Attitudes Towards Work: A Comparison of Soviet and American Immigrant Scientists in Israel Author(s): Nina Toren Source: Social

Studies of Science, Vol. 13, No. 2 (May, 1983), pp. 229-253 Published by: Sage Publications, Ltd. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/284591 . Accessed: 03/06/2011 03:21
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sageltd. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Sage Publications, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Studies of Science.

http://www.jstor.org

* ABSTRACT
This study examines the attitudes of scientists of different cultural backgrounds towards work. Two samples of scientists who have recently emigrated to Israel, from the USSR and USA, are investigated. The findings show considerable transnational similarityin respondents' importance rankings of a set of work characteristics pertaining to the professional role per se. However, the meanings that scientists attach to particular work characteristics - namely, the 'opportunity to contribute to society' - are conceived within different frameworks and contexts of meaning by the two national groups. The effect of other contextual factors on work orientation, such as academic degree, discipline, and organizational setting, are also investigated.

Attitudes Towards Work: A Comparison of Soviet and American Immigrant Scientists in Israel
Nina Toren

The orientation of individuals to their work is one of the most extensively studied subjects in the fields of organizational behaviour, sociology of work, and social psychology. Research in this area follows a long tradition based on a number of wellestablished theoretical models and research techniques to define and measure work attitudes. and empirical research on work Conceptual developments attitudes were stimulated mainly by the concern about the negative effects of industrialization and mass-production on workers' wellbeing. The principal purpose was to identify job factors which inSocial Studies of Science (SAGE, London, Beverly Hillsand New Delhi), Vol. 13(1983), 229-53

230

Social Studies of Science

crease individual satisfaction, assuming that work satisfaction enhances the motivation to work and, consequently, productivity and organizational effectiveness. As research evidence accumulated, it became clear that not all people have similar needs, nor do they derive satisfaction from the same job characteristics to the same degree. The differences have been related to a variety of factors, such as individual personality and predisposition, social class and education, position in the organizational structure, subcultural affiliation, and nationality.2 Within the abundant theoretical and empirical literature on job attitudes, the study of scientists' orientation toward their work, and comparative transcultural research on scientists, were largely ignored for what seems to be two fundamental reasons. First, it was generally accepted that scientists are not afflicted by the problems which burden the work-life of other occupational groups, such as routineness, specificity, hierarchical control, lack of meaning, tedium and alienation. By contrast, the scientific role was conceived of as one which enables maximum autonomy, selfactualization, meaningfulness and creativity, and hence engenders strong and total involvement of the individual in his/her work. Second, scientists' work attitudes were not studied crossculturally because it has been traditionally believed that science and the scientific method are culture-free, independent of social context, and universal. Therefore, scientists everywhere speak 'the same language', and their occupational role transcends sociocultural and national boundaries. Thus, the perceptions of scientific work as both intrinsically satisfying and universal account for the lack of comparative research on scientists from the perspectives of job attitudes and work satisfaction. However, both assumptions have been challenged. The image of the happy scientist in the 'ivory tower' pursuing Truth was shaken by the transition of large numbers of scientists from their original, natural milieu in academic institutions to industrial and bureaucratic organizations. This shift in their work context (particularly since World War II) put scientists in a similar position to that of other individuals whose work setting may not satisfy their needs, limits their autonomy, and constrains their capabilities. Indeed, the detrimental effects could be more severe for scientists whose professional training teaches them to aspire for job characteristics which are not readily available in nonacademic work situations.

Toren: Attitudes of Soviet and US Scientists

231

The notion of culture-free, universal science was also challenged - in particular from the perspective of the sociology of science, which emphasizes the interdependence between the cognitive content and stage of development of scientific knowledge and its social and normative environment. 3Moreover, scientific knowledge itself is being regarded by a growing number of analysts not as 'something out there' to be discovered, but rather as socially produced and constructed.4 The influence of external and contextual factors is inevitable, though their effects are not always recognized, as picturesquely put by Holton: '... the scientist, perhaps unknowingly, smuggles the style, motivation, and the commitment of his individual system, and that of his society into his supposedly neutral, value-indifferent luggage'.5 Even without considering the epistemological debate, it is suggested that significant aspects of science - such as the value attached to scientific research, its organization, and application, and the role perceptions of its practitioners - are culture-bound and socially variable.6 From the wide range of factors which may affect work orientation, the present study is concerned with the influence of cultural background on scientists' job attitudes. The main question addressed is whether national origin, or cultural heritage, will be reflected in scientists' work attitudes, and if so, in what respects? There are also some practical implications to this question. According to the conception of the uniformity and universality of science, scientists can move from one country to another 'with great ease...taking their most portable of trades with them'.7 If however, scientists of different cultural, national origin differ in their role perceptions and work attitudes, then although their trade is transferable, a process of readjustment or resocialization will be necessary for the international migrant. Newcomers will be faced with the need to learn the 'rules of the game' of their new environment and to interpret and reconstruct the value and meaning of work and job characteristics.

Background The present study was motivated by a unique event and conducted in a particular context. The sudden tide of immigration of Soviet scientists into Israel in the early 1970s, and the constant trickle of American scientists to this country, provided an excellent oppor-

232

Social Studies of Science

tunity for a comparative cross-national study of scientists' work attitudes. The Soviet and United States immigrant scientists studied here should not be viewed as representing, in the strict sense of the word, the populations of scientists in their countries of origin. The feature that sets them apart is the fact that they are all Jewish scientists who decided to leave their countries and move to Israel. Most of them were motivated to do so not for professional-occupational reasons, but for patriotic, political, religious, or personal and family reasons. It is possible that these underlying characteristics and motives have a mitigating effect on the expected distinct role perceptions of the two national groups. Nevertheless, it is proposed that these scientists have been socialized, trained, and gained experience in two different social systems, in terms of social values, political authority and organizational structures, and that these will be reflected in their world view in general and their work attitudes in particular. At the same time, the scientific enterprises of both countries have similar characteristics regarding magnitude (namely, Big Science), complexity, and level of sophistication that enable meaningful comparisons between the orientations of their scientists.

Work Attitudes and Cultural Context Notwithstanding the increasing number of historical and sociological studies of Soviet science (see for example, a review of seven new books on the subject in a recent issue of Social Studies of Science),8 we know very little from systematic survey research on Soviet scientists' job attitudes and work satisfaction. The Harvard Project conducted in the early 1950s, revealed certain similarities between attitudes of various occupational groups in the United States and the USSR. 9In both countries job satisfaction was higher among professional and managerial personnel, and lower as one descends the occupational ladder. Furthermore, in both countries the higher occupational groups evaluated as most important the intrinsic qualities of the job and the opportunities for self-expression, whereas the lower occupational groups emphasized pay and security. A more recent study of Soviet work attitudes found that substantive interest in one's work (variety, possibility of

Toren: Attitudes of Soviet and US Scientists

233

making use of one's aptitudes and knowledge) ranked in first place in the hierarchy of motives of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with one's job among Soviet workers, while under conditions of capitalist production these motives played a secondary role behind such factors as confidence in job stability (that is, a guarantee against unemployment) and the level of wages. 10The findings of this Soviet study support the Harvard Project conclusions insofar as the proportion of those satisfied with their jobs increases significantly as we ascend the occupational scale from low-skilled workers to higher level specialists (20 percent and 62 percent respectively). The study was actually conducted in 1963 on a large sample of young industrial workers in and around Leningrad, and was reviewed by Herzberg in a paper in 1965. 1 He suggests that asking the same questions of a comparable population in the USA would probably result in the same type of response distribution regarding job attitudes and satisfaction. The conclusion that Soviet workers value the intrinsic characteristics of a job more, while Americans stress security and pay, he attributes to the Soviet investigators' lack of familiarity with the current American literature on work attitudes. This would also explain the omission of 'work' from a list of meaningful human values that people adhere to in the USA. 12 Another interesting finding of the Soviet study reported in Herzberg's paper, but not in the later Iadov and Kissel version, pertains to the 'social value of labour'. The distribution of responses was as follows: 15 percent said that - 'Any job is good if it is well paid'; 23 percent - 'A job is good if you are being really useful, if you are needed'; 31 percent - 'You can't forget about what you earn, but the main thing is the sense of the job, its usefulness to society'; and 31 percent said that - 'Wage is what counts, but one should also think of the value of labour'. 13In sum, a total of 85 percent of this sample responded positively to statements which emphasize or mention the usefulness and value of their work to society as a source of personal satisfaction. It should be recalled that the above findings are based on investigations of production workers at various skill levels, and not on scientists or professionals. The Soviet authors, nevertheless, cite a study by S.A. Kugel which reports that mass surveys on 'scientific workers' in the USSR reveal that only 10-12 percent are dissatisfied with their choice of occupation while more than half identify with it very strongly. The investigators' explanation of these findings is that work satisfaction and involvement are a function of the

234

Social Studies of Science

richness of work content and the creative opportunities that the job offers to the individual. This interpretation is based on the (early) Marxian conception that human work is the activity through which an individual realizes his/her unique productive capacities and hence enjoys a meaningful and fulfilling life. Work which is merely a means for existence and does not provide the opportunity for creativity and self-realization is alienating labour. 14 However, work is obviously the principal force for industrial growth and development and the well being of the people. Accordingly, Soviet ideology ascribes two core functions to work - the achievement of social and economic progress, and the formation and development of the individual personality. The potential dilemma of occupational roles is thus resolved by merging individual needs of self-actualization and achievement, with the need to contribute to the progress and welfare of the whole society. Since scientific research usually does not produce immediate material wealth or a useable technology, its standing as a 'productive force' for social and economic progress was problematic and not easily incorporated into official Sovict ideology.15 But, in general, the twin goals of work have been applied to scientific activity as well, so that '... its contribution comes to focus on social well-being and on the development of the well rounded human personality.' 6This sense is eloquently stated by a Soviet physicist who recently emigrated to Israel: 'An intellectual's profession is often not just a means of livelihood but the only source of spiritual satisfaction and the only road to genuine culture... The Soviet Jews will feel needed in Israel only if our labour will be used productively.' 17 The value system governing orientations towards work in American society is less uniform and formalized, but generally, the roots of American work ideology can be traced to the Protestant Ethic. This, together with Social Darwinism, has formed the fundamental ethos which generated the intense preoccupation with personal achievement and success as the ultimate goals of work. On the assumption that work attitudes are influenced, through socialization and experience, by the dominant values and institutional structures of wider social frameworks, it is hypothesized that immigrant scientists from the Soviet Union will value the collectivist and expressive elements of their work as more important, whereas Americans will have a more individualistic and task-oriented approach.

Toren: Attitudes of Soviet and US Scientists Method The Sample

235

The data reported in this study are part of a larger research project The sample included 298 scienon immigrant scientists in Israel. 18 tists who emigrated to Israel in the early 1970s, mostly during 1973-74. Seventy percent of respondents came from the USSR (N = 207), and thirty percent from the US, including a few from Western Europe (N = 91). The sample was stratified by country of origin and randomly drawn from the files of the Center for Absorption in Science where all immigrant scientists in Israel are registered. It is composed of natural scientists and engineers, including chemists, physicists, biologists and mathematicians (the humanities and social sciences were not included). At the time of data collection, 52 percent of the sample were employed in universities and 48 percent in non-academic institutions, mainly in government-financed research institutes and research laboratories of industrial firms. About 70 percent of the sample hold a PhD or equivalent degree (the Soviet Kandidat of Science or the higher degree of Doctor of Sciences), and one-third have an MSc degree or a diploma in engineering. Respondents were personally interviewed using a detailed questionnaire containing standardized questions.

Measures In light of the basic collectivist-individualist dichotomy of work values and previous research, it seems appropriate to classify work attitudes along a 'frame of reference' continuum as follows: (a) orientation toward self (individualist); (b) orientation to more inclusive frames of reference, e.g. society (collectivist); (c) orientation to science (professional). 19 Scientists' orientations were investigated by assessing the degree of importance that they attach to different elements of their work. Respondents were asked to rank order the importance of ten work characteristics for their general work satisfaction along a four point scale ranging from 'very important' (scored as 1) to 'not important' (scored as 4). The items were adopted with some modifications

236

Social Studies of Science

from a list of such factors used by Pelz and Andrews. 20 The question presented to the sample of scientists and the list of factors were as follows:
'What is the degree of importance of each of the following factors in determining your general work satisfaction?' 1. To have a good salary and advance financially. 2. To advance in the organization's hierarchy. 3. To contribute to basic scientific knowledge. 4. To have freedom to choose my research and development tasks. 5. To have contact with colleagues of high scientific competence. 6. To have good working conditions. 7. To influence the policy of the organization. 8. To contribute to the society in which I live. 9. To gain recognition from colleagues outside the organization. 10. To make full use of my professional knowledge and skills.

The objective of the analysis is two-fold. First, we examine whether immigrant Soviet and American scientists differ in the importance they attach to these job characteristics for work satisfaction, and assess whether these differences reflect the more general socio-cultural variations of their respective societies. Second, we discern whether there are differences between the national groups in the perceived meaning of various work characteristics.

Findings Table 1 presents the rank order of the ten job factors, the mean scores of importance and standard deviations, and the differences between means and their levels of significance, by national origin. There are several interesting findings which emerge from the table: a. The ranking of job characteristics is very similar, though not identical, for both the Russian and the American scientists. For six out of ten items the rank order is the same. b. The extremes of the scales are identical in both groups: 'to make use of skills and knowledge' is rated most important (rank 1), while 'influencing the organization's policy' is the least important (rank 10), for work satisfaction. c. Even though the rankings are similar, American scientists assign higher degrees of importance (lower means) than the Russians to all items but two.

TABLE 1 Perceived Importance of Job Factors for General Work Satisfaction, by

Factor No.

Factor Description Rank Order

'Soviet Scientists (N = 203) Mean 2.22 2.43 1.80 1.94 1.73 1.69 2.79 1.82 2.16 1.39 SD 0.68 0.73 0.66 0.70 0.69 0.68 0.93 0.74 0.72 0.51

Amer Rank Order 8 7 4 5 3 2 10 6 9 1

1.

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Salary Advancement Contribution to science Autonomy Contact Working conditions Influence Contribution to society Recognition Skills

8 9 4 6 3 2 10 5 7 1

Note: The lower the mean the greater the perceived importance of the relevant job factor. *p< 0.05
** p< 0.001

238

Social Studies of Science

d. All standard deviations (except for item 7) are substantially higher in the American group, denoting more dispersion (variation) of the scores, while the Russian ratings are limited to a narrower range, and are thus more homogeneous. e. Nevertheless, in both groups the greatest variance is associated with the least important job characteristic (influence), whereas the smallest variance, or greatest consensus, is related to the most important work characteristics (use of skills). To assess whether the observed differences in means between national groups are statistically significant, t-tests were run. The results show that the Russian and American scientists differ significantly in their valuation of three work characteristics: influence on organizational policy, advancement in organizational hierarchy, and autonomy. It is interesting to note that while the rank order of 'influence on organization's policy' is identical in both groups, the difference between their means is nevertheless highly significant, with the Russians assigning less importance to this factor for work satisfaction than the American scientists. Opportunities for advancement (career interest) are also significantly less valued by Russians, and so is autonomy - a scientist's freedom to choose his/her own research tasks. 2 All other differences between means are not significant, indicating a great deal of similarity across the two national groups. Let us consider, at this point, the two extremes of the job characteristics scale. Respondents attribute by far the highest degree of importance to whether their work offers them the opportunity to use their potential to the fullest degree (skills); this is independent of national background, a finding consistent with the conclusions of several studies which found that extensive application of skills and knowledge are of crucial importance to scientists. It also shows that scientists emphasize psychological needs (selfactualization) and derive great satisfaction from intrinsic sources - that is, from the feeling of being competent and selfdetermining. The opportunity to apply one's capabilities and competence is particularly important in situations or contexts in which scientists are not completely integrated, and therefore feel the need to profess their special expertise. Apparently, the situation created by migration constitutes a similar threat to the identity and self-image of scientists, and accounts for the strong emphasis on the opportunity

Toren: Attitudes of Soviet and US Scientists

239

to apply expert knowledge and skills. This is particularly pertinent for Soviet immigrant scientists whose training and experience are not automatically granted formal and informal recognition, and who frequently complain that their knowledge and skills are not adequately appreciated. But it seems that Americans too, feel the need to re-establish their professional position, reputation, and contacts in the new environment. The work characteristic which is assigned the lowest rank of importance by both national groups is that of 'influence on the organization's policy'. This finding is in line with studies which have shown that scientists are usually detached from organizational power and decision-making either by their own choice or by others - for example, the administrative staff in universities, management in industry, and the higher echelons of government
bureaucracy.22

The work aspects in which Soviet and American scientists differ significantly pertain to the individual's status (item 2), power (item 7), and autonomy (item 4). These factors are valued significantly more highly by American scientists, supporting the hypothesis that Americans will adhere to a more individualist work orientation (reference to 'self') than their Soviet colleagues. (Surprisingly, no significant difference was found with respect to 'salary' - item 1.) The results, however, did not demonstrate that the Russians emphasize collectivist elements more - namely, 'the opportunity to contribute to the society in which I live.' The Meaning of Work Characteristics The lack of evidence to support the proposition that Soviet scientists emphasize the collective aspects of their work more than do the Americans, led to further analysis. The purpose was to look beyond the importance ratings of work factors and attempt to discern, as some have argued, different meanings that individuals attach to these characteristics.23One way to discover these meanings is through examination of the intercorrelations among the ratings of job factors; that is, we can infer the meaning of a particular item from the items with which it correlates. Since in the present study two populations (national groups) are investigated, we must compare the two correlation matrices to determine whether the clustering of work characteristics indicates differences

240

Social Studies of Science

in perceived meaning between Soviet and American scientists. Table 2 presents the data.
TABLE 2 Correlation Matrix Among Ratings of Importance of Job Factors (Monotone Coefficients)a

Factor 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Salary Advancement Contribution to science Autonomy Contact Working conditions Influence Contribution to society Recognition Skills

9 10 67 67 86 72 64 95 34 73 41 -

70 58 16 18 44 15 00 05 12 07 17 24 -22 -09 35 -02 24 10

22 14 25 -27 75 75 31 30 44 29 15 -06 14 47 42 35 52 62

24 12 30 00 40 75 54 40 58 44 23 -37 48 -04 51 23 34 36

17 19 36 25 28 19 19 -12 38 45 -04 34 4039 59 -08 80 -03 - 23 28 41 18 30 25 -01 18 - 12

Note: Correlations for American scientists are above the diagonal; those for Soviet scientists are below the diagonal. Decimal points are omitted. a. Guttman's weak monotonicity coefficient u2 was used as the measure of correlation. This coefficient indicates the extent to which values of one item increase (or decrease) monotonically with increase in another item, without reference to any particular regression line. Being regression-free, monotone coefficients are appropriate for nonmetric analysis.

Differences between populations are not always reflected in distribution shape, but often in the structure of correlations among variables. In such a case one should compare the complete correlation matrices of the variables, rather than focus on discrete pairs of coefficients. To do so, the correlation matrices were analyzed using Smallest Space Analysis (SSA-I computer program), a nonmetric multidimensional technique for structural analysis of similarity data.24 This technique provides a geometric presentation of the intercorrelations among variables (importance of work characteristics in the present context) as points in a Euclidean space. The distance between points is inversely related to the correlation coefficients between variables - that is, the higher the correlation between two items the closer they are in space. This condition holds

Toren: Attitudes of Soviet and US Scientists

241

for all possible pairs of variables simultaneously and the resulting map provides a total picture of the multiple interactions among variables. Accordingly, different plottings of points in the geometric configurations indicate differences between the populations observed. 25 The SSA plots show the mapping of the intercorrelations among the ten job factors for Soviet scientists in Figure 1, and for American scientists in Figure 2. The coefficients of alienation (COA) are 0.07 and 0.06, respectively, which indicates that these two dimensional maps produced a very good fit between the original correlations and the geometrical display (the relative distances among points).26
FIGURE 1 The Structure of Perceived Importance of Job Factors for Soviet Scientists (N = 203)

CONTRIBUTION TO SOCIETY

INFLUENCE

CONTACT

RECOGNITION CONTRIBUTION TO SCIENCE

AUTONOMY SKILLS SALARY * S

WORKING
CONDITIONS

ADVANCEMENT *

242

Social Studies of Science

FIGURE 2 The Structure of Perceived Importance of Job Factors for American Scientists (N = 89)

INFLUENCE

CONTACT

RECOGNITION CONTRIBUTION TO SOCIETY UTONOMY 0A ?

SKILLS *

CONTRIBUTION TO SCIENCE

WORKING CONDITIONS .

ADVANCEMENT .

SALARY *

The most notable finding is the remarkable similarity (with one exception) between the configuration of points representing work characteristics in both maps. This structural similarity is evident independent of any particular partitioning of the space. Each map however, can be partitioned into three ordered regions. At the left side of each map we can see the region including rewards and resources - money, status, and power (using Weber's typology) pertaining to the individual. Advancing clockwise we see the 'social' region referring to interpersonal relations - communication with other scientists and recognition by colleagues. Finally, there is the 'professional' region consisting of those job factors associated with scientific activity itself, including use of knowledge

Toren: Attitudes of Soviet and US Scientists

243

and skills, autonomy, and contribution to science. The only structural dissimilarity between the two maps is the location of the point representing the importance of the opportunity to contribute to society for scientists' general job satisfaction (item 8). As shown in Table 1, there is no significant difference regarding the degree of importance attached to this factor by Soviet and American scientists based on the mean scores for each group. In the spatial representation, nevertheless, this variable is plotted in different regions of the respective maps. Contribution to society is located in the 'social' region for Soviet scientists and in the 'professional' region for Americans. Put another way, contributing to society is relatively strongly correlated for Soviet scientists with other social elements (contact and recognition), whereas in the American group this factor is correlated with the professional, scientific aspects of work (such as use of skills, extension of scientific knowledge, and autonomy). This analysis provides added insight about work characteristics by revealing the different contexts of meaning within which various items are perceived by respondents in general, and by each national group in particular. Thus it is not the average importance and rank of contribution to society which differentiates Soviet and American scientists; rather, the essential distinction lies in the different meanings of this aspect. Soviet scientists view the opportunity to contribute through their work to the broader society as a social activity and goal, interrelated with recognition, communication and cooperation with colleagues. Americans, on the other hand, view it as part of their professional work, associated with the professional dimensions of the scientific role per se. These different connotations of contribution to society are further supported by (i) the significantly lower importance attached to organizational advancement and influence by the Soviet as compared with the American scientists (Table 1), and (ii) the negative correlation between contribution to society and financial rewards (salary) in the Soviet sample (-0.22), in contrast to the positive correlation (0.19) in the American case (Table 2). The SSA diagrams also shed light on the unique meaning attached by scientists to other work characteristics. It is particularly noteworthy that 'working conditions' is perceived as a professional aspect, a resource for role performance (it is plotted in the 'professional' region of the maps). This factor is usually included in the categories of 'physical conditions' or 'financial benefits' in studies

244

Social Studies of Science

on work attitudes and satisfaction. The present analysis shows that for scientists, independent of national origin, working conditions are associated with the professional dimension of work (skills, autonomy, scientific knowledge), and apparently refer to conditions which are conducive to creative scientific research, such as equipment, expert manpower, information, and organizational structure. In sum, the analysis shows considerable transnational invariance in the valuation of work characteristics of Russian and American immigrant scientists. Nevertheless, the one work characteristic which distinguishes between the two groups in terms of meaning, but not in ranking, demonstrates the effect of broad value systems on role perceptions and work attitudes (reflecting the cultural variations delineated above). As noted, the dominant work ideology in the USSR emphasizes the duty of individuals to serve the needs of society and contribute to its growth and progress, whereas in the United States individual goals and achievements are much more pronounced. These findings show that scientists' valuation of work factors which pertain to the scientific role proper is similar across cultural or national boundaries, while the perceptions of the linkages between this role and wider social frameworks vary according to sociocultural background. These different conceptions may also be detected in the ways in which immigrant scientists describe their difficulties in adjusting to their occupational role in Israel. For instance, those from the Soviet Union typically complain that they cannot materialize their aspirations to do 'useful work' or 'to help build the country'. Americans, on the other hand, are frustrated mainly by not being able to apply their ideas to scientific research and development; they attach more importance to the quality of work itself than to its utility, and to the availability of adequate opportunities and resources 'to do a good job'. The Effect of Work Context, Academic Degree, and Type of Profession on Work Orientation The scientists in this study are differentiated in a number of ways in addition to national origin. As mentioned earlier, the sample in-

Toren: Attitudes of Soviet and US Scientists

245

cluded natural scientists and engineers, PhDs and MScs, and scientists working in academic and non-academic institutions. Each of these variables (type of profession, academic degree, and work context) may influence scientists' attitudes to work - that is, the degree of importance that they attach to various job characteristics. The extent to which these factors have an impact on scientists' role orientation will be assessed in this section. The incompatibility of professional-scientific values and orgnaizational-managerial values has been frequently discussed in the literature. Consequently, several authors have attempted to determine the relative impact of professional and organizational socialization on professionals' work orientations.27 Professional socialization, in this context, has two main dimensions - type of educational training (distinguishing between scientists and engineers), and length of training (distinguishing between PhDs and non-PhDs). Organizational contexts are classified into academic (or basic research units) and non-academic (industry and government) settings. In general, PhDs in science working in academic contexts will have a stronger professional orientation ('cosmopolitan') than non-PhDs and engineers working in bureaucratic organizations. To assess whether the variance found in work attitudes is due to national background or to one or more other factors, we can examine the effect of the four independent variables - profession (scientist/engineer); length of training, indexed by academic degree (PhD/MSc); work context (academic/non-academic); and origin (Russian/American) - on work orientation (the dependent variable). Since we are dealing with four dicothomous variables there are sixteen possible combinations or profiles of the independent variables; however, not all combinations exist in our study populations. The dependent variable, work attitude, is classified according to the clusters (regions) of job characteristics created by the SSA analysis into 'individual', 'social', and 'professional' work orientations. The factor of the 'opportunity to contribute to society' is treated separately because it appeared in different regions of the maps of Soviet and American scientists. When the independent variables are categorical, we use dummy variables in the multiple regression analysis estimating their impact. 28The results of the regression of the profiles formed by the dummy variables on the types of work orientation are shown in Table 3.

246

Social Studies of Science

TABLE 3 Multiple Regression Analysis of Independent Dummy Variables on Work Orientation (N = 298)

Individual Independent Variables Profiles UNSP RNSM UNEP RNEM RNEP UNSM UASP RAEP RNSP RASP RAEM RASM UAEM B 3.99 4.62 5.77 6.00 6.76 6.93 8.03 8.37 10.73 11.76 12.12 15.87 27.71

Work Orientation Social Professional Profiles RNSP UASP RNSM UNEP RASP RNEP UAEP UNSP RAEP RAEM RASM UNSM UAEM RNEM B 1.00 2.90 3.25 3.50 3.50 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.30 4.35 5.00 7.00 8.00 Profiles UAEP RAEP UASP RNSP RAEM RNEP UNSP RASM RNSM RASP RNEM UNSM UAEM B 2.50 4.17 5.10 5.20 5.67 6.69 6.91 8.83 8.99 9.47 15.79 23.99 53.99

Contribution to society Profiles UNSP UAEP UNEP RAEM RNSP RNSM RAEP RASM RNEP RASP UASP UNSM RNEM UNEM UAEM B 1.39 1.50 1.50 1.67 1.67 1.80 1.84 1.88 1.94 1.98 2.00 2.00 2.08 2.34 3.00

R2=0.310 F=4.424 P = 0.000

R2=0.196 F=2.418 P = 0.006

R2=0.275 F=3.755 P = 0.000

R2 =0.075 F=0.947 P = 0.510

Key: Origin: U=USA, R=Russia; Work setting: A=Academic, P = PhD, M = Master; Profession: S = Scientist, E = Engineer.

N=Non-Academic;

Academic degree:

Note: The ordering variable in each type of orientation is printed in italics. Bis the unstandardized regression coefficient. R is the percent of variance in work orientations accounted for by the independent variables' profiles.

The profiled groups are rank ordered according to mean values, with the highest group attributing the greatest, and the lowest group the smallest, degree of importance to the work orientation in question.29 We can see that in each type of work orientation (individual, social, professional), one independent variable is mainly responsible for the ordering of the independent variables' profiles. The individualistic work orientation, composed of the degrees of importance attributed to salary, advancement, and influence on organizational policy as sources of work satisfaction, is rank ordered according to the work context in which scientists are employed. Thus, respondents working in non-academic settings (N), such as government ministries and industrial research laboratories, value individual job characteristics more than those working in academia (A) - namely, universities and university research units.

Toren: Attitudes of Soviet and US Scientists

247

Recall that two items of the individual cluster (advancement and influence) were found to differ significantly by national origin (Table 1). This still obtains according to the regression analysis, which shows that most groups including Soviet scientists (R) are located on the lower echelons of the scale. Nevertheless, work context (academic versus non-academic) is the variable which orders the individual orientation most systematically. The ordering of the social work orientation (the importance of recognition and contact for job satisfaction) is generated by the length of professional training as indicated by the level of academic degree (P and M), with one exception. This applies also to the professional orientation (importance of autonomy, use of skills, contribution to science, and working conditions), which is ordered by academic degree, with two exceptions. (Note that type of profession - being a scientist or an engineer - does not serve as an ordering principle in any of the categories of work orientation.) The percentage of variance explained by the profiles of the independent variables is statistically significant in each of the three work orientations (as shown by the probability of the F ratio). Put another way, knowing a scientist's profile of characteristics, we can predict his location on the scales of work attitudes. The most interesting results pertain to the relationships between the independent variables and the importance attached to contribution to society. This factor is the only one which is located differently in the maps of the two national groups; it is correlated with professional work aspects in the American group and with social aspects in the Soviet group. The results of the multiple regression analysis show that none of the independent dummy variables serves as the ordering principle of the importance of contribution to society from more to less. A closer look, however, shows that national origin (denoted by U and R) follows a curvilinear pattern. American scientists are located at both ends of the scale, whereas the Russians are cdncentrated in the middle ranges. In other words, the importance that Americans attach to contribution to society is either high or low; the Russians rate it medium in importance. These results confirm and clarify the previous findings which showed that the general mean scores of importance of this characteristic are similar in both national groups (Russians x = 1.82, Americans x = 1.85: see Table 1). The findings also support the interpretation that the difference between Russian and American scientists with respect to 'contribu-

248

Social Studies of Science

tion to society' lies in the distinct contexts of meaning in which this item is perceived, rather than in its importance ranking. As seen in Table 3, those American scientists who attribute highest importance to contribution to society are all PhDs; those lowest on this scale are non-PhDs (three out of four groups). This conjunction of national origin with length of scientific training in the case of the Americans supports the finding (shown in Figure 2) that they regard contribution to society as a professional dimension of their work. By comparison, the Soviet scientists perceive this aspect within the social context, relatively far removed from the professional items (see Figure 1), and hence unrelated to level of academic degree. In sum, the multiple regression analysis with dummy variables shows that the dominant ordering variable of the individualist orientation is type of work context, with those working in nonacademic settings valuing individual aspects more than those in academic settings. The level of academic degree generates the order of importance of the social as well as the professional work factors. Scientists with a full-fledged scientific training attach more importance to both kinds of characteristics than scientists with incomplete professional socialization. The opportunity to contribute to society, which has different meanings for Soviet and American scientists, is not ordered by any of the independent variables examined, at least not linearly. A curvilinear relationship emerges in which Soviet scientists occupy the middle range of the importance scale, and Americans the extreme high and low ranks. Conclusion This study addressed itself to the question of whether different national backgrounds will be reflected in scientists' work orientations, or whether the scientific community is insulated from external influence so that differences in socio-cultural milieux can be disregarded. More specifically, will scientists who have recently emigrated to Israel from the Soviet Union value work characteristics differently from those who came from the United States? This question may have important practical implications because an individual's attitude toward work affects his/her performance and, in case of immigration, both his/her response and ability to adjust to a new scientific environment.

Toren: Attitudes of Soviet and US Scientists

249

The present findings can be presented in two ways. On the one hand, they can be seen as indicating a great deal of invariance across the two national groups - but this invariance should not obscure the pertinent differences that have been found. Alternatively, one could say that they show some specific national differences, but, overall, a great similarity in the evaluation of job factors between Soviet and American scientists. Whether you stress the similarities or the differences depends on your point of view. In spite of distinct work values and research organization in the two countries of origin, and the respondents' differences in professional socialization and experience, the evidence shows a considerable similarity between the valuation of work characteristics by Soviet and American immigrant scientists. For instance, there seems to be no question that 'the full use of knowledge and skills' is for both groups a major source of job satisfaction; conversely, the feeling that their potential is not fully used, or misused, causes dissatisfaction, frustration, and probably a deterioration of scientists' output. Significant differences in the degree of importance were found in respect to three items - influence, advancement, and autonomy with American scientists assigning higher values to these characteristics than the Russians. These results substantiate the proposition that American scientists will stress individual work aspects more than Soviet scientists. The findings, however, did not support the initial contention that Soviet scientists value items of a collectivist nature, such as contribution to society, significantly higher than the Americans. As for possible culture-specific meanings of work characteristics the analysis showed a stable structure of the perceived importance of job characteristics across cultures, with one interesting exception: the contribution to society is closely associated with social factors for Soviet scientists and with professional characteristics for American scientists. These findings suggest that although the two national groups attach identical degrees of importance to contribution to society, they view it within different frames of reference and contexts of meaning. It could be argued that this similarity in work orientations of the scientists studied here is due to the particular nature of the sample - namely, that all respondents are Jews who emigrated to Israel. This does not seem plausible, however, since the differences in the valuation of organizational advancement and influence, as well as

250

Social Studies of Science

the different perceptions of contribution to society, fit the distinct value systems and social structures of the two countries of origin. These distinctions would have been obliterated if the sample's composition were peculiar. By the_same token, the similarity of attitudes pertaining to the professional characteristics per se, is explained by scientific socialization and the nature of the scientific role, rather than by other features or motives of respondents. This reminds one of the conclusion reached by Inkeles and Bauer, that '... on most questions, knowing his relative position in a modern large scale industrial social structure seemed more useful in understanding the attitudes of a Soviet worker or manager than knowing his party history or his ethnic membership'.30Although scientists' valuation of professional-scientific characteristics of their role may transcend cultural and national boundaries, the conception of the relationship between this role and the broader social system is particularly shaped by the cultural and social environments within which scientists have been socialized and gained experience. At the same time, more cross-cultural studies of this kind may reveal other, or additional, significant variations of meaning that scientists attribute to work characteristics.

* NOTES
I would like to acknowledge the devoted help of Orit Lucksman with the data analysis. I am also indebted to two Collaborating Editors of Social Studies of Science - Daniel Sullivan and Daryl Chubin - and to two anonymous reviewers, for their constructive criticism and suggestions. 1. A. Maslow, Motivation and Personality (New York: Harper and Row, 2nd edn, 1970); F. Herzberg, B. Mausner and B.C. Snyderman, The Motivation to Work (New York: Wiley, 2nd edn, 1959); R.J. Hackman and G.R. Oldham, 'Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey', Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 60 (1975), 159-70. 2. See, for example, C. Argyris, Personality and Organization (New York: Harper & Bros, 1957); M.L. Kohn, Class and Conformity: A Study in Values (Homewood, Ill.: Dorsey, 1969); J.H. Goldthorpe, D. Lockwood, F. Bechhofer and J. Platt, The Affluent Worker in the Class Structure (London: Cambridge Universi-

Toren: Attitudes of Soviet and US Scientists

251

ty Press, 1969); C.L. Hulin and M.R. Blood, 'Job Enlargement, Individual Differences, and Worker Responses', Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 69 (1968), 41-55; S. Ronen, 'Cross-National Study of Employees' Work Goals', International Review of Applied Psychology, Vol. 28 (1979), 1-12; Y. Samuel and N. Lewin-Epstein, 'The Occupational Situs as a Predictor of Work Values', American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 85 (1979), 625-39. 3. D. Crane, Invisible Colleges (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1972); J. Gaston, Originality and Competition in Science (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1973); D.O. Edge and M.J. Mulkay, Astronomy Transformed: The Emergence of Radio Astronomy in Britain (New York: Wiley, 1976); R.D. Whitley, 'The Sociology of Scientific Work and the History of Scientific Developments', in S.S. Blume (ed.), Perspectives in the Sociology of Science (Chichester, Sussex: Wiley, 1977), 21-50. 4. For example, E. Mendelsohn, 'The Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge', in R. Whitley (ed.), The Social Production of Scientific Knowledge (Dordrecht and Boston, Mass.: Reidel, 1977), 3-26; R. Bhaskar, A Realist Theory of Science (Brighton, Sussex: Harvester Press, 1978); Y. Elkana, 'Two-Tier Thinking: Philosophical Realism and Historical Relativism', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 8 (1978), 309-26. 5. G. Holton, Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1973), 101. 6. J. Ben-David, The Scientist's Role in Society (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1971). 7. D.J. de Solla Price, 'Measuring the Size of Science', Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Vol. 4 (1969), 98-111, quote at 111. 8. D. Holloway, 'The Politics of Soviet Science and Technology', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 11 (1981), 259-74. 9. A. Inkeles and R.A. Bauer, The Soviet Citizen (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1959). 10. V.A. Iadov and A.A. Kissel, 'Work Satisfaction: An Analysis of Empirical Generalizations and an Attempt at Their Theoretical Interpretation', in M. Yanowitch (ed.), Soviet Work Attitudes (White Plains, NY: Sharpe Inc., 1979), 43-59. 11. F. Herzberg, 'Job Attitudes in the Soviet Union', Personnel Psychology, Vol. 18 (1965), 245-52. 12. M. Rokeach, 'Attitude Change and Behavioral Change', The Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 30 (1967), 529-50. 13. Op. cit. note 11, 248. 14. K. Marx, Early Writings, translated and edited by T.R. Bottomore (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964). 15. See, for example, G.M. Dobrov, 'The Sociology of Science in the USSR', in R.K. Merton and J. Gaston (eds), The Sociology of Science in Europe (Carbondale and Edwardsville, Ill.: Southern Illinois University Press, 1977), 316-34; N. Lampert, The Technical Intelligentsia and the Soviet State (New York: Holmes and Meir Publishers, 1979). 16. V. Milic, 'The Science of Science and the Sociology of Science in European Socialist Countries', in M. Mulkay and V. Milic, 'The Sociology of Science in East and West', Current Sociology, Vol. 28 (1980), 207. 17. A Voronel, 'Aliyah [immigration to Israel] of the Russian Intelligentsia', Midstream, Vol. 22 (1976), 32.

252

Social Studies of Science

18. This research project was supported by the Ministry of Immigrant Absorption in Israel and the Levi Eshkol Institute for Economic, Social, and Political Research, at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. 19. For examples of previous research, see V.L. Bengston, 'Generation and Family Effects in Value Socialization', American Sociological Review, Vol. 40 (1975), 358-71; A.W. Gouldner,'Cosmopolitans and Locals: Toward an Analysis of Social Roles - I', Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 2 (1957), 281-306; D.C. Pelz and F.M. Andrews, Scientists in Organizations (New York: Wiley, 1966); Y. Samuel and N. Lewin-Epstein, op. cit. note 2. Similar classifications of such frames of reference are for example, Gouldner's 'local' and 'cosmopolitan' orientations of professionals, and Pelz and Andrews's 'status', 'profession' and 'science' orientations of scientists and engineers. 20. Pelz and Andrews, ibid., 93; see especially their question 62. 21. See N. Toren, 'Scientific Autonomy East and West: A Comparison of the Perceptions of Soviet and United States Scientists', Human Relations, Vol. 32 (1979), 643-57. 22. For example, F.H. Goldner and R.R. Ritti, 'Professionalization As Career Immobility', American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 72 (1967), 489-502. 23. B. Gruenberg, 'The Happy Worker: An Analysis of Educational and Occupational Differences as Determinants of Job Satisfaction', American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 86 (1980), 247-71; K.J. Russell, 'Variations in Orientation to Work and Job Satisfaction', Sociology of Work and Occupations, Vol. 2 (1975), 299-322. 24. L. Guttman, 'A General Non-Metric Technique for Finding the Smallest Coordinate Space for a Configuration of Points', Psychometrika, Vol. 33 (1968), 461-69; J.C. Lingoes, The Guttman-Lingoes Non-Metric Program Series (Ann Arbor, Mich.: Mathesis Press, 1973). 25. For additional explanation and applications of this technique see, S. Ronen, A.J. Kraut, J.C. Lingoes and N Aranya, 'A Nonmetric Scaling Approach to Taxonomies of Employee Work Motivation', Multivariate Behavioral Research, Vol. 14 (1979), 387-401; Z. Shapira and E. Zevulun, 'On the Use of Facet Analysis in Organizational Behavior Research: Some Conceptual Considerations and an Example', Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 22 (1979), 411-28. 26. The coefficient of alienation (COA) is a measure of goodness of fit - the degree to which the diagram accurately represents the interrelationships of points. The range of this coefficient is from 0 to 1, with 0 denoting a perfect fit. 27. G.A. Miller and W.L. Wager, 'Adult Socialization, Organizational Structure, and Role Orientation', Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 16 (1971), 151-53; J. Scott Long and R. McGinnis, 'Organizational Context and Scientific Productivity', American Sociological Review, Vol. 46 (1981), 422-42; D.E. Chubin, A.L. Porter and M.E. Boeckmann, 'Career Patterns of Scientists: A Case for Complementary Data', American Sociological Review, Vol. 46 (August 1981), 488-96; N. Toren and J. King, 'Scientists' Orientation Toward Their Work: The Relative Impact of Socialization Versus Situation', International Journal of Comparative Sociology, Vol. 23 (1982), 29-38. 28. A dummy variable is a vector in which members belonging to a given group are assigned an arbitrary number, while all others not belonging to this category are assigned another number; for example, when the variable is sex, 1 is assigned to males and 0 to females. See F.N. Kerlinger and E.J. Pedhazur, Multiple Regression in Behavioral Research (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1973).

Toren: Attitudes of Soviet and US Scientists

253

29. The mean scores are obtained by adding the unstandardized regression coefficient B of each group to that of the group chosen as a reference category, or constant. The absolute magnitudes of this coefficient have no numerical meaning as such, but enable us to rank the groups according to the relative importance attributed to clusters of job factors. 30. Op. cit. note 9, quoted in A. Inkeles, Social Change in Soviet Russia (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1968), 419.

Nina Toren is a senior lecturer in OrganizationalTheory and Behavior at the School of Business Administration, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel. She is the author of Social Work: The Case of A Semi-Profession (Sage, 1972), and has contributed a chapter to A. Etzioni's The Semi-Professions and their Organization (Free Press, 1969). She has also written a number of articles on professionals and scientists in organizations. Her current research concerns performance and careers of women scientists in academia. Author's address: School of Business Administration, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel.