skip to main content


Search for: All records

Creators/Authors contains: "Porter, Caitlin M."

Note: When clicking on a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) number, you will be taken to an external site maintained by the publisher. Some full text articles may not yet be available without a charge during the embargo (administrative interval).
What is a DOI Number?

Some links on this page may take you to non-federal websites. Their policies may differ from this site.

  1. null (Ed.)
    Substantial research has documented challenges women experience building and benefiting from networks to achieve career success. Yet fundamental questions remain regarding which aspects of men’s and women’s networks differ and how differences impact their careers. To spur future research to address these questions, we present an integrative framework to clarify how and why gender and networks—in concert—may explain career inequality. We delineate two distinct, complementary explanations: (1) unequal network characteristics (UNC) asserts that men and women have different network characteristics, which account for differences in career success; (2) unequal network returns (UNR) asserts that even when men and women have the same network characteristics, they yield different degrees of career success. Further, we explain why UNC and UNR emerge by identifying mechanisms related to professional contexts, actors, and contacts. Using this framework, we review evidence of UNC and UNR for specific network characteristics. We found that men’s and women’s networks are similar in structure (i.e., size, openness, closeness, contacts’ average and structural status) but differ in composition (i.e., proportion of men, same-gender, and kin contacts). Many differences mattered for career success. We identified evidence of UNC only (same-gender contacts), UNR only (actors’ and contacts’ network openness, contacts’ relative status), neither UNC nor UNR (size), and both UNC and UNR (proportion of men contacts). Based on these initial findings, we offer guidance to organizations aiming to address inequality resulting from gender differences in network creation and utilization, and we present a research agenda for scholars to advance these efforts. 
    more » « less
  2. Abstract Background

    As globalization continues to impact the engineering profession, many programs aim to prepare current and future engineers to work across national and cultural boundaries. Yet there remains a lack of quality tools for assessing global competency among engineers and other technical professionals, including their behavioral tendencies in global work situations.

    Purpose

    We introduce development of a situational judgment test (SJT) covering three dimensions of global engineering competency (GEC) in Chinese national/cultural context. The main aim of this article is to describe how the SJT was developed through a systematic multistep process. Secondarily, we explore relationships between SJT performance and other theoretically relevant variables.

    Methods

    After generating a large initial pool of SJT scenarios and behavioral response items, we used ratings from subject matter experts (SMEs) to select six SJT scenarios and create scoring keys for 26 response items. To further explore the instrument's validity, we deployed the SJT items, other relevant measures, and a demographic survey to a sample of practicing engineers (n= 400).

    Results

    SME ratings provide strong evidence for the content relevance of the GEC–SJT tool. Survey results also suggest positive relationships between SJT performance and Chinese cultural knowledge, age, and years of work experience. However, more validity and reliability evidence is needed before recommending wider use of the instrument.

    Conclusions

    Our findings suggest the SJT format as a promising behavior‐based approach to measuring global competency and other professional attributes in engineering. We also discuss directions for future research and training efforts related to assessing and developing global competency.

     
    more » « less