Indonesian Host Country Nationals: Feeling Respected Yet Not Respected
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Having completed research on the expatriate experience in Indonesia (Russell, 2006; Russell & Dickie, 2007; Russell & Aquino-Russell, 2010, 2011) we wondered what it might be like for Indonesian host country nationals (HCNs) to work with western organizations in Indonesia since there is a significant lack of literature based on the perspective of HCNs (Templar, 2010). Although not from the HCN perspective, we found literature about HCNs in relation to knowledge management (Vance, Vaiman, & Andersen, 2009; Massingham, 2010), empowerment and team participation (Zhang & Begley, 2011), remuneration policies (Mahajan, 2011), career development and promotability (Vo, 2009; Herrmann & Werbel, 2007), and relationship building (Varma, Pichler, & Budhwar, 2011). These realities spurred on our current phenomenological research which focused on describing the lived experience of Indonesian HCNs using their own words and meanings. Data descriptions were collected and analyzed using Giorgis (2009; Giorgi & Giorgi, 2003) descriptive phenomenological method. One of the important findings pointed to HCNs living the paradox of feeling respected-not respected while working in western organizations located at home in Indonesia.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".