Comparison of Network Characteristics of Foreign & Native Academic Scientist in STEM fields - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

johana
comparison of network characteristics of foreign native academic scientist in stem fields l.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Comparison of Network Characteristics of Foreign & Native Academic Scientist in STEM fields PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Comparison of Network Characteristics of Foreign & Native Academic Scientist in STEM fields

play fullscreen
1 / 14
Download Presentation
Comparison of Network Characteristics of Foreign & Native Academic Scientist in STEM fields
440 Views
Download Presentation

Comparison of Network Characteristics of Foreign & Native Academic Scientist in STEM fields

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Comparison of Network Characteristics of Foreign & Native Academic Scientist in STEM fields Kamna Lal Wan-Ling Huang Eric W. Welch Prepared for presentation at ST&E Policy Lab Symposium March 17-18th 2009, CUPPA-UIC, Chicago

  2. Research questions • Do native scientist and foreign born scientists differ in their network structure and characteristics of network relationship? • Do scientist of different nationality vary in their network structure and characteristics of network relationship?

  3. Framework

  4. Culture-Value Framework (Hofstede, 1980) culture differential can explain workplace behaviors, attitudes and other organizational outcomes Proposition: Foreign born and native scientist develop their network structure and network relationships differently due to culture differences Theoretical Justification

  5. Hypotheses (1) • Collaborative/advice/talk network size H1:The native scientists have a larger network than the foreign born scientists (Melin, 2004; DiTomaso; Ibarra, 1995; Farris, & Cordero, 1993 ) • Extent of external collaboration H2: There is a difference between native scientists and foreign born scientists in the propensity for external collaboration (Krackhardt & Stern,1988; Lee, 2004; Bozeman & Corley, 2004)

  6. Hypotheses (2) • Density of collaborative/advice/talk network H3: Foreign born scientists have a denser network than native scientists. (Burt, 1992, 2004; Tanyildiz, 2008 ) • Closeness H4: The closeness ties are more and frequent in case of foreign nationals. (Alder, 1997; Trompenaars, 1998)

  7. Hypotheses (3) • Extent of collaboration with senior H5: Foreign born scientists have larger proportion of senior collaborators in their network (Fox & Faver, 1984 ) • Peer Tie H6: Foreign born scientists have smaller proportion of peer collaborators in their network (Hafernik et al., 1997; Katz & Martin, 1997; Melin, 2000) • Country differential H7: Foreign born scientists from countries with similar culture and language as U.S. will have a similar network structure and relationship pattern as native scientists, vice versa (Carliner, 2000; Alder, 1997; Espenshade & Fu, 1997; Trompenaars, 1998)

  8. Measures • Grouping Independent Variables (self reported) • Native Born v.s. Foreign Born • Country Groups 1=U.S. and Canada; 2=China and Taiwan; 3=India; 4=Europe; 5=Eastern Europe; 6=All else • Dependent Variables • Collaborative/advice/talk network size: Sum of names generated • Extent of external collaboration: E-I index = (ECL – ICL) / (ECL + ICL). • Density of network: 2 *(N of connected ties) / (N)(N-1). • Closeness: Number of generated names perceived as close friends by a respondent/ total number of names generated • Extent of collaborating with senior: Senior and Junior Index = (SCL – JCL) / (SCL + JCL) • Peer tie

  9. Method • Comparison of two group means- ANOVA • Post Hoc tests • Tukey’s HSD-assumption of homogeneity of variance held • Games-Howell - homogeneity of variance violated • N=1601

  10. Results-Group ComparisonsANOVA • Native and Foreign born scientist significantly differ in all dimensions of network structure and network relationship, except the extent of external collaboration (ns) • Native scientists have a higher mean value than foreign born scientists for most variables • Foreign born has higher mean value for E-I Index • Unexpected collaboration density result for foreign born • S-J Index values of foreign born higher than native born

  11. Results-Country ComparisonsANOVA • Scientists from countries with same culture have similar values for their network structure and characteristics of network relationship except the extent of external collaboration and density of talk network • Mean value for U.S./Canada, Eastern Europe and Europe similar for network size, collaboration density • India shows similarity with U.S/Canada in size of total collaborative network, advice & talk network • China has lowest values for peer ties, talk sum, talk density and collaboration density

  12. Results-Posthoc for nationality • U.S/Canada and European country groups appear to be similar in network structure and network relationship • China/Taiwan have smaller talk size than India and Europe Language Explanation: India-post colonial country* • Scientists from China/Taiwan and Eastern Europe are more likely to collaborate with senior academics • Scientists from China/Taiwan are less likely to collaborate with peer colleagues than Europe and Eastern Europe

  13. Conclusion • The results generally support our hypotheses • Native and Foreign born scientists differ in their network structure and characteristics of network relationship • Language is an important factor explaining network size and characteristics

  14. Questions & Comments