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 17-18 th 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. Individual Factors Native vs. Foreign Countries of Origin Differences in Networks Network Structure *Total collaborative size *Talk network size *Advice network size *Extent of external collaborations *Collaborative network density *Advice network density *Talk network density Characteristics of Network Relationships *Closeness *Extent of collaboration with seniors *Peer ties Framework

4. Theoretical Justification  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

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 Comparisons ANOVA 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 Comparisons ANOVA 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