000000000000 302 .0 00. 000000000 000000000000 302 .0 00. AH>V 000000500>0 0>000000 00000 0000 .0 00. 000000500>0 0>000000 00000 0000 .0 00. A>V 00000000 000000000000 .0 00. 00000000 000000000000 .0 m0. 0000500 0000 ~000000000 000050 0000000000000 .0 mm. A>Hv 000000000 000050 0000000000000 .0 m0. AH>V 000000000000 .0 m0. 000000000000 .0 00. 0008 ~000000 000800 0009 .m 00. 0008 .000000 000800 0009 .0 m0. 00080000>00 000000000000 .0 00. A>V 00080000>00 000000000000 .0 00. A>v 0000500 302 .0 m0. 0000500 302 .0 00. 000000000050 000000000000 .0 00. A>v 000000000050 000000000000 .0 00. AH>V 0000050 0000005000000 00 0000 0000 .0 00. 0000050 0000005000000 00 0000 0000 .0 00. “>0 00000000x0 00 0500b .0000 300 0000 .0 00. 00000000x0 00 0500> .0000 300 0000 .0 0 0 m 0 m m 0 "000852 0000500 0000000800 00000500 0500000 0000000 00 00000000 0 .00000000> 00000800 000 ~000000000 ~0050000000 00 00000000 0500>000 00 0000000x0 0000000800 00 00000000 0000500 “000050000 .0IHH> 00009 .000050000 00 000000800 0005000000 000 00003 0000000 000 00 00000 000000000000000 0000500 0800 000300000 00000000000 00 00000800 003 =.0= 0 00 .08000 00000800 00 000 0050 000 00 00000000 000 8000 00000 000 “:0: 0 00 ~08000 000000000 00 00000000 000 8000 00000 “:0: 0 00 00%00000 000 08000 0050000000 00 00000000 000 8000 00000008000 4 7 2 III 0 00. III 0 ¢O.I 00. III 0 00.I mm. mm. III 0 m0. 0o.l NN.I 0m.I III 0 m0. 00. N0. 00. 00.1 III . m 00. mm. Nm. 00. 00.! 00. III N m0. 00. 00. 00. 00. 00. 00. III 0 m 0 0 m 0 m N 0 “000802 0000000 00. 300 000 0000 00000 0800 .0 00. 0000 300 000 0000 00000 0800 .0 275 A>v mmflumwum ammoammmmonm mw. .Q mv. wmfiumwnm HMGOflmmwmonm .0 am. A>v.ucmfimoam>mn HMGOHmmwmoum .9 am. ucmfimoam>wn HMGOflmmmmoum .0 mm. AH>V qofluummmflumm .Q mm. coauommmflumm .0 mm. AH>V uuommnm Hmcofluduwumafl mo xoma mama .n ma. unommsm Hmcowusuwumca mo xvma >ch .0 mm. AHHV 3o: mam cwnu avao mEQm .m mm. 30: van cmsu hpflo meow .o 0m.I AHHV mama .nmounm MHHEmm #009 .m cm. AHHV muHHHQoE waanuumom .mm¢ .m mo. coauflmom 30: .huaaflnoa oum3mlumom .mmd .0 mm. AHHV 30c Unm cmnu mumum wEQm .m mm. 30: cam swap mpmuw mEom .0 mm. AH>V wucmflummxm mo wSHm> .moum 30H acmn .Q mm. wucmflnmmxm mo m5am> .HOHQ 30H wcwn .U mo. A>Hv .EEOU HMCOHumchucH HmcomummnmucH .0 mm. chHumamm Gdansm HacOHumcMmucH .0 mo. A>Hv mcoaumamm Ufiansm HMGOHumcumuaH .0 am. amounm cofluomumucH .0 mm. AHHHV cmonn< coauomumuCH .Q mm. A>v mucmESmHHmEooum Uflumfiund .Q mm. muH¢ + mmfluflcmE§m .mucwanmflameooom owumwuum .U m m n m m d m m a "Hwnfipz umumsau macamcmafin mumumsao mSUHHQO @mumuom co mmnflnmoq H .meQMfiHm> conflnfioo Dam mmmmamcm m50H>mHm CH Umuomuuxm mcoamcmfiflo mo mammamcm nmumsHu .ucqummmc .nqsoumxvmn mo "mumHonom noummmmm .hIHH> magma 276 .UmmmsumHU ma Goamcmfiflv HMHSUfiuHmm may mum£3 Hmummno map on Hmmmu mcowumoflMHucwmw Hmumsao meow mcHBOHHom mmmmzucwnmm :H mamnwasc wsB =.U= m >3 .mfimufl cmcfln IEoo mo umm Hasm man no mammamcm may Eoum mmonu cam “=Q= m an .mEmuH ucmccmmmo mo mammamcm man Eonm mmosu u=m= m >9 cwxflmmum mum meuH ccsoumxomn mo mammamcm ms“ Eoum macamcwefina III m ow. III m HH. 0H. III 5 mo. No. mo. III m mo. ha. NH.I NO.I III m mo.I mH.I ho. mo.I mo.I III v mN. ma. fia. HO.I mo. No. III m mm. Hm. wm. mo. NH.I NO.I OH. III N 00. oo.I HH.} OH.I be. no. No. HO.I III H m m n o m w m m H u 3852 $330 277 mm. cofluommmflumm .n ma. cofluommmflumm .0 mm. moamflummxm mo msam> .moum 30H mama .0 mm. A>V wocwwummxm mo 05Hm> .monm 30H acmn .Q mm. A>v ucmfimon>mn HMGOHmmwmonm .n mm. ucmfimonme Hmaoammmmoum .0 mm. A>V mucmESmflHmEooom Ufiumflund .Q mm. mucwenmwamfiooom owumauum .0 mm. mama .nmounm maflamm xooa .0 mm. AHHV mama .wwonnm haflfimm x009 .m mm. mCOflumoflansm HmQOHmmmmonm .0 wm. A>V macaumoflansm amaOHmmomonm .Q mm. AHH>V Aowuomamwuv mmummn ~.000 ucmmoum + .5500 .HumcnmucH anaemummumuCH «muHmOQEoo .0 vm. mmaowuum mb: .cmucmmmnm mummmm .0 mm. A>Hv mGOHumawm UHHQDm HmcowumcnmucH .n on. chflumamm Uaansm HmcofiumcanCH .0 am. AHHHV nmonnm coauomuwucH .Q Hm. amonnm cowuomumucH .0 om. Goauofioum .zowuflwom 3mz .0 am. A>v cofluoeoum .Gofluflmom 3mz .Q Hm. A>v wmflummum HmGOHmmmmoum .9 am. mmflummnm HMCOHmmwmoum .0 m h o m w m m a "Hmnfisz “mumsa0 HmGOHmamEHQ mumumSHU msvHHQO omumuom co mmCflwmoq .mmHQMflHm> Uwcflnfioo 0cm .HCmvcmmmw .ncsoumxomn mo mmmmamcm msofl>mum cfl Umuomuuxm mQOHmeEHC m0 mflmwamcm Hmumsao "mnwsomma .mIHH> manme 278 .cmmmsumwc ma coamcmfifln amasowunmm may wumgz Hmummno map ou Hmmmu mGOflumonfluchfi nmumfiau mEom mafi3oaaom mmmmsucmnmm ca mamumfidc was {.0: m an .mEmuH cmaflnaoo mo uwm Hazy may no mammamnm an» Scum mmonu 0cm “:Q= N ha .mEmuH ucmncmmmo mo mammamcm wnu Eoum mmosu u:m: m >9 cmxflmmum mum mEmuH vcsonmxomn mo mammamcm 030 Sony mcowmcmawna ma. :1. mm. ma. 1.. 0H. «0. NH. 1.. 00.: Ho. mo.I mo. nu- Ho. Ho.I mo. wm. an. In- ww. mo. mm. mm. 00.- ma. In- mm. ”w. om. ma. OH. no. 5H. -uu m h o m w m m a "amnesz umumsao u—INMQ'l-DKOFQ 279 mm. coauommmwumm .0 mm. AH>V cowuummmflumm .Q aw. A>V wmfiummnm HmGOHmmmmoum .Q wfi. mmflumwum HMGOHmmmmoum .0 m¢. 30c .moum .mmm .ucmfimoaw>mn HMGOHmmmmonm .0 cm. A>v ucmfimoam>mn HMGOHmmmmoum .0 mm. AHHV 30G Hemmmmoum .amsu mmnmmm .haflfimm x009 .m mm. mwmusoo 3mz .0 mo. . A>V mmmnsoo 302 .Q mp. 30: Hemmmmoum .mmcmso wmummc .mmmmna .0 cm. A>V mwmwne .Q om. A>v macaumoflansm HMcOflmmwmonm .0 om. wmcmno mmnmmo .mcoflumoflansm HMGOHmmwmoum .0 mm. 30c can swap wufiu meow .0 mm. AHHV gas can swap mufio mEom .m mm. A>V wocmummumuqfl ummumu acme .Q wa. A>v mocmflummxm mo msam> .monm 30H mama .Q «m. mucmaummxm mo 05Hm> .moum 30H hawn .0 mm. A>v mucmfinmfiameooum Ufiumfluu4 .0 mm. muud + mmfluficmagm .mucmanmflamecuud oauwaun¢ .n m¢. mGOHumamm UHHQDm HMGOflumcnmucH .0 mw. A>vaGOflumamm UHHQDA HM£0HumchuCH .Q mm. A>V mGOflumHmm Hchflmmwmoum mnflusoam .n ¢m. mGOHumHQm HMGOHmmwmoum maanzccm .0 on. AHHHV GMOHQ¢ nowuomnmuaH .Q mm. ©M0HQ¢ coauumuwucH .0 mm. .EEOU amcowumcnmucH HMGOmHmQHmUCH .0 mm. A>HV .EEOU HmcofiumcnmucH HMGOmemeucH .n o m w m N H "HmQEsz kumsao mcowmnmfifln mnmumDHU mstHQO vmumuom :0 mmcflcmoq a .mmanmfium> ©¢CHQEOU 0cm .ucmmcmmmn .ccsoumxumn mo mmmMHmcm m50H>mHm ca cmuomnpxm mcoflmcwEflU mo mHmMHmcm HmumDHU "mucmcsum .mIHH> wanna 280 .cmmmsumHn mH GOHmcmEHu HMHSUHuHmm may mum£3 Hmpmmau may on nmmmu mGOHumoHMHucmcH HmumSHo wEom mGH3OHHom mwmmsucmumm CH mHmquSG 0:8 :.0: m Na .meuH cmcHQEoo mo umm HHSM man no mHthmcm map Eonm wmogu Una «=D: m >0 .mEmuH pawmcwmmn mo mHmmHmcm map Eoum mmosu “=m: m an mmmeme mum mEmuH nasoumxumn mo mHmmHmcm map Eoum mGOHmcmEHQH OH. HH. NH.I 5H. II... . fin. mm. 00.! NH. OH. III 0 m ¢ m N H «HmQESZ kumfiHU III 0 Ho. III m 50. NO.I III fl 0H. 5H. NO.I I I m N H 281 in terms of publications and introduction of new courses (Cluster Number 3). Another consequence of professional activity--recognition from colleagues and administrators-- is not included in this professional development and out- put cluster but instead loads as part of another cluster concerning the Lecturers' relative satisfaction and perceptions of personal growth resulting from their award experiences, as well as their efforts to disseminate information regarding their overseas experiences to fellow Americans (Cluster Number 5). This separate cluster involving satisfaction. public relations, and prestige suggests a possible causal linkage. That is, those Lecturers who feel relatively gratified by their experiences overseas may be more inclined to communicate with students, colleagues. and social groups in their universities as well as with groups in their home communities regarding their experiences abroad. This communication, in turn. may tend to increase their visibility at home and thus might result in more recognition from significant others—-such as administrators-- particularly if the grantees present other evidence of professional growth, such as publications and plans for new courses, resulting from their experiences. A spiralling effect then might ensue. That is, the prestige accruing to Lecturers may in turn serve to reinforce their feelings of satisfaction with their overseas experiences as well as 282 their willingness to engage in further communications con—- cerning their experiences abroad. This reinforcement might also stimulate further professional productivity. Thus it is not surprising to find that the cluster relating to satisfaction. internationally-related public relations, and professional prestige is correlated--r = .27-—with that concerning professional development and productivity. We shall discuss the relations among these dimensions further after we have described the cluster structures for all groups. According to the matrix of correlations in Table VII-6. while the professional development and productivity cluster is associated with that concerning satisfaction. public relations, and prestige, its strongest relationship is with the cluster concerning interaction abroad and maintenance of professional relations--r = .48. we might interpret this high association between professional out- comes, and overseas interaction as follows. In previous discussions we noted that official teaching requirements at host institutions often provide Lecturers with much free time for other pursuits. Since these grantees are visitors and not actual participants in the host universities' social systems, this free time is not expended on the group maintenance tasks which impinge on faculty members in their home universities; consequently, these grantees may devote their energies to writing and serious thinking about professional endeavors (cf. Gullahorn & Gullahorn. 1960a.) Since such professional pursuits might nOt be so 283 focused as is the case for Research Scholars who generally go abroad with specific tasks to accomplish, the Lecturers may use their free time to explore a broader range of pos- sibilities in their new environments. Thus they might collect data for future research and publication as well as for course materials. In addition, the free time facilitates the Lecturers' associating with some regularity with a greater range of colleagues abroad. Accepting invitations to speak at meetings of professional societies abroad also provides opportunity for more contacts. These new professional relations can provide meaningful and con- tinuing stimulation to the Lecturers in their professional endeavors involving subsequent writings and development of new courses. Aside from its relationship with the professional development and productivity cluster, the Lecturers' cluster concerning interaction abroad and maintenance of professional relations is also positively correlated with their dimension involving a denial of lack of institutional support over- seas (r = .35) as well as with their satisfaction, public relations, and professional prestige composite cluster (r = .23). Among the other clusters extracted in the present analysis, it is interesting to note that the Lecturers' background dimension concerning taking the family and being a male is essentially unrelated to their professional outcomes cluster (r = —.01) and is negatively related to 284 their satisfaction. public relations, and prestige cluster (r = -.24) as well as to their cluster concerning denial of negative evaluations of the award experiences (r =-.22). This suggests that family responsibilities may expose grantees to greater deprivations in terms of the economic costs of sojourning and living overseas as well as to greater frustra- tion in living arrangements (finding suitable quarters for a family, evaluating local schools, assisting with foreign language problems, etc.). Such experiences may lead some grantees to question how worthwhile the overseas experience actually was to them, personally. Let us now consider the cluster structure evolved in the present analysis for Research Scholars (Table VII—7). While conclusions from the data concerning associations among clusters for this group are in general accord with those just discussed for Lecturers, there are interesting differences in the patterning of dimensions in the clusters for Research Scholars. For this group of grantees, a general cluster concerning interaction appears in the combination of the interaction abroad, international public relations, and interpersonal international communication dimensions (Cluster Number 2, Table VII-7). Professional development is combined with professional prestige in another cluster (Cluster Number 9), and the satisfaction dimension appears as a separate cluster (Cluster Number 8). 285 With reference to the associations among the dimensions, the general interaction cluster is positively correlated with the professional development and prestige cluster (r = .35), and with the dimension concerning denial of a lack of insti- tutional support (r = .34), as well as with the satisfaction cluster (r = .31). The relationship between the general interaction cluster and the professional consequences cluster is consonant with the findings for Lecturers concerning the association between the overseas interaction and main— tained professional relations cluster and the professional development and productivity dimension. While this cor- relation represents the strongest relationship for each of the clusters involved for the Lecturers, the same is not true for Research Scholars. For this group, while the inter- action cluster is most strongly associated with the pro- fessional consequences cluster; the professional consequences cluster is most highly correlated with the satisfaction cluster (r = .40), and its association with the interaction cluster (r = .35) ranks second. we shall return to this relationship between satisfaction and professional conse— quences in a later discussion. Among the other clusters identified in the present analysis for Research Scholars is a composite involving the background dimension concerning relative youth and post- award mobility along with the background dimension concerning taking the family abroad and being a male, loaded negatively 286 (Cluster Number 5, Table VII—7). This cluster has its highest association with the satisfaction dimension (r = .17), a result in agreement with previous findings concerning the relationship between relative youth and satisfaction (Chapter VI), as well as with the data for Lecturers in which a positive representation of the dimension concerning taking= the family correlated negatively with the satisfaction cluster. This composite background cluster is negatively correlated with the Research Scholars' general interaction dimension (r = -.12), a result consonant with the previous findings of a positive relation between age and extent of interaction abroad and a negative association between mobility and internationally-oriented communication with fellow Americans. As in the analysis for Research Scholars, the cluster structure evolved for Teachers also isolates a general cluster relating to interaction experiences, composed of the following dimensions: interaction abroad, public relations, mass communication, and the combined dimension concerning interpersonal international communication and not being a school teacher currently (Cluster Number 2, Table VII-8). Professional development appears as a separate cluster for this group (Cluster Number 6), as does the satisfaction dimension (Cluster Number 9). The prestige dimension is associated with a doublet concerning the attainment of a new position and promotion (Cluster Number 1). As indicated previously, for Lecturers and Research Scholars the 287 interaction clusters are most strongly associated with clusters pertaining to professional consequences of the award experiences. For Teachers, however, the interaction cluster is most highly correlated with the satisfaction dimension (r = .44). Apparently, therefore, the interaction experiences of Teachers are related more to their sense of personal development and satisfaction than to their professional identities. Of course, the interaction cluster is associated with those concerning professional development (r = .22) and professional prestige (r = .17): however, these relationships are not so strong. Similarly, the satisfaction cluster is positively correlated with professional development (r = .35) and professional prestige (r = .23), but the strongest association is with the interaction cluster. With reference to the dimensions concerning pro- fessional consequences, the Teachers' professional develop- ment cluster is most highly related to their prestige cluster (r = .36), and this correlation ranks second among the associa- tions of the prestige cluster with other dimensions, with the correlation between prestige and denial of low evaluations of overseas experience ranking first (r = .47). As is true for the senior scholars, the Teachers' dimension concerning taking the family abroad and being a male correlates negatively with the satisfaction cluster (r = -.06). Among the cluster structure analyses for the four groups of grantees, the greatest data reduction occurs in 288 the clustering of dimensions for Students, where the relations among 34 dimensions are summarized in terms of six clusters.l Again in the Students' analysis, a general cluster appears concerning interaction experiences. This cluster combines dimensions pertaining to interpersonal international com- munication, overseas interaction, international public relations, and enduring professional relations (Cluster Number 1, Table VII—9). Another large composite cluster relates to professional development, professional advancement and prestige, and professional productivity (Cluster Number 5). The satisfaction dimension appears as a separate cluster (Cluster Number 6). As was true for the senior scholars-- but not for Teachers--the Students‘ interaction cluster is most highly associated with their professional conse- quences cluster (r = .38). This relationship is not surprising inasmuch as a strong component in the dimensions combined in the interaction cluster pertain to the establish- ment and maintenance of professional relationships with host nationals. The Students' interaction cluster also is sub- stantially correlated with their satisfaction dimension (r = .34). It is interesting to note, however, that the Students' professional consequences cluster is virtually unrelated to their satisfaction dimension (r = .01), a lln the Lecturers' analysis, relations among 28 dimensions are accounted for by 8 clusters; for Research Scholars, correlations among 27 dimensions are interpreted in terms of 9 clusters; and for Teachers associations among 28 dimensions are accounted for by 8 clusters. 289 result contrary to the findings for the other three groups of grantees. Let us consider the relationship between professional consequences and satisfaction in more detail. For Lecturers, Research Scholars, and Teachers substantial correlations appear between clusters pertaining to professional consequences and those involving personal satisfaction. By the very nature of the variables involved in the two dimensions we would expect such a relationship. That is, professional identity is likely to be an important component of the self-definitions of individuals with high investments in their professional statuses; consequently, positive assessments concerning professional development are likely to be reflected also in judgments regarding personal growth and satisfaction. Thus, a professionally beneficial experience is likely to be highly valued, parti- cularly if the self-perceptions of professional and personal development are validated by recognition from significant others. This suggested relationship seems particularly clearcut for Research Scholars, the only group for whom the dimensions under consideration are in a reciprocal relationship, in the sense that this group‘s professional consequences cluster--which combines professional develop- ment and prestige--has its highest correlation with their satisfaction cluster, which in turn has its highest associa- tion with the professional consequences cluster (r = .40). As noted previously, the Lecturers' cluster con- cerning professional development and productivity is most 290 highly correlated with the dimension involving overseas inter- action and continued contact with professionals abroad (r = .48). Nevertheless, a composite cluster involving the satisfaction as well as the professional prestige dimensions ranks second in relation to the professional development and productivity cluster (r = .27). What these relationships suggest is that since Lecturers generally do not venture abroad with specific research projects to accom— plish during their sojourns, their evaluations of professional gain as well as their subsequent productivity are substantially influenced by stimulation from the range of professional contacts facilitated by their statuses abroad. To the extent that the Lecturers become more established in inter- national professional communication networks--through pre- sentation of professional papers during their sojourns and after their return, as well as through their publications-- the more probable it is that their increased visibility results in even more professional communication opportunities, which enhance their prestige and, presumably, their self- evaluations as professionals. Among Teachers, as well, the professional develop- ment dimension is substantially related to their cluster involving evaluations of personal growth as well as satis— faction with the sojourn experiences (r = .35). The focus of the Teadhers' professional roles, however, emphasizes interpersonal relationships rather than professional develop- ment, per se: therefore, rewarding interaction experiences 291 with colleagues, students, the pupils' families, and the school community are likely to contribute to the Teachers' sense of personal fulfillment and satisfaction with their professional identities. Thus we find that the correlation between the Teachers' satisfaction dimension and that concerning professional development ranks second, with the highest association for the satisfaction dimension involving the relationship with the cluster pertaining to interaction experiences (r = .44). Again, the relationship among these dimensions is probably of a spiraling nature. That is, while meaningful interaction experiences overseas are likely to contribute to the Teachers' satisfaction with the sojourn, the subsequent opportunity for further communication with significant others in their home communities regarding interpretations and new perspectives developed abroad pro- bably reinforces the Teachers' evaluation of the sojourn‘s contribution to their personal development as citizens of the world and as Teachers and communicators. We come now to the almost orthogonal relation be- tween the Students' cluster relating to professional out- comes and their dimension concerning satisfaction. In terms of our previous discussion, it appears that in contrast to the professional groups, the Students generally have fewer investments in a professional status--in fact, over half of this group had just completed their bachelor's degrees. Thus for the Students as a group, professional identity is 292 probably not an important component of their self-definitions. Interview data from research concerning American students in France as well as from the nine-state study of former grantees suggest that while Students cite educational and professional advancement as a prime reason for their venturing overseas, in many cases study abroad is not directly related to goals concerning the Students? life work (Gullahorn & Gullahorn, 1956, 1958a, 1958b). To the contrary, many regard the opportunity to remain in the student status as a sort of moratorium vis—a-vis important career and life commitments--a year in which to consider alternative decisions regarding the future and gain greater perspective as a result of living in a foreign culture. Thus, while a sample of American students in France cited such general objectives as availing themselves of educational opportunities, gaining further understanding of French culture, and develop- ing French language proficiency as their three primary reasons for study abroad, only 19% of the questionnaire respondents were sufficiently advanced in their fields and sufficiently goal-oriented that their major purpose in coming to France was to study with particular professors or other experts in their fields, and only 9% considered as a major incentive the opportunity to use libraries and consult source materials not available in the United States (Gullahorn & Gullahorn, 1956, 1958a). 293 It is possible, therefore, that a majority of the Students did not consider the sojourn experience an integral component of their vocational development; instead, they regarded the overseas experience as a means of developing personal maturity and perspective—-a step toward resolving uncertainty and conflict concerning their identity. Inso- far as the sojourn experiences did contribute to the Students' personal sense of maturity and provide the perspective they sought, such evaluations would be reflected in their satis- faction dimension; however, these judgments might be--as the data suggest--quite independent of their assessments regarding professional achievement. For those who have not pursued careers in academic life or in the professions, the lack of relationship between evaluations of personal growth and appraisals of professional development and productivity is obvious. While the data at hand preclude adequate testing of this possibility, interview data as well as comments Students added to their questionnaires suggest that a sort of defensive or compensatory reaction may be involved in the relatively high judgments of satisfaction with the award experience (e.g., the distribution of Student respondents on the Guttman satisfaction scale includes a higher proportion among the high scorers than does any other dimension considered in this study). That is, since a relatively large section of the survey questionnaire focused on professional 294 consequences of the awards, those Students who were not motivated primarily by professional goals and who did not have such achievements to report might feel it necessary to justify their time abroad in other terms. One Student, for example, added the following observations regarding the contributions of overseas experiences: The true value of the Fulbright grant is not to be found in the degree earned, nor in the professional advancement--it is to be found in the maturity of the individual. He is, I think, a more thoughtful person, more tolerant, he knows the value of a fluent foreign language, wishes he knew more so that he could con- verse with other nationalities. He has been able to study the culture of other countries: he has learned to understand and accept national traits which former— ly seemed peculiar and unreasonable. Most of all, he has spoken to—-and known-~people of other nations. It might have come as a shock to learn that we are all very much alike in our ambitions and desires, but it is, after all, a wonderful and welcome knowledge, which can be only beneficial to the individual, to his country, and to the world. Here, in the individual and in his relationships is found the great worth of the Fulbright experience. Actually, it should be noted that the essentially orthogonal relationship between the cluster concerning interaction experiences and that pertaining to professional development, productivity, and prestige reflects the almost zero-correlation between the satisfaction dimension and the high loading dimensions on the professional consequences cluster--i.e., the dimensions concerning publications, theses, and new courses. In terms of associations of indi- vidual dimensions, in the combined variable analysis the Students’ satisfaction dimension has a low correlation with the other professional outcome dimensions: r = .19 295 with the professional prestige dimension, and r = .14 with the professional development cluster. These correlations, however, are much lower than those observed for the pro- fessional groups. We have already suggested that professional identity does not appear to be a salient component of the self- definitions of Students as a group; consequently, their evaluations of personal growth may be relatively independent of academic achievement. There is also the possibility that even for the goal-oriented Students who are more ad- vanced in their fields and whose studies abroad have direct relevance to their careers, the sojourn experience still may not be so integrated in their lives as is characteristic for the professional groups. Insofar as the Students have not yet achieved a professional identity (a fifth of the group was still in the Student status at the time of the survey), their appraisal of the academic consequences of the sojourn may be more restricted-—their immediate focus is more instrumental and goal-directed. Furthermore, the Students who spent most of their waking hours gathering dissertation material overseas probably had relatively little opportunity to attend to the incidental learning involved in coping with an alien social system. Consequently, while the experience may have been professionally gratifying, such satisfaction may be more isolated than is typical for senior scholars, who generally work under different pressures and whose professional statuses provide greater entree‘ 296 into academic and social life abroad so that different facets of the sojourn experience can be integrated in the patterns of their professional and personal lives. The difference between the Students and the other groups with reference to the association among dimensions pertaining to satisfaction and professional consequences is further exemplified in clusterings described in the following section. Across-Groups Cluster Classifications. Let us now consider other data regarding the classification of clusters withreference to all four groups of grantees. Table VII-10 presents the cluster structure of the oblique dimensions obtained in the previous analyses of background items for Lecturers, Research Scholars, Teachers, and Students. These data indicate that the same overall cluster space is occupied by the dimensions composed of similar background items extracted in the previous analyses for each of the four groups of grantees. Furthermore, the correlations among the clusters defined in the present analysis agree with findings presented in Chapter II. Table VII-ll summarizes the clustering of oblique dimensions isolated in the four analyses of outcome items, and Table VII-12 presents comparable data from the four cluster analyses of combined background and dependent variables. As the data in Tables VII-ll and VII-12 indicate, there is relatively close correspondence in the two analyses with respect to clusterings of dependent dimensions for the four Table VII—10. 297 Across-groups cluster analysis of background dimensions. Loadings on Rotated Oblique Clusters .10 Dimensionsl Cluster Number: 1 2 4 R. Home state then and now .88 L. Home state then and now .84 S. Heme state then and now .78 T. Home state then and now .76 L. ToOk family abroad, male .86 R. Tobk family abroad, male .84 T. Took family abroad, male .61 S. Took family, degree then, prof. now .55 S. Home city then and now R. Hbme city then and now R. Age, post-award mobility .78 L. Age, post-award mobility .76 S. Language, degree change .39 Cluster Number: 1 2 3 4 l "'—"' .09 -016 017 2 --- .13 -.44 3 ___ _ 4 1 described in Chapter II. These background dimensions Research Scholars (R), Teachers (T), for Lecturers (L), and Students (S) are 298 Hg. A>v uswEQOHm>mn HMGOHmmmmoum .8 mg. A>v mmHumem HMGOHmmwmoum .m mg. A>V ucwfimon>mn HMdOHmmmMoum .m ow. A>V ucwfimon>mn HMCOHmmwmonm .4 mg. A>v mmHumwnm HMGOHmmmmoum .4 Hm. A>Hv mGOHHMHmm UHHnsm HMCOHHMGHOUGH .A em. AH>0 coauummmflumm .9 am. AH>V coauummmeumm .q em. AH>V coauommmflumm .m cm. AH>V consummmflumm .m vm. “>0 mmHummnm HMGOHmmwmoum .m «v. A>v mmHummHm HchHmmwmoum .9 mm. “>0 mocmHHmmxm mo msHm> .monm 30H moon .9 Hm. “>0 mucwHmexm mo 05Hm> .moum 30H Noon .4 gm. A>V wocmHHmmxm mo OSHm> .moum 30H Noon .m mm. “>0 mUGmHHmmxm mo 05Hm> .monm 30H mama .m Ho. A>HV mCOHumHmm UHHQso HmsoHumcuoucH .m mg. A>Hv mCOHHMHmm UHHQDA HmGOHumchucH .m no. A>HV mCOHumHmm UHHnsm HchHumchHCH .9 mm. A>V msoHHMHmm HMCOHmmmmoum mawusnzm .m hm. A>v chHumen HMCOHmmwmoum 3mz .A mm. A>Hv GOHumoHGSEEOU .HumaumuCH chomuwmuwucH .m cm. AHHHV omonam COHuomumucH .A om. AHHHV cmounfl COHuomumucH .m hm. AHHHV Umounm GOHHUMHOHCH .9 mm. AHHHV omonnm COHuumnmucH .m m w m N H "Hmafipz kumsHU mCOHmsmfiHn muwumSHU meHHQO omumuom co mmCHtmoq H .mGOHmcmEHo usmnammww mo mHmmHmcm umumsHo mmsoumlmmouué .HHIHH> OHQMB 299 .Amv mMMHonom zunmwmmm may on ummmu COHumoHMHucme HmumsHo 30mm mGH3OHHow mommnwswnmm GH mHmquss $39 .Amv mucmosum cam .Aav mumnumme .Aqv muonsuuma mH>IMImH> pmmmsomHo mH HmumsHo ms» mum£3 “mummzo H mm. Nv. mo. 55. mm. Hb. mm. 55. mm. 0%. om. Hh. Nb. mh. om. HNMfi‘LfiKO mo... nu. as. am. nu- Hm. NH. ma. In- em. mo. HH. mm. In- mm. ma. mm. ow. mo. nu- m m w m m H "uwnfidz umumsHo mumumsH0 cmm3umn cOHHMHmHHOU AH>V mGOHumsHm>m 0>Hummmc umzuo mama AH>V mCOHumsHm>m m>Hummmc Hmsuo mama AH>V uuomQSm HmGOHusuHumsH mo xUMH Noon AH>V uuommsm HmCOHusuHumcH mo MUMH Noon AH>V unommsm HMGOHusuHumcH mo xUMH Noon A>v musmEanHmEooow UHumHuH¢ A>v mucmfismHHmEooom UHHmHuufl A>v mucmfianHmEouom UHumHuum A>v ucoEQOHm>mn HMGOHmmmMOHm mmmHSOU Bmz A>v mGOHumoHHQSQ HMGOHmmmwonm A>v mwmnsoo 3mz A>v mCOHumoHHnsm HMCOHmmomonm A>v mCOHumoHHQDQ Hmsonmmmoum x>v mmmmsa .m .H .m .m .H .8 .m .m .m .H .B .m .H .m .m 300 vb. son now swap NuHU meow .m om. 30: cam swan NHHU meow .m mm. 30: tom own“ muHo 6803 .H cm. 30: can swap NuHU 080m .B we. mmHummHm Hmsonmwwoum .B on. mosmHHmmxw mo 05Hm> .monm 30H moon .9 om. mocmHHmmxm mo OSHm> .moum 30H mama .H mm. mocmHummxm mo ODHm> .monm 30H Noon .m cm. mucwHHmmxm mo 05Hm> .moum 30H mama .m om. son now swap mumum meow .m om. 30: now own» mumum wEom .B Hm. 30: can swap mumum meow .m mm. 30c can swap mumum mfiom .H Hg. .uo poo: .mGOHuMHmm UHHQDm HmQOHumckucH .H mo. mGOHumem UHHQsm HchHumcuoucH .m we. mGOHuMHmm UHHQsm HmGOHumchucH .m mm. mGOHHMHmm UHHQsm HMGOHumcuwunH .9 mm. mCOHHMHmu HMQOHmmmmonm 362 .H mm. mGOHHMHmm HMCOHmmmmonm mcHMSUsm .m mo. GOHumoHcsEEoo HmcoHumGHmuCH HmcomnmmHOHCH .m on. GOHumoHcsfifioo HMGOHuwcumucH HmcomuwmumuaH .m Nm. Umonnfi COHuomeuCH .m cm. tmonnm COHuomnmucH .9 mm. tmounfi sOHuumuwucH .H mm. omounm COHuomumucH .m o m w m N H "Honesz HmumsH0 mCOHmcmEHQ mumpmsHU wsoHHQO tmumuom so mmcHomon H pom choumxomn wmcHQEOO Scum mGOHmcmEHU mo mHmNHmcm “mumSHU mmsoumlmmouufl .mmmmHmcm mHQMHHm> ucmtcmmmo .NHIHH> OHQMB 301 .Hmummnu unmmmum map sH nmmmsomHt mum .Hmv mucwvsum cam .ABV mnwnomme .Amv mHMHonom noummmmm .AHV muonsuomq How mHmmHmsm mHQMHHm> nwcHQEoo map Eonm mGOHmcwEHo wnaH III 5 HH. II: o vN. 0N. III m mo.I OH. 00. III v mo. mN. ON. «0. II: m HH. mH.I mo. mH.I No. III N mH. mm. mm. mo. HH. mo.I III H b m m g m N H "umnasz HmumsHU mumumsH0 cmmBqu GOHHMHmHHOU Nb. augmeanHmEouom UHumHuH¢ .9 mm. muH< + mequmEsm .mucwaanHmEooom UHumHund..m on. mqu + meuHomEsm .mucmfianHmEooom UHumHuH¢ .m mm. usmEQOHm>on HMGOHmmmmoum .9 Ho. ucmfimon>mn HMGOHmmmmonm .M No. usmEmon>mn HMGOHmmwmoum .H mm. mmHummHm HMQOHmmmmoum .m we. mmHummum HchHmmwmoum .H Nm. COHuummmHumm .H mm. .aofluommmflumm .9 mm. GOHpommmHumm .m cm. COHuummmHumm .m mg. mGOHumoHHQSQ HacOHmmmmoum .6 mg. mmHoHuHm m3mc .Uwucwmmum mummmm .9 we. 30c .moum .mmm .UGOEQOHm>wQ HMGOHmmwMOHm .m be. mmHumem HMGOHmmwmonm .m mm. szHumoHHnsm HMGOHmmmMOHm .H 00. mmcmno mwummn .mGOHHMUHHQSQ Hmconmwmonm .m om. 30c “Ommomoum .mmcmso common .mmmmsa .m on. mmmusoo 3oz .m Nm. mmmusoo 302 .H mm. mmmusoo 3oz .m 302 groups of grantees. These analyses provide further illustration of the difference between the Students and the three professional groups with reference to the relation- ship between the satisfaction and the professional consequences dimensions. In the analysis involving dimensions from the four clusterings of dependent items as well as in that pertaining to clusters from the four previous analyses of combined variables, one of the clusters extracted consists of the satisfaction dimension for all four groups along with the professional development dimension for the three professional groups and the professional prestige dimension for Lecturers and Research Scholars (Cluster Number 3, Table VII-ll and Cluster Number 6, Table VII-12). Professional outcome dimensions for Students are not included in this particular composite of satiSfaCtion and professional consequences: instead, in both analyses the Students‘ professional development dimension loads as part of a cluster concerning professional productivity (Cluster Number 4, Table VII-ll and Cluster Number 5, Table VII—12). In the analysis of clusters from the four combined variable analyses, the Students' professional prestige dimension is also included in the professional productivity cluster; however, in the analysis of dimensions from the four dependent variable cluster analyses, professional prestige loads as part of another cluster pertaining to denial of negative evaluations 303 of the professional value of overseas experience (Cluster Number 2, Table VII-ll). These findings lend further support to our previous suggestion that for individuals with high investments in professional statuses evaluations of professional develop- ment are likely to be important components of judgments concerning personal fulfillment. While the Students' self-appraisals concerning personal growth and satisfaction with the sojourn experiences apparently have a similar structure to those reported by the professional groups (that is, the satisfaction dimensions of all four groups load together in one cluster), their assessments are not bound up with self-ratings concerning professional develop— ment as is the case for the other three groups. Indeed, in each analysis the composite satisfaction and professional consequences cluster is not highly correlated with the pro- fessional productivity cluster, which is composed mainly of dimensions from the Student analyses. With reference to the composite cluster concerning satisfaction and professional consequences for the three professional groups, it is interesting to note that in both analyses this cluster is in a reciprocal relationship with the composite general interaction cluster (Cluster Number 1 in both Table VII-ll and VII-12). That is, these two dimensions have their highest cornalation with each other (r = .40 in the clustering of dimensions from the analyses 304 of dependent items, and r = .39 in the comparable clustering of dimensions extracted in the four analyses of combined variables). In both analyses the association between the general interaction cluster and that pertaining to profes- sional productivity ranks second, whereas this correlation ranks first among the cluster associations of the profes- sional productivity dimension (r = .39 in the clustering of dimensions from the analysis of dependent variables, and r = .36 in the clustering of dimensions isolated in the four analyses of combined items). These relations suggest that interaction experiences are substantially related to evaluations of personal development and satisfaction for all groups as well as to appraisals of professional develop- ment and productivity. In the next chapter we shall con— sider the components of these associations in more detail, in terms of correlations between interaction and satisfaction dimensions as well as the associations between interaction and professional consequences clusters. Indeed, in Chapter VIII further discussion of all the analyses described in the present chapter will be incorporated in comparisons of methods of analysis and conclusions regarding the dimensions assessed in this study. CHAPTER VIII SUBSTANTIVE AND METHODOLOGICAL CONCLUSIONS In Chapters III through VI we examined individually the major dimensions explored in this research relating to Fulbright and Smith-Mundt grantees' interactions with their hosts, both abroad and subsequent to their return to the United States; their internationally-oriented communication with fellow Americans; their professional development, achievement, and advancement resulting from award experiences; and their personal satisfaction with their sojourns. We described the patterning of acts defining each dimension in terms of Guttman scales, rotated factors, and Tryon clusters. In relating the Guttman and factor dimensions to background information concerning the grantees (summarized in Chapter II), we used multiple regression analyses (Chapters III-VI) and canonical correlation analyses (Chapter VII). Withreference to the Tryon data, we computed the relative loadings of the background variables on each of the independently-defined outcome cluster dimensions (Chapters III—VI). Relations among background and dependent dimensions were further assessed in cluster analyses involving the full matrix of background and dependent variables, as well as in a series of cluster analyses following the logic of a within-groups 305 306 and across-groups investigation of dimensions extracted in previous clusterings of different sets of questionnaire variables (Chapter VII). In comparing results from the different modes of analysis, in this chapter we shall explore further the relationships between the dependent dimensions and grantees' background characteristics as well as the associations among various representations of the outcome dimensions. Finally, we shall present an overview of the major findings of the present investigation-—both with respect to the substantive information regarding Fulbright and Smith-Mundt Lecturers, Research Scholars, Teachers, and Students, and also with reference to the methodological comparison of different modes of analyzing survey data of the type considered here. Comparisons of Results of Different Modes of Analysis With reference to each of the major areas explored in this research, we shall compare the different represen- tations of the dimensions concerning interaction and communi- cation experiences, professional outcomes, and satisfaction with the sojourn experiences. Direct comparisons of methods of dimensionalizing these data will involve cor- relations among Guttman scale scores and oblique factor scores on all of the major dimensions, as well as summated index scores on two dimensions. Since cluster scores were not included in the output of the Tryon analyses, a 307 direct comparison with the other methods is not possible at present; however, through examination of analogous associa— tions we shall make indirect comparisons between the cluster and factor data. In examining the relationship between grantees' background characteristics and these outcome dimensions, we shall summarize the data from the multiple regression and cluster loading analyses and also present correlations among factor scores from the separate analyses of badkground and dependent variables. Information from other cluster analyses will also be included. Further comparisons of the different representations of the major dependent dimensions will involve associations between the communication measures and both the professional outcome and the satisfaction dimensions, as well as correlations between the professional outcome and satis— faction dimensions. Description of Dimensions and Associations with Background Data (1) Interaction Abroad and Post-Award Communication: Interrelations Among Interaction andgggmmunication Measures. Table VIII-l summarizes the correlations among the overseas interaction and post—award international com- munication dimensions. 'As the data indicate, there is very high agreement between the Guttman and the factor represen— tations of the dimensions dealing with grantees' experiences 308 NN. mN. mN. hm. Houomm chHHMHmm UHHQDN HMCOHumGHmusH x mm. hm. mm. mm. Houomm GOHHMUHGSEEOU .HumcumusH HmsomnmmumucH x NN. mN. MN. hm. mHmom GOHDUMHOHCH sMUHHwE< cmfiuusw x gm. mN. hm. mm. mHmom COHpumumuaH cmHmHom GOSGHHGOU :mEuusw x meum tmounfi GOHUUMHODCH cmfiuusw "cOHumoHGSEEoo oumzfluumom x GOHuomnmucH mommum>o mm. III mm. III HmumsHU mGOHDMHQm UHHQsm HMGOHDMGHODGH x HumemsHU COHuMUHcsEEOU HMCOHHMGHODGH HmaomummhmycH om. mm. mN. mN. Houomm mGOHDMHmm OHHQDm HMGOHumcumucH x Houomm cOHumUHGSEEOU HMCOHumoumuqH HchmHmmHmucH ms. om. me. on. nouomm mcoHumHmm oHHnsm HchHumnumucH x mg. hm. Hw. Hw. Houomm COHDMUHcDEEOU .Humanmu:H HmcomummumuaH x 0Hmom GOHuomnmucH cmoHHwE< cmsgusw mN. mN. mN. mN. Houomm mnOHumHmm UHHnsm HMQOHumsHmusH x mm. Nb. mm. Nb. Mouumm coHumoHcsEEOU .HHMGHODGH HMCOmemeucH x mm. mm. gm. Nm. meom COHuUmHmch smoHHmfim :mEuusw x me0m coHpomuwusH cmHouom tossHucoo cmEuusw "QOHumoHGSEEOU Hm:0HumcumucwaHm3¢Iumom Hm. mm. hm. gm. 9000mm omounm GOHDOMHODGH x mHmom pmonnd COHuomnwacH cmfiuuSULl "GOHuomumucH mmwmumbo musmosum mumnomma mHMHosom mumMSDOOH nonmmmmm .mCOHmcmEHU coHpmoHcsEEoo numSmuumom tom COHuomnmucH mmmmuo>o moofim mCOHumHmHHO0 .HIHHH> mHnma 309 .mnoumsHo ucmocmmmu 96:00 on» £UH3 COHumHoommm wHQMHHm> msH>m£ COHmsmEHp ccsonmxomn m mGH>Ho>GH HmumsHo ouHmomEoo m mm3 GOHmnmEHc mHnu mo aoHumucmmwume moo may mumsomma mom .mnmusuomq How mmthusm mop no how CH HmumsHu mymnmmmm m mm omumHomH no: mm3 concwEHU GOHumoHcsEEoo HMQOHumsnmucH HmcomummnmucH one H Hm. 0%. cm. em. kumsH0 mGOHHMHmm OHHQsm HMGOHumcuwusH x cm. III om. III “mumsHU GOHuMUHGSEEOU .HpmcumucH HmsomuwmnmucH x H “mumsHU pmounm :oHuumumusH mN. mm. mm. , Hv. Houumm mGOHHMme UHHnsm HMGOHpmcumuGH x we. mg. om. om. Houomm COHumoHCSEEo0 .HumCHOUCH HomemummnmuaH x mN. mm. um. Nw. 0Hmom GOHDUMHOUGH chHHmfid smfiuusw x mg. gm. 00. mm. mHmom sOHuomumucH cmHmuom owssHuCOU cmEvusw x HOHOMh wmonnm GOHuomeucH 310 in establishing friendships abroad and interacting with host nationals (see Chapter III). Relations between the Guttman and factor dimensions dealing with post-award communication experiences are also high, although there are differences in emphasis in the two representations. That is, in developing the Guttman scales we made a logical distinction between grantees' con- tinued interaction with foreign nationals as contrasted to their internationally-oriented communication with fellow Americans (see Chapter IV). The factor analysis, howeven made a different distinction in accounting for observed correlations. One of the factors extracted concerned grantees' efforts to assist foreigners as well as Americans interested in international communication; the other dimension emphasized grantees' use of mass communication to disseminate information to Americans regarding their sojourn experiences. As the data in Table VIII—l indicate, the Guttman continued foreign interaction scale, which deals with interpersonal assistance to foreign citizens, is most highly related to the interpersonal international communi- cation factor; whereas the Guttman American interaction scale, pertaining both to assistance given fellow Americans interested in overseas opportunities and also to mass com— munication, is related to both factors. Since high ranking items on the Guttman American interaction scale deal with the mass communication experiences, however, the scale is 311 more highly correlated with the international public relations factor. While the different representations of the overseas interaction measures are associated with all of the post- award communication dimensions, in general the data in Table VIII-l indicate that interaction abroad measures are more highly correlated with those relating to continued foreign interaction or interpersonal international communi- cation than they are with the American interaction scales or the public relations dimensions. Associations with Background Characteristics. Having briefly considered the general content of the communication measures as well as the interrelations among them, let us now describe the characteristics of grantees who tend to score high on these dimensions. Table VIII-2 summarizes the patterning of associations between grantees' background characteristics and their communication experiences. The data include the direction of relationships for variables which the multiple regression analyses identified as signi- ficant predictors of the dependent criteria (indicated by a -M or M in the table): as well as for variables with relatively high loadings on clusters comparable to the factor dimensions (indicated by a —C or C). With respect to the communication dimensions, in no cases do the multiple regression and the cluster loading data differ in direction of association for variables identified as important in either analysis (thus a -MC or MC indicates the sign applies to both). 312 o 0.. o z o 2 u: on 02.. nmounm 33mm .68. .373 2 0 2 02 || || || || || || || || || || || || mmcmnu wmnmmn .mm x Nb 2| 02| 0| 02| 0 2 0 02 2| 0| 2 02 COHumo |HHmmm How commwm .Hh 0 02 02 2 02 0| 0 02 mocmummEoo mmmsmsmq .on 2 0 02 0 _2|; 0| || || || || || || || || || || QOHDMQDUUO ucmmmum .mm 2| 02| 02| || || || || || 2| 02| 2| 02| 2| 0| wand + mmHuHcmEQE .mm 0 02| || || || || || 0 0 2| 0 mmocmHom HMHoom .mm 2| 02| 02| 02| || || || || || 2 02 0| 2| 02| 02 02| mmucmHom Hmusumz .mm 2 oz 2.. 9? u: o 2 oz 2. oz- 55 23m .33 .49 I. QT o .i 0:: on u: E. 3339: cumzmuumom .mm 2| 02| 2 02 2 02| 0| coop mumum meow .H0 2| 02| 2| 02| 02| 2| 02| 2| 0| 2| 2| 02| @Hm3m mo UOHHmm .00 2 oz 2 us on 2 oz 2 o: o: o u: o o: 95.3 cumzm pm 03 .mm 2| 02| 02| 0 02| 0| 02 02| 0| 02| meE uxmm .mm I. .i .I u: I. 0.. 2. oz: 02 2: oz- 0 02.. is: oz: 2 oz 2.. Naucsooumom .mm as .a no I I 9 .a 9 T. I no a no .i I no a 9 I I n n n u u . m. m. m... m. w. m. m. m w. w. m m. m w. w. 1. o. 1 1. a. . AHHH 039.8%? CH mcH©00P o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o mgmpH ccSOHUxomm .0 O O O manmwmwmmwmm..mmmaom o I .a o mu m m .a a m. m m“ J .a m. m T, _d J "a 2 Ti .a a .4 o . e e 1. o . e 2 4+ 3 . e 2 n4 3 . e e . 4 o o . 4 o .0 . 1 .0 o . 1 o o 0...... mums mama mama 1 w. m m .+ 1 1 .+ 1 1 m+ J 1. mucmosum mumzomoa mHmHoaom soummmwm muonspomq mQOHDMHUOmmm mcHtummwu mumt mchmoH “mumsHo 0cm GOHmmmnmwn mHmHuHsfi mo humafism .mmocmHHmmxm GOHHMUHGSEEOO 0cm COHuomumucH HHmnu mchnmosou mGOHmcmEHc can mUHumHHmuumnmso .mmmucmum cmw3umn .NIHH> OHQMB 313 Further information concerning the relationship between measures of background characteristics and of com- munication experiences appear in Table VIII-3, which summarizes the correlations between background factor scores and communication factor scores. As inspection of Tables VIII-2 and VIII-3 will verify, in general there is relatively close agreement among the multiple regression, cluster loading, and factor score correlation analyses in the identi— fication of relationships. As the data in Table VIII—2 indicate, the multiple regression and cluster loading data suggest that being a male, having family responsibilities during one's sojourn, and being relatively young are characteristics that are negatively associated with overseas interaction. These findings are confirmed by data in Table VIII-3 which indicate that background factors composed of these items have relatively high negative associations with the overseas interaction dimension. Details concerning the content of relationships between background measures and interaction and communication dimensions appear in Chapters III and IV. Let us therefore merely summarize the general patterning of associations. Among Lecturers and Research Scholars, high scorers on the different communication dimensions tend to be faculty members with some stature in their professions--as indicated by their relative maturity and by the fact that their applications were requested by American agencies or foreign institutions. For Teachers, too, relative maturity appears 314 gH. Hoo.| oo.I HH. «OO.I 0H0“ ongm mH.I 0H. HO.I mo. #0. o Hmm .Qflm oo.I no. No. Ho. NH. .8500 .HGH ¢H.| Ho. oH. NO.I mo. .8500 .ucH 0H. mo.I we. 30: can con» wNHm NuHo m0.- 300 new 00:» muHm NuHo NH.- m0.- 00.- cumzm ~0.- coHumUHHmmm nmumHuHaH mo ooHumm .A-V mmHmH .NHHamm Hoe» .mHmz smHuHum .sHHamm Hoop .mHmz ~0.- .mcmH 0H.- 00.- H00. muHHHnoe .30: can swap mumum mfiom .nusom .wmsmso common HH.- mom .000» mmumwo 00.- 00. 00.- A-V 00. A-o chasm mo coHumoHHmmm omumHuHcH tOHHmm .NuHHHQoE 0Hm3m .A|v 30: nonomwa lumom .30: Hommmmoum .30: can swap common .30: mmummo .wmcmsu wmnmmn no. we. mo.| 30m can swap mumum meow .0HQ< .Hmm .EEO0 .onnm .ucH .Qsm .usH .usH mucmosum mnmnumme 00.- NuHHHnos .0000» m>HuMHmm m0.- m0.- 00.- NuHHHnos .susos m>HumHmm mm. 1-0 muu< + mmHuHcmsgm mm.- 00. 00. nmummswmu coHumoHHmmm .AIV MHsmwoo + mmounm .muum + mmHuHcmfinm .Uoummsvmn coHumoHHmmd .mosmummfioo mmmsm HH.| Hemmmmonm |GMH .MHcmmoo + mmousm .NHHEmm Hoop .mHmz 00.- mo. 00.- nommm Ho. 30: new con» mNHm muH0 |monm .hHHEmm x00» .mHmz NO.I .mGMH oH. mo.- wo. so: new con» mNHm MUHo .30: can swap mumum meow Ho. mo. go.| 30c can swap mumum meow .UHQ< .Hmm .EEOU .vund .ucH mumHosom noummmmm .nsm .uGH .ucH muonsuooq .mmuoom Houomm cOHumoHQSEEOO 0cm mmuoom Houumm tssonmxomn cwmzumn mGOHHMHmHHOU .MIHHH> OHQMB 315 important with reference to their communication opportunities both overseas and at home; for Students, however, relative youth and freedom from academic requirements such as those involved in advanced dissertation research facilitate extensive interaction abroad. While senior scholars who venture to the Far East generally have more interaction opportunities than their colleagues sojourning in Europe. the latter group tends to continue relationships with host nationals more than the grantees in Far Eastern countries. In addition, in all groups grantees from relatively small towns appear to establish the kind of relationships which prove more enduring than those established by the urban dwellers. This apparent difference in style of interpersonal relation— ships is further indicated by the fact that the grantees in large urban centers tend to receive (or accept) more invitations for public appearances related to their over- seas experiences. This difference in interaction patterns of urbanites as opposed to small town dwellers further suggests the operation of a sort of Gresham‘s law concerning social interaction. That is, just as programmed activity tends to drive out unscheduled policy decision making in large organizations (Simon, 1960), so in the lives of the former grantees, the immediate pressures involved in assisting fellow colleagues and in disseminating information concerning 316 overseas experiences may tend to drive out the less immediate and unscheduled pressures for maintaining relationships with individuals abroad. Expectations for communicating with fellow countrymen may place greater pressure on faculty members in large metropolitan universities than on those in small town, liberal arts teaching colleges. Unfortunately we do not have information concerning the relative size and source of support of the senior Scholars' home universities, but it is possible that the urban vs. small town differences observed in our data are crude reflections of differences we might expect among grantees in different types of insti- tutional settings. Thus, in terms of HOmans' social economizs (1961), we would expect that as the relative cost of assist- ing host nationals increases--vis-a-vis the immediate potential profit from interacting with fellow countrymen--then the frequency of correspondence with foreign nationals is likely to decrease. Of course, as we shall note further, recruitment to different types of institutional settings and choice of general living environments, which would tend to affect the relative costs of continued interaction, may be a function of individual differences in preferred modes of social interaction. Perhaps those predisposed to more superficial, immediate, and extensive contacts involving relatively low costs in emotional involvement prefer large metropolitan institutional settings. With specific reference to the dimensions involving extensive interaction and mass communication (the overseas 317 interaction measures, the Guttman American interaction scale, and the public relations dimensions), high scorers in all groups tend to be represented by females, by grantees who are unencumbered by family responsibilities, and by individuals whose occupational choices suggest they are favorably predisposed toward social communication. That is,Lecturers and Teachers tend to have more high scorers than Research Scholars on the overseas interaction dimension—— and to some extent on the American interaction scale as well. In addition, within the different groups those who have selected fields involving social interaction--such as professional social service or some areas of the social sciences--generally engage in more extensive interaction than do their peers who have selected fields involving more solitary research pursuits--such as is characteristic in the humanities or natural sciences. This suggested predisposition toward social com- munication among certain grantees has implications with reference to the data regarding the positive association between grantees? subjective estimates of language competence and the extensiveness of their interaction. Let us examine this relationship in some detail. In accord with the general terminology for regression analysis we have tended to refer to background factors as predictors of the dependent variables. In terms of most of the background attributes--age, sex, field of work, 318 highest earned degree at award time, etc.--this interpre- tation does not seem unreasonable since these qualities were antecedent to the grantees‘ overseas interaction experiences. In the case of the language report, however, it is important to note that the subjective estimates were made at the same time as the grantees' reports of their interaction experiences--at some time following their sojourns. we cannot conclude, therefore, that the observed correlation implies a causal relationship in which language skill leads to increased interaction. Plausible as this conclusion is, our data nevertheless could be interpreted to imply a different causal relationship in which higher interaction with nationals of a host country leads to increased language proficiency. These possibilities are not, of course, mutually exclusive. Indeed, they may be reciprocal in the sense that individuals with a passable level of proficiency may be able to communicate with some effectiveness with host nationals, and over time such interaction experiences lead to greater fluency. Possibly this reciprocal relationship occurs, however, because both the language measure and the interaction dimension are related to grantees? predispositions regarding social communication. That is, we have suggested that the patterning of associations between background and communication measures reflects personal life style pre— ferences for social response among those who engage in extensive interaction. Expending more effort in developing 319 language skill might also reflect a greater interest in communicating with others. In line with this suggestion let us note that the language variable also tends to be related to dimensions concerning public relations and American interaction (Table VIII-2). Apparently grantees whose language Skills were sufficient to facilitate extensive interaction abroad have more to report to American audiences. Our interpretation of these data, however, goes beyond this—— we suggest that the observed relationships between language proficiency and interaction both overseas and at home occurs because all of these measures are associated with more general predispositions toward and higher evaluations of social communication. Unfortunately we lack data to test this interpretation. Some indirect support of our general interpretation, however, appears in findings reported by Selltiz and associates who suggest that social relations between foreign students and Americans are influenced more by the students' confidence in their language ability than by their actual proficiency, as judged by an American interviewer (1963). Actually, our subjective measure of language competence would seem to embody this selfjconfidence component. Mbreover, on the basis of our previous discussion, we suggest that confidence in language ability may be a special instance of a more general confidence in one's ability to interact with others in a rewarding manner. 320 In certain cultural contexts--such as the United States--we would expect this general predisposition toward social response and confidence in communication ability to set in motion the spiraling association suggested previously between interaction and fluency, even when the initial level of language proficiency is relatively low. That is, relative to a country like France, foreign students in the United States are more likely to find a permissive and encouraging audience who will in general reinforce their attempts to speak the host country's language. Therefore, in the United States it seems more probable that high confidence in language ability will be confirmed and low confidence bolstered. In France, however, the opposite situation may be encountered. According to American students interviewed abroad (Gullahorn & Gullahorn, 1956), the French are relatively intolerant of misuse of their language, regarding mispronunciation and improper usage as an affront to their cultural grandeur. Since some of the j.n.d.'s in proper pronunciation appear subliminal to many Americans, one might conclude that non- veridical perceptions of language competence will not be rewarded in France. Thus, in such a cultural context, an individual who is predisposed toward interacting with ‘ others may encounter considerable frustration if his minimum level of language proficiency is unacceptable to his hosts. Research evidence concerning the interpretations suggested here would require a panel study involving 321 pre-departure measures of interaction propensities and confi- dence in language skill, objective assessments of language proficiency, as well as subsequent follow-ups investigating social interaction with host nationals and levels of language skill during the sojourn period, and post—return measures of communication with fellow countrymen. we have suggested that the cultural context of the foreign inter- action may have an important influence on the observed relationships; it should also be noted that the general receptivity of fellow countrymen at home is also important (of. Beals & Humphrey, 1957; Bennett, et. a1., 1958; Scott, 1956, Useem & Useem, 1955, and Watson & Lippitt, 1955). According to our data, in general returned grantees find their fellow Americans interested in their sojourn experiences: therefore, those who are predisposed toward extensive com- munication are likely to be gratified by many invitations for public appearances. (2) Professional Outcomes of the Award Experiences: Interrelations Among Professional Outcome Measures. ‘Table VIII-4 summarizes the correlations among dimensions pertaining to the impact of the grantees‘ award experiences on their professional roles. As noted in Chapter V, the Guttman scales dimensionalizing professional consequences include grantees' appraisals of the contributions of their sojourn experiences to their professional development, as well as their estimates of the prestige accruing to them as 322 no. ||| ||| ||| HmumsHU mCOHHMme HMGOHmmmmoum mcHHSUGM x kumsHU mmHummHm HMGOHmmomoum cw. ||| ||| ||| HmumSHU mGOHHMHmm HmCOHmmmmoum mcHHsccm x 00. mm. mm. 00. “mumsHo mmHummum Hmconmmmoum x HmumsHU ucmEQOHm>mn HMGOHmmmmoum hm. ||| ||| ||| kumsHo mcoHumHmm HMGOHmmmMOHm mGHHstsm x wN. co.| 0N. mH. HmudeU meumwum HMCOHmmmmoum x 0N. NO.I mH. mH. HmDmSHU ucmEQOHm>mn HMGOHmmmmoum x kumsH0 mGOHumoHHnsm HMGOHmmmmoum mN. ||| ||| ||| Houomm mGOHuMHmm HMGOHmmmmoum mGHHsoom x Houomm mmHummHm HMCOHmmwmonm mm. ||| ||| ||| Houomm mGOHumem HMCOHmmmmonm mCHHsUsm x mm. 0N. Hm. cm. Houomm meummum HMGOHmmmmonm x Houomm ucmEQOHm>wn HMCOHmmmmoum mm. ||| ||| ||| Houomm muoHuMHmm HMGOHmmOMOHm UGHHStcm x mm. Hm. mm. Hm. Houomm mmHummHm HmGOHmmmmoum x mm. mo. Nm. Hm. uouumm “COEQOHm>mQ HmGOHmmmmoum x 0Hmom mmocmsommsoo HMGOHmmmmonm cmfiuusw 0v. ||| ||| ||| Houomm mCOHDMHmm HMGOHmmmmoum mcHHsccm x MH. vH. NH. mH. Houomm mmHummnm HMGOHmmmmoum x vN. 0H. oH. mN. nouomm ucmEmon>mn Hmconmmmonm x «m. HH. oH. mH. mHmom mmoswswmeOU HmCOHmmomOHm cmfiuuow x xmocH usmfiw>mH£o¢ HMcOHmmmmoum moumEEsm mucwosum mumnomwe mHMHonom mumusuowq nouwwmwm IF) .mGOHmcmEHU mEoouso HMCOHmmmmonm mcoam mCOHuMHouuo0 .¢|HHH> mHQma 323 a result of their awards. These two types of consequences appear as distinct dimensions in the factor and cluster analyses, and as the data in Table VIII—4 indicate, both factors are related to the Guttman scale. Hewever, since the prestige items are ranked at the maximum end of the Guttman scales for the three professional groups, the scales for Lecturers, Research Scholars, and Teachers are more highly associated with these groups' professional prestige factors than with their professional development dimensions. As we shall note in later discussions, these relationships between the Guttman and factor dimensions appear consistently in associations with measures concerning other aspects of the grantees' award experiences. With reference to more tangible professional achieve- ments resulting from the sojourn experiences, the data in Table VIII-4 indicate that in general correlations are relatively low between the summated index and the other dimensions as well as between the professional publications cluster and the clusters pertaining to development and prestige. In describing characteristics of grantees who score high on these dimensions we shall discuss possible interpretations of these findings. Associations with Background Characteristics. Table VIII-5 presents the patterning of associations between grantees' background characteristics and the measures relating to professional outcomes of their award experiences. 324 0 2 2 0 0 02 0 2. 0 2 0005Q0 5HHamm 5090 .44-55 0 2 2 02 02 02 02 02 02 || || || || || || || || || || 005020 005000 .mm 2 Nb 2- 2- 02- 0- 2- 2- 02-02- 0- 0- :oHumu . |HHQQ0 500 500002 .H5 2 0 2 0 2 2 02 0 2 02| 00:0u00500 mmmsmsmq .on 0 2 2 02 02 02 0| 2| 02| 02 || || || ||. || || || || || || coHu0mzooo 0:0005m .m0 2 2 02 0| ..| || |.. -| || 2 0 0 2 0 00.50 + mmHuHcmesm .00 0 2. 012% || || || || || 0 0 0 0 000c0H0m H0Hoom .00 2- 02-02- .02 - - - - - 0 2- 0- 02- 0 2- 02- 02- 3000500 Hmnsumz .00 2| 2- 02- 0 00:» mNHn >050 .40 0 2 0 02 0- 02- 0 .3330... 05030|umom .mm 0 2 2| 02| 2 0 2 2| 02| 02| 0 .2 2| 0| 0| 00:0 mumum 0502 .H0 0- 0- 02+ 0 2- 0 0 05030 no 03500 .00 0 2 2 02 02 02 0. 2 2| 02| 2| 02| 2| 2| 02| 02| 05HD 05030 90 00¢ .0m 0 2 2 02 0 02 0 2 0 2 02 0H05 "200 .mm ..| || || |- || || 0.- 2.. 2.. 02- 0 0.. 2.. 0 0| 2- 2500000 000: .mm d d m m. m. m. m w... m m. m. m m m m. m m m m. m. m a miHHH 0.500000... 0H 05.600. 4.0.. 0 0.4.0.... .1. .5 .gm. .. 232229.... . e .4 T. 4. . e .4 T. . e 44 .L . e .4 I .4 d I. o I. 44 d I. o .4 a .... o .4 J t. o a e x 6 d u d e 4. 5 d d a 1 5 d d a 4. 5 d n P o e m 6 n P o e m n P o a m n P o e 0 q .4 a q .4 a q .4 e a. .4 e . d . J u H . d . J u . d . J u . d . J u 4. e 4 e 1 e 4 1 e .4 4. e .4 0 o 0 a I 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 o .L I. O 1. .d . T. 1.. O 1. _d .L I. O 1. .d T. I. O 1. .d n . u o e n . u o e n . u o e n . u o e S . I 3 .d S . I 3 S . I D S . J D 1. V 4 e 44 V .4 1. V 1 1 V 4 a o o a a o o e o o e o o 4. u. 1 . 4. u. 4. 4. ..u. 4. J ...u. : muc0vsum 05020008 m50H0£00 20500002 m5055u00H .00000H50mx0 05030 5H0£u no 00500 Ipso H000H000m05m mGHC500000 0:0H0005H0 0:0 00HumH5050050£0 .000uc05m c00350n mGOHumHoomm0 mcH050m05 0500 musmoH 50000H0 0:0 00H0005m05 0HmHuH55 no 2505500 .mIHHH> 0HQ0B 325 The data include the direction of relationships for variables which the multiple regression analyses identified as signifi- cant predictors of the dependent criteria (indicated by a —M.or M in the table), as well as for variables with rela- tively high loadings on the professional publications cluster and other clusters comparable to the factor dimensions (identified by a -C or C). Except in the two instances underlined in Table VIII-5, the direction of association is the same for variables identified as important in either the multiple regression or the cluster loading analyses (therefore a -MC or MC indicates the sign applies to both). Additional information regarding relationships between measures of background characteristics and of professional outcomes appears in Table VIII-6, which summarizes the correlations between background factor scores and the dependent professional outcome factor scores. As inspection of Tables VIII—5 and VIII-6 will verify, in general the multiple regression, cluster loading, and factor score correlation analyses show relatively close agreement in the identification of relationships. In a few instances, however, the composition of the background factors could be misleading in terms of identification of associations between individual character- istics and outcome dimensions. For example, the multiple regression and cluster loading analyses indicate that for Teachers the occupation variable involving not being ¢O.I mN. mo. NN. 00. 020H00H02 02H52020 326 500000 0500020 H02050000050 020 005000 mo. 00. mo.I mo. HH. 00H0005m .0050 HH. HH.| mo. moo. mo.I 00H00050 .0050 mo. «0. 300 000 0000 0000 »000 m0. 302 020 2020 00H0 2050 m0. Ho.| 05030 00 00H500 HH. 20H000HH000 0000H0H2H .AIV 00H0H 20H0550 .»H0000 0000 .0Hmz .»H0200 0000 .mHmz mo.- .mcmH 00. 000.- »00H0000 .302 020 2020 00000 0502 .20202 .002020 005000 mH. 000 .2020 005000 NO.I Ho.I Alv 20H0 0H. H-v 00030 00 000500 -moHHmmm 000000005 .20HHH005 05030|0000 .AIV 302 5020008 .302 500000050 .302 .302 020 2020 005000 005000 .002020 005000 oo.I 00. 302 020 2020 00000 0502 .>00 00H00050 .>00 .0050 .0050 .0050 00200200 05020009 00.- »0HH0000 .0000» 00H00H00 00. 00. »0HH0000 .0000» 0>000H00 mN.I HIV 0052 + 00H0H20522 NO.I 0H. 000002005 205000HH000 .AIV 0H20000 + 000520 .0052 + 00H0H20522 .000002005 20H000HH00< .0020000500 0002020H 00. 500000050 .0H20000 + 000520 .mHH500 2000 .0H02 mo.I HH. 500000050 No. 300 000 0000 0000 »000 .»H0000 0000 .mHmz 40.- 000H 00. 000.- 300 000 0000 0000 »000 .302 020 2020 00000 0502 mo.I no.| 302 020 2020 00000 0502 .>00 050H0200 20500002 00H00050 .>00 050520000 .0050 .0050 .0050 500000 0220502000 2003000 020H00H05500 .005000 .0IHHH> 0H009 327 currently employed as an elementary or secondary school teacher is highly associated with professional prestige (Table VIII-5). Contrary to this finding, the data in Table VIII—6 indicate that the background factor which involves a negative loading of the Teachers' occupation attribute correlates negatively with the professional prestige factor. True. the correlation is of very small magnitude; however, were we to base our conclusions about associations between background and dependent variables on these data alone. we would miss an apparently important relationship. Thus, while the factor score correlation data may be useful in initial identification of relation- ships, with data of the type presented here—-where corre- lations among background variables are generally not of great magnitude--it appears that more information is gained from the analyses involving the original background items .instead of those using the reduced factor data for the background items. Details concerning the associations between grantees' background characteristics and the impact of their award experiences on their professional roles appear in Chapter V: therefore we shall merely summarize the overall patterning of relationships. While the older, more established senior scholars tend to receive greater communication opportunities over- seas, the younger, less well-known faculty members (whose applications were not requested by American or foreign agencies) tend to experience greater gains in terms of * 328 professional development and prestige. Furthermore, the professional capital of the award experiences appeansto be greater for those senior scholars whose home states are not among those included in the grouping representing areas with the more prestigeful universities. It may be that the effects of inflation resulting from the expansion of overseas educational opportunities are greatest in the more prestigeful institutions, where securing a grant is not a mark of particular prestige-—rather, not having such experience may make one professionally suspect. The same type of relative evaluation may apply to a faculty member's field of specialization as well as to his home institutional setting. That is, the professional capital of overseas experience is relatively high for American grantees in the humanities, arts, and social sciences; however, it is low for the natural scientists. This finding is consonant also with the general image of the superiority of American science and technology held by foreign scholars. That is, according to data from investigations regarding those who have sojourned in the United States, study in America is highly valued for those in the natural sciences and technology as well as in certain areas of social science; however, it is not generally considered worthwhile in the humanities, where European experience seems most highly prized (cf. Beals & Humprhey, 1957; Lambert & Bressler, 1956; Scott, 1956). o _L 329 It is interesting to note that high scorers on the professional publications cluster differ with respect to the last two background characteristics. That is, it is the senior scholars from states with the higher—ranking uni- versities and those in the natural sciences who exhibit greater productivity in terms of professional publications (Table VIII-5). These findings suggest that the relatively low correlations between the productivity dimension and those relating to other professional consequences may occur because high productivity may be a pattern of life for grantees in the sciences as well as for those in more competitive universities; therefore while their sojourn experiences apparently provide material for professional publication, the overseas experiences are not unique in stimulating professional development. As one natural scientist observed, From the professional point of view, I should emphasize that theoretical physics is enough of a unity that an experience in Japan or Russia or wherever is professionally much the same as it would be in California or New York. One would expect it not to interrupt a productive life, but on the other hand to provide no more new insights or skills than any stay with a new set of colleagues might lead to. Thus my feeling is that my visit was highly successful in that I interacted in a mutually useful way with my Japanese colleagues, but nonetheless this was not a unique result. As the data in Table VIII-5 indicate, while grantees from states with the more prestigeful educational institutions also tend to score higher on the summated professional achievement index, it is the senior scholars 330 in fields other than the natural sciences who score high on this dimension. This result probably reflects the fact that grantees in social sciences or humanities are more likely to be able to introduce new courses as a result of their sojourn experiences-—a rare type of event in the relatively more restricted curricula of the natural sciences; furthermore, other types of achievements included in the bibliographic compilation on which the summated index is based pertain in particular to grantees in the humanities and arts (see Chapter V, Table V-l6). This finding illustrates some of the difficulties involved in using an arbitrary, non-unidimensional summated index--the assemblage of items may be such as to obscure or even cancel out relationships with other variables; furthermore, interpretations of observed associations may be more equivocal. As in the professional outcome dimensions for the senior scholars, there are marked differences between the subgroup of Teachers exhibiting high productivity and those reporting the professional development and prestige effects. Indeed, there is an almost orthogonal relationship between the professional publications cluster and the other two professional clusters for Teachers: furthermore, correlations between their summated achievement index and the other dimensions are relatively low (Table VIII-4). Like the faculty group, the highly productive Teachers tend to come from states where the more prestigeful educational insti- tutions are concentrated. In addition, these Teachers are 331 older men who are not currently employed as elementary or secondary school teachers--thus they probably are educational administrators or faculty members in colleges of education (Table VIII-5). In contrast to the Teachers reporting numerous pro- fessional achievements, those reporting less tangible professional development stimulated by their award experiences tend to be men from states outside the areas including the higher ranking universities. While these Teachers have given evidence of professional achievement by earning higher degrees subsequent to their sojourns, they have not relocated geographically; furthermore, while they possibly have advanced in their particular school systems, they still list their occupations as school teachers. In contrast to this patterning of characteristics, the Teachers reporting greater recognition resulting from their award experiences tend to be young men who have earned higher degrees and have relocated both geographically and profes- sionally, and are not currently employed as elementary or secondary school teachers. As was true for the senior scholars, the overall professional capital of overseas experience appears greater for Students in the humanities, arts, and some areas of social science than it is for those in natural science (Table VIII-5). It is interesting to note, however, that Students in the natural sciences are more likely to establish and maintain collaborative work relationships 332 with foreign researchers--as indicated by the data con— cerning the enduring professional relations dimension. Some differences appear in the characteristics of Studentsscoring high on the dimensions pertaining to pro- ductivity as opposed to those relating to more general professional consequences--for example, like the grantees in the three professional groups, Students from the area including the high prestige universities report greater productivity, whereas those outside these states receive more recognition. In general, however, there is close agreement in the patterning of characteristics of high scorers on all of the Student professional outcome dimensions. Typically, study abroad seems to have the greatest academic impact on the older,married male Students who are already advanced in their graduate studies and who have relatively high proficiency in their host countries' languages, and who apprently incorporate data gathered abroad in dissertations for more advanced degrees which enable them to move into positions as college or university faculty members (see summary of associations in Table VIII-6). (3) Personal Development and Satisfaction with the Sojourn Experiences: Relations Among Satisfaction Measures: Table VIII-7 presents the correlations among Guttman scale scores, factor scores, and summated index scores summarizing grantees' evaluations of the personal development resulting from their 333 sojourns. While there are some differences in the composition and weighting of items in the three representations of this dimension (see Chapter VI), the data indicate they are all highly associated. The summated satisfaction index, comprising all evaluation items on the questionnaire, was devised according to the equal-weighting procedure outlined in Chapter I. In the Guttman satisfaction scales, the minimum levels for all groups concern personal development and overall satisfaction with the sojourn experiences, whereas higher-ranked items involve various facets of international perspective. For all groups, the maximum item on the Guttman satisfaction scales suggests organizational facilitation of the grantees? efforts to integrate their overseas learning in their current roles. While this particular item is not an important contributor to the satis— faction dimensions developed in the factor analyses, in general the high loading items also relate to personal development and international perspective. Table VIII-7. Correlations among satisfaction dimensions. Lec- Research Tea- Stu- turers Scholars chers dents Guttman Satisfaction Scale x Personal Development and Satisfaction Factor ' .74 .69 .64 .67 x Summated Satisfaction Index.6l .65 .59 .64 Personal Development and Satisfaction Factor x Summated Satisfaction Index .63 .66 .62 .61 334 Associations with_§ackground Characteristics. Table VIII—8 summarizes relationships between grantees' background characteristics and the Guttman and factor repre- sentations of their evaluations of personal development and satisfaction with their sojourns. The direction of associa- tions is given for variables which the multiple regression analyses identified as significant predictors of the dependent criteria (indicated by a -M or.M in the table), as well as for variables with relatively high loadings on the satisfaction cluster comparable to the factor dimension (identified by a -C or C). In all instances in the present analyses, the direction of association is the same for variables identified as important by either the multiple regression or the cluster loading data (therefore a -MC or MC indicates the sign applies to both). Data regarding relations between grantees' background characteristics and the summated satisfaction index are not presently available; however, since the summated index in this instance involves items from a unidimensional, scalable area, on the basis of Guttman's conclusions and procedural recommendations of Riley and associates (see Chapter I), we would expect the two scale representations to be highly correlated (cf. Table VIII-7) and to exhibit the same patterning of associations with other variables. Further data concerning relationships between measures of grantees' background characteristics and of their satisfaction 335 .05000 0220502000 00 020000 500 HHH x002000¢ 000 0 0I 0 0 0I oI 000000 000000 0000 .00I00 UI II II II II 002020 005000 .mm x N0 sI oI 02 0I oI 00000000000 000 000000 .00 UI 02| , UI 0020000500 00020200 .00 2 UI 02 II II II II 2000002000 0200050 .00 02 II II 2 0000 + 0000000002 .00 sI osI II II osI osI 00000000 000000 .00 II II 00020000 0052002 .00 2 02 2020 0000 0000 .00 00000005 05030I0000 .mm sI usI sI 0I ozI osI 0000 00000 0000 .00 2 05030 00 000500 .00 sI usI sI usI sI usI 0000 00030 00 000 .mm SI 02| El 02! 2| QEI SI USI 0H05 «X00 .mm II II 2 02 SI ozI 0000000 0000 .mm 00000 500000 00000 500000 00000 500000 0 00000 500000 «0500H 0220500000 0000000 .000 0000000 .000 0000000 .000 0000000 .000 0 00200200 05020009 05000200 050520000 20500002 .000200500x0 2520n00 50020 2003 200000000000 50020 0202500200 0200020500 020 000000500005020 .00002050 2003002 020000000000 020050005 0000 0200000 5000200 020 2000005005 00000025 00 0505520 .mIHH> 0020B .336 with their sojourns appear in Table VIII-9, which presents the correlations between background factor scores and the dependent professional outcome factor scores. With respect to these data, the same general identification of relation- ships appearsin.the multiple regression, cluster loading, and factor score correlation analyses summarized in Tables VIII-8 and VIII-9. There is, however, one discrepancy in the multiple regression data involving the Students' Guttman scale. According to this analysis, present occupation as a professor is positively associated with the Guttman dimensions. While the occupation item was not a signifi- cant predictor of the Students' satisfaction factor, the cluster loading data indicate a negative association (Table VIII-8); furthermore. there is a negative correlation be— tween the satisfaction factor and the background factor in which the occupation item is positively loaded (Table VIII-9). Perhaps the discrepancy with relation to the Guttman scale occurs because the maximum level of the scale, described previously, applies more appropriately to grantees in academic roles. With this one exception, the different analyses suggest the same general patterning of characteristics for high scorers on the satisfaction dimensions of all groups. Typically, the high scorers are represented by younger grantees within each group. by females, by those without family responsibilities during their sojourns. by those from states outside the areas comprising the high prestige 337 00. 302 020 2020 0000 M000 mH.I 20000000000 000000000 .000000 0000 .0000 mo.I .0200 .302 020 2020 00000 0502 OH.I , 000 .2020 005002 OH.I AIV 05030 00 000500 .00000205 05030I0000 .302 500000050 00. 302 020 2020 0000 >000 mo.I 05030 no 000500 .AIV 0000H 2000052 .000500 #000 .0002 No. 00000205 .2020» .002020 005002 00.I AIV 0000 I0000000 00000002H .AIV 302 5020009 .302 020 2020 005002 .302 005000 .002020 005002 mo.I 302 020 2020 00000 0500 200000000000 00200200 200000000000 05020009 00. 00000205 .20200 0>00000m 00. 00000205 .2020» 0>00000m mo.I AIV 0050 ON.I 000000000 00000000000 + 000002052m .AIV 0020000 + .005< + 0000020522 .0020000500 000522 .000002005 20000000000 00020200 .0020000 + 000522 m0.I 500000050 .000500 #000 .0002 m0.I 500000050 .000500 2000 .0002 000. 302 020 2020 0000 >000 No. 302 020 2020 0000 0000 mH.I .0200 .302 020 2020 00000 0502 NH.I 302 020 2020 00000 0500 200000000000 05000200 20500002 200000000000 050520002 .005000 500000 200000000000 020 005000 500000 0220500002 2003002 020000005500 .0IHHH> 00209 338 universities. by those admitting deficiencies in their foreign language skills. by those whose applications were notrequested by American or foreign agencies, and by grantees specializing in the arts or in professional social service. As noted in Chapter VI, this patterning suggests that so- journing abroad has a greater impact on grantees with rela- tively lower background status characteristics. With reference to this suggestion, let us note in particular the differences in the reports of males and females. As just noted, female grantees tend to score higher than males on measures pertaining to satisfaction with their award experiences. In terms of Homans‘ social economics (1961), sex may be considered an investment in a social status. Within American culture the female sex has a lower value and hence represents a lower investment in a professional status. Consequently. for females the social profit of obtaining a government grant is greater with respect to this investment than it is for males: thus we would expect the finding observed in our data indicating that female grantees experience greater relative gratification than do their male colleagues. Let us extend our interpretation by considering the dimensions pertaining to extensive interaction and mass communication-~on which females also tend to score higher than males (Table VIII-2). As we shall note in a sub- sequent discussion, these communication dimensions are 339 substantially related to the satisfaction measures. If female grantees--particularly those in faculty status positions—- feel greater relative gratification as a consequence of receiving their awards, they might express such satisfaction in greater receptivity to host nationals. Such an out- come might be reinforced by still another aspect of the social economics of this situation. As the late Samuel Stouffer noted in unpublished Harvard lectures on social institutions, a sort of Gresham's law seems to apply to social statuses. Allowing incumbents to be recruited from those possessing lower status attributes (females, Negroes, etc.)—-or in Homans' terms. from those making lower invest- mentS——eventually tends to lower the prestige of the status position so that the accrued social profit will be commen- surate with the general investment level. To prevent this devaluation. those representing "the establishment" in various occupations are likely to resist the lowering of recruitment standards. _At the Same time many of this group may consider the social and professional profits accruing to female grantees to be excessive in terms of their investments-—a violation of the norms of distributive justice (Homans, 1961). under such conditions, female pro- fessionals are likely to feel less secure in their formal statuses than do their male colleagues. Therefore, as a means of reducing tension and dissonance, they may seek inter— action opportunities in order to gain confirmation of their professional and/or interpersonal competence. To the extent 340 that engaging in interaction and mass communication does in fact prove ego enhancing, we would expect such reinforce- ment to result in still further interaction behavior as well as in positive appraisals concerning the personal value of the overseas experiences. The validity of these interpre- tations, of course, awaits research evidence. Associations Among Major Dependent Dimensions In summarizing the grantees' communication experiences, professional outcomes, and overall evaluations of their‘ sojourns, we have described these three major classes of dependent dimensions in terms of the general content of measures relating to each class, in terms of inter- relations between similar dimensions from different analyses within each class, and in terms of the patterning of character- istics of high scorers on dimensions within each major area ‘investigated. Now. in continuing our comparison of results from the different modes of analysis as well as our explor- ation of the substantive relationships disclosed, we shall consider associations among the classes of dependent dimensions—- that is, between representations of the communication and professional outcome dimensions; between the communication and satisfaction measures; and finally between the profes- sional outcome and satisfaction dimensions. Relations getween Communicationgand Professional Outcome Dimensions. According to the cluster data presented 341 in Chapter VII, grantees' interaction and communication experiences are highly associated with their assessments concerning professional outcomes. Indeed, in the Lecturers' and Students' within-groups analyses, these relations are reciprocal. in the sense that for both groups the association between their composite communication clusters and their composite professional outcome clusters isthe highest for each of these clusters. While the Research Scholars' general interaction cluster is also most highly related to their cluster combining the professional development and prestige dimensions, the latter professional composite is more highly associated with this group's satisfaction cluster. The Teachers' within-groups cluster analysis also reveals substantial correlations between interaction ex- periences and professional outcomes. Further evidence of the high association between grantees‘ communication experiences and their subsequent professional development and prestige appears in the across- groups analyses of dependent as well as of combined di— mensions, where composite clusters involving each class of dimensions exhibit reciprocally high correlations (Chapter VII, Tables VII—ll and VII-12). The components of the relationships summarized in the various clusterings of dimensions appear in Table VIII-10. which presents correla- tions between different representations of the communication dimensions and the measures pertaining to professional out- comes . 342 mm. ON. 2N. 0N. ON. 00. mo. 00. M0. 00. O0. #0. 0m. ON. NN. NN. 00. 00. mo. 00. 00. mo. mo. m0. __.__-_-——-—-— 0 0m. 00. 00. 0N. 500000 020000000 000220 0020000250020 om. 00. 00. 00. 500000 2000000225500 0020000250020 0020050050020 00. 00. 00. mm. 500000 000522 20000050020 00. 00. m0. 0m. 00000 20000050020 20005052 2050020 00. m0. .m0. 0m. 00000 00000000005 2000500 002200200 2050020 00. 00. mo. «N. 00000 000522 20000050020 2050020 00200 05020 05000200 050520 I200 [009 20500000 I000 500000 00000050 002000000050 NN. m0. 0N. mm. mm. 20. 00. m0. ON. mo. 00. 00. 0N. 00. mm. 0N. 0m. 00. 00. 20. 00. mo. 00. m0. 00200 05020 05000200 050520 I200 I009 20500000 I000 500000 02050000>02 002000000050 00. ON. 00. ON. 500000 020000000 000220 0020000250020 om. mm. 00. 0m. 500000 2000000225500 0020000250020 0020050050020 00. m0. 0oo.I 0m. 500000 000522 20000050020 m0. 00. 00. 0m. 00000 20000050020 20005052 2050020 00. 00. mo. 00. 00000 20000050020 2000500 002200200 2050020 no. 00. ¢OO.I 00. 00000 000522 20000050020 2050020 00200 05020 05000200 050520 I200 I009 20500000 I002 00000 000202000200 002000000050 2050020 00200 05020 05000200 050520 I200 I009 20500000 I002 NGUCH UCUEM>0HSU¢ mumflmgflm «WCOHngHQ fiOHHMUHCflEOU .0200020500 0500020 002000000050 020 2000000225500 2003002 020000005500 .o0IHHH> 00209 343 0m. 00. mm. 0m. 0m. 0m. 500000 020000000 .0050 02052020 5000200 020000000 000220 0020000250020 500000 2000000225500 0020000250020 0020050050020 500000 000522 20000050020 00000 200000 I50020 20005052 2050020 00000 20000050020 2000500 002200200 2050020 00000 000522 20000050020 2050020 5000200 020000000 000220 0020000250020 5000200 2000000225500 0020000250020 0020050050020 5000200 000522 20000050020 0N. II II II mm. m0. 0m. 0m. 0m. II II II mm. II II II 00. II II II om. 00. 00. 05. 5000200 020000000 .0050 02052020 5000200 020000000220 002000000050 0m. mm. am. pm. pm. mo. om. mm. mm. II mo. II Nm. II mm. II mm. mo. 00. 00. 00. 00. mo. cm. 00000 05030 mHMHOSUm 050550 00000 05020 mHMHOSOm 050550 I200 I008 20500000 I000 I200 I009 20500000 I000 5000200 00000050 002000000050 5000200 020000000 000220 0020000250020 5000200 2000000225500 0020000250020 0020050050020 5000200 000522 20000050020 HGUWSHU #GQEQOH@>0Q HMCOHmmGMOHm 344 In general there is close agreement concerning associations among analogous dimensions identified in the different analyses. For example, relations summarized in Table VIII-10 indicate that for all groups correlations between the communication dimensions and the professional prestige factor are highest for the Guttman American inter— action scale and the comparable public relations factor. A similar trend appears for the three professional groups with reference to associations between communication dimen— sions and their Guttman professional consequences scales (which, according to Table VIII-4, are highly related to their professional prestige factors). This patterning is further confirmed in the cluster data, where, among the communication dimensions for all groups, the public relations cluster shows the highest correlation with the professional prestige cluster. These recurrent findings seem reasonable inasmuch as invitations to make public presentations re- garding sojourn experiences give former award holders some indication of others' recognition of their potential contributions; moreover, to the extent that such appearances and publicity increase the grantees' visibility, further communication opportunities and possibly increased prestige are likely to ensue. As the data in Table VIII-10 indicate, consistent within-groups correlations appear also between various representations of the communication dimensions and other professional outcome measures. There are interesting 345 differences across groups, however. For example, with reference to the summated professional achievement index, the professional publications cluster, and the professional development factor and cluster dimensions, Lecturers differ from all other groups in terms of the relatively consistent correlations between these measures and all of the communi- cation dimensions. As noted previously, these relationships appear also in the Lecturers' within-groups cluster analysis, where a reciprocally high correlation appears between a composite interaction cluster and a composite cluster in- volving the professional development dimension as well as other clusters pertaining to professional productivity (Chapter VII, Table VII-6). For Research Scholars, on the other hand, the data in Table VIII-10 indicate that overseas interaction is unrelated to this group's achievement index--a finding also demonstrated in the multiple regressionof background. variables on the achievement index, where interaction abroad factor scores were not among the significant predictors for this group (Chapter V, Table V—lZ). In addition, there is relatively low association between the Research Scholars? overseas interaction measures and their professional publications cluster as well as the factor and cluster representations of their professional development dimension. These findings again underscore differencesin the rolesof the two faculty groups abroad--and also possibly 346 differences in personal work patterns. In Chapter VII we discussed the apparent importance of overseas inter— action and maintained professional contacts as contributors to the Lecturers' evaluations of professional development - and their subsequent productivity. While Lecturers appear to seek extensive interaction with a range of colleagues as stimulation for their professional endeavors, such inter- action experiences appear less relevant for Research Scholars. Instead, this group seems to be more influenced by continued professional communication with a more restricted number of host colleagues as well as by other post—award communi- cation opportunities. Indeed, the data pertaining to Research Scholars' professional outcome dimensions suggest that extensive interaction abroad tends to interfere with their role performance. For this group, subsequent pro- fessional productivity is associated in particular with the experience of organizing research materials gathered abroad for presentation at professional meetings. According to the data in Table VIII-10, Students resemble Research Scholars in the sense that their post— award communication experiences are more highly associated with their evaluatiOns of professional development and their subsequent achievements than are the measures of their overseas interaction. Withreference to the factor and cluster representations of the Students' enduring professional relations dimension, which pertains specifically to the 347 professional relations established abroad and maintained after the Students' return, it is interesting to note that this dimension correlates more highly with measures con- cerning overseas interaction andinterpersonal international communication (or continued foreign interaction) than it does with the other professional outcome dimensions. This finding is demonstrated also in the cluster analyses dis- cussed in Chapter VII, where the Students' enduring professional relations cluster appears in composites with communication dimensions rather than with the other pro- fessional outcome dimensions. Relations Between Communication and Satisfaction Dimensions. According to the cluster data discussed in Chapter VII, communication measures for all groups are substantially correlated with the grantees' evaluations of personal development and satisfaction with their award experiences--although, with one exception which we shall consider later, these associations are not so high as those just discussed between composite interaction clusters and dimensions pertaining to professional outcomes. Table VIII—ll summarizes individual correlations between various representations of the communication and satisfaction dimensions. Here again, the outputs of the different analyses are in relatively good agreement con- cerning the structure of associations among dimensions-- indeed, for the senior scholars the same rank—ordering of Table VIII-ll. 348 satisfaction dimensions. Correlations between communication and Lec- Research Tea- Stu- turers Scholars chers dents Summated Satisfaction Index x Guttman Interaction Abroad Scale .27 .23 .24 .20 x Guttman Continued Foreign Interaction Scale .20 .16 .22 .14 x Guttman American Inter- action Scale .21 .16 .23 .16 x Interaction Abroad Factor .22 .19 .21 .15 x Interpersonal Internatl. Communication Factor .20 .17 .13 .14 x International Public Relations Factor .20 .14 .19 .19 Guttman Satisfaction Scale x Guttman Interaction Abroad Scale .19 .ll .22 .14 x Guttman Continued Foreign Interaction Scale .15 .10 .10 .17 x Guttman American Inter- action Scale .24 .22 .21 .25 x Interaction Abroad Factor .21 .12 .26 .18 x Interpersonal Internatl. Communication Factor .19 .08 .21 .16 x International Public Relations Factor .28 .24 .24 .21 Satisfaction Factor x Guttman Interaction Abroad Scale .24 .16 .17 .21 x Guttman Continued Foreign Interaction Scale .18 .ll .12 .18 x Guttman American Inter- action Scale .29 .21 .22 .28 x Interaction Abroad Factor .26 .18 .23 .24 x Interpersonal Internatl. . Communication Factor .16 .10 .21 .19 x International Public Relations Factor .35 .24 .24 .22 Satisfaction Cluster x Interaction Abroad Cluster .24 .17 .28 .27 x Interpersonal Internatl. Communication Cluster -- .12 -— .23 x International Public Relations Cluster .38 .24 .39 .20 349 correlations between communication and satisfaction measures appears in the Guttman, factor, and cluster data. For these groups the Guttman American interaction scales and the comparable public relations factors and clusters are most highly associated with the Guttman, factor, and cluster representations of the satisfaction dimension; and measures of overseas interaction rank second. In relation to the summated satisfaction scale, however, the order of cor— relations is reversed, and the Guttman and factor measures of interaction abroad are first for all groups.1 On all representations of the satisfaction dimensions for all groups, the lowest relationships appear in associations with the Guttman continued foreign interaction scales and with the comparable interpersonal international communication factors and clusters. While the same patterning of relations appears for Lecturers and Research Scholars, the level of correlations tends to be higherfor Lecturers. Indeed, as the data in Table VIII—ll indicate, the magnitude of associations be- tween communication and satisfaction dimensions tends to lThis reversal is probably due to differences in item composition. As noted previously, the summated satis- faction index involved all evaluation items, including a set of items identified in the factor and cluster analyses as a separate dimension pertaining to a denial of lack of institutional support. As noted in Chapter VI, this di- mension is more highly correlated with the overseas inter- action measure than it is with the satisfaction dimension. 350 be higher for both Lecturers and Teachers-—the grantees who have selected roles typically involving extensive interaction and mass communication. In contrast to the Lecturers, how- ever, overseas interaction experiences appear to be about as important as post-award American interaction or public relations endeavors in contributing toward Teachers' evalu- ations of personal development and satisfaction with their sojourns. As suggested in Chapter VII, the focus of the Teachers' roles emphasizes interpersonal relationships rather than professional development, per se; consequently, rewarding interaction experiences with colleagues, pupils, and the school community--both overseas and at home--are likely to contribute to the Teachers' sense of personal fulfillment and satisfaction. The importance of the relation- ship between communication experiences and satisfaction for Teachers is demonstrated in their within-groups cluster analysis where--in contrast to the findings for other grantees--the correlation between the Teachers' inter- action and satisfaction clusters is the highest for each of these clusters. As in the data for Teachers, some variability appears in the Students' rank-ordering of the overseas interaction and public relations or American interaction dimensions in relation to the different satisfaction measures (Table VIII-ll). For Students also, overseas interaction experiences appear to be important contributors to their 351 sense of personal growth and their development of inter— national perspective. According to the within-groups cluster data discussed in Chapter VII, while the Students' composite interaction cluster is most highly associated with their cluster pertaining to professional outcomes, its second highest correlation is with the satisfaction dimension: furthermore, this correlation is the highest for the satis- faction dimension. The general patterning of associations between communication measures and evaluations of satisfaction just described for all groups suggests the following type of spiraling association among variables. Apparently, inter— acting with foreigners provides grantees with new perspectives. Particularly for the younger, less experienced sojourners, living in a foreign culture and developing new reference groups may lead to relatively profound changes in outlodk and identifications. To the extent that the interpersonal contacts with host nationals have rewarding effects and to the extent that the public appearances some grantees make abroad prove ego enhancing, then we would generally expect such reinforcement to lead to grantees' engaging in even further interaction and mass communication both abroad and subsequent to their returns. Interpreting their experiences to fellow Americans may make grantees more aware of the impact of their sojourns on their general orientations. Indeed, in terms of research evidence 352 suggesting that persuasive communications are most persuasive to the communicator (cf. Hovland, et a1., 1953), we would expect grantees to be possibly even more appreciative of the value of their sojourns after they had returned for a time and had opportunity to integrate their overseas learning in current roles and to organize their interpretations of their sojourn experiences for communication to others (and themselves). A systematic longitudinal study involving measures of different aspects of grantees' evaluations of their sojourn experiences prior to their return and at different points thereafter, as well as measures of their propensities for social interaction and their actual com- munication experiences would clarify the suggested relations among variables. Relations getween Professional Outcome and “gagisfaction Dimensions. Having considered associations between measures of communication and professional outcomes as well as between communication and satisfaction dimensions, we shall now conclude our discussion of relations among the major classes of dependent measures by considering cor- relations between different representations of the pro- fessional outcome and the satisfaction dimensions. According to the cluster data reported in Chapter VII, measures of general professional consequences are substantially related to the three professional groups' overall satisfaction 353 with their sojourn experiences. Indeed, in the across- groups analysis of dependent as well as of combined dimensions (Tables VII-ll and VII-12), the satisfaction dimension for Lecturers, Research Scholars, and Teachers loads in one composite cluster along with the professional development dimensions for all three professional groups as well as the prestige dimensions for Lecturers and Research Scholars. With reference to the individual components of these associations, the data in Table VIII-12 suggest that for senior scholars the prestige factors and clusters as well as the comparable professional consequences scales are more highly related to all of the representations of the satisfaction dimension than are the measures of professional development. This relationship appears reasonable in terms of the information already discussed concerning the pro- fessional dimensions. That is, among the senior scholars the same general patterning of characteristics is associated with high scorers on both the development and prestige dimensions. Furthermore, the Guttman professional conse- quences scales for senior scholars provide the information that those who report prestige effects of their awards also indicate that the experience contributed to their professional development. Thus, among faculty members with similar background characteristics, we would expect those who have benefited professionally and who have had this increment in professional development recognized by significant others 354 Table VIII-12. Correlations between professional outcome and satisfaction dimensions. Lec- Research Tea- Stu— turers Scholars chers dents Summated Satisfaction Index x Summated Professional Achievement Index .06 -.03 .02 .03 x Guttman Professional Consequences Scale .25 .22 .22 .16 x Professional Development Factor .19 .19 .16 .20 x Professional Prestige Factor .25 .26 .24 .20 x Enduring Professional Relations Factor -—- --- --- .13 Guttman Satisfaction Scale x Summated Professional ~ Achievement Index .08 .01 .04 .01 x Guttman Professional Consequences Scale .33 .28 .19 .17 x Professional Development Factor .29 .23 .24 .20 x Professional Prestige Fac- tor .30 .30 .20 .25 x Enduring Professional Relations Factor --- --- --- .ll Satisfaction Factor x Summated Professional Achievement Index .06 —.05 .02 -.02 x Guttman Professional Consequences Scale .35 .32 .18 .11 x Professional Development Factor .26 .27 .24 .14 x Professional Prestige Factor .35 .34 .19 .18 x Enduring Professional Relations Factor --- --- --- .08 Satisfaction Cluster x Professional Publications Cluster .03 .Ol -.02 -.05 x Professional Development Cluster - .34 .31 .35 .14 x Professional Prestige Cluster .40 .37 .26 .19 x Enduring Professional Relations Cluster --— --— --- .lO 355 to be even more satisfied with the overall effects of their sojourn experiences than would the grantees who also reported professional development but had not been reinforced by increased recognition. In contrast to the data for senior scholars, the factor and cluster representations of the Teachers' pro- fessional development dimension is more highly related to their Guttman, factor, and cluster measures of satis- faction than are their professional prestige and Guttman professional cOnsequences dimensions. This result seems at variance with conclusions just suggested for senior scholars with reference to the rank-ordering of items on the Guttman scale--since for Teachers, too, the prestige items scale at higher levels than do those pertaining to pro— fessional development. However, among Teachers there is not the same degree of overlap in characteristics of high scorers on the two components of the Guttman scale as is true for the senior scholars. That is, while high scorers on both the development and prestige components of the Teachers' scale tend to be males who have earned higher degrees subsequent to their awards (Table VIII-5), there are certain differences between the high scorers on each dimension which might account for the observed rank- ordering of associations with the satisfaction measures. In general, the patterning of characteristics for Teachers scoring high on the professional development dimension suggests that these individuals are relatively 356 committed to their teaching roles. That is, though they have earned higher degrees, they apparently have not left their school systems, and they still list their occupation as elementary or secondary school teachers (Table VIII-5). Thus these individuals seem oriented toward development within their chosen roles; consequently, the new facet of role performance involved in teaching abroad would be likely to contribute to this group's professional as well as personal development. In contrast to this suggested patterning, it appears that the Teachers reporting the prestige effects are less committed to their teaching roles—-at least at the level they taught before and during their awards. Perhaps this group of Teachers may have been somewhat alienated from their roles at home and from their school systems: conse— quently, they may have sought overseas experience as a means of getting away. This possibility is suggested by the fact that this group has tended to relocate geographi- cally after their awards and to accept positions which do not involve teaching at the elementary or secondary school levels (Table VIII—5). For this group, therefore, the overall consequences of their teaching roles abroad may have proved less gratifying. That these upwardly mobile indi- viduals may have been engaging in anticipatory socialization to other positions even during their sojourns is suggested by the finding that the overseas interaction measures show relatively less association with the professional prestige 357 dimension than they do with the professional development factor and cluster (Table VIII-10). As the data in Table VIII-12 indicate, the magnitude of associations among professional outcome and satisfaction measures tends to be lower for Students than for the other groups. In Chapter VII we suggested that professional role commitment probably is not an important component of the self definitions of many members of the Student group-— indeed, personal development, per se, rather than academic achievement may be the goal of many students sojourning in alien cultures. The information summarized in this chapter concerning the characteristics of high scorers on the major dependent dimensions lends further support to the conclusion that personal development and professional development may be alternative goals for grantees at the student level. As noted previously, Students whose academic develop- ment and achievement are furthered by their sojourn experiences tend to be those who appear committed to professional goals. That is, they are the older men, those who are already more settled in their adult life patterns—-i.e., they are married and have family responsibilities, and they are more advanced in their graduate studies—-they are relatively proficient in their host countries' languages, and some establish collaborative working relationships with host nationals and maintain these contacts after their return home, where they complete dissertations enabling them to 358 move into faculty positions in American colleges and universities (Tables VIII-5 and VIII-6). In contrast to this characterization, the Students who report greater personal development and overall satis- faction with their sojourn experiences tend to be less settled in adult roles and less committed to academic goals. That is, this group is represented by females. and by younger unmarried students who have just completed their bachelor's degrees and who do not earn higher degrees subsequent to their sojourns abroad (Tables VIII-8 and VIII—9). In concluding our discussion of relations among measures concerning professional outcomes of award experiences and those pertaining to assessments of personal development and satisfaction, let us briefly consider the data con- cerning grantees' professional productivity. As the correlations reported in Table VIII-12 indicate, for all groups the summated professional achievement index and the professional publications cluster are virtually unrelated to the various measures of personal development and satisfaction. As we noted in discussing the relatively low association between the professional productivity and the more general professional outcome dimensions (Table VIII-4), it appears that, especially among the faculty groups, the highly productive grantees include those with appointments in more competitive universities (Table VIII-5): thus for those individuals productivity may be part of a 359 life pattern and not a unique consequence of overseas experience; hence their overall satisfaction with their awards may not be particularly related to this ongoing professional activity. The relatively low associations between the overseas interaction and productivity measures, especially for Research Scholars (Table VIII-10), further suggests that grantees who focus more on research objectives abroad probably are less exposed to the incidental learning which would provide the personal broadening and international perspective reflected in the satisfaction dimensions. Summary of Substantive Findings Concerning Fulbright and Smith-Mundt Grantees In this study we have explored the impact of over- seas experiences on Fulbright and Smith-Mundt grantees' roles as professionals and as cross-cultural communicators. In describing reports of their interaction experiences both overseas and subsequent to their returns, as well as their assessments of the influence of their sojourns on their professional and personal development, we have quantified grantees' questionnaire responses in order to compare dif— ferent sets of award outcomes and to examine relations among them in a relatively precise way. Not only were we interested in ascertaining the pattern of behaviors describing each class of award experiences for different groups of grantees and the relationships among the different dependent dimensions, 360 but we also wished to explore the influence of individual background characteristics on these summaries of award outcomes. Because of the absence of comparative data, it was not obvious which types of analyses would prove most fruitful in realizing our objectives. Therefore, as part of our investigation of the survey responses, we undertook a comparison of different methods of analyzing these data. We have already presented a systematic review of results from several approaches in providing a detailed description of the dimensions and their relationships. In the next section of this chapter we shall summarize our conclusions regarding the different methods. For the present let us briefly review some substantive findings concerning the patterning of grantees' experiences. In describing grantees‘ overseas experiences we noted that individuals in all award categories apparently established meaningful personal as well as professional relationships with host nationals. In general, the older, more established faculty members and teachers reported more extensive com- munication with professionals and others overseas. In addition, those reporting extensive communication experiences abroad tended to be individuals whose background character- istics suggested they found social communication an especially rewarding activity. That is, among the grantees in the different award categories, those selecting roles as Lecturers and Teachers generally engaged in more extensive communication and made more public appearances both abroad 361 and after their return than did the Research Scholars and Students. Furthermore, within the different groups of grantees, those who selected fields of work involving more isolated research pursuits, such as the natural sciences or humanities, reported less extensive association with host nationals and less group communication at home than did individuals in fields involving more interpersonal contacts, such as professional social service and certain areas of the social sciences. Relative predispositions toward social communication were also suggested by the finding that grantees who had developed high language proficiency for communication in their host countries tended to engage in more mass communication both overseas and upon their return. With reference to the three professional groups, we further noted that females and grantees without family responsi- bilities seemed more oriented toward the social response emanating from public appearances. The personal and professional relations grantees established abroad were maintained after their returns. In general the more established faculty members whose applications were requested by overseas institutions tended to report more continued contact and collaboration with host nationals. This finding suggests the importance of the structuring of the overseas situation for effective communication between the grantee and his hosts. Some indication of the possibly greater integration of the 362 grantee in European as opposed to Far Eastern educational institutions was provided by the finding that those who sojourned in_Europe reported more continued collaboration. Aside from these relationships, grantees from small towns were more likely to establish enduring relations with host nationals then were urban dwellers. Further evidence of possible differences in styles of interpersonal association ’between those residing in small towns vs. metropolitan centers was furnished by the finding that the urbanites reported more appearances before American audiences in disseminating information regarding their sojourn experiences. While the older, more established faculty members tended to receive greater communication opportunities both overseas and at home, it was the younger, less well-known academicians and teachers who reported the greatest professional impact of their awards in terms of professional development and increased recognition. With reference to the professional capital accruing from the awards, the so— journ experiences seemed particularly helpful to faculty members in institutions outside of the high prestige areas where such opportunities are more a matter of course. Furthermore, for both professors and students, the relative prestige of overseas experience varied with their field of work. In the Humanities and Arts, where Europe is generally acknowledged as superior, study and research on the Continent seemed to enhance grantees' professional careers; in the natural sciences, on the other hand, such experiences 363 appeared less relevant. Among the male Teachers who had developed profes- sionally and earned advanced degrees, those who had remained in teaching positions in their home school system did not report greater recognition from colleagues and administra— tive superiors as a result of their award experiences, whereas those who had relocated geographically and profes- sionally tended to report prestige effects of their awards. With reference to the professional achievements facilitated by grantees' sojourn experiences, for the faculty groups such productivity appeared to be part of a life pattern rather than a unique consequence of the awards: furthermore, the productivity did not appear to be particularly related to these senior scholars' evaluations concerning personal development or satisfaction with their overseas experiences. Rather, at this level, the productivity seemed to be a relatively routine aspect of role performance instead of a contributor toward role fulfillment. For the Students, however, there was more relationship between their evalua- tions regarding professional development and prestige and their reports of scholarly achievements. While evaluations of professional development and prestige were closely related to the Lecturers', Research Scholars', and Teachers' appraisals of personal development and overall satisfaction with their award experiences, for Students it appeared that these were alternative out- comes of study abroad. That is, the Students who engaged 364 in more extensive interaction with host nationals during their sojourns and who reported greater personal develop- ment and overall satisfaction with their experiences abroad tended to be those who were less settled in adult roles and less committed to academic goals. As a group they seemed to be in search of adventure and of identity. They were represented in particular by females, by younger unmarried students who had just completed their bachelor's degrees, and by those who did not earn higher degrees subsequent to their studies overseas. In contrast to this group, the goal- directed Students who indicated that their professional development and advancement were furthered by study abroad tended to be more settled in their adult life patterns. They were relatively older, married, more advanced in their graduate studies, relatively proficient in their host countries‘ languages; yet in general they did not interact extensively with foreign students abroad: however, some established collaborative working relationships with host nationals and maintained these contacts after their return home, where they completed dissertations and moved into faculty positions in American colleges and universities. Having presented an overview of the types of award experiences explored in this investigation as well as the characteristics of grantees tending to report these outcomes, let us conclude our general summary by considering further the patterning of these experiences. In discussing the relationships between grantees' communication experiences 365 and their overall satisfaction with their sojourns, we noted a spiraling relationship among variables. To some extent, living abroad and interacting with individuals adhering to different cultural orientations provided grantees with increased perspective regarding their own values and their homelands. As we have noted, certain background characteristics predisposed some groups of grantees and some individuals within each group toward more extensive inter- action and exposure to such influences. In particular, the relative costs of the inter— action in terms of the value of forgone alternative activi- ties seems to have had an important effect on the overall interaction frequency as well as on the relative value grantees attributed to such experiences. With reference to the faculty groups, it appears that Lecturers were more oriented toward extensive communication--as indicated in part by their very choice of roles. Not only did extensive interaction seem personally rewarding to them, they also appeared to derive professional stimulation from testing out ideas with others rather than from engaging in more solitary ruminations. In terms of their formal roles over- seas, the cost of pursuing this apparently rewarding inter- action activity was relatively low for this group. Their teaching requirements were minimal: therefore, notnuch time was necessary for class preparations and actual lecturing: they were visitors in their host institutions and hence not swamped with committee duties; furthermore, their roles did 366 not involve research obligations. As a group, Research Scholars, on the other hand, tended to be younger faculty members who were less established in their fields--a smaller percentage had their applications requested by American or foreign agencies; thus in general, they seemed more oriented toward professional development and advancement. While engaging in interaction with foreign colleagues was likely to be stimulating for these individuals as well, the cost of doing so was much higher than it was for Lecturers. That is, engaging in professional bull sessions might have interfered with their gathering necessary data to fulfill their research objectives. Like the Lecturers, Teachers were in situations involving relatively little time pressure; hence the cost of engaging in extensive interaction was relatively low for them. Furthermore, in terms of their role expectations, we would expect those committed to their roles to find such interpersonal interaction personally rewarding. Among Students, the cost of interaction varied according to their motivations in seeking the opportunity for study abroad. For the younger sojourners who were less firmly anchored in adult roles and more oriented toward adventure and personal fulfillment, interacting with foreigners was an important means of achieving self— definition and international perspective. Since academic goals were less relevant, and since the organization of foreign universities is such that official requirements 367 concerning class attendance, recitation, and even appearance at examinations are minimal, the consequences of neglecting studies were not serious. As was true for the Research Scholars, however, the cost of communication was much greater for the goal-oriented students who were studying with particular foreign experts in their fields or who were gathering dissertation material from sources they would not have access to in the United States. Hence, as a group, these students interacted less extensively with foreign nationals and generally did not expose themselves to the types of experiences which would have broadened their personal and international perspectives. While the frequency of interaction with host nationals varied, almost all grantees reported establishing close friendships abroad, and almost all had maintained personal and professional relations since their return. To the degree, however, that the bonds established were rewarding almost solely because of the warmth of immediate personal inter— action, then the frequency of communication with host nationals has tended to decrease--and perhaps eventually to diminish to the point of annual exchange of Christmas messages. Insofar as the interpersonal relations had relevance to ongoing professional pursuits, however, then the additional rewards from maintaining the relationship and sharing professional insights and data offset the costs of such communication. Thus we noted that the faculty groups and the Students who established close working 368 relationships abroad were more likely to maintain contacts than were the Teachers and the Students who were not in- volved in collaborative research pursuits. With reference to post-award communication with fellow Americans, again it appears that the extensiveness of such interaction is a function of personal perdispositions—- reflected also in the grantees' role involvements which affected the relative cost of such communication. Again, Lecturers tended to engage in such activities more than did Research Scholars. Apparently for all grantees, interpreting their experiences to fellow Americans made them more aware of the personal as well as professional impact of their sojourns. Integrating their overseas learning in current roles and organizing their interpretations of their sojourn experiences for communication to others—-and themselves-— seemed to make them more appreciative of the value of their time abroad. Conclusions Regarding Different Methods of Analysis In completing our comparison of the different methods of data analysis employed in the present investigation, we shall first summarize our conclusions regarding the relative merits of the different methods of dimensionalizing the questionnaire information; then we shall focus on the different methods applied in relating these dimensions to variables concerning respondents' background characteristics. 369 Analyses of the Organization of Dependent Dimensions As indicated in Chapter I, our initial decision space regarding methods of dimensionalizing questionnaire data involved four approaches: summated indexing, Guttman scaling, factor analysis, and Tryon cluster analysis. While this investigation focused on a comparison of the last three methods, we have limited information regarding the summated approach. We shall summarize our tentative con- clusions regarding this technique first and then proceed to the other approaches. Summated Indexing. In order to obtain a summary measure of the professional accomplishments grantees attri- buted to their award experiences, we developed a summated professional achievement index. This index obviously was not unidimensional--indeed, a cluster analysis involving these items isolated several different dimensions pertaining to publications, artistic accomplishments, new courses, etc. (See Chapter V.) As a crude overall index, the scale provided some information of interest; however, because of its multidimensionality, conclusions regarding the meaning of associations between the index and other measures sometimes proved equivocal. A The other summated dimension developed in this study differed from the achievement index in that it more closely approximated a unidimensional scale (Table VIII-7).. Hewever, 370 the summated satisfaction index did include some items which did not scale reliably in the Guttman procedure and which loaded on a separate dimension in the factor and cluster analyses. Therefore, while the summated, Guttman, factor, and cluster representations of the satisfaction dimension generally agreed in rank-ordering relationships with other dimensions, still there were some discrepancies in the findings involving the summated index which might be attributed to the relative contamination of this measure. Thus even our limited application of summated scaling in the present investigation demonstrates the ambiguities arising in the interpretation of observed relationships. Guttman Scaling and Factoring Methods. In comparison with the measurement by definition involved in constructing summated indices, perhaps the major relative merit of the other methods employed in this investigation is that they produce greater information concerning the organization of items in the dimensions and provide built-in means of weighting items which are not dependent on subjective criteria. In terms of the present findings, it is difficult to decide between the Guttman and the factoring procedures. Each has somewhat different merits, and our experience indi— cates that a combination of the two approaches can prove fruitful in clarifying the structure of relationships in one's data. In two instances in our investigation, the Guttman dimensions differed from the outputs of the factoring 371 procedures. With reference to grantees‘ post-award inter- national communication experiences, items pertaining to their personal assistance to others interested in cross- cultural education and items relating to their mass communication regarding overseas experiences loaded on separate factors (Chapter IV). These two types of communi- cation experiences, however, appeared on one Guttman scale. Similarly, with reference to professional consequences of the grantees' award experiences, items pertaining to pro- fessional development and those relating to professional prestige loaded on separate factors; however, both types of items appeared in a single Guttman scale. Reconciling these differences brought about a fuller realization of the implications of the organization of items in the Guttman data. That is, the unique merit of the Guttman scale lies in the reproducibility criterion. From a scale score we know the patterning of acts performed or not performed-—in this sense, the Guttman scale gives mean- ing as well as a numerical rating. While the factor data also provide us with insight into the structure of relations, the procedure is aimed at the reproduction of observed correlation coefficients between the variables, and not at the reproduction of individual item responses themselves. Despite these different emphases and the apparent discrepancies in outputs, actually the two approaches to a parsimonious conceptualization of classes of behavior are not incompatible. 372 In further examining our Guttman scales we noted that the integrity of the separate clusters of items identi- fied by the factoring procedures was preserved in the Guttman dimensions. For example, on the Guttman American interaction scale the items pertaining to interpersonal assistance appeared together at the lower levels followed by items concerning mass communication. Thus, the Guttman scale provided the additional information that the behaviors involved in one factor dimension actually also imply the behaviors involved in another factor dimension. Had our findings been limited to the factor analysis, we would have missed this additional insight into the structuring of relations. The same conclusion applies with reference to the professional consequences data. The Guttman scale again preserved the integrity of the separate factor dimensions-- the items pertaining to professional development appeared together at the lower scale levels, followed by those relating to prestige effects. With reference to these data, however, we found that different levels of an apparently unidimensional scale may have different associations with other variables. That is, in the Teachers‘ professional consequences data, the factor and cluster dimension describing professional develop— ment was associated with a somewhat different syndrome of background characteristics from that associated with the professional prestige dimension. It appeared that these 373 differences were not merely differences of degree but actually of kind. Had we used only the Guttman scale scores in our relational analyses we would have missed this finding. Factor Analysis Vs. Cluster Analysis. Having sug— gested the utility of applying both Guttman scaling and a factoring procedure for data analysis, we shall focus now on the two factoring methods employed in this study. First, however, let us mention an incidental finding from the factor analyses relating to a comparison between varimax and quarti- max rotations. Contrary to reports that the quartimax solution is more likely to extract a large general factor (see Chapter I), we found remarkable agreement in the structuring of dimensions from each orthogonal rotation in terms of item composition and relative magnitudes of loadings. With reference to a comparison of a rotated principal- components factor analysis and a Tryon cumulative communality cluster analysis, our data indicate that in general there is close agreement between the two methods in terms of composi- tion and relative loadings of items on dimensions extracted from the correlation matrix. However, there appear to be some shortcomings in the Tryon system which make it some- what less satisfactory than the more conventional factor analysis. In a few instances dimensions isolated in the factor analysis were not identified in the clustering pro— cedures involving the same matrix of items. Furthermore, our data suggest a lack of numerical invariance in some of the 374 cluster outputs. For example, the dependent cluster per- taining to interpersonal international relations did not appear in the analysis of dependent items for Research Scholars, but it did appear in the clustering of the full matrix of background and dependent items (although no back— ground items were involved in the cluster definition). Conversely, a cluster pertaining to professional publications was extracted in the analysis of dependent items for Research Scholars but did not appear in the clustering of combined badkground and dependent variables (see Chapter VII, Table VII-5 for further examples). In some instances this last type of discrepancy occurred as a result of an arbitrary fifteen-culster cutoff in the Tryon program. In spite of these shortcomings, however, the Tryon system of programs offers many very attractive options for analysis of the structure of dimensions extracted. The system of routines in the Tryon system is so integrated as to facilitate the type of within-groups and across—groups comparisons of dimensions described in Chapter VII. These analyses provided additional information regarding the combination of dimensions into composites and the relation- ships among these composites. Thus the different cluster outputs allow us to shift levels in analyzing our data and to proceed back and forth in considering information re- garding the item composition of clusters and the relations among these dimensions as well as data concerning the 375 dimensional composition of the macro-clusters and the relations among these composites both within separate groups and across the group categories. Another particularly useful feature of the Tryon system involves the ease with which we can assess the relative loadings of items on dimensions defined by dif— ferent sets of variables. We shall discuss these features of the Tryon system further in a later section. In concluding our present discussion of the factor- ing procedures, we would recommend that a factor analysis system be programmed following the design of the Tryon system--a system actually intended to provide the tools for enacting the decision procedure of a sophisticated factor analyst. Of course, to the extent that the apparent shortcomings of the Tryon system are corrected as the clustering procedure is further refined, this recommendation may prove unnecessary, and satisfactory results will be forthcoming from application of this variant of the factor- ing procedure. Our general conclusion regarding methods of dimension- alizing data of the type represented in our survey is that applying both a Guttman scaling procedure and a factor analysis to the same variables and going through the intel- lectual exercise of reconciling divergent findings is a worthwhile means of gaining further insight into one's data. If the outcomes of the two analyses are relatively congruent-~as in the case of the overseas interaction and the 376 satisfaction dimensions developed in the present investiga- tion--still, the sheer redundancy effects of seeing the data organized according to two different methods may prove beneficial. Furthermore, applying both techniques provides an analytical replication which might lend further confidence in conclusions regarding the structuring of relations in the data. Analyses Relating Background Data and Dependent Dimensions In exploring associations between grantees' back— ground characteristics and different outcomes of their award experiences, we employed a number of different approaches. First we shall discuss the methods of analysis dealing with the total sets of baCkground and dependent data; then we shall consider the methods assessing relations between the set of badkground items and each individual dependent dimension. [Analyses InvolvinggTotal Sets of Data. In examining relations between the total sets of background and dependent variables we followed four different approaches: we factor analyzed each set of data independently and then determined the correlations between factors from each separate analysis: we cluster analyzed the two sets of variables together as though they formed a single battery; we cluster analyzed the cluster dimensions from the separate analyses as though they formed a single battery: and finally we calculated the 377 canonical correlation between the two sets of variables. Let us consider the relative merits of each of these approaches in terms of our present investigation. (1) Correlation of Factors from Separate Analyses. In contrast to the information obtained in the factoring of dependent items, the data reduction achieved by the factor or cluster analyses of the background items generally involved rather trivial associations among variables; further— more, the item composition of the background factors did not appear to have a particularly coherent structure (see Chapter II). Thus, while the data regarding correlations between background factor scores and dependent factor scores seemed useful in initial identification of gross relation- ships between the two sets, there were occasions when the item loadings in the background factors could be misleading with reference to associations between individual character- istics and outcome dimensions. Thus, in terms of our present data and our interest in specifying more precisely the relations between background characteristics and dependent dimensions, this analysis does not seem worthwhile. (2) Cluster Analyses of_Cgmbined Items. In general, the analysis of the total matrix of background and dependent items produced essentially the same information as that obtained in the separate analyses involving the subsets of background or of dependent variables. In only one instance did a truly composite cluster composed of a separate background 378 and a separate dependent dimension appear. Some additional information wasprovided in the combined analysis by the findings regarding inclusion of variables from one subset of items along with those defining a dimension composed primarily of items from a different subset; however, in general this information could be obtained from the "sleeper" cluster analysis which we shall discuss later. With data of the type represented here, where the background information concerns general attributes of the respondents and does not involve tests designed to predict the dependent dimensions, one might expect the findings observed in the combined variable analysis, indicating that the background and dependent variables do not cohere closely in the same cor- relation space. In terms of these data, therefore, the combined variable analysis probably is not worthwhile. (3) Cluster Analyses of_ggmbined Dimensions. In a series of cluster analyses of dimensions extracted in pre— vious clusterings we examined the structuring of dimensions within each group of grantees as well as the variable classi- fications across subject groups. In each of the four within-groups analyses we cluster analyzed the oblique dimensions extracted in three previous clusterings involving the subset of background items, the subset of dependent items, and the total set of background and dependent items. In one across-groups analysis we cluster analyzed the oblique dimensions extracted in the four previous clusterings for 379 each group involving the subset of background items; in another across-groups analysis we used the oblique dimensions from the four clusterings of the subset of dependent items: and finally, another across-groups analysis involved dimensions from the four separate analyses of combined background and dependent items. We have already noted that the background dimensions from the factor and cluster analyses of these data produced relatively meagre information. Thus, while these cluster analyses of dimensions proved particularly useful in describ— ing the structuring of dependent dimensions for each group of grantees and in facilitating comparisons of dependent dimensions across groups, information concerning relation- ships between background and dependent dimensions was more limited. From our experience, however, we would recommend this clustering procedure involving background and dependent dimensions in data analyses where richer background infor- mation (e.g., concerning respondents' personality character- istics) is available. (4) Canonical_CorreL§tion Analysis. In assessing the maximum correlation between background information and dependent dimensions, we performed three separate canonical correlation analyses: one involving background items and the Guttman scale scores: one involving the same background items and the dependent factor scores: andfinally one in- volving background factor scores and dependent factor scores. 380 The present report has presented only a limited portion of the data from these analyses. That is, in Chapter VII we reported data from only the first canonical variates in each analysis and did not present information regarding the full sets of variates. With reference to each canonical variate the maximized correlations between transformed background and dependent variables tend to agree with the main findings of the multiple regression procedure, which we shall discuss later—-indeed, the sum of the squared canonical correlation coefficients should equal the sum of the squared multiple regression coefficients. As indicated in Chapter VII, interpreting the meaning of the weightings in the vectors often proved difficult. Perhaps this difficulty is an instance of negative transfer-- processing information involving two vectors of weightings seems more difficult than interpreting the multiple regres- sion findings where only one set of data is differentially weighted in relation to a single dependent criterion. But the problem does not seem to be just a function of relative information overload. The within-groups and across-groups clusterings of dimensions just discussed involved sets of background and dependent dimensions, yet interpreting the structuring of the composite clusters and the associations among them did not seem particularly difficult. The infor- mation gained at this more macro level of data reduction seemed consonant with other empirical findings-~as noted in 381 this chapter, it was closer to the basic correlational structure of the data: thus it provided additional insights, particularly with reference to the dependent dimensions. Thus the difficulty in interpreting the canonical vectors is not simply a matter of the difficulty of proces- sing a greater amount of information. Perhaps the crux of the relative lack of correspondence between the mathematical model and the empirical correlational structure resides in thenaximization procedure of the canonical analysis which sometimes suppresses certain variables while maximizing others in such a way that the weightings do not seem empiri- cally reasonable. For example, we encountered the situation where two variables were highly related (e.g., the profession- al development and prestige dimensions for senior scholars) vand both were substantially associated with certain back- ground characteristics (e.g., relative youth and post-award mobility). In the canonical correlation, however, one variate occurred in which the background dimension received a relatively high positive weighting as did one of the correlated dependent dimensions, but the other dependent dimension was negatively weighted. The lack of correspon- dence between the vector weightings and the overall corre- lational structure of the data was also illustrated by the fact that the directions of relatively high weighted dimensions within a vector did not agree with information regarding combinations of clusters in composite dimensions. 382 Thus in our data it appears that the mathematical model producing the maximum correlation between sets of trans- formed variables does not agree with the empirical cor- relational referents. In concluding our discussion of the canonical pro— cedure, let us present some additional suggestions regarding the apparent inappropriateness of the technique vis-a-vis our data as well as some tentative conclusions regarding types of analyses where the procedure might prove more meaningful. With data of the type involved in our investi- gation, where our background data consisted mainly of demo- graphic characteristics and were not predictive tests of the dependent data, the canonical procedure does not appear fruitful in assisting us in exploring relations. But perhaps it is not only the nature of the background data which lessens the technique's effectiveness in this investigation. In our dependent dimensions we sought to assess different types of consequences of overseas experience. We wished to gain insight into the organization of the behaviors comprising these dimensions; furthermore, we wished to ascertain the relations among them for different groups as well as their association with available background data. It does not seem very meaningful, however, to consider these dimensions as part of a coherent whole. That is, the combination of dimensions describes a patterning of experiences, but we do not consider them to comprise an additive combination which might denote "success" as a grantee. Thus our data 383 do not seem amenable to the same sort of interpretive frame— work which might be appropriate if we had a combination of criterion measures concerning a complex aptitude such as "success" as a pilot (cf. Wrigley, 1952). Therefore, vis—a- vis background and dependent data like ours, a model which involves relating linear combinations of sets of variables appears inappropriate. Thus, perhaps the canonical procedure is better suited to more traditional psychometric analyses involving reliability studies where one wishes to weight different batteries of tests so that they will be maximally related (cf. Thomson, 1947), or in validity studies where the independent variables are tests designed to predict a criterion behavior which can meaningfully be represented by a vector composed of an additive combination of separate elements (cf. Burt, 1948). Of course, further investigations are necessary to ascertain whether in such situations the problems noted before concerning the suppressive weighting of the maximization procedure will interfere with interpre— tations. Analyses4Involvingjgagkground_;tems and Individual .Qimensions. In comparison with the analyses just described involving the total set of background dataiflong with the total set of dependent dimensions, the two analyses of relations between background items and individual dimensions produced a better specification of relationships. In one 384 of these analyses we computed the multiple regression of a set of background items on each of the individual dependent Guttman and factor dimensions and obtained an identification of significant background predictors of the dependent scores. In the other analysis, a "sleeper" routine in the Tryon cluster system enabled us to input the background items along with the dependent items in the initial correlation matrix but to delete these background items temporarily until the clustering of the dependent items had been com— pleted, so that the suppressed background variables in no way influenced the clusterings for the outcome dimensions. Once the dependent dimensions had been isolated, the sup- pressed background variables were reintroduced and their factor coefficients on the dependent dimensions were com- puted. By examining the relative loadings of the background items on each of the outcome dimensions, we gained infor- mation regarding the rank-ordering of relationships. In general, there was a close agreement in the findings from this analysis and the multiple regression analysis—-the high loading items tended to be the same as those identified as significant predictors in the multiple regression pro- cedure. Since we were not particularly interested in developing equations for future predictions of grantees' behavior on the basis of the background information available in this instance, but rather wished to determine the relative importance of these items in relation to the dependent di— mensions, our purposes were adequately served by the 385 information provided in the cluster loading data.1 In concluding our discussion of the analyses relating background and dependent variables, we should like to draw attention to one difficulty involved in using attribute data of the type represented by much of our background infor- mation. In order to use these items in the multivariate analyses we selected, it was necessary to form dummy bi- variate variables to represent the presence or absence of some attribute or group of attributes. While some of the coding of items involved rather straightforward dichotomies—- e.g., in the case of the sex attribute--in other instances, it proved more difficult to decide what attribute among an array we should select as the definer of a dummy variable. In an effort to maximize information we coded some of the dummy variables in such a manner that several attributes were the definers--e.g., we combined the geographic areas of Europe and Oceania because our interview data had sug- gested that grantees' experience in the British Isles and Oceania were relatively similar. As it turned out, in some instances this combination of attributes masked differences 1The multiple regression analysis was the only in- stance in the present investigation in which we employed tests of statistical significance in identifying relation- ships to be discussed. Actually, in Chapters III through VI, we did not confine our attention solely to the significant predictors. Our decision not to employ tests of significance in ascertaining the probability of rejecting the null hypo- thesis of no difference between samples was based on our general agreement with Selvin's conclusions regarding the inappropriateness of much application of such tests in survey data analysis (1957). Findings can be statistically signifi- cant but empirically meaningless. Indeed, in terms of the size of the samples surveyed in the present study, a difference of only 3% might be statistically significant—-but the level of significance is hardly an indicator of substantive importance. 386 between sojourners in the two areas--differences which were uncovered in straightforward cross-tabulations involving individual attributes. Therefore, we concluded that a preferable practice in coding dummy variables involves using only one attribute as the definer. Of course, the infor— mation elicited in the analyses using the dummy variables will be limited. If it turns out that the dummy variable is positively associated with some dimension, then interpre- tation of the finding is relatively easy. Hewever, if it is negatively weighted, then in the case where the definer is one of an array of possible attributes rather than a category in a dichotomy, we do not know which categories of the array might be associated. For purposes cf clarification, there— fore, it appears that there is no substitute for the cross- tabular analyses. Hewever, the virtue of the multiple re- gression or the cluster loading analyses with dummy variables is that they provide an initial identification of important associations, thus reducing the amount of cross-tabulation needed for more detailed illustration of relationships. In concluding our discussion concerning the relative merits of different approaches used in analyzing our survey data, let us return again to the theme in the introductory chapter concerning the impact of computer technology on social science research. As we noted there, the comparisons undertaken here would have been impracticable even five years ago. We have suggested that subjecting the same data to a number of alternative modes of analysis is a worthwhile 387 means of gaining further insight into the structuring of relationships; furthermore, to the extent that other researchers follow a similar strategy, such comparative analyses will contribute to a body of empirically—based findings regarding the relative merits of different types of approaches with different types of data. Actually, this recommendation need not apply only to new research data. Most investigators have files of only partially analyzed data and decks of IBM cards from previous studies. The advantage of using these data for comparative analyses involving different approaches from the methods originally selected is that the investigator already has developed familiarity with the data. Of course, some shifting of sets will be necessary, and not all the transfer of orientations from the previous analyses will be positive for interpreting findings from the new analyses. Hewever, attempting to reconcile divergences between previous and current findings may produce further insights concerning the data and the methods of analysis. We are, of course, suggesting a means of facilitating the serendipity pattern elucidated by Merton (1949). Lest we appear too sanguine, however, in describing the benefits of comparative analyses facilitated by the availability of computers and libraries of programs, let us mention some possibly unanticipated problems. In preparing data for computer processing a non-trivial amount of time is spent in sheer clerical tasks involving preparation 388 of format cards and instructions specifying tape units to be employed, etc. To the extent that input requirements of different programs involve inflexibilities--e.g., where identification data are required in different specific column locations in different programs-—these incompatibilities will result in further off-line clerical processing involving reproduction of cards, etc. Thus at timesthe "high—speed" aspect of computer processing may seem illusory. In addition, the amount of time expended in such clerical tasks does not contribute toward understanding the data in the same sense that time spent in running cards through a counter-sorter may suggest hypotheses concerning relation— ships. That is, in the more traditional IBM sorting operations, one has the concrete experience of handling the data and thus gaining more tangible evidence of the relative size of cells—-in addition to the abstract numerical infor- mation appearing in the printouts. With the modern electronic computer we bypass this intermediate step--and the jump from the clerical operations for data preparation to the amassing of several reams of printed output may be over- whelming. Apparently Herman feels the same discomfort in relationto his previous experience in personal computation of matrix data. He notes, "If one merely turns over essentially raw data and gets a final product in return, he will never gain the intimate knowledge of the data which he might obtain after spending considerable time on a 389 desk calculator" (1960, p. 191). Perhaps we are merely calling attention to a situation of relative negative transfer for researchers trained with other procedures. Through further experience it is hoped that we shall develop appropriate heuristics for reducing the feeling of information overload and for effectively proceeding to human information processing of the computer's output. In concluding our discussion of the contributions of computer technology, let us speculate considerably beyond the bounds of our present investigation. In the physical sciences the impact of instrumentation on empirical and theoretical developments as well as the limitations imposed by "dependence on the instrument"--e.g., in the indeterminacy resulting from the impossibility of simultaneous measure- ment of the velocity and position of small particles——have been more dramatic than in the social sciences, where verstehen orientations have even opposed the introduction of instrumentation. It would appear, however, that parti- cularly in social psychology, the available instruments have had subtle yet profound influences on the types of investi- gations undertaken and the analyses and interpretations of the data gathered. That is, the type of multivariate pro- cedures advocated by Lazarsfeld (1955) and his associates (cf. Hyman, 1955) seem to be conditioned by a particular type of tool for analysis: the counter-sorter or the more advanced IBM 101. The Columbia type of approach for examining relations between variables by systematically 390 holding all other variables constant in attempting to distin- guish pure vs. spurious relationships involves operations which are readily translatable into counter-sorter procedures. In the present investigation, on the other hand, we have shown some predilcetion toward formulating hypo- theses regarding spiraling relations among variables. It does not seem improbable that this type of speculation has been influenced by experience in computer programming-- particularly in developing recursive routines and loops involving conditional branches. Of course, the validity of these hypotheses regarding spiraling relations has yet to be demonstrated—-as has the theoretical value of such types of formulations. Actually, another facet of computer technology may prove helpful in such explorations. Net only is the computer a high-speed automaton of the desk calculator-—and to some extent of the statistical clerk as well--its more general symbol—manipulating capacities provide a tool for the logical analysis of theoretical propositions (Gullahorn & Gullahorn, 1964). Thus, as a follow-up to the empirical assessment of relations and the inferences regarding further types of associations among variables, it might prove worthwhile to simulate the sug- gested processes on a digital computer to see whether the expected conclusions actually are evolved and to explore other logical consequences of the hypothesized theoretical processes. This exercise might prove to be a meaningful 391 intermediate step before going on to further attempts at empirical verification of hypotheses. At the very least, the translation of verbal formulations into routines for computer processing will result in a precise statement of expected interactions among variables. In concluding our speculative forecasts regarding the potential contributions of the modern digital computer as a tool for methodological comparisons of approaches to data analysis as well as a tool for theory development, let us refer to Robert Merton's comments on the impact of the introduction of new methods for empirical research: . . . sound theory thrives only on a rich diet of pertinent facts and newly invented procedures help provide the ingredients of this diet. The new, and often previously unavailable, data stimulate fresh hypotheses. Mbreover, theorists find that their hypotheses can be put to immediate test in those spheres where appropriate research techniques have been designed. It is no longer necessary for them to wait upon data as they happen to turn up--researches directed to the verification of hypotheses can be instituted at once. The flow of relevant data thus increases the tempo of advance in certain spheres of theory (1949, p. 106). BI BLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Allport, G. W. What units shall we employ? In G. Lindzey (Ed.), Assessment of human motives. New Ybrk: Grove Press, 1958. Bauer, E. J. Response bias in a mail survey. Publ. opp. Quart-1 1947: 111 594—600. Beals, R. L. and Humphrey, N. No frontier to learning: the Mexican student in the United States. Minneapolis: Univ. of Minnesota Press, 1957. Bennett, J. W., Passin, H., and MCKnight, R. K. In search of identity: the Japanese overseas scholar in America and Japan. Minneapolis: Univ. of Minnesota Press, 1958. Burt, C. Factor analysis and canonical correlation. Cooley, W. W. and Lohnes, P. R. Multivariategprocedures for the behavioral_sciences. New York: Wiley, 1962. Coombs, C. H. Theory and methods of social measurement. In L. Festinger and D. Katz (Eds.), Research methods in the behavioral sciences. New Yerk: Dryden, 1953. Efroymson, M. A. Multiple regression analysis. In A. Ralston and H. Wilf (Eds.), Mathematical methods for digital computers. New Yerk: Wiley, 1960. Goode, W. J. and Hatt, P. K. Methods in social research. New Yerk: McGraw—Hill, 1952. Gullahorn, J. T. and Gullahorn, J. E. American students in France. Washington, D.C.: International Educational Exchange Service, U.S. Department of State, 1956. (Mimeographed.) . American objectives in study abroad. J. higher Educ., 1958a, 29, 369-374. . Professional and social consequences of Fulbright and Smith-Mundt awards. Washington, D.C.: International Educational Exchange Service, U.S. Department of State, 1958b. (Mimeographed.) 393 394 . Increasing returns from non-respondents. Publ. opn. Quart., 1959a, 23, 119—121. . American Fulbrighters back home. Institute of International Education News_Bulletin, 1959b, 34, 13—19. . The role of the academic man as a cross-cultural mediator. Amer. sociol. Rev., 1960a, 25, 414-417. . International educational exchange: an assessment of professional and social contributions by American Fulbright and Smith-Mundt grantees, 1947-1957. Washington, D.C.: International Educational Exchange Service, U.S. Department of State, 1960b. (Mimeographed.) . Visiting Fulbright professors as agents of cross—cultural communication. Sociol. and soc. Research, 1962, 46, 282-293. . An investigation of the effects of three factors on response to mail questionnaires. PUblo opn. Quart., 1963a, 27; 294-296. . An extension of the U-curve hypothesis. J. soc. Issues, 1963b, 19, 33-47. . The computer as a tool for theory development. In D. Hymes (Ed.), Uses of computers in anthropology. The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton and Company, 1964. Guttman, Louis. The Cornell technique for scale and intensity analysis. Educ. psychol. Measmt., 1947, 7, 247-280. Harman, H. H. Modern factor analysis. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1960. Hemans, George C. The human group. New Yerk: Harcourt, Brace,~1950. . Social behaviog: its elementary forms. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1961. HOVland, C. I., Janis, I, K., and Kelley, H. H. Communication andppersuasion: Apsychological studies of opinion change. New Haven: Yale Uhiv. Press, 1953. HYman, Herbert. Survey design apd analysis. Glencoe, 111.: Free Press, 1955. 395 Jacobson, E., Kumata, H., and Gullahorn, J. B. Cross- cultural contributions to attitude research. Publ. opn.figuart., 1960, 24, 204?223. Kendall, M. G. A course in multivariate analysis. London: C. Griffin, 1957. Koons, P. B., Jr. Canonical analysis. In H. Borko (Ed.), Compute; applications in tpe behavioral sciences. New Jersey: Prentice—Hall, 1962. Krasnow, E. S. and Schutz, W. C. G4 BC GUTS, approgram for Guttman scaling. Berkeley: University of California Computer Center, 1961. Lambert, R. D. and Bressler, M. Indian students on an American campus. Minneapolis: Univ. of Minnesota Press, 1956. Lazarsfeld, P. F. Interpretation of statistical relations as a research operation. In P. F. Lazarsfeld and M. Rosenberg (Eds.), The lapguage of social research. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1955. Lazarsfeld, P. F. and Thelens, W., Jr. The academic mind. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1958. Lewin, K. Resolving social conflicts. New York: Harper, 1948. Likert, R. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch. of Psychol., 1932, No. 140. Lipset, S. M., Trow, M. and Coleman, J. Union gpmocracy. Glencoe, 111.: Free Press, 1956. Marks, E. S. The fetish of sample size. Publ. opn. Quart., 1962, 92-97. Merton, R, K. Social theory and social structure. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1949. Metraux, G. S. Exchange of persons: the evolution of cross-cultural education. New York: Social Science Research Council, pamphlet No. 9, 1952. Morris, R. T. The two-way mirror: national status in foreign students' adjustment. Minneapolis: Univ. of Minnesota Press, 1960. Murphy, G. and Likert, R. Public opinion and the individual. New York: Harper, 1938. 396 Open doors. New York: Institute of International Education, 1962. Parsons, T. and Shils, E. A. Toward a general theory of action. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1951. Parten, M. Surveys, polls, and samples: practical procedures. New York: Harper, 1950. Peak, H. Problems of objective observation. In L. Festinger and D. Katz (Eds.), Research methods in the behavioral sciences. New York: Dryden, 1953. Riley, M., Riley, J., and Toby, J. Sociological studies in scale analysis. New Brunswick: Rutgers Univ. Press, 1954. Scott, F. D. The_Americap experience of Swedish students: retrospect and aftermath. Minneapolis: Univ. of Minnesota Press, 1956. Selltiz, C., Jahoda, M., Deutsch, M. and Cook, S. Research methods in social relations. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1962. Selltiz, C., Christ, J. R., Havel, J. and Cock, S. W. Attitudes and social relations of foreign students in the United States. Minneapolis: Univ. of Minnesota Press, 1963. Selvin, H. C. A critique of tests of significance in survey research. Amer. sociol. Rev., 1957, 22, 519-27. . .ghe effects of leadership. New Ybrk: Free Press of Glencoe, 1960. Sewell, W. H. and Davidsen, O. M. Scandinavian students on an American campus. Minneapolis: Uhiv. of Minnesota Press, 1961. Simon, H. A. The new science of management decision. New York: Harpers, 1960. Stouffer, S. Social research to test ideas. New Yerk: Free Press of Glencoe, 1962. Stouffer, S., Suttman, L., Suchman, E. A., Lazarsfeld, P. F., Star, S. A. and Clausen, J. A. Measurement andpprediction. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1950. Study abroad. Paris: UNESCO, 1960. 397 The goals of student exchange: anaanalysis of goals of programs for foreign students. New York: Institute of International Education, 1955. The world almanac and book of facts for 1958. New Yerk: New York World—Telegram and Sun, 1958. Thomson, G. H. The maximum correlation of two weighted batteries. BJ Stat. Psych., 1947, 27-34. Torgerson, W. A. Theory and methods of scaling. New YOrk: Wiley, 1958. Tryon, R. Cumulative communality cluster analysis. Educ. psychol. Measmt., 1958a, 18, 3-35. . General dimensions of individual differences: Cluster analysis vs. multiple factor analysis. Educ. psychol. Measmt., 1958b, 18, 477-495. Tryon, R. C., Bailey, D., Meridith, W., Vinsonhaler, J., Russell, R., Chu, C., Neuhaus, J., Matula, D., WOlfe, J., Flory, D., and Mitchell, K. BC TRY aystamaof multi- dimensional analysis. Berkeley: Univ. of California, Dept. of Psychology, Project CAP, 1963. U.S. Bureau of the Census. Statistical abstract of_the United States. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1959 and 1963. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Digest of educational statistics. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1962. Useem, J. and Useem, R. H. ‘The western-educatedgmgn in India: a study of his social roles and influence. New Yerk: Dryden Press, 1955. Watson, J. and Lippitt, R. Learning across cultures: a study of Germans visiting Amarica. Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan Press, 1955. Wilson, A. B. FA80, factor analysisypackage. Berkeley: Univ. of California Survey Research Center, 1963. Wrigley, C. The prediction of a complex aptitude. .EE Stat. Psych., 1952, 93-104. . The distinction between common and specific variance in factor theory. BJ §tat. Psych., 1957, 10, 81-98. APPENDICES APPENDIX I DESCRIPTION OF THE RESEARCH APPENDIX I DESCRIPTION OF THE RESEARCH The general objective of the present research was to explore the impact of their experiences during their award years on Fulbright and Smith-Mundt grantees' pro- fessional roles and on their roles as communicators with fellow Americans and host nationals. These goals were formulated with representatives of the International Educational Exchange Service who sponsored the research. The research was conducted in two phases. First a pilot interview and questionnaire study was conducted, focussing on a band of nine midwestern states running from the northern border to the fringes of the Deep South: later a full-scale survey of former grantees in all 50 states was undertaken. Let us first discuss the pilot study of former award holders in Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and South Dakota. The reasons for this particular selection of states were threefold: It was necessary to limit the costs of the survey, and the states were easily accessible from Kansas, the researchers' base of operation at that time. Secondly, this area of the United States includes states like Nebraska, identified as particularly isolationist; 400 401 consequently the experiences of former grantees in stimu- lating international awareness in their home communities was of particular interest. Another factor in selection relates more to the nature of the sponsoring agency: that is, South Dakota and Arkansas happen to be the home states of Senators Mundt and Fulbright. Notification of_ghe Study. In the fall of 1956 letters were sent to all Americans who had received awards sponsored by the International Educational Exchange Service between 1947 and 1955 and who listed their home states as being one of the nine included. This list had been obtained from records provided by the Department of State. In addition letters were sent to 40 former award holders who had moved into the area subsequent to their awards. These names were obtained from correspondence with Fulbright Advisers on the campuses of colleges and universities in the nine states. The letter to the 1,050 grantees outlined the objectives and planned methodology of the research and requested the former award holders to return an enclosed postcard indicating their current addresses. A total of 801 responded--an unusually large proportion. Hewever, we should note that the population surveyed in the present research differed markedly from the populations included in most surveys. The former grantees were more homogeneous with respect to socio-economic status and level of education than is typical. Indeed, they represent a very high level of 402 education--all are at least college graduates—-thus non- response in this instance is not likely to reflect illiteracy as is often the case in other mail surveys (cf. Baur, 1947). Furthermore, "ignorance" concerning the topic of research may also be ruled out since all members of the population had been awarded a grant for educational activities abroad. Of the 801 who responded, 90 were not included in the study for the following reasons: 62 were residing outside of the country (these were mainly individuals now in the Armed Forces): 24 indicated that circumstances had prevented their actually going abroad and hence they had not accepted the awards offered them: four indicated they did not wish to participate in the study. The reasons for refusal among those in the last group varied. One professor was leaving for Europe in two months and asked to be omitted from the study because, “I am far too busy at present to fill out your questionnaire conscientiously and in a way that would be useful for your purpose.“ One teacher who had retired five years ago felt her experiences would not be relevant to the purpose of the study. A former student grantee penned this message on his postcard: Drop dead. I wouldn't help you in a thousand years. "Department of Human Relations“ reminds me of George Orwell. (The researchers had used stationery from the Department of Human Relations at the University of Kansas, with which they were affiliated. It had been their expectation that the vaguer title of this branch of social science might 403 create less initial rejection than would the title, Department of Sociology.) The fourth refusal came from an emeritus professor of history who wrote: I know you will not pardon me for stating that after more than forty-five years of experience in teaching and historical research I have no interest in a "research program" based on questionnaires and personal interviews. The profits gained from study abroad are too obvious to require a squadron of “experts" to increase the benefits of "cross- cultural education"--whatever that may mean. The key to success of the Fulbright and Smith-Mundt experi- ments lies in the selection of the recipients of the grants. You don't need an armful of question- naires and tables of statistics to demonstrate that. So far we have accounted for 801 of the 1050 letters mailed (of which 711 were considered relevant for the present survey). Notice was received that 9 former grantees were deceased. Despite efforts through correspondence with college alumni offices, Fulbright Advisers, department chairmen, deans, and the Institute of International Education it was impossible to locate 56 of the letters returned marked "No Forwarding Address.“ That left 184 grantees who ostensibly had received the letter but did not return the enclosed postcard. The latter group were included along with the 711 mentioned above in the group from which the interview sample was drawn: and all 895 were included in the subsequent mail survey. The Interview Study: Interviews were held with 182 of the former grantees—-slightly more than 20% of the effective population of 895. Selection of the sample was guided by an effort to represent all of the states included 404 in the survey and to represent each of the four types of awards under the Fulbright and Smith—Mundt programs: Lecturers, Research Scholar, Teacher, and Student. A completely random sample could not be interviewed because the cost of travel to scattered addresses in the extreme western area of some of the states would have been prohibitive. Consequently, interviews were held in the major locations where former grantees clustered (usually college and university cities) and in as many smaller localities at intermediate points and surrounding the major centers as possible. In all, interviews were conducted in 31 communities. In addition, in order to obtain more objective information concerning professional consequences of the awards and another vieWpoint regarding the impact of the grantees on their communities, interviews also were held with 103 administrative superiors of a number of grantees--college presidents, deans, department chairmen, school principals and superintendents, etc. Before the interviewers visited the home towns of the individuals participating in this phase of the study, letters were sent requesting appointments for the interviews. Grantees and administrators in each city were telephoned upon the interviewers' arrival so that a schedule could be arranged. No individual contacted refused to be inter- viewed. At the beginning of the meeting with the interviewee the purpose of the study was explained in detail. Then 405 the grantee was asked how he had heard of the Fulbright or Smith-Mundt program and what factors had influenced his decision to apply for an award. After his goals in seeking a grant had been explored, he was asked to talk about his overseas experiences. Almost without exception those inter- viewed proved eager to discuss their award experiences at length. Next, attention was focused on the reception the grantee received on his return home and the opportunities he had found to share his experiences and knowledge gained overseas with his fellow Americans. Finally, a series of questions was asked concerning the returnee's assessment of the professional consequences of his having been a recipient of a Fulbright or Smith-Mundt grant. Most grantees volunteered comments indicating that they were happy to participate in the study and would like to help spread knowledge about the program if ever called on. They enjoyed talking about their experiences abroad, but in addition they felt it was important to take any action possible to let others know how significant the awards had been both personally and professionally. No differences in general attitudes or experiences were observed among the interviewees who had not responded to the initial letter as contrasted to those who had returned their post— cards. Thegguestionnaire Study. On the basis of discussion with former grantees and representatives of the International 406 Educational Exchange Service a questionnaire was constructed after about 100 interviews had been completed. During the remaining interviews the questionnaire was pretested, revised, tested again, and further revised. During these ' interviews discussion was focused as directly on the question- naire as possible. Suggestions were sought for clarifying items: grantees were asked for their interpretations of statements in the questionnaire and for the meaning of their responses. The grantees were also urged to mention other areas of importance not covered in the original form of the questionnaire. The instrument finally used in the mail survey was a revision based on criticisms and suggestions from the former award holders, the sponsors of the research, and colleagues professionally interested in questionnaire construction. As one control on response sets, evaluational items were worded so that agreement with some statements indicated favorable reactions whereas agreement with others indicated unfavorable responses. Insofar as possible we designed the questionnaire to conform to three criteria: It should reflect the professional and personal consequences the grantees considered most important: it should be of potential value to program evaluation and development within the educational exchange program: and it should be related to theory in social science, a point we considered essential for the interpretation of the findings. In the final form of the questionnaire blank pages were provided for the grantees? convenience in writing 407 additional comments clarifying their responses or elaborating on certain items. About two-thirds of the respondents added comments to their questionnaires. Also enclosed with each questionnaire was a data sheet requesting biblio- graphical information concerning specific professional accomplishments (bodks, articles, musical compositions, paintings, etc.) emanating from the grantees' overseas experiences. In May, 1957, questionnaires were mailed to 895 former grantees in or from the nine-state area. Sixty-one per cent replied. A follow-up letter and questionnaire were sent in July, 1957, and an additional 18% answered. Finally, a third letter was mailed to non-respondents, and 11% more returned their questionnaires, bringing the total response to 90%. In the final folloWeup mailing an incidental study was conducted of the effectiveness of sending requests via special delivery mail (Gullahorn & Gullahorn, 1959a). We concluded that special delivery mailing is worth the additional expense when relatively complete coverage of a population is desired. Significantly more responses (p < .001, Chi Square test) came from grantees who had received requests special delivery as contrasted to those from grantees whose requests had been sent via regular first-class mail. Chi square analyses of responses to the questionnaires revealed few significant differences among grantees who replied to the original questionnaire as contrasted to those 408 responding to either of the follow-ups. In general artists were under-represented in the first wave of respondents. While our finding of few differences among first vs. follow- up respondents is contrary to data reported in many surveys (cf. Goode and Hatt, 1962, ch. 12: Parten, 1950, ch. 11), we should note again that our population was relatively unique in terms of homogeneity. There was not a wide range of differences in education and interest in the topic among those included--variables which generally account for differences in responses among first as contrasted to follow—up respondents. Indeed, the extremely high per— centage of response-~90%F-attests to the former grantees' degree of involvement in the topic of research. The question still remains as to possible dif- ferences between the respondents and the 10% of the grantees who did not return questionnaires. We have tentative data on this topic. We interviewed 20 non-respondents and asked them to complete the questionnaire during the course of the interviews. Their replies did not differ significantly from those of the "voluntary" respondents. Of course, the presence of the interviewer during the completion of the questionnaire could have had a biasing effect. Most of this group indicated they felt somewhat sheepish over not having replied: however, they mentioned other pressing obligations which had precluded their taking time to complete the questionnaires. In view of the tentative data provided by the follow-up interviews and in view of the 90% response 409 to the questionnaire, the researchers felt reasonably confident that the data obtained were representative of the feelings of the population surveyed. Data from this midwestern study were incorporated in a report to the International Educational Exchange Service and were published elsewhere (Gullahorn & Gullahorn, 1958b, 1959b, 1960a). The question remained, however, of the extent to which the findings from grantees in this sample of states applied to other Americans who had been abroad under the educational exchange program from home states outside the Midwest. To answer this question another study was undertaken to survey all American grantees under the International Educational Exchange Program between 1947 and 1957. Some consequences of relying on mail questionnaires for gathering data from the national population should be mentioned. First, this made it possible to request every former grantee whose current address could be obtained to assist in the project. The cost of an interview study would have been prohibitive for coverage of all 50 states and the territories. Second, the use of a questionnaire facilitated the translation of opinions into quantitative information-- the simplest way to summarize the reactions of over 5,000 respondents to a large number of items. Having the answers in numerical form also enabled the researchers to construct indices regarding such variables as interaction and satis- faction, and these in turn lend further insight into the data. 410 The Program Evaluation Staff of the International Educational Exchange Service furnished a complete listing of Americans who had received awards under Department of State auspices during the 1947-1957 period. After the grantees covered in the earlier study had been eliminated as well as those for whom no addresses were available in the listings, a mailing list of 9,717 was compiled. The total number of awards represented is greater than this, however, since all duplications of listings were combined-— that is, some grantees received renewals or had two awards. In Nevember, 1958, a letter was sent to each person on the list, explaining the purpose of the study and requesting the grantee to complete and return an enclosed questionnaire (see Appendix II). About 2,500 of the letters were re- turned as not deliverable. Even after efforts had been made to obtain current addresses for this group (we again corresponded with Fulbright advisers and checked membership listings of professional societies), 2,090 could not be located. In addition, notification was received that 196 of the former grantees were out of the country for the duration of the study, and 61 were deceased. This left the effective population for the study at 7,370. -By the end of March, 1959, approximately 50% (3,689) had returned completed questionnaires. In April, 1959, a follow-up mailing was sent to all who had not responded. Notice was received that an additional 207 grantees were in the categories of those currently residing 411 outside the country, deceased, or with no forwarding addresses. This follow—up brought an additional 835 responses, bringing the total questionnaire return to 63%. An additional 108 grantees returned bibliographic data sheets only, listing various accomplishments which had emanated from their award experiences. As in the earlier study, comparisons of responses by early respondents as opposed to those answering the follow—up mailing produced essentially negative findings concerning differences. The questionnaire used in the expanded study was esentially the same as that used in the midwestern survey. Only items concerning background information were added along with a question concerning language competence. Thus it was possible for the final data analysis to include data from the earlier study, giving a total of 5,327 questionnaires. Including the bibliographic section regarding publications, works of art, etc. the response from former grantees totalled 5,435. Thus of the total number of award holders for whom mail addresses were available (8,058): questionnaires or bibliographic data were returned by over 67%. As in the earlier study, grantees were urged to add comments explaining their responses. Almost half--approximately 2,200 grantees—— did so. These comments, along with interview data, furnish illustrative material throughout this report. At this point it seems appropriate again to question the representativeness of the respondents. This was not a 412 sample survey: the entire population of grantees for whom addresses were available was included. Actually, in preliminary discussion with representatives of the Program Evaluation Staff the researchers had proposed a sample survey methodology, suggesting that a stratified sampling from lists of grantees in the four categories (Lecturer, Research Scholar, Teacher, and Student) would provide more reliable data. As Hyman notes very cogently, however, (1955, ch. 1) the goals and biases of one's sponsoring agency can impose serious constraints on the researcher. The bureaucrats involved in this instance were emotionally opposed to sample surveys and no amount of logical persuasion and reference to professional sources could change this attitude. Actually, in part the State Department's request for full coverage of the population was justified inasmuch as they wanted as full a compilation of bibliographic data from grantees as possible, since these professional achieve- ments provided tangible evidence of some of the benefits of the awards. Frequently the sponsoring agency is in a defensive position in trying to justify to Congress American expenditures for the exchange programs. Of course, as the researchers argued, the bibliographic data question- naires could be sent to all former grantees whereas the more general questionnaire could be sent only to those included in the stratified samples. It proved impossible, however, to convince the sponsors that sampling error rather than sample size is the criterion for sample adequacy. 413 Eli Marks' comments on the fetish of sample size seem appropriate here: Survey research shares with our general culture a belief in the sympathetic magic of "bigness," the feeling that one who is large must also be wise and good and, if we make things large enough, we will achieve the mysterious rewards implicit in great size. . . . The emphasis on sample size in survey research is traceable in large part to a suspicion on the part of clients about sampling in general. I am some- what amused, for example, by the clients who have no trouble at all accepting the idea that you can find out what people will buy by asking them what they like but who can't see how studying 200 households can tell you anything about the 60 million households in the United States (1962, PP. 92-93). Assessing the representativeness of our respondents or the degree of error in our data is not a trivial problem. The situation is not hopeless, however. First, it is possible to check the 63%»response from the national sample with the 90% from the earlier study, the findings of which seemed reasonably representative of that population. Responses on questionnaire items by the 4,524 grantees generally differed only slightly from those of the 803 respondents in the midwestern study. Of course, had the differences been marked, interpreting the meaning of the differences would have been more equivocal. That is, the differences could have meant that the midwestern sample was not representative of the entire nation, or it could have meant that there was more bias in the second study resulting from the respondents' being less representative of the 414 population of grantees, or an interaction of both sources of error could have occurred. The close correspondence in the data from the two surveys gives us some confidence in the present findings--and also legitimizes our combining the data from both surveys in subsequent analyses. Obviously, however, we lack definitive error estimates. It would have been helpful to have the check on representativeness used in the earlier study. That is, follow—up interviews with a random sample of non-respondents would have provided comparative data. Unfortunately, funds were not available for this purpose. As another check on the representativeness of the respondents, we can compare some frequency functions to ascertain whether respondents differ from non-respondents on such objective items as the period of their awards (is the present sample over-represented by relatively recent award holders?) and the category of their awards (indeed, preliminary analyses indicate that a smaller proportion of Students responded as contrasted to the three other categories of grantees). Processing errors in our data appear to be minimal. Almost all of the questionnaire items were pre—coded fixed- alternative statements: thus transfer of data was greatly facilitated. On the few items where coding interpretations were not automatic, explicit directions were furnished the coders and any doubtful cases were referred to the researchers 415 for decision. Periodic checks were made on the coders' accuracy. A sample of the keypunched cards was verified, and inasmuch as the keypunching errors appeared minimal (less than .001%) we decided to forgo the expense of having all the cards verified. In concluding our discussion of the general research procedures we should mention an incidental study which was incorporated in our questionnaire survey. Frequently in research reports such as those included in the "Living Research" section of The Public Opinion Quarterly one encounters information concerning factors contributing to increased response in mail questionnaires. we decided to test the efficacy of three such variables: the color of the questionnaire (half were printed on white and half on light green paper; the type of mailing (half were sent via regular first-class mail and half by third-class mail): and the type of return envelope (half were business-reply envelopes and half had postage stamps on them). For this 2 x 2 x 2 factorial design the population of grantees was randomly divided into eight groups. The data on returns indicate that for this population the color of the question- naire had no significant effect on response ratios: however, first-class mailing produced significantly more returns, as did stamped return envelopes asopposed to business-reply envelopes. None of the interactions among the variables was significant (Gullahorn & Gullahorn, 1963a). 416 Data from this survey were incorporated in a report to the U.S. Department of State and have been included in other articles (Gullahorn & Gullahorn, 1960b, 1962, 1963a). APPENDIX II QUESTIONNAIRE APPENDIX II MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EAST LANSING Department of Sociology and Anthropology STUDY OF THE INTERNATIONAL EDUCATIONAL EXCHANGE PROGRAM The questionnaire referred to in the letter appears on the following pages. To save you time most questions have been arranged so that all you have to do is make a check mark in answering. Please answer every question, selecting the response that comes closest to representing your feelings, even if it does not do so exactly. If you have additional comments or wish to explain or qualify any answers, we hope you will write your remarks on the blank pages provided. Since the questionnaire is intended for all categories of grantees (Lecturers, Research Scholars, Teachers, and Students) there may be some items which will not apply to you. Answers of ”not relevant” and ”none” are pro- vided for this situation. The answers of every former award holder are important. 50 that the results of this study will be complete and realistic the cOOperation of all former grantees is needed. What was the source of your award? 1._ Fulbright 2._______Smith-Mundt 3._______Other (Please specify- ) What type of award did you hold? l._.______Lecturer; 2.______Research Scholar; 3.________Teacher; 4._________Student; 5.______Other (Please specify: l-20. l-2l. l-22. l-23. l-24. l-25. l-26. l-27. l-28. l-29. Following are some questions about your overseas experiences. We are particularly interested in learning how much contact you had with people abroad. While you were abroad, with how many foreign citizens did you establish friendships you expect to be lasting? (Please check the figure you believe to be correct.) 1. None 2. One to Five 3. Six to Ten 4. Over Ten (How many? ) Were you entertained in the homes of any foreign citizens while you were abroad? 'I. No 3. Yes, Six to Ten 2. Yes, One to Five 4. Over Ten (How many? ) While you were abroad, with about how many foreign professional people did you have frequent, face- to-face contact? 1. None 4. Sixteen to Twenty-Five ___—2. One to Five 5. Over Twenty-Five (About how many? 3. Six to Fifteen ) Did you collaborate with foreign colleagues and/or students on research? 'I. Yes ____2. No 3. l'did not engage in research. About how many foreign students did you teach on a regular basis during your stay abroad? (Please check the figure representing the approximate total from all your classes overseas.) l. I did not teach 4. Thirty-Six to Fifty 2. One to Twenty 5. Fifty-One to One Hundred 3. Twenty-One to Thirty-Five 6. Over 100 (About how many? ) With about how many foreign students did you have frequent personal contact (outside of a classroom or research situation)? ___l . None ___2. One to Ten 3. Eleven to Twenty 4. Twenty-One to Thirty 5. Over 30 (About how many?____) Approximately how many other foreign citizens—EXCLUDING people counted in Questions l-‘l9 to ‘l-24—did you get to know fairly well so that you occasionally chatted about local customs, American life, etc.? 1. None 4. Twenty-One to Thirty ___—2. One to Ten 5. Over 30 (About how many?_____) 3. Eleven to Twenty About how many concerts, art exhibits, PROFESSIONAL lectures (outside of regular classes) etc. did you give while you were abroad? 1. None 2. One to Five 3. Six to Fifteen 4. Sixteen to Twenty-Five 5. Twenty-Six to Thirty-Five 6. Over 35 (About how many?________) What would you estimate to be the approximate TOTAL attendance AT All. of these events? I. I did not give any 4. 151 to 300 ___2. One to Fifty __5. 301 to 500 3. 51 to 150 6. Over 500 (About how many? ) Approximately how many talks of a less professional nature—e.g., on general topics about American culture—did you give while you were abroad? (Do not include those counted in Question l-26.) 1. None 4. Sixteen to Twenty-Five _____2. One to Five ___5. Twenty-Six to Thirty-Five 3. Six to Fifteen 6. Over 35 (About how many?______.) What would you estimate to be the approximate total attendance at all of the events counted in Question l-28? 4. 151 to 300 5. 301 to 500 6. Over 500 (About how many? 1. I did not give any 2. One to Fifty 3. 51 to 150 ) Following are a number of questions concerning the influence of your foreign educational activities on your current professional role. DOES NOT PLEASE CHECK ONE RESPONSE FOR EVERY QUESTION YES APPLY NO TO ME l-30. I believe receiving the award has been beneficial to my professional I._.Yes 2.__Not 3.__No career. Relevant l-3l. The award was a factor helping me secure a new position, graduate I Yes 2.__Not 3._No fellowship, assistantship, etc. Relevant l-32. It was (or will be) a contributing factor toward my receiving a promo- l..__Yes 2 Not 3.__No tion and/or salary increase. Relevant I-33. It influenced my decision to move to a new location. (If yes, please I Yes 2.__Not 3.__No explain on pages provided.) Relevant l-34. It has afforded me new skills which I now use. l.__Yes 2.__Not 3.__No Relevant I-35. The experience has resulted in a change in the focus, direction, or field 1 Yes 2.__Not 3._No of my professional work. (If yes, please explain on pages provided.) Relevant l-36. It has enabled me to add new material in my courses or work, or to l..__Yes 2.__N0i 3.__No present different interpretations than would have been possible with- Relevant out the experience. I-37. It has enabled me to introduce one or more new courses. l..__Yes 2.__Not 3.__No Relevant I-38. The experience has made possible new professional relationships I.__Yes 2.__Not 3.__No abroad for.me. Relevant l-39. It has made possible new professional relationships in the United l..__Yes 2.__Not 3._No States for me. Relevant l-40. I think the experience has given me a new perspective on my field l..__Yes 2.__Not 3._No and a deeper insight into certain aspects of it. Relevant l-4i . It has furnished material for a thesis. l.._Yes 2.__Not 3._No Relevant I-42. It has furnished data or ideas which I have used in planning research, 'l._Yes 2._Not 3.__No compositions, works of art, etc. since my return. Relevant I-43. As a result of the award I have received more recognition from some I Yes 2.__Not 3.__No of my administrative superiors. Relevant l-44. l have received more recognition from professional colleagues as a re- 'l.__Yes 2._Not 3.__No sult of receiving the grant. ' Relevant l-45. The prestige of the grant has had little effect on my professional status. ‘I Yes 2._Not 3.__No Relevant If there are other professional contributions you feel followed from your award, we will appreciate your mentioning them on the blank pages provided. Some grantees have reported certain adverse effects as consequences of their awards or experiences abroad. Has your award led to any of the following experiences? (Please use the pages provided to eXplain any results you consider serious.) DOES not PLEASE CHECK ONE RESPONSE FOR EVERY QUESTION TRUE APPLY FALSE TO ME I-46. My having received the award has led to difficulties in my relation- 1. 2.____Not 3 ships with some colleagues who have not had such opportunities. True Relevant False l-47. Not being able to complete abroad the work I had planned iniured I- 2- Jiot 3 me professionally. True Relevant False I-48. Going abroad interfered with my research at home. I. 2.__Not 3 True Relevant False I-49. Going abroad weakened my professional contacts in the United States. 'I 2.____Not 3 ' True Relevant False l-50. Accepting the award resulted in a delay in my professional advance- I. 2.__Not 3 ment. True Relevant False l-5I. Accepting the award has hindered my professional career. (If yes, I. 2. Not 3 please explain on pages provided.) True Relevant False l-52. Experience abroad is not regarded highly in my particular field. I. 2. Not 3. True Relevant False I-53. Experience abroad is not regarded highly where I work. I. 2.__Not 3 True Relevant False I-54. My administrative superiors are not in favor of overseas experience. I. 2.__Not 3 True Relevant False The following questions pertain to the influence your experiences abroad have had on your activities which are less directly related to your professional role. II- 6. Since your return, have you talked informally about your experiences with your friends, shown them pictures, slides, etc.? ___—__I. Yes, frequently. 3. Yes, but rarely ___—2. Yes, occasionally ___..4. No II- 7. Since your return, about how many talks have you given concerning your overseas experiences and/or observations on life abroad? ___—I. None 4. Sixteen to Twenty-Five ___.2. One to Five ___5. Twenty-Six to Fifty 3. Six to Fifteen ___—.6. Over 50 (About how many?.___.__.) II- 8. What would you estimate to be the TOTAL attendance at ALL of these talks? I. l have not given any ___—4. 101 to 300 ___—2. One to Fifty ___.5. 301 to 500 ___—3. Fifty-One to One Hundred ___—6. Over 500 (About how many? ) ll- 9. What types of groups have you addressed? (Please check all that apply.) 1. Professional societies 5. Clubs and non-professional organiza- ____2. Civic'groups tions at school or college (e.g., PTA, ___—3. Service clubs Faculty Club, etc.) ___—.4. Church groups 6. Other (Please specify: ) ll-l 0. Since your return, have you made any radio or TV appearances related to your overseas experiences? ll-II. I .______Yes 2..—___No I-lave reports about your experiences abroad and/or your observations on international events appeared in local (or school) newspapers? I . Yes 2. No Since your return have you done any of the following? PLEASE CHECK ONE RESPONSE FOR EVERY QUESTION YES NO ll-I2. Referred Americans going abroad to foreign colleagues or friends. I. Yes 2. No ll-I3. Advised students or others wishing to go abroad. I. Yes 2.___No ll-I4. Helped Americans apply for grants to go abroad. I. Yes 2.___No Il-I5. Served on committees selecting applicants for overseas grants. I. Yes 2.___No Il-I6. Served as a Fulbright Adviser. I Yes 2.___No II-I7. Arranged correspondence between students and/ or colleagues in this country with others abroad. I Yes 2.___No Il-IB. Consulted with students, colleagues, or friends from abroad regarding their applications to come to the United States for educational activities. I Yes 2.___No ll-I9. Made direct arrangements (with a university, foundation, etc.) for foreign stu- dents or others to come to the United States. I. Yes 2. No Il-20. Assisted foreign citizens in arranging visits to the United States for other purposes. I. Yes 2. No ll-2I . Served as a Foreign Student Adviser. I. Yes 2.___No lI-22. Entertained in your home foreign citizens you met abroad or who were referred to you by others you met overseas. I. Yes 2.___No ll-23. Since your return, have you been active in any organizations with foreign members, or interested largely in international affairs~e.g., an international club, a foreign language club, a UNESCO committee, etc. I. Yes, this is a new or stronger interest for me. ___2. Yes, but I was about as active in such groups before going abroad. 3. Not yet, but I intend to be. ___4. No. Have you maintained contact with any of the following? (Please check all that apply.) .____ ll-24. With your host institution abroad Il-25. With individuals abroad on a professional basis ll-26. With individuals abroad on an informal or personal basis Il-27. With clubs or organizations abroad ___. ll-28. With other Americans you met abroad (other grantees, etc.) "~29. Have you donated or made arrangements for others to give books, periodicals, etc. to foreign libraries or other institutions? ___—I . Yes 2. No In reflecting on their experiences, American Fulbright and Smith-Mundt grantees have made the following re- marks. How well do you agree with the feelings they have expressed? (Please use the page provided to explain any answers about which you feel strongly and, where relevant, to suggest what might be done to improve some situation.) 53351.32illi‘l'l‘iiiKilimbglfiigfe'iicl‘cil': ““5 AGREE mm“! mm“: OWN FEELINGS: STRONGLY somcwnnt somswnnr smoueu! |l-30. Living abroad increased my interest in interna- tional affairs. 1 2- 3. ' 4- ll-3I. I found the experience of ”living as a foreigner” to be maturing. I 2. 3- 4- Il-32. I found peeple at my host institution to be un- cooperative. I 2- 32 4 lI-33. My stay abroad was one of the most valuable ex- periences of my life. I _2- 3- 4- ll-34. I feel I was able to correct some erroneous stereo- types held by some foreign citizens regarding cer- tain aspects of American culture. ‘I 2- 3- 4- ll-35. Having to adjust to a lower standard of living made my stay abroad unpleasant. I 2- 3- 4 ll-36. I think I gained considerable perspective on the United States as a result of my stay abroad. I 2 ‘3- 4- ll-37. I now have more sympathy toward my host country. 1 2- 3- 4- II-38. A year spent at a university in the United States would have been more valuable than my time abroad. I 2 3 4 Il-39. Had I realized the total personal economic cost of the year abroad I would have been reluctant to accept the award. I 2 3- A ll-40. My host country did not make maximum use of my experiences and abilities. I 2 3- 4 ll-4I. My own university (or employer) has not taken advantage of the contribution I could make as a result of my overseas experience. I 2 3- 4 ll-42. If I had another grant I would like to go abroad again for educational or research activities. I 2- 3- 4- 55-57. 58. 59. 60. 61 . 62-63. 64. 66. 68. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Host Country Sex: I.___ Male 2..—___ Female Age at time of award: ___—1. Under 20 4. 31 to 35 ___7. 46 to 50 ___—2. 20 to 25 5. 36 to 40 8. 51 to 55 ___3. 26 to 30 6. 41 to 45 9. Over 55 What was the period of your award? ___—I . 1947-1948 4. 1950-1951 8. 1954-1 955 ___—2. I948-1949 5. 1951-1 952 9. 1955-1956 ___3. 1949-1950 6. I952-I 953 0. 1956-1 957 7. 1953-1 954 Home State or Territory at time of award: Present Home State or Territory- Size of city where you lived at time of award. Field of Work Abroad ___—1. Natural Science or Mathematics ___2. Social or Political Science ___—3. Language (other than English) ___—4. English or American Studies ___—.5. Other Humanities 6. writing, etc.) .7. Agriculture 8. administration, 9. Other Technical architecture, etc.) 0. Other (Please specify) Creative Arts (art, painting, music, drama, theater, creative Professional Social Service (education, social work, public 65. Size of city where you now live. PLEASE CHECK BOTH SIDES One Million and Over 250,000 to 999,999 50,000 to 249,999 10,000 to 49,999 2,500 to 9,999 Under 2,500 omsupd 67. Present Field of Work PLEASE CHECK BOTH SIDES personnel work, etc.) or Professional (law, medicine, engineering, Occupation at Time of Award preper answer) level) Professional or engineer, etc.) Social Service Housewife I‘l’PIOP.“ 9‘!" 9.“ P ." Not employed If you had difficulty selecting the category, please describe your position below. Teacher or researcher in college or university (underline Teacher in elementary or secondary school (underline proPer Student (including teaching or research assistant) Agricultural specialist (except teachers) health, social work, civil servant, etc.) Businessman (including business administrator) Educational administrator (e.g., school principal, college dean) Actor, artist, musician, writer, etc. Other (Please specify ) PLEASE CHECK BOTH SIDES technical practitioner (physician, architect, practitioner (except teachers; includes public 0 p 9% ouAQNH d O .‘SXOPPV 9‘!" ft!“ P 69. Present Occupation ll-43. lI-44. Il-45. ll-46. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 70. In your Opinion was your competence in the language Of your host country—(Please check all that apply) 1. Adequate to permit ease in social interaction. ___2. Inadequate for ease in social interaction. ' 3. Adequate to facilitate achieving the professional purpose of my award. 4. Inadequate to facilitate achieving the professional purpose of my award. (Note: If you have any recommendations with regard to the importance Of language skill or the degree of skill necessary to benefit fully from an educational exchange award, please comment on the blank pages provided.) 71 . What led you to apply for an award as a government-sponsored grantee? I. I initiated the application independently. ___.2. Colleagues, professors, or administrators in my school or college urged that I apply. 3. My application was requested by an American agency administering the program. ___—4. My application was requested by a university, school, or agency abroad. ___—.5. Other (Please describe an the blank page provided.) 72. What was your highest earned 73. What is your highest earned degree at time of award? degree at present? PLEASE CHECK BOTH SIDES ___—1. Bachelor’s (A.B.; 8.5.; etc.) I.___ __.__2. Master’s (M.A.; M.Ed.; M.S.,- M.B.A.; etc.) 2. ___—3. DOCIOI”: (Ph.D.; Ed.D.; M.D.; D.D.; etc.) 3. ___—4. Other (Please specify—e.g., G.N.; ME.) 4. 74 75 76 THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS PERTAIN ONLY TO THOSE WHO WERE MARRIED AT THE TIME OF THEIR AWARDS If you had children at the time, what were their age groups during your award year? (Please check all that apply.) ___—1 . I had no children 5. Junior high school ___2. Under one 6. High school 3. Preschool—one and over 7. College age __4. Elementary school ___8. Beyond college age Did any members of your family accompany you? ___I . No ___—.2. Yes, my wife (or husband) 3. Yes, my wife and all of my children ___—4. Yes, my wife and some of my children ___—5. Yes, all of my children 6. Yes, some Of my children In your opinion, is it advisable for married grantees to take their families with them abroad? I. ___Yes 2. ___No. If you had it to do all over again, would your family want to go abroad-on such a grant? 1. Yes 2. NO 3. Uncertain ll-47. Il-51. Il-52. ll-53. ".54. THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS PERTAIN ONLY TO THOSE WHOSE FAMILIES ACCOMPANIED THEM Did you and your family, as a family group, associate with foreign families on a regular basis? I. No 3. Yes, with six to ten 2. Yes, with one to five 4. Yes, with eleven or more In comparison with your individual professional contacts, were the contacts you and your family established with foreign citizens on the whole characterized by—(Please check one response in each question for Questions lI-48 through ll-50.) Ii-48. Frequency of contacts I. More frequent contacts .___2. Less frequent contacts ___..3. About the same II-49. Degree of intimacy Of contacts 1. Stronger feelings Of friendship 2. Weaker feelings Of friendship 3. About the same lI-50. Attempts to maintain relationships 1. Greater effort to maintain contact since our return 2. Less effort to maintain contact since our return 3. About the same About how many talks did members of your family (excluding you) give on general topics about American culture while you were abroad? 1. None 2. One to Five 3. Six to Ten 4. Over Ten (How many? ) What would you estimate to be the approximate TOTAL attendance at ALL of these talks by members of your family? 1. They did not give any 2. One to Twenty-Five 3. Twenty-Six to Sixty 4. Sixty-One to One Hundred 5. Over 100 (About how many? I Since your return, about how many talks concerning experiences abroad have members of your family (excluding you) given? 1. None 4. Eleven to Twenty 2. One to Five ___..5. Over 20 (About how many?____) 3. Six to Ten What would you estimate to be the approximate total attendance at all of the talks included in Ques- tion II-53? 1. They did not give any ___—2. One to Twenty-Five 3. Twenty-Six to Sixty 4. Sixty-One to One Hundred 5. Over 100 (About how many? ) Please add any comments you feel are important regarding the influence Of your family’s presence abroad on your acomplishments there, etc. l+27 PUBLICATIONS, CONCERTS, EXHIBITS, LECTURES, AND OTHER WORKS To enable us to prepare a volume listing the accomplishments of former grantees related to their overseas experiences, will you please furnish the information requested below. It will be appreciated if you will follow the forms suggested for entries; for example, listing the full names of iournals and articles. Explanations or com- ments for items that might not be clear for the general reader will be welcomed. Please print or type if possible, and use extra sheets if necessary. Your Name Present Occupation Business Address l. COMPLETED WORKS 1. Titles of papers you have read (or have had accepted for presentation) at professional meetings—papers related to your overseas experiences. Please also list the name Of the professional society sponsoring the meetings. . Example: ”A Preposed .Iomon Classification," Far Eastern Society, December, 1955, Washington, D. C. 2. Titles of lectures and speeches given to other than professional societies. (Note: If you have given a great number of speeches, list ten which you consider representative and state the total number.) Example: ”Impressions of Egypt," Women's Club, Boulder, Colorado, 1950. Title of thesis or dissertation resulting from your overseas research. Please indicate degree, department, and university. Example: ”Early. Indian Philosophical Naturalism." Ph.D. thesis, Department of Philosophy, University of Michigan, I953. Titles of books and monographs—related to your work abroad—already published or accepted for publication. Example: EUROPE IN THE MIDDLE AGES. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1956 . Titles of articles, book reviews, etc. already published or accepted for publication. s(List only those related to your work abroad.) Please indicate the periodica|(s), volume number (year),p Exam Ie: ”Quantum-Mechanical Methods' In Valence Theory," PROCEEDINGS 0: THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE, 38 (1952), pp. 547-549 (or "accepted for publication”). . Newspaper articles. Example: ”Scenery, Climate and Natives Make Guatemala a Terrestrial Paradise,” THE KANSAS CITY STAR, August 27, I953. . Names of new courses resulting from your experiences abroad. Example: ”Seminar in Contemporary Italian Art," Graduate Course, Department of Art, State University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa. 8. Names of new paintings, works of sculpture, musical compositions, etc. influenced—insofar as you can tell— by your work abroad. (Please specify whether they are paintings or other types of creative works.) Examples. ”Roman Landscape. " Painting, 1956. ”Self Portrait' In Thessaloniki." Intaglio print, I954. "Earth, Sweet Earth.” Choral work, 1953. SYMPHONY NUMBER l. I951. 9. Concerts, recitals, or exhibits you have held since your return, on which your overseas experiences have exerted a significant influence. Include musical programs in which your works have been performed by others. Please indicate the date, the place, and the type Of event. Examples: One-Man Exhibition: Painting, Creative Gallery, New York Cl ,I953. Participant: Sculpture: Indiana University Student Show, 1955. Honora e Mention. Exhibition of Architectural Photographs. University of Cincinnati, 1954.. _ Full recital on clarinet and saxophone: Waverly, Iowa, 1956. SYMPHONY NUMBER I. Performed by Seattle Symphony, I95I; New York Philharmonic, I955. II. WORKS IN PROCESS 10. Title Of thesis or dissertation now in process. Please indicate university, department, and degree. 11. Titles of books or monographs—related to your work abroad—in process or completed, but not yet accepted for publication. 12. Titles of articles, book- reviews, etc. now in process or completed, but not yet accepted for publication. (list only those related to your work abroad.) 13. Paintings, musical compositions, and other works Of art—influenced by your experiences abroad—which are in process but not yet completed. III. OTHER ACCOMPLISHMENTS 14. Please list below any accomplishments emanating from your overseas experiences which are not included under the preceding categories. APPENDIX III CODING OF BACKGROUND VARIABLES FOR MULTIVARIATE ANALYSES APPENDIX III CODING OF BACKGROUND VARIABLES FOR MULTIVARIATE ANALYSESl Item 55. GEOGRAPHIC REGION OF HOST COUNTRY: . Lecturers, Research Scholars, and Students: Score 1 for Europe or Oceania Teachers: Score 1 for British Isles 58. SEX: Score 1 for Male 59. AGE AT AWARD TIME (precoded on questionnaire). 60. PERIOD OF AWARD (precoded on questionnaire). 61. GEOGRAPHIC REGION OF HOME STATE AT AWARD TIME: Score 1 for New England, Middle Atlantic, East North Central, or Pacific. 63. GEOGRAPHIC MOBILITY SINCE AWARD: Score 1: Same as previous home state Score 2: Moved, but in same census region Score 3: MOved to different census region 64. SIZE OF HOME CITY AT AWARD TIME (precoded on questionnaire). 66. FIELD OF WORK ABROAD: Natural Sciences Score 1 for Natural Science or Mathematics 66. FIELD OF WORK ABROAD: Social Sciences Score 1 for Social or Political Science 66. FIELD OF WORK ABROAD: Humanities + Arts Score 1 for Language, English or American Studies, Other Humanities, or Creative Arts. 69. PRESENT OCCUPATION: Lecturers, Research Scholars, and Students: Score 1 for Teacher or Researcher in college or university Teachers: Score 1 for Teacher in elementary or secondary school l of items. See questionnaire in Appendix II for full wording 432 433 Item 70. LANGUAGE COMPETENCE Score 1: Inadequate for both professional and social interaction Score 2: Inadequate professional: inadequate social: inadequate for professional purpose but adequate for social interaction. Score 3: Adequate for professional purpose; adequate for social interaction: adequate for professional purpose but inadequate for social interaction. . Score 4: Adequate for both professional and social interaction. 71. REASON FOR APPLICATION Lecturers and Research Scholars: Score 1 for application requested by either American or foreign agency Teachers and Students: Score 1 for application initiated independently. 72. HIGHEST EARNED DEGREE AT AWARD TIME Score 1 - Bachelor's Score 2 - Master's Score 3 — Doctor's 72 X 73. DEGREE CHANGE Score 1: Same degree level Score 2: Bachelor's to Master's or Bachelor's to Other Score 3: Master's to Doctor's: Master's to Other: Other to Doctor's Score 4: Bachelor's to Doctor's II-44. TOOK FAMILY ABROAD: Score 1 for Yes