Intercultural Socialization Experiences, Identity and Cultural Congruity of
International Graduate Students in STEM at Research Universities in the U.S.
Presented by:Catherine M. Johnson, Doctoral Candidate,
Montana State University
Disclaimer
This research is part of an AGEP-T: Alliances for Graduate Education & the Professoriate –Transformation program under the HRD grants #1432932 Washington State University, #1432910 University of Idaho, #1432694 University of Montana, & #1431773 Montana State University. This project is supported by Collaborative Research: The Pacific
Northwest Alliance to develop, implement & study a STEM Graduate Education Model for American Indian/Alaska Natives.
Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) & do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
Working Definitions Intercultural Socialization
Intercultural taking place between cultures. The socialization process in this study is defined as “the passage
through which an individual learns to adopt the values, skills, attitudes, norms, knowledge needed for membership in each society, group or organization” (Johnson, Ward, & Gardner, 2017).
Cultural congruity, or a match of one's cultural or personal values with those of the university (Gloria & Robinson Kurpius, 1996).
Intercultural Socialization Experiences
Identity Prominence and Salience
Identity is defined as the most public or socially constructed aspect of self. Identity prominence can also be labeled by the more commonsense term
‘‘importance,’’ it can be defined as the individual’s subjective sense of the worth or value of an identity to himself or herself (Brenner, Serpe & Stryker, 2014; Ervin and Stryker 2001).
Identity salience is understood as the probability that aspects of self will be invoked in distinct situations (Hogg, Terry & White, 1995).
Hierarchical identity salience places importance on one identity over another in different social situations.
Image retrieved from https://nobullying.com/self-concept/
Learning Objectives
Analyze and discuss the current trends and preliminary research results in relation to international graduate student experience in STEM.
Relate research to practices and policies that meet the unique needs of international graduate students at each level - institution, college, department and program.
Discuss implications to enrollment management, make connections to each others’ context, and identify exemplary practices and policies to advocate for and implement at your organization.
Background of the Study
International graduate students (IGS) in STEM graduate programs meet unique challenges at research universities in the United States. Traverse multiple global fields Student Visa Process Family Financial planning, i.e. hidden costs of graduate education – projected versus
actual Cultural isolation IGS encounter as they navigate American higher education
Political, Social, and Economic Forces
• Changing enrollment patterns – 3 % overall recent decline in IGS enrollment at U.S. graduate schools (Anderson, 2018).
• Competitive global markets to internationalize U.S. higher education (Cantwell & Maldonado‐Maldonado, 2009; Gopal, 2016).
• Pressures to internationalize higher education run counter to the series of Executive Orders – 13789, 13780 and 9645• Countries effected — Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Somalia, Libya, Yemen and Syria. Chad,
North Korea, and Venezuela — were added and Sudan was removed.
Current Trends International Graduate Students
According to the SED (2016) IGS represent the majority in the following STEM degree programs: electrical engineering & petroleum engineering (81%), computer science (79%), industrial engineering (75%), statistics (69%), mechanical engineering & economics, statistics (63%), civil engineering (59%) and chemical engineering (57%)
(National Foundation for American Policy, 2017; National Science Board, 2016)
Purpose of the Study To advance understanding about international graduate
students’ socialization experiences in STEM disciplines and determine the impact of intercultural experiences on Identity Social Identity Professional Identity
Faculty Interaction Mentor’s Cultural Support Mentor Advising
Literature The research that has examined identity and the role of
culture for IGS’ socialization experiences in STEM found the following factors as influential for IGS persistence: advisor relationship (Crede & Borrego, 2014; Zhao, Golde, & McCormick,
2007; Todorno, 2018; Zhou, 2015),
peer group interaction (Floresh‐Scott & Nerad, 2012; Weidman & Stein,
2003), and cultural and social support (Fotovatian, 2012; Mallinckrodt & Leong, 1992;
Manathung, 2011).
Survey Constructs and Items: Intercultural Experiences in STEM
Content Items
• My experiences in STEM are shaped by my cultural meaning systems.• I have a strong cultural identity that guides the meanings that I attach to my interest in STEM.• It is important for me to see how my culture of origin aligns with the STEM environment.• I experience very few cultural conflicts with my STEM education.• Graduate students who experience cultural conflict must adjust to the dominant culture on the
campus, or have good connections at their university with cultural representatives to be persistent. • The extent that individuals appreciate a graduate student's culture of origin can reduce the amount
of cultural conflict experienced by the student, which can increase the student's persistence.• The quality and quantity of a graduate student's connections with various cultural representatives
on their own campuses is positively associated with their likelihood of persistence.• Graduate students are more likely to persist if cultural representatives emphasize educational
achievement, educational attainment, value, and cultural heritage.
5
MethodsSurvey design Questionnaire was administered online through Qualtrics to 12
doctoral public research universities. 1,085 out of 4,012 STEM graduate students reported that they
were not American citizens. For this study we had a final sample of 927 students with complete data on all the variables.
Nine STEM categories, including Agriculture Sciences, Chemistry, Computer Science, Engineering, Environmental Science, Geosciences, Life/Biological Sciences, Mathematics and Physics/Astronomy.
Demographics
Race/Ethnicity f (%)Arab/Middle Eastern 90 (2.8%)Asian/Pacific Islander 752 (23.6%)Black/African American 78 (2.4%)Hispanic/Latino 150 (4.7%)American Indian/Alaska Native 34 (1.1%)White/Caucasian 1716 (53.7%)Other 128 (4.0%)Note. 245 respondents did not respond to this question. As a result, percentages do not equal 100%
Phase 1 Research Questions
Research Q1To what extent does having a strong social and professional
identity influence more favorable intercultural experiences for IGS
in STEM degree programs?
Research Q2To what extent does having a strong social and professional
identity and supportive mentors influence more favorable
intercultural experiences for IGS in STEM degree programs?
Focal Variables
Dependent Variables
• Intercultural Experiences in STEM
Independent Variables
• Professional Identity• Social Identity• Faculty Advisor
Interaction (Mentor’s Cultural Support & Mentor Advising)
Controls
• Race/Ethnicity• Gender• Year in School• Degree, MS/PhD
Data Analysis
• Ordinary Least Squares Regression
Conceptual Model
CULTURAL CONGRUITY
MENTOR ADVISING
SOCIALIZATION
SOCIAL
INTERACTION
IDENTITY PROMINENCE
MENTOR’S CULTURAL SUPPORT
INTERCULTURAL EXPERIENCES IN STEM
PROFESSIONAL
PEER GROUP
RQ1 & RQ2
RQ3
RQ4
Theoretical Framework
INTERMEDIATE SOCIAL STRUCTURESLocalized Network
STEM Department – Institution
Intermediate Social Structures
DISTAL Large Social Structures
National – Global Norms
INTERACTION
COMMITMENTRole Acquisition in Disciplinary Field
Faculty Advisor - Cultural Support/Advising and Peer Group
Meaning-Making
INTERCULTURAL EXPERIENCES
Negotiation
IDENTITY PROMINENCE
PROXIMAL Proximate Social Structures
Social - Professional
Table 2. Description of Study Variables (n=927).Variables Coding/Range M SD
Intercultural Experiences Index 13.00-40.00 28.49 4.49Professional Identity Index 3.00-15.00 12.04 2.16Social Identity Index 3.00-15.00 11.77 2.27Mentor’s Cultural Support Index 5.00-25.00 19.37 3.84Mentor Advising Index 5.00-25.00 20.87 3.86Individual ControlsWhite/Caucasian (Reference) 0 = no; 1 = yes 10% ---Arab/Middle Eastern 0 = no; 1 = yes 6% ---Asian/Pacific Islander 0 = no; 1 = yes 66% ---Black/African American 0 = no; 1 = yes 4% ---Hispanic/Latino 0 = no; 1 = yes 8% ---Other 0 = no; 1 = yes 6% ---Males (Reference) 0 62% ---Females 1 38% ---Masters(Reference) 0 28% ---Doctorate 1 72% ---Year in School 1 = 1st year to 6=6 or more years 2.56 1.50
VARIABLES Model 1 Model 2 Model 3Professional Identity 0.11
(0.08)0.07(0.08)
0.05(0.08)
Social Identity 0.59***(0.07)
0.55***(0.07)
0.53***(0.07)
Supervisor’s Cultural Support --- 0.23***(0.05)
0.23***(0.05)
Supervisor’s Advising Index --- 0.06(0.05)
0.07(0.05)
Individual ControlsWhite/Caucasian (Reference) --- --- ---Arab/Middle Eastern --- --- 0.62
(0.68)
Asian/Pacific Islander --- --- 1.15**(0.45)
Black/African American --- --- 1.55(0.82)
Hispanic/Latino --- --- 1.59**(0.63)
Other --- --- 0.15(0.72)
Males (Reference) --- --- ---Females --- --- 0.23
(0.28)
Masters (Reference) --- ---Doctorate --- --- -0.54
(0.33)
Year in School --- --- 0.11(0.10)
Intercept 20.32 15.58 14.81R-Square 0.11 0.16 0.17Adjusted R-Squared 0.11 0.16 0.16* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001 (two-tailed)
Table 3. Linear Regression Coefficients for Levels of Intercultural Experiences in STEM Index for IGS (n=927).
Findings: Intercultural Experiences
IGS social identity is associated
with positive intercultural experiences
in STEM.
IGS professional identity is
not associated
with positive intercultural experiences
in STEM.
Mentor’s cultural
support is associated with IGS’ positive
intercultural experiences
in STEM.
Mentor advising is
not associated
with positive intercultural experiences
in STEM.
Asian/Pacific Islanders and
Hispanic Latino IGS have more favorable cultural
experiences in STEM
compared to White IGS.
Full model explained
16% of IGS' level of
intercultural experiences
in STEM.
Activity: Pair and Share
Work collaboratively to operationalize two key factors found below to develop a matrix of practices relevant to your institutional context.
Example factors: Cultural isolation Acknowledging transnational identity – IGS traverse multiple global fields
(Phelps, 2016) Changing enrollment patterns – recent decline in IGS enrollment at U.S.
graduate schools (Choudaha & Hu, 2017; Open Doors, 2017; Okahana, 2018). Health insurance, travel ban, and immigration regulations (Todoran, 2018) Competitive global markets to internationalize U.S. higher education
(Choudaha & Hu, 2017; Cantwell & Maldonado‐Maldonado, 2009).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTNAGAP, Graduate Student Research Grant
National Science FoundationThe Graduate School & Department of Education
at Montana State University
QUESTIONS AND CONTACTCatherine M. Johnson, Montana State University
[email protected] YOU FOR YOUR
SUPPORT, TIME, AND ATTENTION!!