FIRST-GENERATION UNDERGRADUATE LIBRARY USERS: EXPERIENCES and PERCEPTIONS of the LIBRARY AS PLACE by KAREN A. NEUROHR Master Of
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
FIRST-GENERATION UNDERGRADUATE LIBRARY USERS: EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF THE LIBRARY AS PLACE By KAREN A. NEUROHR Master of Library Science University of North Texas Denton, Texas 1995 Bachelor of Arts in Education Northeastern State University Tahlequah, Oklahoma 1988 Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate College of the Oklahoma State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION May 2017 FIRST-GENERATION UNDERGRADUATE LIBRARY USERS: EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF THE LIBRARY AS PLACE Dissertation Lucy E. Bailey, Ph.D. ________________________________________________ Dissertation Advisor Kerri S. Kearney, Ed.D. _______________________________________________ Committee Chair Bernita L. Krumm, Ph.D. ______________________________________________ Joshua L. Wiener, Ph.D. _____________________________________________ ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Completing this doctoral degree fulfills a dream and goal I first had many years ago. This would not have been possible without the support of many people. First, I wish to thank my loving husband George for his patience and support, and our sons and their families- Chris, Libby, Grant and Evan; and Ryan, Emily, Cate, Charlie and Callie for understanding the time I needed to commit to this project. I look forward to spending more time with all of you! The support of my siblings Connie and Rob, and all of my extended family is also deeply appreciated. Their words of encouragement always helped! I wish my mom and dad were here to celebrate this significant accomplishment with me. I am grateful to my committee chair, Dr. Bailey for her guidance, and insight throughout this research. She taught me everything I needed to know about methodology, and she and my committee chair Dr. Kearney challenged me to think more deeply in the search for meaning within certain contexts. I appreciate my committee members Dr. Krumm for her excellent edits and suggestions and Dr. Wiener for his assistance and service on my committee. I also thank all of the OSU faculty members whose classes deepened my knowledge of higher education, research, and marketing. I appreciate Dean of Libraries Sheila Grant Johnson and my former supervisors Dr. Jennifer Paustenbaugh and Rich Paustenbaugh for their support of this endeavor. I also appreciate the friendships and support of my library colleagues, especially Tanya F., Janet A., Susan B., Helen C., Suzanne R., and Cristina C., my Higher Education Classmates, and the support of my friend Lynda R., and OSU colleagues Tammy M., Linda S., and Robert R.. Finally, I deeply appreciate the first-generation undergraduate library users who shared their library experiences and perceptions with me for this study. I am so proud of them, and I wish them all the best as they pursue their dreams and goals. iii Acknowledgements reflect the views of the author and are not endorsed by committee members or Oklahoma State University. Name: KAREN A. NEUROHR Date of Degree: MAY, 2017 Title of Study: FIRST-GENERATION UNDERGRADUATE LIBRARY USERS: EXPERIENCES AND PERCEPTIONS OF THE LIBRARY AS PLACE Major Field: HIGHER EDUCATION Abstract: Research focused on first-generation college students has developed considerably in recent years, yet an area that remains relatively unexplored is students’ perceptions of the academic library as place. Exploring such perceptions is important for deepening understanding of how the library, as a central academic resource on campus, can best serve this population. Purpose and Questions: The purpose of my study was to explore Oklahoma State University first-generation undergraduate library users’ experiences and perceptions of the Edmon Low Library (hereafter referred to as Library) as place. The four questions and two sub-questions for this study were as follows: 1. How do first-generation undergraduate library users experience the Library? 2. How do they perceive the Library? 3. What aspects of the Library do they identify as meaningful? a. What are those meanings? 4. How do they relate to the Library as place? a. How do those relationships develop? Methods and Theory: My primary method for this case study was a series of three progressive interviews informed by participant-produced photographs, a diamond-ranking activity, and a time-diary. Analyzing my data inductively, I produced a case representation of each participant. Through cross-case analysis, eight empirical assertions emerged. Place attachment theory emerged as a significant way to draw out nuances in participants’ meanings and their sense of the Library as place. Findings: Participants became attached to the Library as place through their multi-dimensional experiences with library spaces and resources over time. They perceived that the Library “cares” about them because it offers spaces, environmental conditions, and physical resources that support their academic goals. Their use of the Library fostered their self-identity as college students, and they often feel a sense of comfort, community, and belonging in the Library. The Library’s striking historic architecture and design is welcoming to participants and improves their attitudes and signifies academic accomplishment. Their interactions with peers and library employees, as well as their past library experiences fostered their relationships to the Library. These important findings have implications for place attachment and student development theory, and for research, and practice in libraries and institutions of higher education. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………….. 1 Overview of Context……………………………………………………….. 3 Problem Statement…………………………………………………………. 9 Statement of Purpose and Research Questions……………………………. 10 Research Approach………………………………………………………… 10 Research Setting…………………………………………………………… 14 Researcher Positionality…………………………………………………… 16 Rationale and Significance………………………………………………… 17 Definitions of Key Terminology………………………………………….. 18 II. LITERATURE REVIEW……………………………………………………… 21 Section One– Higher Education, First-generation Students, Capital Theories……. 23 Historic Overview of Higher Education Access…………………………… 23 Benefits of Higher Education……………………………………………… 24 Higher Education Completion Inequities………………………………….. 25 First-generation Students in Higher Education……………………………. 26 Policy Initiatives for Supporting Underrepresented Students…………….. 28 Capital Theories Common to the Study of First-generation Students…….. 30 Libraries and Capital Theory………………………………………………. 33 Section Two– Select Scholarship on Students and Academic Libraries…………… 34 Studies of First-generation Students and Libraries………………………… 34 Underrepresented Students’ Perceptions of Libraries……………………… 38 Section Three– Place Theory and Constructs of Library as Place…………………. 43 Place Theory……………………………………………………………….. 43 Place Attachment…………………………………………………………… 45 Place Attachment and College Students……………………………………. 47 Library as Place…………………………………………………………….. 49 Importance of the Physical Library- Administrative Views……………….. 50 Library as Place in LibQUAL+™…………………………………………. 51 Library Space or Place, Research Studies…………………………………. 52 Three Ways Library as Place is Conceived and Studied…………………… 54 Sacred or Spiritual Places………………………………………….. 54 Third Places………………………………………………………… 55 Learning Places or Spaces………………………………………….. 56 v III. METHODOLOGY……………………………………………………………. 59 Research Paradigm and Theoretical Perspective………………………….. 59 Methodology………………………………………………………………. 63 Setting– Edmon Low Library……………………………………………… 65 Population…………………………………………………………………. 65 Sampling…………………………………………………………… 65 Recruitment………………………………………………………… 67 Participants………………………………………………………… 69 Reciprocity and Incentive…………………………………………. 70 Research Methods and Procedures………………………………………… 71 Demographic Form/Questionnaire………………………………… 72 Primary Method, Individual Interviews…………………………… 73 Interview One- Participant-Produced/Photo-Elicitation…………………… 73 Interview Two- Diamond-Ranking Activity……………………………….. 78 Interview Three- Time-Diary………………………………………………. 81 Secondary Methods………………………………………………… 83 Data Analysis………………………………………………………. 84 Quality Criteria/Validity…………………………………………… 88 Credibility………………………………………………….. 89 Dependability……………………………………………… 92 Transferability……………………………………………… 93 Ethical Considerations……………………………………………… 94 Limitations…………………………………………………………. 95 IV. REPRESENTATIONS OF CASES…………………………………………… 98 GROUP ONE– Meanings of the Library’s Exterior Appearance………… 100 Grace………………………………………………………………. 100 Anthony…………………………………………………………… 105 Allison…………………………………………………………….. 109 GROUP TWO– Library Objects Important for Goals……………………. 113 Nick……………………………………………………………….. 114 Levi……………………………………………………………….. 117 David……………………………………………………………….. 121 GROUP THREE– Interior Library Spaces That Matter …………………… 126 Tasha……………………………………………………………….. 126 Olivia………………………………………………………………. 130 Jessica………………………………………………………………. 135 Isabelle……………………………………………………………… 139 V. CROSS-CASE ANALYSES……………………………………………………. 146 Assertion One– Library Awareness………………………………………… 147 Assertion Two– Touchstones of History and Self-Identity………………… 153 vi Assertion Three– Architectural Design/Enduring Academic Knowledge…. 156 Assertion Four– Feelings of Community and Belonging………………….. 163 Assertion Five– Goal Support…………………………………………….. 169 Assertion Six– The Importance of Time………………………………...... 177 Assertion Seven– Library Experiences and Relationships……………...... 181 Assertion Eight– Dynamic Library Relationships………………………... 189 VI. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION…………………………………………….