SOME FACTORS AFFECTING JAMAICAN STUDENTS’ DECISION T0 REMAIN IN NORTH AMERICA OR RETURN HOME Dissertation for the Degree of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY TREVOR GEORGE GARDNER 1976 _ LIBRARY IlllIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIllIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 1 3 #1293 10462 2265 This; is to certify that the thésis entitled I SOT/Vic: F$C+023"flf‘¢’ci\wq Jammcam SIlevat-g' (DCCIgICMA IO ggmth um I NORTH FANG—“£0" W 2&4an Hound. presentedby He, dc‘n/ CI QOYZWCOVCIM v. has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for ‘9ka b Adegree in EDMCD'I’IOIV I Wflaz/A/W. Major prof/ 0-7539 ABSTRACT SOME FACTORS AFFECTING JAMAICAN STUDENTS' DECISION TO REMAIN IN NORTH AMERICA OR RETURN HOME BY Trevor George Gardner Eurpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to identify factors that influenced the decision of Jamaican students to remain in North America or return to Jamaica after their course of study. Population and Sample The population used in this study was graduates of North American universities and colleges who were originally from Jamaica. This sample consisted of 120 subjects drawn from the population. Instrumentation The instrument used in this study was developed by the researcher solely for this study. The study contains ten dependent variables as factors affecting the decision made by respondents. Trevor George Gardner Data Analysis The multivariate analysis of variance was the sta- tistical technique used to analyze the data in this study. The only exception was the response to question one, in which case the ranked—difference correlation was used. Testing of Research Questions The .10 level of significance was employed to test the research questions in this study. Research Question 1: The result of the Ranked—Difference Correlation cited Professional and Economic motives as the primary factors affecting the decision to emigrate. Research Question 2: There was no significant difference between Rural and Nonrural respondents. Research Question 3: There was no difference in the levels of education among the North American group; there was a signifi- cant difference among the Jamaican group. Research Question 4: There was no significant difference in these groups when they were separated on the basis of profession. Research Question 5: When respondents were grouped according to income brackets no significant difference was found in either group. Trevor George Gardner Research Question 6: There was a significant difference in both groups when respondents were grouped on the basis of age. The younger group showed a more favorable tendency to return home. SOME FACTORS AFFECTING JAMAICAN STUDENTS' DECISION To REMAIN IN NORTH AMERICA OR RETURN HOME BY Trevor George Gardner A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Higher Education 1976 DEDICATION This dissertation is dedicated, with love, to Pat, a loving and understanding wife, to my father and mother who have been a constant inspiration, and to Mrs. Miller, my elementary school teacher, who demon- strated that teaching was an art of love and giving. ii .c.,' n I... ACKNOWLEDGMENTS A brief acknowledgment can never suffice to express gratitude to all who have given generously of their time and have provided continuous encouragement and leadership. The acquisition of this degree has been made possible only through the efforts and consideration of many people, of whom I am mentioning only a few. My sincere appreciation goes to Dr. Walter Johnson, chairman of my doctoral program. He was more than an educator doing his job, he was a caring and help- ful friend. To the other members of my doctoral committee, Dr. Eudora Pettigrew, Dr. Vandel Johnson and Dr. George Myers, I express my thanks for being there to help and encourage. I appreciate the help of Mrs. Aubrey Phillips, of the Jamaican Embassy in Washington, for the time and energy she expended to arrange interviews with the edu- cational attache of other embassies. Thanks are also extended to Miss Norma Niles for her help and support. To my parents who gave all to help me realize this goal, I give myself for the harmonious development iii of every disadvantaged Child in the world. Through them I have learned that nestled in every little haunt of depravity is a vibrant mind yearning for the light of day. I pledge myself to bring the day to such as I can. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . 1 Statement of the Problem. . . . . . . 3 Background for the Study. . . . . . . 4 Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . . 15 General Research Questions . . . . . . 15 Scope . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Limitations in the Study. . . . . . . 20 Overview of the Study. . . . . . . . 21 II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . . . 25 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . 25 Background Perspective . . . . . . . 26 Economic Benefits . . . . . . . . . 27 Professional Development. . . . . . . 31 Adaptation . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Relevance of Professional Skills . . . . 44 Government Policies and Politics . . . . 51 Sense of National Responsibility . . . . 57 Communication . . . . . . . . . . 62 Alternative Life Style . . . . . . . 67 Desire for Adventure . . . . . . . . 72 Attitude Toward the Future . . . . . . 76 Background Influences. . . . . . . . 79 Pre-Departure Sets. . . . . . . . 84 Peculiarity of Student Drain . . . . 88 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . 90 3111. DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY. . . . 107 Design of Study. . . . . . . . . . 107 The Population and Sample . . . . . . 107 Instrumentation. . . . . . . . . . 110 Data Collection. . . . . . . . 111 Data Analysis Methodology . . . . . . 112 Chapter Page IV. ANALYSIS OF DATA . . . . . . . . . . 116 Description of Response Data . . . . . 116 Description of Demographic Data . . . . 118 Testing Research Questions . . . . . . 120 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 V. SUMMATION OF INTERVIEWS DATA . . . . . . 140 General Introduction . . . . . . . 140 Summary of Rationale Given for Each Factor . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 Black Consciousness. . . . . . . . 142 Perception of Threat to Society. . . . 145 Latitude of One's Life. . . . . . . 146 Marriage . . . . . . . . . . . 148 Perceptions on the Original Factors . . . 149 Professional Development . . . . . . 149 Government Policies and Politics . . . 150 Sense of National Responsibility . . . 152 Relevance of Professional Skills . . . 153 Desire for Adventure . . . . . . . 154 Economic Influences. . . . . . . . 155 Attitude Towards the Future . . . . . 156 Communication. . . . . . . . . . 158 Adaptation O O I I O O O O O O O 158 Alternative Life Style. . . . . . . 159 Overall Recommendation. . . . . . . 161 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 ‘VI. SUMMARY, FINDINGS, AND IMPLICATIONS. . . . 163 Summary of Purpose and Methodology of the Study I O O O I O I O O O O O 163 Findings . . . . . . . . . . 16S Conclusions and Implications for Further Research . . . . . . . . . . . 172 Future Research . . . . . . . . . 172 Ramifications with Prospects. . . . . 174 vi u-- ... Page APPENDICES APPENDIX A. PRE-TEST . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 B. QUESTIONNAIRE INSTRUMENT . . . . . . . 189 C. INDIVIDUAL SCORES FOR EACH VARIABLE: COM- PUTED ON SPSS: MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY PART B: INCLUDING FREQUENCY AND PER- CENTAGE; MEAN (M) AND STANDARD DEVI- ATION (S.D.) . . . . . . . . . . 194 ESELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . 197 Vii Table 1. 10. ll. .12. LIST OF TABLES Immigration into the United States of scien- tists, engineers, and physicians, fiscal years 1956-66 0 o o o o I o o o 0 Percentage share of developing countries in immigration into the United States of scien- tists, engineers, and physicians, fiscal years 1962 and 1963-66 . . . . . . . Reliability level of item factors: As estab- lished by the Hoyt Reliability Test. . . Demographic data for North American (non- returnees) and Jamaican (returnees) respondents . . . . . . . . . . Factor rating of ranked and item factors by means 0 O O O O I I O O O O I Item factors ordered by the degree of influence they had on respondents' decisions . . . . . . . . . . . Multivariate analysis of variance—-Community Bk.: North America . . . . . . . . Multivariate analysis of variance--Community Bk.: Jamaica . . . . . . . . . . Multivariate analysis of variance--Leve1 of Education: Jamaica . . . . . . . . Multivariate analysis of variance--Leve1 of Education: North America . . . . . . Multivariate analysis of variance—-Vocation: North America . . . . . . . . . . Multivariate analysis of variance-~Vocation: Jamaica . . . . . . . . . . . . viii Page 33 33 117 119 121 122 124 125 128 129 130 131 Table Page 13. Multivariate analysis of variance--Income: North America . . . . . . . . . . . 133 14. Multivariate analysis of variance—~Income: Jamaica 0 I O Q I O O O O O O O O 134 15. Multivariate analysis of variance—-Age: North America . . . . . . . . . . . 136 16. Multivariate analysis of variance--Age: Jamaica . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 17. Percentage response categorized: N = 10 for interview data. . . . . . . . . . . 142 ix CHAPTER I PROBLEM Introduction The question of foreign student immigration from éleveloping countries has attracted global attention. In 1.965 Maner asked whether foreign student exchange had xteached a point where "more immigration than exchange vvas taking place."1 Barbara Walton, in 1967, cites the ssame issue as "one of the most hotly debated in student éaxchange circles today, having replaced the issue of VVhether foreign students are favourably inclined towards 1Zihe United States."2 In the early 70's Margaret Cormack e.Xpressed similar concern in her deposition on "Visa for ‘Vnhat?"3 Numerous research projects in Africa, Asia, Europe and the Caribbean have also paid scholarly El‘t1:ention to the same question and its associated Problems. More precisely, the question of immigration, particularly from developing countries, has never ceased 'tkb warrant singular attention. A United Nations Edu- Slértional Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) .r‘ ...> u ~-- . ‘s - . h. study on "Five Developing Countries" in Latin America Reverend gave special attention to student immigration. William Gibbons reporting to the United States Committee on Scientific Manpower Survey, in 1967, emphasized the importance of a look at student immigration as a signifi— cant contributor to the "brain drain" syndrome. Dr. Walter Adams devoted a complete Chapter of his book Brain Drain to relating the drain to student attrition. Tai K. Oh, writing on Asian students, states that among Cieeveloping countries 42.6 percent of the immigration is title to student drain--a contrast to 3.8 percent from the "luxury clubs"7 of the world. A published document from the Immigration and Naturalization Service states that during the fiscal years 1963-67, the United States received 41,652 skilled immigrants of whom 12,260 were students f130m foreign nations, especially developing nations. In 1964-65, 25 percent of the medical interns and 70 per- Gem: of foreign residents in the United States hOSpitals were from developing countries. In 1973-74 foreign student enrollment in the United States exceeded 151,000-- the highest number ever reported in the history of foreign s1=1.1dents.]'0 This increase was 3 percent over the previous Such an increase has occurred despite the hazards This suggests year. Q3 inflation and stiffened immigration. heightened search for education on the part of foreign yQuth. The increase in foreign student enrollment came entirely from the developing world. While the number of students from some Far Eastern and East Asian countries has slightly declined and has remained stable in others, the number from Latin America and Africa, in particular, the Near and Middle East has risen significantly. It is important to note that the 11 percent annual increase that characterized the 60's has fallen between 4-3 percent over the past years and is concentrated in the developing countries. Consequently if the percentage of student loss remains constant or rises, the developing countries face the greater loss. Statement of the Problem Consideration of the student drain is a problem vvrfioh admits two separate issues--migration and education. <3C>n.sideration of migration usually focuses upon the phe- nOmena which would lead an individual to change his geo- graphical location . Generally the causes are wide-ranging including psychological, sociological, as well as economic phe- noI'nena. C. W. Roberts points out that education enters the analysis in that professional and technical manpower is almost axiomatically, highly educated manpower. The h\nman capital theory presents those personnel as embodying a disproportionate amount of educational expenditure relative to the population. The national Character of QCiucational investment costs as well as the expected returns from social investment lead naturally to the Ioolitical concern with the consequences of high level Inigration.ll y This problem is embarrassing to the host countries exnd destructive to the development of the native countries. VIhen the quality and quantity are lost it intensifies the £>roblem. The elusive nature of student drain makes its astudy difficult. It is difficult to determine exactly when a student should be recorded as a "drainee." It is even more difficult to determine how great the loss is urrtil he has matured on a measurable skill. By that time it: is very uncertain whether it was his new country that led to his success. From the introduction to this problem it is apparent that this phenomenon-~student drain--has many factors that are associated with the problem. These factors affect the decisions students make at the point (If ihmdgrating or at the point of returning home. This St:‘udy seeks to ascertain some factors that have most ithluence on the students' decision and to present a recommendation for improvement. Background for the Study It is estimated that between 10-90 percent of the foreign students do not return to their home country.12 This range is phenomenally wide, reflecting the variability of loss to the countries from which students have come. The overall loss has been an average of 10 per- cent.13 Korea, however, is estimated to have lost as 14 high as 90 percent. Colombia has lost between 10-30 per- cent depending on whether bonded or unbondeda students are 15 The Caribbean Operates at a loss of an considered. average of 10-25 percent. Jamaica's loss fluctuates within that figure. Between 1970-73 general immigration began to 16 For example, decline but student immigration increased. United States' statistics show that between 1956-66 the Percentage of exchange visitors not returning to their home countries at the end of their training amounted to 2. '7 percent. Within that same time period (1956-66) the amount was 8.3 percent for 1961-66. The significant rise was reflected shortly after the United States granted special immigration privilege status to the pro- fsessionals. As high as 85 percent do not return to Iran; the Dominican Republic, Chile and Israel have also been identified as heavy losers. Indian student immigration is about 17.2 percent: this contrasted with an Indian e1izrollment of 13.0 percent in the United- States and a graduate population of 17.9 percent of all graduates aBonded: the official term used for Jamaicans who are sponsored by government and have to give a SDecified number of years' service. working on doctorates in 196417 helps to put the picture in bold relief. In looking at the "Brain Drain" through student drain from developed countries we are looking at about 151,066 foreign students representing 177 countries and territories, enrolled in 1,359 United States insti- tutions.18 A 10 percent loss of potentially high man- power skill from any country would be traumatic. In developing countries it is twice as devastating. C. W. Roberts in reviewing factors associated with immigration as it affects Guiana says: "While by world standards Caribbean migrations remain almost negligible in size, their significance for population growth within the region is considerable; this is most fully demonstrated in the case of Guiana."19 Ten percent of the Caribbean's 12,705 students WO'uld be 1,271 and 10 percent of Jamaica's 1,423 would be 142.20 Comparatively speaking this may be a small figure but when compared to its potential in a small territory it is a significant loss. As this figure accumulates oVer the years, the loss becomes more severe. Another cOnsideration is that in using 10 percent one is calcu- lating at the lowest end of the scale. That figure could as easily be between 10-90 percent for any developing c(Duntry. Such losses become significant manpower problems . Understanding the seriousness to Jamaica of the Student drain demands some knowledge of the country as it now is. After over 300 years (1655-1975) of British r111e Jamaica became independent in 1962, but still pos- seasses a highly neo-colonial aura in education, socio- eczonomic and cultural practices. The country of 4,411 sczuare miles is populated by 2 million peOple.21 Its losest educational record to date is its provision of free secondary education to 10 percent of its students.22 IILliteracy is regularly documented as between 35-45 per- cent; the variation depends mostly on the definition used for illiteracy. Traditionally an agrarian society, the country has made prodigious steps towards industrialization. Manufacturers and light industry have shown tremen- dous gains in Jamaica during the past twenty-five years, due in part to the efforts of the Jamaica Industrial Development Corporation, created in 1952. The JIDC, which has branch offices in New York, London and Toronto prepares feasibility and market studies. . . . In 1973 the value of the output of the manufacturing and processing sector was J$ 207.6 million, 14 percent of the gross national domestic product . . . (this sector employs) some eighty thousand persons or 12.6% of the work force. Jamaica's largest industry, bauxite--a1umina, has itIcreased its national receipts six times what it was ffyur years ago. The significant industrial spurt has notyet fully harmonized with the agricultural develop- “kint. A similar situation exists between the neo-colonial ecincation practices of British traditional forms and ftfunctions and the more aggressive and innovative North AInerican influence. The two have not yet found a ’0‘ u -u. . .t-t n m‘_ 5. 9‘ harmonious existence. A search for an identifiable culture is the third area of fervent. A final fact that may help in understanding the problem of student drain from Jamaica is the socio-economic disparity that exists in the nation. This last point is foremost in the minds of most Jamaicans, and particularly so in the minds of 24 When public figures, both the "haves" and "have nots." a student leaves Jamaica to study abroad he has a mental image of these four factors of ferment and depending on how the "push" and "pull" factors affect his life in the "U" curveb experience he decides to drain or to return.25 On leaving, a student is aware of the phenomenal immigration of technical and professional workers to the United States and Canada. In 1967 and 1968, 4,140 immi- grated to these countries. When it is considered that in 1968 only 3.7 percent of the labor force were technical and professional workers, it leads to the conclusion that 1 out of every 25 members of the labor force is a technical or professional worker while 1 out of every 6 emigrants is. The cost of producing l of these people in J$ is 4 :481. Thus the total value of the annual "gift" of hIlman capital to the metropolitan "luxury clubs" by Jamaica is almost JS 9 million--this accounts for only bThe "U" curve is a term used in reference to the acculturation process the exchange student undergoes. the highly skilled. This is the unenchanting picture vfith which the student emigrates. Despite significant economic, educational and cultural changes since 1962, student drain continues and has even increased proportionate to general migration. Although historically Jamaica, like most developing nations, ignored this loss, the change in trends and needs of small nations, has forced them to begin pro- gramming to offset this loss.26 Jamaica has begun to nationalize, or gain significant partnerships, in areas Of natural resources. At this point she needs her edu- cators, engineers and scientists back home. She also needs to find out what factors have perpetuated this attrition despite seeming need for professional manpower Skills. The implications of large-scale movement of trained P90ple from developing countries is a guestion which has been of perennial interest. However, Barbara Walton says that this discussion has taken a new trend. It now questions the "brain drain" through potential, not functional, manpower skills. From the professional fields of education, science, medicine and engineering, developing countries similar to Jamaica have had more than a normal exodus of students.27 The problem is made even more complex because of the multiplicity of different nations with varying needs for special types of brains. 10 Between 1963-67, from Asia alone 8.638 students adjusted their status to U.S. immigrants. In the Caribbean the number was about 2,000. There are two types of foreign students-—the exchange student who is supported by government and the exchange student who supports himself. Statistics as late as 1974 show that U.S. government sponsored programs are helping only a fragment of the total foreign student population, namely 1.2 percent or about 5 students out of 390.28 From this category the immigration rate is lowest, 10-20 percent annually. The second group has a significantly higher range Of immigration. This is the group that finances their own education. Among them the rate varies between 10-90 percent depending on the country. In Jamaica it is this group that has the highest student immigration records. In 1970 76.2 percent immigrating in this group changed status. This becomes more meaningful when com- Pared with the fact that only 10 percent of the total foreign student population in the United States changed status.29 Of 11,372 students who changed from student tlOimmigrant status 87.6 percent were individuals who came at their own expense. Only 8.6 percent of these immigrants came with government sponsored (J) visa status. TWO assumptions may be drawn from the preceding infor— mathmm: one is that the majority of students who study 5-..- a .- a... u‘. . - .--.A . my. .. '1 . "v”--. "' a. q. d . ”C u e! " at "'3. -Q.. I 11 in foreign countries do so on their own, and two, the change of status by such a sizable percentage must have an adverse effect on developing countries whose stock of lumen skills is already at a low margin. The question then is not whether foreign students are on government exchange or personal exchange study programs. Instead the question to be asked is how developing countries can get their potential skills back home without students opting for third and sixth regulation immigration privi- leges. In this particular study the last question is most pertinent to Jamaica. Another point to consider is that some student residency is purposely protracted. This protraction makes it more difficult to decide at what point these people Should be classified as drainees. Their potential value, in light of this protraction, may best be viewed on a continuum of possible service to their country while still in the host country. Because of this variation in student 3behavior it must be realized that the preceding figures are deflated, that is, they do not include these protracted Sojourners. Due to the complexity of the brain drain and the ‘added speculation on potential student worth, reliable data on them are scarce and difficult to find. In general causes vary with the national situation. Yet there are 8one nations that face nearly identical socio-economic, JII"‘ .-.p: I u... .4 ~-—-- ~--.‘. u ‘r. .' “‘0». Q . u "‘5'. N. ‘ I a \N 'c 4‘ ~'. .. I 12 educational, and certain demographic features relevant to immigration of student to developing countries. For example, Trinidad, Barbados and Jamaica have vast com- monality, Argentina, Equador, Peru, Egypt and Iran have substantial common denominators to bring to bear on the problem of student drain. While some developing countries need all their skilled people, there are some that would be negatively affected by such returns-—unemployment levels may rise and large governmental expenditures for state services nay be incurred.30 A most valuable need in deciding how to prevent pmtential skill from attriting is to identify the causes. Admittedly this is a very difficult task. Basically the causes for both functional and potential talent have been identified by various scholars as falling into two groups: the Wpush and pull" factors. The former is laden with negative inducements to return home and the latter with Positive inducements to stay in the host country.31 The Problem is not quite that simple. It should be realized that the same factor which is a push in one country could as easily be a pull in anether country. In the same vein, management of these fEntors can cause them to generate "push" features under Cme individual and "pull" features under another. In lfimping with this consideration Walton and Awasthi both l3 blame developing nations for their ambivalent response to the problem of student drain in past years. At the same time Reverend William Gibbon chides United States industries and Higher Education for enticing student drain.32 Responding to the caprice of the push and pull forces are factors like predeparture sets, adaptation to host country, communication with native country, economic inducements, professional development, the psyche for adventure, sense of responsibility to home country, fear of failure, government policies and politics, demographic data and curriculum skills. The students' perceptions and expectations of these factors ultimately affects his response to the desire to return home. Documentation on most of these factors is common in the literature on the brain drain. There are some, however, that are new to the study. These new factors have been acquired through interviews and determined by the investigator to be of enough significance to be included in the study. Among these factors are fear of failure, psyche for adventure, predeparture sets and life 8tyle. Although Cora Du Bois mentions predeparture sets of foreign students it is not in the light of immigration but of adoptation to the host environment.33 A positive look at this problem will reveal two Euagmatic facts to the developing countries. The first r1 ' . o '- ._ I’l .. c. p in...- a... 14 is that they are both the immediate and eventual losers. In the immediate sense, the skill is not readily available to meet the countries' needs. In the long run developing cmuntries perpetuate a state of underdevelopment. This underdevelopment breeds low educational and economic responsibility and an unending cycle of low progress becomes the image of the countries. The second obvious fact is that it is the develop- ing countries which must most urgently and painstakingly find solutions to the problem. In some cases these solutions may be distasteful but they are nonetheless necessary. Unless solutions are found, the "luxury clubs" cf the world will continue to draw the skills of students. Since the fully human behavior is free and therefore tmpredictable, solutions will have to be found that do not enslave the conscience of students. There are implications of this problem too for the developed nations (luxury clubs). Student immigration invariably provides a channel of immigration on immi- gration third regulation privileges, so that relatives who are often untrained find a route of exodus to developed countries. The resultant problems in edu- cational provision, economic, social and political adaptation become the host country's problems. Often these are not as easily regulated as limiting the type éflm.volume of immigrants. Recent legislations by United -‘ ~— -s‘ I- "5 'v -1 — .. :- - a... I... ~v.. ‘ 15 States and Canada highlight the problems that these nations are having because of immigration. Many of timse problems have been affected by original student immigration. Purpose of the Study In keeping with the problem as stated previously the primary purpose of this study is to identify factors that are associated with the decisions of students in North America on whether or not to return to Jamaica. An additional purpose is to examine the relationships or lack of them, between factors which separate people who lave returned to Jamaica and those who have not. A third dimension to this study is to observe whether people with cfiiferent demographic experiences are significantly dif- ferent on their responses. General Research Questions Because of the exploratory nature of the study and purposive character of the sample, it will not be Possible to test the following research questions in a Scientifically valid manner. Rather, they set the direction for more exploration and also for a more meaningful discussion and examination of the problem. ~\u use n\e :\ 16 Research Question 1: (a) Was there a difference in the response to Ranked Factors and Item Factors between returnees and non- returnees (b) By ordering Ranked Factors and Item Factors, what factors are considered most, less, least influential in a three-three-four order? Research Question 2: Was there a difference between the response of sub- jects from Rural and Nonrural background? Research Question 3: Was there a difference between the responses among the different levels of education achieved with regards to (a) Bachelors and (b) Masters and (c) Doctors of PhiloSOphy and Medical Doctors? Research Question 4: Was there a difference among the responses of (a) Education and (b) Medical/Engineer and (c) The Other Professional groups? Research Question 5: Was there a difference in response on Factors by respondents who perceive themselves as coming from (a) Upper and Middle (b) Lower and (c) Lower Middle Income brackets? Research Question 6: Was there a difference between the responses of subjects between 1-31 years and 32-upwards? Scope The following areas of student immigration have k>een included in the questionnaire: (a) (b) (C) (d) 17 Student Demographic Data: This factor explores the background of the subjects--parental exper- iences, family influence, socio-economic stature, and interest in family immigration patterns. Pre-Departure Sets: This area seeks to cover perceptions of the United States or Canada by the subject before he left home. It is hoped it will also establish what his perceptions of his future would be in light of his studies abroad. National Responsibility: This area measures the expectations that students have in the relation- ship of the nation to themselves. Insight should be gained as to whether the student viewed himself as a potential meaningful contributor to the sys- tem of development of his country: whether he feels like he belongs or sees himself as disin- franchised. Economic Influences: In this area a sense of how seriously the student considered this a major factor in his decision should be realized. The significance of salaries here as opposed to sala- ries in Jamaica should shed some light on economic considerations. This factor should probe into the individual's survival or life style as it hinges on economic benefits. (e) (f) (g) (h) 18 Adaptation: Information on this area will reveal how difficult it was to adapt to North American society. Also highlighted will be the factors that facilitate or inhibited adaptation. Influence on foreign student's office, American citizens and fellow students in becoming adopted to the American culture will be explored in this factor. Desire for Adventure: This factor aims at divulg- ing whether or not there is a significant influence on Jamaicans to immigrate merely for the adventure travelling entails. Communication: This factor helps the subject to categorize the channel of communication that influenced him most in his decision to return home or stay abroad. It may reveal the presence or absence of official government contact with the subjects while they were in school and the sub- sequent relationships that have existed since their settling in a foreign country. Professional DevelOpment: In considering whether to return home, the subject will supply some information as to his opportunities for scholarly development as he perceived them. It may reveal his knowledge of how much the government expends on projects with research orientation and what (i) (j) (k) 19 chances for promotion he saw as viable consider- ations in going home. It may also reveal how the subject saw himself relative to those who would be placed above him. This factor should help to determine if foreseeable personnel con- flicts influenced decisions. Attitude Towards the Future: The security, quality and possibilities for personal and family success. The factor seeks to determine whether or not these individuals see the system as per- petuating failure, or whether they and other members of their family had a reasonable oppor- tunity for success in the system. Government Policies and Politics: This factor is to determine if the decisions made were influenced by the political party in power or by particular politics of the government that was then in power. National politics, its atmOSphere, functions and impact on decision not to return will be con- sidered. Relevance of Professional Skills: This factor will determine if the skills acquired under the curriculum or program were considered relevant to the needs. They will give responses that generate ..s Q . n\~ c 4 .~‘ » 20 how important to Jamaica they considered their skill at that time and what possibilities for success they considered reasonable. (1) Alternative Life Style: The variety of life experiences possible within the social and pro- fessional milieu. Limitations in the Study There are certain limitations in the study that need consideration. The mode of selecting the subjects nukes it difficult to generalize beyond Jamaicans who have studied in the United States and Canada. Even at this rate, the fact that most of the subjects were obtained from social, scientific, cultural and govern- ment organizations makes the sample a biased cluster Sample. Additional names were acquired from solicitation through individuals acquainted with people. Therefore inferences derived from these results are applicable only to similar populations. The data for this study were obtained through an instrument developed solely for this project, using how- eVer, the Likert method of evaluating responses. As in the case with similar surveys, subject responses may not reflect the true intensity of depth of attitudes, per- ceptions and expectations. In addition, subject partic- ipation in this study was purely voluntary, solely . l-o-I . - . h-l "- .s. ‘ v . a 1.. "‘ ~ \ \ n . ‘Q '\ a . ..“ ‘i ‘o . —‘- . - . e‘ — - .4 ~u s \‘ n u '4 ~ ‘ 21 dependent upon one's willingness to participate and one's interest in participating by taking time to answer the survey instrument. Overview of the Study In Chapter II, literature relevant to the topic will be reviewed. Included will be pertinent material on the general problem of "brain drain" through student immi- gration. Review will cover all the aforementioned factors that are associated with student drain. For example, communication, demography, life style, professional development, etc. Attempts will be made to focus student drain primarily from developing countries. The design of the study will be examined in Chapter III. Among the categories will be methodology, design, and approach to the analysis of the data. An analysis of the results of the survey will be Fuesented in Chapter IV. Differences that separate respondents as evidenced in their response to the instru- Irlent will be given special attention. Differences in response to particular factors will be examined also. Chapter V presents a summary of interview data. Chapter VI will include a summary and conclusions with rEcommendations for a model that may be more useful than the system in operation in Jamaica. Significant impli- Ciations for further research will also be cited in this Chapter; NOTES-~CHAPTER I 1Barbara Walton, Foreign Student Exchange in Per- spective Research on Foreign Students in the United States, CEfice of External ResearCh (Washington, D.C.: Department of State, September, 1967), p. 3. 2Robert Maner in Barbara Walton's Foreign Student Exchange, p. 7. 3Margaret L. Cormack, "International Educational Exchange: Visa to What?" International Educational & Cultural Exchange 5 (Fall 1959): 50: 4United Nation Institute for Training and Research, Fmsearch Report No. 5, The Brain Drain from Five Developing quntries (New York, 1971), p. 7. 5Rev. William Gibbons, "Scientific Migration," Ebited States Committee on Scientific Manpower Survey (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1967). 6Walter Adams, ed., Brain Drain (New York: The Macmillian Company, 1968) . 7Tai K. Oh, "A New Estimate of the Student Brain Drain from Asia," International Migration Review 7 ”finter 1973): 449-56. 8Joseph Cha Tharampil, The Brain Drain: A Case Study, Asian Forum 3 (1970): 236-44. 91bid., p. 239. 10Open Doors, 1973-74, Institute International of Egucation 1973-74. 11Stephen Dedijer, "Why Did Daedalus Leave," SClence 13 (June 30, 1961): 249. 22 n ,. -..-:' u. u..- ‘o —— I. o " 01. r t . - w- ‘s n ,- on..‘.‘_ . Q. ‘g‘ "x . ~ “I P . '- .. "\ I 'V F 1“. ‘v ‘I s 23 12Hubert G. Grubel and Anthony Scott, "The Cost of U.S. College Student Exchange Programs," The Journal of Human Resources 13 (Fall 1966): 81-98. l3Oh, "A New Estimate," p. 451. 14Grubel and Scott, "Student Exchange Programs," p. 87. 15 . . UNITAR, The Brain Drain, p. 13. 16Qpen Doors 1969, Institute for International Education. 17Chathaparampil, The Brain Drain, p. 242. 18Open Doors 1973-74, Institute for International Education 1973-74. 19C. W. Roberts and R. Johnson, Social and Economic Studies (Kingston, Jamaica: University of West Indies Press, 1974). 20Open Doors 1970, Institute for International Education, Education, 1970, p. 5. 21Arnold Bertram, The Dailnyleaner, Kingston, Jamaica, 1975, col. 3, p. 6. 2Image of Jamaica, Industrial Cooperation Service, Jamaica, Kingston, 1974, p. 15. 23Ibid., p. 10. 24Edward Seaga, The Dailinleaner, Kingston, 1960. 25Roberts and Johnson, Economic Studies, p. 142. . 26Nathal Awashi, Social and Economic Studies (Kingston, Jamaica: University of West Indies Press, 1970) I p. 81. 27Ibid., p. 86. .‘7-~t‘ “ n..—-°"' Q .s.- o— ‘- - a moon-4‘. I,’ V... ‘i .v vud 24 28Walton, Foreign Student Exchange. 29Open Doors 1974, Institute for International Education, 1974. 30Chathaparampil, The Brain Drain, p. 240. 31Herbert G. Grubel and Anthony Scott, "Inter- national Flow of Human Capital," American Economic Review 56 (May 1966): 270. 32Adams, Brain Drain. 33Cora Dubois, Foreign Students in Higher Edu- cation in the United States (Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1956). 34Roberts and Johnson, Economic Studies, p. 142. K‘ ”.‘I‘ ‘"'u. .I- . . ~2‘NI ““ wt M . "t . 27“ -‘H. . I‘ . '.. ‘A v.‘ 3‘ ‘Q P. -‘.5 V x y. “‘:N ‘I ‘I . sh . ‘\ VI..- ~§~i ‘ \~ ‘. . A ‘ ‘ :‘l .x 4 r4 ‘1 ‘ .. \ 4 . .‘ V,“ - a ‘1 CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction A review of the research and literature pertinent 'tc>this study is presented in this chapter. Such a :rewiew is necessary since it illustrates the background iand content which have served as the catalyst for this research. This review also contributes to a better landerstanding of the many concepts which influence any (discussion of the immigration of professional manpower 1:0 developed countries. The categorization of the effects (bf emigration on the countries involved, and the causes Ifcu'manpower movement will next be discussed. Thirdly, Esome of the peculiarities of the "drain" through student Eittrition will be presented. Finally, those implications VVhich are most significant to this study will be sum- nRarized. Throughout this chapter three main purposes guide ilhe presentation and discussion. The first is to present Iinaterial and statements specifically related to the problem c3f brain drain in general, and student drain in particular. rI'l’le second is to provide as is best possible a rationale 25 , y c ‘4' OP: .1- pt“: 94‘ W“ o- -)4 III-v y rd! bfiVI path on! it: 4"; ‘~ mu -. .2...;,_; ‘ '-".'.‘ ‘- u u. .. . on... ‘ .IIV“ um. . 1“ \ ,“'A ‘ A,‘ ‘*. J ..._‘ I 26 for the points of view reported. The third main purpose is to use this review as a lead to a more objective atti- tude toward the international migration of students. Background Perspective Initially, and until quite recently, immigration ‘vas intellectually welcomed, since it added to world pro- ciuctivity by transferring skills from countries of low Inarginal productivity to those where it was higher. Out (3f this outflow of human capital comes what Walter Adams <2a11s the international or cosmopolitan and the national model.l Following the logic of the international or cosmo- politan model the brain drain simply reflects the operation of an international market for a par- ticular factor of production--specia1ized human capital. . . . The nationalists model regards human capital, or more precisely . . . certain minimum levels of human capital, as indispensable to a country's economic development.2 While immigration and emigration, in general, leave just recently begun to attract national and inter- Inational attention because of their inherently negative tavertones for developed countries, student immigration has even more recently begun to draw attention. In all recent studies of the outflow of trained inmnpower from developing countries there are some common Cmnclusions, two of which are emphasized: the effect of ‘emigration on developing countries and the causes of immigration. The former concludes that the outflow of y: o. 27 talent perpetuates a state of underdevelopment.3 The latter includes salary differentials (Grubel, Adams and Dollot); professional opportunity (Useem, Adams and Scott); lack of receptivity to change at home (Adams and Useem); relevance of foreign training (Walton and Wharton); lack of realistic manpower policies (Adams and Awasthi); political balkanization (Dallot and Adams); discrimi- nation on noneconomic grounds (Adams and UNITAR); monOpo- listic restrictions in advanced countries (Adams); lack of communication (Useem and Scott); desire for adventure (Dollot); search for cultural development (Scott). The latter element generates the cause and the former reflects the effect of student migration. Economic Benefits The literature is replete with the idea that the primary motive for brain drain "seems" to be to gain better economic benefits.4 This can be true depending on whether the definition given to "economic" is salary differentials or cultural development amidst affluence.6 Studies done with students from India (Useem); Asia (Wharton); Jamaica (Girling); Caribbean (Eckardt); along with Grubel's foreign student cost analysis and Myers questions on foreign student exchange, show that there is little evidence from student responses to indi- cate that strong economic benefits have been the primary lmover in the decision to drain. an. ‘D. I.‘ Au: :- '.¢ 1!. ‘6- I" ‘0. ‘. 1 28 Myers implicitly suggests that the personal economic motive is a decisive propellant to emigrate. He supports his claim on the belief that nonreturning students are often those who are marginal to the society from which they came. He does not, however, limit his concept of marginality to economic benefits. He also includes differences in dominant society because of race, ethnic origin or religion; he also introduces the idea of a social class bias with lower class professionals having a greater tendency to emigrate.7 Myers concludes that "class background may influence students migratory propensities through self— discrimination and through differential attitudes."8 The basic need for a job and the fact that the home country cannot provide that job is often the primary motivator in the economic sense. Canadians, with a rapidly increasing gross national product stimulated by modern technology, are not able to meet their own man— power needs. This need is often supplemented by estab- lished professionals and students from developing countries.9 Simply put, there are little or no attractions back home for the alert student, in most developing countries. Studies by UNITAR and a United States subcommittee On foreign affairs all point to the limitations of job 29 attractions in developing countries. In cataloguing causes for emigration they include general lack of development, shortage of opportunities for professional and skilled workers, low salaries, discrimination in salaries between categories of professionals, unpleasant ‘working conditions, limited chance for professional advancement, demoralization, frustration, discontent 10 In this same study the UNITAR source and rejection. ascribes to the economic factor the title of most "power- ful pull factor." By far the most powerful "pull" factor is the economic strength of the advanced receiving countries, particularly the United States. America's scientific-technological civilization, the main source of its economic prowess, attracts the talented of less affluent professionals from abroad. Dollot observes that the attraction of profes- sionals to the more advanced nations rest in high wages, varied resources, easy life, and the chance of making good. However he concludes that immigration appeared to be the great remedy for individual difficulties of living; and unemployment and underemployment have had very definite effects on the decision by students to emigrate.12 Lacking the facilities to realize personal, pro- fessional and economic development the professional 13 moves in search of, or remains in, a resourceful place. Lane Kirkland describes the feeling in these brusque 30 terms: "The job is still the secret of a guy's general happiness and attitude. If you like your work, you're happy. If you don't you are miserable." Albert Camus puts it more philosophically "without work all life goes rotten. But when work is soulless, life stifles and dies. "14 In some less developed countries salaries could be as attractive as in the United States or Canada.15 Despite that fact people emigrate in search of jobs. "The chief reason for emigration in the Arab world, is the inability to find an adequate job."16 The job moti- Vation factor is further supported by Lafi Ibrahim Jacfari's study of Palestinian and Jordanian students. Indeed the evidence would seem to indicate that Professional and survival needs are more apparent than the extent of economic gain. Myers states that when I‘elative purchasing power is considered, the decision is not as irrationally economical as one is prone to believe. He concludes that nonmonetary factors appear to be more important than monetary values in the decision.1 The strength of the decision varies across occupations and Periods of immigration.1 Dr. Shearer in reporting to the Manpower Research C3<>Iumittee substantially supports the argument that economic factors are not necessarily primary in emi— gration. He pointed out that one-seventh of all recent 3l [Jriited States doctorates were awarded to foreign students (>15 whom two-thirds were citizens from under-developed <3c>untries. Both Shearer and Rev. Gibbons pointed to J.a:ck of national programs to attract and hold professional sparoficiency as a cause for emigration. They pointed out 1:11at between 90 percent (Nationalist China) and 14 percent (IPakistan) are apt to remain in the United States.20 Despite the limitations of these studies, the (axrer-riding implication is that Myers seems to be right VVIlen he stated that nonmonetary factors appear to be more .1anortant than monetary values in the student's decision to emigrate . Professional Development In 1952, the Walter McCarron Act introduced a preference within quotas of applicants of high education and exceptional ability. The Immigration Act of 1965 removed the national quotas but it maintained a similar preferential basis in deter- mining eligibility within a world wide total of permissible immigration. According to a 1960 census, scientists, engineers and physicians comprised about 2 percent of all the U'I‘Aited States professionals, technical and kindred ‘Vtarkers. At the same time immigrant scientific pro- fessionals have a consistently higher proportion of all iImmigrating, professional, technical and kindred workers 1:han the United States 20 percent ratio. Immigrant sCientists, engineers, and physicians have ranged from 32 25 percent to about 32 percent of immigrant professionals.22 th>t all professionals are included in this 25 to 32 per- «sent.23 If, as these data suggest, scientific professionals are a relatively large and growing proportion of total professional immigration, the general "pull factor" of American prosperity and occupational opportunities may not be sufficient explanation for the student drain. "Instead, scientific professionals may be entering the United States in greater numbers because of 'pulls' Specific to them. " 24 The fact that the current Immigration Act facilitates this movement does make it easier to move but does not in itself seem enough incentive for the decision of a student not to return home. The figures in Tables 1 and 2 show that a rising Share of the immigration into the United States is from developing countries. These figures probably substan- tially understate the actual share from developing Countries since Canada, counted as a developed country is a "way station" for many who ultimately take up permanent residence in the United States.25 With increasing demand for professional output, a1'1 enlarged domestic entourage becomes a voluntary gift c52E valuable resources to other countries. This entourage is affected by a host of pull and push factors. Highly 1I—Zlfained people are "pulled" to the developed countries fPZkBLE l.--Immigration into the United States of scientists, 33 engineers, and physicians, fiscal years 1956-66 Total Developed Developing All Countries Countries Countries Fiscal Year ] % of l % of l % of N er Total N er Total N er Total 1956 5,373 100.0 3,604 67.1 1,769 32.9 1962 5,956 100.0 3,573 60.0 2,383 40.0 1963 7,896 100.0 4,534 57.4 3,362 42.6 1964 7,810 100.0 4,607 59.0 3,203 41.0 1965 7,198 100.0 4,548 63.2 2,650 36.8 1966 9,534 100.0 5,144 54.0* 4,390 46.0 TDABLE 2.--Percentage share of developing countries in jJnmigration into the United States of scientists, engineers, \ \ and physicians, fiscal years 1962 and 1963-66 Fiscal Year 3Tgtal, Scientists Engineers Physicians roups 1962 40.0 26.9 33.5 57.6 1963 42.6 34.9 40.9 51.0 1964 41.0 32.6 36.8 53.3 1965 36.8 27.0 30.4 53.8 1966 46.0 41.2 40.9 58.5 34 by strong diversified research and development programs.26 The revolution in science and technology is a positive force contributing to the mobility of modern man. Indeed the expansion of scientific knowledge has created a new expansion which has created a new world of learning.2 When some students finish their studies they find that their countries have not yet developed and planned suffi- ciently to accommodate them so they emigrate. Burma is an example of the point in question; 40 percent of the engineers in 1961 had not found employment in engineering 18 months later. According to another report, a 1961 census in India revealed that 10.4 percent of all scien- tific and technical personnel were unemployed, 18.6 per— cent were employed outside their fields, not to mention 28 John and Ruth the number that were under—employed. Useem give a similar report in a 1955 study.29 Situations like these immediately raise serious questions in a stu- dent's mind as to the value of returning. It is axiomatic that economic resources for developmental purposes and trained manpower are necessary ingredients to creating the essential cadres of talent that in turn can construct a viable scientific-techno- logical infrastructure. In considering the student drain Problem in Lebanon a UNITAR study expressed the previous thought in this way: "A major use for loss of the best talents in the country is the lack of facilities for 35 30 The same generalizations research in the institutions." azre applicable to their study on Arab natural scientists, wtiere the conclusion was, . . . the conditions in Arab naitional universities, such as lack of research facili- ties.31 Another dimension of professional disenchantment :iss evidenced in the negative characteristics of the aca- cieamic institutions in developing countries. The structure C>jf intellectual and educational institutions is rigid, tzlradition-oriented, and compartmentalized, having the effect, as Dr. Frankel puts it, of "frustrating the i nnovator . " 3 2 In a 1957 UNESCO study Naeem Rathore reported that 1=’<‘=ikistanian students complained that their professional 1aife was subjected to an unreasonable amount of patience Eirud struggle to achieve a position for which they were tlirained. It was even more difficult to get some of their ideas accepted and put in practice.33 While Barbara W'éalton holds that those who study at the graduate level are more prone to be able to put their training into 1immediate use,34 others like Grubel point out that the advance training puts the graduate out of the professional 35 Walton may 11cme market because he is too advanced. ‘V6fll.be correct if she is speaking of students who left sPecific jobs to which they will return. 36 Sengrie Gutevrez—Olivos study in Chile (1966) gave "professional progress" the highest rating as reason for emigration-~29 percent; better renumberation, 24 per- cent; greater recognition of technical and scientific work, 16 percent; and more opportunity to carry out research, 13 percent.36 In addition to the "pull" factors which foster immigration there are the commensurate "push" factors Which foster emigration. In 1961 a veteran foreign Student advisor declared that he believed the reasons for student drain were "based primarily on factors in the home situation," and not on United States standard of living or American proselytizing.37 Senator Mondale, who has played an active role in seeking legislative Solutions to the brain drain problem, declares that, " Until the fundamental and neglected problem of manpower utilization is met in the developing countries, there will c=<3ntinue to be a severe brain drain no matter what else We do."38 In the same vein Paul Pre-bisch reporting to the 1966 conference of Society for International Development, pointed out that the rate of growth in Cieveloping countries is insufficient to integrate dYnamic elements into the productive processes. Conse- cIl-Jently those elements (students or other professionals) become frustrated and this is accentuated by education.39 37 Chilean nurses and Greek scientists returning home provide good examples.40 Another humiliating push factor is the case of time student who anticipates the possibility of having to seek "connections" to obtain a position rather than basing his claim to opportunities for hiring and promotion <31) professional criteria and past achievements. Pro- :EEessionals, on returning home, find they have to "bow iaxud scrape," a demeaning approach through which to re- enter one's own country. Faced with this hard reality, the superfluous educated man in Lower Developed Countries (LDC) has two C>£fiions. He can stay home, living and working beneath fiis potentialities and possibilities at a subprofessional Jeevel. Or he can immigrate to an advanced country: riotably the United States, and to a new world of oppor- 1:unity and professional fulfillment. For the discontented €3ducated elite, emigration is an escape hatch to a new Eind successful life; his discontent provides the necessary "PUSH . " Adaptation Environmental, cultural and professional satis- zEfiction along with the other ingredients that contribute 1:<> the social and professional man play a vital role in 1“11's adaptation to new situations or surroundings. Lqeirjorie Klein and A. Alexander conclude that the more 38 one uncovers the painful facets of the adaptation pro- cess most foreign students make in the United States, the more difficult it is to take any position that would lead to the glossing over of foreign students' problems. Perhaps the best progress can be made by shifting the focus from the foreign aspect of the foreign student progress of gaining an education to the human aspect.42 Consistent with the results of a series of studies Sponsored by the Social Science Research Council, dif— ferent styles and adaptations were found both among groups with different cultural backgrounds and traditions, and within cultural groups as a function of situational and individual factors.43 Despite these national, group Or individual differences, however, they all seem to conform to the basic adjustment U-curve or W-curve. There is dispute regarding the exact shape of the adjustment curve but there is agreement that students are vulnerable to different stresses at different stages and show phases of attitude change. For example, problems typically shift from homesickness, making social con- Ilections, or using language early in the stay, to con- flicts about future plans, reconciling changes in one's identity, or resolving intimate relationships established during the stay.44 Coelho's study traced the development of attitudes in Indian students from an initial attitude of blanket acceptance and enchantment with the United 39 States through a period of sensitivity and criticism to a more differentiated and informed acceptance after years <>f exposure.45 Any assessment of adaptation must con- sider three phases of adjustment and the shifting pattern of vulnerability. During the last two decades many researchers have recorded the adjustment process of foreign students in the host cultures (Lysgaard, 1953; Dubois, 1956; Gullahorn and Gullahorn, 1956; Sewell and Davidson, 1961). They all agree on the U-curve experience of the initial feelings 0f elation and optimism associated with positive expec- tations regarding interaction with their host country. This thrill gives way to eventual frustration and negative attitudes as role relationships and channels towards their goals become unclear and increasingly difficult. If they al:l:~e able to resolve these difficulties during the crucial Phase of the acculturation process they then achieve a "Inodus viviendi" enabling them to work effectively and to interact positively with their host. This experience QDIE relation, followed by frustration and eventual under- so‘t:anding with satisfaction forms the U-curve. The W-curve concept is more complex than the U~curve only as far as it takes the model one dimension beyond adaptation to the host country and back to a Ji‘eacculturation to his own country. .' "—3.. .0 IT -6 Lug—I 40 A student in the involvement phases of adjustment to a foreign culture or of readjustment at home frequently encounters situations of structural imbalance (Heider, 1958)48 or cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957) .49 He may find the people he had expected to like or to feel at home with actually hold strongly divergent values. Or, he may contemplate the burden he will experience in responding to the expectations of "significant others" in his environment and their manipulation of standards. He may engage in role behavior that is at variance with his Values. No one is necessarily at fault when the W-curve Phenomenon is functioning. Yet, in order to reduce his dissonance, while remaining in the cultural context, the Student might maximize the negative component in his ambivalent feelings towards others in his environment and withdraw as much as possible from interaction with them. To bolster this decision he may join the "radical l iberals . "50 The United States spends much on exchange pro- grams. Appropriation to the state department budget for educational and cultural programs for fiscal years 1968 and 1969 was $75.1 million.51 Such an investment seems to be a humane political act by the United States. The United States government is necessarily concerned that the student it sponsors acquires not only a deeper but 41 also a more appreciative understanding of this country. This is a View most American citizens share. Although Congressional legislation stresses education rather than propaganda as the instrument for achieving this goal, the intent is clear (Dubois, 1950) . Education is not equated with propaganda, but it is nevertheless envisaged as, an instrument of foreign policy and national interest.52 The counterpoint is governments of nations intent upon social and economic development are not necessarily concerned that the fellowship students they send to the United States acquire any deep appreciation of American life. In fact such appreciation may only serve to create in students disturbing critical attitudes towards their OWn countries. Foreign governments participating in exchange programs are intent only upon skills that will be relevant to the welfare of their nations. The programs have been successful in creating nIntual understanding in demonstrating American character and achievement, setting up a channel of communication and serving as an important aspect of American foreign policy.53 The purpose of this Act (Fulbright-Hays Act) is to enable the government of the United States to increase mutual understanding between the people of the United States and the people of other countries by means of educational and cultural interests, developments, and _-.l.'...':‘ - 4“ ' , '51;qu fmu‘w““t“ _-_ - —v—--_--'.- I 'v a u.‘ \ u 42 achievements of the people of the United States and crther nations, and the contributions being made towards a: peaceful and more fruitful life for people throughout tflae world; to promote international cooperation for edu— cational and cultural advancement; thus to assist in the development of friendly, sympathetic and peaceful xxelations between the United States and other countries of the world.“ A vital part of adaptation is one's personal iJavolvement in the process. The self-esteem that one tirings to bear upon this process has unavoidable reflec- tlions of his decision of whether or not to emigrate (lDubois Gullihorn, 1963; Klein, 1971). Self-esteem is enhanced where the institution gives the student more Chantrol in his academic destiny. Several studies report students who affirm that they developed more self- CNonfidence by studying in American universities. In a Student's own words, At the University of Oregon I learned to question the professor and to think for myself. In Thailand students are taught to believe whatever the professor says. They do not seek knowledge 55 on their own. They accept whatever 18 presented. In Johnson's studies with several Asian students "self-reliance in the search for knowledge is a trait they felt they had acquired at the University of Oregon." 33t was mentioned frequently as the most useful skill they I'lad learned. John and Ruth Useem's study of returning r! 43 Inidian students found a typical statement among the people they interviewed: "I feel much more certain of nuyself. It [studying abroad] made me an independent person about my own activities and judgment. . . . It txook away my inferiority complex--being afraid of persons eflbove . . . my whole outlook has changed; I know what I could do and could not do."56 The review on adaptations leads to the following conclusions : l. Adaptation of the foreign student cannot be pre- dicted or adequately evaluated without considering the frame of reference provided by his specific culture and his response to that culture in relationship to the demands of adjustment in the host country. 2. The situations with which a student has to contend have a powerful influence on the student's adap— tation in any host country. The rate at which this affects the student drain for example is closely related to the type of classroom exper- iences they had, their interaction with citizens of the host country and how they relate to the U-curve experiences. 3. The concept of self-esteem is especially crucial in understanding the essential determinants of 44 adaptation. Self-esteem often depends on the type of recognition given by the significant members of the community. 4. Understanding the U-curve and the W-curve demands longitudinal studies of a systematic nature if their relevance to adaptation is going to be understood. Changes and shifts in attitude that affect the process of adaptation are well docu- mented.57 5. The final schema that lends itself to adaptation is the pre-departure sets that have been developed through demographic experiences in the home country. Students from rigid caste societies or significantly culturally different societies will not adapt as easily to the American society under normal conditions. The converse is true, people from countries with similar political, social and cultural systems will integrate much more easily. Relevance of Professional Skills Labelling the foreign student who drains as a "loss" to the native country may savor only parochial I"lationalism.58 Here the appropriate premise seems to k3e more in whether the countries from which these stu- cIents originated can utilize their training. A returning . , 2... 43.? o d. .N... . 45 student may prove a great "loss" if he does not utilize his training on returning home. He may contribute less to the country than the nonreturnee who sends regular remittances home or provides a link of communication between home and larger professional communities with which his country has little practical acquaintance. Admittedly there may be difficulty in defining "utili- zation." To the extent that the skill is appropriate for home, the student becomes a loss if he does not Somehow communicate as a channel between two otherwise elusive societies. If this first thought is considered in relation to Bozeman's view of the purpose of American homage to exchange education then the possibility of a national loss to the developing country looms greater. Persuaded 0f the superior worth of their model of society59 and convinced that what has happened here could, and if at all possible should, be made to happen in every other country of the world, Americans are today naturally pro- Ponents of global and regional unifying schemes.60 Behind the proposition for unification is a denial of inherent cultural differences and allegiance to the history of the past. What matters most, they would argue 1from their perspective, is certainly the future. And the future, as most would propose, can be shaped into desired forms through social and economic norms.61 46 Iixpressing a thought along the same line, though for ciifferent reasons, the Prime Minister of Jamaica, Iionorable Michael Manley in a New York television inter- ‘riew, postulates Bozeman's change: I think that as long as you live in a world that is at least partially dominated by concepts of acquisi- tiveness, permissiveness, that sees society as some big sort of thing that is supposed to happen by accident . . . more and more you have got to see the world in terms of deliberate social engineering, of security for babies, the day-care centers, the management of economy that guarantees employment to everybody . . . guarantees reasonable distri- bution of wealth so that you don't have provocative extremities of wealth and poverty. And I think you have just got to engineer the world. The plague of this American assumption is that 1:he United States, or Canada for that matter, becomes the 'Vmoda saparende" of what is social and economic develop- rnent to developing nations within reach of their influ- €2nces. This very factor could act as a "push factor" 53ince the student may see himself as only a robot eexpected to reproduce the American society. The very Ireason for which he was sent away is defeated and his <2reative genius redirected. While the inapplicability of skills learned in 1:he foreign institutions is emphasized, it is also true ‘that another aspect of the problem could go unnoticed. lis Barbara Walton points out so admirably--adaptabi1ity fiend re-adjustment in job performance may not be so much (due to limitations in the actual programs, of students, 'es to the complex nature of the development process. 47 While trained personnel are essential to economic growth at a certain stage of national development, many other factors are equally essential and too often absent in the situation which faces the foreign student who returns.63 As a consequence of parochial changes both in the home and host country and of unpredictable situations encountered by the returning student, the current theme in the training of foreign students is that of changing the curriculum.64 John and Ruth Useem report the tragedy in India where less than 10 percent of the foreign edu- cated students work in jobs for which they were trained as specialists . 65 Susskind and Shell undertaking a study in 1967 reported that 31 percent of the students from developing countries who held an American M.A. degree considered American education too theoretical.66 Some suggest that what is needed is a two-track system of education, one for Americans and another for foreign students. Equally regrettable, however, is the attitude of those who overlook needed changes and inno- vations in the curriculum which would be beneficial Simultaneously to American and foreign students alike. one seems to feel an assertion against American parochi- aIlism to which Clifton Wharton made reference in his s“tudy of Asian agriculture students who returned home.67 Perhaps the classic study of professional training 01f foreign students is that made by Clifton R. Wharton Jr. 48 (1959) notable for its careful focus and marshalling of information.68 It concentrated on a single disciplinary specialty, agricultural economics, while limiting itself to the professional problems experienced by foreign stu- dents, omitting their general adjustment problems. The study, based on surveys in the United States and Asia, of students, alumni, professors and American economists ‘working abroad represents the most intensive analysis (available of important substantive problems in the edu- <2ation of foreign students. Wharton emphasizes applicability of what students Ilearn in their host country to their home country and the Ineed for special courses. He also pointed out a major Short-coming of American professional education for iforeign students which has been taken up by many other *educators and professionals, "American agriculture is Inot world agriculture."69 In fact, he concluded that it is quite parochial in some respects, and techniques used in the United States may not be at all apprOpriate in Asia. Harari puts it more eloquently by stating that ‘ve should perhaps substitute the word "quality" for "relevant" in discussing the curriculum. If by "quality <2urricu1um" offerings and methodology representing a uni— ‘Versal approach to knowledge and experience is meant, then it is regretfully clear that the United States Li“ M. .‘w. .no‘v‘“ .. V‘ .v- 49 curriculum can stand a great deal of attention--perhaps the word, overhauling, would serve the intent more appropriately. The internationalization of the curriculum is a mission to which we need to dedicate ourselves more genuinely, not on the flimsy basis that we are training foreign students but rather because such a quality curriculum is absolutely essential to students of all nationalities who have to cope with the realities of an independent world.70 Quality and irrelevance may often wear the Same "curriculum garb." As the Susskind and Shell study Euainted out, the more specialized the student's field, tflne more likely he was to remain in the United States. Ir: their study of Berkeley engineering graduates they (iiscovered 20 percent with Masters degrees and 62 percent VVith doctoral degrees were still in the United States. IIn.response to inquiries on this trend, a dean at Stanford ing all within its power, short of drastic legislation, 93 t1) alleviate the problem. It is incumbent on critical (Honsideration that the international implications on 'foreign student decision be considered before heaping ‘the blame in any one place. Awasthi emphasizes this factor as he points to the historical reflection of how Welcomed this movement was both socially and politically to developing countries.94 The most appropriate ending to a review of the literature on factor--government policies and politics-- is the following excerpt from the Committee on Foreign Affairs: Oppression, instability and unrest, governmental indifference to scientific development, and erosion of loyalties among nationals are political elements that push professional manpower into migration. Science and technology can flourish within totali- tarian systems, but seem most ideally to flourish in a free environment unhindered and unimpeded where freedom of thought and inquiry, so necessary to the pursuit of the scientific method, are given full reign. Failure to achieve this ideal often pushes scientists and other professionals into migration. 57 Others suffering direct political persecution seek the same way out (those who are out—-students-- usually stay out), for political tyranny and politically inspired ante-intellectualism can destroy the scientific spirit. Classic cases of men who have suffered for their txeliefs would currently include, the thousands who fled Chiba and Czechoslovakia in the sixties and personalities lrike Einstein and Solzhenitsyn. Indeed politics has huistoric precedence affecting peoples' decision whether or not to emigrate. Sense of National Responsibility One of the most serious criticisms leveled iagainst the United States in regard to the student exchange program is the inducement of trained students by large salaries and the vast investment that is accordingly lost in student drain. In Grubel's study of this topic he sees the student as a servant to the world rather than to a parochial community. He questions the survival of any country that depends on the national- istic model and presents his credible alternative in the internationalistic model. He points out that this Consideration is particularly important to developing Countries whose defense needs depend on more developed Countries. He postulates that the most healthy goal f0rthese countries would be their citizens welfare, and Eunigration of skilled manpower is one major way of acihieving this end.96 58 There are certain unavoidable responsibilities of the foreign student. First, he is indebted to the home country for the education he received there. Girling gives a detailed summation of what that cost means to 'the developing nation. The finance and manpower energy Exxerted to mobilize an individual into college is phe- rnomenal in any nation and moreso in developing nations VVith little natural resources. Second, development of E1 cadre of youth leaders. The literature frequently :refers to foreign students as "potential leaders" or “future leaders" of their home countries. As Walton puts it this could mean one of three things: that they will assume leadership roles in the political life of their countries, that they will be leaders in professional and technical fields, or that they will lead "98 in bringing about social change and social reforms. Foreign students tend to be leaders or potential leaders because they belong to an elite group of college educated people. Third, maybe less visible, is the model for potential inspiration to other youth and relatives in general. Juxtaposed alongside those national responsibili- ties is the basic responsibility as a citizen of the ‘world. "The world is my parish" is more than a preacher's contemplation of his task; it has become the intellectual I“esolve of many professionals. It is conceivably included 59 in Johnson's Internationalist model. Speaking with similar sentiments Howland says that many of those whom we con- sider today as part of the brain drain will return home one day--perhaps at key points in the country's history-- t1) help their nations go forward. One government cxfficial, when asked her views about the loss of Ffililippine medical professionals replied "We should accept a global view. America is our ally; we must do Char part, to keep her healthy."99 Howland's proposed 1benefits to the developing country has been substantially <2hallenged by Oscar Gish in a sequence reply to Howland's Eassay. Gish points out that poverty, disease, and ignorance in the Philippines or elsewhere cannot be helped by the immigration of the most skilled people in ‘the country. He charges that while the drain today may Ibe the gain tomorrow, today's brain drain is being paid for by the poor people of the poor countries. Even the ‘wealthy in the poor countries do not feel the pangs of the poor, who are the perennial losers.100 Gish finds eloquent companionship in Shearer who censures Professor Grubel for shifting the traditional concept that any type of skilled manpower migration from a developing Country is "bad." In this discussion Shearer takes the reader back to the national responsibilities denied or <3'Verlooked by both Grubel and Howland. 60 Contrary to Grubel, Shearer points out the value of nationalism. He asserts that nationalism could not be relegated to mere "military and economic power" in the light of the urgency given to nation-building by (academicians and governments, as a necessary condition Irrior to political, social and economic progress. The iJIternational model as presented by Grubel proposes that ruonreturn of students does not penalize the home country lmecause they were not producers there. The more important IEact is, however disguised, that the home country loses 'the potential contribution to production of students who do not return home. It is this prospect of future pro- ductivity which justifies the investment by home and host countries in developing students' abilities. As many as 43 percent of foreign students in the United States in 1965 were graduate students, most of whom gained undergraduate training at home.101 There is therefore a national financial debt to be paid. Professional responsibility cannot be argued away under the rubric of contribution made to the welfare of the state without benefits for one's own maintenance. While a veterinarian sends some of his earnings, Uraguayan cattle die untreated because of his expatri— ation. The logistics of his sending as much as he caused to be lost is minimal.102 61 Failure of the educational systems in many developing countries to develop qualified teachers in science and the technical arts compounds the large insti- tutional problem. A further deficiency is that graduate 'training, so vital to the development of a national Scientific infra-structure has not been adequately developed. The extent to which these needs go unheeded 1J3 the extent to which graduates or trained personnel llaye neglected to return home or have been forced by Ilational conditions not to do so. There is an increasingly disproportionate number ‘of students from Less Developed Countries (LDC) who work on basic as opposed to applied problems. The applied issues are neglected causes, wasteful gaps in scientific knowledge which may make basic work premature and even inapplicable. The absence of lower level lacunae in knowledge makes the scientist's attractions unrealistic. Moreover, the scientist, preoccupied with making a con- tribution to his discipline, may easily forget his moral responsibility to contribute to the solution of the con- temporary problems of his homeland.103 There is therefore a moral responsibility that students should discharge and when they have neglected it they should be encouraged to go back to it. Over 'and.above one's moral obligation to his country, however, -i€3 that which he owes to himself. When the decision to 1...“. l.— —:.5p r r. 62 re-settle at home has to be made the "push factors" at home so heavily outweigh "pull factors" that it has to be a sacrifice. Communication A student who migrates from a developing country, “fluether from its rural interiors or its metropolitan a-J’.‘eas, is faced with a phenomenal adjustment demand in Order to survive in the more sophisticated developed ILations, like Canada or the United States. From the Ihoment of arrival, the acculturative process begins. Any survey of the last 500 years would reveal a Vflest whose life style has been decisively shaped by Cdassical Greek and Roman models and these were most 'exquisitely expressed in the age of the Renaissance. The Renaissance expression became the catalyst in intercultural relations--communication between the peoples of the world. In fact it was the inventive genius of Europeans which has made global communications between distinct human groupings possible by supplying first the requisite conceptual, technical, and political schemes without which "communication" would have been an idle word. From constant motifs they have particularized this connection between nations. First the Europeans haye been infinitely curious about the other lands. Herodotus, in his appreciation of the difference between Lauri. ? w. -——-—--*u~— :“r a—. - 63 neighboring Asia and North Africa and his native Europe points to this curiosity which has fostered intellectual and developmental communication. There is also a strong desire to identify with the novel and bliss and the zoeculiar advanced techniques of the more developed cxauntry. This type of communication was not always accepted as profitable, however, it was often referred 104 Regardless tx: as one "downgrader of the native land." (bf the view held in the Renaissance, there was a phenomenal Inovement of scholars towards new centers of learning and ‘the case is no different today. About twenty years ago the battery-powered tran- sistor came to Jamaican villages and towns and changed the national outlook permanently. Ten years later the television and jet airline services placed international communication within the reach of millions. In 1967 Neil Armstrong took a "giant step for mankind" on the moon. Communication has "tobboggoned" into human lives with such speed that it is still not fully comprehended in systems and functions. The acceleration cannot be stopped and it is difficult for governments to master an international system--deSpite the computers. Yet it must be taken into account, "its consequences estimated, its ill effects mitigated and its useful potential re- enforced. The flood that cannot be controlled can be 105 ‘Ihannelled4" It is the tremendous expectations that 64 students have because of their awareness of communication possibilities and the evident lack of this communication between themselves and develOping countries that will constitute this section of the review. Students abroad are interested in communication from family, friends, government and private enterprises that the focal point of their interest is on job possibili- tzies. Nearly all the literature covered referred to job Opportunity as a leading motivator to return home. Klock Etnd Ahmad say that such facts as traditional values or Ilature of general adjustment do not predict return. Trhey contend that although returning students mention emotional ties and family responsibilities as important factors, it is clear that these motives are secondary to occupational security. Returning home may satisfy ‘personal and emotional needs, but it is determined by professional contingencies. One important impact of this result is that it suggests that steps taken to assure students' professional security will be more effective in reducing "brain drain" than any attempt on the part of Americans or home officials to evoke patriotism or a sense of cultural community.106 Those who have job guarantees in their country tend to return home. This is true even though the salary may be lower than United States salary. In fact, Myers Enbints out that this is due to the probability of rapidly 65 increasing monetary rewards at home by rising to the top. In part, it is a natural desire to return to family. Therefore, job guarantee is probably more important than a specific salary in inducing return.107 When lack of communication on job security is (nombined with the student's awareness of unemployment and Imnderemployment back home the need to communicate specific j<3b opportunities becomes clear. In a survey of six towns 1J1 Columbia, the rate of employment among professionals Iranged between 1.1 and 5.7 percent, and the national average for professional unemployment in that country Was 4 percent . Dallot reports Britain and Italy as fostering a policy, developed to maintain contact with those who had left, keeping them grouped around their consuls, teachers and priests, helping them to maintain their national con- sciousness. This was especially the case with regards to Italian emigrants to France, and the emigration Department of Italian Foreign Ministry which became Department for Citizens Living Abroad. Unless such contact is maintained alienation from home will most probably result. Alienation is a direct function of age, length of absence from home, and the nature of the student's "stake" in his homeland. The younger the student, the longer his £3tay abroad, the greater the risk of alienation. Age and 66 long stay may easily be offset by the third point, "nature of the student's stake in the homeland." "Alienation is less likely to occur if the individual's career development possibilities at home are clear and promises upward mobility."108 Sharma's study on Indian students found 22 percent of the 64 percent who intended to return had been drawn by what they considered "attach- ment to the way of life" and 19.1 percent considered "family and friends back home" as the important factor for returning. The researcher made distinction between the above mentioned emotional reasons and the more rational situational reasons given by those who did not plan to return. Emotional reasons can be easily minimized by the experience of a "good time." Americans care for foreign students; they try to see that the students adjust to American society and institutions.109 The literature on this factor makes the over- whelming point that there is a tremendous need for private and public communication about job opportunities. Where job possibilities, with its concomitant advantages have been clearly spelt out there have generally been profes- sionals willing to return home. In the same vein when information has been absent or unspecific there has been reluctance to return. 67 Alternative Life Style In his essay, "Why Did Daedalus Leave?" Dedijer concludes that with all the evidence considered, it was safe to hazard a guess that higher salaries, higher standard of living abroad and purely political reasons-- except in extreme cases--do not play as decisive a role in emigration as some decision makers are inclined to think.110 An analysis of exchange students remaining in the United States compared with those returning home indicates that those in the lower and lower middle classes are more prone to emigrate.111 David McClelland reported the psychological need for achievement as an important factor in emigration. In a study of British scientists, he discovered that they wanted more than good jobs and opportunity for advancement. They wanted the challenge of competition with other highly competent persons in their fields and did not mind being a small fish in a big pond.112 This acceptance of minor recognition for pro- fessional involvement with other people is dramatically different from the positions these people would hold in a developing country. In a series of studies conducted under the auspices of the Social Science Research Council, the culture shock theory was generated by social scien- tists. Foreign students suffered from severe "culture shock." Deeply ingrained habits associated with the simplest aspects of daily life had to be modified or abandoned and new ones acquired. 68 The foreign student's survival demands that he learns and internalizes behaviors that will facilitate 113 This immersion his adjustment, within a few months. into a more technologically sophisticated way of life becomes a bargaining factor in a later decision as to whether or not to emigrate. It is at this point that one moves from the U-curve concept as the student antici- pates the W-curve experience.114 Another factor that affects life styles and conse- quently emigration is the trend toward urbanization. Invariably, intellectuals concentrate in cities. Cities provide centers of intellectual intercourse, opportunity and wealth. Educational and cultural institutions, hos— pitals, seats of government, major industries, and places of entertainment are generally within easy access in urban areas. "Life is more comfortable in the cities than in rural areas."115 The same generalizations made above about urban and rural areas are true of both developed and "underdeveloped" countries. The nature of traditional societies in developing countries work at cross-purposes with the spirit of the scientific technological age and accordingly creates conditions that generate "brain drain." Institutions, like society itself, rigidly structured and closed to innovation, become both the perpetuator and protector 0f socially archaic and outmoded values. "The higher an 69 individual moves in the technical and professional scale, the greater his mobility and the less the differences 116 He is which are attributable to national culture." no more the patriotic parochial champion of traditional values but takes on a more universal image. The total immersion of the immigrant professional in the environment of the advanced western country hastens the process of acculturation. Students from LDC's fall under the dual influence of the total society as well as the academic curriculum.117 Most vulnerable to the forces of acculturation are those who remain overseas longest;118 those who date and/or live with Americans; and those who remain one or more years after completion of the course 119 of study. As Professor Kindleberger puts it, "They become uprooted 'detribalized by the experience of foreign study.”120 Despite its tremendous limitations, American social democracy has a special appeal for the discontented professional in developing countries. The American social order offers the professional such important values as freedom of social choice and prospects for social mobility. Contrary to the traditional modes of existence in develop- ing societies, the developed societies foster a national tradition of pragmatism and experimentalism. One British scientist said, "Probably one is more free in this country (North America) than one is in Europe, and it is the gr... v'» a“ . .AA‘ tun. CH . "W's “. ‘ n. (n (I. ‘- J 'UA 70 essential freedom that is so attractive about this country." Making the same observation a German scientist said, "In this country there are fewer restrictions. . . . I find more possibilities of creating my style of life, and not being narrowed down."121 North America provides a wide latitude for upward social mobility based on merit and success. Responsibili- ties are given to the young and rewards are quick. Careers advance foster, initiative is welcomed, age and seniority are not prime factors. In developing countries where patriarchal tradition is strong, a premium is put on age. Traditional, generational conflicts can be further exacerbated by student training abroad which feeds rebellion against conformity to less excellent standards at home.122 Of even greater significance in one's life is the state of marriage and the style of the person to whom one is devoted. The incidence of marriages of Americans to foreign students, scholars, and other professionals reflects another aspect of American egalitarianism. Marriage between, for example, some traditionalist- oriented Middle Eastern men and American girls can make it impossible for them to return home and re-enter their traditionalist societies.123 Even in the Western sphere of affluence (for example, English professionals) marriage to Americans poses both a professional and social hazard. n ‘paArfl ...\-a- *4 t: )2! C... J ~s 71 According to a study of the correlation between marriage to North Americans and brain drain to North America, 92 percent of British scientists with American wives "drained."124 North Americans accept student failure with far less serious social stigma than most other countries. This stigma has encouraged nonreturn among students who have failed their studies. The foreign student carries a heavy burden, not only in his studies but also in the "hopes of his university, family and government." In some societies failure is so disgraceful that the student refuses to return. According to Naficy, 90 percent of Iranian student failures will seek to "drain" rather than return home. Returning home means "loss of face."125 The story of the Chinese student who lived in the church tower near the Michigan University campus for one year and a half gives credence to the social castigation orientals anticipate if they fail. In summation of the factor, Alternative Life Style, the words of one Middle Easterner best epitomizes the appeal to North American life, "Listen, this is a dif- "126 Exposed to ferent world, with different concepts. the social dynamics of American urban life and the spirit of egalitarianism, emigrant professionals are induced, in the words of a Korean Ph.D. candidate, "to reconsider their own philosophy of life."127 ,I '0 DID a. pub «b- «I :chM l I" .‘D p d..-' U A lat-IA F ;- s «4" v u "‘"I‘tyv " “ v. I . n 'A ‘E‘QH ‘ 'F :“'“.. . n. I. ”‘3'. ..Ifl.“I CC‘.‘ ‘ er .\,\ s. I 7“ b :~‘vel‘ ~\ \ u n‘n ‘ \n‘ I D n‘ I v‘ 1\‘ ‘s ‘u l ,- ~.: "4. a . ‘AH‘ ‘."~'? "1 d \‘;' '1 ' f 72 As Abaul Said, a Saudi Arabian graduate student at the University of Kansas, observed: In a social situ- ation in which the "individual's needs are gaining pri— ority over the feelings of sacrifice and commitment to one's nation," the transition is easy from emigrant to . . 128 immigrant. Desire for Adventure As the goals of the United States and the native country, in supporting the foreign students program, are peculiar to each country so are the motives that prompt students to travel. Each student goes in search of knowledge or experience peculiar to his own needs or his perceived needs of the country. Scholars have been wondering ever since men began to wander. No student, in mind and imagination, has been satisfied with the imperfect and incomplete knowledge available to him in his little kingdom or nation. Scholarship still needs the discipline of the cell-- caps and gowns typifies the monks--but it also needs the interdiscipline, international atmosphere of disputing and interacting minds and the illumination of other ways 129 The "threadbare scholars" then are of life and love. the "foreign students" now. The foreign students of today represent the "threadbare scholars" of the past. Some foreign students go abroad merely for the satisfaction of curiosity. DuBois attributes this g-O'QR: “gov-a '2' 336 new... -~ «A .. ‘vzv'u "V“? n“). o (I) J I I." ~‘ v~.‘ I‘vn‘ W‘U: "IN-H 5'- 5 ‘ 3"!- .5w‘ *4 . for ‘s 1" ‘l 73 curiosity to their awe of American leadership of democracy and alludes to the fact that they would just as easily 130 Dollot have gone to Russia if they had the chance. in his "Race and Human Migrations" puts it this way: "If we view the whole history of the settlement of new countries, side by side with a regular influx of immi- grants coming to cultivate the land of the colonies according to their needs, masses of adventurers arrive. "131 Among the factors that stimulate these adventurers is an interest in other people and other parts of the world. In listing reasons for which students travel abroad, Groves includes "his search of the new and unusual for realistic answers to his country's problems."132 High level migrants differ from other migrants in that they tend to move more frequently, for longer distances and over greater periods of their lives. However, there is substantial difference even among high level migrants. The "quality" of the professional often affects his style of movement.133 Another aspect of student emigration incorporated into the desire for adventure is the relative social and professional value of the individual who studies at home versus the one who goes abroad. From Useems' and Danda- kar's studies in India, and Howland's study of the Phil- ippines' case, it is impossible to equalize the value of 74 foreign to home study in the minds of those who see the foreign student as the one who gets first chance at job opportunities. To that native educated student, foreign study becomes a model of success with which he has to contend in vying for a job. Indeed he may see it as such a threat that Myers "Migration Paradigm" becomes a reality where as many natively educated people leave the country, as those who studied abroad and never return. In some cases a higher percentage of the former leave when com- pared with students who study abroad and adopt their host country as home. Below is a reproduction of Myers para- digm (p. 63) in which he examines several hypothetical numerical examples. Home Abroad Home Abroad Home Abroad g 1 2 1 2 1 2 g 50 5 70 20 85 5 '3 3 4 L3 4 3 4 g 40 5 5 5 5 5 Migration Paradigm The systematic prejudice to foreign trained per- sonnel could well account for the results of a study done on two Jamaican institutions of higher education--Uni- versity of the West Indies and the College of Arts, Science, and Technology. In this study it was discovered that 47.7 percent of the students planned to study and - don‘t t .1 any. \ .1 any 1 Q an... . D .- lc-vv.‘ ' . .lya . fl {-1 nu~vcu 2-~'-+ '. 1“ v . O n A ’_F A .5. ... y .. o‘— A to. u... '&. . ‘ \1’"fl:p '- \vo. :v ‘s (I? 'c w ""- - iv" ‘- 75 work abroad at least for a short while. The same study also revealed that these students with the highest desire to succeed while having to compete with some standard of excellence were significantly prone to want to include foreign travel and work in their plans for the future. Right across the board, there was no significant dif- ference in the type of occupations and the desire to emigrate. The bauxite industry pays the highest salaries in Jamaica today and when students were asked to advise others about a well-paying bauxite job and emigration to Canada, the more highly achievement-oriented ones advised students to emigrate to Canada.134 It is regrettable that Jamaica might lose so many of its people through emigration. Even more alarming is the fact that national losses will be in those people who are the most "achievement-oriented" and presumably the most enterprising. Although the causation factor between economic growth and high potential for achievement are not yet fully established, no country can afford the risk of losing its ambitious and potentially productive citizens. One reason forwarded for this is the national claustrophobia--Jamaica is just too small. If this is true, the immutability of Jamaica's smallness will per- petuate the established emigration tradition of young people who wish to free themselves from what they see as the island's social constraints and seek anonymity and independence elsewhere.135 ...... ..-d o ' O gong, '91!‘ g “'.u 4 I. .‘53' ....¥L h ‘3 “a"; V“ ‘ \..' .._e : ORV 76 Attitude Toward the Future Conceivably, all the factors mentioned in this study bear some reference to the future of the student. Therefore this factor as used means--the individual's attitude toward his professional, educational and social life, as he sees them at the point at which he made his decision. In describing the youth of the developing Carib- bean, Ursula M. Von Eckardt uses the following adjectives: optimistic, sober, realistic, and intensely practical. What they want from life is a "chance" to make it. R. Fernandez Marina, in "The Sober Generation" issues the same sentiments: "They are committed to their careers, their families and their immediate communities, seeking no happiness beyond the tranquility of rational and realistic expectations." Further description was given that solidifies the descriptions of Eckardt and Marina. One journalist describes the Caribbean youth as cautious, prudent, responsible, overly moral, and quite staid. They are willing to work hard and see this work rewarded through security and comfort. What they need most of all to realize their goals is a "chance." It is the attitude to this "chance" that affects the decision students make toward their future. Their decision will hinge therefore on the avenue that provides the greatest "chance." 77 This chance changes with people at different pro- fessional levels. For example, undergraduates as a rule are more apt to return to their native countries promptly and usually have a higher motivation to do so. They are more optimistic about job opportunities and have greater respect for their newly acquired knowledge. At the graduate level, job offers are fewer and consequently students at the doctoral level are more apt to drain.136 There is a psychological difference in realization in both types of people. As one Ph.D. candidate said, "I left Jamaica as an unthinking person . . . now I am back and working on my thesis I am a thinking person." The optimism of the undergraduate may be very realistic but as he advances professionally fears for the future at home begin to annoy him. At such a point he takes his chances where they are most evidently beneficial to his future. As is mentioned elsewhere in this chapter it is not only the level of advanced work achieved that changes the perspective but other factors, such as length of stay. A final note on "attitude towards profession and the future" has direct bearing on whether each student sees himself as a member of the nationalistic model or the international model. At one stage of development competition for top positions becomes world-wide. The individual whose aspirations are confined to the 78 nationalist model will not be affected but his counter- part who has international ambition will naturally not be limited to thinking only of the less developed country in which he lives. A young Italian student attended the Pittsburg meeting of ABA as a visitor and received two unsolicited job offers. He debated the wisdom of return- ing to Italy and the ease with which a United States job could be had.137 In less developed countries it is sometimes possible for a person without a patron to get "on the tracks" if he has been successful abroad; moreso if he has support from patrons who have been successful abroad.138 There is therefore tremendous advantage professionally and socially, if not also economically, to do some work abroad before returning to one's developing country. Fear for his educational, professional and social future may affect the attitude of a student in considering emigration. Such fears may be a crystallization of politi- cal crises, military coups, university crises, racial, religious, ideological or political persecutions, the 139 In these extreme loss of a war or a foreign invasion. circumstances it is difficult and maybe inaccurate to call the increment of emigration "brain drain." Such decisions are not taken on rationally economic grounds but are born of circumstance. Indeed these cases could be considered accidents.140 79 In a study undertaken by the Economic Commission 141 it was for Africans, with the assistance of UNESCO, found that African students in some disciplines took nine to ten years in completing studies which in western European countries require at most five to six years. In‘ some even more abnormal cases some students have spent fifteen years or more in obtaining academic and profes- sional qualifications. During this time most of them have to work substantially to augment their funds and through such interaction they take root in the foreign land.142 This eventually leads to social exchange which becomes exceptionally meaningful to the foreign student. The result of such social involvement will neces- sarily limit one's need for correspondence with friends back home and he will eventually lose contact. At the point when one's course of study is completed and the decision to return home is contemplated, this social shift in acquaintances and the acculturation to the foreign society will affect the preferential differential. The individual will be faced with both professional and social uncertainties and make a decision within the frame of his perception of the factors involved. Background Influences Although no one would question the importance of background influences in the decision a student makes to return home or remain abroad, there is very little in the a :'0‘ VI v-u —¢' I. .v t.~ .t ‘I V I‘ 80 available literature supportive of this factor. Indeed it may well be argued that background is intricately woven throughout each other factor. It is the intention here, however, to call attention to a few particular aspects of the background influences that could easily go unnoticed although referred to in the exposition of other factors. Recent studies show the importance of looking beneath the superficial indices of academic background to understand the social, economic, religious and pro- fessional attitudes of students who stay abroad. Vera Rubin and Morisa Zavalloni's study of the youth of one Caribbean nation gives tremendous insight into the factors that drive the youth first to seek an 143 The title of education and secondly, a profession. their study is "We Wish To Be Looked Upon: A Study of the Aspirations of Youth in a Developing Society." The title is a derivative from a typical student essay that contained the most frequently expressed yearning of the young people of Trinidad. ‘ According to the study, Negroes, East Indians, Colored and Whites valued a fair chance to fulfill their aspirations for, in order of importance, respectability, economic security and comfort, and power in their local community. Any system, political, educational or mystic, that could provide these received their favor. D 0’! sin u. "v. is ‘l h ”I .1 I ,ll. () 81 Independence was welcomed throughout the Caribbean as a vehicle of social justice and the justice as a vehicle for economic development and prestige. It is not very clear which of these two factors holds precedence since they are usually colleagues. However, in Rubin's study, subjects cited security and respectability as the essence of their goal orien- tation. Conceivably these could as easily mean economic as well as other abstract types of security. However, when this is put together with their aforementioned ordered list where respectability held pre-eminence over economic security and comfort, it is impossible to miss the fact that their focal point is not economic, but personal prestige and self—worth. Another study carried out on Jamaican university and college students showed that most of the students from upper middle class to upper class wanted to study abroad and then return home. Those of lower middle and lower classes felt their Jamaican education was enough. However, those in the latter group who wanted to get out of the country had a higher percentage not desiring to return. In this picture there are two salient points, one of hopelessness and the other of deSperation. Hopeless- ness as reflected in the lack of expectation that they will get beyond their shores scholastically and desperation 82 in the fact that once they get out they will never return. This behavior is very typical of that proposed by Robert Myers144 for the marginal type students in the societal life. These are social, and economic marginals Whose intellect becomes marginal because of their own limited expectations. Rubin's study alludes to the fear that haunts these youth in their search for personal and survival goals. "All my hopes, expectations, plans, aspirations depend on the successful outcome of this examination, but still if by some misfortune of fate, I happen to fail this exam . . . "145 In this reference there is the deep-rooted despairing cry for a "lucky break." There is no avarice there. A more indepth consideration of this theme leaves one with the idea that these youth have learned to depersonalize the failure as a product of their society and not of themselves. It is therefore quite natural that the marginal sufferer will be more likely to attrit than the person whose psychological schemes have a more positive frame of reference. Some societies have become famous for discrimina- tory practices on grounds other than efficiency and qualifications. The Chinese in Malaya, the Asians in Kenya, and the Tamils in Ceylon are adversely affected 146 by discrimination and legislation. Qualified native p no or“ i. .V: :01» w- cu. int o~.~‘ |‘~ a w‘: A ‘~ 0. R ‘ttea ..»A‘" syn \..V-.,' v“ J ‘ u “0. n ‘- ~.E n V d I ‘I h" «.7: s ‘I ‘ v IIIa ‘ ‘8‘]; A “4“ t 83 Cameroonians are often denied jobs that go to employees of foreign organizations, thus closing off career prospects for native professional cadres and forcing them to go elsewhere.147 Inherited social status, family positions, politi- cal connections, rather than individual talent and capa- bility, and the importance of particular jobs for the task of nation building, become the criteria for holding professional positions, structuring salary scales, and creating social status and prestige. Such a dislocation of talent, rewards, and status in society effectively excludes the talented young intellectual from playing a proper and positive role in his society. As a result the intellectual classes of India are alienated totally from the rest of society and anything but an intellectual life has developed within the ranks of the intellectuals.148 "These ranks have been infiltrated by wrong persons with wrong aptitudes and wrong motivations, and bureaucracy, servility, frustration, and resentment permeate the intellectual life in the country. These conditions keep the young talented persons away from their home."149 Another subtle societal background phenomenon is the traditional society's unreceptive attitude to science and technology in favor of jurisprudence, the humanities and liberal arts. This prejudice permeates the cultural norms of such societies and this becomes a deterrent to 84 the scientific spirit. Its values are consistently in conflict with the requirements of a modern industrial order. It pushes scientists and technologists into emi- gration and the students repose in their foreign habitat. Such societies like the Hispanic cultures of Latin 150 151 African nations, and even Britain share 152 America, these prejudices. Students of self-worth who "wished to be looked upon" eschew even their own country when social and pro- fessional prejudices inhibit research development; when their caste or class structure affects their mobility; when salary differentials are not structured according to professional contributions and efficiency; and when a society is rooted in tradition prejudices to science and technology. Pre-Departure Sets Only those totally ignorant of international student exchange would question the right of J. W. Ful- bright in interpreting what the American mandate has been in opening its doors to foreign students with all the cordiality and economic endowment put into such programs each year. One can readily accept his statement: "In the field of international relations the purpose of edu- cation is the civilizing and humanizing of relationships between nations in ways which are within the limits of 153 human capacity."_ Whether we accept that version, or 85 tune our minds to President L. B. Johnson's interpretation in his address to the Smithsonian Institute, we hear the same theme--understanding. Together we -ust embark on a new and noble adventure: First, to assist the educational effort of the developing nations and developing regions. Second, to help our schools and universities increase their knowledge of the world and the people who inhabit it. Third, to advance the exchange of stu- dents and teachers who travel and work outside their native lands. Fourth, to increase the free flow of books and ideas and art, of works of science and imagination. And, fifth, to assemble meetings of men and women from every discipline and every culture to ponder the common problems of mankind. In all these endeavors, I pledge that the United States will play its full role. 154 L.B.J. Bozeman presents the United States as typical to Britain and France in the practice of colonialism. Here principle, ideology, tradition and experience combine to foster the vision of a multinational egalitarian and open society. Convinced of the superior worth of model of their society, and convinced that what happened in the United States could happen elsewhere in the world, Americans have become the natural proponents of globally and region- ally unifying schemes. " . . . do education and cultural exchanges have political relevance? The question is thus readily answered in the affirmative, and this is the light of both international history and the state of contemporary international relations."155 Therefore it is evident that in addition to understanding, which social scientists hold is very encouraging to the American, there is also the 86 selling of a philosophy model which involves political democracy and its supporting values. Although there is general satisfaction with and acceptance of American society and customs, the same attitude is not carried over into the United States as a political entity or to American foreign policy (Riegel, 1953; Useems, 1955; Pool, 1965). Pool asserts that study after study has found no particular relationship between liking for Americans and support of American political policies.156 The governments of developing countries, intent upon economic and social development, have little concern about how much the exchange student appreciates American culture. In fact such appreciation creates critical attitudes towards their own country. Foreign governments support exchange programs only as far as skills related 157 There seems to be very little, to their development go. if any other, evidence which supports anything but a primary motive for acquisition of technological skills. To become "Americanized" is more often a derogatory labelling. Of course nations want to understand and be understood by the United States. This brings us to the final and most important question, what motivates students to study in North America? I l A. I .‘x: - VI 0“! I‘!'A w u‘b‘v n...~‘ uovyx I .’A‘- . fifiy‘. . ‘ :‘On ....1.- :FJ \‘u‘ ”a“ fi.‘ ‘ 5"“ W {- .v (j If -. i:‘n' in $ 87 Cormack reports that overseas study for most exchange students in developing countries is a familial and social "push" more than a personal "pull" of adven- ture.158 Most of the students are subject to strong success imperatives for which they may be ill-prepared. It is therefore difficult to generalize about the moti- vations of exchange (foreign) students in the United States, their background and personalities being as varied as the stimuli sifting through meshes of tradi- tional and familial environment. Some students are enthralled by the United States as a dominant world power, and as a leader of the democratic nations. It is a model well worth scrutinizing.159 Some students are merely eager to meet the needs of their own country in acquiring new skills. The advance knowledge and golden degrees of the United States represent shortcuts to status and security for those living in societies hustling from kinship to achievement systems. To many former colonial peoples America was a 16° This model has symbol of hope and a model of success. found roots in its educational credibility, technological superiority and the integration of the academic community, to the extent that visually and ideologically students and faculty have crossed chronological lines. It sets a challenge therefore to those who want to create their own native model; to those who are satisfied with the American .AF Q 0V. ‘ — qu.. I V“. b. . 3:! ~ tun. 1 :Na» 5.». iv...‘ i ."~ A“ \ ~~ 'h‘d ‘ tug, 5“ O -4 (I, In “ ‘- (I) a I 88 model and are ready for its transportation; and to those who are unsure of where they want to go or what they want to do, the United States provides a wider and richer sc0pe for whichever alternative is chosen. In conclusion, it is appropriate to say that the United States encourages exchange for international under- standing and dissimination of its political culture. The developing countries foster it for international under— standing also but most of all for the skills to develop socially and economically. Peculiarityof Student Drain In this section a brief review of the peculiarity of "student drain" problem as opposed to the general problem of the "brain drain" is presented. Barbara Walton suggests two factors that distinguish the nonreturning student from emigrating manpower at a higher level, more popularly designated as the "brain drain." First, the student drain consists of talent that is still functionally unrealized, of potential talent rather than that which is already fully established and functioning within an economic system.161 Second, a distinguishing characteristic is that with individual exceptions, the intention of most students when they go abroad is to return home. They, however, go through the process of deciding otherwise during their stay. More senior talent on the other hand goes through 89 the process of deciding to emigrate at home and migrates only after a decision is reached. The established pro- fessional makes the decision at home where the realities of the prOSpective host country is somewhat hazy. The locus of the decision is made abroad for the students where the image of the host country is clear and com- pelling and that of the home country hazy.162 In addition to Walton's observations, three other factors may be considered. First, it is difficult to decide, in the case of students, whether they represent a serious loss to the home country, or whether, at the point of decision to emigrate they do not.163 Second, statistical data on foreign students have been poorly handled in the past and are still not sys- tematically satisfactory--it is presently much better than in 1965. In that year Open Doors excluded from their survey foreign students who, at the time of survey, planned to emigrate. Included in the group desiring to emigrate are those who have protracted their stay for years under the guise of academic requirements and those who are on professional internships indefinitely.164 Third, despite the fall in percentage increase of students coming to the United States, the numbers from developing countries continue to increase. So even when the entry of established professionals has been denied, the student's entry because of his position as learner 90 rather than dispenser of knowledge is permitted. At present the greater increase is heavily concentrated in African, Latin American and Far Eastern countries.165 In a study on Jamaicans alone, by a New York social worker, it was discovered that professionals who emigrated directly from a practice in the home country talked little about returning to re—establish a life pro- fession. Professionals who immigrated after or during their studies consistently talked about returning to establish themselves in a life profession. Conclusions However skeptical we may be about the usefulness of social science research in guiding government programs, we must admire the courage, even the temerity of the researchers who have elected to study foreign students. If the results they have achieved so far are not fully satisfying, it is due as much to the complexity of the subject, as to faulty reasoning and technique. The researcher is trying to make statements about 1 million or more human beings, representing nearly 200 countries and perhaps twice as many cultures and languages. Add to this that all of these diverse factors are interacting, and the research is conducted under the self-imposed handicap of demonstrating findings statistically (a sophisticated need to demonstrate scholarship today), 91 and it is remarkable that the researcher comes up with any conclusions at all. The findings on foreign students research con- tained in the literature reviewed are not simple and straightforward. They are, at best, tentative and complex, as befits the subjects they deal with. Some studies sup- ported idealistic hopes for changes; some illuminated the subject wonderfully, and others added to the confusion. However, they all basically agreed that there were some psychological, social and economic factors involved in any study of why foreign students are apt to emigrate. Some definite conclusions were reached regarding factors that contributed to emigration. The literature was overwhelming with data on phy- sicians, engineers and natural scientists and was equally lacking in reliable data for people in other professional groups. Both government and privately financed studies centered more on the three aforementioned professions than on any other. Indeed it is conceivable that those are areas of greatest need but they, by no means, reflect the true picture of foreign professional immigration to developed countries. Even among these areas of highly concentrated research, done on foreign students since World War II, very little is known about the magnitude, the causes, or the consequences of student nonreturn. The literature 92 is replete with speculations in these areas but very, very limited empirical data are available. Most of the research done has focused on problems of foreign student adjustment to his host country, his image of the host country, and similar social and psychological issues. Ritterbrand points out that the issue has more consistently been dealt with in more polemical than analytic terms. Serious dispassionate analysis of the student brain drain has just begun. The only notable exception is Wharton's study of Asian graduates who returned, but this study is again limited to the field of economics. But for very few exceptions, authors who priorize the factors that facili- tate student drain have placed economics at the head of the listing. Indeed, their discourses are convincing and intelligent but the only other factor that receives equal attention and care is the professional development of the individual. In most credible studies the emigration-immigration movement has been cradled between the operative "push" and "pull" factors. These are substantially covered both from the point of view of the native and the host countries. In each case the negative and positive inducements throw substantial light on some phenomena that may affect the student's decision to drain. There are some notable limitations to the litera- ture covered. Except for the "International Cultural and 93 Educational Exchange" quarterly, most other sources dealt vvith "brain drain" of established professionals emigrating to developed countries—-especially the United States of America. In this same vein it is peculiarly evident that no substantial longitudinal study has been originally estab- lished from developing countries. They seem to face the greater loss eventually. There was no study worthy of particular attention that looked on the same country's returnees and nonreturnees to see what factors maximally separated their decisions to remain or return. Finally, as yet there has been no study done that has a good model or theory with adequate explanatory and predictive powers. At least none that was obvious in this literature survey which was considered very exten- sive, if not exhaustive. The evidence from this review makes the present Study worthwhile in consideration of student drain. First, it is directed toward a consideration of the factors that maximally separate people who return home from those who do not. Second, there is an attempt to develop some definite recommendations. Third, from the data gathered there is an effort to qualify and authenti- cfilte some of the hypotheses proposed by studies on the subject of student drain. NOTES--CHAPTER I I lWalter Adams, ed., The Brain Drain (New York: The Macmillian Company, 1968), p. 12. 21bid., p. 4. 3United Nations Institute for Training and Research, Research Report No. 5, The Brain Drain From Five Developing Countries (New York, 1971), p. 15} 4Herbert G. Grubel, "Non—returning Foreign Student and the Cost of Student Exchange," International Edu- cational and Cultural Exchange, Spring 1966, pp. 20-29. 5Adams, Brain Drain, p. 6. 6Franklin D. Scott, "Academic Vikings," American Scandanavian Review 4 (Spring 1959): 55-60. 7Robert G. Myers, "Some Thoughts on Foreign Stu- dent Non-return," International Educational and Cultural Exchange 4 (Fall 1968): 45—48. 81bid., p. 46. 9Canadian Government, "The Professional," lganadian Government Immigration Service, No. c1-61/2066 (Ottawa: Queens Printer & Controller, 1966). 10UNITAR, Brain Drain, p. 27. 11Herbert G. Grubel and Anthony D. Scott, "Inter- rnational Flow of Human Capital," American Economic Review 56 (May 1966): 268-74. 12Louis Dallot, Race and Human Migration (New York: Walkers Company, 1964), p. 2. 94 - A! ‘."."l-'-‘ 95 13Ibid., p. 27. 14Quoted in "The Workers Day" (editorial), The Washington Post, 3 September 1973, p. A26. 15Seymour Lutzsky, "Some Thoughts on the Use of Brains," International Educational and Cultural Exchange, Winter 1976, pp. l-l4. 16 Arnold C. Harberger, Investment in Machines: The Case of India," Education and Economic Development (Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co., Lafi Ibrahim Jaafavri, "Study of Palestinian l7 and Jordinian Students," International Educational and "Investment in Men Versus Cultural Exchange, Spring 1966, pp. 39-41. 18Robert G. Myers, "A Study Abroad and the Migration of Human Resources" (Ph.D. dissertation, Chicago, 1967), p. 94. 19United States Immigration and Naturalization Act, Congress SuB;Committee, Washington, 1965. "In Defense of Traditional 20John C. Shearer, Views on Brain Drain Problem," International Educational and Cultural Exchange, Fall 1966, p. 17. 21United States House of Representatives, The l§£ain Drain into the United States of Scientists, Engi— 1ggers and PhysICians (printed’for use of the Committee . Government (on Government Operations, Washington, D.C.- Printing Office, 1967) , p. 1. 22Annual Reports of Immigration and Naturalization Service , 1966 . 23Note that scientists do not include social scien- Scien- t2§Lsts, physicians include surgeons and dentists. t1 sts, engineers, and physicians include college or uni- versity instructors . U.S. House of Representatives, Brain Drain into 24 U-\S., p. 2. 96 25According to unpublished N.S.F. data only 1,844 out of 34,060 immigrating scientists in 1962-64 from Canada to the U.S. were Canadian born. Japan is used in the same way by students from Asia desiring to qualify for permanent residence in the United States. 26Charles V. Kidd, "The Growth of Science and Distribution of Scientists Among Nations," Impact of Science on Society, UNESCO 14 (1964): 5-18. 27Franklin Huddle, The Evolution owanternational Technology (Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, 1970), 70 pp. 28John Useem and Ruth Useem, The Western Educated Man India: A Study of His Sgcial Role and Influence (New York: Dryden Press, 1953), p. 94. 291bid., pp. 83-84. 30Report UN Secretary General, House of Repre- sentatives Committee on Immigration, 1968. 31UNITAR, Brain Drain, pp. 86, 91. 32United States Judiciary Committee, House Report from Sub-Committee, 1970. 33Rathore G. Naeem, "A Study UNESCO of Pakistanian Students," United Nations Educational Socialtg Cultural (Dr anization TWaShington, D.C.: Government Printing W7). 34Barbara Walton, Foreign Student Exchange in ffierspective Researchron Foreign Students in the United Eitates (Washington, D.C.: Office of External Research, [1.8. Department of State, September 1967), p. 8. 35 Grubel, "Non-returning Foreign Student, p. 270. 36Sergio Gutierrez--Olivos and George Riquelme Perez, The Emancipation of High Leyel Manpower: The Case of Chile (Washington, D.C.: Pan American Union, 66). 97 37Ivan Putman, Jr., "The Foreign Student Advisor and His Institution in International Student Exchange," National Association for Foreign Student Affairs, 1964 andl965,24pp. 38Senator Walter F. Mondale, Speech at The Uni- versity of Minnesota, Congressional Record, May 15, 1967, p. S 6858. 39Paul Pre-bisch, Report to the Conference of Society for International Development, 1966. 40Walton, Foreign Student Exchange, p. 20. 1George C. Hamiotis, "An Exercise in Voluntary Repatrication," International Development Review 6 (December 1964). 42Marjorie Klein et al., "The Foreign Student Adaptation Program . . . Social Experience of Asian Stu- dents in the U.S.," International Educational and Cul- tural Exchange 6 (Winter 197i): 77-88. KQQF‘43Ralph L. Beals and Norma D. Humphrey, No Fron- tier to Learning: The Mexican Student in the United States (University of Minnesota Press, 1967). \ii‘44Cora Dubois, Foreign Students in Higher Edu- gation in the United States (WaShington, D.C.: American Councii’on Education, 1956). d45William H. Sewell and Oluf M. Davidson, "The .Adjustment of Scandinavian Students," Journal of Social Issues 12 (1956): 19. We... *\ 46Suerre Lysgaard, "Adjustment in a Foreign Society: Norwegian Fulbright Grantees Visiting the ‘ghnited States," International Social Science 7 (1955): 5-510 m 47John T. and Jeanne E. Gullahorn, "An Extension ()1? the U-Curve Hypothesis," Journal of Social Issues 19 (1963) : 33-47. 48F. Heider, The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations (New York: Wiley, 1958). 98 49L. Festinger, S. Schachter, et al., Social Pressures in Informal Groups (New York: Harper, I950). 50Gullahorn and Gullahorn, "Extension of the U-Curve," p. 40. 51Susan T. Pettis, "Whitten International Edu- cational Exchange?" International Educational and Cultural Exchange, Summer 1970, p. 58. 52Dubois, Foreign Students, p. 12. 53Ibid. 54 . n . - n Klein, Foreign Student Adaptation, p. 80. 55Gullahorn and Gullahorn, "Extension of the U-Curve," p. 42. 56Useem and Useem, Western Educated Man, p. 117. 57Gullahorn and Gullahorn, "Extension of the U-Curve,"; Dubois, Foreign Students. 58Grubel and Howland: The work of both men in building a case for the cosmopolitan model presented by Adams seems to attack parochial nationalism. 59Adda B. Bozemon, "Do Educational and Cultural Exchange Have Political Reliance?" International Edu- ‘ggtional and Cultural Exchange, Fall 1967, p. 15. 6°Ibid. 61U.S. House of Representatives, Brain Drain, £3- 9. _ 62Michael Manley, "Our Changing World" in the Eiflhll Moygrs Journal Television Interview (New York: créflmaica Consulate General Newsletter, May 1, 1975): P. 8. I? 63Barbara Walton, "Foreign Student Exchange in Eg€alrspective: What the Research Tells," International ._S1}3cational and Cultural Exchange, 1968, pp. l-l4. 99 "Priorities for Research and 64Maurice Harani, Action in the Graduate Foreign Student Field," Inter- 17-:22 . national Educational and Cultural Exchange, pp. 68. 65Useem and Useem, Western Educated Man, p. 66Charles Suskind and Lynn Schell, "Exporting Technical Education: A Survey and Case Study of Foreign Professionals with U.S. Graduate Degrees,” Institute of International Education (New York: 1968), 97 pp. 67Clifton R. Wharton, Jr., U.S. Graduate Training of Asian Agriculture Economists (New York: —Council of Economics & Cultural Affairs, 1959). "Research on Foreign Graduate \ii‘ee Barbara Walton, Students," International, Educational and Cultural Exchange 6 TWinter 1971): 21, 22. 69Wharton, U.S. Graduate Training, p. 108. The 7oMannie Haravi, "International Studies: Dynamics of Change," Internal, Educational and Cultural, 71Suskind and Schell, "Exporting Technical Edu- cation," 97 pp. Halberstam and Michael M. Dacso, 72Jacob L. "Facts and Fiction in Cross Cultural Evaluation of Graduate Medical Training in Physical Medicine and .Rehabilitation by Foreign and U.S. Medical Residents," ‘Egstitute of International Education Center, 1965, 30 pp. 73Ibid., p. 15. Gayle Marsh and Jacob L. Halberstom, "Per- 74 sonality Stereotypes of U.S. and Foreign Medical Resi- <3€3nts," Journal of Social Psychology68'(l966): 187-96. 75C. P. Kindleberger, In Adams' Brain Drain, p - 1390 unable to locate source. 76Margaret Mead . . . 100 77W. M. Dandakar, In Adams' Brain Drain, pp. 203- 24. 78Ibid., pp. 229-32. 79John B. Lansing and James N. Morgan, "The Effect of Geographic Mobility on Income," Journal of Human Resources 2 (Fall 1967): 460. 806ny S. Metraux, "Exchange of Persons: The Evolution of Cross Cultural Education," Social Science Research Council, Pamphlet No. 9 (1952): 53 pp. 81John W. Bennett, Herbert Possin et al., Dr. Search of Identity: The Japanese Overseas Scholar—in America and Japan (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1958?: p. 27. 82Beals and Humphrey, No Frontier to Learning, p. 30. 83Walton, "Research on Foreign Students," p. 12. 84Habib Naficy, "The Brain Drain: The Case Study of Iranian Non-returnees" (report presented in Conference of Society for International Development, March 17, 1966). 85International Migration of Talent and Skills: Proceedings of a Workshgp and'COHierence (Washington, D.C.: Department of State, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, October 1966). 86Walton, "Research on Foreign Students," p. 44. 8'7State News, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, May 1975. 88Dandekar, p. 218. 89Useem and Useem, Western Educated Man, p. 159. 90Margaret L. Cormack, "The Wondering Scholar," International Educational and Cultural Exchange, Spring 1968, p. 46. lid \HJIU‘ \ 1Q l 5. an. 101 91News of Jamaica, The Consulate General of Jamaica (New York: Pan Am Building, 1974), p. 9. 92Grubel, "Non-returning Foreign Student," p. 20. 93Paul H. Douglas, In Adams' Brain Drain, intro- duction, p. 4. 94 . . . Prakash Awasthi, "Brain Drain," Manpower Journal, 1966. 95Committee on Foreign Affairs, p. 18. 96Grubel, "Non-returning Foreign Student," p. 22. 97R. K. Girling, "The Migration of Human Capital from the Third World: The Implications and Some Data on the Jamaican Case," Social and Economic Studies 23 (March 1974): 86-88. 98Walton, Foreign Student Exchange in Perspec- tive, p. 42. 99H. G. Johnson, In Adams' Brain Drain, pp. 81-91. 100Harold E. Houland, "Brain Drain from Philippines," International Educational and Cultural Exchange, Fall 1967, pp. 23-28. 101Oscar Gish, "Brain Drain From Philippines Part II," International Educational and Cultural Exchange 14 (Winter 1969). 102 pp. 17-250 Shearer, "In Defense of Traditional Views," 103William G. Thiesenhusen, Professor, in Report to Committeggon Government Operations (Washington, D.C.: Government Pfinting Office), p. 25. 104Gustave E. Von Gruenebaum, ed., Medieval Islam, A Study in Cultural Organization (Chicago: University Press, 1946), p. 42. 102 '\Q 105Bryant wedge, "World Communication Culture and State Craft," International Educational and Cultural Exchange, 1970, p. 22. 106Carolyn Klock and Boshin Ahmad, 107Myers, "Foreign Student Non-return," p. 47. 108Dubois, Foreign Students, p. 90. 109Wolfrom Eberhard, "Problem of Students Return- ing to Asia," International Educational and Cultural Exchange 5 (Spring 1970): 41-45. 110Stephen Dedijer, "Why Did Daedaulus Leave?" Science 13 (June 30, 1961): 2047-7052. 111Iraj Valipour, "A Comparison of Returning and Non-returning Iranian Students in the United States" (Ed.D. dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia Uni- versity, 1961). See also Maficy, 1966: Myers, 1967. 112David C. McClelland, The Achieving Society (Princeton: D Van Nastrand Company, 1951), p. 372. 113Beals and Humphrey, No Frontier to Learning, p. 43. V 114Gullahorn and Gullahorn, "Extension of the U‘Curve," p. 16. 115The Committee on International Migration of Talent, The International Migration of High Level Man- EOWer: Its Impact on_ the Development Process (New York: Pri'ileger, , p. 683. P 116Saleh Amlah, "The Role of the College of AetrOleum and Minerals in the Industrialization of Saudi rabia," Nuder & Zahlam, p. 253. A Study of the Persistent Issue Of' 117BrainQrain: -~.3§gternational Scientific Mobility, Committee on Foreign Afiairs, Washington, D.C., 1974, p. 115. 103 118Albert G. Simms, "Proceedings of Workshop on International Migration of Talent & Skills," October 1966, p. 117. 119Stephen E. Deutsch, International Education and Exchenge: A Sociological Analysis (Cleveland'Case, Western Reserve University, 1970), pp. 178-79. 120Kendelbereer in Brain Drain into U.S. of Scientists, Engineers and Physicians, p. 65. 121Brain Drain, Committee on Foreign Affairs. p. 120. 122Melvin J. Fox, "Some Pluses and Minuses of the Brain Drain," International Development, 1966, p. 74. 123Abdul Said, Brain Drain: The Developing Countries--Causes, Ramifications and Prospects (Uni- versity of Kansas, 1970). 124James A. Wilson and Jerry Goston, "New Light on Brain Drain," New Scientists No. 43 (1969): 236. 125Naficy, "Iranian Non-returnees," p. 67. 126Said, The Developing Countries, p. 15. 1271bid., p. 10. 128Ibid., p. 17. 129Cormack, "The Wandering Scholar," pp. 45-51. 13oDubois, Foreign Students, p. 4. l311bid., p. 131. 132Marion H. Groves, "Contribution to Development by Asians Who Have Studied Abroad," International Edu- cational and Cultural Exchange, Summer 1967, p. 14. 133Robert G. Myers, Education and Emigration (New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1972), p. 28. 104 134Kathryn Tidrick, "Need for Achievement, Social Class and Intension to Emigrate in Jamaica," Students, Sgcial and Economic Studies 20 (University of the West Indies, 1971Y?752-60. 1351bid., p. 59. 136T. R. Fernendez Manirar "The Sober Generation," Social and Economic Studies (University Press, 1974). 137Kindleberger, in Brain Drain into U.S., p. 141. 1381bid. 139Enrique Oteiz, In Adams' Brain Drain, p. 131. 140Mordechai M. Levy, "United Nation Educational and Cultural Affairs," Report on a Study of Africans Studying and Training Abroad, 1967. 141Dubois, Foreign Students, p. 162. 142R. K. A. Gardner, Adams' Brain Drain, p. 195. 143Vera Rubin and Morisa Zavalloni, We Wish To Be Looked Upon: A Study of the Aspirations of Fourthiin a Developing SoCiety (New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1969). 144Myers, Education and Emigration, p. 41. 145Rubin and Zavalloni, We Wish To Be Looked Upon, p. 58. 146 Ditchley and Park, Report, Conference on Brain Drain, 1968, p. 15. 147UNITAR--Five Developing Countries, p. 122. 148Science and Technology and American Diplomacy, Subcommittee on National Security and Scientific Develop- ment (Washington, D.C., September 1973). p. 19. 149Dondekar, In Adams' Brain Drain, p. 55. a... I‘,‘ ’1 A .PU H: uh~ FIE ~ 105 150Pan AmericanHealth Organization, Migration of Health, Personnel, Scientists, Congress from Latin America, Washington D.C., September 1966, p. 48. 151Gardner, Adams' Brain Drain. 152James A. Wilson: The scientific research of such is not respected; the scientists are not welcomed into general industrial management and that it remends in Britain to go the Liberal Arts route--Oscford & Eaton types. 153J. W. Fulbright, "Education for a New King of International Relations," International Educational and Cultural Exchange, Winter 1967, p. 9. 154From President Johnson's remarks to the bicentennial celebration of the Smithsonian Institute, September 1965. 155 Bozeman, "Political Reliance,‘ pp. 7-21. 156Ithiel de Sola Pool, Effects of Cross-National Contact on National and International Behavior (New York: Holt Rinehart, Winston, 1965 , pp. 106-29. 157Dubois, Foreign Students, p. 12. 158Margaret L. Cormack, "International Educational Exchange: Visa to What?" International Educational and Cultural Exchange 5 (Fall 1959): 52. 159Dubois, Foreign Students, p. 71. 160Cormack, "Visa To What," p. 52. 161Walton, Foreign Student Exchange, p. 14. 1621bid. 163Awasthi, Economic Studies, p. 90. 164 Education. Open Doors, 1965, Institute of International 106 165 Education. Open Doors, 1974, Institute of International CHAPTER III DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY Design of Study The study was designed to determine the differences that separate Jamaicans who returned home and those who remained in North America after graduating with profes- sional degrees from North American colleges and universi- ties. A further purpose of the study was to identify the factors that both returnee and nonreturnee Jamaican stu- dents thought influenced their decisions most. The ngulation and Sample The subject population of the study were graduates of North American colleges and universities who (I) returned home (returnees) or (2) remained (nonreturnees) in North America. The population, therefore, formed a homogeneous group-~they were all professionals. Among the anticipated professions in this popu- lation are educators in numerous subject areas, medical personnel, library scientists, engineers, social workers, insurance life underwriters, accountants, management con- sultants, administrators, sales representatives, and 107 108 civil servants. They were both male and females who have studied in North America during the twenty-year period (1955-1975). Jamaicans who study in North America largely attend colleges and universities in the states of Maryland, New York, Michigan, and in Ontario province. These were the principal areas that will be tapped to acquire a sample. Acquiring a sample frame from this elusive popu- lation without a longitudinal study would demand con- siderable finance and time, both of which this researcher had in limited quantities. However, it can be demonstrated that where the population is homogeneous in its attributes which are under investigation, a smaller sample is required than if the population is quite diversified. Granting, however, that cluster sampling increases the variability within each cluster, the standard variation within a given cluster tends to be large.1 Because of financial and time limitations involved in the study the survey population was not as exhaustive as it might have been. Therefore, any generalizations from this population would have to be viewed with caution if its external validity is to be meaningful. The sample consists of 120 professionals clustered into those who were returnees and those who were non- returnees. The subjects, who formed the sample, were 109 acquired from (1) The Jamaican Government Building and The Jamaican League, in Toronto, Canada, (2) The Jamaican Embassies in Washington D.C., and New York, (3) Clubs and Associations in the United States and Jamaica, (4) From associates who knew graduates either in North America or Jamaica, (5) Additional names from Jamaica were acquired through employers in Jamaica. The sample was restricted by limitations of the population but meets all the general qualifications out- lined in Chapter I. All the subjects were Jamaicans, all were professional graduates of North American universities and had chosen to return to Jamaica or remain in North America. Limitations that are inherent in this sample are: 1. The subjects were mostly those who are likely to join organizations and those who want to maintain some link with the government of Jamaica and voluntarily submitted their names to the embassy. 2. The fact that many subjects were referred by individuals who knew them means the random sample advantages would be eliminated. 3. Names of people who were not necessarily inter- ested in clubs and associations would not have been included in the sample. gist.) ”fl“. 110 4. The actual number of subjects surveyed was much smaller than anticipated. The sample was neces- sarily limited because of the limitations of ade- quate sources of origin. Nonetheless on the basis of Rowntree's2 study of working-class in New York and a Cornell3 study of a Congressional Committee during World War II, it was deemed appropriate to conclude that with the aforementioned limitations taken into consideration the sample size is adequate to undertake the study as it was designed. Instrumentation The instrument was constructed primarily for this study and designed to the purposes of this investigation as outlined in Chapter I. The "Likert Scale" popularized by Rensis Likert was used as a design to summarize the attitudes of respondents. However, instead of Likert's use4 of "agreement" respondents were asked to respond to "influence": "strong influence," "some influence," "neutral," "little influence," and "no influence" on all but one factor. Questions were prepared from three sources: (1) Reference from the literature survey; (2) From interviews with the educational attaches from Nigeria, Trinidad, Guyana, Barbados, Jamaica, and from other Jamaican professionals: 111 (3) From the researcher's own perception of the problem. IPzarts A and B consisted of ninety questions generated t:11rough the above sources. Part C consisted of the ifaictors into which the questions were categorized and 't:r1e preliminary part of the questionnaire covered the dieaanographic data on which the research questions were based. Part C was included to compare the rating of the ifaalcztors~-RANKED FACTORS--as originally conceived with the ffzalcztors generated from the items--ITEM FACTORS. The questionnaire was given to five Jamaicans as 51 ];rre-test to get feedback for the final form of the questionnaire. The groups consisted of people in various p3'=i‘<:>:l5essions who were graduates of American schools. A IP‘E’357530na1 interview with each pre-test respondent was con- ducted on completion of his/her response to the question- rLea-letre (see Appendix A). This pre-test enabled the re SQarcher to reconstruct some items and eliminate those which did not seem to tap the factors that were being C On sidered. Data Collection Questionnaires (see Appendix B) were sent to S . JLJ>=1tyheight subjects of the North America population ‘1 “Ger consideration. Three weeks later another question- r1 e74i4re was sent with a letter of encouragement to respond: 112 two weeks later a post card with a message of urgency to respond was sent; and finally, telephone calls were made to some nonrespondents to ascertain why they did not zreaspond. Questionnaires were sent to fifty-nine legitimate members of the Jamaica population. Two reminders, one in letter form and the other on a post card, were sent to the nonrespondents. The second aspect of data collection was by EC llow-up interviews of a limited number from the North Arne rica sample. The particular interest would be to get more information on new concerns raised that were not covered in the questionnaire and to qualify, by in-depth in terviews, the type of consideration given to the factors 1 n the questionnaire . Data Analysis Methodology Responses to the section on demographic data w are done through filling in the blanks. Responses to each question in Section A were IL e‘belled "Strongly Agree" (5), "Agree" (4), "Uncertain" ( 3) o "Disagree" (2), "Strongly Disagree" (1). Answers w ere coded accordingly to meet computer analysis pro- 9 1: aShutting requirements . Responses to each question in Section B were 1 a~belled as: "Strong Influence," "Some Influence," ‘i Nelitral," "Little Influence," and "No Influence." 113 zxgain answers were numbered 5 - l for "Strong Influence" t:c> "No Influence" respectively for the purposes of com- fatnter analysis programming. Responses to Section C were ranked on a l - 11 ssczale; with one being the "most important" and eleven "'JLeast important in influencing the decision made by re spondents . " The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) ‘HTEELEB used to establish frequencies, means, and standard diesexliation on each item used in the survey. An item-by- i tem summation of the responses appears in Appendix C. Further analysis was made through the use of The H0371: Reliability Model to establish Factor Reliability cc’Eéfficients and means on each factor to be developed from the item scores. The statistical procedure used in the analysis of the data, unless otherwise designated, is the multi- v - . . . a‘3“::Late analySis of variance. The analySis of the data f5<:’3=? this exercise was done on a packard program entitled “'hql‘lllltivariance: Univariate and Multivariate Analysis of .vréa*1:Tiance and Covariance, a Fortran IV Program, Version 4, Julie 1968." This program was developed by Jeremy Finn, DQEbertment of Educational Psychology, State University of NSW York at Buffalo. The program was adapted for use at llyljrcihigan State University by Dr. David Wright for the Q DC 3600 computer. All generated test statistics are I. -—.—--—-—-—- 4._—— _ ....- . u...-—. . o .____I 114 properties of the program and follow the outline provided by R. Darrell Bock in an article entitled, "Programming, Univariate and Multivariate Analysis of Variance," Technometrics, Vol. 5, No.\l (February, 1963), pp. 95-117. Readers are referred to this article for computation ifcarmulae and subsequent explanation of the symbols therein. To ascertain reliability on the differences 3.7-f reflected in respondents' rating of the ten named factors ( Ranked Factors) and the factors developed from the items in Part B, Item Factors, the Ranked-Difference Coefficient ‘15-; I-’n formula was used as indicated in Non-Parametric and Shortcut Statistics (p. 13) -5 6£d2 r=l———.—. d N(N2-l) "Ranked-Difference correlation can be applied to I>:'.~"ariate data available only in ranks, such as judges ratings; . . . or in situations where one variable is ordered and the other measured. . . . "6 As a rule the Q03 fficient rd varies from -l.00 (perfect direct 1‘ Q lationship) . So the further rd moves from "O" the S 1:l‘canger the relationship. The raw data were coded and punched on IBM cards. D ata analyses were performed using the CDC 3600 computer E Michigan State UniverSlty Computer Center. ' ..~;L_-_.La' NOTES--CHAPTER I I I 1Gilbert Sax, Empirical Foundations of Educational Research (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall Inc., 1968), p. 142. 2B. Seebohm Rowntree, Poverty and Progress: A Second Social Survey of York (London: Longmans, Green & Company, Ltd., 19“.), p. 489. 3Francis Cornell, "The Sampling Problem in Edu- cational Research," Research Design & AnaLysis, ed. Raymond C - Collier, Jr. et a1. (Bloomington, Ill.: Phi Delta Kappa, Inc., 1961). pp. 70-71. 4Renis Likert, "A Technique for the Measurement :3 f Attitudes," Archives of Psychology 140 (1932) . P 5Merle W. Tate and Richard C. Clelland, Non- \a\rametric and Shortcut Statistics (Danville, Ill.: r1":erstate Printers and Publishers, Inc., 1959) , pp. 14-15. 6Ibid., p. 15. 115 IF "LL—AJ ‘ ”_T‘.~“ ‘. ‘A~"TVT _-_ ..| CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF DATA Description of Response Data The initial limitations in sampling were further compounded by a low response rate. Fifty-four percent of the North American group (N=37) responded and 32 percent 0 f the Jamaican group responded (N=l9) . Francis G. Cornelll points out, however, that homogeneity of samples, in a social science survey, will offset the disadvantages of a small sample. The researcher therefore made the aSS‘umption that since the generalization of the results in this study is to Jamaican professionals who studied in North America, the group can be regarded as homogeneous for the purposes of the study. However, caution is advised 3‘11 generalizing because the basic sample was small ini- tially. The dependent measures used in this study are Raliked Factors and Item Factors. The former represents Pa~1=t C of the questionnaire and the latter represents the factors developed from items in Part B and processed by the Hoyt Reliability Coefficients. Table 3 is the 116 - "JAIL“: .- .c‘L Ir.‘ fl.—.f§~ .1 a. .. . 117 TABLE 3.--Re1iabi1ity level of item factors: As estab- lished by the Hoyt Reliability Test North America Jamaica Predeparture (Not to be Compared)al 0.69 0.67 Desire for Adventure 0.82 0.68 Alternative Life Styles 0.76 0.83 Communication with Country 0.80 0.79 National Responsibility 0.90 0.75 <3;<:>‘Iernment Policies and Politics 0.80 0.75 Professional Development 0.82 0.50 Re levance of Professional Skills 0.73 0.64 Attitudes Towards Future 0.77 0.72 Adaptation 0.74 0.77 Ecol-tome 0.83 0.91 \ E Note: These factors (Item Factors) were developed born items in Part B. a . . . R . . 'Pre-departure is not conSldered part of this Q 1 131311112)! rating. 118 summary of Item Factor reliability as measured by the Hoyt Reliability method. In each case the level of reliability is above .70. This point was set to accom— modate all the Item Factors considered. Description of Demographic Data The demographic information covered sex, years h of residence in North America, age group, community ‘ background, occupation of parents, religious and denomi- national affiliation, income bracket, present occupation, a level of educational achievement and whether subjects 5 we re bonded . Table 4 represents the demographic profile that evolved out of the study: 24(64.9) represents frequency ( 2 4 ) and percentage (64.9) . The remaining portion of this chapter contains the statistical analysis of data obtained from the Iue stionnaire responses. Each research question is be s‘tated and accompanied by the results of the multi- aJ'L‘iate analySis of variance Wlth the Significance level e s‘tablished at the .10 level. The only exception to t - . . . . . . his is question one, which is answered Wlth the aid of the Ranked Difference Coefficient Instrument.a \ IL aThe researcher is aware that the social sciences Q\rel of significance is usually established at the .05, go]. or .001 level. The researcher used the .10 level §Qcause he believed that the size of the sample warranted wide marking of sampling errors. 119 1 .ll-tfil . b.1101... : an... a4lr...¢! I1 I 1|. (tlli LLU AH.-Vv an.mva Ao.ovo Ao.ovo Am.o~v~ Am.o~.m Am.oHv~ A~.H~.v an.m.~ ocoz\umnuo couozuwpm unauso «0 .50 000 mo .20 .nueu .Em .<.o.m unaumom covaficc< unavocuux acavqaom ”co«ua:«socoo Am.oav~ An.mVH Ao.oso Ao.ovo Ao.oso Am.mavn Av.mwsnm ceauoasouo avocaocu .um Huwuom coaofiamm .u«CaEc< acoucox uuocwuam .uousvm use-nun n.uuonnsm An.mva Ao.oso Ao.o.o an.nnvvfl An.mvH Am.mavm nocuo xuouoom mononuq oua3.u: novaua .nuUuoum coducmaooo n.uonuo: Am.oavm Am.msH no.o.o Am.w~vm Am.mavm AH.~vvm nozuo xuouoam nononuq hasten ambush .naOuOHA noduumaooo ..uu:uoh Ao.ovo an.mva .6.~¢.m aw.~msoa scuuouspm «bosom: .o.£a .<.x .<.m no Ho>oH yucca“: Ao.ovo Ao.~mvoa Av.nvva no.ovo human pa: 0“: umaoq uvzoq uoxuuum OEOUGH Aw.unvo so.amso Aw.~n.o An.mvu so>o a ~v Hv-~n HMuNN H~-o ozone ou< Aw.wnvh Am.masm Av.nvvo cannonsm Conn: Housx >u«::EEOO no omhe ”a.mnvma AH.H~sv A02 4.0». hvovcom w.~ v.v .o.m any: .<.z Ga ousuv«uo¢ «0 aka.» AH.H~Vv Aa.mhsma oHchm can: xom Roamfidm advauadn. caucusuox as I z Aa.m.n Ah.mva .n.~.~ A>.~.a Am.onvv .v.~m.~a Aa.wvn A~.o~vw A~.oavo 0:02\uonuo couwcuoum unaunu no .50 coo no .no .nuuu .Eu .<.o.m unaumum caudaac< unavosuu: Goduwaox "noduacdaocoa . . . . . coduumsooo Av.mvm .H.m.m Av m.~ Av m.~ .n vnvo Am mavm .c hmsva noocavcm .om «nauom sodoaaom .naCafio< advaco: unocwnnn .uaoscu acoooua n.uoonnam Av.mv~ .o.ovo “0.010 .v.oh.o~ .H.m.n .H.m.n nocuo >uouuom uouonca ouH3.-= uwuauh .nuououm noduumnooo -.uonuot . Ao.oso Av.m.~ Ap.o~saa Av.~msma A~.oflvo .nuwwwm huouucm nouonaq possum mucosa .mmmuoum scauumauuo I.uonuuh . . . cauuuuauu Ao.H~.m Am navm an hmvva so have“ sandbox .o.£a .<.z .<.m no Ho>oH yucca“: .5.~sa AH.mmva Am.nmsva an.v~.o home: be: Us: uozoa uo3oq uoxuoun uaoucH Am.oavv Aa.vm.o~ an.mmvaa .v.m.~ so>o . Ne Hanan sm-- sauce “N msouo so: Am.mave Ao.n~voa Aa.vmvo~ ccnusnsm Conn: Hausa madcnfiflou no oaxe a am.naswm Ah.~.H .02 more voucon .mnm :wwm occupanum no under Aa.mm.na “o.vosv~ «Hosea can: xom 3.2% see 2. . a giggle Ease 5:5 we assess sums see be as eases? .1 as 120 Testing Research Questions The research questions which tested the difference in the response of nonreturnees (North American) and returnees (Jamaica) are: Research Question 1: (a) Was there a difference in the response to Ranked Factors and Item Factors between returnees and non- returnees? (b) By ordering both Ranked and Item Factors what factors are considered most, less and least influential in a three-four-three order? The above research questions were not answered by a strictly statistical scientific method because of the small returns from the Jamaican sample. However, Table 5 reflects the response of both groups. As was previously mentioned Ranked Factors are rated l-ll; so the lowest score is "most influential." The Item FaCtors scores are all consistent with the 1-5 rating aumcpmuH< o m.~ o m.o b m.~ m m.o a :Oauoudoba a e.m H m.m m.m e.m v m.m pea mucusm on» mbbm3oe mpsuauua s m.~ m o.o a m.m b o.b oo asussoo suaz cofiumoacsssoo m H.~ e H.e m H.m N e.v Hm soapsHmcH oasocoom m o.m 0H m.m m m.~ m m.b an mususm>p< ace muemmo N o.m N m.v m m.m m m.m mam Hawxw Hmcofimmmuoum mo mocm>ofimm H m.m a m.v H m.m m o.m mZm xufiaflnflmcommwm Hmcofiumz mo mmcwm m.m m.H m w.n m.m >.H h m.o moo unfiuwaom pcm mwfiowaom ucwEsum>oo m.m m.H m m.v m.m e.H H e.m om uswanHm>mo Hmcoflmmmuouo womHm “wamm momHm omwmmmw monam mumwmmm womam omwmwmw mcofiuMfl>munn< poemfimn mofluwsd Luuoz mcmwe >2 muouomw Emufl can coxcmu mo mcflpmu uouommuu.m mqm sow: mo wufiamsgm mo umme mumaum>fiuasz Mom oflumm m “muoz 124 meme. sass. ammo. mambo been m>auosnmnas bmmm. mmma. mooo. coaumummpd ooo.H oooo. oooo. mhsupm on“ mUHm3OB wwsufluud Hamm. mamo. mmmo. mupcsou nufi3 soflumOflcssfioo hmav. homo. mama. moosmsHMsH oafiosoom whom. vaw.a HHmH.N wusucm>c¢ MOM OHHmOQ msmm. mmvo. mmmo. mHHme choflmmomonm mo mosm>mawm moms. meow. oamo.a Muaafinamcommmm HMGOflumz mo mmcmm Hmem. «mam. mean. moeueaom s mmaoaaom usmsssm>ow Hana. homo. ammo. ucmfimoam>mn Hmsoflmmmmoum v m m mumHHm>HCD .mm sum: OHQMflHm> moanmfid sunoz ".xm hanSEEooILOUQMflHm> mo mflmMHmsm wumaum>fluaszll.h mqmsa P “4.... 45..-... :1 .r... wllfi i111§1h111|~+hruy SH n Hounm How Eocwmnm mo wmnmmo H u mammnuommm mom Eocmmnm mo mmhmma . moms. v e uoooo.m .oH n .m.o “ommH.H u muouom> com: mo mafiamsgm mo puma mumaum>fluasz How ofipmm h ”muoz 125 aHHo. maeo.m oaom.a mambo omen o>auossmuam mmHm. mmma. mvem. soauoummom vmmm. mmhm. Hmmm. unsusm may mcum3oa mpsufiuud mesa. «smm.a Heme.a asussoo nus; soaumoassssoo thm. m>o~.H mmom.a moosmsHmsH omEosoom HmHH. ommm.~ mmmm.m musucm>od How muflmwa mmam. mmmv.a vmmh. maafixm HMCOfimmmmonm mo mosm>mamm ammo. mvvm. mama. humafinmmsommmm HMGOflumz mo mmsmm name. Hana. Name. mowuaaom w mmwoaaom usmficnm>ow «mod. ooam.a memo. usmsmoflm>oo Hosoammomosa v m m museum>mso .om smmz manmflum> poemEMb «xm muHCSEEOUILOOGMflHm> mo mammamcm mumanm>fiuas Il.m munch 126 Influence, National Responsibility, Professional Development and Relevance of Professional Skills. The Rural nonreturnees were more influenced by Economic Influences and Relevance of Professional Skills. The Nonurban nonreturnees were influenced, in order, by National Responsibility and Professional Development. Among the returnees Nonrural and Rural the greatest influence was Sense of National Responsibility while Relevance of Professional Skills was the next greatest influence. Among these groups the differences do not seem meaningful. Neither do these differences seem meaningful between the returnees and nonreturnees. Research Question 3: This question sought an answer to the following question: Was there a difference between the responses among the different levels of education achieved with regard to: (a) Bachelors and (b) Masters and (c) Doctors of Philosophy/Medical Doctors? Consistent with the .10 level for significance only the Jamaican group with p < .0741 was significant. The dependent variables on which the difference was most evident were Desire for Adventure, Professional Develop- ment and Attitude Towards the Future, which have scores of p < .038, .075 and .091, respectively. The North American population with p < .720 was not significantly different. Communication was the variable, in the North 127 American population, with the only significant score of p < .089. However, some attention should be given to Government Policies and Programs with p < .120. As Tables 9 and 10 of means will show the people at the M.A., Ph.D., and M.D. levels were more prone to see Level of Education as a contributing factor than those at the B.A. level. Between the M.A. and Ph.D./M.D. groups, the former saw Levels of Education as having a greater influence on their decision to return home. The results are different among the American population. The Ph.D./M.D. saw Levels of Education as influencing their decision to remain in North America to a greater degree than the M.A. and B.A. respondents who have nearly the same average means. Research Question 4: Was there a difference among the responses of (a) Education and (b) Medical/Engineer and the Other professional groups? Consistent with the results of both the North American and Jamaican populations, Tables 11 and 12 show that there was no difference at the .10 level of sig- nificance. The multivariate test of equality and mean vectors had a significance level of p < .399 and .692 for North America and Jamaica respectively. Among the dependent variables, Sense of National Responsibility is significantly different with p < .058, on the North American scale. Also of importance on the same scale .‘r'l' . 1| «' W55; lq—mre—TAI -___._.:.__. ...__‘. ... ' 1 .9 . a. ma n uouum How Eocmmum mo mmummo m n mammauomwm Mom Eocwmnm no common - Hose. v a aoooo.m .oa n .m.o “mmva.m n muouom> saw: no huflamngm mo umma mumwnm>wuasz How oflumm h "muoz 128 mafia. «saw. «was. maaum omen m>auosuoua< mnmm. mmma. mmmo. coflumummcd memo. amom.m osaa.H museum on» mososoa obsessed mmme. moms. moam. asussoo sues soapooassesoo sass. mmmm. mmmm. moosmsamsH oaaosoom Home. mmmo.e mmsa.m mssusm>o< sou osammo sown. mooH.H base. maaaxm Assammmmmose mo mosa>oamm sham. eaom.s mae~.H auaaanamsoommm Hmsoauoz mo bosom comm. mama. ammo. moaueaom a mmaoaaom usosssm>oo mane. Hamo.m amm~.H bassooao>on Hososmmomosm v m m museum>flcb .mm c802 mandaum> MUHMEMb "SCH”..MOSUN MO H0>mflilmUfiMHHM> MO WHMNHMAHM O#MHHM>.HHH52II.G Mung—H. an n Houum Mom Eocooum mo ooumoa N n mamonuomhm How Eocoouh mo ooumon momh. v m uoooo.m .OH H .m.o «mNme. n mnouoo> coo: mo wuaaosgm mo umoa opowuo>apasz How owuom m "ouoz 129 «mam. omen. mama. oaeum omaa o>auossoua< aamm. ommm. eomN. soaumumobm emom. mmaN. mama. ossusm on» opposes opsuaups mmmo. amom.~ mmmm.~ esussoo spas soauooassssoo mmmm. mmvo. mmmo. moocosamca anocoom mmmN. omma.a mmme.a ossuso>o< sou osamon memm. «mos. Nome. maaaxm aosoammomoso mo ooso>oamm ammo. eoao. amao. euaaanamsommom aosoapmz mo omsom MONa. mmmN.N ewmm.N moapaaom m moaoaaom usoEcuo>ow ova. mamo. amma. usoseoao>ma absoammomose v m m ouoano>aso .mm coo: oanoauo> ooanoas nuaoz "soauoospm mo ao>oALtoosoaHo> mo mamwaoso ouoaho>auaszll.oa wands dd. ‘Ht..uh. 1, . “IVL “(fill (1.1%..11-..‘ I lilitll (.le an n Houum Mom Eopooum mo oonmoa N u maoonuomam Mom Eocoonm mo ooamoa . .. mmmm. v o aoooo.m .oa u .o.o “mesa.a u muouoo> coo: mo >uaaosom mo umoa ouoauo>aua5£ How Cauom m ”ouoz 130 oaeum omaa o>aumssouam mmma. memm.a von. soaumummoa «New. mmmo. mevo. museum was mmsmzoe oosuauus mmmm. meoa. mmaa. haussoo nuaz coauooacdfisou mmmm. oeea. ovva. moosoSHMcH anosoom vam. mNNm. ovee. onzuco>o¢ you ouamoa mmaN. emom.a vaem.a maaaxm aoGOammomonm no ooco>oaom mmmo. memo.m eaom.¢ euaaanamsoemom amsoauoz mo omsom eaaa. mmom. maao.a moauaaoo a moaoaaom usossso>oo mavm. oomo. eaoa. usofimoao>on Hoseammomonm v m m ouoaao>asa .mm goo: oanoauo> ooaaofid suaoz "soauooo>ctoosoauo> mo mamhaoco ouoaho>auaszll.aa wands 131 1A k u :3». v. w .. -1 .l! Fruilal limit. the: ma u wanna Mom Eocooum mo oonmoo N u mamonuomwm How Eocooum mo oonmoo mmmm. v m uooooem .oa u..m.a “come. n ououoo> coo: mo wuaaosgm mo pooh ouoaao>auasz mom oauom m "ouoz maee. mmmN. .ammm. mamum omaa o>aumssouam omam. mamo. emmo. scaumumoom Nmem. maaa.a mmmm. museum one mosmzoa omsuauum mmma. Nmme. mmom. esussoo spas soauooassssoo oaom. mmNm. mooe. moosoSamsH oafiocoom mon. ommo. memo. oususo>m¢ you ouamoo mmam. eaea. aeoa. maaaxm amsOammomosm mo ooso>oaom aeva. mmma.N Nmmm.a muaaanamsommom aosoauoz mo omcom amom. mmNe.a maae. moauaaom m moaoaaom usossso>oo mamm. omem. ommN. usosmoao>oo aosoammomose v m m ouoano>acb .mm coo: oanoauo> ooaofioh "coauooo>ctoonoauo> mo mamhaoco ouoano>auaszll.ma mamas 132 is p < .144 and .165 on Alternative Life Style and Adap- tation. The Jamaican scale in which p < .336 also draws attention to Sense of National Responsibility. All three groups are fairly consistent in their response. The "Other Professionals" are consistently more positive that vocations was a motivating factor; after this group comes the medical/engineer professions and the educators are less inclined to attribute immigration to vocation. Research Question 5: Was there a difference in response on Factors by respondents who perceive themselves as coming from (a) Upper and Middle, (b) Lower, (c) Lower Middle Income brackets? Results in Tables 13 and 14 show that there was no significant difference at the .10 level. The multi- variate test of equality and mean vectors had a signifi- cance level of p < .399 for nonreturnees and .332 for returnees. The only subscale from the dependent variables of the returnees that have p < .031 is Communication. Sense of National Responsibility has p < .117. On the nonreturnee scale it is Sense of National Responsibility Which really hits the significance level with a p < .089. Statistically, therefore, there is no difference among the three groups. Yet it should be observed that the Lower Middle income bracket has the highest mean, 3.642 on Sense of National Responsibility and the lowest 1.842 ‘fintiann. .. U 1 4.9 1. : .4: v. tulir an n Hounm Mom Eocoonm mo oonmoa N u mamonuommm mom Eocooah mo ooamoo . - mmmm. v e aoooo.m .oa n .o.o “omeo.a n maouoo> coo: mo kpaaosom mo umoa ouoaao>auasz mom oauom m "ouoz 133 memm. mmmm. Nmmm. maeum omaa obauoesouas mmmm. mama. mmmo. soaumnmmmm mmmm. some. mmNm. manage on» mpuosoe omsuauua owae. moan. vmmm. maussou nuaz coauooacnfifiou mmmm. vmaa.a Nmme. moocosamsH anocoom Nmmm. mmov. mmmm. ousuco>pd How ouamoa maom. mmam. mama. maaaxm amsoammoaosm mo ooso>oaom ammo. Nmmm.~ mmmm.m euaaanamsoamom aosoauoz mo omsom eemm. aamm. mmmm. moauaaoo m moaoaaom usossuo>oo mama. amem.a oamo.a usosmoao>on absoammomosm v m m ouoaao>aco .mm goo: oanoauo> ooanofid nuaoz "oEoochtoosoaHo> mo mammaoso ouoano>apaszlu.ma mamas w... e v . 33.1%.... n |.- ..l.. «a... J :11 i 4. H‘..fi_r ea n aoaum now Eocooum mo ooumoo a n mamonuommm How Eocooam mo ooumoa ; ammm. v e aoooo.m .oa u .p.o “mmeN.a n maouoo> coo: mo >uaaosvm mo umoe ouoaao>auasz How oauom m “ouoz 134 aNaa. moem.N aomm.a oaeum omaa o>auossoua< mmam. mNmo.a mmem. soaumumoos maam. ammm. mmam. ossusm osu mosmzoe mmsuauus oamo. momm.m meem.m enussoo spas soauooassesoo omem. NmNm. mva. noocosamsa anosoom aomm. moms. mmme. ossuso>m< pom osamoo oamm. mmam. aama. maaaxm aosoammouosm mo ooso>oaom oeaa. amme.~ mama.~ euaaanamsommom amsoaumz mo mmsom mamm. mNee. vam. moauaaom m moaoaaom usoficuo>ow Nmma. oeam. mmem. usoEQan>oo aosoammooose v m m ouoauo>aCD .mm coo: oanoauo> ooaofiob "oEoocattoosoauo> mo mamhaoao ouoaao>auaszll.va mamde 135 on Professional Development. On other dependent variables there is very little difference among the three groups, except that the Lower income bracket population scores Economic Influence as their greatest influence. Research Question 6: Was there a difference between the responses of ,H subjects between 1-31 years and 32-upwards? r; i In both the North American and Jamaica populations i there is a significant difference in the influence of the 3 factors as they are perceived by respondents who are clas- i sified by age. The effect is evidenced in Tables 15 and 16 ratio for multivariate tests of equality and mean vectors in which the significance was p < .016 and .032 for Jamaica and North America respectively. Dependent variables at the established level of significance for the nonreturnees (North America) are Relevance of Professional Skills and Economic Influence with p < .080 and .036 respectively. The difference between these two is, for all practical Purposes, not meaningful. Other variables that are close to the level of significance are Professional Development and Alternative Life Styles with p < .168 and .139 respectively. In the Jamaican data, Relevance of Professional Skills and Government Policies and Politics scored p < .061 and .070 respectively. The difference between the mm H Hoaum you Eocooum mo oonmoa a n mamonuomhm mom Eooooam mo oonmoa Nmmo. v m uooooam .OH H .m.0 “mvmv.N n maouoo> coo: mo muaaosgm mo umoa ouoaao>auasz now Oauom m "ouoz 136 omma. mmm~.N seam.a oamum omaa o>auosuouaa mNem. vmmN. mooo. scaumummoa mmam. Naoo. mmma. opossm one mososoe omsuauua amom. Nmaa. mama. msussoo spas soauooassesoo emmm. mmme.e memm.m moososamsa oasosoom mmmm. mNmm. eoma. ossuso>o< sou osamoo aomo. omeN.m ~mmm.~ maaaxm apocammomosm mo ooso>oaom moam. mva. mmmv. hpaaanamcommom aMQOHHoz mo omcom mmmm. NmNm. mmmm. moauaaoe m moaoaaom usossso>oo mmma. mmem.a mome.~ usosooao>mo aosoammomosm v m m ouoaao>aca .mm coo: oanoauo> ooaHoE< nuaoz "om mo mamhaoao ouoaao>auaszll.ma mamda ea u Houam How Eopoonm mo ooumoa a n mamonnomhm you Eopooam mo ooumoo aoao. v m uoooo.m .OH H .m.a “momm.v u maouoo> coo: mo wuwaoswm mo umoB ouowuo>auasz How oeuom m "ouoz 137 meem. mama. mmem. oaeum maaa o>auossouam amma.a amma.a mmam. soaumummmm amem. NNvm.N momv.a oasusm osu mpao3oe opsuauum maam. eoma. mama. esussoo spas soaumoassssoo maam. mama. emma. moososamsa oasosoom moma. ammm.a emmm.a ossuso>m¢ sou msamoo mamm. aooo. mooo. maaaxm absoammomosm mo ooso>oaom mmmm. maom. emoa. euaaanamsoomom aosoauoz mo omsom aamo. mmao.m ammm.a moaaaaoe o moaoaaom usosssm>oo moeo. eeae.m ammm.a usosmoao>on aosoamoomose v m m ouoauo>aca .mm zoos oanowao> ooaoaoh "omdtcoocoaao> mo mamhaono ouoauo>apazzll.ma mamas 138 two does not seem to be meaningful. Other factors which seem to warrant attention are Desire for Adventure, p < .190, Attitude Towards the Future, with p < .129. Summary Research Question 1: (a) Was there a difference in the response to Ranked Factors and Item Factors between returnees and nonreturnees? (b) By ordering Ranked and Item Factors, what factors are considered most, less, least influencial in a 3-3-4 order. (a) There was a difference in the Item Factors but no difference in the Ranked factors. (b) The results of Levels of Influence are in Table 6 . Research Question 2: Was there a difference in the response of subjects from Rural and Nonrural background? No significant difference was found on community background in either returnee or nonreturnee groups. Research Question 3: Was there a difference among the responses among the difference levels of education achieved with regard to (a) Bachelors, (b) Masters, (c) Doctors of Phil- osophy and Medical Doctors? There was no significant difference among the non- returnees: the returnees, however, were significantly different. 139 Research Question 4: Was there a difference among the responses of (a) Education and (b) Medical and Engineering and (c) The Other Professional groups? No significant difference was found in either group. Research Question 5: Was there a difference in responses on Item Factors by respondents who perceived themselves as coming from (a) Upper and Middle, (b) Lower and (c) Lower Middle Income brackets? No significant difference was found in either returnees or nonreturnees. Research Question 6: Was there a difference between the responses of subjects between 1-31 years and 32-upward? A significant difference was found in each group. CHAPTER V SUMMATION OF INTERVIEWS DATA General Introduction Subjects for the interview experiences were selected because they introduced new factors into the study which were not previously considered in the ques— tionnaire. In all other respects, these subjects were deemed similar to the remainder of the sample in the estimation of the researcher. Each interview was con- ducted in the home of the respective subjects. The researcher evaluated each setting as informal and friendly. This type of rapport was developed through at least three telephone calls previous to the actual inter- view. Subjects were told that they were selected because of the respective new factors they had introduced into the study. Each subject responded with enthusiasm and agreed to the interview. Although the interviews fol- lowed one basic format, some exercises took as long as two hours while others took half that time. The average interview took one and one-quarter hours. At all inter- views only the subject and the researcher were present. 140 141 Although in some cases only one person originally mentioned some of the new factors, respondents were asked to respond to each new factor and also the original factors in the questionnaire. All the respondents were asked: What would you advise a young graduate today who wants advice on whether to remain in North America or return to Jamaica in light of the present factors that are before you? Each respondent was asked for the recommendation he would make on each factor to the young graduate. He was then asked to supply some rationale for the response he gave. Table 17 summarizes the responses on three scales of Positive, Uncertain, and Negative. "Positive" means that respondents would advise the young subject to return with regards to the particular factors in question. "Uncertain" means that for reason(s) the respondent is not sure what recommendation he would make. "Negative" suggests the respondent would say no because of his per- ception of that particular factor in relationship to returning to Jamaica. Summary of Ratignale Given for Each Factor The first factors considered were the four new factors introduced in questionnaire comments by the respondents. 142 TABLE l7.--Percentage response categorized: N = 10 for interview data :33; Uncertain 2:3:- Professional Development 40 10 50 Governmental Policies & Politics 40 50 10 Sense of National Responsibility 60 40 Relevance of Professional Skills 20 20 60 Desire for Adventure 40 30 30 Economic Influences 40 60 Communication With the Country 30 60 10 Attitude Towards the Future 30 40 30 Adaptation 40 20 40 Alternative Life Style 40 20 40 Black Consciousness 40 20 40 Perception as Threat to Society 30 20 50 Marriage 30 20 50 Latitude of One's Life 30 10 60 Overall Recommendation 20 50 30 Note: Positive = Return; Uncertain = Undecided, Negative = Nonreturn Black Consciousness As Table 17 indicates there was equal split on how respondents felt about their recommendation to the young graduate regarding how black consciousness should affect his decision. There were three basic points pro- moted by those who would discourage the young graduate from returning if the factor he is considering is black consciousness. They gave the following reasons: 1. There is a need to have more Black ambassadors comfortably established and willing to assist students or new immigrants from Black countries during their early days in the new land. This 143 is particularly true in Canada where a Black populace with professional skills and civil and political contacts is limited. Although not to the same extent this rationale is also for the United States. Black identity and solidarity are more fostered and therefore more valuable and more sought by Blacks in North America. The immigrant soon finds the potential good in sharing this identity and solidarity which for myriads of reasons are not as overtly evident in his homeland. One's conscious psyche makes him feel that he is not only "man" but "blackman" and consequently he meets his negative subconscious head-on and even- tually becomes satisfied with himself as a person. He does not see the whiteman as one with more advantage except economically and it becomes a challenge to gain as much or more. "North America in this context gives us a better self- concept." There was a good opportunity to cash in on privi- leges given to the disenfranchised. Although North America was not the primary beneficiary (Britain) yet she is its kin so there is no abuse in realizing these benefits offered in Education and Special Work situations. 144 Those who supported returning (Positive) pointed out a few factors supporting their recommendation. 1. There was no significant difference in their per- ception of the degree of positive self-concept they experienced in North America as opposed to that which they had experienced in Jamaica pre- vious to their initial departure. Being black in North America is used as a fad. It is a more exterior camouflage which a foreign black does not really utilize since he has already established self-confidence. As Jamaicans, caucasion norms in music, literature, general manners seem to be consistent with our more sedate type behavior. But we realize we are black. This fundamental fact, blackness, and cultural acquisition, social norms, put us in the middle of a conflict. Such people conclude that Jamaica is therefore the best place to be. "I never felt black until I came to North America." The conclusion of such realization is to return home where the other forms of prejudicial behaviors seem to orientate towards facets of life that are changeable. 145 Perception of Threat to Society The immensity of this threat is not generally realized except by the returnee and people who are directly threatened by their perception of the returnee. Notice that 50 percent recommended that the young graduate does not return. They generally qualified this advice with the potential of the returnee to endure this threat during an incubation period of re-acculturation. They proposed four basic reasons for their positions. 1. (a) (b) (0) They are perceived as a threat for jobs. The people who have remained in the country perceive them as competition for the limited job possibilities. Seniors feel their positions threatened because they are less qualified, and that type of insecurity facilitates malicious reactions. His higher qualifications may make him legiti- mately displace others. He may be able to perform more tasks or organize for their performance to the detriment of others. The returnee is perceived as an agent of infringe- ment on the normal fabric of the society. Any recommendation he makes in personal or social life is regarded as an unnecessary infraction. 146 The result is frustration to any young enthusi- astic returnee. 3. Any reaction that brings the operating system into question is regarded as a threat to the security of the system. Politicians are acutely alert for any such invasion. As one person said, His presence is acknowledged as a threat. . . . the whole society sees him as a threat to the cosmetics of the society. He threatens the security and legitimacy of the political estab- lishment. . . . This is especially true if he flirts with any brand of nationalism. People in government are more aware of this type of threat. However, each respondent qualified his/her response with the fact that the present political party is more disposed to political innovations regarding nationalism. Those who viewed this factor positively had one basic reason. 1. They agreed that initially returnees are per- ceived as a threat but very soon they become absorbed in the system and everyone soon for- gets, so it should not be an argument for not returning. Latitude of One's Life The response to this factor was highly skewed towards recommendation not to return home. Some of the respondents perceived this as similar to the factors, 147 Alternative Life Style, but most thought there was a tremendous difference. Latitude of One's Life was per- ceived in the latters' opinion as quality of life rather than variety of life styles as they perceived the former. The researcher did not mean to separate the two per- ceptions originally. Two basic reasons were given for encouraging young graduates not to return home on this factor. 1. There is the possibility of taking part in the society at a very exciting level. This excite— ment transcends professional orientation. This latitude may be described in terms of, " . . . he is exposed to everything that happens in the world at the moment it happens." 2. One has the possibility of going back to the Caribbean as often as his psych can endure it and yet returning to the North American society with no feeling of alienation re-threats or com- petition. His presence on the home landscape pre-supposes a tremendous excitement which he will not experience if he stays in Jamaica. Those who recommended returning simply qualified their recommendation with the idea that they were unable to perceive a difference in the "Latitude of Life" referred to as a factor. Marriege 148 This factor received serious consideration and respondents generally gave the following reasons as this motive for considering marriage as negative inducement. 1. If one's wife was from any part of the world other than the Caribbean (British West Indies) she could not adopt to the Jamaican situation. Cultural and/or climatic differences would be major hurdles, with the former being far more serious. One's academic ascendency, particularly in the case of women, would be a progressive eliminating process from the marriage market. An unmarried woman finds more satisfaction outside of Jamaica so it is practical to remain in North America. Those who considered marriage as positive inducement pro- posed the following reasons: 1. The educated woman (most women who have been abroad fall in this category) can contribute more to the social and professional life of her husband in Jamaica than in North America. It is easier to hold the family relationship together in Jamaica because the ethos of the society credits marriage with more serenity than is accorded it in North America. 149 Perceptioneyen the Original Factors Ninety percent of the respondents perceived the factors as they were originally conceived by the researcher. Their responses are tabled in the first ten factors in Table 17. The same question regarding advice to the young graduate was the background for the summaries given below. Professional Development The younger people were generally more positive towards people returning when professional development was considered. The older respondents were more negative and suggested that their positions may have been precipi- tated by a longer absence from home and a lack of knowl- edge about recent changes. However, the summarized reasons are as follows: 1. It is very difficult to acquire satisfactory jobs which facilitate your progress and continued efficiency. The result is that one becomes dis- satisfied and " . . . job satisfaction is most important to me." 2. Foreign expatricates have had too many fringe benefits and privileges. 3. In a short time innovative, enthusiastic young people are relegated to fanatics and labelled 150 rebels and the opportunities for promotion or further study are denied them. 4. Most Jamaicans who remain home are satisfied with mediocre performance. They are therefore envious of those who return more qualified. 5. There is relentless antagonism to personal pro- fessional development, especially against younger professionals, exercised by older and more seasoned administrators. Those who recommended return did so on two premises. 1. The North American professional market was over- stocked and since most Jamaicans were in the arts, professional possibilities were better at home. 2. The soil for exploration was still virgin in Jamaica and if one was able to win favor the possibilities for professional development were limitless. Government Policies and Politics It is important to note the high degree of uncer- tainty involved with this factor. The reason for this uncertainty is associated with the policy of Democratic Socialism announced by the government. Most respondents said they would counsel new graduates to consider the implications that a new philosophy of government would 151 have on them. Respondents themselves for the most part were uncertain what effect it had upon them. The reasons given by the one who discouraged return were: 1. A prejudiced Ministry of Education, where nepotism was practiced. One interviewee cited the follow- ing incident: "I applied to the Ministry (Edu- cation) for a scholarship and received an abrupt letter saying the Ministry had stopped offering scholarships. . . . The very next month the lady who responded to me got a scholarship. . . . Many people work in the Ministry in order to get scholarships." Government operates more on "who one knows rather than on one's professional qualification." The government's policy has been one of systematic denial to the under-privileged social and economic class. So they Opt not to return because they have no positive schema with which to view the country. Very few people know what privileges or bene— fits the government offers as inducements to return. Some people spend thousands of dollars to acquire an education and they should be re- imbursed. If the government had given a scholar- ship they would have paid anyway. 152 4. Politics is too heavily involved with professional decisions when in reality these two have only remote functional connections. Those who supported return had two reasons. 1. Their party is in power so their opportunities should be good. If the returnee is of the current ruling political party, it is a favorable time to return. 2. This party is historically the most supportive of professionals so it is reasonable to anticipate serious reforms that would positively affect returning professionals. Sense of National Responsibility Sixty percent recommended returning and 40 percent recommended against returning. Those for returning sug- gested the following reasons: 1. The country has been responsible for laying the foundation on which most respondents have built their professional life. 2. Some considered their social status in Jamaica unequalled in North America and such a privilege warranted commensurate returns in service. 3. There is an unqualified love for the society, geography and culture of Jamaica. 4. 153 This is the opportune time to return to help others. Those who suggested that it was not wise to return qualified their decision with the fact that they really loved the country. However, the following reasons were marshalled to support not returning. 1. The system of the country does not make adequate provision for the disinherited to absolve himself from the social, educational, economic, and psy- chological chains of defeat and failure. The administrative system of the country has not developed a systematic and Operative program of priorities. Relevance of Professional Skills Sixty percent recommended against returning and 20 percent recommended returning. The reasons that fostered these advices are: 1. Different philosophical bases. One respondent pointed to the "free school concept"; the "Open classroom"; or the "alternative education" philosophy as impractical for Jamaicans to aca- demically accept with this older core of British trained leaders. Even the neo-colonial educations would find it difficult to accept. 4. 154 Some doctors, dentists, nurses, social scientists, agriculturists find that the transition back to their society and its appliances and equipment become a traumatic professional experience. The majority believed their skills were not geared enough for their peculiar sociological and physical environment. A substantial number believed their mastery of their skills changed their perspective on life so it is best for their home society if they support it by gifts rather by their skills. Those who encouraged returning presented one point in support of their argument. 1. Unless a progressive percentage of these "so— called overskilled or other-skilled individuals returned the society will never be able to create that demand." They would not suggest an indi- vidual returning as a mere sacrificial lamb. They hoped that such skills would receive government protection in their embryonic period. Desire for Adventure This factor is included in the study on the researcher's own preconceived notions. It is interesting to note that the respondents all confessed that they had not thought of this as a factor before. They, however, 155 conceded that it had relevance to many of the experiences that motivated their decision to remain in North America. Those who thought that despite desire for adventure people should return home gave the following reasons: 1. The adventure for a professional really begins after he has become professionally popular. Jamaica now offers the opportunity for research that would foster that professional recognition. No educated person really leaves his homeland merely for adventure. Those who negatively responded made the following obser- vations: l. 2. Jamaica cannot offer the means for movement nationally and internationally which the profes- sional craves. A professional person is an adventurer. Geo- graphically, Jamaica is suffocating to his fully realizing his life's satisfaction which is to see new places, meet different people and exper- ience the battle of minds in different cultures. Economic Influences Generally proposed as the most evident cause of immigration, it is meaningful to note that the degree of discouragement for economic factor is the same as 156 Relevance of Professional Skills. It is also worthwhile observing that while only 20 percent suggest return on the "Relevance of Professional Skills" 40 percent do so on "Economic Influence," which superficially suggests less cognition of economics in the North American setting as more important than relevance of professional skills. The reasons for recommending return may help to divulge how respondents were thinking. 1. The labor market in North America is hiring people for jobs far below their proficiency. This is directly related to the recession and a glut of professionals available in most fields. There is really no substantive difference in salaries when the purchase power of the dollar in the respective nations is considered. Those who recommend not returning give three precise reasons : 1. 2. 3. Better salaries can be had in North America. The ability to acquire more of the "creature comforts vastly expanded in this economy." Education is cheaper and better in North America. Attitude Towards the Future This is the second factor developed purely on the researcher's perception. It is important to note 157 that only Government Policies and Politics has a higher degree (50%) of uncertainty than Attitude Towards the Future (40%). This degree of uncertainty would be explained to the young graduate in light of (1) a youthful political party, (2) new political philosophies and (3) present sociological and economic unrest in the country. Those who were for returning introduced the following explanation: 1. There was much hope for professionals to realize their goals. The society gave children a more moral perception of life and the traditions were more protected. A child's chances of success may be less academi- cally, but with regard to character building children would be guided more positively. Those who opt for not returning advanced the following reasons: 1. There is little hope in realizing professional goals. Children's life will be stilted and the oppor- tunity for creative growth stifled. Children's academic potential would not be fully realized because of limited facilities, a closed societal concept and traditional conformity. 158 Communication The respondents overwhelmingly agreed that they found it particularly difficult to respond to this question because communication with home has been hap- hazard, uninformative and informal. The 60 percent uncertainty reflects the lack of commitment that lack of communication has precipitated. The few who supported return did so out of their limited correspondence with their kin. Adaptation Most respondents believed that they would not be seriously affected either way by adaptation. A 40-40 per- cent between returning or remaining reflects this split. Those who remained forwarded two points in support of their position. 1. The opportunities offered in North America were the best to be found anywhere. "There is no place in the Western World that offered the kind of opportunity that North America offered and at the same time facilitates one's adjustment." 2. Culturally, linguistically, and politically both systems have many similarities that make adap- tation a pleasant experience. Those who recommended returning made basically three points to support their line of reason. 159 After a protracted time of sojourn they are still unable to be assimilated into the cultural norms of the North American society. The result is the building of subcultures which are unobserv- able professionally, but are socially evident. The racial situation creates a milieu in which they are made to react concomitantly. There is a constant mental re-commitment to return home regardless of the consequences and this increases as one gets older. Concurrent with this desire is an equally repelling awareness that one may be professionally and socially ostracized on returning. Alternative Life Style The subjects agreed that North America and Jamaica presented two distinct life styles that were mutually exclusive in many points. They generated a 40-40 percent split in the type of recommendation they would give to the young graduate when this point is con- sidered. Those who favored returning presented the following encouragements: 1. The friendliness at home and the neighborly inter- action is one coveted aspect of Jamaican life that is not practical in the American industrial phenomena. 160 Some respondents proposed that urban Jamaica had very few dissimilarities to urban metropolitan North America. They suggest the basic difference to be size. Therefore, returning would not incur a loss. The functional rapidity and restlessness of North American society is too pervasive for one to absorb the quality of life that is possible. This society is too ungodly. There are too few religious scruples. Those who proposed remaining made the following obser- vations: 1. The anonymity that is possible in the North American society is invaluable. It provides one with the assurance of self-exploration and a feeling of personal destiny. Religion is not forced, therefore, it sheds its superficiality and sincere people worship out of spiritual preferences rather than societal taboos or pressures. North America was the first experience for many respondents of the SOphisticated, urban existence and their projection of similar realities back home is restricted to their homely environments. 161 4. The professional relationship at home was one of subservience rather than colleagubity between administrative professionals and those who wish to get anywhere in the system. The North American system seems to facilitate more c00per- ation and sharing of professional relation with neither losing respect for the other. Overall Recommendation At the end of responding to the recommendation one would give to a young graduate, respondents were asked, "What would be your final recommendation now?" Over- whelmingly, they concurred that they were uncertain. They advanced basically one reason for their uncertainty. The present political milieu was one of unpredictability. In such a position one's best investment, if he is out of the country, should be a careful assessment of the pro- gressive trends of government policies. The oft expressed fear from people who are ardent supporters of the present government is uncertainty as to what is functionally implied in the theoretic concept of Democratic Socialism. Summary The factors that seem to weigh most heavily in the recommendation not to return home are in order of influence Relevance of Professional Skills, Economic Influences, Latitude of One's Life and Professional 162 Development. The first three were rated as important by 60 percent of the population interviewed. Fifty percent placed Professional Development as second most influential consideration. Conversely, Sense of National Responsibility was the single most influential factor at or above the 50 per- centage mark. It was actually 60 percent. Communication with Country and Government Policies and Politics presented 60 and 50 percent uncertainty respectively. Indeed both scores seem to be precipitated by acute political changes that have not yet matured. This is reflected in the 50 percent Overall Recommendation given to the young graduate. CHAPTER VI SUMMARY, FINDINGS, AND IMPLICATIONS The purpose and methodology are briefly reviewed at the beginning of this chapter. An amplified discussion of the hypotheses and other relevant findings follow. Implications of the study, recommendations for further research are then outlined. Summary of Purpose and Methodology of the Study The purpose of this study was originally to determine the factors that maximally separate Jamaican students who return to Jamaica (returnees), from those who remained in North America (nonreturnees) after they had completed their academic studies. Because of the limitations of subject response the study was redesigned to look at each population separately with demographic splits on age, vocation, level of education, income bracket and community background. The instrument used to operationalize the demo- graphic data and the factors in this study was designed 163 164 by the researcher for this particular study. The Likert Scale was the tool from which the scoring design was adopted. The dependent variables were created from a review of literature, interview experiences and the researcher's experience with the population to be studied. The Hoyt Reliability Model was used to establish Factor Reliability Coefficients above 70 percent. The Statistical Package for Social Science (North- western University) was used to establish frequencies, means and standard deviations on each item in the question- naire used in the study (Appendix B). The Ranked-Dif- ference Coefficient1 formula was used to ascertain relia- bility on the differences between RANKED FACTORS and ITEM FACTORS. The design of this study included the selection of the sample, collection of the data, analysis and the formulation of implications and recommendations which could be appropriately drawn from the research results. The multivariate analysis of variance was the statistical technique used to analyze the data. An interview research was employed to qualify responses to the questionnaire and to new factors introduced. 16S Findings The discussion of the testing of each research question follows. Research Question 1: (a) Was there a difference in the response to the RANKED FACTORS and the ITEM FACTORS, returnees and nonreturnees: (b) By ordering both RANKED and ITEM FACTORS what factors one considered, most, less, least influencial in a three-four-three order. la. There was a difference in the RANKED FACTORS between the two groups; there was no difference between both groups on the ITEM FACTORS. lb. Table on the Ranked Factors shows that the most influence among the nonreturnees was exerted by profes- sional and economic interest. The returnees cited that professional and future considerations were most influ- ential in their decision. The less influential factors for nonreturnees revolved around communication and nationalism. The least influential among both groups had identical factors except for the nonreturnee who pointed out Adaptation and the returnees, Economic Influences. The Item Factor ratings were similar for both returnees and nonreturnees. The researcher will later comment on the possibility of socialized responses. Research Question 2: Was there a significant difference in response on ITEM FACTORS shown by respondents who perceived themselves as coming from (a) Upper and Middle, (b) Lower Middle and (c) Lower income bracket? 166 No difference was found among the nonreturnees or returnees on the variable income bracket. 1. It must be noted, however, that the factor, Adaptation, as a dependent variable had a variance of p < .141 as against the level of significance set at .10. This may indicate that in subsequent considerations of similar studies Adaptation should be given careful consideration when income is considered. The result of no significant difference on the returnees should not be given very weighty con— siderations because the response sample was not adequate. This particular variable is therefore reported only to complete the research questions on this group. Research Question 3: Was there a significant difference between the responses given by the subjects with respect to age groups 1-31 and 32-41? Both returnees and nonreturnees responded with p < .016 and .032 respectively. This registers a dif- ference at the .10 level established by the researcher. 1. Among the returnees the greatest level of dif- ferences were reported under dependent variables (factors), Relevance of Professional Skills and Communication with Country. 167 2. Nonreturnees cited Attitude Towards the Future as their major difference. Research Question 4: Was there a significant difference between the response of subjects from Rural versus Nonrural areas? Both returnees and nonreturnees showed no dif- ference when they were divided into Rural versus Nonrural background. Research Question 5: Was there a significant difference between the responses of (a) Medical and Engineering profession and (b) Education professions and (c) Other pro- fessions? At the level of significance established there was no difference in either group. However, particular factors did have significant difference when taken on their own. The nonreturnees had a p < .0588 on Sense of National Responsibility. On the same subscale the returnees had p < .1471. Although only one factor is at the level of significance, the relatively close proba— bility of the second does indicate some indication that it is also influencial in the consideration of these factors. Research Question 6: Was there a significant difference between the responses among the different levels of education achieved with regard to (a) B.A., (b) M.A., and (c) Ph.D. and M.D.? 168 There was no significant difference among the non- returnees on the variable, levels of education. However, the returnees did have a difference that was significant. 1. Among the nonreturnees, Communication with Country and Government Policies have levels of significance that warrants attention. 2. Returnees have significant differences in Pro- fessional Development, Desire for Adventure and Attitude Towards the Future. These differences are most apparent among the M.A. and Ph.D./M.D. groups on all three subscales. Results of the data analysis show that there is no fundamental difference between the perception of the respondents regarding the influence these factors had on their respective decisions on emigration when they were categorized on the basis of age, vocation, level of edu- cation, income bracket and community background. Among the factors that may have affected the results of this study, however, are the size of the sample, the over- weighted social and religious quality of the sample (see demographic data), the limitation of factors and possible difference of perception of the factors. Several specific indications are evident from the general analysis deSpite its limitations for generali- zation. 169 1. Interest in professional development and/or relevance in the respondent's professional life is equally or more important than the economic influence which influences emigration. 2. Economic factors do have a strong influence on emigration of professionals. 3. Age is a significant factor in the decision to emigrate, with the older seeming more prone to do so. 4. The majority of the emigrants are from rural areas although that fact does not seem to indi- cate any significant difference with those who are not. 5. The majority of the respondents are from the lower or the lower middle income bracket, although that fact does not indicate that they view the factors any differently from the respondents in other categories. 6. There may be influential factors which the instrument used failed to cover sufficiently or did not deal with at all. This study, therefore, does not concur with some recent studies that underscore Economic Influence as the most important factor in "student drain." Equally viable, 170 according to the results of this study, are Professional Development, Relevance of Professional Skills and Attitude Towards the Future. The researcher introduced the new variables Attitude Towards the Future and Desire for Adventure into the study. It is important to note that in both groups these variables were in the upper 50 percentile range. Two implications are considered here for the response to these factors. 1. With regard to Attitude Towards the Future, the quality rather than the quantity of life is more attractive to individuals. The decision to emigrate or not to emigrate is dependent on the location of the best possibilities for realizing the quality life they desire. As was brought out in the interview on Attitude Toward the Future, Jamaica was considered the better place for children and family life, but for pro- fessional and economic advantages it was more advisable to remain in North America. 2. Desire for Adventure was also considered very influential by both returnees and nonreturnees. While the rationale for both perceiving these factors in the same light is not clear, it is the researcher's considered opinion that they 171 see adventure differently and so each could realize it in the society of his choice. The results of this study strongly imply that there is no difference between the returnees and non- returnees. If this is true, then Senator Arnold Bertram, Parliamentary Secretary in the Prime Minister's Office (Jamaica), summed it in the claim that Jamaicans are "a migrant people" who know little about where they are coming from. . . . If "student drain" is the result of the wanderlust then countries must desist from labelling the phenomenon as "salary greed" and face the realities that the free human animal will always be moving. On the other hand this study also showed a very strong "Sense of National Responsibility." If students have strong nationalistic ties it is not mere surmising to think that there are reasons, other than Desire for Adventure, which keep them emigrating. Two reasons given are consistent with the personal interviews con- ducted. 1. First and foremost, the present Prime Minister has a messianic appeal to the professionals abroad. They believe in the published policy of the government. However, they are afraid of the very policy that has won their admiration. The uncertainty lies in two words "Democratic 172 Socialism." They have decided to support the government and watch (from afar) the evolution of this policy. 2. The majority of these people are from the periphery of the social, professional and economic force of the Jamaican society. Being highly conversant with the "political favoritism" and "professional nepotism" of the society they are uncertain of the future that awaits them. Conclusions and Implications for Further Research Future Research A review of this study reveals the need for more in-depth studies of a basic nature. Many more studies with essentially more limited parameters for each could serve as building blocks for the organization of meaning- ful research to fully analyze the problem. As a result of this research, the demand for one particularly challenging and worthwhile study is imme- diately apparent. An attempt will be made to generally define this study and its possibilities. A longitudinal study should be conducted as a joint effort by the losing countries, the receiving countries, and the United Nations. Such a study should identify a representative number of students from each losing country and follow them to the point at which 173 they make their decision. In this sense two problems which this researcher faced would be offset. First, the elusive nature of the population to be studied would be controlled by well-monitored systems. Cost would not, therefore, be as exorbitant at the point when a sample is needed. Second, it would be easier to identify the adaptation rate of students and ascertain whether time is the most important factor in the acculturation process. The results from such study could help the losing govern- ment to decide whether special programs would serve useful purposes in limiting "student drain." A predictive model should be developed, based on a sample of Jamaicans who studied in North America. The model will be related to possibility for better retention of human capital and more equitable distribution of economic resources through proper planning and adminis- tration of students studying abroad. This study should help administrators to understand how these students view the relationships they had with the home country while studying abroad. It should also be helpful to the govern- ment in selecting students and in relating to students who study abroad. It may even be necessary to accept loss through student drain as a natural phenomenon of foreign education. 174 Ramifications with Prospects 1. The colleges and universities attended by students of underdeveloped or developing countries become academies of national change. The hotels, boarding houses, cafes and restaurants educate foreign students to a culture contrary to their own.2 If students were put in an environment where they were intellectually in touch with the best equipment and minds, without the accompanying fascination of the mega metropolitan "luxury clubs" of the developed nations the response to their country may be different. My suggestion therefore is that an inter- national or regional university be set up through the United Nations Education and Scientific Cultural Organization to facilitate the edu- cational needs of underdeveloped and developing countries. From the study conducted it was evident that people who remained in North America stayed longer in school than those who returned to Jamaica. It would therefore be in the interest of the losing country to allow students shorter study periods for each session. This would pre— vent his establishing cultural ties within the new society. 175 From both the literature and this study there is ample evidence to conclude that permanent job offers with designated job descriptions are more likely to get people returning home. Canada and Jamaica presently have a system of agreement which stipulates that the "brain-in- training" must return on completion of his designated academic goals. This is, however, only confined to people that are bonded by government. This same principle could be expanded to the entire North America with one added pro- visio. That is, if the person, bonded or unbonded, originally left the country solely on the under- standing of academic pursuit, he should be made to return. This return should be for at least three years in the case of the unbonded student. People who financed their way should be re- imbursed with the financial equivalent of a scholarship. Government should publicize the benefits that are available to professionals who voluntarily repatriate. Communication with government was consistently rated low in this investigation. In the interviews it was evident that people were ignorant of the developments and benefits 176 possible for professionals in Jamaica. Infor- mation about Banking Loans should be circulated to professionals in potential private professions. This researcher concurs with Joseph Chathaparampil, when he proposed a voluntary repatriation of foreign educated sponsored by the United States (and Canada) under programs similar to the Peace Corps. In this design they would have the security of the North American while serving their own country and the North American countries would be spreading their international good will and political influence.3 Finally, if Relevance of Professional Skills is the problem it is made out to be, then each North American University should undertake the awesome responsibility of encouraging the student, espe- cially at the masters and doctors level to do his thesis or dissertation on something related to his country of origin. The most revolutionary recommendation is for developing nations with low natural resources to adopt a policy of "brains marketing." The operating principle would be investment in edu- cation for sale. This would involve investigation of countries and their educational needs in an 177 effort to produce professionals as experts at a price to be decided by the two countries. The trained individual would choose the country, but before the investment begins he would be made aware of the process of transaction.' The losing country would, at least, get a few million on its "student brain." The final statement in this study is that the place of economics in this study cannot be minimized. Although the researcher is convinced that individual students do not "drain" for primary economic reasons, he is however convinced that "student drain" is contingent on the general economic well being of a nation or society. It is this contingency that is going to make professional desires realized, attitude toward the future secured. However, Sense of National Responsibility, Communication, Government Policies and Politics, Adaptation and Alternate Life Styles are not necessarily contingent upon Economic Stability of a country. NOTES--CHAPTER VI 1Merle w. Tate and Richard c. Clelland, Non- Parametric and Shortcut Statistics (Danville, Ill.: Interstate Printers and Publishers, Inc., 1959), p. 15. 2Stephen E. Deutsch, International Education and Exchange: A Sociological Analysis (Cleveland Case: Western Reserve University, 1970), p. 12. 3Joseph Chatharampil, "Brain Drain: A Case Study," Reprint from Asian Forum 2 (1970): 17. 178 APPENDICES APPENDIX A PRE-TEST APPENDIX A PRE-TEST THE COLLEGE OF EDUCATION: ADMINISTRATION AND HIGHER EDUCATION Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48823 June, 1975 Dear Colleague: I am writing to you as a fellow Jamaican who has similar interest in our country. Presently I am involved in a research project to examine the influences that make some of us decide to emigrate from our homeland. We know there are many influences involved, but most have been speculations rather than facts. Your cooperation in giving what you consider to be the real reason for your decision to return home or remain abroad, will help us to provide a more accurate picture of the real motives which are involved. The questionnaire is devised so that the questions can be answered quickly and should take only 20 to 30 minutes to complete. For convenience the questionnaire is divided into three parts with particular directions for each part. Please read these before attempting to answer. This study is limited to Jamaicans who are graduates of North American colleges or universities. You are one of the persons selected to represent this group--therefore your response is very important to the study. Please note that the questionnaire is already addressed and has prepaid postage for return for your convenience. Thus it only requires you to drop it in the mail after you are through. 179 Your response and not on an questionnaire your response Thank you for 180 will be used in a general group assessment individual basis. The code number on the is only for purposes of deciding whether has been received. your cooperation. Trevor Geo. Gardner Walter F. Johnson Ph.D. Candidate Committee Chairman & Advisor TGG/pg 181 DIRECTIONS READ each item carefully. Make a check mark (V) on one of the blank spaces for each item between 1 - 8. For items 9 - ll WRITE in the appropriate designations. Mark your answers as shown in the following examples. Example: Age group: ____ under 21; ____ 22 to 31; _£:_ 32 to 41; ____ over 40. Example: The type of community in which you grew up in Jamaica: rural; hf urban; suburban. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Sex: male; female. Years of residence in North America: l9__to l9__. Age group: under 21; 22 to 31; 32 to 41; over 40. The type of community in which you grew up in Jamaica: rural; urban; suburban. Father's occupational category: professional; trades; farmer; labourer; factory worker; other (please explain). Mother's occupational category: professional; trades; housewife; labourer; factory worker; other (please explain). Denominational affiliation: Methodist; Anglican; Baptist; Seventh-day Adventist; Roman Catholic; Church of God; Church of Christ; Brethren; other (Please indicate) ; none. Income bracket (Family): lower; lower middle; middle; upper. Your present fulltime occupation: Highest level of education you have completed: Were you a bonded student: (Yes or No). 182 PART A In responding to the following 12 items please make an effort to recapture your thoughts and feelings just prior to leaving Jamaica for your course of study. You may have to think back quite a few years but recapturing how you felt THEN is very impor- tant. Let's travel back over the years to the time shortly before you left to study. DIRECTIONS 1. THINK BACK to those days. 2. Decide to what extent you agree or disagree with each item: - STRONGLY agree - Agree - Uncertain - Disagree STRONGLY DISagree l-‘NUJubU'I 3. Draw a circle around one of the numbers following the item to show the answer you seIected. 4. Mark your responses as shown in the examples below. Example: Departure from Jamaica was my first real opportunity for success . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4 3 2 1 Example: I felt social justice was inadequate in Jamaica 0 0 I I I O O o o o O o o o o o 5 4 3 2 1 5. It is important that you answer each question. 6. Replies to this questionnaire will be treated confidentially. 5 4 3 2 l Strongly Strongly Agree Agree Uncertain Disagree Disagree 1. My departure from Jamaica was my first real opportunity to success . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l. 5 4 3 2 l 2. I viewed North America as the land of opportunity and success. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. 5 4 3 2 l 3. I planned to return after I had "established" myself . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. 5 4 3 2 1 4. Before leaving Jamaica I thought it was among the best countries in the world. . . . . . . . . . . 4. 5 4 3 2 l 5. I planned to return to my country immediately after Stuinng abroad 0 C O O O C O O O I O C O O O C O 5 Q 5 4 3 2 l 183 5 4 3 2 l Strongly Strongly Agree Agree Uncertain Disagree Disagree 6. I felt that my future in Jamaica would be very secured even if I had never gone abroad . . . . . . . . 6. 5 4 3 2 7. I felt some people did not get the respect they deserved in Jamaica compared to other countries 7. 5 4 3 2 8. Before I left Jamaica I had already decided to emigrate permanently if I got the chance. . . . 8. 5 4 3 2 9. Foreigners got a better break in Jamaica than did natives then . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9. 5 4 3 2 10. I felt it was unjust for Jamaicans to continue giving Special treatment to some people because Of their wealth I O O O O O O O O O O O O O I 100 S 4 3 2 11. On a whole I felt satisfied with the social, economic and judiciary progress of Jamaica. . . 11. 5 4 3 2 12. The Jamaican system would allow me the oppor- tunity I need for success . . . . . . . . . . . 13. 5 4 3 2 PART B On the following pages is a list of items that may be used to describe the influences that may have affected you at the time you made your decision to return to Jamaica or remain In North America. Each item seeks to get your feeling about which item had the greatest influence on you. Although some items may appear similar they express differences that are important in the description of your considerations in making your decision to remain in North America or return to Jamaica. This is NOT a test in ability or consistency in making answers. Its only pur- pose is to make it possible for you to describe as accurately as you can your attitude to these influences at the time that your decision to return home or remain abroad was made. N.B. While it is true that some of us abroad may not yet be fully decided as to whether to remain here or return home, it is nonetheless important that you do this questionnaire. Provision has been made for people who are undecided. Begin to think about the time you made your decision. DIRECTIONS l. READ each item carefully. 2. THINK BACK to how you may have thought when you were deciding. 184 3. DECIDE how influential each item was: (5) STRONGLY influential (4) Influential (3) Neutral (2) NOT influential (1) STRONGLY UNinfluential. 4. DRAW A CIRCLE around one of the five numbers (5 4 3 2 1) following the item to show the answer you have selected: - STRONGLY Influential - Influential Neutral - NOT influential - STRONGLY UNinfluential l-‘NLOubU'I I 5. Mark your responses as shown in the examples below. Example: Professional contribution I could make to my country . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4 3 2 1 Example: Satisfaction with my job before I left Jamaica 0 O C O I . I O O O O O I O I O O 5 4 3 2 1 Example: Marriage 5 4 3 2.1 6. It is important that you answer each question. Administered by Trevor G. Gardner 5 4 3 2 1 Strongly Not Strongly Influential Influential Neutral Influential Uninfluential 1. The thrill of living in a foreign country . . . l. 5 4 3 2 l 2. Facination of living in a different culture . . 2. 5 4 3 2 l 3. Influence of relatives who travelled abroad . . 3. 5 4 3 2 1 4. Model of respect and success ascribed to those who study abroad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. 5 4 3 2 1 5. Variety within live styles. . . . . . . . . . . 5. 5 4 3 2 l 6. Opportunity for me to be myself . . . . . . . . 6. 5 4 3 2 1 7. Variety of social activities. . . . . . . . . . 7. S 4 3 2 l 8. Attitude of my religious denomination to con- temporary 1ife styles . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8. 5 4 3 2 1 9. My concept of relationship between religious life and social life . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9. 5 4 3 2 l 185 5 4 3 2 l Strongly Not Strongly Influential Influential Neutral Influential Uninfluential 10. Perception of social adjustment . . . . . . . 10. 5 4 3 2 1 11. Marriage I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I III 5 4 3 2 1 12. Interplay of bureaucratic practices and opportunity for adequate use of my skills . . 12. 5 4 3 2 l 13. Level of country's development as related to accomodation of my expertise. . . . . . . . . 13. 5 4 3 2 l 14. Quality of professional adjustment. . . . . . l4. 5 4 3 2 1 15. Cultural contributions I could make . . . . . 15. 5 4 3 2 1 16. Professional contributions I could make . . . 16. 5 4 3 2 1 17. Length of stay away from home . . . . . . . . l7. 5 4 3 2 1 18. Awareness of the social, economic and cul- tural development from Jamaican sources . . . 18. 5 4 3 2 l 19. Information about jobs from government sources 0 o o o o I I I I I I o I I I O O o 19 o 5 4 3 2 l 20. Jamaican newspaper or news source at the institution I attended. . . . . . . . . . . . 20. 5 4 3 2 l 21. Correspondence with friends in informing me about what was taking place in Jamaica. . . . 21. S 4 3 2 1 22. Probability of a permanent job. . . . . . . . 22. 5 4 3 2 l 23. Awareness of developments in my field of StUdy I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2 3 I 5 4 3 2 1 24. Information, in my field of study, supplied by Jamaican government. . . . . . . . . . . . 24. 5 4 3 2 l 25. Sense of responsibility to Jamaica. . . . . . 25. 5 4 3 2 l 26. My feeling about me being able to contribute to Jamaica. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26. 5 4 3 2 l 27. Family responsibilities back home . . . . . . 27. 5 4 3 2 l 28. Sense of identification with country. . . . . 28. 5 4 3 2 l 29. My belief about the need for my skills. . . . 29. 5 4 3 2 l 186 5 4 3 2 1 Strongly Not Strongly Influential Influential Neutral Influential Uninfluential 30. Government perceptions of me before and after I completed my studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30. 5 4 3 2 1 31. Influence of government policies . . . . . . . 31. 5 4 3 2 l 32. Government compensation, in benefits, for low salaries I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 32I 5 4 3 2 1 33. Latitude for political freedom . . . . . . . . 33. S 4 3 2 1 34. Practice of favouritism in politics. . . . . . 34. S 4 3 2 l 35. My attitude towards the political party in power at that time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35. 5 4 3 2 1 36. Practice of human and civil rights in Jamaican system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36. 5 4 3 2 l 37. Government's distribution of economic wealth . 37. 5 4 3 2 l 38. Satisfaction with my job before I left Jamaica 38. 5 4 3 2 1 39. Satisfaction with the job I'd receive on returning to Jamaica . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39. 5 4 3 2 1 40. Relationship with my immediate superiors prior to leaving Jamaica . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40. 5 4 3 2 l 41. Working conditions in Jamaica. . . . . . . . . 41. 5 4 3 2 l 42. Relationship with my immediate subordinates before I left home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42. 5 4 3 2 l 43. Attitude of older professionals toward new ideas from the "Young Upstarts" (younger pro- fessionals) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43. 5 4 3 2 l 44. Opportunity to influence change in the society 44. 5 4 3 2 l 45. Opportunity for professional development . . . 45. 5 4 3 2 l 46. Opportunity for maintenance of research pro- fiCj-ency I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 46 I 5 4 3 2 1 47. Attitude towards Innovative people . . . . . . 47. 5 4 3 2 l 48. Opportunities for professional promotion . . . 48. 5 4 3 2 l 49. Opportunity for social status accorded me as compared with colleagues who remained at home. 49. 5 4 3 2 1 187 5 4 3 2 l Strongly Not Strongly Influential Influential Neutral Influential Uninfluential 50. Pressures of educational system . . . . . . . 50. 5 4 3 2 l 51. Social attitudes of those who remained home . 51. 5 4 3 2 l 52. The part (role) Jamaican society played in effecting my achievements . . . . . . . . . . 52. 5 4 3 2 1 53. Academic opportunity for my children. . . . . 53. 5 4 3 2 1 54. Consideration of my children's future . . . . 54. 5 4 3 2 1 55. Opportunity to develOp self esteem here versus back home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55. 5 4 3 2 l 56. Prestige accorded North American versus British degrees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56. 5 4 3 2 l 57. Social status accorded my high school alma mater I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 57 I S 4 3 2 1 58. Chances of acceptance to clubs and associ- ations without consideration of "who one knows " I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 5 8 I 5 4 3 2 l 59. Adjustment to the North American way of life. 59. 5 4 3 2 1 60. Self-perception of the country's need of me . 60. 5 4 3 2 l 61. Effect of public holidays on me . . . . . . . 61. 5 4 3 2 1 62. Social interactions with North Americans. . . 62. 5 4 3 2 1 63. Interest shown by American teachers in help- ing me realize my goals . . . . . . . . . . . 63. 5 4 3 2 l 64. American business or institutions interest in my skill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64. 5 4 3 2 l 65. Academic interactions with North Americans. . 65. 5 4 3 2 1 66. Sparcity of Jamaicans in the area . . . . . . 66. 5 4 3 2 1 67. North Americans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67. 5 4 3 2 l 68. Cultural identity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68. 5 4 3 2 1 69. Attitude to North American holidays versus Jamaican holidays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69. 5 4 3 2 1 188 5 4 3 2 1 Strongly Not Strongly Influential Influential Neutral Influential Uninfluential 70. Attractive salary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70. 5 4 3 2 1 71. Purchasing power of the dollar in the respective country. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71. 5 4 3 2 1 72. The possibilities of picking up some "quick cash" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72. 5 4 3 2 l 73. Interest of firms/institutions in my financial needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73. 5 4 3 2 l 74. Employment fringe benefits in N. America vs. those in Jamaica. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74. 5 4 3 2 1 75. Opportunity to help my relatives. . . . . . . 75. 5 4 3 2 l 76. Opportunity for social mobility . . . . . . . 76. 5 4 3 2 1 77. Need to be respected . . . . . . . . . . . . 77. S 4 3 2 l 78. Opportunity to associate freely across social and class lines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78. 5 4 3 2 l 79. This item requires you to give a numerical rating to each item that follows. The range of your rating must be, in order of importance, from one to eleven. Make sure each item gets either a 1 or 2 or 3 . . . up to 11. Use each number once only. Professional Development ; Government Policies and Politics ; Sense of National Responsibility ; EConomic Influences : Communication with the Country ; Relevance of Professional Skills ; Desire for Adventure ; Pre—Departure Concepts ; Attitude Towards the future ; Adaptation ; Alternative Life Styles Thank you ! ! Comments: APPENDIX B QUESTIONNAIRE INSTRUMENT ..oz 50 00>. “+5003+0 000500 0 30> 0503 "00+0.aeou 0>05 30> 50.+00300 +0 .0>0_ +005m.: "50.+053000 oe.+..3+ +50005q 530> .50503 ".>..Eou+ +050055 06005. “0.00.5 “0.00.5 5000. «50:0. .0505_III « 505+0 I. «505505 ll «+0.55 +0 505350 I “nouuwm 505350.||| u2.9780 cocoahnnu .+m.+co>u< >03-5+co>om.uuu .+m.+aom u58:92.1! u5.0.39.3: ”co_+o_._++o .oco_+nc.so:0o .0+00.05. 0000.5. 45.0.9.0 0000.3 505+0 ll «500.503 >50+00+ II «5053050. I «0+... -00305 .00005+ “.050.000+05a ”>5090+00 .050.+0a3000 0.505+ox 45.0.9.0 0000.3 505+0 I «500.503 >50+00+ l “5053000. I “50.553 l .00005+ “.050.000+05a ">5000+00 .050.+0a3000 0.505+00 .50553530 “50053 “.0535 "00.0503 5. a3 5050 30> 50.5: 5. >+.53eeoo +0 00>+ 05b .9. 50>0|.l :0 0+ R III .3 0+ «N I IN 50053 I 2.3050 02 . a. 0+ 0. "00.50£< 5+5oz 5. 00500.005 +0 0500> .0.050+ .. «0.05 a “x00 zo.» 50.5: 5. >+.5aeeoo +0 00>+ 05+ “0.050xm .ov 50>0| 20 0+ ~n I. In 0+ NN N SN 50053 I 2.393 0m< “0.9590 .00.asox0 mc.xo._0+ 05+ 5. 50050 00 0505050 530> x50: .050.+05m.000 0+0.5ao5550 05+ 5. mh.¢z .. n 0 050+. 505 .o I . 5003+05 20+. 5000 50+ 000000 550.5 05+ +0 050 50 “43+ 550$ 50050 0 050: .>__3+o5ou 50+. 5000 o<05 mzo.komm.o ma\00+ 5o0.>0< 0 5055.050 oo++.eeoo 5005503 .5 50+.03 0+00.0coo .o.5d 5050500 .o0o 50>05+ Kg...“ .50.+0500000 530> 50+ 30> 5505+ .00>.0005 5005 005 00505005 530> 505+05n 05.0.000 +0 00005535 50+ >.50 0. 05.0550_+0030 05+ 50 505535 0000 05+ .0.005 .030.>.05. 50 50 +05 050 +50£000000 a305m .050500 0 5. 0003 05 _..5 00505005 530> .503055+ 050 30> 50++0 _.05 05+ 5. +. 5050 0+ 30> 005.3005 >.50 +. 035+ .0050.50>500 530> 50+ 553+05 50+ 0mo+005 0.05055 005 050 000005000 >0005_0 0. 05.0550.+0030 05+ +05+ 0+0: 0000.0 .>03+0 05+ 0+ +50+50ms. duo» 0. 00505005 530> 050+0505+ -5305m 0.5+ +50005505 0+ 00+00.00 0500505 05+ +0 050 050 30> .00.+.050>.53 50 0000..00 500.502< 5+5oz +0 00+03005m 050 053 0500.0803 0+ 00+.e.. 0. >03+0 0.5+ .503050 0+ m:.+q&0++0 050+05 0005+ 0005 0000.5 .+505 5000 50+ 050.+005.0 50.30. u+505 5+.) 0+5oa 0055+ 0+5. 000.).0 0. 05.0550.+0030 05+ 0050.50>500 505 .0+0.o€00 0+ 00+35.e on 0+ ow >.50 050+ 0.3050 050 >.50.30 00503050 05 500 050.+0030 05+ +05+ 00 000.300 0. 05.0550.+0030 05+ .00>.0>5. 050 50.5: 00>.+os .005 05+ +0 053+0.a 0+053000 0505 0 00.>05a 0+ 03 0.05 .._3 .000550 5.0605 50 0605 553+05 0+ 50.0.000 530> 50+ 500005 .005 05+ 05 0+ 500.0500 30> +053 m5.>.m 5. 50.+0505000 530> .0+00+ 505+ 505+05 050.+0_30050 5005 0>05 +005 +35 .003.0>5. 000503.+5. >505 050 0505+ 305x 0: .050.0605 530 205+ 0+05m.e0 0+ 00.000 03 +0 0500 0x05 +05+ 000503.+5. 05+ 05.50x0 0+ +00ao50 50500005 0 5. 00>.0>5. 50 _ >.+c0005d .>5+5300 530 5. 00+0050+5. 0. 055 500.0503 :0..0+ 0 00 30> 0+ m5.+.5r En . ”03m00..oo 5000 n+0. .._=s 00000 z<0_xo.z .02.0z<. +0+.0mw>.z3 0+<+m z<0_xo_z zo_h+.53+50550 05+ 05 :0..0 0.30: 50+0>0 500.0503 05+ 000000000000000008-gfifiomm0Lueat“_U—U3_r 0:0 c.5ocooo ..0.000 05+ 5+.5 00.+0.+00 +.o+ . 0.05: 05+ co m .0... . . . . . . . .5+.003 5.05+ +0 0000005 0.5005 0500 0+ +505+005+ .0.0050 05.>.m 035.+500 0+ 0500.0503 50+ +0335: 00: +. +.0+ . m .0. . . . . 00>.+05 0.0 505+ 00.0503 5. 50055 50++05 0 +00 05050.0505 n “OH I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I oucogo 3* +& - *— >—+cocgoo 0+050.50 0+ 000.000 >0005_0 005 . 00.0503 ++0. . 050+00 m .0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00.5+5300 505+0 0+ 00505500 00.0503 5. 00>50000 >05+ +005005 05+ +00 +05 0.0 0.5005 0500 +.0+ . n *0“ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ”E no ocom Lgac 005 . +. 50>0 053000 05 0.30: 00.0503 5. 053+3+ >5 +05+ +.0+ . n Amy I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Iuoeoa 05_>03+0 50++0 >_0+0.0055. >5+5300 >5 0+ 553+05 0+ 00550.5 . m A'v I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Iv-LOI Of :- 00.5+5300 +005 05+ 05050 003 +. +50305+ . 00.0503 05.>00_ 050+00 4005 00.0 0050.005 5.055005: 005¢< 00501< >.0505+m >.0505+m . N n 0 n 0 _ N n o 0 .0. . . . . . . .._00>e =0050__50+00; no; _ 50+.0 553+05 o+ nocco_5 _ ..0. . mvn 0 0 .N. . . 0000030 050 >+.53+50550 +0 050. 05+ 00 00.505< 5+5oz 0030.> _ ..~. . u n 0 n8...00000:0 0+ >+.53+50550 .005 +05.+ >5 00: 00.0503 505+ 053+50500 >2 .... ..N_. .>... ..o_. .>0. ..0. ..>. .A0. .Anv .Av. 005000_0 005000.0 5.0+50050 005a< 005001 >_0505+m >_0505+m . N 0 0 m mzo_+003o .>..0.+500.+500 00+005+ 05 ._.x 05.0550_+0030 0.5+ 0+ 00._50m .0 .50.+0030 5000 503050 30> +05+ +50+5055. 0. +. .m .mUn v 0 . . . . . . . . .535 05 00) 0050005 >5 05.>005 "0.550Xm .~m®m . . . . . . . .53+ 00.. 00.0503 505+ 052.0555» 0.95000 .30_05 00.550x0 05+ 5. 50050 00 000505005 530> 550: .0 .00+00_00 30> 503050 05+ 1050 0+ 50+. 05+ 05.50._0+ 0505535 05+ +0 050 053050 0.05.- o 3050 .n o¢5000.5 >30255+0 I . 005000.0 I N 5.0+5005: I n 0.50< I c 0050. +30255+0 I 0 "50+. 5000 5+.) 005000.0 50 00500 30> +50+x0 +05) 0+ 00.000 .N .00.0503 05.>00. 050: 30> 505: 0>00 0005+ 0+ 50(0 52.:+ .. mzo_howm.0 .>03+0 0+ ++0. 30> 050+05 >.+5050 05.+ 05+ 0+ 0500> 05+ 50>0 5005 .0>05+ 0.+05 .+50+5055. >50> 0. zmzh +.0+ 30> :05 05.53+50005 +35 0500> 30+ 0 0+.30 5005 55.5+ 0+ 0>05 >05 30> .>03+0 +0 005300 530> 50+ 00.0503 05.>00. 0+ 50.55 +033 05..00+ 050 0+5m305+ 530> 053+50005 0+ +50++0 50 0505 0000.5 050+. N. 05.30._0+ 05+ 0+ 05.0505005 5. < hm00 505+ 0503 +3050 50.+0550+5. n AQ-v I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ImOULaom ca.oeoa 85* +50550_0>00 .053+.30 050 0.505000 ..0.000 05+ +0 00050503< m Ah—v I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Igc 8L* >0,” >o*m *0 £+mcod m .0.. . . . . . . . . . . .0505 0.300 . 050.+35.5+500 .050.000+055 n .m_. . . . . . . . . . . . . .0505 0.300 . 050.+35.5+500 .053+.30 0 .v_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . +cos+03+0o .050.000+o55 +o 3+..0ao nAn_v000no00000000000000000000cO—*L0Q.E +0 50.+00050000 0+ 00+0.05 00 +50550.0>00 0.>5+5300 +0 .0305 m AN.v 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0W———¥m E *0 .m: .*03§~ 50+ >+.53+50550 050 000.+0055 0.+050300535 +0 >0.550+5. n A——V I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .mu.LL£ m AO—v 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0+cgmafiun _o—gm *0 S—*Q8L°l n Amy I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .*_— .0.000 050 0+.. 030.0..05 5003+05 5.5050.+0.05 +0 +500500 >2 n AQV I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I mo-ra 0+.. >5050550+500 0+ 50.+05.50500 030.0..05 >5 +0 003+.++< n ANIV 0 o 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 mo—+—>—ta —o—8m *0 rO—L°> n any 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ofi—amE on 0* g 050* r—cataao n “WV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 mo-rm .*—- c—£*-' ro—Lo> m A'V I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I woes >03+0 053 0005+ 0+ 005.5000 0000030 050 +005005 +0 .000: m .n. . . . . . . . . . .009550 00..0>05+ 053 00>.+0.05 +0 00503.+5. n .N. . . . . . . . . . .053+.30 +5050++.0 0 5. 05.>.. +0 50.+05.005 0 ._. . . . . . . . . . . .>5+caou 50.05o+ 0 c. 0:.>._ +0 __.55+ 05+ 00503.+5. 00503.+5. .05+3mm 005013+5. 00503.+5. oz 0.++.5 0500 0505+0 _ N n v n 0 ..o~+ ..0_+ ..o_. ..>.. ..c.. ..n.. ..v.. ..n.+ ..N.. ..... ..o_+ ..0+ ..0+ ..>. ..o. ..m. ..v. ..n. ..N. .... .50.+0030 5000 503050 30> +05+ +50+5055. 0. +_ .5 . N n v n . . . . . . . . .00550+ . 050.+0.00000 +0 05>+ "0.550xw . N n 0 n . . . . . 0.0 . 0+00q530 05+ 5+.3 50.+00+0.+00 u0.55006 _ N n v n . . . .5o.+00300 >5 0+ 0+50505 +0 50.+35.5+500 "0.550xw .30.05 00.550x0 05+ 5. 53050 00 000505005 530> 550: .n 00503.+5. 02 I 00503.+5. 3:... _05+302 I 00503.+5. wZOm I 00500:... 028.5 I “VnN— .00+00.00 0>05 30> 503050 05+ 3050 0+ 50+. 05+ 05.30..0+ .. N m 3 n. 0505535 0>.+ 05+ +0 050 053050 0505.0 < 3(50 .0 .005—037:: 02 a: IUc03_+c_ BC... .N. .05+302 .3 00503150100 .3 005032502955 .0. "50.0.000 530> 50 005 50+. 5000 00503.+5. +0 005000 05+ 50 00.000 .n .00.0503 0+ 05.553+05 +3050 05.0.000 0503 30> 5053 +50305+ 0>05 >05 30> 305 0+ 50<0 52.1» .N .+..3+o500 50+. 5000 5<05 .. mzo_homm.o .000.00053 050 053 0500505 50+ 0005 5005 005 50.0.>055 .05.0550.+0030 0.5+ 0+0.5500 30> +05+ +50+505 I5. 000.05+0505 0. +. .0505 553+05 50 0505 5.0505 0+ 505+053 0+ 00 000.000 >..3+ 05 +0> +05 >05 000550 03 +0 0500 +05+ 035+ 0. +. 0..53 ”0+0z .0005 003 000550 5.0505 50 0505 553+05 0+ 50.0.000 530> +05+ 05.+ 05+ +0 000503.+5. 0005+ 0+ 003+.++0 530> 500 30> 00 >.0+053000 00 umqummuw 0+ 30> 50+ 0.5.0005 +. 0505 0+ 0. 0005535 >.50 0+. .0503050 05.505 5. >050+0.0500 50 >+...50 5. +00+ 0 +02 0. 0.5» .00.0503 0+ 553+05 50 00.505< 5+5oz 5. 5.0505 0+ 50.0.000 530> 05.505 5. 050.+0500.0500 530> +0 50.+5.50000 05+ 5. +50+5055. 050 +05+ 0005050++.0 00055xo >05+ 50..5.0 500550 >05 050+. 0500 50305+.< .30> 50 00503.+5. +00+005m 05+ 005 050+. 50.53 +3050 05..00+ 530> +00 0+ 05000 50+. 500w .00.5mac 5+502 5.qumammiuo 00.05m3 0+ 553+05 0+ AmwHMMwmqummxlummalmmxlma.+ 05+ +0 30> 00+00++0 0>mmlxmarH05+ 000503.+5. 05+ 05.50000 0+ 0003 05 >05 +05+ 050+. +0 +0.. 0 0. 00005 05.30..0+ 05+ 50 m hm<5 192 0 0 .00. . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0.000 >5 0~._005 05 05.5.05 5. 0505000+ 500.505< $5 53050 +0050+5_ 5 0 .No. . . . . . . . . . .0500.505< 5+5oz 5+.3 050.+0050+5. .0.000 0 0 ..0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 co 0>03..o5 o._535 +o +uo++0 0 0 .oo. . . . . . . . . 05 +0 0005 0.>5+53oo 05+ +0 50.+500505I+_00 0 0 .50. . . . . . . . .o+._ +o >03 500.5oe< 5+5oz 05+ o+ +505+03+u< 0 0 .00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .503055 050 053: +0 50.+0500.0500 +305+.3 050.+0.00000 050 053.0 0+ 0050+50000 +0 0005050 0 0 .50. . . . . . .50+05 05.0 .00500 50.5 >5 00050000 03+0+0 .0.000 0 0 .00. . . 0005000 50.+.5m 03050> 500.505< 5+502 00050000 00.+0055 0 0 .00. . .0505 5005 03050> 0505 500+00I+.00 5o.0>00 0+ >+.53+5055o 0 0 .00. . . . . . . . . . . . 053+3+ 0.5050..50 >5 +0 50.+0500.0500 5 0 .00. . . . . . . . . . . . .5055..5u >5 50+ >+.53+50550 u.50000< 0 0 .N0. . . . .0.000 >5 05.0..005 5. >+0.000 500.0500 +0 +00++0 05+ 0 0 ..0. . . . . . . . . 0505 005.0505 053 0005+ +0 0003+.++0 .0.000 0 0 .00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50+0>0 .050.+00300 +0 005300055 0 0 .00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0505 +0 005.0505 053 003000..00 5+.3 00505500 00 05 00050000 03+0+0 .0.000 50+ >+.53+5055o v 0 .00. . . . . . . . . . .50.+05055 .050.000+o55 50+ 00.+.53+5055o 0 0 .50. . . . . . . . . . . . . .0.5005 0>.+0>055. 005030+ 003+.++< 0 0 .00. . . . . >050.0.+055 50500005 +0 005050+5.05 50+ >+.53+5055o 0 0 .00. . . . . . . . . . .+50550.0>00 .050.000+055 50+ >+.53+5055o v 0 .00. . . . . . . .>+0.000 05+ 5. 005050 00503.+5. 0+ >+.53+5055o 0 0 .00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0.050.000+055 500530> 05+ 505+ 0000. 305 05030+ 0.050.000+055 500.0 +0 003+.++< 0 0 .N0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0505 ++0. . 050+05 00+05.050530 0+0.0055. >5 5+.3 5.5050.+0.0¢ 00503.+5. 00503.+5. +05+302 oz o.++.5 . N n a ..no. ..No. ...0. ..oo. ..00. ..00. ..50. ..00. ..00. ..00. ..nm. ..N0. ...0. ..00. ..00. ..mc. ..50. ..00. ..00. ..vv. N n v N n 0 N n 0 N n v N n 0 N n 0 N n 0 N n v N n v N n 0 N n v N n 0 N n 0 N n v N n 0 N n v N n v N n 0 N n 0 N n v N n v 0 ..5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ou.0555 5. 050.+.55oo 05.5503 .._5. n a: . .5555... “a... 555...... 5.5.5....“ 5.5:. Magma... .3: 0 .00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .00.050. o+ 05.553+05 co o>.ouo5 5.. 50. 05+ 5+.3 5o.+00+0.+00 ..00. 0 .00. . . . . . . 00.0505 ++0. _ 550+05 50. >5 5+.3 co.+uo+0.+00 ..00. 0 .+0. . . . . . . . 5+.0ox 5.50500. .0 5o.+:5.5+0.v 0.+5.555o>oo ..50. 0 .00. . . .50+0>0 500.0505 5. 0+50.5 ..>.0 050 50535 +0 00.+0055 ..on. 0 .00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 05.+ +55+ +0 50305 5. >+505 _ou.+._05 05+ 055o3o+ 055+.++o >5 ..00. 0 .50. . . . . . . . . . . . .0o.+_.oa 5. 50.+.5=os0+ .0 05.+5555 ..50. 0 .00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . eonoo5+ .0u.+__05 50. 003+.+o. ..00. 0 .Nn. . . 00.50.00 30. 50+ .0+.+0505 5. .co.+00505500 +505550>oa ..Nfl. 0 ..0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 030:8 +£55.30 +0 858:5. .20. 0 .50. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00.u=+0 >E 00+0.5500 . 50++0 050 050+05 05 +0 050.+500505 +505550>00 ..on. 0 .00. . . . . . . . . . . 0...50 >5 50+ 5005 05+ +5050 +a__55 >5 ..ON. 0 .QN. . . . . . . . . . . . >5+5aoo 5+.3 co.+ou.+.+5ou_ .0 .0550 ..0~. 0 .hw. . . . . . . . . . . . . .oeo5 5055 05.+...5.05050.5 >..so5 ..>N. 0 .0~. . .ou.550+ o+ o+=5.5+5oo 0+ 0.50 05.05 .5 +5050 05._oo+ >5 ..00. 0 .00. . . . . . . . . . . . . 00.0500 0+ >+._.5.05o50o5 .0 005.0 ..0N. ha'Nv ....o..coo......ooocooo.+CgEI>& 500.0505 >5 50..5550 .>0=+0 .0 0_o.+ >5 5. .5o.+055o+5. ..0N. 0 .nN. . . . . . . >0=+0 +o 0_o.+ >5 5. 0+5055o..>ou +o 000505055 ..nN. 0 .NN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . no. +5.5.5505 0 +0 >+._.505055 ..NN. 0 ..N. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .00.0500 5. 000.5 05.50+ 003 +053 +3050 05 05.550+5. 5. 0050.5+ 5+.3 00500505005500 ...N. 0043.2. 353% 00503.+5. 3 oz o.++.. .500 0555+0 N n v m 193 o. "mhzwxxoo Mao» xz+m o0_4 o>_+ocgo+_< 82233 oga+=+ 05+ muLaxo+ ou=+_++< m+a00coo 003+L0000n0gm >L+cnoo oz+ c+_3 c0_+0u_czeeoo m00c0:_+c_ 0.60coom ..omv .Aoo. .Ahmv ..omv .Anov .avo. ac.00000 .>_co 0000 Logan: 3000 0m: ac.+0g Lao> +0 0mc00 och _ N n _ N n . N n _ N n _ N n _ N n . N n _ N n _ N n . N n . N n _ N n _ N n 0L3+c0>v< L0+ 0L_mmo III m.__xm _0co_mm0+0un +0 00c0>0_0¢ ..u. >+_._n_mcoam.¢ _oco.+oz .0 oncom ..I. mu_+._oa use mo_u__o¢ +co£cgo>ou 20600-300 .000 _ 0.00.81 .Aan .nNm. .A.ov .aomv ..ohv .c0_m_000 L:0> :0 00; >0c+ 00c0:.+c. 0g+ 0+ mc.uL0000 soc+ .2 0+ _ 68+ .0uc0t09: +0 L030 5 .00 +9... .co_m_000 Lao> :0 00: £000 00c0:.+c_ cone :0: 0+ mc_oL0000 «so—.0. +0c+ e0+_ :000 0+ oc_+0g .00.00530 0 0>.u 0+ 30> «0L_:cog co_+000 «_sh Innnln nnmnnnn o hm_00L+ 0+0_00mm0 0+ >+_ca+Loaao “up. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00+0oamog on 0+ 0002 Achy .nhu .05. Anny .Nsv “_hv Achy .00“ «may ahov noov . . . . . . . . . . . . . .>+___§ _o_UOm LO+ rzatgno . . . . . . . . . . . . . mo>_+o_OL >530: 0+ >+_c3tOQQo . .o_uoeoq mamLo> oo_Loe< .z c. m+_0ocon omc_g. +co5>o_05m . . . 0000c .0.0c0:.+ >5 c. mco_+:+_+mc.\mEL_+ +0 +m000+c_ . . . . .gcmoo xu_:0= 050m a: mc_xu_n +0 m0.+___a_mmon 0c» . >L+caou 0>_+uoam0L 02+ c. 00__00 0c+ .0 00300 mc_uocULaa .....................>Lo_nno>_+uog++< .m>00__o: c00_050a mam00> m>0u__oc c00.00£< .2 0+ 00:+_++< . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >+.+cou. _0ga+_:o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m:00.00£< c+Loz . . . . . . . . . . . . 0000 0c+ c_ 0:00.050n +0 >+.uuoqm . . . . . o o . mCQUT—g ctg Shy—I chZboLP—E— U-508< . ..._xm >2 ch +mouo+c_ .mco_+:+_+mc_ Lo mm0c.m=n :00_L0£< APPENDIX C INDIVIDUAL SCORES FOR EACH VARIABLE; COMPUTED ON SPSS: MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY PART B: INCLUDING FREQUENCY AND PERCENTAGE; MEAN (M) AND STANDARD DEVIATION (S.D.) >flr1‘n ny-p->H 2‘1. "u-Orl‘P-bnul‘ z<fl.i I ..0 H.F!‘ t M‘QFRII‘IIH‘ P‘I.‘ livclnuuulll“l In \ I u‘l III I! l ‘1 - a,. 0.0.. a u 0. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY ; MEAN (M) AND STANDARD DEVIATION (S.D.) APPENDIX C INDIVIDUAL SCORES FOR EACH VARIABLE: COMPUTED ON SPSS: PART B: INCLUDING FREQUENCY AND PERCENTAGE (:1 qqmmm\:(VNH0~HN(qHU\U\r—10\NNNHstmxtr-«MHMHMNMD- O O 0 O O O O I O I O O I I O O O O O. O O O O O O O O I O I O O O U) HHHHr—EHHr-iHOHHHHHHHHHHHHu—IHHHHHHHHHHH \TOOMH“~70501NM00DOON1’MNHMMHMN\tr-h—CO‘OO00 ,4 O O O O O O O I O O O 0 O O I O O O O. O O I O O O O O O O O O O O NNMMQMMNMMNMNNNNMMMNNNNMMMMQMNNNNN AAA/\AAA AA I'\ AA “A A, ‘AAA AA 0 O O l 3(15.8) 4(21.1) 10(52. 6 5 1(5.3) \OU\C)Nr- HMMHQN’HHONWVNWMNO 5(2 . 5(26.3) 7(36.8) 3(1 . 10(52.6) 3(15.8) 2(1o.5) 4(21.1) o AAAAAA/‘f‘f‘f‘ MAMA \Ooo QMQHQMQ Hrs/Na) «10100000 2 5 7 6 5 4(21. 1 26. 31. 5 o 6 1 6 6 42.1) 1 4 2 1 2(10.5) 1(5.3 E E E 5(26.3) 5(26.3) 2(1o.5) 10(5 A(21.1) 9(47.4) 2(1 . 8(42.1 3( 9( 5 BE 5 6 4 1 o 3 2 7 6 7 g 1 3 ) 3 E ) 3(15.8) 6(3 . 6.3 31.6 31. 21. J 11311111 CA 2 E31.6 42.1 26.3 4(21.1) 2 10.5 1 1) ‘93 601.2, 115.3) (10.5 E 4(21 E 2(1o.5) 3(15.8) 3 1(5.3) 1(5.3) E E 2(lo.5) 8(42.l) 3(15.8) 7(36. 3(15.8) 6) 3) 6) 31.6) 6 1 2 8 5 5 6 3 3 (26.3) ( . 5 . Z 0 231.6 21.1 2(10.5) 1.6) 6 ,1 26 31 (5. 4(21. 6 5 6 8) 4 \ .5) 4(21.1) 3(15.8) 6(31.6) 4(2 47.41 5 1..5) 0(o.o) 5.8) 2(1o.5) 0.5) 2(1o.5 (10 ( (1 (1 ( 20.0) 36. o(o.c) 3(15.8) 9122-1 C1 1 5(26.3) 1(21.1) 5(26.3) 3(15.8) 2(1 7(36.8) 2(10.5) 2(10.5) 4(21.1) 4( 7( 6.8) 4(21.1) 3(15.8) 3(15.8) 2(1 5(26.3) 2(1c.5) 3(15.8) 7(36.8) 2(1 . 2(10.5) 4(21.1) 8(42.1) 3(15.8 3(15.8) 2(10.5) 7(36.8) 1421.1)8 11(57.9) 1(5.3) 3(15.8) 4(21.1 5(26.3) 3(15.8) 0(o.o) 2(1o.5) 3(15.3 2(1o.5) 2(10.5 3(15. 6(31. 2 2 3 2 9 O 7 Q 011—1010 010‘m.—n—4-1NN0¢v~thmmmmbm~tmmm~t~t~tmmm 60 0 00(0 0‘1.-1HHHHHv—IHHHMHHHHdHHr-«AHHHHHHHHHHr-{HHH ‘ \O\Ul\\OU\\O€'\NOHtVr-JLHUNWODU\OHHO\O\1HMmeNU\mmr-4 ,::000000000000.000000000000000000000 NMMMMMMNQVNMNNNNMMMNNMNMMMMMNMNNNM AAA/\AA/‘s AA /\ A MWA CONQ)\O uNQC‘A\T\Or\l{\r\/\/\AI\OMAOO\OO‘NNmQNOAANW) 0 01—4 0 ob 0\?\Tll\\fr4 0’4“” 0 .H‘t Q\D[\r—-{C)l\(: 60100 6r~r\ 6 6b 6 6 60,-4cn 00001000 6 606—4 K“ HHMNQNHWMKI‘CVHmt1\('\U\V')N0)NNHNHHHHMHHWWHOI VVVVV\J\JVVVV\J~ ..J\/ r JVx vav VWW WV- Vvv xtxu coU\(1t-m0'ra1r-1u‘\.¢‘.-/N"10011-4thmb00xtm0bcr N003 1-41-4 Hr! m H AAAr\/‘\r\f\f\r‘\l\f\ , \r'\ f\z'V\AMAW/\Af\f~ “Ar 0 03trxmmlnmxrtnm\?U1C11v‘\~pvoxr‘qqmoobtnoofloopnnxoammbm 000 006(lp46{00 00000 0 O *Offil‘Nmffimtfil‘ ~16: 6 6 6(\.'N¢"\OO\ [\mbmoam MO‘Q .qgaqummfiqmfimcmwmuwmmaam mmmmv vvvvvwvvv\.Is /~../\./ 7 «I ('\ rfi\/\NVVVVVVVVVVVV\ -v \0 m 0110111 «rm Lf\\0 (1: In!) F f.:~ z~J\/w um \2'9-4 Injmjmlnoo (n01 1:16-64 0\ H r-J v--~Ir-4 r4 r1 :4 '('\ ("\ r4 v—4 H r' r4 r'sfir\r~sr-‘r'\/‘\»\r\ . \ 5‘ \"\ r\— \rv‘x/\/\f\f\ AAA/\Afim r' (.1010. O: ’1 *nc: U\(\/\16' cv-.r:1~:16--\C'~C1O\N\DmmO\a-\N000w WNQA 006—10 00'-4r400000000 0000000~t mm\Oo1C1r~\110\0 6~n.1\;<1-.) 6 6L1()~¢D.-1 om 6050001064 6 rfl-Cr-‘Hr'Er'r—‘r-lr-EP'()r~(\\6’v-40'4""r)rl'-4(‘QP4(\I HHU‘HNHHHHC‘IU‘H VVV\/\J\.MV\/V\.J\J\J‘ I~ JV\./'-JWV MW WVVV\JVVV mum h \fu1xfir lr\\L)0\-., n. -:~_)o\rv\ r~ t‘- (71x1) 0000501000010“) 000110 fifflfi.§:fil&l 3 4 ‘ . -“\"‘\’\r \x ‘\ ' \' \.'-\ ,.~ \ x \ \ (11(111110. r 00.166 \r4(1‘:r"_)‘ . 1 '7" ‘J.’,( 2 1 0 0 0(I\' 0 f:0(_;f:)(‘(‘~‘avu\’ 0 0U\[:("U CJ C'\r-Jr-'r-!("(‘WC)U\(‘\1V("\( VVVx/x/x, / u- do0a\I\/~./~/\ \tflxrb-H mac (.1 (1. 1'1 (.1. n" r , . r-l F4rir§ 1 \ 13.9 \;.#l q ‘ 5(13.5 E1 10 1 8 2 3 1 1 2 1 .) ‘) k 8 2 0‘ AAAA A 03 (O [\r‘\ 0‘ '1 -'-l I \ 09/ 13.5) 18 37 14 4(1o.8 38.15 7(18.9 39 16 5(13.5 4o 17 7(18.9 41 18 6(16.2 42.19 14(3 43 20 14( 1 9( ) r—C’ 0(1) 0 r E (‘11 l{\ '-| (F) \./\-4\/\_/ 1 CU‘V \3CV'E"I ‘."~““\“¢'r ;\;:)07/ ’(1 . b\¢-U.0'~6/ '1‘:'CE L§\4 9 17(45.7) 33 10 8(21.6) ‘ L (. ’ 0-4 6‘ (O (1 '1 “11011.“??? '01 (\1 (W \‘I u - \Ul’“ C‘ (7‘ r—1 r 1 r 4 r—4 6“. 1'\ ~-‘ in") I‘M) 4. s {.J (.'\ (..‘)'~' (7 Q \‘6' t} l‘\('\( 34 11 16(4362) 4 35 12 5 36 13 7 u - - ~. ., N ('1 \l U1~U (1)-r1: (1. ('1 r; w ('1 \"1\ )( "O[(1"I“E'1\r-1 f"‘r"'l 1+1 .1, 1,1 (1:110. . i.- (a; .. '.'1 .194 J .195 IIIIIIII 7°4P4P4HHH"Hr-‘ NH 0 00000 .4r4HHHr-4HH6—«l ,.46()NHH;Vn\-.f6—J1{\rV\6—4C)(‘U\O {\‘Dfii CAN (\I 0 ‘1'.) I I I I I I I I III. II HOHHHHOOHOHF1HHC).1 («\cotr\H\1mwO\N(\N c.1r'\r--1C-) I I H H \ (‘\ (“- "0 \tH (I) \t U\Lf\l\ 1‘: 11102 (7) 1‘0 (x) thO\ Ox (‘~ 0:) ("1 bxtmml‘Or-Hnomo “\(‘x' 00000000000 00000000000 J1“1(VN(VNMMNC\6’MNN(\lfi'NNNr—{r4HN 6 J \‘n 0 (V II C I I I I I I I I I (116—401 \‘tN xtxtHNHNHm OMOMO 0 0U\r—4Lf\ “xx/x 3" 'NA Cf) r4 0;) V's *\~‘\r’\ (“OM uxu1c1mHNH-no IAO r-iHOHONxTMr—ZCJr-J (‘1 \IV\J\JV~HJV\J\/ \./V P“ \ If“ N 0 v \¢ H“0.0.6 Hw.mva HH6HNVH Am.mva Ho.ovo Hm.mvH A0.) Ho6n m. \00 0m‘0'f: OO(-)(.‘v~4C‘Jr-4C () 0 Ovs J‘-.J- J\/ J‘ A O . Homf)f"\C\U\O ()0Hx/(j ()(VmH\(1\(‘j M 00 0 I UO\¢U\H\TNOOOV\ vwvvvvvvv L1 ‘\ Hm.wmvm Hm.mvH mm.m,H «6.60N6m \M6ON/m Hm.6mvm Hm.mvH ,H.qum «H.vam Hm.mvH Hm.mva n.0NHm Hm.qum x16wr/m .x... 6HNJ+N H-.UV0 Mu.m.vm AH.HN,< 1 (.090 Hm .oHum “0.000 Hm.mva Am.mvH .-"\ I I I OHv-{U\O .fir‘\.‘\ m L!\ (\' m H r—E A-WA H \(J (‘0 U\ 0 (‘0 m M I VVVV\/v \JHHx‘fflP‘NN M AAA/K AAA AAAA AAA/\A Al's AAA/\A/N‘ I Ln H mammmu O’)”\U\-'\'X)r—lCOWAU)me\DAHHz-\U\U\mf0 an I H0.Hmvo Ho.Hmvo Hm.mmvm nm6oHvN Am.mva Am.omvb ,m6\wvm Am6oHVN nm6oHVN Hm.wmvb Hm6OHVN «H.HNVH H060v0 6n.mva m.nHWm H6 HNVQ H6 HNVH m6 mva .oHVN 6oHV~ A06 mva Am6mva H H H H H Am6>mVHH Am6OHVN H6.Hmvo Am.mVH Am. OHVN. Am .owvm no 6000 Am. mvH :m .omvu m.om 112W. H6.Hmv6 E Hm .ova 0m 0 600m1r\O\0 Nmr-{HHHHN VVVVVVVx/ \IHNNC‘Wqum I r4r1 N v \f 06Hmvo 6Hmvo 6mHVm 6Uva 6Hmvv , .mva m60Nvm 6OHVN 6mva 6 qu 42m x 0m 0l(\H (‘1 \OO '6. Vp—‘\ 0 0 “MNM‘I\CJ‘-J 0 0%) MC) U‘ N H r4 H C‘.’ H () Vvvv va H.H~VH m.mVH Hm.mvH Hm.mvH .HH6HNVv “H .5 H6. Hmv6 (‘J “AAA/\fxr-N-fir‘ HHC' \OHwO:~¢‘O\O(1NOO HHHH 0 HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH “HMQOM’J‘NFOMOO I MNMMNW\MNNMNCQN mm¢4mmmwmmmmmm \T("\FW\TNWQ\I\OMM\TNMNU\\O\tNHHUN 0 I . 0 :0) .HN .GHVQ Ho .ovo H6. NVH H6. NVH Hm MHVm m. «~06 .H. «Ax? 0HFHH 0 0\;("\1—4 NHHNHmefXJNHNmr-l VVVVVVVVV\J mbeornHmmmm I I I Ho.6mvoH Hm.Mva AH6mvm AN60HVQ Am.0Hv< Ho.6~voH Ho.6~VOH Am.bmva Hm 6HNVm Am.mva H0.Hmvm 6.6006H AH.mmva Ao.bmvoH AH.vmva A0.NVH A060NVHH Hm.mH.. Ho.nNVOH Hq.mvN 6bNW0H Ho.6NVOH H~.0Hvo Ho.6mvoH AH.mmva A6.H~vm A6.mNVHH $4.3m Hm.6HW6 Am.mH 6H v .OHVH 6bNVOH .Hmvm .Hmvm .oHvo H .wvm mva .Hmva .oHvo .Hmvm Ir" \OCDOJONMLAE A A A A A H A H A H m H Hm.oHVH Hm.0HvH HH.mVN Am.vah Hw.6HVo Hm.oHvo AH.mvm H6.mHvb H6.H~Hw H6.Hmvm H6.H~Vm Am.q~v¢ Am.H~vm Hm.mva “H.0Vm H~.0Hvo HHHme Hm.vab HH.me AH. mvm Ho Hmvm AN.oHvo Am.mHvu Am.mHvb H6.Hmvm HH.mvm Hm.mva Am.MHVm H6.6NVHH Ho.Hmvm Am.Mva .H.mvm ...mva Am. oHVH AH.mvm A6.H~vm A06mHvb Ho.van Am.mva Am.Mva H6.NLH Ho.6mVOH HH.uvm Hn.MHVm A~.0Hvo Hw.OHVq Am.mew Am. 0H Ho. Hmvm Hm.H~vo Hm.Oqu Am.OHVH H6.mH06 Am.mHvu Mm.0Hwo N60H o Hm.oHvH m I -¢ (v NmeNOQWWKONM I AAAAAAAINAAAAAI'\AAK\ Hm.6quH n.6HVmH HH.NmVNH HH.NMVNH H6.6~VHH 6.6NVHH MH.~mV~H o6va0H H6.6~0HH 6.6006H Ho.mH06 H~.6H06 HH.mmva Hm.Mva «.6Hw8 M06mv mH Hm.Mva H \fuvo r— mm 2 l{\ 1." l{\ I1‘\ 'J\ l1\ l1\ Hfi 0% mm mm pm Dr\ mm «m mm NM Hm om 0N suoxqsenr SOIQUIJBA .196 N.N N.N N.N o.u oHNNm NHHH mm HH om NHH H.N m.m N.N N.N .NHNNHH oH mm HHH n.H m.m N.N m.m oHsHsN 0» NH H Nm OHH N6m m6m H6m b6 empaoocoo on: Ammonlopm w mm mom N.N N.m N.N m.o HHH: eeoo m.o mm mow N.N H.N H.N H.H UHEocoou N Hm NoH m.N N.N m.m m.@ .>om How muHmwn m.o mm HOH N.N N.H N.N m.m mHHHHm .HOHN No .Hom m Nm moH m6m @6H H6m H60 .coammm 62 no oncom_ m Hm HoH N.N H.N m.m w .o. ooum H moHOHHPH .H>oo o om moH H6m m.H H.H m6m .>oa woum H on NoH no NNHN Ho H.Hn m.H N.N Am.mva Am.mva Hm6mva Am6mvH AH65HVm H.H m. Nflm. mva Hw6Hva AN60HVQ Am6HNVm Am.HNvm mu HoH H.H H.N Am.mvH AN.MHVm AH .HNVH Am.0HvN AH.NHVN N.H m.N HH. mvm Am.OHVH A>.oNVHH Am.HNVo Ho.bNVOH Nb ooH. m.H N.N Ao.mvo Am.vam Am. mHVm Am.OHVN AH6NHvo H.H H.N AH. mvm Am.mHV>H Am.mva AH.mvm Am.HNVN on om H.H N.N AN.mHVN Am.mH,N Am.mva Am.oHvN AH.NHVm N.H N.NAN. HNVN AN.mHVNH Am.mva AH.mvN Am.OHHH mp mo H.H m.H Am.oHVN Am. mvH Am.OHVN Am.mvH AH.monH H.H o.mAN.oHvo AN.NNVHH HN60Hvo AN.oHVo «H.HNVN Hp hm H.H m6H Ho.uvm Hm .chN HH.HNVH Am.mvH AN6moVNH H.H o6N AH.mvm Am6HNWm Am6HNvm Am60HvH MH6vaNH an em H.H N.N Am.oHvN Am .OHVN Am.mvH Am.mHVN Ao.bmvHH H.H N.NAN.HHVH Ao.mH N AH.HNVN A>.vaHH H.NHHH Nb no H.H N.H Am.mvH Am. WHVN Am.oHVN AN.mVH AN.NHVNH H.H N.N Aw.OHVH AH.NNVNH AN.HHVH AH.HNHN Ao.wHVN H5 H9 m6H N.N Am.OHVN Am.OHvN AH.HNVH Ao.ovo Ao.bmvHH N.H H.N Am.HNvm Hm6oH «H Hm.mHv> “H.N m AH. mvm op no m.o H.H Ao.ovo Ao.ovo Am6mva Hm.oHVN AN6m>VHH H.H o6N Ao.ovo Am.oHV Ao6>NVOH Hm60Hv AH. HmHOH No No H.H N.N Am.mvH AH.NHVN Am.mvH AN.HNVm AH.HNVH N.H N.N Am.OHVH AN.NHVN AH.NNHNH AN.HHVH AH. HNVN we Hm N6H o6N Am6mvH Am60HvN Am6mva Am.mva Ho.va0H o.H N.N A>.NvH A>.NvH AH6nNVMH A065NV0H “H.NMHNH 50 cm m6H m6N Ho.ovo Ho.Hmvo HH6HNVH Hm.MHVm «H.Hmvo H.H o6N A>6NvH Hm60HVH Ho.mHVb Am6mHvu Ho.mvaH 00 mm H.H N.NHm60HVN Am.0HVN “H.HNVH Ao.oHVN AH6bva H.H H.N Am.HNVm HH6mmva HH.wvm AN.oHvo AN60HVH no mm H.H o.N Ho.OHVN Am6mvH Hm6mva Am60HVN N.NmVHH n.H N.NAo.HNvm Ao.bNVOH “H.HNVN HN60HVH Am.mva Ho um H.H N.N Hm.oHVN Hm.mvH “H.HNVH Hm.mva AH.NHVo N.H m.N H>.NvH no.5NvoH Hm.HNvm Am.mva “H.NNMNH no em H.H N.N Am60HVN “H.Hmvo Am.mvH Hm6HNVm Am.oNvm m.H N.N Hm60HVH Am.mHvu Am6mHvb Ab.oNHHH Mo.HNvm No mm 0.H H.H Ac.ovo AN.mvH AH. HNvH Am. mvH AH.mova H.H H.N Ao.ovo AN.OHVH AN.NNVHH Am.mHVm o.mHVNH Ho Hm m.H N. mAm .oHVN AH. NHVN Hm. nHVm Am. mva Am.mva m.H N.N Ao.HNVm A06NNVOH Ho.HNvm AH6mVN Am.HNVm ow mm .m.» : m H m N H .N.m x m H m N H SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Adams, Walter, ed. The Brain Drain. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1968. Advisory Commission on International Educational and Cul- tural Affairs. Beacon of Hope. A Report from the U.S. Advisory CommisSion, Washington, D.C., April 1963. Ambah, Saleh. "The Role of the College Petroleum and Minerals in the Industrialization of Saudi Arabia." In Science, Technology and U.S. Diplomacy. Edited by Nader and—fahian. Washington, D.C., 1974. Annual Reports of Immigration and Naturalization Service and App. A, 1966. Awasthi, Prakash. "Brain Drain." Manpower Journal, 1966. Beals, Ralph L., and Humphrey, Norman D. No Frontier to Learning; The Mexican Student in the United States. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1967. Bennett, John W.; Passin, Herbert; et al. In Search of Identity: The Japanese Overseas Scholar in America and Japan. Minneapolis: UniverSity of Minnesota Press, 1958. Bozeman, Adda B. "Do Educational and Cultural Exchanges Have Political Relevance?" International Edu- cational and Cultural Exchange SiYFall 1969). Brain Drain: A Study of theJPersistent Issue of Inter- national Mobility. Committee on Foreign Affairs, Washington, D.C., 1974. Brain Drain Into the United States of Scientists, Engi- neers and Physicians, Research and Technical Programs. Committee on Government Operations, Washington, D.C., 1967. 197 198 Canadian Government. "The Professional." Canadian Government Immigration Service, No. Cl-6l/2066. Queens Printer and Controller of Stationary, Ottowa, 1966. Cormack, Margaret L. "The Wandering Scholar." Inter- national Educational and Cultural Exchange, Spring 1968. . "International Educational Exchange: Visa to What?" International Educational and Cultural Exchange 5 (Fall 1959). Dallot, Louis. Race and Human Migrations. New York: Walker and Company, l§64. Dedijer, Stephen. "Why Did Daedalus Leave?" Science 13 (June 30, 1961). Deutsch, Stephen E. Internationaleducation_and Exchange: A Sociolggical Analysis. Cleveland Case: Western Reserve University Press, 1970. Dubois, Cora. Foreign Students in Higher Education in the United States. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1956. Eberhard, Walfram. "Problem of Students Returning to Asia." International Educational and Cultural Exchange 5 (Spring 1970). Festinger, L.: Schachter et a1. Social Pressures in Informal Groups. New York: Harper, 1950. Fox, Melvin J. "Some Pluses and Minuses of the Brain Drain." International DevelOpment, 1966. Fulbright, J. W. "Education for a New Type of Inter- national Relations." International Educational and Cultural Exchange, Winter lgfii} Girling, R. K. "The Migration of Human Capital from the Third World: The Implications and Some Data on the Jamaica Case." Social and Economic Studies 23 (March 1974). Gish, Oscar. "Brain Drain from the Philippines--Part II.‘ International Educational and Cultural Exchange 4 (Winter 1939l} Government of Canada. "Admissions of University Students to Canada." Immigration Requirements. Ottowa: Queens Printer and Controller, 1966. 199 Groves, Marion H. "Contributions to Development by Asians Who Have Studied Abroad." Internationgl Educational and Cultural Exchange, Summer 1967. Grubel, Herbert G. "Non-Returning Foreign Student and the Cost of Student Exchange." International Educational and Cultural Exchange, Springll966. Gullahorn, John T., and Gullahorn, Jeanne E. "An Extension of the U-Curve Hypothesis." Journal of Social Issues 9 (1963). Gruenebaum, Gustave E. Von, ed. Medieval Islam, A Study in Cultural Organization. Chicago: University Press, 1946. Halberstam, Jacob L., and Dacso, Michael M. "Facts and Fiction in Cross Cultural Evaluation of Graduate Medical Training in Physical Medicine and Rehabil- itation by Foreign and U.S. Residents." Institute of International Education, New York, University Medical Centre 1965. Hariotis, George V. "An Exercise in Voluntary Repar- triation." International Development Review 6 (December 1964?. Harari, Maurice. "Priorities for Research and Action in the Graduate Foreign Student Field." International Educational and Cultural Exchange, 1969. Heider, F. The PsycholOgy of Interpersonal Relations. New York: Wiley, 1939. Howland, Harold E. "Brain Drain from the Philippines." International Educational and Cultural Exchange, Fall 1967. Huddle, Franklin. The Evolution of International Tech- nolo . Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Serv1ce, Library of Congress, 1970. International Migration of Talent and Skills, Proceedings of Workshop and Conference. Department of State, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Washington, D.C., 1966. Kidd, Charles V. "The Growth of Science and Distribution of Scientists Among Nations." Impact of Science on Society, UNESCO 14 (1964). 200 §§Klein, Marjorie. "The Foreign Student Adaptation Program: Social Experience of Asian Students in the U.S." International Educational and Cultural Exchange 6 (Winter 1971). Lansing, John B., and Morgan, James N. "The Effect of Geographic Mobility on Income." Journal of Human Resources 2 (Fall 1967). Levy, Mordechai M. "United Nation Educational and Cul- tural Affairs." Report on a Study of Africans Studying and Training Abroad, 1967. Lusgaard, Sverre. "Adjustment in a Foreign Society: Norwegian Fulbright Grantees Visiting the United States." International Social Science 7 (1955). Manley, Michael. "Our Changing World." Bill Moyers Journal, Television Interview, Consulate General of Jamaica, New York, May 1, 1975. Marina, R. Fernandez. The Sober Generation. New York: 1975. Marsh, Gayle, and Halberstam, Jacob L. "Personality Stereotypes of U.S. and Foreign Medical Resi- dents." Journal of Social Psychology 68 (1966). Metraux, Guy S. Exchange of Persons: The Evolution of Cross Cultural Education. Social Science Research Council, No. 9, New York, 1952. McClelland, David. The Achievigg Society. Princeton, N.J.: D. Van Nostrand Company,l1951. Myers, Robert G. Education and Emigration. New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1972. . "A Study Abroad and the Migration of Human Resources." Ph.D. dissertation, Chicago, 1967. . "Some Thoughts on Foreign Student Non-return." International Educational and Cultural Exchange 4 (Fall 1968). Naticy, Habib. "Brain Drain: The Case of Iranian Non- Returnees." International Development, Dobbs Ferry. New York: Oceana, 1967. News of Jamaica. The Consulate General of Jamaica. New York: Pan Am Building, 1974. 201 Oh, Tai K. "A New Estimate of the Student Brain Drain from Asia." International Migration Review 7 (Winter 1974). Olivos, Sergio Gutierrez, and Riguelmo-Perez, George. The Emancipation of High Level Manpower: The Case of Chile. Washington: Pan Am Union, 1966. Pan American Health Organization. Migration of Health Personnel, Scientists, Engineers from Latin America. Washington, D.C., September 1966. Pettis, Susan T. "Whither International Educational Exchange?" International Edgcational and Cultural Exchange, Summer 1970. Pool, Ithiel de Sola. "Effect of Cross-National Contact on National and International Images." Inter- national Behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1965. Pre-bisch, Paul. Report to the Conference of Society for International Development, 1966. Putman, Ivan Jr. "The Foreign Student Advisor and His Institution in International Student Exchange." National Association for Foreign Student Affairs, 1964. Quoted in "The Workers Day." Editorial, The Washington Post, September 3, 1973. Rubin, Vera, and Zavalloni, Morisa. We Wish To Be Looked Upon: A Stgdy of the Aspirationg of Youth in a Developing Society. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University, 1969. Said, Abdul. Brain Drain: The Developing Countries-- Causes, Ramifications and Prospects. Lawrence, Kansas, June T975. Science and Technology and American Diplomacy. Sub- committee on National Security and Scientific Development, Washington, D.C., September 1974. Scott, Franklin D. World Migration in Modern Times. New Jersey: Prince-Hall Inc., 1968. . Emigration and Immigration. Maryland: Waverly Press Inc., 1966. 202 Sharma, Keshav Dev. "Indian Students in the United States." International Educational and Cultural Exchange 4 (1969l. Shearer, John C. "In Defense of Traditional Views of the Brain Drain Problem." International Educational and Cultural Exchange, Fall 1966. Sims, Albert G. Proceedings of Workshop on International Migration of Talent and Skills, October 1966. State News. Michigan State University, May 1975. Suskind, Charles, and Schell, Lynn. "Exporting Technical Education: A Survey and Case Study of Foreign Professionals with U.S. Graduate Degrees." Institute of International Education, New York, 1968. Thiesenhusen, William G. Report to Subcommittee on Government Operations. WaShington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1968. Tidrick, Kathryn. "Need for Achievement, Social, Class and Intention to Emigrate in Jamaican Students." Social and Economic Stugies 20 (March 1971), University of the West Indies. United Nations Institute for Training and Research. Research Reports No. 5. The Brain Drain from Five Developing Countries. New York: 1971. Useem, John, and Useem, Ruth. The Western Educated Man in India: A Study of His Socigl Role and Influence. New York: Dryden Press, 1955. Valipour, Iraj. "A Comparison of Returning and Non- returning Iranian Students in the United States." Ed.D. dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1961. Walton, Barbara. "Research on Foreign Graduate Students." International Educational and Cultural Exchange 4 (Winter 1971). . Foreign Student Exchange in Perspective, Research on Foreign Students in {he UnitedStates. Washington, D.C.: OffiCe of External Research, U.S. Department of State, September, 1967. 203 Wharton, Clifton R., Jr. U.S. Graduate Training of Asian Agriculture Economists. New York: Council of Economics and Cultural Affairs, 1959. Wilson, James A., and Gaston, Jerry. "New Light on the Brain Drain." New Scientist 43 (July 31, 1969).