. . . 1. . 1 . . . . _ . . u 1 . ._ . . .. . , . .. 1 . 11 . . _ 1 . 1 u _ .. . ._ _. 1 . . . . .. . , . . . a...» . '00 REIGN - I'm-n..- .9: ET“ .‘ro D m ATES OF P... TY M MU CH1 1‘! can. 9.... 111.33.33.11? .1 1 7°? 13 N ' STUDENT {“19” STATE UN " s A ORKS' * _ @ASSOGI :V a gre‘e STUDY or THE A D MERICA {Oh for N V. v ATIONAL $1.... ”a?!" 1:11... Jitters. .{l .4. .. in..." :r't'a mom " 1 SN .53. TRAN 1 .. , . . 1 “1......" 1.1.1.? .1 1 .1. u A 1 1 . I v r 1 .. 111‘ V ..q . . . . . . . 1;..l .. .3... £1541. . 1 , , . 0‘33: ylvh... . « - ".1... ..-..__..>... . , . . . . . . . 1 1 .. .rVIv' . . . 1 1 . II-Vr ‘1’. .u-lfv'. ‘f.’lc- .. . 1 . . .. . . .r.1.v‘...r11...‘t..v 4.). . , . _ 1 Elf“ 1...... ..1.1 .. «is: 1 1 , 1 . 9:11. £943.». .11.? . 1 . . 1.1.1115; . 3??!er . , . . , 1 . . 1 €1151€E¢gll1n111$$ v . . .0 . . . . w _ o 1. . . . . . . 1 . .1 o . . . 1 1 r v I . v c . m. u . . . rdxwdamf 1 .1 . . .1 . . . . .15 . Yaw... . . II c 1'. . .. . v.0; e -V.‘Ner. Our second concern here will be for the appropriateness of the method of data collection chosen for the level of the theory and the empirical research situation with which the investigator is WCllr‘king. By "appropriate" we mean "producing the type of data 1(39ically capable of accomplishing the particular task of theory— (anstruction being carried out," and "requiring field techniques that may reasonably be carried out in this empirical situation.“ It is 57 58 important to note that, although data of some types may be more useful for theory construction at a particular stage of refinement than data of other types, this does not imply that data of one type is inherently more refined than data of another type (Kaplan, 1964: 283-84). Since different field methods are simply the processes by which different data types are produced, the same caveat holds: no method of data collection is inherently more of less "refined" than another. However, at different points in the theory construction Process, different tasks are being performed. For each different task, different tools are particularly usefu1--in the case of theory construction, data are the tools; methods the means by which they are used. Data and method will therefore often differ when the research task differs--when theory is at different stages of con— struction. For example, at the first stage (exploratory, discussed below), the investigator is attempting to marshall all the existing 'facrts, so that an attempt may be made to try to determine their pos- Sltble relationship to each other; from these the researcher will try to construct, through classification, more general classes of '"E31ationships. However, to do this, the researcher first wishes to have available as many facts about the situation to be studied as possible. There are, of course, many ways in which all the facts of Such a situation can be gathered. The researcher may participate in tfile‘situation and observe it personally, or question other situation Participants, past and present, about their observations. The 59 questions to others may be posed in a variety of ways--verbally, in writing; letting the interviewees supply the answers in terms of their 1mm perceptions (open-ended questions) or in terms of only the alternatives known to the interviewer (closed-ended questions); etc. Of these alternatives in data collection techniques, however, the researcher must ask which, on a practical basis, will best accomplish the task of acquiring the most complete set of initial facts in each research situation. Completeness, in turn, is a neces- sary primary logical consideration when the identity of the specific facts to be gathered are unknown to the investigator, as is true at the origin of every investigation. Again, at another stage of theory construction (hypothesis testing, discussed below), the logical task to be accomplished is (TFten the discovery of how frequently one type of fact is related to arthher in such situations, rather than what all the facts are. APpropriate to this task are very specific data, concerning only the tMK) known fact types, whose identity and operational definitions are a'lready known (these having been determined in the fact-gathering state described above). These data can also be collected by many mEithods; we will select among these on the basis of their practi- cality for use in the particular research situation. In any case, the aim of the technique ultimately chosen is to aTlow the researcher to confine the investigative effort to one Short task repeated many times: having an observer or participant(s) ‘jetermine whether the two facts have occurred in conjunction or not. 'The multiple task performances may occur simultaneously. The data 6O gathered consist of a great deal of a particular kind of information about one fact, rather than small amounts of information about many facts. This is appropriate to accomplishing the task of determining "how frequently" something occurs in conjunction with something else. In general, then, we should realize that the data, which will best aid in the accomplishment of a particular task in theory construc- tion, may have a common logical component. However, their specific identity will vary from theory to theory, and from one substantive area of investigation to another; they may be collected using any of a variety of methods. It therefore follows that no particular method is logically bound to one specific step in theory construction. We may, of course, discuss general patterns or frequently encountered research circumstances in which specific data and particu- lar'collection methods for these have previously been found to be useful in accomplishing a particular research task. The dictum to be txarne in mind, however, is that for every investigation we must rede- termine: the theory-construction tasks to be accomplished; then, the (Nita which, under the existing research circumstances, will most e‘Fficiently accomplish these tasks; and finally, the methods by which these data may be most efficiently collected. In so doing, we must { bearin mind that operationally, "efficiency" is also defined differ-1 erl'tly in every different research situation--in general terms, it ‘“€?fers to the most productive use of the available resources for the aCcomplishment of the research goals, whatever those may be. Further, we should recognize that if there are a number of theory-construction tasks to be performed in the course of one 61 investigaton, a number of different methods may be required to meet the conditions of appropriateness for each task. If theory and data are held constantly reflexive, as we previously suggested, we shall expect to see multiple theory-construction levels present in every investigation, and thus many different tasks to be accomplished. Following our prior logic, this may well imply that all investiga- tions of "grounded" theory will be multimethod in nature, if the conditions of appropriateness as well as reflexivity are to be met. Before examining how these twin concerns of theory—data reflexivity and method appropriateness apply to the present case, let us clarify what is meant by the "level of refinement" of a theory and briefly examine the inquiry as a whole. By "inquiry Process" we mean "the process of scientific inquiry," or the particular logico-investigative method used by Western-educated researchers attempting to discover patterns of behavior (whether of atoms or Persons). Methodologists of all persuasions (as well as philosophers 01’ science) have explicated this in greater or lesser detail. How- eVer, there is also a prevailing tendency to concentrate on the section y 01’ the process which is most congenial with the researcher's other A 'irrterests, and to slight the rest. C. Wright Mills is primarily involved with the range and con- Sl'stency of the logical operations involved (Mills, 1957:206), as are mOst of the philosophers; Blalock and Blalock (1968) and others of the "llard data" genre emphasize "hypothesis testing," concentrating on 'lndicator construction and statistical methods of analyzing enumerative data, while social anthropologists often st0p short after detailing 62 these initial processes alone (Boaz, 1920; White, 1955; Powdermaker, 1966). Robert Merton has presented one of the most complete formula- tions available (Merton, 1955:85-102). As evidence of this, we may point out that he is also one of the few modern students of the inquiry process who is cited by practically all discussants of the topic who postdate him, of whatever methodological hue. Merton sug- gests that the inquiry process can be visualized as consisting of approximately eight basic steps. By the "level of refinement" of a theory, then, we will mean "step in the process at which the theory is located," or perhaps, "times the entire process has been per- formed," with regard to a particular theory. .y/ In the first step, the investigator, using a series of experiences of his own and others, gets a "feel" for the general way 111 which the system to be observed Operates, and attempts to discern truase discrete factors which are crucial to this operation. These 1"actors are expressed as general concepts. Merton calls this "gen- eY‘al sociological orientation" (Merton, 1957: 86), saying that it "llivolves broad postulates which indicate the types of variables which are somehow to be taken into account, rather than specifying deter- / rn‘lnate relationships between particular variables." Secondly, according to Merton (1957:89-91), these concepts are specified and clarified; that is, what is to be observed is (1Efined, by making explicit the character of data to be subsumed linder each concept. Presumably, these data sets should be mutually exclusive, but exhaustive of the data field. In practice, these 63 conditions are unfortunately more often honored in the breach than the observance. The third step is proposition formation or the connection of these concepts on a one-to-one basis, in meaningful relationships. Statements of relationship between paired concepts will be called "propositions" in this paper. The terms "axiom" and "theorem" have also been used in this connection; Brodbeck (1959) uses them to distinguish between, respectively, relationships of concepts assumed to be true and relationships of concepts which are to be tested. Other authors, such as Homans (1964) and Camilleri (1962) seem to use them interchangeably. The important point here is that pgg_relation- ship between two concepts is specified in a statement, and that no situational conditions are imposed on the relationship. The fourth step is a continuation ofifiwaprocess started in the third; the concepts are imbedded in an interlocking set of relation- ships--that is, the one-to-one concept relationships are laid out as a mesh, rather than as a set of isolated instances. Merton says, "When propositions are logically interrelated, a theory has been instituted." I would qualify this by not certifying such a schema as a theory until the data points in the research field had been subsumed under one of the concepts which the propositions interrelated, and by inserting the world "all" before "propositions" in Merton's state- ment. Mullins (1971:85-86) highlights this distinction between the first set of interrelated concepts and the final product, developed after considerable testing and refinement, by terming the former a "Prototheory." 64 The fifth step is the breakdown of the theory again into one-to-one relationships, but this time in the form of "If . . . then . . ." statements. These statements should parallel the pr0posi- tions in terms of the concept pairs related, but the concepts should be expressed as specific events, rather than in a general form. The sixth step is the generation of indicators for each con- cept; that is, the elaboration of whgt_particular events and charac- teristics are specific cases of each general behavioral category, or "concept." Seventh, the research "field" must be carefully observed, and the pattern of occurrence of the events and characteristics specified in the previous step are noted. In other words, the data are col- lected and assessed. This step is often termed "measurement." Eighth, the hypotheses being "tested" are reformulated in light of their consistency with the findings; the process is called "empirical generalization," by Merton (1957:92). Finally, the propositions and their interconnected form (the theory) are also reconstructed, and the process of hypothesis formula- tion and testing may begin again, on the basis of the new concepts and their new pattern of relationships. Strictly speaking, of course, these are the same processes as those described under "steps four and five." Thus, the entire cycle is repeated, differing only in the increasing refinement of the concepts and their relationships from which the propositions, and ultimately, the theory, are constructed. It logically follows, therefore, that there are only two sorts (If instances in which empirical observations may be made and a theory 65 set forth, in that order. The first instance occurs at the very beginning of the research process, when no theory is available, and concepts and their relationships are being "intuited" from the observations. The second instance in which this may be done with some degree of appropriateness, is when a theory has been well estab- lished, and its operations under certain known conditions thoroughly catalogued. When the purpose of the investigator is to explain particular on-going situations, he may first make general empirical observations to ascertain precisely what the existing conditions are, in this situation. The observed situation is then explained in terms of the known relationships of the concepts embedded in this theoretical context under these conditions. Merton suggests that this is the core of the clinical process, calling this sort of application of previ- ously developed theories, "post-factum interpretations" (Merton, 1957:90). If we adapt the foregoing scheme, we may visualize the whole process of research as a sort of wave function, with the explanation moving continuously between the parallel axes of field data and theory, as shown on page 66. The upsweep represents the inductive process, or "codification" (Lazarsfeld, 1957), while the downsweep is the deductive process. The three or four steps comprising the first upsweep will be of the most interest for the present study, inasmuch as it proceeds only to the proposition formulation/prototheory border. As discussed earlier, for both logical and practical reasons, 1 different field methods or investigative techniques will be appropriaté’ to different steps in the inquiry process, under particular research 66 Theory Construction Theory Reconstruction Etc. Hypothesis Formulation. Proposition Proposition Reformation Formulation Indicator and Concept Recon- Indicator struction Concept Generation Generation Field Observation Figure 1.--Schematic of the Logical Processes of Theory Construction and Testing. circumstances. In this case, it will not be productive to utilize 1’ methods producing highly quantitative data, since the majority of the concepts to be measured have not been well formulated in discrete dimensions. That is, it is uselessly time-consuming to count various observed phenomena before the precise phenomena to be counted are clearly delineated. Therefore, we must utilize techniques which allow us to observe the largest number of different phenomena possi- ble, and then to convert our observations into a rough classification or preliminary conceptual framework. Selltiz, Cook, Jahoda, and Deutsch (Selltiz et al., 1962:53) call this sort of study that allows for initial organization of experiences and observations, into a conceptual framework, "formulative or explanatory." They suggest that there are certain methods that are often likely to be especially fruitful in the search for important variables and meaningful hypotheses. These methods include (1) a review 67 of the related social science and other pertinent literature; (2) a survey of the people who have had practical experience with the problem to be studied; and (3) an analysis of "insight-stimulating" examples. [Or, as Mullins (1971:36) says, "The concepts in your problem area can come from three major sources: your own experience, the experiences of others as reported to you, and the various other social theories that have been done in the past."] Both Mullins and Selltiz emphasize that these research procedures must be regarded as flexible; that one must melt into another when the situation under observation calls for it, or presents the opportunity. Sjoberg and Nett (1968:168-169) suggest that techniques for assessing a researcher's own experience, which they categorize as being of the "direct observation" type, are often particularly appropriate for the process of "scientific discovery." (This corresponds to the process we have outlined in steps one-four.) They emphasize that scientific observation depends upon the ability of the researcher to sequentially become involved in, and then disengaged from, the on-going social process under investigation. Powdermaker (1966) refers to this as "stepping in and stepping out" of the society being investigated. The flexibility to do this is not efficiently accomplished by the direct personal involvement of the researcher with the research field. The ways in which this is done, and the personal and intellectual problems posed by this process, have been vividly documented by Powdermaker and others. (For three particularly lucid accounts, see Powdermaker, 1966; Gans, 1962; and White, 1955.) 68 During the periods of disengagement, researchers must attempt to make the process in which they have been involved explicit to them- selves and to discern recurrent patterns in their experience of this process. This "reflexive consciousness" is the basis for the initial process of conceptualization and pr0position formulation (Sjoberg and Nett, 1968:172). Sjoberg also notes that researchers may need to combine some ”indirect observation" field techniques, or those tech- niques aimed at assessing the experience of others, with the "direct," in order to gain access to parts of the social process which are defined by the particular culture in which the process occurs as "private." Basically, we find that these parameters of method describe the classic ethnographic technique: intellectually fortified by the written and oral traditions of previous researchers in a particular area, or of a particular process, the investigator proceeds to the area or the geographic and social locus of the process, and becomes immersed in the on-going life of the people of the area. At frequent intervals, the researcher withdraws temporarily from the pattern of action to make a written record of recent experiences and observations. A practical problem often connected with this is finding a plppg_to think and write, apart from the subjects of the research, when the researcher is caught up in their lives. Festinger's research team members, for example (Festinger et al., 1956) were reduced to making notes in the bathroom when doing participant observation of a doomsday group. 69 The researcher, of course, not only takes a direct part in the pattern of life, but utilizes a variety of indirect techniques, eliciting descriptions of this life from its ordinary carriers, as Sjoberg has suggested. The researcher uses informants, examines written records, formal and informal, takes life histories, etc. The precise methods vary, depending on the nature of the substantive field. The types of errors that can be committed are related to the types of techniques utilized. The core of the classical ethnographic method is "participant\/' observation"; involvement, followed by objective introspection. More recently have appeared those techniques which Powdermaker (1966:301) has termed ethnographic semantics or "New Ethnography"--the pure linguistic techniques (see Hymes, 1964) and the spin-offs from them, such as the General Inquirer studies (Stone, Dumphy, Smith, and Ogilvie, 1966). These methods are reminiscent of Zetterberg's version of exploration--a "search for primitive terms" (Zetterberg, 1965:57). Non-participant observation is, of course, also a possible ethnographic technique, although the line between participatory and non-participatory studies is a thin one. By and large, however, all these methods are used by researchers who carry them out in conjunction with classic ethnography (Powder- maker, 1966z39l). In some cases, they may function as participant- observation does, but without requiring the physical presence of the observer in the society in question. For example, researchers may immerse themselves in the folk tales of a culture and descriptive accounts by others of that culture, without actually traveling to the 7O geographic locale of the culture carriers. This is probably psychically possible and productive of valid results only for the seasoned ethnographer who has gone through the process of immersion in other cultures many times. One of the major difficulties of the ethnographic technique, is that it is intensely personal. The researcher j§_the research instrument--personal style is therefore central and crucial. An analogy to the practice of the ethnographic technique might be playing a musical instrument; while there are general techniques which may be taught, and while performance is improved by the continued critical appraisal of others, it is primarily learned through apprenticeship and practice. In its final stages of accomplishment, the ethnography is highly reflective of the individual performer's style. However, if we may carry the analogy a bit further still, it is as unfair to suggest that ethnographies are nonreplicable as it would be to say that a piece of music is not the same when it is performed by different musicians. Although the tonal quality and delivery ofifimaper- formances may vary, their essential structure is dictated by the piece itself (or in the case of ethnography, by the particular socio-cultural entity studies). hisum, ethnographic techniques have often been foundix> be appropriate for providing the data useful hiaccomplishing the first few research tasks. Clearly,the necessityutilize research techniques which, because of their greater structure, make it possible to gather a particular set of information more efficiently, although not allowing for the inclusion of a great many new types of information. In this case, these techniques took the form of printed open-ended questionnaires, largely for practical reasons. Some of the reasons for this were: the addition of relatively inexperienced field researchers to the project group, and a correspond- ingly rapid expansion of the group, so that many different "personal styles" were present in the research group, and some controlling factor was necessary; a highly literate subject population--univer- sity scholars--who were accustomed toiflwepencil-and-paper interview technique, and assigned it some scientific "validity," hopefully enhancing their cooperative tendencies; and the need to collect a large amount of data in a short time--the campus is large, and many of the scholars were senior, so the probability of frequent informal contact with any or all of them was low. Thus, a formal interview situation had to be arranged, which was invariably of fairly short duration; the volume of questions and answers which had to be covered during this interview period demanded that they be written down rather than committed to memory. Also for entirely practical reasons, amounting to high access- ability of the subject population, this stage of the research focused 81 on the interaction of foreign scholars with their American counterparts on American university campuses. The questionnaires were therefore designed to systematically uncover (1) the personal and social- environmental conditions under which contacts between American and foreign scholars were made, (2) the contents of the ensuing inter- actions, and (3) what the personal and social consequences of being involved in such interactions were. Some attempt was also made to trace the types of groups these single interactions blended to become. It was implicitly assumed that, since a "culture" is generally the production of a social group, the interactants in question must create or join such an entity. Fur- ther, it had been explicitly posited that the formation of the bond between the American and foreign scholar was the primary means of induction into such a group. These groups were presumed to be pre- existing entities, and one or the other of the interactants was assumed to be a member, acting as a sponsor for the other. Several of the questions in the interview were thus designed to discover the exact nature of the recruiting groups, and the exact content of the "third culture" which they carried. Two questionnaires were devised, one aimed at senior scholars (Restivo, 1966; Vanderpool, 1966) and the other at the American associ- ates of foreign students (Judy, 1967; Borck, 1966). Both instruments proved to be the first of a series, moving from in-depth face-to- face interviews, involving highly open—ended questions, to the semi- closed-ended mail questionnaires. Although the findings from the first questionnaire in the senior-scholar series were jointly coded by 82 both interviewers, the findings from the second (Restivo, 1971; Vanderpool, 1971) and a closely related study (McCarthy, 1972) were not. Further, the second questionnaire in this series was wholly different from the first, not a revision of it. The instruments were bound together by their substantive focus, and their common author- ship. This, in effect, means that this series of studies may provide interesting and useful background knowledge for the current research, but they do not represent a source of a highly integrated set of findings to which the data from the present study may be compared in detail. Current Study All three research procedures comprising the current study were conducted on the State U. campus and with reference to it. Survey of American Student Associates of Foreign Students The second of the two questionnaire series described above, and that upon which this study was based, was aimed at the American associates of foreign students and was considerably more internally consistent than the first. However, given the interview-schedule format of these sections of the study (a data-collection format often used in conjunction with later stages of theory construction), it seems appropriate here to reemphasize the exploratory nature of this' research. The function of the exploratory survey is to obtain the maximum amount of information possible about a field, rather than to determine where, on a known set of dimensions and under closely 83 specified conditions, the members of a clearly delineated population fall, as it would be in the hypothesis-testing stage of research. The exploratory survey instrument serves as a reminder to the interviewer of all the information he wishes to collect, rather than to "control" for extraneous factors by limiting the information taken in and standardizing the manner in which it is acquired. It offers a wide range of topics to discuss, with a great deal of leeway to follow up other topics suggested by the interviewees. Under these circumstances, the set of interviewees is con- sciously chosen to represent as wide a spectrum of experience in the field as possible, rather than to be strictly representative of the majority experience. Although a technique similar to that used in "random-sampling" may be part of the selection process, this is usually done to obtain the most diverse set of respondents available, when the dimensions along which the experiences of the field participants may differ are largely unknown. It does not, and cannot, constitute a "random sample" for the purposes of applying statistical tests of significance, because the parameters of the sampling population are as yet unknown. This is, however, one technique for obtaining a set of informant/respondents who can provide the broadest overview feasible of the field, although perhaps, under these conditions, one of the least rigorous. With these caveats in mind, then, let us turn to our discus- sion of the method of the survey section of the present investigation. The Respondent Set.--The second questionnaire was administered to 179 American students who were named by 180 foreign students as the 84 American student that they "knew best." The foreign respondent set was composed of 6 sub-sets of 30 foreign students each, for 6 different areas--Western EurOpe, India/Pakistan, Nigeria, Latin America, Thailand, and Japan. The sample was interviewed during the period l965—1968. The decision to look at students was a clear methodological concomitant of our theoretical interest in "contacting" behavior, which required looking at individuals who did not have pre-existing personal-interaction networks in a situation where initial trans- national contacts might occur. Such individuals are most likely to be found in a younger group, for whom this might be the first over- seas experience, in this case, students. The areas of foreign student origin were chosen as those from which to draw the respondent sets on the basis of a number of criteria. First, these areas were those with enough representatives of that nationality or culture area on campus to comprise a population from which a sub-set of 30 might be drawn. Thirty was chosen as the sub- set size because (1) it constituted the maximum number of foreign- student respondents available in the first two studies and (2) it represented the largest number of the proposed interviews that could be conducted by one interviewer in the space of one academic term, a time period considered optimum for reasons outlined in the next section. Secondly, we chose areas for which there was a functioning nationality or area club, or some other organization which compiled the names of the members of a nationality or area set. That is, we 85 selected foreign student populations for which an accessible list of the members existed, for the obvious pragmatic reason. Third, we designated the sub-sets by their identity as per- ceived by most Americans who were in contact with them. These cate- gories were suggested by the pre-survey ethnographic "pilot" investigation of the field, done by each field's prime investigator and the senior research directors. For example, at the time of the study, most American students, even those who regularly associated with foreign students, did not distinguish between Indians and Pakistanis-~therefore, we simply used the representatives of the entire culture area as our population. This decision is perhaps made more comprehensible by the recollection that, at the time the study was begun, we had an implicit conception that the American associates of eggh_sub-set of foreign students constituted a separable group. Thus, it was logical to assume that each American group of this sort sur- rounded, or was integrated with, what the group members perceived as one distinct set of foreign students. It followed that to tap one group of Americans, we should construct our sub-sets of foreign stu- dents to correspond with what the surrounding Americans perceived as one set. Finally, these nations or areas were chosen because they were not, when they were selected, embroiled in any intra- or inter-national or area conflicts. Our reasoning was that involvement of a nation in an altercation might impair the ability of its nationals abroad to relate to members of other nationality contingents. Since our purpose here was explicitly to examine transnational interaction formation in 86 general, it seemed unwise to choose to investigate the relationships of a group for whom some or all transnational contact might be cur- tailed, or significantly altered. Thus, the subpopulations from which the sub-sets were drawn were not randomly selected, but carefully chosen as those in which the mem- berships were largest, documented, and comprised of persons who were likely to be engaged in the process under investigation. Further, we deliberately chose populations whose members were clearly defined by their American associates as a coherent and separate set of individuals. From these highly selective subpopulations the sub-sets were drawn, and the interviews of the named American associates conducted over a period of three academic years, from the fall of 1965 to the spring of 1968. The studies on the Indians and Pakistanis (Judy, 1967) and the Western Europeans (Borck, 1966) were done in 1965-1966, using the first version of the instrument. The studies on the Nigerians and the Latin Americans were done in 1966-1967, using a slightly revised version of the first interview schedule. (Reports of these studies were not written by the three investigators thereof.) The Thai study (Asch, 1968) and the Japanese study (Terry, 1969) were done in 1967-1968, using a major revisiOn of the original schedule as the instrument, as dis- cussed in the next section. Thus, all told, six separate sub-sets were drawn from six separate subpopulations, at three different periods in time, by seven different researchers. All these studies were done under the supervision of the two senior researchers mentioned previously, Professors John and Ruth Hill 87 Useem. This was an important factor in the maintenance of the conti- nuity and comparability in the sections of this multipartite research. This is entirely appropriate in exploratory research, where there are as yet few or no rigorously defining conditions, for, and dimensions of, the phenomena under consideration, the search for these being the concern of this stage of the research process. Therefore, one of the few possible sources of consistency in such research is the inves- tigator; and this critical function was performed by the senior directing researchers, in this case. Each different sub-set of the total sample was drawn as a proportionally stratified set from the campus population of foreign students from that area. In most cases, the "campus population" of a particular set of foreign students was determined by the membership list of the appropriate nationality organization. Every foreign student of that nationality, who was processed through the foreign student office, automatically belonged to the organization--and all foreign students were required by the university to go through this office. Ergo, the membership lists should have represented the total nationality subpopulation. The dimensions of stratification were sex, graduate/undergradu- ate status, and off- versus on-campus residence. Although the sub-sets of foreign students were proportionally representative on these dimensions of the nationality or culture area subpopulations from which they Were drawn, the same is not true of the subpopulations vis-a-vis the total population. Because each subpopulation differed in size from the others, while the sub-sets were numerically equal, 88 the nationality/culture area groups are disproportionally represented in the total respondent set. In point of fact, we should note that subpopulations themselves were not entirely conceptually equivalent, some being drawn from culture areas--Western Europe, Latin America, India/Pakistan--and others from single nations--Nigeria, Thailand, and Japan. Each sub-set, therefore, contributed somewhat differently to the whole. These subpopulation units were originally chosen to provide individual subpopulations of at least 30 from which each sub-set of 30 could be drawn. They must, therefore, be understood as 6 generally comparable but distinct respondent sets. Their results may be con- jointly examined, but their combination cannot be treated as a single independent random sample for statistical purposes in hypothesis testing. However, since this is intended as an exploratory tool, the combined results should be quite useful, in pointing up general behavioral and attitudinal trends that will serve as the bases for our first-order conceptualizations. Even if this sub-set is not proportionally representative of, nor randomly drawn from, the entire population of foreign students on the State U. campus, the reported experiences are nevertheless those of a substantial proportion of the total foreign student popu- lation. Of the 1,253 foreign students present on the campus in the fall of 1968, one term after the last of the 6 sub—sets was drawn, the set of 180 foreign students would have represented over 14% of the total. The total foreign student population comprised only 3.1% 89 of the entire student body of 40,000 at that time (Institute of Inter- national Education, l969z9). This tiny subpopulation differed from the student body as a whole on a number of dimensions besides nationality/ethnicity: 83% were graduate students, while this was true of only 19.2% of the stu- dent body in general. They were, therefore, also older, more likely to be married, and further on in their professional careers than the majority of the State U. population. Further, 80% of the foreign students in the set named as associates of American students were male, while the total campus population was split 58.7% male, 41.3% females; however, the graduate student population was split 73.4% male, 26.6% female. In short, although the foreign students were generally dissimilar to American midwestern state university undergraduates, the foreign students were somewhat more similar to the graduate student population at State U. Each of the foreign student respondents drawn from each of these distinctive subpopulations of foreign students was asked to name the five American students that he or she "knew best," and then to indicate if any of these were particularly "good friends." This question was ultimately posed on the telephone to each foreign student respondent, all of whom had previously received a letter detailing the purpose of the study, and stating the inter- viewer's intent to call the foreign student. The response rate for this was excellent; less than 8% of those contacted refused to give the interviewer this information. 90 From the total set of American names thus collected, a further sub-set was drawn (N = 30) for each set of Americans named by one sub- set of foreign students. This American student sub-set was stratified as to sex, on- or off-campus residence, and graduate/undergraduate academic level. From these categories a proportional respondent set was drawn for each sub-set of foreign students, which contained as many "good friends" and roommates as possible. An attempt was made to choose at least one person from each foreign student's list, and to include all those persons who were mentioned by more than one foreign student. All others necessary to make up the correct propor- tions in each category were drawn from the remaining names in that category by a "randomizing" process. The members of the American student sub-sets thus constructed were contacted by telephone by the prime investigator for that subpopu- lation, and asked if they would participate in the study. Again. the response rate was excellent, ranging from no refusals of the initial American sub-set members drawn from the Thai sub-set to three (10%) in the Western European American student associates' sub-set. A total of 30 American associates of each foreign student sub-sets, except the Nigerians, was eventually interviewed. The "American associ- ates of Nigerians" sub-set had only 29 members. Therefore, the total respondent set of American student associates of foreign students con- tained 179 members. 91 One problem that arose here was that, although the American respondent set was obtained by asking a stratified set of foreign students to name their American student (same-sex) friends, the American was asked to respond in terms of his/her closest (same-sex) foreign student associate. Since confidentiality forbade our revealing the name of the foreign student to the named American, complete mutu- ality was not necessarily achieved, even as to area. For example, an American named as a "closest" associate by a Thai might, in turn, name a Japanese student as higiher"closestfbreign student friend." Although the interviewers encouraged the American to answer with reference to a foreign student from the proper geographic area, even this was not always possible. The 179 foreign student associates actually named by the American students included 32 Japanese, 30 Europeans, 30 South Americans, 30 Indians, 29 Nigerians, and 28 Thais. Time Frame of the Study.--Each set of 30 interviews of a par- ticular American sub-set was conducted during the spring term of an academic year. This was intended to allow even newly arrived members of the foreign student sub-sets two prior academic terms to meet and relate to American students. This also largely confined the study to the American student associates of one particular group of foreign students, since the major turnover in the foreign student population occurs in the summer. This latter factor was of interest because we were also con- cerned with the interconnections between the Americans. Since we assumed at this time that one coherent group of Americans might surround 92 each separate group of foreign students, it therefore behooved us to hold this latter group constant. This was especially true inasmuch as we were yet unsure of the longitudinal continuity between the group of American students surrounding a particular nationality group one year and the group of Americans surrounding the next year's group of that nationality. Therefore, we contained the group by conducting the interviews in one academic term; within these, the student popu- lation, American and foreign, tends to remain relatively stable. However, the three successive springs when these interviews were conducted represented periods of turmoil on the State U. campus. This was midway through the time of massive civil protests on the American campus in general; that political epoch which started with the civil rights movement in the early sixties, and ended with the nation-wide campus student strike in the spring of 1970. Within its boundaries fell the Vietnam war and the peace movement, the Kennedy and King assassinations, the rise of the drug cults, the black power movement, and the classroom revolution, the latter coupled with the demand for "relevant" academics. This period might be characterized as one of rebound from the political apathy and generalized acceptance of societal directions of the 19505; the search for alternatives in values, attitudes, and lifestyles became valued in and off itself, for a substantial propor- tion of the university population (Roszak, 1968). Americans in particular became highly involved with the restructuring of their own society and were, therefore, less interested in other societal forms, except as these constituted potential alternative lifestyle models for 93 the Americans themselves. It was also a period of tremendous intra- societal anxiety and hostility, with which many societal members felt unequipped to cope (Toffler, 1970:305-326). The full impact of this upon the research is a matter of sur- mise; but the tendency of Americans during this period to view strangers with hostility and distrust, and to actively conceal whole sets of their activities, did not enhance the open-ended research situation. We might also speculate that it had an effect upon the subject by affecting the ability of Americans to form transnational relationships. The international scene during this period was also troubled. It included big-power involvement in southeast Asia, and the rise of Chinese Communism to a world power level, the Indian-Pakistani war and the situation in Bangladesh, the Nigerian-Biafran conflict, and the escalation of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Many of the "developing nations" came into their own economically and politically, and began to resent the instrusion of Western funds, Western educators and researchers, and the Western military establishment into their affairs. Although they were still in need of Western technological expertise, they did not desire to import Western cultures wholesale, in order to obtain it. All these events were reflected in the foreign student population and their relationships with Americans in a variety of ways. First, and most unfortunate from the standpoint of our research, was the demise of the International Club in the winter of 1968-1969, as a result of the Indian-Pakistani conflict” 'This had been an organization which was composed of foreign students of all 94 nationalities, and included many interested Americans. It had spon- sored a number of well attended functions, and had constituted an obvious site fbr transnational contact. In pragmatic terms, its disappearance meant that no formal structure marking a transnational "community" existed. The breakdown of the organization was also undoubtedly con- tributed to by the fierce nationalism that had arisen in many of the "developing countries." Students representing these on the State U. campus no longer wished to be thought of simply as "foreign students," but as nationals of their specific countries--Brazilians, Thais, Kenyans. A further consequence of this nationalism was a movement by these states to gain Western technological knowledge while retaining their own national culture(s) and identity. One means of accomplishing this was to send a significantly different sort of person overseas to study and these to study significantly different areas. The first "foreign students" from these nations had been the young sons (and sometimes daughters) of the traditional elite, or their direct replacements from the new urban-industrial bourgeoise, as the struc- tures of these societies changed. 'Hweliberal arts, usually under- graduate,education they sought was abstract and intended to enhance only the personal lifestyle of the student. The new "foreign student" from these areas was an older pro- fessional with an established occupational identity, committed to, and with an investment in, the nation and its development, who was therefore interested in obtaining skills that would be of service in 95 practicing his profession. These students were interested in educa- tion, agriculture, engineering, business, and were more inclined to spend their time at the university, which was often very short in educational terms, acquiring the knowledge and skills which they intended to carry home. The formation of relationships with members of other nationality groups was strictly peripheral to their purpose, as was an understanding of the host nation's people and culture. This new purpose for acquiring a western education was accom- panied by a much larger influx of foreign students to the State U. campus. The number of students from the Far East in the U.S. went from approximately 9,000 in 1953 to 43,000 in 1968; for Latin Americans, during the same period, the increase was from 8,000 to 23,300; for Europeans, from 6,100 to 16,300; for students from the Near and Middle East, from 4,000 to 14,000; for North Americans, from 5,000 to 13,000; and for Africans, from 1,000 to 7,000. This increase was reflected on the State U. campus, which went from 375 foreign students in 1953 to 1,198 in 1968 (Institute for International Education, 1969). Although this rise in the number of foreign students at State U. provided more potential transnational contactees, it also meant that sizable nationality contingents arose on the campus. These could pro- vide sufficient internal opportunities for companionship for their members so as to insulate them from representatives of other nation- ality groups. This was functional for these nationality contingents, given the threat the "Brain Drain" phenomenon posed to the pool of educated manpower of these developing nations at this time. Further, these contingents could act as mutual encouragement societies, and in 96 some instances as watchdogs, to insure (1) that members of that nationality set on campus assiduously adhered to their main purpose-- the acquisition of useful and transportable knowledge and skills, and (2) that their co-nationals did not become over-Americanized, particularly when such acculturation would make it difficult for that national to return to his or her homeland. Thus, the mass influx of foreign students to the State U. campus during the 15-year period pre- ceding and inclusive of this study, may have acted to depress the opportunities for transnational contact between American students and fOreign students. The growth of the nationality contingents and the new-nation nationalism had several consequences for the conduct of the survey, particularly when these contingents were formalized as "nationality clubs." First, they provided ready-made lists of members of particular nationality groups. Since the clubs were registered with the foreign student office, the directories of member-names they compiled were available to us. Secondly, they formed a barrier to access to the individual members--for example, members of the Thai contingent would say they spoke no English and hang up when first contacted by phone. However, the officers of these clubs and contingent leaders were able to perform a legitimizing function for the researchers with the members, when their cooperation had been enlisted. In the case of the sub-set mentioned above, Thais who had abruptly refused to answer inquiries prior to this legitimation were entirely helpful, cooperative, and English-speaking at the next contact. Finally, the contingents sometimes attempted to perform a selective function, by 97 refusal to list names, or acknowledge the existence of co-nationals whose behaviors the contingent regarded as undesirable, and whom, therefore, they did not want represented in the study. In the Thai case, two brothers and their sister who had become very Americanized were ostracized by the contingent, and only discovered by accident through a Japanese contact. In balance, it is difficult to say whether the development of new-nation nationalism and the separate nationality contingents during this historical period was an aid or a hindrance in the conduct of this research; but the total effect of these elements of the field cannot be denied. The fact that research was carried out at this particular time was reflected in the size and the nature of both the American student and the foreign student populations on campus. These population conditions affected both our substantive field (transnational contact situations) and our ability to approach it, particularly in terms of visibility, accessibility, and receptivity of the subjects who comprised it. The Instrument.--The interview with the American associates of foreign students was conducted with the aid of a structured research instrument, composed of a schedule of 342 questions, largely open- ended in format. The final revised form, which was used in the Thai and Japanese studies, is reproduced as Appendix A. This was the third draft of the questionnaire, but constituted the single major revision of the original. This revision consisted only of additional questions, expansions of existing questions, or the construction of closed-ended questions from open-ended ones. 98 The latter procedure employed the answers given to a question in the first four studies as the basis for constructing a check-list of answers to the question, which were utilized in the last two studies. The questions chosen appeared to have high construct validity, and an open category for new answers was always included in the lists. This technique allowed respondents to code their own answers to the question, which considerably expedited later compilation of the data gathered in these final studies, and hopefully gained in accuracy of interpretation of answers what it lost in flexibility. The reader should realize that this instrument was not con- structed with the present study in mind, but was originally simply intended to gather as much information as possible about the inter- action of American students and foreign students. For the purposes of the present investigation, we selected from the total set of questions comprising the instrument, a subset, the collective answers to which we proposed to examine. These subset questions were chosen for their potential usefulness as indicators of (a) the concepts, and (b) the relationships of these, as these were specified in our research ques- tions. The instrument was divided roughly into ten sections: (1) demographic characteristics of the American respondents (ques- tions 1-9, 12a); (2) mobility characteristics of the American stu- dents (questions 12b-l3, 87); (3) a review of the American students' foreign contacts and development of foreign interests (questions 10, 14-19, 88); (4) a description of the American students' relationship with foreign students in general (questions 20-23, 25-27, 89-90); 99 (5) feelings of the Americans student about associations of different types with foreign students, and their perceptions of others' reactions to these associations (questions 91-96, 28-32); (6) a description of the particular foreign student associate of the American student and how contacted (questions 33-35, 97); (7) a description of the relation- ship of the American student with the foreign student (questions 36-40, 44-55, 62); (8) the American's feelings about and perceptions of the relationship and the foreign student (questions 56-60, 68); (9) changes in the respondents' attitudes and future plans due to the interaction W'i th the foreign student (questions 63-67, 69-70, 72-73); and (10) the respondent's description of his/her relationship to American society in general (question 65). Before attempting to answer the research questions posed 63"”V‘1 ier, we first determined the demographic characteristics of the respondent pool and their foreign student associates. To do so we uS‘ed the answers to questions 1-9 and 12a, which dealt with the ir‘eiiipondents' sex, age, marital status, background similarity with the 'Y‘Eisgular social partner of the opposite sex, academic level and major, 1Filther's occupation, mother's occupation, family ethnic background, aYld neighborhood and community types where the respondent grew up. The answers to questions 33a-d, f-h, and j were used to Characterize the foreign student. These dealt with country of origin, sex, age, marital status, academic rank and major, whether this major was the same as the American's, and the American student's perception of the foreign student's socioeconomic class. Of these character- istics, only the first was significantly predetermined by our research lOO technique, inasmuch as we purposely chose the American respondent set to be equally divided into 6 subsets of associates with 6 different foreign student nationality subsets. It was therefore asked only as a check on the accuracy of our respondent-selection technique. We also characterized the respondents in terms of mobility, using questions 12b-13, and 87. These dealt with the number of homes the respondents had before entering college, the number after entering col lege, the respondents' perceptions of themselves as geographically mob-i le persons, travel outside the U.S., and the number and identi- ti es of the countries in which the respondents had lived, traveled ex tensively, or vacationed. As well as having interest in whp the contactants were, we ”are also concerned with discovering the circumstances in which the Contact was effected. To tap this, we used the information from q'«lestion 35, which dealt with the conditions under which the American weSpondent had met the foreign student they knew best from the appro- Dh‘i ate sub-set area. It should be noted here that, as previously Stated, we were interested in how particular individuals, and the S‘ihgle relationships between them, interacted to form social level erltities. Therefore. we utilized exclusively the questions dealing With the relationship between the American respondent and one par- ticular foreign student as our data-generating sources. The method of choosing the respondents for this part of the study preselected, at least partially, for persons for whom the first research question should be anSwered in the affirmative. That is, for these respondents, the occurrence of the contacting + interacting 101 process was nearly a foregone conclusion. However, the other problem raised by the first research question dealt with the type of inter- action established. Question 36 dealt with the guality of the relation- ship that had been formed, classifying foreign students as "best friends," "good friends," "academic friends," "acquaintance," or "disliked." Aside from the use of the answers to this as an assess- r ment of the general distribution of relationship depth within the DOpulation, we also utilized these data as indicators of the quality 0": the contacting + interacting -> networking process. We did this 1: t1)! czcarrelating the interaction formed with the conditions leading to its occurrence. This seemed particularly appropriate, given that absO‘lute occurrence was preselected for by the data-gathering tech- ni Clues, so that occurrence/non-occurrence under preselected conditions could not, in effect, be investigated here. The other dimension of the first research question concerned the substantive basis of the interaction, that of interest described 9anWerally in the research questions as "professional/intellectual" an(:l/or "social." This was investigated by asking what the respondent E‘rhi the foreign student did together in the company of others (ques- trlons 40a-p), did together alone (questions 39a-p), and talked about together (questions 49a-j). The second research question connected the association of American students and foreign students in the present with the occurrence of similar associations in the past or present. This was measured from past to present (ex post facto longitudinally) by asking present correspondents of foreign students what their contacts with 102 "people and things foreign" had been in their pre-college days (questions 89a-g) and present associates of foreign students--the entire sample--what their most significant contact with foreign students had been prior to college (question 15). Non-longitudinally, this was measured by asking how many foreign students the respondents knew (question 17), how much free time was spent with them (question 27), and whether the respondent was introduced to foreign students or the particular foreign student associate by other Americans (ques- tions 18d, 35). The third research question concerned the link between these associations and/or this pattern of association, and the same or simi 'lar associations, or patterns of association, in the future. As ind‘icators of this, we used the Americans' report of their plans to corltinue the relationship with the particular foreign student associ- 6‘1:”Ei in the future, even in the presence of disadvantages (questions 67, 67a), after the foreign student returned home (question 59), and if “QTationships between the U.S. and the foreign students' country were SS1twained (question 60). In addition, we considered the American's "Eariort of how this contact would be maintained (question 59a). As a Thlnal indicator, we used the Americans' reported desire to have had mOre contact with foreign students (question 72) and the reasons for their answer to this (question 73). To tap the resemblance of the interactions, formed by the respondents with foreign students, to those formed by the respondents with other Americans, we simply asked directly how the respondents' behavior differed when with the foreign student (questions 44a-k) and 103 how the respondents' relationship with the foreign student differs from that with other Americans (question 56a). Thus, from the master schedule, we used a subset of 111 ques- tions, to investigate the research questions posed herein. Procedure.--The interviews with the Americans took from one arni a half to three hours; they were held in private offices and allowed for an uninterrupted space of time. The responses to the interview and a short evaluation of the researcher's overall impres- i Sions of the interview (the respondent, the situation, etc.) were VVY‘i t:ten during or immediately after the interview itself. While the final two sets of interviews, with the American student associates of the Thai and Japanese students were being con- duCted, a code book was written for the four sub-studies which had been done to this point. When the latter two sub-studies were com- :31 eted, the code book was revised to allow for additional material (1‘:>T\tained in these and the data from all six studes were coded. The ‘(:(3<1ed data were then punched onto Hollerith cards. Using two pro- gV‘ams written by the Computer Institute for Social Science Research at Michigan State University, PERCOUNT and ACT II, percentage counts ‘3? all the variables were run, and contingency tables on American Student-foreign student relationship types versus other factors Selected for their ability to shed light on the research questions, as indicated above. 104 Multimethod Study of the Context of the Interaction The second phase of the current investigation was designed as a multipart study which would fill in the background of the particular trans-societal contact situations discussed in the interviews, as well as fill in gaps in the information produced by the first three .1 cnxestionnaires. I proposed to do a brief ethnography of the American campus, a mail survey of the respondents to the previous question- naires, and a series of semi-structured interviews with a selected and, I7<3F3€3fU11y, representative set of non-student associates of foreign Students. I immediately launched the first project; eventually found 't'1E3 second impossible; and started, then reconstructed, the third. I“"1 these techniques are, of course, appropriate to the exploratory c"‘ (iescriptive stages of the inquiry process--that is, they served to formulate concepts and generate propositions connecting these. An ethnographic method of some sort was the obvious choice for ‘t;}1€3 first step of the research. The process of investigation was (2“12 suggest specific, or preconceptualized dimensions of the condi- Conversely, t‘i ons of occurrence and the content of the relationship. tirlfie data from one semi-structured interview are less comparable to thOse from another, than the data from one structured interview schedule ‘1‘) another. In short, the purpose of such a technique, in this case, is It:<3 ‘focus on particular relationships without conceptualizing these "Eelationships along a predetermined set of dimensions. The Ethnography.--An ethnography was done of the American cam- !)us because little was known of the nature of a third culture's Correspondence to or divergence from the embedding "host culture", this segment of the research was thus still at the concept-formulation . stage. In the course of this ethnography, I relied primarily on two participant observation and the use of informants. techniques: Participant observation was partially a natural conse- quence of my own lifestyle; I had lived and worked on American 107 campuses for the past ten years. As a graduate student, instructor, ore-medical student, and a faculty wife for six years, I had access to several levels of campus life, and was able to do a good deal of participant observation by simply taking advantage of experiences available to me in my normal life-round. The subpopulations to which I had ready access in this way were: the faculty and students of a snnall "liberal arts college" sector of the university; several sectors C>f’ the academic "agricultural" community; the faculty and students of 5 Several graduate departments; and the occupants of the "married 11C>Lassing" complexes. I also had extensive opportunities to observe '1'1C1eergraduate and graduate classroom, library, study room, and 1 aboratory situations. I still felt the lack of information about many other sectors, 1. hC:'|uding many of the undergraduate and single graduate students, hQwever. Therefore, I determined to set about observing these sub- :3‘313u1ations in a more structured way. I systematically spent periods ()‘f’ observation in a representative set of the areas in which single E31"aduate students were found, including graduate study rooms in (165partmental buildings, laboratories, several local taverns, private ll"esidences, and the lobby, cafeteria, studies, lounges, and residence rooms of the Graduate Dormitory. In some of these, I was introduced by a "sponsor" as a friend (not an investigator); in others, I simply entered, seated myself in an unobtrusive spot, and observed. I took my field notes under the guise of studying from a book. To determine the range of areas in which this population was found, I first utilized members of the population as informants. 108 ‘1 was also able to discuss my own observations and interpretations with several of these population members--this proved of invaluable aid in "checking" the accuracy and reasonableness of my findings. The undergraduates posed different problems; first, the size of this campus sector was very large, both in numbers and physical dispersion. Secondly, it was more difficult for me to participate or observe undergraduate-dominated situations unobtrusively, due to my age (mid-twenties) and the political tenor of the late 19605, which led to suspicion of observant older strangers. Eventually, informants Proved the most productive source of data on undergraduates. These were drawn from a variety of sources, although my students, in Particular, provided a substantial number. All the ethnographic field notes were kept in a folder, along ”i th short summaries and notes on conceptual insights that arose from the field experience. The results of this phase of the study are pre- sented in the section, Data Analysis and Findings, which follows. The Mail Survey.--I had intended to do a follow-up mail survey of the respondents to the original questionnaire. The intent was to See Whether the life patterns reported during the interviews had ChanQed, and whether contact had been maintained with the foreign St”dent associate. This latter proved impractical, for several rea- SQ . n3 - First, a complete list of the original respondents did not exist. all but two of these had been destroyed after the original 3 , , . tud‘les to preserve the respondents' anonym1ty. Second, current a ddr‘esses for the individuals on the remaining lists were not always a . vallable; many of the sample members had left the university purview 109 Several years ago, and had not advised the alumni office of their whereabouts. Of these, I assumed that only approximately two-thirds might be induced to respond, given the usual rate of return (about 60%) for mail surveys. This process of elimination reduced the sub-set of interest to five persons, while the survey still promised to be expensive and time-consuming. Therefore, this means of data- gathering was abandoned, and the information which it had been intended to gather was collected largely in the next phase of the study. The Semi-Structured Interviews.--Finally, I attempted to interview a highly selected set of the non-student associates of foreign students, to "fill in" the picture of the bounded set of mean- ingful relationships, which we still assumed to be an internationally- Or‘iented "group," in which the foreign student was imbedded. Thus, I assumed that the inquiry was at the latter stages of concept genera- tion . and the early stages of proposition formulation. In other Wor‘ds, I felt that "third culture," "binational groups," and several rel ated concepts adequately described the components of the situation, and Was interested in generating a few new concepts to organize some unexplained fringes of the situation. Further, I wished to find the Speci fic ways in which these previously--and newly--generated concepts he] ated to one another. Therefore, I designed a semi-structured interview, to focus on the relations of the concepts already set forth, while also providing enou9h leeway for the interviewer to explore new possibilities as they arose. (See Appendix B.) This consisted primarily of a set SchEdule of open-ended questions, laced with a large number of probes. 110 The questions themselves focused on the relationship between the interviewees and the foreign students with whom their positions brought them into contact. I restricted the interview time to an absolute maximum of two hours; in several cases, the interviewee and I met twice, in one-hour sessions. - For the interviewees, I selected two people from the adminis- F trat'i ve staff of the foreign student office, two from the non- admi nistrative staff, two from the English language center, and four from different sectors of the community volunteer organization whose 1 Purpose is to orient and assist newly arrived foreign students. This comunity organization has official status with the University, Occupying office space, and utilizing university services. I used the members of the set selected as a reference source for other Possible types of associates of foreign students, ultimately approxi- mat91y tripling the original number of interviewees, and adding ten Other. from exogenous sources. This "snowballing" process was carried out by soliciting the names of other persons in the respondent's professional/social t"ans-societal networks and following up on a number Of these, although at this point I made a conscious effort to find different "types" of people who were involved in trans-societal networking. In a quarter 01: the cases, this meant talking to people I discovered by pure hat)Penstance in the course of my investigation, for periods of time Va"‘Aiing from a half-hour to several evenings. Altogether, I formally interviewed eleven persons for periods 0 . . 1: two hours or more, conducted 1nterv1ews of one-half to one hour 111 with nine more, and generated short, but highly focused interchanges with approximately another twenty-~a total of some forty individual interviews. I wrote a full account of all formal interviews immedi- ately upon returning from them, and kept field notes on the inter- views conducted in more informal settings. The assessment of these findi ngs will be presented in the section which follows the methodo- log i cal sumnary. Prob1 ems in the Research/ I_nterim Solutions At several junctures in the investigative process, difficulties arose which significantly changed the course of the research. The F‘i rst of these occurred during the coding of the results of the inter- Views conducted in the six studies of American (student) associates of 1“‘Or‘eign students, the first phase of the current study. It became c1 ear that, although a very rich set of data had been generated, the type of interview responses and thus, the resultant data constructs, d'i 1:1‘7ered widely from interviewer to interviewer, as well as between SChedule revisions. For example, one interviewer had a tendency to stimulate or record only simple dichotomies as responses, while other inter‘viewers recorded highly qualified answers to the identical ques- tion . ("I might consider making friends with an Arab here on campus, but not in my home town," and "No” might both be typical answers to the same question, when posed by different interviewers.) These r esDonses were, needless to say, extremely difficult to code under the s ame schema. 112 Another problem arose during the change-over in coding super- vision; when the coders were temporarily bereft of a decision-maker, they would often solve coding dilemmas by constructing new coding categories. Often, these were not at the same level of abstraction as the other categories, nor arranged on the same theoretical dimen- sions ; consequently, the N's for these categories were extremely sma‘l 1 , and the categories themselves essentially uncollapsible, after the fact. Nor could the response categories be arranged on anything approaching a continuum, after this treatment. Lack of a random sample, of course, and construction of codes from the data alga}; its collection, should be a sufficient deterrent to doing a statistical analysis of variance of findings. Further, it is always inappropriate to run statistical tests dependent on random- heSS and independence of, respectively, the set of respondents and the answers to the questions on the interview schedule, during this Stage of the inquiry process. Since the population of interest is hot established until after the theory is formulated, a random sample Cannot be drawn from it at this juncture. Also, since questions on a Schedule are often designed to elicit a listing of specific behaviors which fit into one general category (that is, the substantive phe- nomeha and occurrences to which a concept refers) they obviously cannot be precoded. Randomness of the answers is negated by ex post facto data construction processes (Hays, 1963:596-597). Finally, in this Case s the realization that 80% of the cell N's were under five, and t he”: none of the data could approximate interval order, convinced us 1: hat such a procedure would have been entirely unjustified. ll3 At any rate, in studies at this stage of inquiry, the researcher is still trying to determine what the pattern of behavior is, and the conditions under which particular behaviors occur. He is not trying to _tgs_t the likelihood that a particular behavior will occur under known conditions. The data gathered through interviews of this type can only be understood and treated, statistically and otherwise, at a descriptive level; they should not be mistaken for data of another kind. A third problem, of a slightly different nature, became evi- dent during the first few semi—structured interviews--those conducted With American non-student associates of foreign students, during the second phase of the current study. Immediately upon beginning these interviews, it became abun- dantly clear that the informants were not forming the sort of close interpersonal relationships with foreign students which I had planned to Study. In fact, the formation of such relationships was actively di s(:ouraged for university employees in the foreign student office (for professional reasons), and somewhat antithetical to the expressed pu‘V‘Doses of the community organization. However, far from being “891 ess, these interviews proved to be a very valuable source of information, in a manner different than originally anticipated. To put it briefly, the interviewees were, indeed, members of thawW's-societal entities, but these entities did not include the 1rov‘eign student advisees of the community and university personnel. Rapt-her, the membership of these tended to be other Americans who had a] 30 had trans-societal experiences (as had most of the foreign 114 Student office and comnunity organization personnel) or senior foreign nationals who had been abroad to the same regions as the Americans. These findings will be discussed in greater detail later--suffice it to say that I found that I was discovering a great deal about trans- societal interactions, while obtaining very little positive informa- '1" tion about the interactions of foreign students on an American campus. By this time, the analysis of the earlier interview data had been completed, and I was searching for a way of explaining it. It was quite clear that the American student associates of foreign stu- dents were not forming groups. It was also clear that the non-student associates of foreign students were behaving in a similar fashion, buxia that they did participate in a large number of trans-societally- Oriented interactions. Logically, this meant that the concepts that had been generated needed to be re-examined, before propositions were formulated from them. Again, fortuitously, I had used the term "networking" as a Way ofdescribing the way groups were formed, when designing this set of background studies. Having finished the data analysis, I was r‘esearching the literature on this topic, and began to realize that the term had connotations which made it vary substantially from my Usage of it. In actuality, "networking" referred to the creation of a "network," which was a considerably different entity than a "group." (See the previous section, Networking, contained herein.) The notion of "network" cast a great deal of light on the Findings from the first set of questionnaires, and also made sensible the experience I had been having in the latest interviews. What had 115 been occurring was this: after trying fruitlessly to establish a picture of the relationship between the interviewees and one or more of their foreign student charges, and evoking only statements about proper formal procedures and educational philosophies, I had turned to investigating the other trans—societal contacts of my respondents. In trying to construct frameworks or patterns for these, I found that I was eliciting whole life-space chronologies of such contacts. Practically, this meant that I was taking abbreviated life-histories. However, the immediate effect of this theoretical emphasis sh1‘ ft--or, to put it another way, the revision of the concept "bina- ti onal group"--was to shift my interviewing focus from the attempt to establish group parameters to (an effort to discern the networking mechanism. I was no longer as concerned with whom the interviewees knew, as with how they had come to know them. At this point, having generated a more appropriate way of conceptualizing a puzzling part 01’ the situation described, the study returned to the proposition- fOY‘mulation stage, using the life-space interview, focused on a par“ticular type of experience, as the descriptive-study field technique. W The whole thrust of the discussion here has been to show the heCessity for, and the practical possibility of, a constant interplay between theoretical development and methodological technique. In the L3"‘0<:ess of making this case, one of the major complicating factors in the implementation of theory-method resonance has become apparent-- Continuous reciprocity of this kind sullies the pure lines of the I.‘ ' -: in}; ‘1 . 116 typical "scientific” research design. Instruments must be changed while in use. samples redrawn, etc., while the very state of the inquiry may appear to move backwards more quickly than it moves ahead. However, our case in point is also a clear argument for the necessity of separating logical rigor from technical tidiness, since a new and useful conceptual approach, or explanation of behavior ("networking") would have most probably been ignored had we been adamantly comnitted to one instrument, one sample, or one theoretical framework. Therefore, I would argue that it is such logical clarity, rather than neatness of method, that constitutes science. [firs-2"... 6'3". - .' SECTION III FINDINGS INTRODUCTION Chapter $3.. PRIMARY ETHNOGRAPHIC DATA The University Campus . Three Campus Lifestyles The Formal Academic Setting . The Married Students The Single Grad . Summary . . 59'. QUANTITATIVE FINDINGS: THE AMERICAN STUDENT ASSOCIATES OF FOREIGN STUDENTS STUDY Summary: The Typical American Student-Foreign Student Dyad . . . . . 1 (3.. SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS: THE ”BEEN-T05" 117 Page 118 119 119 125 129 133 143 157 165 180 203 INTRODUCTION Three major bodies of data can be seen to have been generated, in the course of this study: primary ethnographic data on the univer— sity campus context, quantitative data from the structured interviews on the one-to-one relationships of American and foreign students, and Secondary ethnographic data from the semi structured interviews on the relationships within the American-emanating sector of the "international academic network" on the campus. We will present them in the order h”Sted, in an attempt to allow them to provide, respectively, a picture 01: the social ground within which the relationships studied occurred, the Substantive content of these relationships, and, finally, the basis For the major reinterpretation of these relationships that occurred during the process of the investigation. 118 n. h-‘AL-J-h. "A .K‘I'VAEL-j .‘1 CHAPTER 8 PRIMARY ETHNOGRAPHIC DATA The University_Campus The first impressions one had of this classic Midwestern "state university" campus in the mid-60$ would have been somewhat conflicting: one would have been struck simultaneously by the tremendous diversity :1 and the overwhelming homogeneity. Probably the most obvious (and therefore, an easily ignored) source of this duality was the physical plant itself. Older buildings in the best College Gothic and Victorian gingerbread traditions C] UStered along winding, tree-lined drives on the "old section" of the camDUS. Residence halls (sex-segregated) were interspersed with play- ~"‘9 fields, a picturesque belltower square, traditional classroom bu-i 1 dings, and the home of the university president. This serene complex was separated by a wide street from the busi ness section of the pleasant medium-sized town in which the uni- VeV‘Sity was (and is) located. The business section itself was then a SD"‘awl of clothing, book and trinket shops, quick-stop food stores. restaurants, theatres, and service agencies, all catering to the Dr‘eS‘umably affluent university population. The town contained the fraternities, religious houses, co-ops, corrmunes, and apartment build- 1 ”93 that housed a substantial portion of the student body. (Residence ha 1 1 S were, at that time, regarded as the least desirable form of 119 120 housing by many students.) Businessmen, independent professionals, and university faculty made up the vast majority of the non-student p0pu— lation of the town, with the exception of the residents of some decaying fringe areas that bordered the adjacent medium—sized industrial city. Beyond the university town, away from the city, were newer residential suburbs, shopping centers, and the large chain discount- dnd-grocery stores, most of which had arisen in the early 60s and were 0-5 years old, at the time of the study. There was, in the mid- to late-60$, little or no public transportation to these areas--they were basi cally only accessible by car. The net effect of this was to make h'V‘i ng off-campus in the town (without a car) expensive, and rather circumscribed in terms of consumer goods, albeit attractive for a vari ety of other reasons. Returning to the campus, beyond the ”old campus” was the new. Here . ivyless, buildings rose steeply from the flat green fields, the 1 atter only recently claimed from the bordering experimental farms. The areas between the buildings were wide, and the streets long and Straight, while the sapling trees which lined them were dwarfed by t . he high-rise brick-and-glass dormitories. Bicycle paths striped t . he Well-mown grass between the massive new research facilities, the QT ant classroom-dormitory complexes, and the stadium-intramural area. Th i 3 new campus was, in many ways, a monument to the post-Sputnik boom 01: the late l960s in natural science, physical fitness, and mass edu- cat‘i On. It was the domain of agriculture, engineering education, the th . a d ‘l tional "natural sciences" and mathematics. 121 The sparkling brick-and-glass International Center, no more than lO years old, was at the campus hub; where the new and the old intersected. The equally new graduate residence hall stood at a Peripheral nexus of the new campus, the old campus, and the town. These constituted two of the three major loci of American-foreign l‘ Student, and foreign student-foreign student interaction. Both had cafeterias, lounge areas, and foreign student advisor offices. The graduate hall also included various recreation rooms, libraries, and Simi 1 ar facilities. Both the sharp division between the "old" and the "new" campus, and the lack of venerability of the graduate hall and the IInternational Center were indicators of another historical watershed. 1" the ten years following World War II, State U. underwent a radical Change, from a provincial state agricultural and technical college 't" ii nwjor international multiversity, until, at the time of the study in the mid-60$, it was the largest undergraduate residential campus in the United States. Graduate programs were started or enlarged dramatically-hence the need for the graduate resident hall. Faculty numbers swelled with the student body, from a small community of sChO‘lars to a population of nearly 2,500, by 1958- At the same time as its growth and change in academic-level 1b0‘:th , State U. became substantially less provincial. An aggressive recruiting program for outstanding undergraduate, out-of-state stu- dents began, and special advanced track programs were initiated to accommodate the new recruits. Simultaneously, research and extension 3t . at ‘Ions, primarily with a predominantly agricultural focus, were set 122 up. or affiliated with, in a number of developing nations such as Pakistan and Nigeria. (At the time of the study, these were in some difficulty, for the reasons discussed under "Time Frame" in the Preceding methodology section.) The International Center was con- Structed partially as a physical focus for these, and for the concomi- r. tantly expanding federal post-war exchange programs. These latter brought foreign students to the State U. en masse for the first time. w._"'.l“t This growing internationalism was enhanced by the establish- ment of the English Language Center. This not only provided foreign Students at State U. with basic English skills, but served as a rece-i ving center every sumner for foreign students arriving under the aegis of the State Department. Thus, State U. became nationally kNOwn as an international service center--a reputation that was fur- t"‘eY‘ed by the frequent use of the center for continuing education bui 1 ding for international conferences. This use was, again, reef procally furthered by the reputation just mentioned, and by the exDOY‘tability of U.S. agricultural and technical expertise to the hew‘gy developing nations of the world. This post—war internationalism of State U. was characterized by ‘3 ts agricultural base. Although the university had an inter- national reputation, the centers of cross-cultural interchange seemed to form a discrete physical-social set which was outside the salient envi Y‘onment and experiences of much of the university population. Thus 5 in spite of the influx of foreign students and the obviousness 01: the internationally oriented facilities, State U. had retained its 31: ate college-small town atmosphere, physically and socially. 123 At the opposite corner of the campus, squeezed between the "new campus" and the city, were several large spreads of low-rise apartments known as "Married Housing." In many ways, these complexes constituted not only a distinct physical environment, but a separate lifestyle for their inhabitants. Here the utiquitous greensward was FL somewhat thin and trampled, and the usually immaculate landscaping a bit bedraggled by the continuous passage of children, bicycles, and Soccer balls. The sense of commonality was high among the occupants 01" the thin-walled apartments, whose three to four rooms (and one Except for variance in room l r.. bath) housed two to six individuals. number, all of the apartments were precisely alike. The porches and sI'lilebvalks running the length of each apartment block served as major informal interaction sites, as did the central laundromats and play- gr“Dunds. This was the third major site of foreign student activity and ‘i nteraction with Americans and each other. A final physical factor that served to further the disparity betWeen one sector of the university and another was the sheer size of the campus itself. In good weather, it took 20 minutes by bicycle, and over half an hour on foot, at a good pace, to get from one side or the campus to another; in the frequently occurring inclement weather, these times were extended. Buses were available, but their cost was relatively high, and their routes rather restricted, especially outside of peak class hours. The use of cars on campus by undergraduate students and most graduate and professional students was also striCtIY regulated; lack of parking facilities and the parking h u . 1 es themselves tended to exclude cars as a feaSlble means of 124 transportation/communication on the campus proper. Thus, it was diffi- cult for a student to get from one area to another and each area tended to represent a particular residential/occupational life style. Both the impetus and the means for integrating the differing sectors of university activity into one individual's experience were lacking. In El. Short, the campus as a physical construction enhanced its social ’ segmental izati on . On an individual-behavioral level, the campus diversity was observable in the many dress styles, recreation choices, career plans, L ”vi ng arrangements, socio-economic statuses, academic commitments and abi‘l 'i ties, and geographic origins, of the student body. "Sets" of Students could be delineated by the researcher through the observation 01“ d'i fferences on one or more of these factors. This was fortunate inasmuch as the boundaries of the different campus sectors were not ent‘i rely clear cut, and there were many areas of overlap and mingling It is not possible to document all the lifestyles present at one time on the campus in these pages; such an undertaking would require a Series of volumes. Nor would total documentation be fruitful, as many of the lifestyle patterns were quite ephemeral in nature, lasting 1” . . . 0" a year or less. In the interests of illustrating the dlverSlty, w - o 1 thout neglecting the specific details that make up partlcular rs e31 ‘ities, I have chosen to present a series of mini-ethnographies, w - h 1 Ch constituted a representative selection of the many sub-sectors 0'? the "university community," at the time of the study. 125 Three Campus Lifestyles The first three lifestyle groups were those of the committed agriculture students, the Bohemian fringe, and the "average under- graduate." Short synopses of these are presented here together, inasmuch as few or no international associations were found among h. the members of these sectors. No attempt was made to cover or include all the sub-sectors of the campus. The presence of the agriculture student or ”aggie" was an Tndentifying characteristic of the State U. campus. The "aggie" was 3. -rl an American student who had committed his or her life, vocationally and Often avocationally, to the pursuit of agriculture; these students formed a coherent, identifiable and exclusionary group. The require- ments for membership in this group were substantial experience with the rural American way of life, and dedication thereto, as exhibited 1" the proper dress, speech, and manner; the possession of certain pr‘aetical skills was also an important criterion. Preferably, a candidate for membership should have owned a horse and lived in the s"""lf‘ounding countryside. "Machismo" of the proper (rural) sort was h i Qh'ly valued in men, as was strongly contrasting traditional " Feminine" behavior and appearance in women. Despite this, the same ded 1' cation and agricultural competence was required of both women and "Ten - Physically, this group was found in its own areas of the campus and seldom outside. The Livestock Pavillion, the livestock and crop barns , and the agricultural disciplines' departmental offices and I"o Oms were some of these. To many of these, admission was only granted 126 to persons who were members of the agricultural group. This was, however, a largely undergraduate phenomenon—-graduate and professional students, as well as faculty, were affiliated primarily along formal disciplinary membership lines. No foreign students were found in this group the difficulty they would have experienced in meeting the requirements for membership seem apparent. There were certainly foreign graduate students in agricultural disciplines, but as we shall later point out, all graduate/professional students shared some common lifestyle elements that served to differentiate them from all undergraduate modes. The "Bohemian fringe," known colloquially at the time of the study as "hippies," lived largely off-campus in communal-style houses. This group was also primarily composed of undergraduates, although the transients who lodged in the public rooms of these houses, and the erstwhile faculty supporters of the causes of the "youth culture" may have been considerably older. The primary requirement for membership in this group was adherence to the current group social values and behavior, as set forth by the group leaders, and to the notion that the group and the introspective lifestyle had overriding importance with respect to all other commitments in life. The group's social values were seldom comprehensible outside the context of modern American society; they were most typically con- ceived as its direct value and behavioral opposites. This was a counterculture with specific reference to mainstream American society, and to no other; that is to say, the salient value dimensions of both 127 the counterculture and the larger American society were the same, although their relative locations therein approached opposite poles. This was, of course, not the case on all campuses--an inter- national "youth culture" did exist in other places. However, with the exception of a very few group leaders, neither the American under- graduates nor the foreign students (graduate or undergraduate) were members thereof; State U. did not recruit from this population in the 19605. Therefore, this group was undergraduate, physically separated from the campus proper, and profoundly American in nature. These factors combined to make it highly inaccessible and unreceptive to the foreign population at State U. and only one foreign student--an isolated, Nesternized Iranian--was found in this sector. The "average State U. student" was a graduate of a public high school in Michigan. These undergraduates made sense of the immensity of the University by maintaining their primary affiliations with per- sons and institutions in their communities of origin, to which they returned frequently. Like the "aggies" and the “hippies," they developed a local set of associates, haunts, and pastimes that consti- tuted a smaller and more manageable environment in the hugeness of the multiversity. However, unlike the lifestyles constructed by other groups, the campus environment formed by the average students, and the relationships within it, were transient. Neither this environment nor these relationships engendered or demanded a high level of loyalty in the present or a continuing commitment in the past or future, although occasionally stable heterosexual relationships may have 1mPlied such commitment. f 128 For these students, college was a hiatus between childhood and adulthood. During this period, they experimented with different behavior patterns and considered possible mates, in a tolerant atmo- sphere and with persons to whom they would not be accountable later in life. From this they exited, upon graduation, to take up their adult roles in the larger society. Although it was possible for a foreign student to become part of an American student group of this sort, the relationships formed with the group members were, by definition, transient. The concomi- tant of this transiency was an unwillingness on the part of the Americans to spend time developing the bases for a relationship--they sought relationships that they might "step into" and "step out of" with ease and without rancor. Therefore, foreign students must have been able and willing to fit into these relationships strictly on American terms, or they would have remained isolated from the American students. Their choice was Americanization or TK) contact--both were made, but neither led to the formation of continuing transnational interactions. Further, these groups were wholly undergraduate phenomena, which restricted access to them to a very small part of the foreign student population. In sum, only highly Americanized foreign under- graduates formed relationships with these American students, and these relationships were transient, and not transnational in the sense of being a bi-national construct. This was the pattern found in many sectors of the State U. campusnthey were undergraduate, often transient, and uncompromisingly 129 American; that is, modeled on an adult sector of American life with little or no generalizability to a sector of the foreign students' society. Not only did these represent inaccessible or unattainable patterns of behavior for most foreign students, they were also possibly unacceptable in the foreign students' terms. For all these reasons, these campus subsectors did not represent sites of transnational contact, much less interaction formation. There were, however, some campus subsectors which were quite conducive to the formation of such interactions; or, at least, were not intrinsically inhibitory of them. These, therefore, are pre- sented in more detail in the following pages. The Formal Academic Setting The meeting ground of many of the subpopulations that made up the university was the classroom. The introductory survey courses drew nearly the entire undergraduate population of the university, except those few students enrolled in alternative programs. There was a sharp differentiation between these and other courses intended primarily for undergraduates, and the courses offered in the graduate school. Many undergraduate classes were large, having from 50—800 students. Many classrooms were equally large; or students sitting in classrooms might be taught from a central point through the use of intra-university television. Instructors often wore microphones, and used overhead projectors for their "board—work." Books were ordered by the carton, and examinations graded by computer, while students were'identified by a six—digit number on the classlists. The total 130 effect was one of overwhelming impersonality, an effect which was compounded by the massiveness. 1: «‘5 ° Si 2 a 5: 3:5: 3 S -9 ance w— c E 2 mo DU .2 o. +4 s -s°; '8 8'2'5 s :5 a z; e -;2 same: _ e s 8 (DO. :r—Euu. .— o :0 < a: H < z < Best or good 40 33 22 16 6 117 friend (56%) (73%) (71%) (67%) (86%) (65%) . 12 9 5 4 1 31 Acqualntance (17%) (20%) (16%) (17%) (15%) (17%) Primarily l6 1 1 1 O 19 academic (22%) (2%) (3%) (4%) (0%) (11%) . . 4 O 2 3 O 9 Dislike (5%) (0%) (6%) (1%) (0%) (5%) O 2 1 O O 3 “0 resp°nse 0%) (4%) (3%) (0%) (0%) (2%) 72 45 31 24 7 179 TOTALS (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) (100%) *The questions asked to elicit these data were: (35) "How is it that you happen to know this person?" and (36) "How close do you feel towards this person?" 171 The American students seem to have been largely middle-class in origin; nearly 75% of their fathers were white-collar workers of some type. To refine this further, of the Americans' fathers, a third were in technical-professional fields, while nearly a quarter were managers, proprietors, or public officials, and about 8% were sales workers. Craftsmen and foremen, who were not classed as white-collar workers, comprised 11% of the fathers; these upper-level blue-collar workers might also have reasonably been called middle-class, particu- larly in income. For the mothers of the Americans, no occupational information was available for approximately a third of the respondent set; another one—third reported that their mothers had never been employed for "any appreciable period of time." The other third of the mothers reported on had been employed in a wide variety of fields, ranging from professional to skilled labor, with a nearly even distribution over the range. The SES of the American student respondents was slightly **.‘ lower than that reported by the American students for the foreign students in their society of origin. In 43% of the cases, American! students were unaware of the SES of their foreign student associates. It is interesting that nearly 60% of the reporting Americans desig- nated their foreign student associate as ”upper class," while 40% designated the foreign student associate as "middle class." Two factors which may make the socio-economic status of the foreign students and the Americans difficult to compare in an experiential sense are: (a)the class of the foreign student was directly indicated 172 by the report of the Americans, while the SES of the Americans was extrapolated from their father's occupation, and (b) the relative status of a particular occupation (i.e., college professor) may vary widely from country to country--thus, foreign and American students with very similar backgrounds in terms of other components of life- style may differ greatly in class experience. Class discrepancies may be salient to_assogiatlgnepatterns in some_instanges;during the.Thai:American association study, Thais frequently manifested a reluctance to associate with Americans at State U. because the Americans were perceived by the Thais as being of lower social status than the Thais themselves. In fact, their cooperation in the study was only finally secured when the researcher managed to convince the leaders of the Thai community that their back- grounds were in some way compatible. There was no persuasive evidence to indicate that the foreign students of their American student associates were primarily moving into this association from a pre-existing group of comparable ethnicity. About 73% of the American students came purely from backgrounds* of the "white Anglo-Saxon" genre (the dominant "native" modality in the United States in the 19605) while nearly 95% of the American students were of general European extraction. Further, of those responding to the next question (about half of the sample), over two-thirds said that they had grown up in white "all-American" neighborhoods. *By "background,” in this instance, we mean whatever ethnicity the American students perceived themselves to have. The interviewees were pressed to name a country or area of "origin" of their family; the actual immigration may have taken place as long as several hundred years ago. 173 However, of those designating the foreign student as a "best friend," a slightly smaller proportion --69%--was of a single white Anglo-Saxon stock. Seventeen percent of the foreign student associates of Americans from this background were called "best friends" by the Americans; "best friends" represented 30% of the fereign student associates of Americans of Eastern European extrac- tion, and all of the Japanese-Americans' (N = 3) foreign student associates. Americans of southern European extraction designated no foreign student "best friends," while those of mixed-nationality backgrounds named only 13% of their foreign student associates as "best friends." There appears to be a slightly positive relationship between the importance of the American's own ethnicity and the depth of the relationship with the foreign student, which was manifested at the relationship-type poles. Those describing foreign students as "best friends" were more likely to feel that their own ethnicity had been of some importance to them than those who were good friends, acquaint- ances, or "academic friends” with their foreign student associate. These, in turn, felt that they had been more influenced by their own ethnic background than those who disliked their closest foreign stu- dent associate. (See Table 3.) In sum, the American associates of foreign students were almost entirely of European extraction, and were not particularly con- cerned with their own ethnicity. For those American students of Eastern European extraction, the relationship was somewhat more likely to be a close one. Also, for those whose foreign student associates TABLE 3.--The Importance of Own Ethnicity in Developing Interest in 174 That Ethnic Area, to American Participants in Each Type of American-Foreign Student Relationship (by Percent* of Each Relationship Type)** (N = 179). Importance of Own Ethnicity to Developing Interest ReTgETONEhip in Own Ethnic Area/Background With Foreign \ . Student Important InflUgnce Bagigggfizd Total . 34% 59% 6% 100% BESt frlend (11) (19) (2) (32) . 22% 75% 3% 100% 600d friend (18) (64) (2) (85) Academic 26% 74% 0% 100% friend (5) (14) (O) (19) . 23% 77% 0% 100% Acqualntance (7) (24) (0) (3]) . . 11% 89% 0% 100% DlSllkES (1) (8) (0) (9) *Percents may not total to 100, due to rounding. **The questions asked to elicit these data were: (36) "How close do you feel towards this person?" and (10) "In what ways has this experience had an effect on your interest in different peoples?” ethnic background of family: [Experience = refers to question (9).] 175 were "best friends" own ethnicity was of somewhat more importance, but not overwhelmingly 50. Over a quarter of the respondents (27%) spent the majority of their growing-up years in a rural or small-town atm05phere, while 18% came from small cities. Thus, a total of 45% of the American students came from non-metropolitan backgrounds. About 22% came from suburbs, 23% from "large cities" and the remaining 10% came either from a wide variety of places or gave no information. Further, of the 66% of the American students who responded to the question (12b; see Appendix A), nearly 60% (39% of the whole respondent set) had lived in only one or two homes before entering college--1ess than 11% of those responding had lived in 5 or more homes. Of those 68% responding to the next question (12c; see Appendix A), nearly 80% had changed residences 2 times or less since entering college, including their "move" away from their parental home. Almost three-quarters of the American respondents (73%) had never lived outside the United States--23% had lived in one country other than the United States, and slightly under 5% in more than one. There was no relationship between strength or nature of the relation- ship with the foreign student and the number of countries in which the American respondents had 1ived--between 70% and 75% of participants in all types of relationships had never lived outside the United States, and the other quarter was unlikely to have lived in more than one country. 176 Travel outside the United States followed a similar pattern-- over 80% had not traveled extensively outside the United States, although over half the Americans had "vacationed" extranationally. However, only 13% of the respondents had been to more than one country for travel—vacation purposes, and only slightly over 2% in 3 countries or more. Both travel and residence abroad had been spread over a vari- ety of geographic areas, as summarized in Table 4. Several things are worth noting in this regard: first, that the preponderance of the extranational ”vacationing" had been in Canada and Mexico, the nations bordering the U.S. Further, since State U. is located in a state considerably nearer the Canadian than the Mexican border, we should not be surprised to see that three times as many of the respondents had vacationed in the former than in the latter. Sec- ondly, of the quarter of the respondent set who had lived abroad, nearly 40% (10% of the whole set) had lived in Asia (east of Iran, excluding India). In general, the proportion of the "American associ- ates" who had lived in the areas from which the foreign student sub-sets were drawn was higher than the proportion of those who had lived in other areas. The sole exception to this was India, where only 1% of the American respondents had lived, and none had traveled extensively or vacationed. If the Americans who had lived in particular areas overseas were those who formed relationships with foreign students from these areas, we might then speculate that these American students were more receptive to relationship formation with a member of a '177 TABLE 4.--Travel and Residency of the American Associates of Foreign Students in Areas Outside the United States (Also Includes Hawaii) in % by Area/Country* (N = 179). Type of Extranational Experience Area No Short Extensive . Experience Vacation Travel ReSldence Total North America Canada (100) 56% (67) 37% (9) 5% (3) % (179) 100% Mexico (148) 83% (22) 12% (3) % (6) 3% (179) 100% South America Latin America (169) 94% (2) 1% (l) 1% (7) 4% (179) 100% En lish-s eakin o N a w garibbegn g ('7') 96% (5) 3% (I) la (l) b (179) 100% Middle East (174) 97% (2) 1% (1) 1% (2) % (179) 100% Africa Nigeria (174) 97% -- (1) % (4) 2% (179) 100% Sub-Sahara (177) 99% -- (1) 1% (1) 1% (179) 100% Asia Asia (156) 87% (2) 1% (3) 2% (18) 10% (179) 100% India-Pakistan** (177) 99% -- -- (2) 1% (179) 100% Oceanjg_ Hawaii, Australia (174) 97% (1) 1% (1) 1% (3) 2% (179) 100% Other (177) 99% -- (1) 1% (l) % (179) 100% Europe ~ Spain (171) 96% (1) 1% (4) 2% (3) 2% (179) 100% Other (145) 81% (7) 4% (15) 8% (12) 7% (179) 100% Outside U.S.“r One country only (67) 37% (24) 13% (37) 22% Two or more countries (27) 15% (13) 7% (8) 5% *These data were elicited by question (13): "Have you been outside of the Continental U.S.? If yes, where, for how long, and for what purpose?“ **India and Pakistan are listed together, because at the time of the study many Americans could not differentiate between these two areas of origin for their foreign associates (Judy, 1966). *This table row (Residence/Travel Outside U.S.) was constructed from three separate coding categories, one concerning each of the mobility categories; "no experi- ence" was not separately tapped in this way. Therefore, these are not mutually exclusive categories, and cannot be totaled. NOTE: Results are presented as % of row totals. 178 nationality-grouping with whom they had previous in-depth experience. Even if this is the case, we cannot be certain whether this was due (a) to a generalized fondness for persons representing a previous positive life-experience (such as an overseas sojourn), or (b) to knowledge of how to form relationships with persons whose expectations for these relationships were of a particular sort, determined by a cultural setting with which these Americans were familiar, or (c) to previous acquaintance with the foreign students or with associates of the foreign students, by whom the latter were recommended, or to a combination of these and/or any of a number of other possible reasons. It is, however, plainly a fruitful area for future inquiry. The possibility that this was particularly true for Americans who had lived in Asia might bear special scrutiny. Could this be due to the wideness of the "cultural distance" between the Asian and American cultures which, once bridged, constitutes a positive attrac- tion for those persons who have made the leap? Are there some cul- tural gaps whose bridging sufficiently alters the transversers so that, in the future, they find relationships across this gap peculiarly compatible with their personal style? Or do Americans who have lived in certain areas abroad simply form all transnational relation- ships more easily? A number of interesting questions are raised by the direction of this finding, graphically represented in Table 4. A final and implicit sub-question, lying within the first operational research question, involves the typg_of association(s) that arose between the foreign and American students--were they professional/intellectual, social, or both? The answer is probably 179 the last-~over 66% of the American respondents reported engaging in "general discussions" as their major activity with the foreign stu- dent when they were alone together. About 54% reported that they engaged in "general discussions" with the foreign student and others. When then asked what they talked about with foreign students, 64% replied, "Academics"; 67%, "The foreign student's country and cul- ture"; 54%, "U.S.--country and culture"; and 40%, "Daily activities." Less than a quarter of the sample discussed any other specific topic. It is therefore clear that, although academics are particularly important in verbal interaction, they are not its only basis. The bases of the relationships themselves may reasonably be supposed to be similarly multipartite. In further support of this, we found that about a third of the Americans engaged in "social activities" with the foreign student alone, and 60% did this in the company of others, while 36% reported engaging in "academic activities" or "studying together," alone, and about 39% reported doing these with the foreign student and others together. Further, 11% of the American respondents said that they went drinking with the foreign student alone, while 18% said they were included in the same drinking group; presumably, this would be classed as another "social" activity. Less than 7% of the Americans reported engaging in, respectively, dating or double-dating, work, religious activities, family activities, travel, sports, tutoring, or "personal give-and-take activities," with their closest foreign student associate. 180 In sum, the relationships would indeed clearly appear to have been professional/intellectual gpgipp_social, and, incidentally, to have relied heavily on verbal interchange between sags-sex associ- ates, particularly when these individuals were péggbifiteracting as a dyad, rather than as members of a group. It is also clear that, in these verbal interactions, topics generated by the participants' difference in nationality/ethnicity had a prominent place. We can therefore be sure that these differed from relationships between same-nationality pairs on at least one significant dimension. Summary: The Typical American Student- Foreign Student Dyad The typical American-foreign student relationship at State U., tflien, was formed by young men: by an American in his early twenties and a foreign student slightly older. The American was married or irivolved in a relatively stable "romantic" relationship with an American woman much like himself, in terms of region and class of origin, race, education, religion, and nationality/ethnicity. lilies-v fo rWEandrun involved. The American was from a city or a suburb--however, he had l‘lVed in only 1-2 places in his life, before entering college, and Probably had not moved more than once or twice after entering school. '1153 only extranational experience had been a short vacation--and that ”95, more than likely to Canada. In short, he was not an exception- ally mobile person, in a physical sense, but really something of a hOrTlebody. 181 Both the American and the foreign student were graduate stu- dents, probably in the sciences (natural/physical or social) or in business, although the American may have been in education. The associates were not necessarily in the same academic field but a substantial chance existed that they had met in an academic situation. However, if they were "good" or "best" friends, they were more likely to have met through living proximity--in the same room or apartment, or "next door" in a dorm or apartment. They had formed a fairly close relationship, and the American described the foreign student as a "good" or “best" friend. This was a venture across ethnic/national, but not class, gender, professional/ occupational, age, or marital status lines. In short, this may have been a form of reaching out for things beyond the experience of the participants in the associational set; but cautiously, along only the interaction dimension of cultural differences. Otherwise, the parameters of this relationship were similar to those which defined the participants' relationships with members of their own nationality groupings--commonality of sex, age, class, and academic interests or residence (and, possibly, both). In other words, the American students who are the closest associates of foreign students were, basically, the demographic counterparts of those students along every major dimension but one--nationality/ ethnicity. (This latter was, in any case, a factor apparently of more hindrance to the development and maintenance of same-sex rela- tionships.) The American student described, then, was the sort of person at this particular time and place for whom contact could lead 182 to continuing professional/intellectual and social association, especially when these associations had a high verbal component. This set of data clearly also answers the first research question: If members of an American academic community and foreign students are brought into contact, will this lead to continuing professional/intellectual and/or "social" associations between a number of the Americans and the foreign students? Using the data presented above, we could say that, at least with respect to student if members of the American academic community, this was indeed the case.' Secondly, we want to ask, if a (student) member of an American academic community comes to associate with a foreign student in that context, will he also come to associate with (a) other Americans (students) who associate with foreign students, and/or (b) other foreign students? This question may be behaviorally measured in two ways in a monotemporal study: (a) Ex post facto longitudinally (are people who have been in contact with foreign students in the past now in contact with them? or with Americans who are?) and (b) by tapping simultaneous behaviors at the time of the study. (Are the people currently named as the associates of one foreign student also in contact with other foreign students, and/or Americans who are in touch with them?) To answer from a longitudinal standpoint, we asked Americans who were current associates of foreign students about (1) their most significant contact with foreign students before coming to college, and (2) whether these American associates of foreign students were currently corresponding with other foreign students than their named 183 closest associate, and if so, how they had met the latter, or "struck up" the relationship. The intent of the latter question was actually to find the background of a relationship with a foreign student extant simultaneously with the one under primary scrutiny. [This thus might have been classed under (b), except that the correspondent relation- ship clearly must have begun in the past.] Over a fifth of the respondents cited "contact with people from other countries who were in the U.S." as the most important con- tact they had before coming to college. Another fifth gave the "mass media" as their most important pre-college contact source; 12% had "no contact" or "mixed sources"--all other contacts were mentioned by under 10% of the respondent set, including school- and family- based contacts at about 8% each. Thus, it would seem that contacts with people from other countries, rather than family members who had been overseas, or other (non-kin) Americans who talked about foreign experiences, were the most significant early "foreign" contact for the members of the American respondent set. It also seems that the "mass media" had been quite an important early influence on the respondents' interest in foreign people and places--a not entirely surprising finding in a set of middle-class, college-age Americans in the mid-19605. However, when these findings are broken down by the type of relationships that were currently in effect between the Americans and their closest foreign student associates, a slightly different trend emerges. Of the Americans desoribing their foreign student associates as "best friends," only 10% said thattheirnmst important early contact 184 with foreign students had been through the mass media, as opposed to 23% of the Americans whose foreign student associates were "good friends," and the 28% whose foreign student associates were "only acquaintances." The same directional trend was present for responses relating to "personal contacts with people from other countries who were in the U.S.": 23% of those with "good" foreign student friends, and 31% of those whose foreign student associates were "only acquaint- ances," found this factor their most significant early contact with foreign students. The trend is reversed in the case of the importance of the discussion of overseas experiences by family members--only 4% of those Americans whose foreign student associations were "acquaintances," 8% of those for whom the foreign students were "good friends," and 17% of the Americans with foreign student "best friends," had found this their most significant early foreign contact. This is represented graphically in Figure 2. While this relationship is hardly overwhelming, it is inter- esting, in that family overseas experiences were significantly important only to those who had later developed very close relation- ships with foreign students, while exactly the converse was true for mass media early contacts. This might suggest that early "foreign" contacts may have set a pattern, at least for the relationship type_ that later developed, as opposed to having led to the relationship's occurrence. Slightly over 20% of the respondents said that their most important contact with foreign people or places, before entering college, was personal contact with foreign students. No other single 185 35.“ '/ 30 "p ' '/ eople from other countrles , % of , 25-- Americans ZO-r Citing lS-w Source .\ . 10 I. nakuFamlly Members 5')" .......... o Best Friend Good Friend Acquaintance Figure 2.--American's Description of Relationship with Foreign Student*: Most Important Early Sources of Foreign Contact (by % of Americans Citing Source) versus Depth of Current American-Foreign Student Relationship.** *Please note that I have placed this nominal variable type on an interval scale, purely for the purpose of concomitantly displaying three simultaneous relationships. While this is, in my belief, an approximately nominal scale of "closeness of relationship,” no quanti- fication of this should be implied. **The questions asked to elicit these data were (36) ”How close do you feel towards this person?" and (14, 15, 16) "I am going to give you a listing of some other [than travel abroad] possible direct or indirect contacts which you may have had with foreign countries or people from them before coming to college. Would you please rate these by the degree of influence they may have had in making you interested in or aware of foreign countries?" 186 reason was given as frequently as this, although this could only be taken to be moderately suggestive of a trend. However, we must remember that we are dealing here with people's own perceptions of what was most important. It is entirely possible that the respond- ents' may not have recognized the salience of particular sorts of early experiences to the way in which they latgp_experienced the world and acted upon these composite experiences. In the case of the early experiences with “things foreign" that have just been dis- cussed, a goodly number of the Americans had had all or several of these types of contact, although they differed in their feelings about which had influenced them most, or been most important. It is, there- fore, hard to posit a single causal sequence. That is, nearly 75% of the American students had encountered foreign students in the mass media; over 70% had been in contact with adult (non-kin) foreigners who were in the U.S.; over 50% had had contact with Americans outside their own families who had talked about their foreign experiences; and slightly under 50% remembered having heard about the overseas experiences of family members; about the same number had come into contact with foreign students through school work; under 33% had come into contact with foreign students through church-related activities. Less than 20% had lived abroad before coming to college, and about the same proportion of the respondents had had direct personal contact with foreign students through work-related activities. The only reasonable conclusion that could be drawn here, was that current American associates of foreign students had had a broad range of "foreign-contact" experiences 187 before college. The trends in the perceived significance of these by the respondents are of considerable interest, but these trends did not constitute conclusive evidence. The second indicator of "past relationships with foreign stu- dents continued in the present" was "current correspondence of the American student with a foreign student other than the naming associ- ate." The data here were not highly suggestive--the largest propor- tions of the respondent set corresponding with a general group were the 9% corresponding with Europeans, the 7% corresponding with Asians, and the 6% corresponding with Latin Americans. Of these, a quarter of the first, about a third of the second, and nearly half of the third met in the foreign student's country while the American was living or traveling there. This was the only factor mentioned by a substantial number of the respondents (one-third of the responses were to this effect). Again, this was not an overwhelming piece of evidence, although it was clear that Americans who were sufficiently involved with a foreigner to correspond with him/her may also have formed another association with a different foreign student at the same time. In general, it appeared that American students who were associates of foreign students at the time of the study ppg_had prior direct and indirect contacts with foreign students and foreign adults and/or Americans with overseas experience, or perhaps even overseas experience of their own in the past. However, no one of these factors stood out as the primary cause or, at least, the uniform preceding factor, of the current relationshp with the foreign 188 student. Further, only a few of these "preceding factors" were classifiable as previous personal relationships with a foreigner of any age or condition. The evidence was still not strongly indicative of the development of a characteristic contact + interaction + interaction-pattern sequence in the formation of transnational aca- demic communities. The problem was also attacked from a present-time standpoint: there were several possible non-longitudinal indicators of the cor- respondence between one association with a foreign student and the formation of others. First, we simply ascertained how many foreign students the American students in the sample knew, without asking which relationship arose first. Then, we asked about the degree of involvement the American had with these others--one simple method of tapping this was to task how much time the American spent with for- eign students. Finally, to answer the second part of this question-- had the American associates of foreign students come to interact with other Americans who knew foreign students-~we inquired as to whether the Americans in our respondent set were introduced to their foreign student associate(s) by another American. The answer to the first question, presented graphically in Figure 3, was that the majority (about 32% of the entire set) of the respondents to the question (which was under two-thirds of the entire set) knew 3 to 10 foreign students (or said that they knew "a few," "several," or "quite a few"). Eighteen percent of the American students knew 11 to 50 foreign students; less than 4% knew more than 50 foreign students, and the same proportion knew less than 3. This 189 40 «— % 0f 30't A “\"«. General American ; '“x\panges Student j “~\‘ Respondents 20 +- f “ \ ~ (N = 179) Smaller liqx 50 6O 40 10 Number of Foreign Students Known** 20 30 Figure 3.--Number of Foreign Students Known by the Closest American Student Associates of Foreign Students.* 4.5% of the can be further broken down into even smaller ranges: American students in the respondent set knew 1-2 foreign students, 14% knew 3-5 (or "a few“), 15.6% knew 6-10 (or "several" and "quite a few"), 12.3% knew 11-20, 7.8% knew 21-30, 7.3% knew 31-50, 2.8% knew 51-60, and 35.8% gave no information. There was no significant difference between the number of foreign students known by American students who cited foreign students as "best" friends and the number known by the Americans calling the *These data were elicited by question (17), “How many foreign students do you know?" **Note that the "number of foreign students known” has been plotted as the midpoint of each range (0-2, 3-10, 11-50, 50+) except for the highest range, whose lower limit is plotted. 190 foreign student associates "good friends" or "acquaintances." Some small, but interesting, differences occurred at both ends of the range--there were pp_American students whose foreign student associates were ”best friends" who said they knew only 1-2 foreign students, while 6% of those Americans whose foreign associates were only acquaintances, and 2.4% of the Americans whose foreign associate was a "good friend" said they knew only this many. Thus, small but pro- vocative differences continue to be suggested between the participants in the different depths or types of associations. The next indicator of the extent to which one association with a foreign student implied others was the amount of free time the American claimed to spend with foreign students in general, including the named associate. Ten percent of the sample spent no time with foreign students, or were unable to estimate the amount. Fifty-five percent (55%) of the sample spent l%-20% of their free time with foreign students, 25% spent 20%-70% of their free time, and 10% spent 70%- 100% of their free time with foreign students. Thus the vast majority --80%--of the studied American associates of foreign students spent some, but certainly not all, of their time with foreign students. The shape of this distribution, it might be pointed out, is similar to that for the number of foreign students known by given proportions of American students. There may, perhaps, be a correlation between these two factors, but further research into relationship types is needed to factor out the effects of depth of primary association on time spent in all associations, before the effect of number of associ- ations can be clearly demonstrated. 191 It was clear from these figures, however, that American stu- dents who were associates of one foreign student were usually associ- ated with several others. Furthermore, the association implied spending time with the associate; that is, the associationwwaémflgih, '11-. mepely—Eflppptippz_pptman on-going interaction, at least with the named associate and quite probably with others. This conclusion l was not only supported by our findings on number of associates and time spent, but by the data on the types of activity* engaged in by the American student and the foreign student associate, which also suggested a fairly extensive and developed relationship. Neverthe- less, by and large, the Americans were apparently not completely enveloped in a transnational associational set--a good deal of the Americans' free time was spent elsewhere; they were actually associ- ated with relatively small numbers of foreign students, and the rela- tionships with the foreign students were almost all acted-out entirely in on-campus academic and social settings. In other words, trans- national associations were apparently a significant part of these American students' total set, but they in no way constituted the entirety of these sets, with a very few possible exceptions. The other part of this question concerned the American student associates of foreign students' interaction with other American student associates of foreign students—-not only did we want to know if such interactions arose, but if the interactants' common charac- teristic of foreign student association was also a recognized common *The reader will recall that the American and the foreign stu- dents' most popular joint activity, as a pair, was "general discu5510n" (p. 179). 192 bond. We tapped this by asking the American respondents whether they had been introduced to their foreign student associates by an American friend. We found that 11% of the American student respondents had been introduced to their closest foreign student associate by another American--but that there was little or no relationship between being introduced by an American and the depth/type of the ensuing associ— ation. Again, and to capsulize our findings to this point, this datum (in conjunction with our previous findings) also suggested that the American student-foreign student association did not exist in isolation, but was part of an on-going interaction set. However, our attempts to find the definitive parameters of this set had not been, so far, rewarded. We also suspected that there were differences in relation- ship types, but again, the specifications for these had not become clear. In short, our answers to the second research question were "yes" on both counts, but were a very qualified "yes'I to the second part. That is, Americans who came to associate with foreign students in an academic context, clearly also associated with other foreign students in that context. That they also associated with other American associates of foreign students, under some circumstances is clear; but precisely what these circumstances were is not. Our third research question asked whether these associations, and the pattern of transnational association, would be carried on in the future. Since this portion of the study was not behaviorally longitudinal, we had to depend on attitudinal data for this answer. 193 That is, we tapped this variable set by asking our respondents to project behavior into the future. First, we asked the American student associates whether they intended to continue the relationship with their closest foreign stu- dent associates, even if there were disadvantages to this. Of the Americans, 84% replied that there were no disadvantages, and that this did not apply, clearly implying their intention to continue the rela- tionship. Another 15% said that the advantages outweighted the disadvantages and that they, therefore, also planned to continue the relationship. Only 1% of the respondents said they felt that the disadvantages of the relationship outweighed the advantages, but that they intended to cintinue it because they "had no choice"! Thus, as a set, the named American students intended to continue their rela- tionships with their closest foreign student associate. Second, anticipating that the foreign student associates' time in the U.S. was finite, and that they would soon return to their own countries, we asked the American students (a) whether they intended to maintain contact with the foreign students after they returned home; (b) if so, how this would be done; and (c) whether these associ- ations would be maintained if relations between the U.S. and the countries of the foreign students became strained. Forty-five percent (45%) of the respondents said that they would maintain contact with the foreign students after they returned home; 13% were doubtful; while 41% said that they did not expect to maintain contact. Of the 45% for whom (b) was applicable, only two- thirds responded to the question (30% of the whole sample). Of this 194 30%, over half (16% of the whole respondent set) said that contact would be maintained through correspondence and (possibly) visits. Another near-third of those responding (10% of all the respondents) said that contact would be maintained through correspondence. The remainder (4% of the respondents) said that they "might visit,“ but would not correspond otherwise. This information is presented graphically in Figure 4. Would Not ‘Q§s Would Maintain Contact Doubtful Maintain Contact (59) (45%) (13%) (41%) Corre- Corre- May \§$§ spondence spondence Visit \\ . . & Visits Only Only\ (59a) (16%) (10%) (4%)\ \\\'q: is NOTE: %'s refer to total respondent set. Figure 4.--American Students' Plans for Future Contact with Their Closest Foreign Student Associate.* Of the American students, 89% said that they would maintain the association even if relations between the U.S. and the countries of the foreign students became strained. Of the remaining 11%, only 3% (of all respondents) said they definitely would not maintain the association--but all of these added that they did not like the foreign student as a person. The other 8% were unsure what their actions would be, vis-a-vis their associations with the foreign students, in the case of serious international tension between the U.S. and the *These data were elicited by question (59), "Do you expect to maintain contact with this person after he goes home?" and question (59a), "How do you expect to do this?" Question (59a) was not included in the last set of questionnaires as reproduced in Appendix A. 195 foreign students' countries. Of the 89% who said they would maintain the association under these conditions, all but 7% (of all the respondents) stated that friendship took precedence over national allegiance, or words to that effect. This other 7% said that their relationship with the foreign student would give them a better under- standing of the conflict, and that they would, therefore, maintain it. Finally, we asked whether the American students would have liked to have had more contact with foreign students at the time of the study, and in the past; our feeling was that such a desire had the potential for being a reinforcement of their tendency to associate with foreign students, and a stimulant to behavioral change (increased contact) in the future. In fact, 72% of the respondents said that they would have liked to have had more contact with foreign students in general; only 24% would not have wanted more. Further, only 3% of the respondents indicated a real distaste for involvement with foreign students--the rest of those who did not want more contact cited "lack of time" as their reason. Thus, an affirmative to the third research question [as to whether Americans (students) who were or had been associating with foreign students would continue to associate with foreign students and foreign student associates in the future] is suggested, but not strongly indicated by our quantitative data. It appeared that the Americans fully intended to continue this relationship, despite disad- vantages or political unpopularity, as long as the criteria of nearness in time and space were met. A good number intended to continue it even across considerable spatial separation, at least through written 196 correspondence. Further, nearly three-quarters of the American stu- dent associates of foreign students felt that they would have liked more relationships of this type. Again, then, to the extent that current intentions and desires were predictive of future actions, the answer to the last research question was positive; and conversely. To sum up, the answers which have, and have not, been provided to the research questions are: (1) If (student) members of an American academic community and foreign students were brought into contact, this led to continu- ing professional/intellectual and "social" associations between a number of the Americans and the foreign students, when the American (students) and the foreign students were matched on a number of demo- graphic dimensions,* and when the contact was either in an academic/ professional setting or was due to residential proximity. (2) If (student) members of an American academic community came to associate with foreign students in that context, they also came to associate with (a) other Americans who associated with foreign students (in some instances, although the criteria for these instances were not always entirely clear); and (b) other foreign students--or came to associate with an entire set of foreign students at once. That is, we do know that Americans who associated with one foreign student also associated with others, but we do not know whether *Age, sex, SES, education, occupation (and to some extent, specific academic field), but not nationality/ethnicity. 197 these relationships arose all together, or sequentially. We know that some American associates of foreign students had been introduced to them by other Americans, and were therefore obviously associating with "other American associates of foreign students." However, this repre- sented quite a small proportion of the total respondent set (11%). We do not know if there were other American associates of foreign students who were also the other responding Americans' associates, but who did not perform the original introduction to a foreign stu- dent; in short, we do know that such associations arose, but we do ngt_know what their extent was. Furthermore, we do not know the circumstances under which these additional associations arose. (3) If (student) members of a given American academic community came to associate at one time with one foreign student, and possibly other foreign students and foreign student associates, they probably would continue to associate with these and other foreign students and foreign student associates in this university and/or in other university settings. At least, the intention and inclination to do so were apparently present in those who had experienced these associations. In other words, to answer the larger question which underlies these, American students who came into contact with foreign students (under the appropriate circumstances) often became involved in on-going sets of interpersonal associations with people of other nationalities. However, from these data did not emerge an answer to the question of what distinguished thj§_set of associations with foreign students and their American associates from othgr_associational sets with other Americans. 198 At first, or even succeeding glances, it appeared that these relationships were very similar, or even identical to, those which characterized many other sectors of the American campus. Affiliations were based on similarity of age, sex, current SES, and marital status, and commonality of general academic interests, or residential arrange- ments, just as they were in all-American sets. These were particu- 1ar1y characteristic of the relationships among single and married American graduate students, which were precisely the sets to which most of the foreign students were proximate, spatially and socially. Further, most of the American students perceived these rela- tionships as being similar, or identical, to their relationships with other Americans. When asked how their behavior differed when they were with the foreign student (as opposed to with another American), the only items mentioned frequently by the respondents dealt with explaining American language idiom (37%) or American customs (26%) or other language related factors, such as being more conscious of, or careful in, their speech (48%) or being "more polite" (31%). In short, the only difference in behavior perceived was involved with working out the one demographic difference between the interactants-- language/ethnicity. When the Americans were asked what difference having had this relationship would make to their future behavior, the only significant alteration reported was a change in future travel plans. When asked how their relationship with the foreign student differed from their relationship with other Americans, over half the respondents felt there was no difference; slightly under a fifth felt they were "closer" to the foreign student than to many other 199 Americans; and the rest cited a wide variety of other reasons, with none claiming more than 4% of the respondent set. In short, the bulk of the behavior and relationships of the American students with the foreign students did not seem to differ radically from those of the American students with other American students--rather, these relationships seemed to fit neatly into various on-going American sets. However, concluding from these data that a transnational set of associations with its own unique set of characteristics did not exist would have been entirely unjustified. This was so for two reasons: one methodological and one substantive. The methdological reason concerned the nature of the data with respect to the state of the theory. Had we been engaged in hypothesis testing, we would have been conCerned with how the major central tendency of the respondent set on one variable coincided with that on another. But, given that this was exploratory research, we are just as concerned with explaining the ends of the range, the deviations from the central tendencies, and the minor modalities. Since we had no theoretically-defined population, we were, in essence, searching for its loci (that is, its parameters). One set of respondents might include parts of several populations--our task was to discern what these were and/or track down the defining characteristics of the one we supposed to be of interest. In this case, it appeared that we had a substantial sector of an American student population whose relationships with foreign stu- dents were similar, or identical, to their relationships with other Americans. However, it also appears that the remainder of the 200 respondent set selected did not distribute itself randomly and dif- fusely along a multitude of dimensions on many variables, but formed smaller, discrete clusters. Further, it appeared that the clusters formed represented a significantly different pattern for American student-foreign student relationships. For example, 10% of the American students spent 70-100% of their time with their closest for- eign student associate; about 17% cited the foreign student as a "best friend"; and 20% of the sample had lived abroad prior to college. Although this distribution--a 90/10 to 80/20 split of the population--seemed to occur along a number of dimensions, the outlines of the actual subpopulations forming forming these and some similar distributions were not clear, because the members of the smaller and larger clusters were not always mutually exclusive, and, indeed, often overlapped. Nevertheless, the implication that other, significantly different, patterns of behavior between American students and foreign students existed, was clear--even though the population whose behavior differed along these lines, and thus the precise parameters of the differing behaviors, was not. The second reason for not concluding that a distinct trans- national associational set did not exist was substantive: both our own observations, made during the ethnographic work, and those of preceding investigators (Kroeber, 1954; Useem and Useem, 1953, 1963, 1967; J. Useem, 1971; and Hewes, 1965; to name a few), had strongly suggested the presence of a clearly identifiable transnational asso- ciational set, with an established and easily discernible characteristic pattern of association, in the American, and other, ”academic 201 communities." A more reasonable overall conclusion to draw from this data seemed to be this: although contact between American students and foreign students, under properly facilitating conditions, may have led to continuing interactions which blended into continuing interactional sets, not all (if any) of these became transnational sets. This conclusion raised a number of questions. Basically, our problem was this: we knew from our own and previous ethnographic studies that a set of persons existed, on this and other university campuses, who had formed and maintained transnational relationships. It was also clear that American students and foreign students on the campus of State U. were forming on-going professional/intellectual and social relationships. However, one clear pattern of relationship characteristics was not shared by all foreign students and their American student associates, nor did a single pattern of personal characteristics and/or life experiences for these associates emerge. Further, no constellation of factors seemed to identify any sub-set of these relationships, nor to be significantly associated with any single indicator of the formation of on-going relationships. It became readily apparent that, even if such a constellation of factors were to be isolated, we could not have surely identified this as being characteristic of the transnational relationship set or the transnationals themselves. The underlying problem was that we did not have sufficient general understanding of the internal content and workings of transnational relationships. 202 We had assumed that relationships formed between persons of different nationalities would, by definition, be "transnational." (That is,we assumed that the relationship content would be outside the national-cultural experience of either participant.) Was this, indeed, universally the case? If so, why had there been no entirely common denominator to the relationships studied? Had we failed to ask the appropriate questions to elicit these definitive parameters? Had we forced people to confabulate or to over-report the content of rela- tionships, by our means of drawing our respondent set and the extent of our interview schedule? If all cross-nationality relationships were not_transnational, then what constituted transnationality'hian observable, behavioral sense? Had we chosen a set of persons to interview who had not formed transnational relationships? What, then, were the necessary and sufficient conditions for becoming a transnational? Was cross- national contact the initiating step only under special circumstances? If so, what were these? The next questions to be posed, then, appeared to be: what contacts (if any) between Americans and non-Americans would_eventually become transnational interaction sets? And, were the discrepant modalities among the American associates of foreign students explicable in these terms? To answer these questions, it was clear that we needed a fresh perspective on the foreign students and their relationshps with Ameri- cans; therefore, we returned to the field, to query a yet—untapped campus set--the American non-student associates of foreign students-- for the reasons set forth below. CHAPTER 10 SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS: THE ”BEEN-T05" The set of respondents with whom the semi-structured inter- views were conducted was composed of non-student American associates of foreign students--advisors, community hostesses, professors, office and dormitory staff. Our rationale for conducting these interviews was threefold in nature: first, we simply intended to provide more background information against which to set forth the American student— foreign student relationship, by describing the persons and routine which comprised the foreign students' first contact with American society. Second, we hoped that these respondents would be a source of additional information about foreign student-American student relationships, because they were in a unique position to observe these relationships forming and operating. Third, as we were completing the compilation of results from the American-student associates of foreign students' interviews, we began to suspect that the relationships we had been investigating were not the central ones in the lives of their participants, as discussed above. We then remembered how insistent a number of the foreign stu- dents had been about naming one or another of these non-students as their "closest American associate,” even when asked repeatedly to name their closest student associate. We began to wonder whether these non-student Americans were indeed the persons with whom the foreign 203 204 students formed their central core of relationships, with co-student relationships comprising the periphery of their associational fields. Therefore, we designed an open-ended questionnaire (Appendix B) to investigate these foreign student-American non-student associations, from the standpoint of the American. We then selected a set of 10 Americans who, in capacities of varying officiality, were those with whom the foreign students had first contact upon their arrival at State U. Three of these were, by design, the Americans who had been most often mentioned by the foreign students when asked to name their "closest American (student) friend," although they were not students. We describe the interviews carried out with them as semi- structured, because we started the interviewing sequence with a certain predetermined set of information which we wished to get. However, it quickly became clear that we were getting a paucity of information on the relationships of these American non-students and their foreign student associates (even those who had named them) but a wealth of data on transnational associations in general. The foreign students remem— bered these Americans well--probably because these Americans were among the first they encountered, and because, as administrators and related personnel, these Americans had a good deal to do with the administration of rules, regulations and laws impinging on the lives of these foreign students, such as those concerning student visas, re-entry permits, and immigration papers. They also performed a wide variety of informal functions that facilitated the foreign students' adjustment to the United States. Some, for example, aided foreign students in securing 205 warm clothing, dishes, and furniture, or instructed foreign student wives in the art of shopping in American supermarkets. The Americans themselves did not feel they knew their "clientele" personally. They did not remember the foreign students by name, nor report developing on-going relationships with them, outside of the professional-service role in which they originally dealt with the foreign student. The only exceptions to this occurred when the foreign students were already members of on-going transnational sets with which the Americans were also involved. Therefore, rather than insisting on concentrating on relation- ships betwen the American non-students and their foreign student clientele in the interview, we simply used the predevised schedule as a stimulating device. We then recorded and prompted the interviewees' own accounts of their transnational experiences and associations, as they emerged in the course of the discussion. In fact, the net result was much like a series of limited life—histories. The interview often ended with the subject suggesting another person to whom the interviewer should speak about transnational associations--and quite often it was possible to follow up these suggestions, through several referrals; a total of 40 interviews was finally collected. It thus became clear, quite early in this process, that the American non-student associates of foreign students were indeed mem- bers of some transnational interactional set; but this set did not include the foreign students upon whom we were focusing, unless they had entered this set previously, at some other time or place. Rather, the American non-student associates were ordinarily older, and 206 involved in a long-term family relationship; they were therefore members of what might be described as "small groups" (but probably more accurately as "clusters") of other families with transnational interests and experiences. These Americans told remarkably similar stories about the ways in which they had become involved in these transnational sets. A particularly interesting feature that characterized the statements made by many members of this set was that each person felt that he (or she) had had absolutely unique experiences which no one else could ever be expected to duplicate. Almost to a person, they began their stories with a disclaimer to the effect: "I don't think this will be much help, because our experiences are kind of unusual," or "I don't suppose this happens to most people--we just happened to meet with an odd combination of circumstances," etc., etc. This conviction on the part of the respondents, that there was a complete non-identity of their own past and present and the life experiences of any one else, was practically a hallmark of this set. Another interesting characteristic of the members of this set was their common feeling that they did ngt_belong to any group, but simply had "a few people whom they saw and got along with." These referents were not necessarily all mutually acquainted. Our American respondents frequently seemed to feel a bit left out of society in general--somewhat as though, for one reason or another, they did not quite "belong" to the community, or any particular group within it. They offered various rationales for this: "All our friends have retired, or are on sabbatical"; "We're gone so much, we don't get to 207 know anybody"; "We're not very social," etc. This feeling was usually in considerable contrast to their own report of their schedule, which often contained an incredible number of social and professional events and obligations; not at all the quiet, semi-isolated existence of the American associates' own perceptions. The variety of experience represented in this set of respondents was remarkable; nevertheless, there was a common theme which ran throughout the life/career histories collected from them. First, their point of entry into the set of transnationally-oriented persons was their own first overseas—residential experience. The quality of this experience was perceived by the respondents to be extremely important--without exception, the respondents mentioned that thgy_were not one of those Americans who "shut themselves up in an American enclave." Instead, this set unanimously reported that they lllived off the land," meaning, usually, that they lived in the same areas and under the same conditions as the local intelligentsia or upper-middle class. They ate the same food, lived in the same housing, hired similar servants, shopped in the same stores and bazaars. However, this was not the crux of their experience--this was a means of inte- grating themselves into the local society and getting to know the "local pe0ple." This, of course, usually meant the professionals and other society members of comparable status to their own, but of the host nationality. This set also clearly distinguished itself from the type of American who "went native." This usually referred to adopting the 208 patterns of behavior and lifestyle of those sectors outside the realm of transnational contact; these were often those traditional sectors which had retained more of the indigenous pre-industrial ethnicity. (Transnational sectors are likely to be either Western, as in Latin America or Iran; or Westernized, as in India, Tanzania, and Japan.) The transnationals remained just that--members of one nationality group interacting on a daily basis with members of others, rather than attempting to totally become host nationals in cognition, affect, and overt behavior. An interesting feature of this first overseas experience is that it was characterized by a conscious attempt to meet the host nationals, as opposed to transnationals of other nationalities than the hosts' and their own. Further, the respondents had usually succeeded in this attempt, and often, in the process, had conceived a special affection for this particular nation and its people and cul- ture. (For the rest of his career, regardless of the numbercfiiother places he was stationed, a man might refer to himself as an "India man.") Often, throughout the transnationals' careers, the proportion of these first host nationals to the total number of their other foreign contacts was high, and transnationals remained in contact with their first foreign friends over long periods of time. There wereaafew exceptions to this pattern. For first gen- eration transnationals, if the first overseas experience occurred before the individual's professional identity was fully established (in a high school exchange program, for example), the contacts made during this first visit may not have been maintained. Nor were these 209 contacts as readily reclaimable through yet other contacts, as those made during the adult professional years. One reason for this may have been that professions and disciplines ordinarily had institutionalized means (such as conferences, seminars, journals, and newsletters) of maintaining contact between members. This served to enhance the continuity of professionally-based relationships. Further, a shared professional identity served as yet another reason for maintaining contact, as well as a means. Another exception to the "first timer" pattern of contact was found during "vacationing." Many individuals may have traveled for recreational purposes before they became established as members of transnational networks; which ordinarily requires residence, in the initial stages. Contacts made during these journeys were usually also transient, and not maintained. After this first experience in living abroad, the neophyte transnational set member usually returned to the U.S. Typically, this was when the transnationals first discovered that they were "been-tos"--people whose daily experience had included a totally different way of life; that is, of thinking, feeling, behaving. They found that they were drawn to other people with similar experiences, with whom they could let down the barriers. With other transnationally- minded people, they could speak freely without shocking their audience and could, in turn, listen without being subjected to a barrage of provincialism. Close friendships with other "been-tos" were often formed at this time. One of the central experiences which these transnationals 210 shared was that of having to carve out a completely new set of social agreements with persons of other cultural backgrounds with whom they originally shared no expectations for behavior. The tolerance for other behavioral formats, which this "third culturing" apparently engendered in the individuals who participated in the process, was a characteristic of transnational sets. However, this continuing process of construction of new sets of behavioral understandings among transnationals may have partially explained the importance of profes- sional commonalities in establishing their linkages, since these may have been the only salient cognitions initially shared. The new transnationals may have also associated with members of the nationality group from "their" overseas area--however, they were likely to do so separately, apart from other Americans, if a large cluster of foreign nationals existed in their locale. If there were only one or two individuals or a couple from that area with whom the transnationals were friendly, American and foreign trans- national sets were seen together socially. The other process that began to engage the returnee attention, nearly immediately, was the formulation of plans to "go out" again. On their second and subsequent ventures abroad, the trans- nationals were less concerned with integrating themselves solely into the host national community. As one interviewee, an old hand on the transnational circuit, put it, "People typically go through two stages. The first is the 'we must get to know the natives' period; the second comes with the recognition that all people are basically alike. Now we look at the scenery--not the people." However, the neophytes were 211 then "old hands" themselves; they had probably come to this position overseas at the behest of, or by the good offices of, other trans- nationals, who were either on hand themselves, or who had contacts at this site. Therefore, the new arrivals often found that they had ready-made sets of relationships waiting for them, that required nothing but their presence to be fully activated. This set of transnationals usually included people from a variety of different nations, rather than exclusively Americans and host nationals. In fact, in some areas, there wgrg_no host nationals of appropriate status, and the set of transnationals became entirely composed of extranational persons. The host nationals who were involved in such transnational sets were ordinarily "been-tos" them- selves. This was largely for the same reasons that American "been-tos" joined such sets in their own country, although there were often a few persons that had become members of these transnational sets with- out having had extranational experiences themselves. These trans- national sets were usually task- or goal-oriented, in that the entire memberships' usual reason and support for being in this setting was to perform professional or technical functions of some sort, directed towards accomplishing a particular task or a set of interconnected ones. In situations where this set was not extensive and confined by locale, class, and background (this might have occurred, for example, in smaller provincial centers of one sort or another, such as Nyeri, Upper Dharmsala, or Atlanta), it very often became a much "tighter" organization and resembled a group. By this we mean that the membership was mutually acquainted, it was possible to differentiate 212 between members and non-members, and there was a common core of beliefs, values, and goals subscribed to by all the members. Under these circumstances, very close relationships among the members often developed, and these contacts were often the ones that were the most faithfully maintained over the years. For example, the original members of one of the earliest State U. projects, which was in a developing Asian nation, formed a cohort between whose members the bonds had remained strong, despite the ensuing dual separations of time and distance. 1 Another commonality in the transnationals' life-pattern was that, prior to their first adult/professional overseas experience, they had been exposed--usually through a family contact--to some sort of "foreign" experience, or had had an overseas experience of their own. This appeared to have been quite salient to them, even if they had not maintained contact with the other individuals involved, if these relationships had been outside the transnationals' ordinary range of relationships. In some sense, these early experiences seem to have acted as "primers," that stimulated the individuals to seek out their long-term adult extranational experiences. Note that this paralleled to some extent the pattern found among those American students whose foreign student associates were felt to be "best friend." (See pp. 183-188.) Finally, the transnationals again returned to the U.S., and the pattern was repeated. This pointed up yet another characteristic of many members of these transnational sets: high mobility. Again, this high mobility was not characteristic of all transnationals--some 213 remained overseas, some returned to the U.S. more or less permanently. This mobility, however, should be understood to have been psychic as well as physica1--when the transnationals moved from place to place, they also shifted from one set of significant others to another. With each set they shared a different collection of attitudes and beliefs, goals and behaviors, although always sharing the ability to make these attitudinal/behavioral shifts between sets and to tolerate differences in these shared collections. This ability may well be the essence of transnationality. Mobility was closely related to still another transnationality characteristic-~most members of these sets were bonded to pgpplg, rather than to places. Perhaps it was their abiding affection for the site of their initial experience that led to their extraordinary degree of involvement with the host nationals during that stage of their career. At any rate, these bonds to people were of a peculiar sort; they ordinarily survived long gaps of time and space, but they existed in a latent or dormant state unless the participants in the relationship were physically proximate. Typically, there was a small amount of written contact, usually in the form of winter-holiday greeting cards, but even this was not always the case; many areas in which the transnationals found themselves had poor-to-nonexistent mail service, and the custom of maintaining contact by writing had been depressed. Further, when relationships were based primarily upon the sharing of immediate occupational goals and the perfOrmance of daily tasks needed to achieve them, there was a tendency for these relationships to lose content 214 when the daily rounds were disparate. At least, what was shared was difficult to transfer to paper, unless it involved professional inter- ests or taks that could be shared by mail-~such tasks, however, were rare. Therefore, transnationals depended on physical proximity to activate their interrelationships. The feature that was remarkable in these bonds, however, was their ability to retain their potency even during long separations. When the relationship was reactivated by the participants' physical meeting, it was reactivated at its original strength and degree of familiarity. As more than one respondent said, "We pick up the con- versation right where we left off, as though we had never been apart." This was reported even after separations of 10 and 20 years. The two most important bases of these bonds between trans- nationals were professional interests and familial ties, although bonds did develop, less frequently, between persons involved in strictly social-recreational associations, or more likely, between persons who were bonded to a third by different bond types.* Both professional interests and family ties, however, were bonds which could be maintained well over time and distance--possibly because the life-patterns of people bonded in these ways tended to run in similar channels, even when the bonded individuals were spatially and *Example: The Singhs know the De la Vegas because they were both at the Tropical Diseases Center in London at the same time, 15 years ago. When the De la Vegas' son, Juan, came to study at Emory University in Atlanta, he was given aid and hospitality by the Singhs, who happened to be at the Communicable Diseases Center at the time. The Singhs became very fond of Juan, and have maintained contact with him, over the years. 215 temporally separated. Also, both represented reasons-~that is, situations in which mutual benefits accrued--for people to remain in contact and to seek each other out at future times. This consti- tuted at least a partial explanation of an apparent prerequisite for transnational relationship formation: participants had to be adults with established professional/occupational identities. People in the pre-professional period apparently did not have a continuing set of interests upon which to maintain such long-term contacts. Additional family bonds were also usually difficult to construct for younger persons. The importance of the familial and surrogate-familial bond was of interest for several reasons. First, it has been severely downplayed as an important bond in the modern world. As people in certain societal sectors became more mobile, family bonds in those sectors were no longer synonymous with occupational or social- recreational links, although the nuclear family remained as a financial-residential~procreational unit. A number of sociologists have predicted the imminent demise of the family as a social insti- tution, at least in its extended, and perhaps in its nuclear, form. However, in the yet-more mobile post-modern world, other forms of social support, such as the neighborhood, the religious institutions, and the voluntary organization, have also been stripped away from the individual. This has bared the immutable fact of blood relationship, and often left it as the only surety in a totally fluid set of rela- tionships; the family has thus taken on a new importance. 216 In keeping with this, family ties were particularly important for the transnationals who had no geographic roots. Further, this may have been the only set of relationships that was continuously active for transnationals--the one constant set of associations and values, upon which they could rely to provide a framework for their lives. Long standing professional relationships may have provided others, but these were voluntary (or "achieved") and had at least the potential of being canceled. Interestingly enough, and fitting with this logic, when transnationals became the senior generation, they usually acquired a physical "home base" of some sort, to which they and their children could return. There were often colonies of these homes in academic areas. However, it was the family which provided the ultimate set of bonds, upon which the transnationals could always depend. In fact, one might describe the typical relationship between trans- nationals as having been a surrogate-family one; a relationship not dulled or lessened by separations of time and distance. Another familial characteristic of these relationships was that they were sometimes extended to persons who were actually strangers to each other, if they had been mutually vouched for by other members of the set. In the same way that extended family members will welcome and aid a cousin whom they have never met before, transnationals offered hospitality and assistance to stranger transnationals recommended to them by other members of the set. It was also true, of course, that when an identifiable cohort of transnationals developed, more than one type of common bond tended to link the participants--professiona1, social, and family bonds all 217 came into being and overlapped during periods of close association. Usually, however, in a setting with a large number of transnationals, it was difficult-to-impossible to clearly identify, in a mutually exclusive and inclusive way, the members of the set as a whole. It was also very difficult to discern discrete subsets within--in short, the transnationals refused to behave like a community, or as a boundable collection of smaller groups. Nevertheless, the individuals involved continued to behave as though there were such an entity, and were able to recognize, as one informant remarked, another "one of the clan." Before attempting a fuller explanation of this particular substantive phenomenon, let us again turn to our research questions, to supplement our previous answers with the information garnered from our final data set. First, we queried: if members of an American academic commu- nity and foreign students were brought into contact, would this lead to continuing professional-intellectual and/or "social" associations between a number of Americans and the foreign students? In response, these data suggested even more strongly than before that such associ- ations would only arise if_the foreign students and the Americans were matched on a number of salient dimensions. In this case, if the for- eign student was a member of the larger set of ”been-tos," or was a member of the non-American nationality contingent with which a member of the American transnational set had contact, a relationship might form. It was also important that the foreign student and the American in question were roughly matched in age—grade, or were close 218 associates of own-nationality age—grade peers of the other. For example, a student of a friend/colleague, usually of the student's nationality, might be welcomed and associated with. However, this was not particularly likely on the American campus, as mentioned previously. Although these Americans did indeed have many contacts with "foreigners," these were not foreign students that they met in the U.S. unless these were nationals of the areas in which the Americans had been resident overseas. In this case, the foreign students were most probably recommended to the Americans by colleagues from the overseas area. These colleagues were also transnationals, met either abroad or in the U.S., through the American's transnational set here. Therefore, although the indicated answer to the first question was still "Yes-~if the proper facilitating conditions are present," again we note that, for the American transnationals, these conditions were rarely present with the foreign students, who were largely nonpeers. Secondly, we asked: if members of an American academic community came to associate with one foreign student in that context, would they also come to associate with other Americans who associated with foreign students and/or other foreign students? Again, this data set indicated indicated a positive response to this query--recognizing, however, that the first condition was rarely met. When it was, the usual reason was the foreign students' involvement in an on-going transnational set, in which the American was also involved. A few other Americans were also ordinarily involved in such sets--it might be these or other "foreign" members that the American in question 219 knew. If it was the former and if the relationship between the American and the foreign student was fairly fully developed, the American might well come to know the foreign students' other American friends, who were by definition also transnationals. The same was true for the Americans' association with "other foreign students." Both of these statements are based on the observation that trans- nationals, here and abroad, came to know many members of a trans- national set, when they had become acquainted with one member thereof. In short, when the first associational condition was met, this set of data suggested strongly that the further associational pattern here outlined was a likely sequel. Finally, we asked, if a member of a given American academic community came to associate at one time with a foreign student, and possibly other foreign students and foreign student associates, would this American continue to associate with these and other foreign student associates and foreign students in this university and/or in other university settings? The answer suggested by this sub-set of data was that the pattern of associating with foreigners that were peers might well have been developed by experiences which included, as a major contributing factor, associating with foreign student(s) in the U.S. or abroad (for an American). However, if the Specific relationships first developed were between persons of preprofessional status, such as students, these particular associations were quite likely not to have been maintained. In short, student-level relation- ships may have developed transnationals, but not on-going transnational relationships. 220 To sum up, these data have indicated that the research ques- tions may continue to be answered with a qualified “yes“--the qualifi- cation being that the appropriately receptive and similar participants would have to be co-available in situations conducive to the develop- ment of the relationships outlined in these questions. Such conducive situations, of course, represent only a subsection of the campus panorama. SECTION IV ANALYSIS OF DATA AND CONCLUSIONS Chapter 11. OVERVIEW OF PROBLEMS POSED AND FINDINGS 12. ANALYSIS OF DATA . Theoretical Analysis: Networking as an Explanatory Tool Substantive Analysis 1: Exchange Programs as Foundations of Transnationality . . . Substantive Analysis II: Implications for Theory . . . . .1 . . . . . . Methodological Implications The Current Study: A Reappraisal 13. CONCLUSIONS AND SUMMARY Summary . . . . . . . . Implications for Further Research 221 Page 222 233 233 243 247 249 251 258 258 260 CHAPTER 11 OVERVIEW OF PROBLEMS POSED AND FINDINGS We began this investigatory process with three problems: two theoretical, and one substantive. Our theoretical problems, further, represented two levels of abstraction. The highest level, or most abstract, problem involved devising a conceptual framework to describe the process by which social level entities were constructed from individual level entities. We pr0posed to use the set of notions surrounding the concept of "network" to descriptively organize the findings from the investigation of a particular substantive problem, to see whether this conceptual set had the potential for performing a theory-integrating function of this sort. The second theoretical problem was at a "middle-range" level; presuming that such a thing as a "network" existed, we wanted to dis- cover the general outlines of the process by which it was formed. To phrase it as a research question, we asked: what were the necessary and sufficient conditions for network formation? We posited a contacting + interacting + networking process, based on the sequence of events implied in the exchange-of-persons literature. Again, we proposed to explore the reasonableness of this postulation in the context of a substantive problem, drawn from the exchange-of-persons context. Encompassed within this latter problem was our interest in investigating the new sets of shared understandings that comprise the 222 223 cognitive-normative components of the relationships that together make up a network. In the exchange-of-persons literature this component and its behavioral resultants has been known as "third culture," and refers to a de novo construct that arises between interactants from different cultural backgrounds. Thus, theoretically, we wanted to investigate the place of "network" and its related set of concepts in the context of social theory as a whole; simultaneously, we were interested in the theory pf_networks--most particularly, in contributing to the theoretical understanding of network formation. In tandem with these theoretical concerns was a substantive one--how effective are exchange-of-persons programs in promoting the formation of enduring relationships between people of different national/cultural origins? This problem clearly involved relationship formation, with the possibility that these single relationships would, in turn, come together to form larger entities. Thus, it seemed to offer a good potential field for the investigation of our theoretical concerns; one which would allow substance and theory to interplay, and the research of each to enhance our understanding of the other. To accomplish this purpose, we posed three research questions: 1. If members of an American academic community and for- eign students are brought into contact, will this lead to continuing professional-intellectual and/or "social" associations between a number of the Americans and the foreign students? 2. If a member of an American academic community comes to associate with a foreign student in that context, will he/she also come to associate with (a) other Americans who associate with foreign stu- dents, and/or, 224 (b) other foreign students? (And will they come to associate with him/her?) 3. If a member of a given American academic community comes to associate at one time with a foreign student, and possibly other foreign students and foreign student associates, will he/she continue to associate with these and other foreign student associates and foreign students in this university and/or in other university settings? To answer these, we used several different methods; this was in an attempt to be as rigorous as the state of knowledge, at various chronological stages of the research process, allowed. We also built upon the knowledge gained by previous researchers using various methods. Initially, we knew that foreign students and American students are (and have been) brought into contact on the American college campus. We also knew that long-term relationships are formed between persons of different nationalities. Further, we knew that previous researchers had described an entity called a "network," and developed a set of related concepts which characterized its structure, location, content, and conditions of formation. Our first step, then, in our data collection process, was to do an ethnography of the American campus, with an especial emphasis on the situations in which Americans and foreign students came into con- tact. The object of this was to determine (a) how Americans formed and continued relationships with other Americans, and the nature of these relationships in each context, and (b) whether, and how, Ameri- cans formed and continued relationships with foreign students in these same contexts; and to some extent, the nature of these. In terms of this latter problem, we were particularly interested in whether the 225 relationships (if formed) between the Americans and the foreign stu- dents differed from those formed between the Americans themselves. Starting with some informants who were known to serve as spokesmen for foreign student populations (officers of nationality clubs, highly Americanized foreigners who served as informal "inter- preters," and the like), we approached each campus sector which was known to be a contact site for Americans and foreign students. We also investigated several other sub-sectors of the campus which were representative of major student lifestyles-~the Bohemian fringe, the "average State U. student," and the agricultural set. We found that initial contacts between American students and foreign students did develop into on-going relationships when they occurred in several settings: married housing, the graduate dorm, and in the graduate academic setting. It has been suggested that value emphasis on commonality of present activity concomitant with lessened importance of background, higher chronological and career age of participants, and high physical identifiability of the interaction setting, were important common characteristics shared by these campus sub-sectors. The relationships formed between the Americans and the foreign students in these contexts appeared to be very much like those developed between pairs of Americans in the same context. However, in all these settings, and particularly in the gradu- ate dormitory setting, there was a strong tendency for foreign students to form their own collectivities. These might be uni- or multi-national, but included few, if any, Americans. In the context of the campus as a whole, this was entirely comprehensible, inasmuch 226 as we found that most Americans also band together in life-style groups, building smaller and more manageable "worlds" amid the vastness and complexity of the multiversity. We summed this up by noting that each of the American student lifestyle modalities represented a prevailing pattern in the larger "adult" society; American students associated with foreign students if they happened to fit into one of these patterns. There were some patterns which, because of their own intrinsic characteristics, were much more open and accessible to foreign students, and it was within these settings that American students and foreign students met and formed continuing associations. In other words, under the proper conditions, transnational contacting did, indeed, lead to interacting. Having established that the contacting + interacting sequence did occur, we then proposed to block out the dimensions of the inter- action itself, using more rigorous methods. We were now able to use the foreign students as the population, and draw a bounded respondent set; from this set of respondents we drew a second--those American students named by the foreign students as their “closest American friend." Knowing that a continuing interaction did occur between these Americans and foreign students, we were then able to devise an instrument which broke the interactions down into general components, and attempted to determine the specific content of each. From this, it appeared that Americans and foreign students who were demographically matched on age, sex, SES, academic level, and to some extent, specific academic field, were inclined to form associ- ations, if they were residentially or academically proximate. Most 227 of the Americans felt that their relationship with the foreign student was similar, or identical to, their relationships with other Americans, except that they explained American language or customs to the foreign student. The evidence that the Americans meant to continue the rela- tionship when they and the foreign student were no longer proximate was not overwhelming, which also seemed to parallel their intentions towards other Americans. In short, it appeared that the Americans formed relationships with persons somewhat like themselves, and that under the appropriate circumstances, "foreignness" was not seen as a salient difference. Neither was there anything peculiar to these relationships in terms of strength, basis, or durability, although Americans did tend to associ- ate with more than one foreign student at once. However, there were secondary modalities in the American student-foreign student relation- ship patterns that differed significantly from the American-American pattern; unfortunately, these did not seem to have a high degree of overlap in personnel. In light of the fact that the previous research had suggested that a rather distinctive lifestyle pattern developed among trans- national associates, while the present research pointed to formation of interactions characteristic of the host (American) culture, the interpretation of the cumulative data was not clear. Therefore, we again returned to the field, this time to another population--the non-student Americans who associated with foreign students. We had expected to simply document this sets' relationship with the foreign students, in an even more focused manner than that used 228 with the American student associates of foreign students. We selected particular dimensions from the first instrument; those which seemed to constitute the nexus of the differential description of the trans- national relationship. During the interviews it became clear that the relationships between these Americans and the foreign students in question were strictly professional-client. The Americans were, however, in contact with other foreigners, usually those in their own field. We adapted to this by focusing the interviews on the careers as transnationals of these Americans, investigating the relationships formed therein along the dimensions delineated in the earlier phases of the study. Thus, this approached a "panel of experts" method, a technique useful in research situations where the general areas of concern have been set forth, but specific concepts and their relationships, necessary for pr0position formation (+ theory formation ) + hypothesis testing are not yet clear. This method is an attempt to tap the conceptualizations that individuals with greater experiential knowledge of the research field have formed, thus lying in both flexibility and preciseness of conceptual focus somewhere between ethnography and a set-format, short-answer, interview schedule. This set of respondents gave us to understand that trans- nationality was a distinctive feature of one's lifestyle, but not a complete, coherent, identifiable lifestyle in and of itself. They described a pattern of events by which transnationals were created, involving a "foreign awareness"-generating event in the preprofessional years, an initial adult/professional overseas experience in which the association with the host nationals was high; a "returnee" experience, 229 during which they began to recognize their own transnationality and associate with other American and foreign transnationals; and a con- tinuing series of trips out and returns to the States, during which there was a continually higher tendency to associate with other trans- nationals of all nationalities, rather than host nationals or Americans, respectively, who were non-transnationals. These relation- ships between transnationals were, however, formed only when some other significant factor existed for the association--usually, shared occupational/professional interests and goals. Familial ties were another possible bond base for transnational relationships. Transnational friends of parents or children (or, con- versely, children of transnational friends) were often accorded immediate status as friends themselves by transnationals. This trans- ferability of relationships sometimes extended to siblings as well; a transnational might prevail upon a brother or sister to host another transnational. The tendency for relationships with other trans- nationals to be transferred from one sibling to another, or to the transnationals' parents, seemed to increase as the transnationality of the siblings or parents themselves increased. These transnational Americans did not report the existence of one coherently delimited group or community of transnationals but, rather, small sets of associates with one or several of which they were themselves connected. These sets did not appear to have a high degree of overlap with one another. Further, all of these Americans described their own relationships and experiences as utterly unique --all seemed to have given their pattern of behavior some thought-- 230 and transmitted a not-inconsiderable feeling of loneliness apropos of this uniqueness. The Americans reported yet another factor that may have con- tributed to this feeling of loneliness: relationships between trans- nationals had great durability, but typically lay dormant unless the parties to it were in physical proximity to one another. Thus, of a great many relationships which the transnational American may have had with others, only a very few may have been operable at one time. Further, given the high mobility of transnationals, it was often dif- ficult or nonproductive to form relationships with non-transnationals. Thus, the milieu of the transnationals was perennially thin, and they were dependent for peer support on a few significant others at any one time and place. This experience is, of course, characteristic of network participation in general. With regard to both the preceding and following remarks on transnationals and network formation, we should note that our findings have a highly specific locus in time and institutional setting. We are, in this study, referring to processes observed in the time period following World War II, and occurring within an academic and a closely related institutional structure. Therefore, although we speak of transnationality in a general sense, the applicability of this beyond the substantive field described herein remains a problem for inves- tigation. This temporal and social/spatial locale had a number of char- acteristics which made it somewhat distinctive. First, the age distribution of the participant population was strongly skewed towards 231 the second and third life-decades; secondly, the institutional partici- pants had, by definition, relatively high SES with respect to the societies in which the institutions were lodged; third, both residence and work-place of the participants were often located within the physical confines of the institution; fourth, occupational socializa- tion was one of the explicit purposes Of this institution; fifth, verbal and written communication skills, as well as knowledge seeking, were highly prized by the institutional participants; and sixth, this was a large-scale institution in a Midwestern-American cultural setting. Also, at this time, for participants in this academic insti- tutional milieu in the U.S., mobility between specific institutions was the norm; at this point in the world's history, most physical locales were reasonably accessible to travel and communications from nearly any other point in the world. Major technical/physical transportation and communication barriers, by and large, did not exist between members of the academic sectors of different societies. Many of the institutional tasks were readily transferable across national boundaries--the improvement of agricultural techniques, the development of new mathematical formulae, or the discovery of logical principles underlying teaching-learning, were not problems inherently bounded by nation or culture. Political barriers, however, still sometimes constituted an important impediment to the transnational flow of personnel and knowledge. At any rate, persons participating in this institution had the financial and technical means, the personal ability, and the basis of 232 common interest for mobility and communication across national/ cultural lines. Being young, they were readily mobile, lacking many of the physical and social impedimenta accumulated during later adult life. The institutional settings often provided for multiple life-contingencies, for academic personnel from other national-cultural loci, containing not only comparable occupational positions but often also making available residential arrangements and social support of peers. These institutions were generally geared to the assimilation and orientation of new participants, in nearly all national/cultural settings, which constituted an additional facilitating condition for the mobility of the participants between these institutions. In short, the academic milieu was, at this time, one which facilitated and even promoted mobility and communication between different specific institutional settings, even across national— cultural boundaries. The participants were young, literate, relatively well-to-do and professional committed to the discovery of new knowledge, the satisfaction of curiosity, and the acquiring of professional competencies. It is entirely possible that some or all of these fac- tors are necessary conditions for the development of transnationality, as described herein. At any rate, these facts necessarily impart particular contours to our description of transnationality; and these should be borne in mind when interpreting and applying any of the findings of this study. CHAPTER 12 ANALYSIS OF DATA Theoretical Analysis: Networking as an Explanatory Tool How, then, are we to make sense of this life-pattern, which was apparently a comprehensible and intuitively definable entity for its participants, but which refused (a) to yield up its boundary characteristics and (b) to be attached to an observable and boundable set of persons? This is where the concept of network may prove serviceable; it is designed to describe a series of sets of persons involved in an entity with central characteristics defining each of its nexi, but without "limit" characteristics enclosing it. Networks themselves were described as interlocking, transitional, or radial; linkages were described in terms of their nnfltistrandedness and density; and elements (persons) in terms of homogeneity. The situ- ations in which networks were observed were described as social "arenas," containing "action—sets," or positions of networks bound in one arena; that is, a set of networked persons sharing a social situ- ation or institution. Finally, interlocking networks (networks with high density and nmltistrandedness) required high "immediacy" for their formation--this meant proximity in time and space of a set of homogeneous elements. This sort of phenomenon is precisely what we would appear to have been dealing with here; first, although we could define 233 234 “clusters" of persons, we were at a loss to see where they stopped. For example, a set of American l'been-tos" may have shared a great many common experiences, attitudes, and goals, and have been related pro- fessionally, socially, and even by familial bonds, somato-genetic or surrogate--but each member may have also been linked to other sets, such as a set of foreign nationals or a non-"been-to" set of Americans in the same professional area, by any of or all of these bonds to thgjp_members. Therefore, we observe that each set is linked to others in precisely the same ways; and, thus, a sector or the whole of a society becomes a "set of sets." We must, of course, always continue to bear in mind that we are generalizing from observations of the process within one type of institutional milieu--the U.S. academic setting. Interpreted as a network, it is easy to see that the "clusters” were interlocking networks, containing multistranded linkages of high density; that is, the members were highly interlinked to one another, and interlinked along a number of dimensions. They were linked to other "clusters” or interlocking networks by transitional network linkages--often multistranded but not of high density. For example, this was the American transnational set, in which each member was linked to a single-nationality foreign transnational set, but no American was linked to the same foreign national set. Within each foreign national set, of course, the linkages were again high in density. This also makes it somewhat easier to understand why many transnational persons who were apparently highly involved with a 235 large number of people, felt peripheral, "lonely" or slightly isolated from the community that they supposed existed about them. Each per- son, by definition, was on the "edge" of every interlocking network to which he belonged. It was true, of course, that some individuals may have had a greater density of linkages-~that is, they were linked to more people in a particular interlocking network than some of the other members. However, to any person raised in a Gemeinschaft locality-based community, any network may have seemed like a non- structure. Its lack, both of boundaries and a central value structure, may have provoked general disorientation on the part of these partici- pants, to the extent that this absence of limits was a violation of their expectations. Another explicable phenomenon, in this theoretical context, was the locality-based "community" which seemed to develop wherever a set of semi—isolated transnationals was found--but which nevertheless seemed to allow members to leave without forfeiting the strength and quality of their relationships with the members who stayed. If we see this as an example of Adrian Mayer's "quasi-groups"--an interlocking network coinciding with a self-contained or isolated social arena-- we recognize that members may have remained in the network even when moving from the locale. Common locale, in this case, was one basis --one of the strands--that linked an individual to others in high density, multistranded relationship sets, remembering that temporal and spatial proximity are requirements for participation in an inter- locking network. If this bond of common locale was broke, the others remained, although the individual was separated from any other 236 individuals with whom this was the only link. This was also true for other locality-bound links with network members such as the ability to share a daily athletic activity. However, the individual might have become part of a transitional network, in which the linkages were neither so dense nor possessed of the same multitude of strands; but would still be "networked" to the members of the locality cluster in many ways. If interlocking networks were experienced by the participants as "communities," and if this was a reassuring experience for many individuals who were raised in the locality-based Gemeinschaft com- munities mentioned earlier, such as the stable residential-perhaps- ethnic-neighborhood, or the small town, then we would have expected these individuals to seek out situations in which they could again be involved in this type of network. As mentioned before, these interlocking networks were often formed where there were sets of transnationals in relatively isolated situations, which were frequently found in developing areas with very small sectors of own-national pro- fessionals and intelligentsia. That is, this may have partially explained the "been-tos" eagerness to return to an overseas situation; and also why this meant seeking a professional post abroad, rather than Simply traveling to an area as a private individual. In a certain sense, then, for the experienced transnational, going abroad was going home, in Wolfe's sense (Wolfe, 1940). It is interesting that the family group, which we earlier noted as the pre-industrial social "mOdel" for the network, albeit in a more extended form, should have played an important part in the post-modern 237 transnational network. Aside from its affective and logistical bene- fits, it was therefore also an entity intrinsically well adapted to this social systemic form (i.e., the network). This simultaneity of form may have been an important factor in determining the importance of the family in maintaining transnational networks. Another concept which is particularly well adapted to the notion of "networks," used in a transnational context, is that of "third culture." This has been utilized to express that set of understandings* which arises between persons of different cultural backgrounds when they arrange their daily round, professional/ occupational activities, or other life patterns conjointly for a period of time. Some question has arisen concerning whether there is g_third culture or many third cultures. If the former, then what is its common context? If the latter, how is it possible to differen- tiate between one and another? If, however, we explain "third-culturing" as the process of creating understandings within a network, then we may talk about the third culture as the set of understandings so created. Because of *By "understandings" we mean that part of a self-other rela- tionship composed of self's thoughts about what he (self) should do (in his own terms); self's thoughts about what other feels he (self) should do (in other's terms), what self plans to do; and what he (self) thinks that other will feel about what he does. It is, in short, what goes into making up a relationship participant's "plan of action"; his assessment of his own and others' expectations for and reactions thereto. His co-participant(s) in a relationship, particularly one for which no prototype exists, may have totally differing plans/assessments in the same situation; thus, a relation- ship may be partially composed of two sets of conflicting under- standings. (In this framework, ”actions" are the other compositional element in such self-other relationships.) 238 the nature of the network links, we do not expect to find a common context in this understanding set; however, it is the product of one process, and therefore, one theoretical entity. That is, third cul- ture is a type of social entity, not one substantive case. Like the network, within which it occurs, it has no boundaries--we may talk about the particular third-cultural experience of a given ego and a set of alters on a substantive level, but not about the definitive and self-limited content of the third culture, any more than we may speak in these terms of a network. In a sense, there are as many variations in the content of "third cultures" as there are pairs of individuals involved in transnational networking; but nevertheless, there is only one "third culture" when defined as a process, or the type of product thereof. To attempt to provide boundary conditions for a process that is an integral part of the construction of a net- work is a contradiction in terms. A final substantive problem that was made clear by both our explication of the process of becoming of a transnational, and our understanding of this process in network terms, was the pattern of association between American and foreign students on the State U. campus. The point here is that the foreign students, in this situ- ation, were the individuals who were the most clearly involved in the transnationalization process, given that they were the ones currently involved in an "overseas experience." However, we must remember that these foreign students were, comparatively, quite young, and that they were, of necessity, and at most, early-on in their professional careers . 239 . In fact, for a goodly number of the foreign students, if the pattern paralleled that for American transnationals, this might have been most accurately described as their preprofessional "primer" experience. Although they may have felt that they had come to know a number of Americans fairly well, neither they nor the Americans would have been expected to maintain long-term contact, after they were no longer physically proximate to one another. This may well have explained the prediction by over half the Americans that contact would not be maintained, after the foreign students' return home. For a second set of foreign students, this may have been the first overseas experience during their adult professional lives--if we interpret this as the equivalent of the "first time out" for the American transnationals, we might have expected them to be attempting to get to know the Americans, and to strike up in-depth, long-term relationships with them. This might, of course, have required Americans who had been "primed“ to accept and/or desire transnational associations--but a confluence of the two might have been the founda- tions of the "best friend" relationships that were formed. Another sub-set of the foreign students may have been "old hands," or may have found no Americans who were at a place in their own transnationalization process that rendered them acceptable for, and accepting of, participation in a transnational relationship. These foreign students may have kept to the company of members of the multinational (and largely non—American) transnational sets found in and around the university population. We might have expected that relationships formed between this set of foreign students and American 240 student associates would have been typically transnational in charac- ter--participated in by people who felt they knew each other fairly well, but with the primary bases of their common bonds being either congruent occupational-professional interests or the sheer fact of mutual transnationality. This set of American and foreign students may have been the base population in which "acquaintance" relation- ships, or even "good friend" relationships were found. Finally, there may well have been sets of foreign students who kept entirely to their own nationality groups, tried to duplicate their home environment as much as possible in their living arrangements here, and regarded the U.S. and its natives as a curiosity to be observed from a safe and respectable distance. On the opposite extreme, there were foreign students who "went native," and adopted American dress and manners as completely as possible. Neither of these sub-sets related to Americans in the ways typical of transnational patterns of association. In short, if we recognize that transnationalization is a long- term process, we must realize that the foreign students, as well as the Americans, may have been at different stages within this. There- fore, the types of American student-foreign student relationships varied greatly, depending on the relative point in transnationalization reached by both participants. The difficulties involved in such a process were also compounded, in thisinstance,by the fact that all the participants were at early stages of their lives and careers, and therefore had differential capabilities for involvement in 241 long-term relationships based primarily, though not entirely, on commonality of professional-occupational interests and goals. For these reasons, it was not surprising that we did not find overwhelming evidence of adult/professional-type transnationality in the set of American student-foreign student relationships which we examined. A number of indicators suggest that these relationships were, or were similar to, the expected precursors of later transnational associations, such as those found among the American non-student associates of foreign students. Thus, these findings should not be interpreted as meaning that foreign students and American students did not become involved in transnational associations, but can quite reasonably be taken as support for our position that transnationaliza- tion of an individual is a long and complicated process, in which the first steps are crucial, although deceptively casual in appearance. At this juncture, several theoretical points vis-a-vis networks are perhaps work remaking in substantive terms--for one, we have con- sistently been speaking of "transnational" networks; this would seem to suggest a bounding condition for at least one network, but this is not our intended use of the term. Rather, we are referring to that part of the total network of social relationships in which the links were between transnationally-minded persons, who were usually--but not necessarily-~also transnationally experienced. This transnation- ality may not, of course, have been the major recognized source of commonality between the relationship participants. Further, these transnational persons themselves were linked to many other non- transnationally-minded persons by links as strong, fulsome, and durable (or more so) as those to other transnationals. 242 Therefore, we cannot, and are not attempting to, set a margin or a border on these "transnational networks." We are simply identi- fying one dimension which network participants may have shared, recognizing at the same time that there will have been other salient dimensions of these participants' relationships with others that will not have been shared by all transnationals. This sharing of salient relationship dimensions by overlapping, but not congruent, sets of individuals, was, indeed, conceived as the essence of net- working. A closely related point is that, although we continually spoke of the nature of the links between individual participants, we did not discuss these in terms of specific applications to particular persons. Rather, we portrayed linking patterns as having been char- acteristic of a class of individuals--in this case, transnationals. It should also be apparent from our descriptive discussion of the data that the formation of each link was predicated upon the previous experiences of the relationship participants, particularly experiences in forming links with similar individuals. Again, by "similar" we primarily mean an individual with whom the same set of salient dimen- sions has been shared and/or recognized. At any rate, the point is this: networks are social-level entities-~they are much more than the simple sum of their parts.‘ In fact, since the network links are, by definition, c00perative con- structions of the linkage participants, and since networks are made up of elements (members) and their links, they must, then, composi- tionally be bi-analytical-level constructs. Involving both "individual" 243 and "interaction" levels of social reality, networks become thereby a third level of analysis or social reality, through the process of the interaction of the interactions--that is, the effect of one net- work link upon another.* The network, or set of links and elements, is therefore a social level construct in the same way, and for essentially the same reasons, that a "group" or a "community" is. Substantive Analysis 1: Exchange Programs as Foundations of Transnationality Substantively, then, what conclusions can be drawn? Returning to our basic substantive question (page 55) which was: "How useful are exchange programs" [for promoting international comnunication and understanding], we find that it can be answered in both ways, depending on our interpretation of its meaning. If we intend to promote the immediate development of life-long friendships that will help prevent international strife, our expectations are unrealistic. As we have seen, at this time in an individual's career, the development of such relationships was rare. *To make this point substantively clear, let us use an example garnered from an interview with one of the (transnational) American non-student associates of foreign students. The American had an Indian colleague in his field, public administration. When visiting with the colleague at his home near Delhi the American met the Indian administrator's sister, an English intructor at Lady Doak, whom he eventually married. The formation of this link with the Indian girl, in the American's network, affected the nature of his linkage with her brother, who then became his brother-in-law as well as his colleague. Changes in the relationship with either sister or brother necessarily colored the quality and content of the relation- ship with the other. This (although this is a somewhat extreme example) serves to make the point that the links in a network are very much affected by one another, and should be understood as products of their mutual interaction. 244 However, this is really an oversimplistic and reductionistic approach to the process of transnationalization, from the standpoint of the process we have just described. Early "primer" experiences were crucial to the process of the later formation of transnational relationships, and exchange programs clearly provided these. Of course, for the "first timers" occupying adult/professional positions, close friendship may have been a direct result of this experience, but this was relatively rare at this stage. For individuals at different points in the transnationalization process, this represented yet another setting in which transnational networks might form, thus promoting transnationality in general. Although a large number of Americans may not have been participants in this particular set, they represented a substantial contingent in transnational sets in general. Every environment in which trans- national associations might flourish was an expansion of the general collection of opportunities for transnational associations to form. Thus, in a broader sense, Americans were very much the benefactors of the multi-national-transnational association patterns which developed in U.S. academic settings in the mid-19605, although this result may not have been immediately obvious at any one time and place. In fact, if we grant that transnationalization was a long-term process for each individual, and that transnational sets were usually in network form and therefore physically disparate, we would not have expected to see a large, discrete set of individuals with a coherent and easily identifiable set of "transnational attitudes" in any given socio-physical locale, or in any one temporal segment. This was 245 largely due to our methods, however, and should not alarm us into denying the existence of the transnationals themselves, or to think that transnationalization was not occurring under conditions of con- tact between individuals from different national/cultural areas. It is, however, clear that the development of the pattern of transnational association required multiple opportunities for a given individual to associate with other transnationals. Having observed this, we might recommend that exchange programs, as a class, should include opportunities for individuals at a number of different career points, and for individuals with a number of different personal-demographic characteristics. Further, there should be multiple opportunities for any one individual. v////, 0“ \. Secondly, planners should be aware of the importance of resi: ‘\ \ ——-—--. ~. 1 / dentia1_and academic settings in the formation of transnational to-Muwm_‘~‘ relationships. Most American student associates of foreign students, and most of the non-student American transnationals, reported meeting and forming relationships with their foreign associates in one or both of these two contexts. By "academic settings" we mean not only the classroom and the laboratory, but graduate department offices and lounges, research institutes and laboratories, departmental and technical libraries, small colloquia, and study rooms; the spectrum of formal and informal situations which make up the world of the scholar. Concomitant with this consideration is another, which may also be of some significance to planners. It appears that continuing trans- national relationships are largely formed by people who have made, or 246 are in the process of making, other adult-level interpersonal and professional commitments. The residential and academic settings men- tioned above are the situations in which these more mature foreign and American scholars are most likely to have continuing contact with one another, which may partially explain the higher incidence of rela- tionship formation in these contexts. Next, we may warn planners of exchange programs that they should be wary of any ppg_measure of a program's success, given that the nature of transnationalization, as a long, diverse process, and transnational sets, as the network format of association, lead to very different manifestations of trans- nationalism at different times and places. Further, the planners of exchange programs should not be dis- turbed at the lack of host nationals in the transnational sets formed by their program participants, particularly if these sets are other- wise transnational. However, the planners should be sure to include some opportunities for host nationals to become transnationals, through overseas experiences of their own, so that the host nationals may also participate fully in transnational networks in general. In short, planners should bear in mind that individuals are not "been-tos" until they have, indeed, "been-to." Finally, the reader should remember that all of these obser- vations refer only to exchange-of-persons in an American academic institutional setting in the mid-19605. Although the possibility for their generalizability exists, the establishment of this extensibility must be dependent on further research. 247 Substantive Analysis II: Implications for Theopy Having used "network" and its related concepts as the the- oretical construct with which we interpreted our findings, we should then, according to our methodological schema, ask what the implications of these findings are for the further refinement of these constructs themselves. Initially, it has become clear that networks are a continuum of types not only in a theOretical-definitional sense, but opera- tionally, for the persons involved. The conditions surrounding and within the linkages of which networks are comprised may change, and even though these linkages may remain, their relationship to other linkages in terms of density may be altered, as may their intrinsic multistrandedness--thus, elements that have been involved in an interlocking network together, may come to be joined in a transnational or radial network. That is to say, the network--the set of elements and linkages--may remain, but its form may change. Thus, not only are there different types of networks, but one network, or network sector, may take on the form of different types at different times. Another way of putting this is to say that net- works are more accurately viewed as processes, rather than structures, inasmuch as structures have at least an overtone of immutability of form connected with retention of their identity. An individual involved in a network, serving as an element therein, is therefore involved in an on-going social-level process. This statement of the processual nature of networks bears the need for reiteration--we are not suggesting, at this point, that there 248 is a structure (the network) which is runcn*maintained or created by a process (such as networking). We are saying that a network is a social process, whereby individuals relate to other individuals in various ways, which ways are then reflected in the ways these others relate to still other individuals. If we accept this processual nature of networks, we can also see that network is at least a preliminary description of how indi- viduals build themselves into on-going social level entities. That is, networks may be said to be entities of the second social-level. "Interactions" we have defined as the first-level product of the con- fluent actions of two separate individuals--a product which represents more than the sum of the actions of the two individuals. A "network" is, then, the product, as we have pointed out before, of the interac- tion of the interactions. Thus, a network has a separate and identi- fiable reality of its own, although this reality may appear to differ slightly from each successive vantage point. Given that a network is defined by its central dimensions, as the center--or element location from which the network is viewed--is shifted, the defining dimensions may also shift. This latter aspect of its nature does not negate its claim to a separate analytical level; itdoes, however, bring out a seeming contradiction in the way that we have defined "network." We have apparently called it both elements and their linkages, and the process produced by the interaction of these linkages. These are not, how- ever, necessarily antithetical definitions. The former can be seen to be the component parts necessary for the production of the latter, 249 in the same way that individuals and roles are understood to be the component parts of a society, although the "society" is a separate entity of a higher analytical level. Therefore, although the network may be the process produced by the elements and their linkages, these producing components are still understood to be integral parts of the whole. We have emphasized the processual nature of this concept by the use of the term "networking." In short, then, the theoretical implication of our substantive findings is that "network" or "networking" is a processual concept of the middle range; one that implies, and provides a mechanism for describing, the continuity from the past to the present and future of (a) individuals, (b) their interactions, and (c) the still—larger entities which are the latter's products. Methodological Implications The methodological problems encountered in this study, other than those constituting the minor mishaps and major irritants endemic to the research process, may be summarized in one statement. Tradi- tional sociological methods have been develOped to look at groups and other bounded entities, while we are dealing here with a non-bounded entity--a network. Therefore, we do not have a demarcated population from which we can draw a "representative" sample. In fact, without such a bonded population, the notion of a random sample is meaningless. (A sample must beeasample of something.) Further, there is no one set of characteristics which we would want such a sample to be representative of, other than the one dimension shared by all the network members in which we are interested--transnationality, in 250 this case. In short, the "sample group" method is not practicably used here. The difficulty caused by the use of group techniques in a network was illustrated best in our study of the American student associates of foreign students. Because we at first excluded non- students in an attempt to define the population, we lost the very people who could explain, through their own understanding and actions, what was occurring between the American and foreign students. If we had used "snowballing" originally, we would have met these informants immediately, and found our quantitative results much less confusing. The method used in the semi-structured interviews probably constitutes a rough outline of the necessary technique; this resembles classical sociometry, but on a macro-level. In brief, we selected persons who shared a high location on the theoretically interesting dimension, transnationality. We made this first-selected set as demographically disparate as possible, on age, sex, academic rank, previous education and present professional interests, and foreign area of interest. We then asked this set of persons for referrals to others. After we had been through the referral process several times, we could begin to chart areas of overlap, where the sets of elements and linkages emanating from one individual began to be the same as those emanating from others. The degree of overlap, and the number of linkages sepa- rating individuals, allowed us to construct a picture in the form of the network at that point in time. We were also able to describe the central dimensions of the network, from the viewpoint of each of the original contactants; the overlap of those was then also observable. 251 From these sets of information, and others collected in the same way, we were able to ask and answer the questions that we would have posed to the members of a "random" sample. At this point in the development of network theory, practical guidelines for the field, better known as "rules of thumb" are not present--for example, how many linkages should be gone through to detennine the extent of network overlap or interlocking in a set of people sharing one characteristic? In this case, we simply stopped when the pattern of the relationships in which we were interested, and the process by which they were created and maintained, became clear-- but what if it had not? When only one defining characteristic, for the members of the group to be studied is used, rather than a set of characteristics bounding a discrete population, how central to and obviously manifested within each individual's lifestyle must that characteristic be to define that individual as a member of the subject set? These and endless other questions of actual method need to be answered, as well as some basic methodological questions concerning such things as the ways in which such methods can be used for hypothesis testing. In sum, the investigation of sets of persons involved in networks poses some critical questions for methodology and method, and requires the construction of new field techniques and guidelines. The Current Study: A Reappraisal We do not intend to undertake this entire task of methodological reconstruction here. However, it would seem logical, at this juncture, to ask how this study might be more efficiently redone, in the light 252 of our present knowledge increment, if we wished to extend our inves- tigation of transnationality to other settings and persons. Our first major alteration, of course, would be to utilize "networking" and its associated concepts as our explanatory model from the outset. In terms of new dimensions, a restudy should include some basis for assessing the relative impact of the institutional setting on the form, content, and operation of networks. In practical terms, this may mean that a number of different comparative studies could be designed within the framework of the networking model, in varying institutional set- tings. Included in these should be examinations of the extent, and effect on linkage strength of this extent, of multi- versus uni- stranded linkages in a network within one defining arena (such as transnationality). This might be done by comparing several instances of person-centered networking within one arena, and correlating the multistrandedness or unistrandedness of these with measures of affiliation to the arena and the networking within this. Chrisman (1970) and Lauman (1972) have both spoken to this problem. Chrisman suggests some measures of affiliation and strandedness which may have some transferability to other situations. Simultaneously, we need to develop a coherent terminology that distinguishes between the individual-level person-centered networking, and social-level networking. The latter is either "macro” networking, produced by many units, and bound together by many differ- ent linkage types, or arena-contained networking, produced by units bound together by one type of linkage, but linked to other 253 arena-contained networking processes through the other linkage types of its participants. Methdologically speaking, the clarity of the distinction between these is most important; our theoretical termi- nology should therefore allow this distinction to be easily made. Our other proposed major changes are primarily the method- ological consequences of the shift to a networking conceptualization, the first being that having eliminated the "group" as the focal con- struct, we could not utilize methods of subject selection that involved (a) defining a discrete popualtion by a set of boundary con- ditions (group characteristics) and (b) drawing a set of subjects representative of these characteristics therefrom. Instead, in this case we would need to utilize a serializing technique of subject discovering, popularly called "snowballing." This involves asking each subject to name one or more others to whom he or she is socially linked; to then interview these named individuals, asking them for another referral; and so on, through as many linkages and interviewees as the researcher desires, or until the chain of referral begins to be duplicative. This technique allows us to concentrate on the relationships between the subjects, a process of theoretical relevance, inasmuch as it is the linking between the individual units, as well as the actions of the unit individuals themselves, which constitutes networking. Using such a technique, however, immediately poses three problems: (1) How do we select the original set of subjects? (2) Along what dimension(s) of relationship do we ask these subjects to identify the next set? and (3) When do we stop the subject-gathering process?- 254 that is, through how many linkages will we trace the chain of rela- tionships? The first of these questions may be answered on a practical/ substantive basis. The topic of the study will dictate at least the specific institutional settings from which the respondents will be drawn; the desired size of the respondent pool will be partially dependent on the length of time data-collection from each informant will take, the time-and-money resources of the researcher, and the estimated size of the accessible portion of the proposed respondent pool. From this knowledge of the desired number of respondents, and the approximate number of "linkages" the researcher proposes to go through (that is, how many times the researcher will ask to be "referred" by one set of respondents to another set) we may calculate the necessary size of the initial set of respondents. We propose here that the initial set of respondents be pur- posely chosen, on the basis of a preliminary survey of the research field, to be the most disparate set possible within that institutional setting, while still meeting the criteria of interest for the study. What constitutes disparateness, at least at this point in the develop- ment of this method, must remain a purely empirical question. In the academic setting, discipline, nationality of origin, age and stage of career, sex and marital status appear to be important differentiating points between transnationals. We would attempt to select an initial set of respondents who differed on these points, and trace out their networking, if our purpose was still to demonstrate and describe the patterns of transnational networking in an academic setting. 255 Substantively, we might concentrate more heavily on foreign scholars, who are particularly likely to be involved in the transnationaliza- tion process, or in existing transnational relationships, in this setting. The question concerning the dimension along which the network- ing participants are asked to designate other participants in their networking processes must also be answered on a substantive basis. We would ask the respondent to designate a contact to whom he or she was related along the lines of interest to the study--in this case, transnationality. The third question concerning "when to stop" might also be answered<flian empirical basis. First, we would set the maximum number of linkages we intended to go through. We would, however, stop our investigation of a particular relationship chain, when the theoretically defining reason for that chains' investigation, including the specified institutional settings, became non-salient or non-applicable to the particular relationships scrutinized. (We would then start investigating another chain, or continue another productive one, in order to meet the numeric requirements for the respondent sets.) A final problem is again, sheerly practical-~what sort of instrument would be recommended for such a study? Interpersonal in-depth interviewing is probably the only feasible way to trace networking through, given that respondents may well be unwilling to list their contacts, on paper, for a researcher they have not met. Such techniques also provide maximum flexibility, and thus allow for 256 the inclusion in the investigation of both the networking processes of which the researcher is originally aware and those which only become apparent during the investigatory process. Further, given the neces- sity of eliciting a response from each of the named individuals if we are to investigate "chains" of relationships, increased personaliza- tion may be useful in generating the requisite high response rates. This instrument should be open-ended in nature. Each separate networking experience appears to differ slightly, and the questions to be asked should not mask the possible variety of networking forms, by over-standardization of potential responses or by the assumption that one form will parallel another. However, the questions can well be confined to the transnationalization process, rather than covering whole life-histories of the participants. Our knowledge of the transnationalization sequence would then allow us to pose a set of questions concerning each stage of the process: "priming," "first overseas sojourn," "first return," and later "trips out" with their "returns," all progressing to the current situation. In short, if this study is to be redone, it must focus down on transnational networking as the theoretical construct, with the methodological sequellae this conceptual framework implies; however, it should still retain its exploratory nature, particularly in an empirical sense. Further, since much of the current knowledge in the area is at a very empirical level, future studies would be well advised to select similar settings, or settings readily comparable to that of the current study. This might then allow the utilization 257 of the findings presented here to design productive respondent sets and to discern the major field loci of the processes under investiga- tion, hopefully thereby avoiding many of the pitfalls and "blind alleys" already described for this research context. CHAPTER 13 CONCLUSIONS AND SUMMARY Summar In summary, then, what have we found? First, in answer to our research questions, we uncovered evidence that strongly suggested that, under the proper facilitating conditions of homogeneity of the co-contactants and temporal-spatial proximity, contact between American students and foreign students in an American academic setting led to on-going professional and social associations. However, these associ- ations would not be continued unless both parties were at an appropriate place in their own careers and the transnationalization process. While these associations themselves might not be continued, it further appeared that they did lead to the develOpment of a pattern of transnational association that eventually-—again, under the proper conditions--were extended to both other American and other foreign transnationals. The proper conditions, for such continuation of trans- national association patterns, were usually composed of the availability of individuals involved in transnationalism, which itself ordinarily required overseas experience after the individuals had reached the adult/professional stages in their careers. In essence, then, transnational friendship is "chronic and contagious." In the process of uncoVering the phenomena described above, we were required to follow and outline the sequence by which individuals 258 259 became members of transnational sets. We dubbed this sequence the "transnationalization process." It appeared to involve a number of diverse steps, and a good deal of time. Further, we discovered that these transnational sets were exceptionally well described using a "network," rather than a “group" model of this as an entity. The substantive implications of these findings, as outlined here, were that exchange programs are probably accomplishing at least part of their goals, establishing on-going relationships between individual people from different nations. However, they do not, and are notlikely to, show these results to the casual observer at one point in time, because the process is a long one, and this is an early step in it; or in one place, because such networks are often physically disparate. In light of this understanding and these caveats, we made specific suggestions for obtaining the maximum of the proposed benefits from such exchange programs. Finally, "networking" itself emerged as a longitudinal process, theoretically a constructartthe second social level of analysis, twice removed from the single individual. While providing the needed middle-range concept to explain the process by which individuals integrate themselves into social entities, it also requires special methods of research. It is clear that a "practical sociology" sur- rounding the field investigation of networking has not yet arisen. In sum, we herein applied the notions of network proto-theory to the problem of the usefulness of foreign student exchange programs and the more basic question of how transnational networks--or, indeed, any networks--are formed. In doing so, we attempted to use the method 260 appropriate to the level of the pertinent theory that had been developed surrounding each problem; and conversely. We also attempted to constantly move back and forth between theory and data, to better refine and interpret them, respectively-~we believe that this process of reciprocity was a fruitful one for both. Implications for Further Research Although we have confined our research to transnational net- works, it would be instructive to discover whether networks, as opposed to groups, might be the predominant format in many areas of the post- modern society. The conditions appear somewhat similar--large sets of individuals from vastly differing societal segments, if not from different societies, are thrown together in a daily round. They must continually work out mutual understandings of how their joint tasks are to be accomplished, since no shared agreements on this exist. Because of the disparity of the individuals in any setting, an individual relates to every other individual along slightly different dimensions, rather than having one set with all of whom he shares the same important characteristics and concerns. Individuals in general feel rootless, lonely, and left out of the comnunity. All this suggests that the "third culture"'hsa phenomena that may have progressed far beyond its original locus in a relatively few cross- cultural relationships. At any rate, an investigation of this might well be in order. Returning to the problem of transnational relationships, it is clear that the process(rftransnationalization needs further 261 investigation, using the more appropriate field methods for networks, and locating the process further on in the transnational's career sequence. Another factor which may be of importance in the establishment of transnationalizing patterns is the original nationality of the participants. Differentiation in relationship types by nationality was not reported by the transnationals in our sample, but we must bear in mind that the majority of these transnationals were Americans. It is nevertheless possible that the Eypg_of nation, defined in such terms as level of industrialization or world political dominance, from which the interactants come, may affect their relationship. It might also be true that political, racial, or religious differences between nations may prevent the formation of associations between the members of those nationalities, or even between other nationals who are known associates of those conflicting nationalities. Con- versely, relationship formation between members of other nationalities may be enhanced by complementarity of such factors, both enhancement and inhibition thus affecting the shaping of transnational networks. Ergo, the effects of nationality upon transnationality would seem to merit further investigation. In general, this study has not focused upon constructing a typology of transnational relationship types; and indeed, this is a problem which may necessitate a bi-analytical-level approach. Sub- stantively, we may attempt to discover the component(s) upon which such a typology might be based. Theoretically, we might inquire as 262 to the usefulness of the notion of the classic linear continuum, or polar, typology in the context of network theory. In sum, we have here begun to conceptualize at a level con- ducive to proposition formulation and even to tentatively propose a few general propositions. Nevertheless, further conceptualization, with a continuing eye to the implications for eventual theory- formation, remains to be done, and additional propositions set forth. Then, and only then, may we begin to assemble a real "network theory,‘ specifiable on the substantive level as a model of transnationality. APPENDICES 263 APPENDIX A INTERVIEW SCHEDULE 264 APPENDIX A INTERVIEW SCHEDULE In this interview, everything you say will be confidential-- and your name will never be connected with the data. A. £0me 10. 12. Let us first look at somepgeneral background information about yourself: Sex: Male Female In what year were you born? Are you married? Yes_____ No_____ If no: Dating steadily? Yes_____ No_____ Pinned? Yes_____ No_____ Engaged? Yes_____ No_____ What is your academic level? Ph.D._____ Master's_____ Sr2____ Jr._____ Soph._____ Other_____ 5th Yr. Vet. Med._____ What is your major? What is your father's occupation? What is your mother's occupation? a. Would you describe the ethnic background of your family? In what ways has this experience had an effect on your interest in different peoples? Important_____ No appreciable influence_____ Rejection of background_____ Could you give me a brief history of where you have lived, and for how long (put time in provided space). 265 266 rural small town (up to 50,000) suburb small city (50,000 to 249,000) large city (over 250,000) military bases in U.S. & overseas rural and small city small town and large city small city and large city 12. b. Number of homes until 18 or entered college Number of homes after 18 or entered college 13. Have you been outside of the continental U.S.? Yes No If yes: where, for how long, and for what purpose? ) I am going to give you a listing of some other possible direct 15.) or indirect contacts which you may have had with foreign countries ) or people from them before coming to college. Would you please rate these by the degree of influence they may have had in making you interested in or aware of foreign countries? GIVE CARD #14/15/16. B. General Interaction with American and Foreign Students Since Coming to MSU. I would now like to turn to the period since you have been at MSU and explore interaction you have had with American and foreign students here. 17. How many foreign students do you know? 1 - 2 ("a couple") 3 - 5 ("a few") 6 -10 11-20 21-30 31-50 51-60 IHIIH 18. How did you get to know foreign students? a. Academic interests (1) classroom, class project, in same department, academic clubs (2) share office or study room 19. 23. 24. 25. b. C. d. Have you ever lived with a foreign student? Yes No 267 Social activities (1) dorm activities (2 church activities (3 fraternity (4) campus clubs and meetings (5) sports (6) campus clubs and sports Proximity (1) roommate or suitemate (2) dorm, apartment, married housing Miscellaneous (1) self initiative (2) work (3) foreign spouse (4) met in country of foreign student (5) through American friends (6) through foreign student friends What countries do the foreign students that you associate with most often at MSU come from? GIVE CARD #23. Are there reasons for associating with pe0p1e from these countries more than people from other countries? If so, what are they? '0 O 3 a “WU-d-J'CQ ‘03“) 0.0 U0! not applicable. Specify unspecified academic interests general curiosity of foreign students' culture lived or visited that country ethnic background living proximity friends of friends friendlier than others, more gregarious church work together sports respondent speaks the language foreign student spouse, foreign student girl friend ___student association refer this country if personality of individual foreign student is compatible to respondent I If you had your choice, which national group would you prefer to associate with most often? 25. 26. 27. 28. 268 GIVE CARD #23. b. Why would you prefer to associate with the people from these countries? (Use letters from responses to 24.) a. Which nationality groups would you least like to associate with? GIVE CARD #23. b. Why would you prefer to associate less with the people from these countries? not applicable culture; don't like and don't understand undesirable personality attributes race anti-American attitude of foreign student, cliquishness of foreign students, unwillingness to learn about America ___political reasons, dislike for that country's internal or external politics, ideological distaste ___parental attitude toward area ___those students from area that become perpetual students ___communication problem ___ynfavorable image from movies or hearsay ___aggressiveness in boy-girl relationships ___different academic norms--not doing lab work, borrowing notes and not returning them, cheating, expect special treatment because they are foreign ___physically uncomfortable ___personal cleanliness ___pther. Specify What proportion of your time do you usually spend with foreign students? ___unspecified ___pone ___yery little (1% - 9%) ___JO% - 20% ___25% - 49% ___50% - 65% ___]O% - 80% ___85% - 100% How do your parents feel about your association with foreign students? ___favorable ___jndifferent ___ynfavorable 29. 30. 31. 32. 269 How do you think Americans in general react to American stu- dents having foreign student friends here at MSU? ___favorable ___jndifferent ___unfavorable Would there be any countries with would be exceptions to this? GIVE CARD #29b. Why? (1) ___Communist area (2) ___racial (3) ___other political (4) ___cultural (5) ___countries respondent is uninformed about (6) ___religious How do you personally feel about American students having foreign friends here at MSU? Favorable____ Unfavorable____ Indifferent____ Are there exceptions to this? GIVE CARD #29b. Why? (Use numbers from 29c.) How do you think Americans in general react to American stu- dents dating foreign students? Just dating Romantically ___Favorable ____ ___Indifferent ____ _Unfavorable __ Would there be any countries which would be an exception to this? GIVE CARD #29b. Why? (Use numbers from 29c.) How do you personally feel about American students dating foreign students? Just dating ‘ Romantically ___Favorable ____ ___Indifferent ____ ___Unfavorable ____ 32. 77. 78. 79. 55. 44: 21. 81. 82. 270 b. Would you personally consider marriage to someone of another culture? Yes No c. Would there be any countries which would be an exception to this? GIVE CARD #29b. d. Why? How would you define a ”friend"? (Probe question.) That is, a. How sppplg or shouldn't you act towards him? b. How sppplg_or shouldn't he act towards you? Have there been times when you feel you have not done all you should to be a good friend to your present American friends? In what ways? Probe. Have there been times when you feel that your American friends have not done all they should to be good friends to you? In what ways? (Probe.) Here is a listtrfresponsibilities which some American students feel towards students from other countries. a. Could you tell me which of these you would feel with foreign students? c. GIVE CARD A. Incidentally, these cards are intended only as suggestions, not as hard-and-fast categories, so if you think of any additions or exceptions to make to them, please feel free to do so. b. Is there anything you shouldn't do with or for them? GIVE CARD A. In what ways do you feel that you do not always meet your responsibilities to foreign students? What are the responsibilities that foreign students have to you? (Probe question.) That is, how should and shouldn't they behave towards you? 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 271 People often feel that others are not holding up their end of a relationship or not living up to their responsibilities in some other way. In what ways do you feel that foreign students do not always live up to their responsibilities to you? Here is a list of activities that some people might do with others. a. Would you please put a "plus" (+) by every activity that you would really like to do with your American friends, a "zero" (0) by every one which you may have done or might do on occasion, and a "minus" (-) by every one that you prefer to avoid? GIVE CARD 8. What do you do with your American friends most often? Are you ever in types of situations with your American friends which make you feel angry, embarrassed, or uncomfortable? What are they? Would you do the same with this list for your foreign student friends? (Mark as in 84.) GIVE CARD 8. What do you do most often with your foreign student friends? Have there been occasions when you have been in situations with your foreign student friends in which either or both of you felt angry, uncomfortable, or embarrassed? What were they? Here is a list of things which some pe0ple might talk about with others. Would you please put a "plus” by everything that you would like to talk about with your American friends, a "zero“ by things which you may have or might talk about on occasion, and a "minus" by every one you would prefer to avoid talking about? GIVE CARD C. What do you talk about to Americans most often? 92. 93. 94. 95. C. 272 Have you ever felt embarrassed, angry, or uncomfortable when talking to an American about something? What was it? Would you do the same for this list for your foreign student friends? GIVE CARD C. Which of these do you talk about frequently? What have you talked about with foreign students that made either or both of you feel angry or embarrassed or uncomfortable? Personal Interaction with One Foreign Student Let us now shift our interest from foreign students and Americans in general to foreign students from Thailand. Think of a particular MSU student from this area whom you know best, so we can talk about the relationship between the two of you. Don't mention his or her name, but keep this particular person in mind as we go along. 33. How would you describe this person? Unknown . Country . Sex: male ____ female ____ . Age . Marital status: single ____ married ____ QOCTQJ Type of residence: on campus ____ off campus ____ married housing on campus ____ f. Grad ____ Undergrad ____ . Academic major . Region or city: specific region given ____ "rural" or "city" given ____ i. Socio-economic class: upper ____ upper middle ____ middle ____ lower middle ____ lower____ . Is his academic major the same as yours? Yes ____ No . How would you describe him as a person? (D :‘LO WG—1. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 44. 97. 96. 273 How long have you known this person? ____2 - 5 months ____6 - 9 months ___ l - l-l/2 years ____2 years ____3 - 3-1/2 years ____4 years ____5 years I ow is it that you happen to know this person? academic activities residence and proximity roommate introduced through other foreign students introduced through other American church activities met in his native country self-introduction sports other (what?) ____unspecified How close do you feel toward this person? GIVE CARD #36. If this person is of the opposite sex, is there any romantic interest? No Yes On his/her part only Not applicable What do you know about this person's family? . have met personally intimate details some very little or nothing other fDD—OCTD’ 5"Hill 00 you feel any of these responsibilities towards this person? GIVE CARD A. b. What do you feel you shouldn't do for him or with him? In what ways are these different from the things he should and shouldn't do for or with you? Have there been times when you have not met your responsibilities to him? What were they? 98. 99. 39. 40. 50. 49. 45 53 54 48 57. 58. 59. 60. 52: ) ) ) ) 274 Of these responsibilities that he has to you, which has he sometimes not met? For this particular person, please mark these activities: "plus"-- would like to do; "zero“--might do or occasionally do; "minus"-- would prefer not to do. GIVE CARD 8. What are the things you do most often with him apart from others? What are the things you do most often along with others? Please mark this list of things you might talk about with your foreign student friend as you have marked the others: (+ = like to talk about, 0 = might talk about, - = prefer not to talk about). GIVE CARD C. What do you talk about most often with him? Have you ever been in a situation or talked about anything with this person when you quarrelled or either or both of you felt uncomfortable, embarrassed, or angry? What did this concern? How well do you think this person knows you? (Probe: How do you think this person would describe who you are and what you are like?) Do you think this person is fairly typical of Thailand? Yes ____ No ____ Sometimes ____ Do you expect to maintain contact with this person after he goes home? Yes ____ No ____ Possibly ____ Would you like to keep this person's friendship even if relations became strained between your two countries? Yes ____ No ____ Possibly ____ Why? Personal reasons Impersonal reasons D. 275 Changes There has been a great deal of speculation about what it means for Americans to have contact with foreign students. I would like to look at the meaning these experiences have had for you. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 69. Have you changed your outlook in any way about the countries represented by the foreign students that you know here at MSU? In what ways? (Probe for specific areas of the world.) Can you see any difference in your world view? a. For example, do you look on the world as more of a community of men from interacting with foreign students? Yes ____ No ____ (Probe.) b. Or do you see a bigger gap between peoples of different coun- tries? Yes _p__ No ____ (Probe.) How do you feel about American society? Probe for: a. integrated--differentiate between values and activities b. fringe or marginal c. deviant d. isolated Has your attitude towards American society been affected in any way by your contact with foreign students? If so, how? 00 you feel you have gained anything from your interaction with foreign students? If yes, what? 00 you feel there have been any disadvantages from your association with foreign students? If there have been some, why do you continue to associate? Here is a list of some aspects of American life. Could you tell me if you have changed your attitudes on any of these because of meeting students from other countries? (Probe for each.) GIVE CARD #69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 76. d-3'SQ 'h@ 276 Has this interaction affected your plans for the future in any of the following ways? Probe for how, why. . travel . study abroad . living abroad . Peace Corps . courses . foreign language study . vocation . other 3'10 450 0.0 0"“ Do you feel there have been any other changes in your outlook due to interaction with students from other countries? Looking back over your years at MSU, do you feel you would like to have had more contact with students from other countries? Yes No Probe—reasons f5? not wanting more contact, reasons for not having had more contact. Are there any countries which would be exceptions to this? Is there anything else you would like to tell me that we haven't covered? Optional Activities participate in sports (volleyball, soccer, tennis, golf, ping- pong, paddleball) campus events (lecture-concert series, etc.) academic activities (lab work, classes, department meetings and social functions, group projects, academic discussions, exchange class notes) social activities: (1) fraternity activities, (2) play cards, (3) watch TV, (4) sing songs, (5) play chess, (6) eat together, (7) walk back from class, (8) listen to records, (9) attend parties, (10) movies, (11) dances, (12) International Club. date, double date drink visit students in other cities, travel religious activities family activities: (1) friends home over vacation, (2) guest at their home, (3) invite them to dinner general discussions (bull sessions, coffee discussions, phone conversations) aid in academic work 277 1. work m. study together n. be a companion, discuss personal matters, counseling 0. personal give and take activities (ride in and borrow car, share close friends, look for a job, help with job applications, borrow and lend books) p. correspond q. take him or her to a party of Americans r. become seriously involved 5. participating in any activities together which would make him/her dependent on me. t. going to places where he/she might be embarrassed because of nationality (restaurants where there is racial discrimination, for example) u. take him/her to a political organization meeting v. take part in activities in which just persons of his nationality participate w. nothing CARD #14, 15, 16 Rating scale: 3 = very, 2 = some, 1 = little, 0 = none. a. b. c. Q‘d'z-LQ * books, movies, television ____ school projects and/or extracurricular activities ____ personal contact with people from other countries who were in the U.S. persons ifi—your family who have talked about foreign experiences-___ Americans outside your family who have talked about foreign experiences-___ church-related activities ____ work-related activites ___ independent interests ___ living abroad ___ other ____ #23 CARD Latin America Europe Middle East India and Pakistan Asia (excluding India), countries east of Iran including the Pacific islands Australia, New Zealand Canada Africa, Nigeria, Tanzania No preference 278 E N _a O llHllllllllll Northern Europe Southern Europe Eastern Europe India and Pakistan Asia (excluding India and Pakistan) including countries east of Iran including the Pacific islands Middle East Africa Latin America Canada Australia no specific country or area but persons, in general, having the coded characteristics, are exceptions. explain different aspects of American life be generous with time and money be a courteous host; more polite assist and help in personal matters explain language usage introduce them to other Americans help them with their studies tell him if his behavior does not fit in which American customs overlook certain behavior speak slowly, using less slang give rides, lend car be sincere, trustworthy try to act as a favorable representative of all Americans given extra credit on exams because they are foreign do house chores not related to their sex in their culture be indignant for him if other Americans are discriminating against him be submissive if you are female and he is male other ___U ___V _____w CARD C 83. 85. 86. 97. 98. a. b. 279 . participate in sports (volleball, soccer, tennis, golf, ping- pong, paddleball) . campus events (lecture-concert series, etc.) . academic activities (lab work, classes, department meetings and social functions, group projects, academic discussions, exchange class notes) . social activities: (1) fraternity activities, (2) play cards, (3) watch TV, (4) sing songs, (5) play chess, (6) eat together, (7) walk back from class, (8) listen to records, (9) attend parties, (10) movies, (11) dances, (12) International Club. date, double date drink visit students in other cities, travel religious activities family activities: (1) friends home over vacation, (2) guest at their home, (3) invite them to dinner j. general discussions (bull sessions, coffee discussions, phone conversations) k. aid in academic work 1. work m. study together, help each other in classes n. be a companion, discuss personal matters, counseling 0. personal give and take activities (ride in and borrow car, share close friends, look for a job, help with job applications, borrow and lend books) correspond take him or her to a party of Americans become seriously involved participating in any activities together which would make him/ her dependent on me . going to places where he/she might be embarrassed because of nationality (restaurants where there is racial discrimination, for example) . take him/her to a political organization meeting . take part in activities in which just persons of his nationality participate . nothing academics and related topics, strictly business (his country) places he's been, customers internal affairs of other countries (his, if foreign) 280 c. America, his likes and dislikes, thoughts about America d. comparisons of (his) other country and America, intercultural views, differences in educational systems e. international affairs and policy, politics f. his life, his family, his home life, our 2 families, my home life g. dating, dating practices, American girls/boys, women/men, marriage, sex h. small talk, the theater, art, movies, books, music and songs, campus events, sports, trips we have taken, other peoples (his) i. racial issues, civil rights, the American Negro j. personal things, future plans, our mutual past (substitute type of relationship), schooling and money situations, job interviews, bad breath k. deeper things (than with most Americans), our beliefs, reli- gion, philosophy 1. not much m. everything, anything n. private feelings, the more intimate aspects of your own life, your feelings about other close relationships CARD #36 a. one of my best friends b. a good friend c. a friend with whom I share primarily academic interest d. a person with whom I share only academic interests e. an acquaintance f. someone I dislike CARD #69 a. race b. religion c. U.S. values and policies d. economic systems e. kinship and family f. dating and marriage 9. your own personal views h. your self-concept APPENDIX B FORMAT FOR FACE-TO-FACE INTERVIEW WITH INFORMANTS IN FORMAL NETWORK 281 APPENDIX B FORMAT FOR FACE-TO-FACE INTERVIEW WITH INFORMANTS IN FORMAL NETWORK Introductory Statement: I am one of a group of sociologists who are interested in friendship between people from different socieities and cultures. I am particularly interested in the relationships formed by foreign stu- dents with other members of the University community during their stay on an American University campus. To understand these, I need to have a picture of the whole environment into which a foreign student moves when he comes to the university for the first time. I under- stand that your department/organization is very much involved in this environment, and I would like to enlist your aid in finding out precisely how, since I believe that your position makes it possible for you to have an especially clear picture. First, we'd like to know some things about you personally-- your answers will, of course, be held in complete confidence--and then try to get some understanding of the organization/department/center of which/whose staff you are a member. (1) a. Have you ever been overseas? b. Where? 282 If "yes" (3) a. 283 When Under what circumstances? (If needed) Did you get to know anyone well while you were abroad? Where were they from? How long did you know them? How did you meet them? Are you still in contact? If so, how? If not, might you be? How? to la: What sort of effect do you think this overseas experience had on you? Do you think it would have this effect on everyone? Why or why not? Do you meet a lot of people from abroad here in the States? How do you usually meet them? Do you meet more people from one country or area more often than you meet people from others? Do you have any good friends or close professional acquaint- ances at the present time who are from abroad? Where are they from? How long have you known them? How did you meet each other in the first place? Have you had friends or colleagues from abroad in the past? Where were they from?' How long did you know them? (7) (8) (9) Let' 284 How did you meet them? Are you still in contact with them at all? How is the contact maintained? Do you anticipate being in contact with them again, at any time? (Probe for circumstances.) How did you happen to get to know each other well? What do you usually do when you get together? 00 you usually get together alone, or with other people? Have they gotten to know any of your other friends or col- leagues fairly well? (Probe for way contact made--"How did they get acquainted?") Have you gotten to know any of their friends or colleagues? (Probe for way contact made--"How did you get acquainted?") Do you think you'll still be in touch, ten years from now, with any of these foreign friends/colleagues? Why, or why not? "no" to 9a:) Suppose you had an important reason for contacting them at time (10 years from now)--how would you do it? 5 turn to (the organization/department/center) with which you are involved. (10) About luwv long have you worked for/been involved in the/this [organization/department/center]? (11) What do you do? (12) How did you happen to get into this position? (13) a. How well do you think the people within this organization/ department/center know each other? (14) (14a) (15) 285 b. Do you ever get together with other people from your organization/department/center for anything other than organization/department/center business? c. If so, how often (approximately)? (Probe for interaction frequency.) d. What do you usually do together? e. Do you usually get together alone, or with other people? (Probe to see if department/organization/center constitutes a focus for a social network.) Exactly what does your organization/department/cetner do? (Probe for a. goals, ideals, and b. specific ways of attempting to attain these.) If I were a new FS, what would happen--what would I do--when I got here to MSU? (Probe for orientation-initiation pattern.) Why does your organization/department/center attempt to do these things? (Probe: Why does organization/department/center have this purpose? What do they hope to achieve?) What do you feel is the most important feature of the foreign student program here at MSU? How do you think it could be improved? BIBLIOGRAPHY 286 BIBLIOGRAPHY Adams, B. N. "Interaction Theory and the Social Network." Sociometry 30 (1967): 64-78. Aiken, M., and Olford, R. "Community Structure and Innovation: The Case of Urban Renewal." American Sociological Review 35 (1970): 650-664. Albert, R. S., and Brigante, T. T. "The Psychology of Friendship Relations: Social Factors." Journal of Social Psycholpgy 56 (1962): 33-47. ' Aldous, J., and Strauss, M. "Social Networks and Conjugal Roles: A Test of Botts' Hypothesis." Social Forces 44 (1966): 576-580. Anderson, R. C. "A Sociometric Approach to the Analysis of Inter- Organizational Relationships," Technical Bulletin B-60. Institute for Community Development and Services, Michigan State University, East Lansing, October 1969. Aronson, D. R. "Social Networks: Towards Structure or Process?" Canadian Review of Sociolpgy and Anthropology 7 (1970): 258-268. Aronson, D. R., ed. Social Networks. Special issue of Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropolggy 7 (1970): 221-286. Asch, S. "The Friendship Roles of American Associates of Thai Stu- dents on a Midwestern Campus: Implications for a New Binational Third Culture." M.A. thesis, Michigan State University, 1968. Axelrod, M. "Urban Structure and Social Participation." American Sociological Review 21 (1959): 13-18. Babchuk, N. "Primary Friends and Kin: A Study of the Associations of Middle-Class Couples." Social Forces 43 (1965): 483-493. Babchuk, N., and Bates, A. P. "The Primary Relations of Middle-Class Couples: A Study in Male Dominance." American Sociological Review 28 (1963): 3777384. Barnes, J. A. "Class and Committees in a Norwegian Island Parish." Human Relations 7 (1954): 39-58. 287 288 Barnes, J. A. "Graph Theory and Social Networks: A Technical Comment on Connectedness and Connectivity." Sociology (1969): 215-232. . "Networks and Political Processes.“ In Social Networks in Urban Situations. Edited by J. C. Mitchell. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1968. Beals, R. L., and Humphrey, N. D. No Frontier to Learning: The Mexican Student in the United States. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1957. Bell, W., and Boat, M. "Urban Neighborhoods and Social Relations." American Journal of Sociology 62 (1957): 391-398. Bennett, J. W., et al. In Search of Identity: The Japanese Overseas Scholar in America and Japan. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1958. Black, C. E. Dynamics of Modernization. New York: Harper and Row, 1966. Blalock, H., and Blalock, A., eds. Methodology in Social Research. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1968. Blau, P. M. Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: Wiley, 1964. Blumer, H. ”Attitudes and the Act." Social Problems 3 (1955): 59-65. "Society as Symbolic Interaction." In Human Behavior and Social Process. Edited by A. Rose. Boston: Houghton- Mifflin, 1962. Boaz, F. "The Method of Ethnology." American Anthropologist 22 (1920): 311-321. Boissevain, J. "The Place of Non-Groups in the Social Sciences." Mpp_3 (1968): 542-566. Borck, H. "Interaction of American Students with Western European Students at a Midwestern University. M. A. thesis, Michigan State University, 1966. Bott, E. J. Family and Social Network: Roles, Norms, and External Relationships in Ordinary Urban Families. London: Tavistock Publications, Ltd., 1957. Boulding, K. "The Emerging Superculture." In Values and the Future. Edited by K. Baier and N. Rescher. New York: Free Press, 1969. 289 Boult, C., and Janson, C. G. "Distance and Social Relations." Acta Sociologica 2 (1956): 73-98. Breton, R. "Institutional Completeness of Ethnic Communities and the Personal Relations of Immigrants." American Journal of Sociology 70 (1964): 141-146. Brodbeck, M. "Models, Meaning and Theories." In Symposium on Sociological Theory. Edited by L. Gross. New York: Harper and Row, 1959. Brown, L. A. "Diffusion Processes and Location: A Conceptual Frame- work and Bibliography," Bibliography Series No. 4. Phila- delphia: Regional Science Research Institute,71968. Byrne, D., and Buehler, J. "A Note on the Influence of Propinquity Upon Acquaintanceships." Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 51 (1955): 147-148. 3" Byrnes,l=. "Americans in Technical Assistance: A Study of Men's Per- ceptions of Their Cross-Cultural Experience." Ph.D. disser- tation, Michigan State University, 1963. Camilleri, S. F. "Theory, Probability, and Induction.“ American Sociological Review 27 (1962): 170-171. Caplow, T., and Forman, R. I'Neighborhood Interaction in a Homogeneous Community." American Sociological Review 15 (1950): 357-366. Chrisman, N. J. "Situation and Social Network in Cities." Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 7 (1970): 245-257. Coelho, G. V. Changing Images of America: A Study of Indian Students' Perceptions. Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press, 1958. Cohn, B. S., and Marriott, M. "Networks and Centres in the Integra- tion of Indian Civilization." Journal of Social Research (Bihar) l (1958): 1-9. 1' Cottrell, A. B. "Interpersonal Dimensions of Cross-Cultural Relations: Indian-Western Marriages in India)‘ Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1970. Cox, K. R. "The Genesis of Acquaintance Field Spatial Structures: A Conceptual Model and Empirical Tests." In Behavioral Problems in Geography: A Symposium, Studies in Geography No. 17. Edited by K. R. Cox and R. G. Golledge. Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1969. Crane, 0. Invisible Colleges. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1972. h. ”A a: ‘ng—u- 5 290 Crane. 0. "Scientists at Major and Minor Universities: A Study of Production and Recognition. American Sociological Review 30 (1965): 699-714. "Social Structure in a Group of Scientists: A Test of the 'Invisible College' Hypothesis." American Sociological Review 34 (1969): 335-352. Crissman, L. W. "On Networks." Cornell Journal of Social Relations 4 (1969): 72-81. Dotson, F. W. "Patterns of Voluntary Association Among Urban Working- Class Families." American Sociological Review 16 (1951): 687-693. x'DuBois, C. Foreign Students and Higher Education in the United States. Washington: American Council on Education, 1962. . "Research in Cross-Cultural Education." News Bulletin of the Institute of International Education, New York, 28 (1953): 5'8 , 60-64 0 Duncan, 0. 0. "Community Size and the Rural-Urban Continuum." In Cities and Society. Edited by P. Hatt and A. Reiss. New York: The Free Press, 1951. Eide, I., ed. Students as Links Between Cultures. Oslo: Universitets- forlaget, 1970. Eisenstadt, S. N. "Communication Systems and Social Structure." Public Opinion Quarterly 17 (1953): 48-62. Epstein, A. L. "The Network and Urban Social Organization." Rhodes- Livingston Journal 29 (1961): 29-62. Evan, W. A. "The Organizational Set: Toward a Theory of Inter- organizational Relations." In Approaches to Opganizational Design. Edited by J. D. Thompson. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1966. Feldman, A. S., and Tilly, C. "The Interaction of Social and Physical Space." American Sociological Review 25 (1960): 877-884. Festinger, L.; Riecken, H. W., Jr.; and Schachter, S. When Prophecy, Fails. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1956. Firey, W.; Loomis, C.; and Beegle, J. A. "The Fusion of Urban and Rural." In Highways in Our National Life: A Symposium. Edited by J. Labatut and W. J. Lane. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950. 291 Foster, G. "The Dyadic Contract: A Model for the Social Structure of a Mexican Peasant Village." American Anthropologist 63 (1961): 1173-1192. Gans, H. The Urban Villagers. New York: The Free Press, 1962. Glaser, B. Organizational Scientists: Their Professional Careers. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill Co., Inc., 1964. Glaser, B., and Strauss, A. The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Chicago: Aldine, 1967. Goode, W. J. "Norm Commitment and Conformity to Role-Status Obliga- tions." African Journal of Sociology 66 (1960): 246-258. L"Greenblat, C. ”Foreign Students in the U.S.: A Study of Atti- tudes and Orientations." Sociological Focus 4 (Spring 1971): 17-35. Greer, S. "Urbanism Reconsidered: A Comparative Study of Local Areas in a Metropolis.“ American Sociological Review 21 (1956): 276—284. Greer, S., and Kube, E. "Urbanism and Social Structure: A Los Angeles Study." In Community Structure and Analysis, pp.93-112. Edited by M. Sussman. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1959. L» Gullahorn, J. C. "Distance and Friendship as Factors in the Gross Interaction Matrix." Sociometry 15 (1952): 123-134. Gullahorn, J., and Gullahorn, J. "An Extension of the U-Curve Hypothesis." Journal of Social Issues 19 (1963): 33-47. Gutkind, P. W. "African Urbanism, Mobility, and the Social Network." International Journal of Comparative Sociology 6 (1965): 48-60. "Network Analysis and Urbanism in Africa: The Use of Micro and Macro Analysis." Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 2 (1965): 123-131. Hagens, L. 0., and Hagstrom, W. 0. "Sponsored and Contest Mobility of American Academic Scientists." Sociology of Education 40 (Winter 1967): 24-38. Hagerstrand, T. "Aspects of the Spatial Structure of Social Communica- tion and the Diffusion of Information." Papers of the Regional Science Association 16 (1966): 27-42. Haggett, P., and Chorley, R. Network Analysis in Geography. London: Edward Arnold, 1969. 292 Hagstrom, W. O. The Scientific Community. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1965. Hannerz, U. "Gossip, Networks, and Culture in a Black American Ghetto." Ethnos 32 (1968): 35-60. Harbison, F., and Myers, C. A. Education, Manpower, and Economic Growth: Strategies of Human Resource Development. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964. Harris, C. D., and Ullman, E. L. "The Nature of Cities." The Annals 242 (1945): 7-17. Hays, W. Statistics for Psychologists. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1963. Heider, F. The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York: Wiley, 1958. Hewes, G. "The Ecumence as a Civilization Multiplier System." Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers 25 (1965): 73-110. Homans, G. "Bringing Men Back In." American Sociological Review 29 (1964): 808-818. Huntington, S. Political Order in Changing Societies. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1968. Hymes, 0., ed. Language in Culture and Society. New York: Harper and Row, 1964. 3"Ibrahim, S. E. M. "Cross-Cultural Interaction and Attitude Formation Before and After a Major Crisis." Sociological Focus 4 (Spring 1971): 1-16. Institute of International Education. Open Doors 1969: Report on International Exchange, 11E, New York, 1969. Jacobson, 0. "Network Analysis in East Africa: The Social Organization of Urban Transients." Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 7 (1970): 281-286. Jacobson, E., and Seashore, S. "Communication Practices in Complex Organizations." Journal of Social Issues 7 (1951): 28-40. Jay, E. J. "The Concept of Field and Network in Anthropological Research." Meo_64 (1964): 137-138. Judy, J. "Interaction of American Students with Indian Students at a Midwestern University." M. A. thesis, Michigan State Uni- versity, 1967. 293 Kadushin, C. "The Friends and Supporters of Psychotherapy: On Social Circles in Urban Life." American Sociological Review 31 (1966): 786-802. “Power, Influence, and Social Circles: A New Methodology for Studying Opinion Makers." American Sociological Review 33 (1968): 685-699. Kaplan, A. The Conduct of Inquiry. San Francisco: Chandler, 1964. Katz, F. E. "Social Participation and Social Structure." Social Forces 45 (1966): 199-210. Katz, L. "On the Matrix Analysis of Sociometric Data." Sociometry 10 (1947): 233-241. l. Kelman, H. 0. “Changing Attitudes Through International Activities." Journal of Social Issues 18 (1962): 68-87. Klineberg, 0. "Research in the Field of International Exchanges: Edu- cation, Science and Culture." Social Sciences Information 4 (1965): 97-138. Kofeed, J. "Person Movement Research: A Discussion of Concepts." Papers of the Regional Science Association 24 (1970): 141-156. Kroeber, A. L. "The Ancient Oikoumene as a Historic Culture Aggregate." Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 75 (1945): 9-20. Laumann, E. O. Bonds of Pluralism: The Form and Substance of Urban Social Networks. New York: Wiley, 1972. Lazarsfeld, P. "Survey Analysis." In Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. New York: Macmillan, 1957. Lazarsfeld, P. F., and Merton, R. "Friendship as a Social Process." In Freedom and Control in Modern Society. Edited by M. Berger, T. Abel, and C. Page. Princeton, New Jersey: Van Nostrand, 1954. Lee, 0. Freedom and Culture. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice- Hall (Spectrum), 1959. Lee, T. "Urban Neighborhood as a Socio-Spatial Schema." Human Rela- tions 21 (1968): 241-267. Lerner, D. The Passing of Traditional Society. New York: The Free Press, 1958. 294 Lesser. S. 0., and Peter, H. W. "Training Foreign Nationals in the United States." In Some Applications of Behavioural Research. Edited by R. Likert and S. P. Hayes, Jr. Paris: UNESCO, 1957. Litwak, E. "Geographical Mobility and Family Cohesion." American Sociological Review 25 (1960): 385-394. "Occupational Mobility and Extended Family Cohesion." American Sociological Review 25 (1960): 9-21. Litwak, E., and Szelenyi, 1. "Primary Group Structures and Their Functions: Kin, Neighbors, and Friends." American Soci- ological Review 34 (1969): 465-481. Loomis, C. P., and Loomis, 2. K. Modern Social Theories. Princeton: 0. Van Nostrand, 1965. Mayer, A. "Action Sets." In The Social Anthropology of Complex Societies. Edited by M. Banton. New York: Praeger, 1966a. "Quasi Groups in the Study of Complex Societies." In The Social Anthropology of Complex Societies. Edited by M. Banton. New York: Praeger, 1966b. "System and Network: An Approach to the Study of Political Process in Dewas." In Indian Anthropology. Edited by T. N. Madan and G. Sarana. Bombay: Asia Publishing Co., 1962. Mayer, P. "Labour Migrancy and the Social Network." In Problems of Transition: Proceedings of the Social Sciences Research Conference, held in the University of Natal, Durban, July, 1962. Edited by J. F. Holleman et a1. Pietermaritzburg: Natal University Press, 1964. / McCarthy, F. "Third Cultural Networks of Philippine Physical, Life, and Social Scientists." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1972. McHugh, P. Defining the Situation. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, l968. McNeill, W. H. The Rise of the West. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1963. Meadows, P., and Mizruchi, E. Urbanism, Urbanization and Change: Comparative Perspectives. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison- Wesley, 1969. 295 Mercer, C. V. "Inter-Relations Among Family Stability, Family Compo- sition, Residence, and Race." Journal of Marriage and the Family 29 (1967): 456-460. Merton, R. Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: Free Press, 1957. Miller, D. C. "Decision-Making Cliques in Community Power Structures: A Comparative Study of an American and an English City." American Journal of Sociology 64 (1958): 299-310. Mills, C. W. The Sociological Imagination. New York: Oxford Uni- versity Press, 1957. Mills, T. M. "The Coalition Pattern in Three-Person Groups." American Sociological Review 19 (1954): 657-667. Miner, H. "The Folk-Urban Continuum." American Sociological Review 17 (1952): 529-537. Mitchell, J. C. Social Networks in Urban Situations. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1968. . "Theoretical Orientations in African Urban Studies." In The Social Anthropology of Complex Societies. Edited by M. Banton. New York: Praeger, 1966. Moore, 8. Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy, Boston: Beacon Press, 1966. Moore, E. G. "Some Spatial Properties of Urban Contact Fields." Geographical Analysis 2 (1970): 376-386. Morrill, R. L., and Pitts, F. R. "Marriage, Migration, and the Mean Information Field: A Study in Uniqueness and Generality." Annals of the Association of American Geographers 57 (1967): 401-422. Morris, R. T. The Two-Way Mirror. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1960. Mullins, N. The Art of Theory: Construction and Use. New York: Harper and Row, 1971. Nadel, S. F. The Theory of Social Structure. London: Cohen and West, Ltd., 1957. Nelson, J. I. "Clique Contacts and Family Orientations." American Sociological Review 31 (1966): 663-672. Newcomb, T. M. The Acquaintance Process. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc., 1961. w 296 Perrucci, R., and Pilisink, M. "Leaders and Ruling Elites: The Interorganizational Basis of Community Power." American Sociological Review 35 (1970): 1040-1057. Plotnicov, L. "Fixed Membership Groups: The Locus of Culture Process." American Anthropologist 64 (1962): 97-103. Powdermaker, Ii. Stranger and Friend. New York: W. W. Norton and Co., 1966. Price, 0. J. de S. "Networks of Scientific Papers." Science 149 (1965): 510-515. (PSIEP) Project on Scientific Information in Psychology, APA. Networks of Information Communication AmongyScientifica11y_Productive Psychologists: An Exploratory Study, Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association, 1969. Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. Structure and Function in Primitive Society. New York: Free Press, 1952. Ramsoy, 0. Social Groups as Systems and Subsystems. Oslo: Norwegian Universities Press, 1962. Rainio, K. "A Study of Sociometric Group Structure: An Application of a Stochastic Theory of Social Interaction." In Sociological Theories in Progress. Edited by J. Berger, M. Zelditch, and B. Andersen. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1965. Reiss, P. J. "The Extended Kinship System: Correlates of and Attitudes on Frequency of Interaction." Marriage and Family Living 24 (1962): 339-359. Restivo, S. P. "Science, Society, and the International Scientific Community: An Exploratory Study." M. A. thesis, Michigan State University, 1966. . "Visiting Foreign Scientists at American Universities: A Study in the Third Culture of Science." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1971. Richards, W. 0., Jr. "An Impersonal Conceptually-Based Method for Analysis of Communication Network Structures of Large Complex Organizations." Department of Communications, Michigan State University, 1971. (Mimeographed.) Rogers, E. Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press of Glencoe, 1962. Roszak, T. The Making of a Counter-Culture. Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1968. 297 Schutz, A. "Concept and Theory Formation in the Social Sciences." In Collected Papers, Vol. I. Edited by M. Nijhoff. The Hague: Mouton, 1962. .¥ Selltiz, C., et a1. Attitudes and Social Relations of Foreign Students in the United States. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1963. (I Selltiz, C., and Cook, S. "Factors Influencing Attitudes of Foreign Students Toward the Host Country." Journal of Social Issues 18 (1962): 7-23. Selltiz, C.; Jahoda, M.; Deutsch, M.; and Cook, S. Research Methods in Social Relations. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, /,/ 1962. I ,//Sewell, W., and Davidson, 0. Scandinavian Students on an American 7:,2 Compos, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1961. 1 , l f‘ if” Shaffer, R., and Dowling, L. Foreign Students and Their American Friends, Cooperative Research Project No. 5-0806 of the Office of Education, HEW. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1966. Sheldon, A. W. "Problems with Access to the Process of Influence: An Alternative Approach." Paper presented at Michigan Soci- ological Meeting, Ann Arbor, Michigan, April 6, 1973. Simmel, G. "The Web of Group Affiliations." In Conflict and the Web of Group Affiliations. Edited by K. H. Wolff and R. Bendix; translated by Reinhard Bendix. New York: Free Press, 1964. Sjoberg, G., and Nett, R. A Methodology for Social Research. New York: Harper and Row, 1968. Slater, P. The Pursuit of Loneliness. Boston: Beacon Press, 1970. Smith, J.; Form, W. H.; and Stone, G. P. "Local Intimacy in a Middle- Sized City." American Journal of Sociology 60 (1954): 276-284. Sorokin, P. Social and Cultural Dynamics. New York: American Book Co., 1937-41. Southall, A. "An Operational Theory of Role." Human Relations 12 (1959): 221-230. Sower, C., et a1. Community Involvement: The Webs of Formal and Informal Ties That Make for Action. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1957. Spicer, E. H., ed. Perspectives in American Indian Culture Change. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1961. 298 Srinivas, N. M., and Beteille, A. "Networks and Indian Social Struc- ture." Meo_64 (1964): 165-168. Stebbins, R. A. "Social Networks as a Subjective Construct: A New Application for an Old Idea." Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 6 (1969): l-14. Stone, P.; Dunphy, 0.; Smith, M.; and Ogilvie, D. The General Inguirer. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 1966. Sutcliffe, J. P., and Crabbe, B. 0. "Incidence and Degrees of Friend- ship in Urban and Rural Areas." Social Forces 42 (1963): 60-67. ' Terry, P. "Relationships Across a Binational Interface: American- Japanese Interaction in a University SettingJ' M.A. thesis, Michigan State University, 1969. Tilly, C. "Community: City: 'Urbanization." Unpublished manuscript. Department of Sociology and Centre for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, University of Toronto, 1969. Toffler, A. Future Shock. New York: Random House, 1970. Travers, J., and Milgram, S. "An Experimental Study of the Small World Problem." Sociomet:y_32 (1969): 425-443. Turner, C. "Conjugal Roles and Social Networks." Human Relations 20 (1967): 121-130. Udry, J. R., and Hall, M. "Marital Instability by Race, Sex, Educa- tion, and Occupation Using 1960 Census Data." American Journal of Sociology 72 (1966): 203-209. Udry, J. R., and Hall, M. "Marital Role Segregation and Social Net- works in Middle-Class, Middle-Aged Couples." Journal of Marriage and the Family_27 (1965): 392-396. Uesugi, T. K., and Vinacke, W. E. "Strategy in a Feminine Game." Sociometry_26 (1963): 75-88. ‘r'U.S. Advisory Commission on International Educational and Cultural Affairs, ed. A Beacon of Hope: The Exchange-of-Persons Epogpem, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1963. U.S. Advisory Commission on International Educational and Cultural Affairs, ed. A Sequel to: A Beacon of Hope: The Exchange- of-Persons Program. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1963. 299 Useem, J. "The Study of Cultures." Sociological Focus 4 (1971): 3-27. . "Work Patterns of Americans in India." The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 368 (1966): 146- 56. Useem, J., and Useem, R. H. "The Community of Man: A Study in the Third Culture." The Centennial Review 7 (1963): 481-493. "The Interfaces of a Binational Third Culture: A Study of the American Community in India." Journal of Social Issues 23 (1967): 130-143. The Western Educated Man in India. New York: Dryden, 1953. Useem, R. H. "The American Family in India." The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences 368 (1966): 132-145. 1 “”Useem, J.; Useem, R. H.; and Donoghue, J. "Men in the Middle of the Third Culture: The Roles of American and Non-Western People in Cross-Cultural Administration." human Organization 22 (1963): 169-179. Vanderpool, C. "Conceptions of Science and its Interrelationship with Society: Doctoral Candidates in the Sciences." M.A. thesis, Michigan State University, 1966. . "Visiting Foreign Scientists in the United States: The Impact of Systemic and Role Circumscription and Dissociative Experiences on the Homogeneity of the International Scientific Community." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1971. Wallace, W. Sociological Theory. Chicago: Aldine, 1969. -,#Watson, J., and Lippitt, R. Learning Across Cultures: A Study of f Germans Visiting America. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press, 1955. Webb, E.; Campbell, 0.; Schwartz, R.; and Sechrest, L. Unobtrusive Measures. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1966. Weiss, R. Processes of Organization. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 1956. Weiss, R., and Jacobson, E. "A Method for the Analysis of the Struc- ture of Complex Organizations." American Sociological Review 20 (1955): 661-668. 300 Wheeler, J. C., and Stutz, F. P. "Some Spatial Dimensions of Urban Social Travel." Annals of the Association of American Geographers 61 (1971): 371-386. Whitten, N. E. "Network Analysis and Processes of Adaptation Among Ecuadorian and Nova Scotian Negroes." In Marginal Natives: Anthropologists at Work. Edited by M. Freilich. New York: Harper and Row, 1970. . "Personal Networks and Musical Contexts in the Pacific Lowlands of Ecuador and Colombia." Moo_3 (1968): 50-63. Whitten, N. E., and Wolfe, A. "Network Analysis." In Handbook of Social and Cultural Anthropology. Edited by H. Honigman. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1973. Whyte, W. F. Street Corner Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1955. Winter, 0. K. American Professors in West Pakistan: A Study of Cross-Cultural Relations. Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1968. Wolfe, A. "On Structural Comparisons of Networks." Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology_7 (1970): 226-244. Wolfe, T. You Can't Go Home Again. New York: Harper, 1940. Wrong, D. "The Over-Socialized Conception of Man in Modern Sociology." American Sociological Review 26 (1961): 184-193. Young, M., and Willmott, P. Family and Class in a London Suburb. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, Ltd., 1960. Young, M., and Willmott, P. Family and Kinship in East London. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, Ltd., 1957. Zetterberg, H. On Theory and Verification in Sociology. Totowa, New Jersey: Bedminster Press, 1965. Znaniecki, F. Cultural Sciences. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1963. HICHIGQN STRTE UNI IV IIIIIIIIII2 IIII II 3IIIIIIIII IIIIIIII III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII II