A Bourdieusian Critical Constructivist Study of The
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
A BOURDIEUSIAN CRITICAL CONSTRUCTIVIST STUDY OF THE EXPERIENCES OF LOW SOCIOECONOMIC, PRIVATE UNIVERSITY UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS IN SERVICE-LEARNING COURSES FOCUSED ON SERVING LOW SOCIOECONOMIC POPULATIONS A dissertation submitted to the Kent State University College of Education, Health, and Human Services in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy By Amanda L. Espenschied-Reilly May 2016 © Copyright, 2016 by Amanda L. Espenschied-Reilly All Rights Reserved ii A dissertation written by Amanda L. Espenschied-Reilly B. S., Wright State University, 2000 M. S., Wright State University, 2002 M. A., West Virginia University, 2006 Ph. D., Kent State University, 2016 Approved by _______________________________, Director, Doctoral Dissertation Committee Susan Iverson _______________________________, Member, Doctoral Dissertation Committee Martha Merrill _______________________________, Member, Doctoral Dissertation Committee Walter Gershon Accepted by _______________________________, Director, School of Foundations, Leadership, Kimberly Schimmel and Administration _______________________________, Interim Dean, College of Education, Health, and Mark Kretovics Human Services iii ABSTRACT ESPENSCHIED-REILLY, AMANDA L., Ph. D., May 2016 Higher Education Administration A BOURDIEUSIAN CRITICAL CONSTRUCTIVIST STUDY OF THE EXPERIENCES OF LOW SOCIOECONOMIC, PRIVATE UNIVERSITY UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS IN SERVICE-LEARNING COURSES FOCUSED ON SERVING LOW SOCIOECONOMIC POPULATIONS (281 pp.) Director of Dissertation: Susan Iverson, Ed. D. Social class stratification in higher education has increased; however, socioeconomic status (SES) continues to receive less targeted focus by higher education policy and practice than do race, ethnicity, and gender. Despite the challenges, low SES students are attending college but are not having equivalent experiences or outcomes to their higher SES peers. The rise in the numbers of low SES students on campuses has caused increased attention from federal lawmakers and higher education professionals, alike. New policies and practices are being proposed in order to better support this growing student group. One promising pedagogical practice for low SES college students is service-learning. This critical constructivist study draws upon Bourdieu to analyze the academic and social experiences of low SES students attending a selective, private university and enrolled in service-learning classes in which the population being served was also of low SES. This study had three main findings. First, low SES students practice passing behaviors to cover their low SES. Second, participating in service-learning can reinforce the practice of passing or chameleon behaviors. Third, this may contribute to questioning instructor authority, both of which can negatively impact social and academic experiences, thus inhibiting the acquisition of social and cultural capital. I advance recommendations for how campuses can create environments that embrace socioeconomic diversity and work toward creating opportunities for low SES students to develop the social and cultural capital they seek via private higher education. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I deeply thank my participants for their time and willingness to share their experiences and thoughts. Being trusted with their stories was a great honor and a treasured gift. I hope that I have given voice to those stories in a manner in which each would approve. I also thank Harkness University for allowing me to conduct my research on their campus and River, Dr. Song, and Dr. Dhavin, who each assisted me logistically. This research was funded in part by a competitive grant from Credo, a higher education consulting firm. Their generosity assisted me in providing the gift cards to my participants in compensation for their time. The grant funds also partially covered the transcription of my data. I must also acknowledge the feedback, guidance, and time of my committee – Dr. Susan Iverson, Dr. Martha Merrill, Dr. Walter Gershon, and Dr. Janice Kroeger. Each of them has helped me strengthen the design of this research and the final document, for which I am grateful. In addition I received feedback and support from many peers in the doctoral program who aided my thinking and writing and kept me on my journey. I am grateful to my colleagues at Aultman College who have traveled this last mile of my doctoral journey with me. Many have been gracious with their time, advice, and feedback. Dr. Chuck Piscitello was my sociologist-on-call as well as my technical support. Thank you for helping me to dabble in your discipline! Yvonne Lee was instrumental in helping me prepare my final document. Her feedback, critique, and time were always generously and graciously given. I would not have finished this document iv without her. Thank you Yvonne for helping me to find my “ethos” when I didn’t even know I had any! Dr. Jeffrey Pellegrino was an enthusiastic and supportive mentor as I prepared for and completed my defense. He reenergized me for the final mile! Finally, I acknowledge my family, my greatest support. My parents worked hard to provide me with a college education that they likely thought would never end. They instilled in me a great love and value for education and never allowed me to entertain quitting. My deepest regret is that my mom did not live to see the end of this journey. I postponed my work so I could walk with her on her last mile and that I do not regret. I have given up a great deal of irreplaceable and invaluable time with my husband and daughter in order to finish this work and they have never complained. My husband, Troy, has listened to me speak endlessly about this work since I found my topic. As assuredly as I hate Hamlet, Troy hates Bourdieu. Troy has listened to my frustrations, my epiphanies, and my pain throughout this journey. He has never failed to support me even when my doctoral journey left him a “single dad” many nights on end. This work is as much a product of his hard work and dedication as it is of mine. Thank you for always believing that I could do this. I love you. v TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................... iv CHAPTER .................................................................................................................. Page I INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................1 Problem Overview and Significance ..........................................................................3 Research Purpose ........................................................................................................8 Research Questions .....................................................................................................9 Theoretical Framework .............................................................................................10 Key Terms .................................................................................................................12 Organization of Dissertation .....................................................................................17 II LITERATURE REVIEW .........................................................................................18 Pierre Bourdieu .........................................................................................................18 Bourdieu's Theory of Practice .............................................................................19 Social Reproduction through Education .............................................................24 Critics of Bourdieu ..............................................................................................29 The Promise of Critical Pedagogy ......................................................................33 Higher Education and SES .......................................................................................37 Barriers to Higher Education for Low SES Students..........................................38 Supporting Low SES Students ............................................................................49 Service-learning ........................................................................................................52 History of Service-learning .................................................................................53 Service-learning Outcomes .................................................................................54 Service-learning and Students Outside of the "Ideal" .........................................58 Service-learning and Bourdieu ...........................................................................64 III METHODS ...............................................................................................................67 Qualitative Framework .............................................................................................67 Critical Constructivism .......................................................................................67 Standpoint Theory ...............................................................................................70 Bourdieu's Metatheory ........................................................................................72 Responsive Interviewing .....................................................................................74 Study Design .............................................................................................................77