Construction of Alignment of Women in Higher Education Ana Pasztor, Ph.D, School of Computer Sciences, Florida International University University Park, Miami, FL 33199 (305) 348-2019 e-mail: pasztora@scs,fiu.edu Judith J. Slater, Ed.D, College of Education, Florida International University, Miami, FL 33199 (305) 348-3214 e-mail: slaterj@servms.fiu.edu 10th Annual International Conference Women in Higher Education January 5, 1997 Fort Worth, Texas Construction of Alignment of Women in Higher Education Abstract This study compares questionnaire interview data concerning the cognitive factors used by women who have completed or are pursuing post-secondary degrees in mathematics and science. Cognitive alignment of background/environmental factors lead to successful strategies, behaviors, beliefs and capabilities which are critical in decision-making to work in these fields. The hypothesis investigated in this study is that women cannot be in alignment to be successful in the mathematics/science culture as it exists today. Further, these women either stay unaligned or change careers to become aligned. Objectives This study is an analysis of interview data of persons who have completed or are presently pursuing post-secondary degrees in the fields of science and mathematics. The purpose of the study is to gain insight into the neurological levels which influence each subject's alignment, or congruence, between self-efficacy and self-expectations (Dilts, 1990). In cognitive psychology, neurological levels are equivalent to the cognitive factors, or strategies, that have their basis in the construct of competence (Sternberg and Kolligan, 1990). This psychological construct of competence concerns the nature of an individual's abilities, positive and negative self-perceptions, and the personal consequences of these factors during different life phases. The impact of self-worth on affective and motivational orientation, according to Sternberg and Kolligan, does not exist along a continuum, but is a profile of the individual at a particular time based on the construct of competence (1990, xii). Cognitive strategies are "patterns of appraisal, retrospection, and effort that translate into one's goals and beliefs and actions" (1990, xiii). Competent performance within a setting such as that of a student, a professor, a mother, father, or child, is dependent on personal beliefs about one's competence. It is the self system of the individual that forms and represents all levels. Of course, people are subject to misrepresentations of their own competence; misbelief about what they are able to do and what skills they have. These beliefs about your abilities affect performance, even if they are unfounded in reality (e.g. you do have a talent even though people tell you don't; after some time you start believing you don't). This clinical profile impedes using your capabilities effectively and impedes a personal sense of competence that builds up over time. If you think and believe that you are able, competence grows; if not, depression and anxiety can result (Sternberg and Kolligan, 1990, xiv). If a conflict arises between behaviors, beliefs and capabilities, then people tend to retain their beliefs at all costs to legitimize their own lives (Bandura, 1990). This is the way people gain control; it accounts for the way they explain the world to themselves and others and justifies their actions in particular environments. The relationship of the established construct of cognitive competence is striking when compared to the neurological levels of alignment (Dilts, 1990). Both explain the influences that impact on an individual's view of themself and their world. For Dilts, developmentally each level influences the one above: the environment influences our behavior which influences capabilities, which influences beliefs, which form our identity. Life experiences subject each level to new input which causes accommodations, assimilation, and acceptance and rejection by the individual. Therefore, someone can hold a belief that has not been tested but has become part of their value system, and when it is challenged by new experience, they can reject it or make accommodations and assimilate the new belief and reject the old. There is a tendency for the levels to fit together and there be no conflict. This "fitting together" the researchers term alignment. In this study we use alignment to assess how individuals handle changes in their lives. Specifically, how they manage accommodations, assimilation, rejection or acceptance of the new input. For example, R., one of the subjects who is an undergraduate student in computer science, says her motivation is financial security and she believes that she will be able to get a job that will provide her with that security. Her identity is that of an artist, however she doesn't believe that she has the capabilities necessary to become a successful artist. Her identity is in conflict with her belief. This conflict expresses itself on many levels. At home with her friends she dresses like an artist (as reported by her) while in school she appears conservative. She also reports that she has been depressed. One of the researchers own experience with this student is that she does not possess the capabilities to cope with the requirements. She is reluctant to ask questions in class out of fear of appearing stupid (this is a conflict between belief and behavior) which causes her to fall further behind (which in turn causes her to be frustrated which again causes her to fall even further behind). Obviously, she has inappropriate strategies. Beliefs that a person has about their competence in a particular environment, and the skills and abilities associated with successful behavior in that environment, become emersed in issues beyond mere motivation to succeed. The relationship between the environment, behaviors and capabilities, beliefs and values, and personal identity is the focus of this research. Dilt's neurological levels serve as an integrating theme to determine the extent of alignment of these levels in the subjects interviewed. These subjects are all either pursuing or already have advanced degrees in mathematics or science and each has made decisions about career and academic pursuit. The goal of our research is to determine whether these decisions are in congruence with their life goals and personal identity. If there is a conflict between some levels and identity, then the question arises why career decisions were made in conflict with identity. Our hypothesis is that it is lack of confidence or problems in perceived confidence which keeps the person from pursuing goals in alignment with who they are. This identity is clearly influenced by the cognitive construct of perceived competence and is manifested in the extent of alignment in life and work described by them. Theoretical Framework The theoretical research base for this study is divided into two levels. The first presents the literature from cognitive psychology that relates to the construct of competence. The second relates the Dilts levels of alignment to this construct. Underlined in the review of competence are the Dilts neurological levels to highlight the relationship between the two research levels. The intent is to provide a rationale for the study using the alignment levels as the basis for the Interview Questionnaire which seeks to elicit responses indicating overall alignment of the subjects. Competence Developmental levels of global self-worth has been researched by Harter (1990). The focus for this is the regard one holds for oneself as a person, or the identity ascribed by the individual to themself. This is a product of complex judgements about the self that are the result of repeated interactions with the environment. Harter (1990, 69) states that, "A phenomenological reality for adults can be assessed directly" by asking a set of questions that get at the extent one likes oneself as a person, about the way one is leading life and whether one is happy. The application to this study is the analysis of the developmental stages in educational preparation and through the world of work. Each subject's identity is described in accord with their developmental level of global self-worth. Harter (1990, 70) describes the developmental concept of the extent psychological systems undergo changes of differentiation and integration as individuals move through the neurological levels. Internal and external factors combine into a degree of competence. For college students, the domains are articulated and differentiated based upon global self-worth profiles in twelve areas: scholastic competence, intellectual ability, creativity, job competence, athletic competence, physical appearance, romantic relationships, peer social acceptance, close friendship, parent relationships, sense of humor, and morality. College students differentiate between scholastic competence (how they actually do) and intellectual ability (how smart they are), and creativity (originality) (Harter, 1990, 71). For older adults (25-55) the cognitive domains were reduced to eleven in addition to self-worth: intelligence, sense of humor, intimate relationships, nurturance, adequacy as provider and household management (72). An overall sense of competence places different value on success in each domain. Adults have a hierarchy of perceived competencies across domains and a hierarchy of values of success in each (74). Harter (1990, 75) says there is a, "cognitive capacity to compare these two hierarchies in order to assess congruences and discrepancies and arrive at a summary statement that will affect their global sense of worth". The questions Harter (1990, 75) raises relate directly to the present study. He asks: Are the origins of self socially determined or are the origins the pooled collective judgements of significant others? How does one adopt the attitude of others? Is it imitation, or higher level processes? What type of internalization process is required to incorporate other's attitudes; does this process differ for the person at different developmental levels? Is the individual aware of the adoption? Is identity the self- awareness of the self? For the subjects in this study, are there inconsistencies in their self-report of beliefs and goals that focus away from their choice of career? For college students, self-worth is determined by how adequately they are performing in domains of importance rather than by positive regard of significant others. They outgrow the value of other's personal judgement as their knowledge increases and this may account for our subjects who are successful - they develop an inward positive regard rather than relying on the opinion of others. Most significance in Harter's study (84) was physical appearance and peer social acceptance, followed by job competence, romance, and then intellectual subscales (Harter, 1990, 84). Peer social acceptance, demonstrating social skills, was a predictor of self-worth. For adults (86) social relationships contribute most to global self-worth. "The more public sources of support seem to represent the most critical avenues of feeling of self-worth" more than a close friend. Langer and Park (1990) found that learned helplessness (155) occurs when people perceive response/outcome independence in situations based on their prior experience, so they repeat their ineffective behaviors. They do not see any other way to behave. This is not mindless incompetence, but a learned helplessness, or a learned inaction. These researchers describe incompetence being caused by three sources: Outcome-Oriented Incompetence: (156) when feeling very competent, you are vulnerable to the fear and negative experience of failure. This leads to anxiety and lack of faith in one's capabilities. The solution is to break up the process into achievable shorter goals! This is true for some of our subjects (i.e. L.M. who successfully publishes by dividing the tasks into manageable chunks, verses H who does not have a plan and doesn't know where to begin writing). Observer Determined Incompetence: (157) this is perceived incompetence which originates in a desire to change behaviors that are valued when called by another name. The problem is the strain to be flexible while valuing consistency (similar to what the subjects say they want but do not act on because of the restrictions of their present way of work - this is evidenced in their future responses!) Overcompetence :(159) this is fragile, always on the verge of breaking characterized by the overachiever, or overlearned behavior, that is mindlessly engaged. The problem is that this can be debilitating as the person is frozen in inaction or stress. How a person is judged is an important factor in how they perform and how they feel about their own capabilities. The evaluation of performance often interferes with the intrinsic pleasure of mastering a task (Frey and Ruble, 1990, 167). Since performance goals have normative comparisons with others (such as the standards of performance in courses taken or in competition to produce research in academia), functioning effectively may depend on flexibility in the choice of the comparisons used for the evaluation. This affects a sense of competence and self-esteem (168). Unless there are others at the same level available for comparison, social comparisons are not very gratifying, particularly as a person goes through the process of acculturation (like the tenure process or learning how be competitive in academic work). Norem and Cantor (1990, 190) describe motivation as concentrating on an individual's beliefs about their own abilities, the requirements of the task and prior performance, all influencing one's self-concept. A person must envision their possible selves in the task, what is to be gained, avoided, embraced, or discarded. There is thus a temporal dimension to competence. An individual is transported into the past and to the future as they envision the possible selves related to a task. This develops from memories of efficacy or inefficacy in similar contexts for abilities and from the beliefs about opportunities and risks in the present task. This is connected also to feelings, values and moods associated with the past context. Therefore, this is a process where motivation and ability are combined in actual performance. This is influenced also by individual perceptions, attention, capabilities, and criteria of performance. "These perturbations in the relationship between beliefs, goals, and intentions, and subsequent actions or reactions, present a challenge to any simple account of the origins of performance" (Norem and Cantor, 1990, 191). The "(r)elationship between beliefs about competence, beliefs about tasks, motivation for performance, and actual performance....cognitive strategies ..describe the coherent patterns of appraisal, planning and retrospection, and effort that translate an individual's goals and beliefs into action"(Norem and Cantor, 1990, 192). Individuals use strategies to avoid undesirable outcomes in tasks such as self-handicapping, defensive pessimism, and depressive self-focus. Strategic thinking requires a focus on the self - past, present and possible, and a regulation of effort, feelings and thoughts as the performance unfolds. These strategies are the individual's attempts to master and take control of self and the task (192). What it takes to continue in a task is a measure of self-efficacy described by Bandura. High self-efficacy and self-esteem are related to persistence, less anxiety, and greater effort after failure (193). Norem and Cantor (1990, 193) describe two cognitive strategies used to cope with perceptions of competence: 1. defensive pessimism - by setting low expectations and feeling anxiety and out of control before a task, persons are protected since they do not have high expectations (like those subjects who do not exhibit alignment). The subjects in Academia Sinica do not have high expectations of success; their work is never finished and they are insecure in their result. This motivates them to perform well. They are never in control, have stress, are challenged, exhibit less enjoyment, have rocky emotional lives (198), and are less satisfied in life (202). 2. Optimistic - these people deny responsibility for poor outcomes and assume they will be successful (like the subjects who state that hard work pays off (194). Individual perceptions of competence are a "vital life force" an "essential aspect of actual competence and linked to instrumental action and effective performance" (Markus, Cross and Wurf, 1990, 205). Competence is related to the self-system, to the cognitive structures that represent abilities, the very identity of the person (206). Competence requires both ability and the self-schema of the ability. It is the recognition that one has the ability and the belief that it is important in defining oneself. Felt competence, that which the individual perceives, is an awareness that one is able. These affective/cognitive structures are created based on past experience in a particular domain (207). The structures result from the integration of self-representations (of one's past, present and future) and serve to organize the processing of relevant information. This is accomplished with information about one's abilities, and the affirmation by the individual that they use those abilities instrumentally, that they are part of the individual's identity and are important to them (207). The questionnaire used in this study asks subjects to project themselves from the past to the present and into the future. The latter is an attempt to determine the possible self. These possible selves are the beliefs about what is possible in a particular domain in the future. It is the visioning of the self in action as what a person can and wants to become. These possible selves are the carriers of competence that guide a person by what is sensed of what is possible for them. Can these selves be directed toward performance at will? Is the visioning not available to those who fail? Can competence be engendered in those who are lacking alignment? Markus, Cross and Wurf (1990) suggest imaging a future state that is desired; to run through scenarios of alternatives; to not just listen to others, but be able to visualize oneself doing tasks, to say to oneself, I will become a ..., or I can do this or that. This is the belief about capabilities in the development of alignment. The envisioning of a global possible self that is competent in a domain allows for the retrieval of that self when it is needed for a task. The result is a positive emotional state, the desire to maintain the state, and the acquiring of information consistent with the desired possible self. This is an image specific and end focussed self cognizant of how to realize goals. By chunking into manageable bits, breaking the task down, the goal can be accomplished by the competent self. What is needed is self-determination, personal causation, and self-control (Markus, Cross and Wurf, 1990, 212). Schemas are created from successes and failures (such as being good at school, or at work) in one's environment and experiences. It also resides in the rationales the person uses to attribute success or failure. The person then makes an internal and stable attribute about their capabilities. The "belief that effort can make a difference in successful performance as due only to effort is detrimental to self-conceptions of ability" (215). Girls are socialized to attribute success to effort, boys to ability. Failure in girls is lack of ability; for boys it is lack of effort. Socialization differences result in failure to develop self-schemas in girls for talent. Overly negative self-perceptions for girls underestimate their true abilities and they often suffer deficiencies in motivation and coping (215). This is a self-fulfilling prophesy; you come to see yourself as others see you. The more this is reinforced, the more it is believed. Markus, Cross and Wurf (1990, 216) state that, "Throughout the life span, the individual must continue to perceive and develop existing or new skills in a domain, to form a self-schema concerning them, and to recruit and deploy possible selves that direct action". Anything that threatens the self schema causes self-serving attribution such as the "assistant professor can note that none of his predecessors in the past ten years has gotten tenure, and blame his failure on departmental policy" (220) or the making of downward social comparisons, looking for others who have done less well. The idea is to preserve the self-schema at all costs because it is a person's identity, the basis of their self-definition, and it is confirmation of one's existence. "Without explicit self-knowledge of one's abilities, one will experience both incompetence and an unstable, diffuse identity" (221). After acquiring a particular skill or ability, waiting for success to happen, being passive, is not enough. A person must actively take steps to make it happen for themself. Having skills is not enough. There exists a perceived fraudulence, the imposter phenomenon, among high achieving women. For men, success is attributed to ability, while women project sources outward to external causes (to luck or fate) or to a temporary internal quality (effort, drive, place and time) (Kolligan, 1990, 265). Fraudulent women attribute success to luck, are highly sensitive to expectations of others, are perceived as being well-liked by others, and make the impression of possessing strong intellectual ability (266). This was evident in many of the interviews the researchers conducted. JM notes that luck and fate drove her career; it was not of her own making, she just was at the right place at the right time. According toBandura (1990, 315) self-beliefs of capability impact on motivation, affective arousal and thought processes. Individuals may vary in performance depending on self-beliefs of efficacy. There exists mediating mechanisms, or processes by which beliefs of capabilities affect psychological well-being and performance (316). Self-beliefs of efficacy are measured in terms of designated domains of functioning such as relevance, a higher ability to explain and predictive power rather than more global measures. External influences relate to efficacy as a mediator, which in turn is related to action. Perceived self-efficacy are beliefs in capabilities that mobilize motivation, neurological resources, and courses of action needed to exercise control over values or judgements. Motivational processes are evidence of stronger belief in capabilities, and is seen by a person who has greater and more persistent effort. Faced with difficulties, people with self-doubts about capabilities reduce effort or abort attempts prematurely, settling for mediocre solutions (this is the reason for lack of persistence faced with adversity, an underdeveloped sense of motivation and weak beliefs in capabilities) (Bandura, 1990, 316). Strong beliefs in capabilities exert greater effort to master challenges. Human success and positive well-being (317) require optimistic self-efficacy. The reality of life is of difficulties (barriers, prerequisites, etc.), therefore, people must have strong self-efficacy to persevere in order to succeed. It is not the self-doubt, but the speed of recovery of perceived self efficacy (for example, one of the researchers sends out a new paper the day after a rejection letter arrives). Resiliency is the key to persistence. Successful and prominent people have this characteristic of enduring efficacy, a belief in what they are doing, and they override rejection and failure (Bandura, 1990, 317). In social relationships, inefficacy induces depression, curtails cultivation of interpersonal relationships that can provide satisfactions and buffer chronic daily stress (Bandura, 1990, 320). Self-beliefs of efficacy affect thought patterns. Personal goal setting also is influenced by perceived capabilities with challenging goals raising a person's level of motivation and performance success (Bandura, 1990, 320). If plagued by self-doubts, analytic thinking is not effective. Cognized possible selves serve as a guidance system for competence. Possible selves organize behavior and courses of action toward goals (321). Yet, Bandura believes that neurological stimulation is possible. There exists a dual knowledge system of declarative knowledge and procedural knowledge (Anderson, 1980, cited in Bandura, 1990, 322). Procedural knowledge provides production systems, or rules for solving tasks. Cognitive problem solving is necessary but insufficient for competent performance . Bandura's social cognitive theory posits conceptual representations of actions that exhibit efficacy formed based on knowledge gained through observational learning, inferences from outcomes of experiences, and innovative cognitive syntheses of preexisting knowledge. These conceptions guide responses, and are internal standards (values) for response appropriateness (Bandura, 1990, 322). This effects career decision making and career development since these decisions are choice processes that may be self-limiting. On the other hand, competence is a social construct, therefore, beliefs in efficacy can be enhanced. Bandura's (1990, 327) studies have found four vehicles to enhance beliefs about efficacy: a. Mastery experiences - success builds efficacy, failure create self-doubts. If tasks are easy all the time, people are easily discouraged when they fail. Resiliency and perseverance in face of adversity is needed if the belief is in place that a person is competent. B. Modeling - access to role models is needed to compare performance with that of others. c. Social persuasion - support from peers provides encouragement that leads to greater effort and the chance of increasing success. Efficacy builders cultivate people's beliefs in their capabilities and structure situations for them in ways that bring success. D. Judgements of their bodily states - reading stress and tension as signs of personal vulnerability to deficient performance. It is the cultivation of capabilities that gives a person a sense of self-worth (Bandura, 1990, 329). This self-esteem is based on evaluations of competence or the possession of attributes that are invested with positive or negative value. In the learning of math and science, certain behaviors are of value, therefore there are capabilities that are needed to be successful. Cultural stereotyping based on gender may not allow an authentic evaluation of capabilities for persons evaluated by those who hold them in low self-regard, despite individual talents. This devaluation of the self is based on a reflection by others of incompetence, and can only be overcome by more realistic standards of achievement and becoming more self-accepting. How is this done? People who view themselves as lacking in capabilities must continually enhance their self-worth by acquiring new knowledge and competencies. They must adopt a goal of learning new skills, seek challenges, and expand their knowledge. If such a person does not actively play this role, ability becomes a fixed entity (like H in the study who could not compete because of lack of abilities). With this comes threats to social competence and the person will pick tasks that minimize errors and readily display talents and skills that do not requiring the learning of new ones. Bandura's social cognitive theory explains this self-regulatory mechanism of motivation and performance orchestrated by affective self-evaluation, perceived self-efficacy for goal attainment, and personal goal setting, all occurring at the same time (Bandura, 1990 334). What does this require on the part of the person? Bandura (1990, 335) suggests that a strong sense of efficacy deploys the neurological resources needed to remain task oriented in the face of difficulties; it requires that the person select relevant information, construct options, and test and revise knowledge based on decisions concerning actions. Bandura (1990, 337) suggests that there are two aspects to control that are relevant to belief systems: the first is the level of self-efficacy to effect change by using ones capabilities and expending effort, and second, changing or controlling the environment that may be constraining the opportunity to implement personal efficacy. If a person perceives that they are not strong in efficacy they are less likely to change even in those environments that have many opportunities (such as in academic work). Those with a strong sense of efficacy find ways to control their environments even with limited opportunities and many constraints (338). Success validates efficacy and control of the environment. For women, cultural practices may produce lower expectations, while gender roles dissuade opportunity. Beliefs about occupational efficacy for female students can limit their interest and range of career options. They may be convinced that they do not possess the capabilities necessary for traditionally male occupations even when they have equal or superior ability. Self limitations are imposed from perceptions about efficacy (Bandura, 1990, 345). Similarly, context and social influences can turn competence into incompetence by settings that evoke performance. Incompetence can be elicited when another person's performance points out personal deficiencies, even when the task is routine (Langer, 1990, 347). Self-motivation is dependent on discrepancy production and reduction through active control and reactive feedback. Once a standard has been reached, it is necessary to set higher standards for oneself, to pose further challenges, and create new discrepancies that motivate action toward mastery. Reaching a goal and surpassing it is more likely to raise motivation and engender success than lowering future performance. Thus, motivation to act is the constant cycling of balancing the discrepancy production with discrepancy reduction (Bandura, 1990, 355). Many high achieving individuals are not confident in their skills and believe success is fraudulent (this was seen in the subject JM who did not attribute her success to her skills). Bandura (1990, 361) states,"Women get it coming and going. Socialization practices instill in women self-doubts about their capabilities and then their self-doubts and striving for intellectual acceptance get ...labeled as indicants of perceived fraudulences." Neurological Levels Dilts (1990) describes the neurological levels identified in the section above on competence as being hierarchically arranged as: environment, behavior, capabilities, beliefs and values, and identity. Each level is distinct and embodies successively deeper and broader organizations of neural circuitry. The simplest neurological level is environment (the world), the simple perception of the environment and of the world that the person is in. It requires only the activation of the peripheral nervous system for awareness. This perception activates behavior (strengths) within that environment, and more commitment of neurology is required. Responses require motor movement and physiological involvement at this level. Capabilities involve longer term plans and maps. Capabilities also involve deeper levels of neurology required of the central nervous system. Capabilities involve the mind. Beliefs and values are represented by the mobilizing of neurological structures of the autonomic nervous system, the heart, the emotions, the fear and flight responses of the person. Identity involves the total commitment of the individual (their soul) and of their nervous system. Identity is represented by the deepest neurological involvement and investment. Dilts (1990) says that in the brain structure, language, and perceptual systems there are natural hierarchies of experience. The effect of each of the levels is to organize and control the information on the level below. The environment level involves external conditions in which behavior takes place. Behaviors must have a guide and direction, and that is where capabilities comes in; the strategies a person has guides them to select, alter and adapt their behaviors to a wider set of external situations. Beliefs and values encourage, inhibit or generalize particular strategies, plans or ways of thinking. Identity consolidates the whole system of beliefs and values into a sense of self. Alignment Exercise: Dilts has developed a process through which a person can bring all levels of themselves into alignment. The process uses spatial anchoring and accessing cues to activate and integrate these different levels of experience. The neurology at each level are determined by the cues of the participants. The model is concerned with the cognitive structure of subjective experience and the physiological and linguistic cues to subjective experience. It has proved to be a very powerful experience and a tool for people to address issues ranging from personal conflicts, to learning, to health. This exercise is from the Practitioner Training: This process involves the five levels: environment, behavior, capabilities, beliefs and values, identity. Respond to each of the questions posed related to your own experience and work. Environment: think about the environment in which you would like to be more personally aligned. Describe the environment, the specific time and place that you do your work in. Describe your work environment simply as what you see and hear around you; do not make judgements or interpretations about the environment; just describe it Behavior: describe the kinds of things that you do at work. What do you do in those `wheres' and `whens'? What are the actions and behaviors that you engage in, in those times and places?. Simply describe a set of behaviors rather than making interpretations. Capabilities: What is the know-how or the mental strategies and skills you need in order to walk up and down where you do your work, in those rooms in that building, with those people, at those times? How are you able to do those `whats' in those `wheres' and `whens'? Belief: Why do you use those particular capabilities to act in those ways in those environments? Why do you chose to use your abilities to structure information, to organize your knowledge? What sort of beliefs and values lead you to use that know-how and take those actions in those times and places? Why did you choose to manifest those values through work? What beliefs do you have about yourself, about people, and about doing what you do? What beliefs guide you? FINANCIAL SECURITY EXAMPLE Judgement begins at this stage because one belief appears to be as good as another and the question the researchers are after is which are most in congruence with one's identity. Ana's work\play dichotomy example. Identity: Who am I that, in my heart, I would believe I have skills? Who am I that would use my mind to structure capabilities? Who am I that I have developed beliefs while doing my work in those environments? Who am I as a (profession)? What kind of (profession) am I? What kind of a person am I? Because it is difficult to answer these questions, try using a metaphor or an analogy to describe who you are. This is the vision you have of yourself. SELECT A METAPHOR OR ANALOGY NOW and use it to answer these questions: What is the vision that I'm pursuing or representing as a .... What is the vision that I am pursuing as a ... who has beliefs, who has these abilities to do these behaviors in this environment? Identity is the level of experience that gives "day -to day" experience meaning and purpose Physically move back into the belief space and bring the sense of vision and mission with you. How are your beliefs and values solidified or enriched? Would any new beliefs emerge from her heart? Take that sense of new into your capabilities space. Connect your vision, your mission, and your heart to your mind, and realize that your cognitive skills and capabilities are a reflection and expression of those beliefs and values, of your identity, and of your vision. Your mind is the way in which you manifest these deep structures. How has it solidified or enriched your perception of the capabilities you had for manifesting your values, beliefs, identify and vision? Stand in the behavior space and re-experience those specific actions and take this total sense of capabilities, beliefs, identity and into those behaviors. Connect your strengths in work to your mind and heart and to your mission and to your vision. How might you experience these activities differently? How would having this sense of her total being enrich these specific concrete actions that you take? Perhaps it changed the quality of what you do. Go back to the environment space, back to those specific `wheres' and `whens' and align your highest purpose with your identity, your heart and your mind with your strengths in this environment. How would you re-perceive, re-experience and restate your sense of your environment in which you brought this metaphor, your capability of being, your behaviors, to notice how your experience of your environment has changed and been enriched. Summary of the Logical Level Alignment Process The process is best done in conjunction with a partner, or "Guardian angel," who serves as a kind of witness to your words. The "Guardian Angel" helps to keep you on track by asking the questions and continually "backtracking" or reviewing what you have said at each of the levels (it sometimes helps to write down key words and phrases). The level alignment process is a way to mobilize very deep levels of neurology, and then, through a process of successive approximations, release it into a specific situation. The following is a summary of the steps of the process from Dilts (1990). 1. Physically lay out one space for each of the six logical levels. Identity, Beliefs/Values, Capabilities, Behaviors, Environments 2. Stand in the "Environment" space and answer the question: "When and where do I want to be more aligned?" 3. Stand in the "Behavior" space and answer the question; "What do I need to do when I am in those times and places?" "What strengths do I have?" 4. Stand in the "Capabilities" space and answer the questions: "How do I need to use my mind to carry out those behaviors?" "What capabilities do I have or need in order to do those actions in those times and place?" 5. Stand in the "Beliefs/Values" space and answer the questions: "Why do I want to use those particular capabilities to accomplish those activities?" "What values are important to me when I am involved in those activities?" "What beliefs do I have or need to guide me in my heart when I am doing them?" 6. Stand in the "Identity" space and answer the questions: "Who am I if I have those beliefs and values and use those capabilities to accomplish those behaviors in that environment?" What kind of soul are those beliefs, values, capabilities and behaviors an expression of?" What is a metaphor for my mission?" 7. Stand in the "Spiritual" space and answer the questions: "Who and what else is that person who has that identity serving?" "What is the vision beyond me that I am participating in?" 8. Take your experience of both your vision and your identity and bring them into your belief space. Again notice how it enhances or enriches your initial representation of your beliefs and values. 9. Bring your vision, identity, beliefs and values into the capabilities space. Experience how they strengthen, change or enrich the capabilities you experience within yourself. 10. Bring your vision, identity, beliefs values and capabilities into the behavior space. Notice how even the most insignificant seeming behaviors are reflections and manifestation of all of the higher levels within you. 11. Bring all levels of yourself into the environment space and experience how it is transformed and enriched. Data source The convenience sample of subjects in this study are eight females and one male who require specific skills and cognitive strategies in order to function successfully in their fields. R (age 20) is an undergraduate student in computer science; N (age 45) is a graduate student in computer science, returning to school after working in industry; M (age range 20-30) is an instructor in computer science and graduate student in MIS from Madagascar; H (50+) is a female lecturer in statistics on a non-tenure line at a university; LM (30-49) is an Assistant Researcher of mathematics trained in the United States but working in Asia; LF (30-49) is a female Research Fellow of psychometry trained in the United States and working in Asia; TC (30-49) is a male Research Fellow who is a mathematician working with the two females in Asia. TC provides a different view of the institution from LM and LF; HA (30-49) is a female mathematician, head of the Department of the Mathematical Research Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences; JM (30-49) is a female Associate Professor of human genetics at a major research university in the United States. Methodology An Interview Questionnaire (IQ) (see Appendix) was designed by the researchers to elicit responses according to the neurological levels of alignment. The questions were grouped according to four neurological levels: environment, behaviors and capabilities, beliefs and values, and identity. Subjects were either interviewed directly by one or more interviewers, or they filled in the IQ on their own. They were to answer each question, when appropriate, from the perspective of past, present and future; it was premised that the future orientation would represent the ideal that each individual desired. Based on the self-report to the IQ, responses were analyzed and sorted according to neurological levels. Narrative stories were developed by the researchers for each subject and responses were analyzed for interpretation of patterns. Responses to the questions posed in the IQ by the researchers were then synthesized to evaluate the following questions: Are these people we have interviewed aligned? If they are not, what are the conflicts that keep the person from being aligned? Are there patterns of neurological level conflicts? What are they? Are they due to the present male defined culture of mathematics and science in higher education? What happens to these people with lack of alignment? What are the symptoms and how do they cope (or do they)? Results The summaries of the IQ present the levels of response for each person in the sample. In order to answer the research questions, an analysis beyond the summaries of the questions provides a basis to determine whether each of the subjects are aligned. Presentation of two cases: Analysis based on research questions. R., a student, studies computer science to be able to get a job which will provide her financial and other kind of security. She believes that her years as a student are a sacrifice on her part to achieve her goal. She views herself as an artistically inclined person, but believes that she has no talents. On a micro cognitive level, she reports "a lot of noise'' inside her head. She has a internal critic, which keeps her from asking questions in class or office hours, thereby protecting her in accordance to her beliefs from "`making a fool of myself'', but limiting her in her capabilities. The decision-making criteria that R. uses to direct her behavior is that of money and financial security. This directs her choices and behavior in her daily life. N., a graduate student in computer science who is returning to school from a successful career in software design, is pursuing graduate work for professional, and intellectual reasons. Her ultimate goals include continuing her professional work in the field with new updated expertise, or becoming a teacher and "giving back" to her Haitian roots in some way what she believes she owes it. When this quest makes her too hard (not moved by feelings) she reads poetry for softness. She is quite assured in her capabilities, has expertise, likes challenges, does not want anything to be too easy, and puts these capabilities into action by planning her life, her work, her future. The only area of disappointment has been her family, her children in particular, who she has not been able to direct as she has her own career and life. She has a "love" of computers because they can be controlled by the user. N. puts herself into the role of student and behaves, not like the professional she was in business, but fully as a student, isolating herself from distractions and regulating the boundaries she imposes on herself. By eliminating the distractions she can be goal directed, and she has arranged her environment at this time to give her "the intellectual push" to be successful. However, N. does not possess the micro strategies needed to realize her goal, therefore her efforts are misdirected toward a struggle with environmental conditions. The decision-making criteria that N. uses to direct her behavior is that she engages in activities that pose a challenge. Interestingly, that is the criteria she uses to select the activities to participate in, but she does not follow through and acquire the necessary skills necessary to function in the challenging environment, therefore, she does not often succeed at what she states is her goal. M. is an instructor and a graduate student from Madagascar who articulates a goal of having a balanced life. She sees this pursuit as being accomplished through a "step-by-step" strategy of problem solving when obstacles present themselves, by continuous self-improvement, and persistence. She articulates that she wants to be knowledgeable in her field, flexible in life, and have the "toughness of Margaret Thatcher", meaning competitiveness, persistence, and flexibility. Rules, strictness makes it possible to be tough. She sees herself, after obtaining her Ph.D., first as secure, productive in society, and self-satisfied through working in a productive way. Participating in this way brings dignity. Second, she wants to pursue research to be useful to society. Third, she wants to teach because the "human touch is important". Prioritizing the three goals, first in importance is teaching, then security, then research. Her identity is one of self-respect and that of others; to fully carry whatever she does, no matter what the job. She believes others see her as independent, hard working, at home. Changes for herself focus on being more strict rather than tough, to be able to communicate in English better, to be lenient on herself along with the strictness she imposes. The decision-making criteria that M. uses to direct her behavior is that she is committed to the humanity of teaching others and she strives to be the "ideal" teacher. This is in conflict with her stated goal to be a researcher in her field since environmentally, academic success depends less on teaching than on research, thus there is a lack of alignment between her stated goals and her beliefs. H. chose to pursue an advanced degree then not to compete on a tenured line at a university, pursuing a career as an instructor. ENVIRONMENT H. is a lecturer in statistics, holds a Ph.D., and chose, at a critical juncture in her professional life, to be placed on a non-tenure line at the university. Her work environment within a new university evolved over time to that of an academic institution with emphasis on research rather than teaching, and the nature of her research (and pace of her work which was interrupted with the demands of personal family life) was such that she could not compete in her field, but could remain connected to the university through her teaching. Another factor was that the department was male dominated and had little concern for the demands of family life that limited her time for publications and research. Although this was not an excuse, clearly it limited this subject's pursuit of academia and redirected her toward teaching. She said that there was no special consideration when she was a single mother having to care for children; she was scheduled by the male dominated chair to work at night. As a lecturer, her work has become teaching courses, refining them, developing new classes, and this is not of value to academia; lecturers are not valued, in the academic world of mathematics, and she has received, even today after 20 years of service to the university, little support, material or otherwise. She articulates that her family comes first and it has always determined her level of involvement at the university; therefore, her position fits into the schema she has created for the environment she works in. This environmental focusing around her family has served as an organizing schema for her life and work. She has even moved to a secondary campus, where almost everyone in science and math is a lecturer, to be away from nonsupportive colleagues who she describes as not pleasant, cocky, unwilling to understand any point of view other than their own, doing their work (math) in their heads so they are unconcerned with interacting with others. H. wants the interaction of colleagues, with other people, but to be an academician her chosen field requires solitary work, so she has adjusted, and by becoming a lecturer her inner and outer worlds have balanced superficially to the field. She has given up the work of her field - that of doing math, rationalizing that her professional work is the refining and developing of new courses of instruction, which she laments is not of value to her department. BEHAVIORS AND CAPABILITIES H. describes the way she initiates new work as the adopting of an external need as her own then reconfiguring it as a professional challenge. This is primarily directed toward developing or refining new courses, which is her academic work. She strategizes through a series of steps: conversations with herself to bring to awareness a perceived need; reading and searching for sources and materials already in the field; deciding on topics and materials that personally are understood and mastered both theoretically and in practice so that they can be taught; the recycling and constant improvement of decisions and choices already made. H. chooses not to present at conferences and not to publish saying with "editorial bonds around me and I can't express myself". Both activities are too ordered, structured and disciplined; clearly her strategizing is not congruent with the originality and depth needed to present original research in her field. She also does not collaborate with others since she believes her messages are not clearly transmitted. H. says she is not assertive, that she is her mother's child, and that she adopts a wait and see attitude, communicating on E-mail with her chair, avoiding face to face interactions. Acceptance of the judgement of others is accompanied with the perception, "I'm not, will never be, good enough." This is followed by "brooding" then anger at the judgmental men who may not evaluate her work fairly when the evaluation is directed toward the three areas of teaching research and service. In the past she put other's needs above her own; presently she has become less flexible, which she is not pleased with; this has resulted in withdrawal of activities which require collaborating with others or group problem solving to get a task done, retreating instead into solitary activities like deciphering software and playing on the computer. To learn something new, H. uses trial and error, a systematic process forsaken until there is a roadblock requiring direction. She states that she would have gone further in math if someone had led her; she was started one level too high, did not understand the game because she had no background, so math was merely a set of definitions that were too hard to understand; she memorized the rules and math never came alive, remaining a cumbersome language. She, therefore, uses trial and error to generate her own understanding; she would like to learn from someone who has already digested the material rather than being alone all the time, but that is not a strategy she actually uses. She takes cues from others without having to interact with them face to face. Life is a continuum, H. states, and she has adapted to the outside forces that have impacted on her life rather than directing that life herself. BELIEFS AND VALUES H. is motivated by activities that provide a sense of accomplishment and pose a challenge, like a puzzle to be solved or a computer game that she can play by figuring out how the computer would move. At home she is a peacemaker, avoiding personal conflict; at work she is motivated by providing her students with everything they need to perform well in future classes. She believes that she always will be dissatisfied with what she does and she will never be finished; she never gives herself "a present" (except for a piano after completing her dissertation) because of this sense of non-completion. She values sharing and colleagueship, but does not seek it for academic purposes or advancement. She has a belief that her field is highly technical and demanding, but that it can be explained to laymen so that they can use it well; that it is of value to the rest of the world. H. believes the publications in her field range from highly technical treatises to how to manuals whose value is lessened as they become less technical. Training of the next generation to perpetuate the academic value labels that exist now, she believes, is not appropriate. IDENTITY H. places her family first with work as something that just happened. She would like there to be more of a balance between home and work with the latter assuming less of a primary role. Her self-image, she believes, was overly defined by her work, which she believes is not valued by her peers. She thinks of herself as a bumbler, intelligent but lazy, a person with low self-esteem that hides this by being pompous, acting one way and thinking another. Control occurs in the classroom where she is as close to being fulfilled as she can be. Boundaries have been intentionally placed between the two, and she is intent on making a happy home more important. A personal health crisis has perhaps crystallized this identification and redirected her actions to support this identification. She also recognizes that she has become defensive at work and that exacerbates her stress in her work environment. Balance, for her, would be to "have enough to share" to "make life worthwhile". Sharing at work is helping students when they need it, building from the inside out an applicability and understanding of statistics as inductive reasoning. This is also what life is about, reasoning, understanding, and doing for others, at home for her family, and at work for her students. H. is first a teacher; she sees this as a way of life, both at work and at home. The decision-making criteria she uses is based on her identification as teacher first, to show people how to do things, to weigh the pro and con of each issue, have an internal debate as she pursues the facts to know all there is to know, and then make a decision with her heart. Processes are important to her, not words or feelings; emotions are weaknesses and are hard for her to express and only when she is angry do they emerge. Clearly, this is the direction her life and career have taken, but it has also led her away from academia and into a supportive role that characterizes her beliefs and behaviors at work and in her personal life. Cross Cultural Interview Questionnaire Summaries The following are subject interview summaries of two Taiwanese Research Fellows from Academia Sinica, Taiwan, ROC. Academia Sinica is a research facility with 700 fellows dispersed among 20 Institutes; faculty are fellows who engage in pure research without the distractions of service and teaching. They remain in their position by publishing in the most respected journals in their fields. These women chose not only to compete in the fields of statistics and mathematics, but pursue doctoral degrees in the United States and then obtain research positions at the most prestigious and rigorous institution in their country. They each participate in environments that are very competitive and male dominated and this has resulted in personal compromise for each of them, but in different ways. One, L.M., has made her work her life and has consciously given up a family and outside involvements to pursue academia. The other, L.F., has a husband and a child who have influenced the career choices she has made. The present position affords her the time to be with her child while not having responsibilities of teaching and service that would interfere with her primary work. The following are subject interview summaries of two Taiwanese Research Fellows from Academia Sinica, Taiwan, ROC. Academia Sinica is a research facility with 700 fellows dispersed among 20 Institutes; faculty are fellows who engage in pure research without the distractions of service and teaching. They remain in their position by publishing in the most respected journals in their fields. These women chose not only to compete in the fields of statistics and mathematics, but pursue doctoral degrees in the United States and then obtain research positions at the most prestigious and rigorous institution in their country. They each participate in environments that are very competitive and male dominated and this has resulted in personal compromise for each of them, but in different ways. One, L.M., has made her work her life and has consciously given up a family and outside involvements to pursue academia. The other, L.F., has a husband and a child who have influenced the career choices she has made. The present position affords her the time to be with her child while not having responsibilities of teaching and service that would interfere with her primary work. The third interview at Academia Sinica was with a male member of the same department. His responses provide a contrast to the women and a means of comparison of perceptions. Interview with L.M.: ENVIRONMENT L.M. reports that her work environment, Academia Sinica, is structured to optimize the work of the research fellows. The focus is on study, and the facilities, computer services, equipment, library (the largest in Asia), and lack of teaching responsibilities facilitate this for the professors. It also fosters limited interaction between faculty since each has a specific specialty (offices doors are closed and few people are seen walking around in the halls except for an occasional brief visitor to the lounge area). L.M. works seven days a week in order to live up to the reputation of the Institute and that, for her, is self-fulfillment. She works little with colleagues because they cannot help her directly due to diversity of their field, and the only other person in her field she does not talk to due to a personality conflict. The Institute sponsors trips and conferences and allows her to concentrate on research and publication. Quality of publications are important, therefore the university restricts outside teaching at other institutions to four hours per week (L.M. teaches one undergraduate course once a week at another site). BEHAVIORS AND CAPABILITIES The organizing strategies L.M. uses to do her work are a step by step approach of reading relevant papers, learning any prerequisites necessary, persisting in formulating researchable questions; she works on two or three projects at once, analyzing data and writing research reports and publishing. Presentations are done alone, and she writes grants for herself and others, but invariably she is the chief author of each. Others come to her because of her skills and ask her to be the primary investigator; this team has evidently worked on more than one project together. Three years prior to this interview she was selected by the Ministry of Education to be the lead researcher for the Committee of Reform for Education in Taiwan. This high status position concluded with her recommendation of phasing in the reform efforts that are now underway in the country. L.M. asserts her own needs with "resolution" by "just moving ahead". Only her health would prevent her from this. She lives with her parents, has little responsibility outside of work, so she can direct all her energies toward work. She believes her colleagues view her as a hard worker, her parents view her as too concentrated, and her friends believe she is a good teacher. Although well published, she is least confident in her writing for publication. The pressure to publish in the highest rank journals is the only thing that she expressed less confidence doing, yet to the outsider, she is accomplished at this. (Perhaps when your job depends on publications of such high status and you can never be sure what will be successful, this causes a lack of confidence. Yet, as actors on the stage say, a little nervousness is a good thing.) When studying for her doctorate at Cornell she learned how to study and "how to depend on yourself". BELIEFS AND VALUES L.M. describes what motivates her is looking for excellence; to do her best in everything. She enjoys the pressure and hard work. She selects projects to work on either by branching out into new fields, or an aspect of what is already familiar. She mixes these two by working on two or three projects at a time. The most satisfying project she worked on was the Ministry of Education project and the papers she published that received high praise and recognition. L.M. values high achievement in work and good health to continue that work. She found the value question hard to answer since there are no boundaries for her between private life and work. The Institute values publications first, with conferences and presentations secondary, and she believes that professionals should share their results in journals through high quality papers. Personal reading include Buddha; she rarely reads other than work related material. L.M. was a high school teacher and graduated from the Normal University. She went to graduate school in the United States to be a professor of cognitive psychology, but finding language to be a barrier, she majored instead in statistics. She believes that her research results are a help to society not just the Ivory Tower; that there are practical applications, more so than pure math. She even publishes a column for laymen in the newspaper in order to disseminate results of educational research. IDENTITY L.M. has no boundary between work and personal life. She spends most of her time at work; even when sleeping she thinks about work. She believes that in the future she will need time to separate the two if it would endanger her health, but she basically has made a decision to focus on work. This all consuming life is shared little with friends who do not understand what she does, and sometimes she feels lonely since colleagues who are female are all married and she cannot share in non-work related personal talk. Her life is her work and the quest for perfection. She looks forward to viable results of her research and making a contribution to society. L.M. is constantly learning, spending time learning mathematics since she was not a math undergraduate major. She hopes, in the future, to create her own model, or to find out something important that is all hers. There is, she believes, little self in research, only in teaching, and the real L.M. is not discernable from her work. The pressure from colleagues and work to produce is stressful; the lack of publishing is a loss of face as a research fellow, so she accepts her choice to work in this environment with constant pressure for excellence. The decision-making criteria used by L.M. is based on her beliefs about work, success, and competitive qualities of a first class researcher. She is aligned clearly, but has had to consciously make the decision to forego family and children to attain that alignment. This self-achievement is aligned also with her Buddhist belief in making a contribution to society. Interview with L.F.: ENVIRONMENT L.F., by choice, was interviewed in the public lounge of her university and was not distracted in answering questions although there were people coming in and out and background talk was taking place. In describing her work environment, L.F. finds the community to be helpful, stimulating, and she actively seeks discussion with others in the library, coffee shop, and through seminars and colloquia on campus. Half of her time is spent working on campus, the other half at home. She uses the campus for its library, computer services and for feedback from others concerning her research. She finds her position helpful as a place to work and for the financial support it provides, but she relies on herself and her experience for inspiration. She says, "Sometimes men disturb me; I close my door; So I work at home in the morning - it is less distracting even with my husband and six year old daughter." BEHAVIORS AND CAPABILITIES The nature of the work L.F. does in pure mathematics is a solitary undertaking and she says sometimes she feels lonely. Her research strategies are continuous; she reads books and discusses ideas with others, but math "does not need others and I like it that way." The process she uses is to formulate the question, collect related information, understand the material, then slowly formulate a problem to be solved, discuss her ideas and eventually write papers about it. Although encouraged to do grant writing with others, she presents papers alone. Luckily her position here gives her the opportunity not to be in her office all the time. She dreamed of working here ten years ago so that she could be both a mathematician and still have a family. L.F. says, "It is difficult being a woman with a child because of the nature of my field." She is the last woman who was hired; there is only one other woman in her Institute who she rather not work with. "I work with men, and discuss with women." In the year and a half she has been a Fellow there, she has experienced conflicts when people feel her research is insignificant, so she prefers not asking certain colleagues about it because they criticize out loud. L.F. is confident when she has positive results in her work, but she often gets stuck for a long time, several months, so she puts the problem aside and comes back to it later. She believes her husband (a physician) does not care if she has a job, her parents care more; her friends and colleagues view her as capable. She sees herself as most skilled in research and caring for her daughter. Her daughter is her relaxation. L.F. believes that the value of her work was limited when she got her Ph.D. eight years ago, but she purposefully learned to branch out and do other work in her field. L.F. states that it is tough for women, especially for those with children who require a lot of time. Women with children can't concentrate, and to do math you must concentrate, be interested in math itself, or sooner or later you give up. Many in her field can't do research; if they quit it is hard to come back. She says she is in a critical time, having a child, but she will get through it because working here provides flexible office hours. Men are rigid, she says, men don't understand, they think you can get a baby sitter; they have an office hour mentality and think it is not possible to work at home. This is changing due to computers. Math also is structured by men. "I'm not successful but I am happy. Many men are not happy, but it is easier for them (to work). Women are more intuitive, and this intuition is helpful to (my) work. Men don't regard intuition (highly); they don't create something new. Women don't reject intuition. Emotions are not accepted by men; they want to behave like men. Men need to be a woman first, then they would create a different math. Some people feel math is the same for everyone. Not so, it is different for each person. Personalities are reflected in papers written and some men do math in a rigid strict way (which is) not the best. Math is creative." BELIEFS AND VALUES L.F. finds the solving of problems and understanding to be personally motivating. She selects projects to work on based on her abilities; she puts things that are not too tough aside; when it becomes too easy she writes a paper about it. The most satisfaction is derived from projects that pose little difficulty for her; if she solves the problem then she is satisfied. Although happiest with her daughter, she values working, continuous learning, getting deep into her problems. She likes to present and values conferences, but believes professionals should share with each other through private communications with other professors who would provide knowledgeable feedback. L.F. chose mathematics as her area of study while in high school. She liked it's strictness, its logical form. Now, her work has a lack of form that makes it less logical, and she is interested in the content of math. She views her subject as creative and valuable, but says it is hard to publish in her field. She describes the publications as tough, deep, machinery techniques that she doesn't understand. The field is big, and the problem with many technical journals is that the editor may not appreciate her work. IDENTITY L.F. has created natural boundaries between work and home; she has separated her job from her family and daughter. Her husband slows down her work with his demands (this is also a reflection of the cultural tradition of the male domination of the household). L.F. thinks about her work problems at home in the evening, and she looks forward to doing her research. But, she has to force herself to write and publish which she finds stressful. She believes that her work serves a personal purpose, that of her own continued learning, and this is enough. She believes that there is a relationship between work and her life goals and says, "Once I learn more (show abilities, understanding of a subject) I can understand people better." She has a self-image of being happy with life, having interesting engaging work, and the latter is a good role model for her daughter. The decision-making criteria used by L.F. is based on beliefs about family, her child, and the balancing of work so that she can spend time with her family, which is her priority. She uses the same process of decision-making at work and at home: inspiration or a feeling that she can sense a problem and working the problem through to solution which is personally pleasurable. The difference in the application between work and home is the prior is a pleasure and the latter a duty. This is a highly intelligent, academic person who has managed to combine goals for both work and home; she is able to do so because the culture of her work environment allows for her family to be an equal priority if her academic work is productive. Interview with T.C.: T.C. is a male research fellow in the same department as the two women. He filled out the questionnaire on his own, but was apprised of the nature of the study and expressed interest and the desire to be included. As a matter of fact, he made the arrangements and selected the women to be interviewed. T.C. has been at Academia Sinica for ten years. He received his Master's and Ph.D. in the United States after graduating from the most prestigious university in Taiwan. This is the typical route in competitive fields to attaining advanced degrees. On the one hand it provides an experience for the students that they could not have in their own country to date, on the other it acculturates the students into the work environment and ethic of United States institutions of higher education, thereby perpetuating the culture of higher education. ENVIRONMENT T.C. describes the environment he works in as "providing almost everything I need". He participates in related conferences, meeting and trips, and has frequent conversations with other professors in different disciplines. He mostly works at his office which he describes as "stimulating" and "supportive" since he has a good library available and no committee obligations. His interaction with colleagues is sometimes really close, especially when working on projects together and offering mutual help. (Notice the difference between this environment description and that of L.M. T.C. is much more relaxed about sharing and his personality is much more outgoing. Since I had the opportunity to interact with him socially, I know he is a joker, looks optimistically at life, and enjoys the opportunity to work in this social oriented place. This was not shared by the women, in the former case she shares little and works with her door closed, in the second, she reaches out, but is still not as open.) BEHAVIORS AND CAPABILITIES T.C. reports that he gets along well with others, has experienced no conflicts. He asserts his own needs by "taking a low profile" and the only difficulty he has faced in relationship to others is how to end a boring conversation. In the past he has taken the initiative and done most of the paperwork in writing of grants; presently when doing administrative work he often takes a stand but is ready to compromise. He believes luck has played a part in his choosing his job and the field of study he went into (statistics and probability). T.C. reports the least confidence when he is involved in organizing group activities and taking leadership in large groups. He says that others view him as smart, cynical and happy. This is communicated to him through others telling his wife (a sociologist) or through their body language (this latter is typical of the way females perceive the messages conveyed by others). At home he reports that he is most skilled at home cleaning. His best abilities are finding good questions and motivating colleagues. When learning something new he reads manuals or books, or takes a course, or asks for help. Relaxation for T.C. is listening to music, going to the movies or exercising. He learns a lot from the past and values having learned to overcome frustration by thinking what others would do in the same situation. BELIEFS AND VALUES Motivation in the past was directed toward interests, curiosity about math and outsmarting others. Presently this has shifted to "bringing out all the potential" and in the future he says will be knowing where I stand in the science. (Making a name for himself is evidence of being other directed compared to the women's response about their own personal challenges which drive them). He chooses projects to work on by chance; in the past he chose by anything easy, presently those things that are interesting and worthwhile with good colleagues are the criteria, and he says that in the future things that are hard will be selected. He derives most satisfaction from projects that are hard and challenging. T.C. expressed his enthusiasm by showing concern, interest with colleagues; he gives talks and asks questions. Asked what he values most in life, in the past, he says, he did "not think about values"; now he values being a good husband, friend and father being helpful to others in life. At work, he values being stimulating to others and encouraging and appreciative. Conferences are important to T.C.; they provide "a chance to get new ideas and offer a good place to share with others. (There is not the urgency for him to produce and compete compared to the two women from this institution). He believes professionals should share their results by giving seminars and through private conversations. He chooses professional and personal books by good content, good authors. He chose his field of study because of the significance of the area and the difficulty. An "easy or insignificant area are not satisfying". If he had to choose again he would choose physical science or medical science. The publications in his field are "delicate and hard"; he is fine with the publication process, but believes it is too slow, but fair. Research is most important to him, and he believes that there is not enough research going on in his country. He views service as "trying to be helpful and let young people to develop themselves". IDENTITY T.C. reports no boundaries between work and private life in the past; presently working hours and days are limited, and he foresees setting higher priority on family and social life in the future. The boundaries that in the past did not exist have deliberately been placed by him now. He works in his office and reserves private life for at home. There is very little connection between the office and home. In the past he did not discuss work with family and friends, and now still does this "very little". T.C. in the past looked forward to "working on projects that are hard but comprehensible" Now, he needs to force himself to review known but forgotten material. T.C. says that writing papers was stressful; presently "writing good papers" is, and in the future, making contributions to the science of mathematics he sees as a source of stress. He believes that the purpose served by his work is "satisfying my curiosity and understanding how science is formed". His life goals and work purposes in the past were identical; presently a "better understanding of the world makes a better person (he sees this as a life goal). His self-image is "smart but vulnerable, frustrated" in the past; "confident and above average in the present. When decision making T.C. used instinct and not much process. Presently, understanding the problems, alternatives and asking for advice is what he does. Question of the difference in perception of Academia Sinica as a place that is highly competitive and a struggle to maintain the standards of publication associated with it is not reported by T.C. curious that this was an overriding concern, particularly publications, for the women, especially the first one. He is so much more confident, there also is not that searching for a research theme detected in L.F. He is content in his skin and in his academic role. They are just forming theirs in one case and self-motivating herself in the other. Interview with H.A.: ENVIRONMENT H.A. enjoys working with younger co-workers, sharing knowledge, attitudes, ideas, and with foreign colleagues. She works mostly at home, gives lecture and seminars at the Math Institute. Her environment includes an atmosphere of openness, sharing and "joint adventure" not competitiveness. (Note the other direction for the women; they prefer to work with others in some type of relationship rather than in solitary competition Her husband, a coworker, is stimulating since he is full of new ideas and she makes them a realization. "I always have to listen to new ideas and always have to broaden my views. My capabilities are fully used and challenged (by him, and he directs her like an orchestra leader and first violinist). Colleagues recognize her experience and knowledge in the field (algebraic logic), or problem solving skills. We inform each other of success, happiness and discovery. Her environment supports her goals, "it is natural, we all have to harmonize our goals with each other" (again outside forces direct her). Her family want her to spend time with them instead of mathematics. BEHAVIORS AND CAPABILITIES H.A. reports that she just does what is necessary. She does not prepare. She doesn't understand the question about interacting with others? "Why, colleagues and students", she answers. She reports they respect her and listen to her and help with grantwriting so they can spend more time together on mathematics. Yet, she believes in luck. (The researcher does not get a sense of who she is. She seems directed by her husband who she clearly admires. She does not even describe herself as especially talented, ascribing her abilities to the elementary school where she learned the knowledge necessary to become what she became. When faced with having to assert herself, she doesn't. She would rather please others and change herself. How does this provide a sense of freedom? She even has trouble communicating with others and did not indicate conflicts of any kind with others. It is only in mathematics that she has any confidence at all, in mathematical ideas and explaining math to others.) She is least confident when trying to get the goodwill of an administrator, communicating well in a delicate matter (trying not to hurt someone). Yet, she says that others perceive her as very strong, I have a strong personality, strong will, "strong" abilities in math. Perhaps sometimes too strong. The example she gives is when she comes up with a solution to a problem too quickly, before anyone else had the chance of thinking a bit. (Why is she so insecure with others, not assert herself? Is it cultural not to show off one's abilities in this way?) She says she is skilled at everything that is needed. Her skills and abilities in the past were quick, precise, she could concentrate, and she still does not give up, is flexible, can learn, can complete projects. When asked how she learns something new, she responded, "I am glad to learn something new. I know I will have a lot of mistakes while learning (as afterwards as well)." She seems not to have confidence in her abilities. She relaxes by reading, listening to music, taking a bath, going for a walk, sitting down and thinking of peace. Nothing she indicated is with other people! She answers oddly about learning from the past: "I will not learn what I do not realize that I can learn. I try to be more sensitive to other's feelings." What asked what she values from the past she replied, "fortunate that I conceive my past as integral part of my present work, so I cannot really separate the two" Here she is being asked what her abilities are, how she derived them and she does not recognize this as an area that influences her behavior! BELIEFS AND VALUES H.A. is motivated by the good opinion of others, joy from work, and interest in the past; presently she wants "to please my husband, inner interest, joy from work". She selects projects to work on that are connected to what she already knows so that she can apply present knowledge, so the math environment will approve of her results, and lastly, inner interest. H.A. derives the most satisfaction form specific projects, cylindrical studies, not from the quality of work. She says only that it be difficult and complex. She expressed enthusiasm by smiling, saying so with closer colleagues and students. She does not mention friends. She values love, love of the subject, cheerfulness, humor, persistence, flexibility. Conferences in the past were for professional contacts and learning new areas of research. Presently it is for feedback. She would prefer professionals shared their work openly, trusting each other, acting out of love of the subject. (She has doubts about this in others in her field). She chooses books to read that are related to her profession and personal problems. In the past, her area of study was chosen by her husband, by whether he was interested in it. Presently, she adds, my personal skills, strengths can be used (but are they?) The value of her work is that it is interesting, colourful, others are interested in the same subject near her so she can talk about it to others, also in the world, then she writes papers, give lectures (This was her response to the question about the personal value of her work!). She would choose same subject specialty again if she could. When asked her opinion about publications, she responded that there are different kinds: generalizing papers unify several areas, understanding, prove something, beauty, give partial result... (The question was her personal description of the nature of the publications!). She said that the publication process "is the most important communication-forum for researchers, so it is very important (but, she makes no comment on whether it is appropriate). Most important in the past was research, now research and sharing results and attitudes through teaching. IDENTITY For H.A. no boundaries exist between work and home. Her husband is her closest coworker, also all her friends are coworkers, so there is no real boundary between work and other things. She discusses work with her husband and friends, and sometimes with her parents, on a general level, Both influence her. Thinking about a problem interests her and writing up a result - these she looks forward to. She has to force herself to have a student make an examination with her. "It is stressful when it is difficult to find the time to do everything I want" (it is unclear what that is). The purpose of work is salary! "Making my life valuable." H.A. reports a very strong relationship between work and life goals. She expresses her self-image very well in work. "I think one's personality is very much reflected in work. Work reflects my happiness, my joy. I point out the many ways/paths one could have taken instead of the actual ones I took". She makes decisions short term and long term at same time and revises them periodically (short term once each week, long term ones yearly). Interview with J.M.: J.M. is an American trained scientist, Associate Professor, Ph.D. at a major research university. ENVIRONMENT J.M.'s focus in the past was self-involved, on her own lab and how to improve it; now she has a more global view in relationship to how her division plays a role at the larger university and the community in which it is situated (Is she going from specific to a more global perspective or becoming more political in seeking support for her projects?). Interaction on campus was limited when she was an intern, not much beyond her own division; now that she is a department leader she is expanding into multiple departmental involvement. She works/studies in her office, formerly in the lab and finds support, as in the past, in department chair, who is also director of human molecular genetics. She finds the future worrisome, seeing more NIH involvement than just the university (perhaps a loss of control). J.M. finds co-workers (interns, decision chief, lab supervisor) all stimulating (the people not the place!), also new people coming to do work there, like people from NIH (this is a genome center group site!). Interaction with colleagues used to be passive, waiting for people to come to her; at present she is much more aggressive and interested in colleagues; she mentors students more than before and says "I've always loved my staff". She hopes to do more student mentoring and talked of a fellow from Israel since bright minds challenge her. Her staff is great, colleagues are close in the division, but most other department members "could care less". She does not feel a division between the PhD and MD's which is typical of medical centers. JM finds support in a good budget and staff which improves the lab; today there are budget and staff cuts - more access is required from the outside and networking, so she sees that in the future there is a need to be more self-reliant and interinstitutional, going to connections outside for supplies and requests. BEHAVIORS AND CAPABILITIES JM used to prepare for assignments by being intense, overprepared, and studying hard. Now, she has more confidence about "what I know and don't know" and she wings it a little more. It is tough to keep up in genetics and she tries not to over prep. Interactions with others in administrative work was to follow rules, do what she was told; presently she is more of a renegade and does what she wants and doesn't tell, "being passive aggressive if I get yelled at". In the future JM would like to do what she wants and argue ahead of time (rather than after). Teaching and presentations provided close intern feedback of students; now she realizes that she is a role model for the students. She does little grantwriting (it is not relevant). She socialized little in the past, saying, "I just don't know about interactions?" Currently she has slightly more interactions with others, not much, three-four close colleagues and friends, one really close and they do stuff, shop, gym; she doesn't have a phone relationship, she was there when JM had a breast biopsy though. "I don't feel I'm lacking with a few close friends." Luck played a huge part in getting job at Georgetown; the timing was right as someone else turned the job down. Luck also played part in the chief leaving abruptly and the NIH connection. She reports that she got along with colleagues well in the past, was not confrontational, low key, and indirect. Now she is more confrontational, not much, low- key indirect even though she is the chief of the division. She states that she is non-threatening. JM asserted her own needs rarely in the past and went directly to the division chief. Currently, she is the chief, and chooses more frequently a one on one basis to vent discontent with others. She would like to continue to assert herself at meetings, getting more of a public forum. Difficulties in relationship to others in the past were "with lab supervisors who didn't like me and had difficulty asserting herself as boss". Now the executive committee is all male. She says, "with men everything is black and white, my style is different and wasn't recognized and I didn't speak forcefully; in the future I must be conscious of it; there are more women on the committee." Conflicts in the past with others involved "the chief who left who recommended her; the division chair named someone else in a public meeting but told me he was going to name us co-chiefs. Presently, the genetics counselor wants to advance her career; not see patients, but she doesn't earn her keep and she's a friend." J.M. is optimistic that things will get better. JM is most confident in tasks involving students, dealings with people less experienced than herself; presently with teaching and with other geneticists; she sees that same gaps will not be bridged with physicians which is a source of conflict. JM is least confident with faculty in her department dealing with ob/gyn who she feels "are always evaluating and judging me" so that she may not be in her department in the future. She feels other perceive her as stubborn (colleagues, ex boss), hardworking, non-threatening according to family and friends and colleagues perhaps. Currently she is perceived as more assertive as she has been told by spouse and friends. She hopes to be more assertive, more creative in the future. JM is most skilled at home in being a mother; at work she supervises seven lab techs, and she is good at her lab work, a good administrator and cytogeneticist, has good people skills. She hopes that she can be more of an administrator for interinstitutional business, which is a need for political survival. At play she is most skilled with her kids, more self-centered at present. When learning something new in the past JM was reluctant to admit what didn't know so she would read up on it. Presently, she will admit if her expertise is narrow and hopes not to be embarrassed about what I don't know..wish I would be smarter!. JM relaxes by doing yoga, tennis and aerobics - she exercises to relax and hopes in the future to do more since she has a need to discharge nervous energy. JM learned from the past that people skills are 50% of the job and science was less important; she says "there is a difference in communication styles of men and women and I communicate differently". JM learned this along the way (she adapted to those around her!). JM values her PhD mentor's guidance and confidence in her ability and her renegade administrative skills. Presently the first year and a half has been very difficult, she "just survived, no one knew me, liked me and had confidence in me when I became a division chief." She values a research focus, NIH intern, more creative approach, a change of focus. BELIEFS AND VALUES What motivated JM at work in the past was pride - not to be embarrassed by anything less than excellent; that is part of the Georgetown tradition - she didn't want to be subpar. She wants her kids to grow up to be the best way they could. Currently she values her job (work) and needs to be involved. She believes that in the future, her kids, focusing on her relationship with her husband, and to "make myself irreplaceable at work" will be most important. JM selected projects at work in the past because they were easy or fun; presently they are tied in to what looks good on her C.V.; a broader based recognition is the criteria. JM got the most satisfaction from working with undergraduate research students in past - "I made a difference, they went into the field." Presently "writing papers collaboratively, research papers - exciting people cutting edge ideas, are stimulating and creative. Future limited- I don't have a career mapped out; bigger and better - more national collaboration." JM used to express her enthusiasm with family and close co-workers; currently she goes out of her way to let other colleagues know - act on things not just words; she would like to be more of an activist - then rethinking said, "I don't know I'm more of a quiet person." JM values most health of family/myself- respect of colleagues; happiness and respect of staff; colleague respect is important to her. JM was very involved in local organizations, now she attends conferences - keeping up with the field, meeting people, but she is not involved in any group. JM in the past believed that professional should be more open and share their results; now she is much more guarded and will continue to be in the future. JM read journals from professional societies she belonged to in the past; now she reads those most relevant to manuscripts or work life; as for personal books she likes fast paced books that don't require intellectual environment. JM chose her area of study through natural interest. Her high school yearbook said she wanted to be a happily married geneticist! The field is relatively lucrative and she could find work she was interested in. The value of her work lies in the life and death decisions based on her work, "it is my job to ensure they get information as quickly, accurately as possible." She says that she would be a molecular geneticist rather than a cytologist if she were to choose again. Publications in her field are mostly case reviews, review articles, small studies with similar problems; these should be more creative she says, a research focus, not just descriptive. She finds the academic publication process very difficult, inaccessible, hard to get started at first; once you establish a network of collaborators it is easier and she hopes the network will continue and grow. JM feels service was most important, making the biggest difference in people's lives; that's where her salary comes from and her staff. She says service is always going to be the focus "I don't think I'm going to be a hot shot researcher." IDENTITY For JM, the boundaries between work and home were not strict in the past and work influenced her mood at home; today work is work and home is home; when her children grow up work will come home with her more. She was not good at maintaining boundaries in the past since work overwhelmed her entire life; presently she is good at maintaining them and in the future this will be less important since her home commitment (children) will be lessening. Her work and private life are physically distanced - but most of her friends are geneticists. JM discussed her work with family a lot and friends a little in the past, now that is reversed and they are influential; she expects that this interaction with friends will increase in the future as her spouse will become more involved as the children grow up. JM looked forward to a juicy case, odd chromosome abnormality in the past; now intern and medical genetics fellows and genome center. She must force herself to abide by arbitrary regulations for lab quality assurance with safety. Stressful in the past has been her relationship with supervisors and boss; current stress is the knowledge that she has to do more sampling with less money; she foresees that the three year contract that is renewable and will be open to outside competition with NIH will cause stress since people could lose jobs (she is thinking of the big picture, or the protection of others). She states the purpose of her work is to give accurate and timely chromosome results for prenatal Rx, interruption of pregnancies, newborn, and treatment of cancer. The relationship between work and life goals is to make people around me as comfortable as possible both in work and life. "If get bad results I want to make them comfortable, see something different - not sure what it is." JM expressed her own self image in her work in the past by feeling she was a hard worker who was willing but not particularly talented; presently she says "I underestimated my talents and things that came easily were not as valuable"; future she foresees growing in self confidence, more multifaceted, more outspoken. She was not aware in the past of the importance of what she does and didn't realize that "I was as good as I was. Now I have confidence in my abilities; I describe the dramatic aspect of life and death." Decision making in the past was quite indecisive in both work and study; now JM is much more opinionated - black and white statements, and expects "I'll continue to get older and crotchetier and grumpier." Interview Questionnaire The Interview Questionnaire (IQ) was designed to elicit responses that coincide with the cognitive levels described above. The questions are grouped into four categories A-D below. Subjects were asked to describe their behaviors, beliefs, etc. from the perspective of past, present, and, when appropriate, the future; the latter represents the "ideal" from their perspective. A. These questions relate to the environment in which you work/study. 1. How do you relate to the community you work/study in? 2. How do you interact on the campus? 3. Where do you do your work/study? 4. What is in your work/study environment that is supportive to you? 5. What about your work/study environment is stimulating? 6. How would you describe your interaction with colleagues, staff, students? 7. How does your environment support your goals? B. These questions relate to your behaviors and capabilities in your work/study environment. 8. How do you prepare for your assignments? For studying? 9. Describe your interactions with others while engaged in: a. administrative work, b. teaching, c. presentations, d. grant writing, e. socializing with colleagues. 10. What part has luck played in opportunities that have come your way? 11. How do you get along with others? colleagues? friends? mentors? 12. How do you assert your own needs? 13. What difficulties/conflicts have you faced in relationship to others? 14. I exhibit the most confidence when I am engaged in tasks involving .... 15. I exhibit the least confidence when I am engaged in tasks involving .... 16. How do others (family, friends, colleagues, students) perceive you? How do they communicate this perception to you? 17. What tasks are you most skilled in at home, work, play? 18. When you need to learn something new, how do you go about acquiring the skills and abilities? 19. How do you relax? 20. What do/don't you learn from the past? 21. What do you value from past work/study? C. These questions relate to your beliefs and values about your work/study. 22. What motivates you at work/school, at home, at play? 23. How do you select projects to work/study? 24. What projects give/gave you the most satisfaction? Why? 25. How do you express your enthusiasm, with whom? 26. What do you value most in life, in work/study? 27. What role do conferences and presentations play in your academic life, personal life? 28. How should professionals share their results? 29. How do you choose professional books to read, personal books to read? 30. How did you choose your area of study? Why? 31. What personally is the value of the subject that you work in/study? 32. If you could choose again, what subject would you choose to work in/study? Teachers only answer 35-37: 33. How would you describe the nature of the publications in your field? 34. What are your feelings about the academic publication process? 35. What is most important and why? teaching, research, or service Students only answer 38-40: 36. How do teachers support your goals? 37. What are your professional goals? 38. What are your personal goals? D. These questions relate to your personal identification with your work/study. 39. What boundaries exist for you between work/study and your private life? 40. Do you create the boundaries between work/study and private life? 41. How are your work/study and private life separated? How are they connected? 42. Do you discuss your work/study with your family, friends? Does their input influence your behavior? 43. What parts of your work/study do you look forward to? What parts do you have to force yourself to do? 44. What is stressful about your work/study? 45. What purpose is served by your work/study? 46. What relationship exists between your work/study purpose and your life goals? 47. Can you express your self-image in your work/study? 48. When you describe your work/study to others, how does the description reflect you? 49. Describe the decision making process you use in work/study. In your private life. Bibliography Competence: Bandura, A. Conclusion: Reflections on Nonability Determinants of Competence. In Sternberg, R.J. and Kolligan, J. (1990). Competence Considered. New Haven: Yale University, pp.315-362. Dilts, R. (1990). Changing Belief Systems with NLP. Cupertino, California: Meta Publications. Harter, S. Causes, Correlates, and the Functional Role of Global Self-Worth: A Life Span Perspective. In Sternberg, R.J. and Kolligan, J. (1990). Competence Considered. New Haven: Yale University. pp. 67 - 97. Kolligan, J. Perceived Fraudulence as a Dimension of Perceived Competence. In Sternberg, R.J. and Kolligan, J. Competence Considered. New Haven: Yale University, 261-285. Langer, E. J. And Park, K. Incompetence: A Conceptual Reconsideration. In Sternberg, R.J. and Kolligan, J. (1990). Competence Considered. New Haven: Yale University, pp. 149-166. Markus, H., Cross, S. And Wurf, E. The Role of the Self-System in Competence. In Sternberg, R.J. and Kolligan, J. (1990). Competence Considered. New Haven: Yale University, pp. 205-225. Norem, JK and Cantor, N, Cognitive Strategies, Coping, and Perceptions of Competence. In Sternberg, R.J. and Kolligan, J. (1990). Competence Considered. New Haven: Yale University, pp. 190-204. Sternberg, R.J. and Kolligan, J. (1990). Competence Considered. New Haven: Yale University. Neurological Levels: Bandler, R., and MacDonald, W. (1988). An Insider's Guide to Sub-Modalities. Cupertino, Calif: Meta Publications. Cameron-Bandler, L., Gordon, D. and Lebeau, M. (1985). The Emprint Method. A Guide to Reproducing Competence. Moab, Utah: Real People Press. Cameron-Bandler, L. and Lebeau, M. (1996). The Emotional Hostage. Moab, Utah: Real People Press. Dilts, R. (1990). Changing Belief Systems with NLP. Cupertino, Calif.: Meta Publications. Dilts, R. (1990). Cognitive Patterns of Jesus of Nazareth: Tools of The Spirit. Manuscript, NLP University, Santa Cruz, Ca. Dilts, R.B., Dilts, R.W., and Epstein, T. (1991). Tools for Dreamers; Strategies for Creativity and the Structure of Innovation. Cupertino, Calif: Meta Publications. Dilts, R.B., and Epstein, T. (1995). Dynamic Learning. Cupertino, Calif.: Meta Publications. Dilts, R., Grinder, J., Bandler, R., Bandler, L. and Delosier, J. (1980). Neuro-Linguistic Programming: Volume I, The study of the Structure of Subjective Experience. Cupertino, Calif.: Meta Publications. Dilts, R., Halbom, T., and Smith, S. (1990). Beliefs, Pathways to Health and Well-Being. Portland, Oregon: Metamorphosis Press.