Chapter Overview
This chapter contains the statistical analysis results of the questionnaires to answer each of the research questions. In the beginning, respondents’ characteristics are introduced. The research questions are answered by several sections including the characteristics of career success orientation of participants, age groups and career success orientation, gender and career success orientation, martial status and career success orientation, personality and career success orientation, and benefit from TaiwanICDF higher education scholarship program.
Respondents’ Characteristics
The participants in this study were graduates who received the scholarship from TaiwanICDF and studied in Taiwan. A total of 156 participants were invited to participate. A total of 88 participants actually participated in the study (57% response rate). The frequency of the respondents’ characteristics is shown in Table 4.1. In this study, all participants were divided into three age groups (20-29years old, 30-39years old, and 40years old and above). More than half participants were 30-39years old (54.5%), and participants of 40years and above (17%) were the least. As to gender, there were 64 male participants (72.7%), and female participants were only 24 (27.3%). About participants’ martial status, more half participants were married (51, 58%). Finally, 62 participants come from Central and South America (70.4%).
Table 4.1.
Frequency and percentage of characteristics for each respondent (n=88)
Frequency Percentage (%)
Characteristics of Participants’ Career Success Orientations
The characteristics of participants’ career success orientations were investigated in two ways. First, the researcher compared the mean scores and standard deviations for all items for each career success orientation, as shown in Table 4.2. The mean score of Getting Ahead was the highest. Next, the descending order of the mean scores was Getting High, Getting Balanced, Getting Free and last, Getting Secure.
This result shows that the respondents primarily pursue higher positions and income in their areas of interests. Autonomy at work or obtaining job security were less important than higher positions or income.
Table 4.2
Means and standard deviations of career success orientations of all respondents (n=88)
Note: GF=Getting Free, GA=Getting Ahead, GB=Getting Balanced, GS=Getting Secure, GH= Getting High
Second, the researcher identified the dominant career success orientation, as shown in Table 4.3. The highest mean score was assumed to be the dominant career success orientation. For instance, a respondent whose highest mean score was Getting Ahead was categorized as a Getting Ahead type. The dominant career success orientation was identifiable 80 of 88 respondents. 8 respondents had two or more peak scores, therefore no single dominant type was identified for them. Each respondent’s orientation type, the relative frequency, and the percentages of the five types were calculated. The most commonly held orientations were Getting Ahead (30.7%). The majority of respondents defined hierarchical success as their career success. The next common was Getting High (21.6%) and Getting Balanced (20.5%). Getting Secure was minimal, showing that few respondents defined long-term job stability as their career success.
Table 4.3.
Frequency and percentage of dominant career success orientations for each respondent (n=80)
Career Success Orientation on Age Groups
A series of ANOVAs was conducted to answer this research question. Age range was used as the independent variable to determine whether significant differences existed in the career success orientation across the respondents of different age ranges. The age range was divided into three items (1=20-20 years old; 2=30-39 years old; and 3=40 years old and above). Descriptive statistics of age groups on career success orientation was shown in Table 4.4. Comparing the total mean score of each career success orientation, Getting Ahead is the highest (4.26) one and Getting Balanced (4.02) and Getting High (4.05) were also more than 4. Getting Free (3.67) and Getting Secure (3.47) were the lowest. On the other side, except for 30-39years old of participants, the other two age groups had higher mean score in Getting Ahead.
Table 4.4
Descriptive statistics of age groups on career success orientations
Note: GF=Getting Free, GA=Getting Ahead, GB=Getting Balanced, GS=Getting Secure, GH= Getting High
N M SD SE
20-29yrs 25 3.77 .467 .093
GF
30-39yrs 48 3.63 .592 .086
40yrs and above 15 3.65 .731 .189
total 88 3.67 .583 .062
GA 20-29yrs 25 4.34 .478 .096
30-39yrs 48 4.20 .533 .077
40yrs and above 15 4.33 .397 .103
total 88 4.26 .497 .053
GB 20-29yrs 25 3.84 .707 .141
30-39yrs 48 4.03 .515 .074
40yrs and above 15 4.27 .427 .110
total 88 4.02 .575 .061
GS 20-29yrs 25 3.38 .887 .177
30-39yrs 48 3.40 .652 .094
40yrs and above 15 3.85 .441 .114
total 88 3.47 .713 .076
GH 20-29yrs 25 3.91 .872 .174
30-39yrs 48 4.06 .735 .106
40yrs and above 15 4.23 .448 .116
total 88 4.05 .738 .079
Cross tabulation for age groups and career success orientation was shown in Table 4.5. The participants in two age groups (20-29 and 30-39 years old) had same percentage in Getting Ahead (44.4%) and were higher than third age group (40years and above, 11.1%).
Table 4.5.
Cross-tabulation for age group and career success orientation
GF GA GB GS GH Total
Age group N % N % N % N % N % N %
20-29yrs 2 20 12 44.4 2 11.1 3 50 5 26.3 24 30 30-39yrs 7 70 12 44.4 10 55.6 2 33.3 11 57.9 42 52.5 40yrs and above 1 10 3 11.1 6 33.3 1 16.7 3 15.8 14 17.5 Total 10 100 27 100 18 100 6 100 19 100 80 100
Note: GF=Getting Free, GA=Getting Ahead, GB=Getting Balanced, GS=Getting Secure, GH= Getting High
The researcher conducted One-way ANOVA to examine the differences across age groups on career success orientation. As shown in Table 4.6, there were no significant differences across age groups on career success orientation.
Table 4.6.
One-way ANOVA: age group on career success orientation
SS df MS F P
GF Between Groups .331 2 .166 .482 .619
Within Groups 29.214 85 .344
Total 29.545 87
GA Between Groups .426 2 .213 .859 .427
Within Groups 21.063 85 .248
Total 21.489 87
GB Between Groups 1.728 2 .864 2.720 .072
Within Groups 26.996 85 .318
Total 28.724 87
GS Between Groups 2.597 2 1.298 2.654 .076
Within Groups 41.582 85 .489
Total 44.179 87
GH Between Groups .995 2 .497 .910 .406
Within Groups 46.448 85 .546
Total 47.443 87
Note: GF=Getting Free, GA=Getting Ahead, GB=Getting Balanced, GS=Getting Secure, GH= Getting High
Career Success Orientation and Gender
Independent-Sample T-test was conducted to answer this research question.
Gender was used as the independent variable to determine whether significant differences existed in the career success orientations across the respondents of different genders (1=male and 2=female). The descriptive statistics are displayed in Table 4.7. Comparing the mean scores of career success orientation, both male and female showed higher mean score on Getting Ahead (4.28 and 4.21).
Table 4.7.
Descriptive statistics of gender on career success orientations
Gender N M SD SE
GF Male 64 3.78 .485 .061
Female 24 3.39 .722 .147
GA Male 64 4.28 .507 .063
Female 24 4.21 .476 .097
GB Male 64 4.03 .581 .073
Female 24 3.99 .569 .116
GS Male 64 3.47 .757 .095
Female 24 3.47 .591 .121
GH Male 64 4.02 .745 .093
Female 24 4.13 .730 .149
Note: GF=Getting Free, GA=Getting Ahead, GB=Getting Balanced, GS=Getting Secure, GH= Getting High
As Table 4.8 showed, only one type of career success orientation (Getting Free at the .01 level) was significantly different according to gender. As to other types (Getting High, Getting Secure, Getting Ahead, and Getting Balanced), there were no
significant difference.
Table 4.8.
Independent-Sample t Testgender on career success orientation
Levene’s test t-test
Note: GF=Getting Free, GA=Getting Ahead, GB=Getting Balanced, GS=Getting Secure, GH= Getting High
*p<.05
Career Success Orientation and Marital Status
Independent-Sample T-test was conducted to answer this research question.
Martial status was used as the independent variable to determine whether significant differences existed in the career success orientations across the respondents of different genders (1=single and 2=married). The descriptive statistics are displayed in Table 4.9. Comparing the mean scores of career success orientation, both martial status groups (single and married) showed higher mean score on Getting Ahead (4.32 and 4.22).
As Table 4.10 showed that only one type of career success orientation (Getting Free at the .05 level) was significantly different according to martial status. As to other types (Getting High, Getting Secure, Getting Ahead, and Getting Balanced), there were no significant difference.
Cross tabulation for martial status and career success orientation was shown in
Table 4.11. Single participants (55.6%) had higher percentage than married participants (44.4%) in Getting Ahead. Both single and married participants showed the same percentage in Getting Secure.
Table 4.9.
Descriptive statistics of martial groups on career success orientations
Martial status N M SD SE
GF Single 37 3.82 .510 .084
Married 51 3.56 .612 .086
GA Single 37 4.32 .519 .085
Married 51 4.22 .481 .067
GB Single 37 3.99 .551 .091
Married 51 4.03 .596 .083
GS Single 37 3.37 .776 .128
Married 51 3.54 .661 .093
GH Single 37 3.99 .801 .132
Married 51 4.09 .694 .097
Note: GF=Getting Free, GA=Getting Ahead, GB=Getting Balanced, GS=Getting Secure, GH= Getting High
Table 4.10.
Independent-sample t test: martial status on career success orientation
Levene’s test t-test
Note: GF=Getting Free, GA=Getting Ahead, GB=Getting Balanced, GS=Getting Secure, GH= Getting High
*p<.05
Table 4.11.
Cross-tabulation for martial status and career success orientation
GF GA GB GS GH Total
Martial Status N % N % N % N % N % N % Single 4 40 15 55.6 6 33.3 3 50 6 31.6 34 42.5 Married 6 60 12 44.4 12 66.7 3 50 13 68.4 46 57.5 Total 10 100 27 100 18 100 6 100 19 100 80 100
Note: GF=Getting Free, GA=Getting Ahead, GB=Getting Balanced, GS=Getting Secure, GH= Getting High
Career Success Orientation and Personality
A series of ANOVAs was conducted to answer this research question.
Personality was used as the independent variable to determine whether significant differences existed in the career success orientation across the respondents of different personality (1= openness, 2=neuroticism, 3=conscientiousness,4= agreeableness, and 5= extraversion).
A cross-tabulation for personality and career success orientation is presented in
Table 4.12. There was no significant association between personality and career success orientation.
Table 4.12.
Cross-tabulation for personality and career success orientation
GF GA GB GS GH Total
Personality N % N % N % N % N % N %
Openness 3 30 2 7.4 3 16.7 1 16.7 3 15.8 12 15 Conscientiousness 1 10 3 11.1 6 33.3 4 66.7 6 31.6 20 25 Agreeableness 4 40 15 55.6 9 50 1 16.7 8 42.1 37 46.3
Extraversion 2 20 7 25.9 NA NA NA NA 2 10.5 11 13.8 Total 10 100 27 100 18 100 6 100 19 100 80 100
Note: GF=Getting Free, GA=Getting Ahead, GB=Getting Balanced, GS=Getting Secure, GH= Getting High
As shown in Table 4.13, the only one type of career success orientation (Getting Free at the .01 level) was significantly different according to personality. As to other types (Getting High, Getting Secure, Getting Ahead, and Getting Balanced), there were no significant difference.
Table 4.13
One-way ANOVA: personality on career success orientation
SS df MS F P
GF Between Groups 3.834 3 1.278 4.176 .008**
Within Groups 25.710 84 .306
Total 29.545 87
GA Between Groups 1.071 3 .357 1.468 .229
Within Groups 20.418 84 .243
Total 21.489 87
GB Between Groups 1.694 3 .565 1.754 .162
Within Groups 27.031 84 .322
Total 28.724 87
GS Between Groups 2.467 3 .822 1.656 .183
Within Groups 41.712 84 .497
Total 44.179 87
GH Between Groups 3.808 3 1.269 2.443 .070
Within Groups 43.635 84 .519
Total 47.443 87
Note: GF=Getting Free, GA=Getting Ahead, GB=Getting Balanced, GS=Getting Secure, GH= Getting High
**p<.01
Tangible or Intangible Benefit from the program
As Table 4.14. shown that 93.2 percentage of respondents and 61.4 percentage of respondents considered that they received tangible and intangible benefit. More than half participants agreed that they received tangible or intangible benefit from TaiwanICDF higher education program.
Table 4.14.
Frequency and percentage of tangible and intangible benefit for each respondent (n=88)
Frequency Percentage(%)
Tangible benefit 82 93.2
No tangible benefit 6 6.8
Intangible benefit 54 61.4
No intangible benefit 34 38.6
The researcher used several open-ended questions to collect the participants’
tangible and intangible benefits. The respondents’ answer for tangible benefits could be divided into several categories: salary (better income), work chance (increase more work chance), promotion (higher position), knowledge, skills, and abilities (better professional). For intangible benefits could be coded as categories as follow: respect (more respect), experience (rich culture experience, and coping with diversity), more confident, and strong desire to improve oneself.
Summary
TaiwanICDF and studied in Taiwan. 88 participants actually participated by the e-mail questionnaire and the response rate was 57%. More than half participants were 30-39years old (54.5%). As to gender, 64 participants (72.7%) were male. About participants’ martial status, more half participants were married (51, 58%). Besides, 62 participants come from Central and South America (70.4%).
The five types of career success orientations (Getting High, Getting Secure, Getting Balanced, Getting Ahead, and Getting Free) were identified in the graduates of TaiwanICDF. When comparing the mean scores of all respondents, Getting Ahead showed the highest ranking. Next the descending order of the mean scores was Getting High, Getting Balanced, Getting Free, and Getting Secure. when comparing the frequency and percentage of the dominant career success orientations of each respondent, Getting Ahead still showed the highest ranking. The descending order of the remaining percentages was Getting High, Getting Balanced, Getting Free, and Getting Secure.
Independent-Sample T-test was conducted to identify whether there is significant difference across age groups on career success orientation. Differences by age were not found in the five types of career success orientations. There were no significant differences across age groups on career success orientation.
Independent-Sample T-test was conducted to determine the difference between gender and career success orientation. However, differences by gender were found in only Getting Free type of career success orientation. Males (3.78) showed a higher mean score on Getting Free than females (3.39).
Independent-Sample T-test was conducted to examine whether significant differences between martial status and career success orientation. Differences by martial status were found in only Getting Free type of career success orientation.
Single (3.82) respondents showed a higher mean score on Getting Free type of career
success orientation than married (3.56) respondents.
One-way ANOVA was conducted to identify whether significant differences between personality and career success orientation. Differences by personality were found in only Getting Free type of career success orientation.
When it comes to the scholarship program of TaiwanICDF, 93.2 percentages of respondents agreed that they received tangible benefit from the program and 61.4 percentage of respondents agreed that they got intangible benefit. The tangible benefit could be identified as salary, work chance, promotion, knowledge, skills, and abilities.
On the other hand, the intangible benefit were respect, confident, desire to improve and experience.