Harding (1987) explained that methodology is where philosophy and method meet. In other words, how we understand the world will inform how we gather and analyze information. Critical and feminist theories, which investigate phenomena at both a macro and a micro level, have been a source of inspiration and information in my work. A goal of these theories is to articulate both what individuals experience and how those experiences are embedded in social structures like institutions of education. For example, Fine (1994) warns against writing about a mass as if they were separate from the context of their oppression, as it reproduces “othering” – extracting people from their “scenes of exploitation, social relationships, and meaningful communities” (p. 79). Pope, Mueller, and Reynolds (2009) encouraged qualitative multicultural research within the student affairs field, suggesting that it has the capacity to impact both the researcher and the participants in a way that allows both parties to address oppression outside of the research study.
Feminist and critical theories shift points of view from a majority perspective to the (formerly) marginalized (Sprague, 2005; hooks, 2000a). When researchers pay little attention to a group – like women in student affairs from working class backgrounds – it reifies their status as “other” or the “ones who need explaining” (Pope, Mueller, & Reynolds, 2009, p. 643). Focusing on the margins and marginality in research processes is important to broadening the scope of understanding, but researchers must also guard against defining the margins only in relation to the majority.
To provide a working definition of the margins by the boundaries of dominant culture is to define those in the margins as not something.
Marginality becomes defined as the not-normal, the not-mainstream, the not-center; invoking a deficit model upon those people, ideas and so on that are marginalized while reaffirming the normalcy of the center. (Winkle-Wagner, Hunter, & Hinderliter Ortloff, 2009, p. 3)
Despite these risks, researchers should still pay attention to the experiences of those at the margins in any setting, as those very experiences shed light on issues of power in ways that attending to those in the mainstream cannot. Critical and feminist theories interrogate practices to uncover power, ideology, and hegemony – those things that maintain rather than transform asymmetrical power relations in a society (Marshall & Rossman, 2006). Feminist theories also problematize women’s diverse experiences and the institutions that frame those situations (Creswell, 2007).
Still, critical and feminist researchers do not always attain their aspirational goals of revealing unequal power. Fine (1994) wrote that class has lost ground as a salient social variable, and feminist researchers focus on race and gender more than class. This is because some researchers say that class has lost its meaning (Van Galen, 2004). Taylor (2010) argued class is still relevant and qualitative researchers should “hear lived experience as a challenge to renditions of classlessness, rather than just as personalised assertion alone” (p. 2).
Qualitative researchers acknowledge that men might speak only cautiously on behalf of women, that straight people might speak only cautiously on behalf of gays and lesbians, and that whites do well to speak only
cautiously of the lives of people of color. We seem curiously untroubled, however, that theoretical and empirical work on the educational ‘needs’ of
poor and working class children is done almost entirely by middle class scholars, who often write as if they work outside of, rather than within a class system. (Van Galen, 2004, p. 668)
Van Galen (2004) did not suggest people could not conduct research on populations to which they do not belong, only that researchers should be cognizant of how their background has an impact on the way in which they interpret data.
Critical and feminist theories encourage an interrogation of our own lenses, understanding that the neutral researcher is non-existent – we all bring our backgrounds with us. Apple (2009) insisted the process of becoming a critical educational scholar, as one is always becoming, never fully arrived, “requires a searching critical examination of one’s own structural relation, one’s own overt and tacit political commitments, and one’s one embodied actions” (p. 33). Fine, Weis, Weseen, and Wong (2000) articulated the tension as a dilemma between being detached and neutral (which they say is impossible at best, silencing and colonizing at worst), or self-absorbed and unable to hear
experiences that do not match our own. They encouraged researchers to find a way to tell the “big story” as well as the particular stories and to do so in a way that does not
romanticize, essentialize, or refuse to see counterhegemonic possibility. In this case, I hope to describe the big story, sharing what the participants might have experienced in common, as well as the specific details that make each of their experiences unique. My research therefore, explores the “generic and particularistic” questions, teasing out the big story as well as individual experiences (Maxwell, 2005).
Qualitative methods are a most appropriate match for a feminist and critical epistemology because qualitative research allows the researcher to understand
experiences from the participants’ own frame of reference. Bogdan and Biklen (2007) indicate that qualitative research influenced by critical theory examines issues of reproduction (how schools “sort, select, favor, disenfranchise, silence or privilege” (p. 23) particular groups) and issues of production (how people negotiate those reproductive institutions, through any combination of agency, resistance, acceptance, etc.). Qualitative research is an appropriate approach when the goal is to understand meaning, context, and process (Maxwell, 2005). Qualitative researchers explore an individual’s experience in the context of the system of relations to which it belongs (Becker, 1998).
However, there are risks involved with qualitative work. On the one hand, there are examples of qualitative work that romanticize the victimized/damaged, robbing them of agency. I worry some of the working class academic literature might fit into this category, only documenting the negative experiences without offering any hope for change. On the other hand, there is a risk of reinforcing an image of the oppressed as resilient and strong, suggesting the social structures do not need to change because the subjects can withstand the oppression. I am concerned narratives taught in student affairs preparation programs about those who overcame their circumstances fit in this category, which reinforces the notion that anyone can get ahead with enough hard work so those that do not get ahead are responsible for their own circumstances. The goal for the critical feminist researcher is to avoid these binaries of victim/survivor and find what is “happening between” (Fine, Weis, Weseen, & Wong, 2000).
In order to uncover the richness of experiences, qualitative feminist researchers must listen carefully to women’s experiences. To do so is not as easy as it might seem, because historically researchers of all genders have trivialized women’s speech and
language itself reflects a male experience (Devault, 1990). For example, in traditional intensive interviewing, a researcher would explore past and present experiences, joining them for the ‘essential’ experience (Seidman, 1998). To understand experiences from women’s standpoint more completely, the feminist researcher must listen around and beyond words during interviews (Devault, 1990). Smith (1987) also encouraged feminist sociologists to explore how women’s everyday worlds are “put together in relations that are not wholly discoverable within the everyday world” (p. 47). She suggested
researchers begin their inquiry from the standpoint of women in their everyday world; “…taking women’s standpoint and beginning in experience gives access to a knowledge of what is tacit, known in the doing, and often not yet discursively appropriated (and often seen as uninteresting, unimportant, and routine)” (Smith, 1997, p. 395.). My research employs women’s standpoint theory by investigating the lives of women through their own voices and in their everyday experiences.
Informed by critical and feminist theories, I have chosen grounded theory as my methodology for this study. Glaser and Strauss (1967) developed grounded theory as a way of generating theory from data. Instead of starting with a hypothesis, the researcher collects data, generates codes from the data, organizes those codes into concepts, and then forms a new theory as having arisen from the data. This process is different from most positivistic research, which begins with a hypothesis and finds data to support or reject it. Despite the differences with traditional research, grounded theory is a legitimate form of research – rigorous in its collection and analysis of data.
The basic research question in grounded theory is “what’s happening here?” (Charmaz, 2006). A researcher seeks to investigate this question from the standpoint of
the participant. How do participants describe their experiences? How do they negotiate challenges? What does that look like from both a social and psychological frame? Because there is little existing theory to draw from in terms of the experiences of female student affairs professionals from working class backgrounds, it makes sense to adopt grounded theory to generate the theory from the data itself. Also, grounded theory allows for collection of multiple data points – from interviews to site observations, from elicited texts (which involve participants in writing the data) to extant texts (pre-existing records such as mission statements or professional organization competency lists) (Charmaz, 2006).
Selection of Participants
White women from working class backgrounds who are working in student affairs settings in higher education are the focus of my study. I am focusing on this population for several reasons. First, White women represent the majority of student affairs
practitioners. I am interested in how people perceived to be in the majority as White women may experience having a class background less represented in the field. Second, researchers often study class issues in higher education through the experiences of students of color. While racism in the United States makes it more likely for persons of color to historically have less access to wealth and income, only studying class from the perspective of students of color also perpetuates a stereotype that all persons of color in higher education come from “scholarship” backgrounds, and all White people are middle class. Although researchers use the voices of students of color to tell the story of class in higher education from a student perspective, most literature on working class academics is written by White faculty members who do not frequently raise the issue of race.
I wanted to design a study focused on class, remaining very conscious of the intersections of identity in terms of race, class, and gender – especially when a person has membership in both dominant and subordinate social groups. In other words, in my study I wanted to investigate how White women experience class through their gender (female) and through their race (White). For example, being White may afford study participants the privilege of moving about in higher education differently than their colleagues of color. Often, students, faculty, and staff assume that White women in higher education are from a middle or upper class origin until they reveal otherwise. This is very different for colleagues of color, as race and class intersect in a way that makes some individuals assume that colleagues of color do not come from a middle or upper class origin. Further, social mobility is easier to achieve for White families in the U.S. than for
families of color (Wilkerson, 2005). When exploring class through “Whiteness,” I do not mean to imply a misplaced concreteness with a White race – that is, being White means the same thing to all people all of the time. However, I do believe “Whiteness” in the United States is both a social construct as well as a real lived experience with real lived implications. I also believe coming from a working class background does not eliminate the privilege one has due to their race, but it may have an impact on one’s overall
experience in higher education settings in general and in student affairs settings in particular.
As some of these demographic characteristics do not have universal definitions, I made sure to define them to the best of my ability when recruiting participants. I defined “student affairs professional” as one who has earned a master’s degree in college student personnel work and/or has a bachelor’s degree and has worked full-time for at least five
years in a student affairs division within a U.S. college/university. Different institutional types value different credentials when employing student affairs professionals. More “prestigious” institutions – such as selective private liberal arts schools, Research I schools, and “flagship” state schools – will more likely employ student affairs
practitioners with master’s degrees. Less prestigious institutions – such as less selective regional four-year schools and two-year institutions – will more likely employ student affairs practitioners with bachelor’s degrees. I worried if I limited my research
participants to those who had completed master’s degrees, I might lose the perspectives of those working in college environments that most commonly serve low-income and first-generation students. I also was interested in the ways in which college student personnel (CSP) graduate preparation programs played a part in socializing individuals to the field, and hoped to compare the perceptions of those with formal CSP educations to those with less access to the formal and specialized knowledge transmitted in CSP programs. Therefore, I added another layer of analysis to the study: the ways in which institutional type is a variable related to class of origin.
Beyond simply self-identifying as coming from a working class background, participants in my study also were required to demonstrate limited access to middle class cultural capital. I specifically requested participants possess at least two of the following three characteristics related to class markers of education, occupational status, and income: (1) education: both parents’ educational attainment was below a bachelor’s degree, the standard definition of “first-generation” college student, (2) occupational
status: neither parent worked in a professional field (identified as management, business,
Occupational Classification guidelines (United States Department of Labor, 2010) during the time when the research participant was financially dependent on them, and (3)
income: the research participant herself qualified for state or federal aid programs in
educational settings such as free/reduced lunch in K-12 public schools or Pell Grants in higher education. I limited my pool to two Midwestern states with active state
professional associations. As each state has a large rural population, I knew some working class students would not qualify for Pell Grants if their family owned land or equipment even though they would identify as more blue collar than not. With this in mind, I allowed participants to meet just two of the three characteristics because I did not want to exclude perspectives of those who might not have been low-income on paper, but lived life in a low-income world. In hindsight, I wish I had better defined the “limited access to middle class cultural capital” beyond just income, job status and educational attainment, as some participants met my study criteria but still had substantial access to resources I would consider to be part of the middle class (such as dance or language or music camps, or private K-12 education).
To recruit participants, I began by soliciting permission from a national student affairs professional organization with very active state divisions in the two states included in my study. The ACPA-College Student Educators International home office approved my request for access to the email addresses of members who lived or worked in the two Midwestern states who are women or who did not specify their gender (see approval form in Appendix A). ACPA does not track or share the race/ethnicity of their members; so, in my email invitation to participate in the study, I asked recipients to share my invitation with any colleagues who met the study criteria. Once I had received the list from ACPA,
I removed the names of individuals who were working in the same institution I work in as well as anybody I have ever supervised in my career, trying to avoid any conflicts of interest.
I was hoping to recruit 18-24 participants and planned on starting with this list of national association members and then following up with a recruitment email to members of the state divisions of this association and directors of regional CSP graduate programs, along with a “snowball sample” (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). Much to my surprise, I had no difficulty in recruiting participants. Within 24 hours of sending the initial email to 236 individuals (see recruitment email text in Appendix B), I already had 15 inquiries, and within one week, I had over 30 inquiries. I learned someone in one state recognized my name from prior work and forwarded it to her state division association on my behalf. Her act of forwarding was a bonus in terms of recruiting participants, and it was
particularly useful in recruiting participants who worked at two-year and regional state institutions who did not yet have their master’s degrees. I realized later I should have investigated the member lists from both the national and state organizations because it seems the national association members are more likely to have higher educational credentials and work in more selective institutions, while the state association members are more likely to seek professional affiliations at the local level.
In the end, I had 25 participants. I stopped accepting inquiries after receiving 28 volunteers. Of the original 28, three dropped out due to scheduling conflicts (two because they were about to go on maternity leave, one because we were unable to complete an interview after four scheduling attempts). I turned down an additional four individuals who did not meet study criteria and six individuals who met the study criteria
but contacted me after I had already reached my limit. I did ask those six if I could contact them if any study participants withdrew, and as my total group remained above my initial plan and reflected a diversity of institutional type, functional area, stage in career, and background, I simply closed the study with 25 total participants.
Data Collection
I collected data in four ways: phone conferences, written materials, site visits, and interviews. The phone conferences took place after participants expressed an interest in the study. During the phone conference (see script in Appendix C), I shared background information about my interest in the topic, reviewed the criteria I was seeking in
participants, discussed the timeline and time commitment, and answered any questions potential participants might have had. In my first phone conversations, I discovered potential participants revealed quite a bit about their stories and perspectives; so, I began recording the phone conversations and taking notes on their questions and comments.
During the first phone consultation, I also realized it would be helpful to me if participants shared their resume and a little bit about themselves in writing prior to my site visit and interview. I, therefore, asked subsequent participants to provide resumes and written reflections about their interest in this study in advance of the interview. I hoped to understand their career and educational trajectory as well as provide them with the opportunity to articulate any thoughts about class before my interview questions distracted them. I encouraged participants to write as little or as much as they liked and their responses ranged from two sentences to six pages of narrative.
As a Bush Leadership Fellow, I was able to take advantage of the generous travel resources provided by the Bush Foundation. In all but one case, I was able to interview
candidates on their campuses and in or near their offices. Seeing each campus in person