Development communication expectations in occupational contexts

Inrcw,orronol Pnnted

Journal

I” the USA

o/ ,nrrnul,urol All rlghla

R&r,om.

Vol. 6. pp.

INS-210.

0147-1767

19X2

CopyrIght

rcsened

82 0201X5-26$03.00

‘G’ 1982 Pergamon

Pros

0 Ltd

DEVELOPMENT COMMUNICATION EXPECTATIONS IN OCCUPATIONAL CONTEXTS

A Comparison

of U.S. and Foreign Graduate Students

MICHAEL

S. NILAN

University of Washington Seattle, Washington ABSTRACT. This study focuses on the communication approaches used by experts in development. In line with recent “paradigm shift ” issues, this study asks whether foreign and U.S. graduate students have inculcated alternative communication approaches instead 01; or in addition to, the predominant “top to bottom”communication approach in their occupational communication roles. A total of 24 foreign and 23 U.S. graduate students from various departments at the University of Washington were asked to describe their expected communication with contact groups above, at the same, and at lower status levels. All graduate students showed a marked tendency to exhibit “top to bottom” approaches with contacts of lower status and alternative communication approaches (i.e., bottom to top or interactive) only with peers. Few differences were found between U.S. andforeign, but those that were found were attributed to dzffering societal and occupational structures. Discussion focused on the lack of a coherent communication approach showing inculcation qf more user oriented approaches suggested by the ‘paradigm shifr. ”

GENERAL

PURPOSE

A great deal of time, energy and resources are spent in training both U.S. and foreign graduate students in universities in the United States in various highly specialized fields ranging from nuclear physics through medicine to art. A great deal is expected of these graduate students in terms of the technical aspects of their training and its subsequent implementation, but there is also an informational expectation. An explicit goal of the training received is that the students will spread and An earlier version of this paper was presented to the Intercultural Division International Communication Association at the Annual Meeting in Minneapolis. 21-26, 1981. This study was completed as part of an M.A. program and the author to thank Dr. Sheldon Harsel, Dr. Tony Giffard and especially Dr. Brenda Dervin assistance and support. Requests for repints should be addressed to Michael S. Nilan, of Communications, DS-40, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195. 185

of the May wishes for her School

186

Michael S. Nilan

expand existing knowledge by carrying this knowledge to other people, either here in the U.S. or in another country. This informational or communicative component of the occupational roles of graduate students has been stressed in the area of education’ as well as in the area of “development.“’ Ultimately, this informational role is expected to be implemented in such a way as to improve the condition of man, i.e., to serve in the broadest sense, human development. This broad perspective on human development is the concern of this paper. In particular, the concern is focused on how it is that highly educated and well-meaning experts, whether serving in the U.S. or foreign countries, can best implement their informational roles to improve human conditions. This concern has been labelled as what can be called a “paradigm shift,” not only in the field of communications, but in all social sciences.3 For purposes of this study, this paradigm shift will be presented as two very different, contrasting approaches to the investigation of the implementation of informational roles. This seems to be the most efficient, parsimonious way to deal with the paradigm shift, even though the literature shows a wide range of approaches from many different perspectives. The simplest way to present these two contrasting approaches is to look at their “answers” (usually in terms of implicit assumptions) to four fundamental questions. What is development? While there is disagreement and confusion as to the nature of development, ranging from using technology to allow man to conquer nature4 to a spiritual realization of individual potential,’ both approaches agree implicitly or explicitly that development requires individual change and movement. What is information? Again, there are differing definitions of information, but both approaches agree that the process of change and movement requires the use of information.6 The agreement of the two contrasting approaches to the first two questions establishes a basis for comparison for the disagreement of the approaches on the second two questions. ‘For a complete picture of the literature review for this study, readers are referred to Nilan (1980). Citations dealing with this literature review will be representative of the positions maintained in order to conserve space in this report. For the informational component stressed in the area of education, see Archer (1972). Beeby (1966). and Brown & Hiskett (1975). ‘See Pye (1963). Coleman (19651, Lerner (19.58), Owens & Shaw (1972). ‘See Bronowski(l977), Watz1awicketal.f 1974), Dervin( t979,1980a), Bruner( 1973), Chaffee (1975), Carter (1975), Ape1 (1977), Edelstein (1974). Harsel(1980). ‘See Black (1966), Rogers & Shoemaker (197 I). “This perspective on development was presented by Chandra Muzaffar, political science lecturer at the Universiti Sains, in Penang, Malysia, at a seminar on “The Spiritual Aspects of Development” held at the University of Washington, May, 1980. “See Berlo (I 960), Watzlawick et al. (1974). Carter( 1975), De&n (1980a), Berger & Luckmann ( 1966).

Development

Communication

Expectations

187

How do ~urna~ beings use information? In the past, humans were seen as information processors and the process itself was seen as mechanistic.’ In contrast, social scientists are coming to understand that human use of information is a symbolic, phenomenological act.’ This is illustrated by Dervin (1980b): The individual, in his time-space, needs to make sense, by definition. But the sense he needs to make is for his world, his time-space. He needs to inform himself constantly. His head is filled with questions. These questions can be seen as ‘information needs.’ These questions deal with the here-and-now of the world he sees himself as being in, the places he is from, and the places he sees himself as going. (p. 26)

These two positions on the way human beings use information represent the two contrasting approaches to the implementation of the informational role of experts. The former, process oriented approach, has been seen as a “top to bottom,” or “trickle down” model of communication.’ A corollary of this position is a trend to see information as able to describe and predict reality and thus enable the individual to move through life more effectively. In this paper, “absolute information” refers to the idea that information has some descriptive power outside the user.” This position has been under considerable challenge by the latter approach (here called the “alternative” approach) because the “top to bottom” approach hasn’t worked” even in the USi This alternative approach argues that at the very least, individuals must find some sort of connection between their own time-space and the information that is offered by others. The fourth and last question follows directly from the third and reflects the general purpose of this study: What is the role of the expert in relation to the information user? The “top to bottom” approach has seen the role of the expert as facilitating or supplying “absolute information” in a mechanistic way to non-experts as if being exposed to information enabled the user to absorb the information without any kind of cognitive or behavioral reorganization.‘” The “alternative” approach argues that it is not enough for the ‘See Shannon; & Weaver (1949). Deutsch (1968). Bet-10 (1960). ‘See Bronowski (19X’), Berger & Luckmann (1966). Deetz (1973). Ape1 (1977). In the field of communications. see Chaffee (1975). Carter (1975). Edelstein (1974). Gella (1978). Dervin (1979, 198Oa). ‘This “top to bottom” or “trickle down” approach is explicitly discussed in Rogers (1976, l979), Birou et al. (1977). and Goulding (1974). ‘“See Dervin (1980b). “See Ascroft (1980). Bordenave (1980), Rogers (1976 & 1979). Grunig (1969). Goulding ( 1974). ‘“See Dervjin (1976, 1980a). Tichenor et al. (1973), Bruner (1973). “See citations relevant to the “paradigm shift” in Note 8.

Michael S. Nilan

188

expert to see a problem and solve it, the problem and potential solutions must be interpreted into a “present” that is relevant and comprehensible to the individuals who are the object of the expert’s concern, or the subjects of the expert’s actions. I4 While the literature shows a growing emphasis on the need for alternative communication approaches, there is certainly no formula for how to go about this interpretation into the present, but “openness” is seen as a vital characteristic. “Openness” implies a two-way exchange of information that is both relevant and salient to the individuals concerned. ” Some communication scholars are talking of interactive communication and others present a “bottom to top” approach, but it is clear that all see a need for a more user oriented alternative.” In view of the paradigm shift, as represented by the two approaches presented above, the general purpose of this study was to examine graduate student awareness, understanding and expectations of the informational component of their future occupational roles. Have these emerging experts inculcated any of the paradigm shift, do they show in their approaches to the information components alternative orientations in contrast to, or in addition to, the “top to bottom” approach‘? THE

RESEARCH

PROBLEM

As a research problem whose purpose is to look for the emergence of new views of information exchange, the question is how to best show these new views. The answer is to use a comparative context for three reasons: l Comparative methods foster a sensitization to what is conceptually equivalent and what is variable; l A comparative context forces a conceptual approach rather than a potentially troublesome artifactual approach; and l Given equivalence along one dimension, one can look for development or differences along another dimension. ” For this study, human development and the central informational role of the expert in that process of change and movement is seen as conceptually equivalent. Chosen for this study are two dimensions that relate to the emerging experts and the development context which will become the predictor variables suggesting differences. I/.S. / Foreign A contrast consideration “See “See

Gadamer Gadamer

between U.S. and foreign graduate students of the “development” context of this study (1975), (1975).

Ape1 (1977). Habermas Habermas (1970).

‘“See Ascroft (1980). Ape1 (1977). ‘-See Edelstcin (1982).

Merritt

(1970).

(1972).

McLuskie

Habermaa

(1977)

(1970).

reflects a for three

Development

Communication

Expectations

189

reasons. First, while the predominance of foreign applications of development policy argues that development is a phenomenon of particular interest to foreign students, one could also argue that social, cultural, and political change is a phenomenon in the U.S. which is analogous to development. Second, foreign students have been trained in the U.S. for a long time as an aspect of U.S. foreign policy, presumably because education in the U.S. would better train them for their country’s development needs.18 Third, as experts, the foreign expert would be relatively more “rare” than the U.S. counterpart. In a very broad sense then, the characterization of a communication approach could vary between U.S. graduate students and foreign graduate students.

Contact

Group Level

A second standard of comparison relates to the assumed elite status of graduate students in terms of the occupational structure. What is the difference between the expectations in communicating with people whose place is above, at the same level, or lower than the graduate student in the occupational context? Communication approaches could vary depending upon whether you are talking to your boss, a colleague, or your secretary. In essence then, if we are to obtain an understanding of whether graduate students are more or less oriented to an information user, their communication behavior can only have meaning in the context of comparison. This then, presents the two predictor variables used in this study in a context which comes near to actual communication behavior. So, the specific research focus becomes: how both U.S. and foreign graduate students see the information components of their future occupational roles in terms of the information they see themselves as giving and receiving vis-a-vis groups of people they will be in contact with who are of higher levels, equal levels, and lower levels. While the problem of “top to bottom” or alternative models has been amply explored in the literature as a problem, no research was available to guide hypotheses for this study. Even the issue of U.S. versus foreign, for example, is a difficult one. One could argue that because of the foreign students’ relatively fewer numbers in their own country and lXA commitment Lyndon Johnson

to international education is illustrated by a speech given by President to the U.S. Congress on February 2. 1966:

Education lies at the heart of every nation’s hopes and purposes. It must be at the heart of our international relations International education cannot be the work of one country. It is the responsibility and promise of all nations. It calls for free exchange and full collaboration. We expect to give as much as we receive. to learn as much as teach. Let this Nation play its part. (Shiver, 1967. pp. 91-92)

190

Michael S. Nilan

therefore their more elite status, they would be expected to exhibit more of a “top to bottom” approach. But, on the other hand, one could also argue that because the foreign students are studying in an environment unlike their own, they are constantly being confronted with a body of knowledge and methods that don’t fit their home situations. We might hypothesize then that they must, to make personal sense, seek a way to remain in touch with their home situations and thus, exhibit some alternative approach. For these reasons, this study is seen as an exploration, an attempt to look at the way graduate students will approach the communication/ information aspects of their jobs. Based upon the above description, this study is concerned with the relationship between two predictor variables-U.S./foreign and contact group level, and a set of criterion variables tapping the respondents’ perceptions of their future communication/ informational roles.

METHOD This study tested the relationship between U.S./foreign and contact group level on variables that tapped communication approaches to others. The problem of characterizing a communication approach as either “top to bottom” or “alternative” while examining, as close as possible, the communication behavior itself was seen as a primary consideration. The approach taken in this study was to look at graduate student perceptions of two-way information exchanges (i.e., from the student to someone else and from that person to the student). A twoway information exchange provided a way to tap the “openness” (if presented) or reciprocal nature of information exchanged. By examining the patterns of information exchange, the consistency of an approach could be examined. For example, a “top to bottom” approach could be seen by the student as necessary for the hierarchical structure of his/ her future occupation. If this is the case then, we could expect his/ her behavior to be consistent both as a sender of information and a receiver of information. The unit of analysis, then, is not the respondent but the respondent’s perception of his informational relationship with a specific contact group. The use of the contact group as the unit of analysis appears unconventional. It is a trend, however, that is growing in communication literature for it allows the respondent to: (1) create his/ her own context; and (2) be different in different contexts.” In this study, each contact group becomes the unit of analysis. A given respondent could contribute a large number of contact groups or a single contact group. “For

more

discussion

on this issue,

see Dervin

et al. (1980).

Development

Communication

Expectations

191

In short, using the contact group as a unit of analysis and looking at a two-way information exchange was seen as a way to tap communication approaches while approximating actual communication behavior. The questionnaire strategy, then, had to be one where essentially the respondent was allowed to contribute to the data pool as many contact groups as he/she could identify. This strategy has an important value as it allows the respondent to orient to something that is cognitively real to him/ herself. This strategy is consistent with the conceptualization presented above. To implement this strategy, a questionnaire was developed where the respondents were asked to list all the different groups they anticipated interacting with in the course of their expected occupations, Starting with a list of some possible contact groups, the respondent was invited to add any other groups with which they felt they might be having contact. For each group named, the respondents were asked a series of questions which generated three variable categories. These categories were: (1) Amount of contact which the respondent saw him/ herself as having with a given contact group. (2) Amount of change in the contact group resulting from the information the respondent gave to this contact group; and the amount of change which the respondent saw him/ herself making as a result of getting this information from this contact group. (3) The kinds of information and the uses to which the contact group would put the information the respondent saw self giving to the contact group; and the kinds and uses of information the respondent saw self getting from this contact group. In the last two categories above, there are two parallel tracks. One deals with the respondent giving information to the contact group; and the other deals with the respondent receiving information from the contact group. It was felt that this strategy would optimally tap indications of both the top to bottom as well as any alternate approaches held by the respondents for their contact groups regardless of whether the groups were seen as being of a higher level, the same level, or of a lower level.

The Variables The first predictor variable is called “U.S./foreign” and, as indicated above, it was felt that subjective differences in the societal goals and problems perceived by graduate students vis-a-vis their respective societies could reflect differences in their communication approach.

192

Michael

S. Nilan

This variable was operationalized by asking the respondent his/her nationality at the end of the interview. Whether the respondent was a U.S. or foreign student was verified by the registration records of the University of Washington Graduate School for fall quarter 1979 (discussed further in sampling methods below). The resulting variable was a two category nominal variable with a total n = 179 (no missing cases): 89 contact groups were elicited from U.S. students and 90 contact groups from foreign students. The second predictor variable is called “contact group level” and addresses the relative status differences between the respondent and a particular contact group. The variable was conceptualized as a trichotomization of the relative status continuum-Psuperordinant to subordinant: “high” meaning of higher occupational status than the respondent; “same” meaning of equal status; and “low” meaning subordinants (e.g., students, the public, etc.). Two graduate student coders assigned each of the contact groups to a group level, with an interjudge coding reliability of 99% (Scott, 1955). The resulting variable was treated as a three category nominal variable with a total n = 179 (no missing cases). The number of contact groups at each level was: high, 66; same, 44; low, 69. An examination was made by Chi-square text of the relationship between the two predictors in order to assure that even if there was a relationship, there would still be sufficient n for further analysis. Results indicate that there was no significant relationship between the two variables (xl = .5 1, df = 2, p =ns) and a relatively balanced distribution of cell n. Thus, both foreign and U.S. students contributed to the pool of contact groups in virtually equal proportions at each of the three contact group levels. The criterion variables were divided into three categories, as indicated above. the first, “amount of contact” was tapped once for each contact group and simply taps the amount of contact the respondent saw him/ herself having with the contact group. It was measured on a fivepoint scale with one being little contact and five being a lot of contact. The mean on this variable was 3.54, with n = 179, no missing cases. The second category, “amount of change” was tapped twice for each contact group, once for the expected amount of change in the contact group resulting from the information the respondent would give to the contact group and once for the expected amount of change in the respondent as a result of information received from the contact group. The respondent was asked to rate the amount of change on the same five-point scale. with one being very little change and five being a lot of change. The mean for the respondent to contact group direction was 3.28, n = 179, no missing cases. The mean in the contact group to respondent direction was 3.45, n = 179, no missing cases.

Developmenr Communication Expectarions

193

The third and last criterion variable category, “kinds and uses for information exchanged” was tapped from open ended items. Respondents were asked a series of four questions, two picking up the respondent to group direction and two picking up the group to respondent direction. The questions were: (I) Would you tell me what kinds of information that you would be giving to (specific contact group name)? (2) Would you tell me how (specific contact group name) will use this kind of information (repeated for each kind mentioned above)? (3) What kinds of information will you be getting from (specific contact group name)? (4) How will you use (specific kind of information, repeated for each kind mentioned)? The first two questions above yielded the data set for tapping the kinds and uses of information from the respondent to the contact group; the second two yielded the data set for tapping the kinds and uses of information from the contact group to the respondent. Questions one and two, and questions three and four were taken together as a measure because of the extensive overlap in actual responses between the kind and use elicited from respondents. Responses to these questions were content analyzed, using an eight category categorical scheme. The scheme asked of each response set (a set being the kind and use of information questions in one direction) whether the response fit into each of the scheme categories. The rationale for the scheme was derived from Dervin et al. (1980) which focuses on tapping the alternative communication approach in which the concern is placed not simply on the transmission of absolute information, but on information as defined by users. Dervin et al. hypothesize that people need pictures (a general term for getting ideas about things) in order to control and direct their movements through time-space, and that they use these pictures to move towards their goals. They further suggest that there is a difference between an individual’s use of so-called factual information (called “absolute information” in this study) and more subjective kinds of information (e.g., “pictures” as used in this study). The eight categories used in this scheme are as follows: 1. Giving

Pictures of Se,f and Own World Here the concern was whether the respondent mentioned providing the contact group with pictures of the respondent or his/ her world; or if the respondent would get pictures from the contact group (e.g., “They would tell me about themselves; ” “I would tell them what kind of

194

Michael S. Nilan things I’m doing”). The results produced two variables. The mean number of mentions of the contact groups getting pictures from the respondent was .91; the mean for the measure of the respondent getting pictures from the contact group was .98. 2. Information Given Being Used for Sharing or Coordinating The concern here was whether the respondent mentioned that the information exchanged would be used for cooperating or social interaction between individuals (e.g., “They would tell me about department gossip;” “ I would give information to them about a mutual project so we could work well together”). This produced two variables. The mean number of mentions of the measure of the contact group getting information for coordinating or sharing was .11; the mean number of mentions for the respondent getting information for coordinating or sharing with others was .17. 3. Giving Absolute For this qualitative dimension, the concern was whether the exchange of information referred to a “body of knowledge” or rules and regulations (e.g., “1 would give them my expertise or my knowledge;” “ They would give me epidemiological statistics from the field”). The results produced two variables. The mean number of mentions for the measure of the respondent sending absolute information was .70; the mean number of mentions for the measure of the respondent getting absolute information was .5 1. 4. Information Given Being Used to Get a Job Done or to Get Somewhere Here, the concern was whether the respondent’s answer mentioned that the information exchanged was seen as allowing movement towards a goal or to make a decision (e.g., “I would give them information that they would use to get their degrees;” “ They would give me information that I needed for a research project”). The results produced two variables. The mean number for the measure of the respondent giving information to be used for getting a job done was 1.21; the mean number of mentions for the respondent getting such information from the contact group was 1.10. 5. Information Given Being Used to Evaluate Self or Others The concern for this qualitative dimension was whether the respondent’s answer mentioned that the information exchanged was used by the contact group to evaluate the respondent or if the respondent used the information from the contact group to evaluate the contact group or others (e.g., “I would use the

Development

Communication

19s

Expectations

information to assess their performance;” “They would use it to see if I am doing a good job”). The results produced two variables. The mean number of mentions of the contact group using the information to evaluate the respondent was .23; the mean number of mentions of the respondent using the information to evaluate the contact group or others was .29.

Given Being Used to Help or Serve Others The concern here was whether the respondent mentioned giving information to the contact group to be used in serving or helping other people or if the respondent would get information from the contact group for this purpose (e.g., “They could help the patients to help with their problems; ” “1 would use the information them”). This procedure produced two variables. The mean number of mentions of the respondent giving information that would be used to help or serve others was .Ol; the mean number of mentions of the information the respondent would get from the contact group being used to help or serve others was .09.

6. Information

7. Information

Given

Being

Used to Improve

Things

or Situations

Here the concern was whether the respondent’s answer mentioned using the information to make things or situations better (e.g., “I would give them information to improve “I would use the information to improve the the project;” academic structure”). This produced two variables. the mean number of mentions of the respondent giving information to be used for improving things/ situations was .08; the mean number of mentions of the respondent using information from the contact group in this manner was .04. (Not

People)

8. Information

Given

Being

Used for

Recipient>

Own

Self

Im-

For this last qualitative dimension, the concern was whether the respondent’s answer mentioned giving information to the contact group that would be used for their own self improvement or whether the information the respondent would get from the contact group being used for the respondent’s self improvement (e.g., “They would use the information to become better educated;” “ I would use the information to improve my performance”). The mean number of mentions of the respondent giving such information was .13; the mean number of mentions for the measure of the respondent’s getting to be used for his/ her own self improvement was .21.

provement

196

Mkhael

S. Nilan

In sum then, this content analytic scheme taps elements of both the traditional “top to bottom” approach where, for example, such things as getting jobs done and transmitting absolute information are emphasized; and alternate approaches where such things as getting pictures of others, being of service to others, coordinating, and sharing with other people are emphasized. These qualitative dimensions were tapped by standard content analytic procedures. The author coded all the data and a reliability check was computed by three other coders on the entire data set. lnterjudge reliability was computed two ways. The first, using Stempel’s (1955) percentage agreement indicated that the agreement between two coders was .89. The second, using Scott’s (1955) reliability measure which adjusts the Stempel measure for reliability that can be obtained by chance was .83. After reliability computations, all disagreements between two coders were resolved by consensus. After each respondent’s answer for a given contact group in a given direction was categorized into the eight qualitative dimensions, a transformation was done on the data to create a series of eight dichotomous variables which tapped the number of mentions made by the respondent in each of the eight dimensions in each direction.

Testing the Questionnaire The questionnaire was tested under several different fielding conditions before the final questionnaire was drafted. These pre-tests were made by graduate students in the School of Communications at the University of Washington who provided comments and feedback. A quasi-analysis then provided for the correction of inconsistent or weak areas in the final questionnaire.

Sampling A random stratified disproportionate sample was drawn from the registration records of the University of Washington graduate school. These records showed that there were 7,439 graduate students in those departments that had at least one foreign graduate student. Only those departments with foreign students were included in the sample. Because foreign students comprised about 13% of the total graduate student population, sampling procedures were based upon the foreign students with U.S. students selected by matching procedures. Students on immigration visas were excluded. Out of a total of 890 foreign students, a total of 110 were selected. The selection process was to list all graduate students in alphabetical order within a list of departments which were listed according to a and a university-wide “major code.” A skip interval was established

random number table provided a departmental starting point. After a foreign student was found following these procedures, the next U.S. student who was approximately at the same point in the same degree program was also selected. A total of 220 graduate students made up the total sample, including replacements.

Fielding The questionnaire was administered by phone between March I I and April 9, 1980, by five interviewers. Each interview lasted an average of 31 minutes. interviewers were trained in an intensive training session and then did test interviews to insure that there were no problems interpreting the questionnaire and that all interviewers were approaching the questionnaire and the interview situation in the same manner. interviewers made as many as three attempts each to contact the 220 sampled individuals. Fifty-six dropped out because their phone numbers were no longer valid with no new listing available or else the individual was not available during the fielding period; 15 refused to be interviewed; 21 made appointments and then didn’t show up; and 80 were unable to be contacted despite repeated attempts. This left 48 completed questionnaires, of which 47 were useable (one respondent insisted after several probes by the interviewer that he would be having no contact with anyone else). Of the 47 useable interviews, 23 were from U.S. graduate students and 24 were from foreign graduate students, generating a total of l79 contact groups, an average of almost four per respondent. As indicated above in the “variables” section, both groups contributed almost equal proportions for each contact group level.

ANALYSIS The research design was a 2 X 3 completely crossed factorial design. Each of the six treatment cells (see Table 1) was a unique combination of U.S. or foreign and the contact group level. The unit of analysis as indicated above was the contact group. The factorial analysis of variance allows a test of the significance of the relationship between U.S./foreign and contact group level, and the interaction between the two on a given criterion variable. However, a significant F only indicates the presence of significance, not its location. For this reason, post hoc within table comparison of means were computed using Duncan’s test for the relationship between two means.” This resulted in three sets of Duncan tests. For a given set of Duncan ‘“As presented and organized

by Kim & Kohout (1975).

198

Michael S. Nilan

tests, all two pair combinations of means were tested for significance for their difference given the exploratory nature of this study. For example, in the contact group level comparison for U.S. students, the mean for a given criterion variable for the “high” contact group level was compared to both “same” and “low,” and the mean for “same” was compared to “low.” This was also done for foreign students and for the difference between U.S. and foreign for each group level. The significance level for all Duncan tests was set at p < .05.”

RESULTS In order to conserve space, the original 19 tables are presented in 4 tables instead. To facilitate the reader’s interpretation of Tables 2 through 4, Table 1 is presented in the original form. Reading down a column in Tables 2-4, the first two figures are the marginals for U.S./foreign (“Co1 means” in Table 1); the next three figures are the marginals for contact group level (“Row means” in Table 1); the next three figures are the within cell means for U.S.; and the next three figures are the within cell means for foreign. The reporting of these means with their superscripts, as indicated above, serves to locate specifically, the locus of a significant difference between means if the factorial analysis of variance shows a significant F. Referring to the following description of Table 1 will facilitate the reader’s interpretation of Tables 2 through 4.

Table I This table reports the factorial analysis of variance of U.S./foreign and contact group level as predictors of the amount of contact the respondent sees him/ herself having with the contact group. The results show a significant F for the contact group level (F = 20.94, p < .OOl). An examination of the means (presented in the order of Tables 2-4) indicates there is no significant difference between U.S. and foreign, but there is a significant difference between contact groups, indicated by the difference in superscripts in Table l’s “Row means” column. Looking at the within cell means, the same pattern of superscripts is evident. This indicates that both U.S. and foreign graduate students see themselves as having significantly more contact with contact groups of the same status or of lower status than with groups of higher status. The “Means” section of Table 1 graphically represents the research design of this study. Tables 2-4 are presented in the order described above, moving closer to a specific cordinate in the 2 X 3 factorial design, with the last two sets of figures reporting the significance of the overall factorial analysis and the grand mean for that criterion variable. “All statistical

tests were completed

using Nie et al. (1975).

Development

Factorial

Analysis

ol Variance

Communication

TABLE 1 of the Amount of ConLacI the Respondent

Having with the Conlact

level

U.S.

Forelg”

Analyws ROW Means

Variable

High Same

2 WC 3 9P.d

2.68a,C 424ad

262c 407d

LOW

3 7r.d

4 OP

3 a@

us IforeIgn Group level Interactlo”

COI means

3406

367a

3 54

EWJt

Sees Sell

Groups

Means’

Group

199

Expectations

of variance Mea”

Sum of squares

DF

2 63

1 2

squares

F

P

203 20 34 17

ns < 001 ns

_

_

54 33 .44

2

2.63 27.20 22

224 70

173

1.30

a b In a horuontal row, the superscrlpts a and b report the use of Duncan’s test for the slgnlflcance of differences for wthln table means. Unlike superscr,pts lndlcate that the two means are slgnlflcantly different at p < 05 C,de Inavert~calcolumn. thesuperscnptsC differences

f

for wlthln

throughe

reporttheresultsof

table means. Unhke superscrlpts

slgnlflcantly different at p < 05. “for margmals: U.S. =69; Fore~gn=90;nforHlgh=66,Same=44, U S = 34.23.32,

for cell n under Forelg” PLOT

Duncan’stestfortheslgnlf~canceof

I” a verbcal column Low =69

mdlcate

that the means are

Vert~callydownforcell

n for

= 32. 21 37.

OF MEANS

us Y

5

I-

FOREIGN

I

HIGH

I

SAME

-------

I

LOW

Table 1 also shows a “Plot of means” which is a plot of the marginal means for each predictor variable. This was used to report the results of Table I and similar plots were used for each analysis in the study, but excluded in order to conserve space. This plot is presented as an illustration of the method used for interpretation.

Table 2 This table reports the factorial analysis of variance of U.S./foreign and contact group level as predictors of the extent of change in the recipient due to information given; the mean number of mentions of giving pictures of self and own world; and the mean number of mentions of information given being used for sharing or coordinating with others. The extent of change due to information exchanged by the respondent to the contact group shows a significant F for the contact group level (F = 6.84, p < .OOl). An examination of the means indicates that both the U.S. and foreign respondents see groups of the same and lower status changing more as a result of the information given to them than the high

200

Michael S. Nilan

TABLE Factorial

Analysis

of Variance

of the Amount

2

of Change,

Giving Pictures,

and Giving Information

lor

level contact groups. An examination of the Duncan tests however, shows that while both U.S. and foreign respondents exhibit the same pattern, it is significant only for the foreign students. The extent of change in the contact group to respondent direction shows no significant relationships. The second section of Table 2 reports the factorial analysis of variance of U.S./foreign and contact group level as predictors of the respondent giving pictures of him/herself to the contact group. Results show a significant F for U.S./foreign (F = 12.53, p < ,001) indicating that U.S. respondents reported giving more pictures of themselves to all contact groups. An examination of the Duncan tests show that this is particularly true for high level contact groups. Results also show a significant F for the contact group level (F = 5.65, p = <.Ol) indicating a trend for both U.S. and foreign respondents to report giving more pictures to high versus low status groups. The most significant relationship for this directional exchange is between U.S. and foreign vis-a-vis the high status groups where U.S. respondents reported a mean of 1.68 and the foreign

respondents reported a mean of .78. In the contact group to respondent direction, results show a significant F for U.S./foreign (F = 10.49, p < .001) indicating an overall trend for U.S. respondents to report getting more pictures from all contact groups than the foreign respondents. An examination of the Duncan tests shows that while U.S. and foreign respondents reported getting about the same amount of pictures from the same level contact groups, the U.S. students reported getting significantly more pictures from low status groups than did foreign respondents; and the foreign respondents mentioned getting pictures from high status groups significantly less than their U.S. counterparts. The last section of Table 2 reports the mean number of mentions of illformation given being used for coordinating or sharing with others. In the respondent to contact group direction, the results show a significant relationship for U.S./foreign (F= 9.50,~ = < .OOl). An examination of the Duncan tests shows that foreign students and U.S. students both expected to give information for coordinating and sharing with others to contact groups of the same versus high or low status. In the contact group to respondent direction, the results indicate a similar pattern (F = 6.04, p = < .OI) although the Duncan tests show that both foreign and U.S. respondents reported getting more information that would be used for coordinating or sharing with others from same level versus high level status groups. Tab& 3 This table reports the factorial analysis of variance of U.S.iforeign and contact group level as predictors of the mean number of mentions of giving “absolute information;” the mean number of mentions of the information given being used to get a job done or to get somewhere; and the mean number of mentions of the information given being used to evaluate the recipient or others. In the section of Table 3 dealing with giving “absolute information” in the respondent to contact group direction, results indicate a significant relationship for the contact group level (F =I: 9.31, p = < .OOl) indicating a general trend for the respondents to see themsefves as giving more “absolute information” to low level contact groups than same or high. This relationship is significant however only for low versus high level contact groups. In the column for the contact group giving “absolute information” to the respondent, the most important finding is the interaction between the two predictor variables (F = 3.69, p = < .05). Both U.S. and foreign groups report getting relatively little “absolute information” from low status groups but their patterns for high and same level groups are

Michael S. Nilan

P

reversed. For the foreign students, the high level contact group was mentioned more than other groups; for U.S. students, the most mentioned group for “absolute information” was the same level contact group. This interaction was strong enough to produce a significant F for the contact group level (F = 3. IO, p = < .05) as well as the interaction. The second section of Table 3 reporting the mean number of mentions of the information given being used to get a job done or to get somewhere, the respondent to contact group direction shows a near significant F for the contact level because both U.S. and foreign respondents showed a trend to mention same level contact groups most often. In the contact group to respondent direction, results show a significant relationship for the contact group level (F = 6.71, p = < .Ol) indicating that both groups of respondents tended to mention low level groups less often than high or same level contact groups. An examination of the Duncan tests show that for the U.S. students, the significant difference

Development

Communication

Expectations

203

was between same (mean = 1.52) and low (mean = .91) level groups. For foreign students the difference was between high (mean = .62) level contact groups. The last section of Table 3 reports the factorial analysis of variance of U.S./foreign and contact group level as predictors of the information given being used to evaluate self or others. In the respondent to contact group direction the results show a significant relationship for contact group level (F = 5.43, p = < .Ol) indicating an overall pattern for both U.S. and foreign respondents to mention giving this kind of information to high level contact groups. The Duncan tests show that for U.S. students, the significant difference was that they mentioned high level groups more often than either of the other two levels. Table 4 This table reports the factorial analysis of variance of U.S./foreign and contact group level as predictors of the mean number of mentions of the information given being used to help or serve other people; the mean number of mentions of information given being used to improve things or situations; and the mean number of mentions of the information given being used for the recipient’s self improvement. In the first section of Table 4, for the respondent to contact group direction, there are no significant relationships. For the contact group to respondent direction however, results show a significant F for contact group level (F = 3.57, p = < .05) indicating that both U.S. and foreign respondents tended to see themselves getting more information from low level contact groups that would be used to help or serve others. The second section of Table 4, in the column for the respondent to contact group direction, the interaction between the two predictors is the significant relationship in the prediction of the mean number of mentions of the information given being used to improve things or situations (F = 3.14, p = < .05). An examination of the means and Duncan tests indicate that while there is an overall trend for the foreign respondents to mention using information from the contact groups to improve things or situations, but this is significant only for high and low status groups. For the U.S. respondents, the pattern was reversed so that the same level contact groups were the on/y group mentioned. In the contact group to respondent direction, there was no significant difference between U.S. or foreign respondents in predicting the mean number of mentions of the information given being used to improve things or situations. The last section of Table 4 in the respondent to contact group direction, contact group level was a significant predictor of the mean

204

Michael

S. Nilan

TABLE Factorial

Analysis

4

of Variance 01 Giving Information to Help or Serve Others, Giving Information Things or Situations, and Giving Information lor Own Self Improvement

to Improve

(” = 341 ,n = 23) (” = 321 (” (0 (”

Grand mean

32) =a) = 37)

=

(n-179,

01

09

08

04

13

21

number of mentions of the information given being used for the recipient’s own self improvement (F = 4.78, p = < .OI). Examination of the means and Duncan tests indicate that while there is an overall tendency for the respondents to report giving this kind of information to same and low level contact groups, this pattern only is significant for the U.S. respondents. In the contact group to respondent direction, results indicate that the significant relationship (F = 3.40, p < .05) is again the contact group level. All respondents reported getting significantly more information for their own self improvement from low versus high level contact groups. SUMMARY All respondents saw themselves as having significantly more contact with same and low level contact groups and also tended to expect more change in same and low contact groups as a result of this contact. The

overall pattern of these summary dimensions shows that for the latter result, although both U.S. and foreign respondents did have the same pattern, this was only a significant difference for foreign respondents {Table 2, section 1, factorial analysis of variance under “Foreign’“). These results are only indicative of the relative differences between contact group levels. The qualitative dimensions of this contact, however, do not manifest a consistency in the patterns one would expect if looking for strictly a “top to bottom” or alternative approach in both directions across contact groups levels. U.S. students reported giving more pictures of themselves and their worlds to others than did foreign students, but both were virtually equal in terms of their perceptions of getting pictures from their peers. All respondents also expected to give more “absolute information” to those groups at lower levels than at higher levels. Although all respondents tended to give more informatiun to get a job done to peers, the U.S. students tended to expect this kind of information from same level contact groups while the foreign respondents expected this kind of information from high level contact groups. All respondents also expected significantly less information from low level contact groups that they would use to get the job done. All respondents expected to be evaluated by high level groups and evaluate low level groups. Although virtually no information would be given to serve or help other people, both U.S. and foreign respondents tended to expect this kind of information from low level contact groups.“ All respondents expected to give information for the recipient’s self improvement to higher level groups but tended to expect this kind of information from low level groups.

CONCLUSIONS Two major conclusions suggest themselves from this exploration of the c~~mmunication~informational roles that graduate students perceive in their occupational roles. It must be clarified here that the concern of this study is not to specify a communication approach or style that is more “valid” than another as much as the concern is for evidence that emerging experts see their communicationiinformational roles in a more or less user oriented manner. The first, and most significant for communication research in general, and “development” research in particular is that these graduate students “Although

this result would tend to indicate the use of an alternative

data reveals that the spcctfic hind of information example.

information

that the infor[nation

approach.

the raw

that respondents expected here was. for

about young students from their parents. The significance of this is from these groups was rsscntially

in no way could be expected

to alter thr respondent’s

directed at a particular approach to his: herjob.

problem

and

206

Michael

S. Nilan

tended to exhibit an overall “top to bottom” approach. This is evident in the contrast between respondents sending and receiving information (in qualitative and quantitative terms) to their contact groups. Interestingly, there was a tendency to present themselves to their superordinants in terms of pictures and yet to present themselves to subordinants in terms of “absolute information.” The lack of a consistent “top to bottom” pattern in both directions (respondent to group and group to respondent), however, suggests that while the respondents had inculcated information roles that were consistent with a “top to bottom” model of organizational communication, they still wanted to present themselves to their superordinants in a way that was inconsistent with that same model. The respondents tended to mention their peers in almost all qualitative dimensions, which is taken by the author to mean that they feel comfortable communicating to those individuals most like themselves. The first general conclusion, then, is that more user oriented communication approaches have not been inculcated by graduate students in this study, but rather they have not yet developed a coherent communication approach at all. This suggests that either the expectations of the communication;informational roles of graduate students be reconceptualized or that some overt attention be given to how these expectations will be realized. The second conclusion, relating to the U.S./ foreign predictor variable, is much more subtle than the first because, although the U.S./foreign differences were fewer, these few have interesting implications. The number of significant relationships for the contact group level predictor variable would seem to indicate that overall (76% of all significant relationships and 33% of all relationships tested in this study were for contact group level), U.S./foreign was too gross a demographic predictor of communication approaches. The main differences between U.S. and foreign students seem to be the result of structural differences in their perceptions of their future occupational roles. Specifically, the U.S. students seem to be acknowledging a perception of a social system saturated with people who have similar qualifications, almost as if the difference between contact group levels were minimal. This would be indicated by the U.S. students expecting more pictures from lower groups than foreign students. In the U.S., this may reflect the institutionalization of public input into a wide variety of areas, while in most foreign countries, this institutionalization is not so prevalent. In addition, the foreign students may be preparing themselves as experts in a structure that is more formally organized into a hierarchy. The second conclusion leads into a limitation of this study in that the U.S./foreign difference as conceptualized was too simplistic to measure what are probably systematic differences in societal structure and cultural variety both within and between U.S. and foreign graduate

207

~e~e~o~rnent CaFnrnunicat~~~ Expectations

students’ perceptions. Another more obvious limitation is the hypothetical nature of the data. Whiie the data is certainly no indication of the communication approaches that these students will actually implement, the methodology brings us closer (albeit before the fact) to an understanding of how these individuals see themselves and others in their occupational context ji-om the respondent S point of view. In other words, predictive validity seemed a fair trade for construct validity for the purposes of this study. In general, this exploration of communication~information roles of emerging elites gives little evidence that alternate, user oriented approaches suggested by the “paradigm shift” have been systematically inculcated at a pragmatic level by the graduate student respondents. Because of the limited nature of this study, generalizations are unwarranted, nature

but

of human

future

research

is indicated

to address

the

issue

of the

development.

REFERENCES APEL, K. The a priori of communication and the foundation of the humanities. in F.A. Dallmayr & T.A. McCarthy (Eds.), Understanding and social inquiry, Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 1977. ARCHER, MS. Students, university and society: A co~n~arative sociological review. London: Heinemann Educational books, 1972. ASCROFT, J., & GLEASON, G. C~rni~u~jcatia~ support and htegruted ruraf deve~op~~ent in Ghana. Paper presented to the 30th International Conference on Communication, Human Evolution and Development, of the International Communication Association. Acapulco. Mexico, May 18-23, 1980. BEEBY, C.E. The qualit_v of education in deve~#ping countries. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1966. BELTRAN, L.R.S. Alien premises, objects, and methods in Latin American communication research. Communication Research, 1976, 3, 107-134. BERGER, P.L., & LUCKMANN. T. The social construction qf realiry. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. 1966. BERLO, D.K. The process of c~?~~~tunicntjon. New York: Hoh, Rinehart & Winston, 1960. BIROIJ, A., HENRY, P., & SCHLEGEL, J.P. (Eds.). Towards a re-d~~~?~t~~nof de~Jei~p~ze?tt. New York: Pergamon Press, 1977. BLACK, C.E. The d~natl~ics qf rr~oderni~ation: A study in co~~zparative history. New York: Harper & Row, 1946. BOR DENAVE, J. D. Part~cj~at~on in co??ltnu~irutio~ s_ystems ,jbr d~~~~~~~~~~e~lt. Paper presented to the 30th International Conference on Communication, Human Evolution and Development, of the international Communication Association, Acapulco, Mexico, May 18-23, 1980. BRONOWSKI, J. A sense ofthefuture. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1977. BROWN, G.N., & HISKETT, M. Conflict and harmony in education in tropical Africa. London: George Allen & Unwin, t975.

208

Michael S. Nilan

BRUNER, .I. BeJ,ond the ir$kmnation given. New York: W.W. Norton, lY73. CARTER, R.F. Elementary ideas qf’ systems applied to problem-solving strategies. Paper presented at the Far West Region of the Society for General Systems Research, Annual Meeting. San Jose, CA, Oct. 1975. CH AFFEE, S. H. Political c,ommunication: issues and strategies ,fbr research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 1975. COLEMAN, J.J. (Ed.). Educ,ation and political development. Princeton. NJ: Princeton University Press. 1965. DERVIN, B. Strategies for dealing with human information needs: Information or communiction? Journal of Broadcasting, 1976, 20. 3324-351. DERVlN. B. Sense-making as a pre-requisite ./or information equity,. Paper presented at the 7th Annual Telecommunications Policy Research Conference, Skytop. PA, April 1979. DERVIN, B. Communication gaps and inequities: Moving toward a reconceptualization. In M. Voight & B. Dervin (Eds.), Progress in c~ornmunicazion xiences. Norwood NJ: Ablex Publishing, in press, lY80a, Vol. II. 73-l 12. DERVI N. B. lqforrnation as a user construct: The relevance of percei\led irzformation needs to synthesis and interpretation. Paper presented to the Research and Educational Practice Unit. National Institute for Education, Washington, D.C., March lY80b. DERVIN, B.. HARLOCK. S., ATWOOD, R. & GARZONA. C. The human side of information: An exploration in a health communication context. In D. Nimmo (Ed.) Communication Yearbook IV. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books, 1980, 59 l-608. DEETZ, S. Words without things: Towards a social phenomenology of things. Quarter!,, Journal qf Speech, 1973, 59, 40-5 I. DEUTSCH, K. 1.oward a cybernetic model of man and society. In W. Buckley (Ed.). Modern .yJss/em research ,fbr the behavioral sc,ientisi. Chicago: Aldine, 1968. EDELSTEIN, A.S. The uses of communication in decision-r?luking: A corn-parative stud,, of Yugoslavia and the United States. New York: Praeger, 1974. EDELSTEIN. A.S. Comparative c,onl,,tunic,afion resrarch. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications Inc.. 1982. GADAMER. H. Truth and method. New York: Herder & Herder, 1975. G ELLA. A. Hurnani.srn in sociologja: IIS historical roots and c’ontemporar!’ problems. Washington. D.C.: University Press of America, 1978. GOULDING, P. Media role in national development: Critique of a theoretical orthodoxy. Journal qf Communication, 1974, 24. 39-53. GRUNIG, J.E. Information and decision-making in economic development. Journalism Quarter!,.. 1969, 46, 562-572. GRUNIG, J.E. Communication and the economic decision-making process of Colombian peasants, Economrc De\,elopment and Cultural Change, I97 I. 19. 580-597. H ABERM AS, J. Ton,ard.c a rational societ?,. Boston: Beacon Press, 1970. H ABERMAS, J. Legitimation crisis. Boston: Beacon Press, 1975. H ARSEL. S. Some comparative research perspectives on ittformation societies. information societies: DirecPaper presented at the conference “Comparing tions for research,” Seattle. Washington, March 29-April I. 1980.

Development

Communication

209

Expectations

KIM, J., & KOHOUT, F.J. Analysis of variance and covariance. In N. Nie, C.H. Hull, J.G. Jenkins, K. Steinbrenner, & D. H. Brent (Eds.), Statisticalpackage ,for the social sciences, 2nd Ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975. LERNER, D. The passing of traditional society. New York: The Free Press, 1958. McLUSKIE. C.E. Technical rationality and the public realm: A critical theory of the responsibility of mass communication theory and practice. Journal qf Communication /nquir.v, 1977, 3, 13-29. MERRITT, R.L. Political science: An approach to human communication. In R.W. Budd & B.D. Ruben (Eds.), Approaches to human communication, New York: Spartan Books, 1972. NIE. N., HULL, C.H., JENKINS, J.G., STEINBRENNER, K., & BRENT, D.H. (Eds.). Statistical package qf the social sciences, 2nd Ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975. NILAN, M.S. Communication behavior and information use in expected occupational

roles:

A comparison

qf

U.S.

and foreign

graduate

students.

Unpublished MA thesis, University of Washington, 1980. OWENS, E., & SHAW, R. Development reconsidered. Toronto, Canada: Lexington Books, 1972. PYE, L. W. (Ed.). Communication and national development. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 1963. ROGERS, E.M. Communication and development: The passing of a dominant paradigm. Communication Research, 1976, 3. 155-170. ROGERS, E.M.. & ADHIKARYA, R. Diffusion of innovations: An up-to-date review and commentary. In D. Nimmo (Ed.), Com/nunication raearbook III. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books, 1979. ROGERS, E.M., & SHOEMAKER, F. Communication and innovations: A cross-cultural approach. New York: The Free Press, I97 I. SCOTT, W.A. Reliability in content analysis: The case of nominal scale coding. Public

Opinion

Quarter/,)‘,

1955, 19, 321-325.

SHANNON, C., & WEAVER, W. The mathematical theory qfcommunication. Urbana, III.: University of Illinois Press, 1949. SHIVER, E.N. (Ed.). Higher education and public international service. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1967. STEMPEL, G.H. Ill. Increasing reliability in content analysis. Journalism Quarter/j,,

1955, 19, 449-455.

TICHENOR, P., RODENKIRCHEN, J.M., OLIEN, C.N.. & DONOHUE, G.A. Community issues, conflict, and public affairs knowledge. In P. Clarke (Ed.), New models .for mass communication research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1973. WATZLAWICK, P., WEAKLAND, J.H.. & FISCH, R. Change: Principles of problenljormation andproblem resolution. New York: W.W. Norton, 1974.

ABSTRACTTRANSLATIONS Cette utilizges

Etude regarde par les experts

les approches de communication dans le development. Selon

le

210

Michael S. Nilan

dgsaccord du "changement de paradigme" (paradigm shift), cette Etude demande si les e'tudiants diplome's (graduate students) des Etats Unis ou des pays Strangers ont inculquk des approches alternatives au lieu de, ou en plus de, l'approche communicative prgdominante "haut au fond" (top to bottom) dans leurs ro^les communicatifs professionnels. Un total de 24 gtudiants diplome's de l'e'tranger et 23 e'tudiants diplome's des Etats Unis des departments divers de l'Universit6 de Washington ont e't6 demand6 de decrire leurs communications pr&ues avec des groupes de niveau 616~6, de meme niveau, et de niveau inferieur. Tous les gtudiants diplome's ont manifest6 une tendence d'e'xposer les approches "haut au fond" avec les groupes au niveau inferieur et les approches alternatives (par example, fond au haut ou re'ciprogue) seulement avec leurs pairs. Peu des differences ont Qt6 trouve' entre 1'Etats Unis et l'gtranger. Les differences trouve's ont &te' attribug aux differences en structures sociales et professionnels. La discussion converge sur l'absence d'une aooroche communicative cohe'rente mktrant l'inculcation d';ne approche plus orient& vers l'utilisateru sugge're'par le "changement de paradigme."

Este estudio enfoca principalmente 10s planteam.ientos de communicacidn utilizados por 10s espertos en desarrollo. De acuerdo con 10s recientes problemas de1 "cambio de paradigma" (paradigm shift), este estudio pregunta si 10s estudiantes raduados (graduate students) extranjeros y norteamericanos ?U.S.) han sido adiestrados en 10s me'todos de communicaci6n alternatives, en lugar do o adem& de1 predominante acercamien to "de arriba hacia abajo" en sus roles de comunicaci6n relacionados con sus octipaciones. A un total de 24 estudiantes graduados extranjeros y 23 estudiantes graduados norteamericanos, provenientes de diferentes departamentos de la Universidad de Washington, se les pidio' describir sus expectativas concemientes a la comunicacidn y al contact0 con grupos pertenecientes a diferentes niveles orofesionales: va sea arriba. debaio o al mismo nivel. Todos 10s estudiantes graduados mostraron &a marcada tendencia a utilizar un aproximamiento "de arriba hacia abajo" en sus contactos con personas de un nivel profesional mas bajoy un aproximamiento alternativo (por ejemplo de abajo a arriba, Se encontraron 0 interaccional) solamente con semejantes. pocas diferencias entre norteamericanos y extranjeros. Las que se hallaron fueron atribuidas a diferencias en las estructuras sociales y de ocupacio'n. La discusi6n fue enfocadaen la falta de un planteamiento coherentede las comunicaciones que muestren el inculcamiento de acercamientos sugeridos por el "cambio de paradigma" y orientados hacia aquel que 10s utiliza.