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

catherine.johnson7@montana.eduTHANK YOU FOR YOUR

SUPPORT, TIME, AND ATTENTION!!