Cultural Identity and Hybridity in “Different Spaces”: Recent

CULTURAL IDENTITY AND HYBRIDITY IN “DIFFERENT SPACES”: RECENT

IMMIGRANT STUDENTS NEGOTIATING SETTLEMENT AND UNIVERSITY IN

ONTARIO, CANADA

Paula Kaye DaCosta

A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Leadership, Higher and Adult Education Ontario Institute for Studies in Education University of Toronto

CULTURAL IDENTITY AND HYBRIDITY IN “DIFFERENT SPACES”: RECENT IMMIGRANT STUDENTS NEGOTIATING SETTLEMENT AND UNIVERSITY IN ONTARIO, CANADA

Paula Kaye DaCosta Doctor of Philosophy Department of Leadership, Higher and Adult Education Ontario Institute for Studies in Education University of Toronto 2018

Abstract

This qualitative research explores cultural identity construction among recent immigrant students from Jamaica who live and attend universities in Ontario, Canada. It focuses on the experiences of identity construction when migration, settlement and university participation are considered.

The research approached the complexities in the immigrant student identity through a hybrid conceptual lens. Through semi-structured interviews of 14 undergraduate students in universities in Ontario, multiple dimensions of identity and intersectional considerations were elucidated.

The combined use of hermeneutic (interpretative) phenomenology with a critical component allowed for exploration of cultural identities as living with and through difference, by hybridity.

Participants’ experiences of growing up in Jamaica, moving to Ontario and attending university were the general themes within which issues of social class, skin colour, language, race, nation of origin, stereotypes and discrimination were discussed. The findings suggest that participants construct their cultural identities through the intervening influences of parents, peers of similar cultural orientations, language, discourses of difference, nation of origin and aspirations. Of significance is the salience assigned to social class identification and its relation to speech and skin color in the origin country. Social class was not assigned the same meanings in the receiving

ii nation. Participants maintained their nation of origin identification in Ontario, despite encounters of stigmatization and discrimination. This research finds evidence to suggest both resistance to essentialist views of Jamaicans and beliefs in an essence of Jamaican-ness. The study concludes that students’ interactions in and outside of university are complexly negotiated and thus, their identities are multiply constructed. The study makes recommendations for partnerships among policy makers, universities, and settlement agencies to provide appropriate resources to assist recent immigrant students in their educational journey.

iii

Acknowledgements

A doctoral journey is simultaneously full of wonder and apprehension. It is a journey that cannot be taken alone. Much like building a house, there are so many considerations that go into composing one’s dissertation, and, while some things go according to plan, other things go awry.

Throughout this journey I was constantly reminded that it is God, the Master Builder, who gives vision and that this accomplishment was only possible through Him.

I am mindful of the significant roles played by my thesis supervisor and committee who guided me through this process. I am deeply indebted to Dr. Nina Bascia, my thesis supervisor, who has contributed to my growth as a researcher by engaging me in two important projects over the course of my studies. I am grateful to her for stepping in to undertake the supervision of my thesis at a critical point in my journey and for always being understanding of my anxieties about writing. I am grateful to Dr. Linda Muzzin who introduced me to writing as inquiry and has always treated me like an expert in my field. Her penchant for details has been helpful in guiding the revisions of my drafts. I am thankful to Dr. Ruth Childs for her intuition, forthrightness, and for providing me with insightful feedback. I acknowledge with sincere gratitude Dr. Tony

Chambers who encouraged me to think about my family and studies as integrative rather than a balancing act. He helped to convince me that the research I chose to pursue was worth undertaking and he supported me along my journey as best he could. I will always be grateful for his support.

I am deeply appreciative of the contributions of the fourteen participants in my study.

They gave me their time and entrusted me with their stories. They willingly opened their lives and invited me to participate in their experiences. I will be forever grateful. I am thankful as well for the courtesies extended to me by the institutions at which I collected data.

I am grateful to the examiners of my thesis—Dr. Mary Alfred, Dr. Jamie Magnusson, and

Dr. Stephanie Waterman for constructive feedback and insights for future research. Thank you for lending your time and expertise in the culminating stages of my doctoral journey.

I want to acknowledge the help of some “unexpected friends” who made the journey worthwhile. I am grateful to Angel who mentored and encouraged me from orientation to defense; Everton, for assistance in the recruiting process; Jackie, Amal, Berivan and Ayman for light moments and good conversations; Karen Dinsdale and Joanne Bedasie—"Jills of all trades”—who had ready advice and helpful hands; Karolina who helped me navigate some of my challenges; and Joanne Bacon, the first administrator with whom I interacted at OISE and who continues to take an interest in my progress.

I am indebted to OISE, University of Toronto, for the funding packages, grants and assistantships that provided some financial security for the duration of my studies. My sincere thanks to members of my church family for prayerful support and words of encouragement.

Last, but by no means least, I thank all members of my family—immediate and extended—who have never ceased to believe that I could do this work. I am especially grateful to my father who never failed to check on my progress and remind me that “with God all things are possible”; my sisters, Sharon and Colleen, whose support was unwavering from start to finish and who always believed that I can conquer the world; my “bestie” Gloria; and my children—

Matthew, Jaidon, and Deshawn—who prayed constantly for me and are thrilled that I am finally finished. I reserve my final expression of thanks for my husband, Raymond, to whom I am profoundly grateful. He has walked in-step with me through the years, understanding the unspoken terrors of my heart at every point in my PhD journey, listening to my ramblings about my work, praying with and for me, laying a hand of reassurance on my head to encourage me

v when he sensed I was having a difficult time and constantly reminding me that I would be fine. I look forward to what the Lord has in store for us.

I end this acknowledgement with a dedication of this work to the woman who taught me to “dare to be different”—my mother, Essie. I thought about you through the thrills and the trials of this doctoral journey. I miss you and I wish that you were here to witness this achievement and celebrate this moment.

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements ...... iv

Table of Contents ...... vii

List of Tables ...... xii

List of Figures ...... xiii

List of Appendices ...... xiv

Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 1

My position ...... 3

Background ...... 4

Research questions ...... 7

Significance of the study ...... 8

Definition of terms ...... 10

Road map of the thesis ...... 12

Chapter 2: Literature Review ...... 15

Organization of literature review ...... 16

Contextual Review: Historical Trends ...... 16

Jamaica: A country of encounters ...... 16

Caribbean/Jamaican cultural identity ...... 18

Creolization in Jamaica’s language history ...... 21

Race, class, identity, and lives in Jamaica ...... 22

Contextual Framework: Migration, Settlement, University ...... 30

Migration histories of Jamaicans...... 31

Jamaica in the Canadian experience: A narrative of race and immigration ...... 35

From exclusion to inclusion? Canadian multiculturalism in context ...... 36

vii

Settlement and identity ...... 38

Settling as an immigrant student in Canada...... 42

Immigrant students in Canadian postsecondary education ...... 45

Student identity development in higher education ...... 52

Sociocultural contexts and immigrant identities ...... 53

Immigrant language and identity ...... 55

Summary ...... 57

Chapter 3: Conceptual Framework ...... 58

The Postcolonial context ...... 59

Two views of Cultural Identity by Hall (1993) ...... 62

Cultural identity as similarity and continuity ...... 66

Cultural identity as difference and rupture ...... 68

Cultural identity through hybridity and becoming ...... 74

Chapter 4: Methodology ...... 83

Towards a qualitative research approach ...... 84

Epistemology and theoretical perspective ...... 85

Methodology ...... 88

Strategy for phenomenology and rationale ...... 92

Adopting a critical lens ...... 94

Research purpose and questions ...... 100

Description of process of data collection and recruitment ...... 102

Ethics Review ...... 103

Participant selection ...... 104

Interviews and instrumentation ...... 105

Method of Data Analysis ...... 107

viii

Acknowledgement of location ...... 111

Member checking /feedback ...... 113

Other thoughts on the study ...... 113

Summary ...... 115

Chapter 5: Growing up in Jamaica: Narratives of identity ...... 116

An introduction to the participants ...... 117

Participant Accounts in Their Words ...... 120

Background to emigration: A desire for “better” ...... 139

Better Opportunities ...... 140

Educational advancement opportunities ...... 142

Escapism – Going for “better” ...... 144

Chapter 6: From (an) Other land to Ontario, Canada: Interpreting/Negotiating the present through the pas t ...... 146

(Un)Settling ...... 147

Displacements, disruptions, and dislocations ...... 148

Negotiating the system ...... 154

Navigating “difference” in assessment and high school processes ...... 159

Different views of multicultural experiences ...... 165

Seeing the familiar in the “different” and difference in difference ...... 165

Being visibly “different” ...... 169

Speaking in “different tongues” ……………………………………………………...172

A discourse of Jamaicans: Unsettling representations ...... 175

Chapter 7: The lived experience of university: Cultural identity construction in contexts of “being” and “becoming” ...... 182

Being in university ...... 183

The “path” taken ...... 184

Navigating university ...... 189

Challenges of “being” in university: Realizing the need to know ...... 192

Accessing resources: Lessons in navigation and negotiation ...... 195

Challenges in “mind” ...... 200

Different ways of learning and being in class ...... 203

Lost in “translation” ...... 205

Constructing a “cultural” identity ...... 206

Together (similarities) in difference ...... 207

Recognizing differences “within” unity ...... 212

Intergenerational language differences ...... 214

Living with and through difference ...... 218

Becoming resistant ...... 220

Living through difference ...... 225

When I say I’m Jamaican: Defining a national cultural identity ...... 227

New ways of thinking about cultural identity—becoming ...... 229

Chapter 8: Discussion - Contextualizing cultural identity construction ...... 232

Rationale for use of Stuart Hall’s Cultural Identity Theory ...... 233

Stuart Hall’s thesis of cultural identity in relation to participants ...... 235

Summary of findings ...... 238

Similarity and Continuity ...... 240

Grounded in the past ...... 242

One shared culture ...... 243

One “true” self ...... 244

Shared historical experiences, ancestry, common frames of reference and meanings ...... 246

Language as shared cultural codes ...... 249

Difference and rupture ...... 252

Future and past ...... 252

Contextual identities (place, culture, time, history) ...... 253

Multiculturalism and difference ...... 261

Constructed through memory, fantasy, narratives and myth ...... 264

Constructing cultural identity: Not what we have but what we do ...... 265

The “Difference” Matters – cultural identity as “What we might become” ...... 270

Becoming processors of political and economic knowledge ...... 272

Opening “spaces” of learning ...... 273

Becoming in language: Embracing and resisting ...... 274

Becoming through the community of clubs and associations ...... 278

Becoming through aspirations ...... 281

Becoming through resistance ...... 282

Summary ...... 282

Chapter 9: Conclusion...... 285

Overview of study ...... 286

Research questions and themes ...... 289

Significance ...... 296

Contributions ...... 297

Implications and recommendations ...... 298

For research and practice ...... 298

For policy ...... 300

Concluding Thoughts ...... 300

References ...... 303

Appendices ...... 341

List of Tables Table 1 Race in Jamaica Table 2 Example of thematic cluster Table 3 Participant Profiles Table 4 Breakdown of Stuart Hall’s conceptualization of Black Caribbean identity in participants’ experiences

xii

List of Figures Figure 1 . Two vectors of Caribbean cultural identity operating simultaneously Figure 2 . Interrelationships of history, culture, and context in cultural identity construction

xiii

List of Appendices Appendix A Interview Protocol Appendix B Information for Recruitment of Participants Appendix C Informed Consent

xiv

Chapter 1 Introduction Research Problem

Identity is becoming a more complex and problematic construct in contemporary social life, as individuals try to negotiate their everyday experiences and find meaning in the world.

Scholars over time have made extensive efforts to simplify the process of understanding identity and identity change by examining behaviors based on psychological and sociological referents; and categorizing these behaviors as stages, cycles, vectors, statuses, schema, to name a few.

Some have justified these methods as being useful for measuring and tracing changes in identity over an individual’s lifecycle (Erikson, 1980). Others have criticized alternative views that suggest that identities are fluid and always changing, arguing that such views make it difficult to operationalize identity (Schwartz, Montgomery, & Brione, 2006). Many scholars of identity development have come to acknowledge that the process is neither simple nor linear, which is implied when identity is treated as developmental (Chickering & Reisser, 1993; Cross, 1995;

Helms, 1990, 1994; Phinney, 1993). When considered from a social constructionist perspective identity construction embeds social, historical, political and cultural aspects of an individual’s life in the changing contexts of the everyday lived experience (Anderson & Collins, 2007;

Weber, 1998). In a social constructionist conceptualization there is greater appreciation of the fluidity and complexities involved as identity goes through formations and transformations, or as individuals “create and recreate identity through their actions” (Torres, Jones, & Renn, 2009, p.577). One context in which identity construction becomes complicated is in immigration.

Identities take on new meaning as the immigrant tries to make sense of the new situation through the filter of culture comprised of values, beliefs and customs that are part of the individual’s

socialization. In other words, the culture of immigrants affects the way they construct their identities and project themselves through the changes in their daily experiences. Culture, like history is not static and undergoes transformation from one context to the next as “lives” move and encounter different people and spaces. I seek in my research to contextualize immigration in the student development literature which explores how identity develops in students in higher education. The student development literature typically does not address the relation of migration and settlement matters to the student experience. This research will be an important contribution to knowledge in this field.

Although recent scholarship has discussed the diversity of student populations, including their backgrounds, and has focused on identity within sociocultural and historical contexts, there is yet room for exploring the experiences of identity construction among immigrant students who face discrimination and are stigmatized as deficit due to their nation of origin. The role of nation of origin or heritage nation in identity construction of immigrants is not widely researched although it is acknowledged in some studies of first generation immigrants (see for example,

Henry, 1994; Waters, 1994). The identity or identities adopted by recent immigrants to a country of diverse cultures as is evident in the Canadian landscape is important as they seek to define themselves in the various cultures represented (Hebert, 2001). For recent immigrants from

Jamaica, finding their place in Canada takes on historical significance in the context of being excluded for a period up to 1962, except for select groups who filled domestic needs. Henry

(2002) has credited the Multiculturalism policy for making entry to Canada possible for those who were previously excluded; however, in the same vein, she has called for more nuanced attention to what multiculturalism entails. The changes to the immigration regulations in 1967

(Li, 2000) have led to an increased number of Jamaicans in the Canadian mosaic. They enter via

different routes—particularly economic—as skilled workers or professionals and business class.

They also immigrate through family sponsorship and, less likely, as refugees. Whatever their immigration pathway, Jamaicans move to Canada from a so-called Third World, developing nation, seeking to access the opportunities that are available in an advanced developed country.

The student-participants in my research are immigrants who moved to Canada with their parents or as family-sponsored immigrants. These students may have been unaware of the history of Jamaican Canadian relations; the diverse cultures that are represented in Canada; and how they would respond to the life changing experience of settling into their new country of residence. They likely believe the narratives of opportunity and advancement offered by their parents, with little consideration of how these opportunities will be realized in the receiving nation. They have undergone, at the very least, a triple-dimensional transition process having transitioned from adolescence to adulthood or at the stage of early adulthood; transitioned to a new society; and transitioned to new systems of education. I am mindful that the transitions do not carry fixed meanings, and that for some participants there are other transitions within the broader categories of transitions—for example, transitioning to a life with a parent with whom one was not raised. These transitions will influence how they think about themselves in relation to their life circumstances, even if the immediate impact is not voiced or addressed at the personal level.

My position

I write this dissertation from the position of an immigrant student who has questioned my fit within the broader social spectrum of Canadian society and higher education. I have spent the last six years trying to understand what it means to be a recent immigrant and student whose experiences are complicated by multiply constructed identities. I write from a place of

knowledge of the experience of alienation in spaces where I have been the sole (visibly) Black face; of being visible yet invisible; and of being a student, a wife, and mother navigating the terrain of settlement with my family. I write from a place of questioning my “ways of being and knowing” and what they mean in the new spaces that I now occupy. As a mother, I considered immigration to be an avenue through which my offspring would see the world through different eyes, not just a “single” vision of the world from the vantage point of Jamaica. I wanted this opportunity for them. I chose this because they were too young to choose. I wonder now what their young minds pondered when they experienced the ruptures of migration. I wonder how they see themselves now, how others see them, and what their narratives would reveal if they were participants in my research. Amidst my ambivalences and uncertainties about what I have entered and have brought them into, I have few regrets. The experience of rupture and displacement has opened my eyes to the reality that identity construction is lived. It is lived through everyday relationships, and broader social and political processes that organize my life.

But, it is also lived through my choices. My research path has been directed by a desire to explore the complexities of identity construction for students who, like me, fall within the category of recent immigrants from Jamaica who reside in Ontario, Canada.

Background

The presence of recent immigrants is now a commonplace phenomenon in Ontario. There is no element of surprise when one comes across someone who looks quite different from oneself. According to the 2016 Census, Canada has settled over 1.2 million new immigrants between 2011 and 2016 (Statistics Canada, 2017), and has outlined an ambitious plan to increase its intake of immigrants and refugees to approximately one million over the next three years.

Beyond the numbers of immigrants entering the country, little else is known of what their lives

involve post-entry. Some of the participants in my research fall within the statistics mentioned.

They are recent immigrant students from Jamaica who moved to Canada between 2009 and

2014. What brought them to Ontario? How have they negotiated migration, settlement, and entry to university? How did they perceive their encounters with the new society? These are questions that cannot be answered by the numbers. The underlying assumption is that newcomers to a country encounter challenges in settlement as they seek to adjust to living in a new society (Kim

& Diaz, 2013). Most of my research participants were not socio-economically disadvantaged in their source country; however, the settlement experience often involves extended periods of unemployment, search for housing, accessing health and financial services (Anisef & Kilbride,

2003) which can be challenging. With the lack of research on how recent immigrant students navigate immigration and settlement, and how these transitions impact their participation in university, there is little way of knowing how these processes affect their adaptation to the receiving society. Evans, Forney, Guido, Patton, and Renn (2010) have pointed to the necessity of expanding the research on student development to consider students from various racial and ethnic backgrounds, their multi-dimensional identities and life experiences that have “shaped them in ways different from students of the dominant culture” (p.366). They go on to suggest that the “missing voices” in the American student development literature need to be considered.

Among the missing voices, they include first generation students who have “strong ethnic and cultural heritages” (Evans, et al., 2010) and, they suggest that if students are to develop in meaningful ways and feel included at universities, then there is need for greater understanding of the role of background and culture. Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) emphasize the importance of students’ pre-college lives on their educational experiences. Attending university is perhaps one of the most critical aspects of the discussion of cultural identity construction by participants in

my research. This desire is not transient; rather their socialization leads them to believe that hard work yields success (Alfred, 2003) and that they have the proclivity to succeed in university. As evidenced in research (Gosine, 2010; Hernandez-Ramdwar, 2009; James, 2010), higher education features prominently in decisions to emigrate and the future aspirations of immigrants.

Among university aged immigrants from Jamaica, attaining higher education is considered a significant achievement (Alfred, 2003; McFarlene, 2006); and for other Caribbean immigrant groups, there have been similar findings, for example, A. Palmer (1983) and Hussain (2011) have conducted research on Guyanese immigrant females whose idea of success includes having postsecondary education (PSE). The desire to attend university features so prominently in the socialization of students from Jamaican background that if they attend community college it is merely considered a pathway to the “real” goal; that is to attend university. Research conducted by the Association of Canadian Community Colleges (2008) supports the view that “a significant proportion of immigrant students … had university preparation as a major reason for attending college” (p.39). In other words, they were hoping to obtain college credentials to enable their entry to university, which was their primary goal (Hussain, 2011).

Foreign educational settings of higher learning represent the realm of the possible

(McFarlane, 2006), feeding the idea that what will be gained from the developed world is superior to what exists in the home country, and will position students favorably in the host society. Indeed, the students’ own interest in postsecondary participation is often driven by encouragement and support offered by parents who envision a “better life” for their children in the new country of residence (M. Suarez-Orozco, Suarez-Orozco, & Todorova, 2008), and the prospect of improving post-migration occupation opportunities (Adamuti-Trache, Anisef, Sweet,

& Walters, 2013; AUCC, 2011; Picot & Hou, 2012). It appears that the very decision to emigrate

is a belief in the possibility of creating one’s own success, albeit in settings that are largely unfamiliar and fraught with challenges. Although some scholars acknowledge the importance of social mobility as a dimension of cultural identity construction for immigrants and visible minority groups (Donaldson & Jedwab, 2003), other scholars argue that the belief in creating one’s success and gaining upward social mobility as implied by a “better life” discourse, are false ideals built on “neo-liberal social hope” (Brown, 2013, p. 419). Brown has suggested that young people’s aspirations for higher education are raised through this discourse of social hope without the requisite material resources to allow their hopes to be realized. In the absence of such resources there is difficulty attaining the levels to which one aspires. Consequently, unrealized aspirations may affect the individual’s self-concept as well as the family whose hopes often reside in the success of the individual (Reay, 2009). Notwithstanding these views, immigration and education are regarded as positive channels to gain upward social mobility (Alfred, 2003;

McFarlane, 2006; A. Palmer, 1983; Walkerdine, 2003). Discourses of social mobility are based on historical circumstances, such as colonialism, and become valorized in migration to a developed country. Living in a developed country brings the prospect of educational and economic success within the grasp of the aspirant.

Research questions

My research explores the inter-relationship of pre- and post-migration experiences, including settlement and university participation, in the construction of cultural identities of recent immigrant students from Jamaica. It builds from the idea that constructing cultural identities is a complicated and dynamic process, always in production (S. Hall, 1993), and that the complexities cannot be understood “without attention to multiple and intersecting identities and the sociocultural contexts within which identities are constructed and negotiated” (Jones,

2009, p. 287). The overarching question asks, what is the lived experience of cultural identity construction among recent immigrant students from Jamaica when migration, settlement, and university contexts are considered? To support the overarching goal of understanding the construction of cultural identities, the research asks the following sub-questions:

1. How is cultural identity given meaning in lives of recent immigrant students from

Jamaica? That is, how do they understand and articulate their cultural identities?

2. How do migration, settlement and university contexts influence their cultural identity

construction?

3. By what mechanisms are cultural identities negotiated?

Significance of the study

Student development research places significant focus on the complex ways in which students integrate and organize their experiences (Sanford, 1967), and takes into consideration the whole person (Rodgers, 1990). Underlying these two perspectives in the context of postsecondary education (PSE) is the assumption that institutions of higher education should be concerned about “the whole student” and how they develop in university. From this perspective, students’ ability to navigate the complexities of university is related in part to the competencies they develop throughout the postsecondary journey, their emotional maturity, autonomy and positive relationships (Chickering & Reisser, 1993). Chickering and Reisser believe that these four vectors are necessary in the process of identity formation and are critical during students’ years in higher education as they begin to develop a greater sense of who they are and what they wish to become. Identity formation is inextricably linked to students’ backgrounds, but outside of home and the media, an educational institution is an important context for the formation of identity (Evans, et al., 2010). Yet, higher education institutions remain largely unware of who

students are, shifts in their conceptions of identity (Jones and Abes, 2011, p. 153), and how they navigate the postsecondary experience.

Over two decades ago, Upcraft, Finney, and Garland (1984) in writing about students in college advised that “too little attention is paid to entering students’ backgrounds and characteristics, assuming too much homogeneity” (p.9). The assumption of homogeneity in the student experience is a shortcoming in the traditional student development and student experience research as well. By assuming that students experience postsecondary education in similar ways, institutions ignore the variations in students’ characteristics and other issues that mediate their experiences. Kusow (2006) has acknowledged that little attention is given to how students entering postsecondary institutions with strong connections to home and cultural backgrounds, constantly negotiate and redefine their identities as they move through their university and college experiences. The past decade has seen a greater effort to examine “the complex interplay of personal and societal contexts” within the multiple possibilities of identity

(Baxter-Magolda, 2013, p. xv). My research will contribute to literature that examines the multiple dimensions of students’ identities and the diverse ways in which they experience their

“multiple worlds” of university, home and community. I intend to expand on the discussions of students in university by adding the experiences of immigrant students of Jamaican background whose presence in university is obscured under the category of “domestic” student. Their placement in this category in university masks some of the issues that they encounter and the challenges they experience in navigating university as recent immigrants. This examination is timely and important for these and other recent immigrant students whose complexities and multiple realities warrant creative efforts to transform the ways that they are supported by their institutions.

Definition of concepts

Identity in the student affairs literature is “understood as one’s personally held beliefs about the self in relation to social groups (e.g., race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation) and the ways one expresses that relationship” (Torres, Jones, & Renn, 2009, p. 577). Stuart Hall’s definitions of identity are utilized in this study notwithstanding the departure from the traditional identity paradigm in the student development literature. In one definition S. Hall (1995) described identity as “the narrative, the stories which cultures tell themselves about who they are and where they came from. Identity is not only a story, a narrative which we tell ourselves about ourselves, it is stories that change with historical circumstance” (p.8). Aside from S. Hall, several other discussions of identity within student development literature, particularly social identity theories, are incorporated in this study. These theories emphasize the socially constructed nature of identities, that is, that “one’s sense of self and beliefs about one’s own social group as well as others are constructed through interactions with the broader social context in which dominant values dictate norm and expectations” (Torres, et al., p.577). Among the approaches discussed are Abes, Jones, and McEwen (2007) Model of Multiple Dimensions of Identity, Cross and

Fhagen-Smith (2001) Black identity model, and Sue and Sue (2003) Racial and cultural identity development model.

Jamaica is discussed as a source country, heritage country or nation of origin. These descriptors are used interchangeably in my research. Jamaica is a country in the Anglophone

Caribbean. In this research study, Jamaica’s cultural features are considered as both a settler and immigrant society. A Jamaican is a person who identifies as a national of Jamaica through birth or naturalization.

Culture is a contested term that has been variously defined across several disciplines. For this research I find S. Hall (2005) and Benhabib (2002) definitions of culture to be relevant. S.

Hall has presented a definition that highlights the complexities of culture. He stated that

culture is a production. It has its raw materials, its resources, its ‘work of production.’ It

depends on knowledge of tradition as ‘the changing same’ and an effective set of

genealogies. But what this ‘detour through its pasts’ does is to enable us, through culture,

to produce ourselves anew, as new kinds of subjects. (p.556)

Seyla Benhabib (2002) has extended the definition by referring to human cultures as “constant creations, recreations, and negotiations of imaginary boundaries between ‘we’ and the ‘other(s)’”

(p. 8).

The term immigrant covers a wide spectrum of individuals who leave from one country to another for various reasons. In this research I adopt the definition of “migrant” used by the

International Organization for Migration (IOM, 2011), that applies to

cases where the decision was taken freely by the individual concerned for reasons of

‘personal convenience’ and without intervention of an external compelling factor; it

therefore applied to persons, and family members, moving to another country or region to

better their material and social conditions and improve the prospects for themselves or

their family. (p.61)

Recent immigrant students, for the purposes of this research, are postsecondary students from Jamaica who arrived in Canada between 2009 and 2014. At the time of their interviews in

2016 they would have lived in Canada for two to seven years. The definition of recent immigrant adopted in my research was drawn from Gilmore and Le Petit’s (2008) study carried out on

behalf of Statistics Canada. Their study divided recent immigrants into two categories: recent immigrants who had landed between five to 10 years earlier and very recent immigrants who had landed for up to five years (p.15).

Settlement is defined as a process of integration through which recent immigrants are provided with services including reception, counselling, language training and job search assistance to help them adapt to Canada within the initial months of arrival (Statistics Canada,

2003). Murphy (2010) has adopted a definition of settlement developed by Ontario Council of

Agencies Serving Immigrants (OCASI) which is states that settlement is “the long-term, dynamic, two-way process through which, ideally, immigrants would achieve full equality and freedom of participation in society, and society would gain access to the full human resource potential in its immigrant communities” (p.11).

Road map of the thesis

This chapter contextualizes the research problem, background, significance, questions driving the research study, and a brief road map of the subsequent chapters. Chapter Two is divided into two main sections. The first discusses relevant background literature on Jamaica’s encounters with other “worlds” and cultures, and the results of those contacts. The discussion is set in the larger discourse of Caribbean cultural identity produced through meditations of conquest, slavery, and colonialism. This first section also discusses early migration patterns— particularly Jamaica’s history of immigration to Canada after a period of exclusion in the

1950s—to explore reasons for immigration and some post-arrival experiences. The second part of the chapter reviews some of the existing literature on immigrant students in relation to settlement and Canadian higher education, including literature that discusses the experiences of

Jamaican/Caribbean immigrant students in Ontario. The section also reviews some of the

relevant student identity development theories and language identity literature. Chapter Three discusses the theoretical and conceptual underpinnings of the research. The conceptual framework is drawn from Stuart Hall’s (1993) thesis of cultural identity by hybridity. The primary focus of this chapter will be to consider the views of Hall on cultural identity that “lives with and through, not despite, difference; by hybridity (p. 235). Hall’s thesis will be complemented by other theorists who discuss difference as identity and experience (Brah, 1996) and hybridity as becoming (Bhabha, 1994). This hybridized conceptual framework will help to address the theoretical complexities of the immigration, settlement and university experiences in the construction of cultural identities of recent immigrant students from Jamaica. As well, I incorporate relevant literature from the traditional identity development paradigm alongside the conceptualizations of cultural identity construction by hybridity. Through this undertaking I hope to open “new theoretical approaches” and “combine different approaches” to consider the

“whole” student (Torres, Jones & Renn, 2009, p. 593).

Chapter Four provides the methodological framework and research process for this study, including the recruitment of participants; the use of semi-structured interviews to guide data collection; and hermeneutic phenomenological inquiry to identify and analyze emergent themes.

Alongside the use of phenomenology, I will apply a critical lens to analyze the connections of migration and settlement experiences to the identity construction of immigrant groups. To so do I draw on Gunaratnam’s (2003) doubled practice for research on ‘race’ and ethnicity. A doubled practice allows the researcher to interrogate meaning but stay true to the stories of participants.

Chapters Five, Six and Seven are data chapters in which major themes and sub-themes that emerge from the data will be shared. The themes and sub-themes are developed from an analysis of semi-structured interviews conducted with 14 students who volunteered to participate

in the research. Chapter five introduces the participants as they describe themselves in their premigration reflections. Chapters Six and Seven discuss the findings during settlement and university, respectively, to explore how the participants construct their identities in the encounters with a new society and university. Chapter Eight discusses the findings of three data chapters applying the lens of the conceptual framework to interpret the construction of cultural identities in relation to migration, settlement and university. It discusses the interpretations of the findings especially with respect to participants’ definitions of their cultural identities and how they perceive that these identities are “becoming” formed or transformed within Canadian society and university.

Chapter nine, the conclusion of the study will examine the main findings considering the three research questions, discuss implications of the findings as well as present recommendations for future research.

Chapter 2

Literature Review

Recent immigrant students from Jamaica constructing cultural identities through migration, settlement and university in Ontario

The purpose of this study is to explore the experience of cultural identity construction among recent immigrant students from Jamaica when migration, settlement and university participation are considered. Specifically, I sought to understand how the meanings of their identities are constructed and understood by the participants. To understand the construction of the meanings assigned to identities it is necessary to situate the exploration in Jamaica’s history, including how identity is interpreted throughout that history. Migration is a significant aspect of that history and therefore has relevance in a study of Jamaicans who form the largest Caribbean origin group to have settled in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA), Ontario. The chapter examines the interrelatedness of immigration, settlement, student experiences in university and the students’ construction of their cultural identities. Considering these four elements requires a multi-pronged analysis and synthesis of the literature which cuts across several fields—for example psychology, sociology, anthropology, political science and cultural studies, and history.

In the field of higher education, construction of identities is discussed mainly in the context of student development where it is defined in relation to the changes that occur in the various life transitions of students. My research acknowledges that the field of higher education does not operate in a vacuum, and within higher education broader historical and social issues are implicated in identity construction. Identities cannot be understood outside some reference to these contexts.

Organization of literature review

This literature review opens with a discussion of some contextual issues regarding

Jamaica’s history and migration trends; some current and historical research on migration histories of Jamaicans; immigrant students in higher education in the North American context, generally; and Canadian postsecondary education (PSE), specifically. Second, it reviews some literature on multiculturalism, settlement and the traditional literature on identity development within the context of student development in college (the term used in the American lexicon).

The review of the literature on immigration of Jamaicans is important because it considers the conditions that make it possible for Jamaican students to settle and attend university in Ontario.

The literature provides some context for understanding what factors contribute to decisions to emigrate and the processes involved that bear on early settlement conditions. Theories of student identity development and socio-cultural theories of learning are reviewed to contextualize how students’ identities are generally or traditionally perceived in higher education settings. Socio- cultural theory provides a context for understanding conditions that are necessary to meet the needs of learners from different cultural backgrounds.

Contextual Review: Historical Trends

Jamaica: A country of encounters.

Caribbean identity is inextricably linked to immigration. In fact, S. Hall (1993) asserts that the Caribbean is a region of immigrants, all coming from somewhere else to occupy the space they call nation. This is the basis on which S. Hall referred to Caribbean people living away from the region as a “diaspora among diaspora” (p. 235). Similarly, Jamaica reflects a mixed demographic in that its ethnic makeup comprises people of African, East Asian, Chinese,

Jewish, Syrian and other origins. This ethnic mix came about historically through slavery and colonialism. The World Factbook of the CIA (2017) has described Jamaica as a multiethnic country comprised of 92.1% Black; 6.1% mixed; 0.8% East Indian; 0.4% other; and 0.07 % unspecified based on 2011 data. The estimated population of Jamaica as of July 17, 2017 stands at 2,990,561 million people. The majority Black population of Jamaica has been in place since

African slaves were transported to the island after the Columbus era.

Scholars of Caribbean migration continue to be intrigued that the phenomena of conquest and colonialism, inextricably linked to Jamaica’s past, has maintained relevance in contemporary scholarship (Richardson, 1989). These phenomena reveal the history of cross border movements in the direction of Jamaica, leading to a country settled by immigrants. When the Spanish sought to conquer and claim land in the name of the Queen of Spain, Jamaica was one the islands that

Columbus “discovered.” Jamaica (Xaymaca), the “land of wood and water,” as it was termed, was believed to have been “discovered” by Christopher Columbus on a Spanish expedition to get to the East Indies. The Spaniards ruled the island between 1494 until 1598, having enslaved the native Tainos who eventually succumbed to the diseases and poor treatment by the Spanish.

Research gathered by the Jamaican Information Service (JIS) records that it was an attack on the country by the British that drove the Spanish off the island in 1655. The British then settled on the island. There was forced immigration to the island of African slaves and later indentured laborers from India and China, leading Jamaica to be characterized as a nation of immigrants. S.

Hall (2005) has emphasized the significance of this characterization to Caribbean cultural identities. He states that “with us, identity is irredeemably a historical question. Our societies are composed, not of one but of many peoples. Their origins are not singular but diverse” (p. 546).

Jamaica suffered exploitation through slavery and colonialism and endured near 400 years of

colonial rule under Britain and then became an independent nation in 1962. These encounters and later mediations in the Jamaican experience constitute a positioning and repositioning (Hall,

1993, p.230) of Caribbean, and in this case, Jamaican cultural identities.

Caribbean/Jamaican cultural identity.

Jamaica’s identity as a country has historically been linked to creolization due to the contact between the colonial power and colonized subjects. A scan of the literature on creolization has revealed that it is a construct of ambivalence. It is discussed variously as lifestyle and as language. Some Caribbean writers have focused on the concept as a process.

Edward Braithwaite framed creolization as both process and action. Braithwaite’s (1971/2001) concept of “creolization” in the Caribbean held that Jamaican identity came about mainly as a response by two discrete groups, one Black and the other White, representing inputs from both colonizing and colonized cultures. He elaborated that both cultures had to “adapt themselves to a new environment and to each other” (p. 114); hence, creolization involved both a social process and cultural action. Throughout the process, there were acts of resistance, but also creativity as the enslaved grafted aspects of African culture into their daily activities. Thus, in Braithwaite’s view Caribbean culture emerged in the “margins of colonial regimes and frequently in opposition to them” (Olwig, 1993, p.364). Implicit to his explanation of creolization is that it is comprised mainly of two separate cultures; one inferior and one superior. Beyond the cultural actions of the

African slaves, Braithwaite (1971/2001) has postulated that “creolization is based on the notion of a historically affected socio-cultural continuum within which (in the case of Jamaica), there are four interrelated and sometimes overlapping orientations” (p. 115). These orientations relate to how Jamaicans assert their identities along a continuum of “white/brown/black” (Brathwaite,

2001, p.115) and whatever further distinctions may fall within that continuum. Braithwaite implied that there are variations that can be considered perhaps along a sliding scale.

Burns (2009) has drawn on the works of two Caribbean writers who have discussed the concept of creolization. She has cited Ortiz (1995) who presented an understanding of creolization as a process involving transculturation. The concept of transculturation is applied because “all classes, races, and cultures coming by will or by force, have all been torn from their places of origin, suffering the shock of this first uprooting and a harsh transplanting” (p.100).

This understanding clarifies what S. Hall meant by cultural identity through rupture and discontinuities, because the people who were taken forcibly or who came to Caribbean countries were, as it were, dug up and re-planted in the islands. Ortiz has problematized the notion of acculturation and suggested that the term transculturation better expresses the process of transition from one culture to another, not merely the acquisition of a new culture. He further suggested that other terms might also appropriately reflect new cultural phenomena, examples of which are “deculturation” and “neo-culturation” (p.102). Ortiz has discussed the loss of an original identity as reflected in the eradication of the original people of the land, the Indigenous

Tainos of Jamaica as an example already mentioned above.

The concept of creolization is further problematized in Burns’ (2009) discussion about

Glissant’s Caribbean Discourse . Glissant has suggested that the conceptualization of creolization should not be limited to ‘metissage’ or cross breeding, “because creolization adds something new to the components that participate in it” (p.100). He discouraged also the fixed idea of filiation, emphasizing that creolization must be interpreted as synthesis. In that vein, Glissant posited that something new is added, “allowing us to see the mingling of experiences at work … and a celebration of cultural transformations that recognizes synthesis not a process of bastardisation as

we used to be told” (p.101), but a process of becoming. This “becoming” reflects the

Caribbean/Jamaican people, according to Glissant, who through colonization lost their traditional identities and formed a new composite culture (p.102). Glissant’s postulation that traditional identities are lost through colonization may be problematic given the view that African traditions were retained by the enslaved. His argument may be that traditional identities were not retained in the way in which they were previously construed. Rather, through a “mingling of experiences” in the new world, new practices would have developed so that the identities underwent a process of becoming.

S. Hall’s cultural identity construct resonated with Glissant’s perspective in two aspects—intermingling and becoming. S. Hall has emphasized “not ‘who we are’ or ‘where we came from’, so much as what we may become” (1996a, p.4). The intermingling of the different

African cultures with European culture is what makes it difficult to speak of “where we came from” because the traces of the ancestral lands have all mingled to create something new. S.

Hall (1996b) offered this description of Caribbean people that appropriately applies to

Jamaicans. He stated,

they are people who belong to more than one world, speak more than one language,

inhabit more than one identity, have more than one home; who have learned to negotiate

and translate between cultures, and who, because they are irrevocably the product of

several interlocking histories and cultures, have learned to live with, and indeed speak

from, difference. They speak from the in-between of different cultures. (p. 206)

S. Hall has equated speaking from difference as speaking from a liminal space—a space between different cultures. This understanding is critical to analyzing the experiences of participants whose history positions them to speak from the “in-between” of cultures and negotiate their

identities within that space. “Difference” is inherent to the lives of Jamaicans based on a history of slavery and colonialism. There is no singularity; always more than one. The plurality is evident in three major influences that were formative in the make-up of Caribbean cultural identities, and thus, Jamaican cultural identity. According to Hall (1993), “three presences” were evident; namely, “Presence Africaine, Presence Europeene, and the third most ambiguous, presence of all …. Presence Americain” (p. 230). These influences converged to represent

Jamaica as a complex nation with a diverse people and history that cannot be represented

“through a single hegemonic identity” (p.235). Hence, the Jamaican motto, “Out of many, one people” is illustrated in the Coat of Arms that shows images of the native Tainos, the original occupants of the island, and, as well, acknowledges the many other displaced people who now form the island.

Creolization in Jamaica’s language history.

Creolization or cultural fusion is considered by some scholars of Jamaica’s history to be the essence of Jamaican-ness (C. Palmer, 1989, p.112). This fusion was in part due to the practices of the Africans who were uprooted from the African continent and forcibly brought to

Jamaica as slaves. Their incorporation of their African heritage with that of the Europeans formed a new culture. This is one of the bases on which S. Hall suggested that there can never be a recovery of the African identity because it was translated from the original (S. Hall, 1993).

Similarly, the term “creole” as it is applied to the language of Jamaicans “connotes vernacular linguistic fusions,” which according to Erasmus (2011) is an attempt to reclaim

“Africanity” (Erasmus, 2011, p.646). Some believe that in Jamaica “creole” or “patois” is a

“continuity of African language structure” (Alleyne, 2003/1989, p.55) reflecting the loss of some of the structure of the African languages while borrowing from English. Mervyn Alleyne has

suggested that the language of Jamaicans reflects a “becoming” (Alleyne, 2003/1989) through the process that the language has undergone and through the multiple and changing relationships that have affected its structure. By changing relationships, Alleyne meant that the development of the Jamaican language was a result of the contact meeting of English and African languages and a response to the need for a medium of communication among the various African peoples and the speakers of English (p.60). These multiple African influences explain why there are many variations of the dialect used in different parts of Jamaica. However, Alleyne argued that even appropriating the names Creole, dialect or patois, is problematic because of the dynamic nature of languages. He chose instead to name the language according to nationality—Jamaican

(p.60)—which Pryce (1997), citing Cooper (1995), claimed, “moves towards settling the issue of the status of the language as a legitimate of the ethos of a people” (pp. 238).

Baptista (2005) has suggested that the emergence of Creole within the sociohistorical context of slavery highlights the power relations that existed. African languages represented the dominated while European language was the language of the dominant. The utility of Creole as a medium of communication during slavery was unidirectional in Baptista’s view. Alleyne has shown support for Baptista’s view. He has disputed the perception of Creole as mainly a derivative of English, suggesting that the evidence that the African languages persist refutes that theory. Alleyne has centered language in culture and thus in the identity of Jamaicans. Alleyne elaborated that in the post emancipation period, “the driving force” (p.61) was that Blacks came to view the “command of English as a precondition for upward social mobility” (Alleyne,

2003/1989). Prior to emancipation, slaves were not socially mobile because they were a group unto themselves and were not required to learn English. With the end of slavery and the mediation of education and mixing came pressure to adopt the practices of planter class who

were White and considered superior. This view of achieving upward mobility by aligning with the values and practices of the upper class still holds in present day Jamaica. Although the move toward English was desirable for some, at the same time “complete assimilation to the existing norms of English” (Alleyne, 2003/1989, p.61) was prevented. The lack of motivation to learn the

“standard” was read as asserting African identity, which mirrors the position for some members of the Jamaican diaspora in present day. The extent to which Jamaicans own their language or strive to “sound” like mainstream is directly related to how they view their relationship to the receiving country.

Race, class, identity, and lives in Jamaica.

Jamaicans do not usually speak about race as an issue in the nation; however, they admit that skin color has played a significant role, historically, in the access to resources. Miller (2001) has discussed how skin color has determined social position, economic and personal worth of individuals in Jamaica throughout its history (p. 305). Miller has argued that economic power remains the domain of those who are White or fair-skinned, and that despite changes in the society those who are Black rank lower in status than Whites. C. Palmer (1989) has supported these observations in some measure. He has stated that the “out of many, one” motto reflects a national ideal or a delusion on the part of the natives (p.111). Palmer observed that although most Jamaicans can claim African ancestry (C. Palmer, 1989), the consciousness of this legacy was in question, especially among the ranks of the upper middle stratum of society. The focus on racial identity in Jamaica in the period leading up to independence and after the granting of universal adult suffrage in 1944 did little to bring about racial pride in those of the upper stratum.

Whereas, the Black skin reflected racial pride among the lower/working classes, it appeared to be

difficult for Blacks of the privileged classes to reconcile their class status to their skin color. In other words, it was outside the norm to have Blacks occupy upper middle and upper classes.

Historically, individuals who were of lighter shades of skin color were employed to certain jobs. The sentiment, “if you are Black, stay back; if you are Brown stick around; if you are White you are alright” was evident in the employment sector. C. Palmer gave an account of a resolution adopted by the Kingston and Saint Andrew Corporation (KSAC) in 1950 urging commercial banks to employ Black Jamaicans in various positions, although no mention is made of managerial positions. Being a predominantly Black population of African ancestry was not commensurate with a positive attitude to Blackness. As H. Young (2006) iterated,

to be Black is to have accrued a subjectivity haunted by the spectral traces of a social,

political and ideological history. Blackness is a historically and culturally specific

embodied discourse constituted in and through a discursive tradition mobilized by the

reconstituted figure of Africa and the brutal systems of oppression such as slavery and

imperialism. (p.25)

The interconnectedness of Blackness to social, political and ideological conditions is nowhere more evident than in the motto of the Jamaican people. The attempt to de-emphasize race while projecting a nationalist discourse of unity despite difference, diminishes race as an issue in

Jamaica.

Alleyne (2002) has problematized the concepts of culture and ethnicity arguing that ethnicity, like race is socially constructed. He has argued that “racial meanings are contested and transformed as people counterpose their own constructions of identity, community and history”

(p.3). In this sense as time and circumstances change it is possible that these constructs may be

perceived in different ways or may cease to exist in the manner originally construed. He illustrated how the categories of race and ethnicity are constructed in societies by citing the example that the “category of negro or Black in the United States is established by ‘one drop’ of

Black blood” (Alleyne, 2002). He also pointed out that in the latter part of the eighteenth century, Chinese in Cuba were considered as White. He makes the argument that this perception does not hold in the present day. Society distinguishes one group from the other by the observed similarities and differences—skin color, language, religion, food clothing (p.2) as though these are fixed features. These shared features operate as measuring sticks to determine who is in what group, and by that same measure does not belong to another group. Alleyne argued that no classification is clear cut, drawing attention to how miscegenation has produced Caribbean identities making it difficult to decide racial categories. Alleyne has highlighted, as well, relationships between skin color and other constructs of identity that were also evident in some of my interviews; that of wealth and status. This idea supports the theory of intersectionality: it is difficult to think about identities of racialized individuals without consideration for how other categories of difference intersect and account for their history (Bannerji, 2000).

Alleyne further argued his point about social perception in the construct of race and color. He referenced the Black power movement by Walter Rodney to demonstrate the impact that ideology has on racial classification. Rodney’s Black power movement had incorporated people who were “recognizably African or Indian” (Alleyne 2002, p.8). In this case the boundaries shifted uniting two perceived distinct groups under the banner of oppression. Alleyne made the point that skin color was a factor in identifying these groups. Walter Rodney’s declaration in 1969 stated that, “every country in the dominated colonial areas has an overwhelming majority of non-whites, as in most of Asia, Africa, and the West Indies. Power,

therefore resides in the White countries and is exercised over Blacks” (p.18). In clarifying his position on the Black Power movement in the West Indies during 1970s, Rodney declared that it was not a position of racial intolerance. Rather it was “the hope that the Black man should have power over his own destinies [which] is not incompatible with a multiracial society …. Black power must proclaim that Jamaica is a Black society” (p.28). It was Rodney’s influence that S.

Hall (1993) referred to when he said that it was during the 1970s that Jamaicans came to a consciousness of themselves as Black. The dates reported on Table 1 below seem to support that view.

Table 1:

Percentage of racial/ethnic categories from 1960 to 2001 in the National Census of Jamaica

(Adapted from a study by Ramkisoon, McFarlene, & Branche, 2007)

1960 1970 2001 Categories Percentage of Categories Percentage of Categories Percentage of population population population African 76.82 Negro/Black 90.95 Black 91.61 Afro- 14.63 East Indian 1.71 East Indian .89 European East-Indian 1.73 Chinese .66 Chinese .20 Afro-East 1.64 Amerindian .02 White .18 Indian Chinese .64 Portuguese .01 Mixed 6.21 European .77 Syrian/ .06 Other .08 Lebanese Afro-Chinese .60 White .66 Not reported .82 Syrian .08 Mixed 5.77 Other 3.09 Other .08 Not reported .10

Table 1 shows the racial/ethnic categories that have been used in the Jamaican population census since the 1960s. The information presented illustrates how categories of racial

identification changed in Jamaica after 1970. In 1970 the table records both Negro and Black suggesting some ambivalence in classification. The information seems to support S. Hall’s

(1993) view on Black consciousness in Jamaica during the period of the 1970s. The table indicates that more persons identified as Black after 1970 rather than African. This “new” construction of identification was a result of the country’s independence from British rule and in response to radical Black ideology in the USA in the 1960s (Hall, 1993). For S. Hall, it demonstrated that categories of identity are subject to change in response to other forces in the society.

The unification around a Black identity which resulted from the Black Power movement and independence reflects what some scholars may regard as a “strategic essentialism” where identification as a single category is based on a common experience of struggle and oppression.

According to Rita Dhamoon (2007) the term is credited to Spivak (1987); S. Hall (1996); and

Razack (1998) as “a term in which reduced meanings are legitimately employed on the part of a collectivity” (p. 43). However, Ramkisoon, McFarlane and Branche (2007) have problematized the categories, arguing that they suggest a singularity in meaning. They suggest that the example of the over 90% Black is likely to reflect multiple meanings in race and identity related experiences (p.4). These debates are useful to provide a context for understanding the contested nature of identity at the intersections of race (skin color) and the source country of the participants.

Historically, the black skin in Jamaica has been signified as lower-class status; however, being Black was also considered unattractive or ugly (Neegan, 2008). In discussing her experience of growing up in Jamaica, Neegan (2008) spoke about the association of the light skin tone to intellectual capability, and that to be Black, “produced feelings of shame, worthlessness,

and anger” (p. 274). For this reason, the claim to racial pride among lower class Black Jamaicans

(C. Palmer, 1989) may be disputed. Although some experience pride in their Black skins, others did not, because of how skin color was constructed. Furthermore, evidence of the attitude toward the Black skin is seen in the phenomenon of bleaching the skin, particularly among the lower classes. This is indicative that skin color has effects across social classes in Jamaica. As Alleyne

(2002) explained, lower-class Blacks tried to whiten their skin to “mitigate its blackness” (p.6).

This point raises consideration around the psychological nature of identification. The whitening of the skin is an indication that one does not wish to identify with the classification assigned.

Alleyne has termed this a psychological dimension in ethnic identification because he contends that it is within the ambit of the individual to determine “self-identity with a group and a willingness to be treated as a member of that group” (p. 10). It is through similarities and differences and acting collectively that ethnicity is usually defined; however, as the preceding discussions have illustrated, encounters with stigmatization and discrimination may determine how individuals choose to identify.

The arguments indicate that race may feature in ethnicity but the two do not necessarily overlap. For this reason, many scholars who discuss the concepts keep them separate, despite their relatedness. S. Hall (1992) has argued that ethnicity needs to be “decoupled” in the way “it functions in the dominant discourse, from its equivalence with nationalism, imperialism, racism and state” (p.448). He has suggested that it is only through new practices that these categories may be destabilized. Alleyne has observed that, in Jamaica, race is a difficult construct to define and that it is constantly being refined in the context of class and ideological relationships (p.15).

He has traced historical transformations which resulted in social mobility of some individuals and created social divisions as the “taxonomy of human societies” through social class (p.15).

The divisions within the taxonomy are what later created social distance from the Black/African ethnic and, a move toward nationhood. In the desire to define “Jamaican-ness, ethnicity has expanded from class and race to national levels” (p.16).

MG Smith, another Caribbean social analyst, developed a typology of Jamaican society based on skin color—white, brown and black strata which he argued diverged on cultural, institutional and political orientations (Stone, 1973/2001). Stone has argued that there were issues with Smith’s thesis because it ignored class stratification and “failed to take into account the existence of shared body of values between cultural layers” (p.189). Stone believed that

Smith’s classification was more relevant to the immediate post-emancipation than the current period. In Stone’s view the class divisions and conflicts represented the competition for social material resources and was more influential in stratifying Jamaican society.

Austin-Broos (1994/2001) has agreed with Stone, stating that the “idiom of class” (p.256) adopted by Jamaicans reflected “privilege and disprivilege” (p. 256). She has suggested that class and color overlap to create status divisions in Jamaican society. Austin-Broos’ observations come from work in education carried out by Derek Gordon (1991) that examined differences in educational outcome for darker and lighter shade children in the middle and lower classes in

Jamaica. Gordon found that lighter color middle-class children had the privilege of “educational reforms to secure their advantage over Black children in the middle-class” (p. 257). Gordon’s point was that the “class masks other important dynamics” (p.257). Austin-Broos concluded that the color idiom is sustained in Jamaica because the “majority are Black and poor, and very few lighter skinned Jamaicans have been downwardly mobile” (p.268). Jamaica’s legacies of colonialism are a classed society, struggles for nationalism and upheavals in the desire for self- governance. Austin-Broos maintained that Jamaica still bears the mark of those historical

moments in a race/class dynamic that has surpassed the time of the “plantation and colonial civilizing missions” (p.257). The remnants of slavery and colonialism remain etched in the

Jamaican cultural experience. Many Jamaicans are familiar with the discourse of power in relation to skin color (Miller, 2001), but some do not fully appreciate being racialized until they experience this phenomenon in countries to which they immigrate and where they then become described as visible minorities.

I have presented this historical review to provide a context for understanding how

Jamaica’s history continues to influence interpretations of the lived experiences of the participants in my study. The historical impact is evident in their discussions of skin color, social class, and language. Admittedly, the historical context itself is not fixed; as S. Hall (1993) has reminded, it undergoes transformation. What the literature illustrates is that postcolonialism is an appropriate theoretical lens (M. Hall, 2010) for interpreting the experiences of immigrant students whose adaptations to a western society involve “cross-cultural encounters” (p.128). In the next section, I review some of the literature on immigration and immigrant students in higher education.

Contextual Framework: Migration, Settlement, University

The previous section of my review provided some background on the source country of the participants in the study. This background was necessary for contextualizing the issues taken up by the participants as they reflected on their lives in the premigration period. This section builds on the previous by discussing literature about migration and settlement, tracing the migration histories of Jamaicans and their settlement patterns in North America, and more specifically Ontario, Canada. This section also presents literature on the immigrant student

experience highlighting some of the issues related to settlement. The final aspect of the contextual review discusses literature on the student experience in university.

Migration histories of Jamaicans .

S. Hall (1993) underscored what influenced the migration patterns of Jamaicans when he spoke of “Presence Americain” as the “New World” presence. New World is used to represent the new bodies that converged on the island through slavery and indentured labour after the natives were decimated. Jamaica, as did other countries in the Caribbean, became a place

“where strangers from every other part of the globe collided” (p. 234). S. Hall’s point was that none of the new occupants of the island originally lived there. Thus, he termed it “a space where the creolisations and assimilations and syncretisms were negotiated” (p.234). Such is the character of Jamaica. But Hall went on to suggest how the movements of people, displaced from one country and meeting in another place, came to represent the destiny of Jamaicans. These people displaced by conquest, slavery, and colonisation became predisposed to migration and transnational ideas of leaving and returning. Migration as a feature of Jamaica’s history has added to populations and labor forces of countries across the world, especially North America and the United Kingdom. To contextualize the historical relevance, Gmelch (1992) examined patterns of migration in the Caribbean and found that:

…over time the migrants moved further and further afield, first, off the

plantations but within the British colonies, followed by wider movements to the

non-British Caribbean and Central America, and then in this century to Britain,

the United States, and Canada. Second, the movements have been in the direction

of available jobs. And, not infrequently, the migration was actively encouraged by

foreign governments and companies…. The destinations of the migrants have also

been determined by immigration policies of the foreign governments…. In short,

West Indian migration from most Third World countries, has generally been a

consequence of the dependent and underdeveloped position of the Caribbean

economies vis-à-vis the wealthy metropolitan societies. Finally, the West Indian

migrations generally have been of a temporary nature. Although many workers

did remain behind in the host countries, nearly all left their homelands expecting

to return, and many of those who remain abroad today hang onto the notion that

someday they will go home. (p.57)

The historical context of migration for employment in Jamaica’s post-emancipation period saw movements of freed slaves in the hope of receiving wages for labour. Later periods are marked by several other significant events. In the immediate post independence period (post-

1962), Jamaicans flocked to England, the Mother country. This movement was of great significance, given the paradox of the situation. Many Jamaicans favored migration to Britain despite the colonial link between the two nations, and, saw in Britain a space where their fortunes could be realized. Hutnyk (2005) has suggested that the implication of such a paradox is that for those who could belong to a “hybridizing capital” (of which the UK, USA and Canada are examples), “it becomes possible to forget colonial violence” (p.96). The point is elaborated by Chow (1998), who maintained that the postcolonial migrant is seduced by an invitation to be a part of previously colonizing powers and that, by this act, immigrants rehearse and repeat the memory of acts of injustice. Chow’s position resonated with that of Spivak (1999) who was critical of how migration patterns and diaspora experiences appear to “reserve importance to the metropolitan sphere and leaves the zones of exploitation … in darkness” (p.96). Spivak implied

that the “opportunity-seeking” immigrants are “seduced by complicity and advantage” (Kalra,

Kaur, & Hutnyk, 2005 p.101), grasping what may be gained in these developed countries while forgetting the historical acts of exploitation during the colonial encounters.

Other literature on the migration patterns of Jamaicans provide a more positive view of migration and settlement rather than the misfortunes of past colonial relations. Foner (1977) likened Jamaicans migrating and assimilating to British society as “cultural survival” (p. 8).

Foner has suggested that cultural survival is a process akin to the creolization which took place in Jamaica’s formation during the time of its occupation by Europeans and African slaves (p.

120). She advanced the argument that the creolization process changed the cultures of both

Africans and Europeans to create a new culture or social system that suited the circumstances of both West Indians and British. The process of adaptation to life in Britain by the Jamaican immigrants led them to develop new cultural and social patterns for survival. She has argued, however, that assimilation for cultural survival did not represent a dilemma for all migrants as some determined that it would mean fewer conflicts within the receiving society. There is a suggestion in Foner’s statement of a one-sided view of integration. The onus falls to the immigrant to do what it takes to “fit into” the seemingly, already established fabric of the receiving society. The dominant members need do nothing. Reay (2003) has made an apt observation that if migrant bodies continue to be alien, outsider, and different, and invite practices of inclusion and exclusion, living in societies that fail to accept difference remains a dilemma.

Waters (1994) has found that West Indian immigrants, including first-generation

Jamaicans in the USA, were less inclined to acculturate. Rather they identified strongly with their or their parents’ nation of origin identities. Similarly, Jamaican immigrants to Canada tend

to assert their nation of origin identity; however, some experience ambivalence when confronted with maintaining their beliefs and values or conforming with the culture in the receiving society.

Plaza and Simmons (1998) contend that many Caribbean immigrants in Canada resist assimilating to their new country of residence because they are unable to retain the class status they enjoyed in their source countries and experience downward mobility by having to accept lower paying jobs.

Another significant feature in migration decisions of Jamaicans had to do with political ideology. During the 1970s the mainly upper middle and upper classes were troubled by the political rhetoric of democratic socialism. The result was disillusionment with the political leadership of the day, and when the Prime Minister at that time advised the disgruntled populace that there were “five flights per day to Miami” for anyone who did not agree with his political ideology and practices. Many individuals made the move to the USA and Canada.

Historically, and currently, there have been patterns of migration involving recruitment of Jamaicans to fill shortages of labour in countries such as the USA and Canada. Simmons

(2010) has discussed how Jamaica, Guyana, Trinidad and Tobago, among other Commonwealth

Caribbean countries, provided important sources of immigration in the 1970s and 1980s. In the

1980s, Jamaica was one of the top 10 source countries for immigrants to Canada, despite its relatively small size (Simmons, p. 132). These later migration patterns were more targeted to opportunities that emigrants believed they could accrue in the receiving country. The migrants who saw the USA and Canada as an alternative to living in Jamaica were mainly those of middle and lower classes who were struggling to survive (Thomas, 2004). Thomas conducted several studies on the migration patterns of Jamaicans (1998, 2002, 2004) and characterized them as a fundamental aspect of Caribbean identity. She arrived at this finding in a study (1998) where

63.8% of the Jamaicans who participated expressed an intention to migrate. The primary reasons suggested for the decision to emigrate were that immigration was a channel of socio-economic mobility; there were improved opportunities for education and employment; and they perceived migration as a survival strategy (Byron & Condon, 1996). These reasons constitute what Bryce-

Laporte & Mortimer (1976) described as a migration-mobility syndrome (p.7) which may be attributed to the inability of labour markets in developing countries to sustain the demands for employment by graduating students, leaving them to seek opportunities in North American countries (Zuberi & Ptashnick, 2011).

Jamaica in the Canadian experience: A narrative of race and immigration.

The literature on Jamaican immigration and settlement in Canada is, relatively, sparse.

However, there have been efforts to capture the Jamaican experience in Canada by a few scholars; among them are James and Davis (2012); Billroy Powell (2014); and an increasing body of student research. The Encyclopaedia of Canada reported that Jamaican immigrants have had a presence since the 1700s, initially as runaway slaves (Magocsi, 1999). Some of these freed slaves (Black Loyalists) resided in Nova Scotia and were later repatriated to Sierra Leone Africa

(Torczyner, 2003). Between the 1950s and 1960s, immigrants moved “in the direction of available jobs” as domestic/child care workers (Johnson, 2012), nurses and agricultural laborers to tap into the employment opportunities that Canada had to offer and with the hope of providing financial assistance to families that they had to leave behind in Jamaica.

Up until 1962, there were relatively few Jamaicans living in Canada due to a “country-of- origin” preferential system that worked against Blacks and other marginalized groups (Simmons

& Plaza, 1998). Simmons (2010) indicated that when the “racism that prevented immigration

from the Caribbean came to an end” (p.132), Caribbean people found in Canada some ground of commonality based on cultural, political, and social traditions (p.132). In recent years, buoyed by government policies on immigration that favored skilled workers or economic/professional and business class immigrants, many Jamaican nationals have emigrated to Canada. Statistics Canada

(2017) reported that the number of immigrants born in the Caribbean, Central and South

America represented 12.3% of all newcomers to Canada between 2006 and 2011. This figure in the previous period surveyed was 10.5%. Of the total number of immigrants to Ontario in that period, 8,610 were from Jamaica, the largest showing from the Caribbean and Bermuda region which saw 23, 295 immigrants (2011 NHS survey).

From exclusion to inclusion? Canadian multiculturalism in context.

The introduction of policies that favored multiculturalism ensured that Jamaicans are represented in the mosaic of Canadian society. Canadians of Jamaican origin are reported to be among the largest non-European ethnic groups in Canada, most of whom are foreign born, and live in Ontario (Lindsay, 2007). As reported above, more recent data have confirmed that the

Jamaican population remains the largest group among the Caribbean and Bermuda region, accounting for over 100,000 in the 2011 National Household survey (Statistics Canada, 2017).

Henry et al. (2000) attribute the changes in the exclusionary policies toward Jamaicans to the following: internal pressures in the form of (a) a multicultural policy that recognized racial and cultural diversity as a fact of life in Canada; (b) the increasing politicization and mobilization of minoritized groups which led to new demands for more accessible, non-discriminatory immigration policy; and (c) pressure exerted by human rights activists and lawyers representing organizations such as Canadian Civil Liberties Association; and (d) pressure from the international community to eradicate overt racism (pp. 81-82).

Multiculturalism has been a fundamental part of what is described as Canadian national identity since its introduction in 1971. Canadian policy on multiculturalism was shaped by social liberalism discourse to incorporate immigrant newcomers (Root, Gates-Gasse, Shields, &

Bauder, 2014) and assure them of equal status. Indicative of a national identity built on pluralism, the policy supports lifestyle and choices of immigrants while offering protection of the civil and human rights of diverse populations. The Canadian Multiculturalism Act of July 1988

(R.S.C., 1985, c.24) further bears out the idea that diversity is embraced, as it stipulated that the

“Government of Canada recognizes the diversity of Canadians with regards to race, national or ethnic origin, colour and religion” (Government of Canada website). However, there are some who problematize the multicultural construction of Canada based on its tolerance of diversity, which they argue is more exclusive than inclusive and masks the treatment of difference as inferiority (see for example, Bannerji, 2000; Stasiulis & Bakan, 2005). Bannerji has disputed the discourse of incorporation arguing that multiculturalism offers cultural accommodations to those construed as “other,” and who, based on an ambiguous presence, “cannot be successfully ingested, or assimilated, or made to vanish from where we are not wanted” (p.89-91). This sense of un-belonging or “othering” renders the immigrant as “outsiders-insiders,” despite the mosaic of oneness (p.91). Ontario is described as the most multicultural of the provinces of Canada. In a study of high school immigrant and non-immigrant youth, Lee and Hebert (2006) has found that immigrant students used a discourse of becoming and multiculturalism to recognize ethnic identities in the Charter of Rights. Lee and Hebert believe that it was the sense of community that led students to associate with the national identity in Canada, such that prevailing inequalities and exploitation are diminished by perceived “deep, horizontal comradeship”

(Anderson, 1991, p.38). The promises that are evident in the representations of cultural

differences are celebrated by many immigrants; it is not long, however, until many take a closer look and question what Canadian multiculturalism truly represents in the experiences of immigrant groups.

Settlement and identity .

If, as Kymlicka (1998) has suggested, social unity comes through shared identity, rather than shared values, and that individuals decide whom they want to share a country with, it might explain the inquiry about “where you are from” that is frequently asked of immigrants by mainstream Canadians. The point is, if you are ‘imaged’ as not belonging then, do you?

Kymlicka (1995) further suggested that,

Immigrants are no longer expected to assimilate entirely to the norms and customs of the

dominant culture, and indeed are encouraged to maintain some aspects of their ethnic

particularity. But this commitment is a shift in how immigrants integrate into the

dominant culture. (p.78)

His position suggests that there was a time when complete assimilation was desirable. Questions of what identity means in migration and settlement underpin much of the discussion in this section. The participants in my research celebrated the infiltrations of Jamaica in Ontario, through the Jamaican cuisine, music, dance and language, they were describing a process that S.

Hall has theorized as the “uniqueness” and “essence” of Caribbean cultural identity; that is, the mixing and blends (Hall, 1993, p.235). Some believe that this is one sense in which the term hybridization may be applied. Burke (2009) has suggested that the preoccupation that the topic of hybridity enjoys is natural at a time in history when there are more frequent cultural encounters evidenced in all facets of life—food, religion, dance, songs—to name a few

examples. The “cultural mixture where the diasporized meets the host in the scene of migration”

(Hutnyk, 2005, p. 79) facilitates the possibilities of transformation within the encounter; not simply for the immigrant but as well for the host. The encounter allows for reciprocity and it is unlikely that host or migrant is left unchanged in the process of interaction. However, the transformations which occur may not necessarily be harmonious, especially in contexts of cultural and social discrimination (Burke, 2009).

Recognition of cultural differences through artifacts and symbols gives a superficial sense of acceptance, but there are lingering concerns about how immigrants are perceived by settler society. Berry (1997) asserted that immigration policies have fostered greater receptivity to immigrants and they would, likely, feel more at home and be more open to acculturate in these contexts. His conclusions were based on a study which measured the attitudes of immigrants to the receiving country as well as the receptivity of the receiving country to the immigrant (M.

Hall, 2010). In the study, Berry discussed group variables that warrant consideration in examining receptivity and acculturation including society of origin, where cultural characteristics of the migrating group were measured in respect of the cultural distance from the receiving culture. Still, some have argued that the emotional attachment that immigrants feel toward their countries of birth as the true home makes it probable that there is anticipation of one day returning.

This idea of a true “home” and “return” in the migration patterns of Caribbean people is a contentious one and has drawn significant debates and discussions. Said (1979) has problematized these terms by attributing the movements of people to “a generalized condition of homelessness” (p.18). The state of homelessness exists due to the forcible uprooting and displacement brought about by slavery and colonialism. Hence, there is always the “desire to

return to ‘lost origins’” (S. Hall, 1993, p.236). Through the desire to return, transnational ideas arose as temporary fulfilment to satisfy the nostalgia for home which keeps immigrants trapped in a state of homelessness. For S. Hall (1993) the notions of home as origin or for “times past” are problematic given the fluidity in their definitions. He has premised his argument on the unreliability of memory. S. Hall has contended that how events are remembered changes each time the memory is shared; therefore, these ideas are unstable and cannot be relied on to represent a true version of home and origins. In short, the home of times past is a myth.

Bhabha (1994) has conceptualized the notion of home in colonial and postcolonial understandings of migrant situations as “unhomeliness” which he explains as “the condition of extra-territorial and cross-cultural initiations” (p. 9) where the border between home and the world becomes confused. It is within the narratives of migration and diaspora that the boundary becomes a place of beginning to have a presence, “moving to other banks” (p. 5). Bhabha has built on Hall’s notion that there can be no return to “home” since it could not be recovered in the way it was imagined. He has suggested that “unhomeliness” as an opportunity to carve out spaces of newness rather than trying to fix one’s identity to a point of origin.

The desire for return which results in moving between “the west and the rest” (Werbner,

2004, p. 896) raises the question of how identities are negotiated. Warnica (2013) in his review of the novel, ‘Americanah’ by author Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, has provided an apt reminder that “every immigrant is an emigrant too.” This immigrant/emigrant identification is nuanced to the very discourse of west/rest. The emigrant is placed outside of the west, but desires better opportunities, refuge, or new experiences and is drawn to what the west offers. The possibilities that the west offers appeal to the “rest” and become “the bridge” that acts as the escort and gathers those that would cross (Heidegger, 1971, p. 152-3). Heidegger’s (1971) metaphor of the

bridge suggests that provision is made for a crossover. This provision is the opportunity to cross over. However, this is not an opportunity of equal access; hence, some “linger in uncertainty” (p.

153) and some do not cross over.

Uncertainty about the immigration experience has been suggested as a reason behind transnationalism. Transnationalism means moving between source and receiving countries, choosing not to settle for long periods in either. The impermanence that the concept

“transnational” suggests, has led to a coined term, “transmigrant” (Schiller, Basch, & Blanc,

1995; Werbner, 2004). Schiller et al. (1995) argued that the immigrant cannot be described as

“uprooted” or fixing their roots firmly in the receiving nation. They define “transmigrants” as

“immigrants whose daily lives depend on multiple and constant interconnections across national and international borders and whose public identities are configured in relationship to more than one nation-state” (Schiller et al., 1995, p.48; Basch et al., 1994). One possible reason behind the split allegiance is separation from family, a situation that was evident among my research participants. In this situation, one parent lives outside Canada and children move back and forth between countries to maintain their relationships. Schiller et al. have emphasized that

“transmigrants” are distinguished from sojourners through the act of settlement and incorporation into the daily life of the country of residence. The “transmigrant” identity is deliberately and, sometimes, strategically negotiated such that connections are maintained with the source country allowing the immigrant/emigrant to have a stake in what happens there. It is believed that the possibility of improving their personal circumstances provides sufficient reason for immigrants to leave the familiar borders of home behind; however, the compulsion to keep the door open to return to one’s heritage country is an element of identity politics operating in

the lives of immigrants. Transnational movements further complicate individual lives and have implications for how cultural identities are constructed.

Settling as an immigrant student in Canada.

There is some research on immigrant settlement that has also examined immigrants’ participation in postsecondary education in Canada (for example, Anisef, Sweet, Adamuti-

Trache & Walters, 2009 and Lum and Grabke, 2012). Anisef et al. (2009) have used the

Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants in Canada (LSIC) to examine the extent to which immigrants made use of postsecondary education opportunities shortly after immigration. Despite the focus on individuals who had already obtained a degree in their source countries, there were a few details regarding settlement experiences that are relevant to this research: first, the motivation to pursue higher education is an economic one, in hopes that the credential obtained will furnish the individual with a good job that will lead to economic and social advancement or at the very least, a sense of security in employment; second, high tuition costs are a barrier to pursuing PSE, but when pursued is usually financed through student loan programs; third, lack of recognition of source country work experience of recent immigrants makes finding employment challenging; and fourth, enrolment in educational programs is a means of social integration. On the matter of social integration, Anisef et al., reported that participants believed that participation in PSE held positive benefits for “between-group interactions, becoming proficient with host language, contributing to the development of social networks within larger society, and improving knowledge of the norms and values of host society” (p.6).

A few similarities were reported in research conducted by Lum and Grabke (2012). The researchers examined the academic experiences of adult students who emigrated from different

countries and lived in Canada as permanent residents, landed immigrants or citizens for no longer than 10 years at the time of data collection. Lum and Grabke sought to identify, among other things, the unique immigration challenges of recent immigrant adult students (RIAS) in postsecondary education programs. Using a mixed methods approach, survey instruments were administered across five Ontario postsecondary institutions to capture levels of engagement, experiences, barriers and challenges. Focus group interviews were conducted to provide further insights into the challenges of RIAS. Lum and Grabke (2012) found that the lack of resources for

RIAS affected their ability to effectively engage in educational experiences. They argued that the resources applied to international students are not comparable for recent immigrant students who

“are not formally recognized” (p. 51) in PSE. This point has also been raised in research by

Teranishi, C. Suarez-Orozco and Suarez-Orozco (2011) in the USA. The research on RIAS found, as well, that students enrolled in postsecondary institutions to continue their learning in their new home land. These immigrant students do so in efforts to assimilate more readily into work environments or to better their chances of getting reasonable paying jobs or to enable them to retain the status they enjoyed prior to landing in Canada. Although most of the participants in my research were recent graduates of high school in Jamaica at the time of immigration and had not been employed, the decision to move to Canada was driven by education and hopes of gainful employment (Plaza & Simmons, 1998).

The reality borne out in the accounts highlighted in the Lum and Grabke study is that

RIAS face significant barriers to advancement in the receiving society. The barriers are based on the difficulties encountered in having their foreign credentials recognized by the Canadian labor market and language barriers and discrimination which Lum and Grabke (2012) argued had a significant impact on the academic achievement and classroom experiences of RIAS as well as

their daily lives. Lum and Grabke concluded that institutional responses were an important consideration in exploring the educational experiences of RIAS, but other conditions that facilitate or impede social inclusion such as visible minority status, language proficiency and availability of organizational resources, as well as social identity issues were also crucial. I would add that the changing demographics of postsecondary students provide sufficient cause for examining how individuals (at the micro sociological level) are shaped by broader social contexts of the institution and society (Hurtado, Alvarez, Guillermo-Wann, Cuellar, & Arellano,

2012).

From a settlement perspective, much of the literature that discusses the experiences of

Caribbean people of Afro and Indo origin was written by Plaza, who has co-authored some articles with Alan Simmons. In disaggregating the migration and settlement experiences of the

Indo and Afro-Caribbean groups, Plaza (2004) discussed the tensions that may arise among people of shared history. He discussed the essentializing effect of naming and classifying on national origin groups, explaining that there is an inaccurate assertion that Jamaica, for example, is the nation of origin for anyone who comes from the Caribbean. Although the country has a majority Black population, there are other ethnic ancestries that form part of Jamaica’s population as illustrated earlier (see Table 1 in the literature review). Plaza has suggested that the heterogeneity in the Caribbean population has been overshadowed by focusing on mainly the

Afro-Caribbean individuals in research (James, 1990; Plaza, 2004; Richmond, 1989; 1993). He has addressed this by discussing ethnic differences between groups in the Caribbean.

Plaza (2004) discussed the differential treatment towards groups based on stereotypes. He suggested that “Asian-ness” embodied positive characteristics while “African-ness” embodied more negative perceptions. These influences carried over into the school system, where Asian

students are believed to be hard working compared with the Caribbean Black whose knowledges are treated as deficit. Research by Anisef, et al. (2010, 2011) and Thiessen (2009) indicate that there is a link between the high academic performance among Asian origin youth and parental expectation. High parental expectations are not exclusive to that group. As indicated earlier,

Caribbean immigrant parents have an expectation that through education they and their children will be released from the “bondage” of the plantation (Alfred, 2003; Palmer, 1983). Plaza’s research shows that there are lower attendance rates and higher dropout rates among Afro-

Caribbean students. These issues are beyond the scope of my research. However, these findings should prompt further research into what social, economic or cultural factors inhibit their retention in view of research that also bears out the aspirational element of their cultural identities. Research by George Dei and Carl James, along with others are useful sources of information in these areas.

Immigrant students in Canadian postsecondary education.

There is literature that addresses immigrants in educational environments in Canada that gives attention to success outcomes at elementary and secondary school (Anisef, Brown,

Phythian, Sweet, & Walters, 2010; Anisef & Kilbride, 2003) and educational pathways (Aydemir

& Sweetman, 2008; Finnie, Childs & Wismer, 2011). For students who are newly arrived or still adjusting to living in a new country, their experiences have not featured alongside their entry and adjustment in educational institutions; even fewer studies have considered the undergraduate experiences of immigrant students in the age range of 18 to 24 at university. Krahn and Taylor

(2005), in exploring educational aspirations among immigrant visible minorities, found that first generation immigrant parents and their children have particularly high educational aspirations and expectations (Glick & White, 2004), and that recent immigrants place a greater value on

education than Canadian born (Smith, Schneider, & Ruck, 2005). Though Thiessen (2009) disputes this finding, other research carried out by Higher Education and Quality Council of

Ontario (HEQCO, 2010) and Association of Universities and Colleges in Canada (AUCC, 2011) have had similar findings. Notwithstanding, Thiessen has cautioned, and with good reason, that the homogenous treatment of participants in research may result in misleading interpretations.

One example of research that examines the immigrant student experience in the USA was undertaken by Kim and Diaz (2013). Their research was instructive how I conceptualized issues of settlement and PSE enrolment for immigrant student populations. Despite the differences between the USA and the Canadian contexts, the demographic of both countries has been influenced significantly by the movement of people from countries across the world. This increased diversity is reflected in the postsecondary environment in both contexts. Students of diverse cultures and backgrounds meet in the processes of knowledge production and interaction.

Kim and Diaz (2013) have contextualized some of the challenges that a recent immigrant faces within this dynamic environment, namely transitional, psychological, social, cultural and academic. These various considerations are complicated by the recent immigrant’s self- definition; country of origin values and beliefs; receiving countries’ discourses of values and beliefs; and interactions with multiple others (Phinney, 1992; Rumbaut, 1994). Further complexities arise from the fact that many immigrant students, especially those heading to PSE might have immigrated without their parents, which further complicates the process of settling in and navigating the new receiving society. Kuo and Roysicar (2006) estimated that approximately

35,000 unaccompanied children and adolescents immigrate to Canada annually. The possible consequences of navigating a new setting on their own are psychological stress and anxiety

(Kim, 2001); mental issues (Bhugra & Becker, 2005); and struggles for survival (Kim & Diaz,

2013).

Kim and Diaz (2013) have expressed that one of the challenges of addressing the issues of immigrant groups in PSE is locating relevant empirical research that looks at how immigrant students “navigate transitions to college, psychosocial adjustment, cultural values, and academic and social engagement” (p.25). They present a theoretical framework of neo-racism that describes forms of discrimination encountered by immigrant students during the transition to and out of college. Their basis for applying the lens of “neo-racism” was that “new” forms of racism to which immigrant students are subjected are not necessarily biological but cloaked in neocolonial rhetoric of cultural diversity and nation of origin stigmatization (Lee & Rice, 2007).

According to Scheurich and Young (2010) racism presents in many forms. They have distinguished between forms of racism—overt, covert, institutional and societal. The overt and covert forms operate at the individual level but within broader institutional and societal levels,

“hidden in the acceptable discourses of the academy” (p. 223). Balibar (2007) has contested the idea of neo-racism suggesting that immigration complicates the construct of race when diverse people come to occupy a single space. He has characterized this racism as one in which

“immigration functions as a substitute for the notion of race” (p.21). He argued that immigration as a “transnational ideological formation” (p.26) is a framework that perpetuates discourses of cultural differences, superficial acceptance of groups as equals, and the view that differences between mainstream and immigrant cultures are incompatible with the norms and create obstacles to inclusivity. Balibar’s arguments highlight issues that reflect criticisms of the multiculturalist policy in Canada; that is, that it maintains boundaries between groups and, consequently, does not provide a sense of inclusion to immigrants (Bannerji, 2000) whose

cultures are considered deficit. It is the negative figuration (S. Hall, 1992) that many immigrants face, that has urged Kim and Diaz (2013) to foreground this issue, whether it is a “new” conceptualization or otherwise.

Discussions of immigrants in the Canadian context are mainly around issues of access, persistence and educational outcomes. Finnie and Mueller (2008) cited in Aydemir & Sweetman,

2008, discuss the “1.5 ‘generation’ as immigrants who moved to the country early enough to enter Canadian educational systems” (p. 2) and therefore access postsecondary education in

Canada compared to those who completed high school in their country of origin. Both generational groups in their study are included in my research. Whether the differences in their experiences are significant is not the focus of this research. However, what their research shows is that certain immigrant groups attend university more than others; one factor being parental educational background. In other words, immigrant students whose parents had high levels of education were very likely to attend university (p. 3). My research acknowledges a relationship between parental level of education and university aspirations; but it is also true that similar aspirations to attend university exist among those whose parents had not participated in PSE.

There is also ongoing research on immigration and its contribution to Canadian society.

This is mainly carried out through the work of Statistics Canada and Citizenship and

Immigration Canada (CIC). Increasingly, there has been interest in learning about how immigration contributes to the life chances of immigrant children (Aydemir & Sweetman, 2008;

Berry, 1989; Finnie & Mueller, 2009); the pathways of immigrant students through the Youths in

Transition Surveys (YIT, 2002-2010); and participation at varying levels of the education system as mentioned elsewhere in this review. Notwithstanding the relevance of such studies, the attention to educational participation by immigrants with the aim of measuring success

indicators, fails to account for the individual lived experiences. Some literature that discusses the

Black immigrant experiences in Canada, has highlighted success rates in schools (Codjoe, 2006;

Dei 1997a); others have discussed drop out rates and underachievement, particularly among

Black boys (Dei, 1997b; James, 2012); and limited pursuit of PSE particularly among first generation immigrants from the Caribbean (Finnie & Mueller, 2009; HEQCO, 2010). In more recent years, there is a growing body of research on participation at postsecondary levels (for example Anisef, Sweet, Adamuti-Trache & Walters, 2009; Berger, 2009; Cheung, 2007; Finnie

& Mueller, 2009; 2010; Picot & Hou, 2012; Rollin, 2011; Theissen, 2009). These studies are mainly quantitative. Fewer studies have considered the experiences of PSE for specific immigrant student populations, such as students from Jamaica who are often subsumed under the larger Afro-Caribbean immigrant or Black student populations. Most notable are James and

Taylor, 2008; Henry and Tator, 2009; Hernandez-Ramdwar, 2009; Plaza and Simmons, 1998; and Richmond, 1993.

Simmons and Plaza (1998) examined the pursuit of university studies among Black men and women of Caribbean origin aged 20 to 24 living in Toronto and found that a significant number of them attended university, though they were less likely than their Asian-Caribbean counterparts and second generation Caribbean counterparts to attend. Still, they considered university to be important for upward mobility. Hernandez-Ramdwar (2009) suggested that students who are “both racialized and recent immigrants face compounded problems compared to their Canadian counterparts” (p. 119). In other words, unlike Canadian born students, recent immigrant students face transition issues related to settling in a new country while potentially undergoing stereotype threats and race issues. Nevertheless, the students interviewed in

Hernandez-Ramdwar’s study described some positive experiences of university attributed largely

to interactions with peers of similar background or attending classes that were supportive of their cultural ideas and background. Still, she suggested that institutions have come up short in their treatment of recent immigrant students (p.119), failing to provide spaces for explaining Canadian culture and assisting with integration. This statement assumes a level of culpability on the part of institutions that fail to provide supports that will assist new students to navigate the complex unfamiliar environment of university.

Hernandez-Ramdwar’s research also highlighted the spaces that students develop to help them navigate university. These spaces may be construed as “clusters of interaction” (Gupta and

Ferguson, 1992, p.8) in which groups from shared cultural backgrounds construct themselves as a community. As a community they use the tools of these “counter spaces” (Solorzano, Ceja, &

Yosso, 2000) to not only form new associations and friendships in the receiving nation, but also to negotiate the unfamiliar. Through these interactions they are supported in transitions at university and in the wider community, resulting in an enhanced student experience (Moores &

Popadiuk, 2011; Zhao, et al, 2005). In the “counter space” of specialized courses on Caribbean or Jamaican studies, students believed they had the opportunity to be with people of similar culture. Interacting with persons from a similar background and keeping ties to their culture help students navigate life outside their student role (Moores and Popadiuk, 2011, p. 301) and assists them in making sense of their cultural identities.

Any new learning situation is subject to interpretation by the participants, and situations where students of various cultural, religious, and ethnic backgrounds congregate may involve actions and expressions that are misconstrued or misunderstood, leading to challenges in interactions. Notwithstanding the value of intercultural interactions, opportunities for interaction with people of similar culture and background is important for students of color (Milem, Chang,

& Antonio, 2005, p.4). These interactions provide spaces of cultural safety for recent immigrant students, as well as support mechanisms to assist in adjusting to university.

In a novel way of looking at students in higher education which is relevant to the experiences of immigrant students, Field and Morgan-Klein (2010) developed a concept of

“student-hood” to explore the relationship between students’ participation and retention in higher education and their identities. Two statuses undergird this theory: student status which is transitory on the way to becoming a graduate and graduate status for those who graduate to join what they term a “credentialist market.” They theorize that higher education is a space of transition that students passage through in their prescribed role as student. Field and Morgan-

Klein drew on the “interstructural situation” (Turner, 1987) which was deemed rites of passage.

However, they acknowledged that through the course of university, other factors may interfere.

Turner’s thesis illustrated the temporality of student status as their participation in university is institutionalized and time bound. The spatial and temporal operate together in Turner’s theorization based on prescribed criteria of entry to and exit from university. I found it useful to read this paper as I reflected on the participants who had to stop out of university due to financial problems, and those who extended their stay because they either had not settled on a program major or had other challenges. It also provided me with an alternate way of thinking about how learning may operate both positively and negatively in the experiences of students. Of note as well was that the authors took issue with Bourdieu’s (1986) theory of social and cultural capital as not being reflective of the changes that have taken place in the massified higher education system.

Student identity development in higher education.

There is no shortage of literature that discusses identity in various forms in student development and student affairs texts, despite much of the focus being paid to adolescent development. Erikson (1959; 1980) considered, for example, the developing individual in the context of social and historical influences. Berry (1984, 1993) outlined acculturative strategies for students in relation to dominant cultures which may be read as choices to assimilate, marginalize, separate, or integrate (Evans, et al, p. 276). Sue and Sue’s (2003) racial and cultural identity model (RCID) was fundamental to understanding Black identity models such as Cross and Fhagen-Smith (2001). Cross and Fhagen-Smith’s (2001) model was built on ideas about personal identity, reference group orientation, and race salience. This model evolved into a lifespan model around six sectors. Sector four, the sector that deals with early adulthood is the one of interest for my research. This sector focuses on reference group orientation in young

Black adults and suggests that salience is given to race and culture based on group reference orientation. Cross’s theory of “psychological nigrescence” is defined as a “process of becoming

Black” (Evans, Forney, Guido, Patton & Renn, 2010, p.256). In this model, some young adults have high race salience while others have low race salience, none of which have guarantees in dealing with racism if encountered. Phinney’s (1995) model of ethnic identity involves a three- stage process of ethnic identity formation, moving from an unexamined stage through a search stage and then identity achievement (Evans et al., p.277-279). Several studies have emerged which draw on Phinney’s model in relation to students’ identity development. However, there is still a gap in the literature on students in their early adult years. As well, there remains a tendency to focus on similarities across cultures rather than acknowledge the differences within and among cultures.

The Model of Multiple Dimensions of Identity (MMDI) that has been developed and modified by Abes, Jones, and McEwen (2007) highlights multiple dimensions of identity while also attending to sociocultural influences and historical contexts in which individuals develop.

The model is dynamic, constantly being modified to reflect the realities of growing diversity in student development. The writers have acknowledged the socially constructed nature of identity development and the complexities involved in identity construction. One of my concerns with the traditional student development models is the assumption of identity development as linear when the process is a “messy” one and involves moving back and forth, as well as identifying in multiple ways. The MMDI model considers many of the complexities in identity development.

Identity development is defined as “how students’ lives are transformed so that they become intentional learners able to adapt to the changing needs of the environment, integrate knowledge from different sources, and continue learning throughout their lives” (American

Association of Colleges &Universities [AAC&U], 2002, p. xi). Despite the centrality given to student identity development and a recognition that students’ cultural background is important to student learning at the postsecondary level, there is little understanding of how students, with their multiple dimensions and unique personal histories (Keeling, 2004), from specific cultural groups, negotiate their cultural identities in the postsecondary context. In other words, what do students’ cultural identities mean in the context of their lives within a new society and university?

Sociocultural contexts and immigrant identities.

Students’ cultural identities are important. One assumption of sociocultural theory is that

“all learners belong to a defined culture with a cultural identity, and the degree to which they engage in learning is a function of this cultural identity (Alfred, 2003, p. 245). Alfred has

highlighted the importance of understanding the cultural worlds in which individuals have developed because this is what guides their view of the world and their ways of interpreting who they are. Alfred’s (2003) research on immigrant women students from the Anglophone

Caribbean attending PSE in the USA, has indicated that learning experiences may be influenced by culture and nation of origin socialization. Alfred’s research revealed that as these students negotiated new learning environments, they had to deal with issues of language, identity, new approaches to teaching and learning, and silence. Similar issues are discussed in my research alongside other challenges of settling into a new country. If we agree that students are critical to the success of postsecondary institutions, then the students’ success is of primary importance.

Kuh, Kinzie, Buckley, Bridges, and Hayek (2006) affirm that who students are (identity and background characteristics) matters to their success in college. Every student enters institutions of learning with the cultural discourses they have taken up. Knowledge of their culture is important to knowledge of self, and self in relation to others. In fact, to draw on a sociocultural perspective of learning, understanding of self must consider the individual in interaction with the environment he or she occupies (Alfred, 2003). This understanding of self is necessary in a world where so much importance is placed on how we are perceived by others. Students’ identities are believed to affect the way they “present themselves” on campus (Jones & Abes,

2013, p. xx). An appreciation of the multiple aspects of identity and recognition of the interconnections of dimensions of identity are needed to assist in a comprehensive understanding of how identities operate in interactions within the postsecondary context.

Alfred (2003) has discussed the idea of sociocultural contexts of learning in the social histories of Caribbean women. In her research, Alfred applied a Vygotskian theory of learning in a social world making the argument that if learning experiences are to be understood from a

sociocultural perspective, then the individuals and their interactions within the culture must be given due consideration. Other writers—for example Kim (2001)—have examined the racial identity development of Asian American students, and Pillay (2005) has considered racial identity regarding the psychological health of African American students in university. Within the Canadian context, few studies (see for examples, Brand, 1984; Bobb-Smith 2004;

Hernandez-Ramdwar, 2009; Plaza, 2004; Richmond, 1993) have considered the complexities of

Caribbean identity. But even among Caribbean student populations who share similar histories, identities are unfixed and unstable categories of analysis and subject to individual experiences. In the words of S. Hall (1993), “we cannot speak with any exactness about one experience and one identity” (p. 225). In fact, Hall suggested that it is “nonsense” to think of identity as “people who look the same, feel the same or call themselves the same” (Hall, 1991, p.49). Indeed, there is also a challenge to discover whether identity itself can be “re-thought, re-lived in and through difference” because it is always in the process of formation (p.41).

Immigrant Language and Identity

Some scholars mistakenly assume that language is not an issue for Jamaican immigrants to countries whose official language is English (see M. Hall, 2010 for example). Although this view may not be pervasive, it is sufficiently common to have factored in the research of several authors on Caribbean or Jamaican immigration experiences. There are situations in which

Jamaican immigrants are distinguished from mainstream Canadians and suffer discrimination based on speech or “accent” and color of the skin (Lindsay, 2007, p.16). This may result in a choice to pattern the speech of the mainstream or to resist the “blending” that may result from encounters with the new society. The importance of speech in the identity of Jamaicans is underscored by the idea that language forms a significant aspect of the history and culture of

groups. In Jamaica, what is commonly described as a “home language” is known by the residents as Patois or Jamaican Creole (Pryce, 1997; Shields, 1989). Jamaican Creole reflects the country’s historical interactions with diverse cultures; however, in Canadian contexts, accents in the speech of Jamaican immigrants portray them as non-Standard speakers of English (Norton, 1997).

The complex relationship between identity and language in postcolonial diaspora is addressed by Norton (1997). Norton cited the works of Nero (1997) and Leung, Hendley,

Compton and Haley (2009) as examples of works illustrating the relationship between identity and language. Nero discussed the “ambivalent” identities of Anglophones from the Caribbean

(Norton, 1997, p. 424) whose writing styles reflected a blend of “standard” and “non-standard” forms. This is a reality often lived by recent immigrant students from Jamaica. The construction of these students as nonstandard speakers of English requiring remediation is a situation which plays out at all levels of the education system, even when students have attained postgraduate level studies. Nero observed that students were often placed in remedial writing or English as a second language (ESL) classes, a situation that they found to be problematic. The issue is evident as well within the existing structures of the Canadian academy where Jamaican immigrant students believe that they face discrimination on the bases of language and voice or the “lack” of a voice. In a study that I conducted in 2011, undergraduate students spoke about being referred to

ESL programs by professors who felt that their language and comprehension skills were below standard (DaCosta, 2011). These students resisted the belief that their speech requires regulation and coaching to bring it to the Canadian standard. In the current study, the participants were adamant that their facility with English language is on par with that of their Canadian counterparts. Given their British colonial heritage, and the reality that their academic preparation in the source country was done in English, they consider themselves to be competent speakers of

English who have mastery of a Creole language as well (Winer, 2006). This issue of language remains contentious. However, what Norton’s (1997) work illustrates is that there is need for consideration of how linguistic differences are handled given the sociocultural realities of individuals.

Summary

The literature reviewed in this section examined the topics of migration trends of

Jamaicans; Jamaica’s migration history in Canada; multiculturalism; settlement in community and school; socio-cultural contexts; student development and experience; student identity development; and the language identity issue. The review confirms what I suggested earlier in the paper, that there exists limited, but useful literature in the Canadian context that examines the identity construction experiences of recent immigrant students, generally, and recent immigrant students from Jamaica, specifically. As well, much of the literature does not explore the interrelationships of migration, settlement, and university. Much of the research that exists is written within the US context and about experiences relevant to that context. Some findings may be applicable to the Canadian context, but others are more culturally and historically specific.

The literature review reveals the need for further research that will address specific student populations, especially with an anticipation of growing numbers of immigrants from diverse backgrounds.

Chapter 3

Conceptual Framework

Caribbean Cultural Identity: Living with and through difference, by hybridity

In the previous chapter I provided a contextual review of some of the literature on immigration and identity development to begin to explore how recent immigrant students construct their cultural identities in contexts of migration, settlement and university. This section presents the conceptual framework that guides my effort to understand the process of identity construction. Notwithstanding the utility of various models of student identity development, and the realities of multiple dimensions of identities, this research focuses on a cultural identity framework relevant to Caribbean populations as postulated by Stuart Hall. S. Hall’s (1993) for

Caribbean cultural identity construction includes the wider Caribbean region but much of Hall’s discussion addresses the Jamaican context. The application of this conceptualization of cultural identity in my research is not meant to assume that the identities of Jamaicans can be reduced to any single framework, nor that its tenets may not be applied to other populations, particularly those of postcolonial backgrounds. Identity and culture are not static concepts. Rather, they are fluid, subjective, and contextually bound (Harper & Quaye, 2010, p.104). Hall’s specific focus on Caribbean populations, mainly Black, makes the framework appropriate for my research.

Furthermore, the nature of identity construction, complicated by a history of slavery, colonialism, and displacement must entail an appreciation for how this history influences the constructions of identities. To address the interconnections of identity, migration, and the social and educational contexts in which differences are enacted (Lewis, 2000), I employ a hybrid conceptual framework. This framework, as indicated earlier draws mainly from Stuart Hall’s theory of a Caribbean cultural identity; however, I incorporate Brah’s (1996) modalities of

experience, social relation, subjectivity, and identity (p.117) to allow for a “reconceptualization of difference” (Gunaratnam, p.36). Brah’s analyses of difference supports Hall’s conceptualization of how similarities and differences work together in cultural identity construction. I also incorporate Bhabha’s (1994) theory of hybridity as a space for “becoming” which complements Hall’s theory. My research illustrates how participants’ perceptions of issues and events may vary based on how these individuals are culturally constructed and how these constructions are contingent on their “psyches” as well as the range of political and cultural discourses open to them, individually and collectively. I aim to examine specific ways in which students’ accounts reveal how they are “both structurally located and actively occupy a number of subject positions” (Lewis, 2000, p.133) that are open to them. I begin by situating the discussion in the postcolonial context which I consider relevant to explorations of identity construction experiences for Jamaican immigrants.

The Postcolonial Context

Cultural identity for Caribbean people, as it is addressed in the writings of S. Hall is framed within the broader theoretical framework of postcolonialism. Postcolonialism allows for examination of the impact of colonial history on relationships between different groups as global movements of individuals increase (M. Hall, 2010). These relationships are contexts for negotiating, constructing or reconstructing identities because it is through relationships that meaning of self in interaction with others is explored or understood. M. Hall has postulated that within postcolonial theory is an opportunity “to investigate the lived experiences of immigrants”

(M. Hall, 2010, p. 128) as they adapt in different cultural contexts. For S. Hall (1993), centring the postcolonial was meant to draw attention to the traumatic effects of the colonial encounter.

These effects, as Hall construed them, resulted in an “exercise of cultural power and

normalisation” (Hall, 1993, p.225) that has transcended the colonial period and continues to implicate how Caribbean people “see and experience ourselves as ‘Other’” (S. Hall, p. 225).

This cultural power to which Hall referred is the perpetual presence of Europe which he declared to be a “case of that which was endlessly speaking—and endlessly speaking us ” (p.232) The

Caribbean Black subject becomes enmeshed in a colonial “dialogue of power and resistance,” a situation that has, seemingly, “irreversible influence” (Hall, p.233-234). This dialogue of power and resistance is pertinent to discussions of Jamaican immigrants who are confronted with discursive practices of stigmatization and stereotypical treatment in Canada. A consequence of the colonial experience as explicated through Said’s Orientalism (1985) is that the power of the colonizer over the colonized subject was internalized to the extent that subjects were both positioned as “Other” and believed themselves to be “the Other of dominant discourse” (p.55).

The colonizing power transcends time and space and continues to impact the lived experiences of postcolonial people (Crossley & Tikly, 2004). Given this apparent irreversibility, postcolonialism should be viewed as an “allegory for a movement beyond the centering of the

West/North rather than a discrete geopolitical moment” (Gunaratnam, 2003, p.19).

Postcolonialism may be construed differently for different countries and contexts.

Radhakrishnan (1993) has asked whether “everyone can lay claim to an equal postcoloniality”

(p. 750) without the historical reference to the binary, “ex-colonizer/ex-colonized.” This is an important consideration in a research that involves both Canada and Jamaica. Both were colonies of Britain. However, the impact of the colonial experience played out very differently within the

Caribbean region when compared with Canada. The presence of the Europeans in Canada would therefore carry a different meaning for Canada that historically preferred European immigrants than in Jamaica whose people were colonial subjects through European interventions. Ahmed’s

(2000) statement bears out the relevance of the colonial experience to people outside the west.

She stated,

Post-colonialism is about re-thinking how colonialism operated in different times in ways

that permeate all aspects of social life, in the colonised and colonising nations. It is hence

about the complexity of the relationship between the past and the present, between

histories of European colonisation and contemporary globalisation. That complexity

cannot be reduced by either a notion that the present has broken from the past … or that

the present is simply continuous with the past. (p.11)

It is from an understanding of how post-colonialism operates in the lives of immigrants from previously colonized countries that one can begin to appreciate how power and privilege impact their ways of being in the world. The critical point is that there are ways in which global relations replicate the past, making it difficult to determine if there is a break with the past.

Hence, Hall’s questioning of whether there was a postcolonial “time” that signaled an actual end to colonialism (Hall, 1996b). The implication is that colonial encounters continue to operate in different ways and through various processes. One has to be cautious in attending to contextual meanings and not reduce the focus to “fixed binary categorizations between a normalized, dominant whiteness and negatively valued, pathological or deviant ‘Others’” (Gunaratnam,

2003, p. 20). Rather, careful consideration of the relationships between mainstream and marginalized subjects, and how these relationships are produced and with what effect in different spaces, for example—universities—are critical to developing an understanding of how history continues to influence the lives of postcolonial subjects.

The historical connection of immigration to slavery, colonization and forced migration for Jamaicans has spawned a wealth of concepts pertinent to the discussion of cultural identity and cultural hybridity, some of which are important to postcolonial understanding. The separation from family, friends or familiar things that comes with migration may create a desire for attachment in the receiving country. Ahmed (2000) has suggested that when encounters happen between cultures, the effect is transformation of “the conditions of the encounter itself”

(p.11). This transformation of cultures happens through a process described as acculturation.

Berry (2006) describes this process as involving a series of stages which reflect preferences to either maintain one’s culture, identity, heritage or a preference to participate in the broader society with members of other ethnocultural groups (Berry, 2005). The stages are assimilation, separation, integration, and marginalization. On the matter of assimilation, Walters, Phythian and

Anisef (2007) have noted that social research on immigrant acculturation during the early twentieth century assumed that assimilation was an unavoidable consequence of continuous interaction with a dominant group. This thinking was based on Robert Park’s (1950) theory of assimilation which asserts that individuals undergo a linear process from contact to competition to accommodation and assimilation, into mainstream culture. In contexts of globalization where there is increased diversity of populations, the need to assimilate is no longer regarded as essential.

Two Views of Cultural Identity by Hall (1993)

The conceptual framework within which this research is situated is postcolonial theory, which accounts for the shifting and fluid constructions of cultural identity given geo-spatial movements. Specifically, my research is guided by Stuart Hall’s conceptualization of cultural identity, “not by essence or purity, but by a necessary heterogeneity and diversity; by a

conception of ‘identity’ which lives with and through, not despite, difference; by hybridity ”

(p.235). This conceptualization centers “living by hybridity” which is the lens that I apply to analysis of the lived constructions of recent immigrant students from Jamaica. The theoretical lens of “difference” is an important element of this research because it recognizes the heterogeneity that is inherent in the constructions of shared nationality. What this idea represents is the co-existence of commonality and difference within identity.

•Premigration •Migration

similarity continuity

Difference Rupture

•Settlement •University

Figure 1: Two vectors of Caribbean Cultural Identity operating simultaneously

S. Hall posits two ways of thinking about cultural identity in the lead up to his proposed

Black Caribbean identity framework. The first view relates to the traditional way of thinking about cultural identity which he describes as “one shared culture, a sort of collective ‘one true self’ hiding inside the many other, more superficial or artificially imposed ‘selves’ which people with a shared history and ancestry hold in common” (S. Hall, 1993, p. 223). Through this view of cultural identity people who have a shared history draw on this history as points of reference,

that provide stability to their identities despite the shifts and changes in history. In other words, taking this view of cultural identity does not account for the ruptures that led to the formation of identity. This identity needs to be “excavated” (p.223).

The other view of identity relates to the previous view, and accounts for the points of similarity; however, it emphasizes another side of the identity narrative. This side as illustrated in

Figure 1 is the side that considers difference and rupture as constituted in identities. Difference and rupture are what makes identities unfixed and always in production. In migration and settlement, the discursive shifts influence “what we have” or may become and as S. Hall has stated sets identity both in the future and past. The continuous operations of history on cultural identities suggests that it must be thought of as “becoming” as well as of “being” and therefore undergoing “constant transformation” (p.225). In thinking through this alternate theoretical version, Hall understood that identity discussions become problematic if we cannot trace their development. This is the sense in which he departs from traditional identity development models.

Rather than tracing identity as a linear progression, Hall posits that we think of Caribbean identities as framed by two axes or historical contingencies which operate simultaneously: the vector of similarity and continuity; and the vector of difference and rupture. Figure 1 above represents these two vectors as simultaneously operative throughout pre-migration, migration, settlement, and university, as it were throughout the actuality of the lives of Jamaican immigrant students.

By applying Hall’s theorization of cultural identity, I am suggesting an alternative and a more critical way of investigating students’ identity construction processes in an age of globalization and transnationalism where significant numbers of people are dispersed, not only geographically, but also suffer displacement of “identity, memory and home” (Ashcroft, Griffith

& Tiffin, 2002, p. 218); and just as important, construct themselves in a society of diverse cultures. I have chosen this framework of cultural identity for a few reasons. Cultural identity is a contested and complex issue that is compounded in multicultural contexts where one sometimes perceives negative attitudes toward cultural difference. Hall’s “emic” perspective is that of someone who has lived experience of the Caribbean and its history. Hall, himself a diasporic

Black Jamaican living in a predominantly white country, had left Jamaica on a Rhodes scholarship as a youth. He had experienced the effects of “difference” in his family, being the

“low colored child”—the darkest in his family. He witnessed, firsthand, the subjugating power of colonialism even at the microsocial level of family. When Hall left Jamaica for England, Jamaica was still under direct British colonial rule.

Hall’s conceptualization of cultural identity interrogates all levels of power relations, including the micro-level of family, school, and peers, as spaces where there are power struggles.

By attending to the contested terrains of micro and macro relations, Hall’s framework is appropriate for my research which considers the interrelations of contexts of immigration, settlement and university in the lives of recent immigrant students. My research examines their growing up years, retrospectively, the influence of family in their lives and decisions to emigrate; the processes of immigration and settlement including reception to Jamaican immigrants, and, as well, the experiences within university and wider society of the Greater Toronto Area in which this study was conducted. Hall’s (1993) conceptualization of cultural identity situates it in the history and culture of mainly Black Caribbean people, reasoning that this history has produced a

Caribbean identity that is always in production and “being in a constant state of becoming”

(Gunaratnam, 2003, p.39). My research considers the construction of identity for the subjects of my research as incorporating an essential component as well as an aspirational component. My

conceptualization overlaps with Hall’s view of cultural identity as two vectors operating parallel to each other in the construction of identities. Where Hall downplays “who we are and where we came from” in his effort to shift focus from reductionist and essentialist categories, and instead attend to the potentiality that exists through hybridity, my research suggests that both “who” and

“where” are important categories in identity construction for Jamaican immigrant students and contribute significantly to “what we might become.” My research with the students who identify mainly through their nation of origin, or, in some construction of the category, ethnicity, reveals that there is a salience given to this identification. This is not to suggest that the meaning of

Jamaican is singular, nor does it ignore its “relationship to other categories of difference”

(Gunaratnam, p. 38). Through Stuart Hall’s analysis of cultural identity, I can interrogate the meanings of the category in all their complexities and ambivalences, as well as examine the effects of identifying as Jamaican in a multicultural but still majority white environment in the

GTA, Ontario.

Cultural identity as similarity and continuity.

Hall (1993) presented his perspectives on cultural identity through metaphors. According to Hall, “identity is the narrative, the stories which cultures tell themselves about who they are and where they came from” (2005, p.556). This view of identity supports a belief about a “true self” (who we are) hiding among “other selves” but also incorporates a shared history (where we came from) from a collective standpoint. For S. Hall this process of identification is a way of establishing that “this here is the same as that, or we are the same together” (S. Hall, 1997a, p.47). In the accounts of the participants, the notion of a “true self” may be construed as what gives them authenticity. Taylor (1991) has asserted that authenticity carries with it an idea of resisting conformity or normativity so that one can truly be themselves. Taylor’s version of

authenticity therefore recognizes difference as uniqueness. However, Hall deemphasized “who we are” and “where we came from” while acknowledging that it is through these assumed continuities that we can realize how stories (identity) change due to “historical circumstances”

(S. Hall, 1995, p. 8).

This aspect of Hall’s conceptualization is taken up mainly in Chapter 5, where the self- introductions of participants provide descriptions of their lives and identities, premigration. It is within these accounts that we observe similarities among those of “one shared culture” and how meanings of skin color, wealth and status, as well as language are produced and exchanged.

Interpretations of these constructs could only be accessed by the “common historical experiences and shared cultural codes which provide us, as ‘one people’ with stable, unchanging and continuous frames of reference and meaning beneath the shifting divisions and vicissitudes of our actual history” (p.223). What S. Hall was suggesting by this statement was that the context of interpretations of experiences is subject to change although the real historical connection remains. Thus, the discourse of common history and ‘oneness’ is what Hall describes as the

“essence of Caribbean-ness, of the Black experience” (S. Hall, 1993, p.223).

Susan Bickford (1997) has offered another application of similarity and continuity as operative in identity construction processes. Her definition is summed up as

What can indicate my sense of self, who I think I am; this is often bound up with group

membership, those people with whom I identify or am identified. There is further the

linguistic or conceptual sense of identity as a category that designates the “self-same

entity” defined by unity, fixity, and the expulsion of difference. (p. 111-112)

Bickford has echoed what some participants shared about the experiences of identity and the power of inclusion and exclusion that often operates in collective identities. This highlights the

relational nature of identities and reflects how, conceptually, identities can both include and exclude. Gunaratnam (2003) alluded to the importance of paying attention to this double-ness of identities as she suggested that categories of identification be “opened up” to questions of who is included and who is excluded. As will be seen in some of the participants’ accounts, ethnic categories that assume similarity in the experiences of those who are members, fail to account for the different ways that individuals situate their identities and thus, may be excluded.

Though S. Hall spoke of common historical experiences, he was not suggesting that they were “‘natural or ‘neutral’” but “socially and historically produced” (Gunaratnam, 2003, p. 11), offering those frames by which the experiences may be understood. Similarity and continuity may frame how sense is made of identities; however, difference also persists through what is enunciated at points in time. Brah (1996) has discussed this double-ness of similarity and difference in identity as the “core”; “the very process by which multiplicity, contradiction, and stability of subjectivity is signified as having coherence, continuity, stability” (pp. 123-124).

Cultural identity as difference and rupture.

S. Hall has suggested that similarity and continuity in his conceptualization of cultural identity operates alongside difference and rupture. Rupture is a key concept in migration and is discussed as uprooting. Some scholars (see for example Schiller, Basch, & Blanc, 1995) do not believe the notion of uprooting applies in the context of globalization. They believe that immigrants whom they term “transmigrants” become “firmly rooted in their new countries while maintaining multiple links in their homeland” (p. 48). The authors seem to suggest that it is possible to be rooted in more than one place since conditions of globalization make uprooting unnecessary. I think the migration experience, even when carried out voluntarily (Ogbu &

Simons, 1998), is construed as uprooting because the process is usually accompanied by

significant changes and adjustments (Kim & Diaz, 2013). Within the accounts of my participants, difference and rupture are foregrounded at several levels including the microsocial level of family and school life as participants encountered new and, in some cases, unpleasant experiences. Of interest is how the lens of similarity and difference were applied by participants to make sense of their experiences. One striking example of difference and rupture in the settlement period was the change in financial status that many of them experienced. These changes had varying effects on the participants and were expressed differently based on their individual situations. Hence Brah’s (1996) suggestion that “experience does not transparently reflect a pre-given reality, but rather, itself is a cultural construction” (p.116).

Difference and rupture are observed in the settlement experiences through several intersecting phenomena: language, nationality, class and work. The language spoken by

Jamaican immigrants is often perceived as being inconsistent with their nation of origin.

Jamaica’s official language is English (M. Hall, 2010) so, when Jamaicans immigrate to English speaking countries they do not believe they will face the issues with language that non-English speaking immigrants encounter. Although they believe that they speak Standard English and can be understood, they are not recognized as English-speakers in some North American contexts.

This sometimes affect their ability to gain employment. As S. Hall has reminded, identity is how we are “recognized and come into the place of recognitions which others give us” (1997a, p.47).

The nationality of the immigrant is recognized through speech and speech, in turn, affects the ability to find jobs because the perception is that the immigrant who does not “sound” Canadian also lacks Canadian work experience. The difficulty in finding employment, especially employment that is commensurate with qualifications and experience, is discussed by Li (2000) whose research found that there was “employment discrimination against racial minorities with

identifiable linguistic characteristics and racial features” (p. 13). The lack of employment means that the socio-economic status that immigrants enjoyed while in Jamaica is not retained by most when they move to Canada. As a result, they suffer downward mobility in living conditions.

These disruptions are highlighted in further details in the accounts of the participants in Chapters

6 and 7 of the research.

Further exploration of the axis of difference and rupture in Hall’s theorization of cultural identity elucidates the problem of constructing identities based on where we came from.

Researchers on immigration and identity have found that there is a strong relationship between being a first-generation immigrant and choosing to identify based on nation of origin (Waters,

1994). Benhabib (2006) has suggested that claims to nationality, as in the case of “Jamaican” is to “know and identify with some strands of a collective narrative through which the past is accounted for and the future is anticipated (p. 385). This resonates with S. Hall’s definition of identity as “a narrative” that cultures tell themselves about who they are and where they came from. But Hall has discounted “where we came from” because for him, it treats nationality as though it remains unchanged despite external influences. S. Hall posited that this is an attempt to authenticate one’s experience. However, he goes on to suggest that the view of an authentic origin is false because national identities are not fixed at birth (2006, p.253); rather, national identifications are formed and transformed within representation. The allusion to representation here is two-fold and expressed as, how we are recognized and come to step into the place recognitions that we are given by others (Hall, 1995, p.8) which is indicative of the role that “the outside” plays in identity construction. Hence, individuals choose how they identify based on how they have been represented in the host country, for example, the presence or absence of

discrimination (Berry, Phinney, Sam & Yedder, 2006; Nesdale, 2002; Phinney & Ong, 2007) has been found in some research to impact how individuals construct their identities.

S. Hall’s perspective on nationality, as with any other form of identification, is that it should be regarded as temporary, hence, a “positioning” rather than an “essence” because it is subject to the individual’s practice of this identity. Woodall (2007) has supported the view that

Caribbean cultural identities are forever “becoming, fracturing and transforming” (p.121). She believed that the transformation takes place as the signifier, Black, in Caribbean cultural identity becomes fragmented and replaced by another socio-cultural category which she attributes, in part to social class. Woodall believed that with this shift, there is a danger of erasure of a Caribbean cultural identity as individuals try to “insert themselves into the dominant culture” (p.122) through education, income, and occupation. I argue that education, occupation and income were no less significant in efforts to move up the social ladder in the source country. This is evident in the narratives of my research participants. However, the attention given to these markers of identity in their experiences in Ontario appears to be less about “inserting” themselves into the

Canadian culture, and more about fulfilling an expectation and proving that they have what it takes to be successful. Moreover, some participants in my research expressed no desire to “insert themselves in Canadian culture; rather, a fear of being subsumed within the culture to the point of losing their Jamaican-ness. Still, others admitted that at times they had to repress their

Jamaican-ness to access resources. Woodall has argued that the act of repression is itself an indication of the flexibility involved in identity construction. Her point was that identities “can be assumed, selected or fashioned” (p. 122). Therefore, if individuals choose to position themselves according to the material conditions with which they are confronted, that is a part of the process of identity construction. By S. Hall’s measure, the negotiations involved in cultural

encounters would not translate to the erasure of identities; rather, it is what he termed, a

“positioning.” Whether immigrants attempt to insert themselves into the new culture or make decisions about accessing resources, these are positions from which new cultural practices can emerge that help us “live with and through, not despite difference; by hybridity (1993, p.235).

Satya Mohanty (2000) has offered a view of cultural identity as experiential which complements the idea of living with and through difference. Mohanty argued that,

our identities are ways of making sense of our experiences. Identities are theoretical

constructions that enable us to read the world in specific ways … in them, and through

them, we learn to define and reshape our values and our commitments, we give texture

and form to our collective futures. (p.43)

What Mohanty’s description offers is a view of cultural identity as an ongoing production involving negotiations and reconstructions in the public sphere, that have the capacity to alter our lives. Mohanty, like S. Hall, has presented two views of cultural identity: one that is essentialist and the other, postmodernist. Mohanty has sought to dispute the postmodern view which he believed undervalues the “relation between experience and identity as a genuine philosophical and theoretical issue” (p. 30). His alternative is a realist view that maintains the idea of identity as socially constructed and at the same time, real, based on how individuals evaluate or refer to

“causally significant features of the social world” (p. 55).

Experiences of dislocation and relocation are highlighted in the accounts of my participants and they try to make meaning of these experiences by trying to figure out what has caused some of the tensions or discomforts they encounter. Josselson (1996) has argued that the

difficulty sometimes lies in one’s view of self; when one believes one is the “same” person one has always been. Josselson noted that,

Living our identities is much like breathing. We don’t ask ourselves who we are. We

simply are.… Identity is never fixed; it continually evolves. But something in it stays

constant; even when we change, we are recognizably who we have always been. Identity

links the past, the present and the social world into a narrative that makes sense. It

embodies both change and continuity. (p.29)

Josselson’s statement counteracts Woodall’s (2007) concern that the Caribbean cultural identity may be erased as new discourses are taken up. The reality of lived experiences is that lives are dependent on the spaces they occupy. Josselson has acknowledged what Mohanty determined to be a tension in conceptualizations of identity, that of the “split between theory and the lived experience” (Zambrana & Dill, 2009, p. 279). In some measure, their views align with S. Hall and bring into focus the reality of an experiential dimension in identity construction. Experiences reveal the fluid nature of identities and that fragmentation is a real issue as individuals interact in new environments. Brah (1996) has expanded this focus on experience by considering what difference as experience entails. By filtering students’ constructions of cultural identity through the lens of difference-as-experience, it allows for interrogating how their identities are produced and with what effect (Gunaratnam, 2003, p. 38).

The idea of living with and through difference as S. Hall’s answer to the question of identity, may be expressed as an “attempt to rearticulate the relationship between subjects and discursive practices” (p.2). Discursive practices that result in subjectification and displacement require reconceptualization. Through reconceptualization, construction of identification operates

as a process that is ongoing, forged through relationships that are sometimes allegiant and other times conflictual. In its relational element, identity assumes a subject and an “other.” As Seyla

Benhabib (1996) stated, “every search for identity includes differentiating oneself from what one is not” (p.3) such that the dialect of identity/difference is always assumed. Identities then are not immutable, stable or consistent (S. Hall, 1993) and, because they are constructed through discourse, they then need to be understood through the historical and institutional sites and discursive practices that produced them (p.4). Identity is not bound by geographical spaces or settings. Radhakrishnan (1993), in writing about boundaries of identity, has suggested that identity as a concept is “a normative measure that totalizes heterogeneous selves and subjectivities” (p.752) through a paradigm of “‘imagined community’ of nationalism” (p. 752).

In other words, identities become embedded in nations as an organizing principle such that the

Jamaican immigrant, for example, becomes normalized through nation of origin with little consideration for the multiple dimensions of the individual.

Cultural Identity Through Hybridity and “Becoming”

In S. Hall’s (1996) characterization of a Caribbean identity, he described a people who

“are irrevocably the product of several interlocking histories and cultures, who have learned to live with, and indeed speak from, difference. They speak from the in-between of different cultures” (p. 206). The distinctive feature of Jamaican or Caribbean identities is inherent in- between-ness, so that it cannot be fixed to a singular place or experience. One possible way of theorizing the in-between space of different cultures from which immigrants speak is the hybridity of a “third space” (Bhabha, 1994). The “third space” represents a space of belonging to both yet neither; being inside yet outside but through hybridity always incorporating the “new”

(1990, p.4). Bhabha’s theorizing of hybridity as a third space offers some possibilities for how

individuals live with and through difference. Specifically, Bhabha describes the third space as a space of agency, cultural translation and possibility within the migrant experience.

Hybridity has been conceptualized in several ways by different scholars. Among them

Hutnyk (2005); Young 1995; and Holland, Lachicotte Jr., Skinner and Cain (1998). Holland et al. (1998) discuss identities in a figured world and identity as practice. These formulations are useful especially in discussing sociocultural contexts of identity construction in university and the wider society. For Holland et al., identities are personal as well as collective in the sense of being cultural forms and relational. Because identities reflect the things people care about in the world, “they are important bases from which people create new activities, new worlds, and new ways of being” (p.5). Their conceptualization of identities resonates to some extent with S.

Hall’s and Bhabha’s notions of hybridity. However, they differ from Hall (1993) in their focus on the inner self, that is, they believe that identification is how the “self is understood through cultural forms practiced in social life” (p.8). Hall, instead begins from the external—"how we have been represented and how that bears on how we represent ourselves” (1996a, p.4). The difference in the two conceptualizations might be directional but the elements are similar in that both address social relations, subjectivity, and the possibilities that emerge through cultural understandings.

Jamaican immigrants to Ontario enter a period of transition where their ways of being in the world are in negotiation, influenced by their past and by their ambivalence in a foreign culture. Identities are relational; and many immigrants regard their relationship to the receiving country through the binaries of the “them/us” and “past/present” because they think about their identities based on how they are located. Their location to the past through a history of colonial domination affects how they relate to a new society that repeats aspects of that history through

discrimination. Their identities are negotiated and renegotiated in response to these memories at different points in time and in relation to actions and discursively-situated experiences that are encountered in unfamiliar spaces. These experiences create an uncertainty in the minds of immigrant students about ways in which they should act or behave. This space of ambivalence is unfamiliar, and students feel intimidated by it. Bhabha (1994) has suggested that within this daunting experience lies the opportunity to embrace “‘newness’ that is not part of the continuum of past and present” (Bhabha, 1994, p.7). Rather there is opportunity to re-figure the past through innovations and to reposition themselves in the historical narratives. Hybridity allows the immigrant to harness a response to the structures that are erected by refusing to accept these structures as “normal” parts of life. It calls upon the immigrant through personal experiences, social location and cultural understandings to always interrogate practices of domination. Within hybridity there is an opportunity to exercise agency and the immigrant students may begin to think differently about their experiences and reconstruct themselves through the potentiality that this “third space” affords. In this space the past both informs what existed and offers opportunities to create, recreate and transform.

Bhabha (1994) has cautioned that encounters with newness should not indulge “the fixed tablet of tradition” (p.2) in representations of ethnic and cultural difference. In his view, valuing difference encourages ongoing negotiations that will allow cultural hybridities that “emerge in moments of historical transformation” (p. 2). What Bhabha realized was that cultural traditions could be obstacles to new ways of thinking and innovations. Hybridity in the context of living with and through difference is not only a call to transform how identity is thought about but also to construct identities in new ways. Though critics of hybridity suggest that it reproduces the very essentialist framework it criticizes by itself requiring a definition and spatial placement

(Gunaratnam, 2014; Hutnyk, 2005; Pieterse, 2004; Puri, 2004; Young,1995), I am drawn to S.

Hall who “opened the door” to this theorizing of cultural identity in lived experience.

Although the term hybridity is not in general discourse around students’ participation in higher education, immigrants are sometimes described as hybrids in a biological use of the term as grafting one specie with an existing one, allowing for a mixed-ness to occur. Smith (2001) a

Caribbean cultural anthropologist, has found the idea of mixed-ness of Caribbean cultures to be problematic. Smith had borrowed a description used by Furnivall 1 of Burma and Java societies to apply to Caribbean societies (Lewis, 2004, p. 26). Furnivall had suggested that in those societies people were like a medley; “they mix but they do not combine” (Smith, p.119). Smith’s argument was that a similar application may be made to the Caribbean as plural societies. This debate is beyond the scope of my research. However, the application here is that cultural groups may co-exist despite having incompatible values (Rabushka and Shepsle, 1972). Thus, mixing does not render the differences among cultures invisible, which is implied by assimilationist theories or melting pot analogies. The concept of hybridity, although appropriate for exploring immigrant students’ experiences of “blending” with new cultures is itself problematic. According to Young (1995) the processes involved in hybridity are “uncertain and invasive” (p.3), placing the immigrant in an undecidable relationship with the new culture as they try to make sense of themselves.

Some scholars dispute the genetic referents of hybridity (Gunaratnam, 2014) but applaud the scholarship that challenges and upsets the assumptions of purity. Gunaratnam described

Bhabha’s cultural hybridity as “discursive and liminal” and as such it excites interest in its socio-

1 Furnivall, J. S. (1948). Colonial policy and practice: A comparative study of Burma and Netherlands India (Cambridge: The University Press, 1957), defined a plural society as comprising “two or more elements or social orders which live side by side yet without mingling in one political unit” (p.304).

cultural processes of “mixing and melding within the flows of multicultural and transnational living” (p.8). Nilan and Feixa (2006) captured the multifaceted construct by noting both the power relations and transactions inherent to its conceptualization. They suggested that hybridization involves

cultural interactions between the local and the global, the hegemonic and the subaltern,

the center and the periphery. On the other hand, hybridization is a process of cultural

transactions that reflects how global cultures are assimilated in the locality, and how non-

western cultures impact upon the West” (p. 2).

This conceptualization of cultural hybridity entails a potentially “more emancipatory use of culture” (Bannerji, 2000, p.19) which does not trap the individual in his or her past but offers opportunities for engagement in the receiving society. It is in this vein that S. Hall (1993) attested to the enabling capacity of hybridity to bring individuals to a “recognition of a necessary heterogeneity and diversity” (p. 235). Hall used the word “necessary” to demonstrate how essential it was to embrace difference because “no one is purely one thing” (Said, 1985, p. 55); which is equally true within groups. Thus, for Nilan and Feixa (2006), the term hybridity is used to elucidate the cultural creativity (p.1) that is made possible through the interactions of diverse cultures and enables the construction of both individual and collective identities. Nilan and

Feixa’s application of the term hybridity to the practices of youth resonates with my research focus which examines Jamaican youth in transition—"border crossers”—and their experiences of identity construction within their new society.

Despite the opposition to biological referents of the term “hybridity” in some contemporary usages, the participants in my research alluded to their nation of origin identity as

“the grafting of diversity into singularity” (Young, 1995, p.9). Jamaicans pride themselves on being a collective cultural entity as symbolized in their motto: Out of many, one people. It is in the cultural identity that emerges within the collective of this “one people” that S. Hall (1993) saw a reflection of the postcolonial struggles that serve to unite people of a shared history

(p.393). The collective history of Jamaicans who are mainly of African descent contributes to the tendency to perceive Jamaican immigrants in singular terms and to “imagine” us as a single community; often subsumed under the banner of Black and, at other times, singled out by speech and appearance. The danger of these perceptions is echoed in S. Hall’s (1996c) warning about predicating views of Blacks on the idea that “you cannot tell the difference because they all look the same” (p.445). In a similar vein, representations of individuals perpetuated through superficial beliefs or understandings about their nation of origin are reductionist and ignore differences among individuals of shared nationality. Notwithstanding the confluence of history, nation, culture and language that allows for collective constructions of cultural identities, there are variations within those categories that make claims of homogeneity, slippery. As S. Hall

(1993) has posited, we cannot speak for long with any exactness about ‘one experience and one identity’ without acknowledging its other side – the ruptures and discontinuities” (p. 225). The ruptures and discontinuities are what allow for the process of “becoming” as the past is rewritten or re-interpreted through the various experiences of individuals and collectives.

S. Hall has suggested that essentialism may be negated by “living with and through difference” which calls as well for recognizing diversity within homogeneity (Rodriquez, 2004;

Young, 1995). This recognition of diversity within homogeneity should allow for a construction of identities “which make common struggle and resistance possible but without suppressing the real heterogeneity of interests and identities” (Hall, 1996c, p.445). As discussed previously, an

acknowledgement of difference within a common struggle is a “strategic essentialism” (Spivak,

1987; Razack, 1998, p.168) in which meanings are derived from common understandings of struggles or from shared efforts to resist discrimination. My research participants acknowledged that their identification by nation of origin was strategic in providing solidarity against stigmatization and strengthening their sense of belonging. M. Hall (2010) has described this as

“reconstituting a native space in the host culture” (p.126) as a strategy for survival. However, this unity should not be taken to mean there were no differences of opinions among them as

Jamaicans. The participants were clear that their “relationships to other categories of difference”

(Gunaratnam, 2003, p.38) would separate them on some issues.

To emphasize the relevance of heterogeneity, S. Hall (1996c) has reminded that, “we all speak from a particular place, out of a particular history, out of a particular experience, a particular culture” (p.448) despite any collective identification. The collectivity—a sense of

“oneness,” constructed in national discourse, is imagined (1993, p.237), in view of Anderson’s

(1982) classic discussion on imagined communities. S. Hall seemed to prefer to think about nation through culture than an affixed identification to describe the ongoing process of construction. He cited Fanon’s (1963) definition of national culture as “the whole body of efforts made by a people in the sphere of thought to describe, justify and praise the action through which that people has created itself and keeps itself in existence (p.188). In Fanon’s definition, there is a glimpse of the participation of citizens in constructing and solidifying nation through their conversations about themselves. But S. Hall (1994) has also addressed the symbolic construction of nation as a discourse, that is,

a way to construct meanings which influence and organize both our actions and our

perceptions of ourselves. National cultures construct identities by creating meanings of

‘the nation’, with which we can identify; these are contained in stories that are told about

the nation, in memories which link its present to its past and in the perceptions of it that

are constructed. (p.201)

From S. Hall’s perspective, the recognition of the “different parts and histories of ourselves” (Hall, 1993, p. 237) makes it possible to construct positionalities or points of identification. These points of identification are not limited to nation of origin. They include race, sex, age, ability, sexual orientation, and ethnicity (James, 1995) and represent “places from which to speak” in relation to our cultural identity. How we speak about these identifications have implications for lifestyle, behaviors and interactions in society. This framework of cultural identity, therefore, does not ignore the reality that different social identities may be given salience by individuals. Some participants gave salience to a national identification and others to a racial identification. This must be understood within the context of “complicated postcolonial relations that are played out on the global stage” (Gunaratnam, 2003, p. 19).

My research has discussed some of the multiple ways of thinking about identity and various conceptualizations from disciplinary standpoints that are helpful in trying to understand the experience of identity construction. Bearing in mind the “conceptual difficulties” (Hall, 1996, p.2) in thinking through cultural identity, I review and integrate other related concepts of ethnic identification in the discussion chapter.

In summary, my research explored students’ cultural identity constructions through the lens of S. Hall’s Black Caribbean cultural identity framework, supplemented by other related theories. S. Hall (1993) conceptualized cultural identity as “living with and through, not despite, difference; by hybridity” (p. 235). The focus on the “living” aspect of the description sets up the

idea of focusing on experiences; particularly those of migration, settlement and university, in the case of recent immigrant students from Jamaica. Hall’s emphasis on “difference and rupture” reflects the migration experience—forced migration in the case of African slaves and displacement in other instances. Hall has admonished that the shared history that brought

Caribbean people together in diaspora is what needs to be continuously excavated, offering up possibilities of what we might become. Hall reminded us that “hidden histories have led to powerful movements that have transformed history” (p. 224). Underlying the concept of living with and through difference, then, is hybridity as a strategy for survival, transformation, re- inscriptions, and re-articulations, among many other possibilities of “becoming.”

Chapter 4 Methodology

Nothing stands outside of representation. Research involves a complex politics of representation. This world can never be captured directly; we can only study representations of it. We study the way people represent their experiences to themselves and to others. (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011, p. 415)

Exploring the notion of cultural identity construction for students who are recent immigrants from Jamaica in their everyday lives in Ontario and university is an undertaking that encompasses contextual, historical and social considerations which make for “a complex politics of representation” (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011, p. 415). The complexities are found in politics of representation involved in the life worlds of individuals of immigrant backgrounds in relation to specific social spaces that they occupy. Altugan (2015) captured the complexity involved in understanding cultural identity as it considers the “individual’s nature and nurture which includes experiences, talents, skills, beliefs, values, and knowledge” (p.1160). He equated this with “who they are; their status within their family, school, work, environment and country, and beyond that in the world as with globalisation the world is getting smaller” (Altugan, 2015, p.1160). Denzin and Lincoln appreciate that there is no direct way of undertaking this complex work, except in how it is presented through the thinking of persons themselves. Research on Jamaican immigrant students in universities in Ontario is very limited and does not typically present their “voices” as evidence of their thinking. My research aims to foreground the voices of the participants so that their thoughts on their experiences may be represented. I begin by describing the research paradigm, including philosophical and theoretical underpinnings of my research; the methodological approach used along with justification of methods; and the specific procedures I followed for data collection, including the subpopulation of students selected, how the

information was gathered and analyzed throughout, the process for ethics approval, and limitations of the research.

Towards a qualitative research approach

Recent immigrant students from Jamaica are among the students in universities and other

Canadian postsecondary educational settings who are considered domestic students based on landed or permanent resident status. For most, their citizenship is Jamaican (Statistics Canada,

2014), but some hold dual citizenship status as Jamaican and Canadian. Significantly, most do not adopt a hyphenated identity. Rather, they position themselves based on the nation of origin or racial identification (Gosine, 2008; Waters, 1994, 1999, 2001). They are mindful, however, that categorical identifications do not reflect the nuanced construction of the demographic by individuals. The label “Jamaican” is subject to historical and culturally contextualized meanings provided by the students themselves. It is their way of making sense of themselves and their lives in a new country, even as they craft their own definition of being Jamaican. As Ladson-Billings

(2003) suggested, to attend to socio-cultural matters, the depth of understanding must be contextual; hence, participants’ cultural identification is subject to and varies with the contexts within which they operate. The process of immigrating and living in a new culture is often mired in issues of settlement and integration. Add to this attending an institution of higher learning and the complexity builds. Being an immigrant and a student in university involves multiple combinations of experiences and practices that intersect with other categories of identification throughout participants’ everyday lives. It follows, therefore, that to develop understanding about experiences of immigration and student development requires learning about how these categories have been negotiated and with what effect. What is clear is that “experience is not a guarantor of some essential authenticity” (Brah, 1996, p.9). Hence, there can be no universal

Jamaican cultural identity since participants grapple with the meaning of their identities and present diverse articulations of these identities. In this regard, Kluckholn’s (1949) reminder is worth considering: “every immigrant is like all other immigrants, like some other immigrant, and like no other immigrant” (p.49). Similarly, every university student is like all university students, like some, and like no other. Within both immigrant and student experiences there are similarities and differences. A qualitative approach using interviews to gain a nuanced understanding of the multiple experiences, perspectives and realities is considered most appropriate. As well, in gathering the various and unique perspectives of my research participants I am mindful that I have a responsibility to translate their experiences in ways that honour the stories entrusted to me. In this way, the process of analysis is co-constructed so that the interpretations rendered reflect our mutual interpretation of the data.

Epistemology and theoretical perspective

The focus of the research is on construction of identity and assumes an ontological belief that identity is socially constructed based on cultural and historical contexts. From these social, cultural and historical locations, we attach meanings to our personal experiences. It is these personal experiences that become primary resources (Pickering, 2008) for use as evidence into individual social worlds. The subjective meanings that arise from our relations to our past are often veiled in our daily engagements in the world. Research that aims at understanding the meanings of being in the world accepts that the way that individuals construct their experience is their lived reality. Ontologically, my research is concerned with what the construction of cultural identity entails for participants in my research. What can be known about how recent Jamaican immigrant students attending postsecondary construct cultural identities? Epistemologically, my research considers how to recognize and unpack the ways in which cultural identities are

produced in the accounts of the research participants. The question of knowledge or epistemology is one that always takes us back to our world or lived experience (van Manen,

1990). Through the relationship of researcher to the researched “our lives, who we are, what makes us read and talk” (p.46) are experienced in the way lived experience is interpreted. It is the conversational space that gives unity to the experience (Hultgren, 1990, p. 363). The ways of

“knowing” are collectivist rather than individualistic as the researcher is brought into an understanding of an individual (subjective) reality but then traces those understandings in other participants’ accounts of lived (collective) reality to construct meaning. This makes for inter- subjectively constructed understanding because as the researcher is brought into the experience she gains a possible way of interpreting it, thus expanding her own experiences. This is how the epistemological underpinning of social constructionism (constructivism) operates within this research.

The terms constructivism and constructionism are often employed interchangeably in research. Shadish (1995) placed the focus of social constructionism on how knowledge is constructed rather than the reality itself. This position resonates with Jones, Rowan-Kenyon,

Mei-Yen Ireland, Niehaus, and Skendall (2012) who placed the focus of investigation on the participants’ meaning making of their experiences. By so doing, the view of reality is subject to how participants are being in the world. In the latter example, the epistemological underpinning is considered social constructivist. Some writers on the subject, for example Crotty (1998), make a distinction in the usage. In response to Crotty, Patton (2002) suggested that in making the distinction, researchers might think of constructivism as unique experiences based on individual sense making and social constructionism as the collective element of our sense making that

relates to “the hold of our culture” on the way we see and feel things, as well as the view we have of the world (p. 58).

There are, however, criticisms leveled against a constructionist epistemology. These criticisms are mainly leveled by positivist thinkers who hold to ontological beliefs in an objective reality and in scientific proof, and who discount all truth claims outside of scientific knowledge

(for example, Ratner, 2005). Ratner’s position is that the world of constructionism is abstract and elevates subjectively held beliefs but disposes with what is true and rational. Ratner has rejected as superficial and pointless the exercise of bringing different perspectives into dialogue (Zeilke,

2006), which is an objective of constructionism, pointing out that such a process ends with no empirical conclusions. In other words, he believes that research that employs such an approach cannot be validated. His perception is that if everyone has freedom to believe what they believe, then there is no objective truth. Some scholars have rejected the idea of an objective truth.

Among them, Haraway (1991) has argued that everyone’s “truths” are partial and not readily told

(Knowles, 1999).

The search for truth is not the goal of my research. The research process is meant to be a way of respecting the interpretations that individuals bring to the conversation about their cultural identities, on their terms. Zeikle (2006) has suggested that there is a possibility within research with a constructionist underpinning to realize an “implicit consensus” through

“collective practice” rather than unification of different positions. Science can neither offer physical proof nor explanations of all phenomena. There is always going to be the questioning.

But the question cannot just be asked. It must be lived (van Manen, 1990). To understand the consciousness that comes with constructing cultural identity is not an act of mere recall but interpretation. Any understanding of phenomena can only be explicated through the meanings

individuals attach to the experiences on the bases of social, cultural, and historical contexts. The reward of phenomenological research is not in the proof that one thing causes another thing.

Rather it is “seeing-meaning” that has profound effect (van Manen, 2007, p.12) as lived experiences become unveiled.

Pickering (2008) argued that one of the understudied areas in trying to understand how individuals make sense of the social world is the dimension of experience. Experience as he articulates it is a combination of things we have lived through and how we express and share these understandings with others. As such, the lived experience of cultural identity construction is the expression of interpretations of ourselves in relation to others. Pickering has suggested as well that our specific experiences are different and peculiar to us and that the importance that we attach to experiences and the sense we make of them are our bases for challenging the ways that others seek to define us. Experience is given shape through the process of phenomenological research (Gubrium and Holstein, 2008) and subsequently allows knowledge to be created and expanded (Bergerson & Huftalin, 2011). Experience is “vital to our changing identities and our changing conceptions of the social worlds we live in” and contributes to knowledge expansion

(Pickering, 2008, p.18). Pickering cited Kearney (2003) who agreed that the recreation of identities through reflection on lived experience was largely missing from research. This study offers an opportunity to address the gap by exploring how cultural identity is constructed as living by hybridity. In this regard, participants’ negotiations of migration, settlement, and university represent the spaces where lived constructions of cultural identities take place.

Methodology

The historical roots of qualitative research in education as expressed in the writings of

Bogdan and Biklen (2010/1998) are in sociology and anthropology in the United States as well

as the “intellectual traditions” (p.21) of other nations. However, the developments in the field of qualitative research were impacted by many social and political changes throughout the course of history. One such historical event was colonialism. The purpose of qualitative research is to describe, explore and explain phenomena being studied (Marshall & Rossman, 1995) and the blessing and burden according to Jones (2002) is that the depth of understanding that qualitative research “is intended to unearth, carries with it a significant responsibility” (p.461). This responsibility is to tell the stories of those whom the researcher encounters, with the greatest respect possible. I believe phenomenological methodology is a valuable strategy to interpret and represent the experiences of constructing cultural identity for persons whose histories have been mediated by colonial encounters.

Phenomenological research involves investigation into the meaning of lived experience or, according to Schutz (1970), “ways in which ordinary members of society attend to their everyday lives” (p.8). Husserl’s (1980) philosophy of phenomenology focused on orienting to the lived experience by looking to the thing itself for meaning. We act each day without thinking about what our actions mean. Husserl attached emphasis to consciousness and how consciousness comes about. To explore consciousness, he posited “essences” as a means of answering what makes a thing what it is and without it, it would not be. Answering this question requires “making direct contact with phenomena” so that the nature of the experience may be determined (van Manen, 1984, p.38). The challenge as Sloan and Bowe (2014) have indicated, is that one might settle for the “generic descriptions of the essences and phenomena without moving to a more ‘fine-grained’ description” (p.4) and thus an objectivization of the meaning of human experiences (Smith, Flowers, & Larkin, 2009). When used for amassing meaning by

analyzing language in spoken or written form (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2008; Langdridge, 2007) phenomenology may be used as a method or methodology (Sloan & Bowe, 2014).

Phenomenology places a great deal of emphasis on emotions and existentialism.

Existentialism is how humans define their existence in the world—what Heidegger referred to as

“Dasein”—"the situated meaning of a human in the world” (Laverty 2003, p,7). The world of humans constitutes the things that matter to them (Heidegger, 1962) or how the world is lived and experienced by humans (Merleau-Ponty, 1962). One person’s definition of their life world is not necessarily shared by others, and there are multiple ways in which people exist in their world. Their interpretations of their existence are subject to historical and cultural contexts. It is the multiple ways or the “multiple constructions of meaning” (Mertens, 1998, p.11) and a recognition that “any knowledge produced is contingent, proportional, emergent, and subject to alternative interpretations” (Finlay, 2009, p. 17) that guide my choice of the methodology. To understand the multiple constructions of meanings one must be mindful of the participants’ personal locations and the perspectives which make up “the matrix of experience from which they speak about themselves” (Pickering, 2008, p.26). One possible means to arrive at this understanding is through hermeneutics or an interpretive approach to the study of lived experience. Through Hans Georg Gadamer, hermeneutics was added to phenomenological philosophy to provide a way to interpret lived experience.

Hermeneutics in Gadamer’s work focused on how language reveals being (Sloan &

Bowe, 2014). Gadamer (1975/1996) theorized that “the world is represented by language and language is only real because the world is represented within it” (p. 7). This emphasis on language in phenomenology is evident as well in the work of other scholars such as Ricoeur

(1980) and van Manen (1990, 1997). Influenced by the writings of Gadamer, van Manen (1997)

developed the idea of a hermeneutic phenomenological approach to human science research and writing. In van Manen’s (1997) approach he suggested that language brings the participant and researcher together to reveal meanings of being in “some historical and cultural contexts” (Sloan

& Bowe, p. 7) and that understanding comes through the language of interviews (Langdridge,

2007). Hermeneutics is what allows the researcher to interpret the “texts” of lived experience; that is, to understand “participants’ existence and relations to the world around him or her”

(Sloan & Bowe, p.8). The approach by van Manen entails a three-pronged methodology: phenomenology, which describes how one orients to the lived experience; hermeneutics, which is how one interprets the “texts” of life; and semiotics, to develop a practical writing or linguistic approach to both.

Orienting oneself to the research requires intentionality. I understand intentionality to signify the way that the researcher enters the lived experience by experiencing a “there-ness” of another’s experience. The researcher or reader of phenomenological research should be left thinking “I understand better what it is like for someone to experience that” (Polkinghorne, 1989, p. 46). For van Manen (2007), this is the “pathic” nature that is featured in Husserl’s phenomenology. He does not dispose of Husserl’s “essences” but rather explicates the term as

“meaning constituted by a complex array of aspects, properties and qualities – some of which are incidental and some more critical to the being of things” (p. xv). Within this definition, van

Manen has acknowledged a challenge of phenomenological research. The challenge lies in the attempts “to construct a full interpretive description of some aspect of the life world and yet to remain aware that lived life is always more complex than any explication of meaning can reveal”

(p. 18). In this sense, whatever interpretations are applied to lived experiences are at best and worst, partial (Haraway, 1991; Knowles, 1999).

Strategy for Phenomenology and Rationale

Phenomenological research designed as naturalistic inquiry is an inductive and descriptive approach to doing research that has a “fascination with meaning” (van Manen, 2007, p. 12). Patton (2002) explained that naturalistic inquiry enables the researcher to study real world situations in their natural settings and to make sense of or interpret phenomena based on the meanings people bring to them (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005, p.3). Phenomenological methodology aims at uncovering aspects of lived experiences that are often obscured in the day to day realities of life. It therefore respects that the meanings students give to their experiences are highly personal and subjective. Being respectful to the meanings participants give to their lived experiences requires a “peculiar attentiveness and attitude to the things of the world”

(Merleau-Ponty, 1962, p. xiii). The value of phenomenology as an approach to studying human beings, according to van Manen (1997), is that they are best studied experientially; that is, with an experience-sensitive understanding of their life worlds. Researching with experience- sensitivity means that the researcher can get inside the experience as it is lived to understand it.

For this reason, several scholars who study the student experience utilize phenomenological methodology to gain a better understanding of the experience (see for examples, Bergerson &

Huftalin, 2011; Moran, 2007; Mueller & Cole; 2009; Stewart, 2009). However, Pickering (2008) has cautioned that the study of lived experience should not be approached as if there is a pure and transparent understanding of how people participate in the everyday social world. Instead there needs to be recognition that experience “cannot simply be presented as raw data” (p.19).

The experience as lived is subject to interpretation of what happens and what meanings are assigned to those actions. Experience, Pickering suggested, must be assigned the quality of a narrative; a point endorsed by Gunaratnam (2003). Gunaratnam has suggested that methods of

research using stories about “events in people’s lives…provide valuable analytic opportunities for understanding the complexity of accounts of lived experience” (p. 129).

To gain a measure of understanding of participants’ lives comes through recognition that the interplay between the researcher and researched is a collaborative process of knowledge construction, and therefore involves mutual dependence in arriving at interpretation (Schwandt,

1994). In this vein, the researcher must be attentive to her own experiences and explicate her position on the research (Laverty, 2003). To arrive at an interpretation of the phenomenon requires not just describing the individual lived experience but moving on to provide a composite of the experiences of all the research participants and gain a fuller picture of the phenomenon. A composite of the experiences is not intended to produce unified accounts of participants’ perceptions. Although similarities might be evident in some accounts, the similarity or unity in expressions is an “illusory unity” (J. Mohanty, 2008, p.25) because similar experiences may be interpreted differently according to the context in which they occur. A phenomenological approach honors the sensitivity of the individual lived experience recognizing that it does not mean just one thing—being Jamaican student in Canadian societies and universities. The meanings are complicated by gender, race, class, and age which carry varying levels of significance for students. In other words, there are multiple positions, lives and dimensions of identity to be considered in the research process (Olesen, 2000). Mahalingam and Rabelo (2013) support the importance of a phenomenological understanding of immigrants’ lived experience given the “situated nature of their identities” (p.33) and the “consequences of embodying certain racialized and stigmatized identities” (p. 26). Their concern was the danger of misidentification when lives are “misread.” As Haraway (1988) has asserted, “there is no way to ‘be’

simultaneously in all, or wholly in any of the privileged (i.e., subjugated) positions structured by gender, race, nation, and class” (p.586).

Adopting a Critical Lens

Research on student identity construction that utilizes phenomenological methodology is growing as scholars attempt to more accurately describe how students’ identities develop through the lived experience (Bergerson & Huftalin, 2011; Moran, 2007; Mueller & Cole; 2009; Sinacore

& Lerner, 2013; Stewart, 2009). Phenomenological inquiry affords the opportunity to question the nature of the experience, but the growing complexities of lives require approaches that attend to how individuals are positioned based on race, class, gender and how these constructs shape their individual experiences (Brenner 2006). Bracken (2018) has indicated the need for tools

to elucidate the subjective world of the informants which represents their conceptual

understandings while also of facilitating an exploration of theoretical constructs such as

critical race theory and examples of institutional racism and the ways in which these

phenomena may inform and constrain identity construction. (Articles section)

This is a timely observation. The multiple ways in which identity is constructed by increasingly diverse student populations in higher education may encourage research that is open to combining methodologies to better understand the student experience (Torres, Jones, & Renn,

2009). Research that incorporates critical and phenomenological approaches are already being undertaken (see for example Langdridge, 2008). Langdridge cites Carr (1986) and Polkinghorne

(1988) as scholars who discussed the “phenomenological basis for a turn to narrative” (p.1137).

He crafted an analytic strategy which he referred to as critical narrative analysis to “open up new possibilities” (p. 1138) in interpreting phenomenological research. Similarly, I hope that by

adopting a critical lens “new understandings” (p. 1138) of the experience of cultural identity construction will emerge. Lather (2006) has argued for practices that attend to the “messiness” and “to that which interrupts and exceeds versus tidy categories” (p.48).

Conducting a phenomenological study of students who are perceived as racialized in the

Canadian context carries its own tensions. On the one hand, I am seeking to understand the experience of constructing their cultural identities through an approach that requires an entry to inquiry without preconceived meanings. Willig (2001) described this technique as using an

“emic” approach, where the researcher interprets data based on the perspectives of the research participants. On the other hand, a critical lens is useful to examine those “taken for granted”

(Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberg, & Tarule, 1986; Parker, 2004) perceptions that may arise in the research. But there are other challenges to using a phenomenological approach. Phenomenology focuses on uniqueness of experiences, but also carries an assumption of essentialism. On this basis, it is often described as (in)commensurable, especially with culture studies.

Notwithstanding that view, phenomenology as “a search for what it means to be human” considers the “sociocultural and historical traditions which have given meaning to our ways of being in the world” (van Manen, 1984, p.38). To elaborate this point, van Manen provides an example – “to understand what it means to be a woman in our present age is also to understand the pressures of the meaning structures which have come to restrict, widen or question the nature and ground of womanhood” (van Manen, 1984, p.38). I see within the assumptions of essentialist categorizations the opportunity to interrogate and “unsettle” the ideas of fixity. In keeping with the concern about essentialism, Morrison (1995) has cautioned that the use of critical approaches in studies of lived experiences can in fact be “uncritical,” leading to a reification of experiences

(Gunaratnam, 2003). To avoid reification or re-inscribing participants along essentialist lines,

Bhavnani (1993) applied a principle of questioning. Bhavnani’s questions were used to elucidate the differences rather than similarities in the ways participants discussed a topic. Her strategy was to “refuse to take the views of participants at face value” (p.100) by interrogating their personal locations in relation to wider social discourses (Gunaratnam, 2003, p.40), such as perceptions of stigmatization of immigrants from developing countries.

In S. Hall’s approach I see the possibility of applying a critical lens to studies of lived experience of identity construction within social, historical, and cultural contexts. Adopting a critical lens in my research is an acknowledgement that the participants “come from somewhere and have their histories” (S. Hall, 1993, p.225), and that their histories are linked to slavery and colonialism. The contextual specificity is important to the ways in which students from

Caribbean immigrant backgrounds “negotiate their entry to society” (Calliste and Dei, 2000, p.166). The “past” of immigrant students has some bearing on their worldview. Indeed, people’s experiences and understanding of the world are shaped by socio-historical contexts and it is the researcher’s responsibility to capture the thoughts, values and beliefs that frame participants’ interpretation of their cultural identity. As well, the researcher must acknowledge that Jamaican cultural identity may not be understood by all participants in the same ways, and that there may be tensions and contradictions in the meanings they apply to their identities.

S. Hall’s (1993) cultural identity model provides a framework for analyzing the experience of cultural identity construction. The study is as well undergirded by an approach to researching lived experiences of racial and ethnicity identity categories employed by

Gunaratnam (2003). Gunaratnam (2003) posits a methodology for studies of race and ethnicity that interrelates with other forms of social difference as “a thinking-through of some of the complexities, ambiguities, and contradictions involved in the process of doing qualitative

research that is concerned with recognizing difference and with pursuing social justice” (p.3).

This study may not be an explicit project for social justice, and my research does not assume that students give salience to racial oppression; however, as a study of lived identity construction of immigrant students it is a way of thinking through their experiences in a Canadian context.

Gunaratnam’s text offers several approaches that support Hall’s conceptualization of cultural identity which “lives with and through, not despite difference; by hybridity” (Hall. 1993, p. 235). Gunaratnam (2003) attends to some of the tensions between research as a pursuit of race equality and the recognition of difference. This recognition of difference resonates in S. Hall’s theorizing of cultural identity. Gunaratnam indicated that the social constructionist insights of

Hall and Brah, whose works on difference in diaspora are also employed in my research, are

“valuable … in understanding how experience is brought into being and has its effects in specific social and interactional contexts” (p.6). Her approach is an “application of post-structuralist insights to qualitative research” (p.7) where post-structuralist critiques interrogate essentialism, and, simultaneously, validate the voices (Lewis, 2000) of research participants. Gunaratnam’s

(2003) approach situates lived experience within the social discourses that are articulated through

“institutional and social power relations that have emotional, material and embodied consequences for individuals and for groups” (p. 7). The approach legitimizes the voices of the participants interviewed by centering their accounts in her analysis. Some may argue, like Ratner

(2005) that it is a relativistic approach that encourages the idea that everyone has freedom to believe and construct their identities in any way they choose without reference to any objective truth. The intention of my research is not to gain an objective truth but to understand the nature of the experience of cultural identity construction among recent immigrant students from

Jamaica, being mindful of their culture and history. Gunaratnam has indicated that the

epistemological challenge of relativism may be addressed by being attentive to the research process, “using a ‘doubled’ research practice that is capable of working both with and against racialized categories, and which is able to make links between lived experience, political relations and the production of knowledge” (p.23). A “doubled practice” will allow me to identify those relationships of migration, settlement and university relations as they operate in the lives of Jamaican students who have come to live in multicultural Ontario.

The decision to use a phenomenological approach rather than Grounded Theory is because the purpose of the research is not to discover or generate a theory. It was not my intention to “fit” the meanings of students’ experiences of identity construction to any specific identity models. Rather, it was to allow their meanings to emerge as the phenomenon unfolded.

The research is generally concerned with understanding phenomena as lived rather than attaching any cause to phenomena. Ethnography, which allows for the study of a culture or cultural groups in their natural settings was not my choice of approach because the intent of the research was not to study the students as a group, despite their sharing of some beliefs and values. Rather, the focus of my research was the individual lived construction of cultural identities of the participants. More important, personal experience wins over method in promoting meaning and understanding of the lived experience with a consciousness that “the phenomenologist knows that one’s experiences are also the possible experiences of others” (van Manen, 1984, p.51) but may as well be vastly unique to the participants. Providing raw data through what the participants shared allows the experience to be taken for what it was “pre-reflectively” although,

“retrospectively,” human beings can deconstruct and try to make sense of our life worlds.

Grounded theory is certainly one approach that I could have been chosen for my research. I chose to keep the focus on students’ construction of their cultural identity through their lived

experiences rather than use theories at the outset of data collection. Pickering (2008) points out that the value of theory is in providing a map to help us understand the configuration of social worlds (p. 22) but without experience it is difficult to follow the map “into the living landscape to which it relates” (p.24). In this sense, methods are not mutually exclusive, and the boundaries overlap in research that attempts to understand the human experience.

An ethnographic methodology might also be considered appropriate given the assumption that the student participants originate from the same country and may have similar cultural understandings about their identities based on beliefs and norms. This approach to research requires a different point of entry into the world of the participant. The Ethnographic researcher is concerned with the culture of a group, and generally observes the behavior of the group over time, with an interest in how the cultural behavior is shaped and shapes society. The focus of my research was not to study the culture of the participants despite the relevance of culture to their construction of their experiences.

The use of multiple theoretical perspectives or combining methodological strategies is not unfamiliar in research and is often encouraged as a way of moving beyond a search for common elements underlying difference (Lather, 2006). Kinchloe and McLaren (2005) applied the notion of bricolage to describe the “process of employing multiple methodological strategies as needed in the context of the research situation” (cited in Abes, 2009, p.142). For her part,

Abes (2009) compared bricolage to “partnering multiple and [perhaps] contradictory theoretical perspectives to explore power structures underlying student development theory” (p. 142).

Patton (2002) provided further evidence of combining some theoretical perspectives in qualitative research. One such example cited by Patton is research by Bentz and Shapiro (1998) who composed what they described as “mindful inquiry” (Patton, p. 134). In their research they

100

included phenomenology by focusing on experience and consciousness; hermeneutics, where they focused on texts, and the process of understanding and letting new meanings emerge from the research; from critical theory they focused on the socio-historical context of both researcher and research topic while giving attention to social justice issues; and within Buddhism they focused on awareness (p. 134) synthesizing these different methods into a “single” strategy. In what I refer to as a constructive inquiry, my research follows a similar format by focusing on experience of identity construction in the everyday lives of participants. I apply hermeneutics to study the “texts” of experience and apply a critical lens to interpreting the taken for granted aspects of the lived experience. Through this process, the researcher as human instrument is foregrounded rather than research techniques. The idea of “surrender and catch” (Wolff, 1976) represents this approach very well. The researcher surrenders self to the research to relate to the participants and the meanings that emerge from their experiences. Relating to the meanings offered by others also means considering one’s location and allowing the research to take you in the direction it does. This process is likely to leave the researcher transformed.

Research purpose and questions

This desire to explore the lived experience of cultural identity construction for recent immigrant students from Jamaica has shaped the overarching question of my research which asks, what is the lived experience of cultural identity construction for recent immigrant students from Jamaica when migration, settlement, and university contexts are considered?

1. How is cultural identity given meaning in lives of recent immigrant students from

Jamaica? That is, how do they understand and articulate their cultural identities?

2. How do migration, settlement and university contexts influence their cultural identity

construction?

101

3. By what mechanisms are cultural identities negotiated?

The first question was meant to examine meanings of identity within the varying and multiple experiences of migration, settlement and university participation. The second question was meant to elicit how university and their wider societal interactions have impacted the lives of students. The third question focused on the techniques or strategies used in negotiating their identities in the spaces of university and wider society. This last question is meant to explore in a broader sense how they perceive themselves over the course of living in Ontario, to have been influenced/not influenced, changed/unchanged by their interactions in university and Canadian society.

As a qualitative researcher, my interest was not only how recent immigrant students from

Jamaica construct their identities but also their negotiations of structures within the society and universities with which they interact. The focus on both culture and consciousness challenges the researcher to listen to the voices of students about their own experiences, in ways that are not usually readily available to the public ear. The researcher is brought into the students’ worlds through insights into the “complicated and uneven meanings” of their lived experience

(Gunaratnam, 2003, p. 110), but the privilege of entering carries its own responsibility, that is to represent those experiences in ways that remain true to what is shared. Phenomenological research affords an exploration via personal experiences of prevailing cultural understandings

(Crotty, 1998, p.83). However, it is not only the self that matters in the construction of meaning but also the context reflected in the interactions of students with the social world. The researcher, as a human instrument (Lincoln & Guba, 2005; Patton, 1990), is mindful of self and location with respect to what is being researched.

102

At the outset of the phenomenological study, the researcher is not aware of what she will likely find and therefore, considers “all possible meaningful events and behaviours” (Whitt,

1991, p. 408). As characteristic of an inductive approach, data collection, analysis, and interpretation are directed by phenomena and the researcher’s growing knowledge as information emerges (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Merriam, 1998). This is what makes the human instrument such a critical component in qualitative research. It is the human instrument that can be flexible in clarifying, summarizing, or recognizing when the responses are inconsistent with the information being sought. The researcher responds to the context and adapts the techniques as she sees fit (Merriam, 1998), being open to new paths of discovery should they emerge (Patton,

2002). The researcher is also mindful to give scrutiny to evaluating the data for accuracy

(Bogdan & Bilken, 2010/1998) so that the meaning and operation of cultural identity in the lives of the participants is not compromised. Put another way, as the participants present their perspective of their experiences, it is the researcher’s role to find ways of “passage through whatever is prevalently covering it up” (Heidegger, 1962, p.61) by interpreting those understandings.

Description of process of data collection and recruitment

The data collection process of a phenomenological study entails selecting participants who can fulfil the purpose of the research. It means locating and collecting data from those who are familiar with the phenomenon being researched. This criterion is important to allow for the collecting of rich descriptions of the phenomenon (Kafle, 2011; van Manen, 1997). I approached my data collection exercise with the assumption that, despite the relatively small population of

Jamaican students that are perceived to be in universities in Ontario, it would not be extremely difficult to locate participants for my research. Although it was challenging, my search of

103

university website listings for clubs, societies, affiliations, and associations of Jamaican or

Caribbean background students was fruitful and I recruited students who met the eligibility criteria for my research. Data from these students were required to make this research a reality.

The entry point to the collection of data meant satisfying the requirements of an Ethics Review

Board (ERB).

Ethics review.

Ethics approval is required for the study of human “subjects” in efforts at protecting the rights and ensuring responsibility by all concerned with the research project. I acquired approval from the institution I attend in March 2016 and from external institutions whose students were potential recruits for my research in April of the same year. The ethics review process was completed prior to recruiting participants. In keeping with the standards of collecting data through interviews, informed consent was obtained from each participant (all current students of universities in the GTA at the time of data collection) before the start of each interview.

Informed consent assures the participants of confidentiality throughout the process of listening to, writing, analysing and reporting the stories that they will entrust to the researcher. It also ensures that the participants are aware of the demands on them as participants in the study (Best

& Khan, 2006). It acknowledges that the participant has the right to withdraw her or his participation at any point during the interview process.

One design characteristic espoused in qualitative research is purposeful sampling (Patton,

2002). Participants and sites are intentionally selected to study the central phenomenon and gain a depth of understanding (Patton 1990). Insight about the phenomenon is best described by those who have experienced it and are able to provide rich descriptions about it. Initially, I was concerned about recruiting sufficient numbers of participants. Having done preliminary research

104

into the number of students identifying as immigrants from Jamaica in universities, I was concerned about whether I would be able to locate, let alone attract students to participate in my study.

Participant selection.

Statistics Canada (2016) reports indicated that approximately 471 of 612 students from

Jamaica were enrolled in universities in Ontario between 2014 and 2015. Disaggregated data confirmed that these students were not second-generation immigrants, nor were they international students. However, demographic details of the year of arrival in country and the specific cities in Ontario were unavailable. The criteria and rationale for participation was as follows: Students are recent immigrants to Canada, preferably within the last five years but up to

10 years; completed all or most of their high school studies in Jamaica; and are enrolled in years two to four or five of undergraduate studies. All participants had lived in Ontario for under 10 years. This criterion is in keeping with Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) definition of recent immigrant. However, what emerged in the interviews was that the words “lived in” carry a whole range of meanings. The interviews also revealed that the pathways to Canada were not the same for everyone. Table 4 provides a breakdown of demographic information of participants.

The rationale for preferring students who lived in Ontario for at least two years (preferably, no more than five) was to capture recent transitional experiences from high school in a developing country to postsecondary studies in a developed country. My interest was, as well, to capture how participants negotiated settlement issues related to finding a place to live, negotiating the structural formalities, language issues, and finding employment where applicable.

105

The study did not exclude students who left Jamaica for Canada within a year or two of high school completion. In other words, participants may have attended up to grade 9 prior to emigration, hence completing high school in Canada. The rationale for selecting participants enrolled in years 2 to 4 or 5 of their programs in universities was to allow the researcher to capture the experiences after students had had a year or more of adjustment to the postsecondary environment. However, as the research progressed, I found that the definition of year group is distinct from number of years in university. The year group was not a true reflection of time spent from the start of programs to the time of interviews because some students had stopped out of university.

A total of 17 students expressed an interest in being interviewed but 14 were eventually selected based on the criteria. All were sent emails with a copy of questions that would guide the interview. The questionnaire was provided to help participants to prepare and be more relaxed about sharing their stories. The 14 participants who were selected, identified as Jamaican immigrants to Canada. Two of the 14 were born in Canada but never lived in Canada until the age of 17. The rationale for their inclusion was the fact that they were raised in Jamaica, completed all their secondary schooling in Jamaica, and had taken up residency in Canada.

Interviews and instrumentation.

Research participants share their sense making of their cultural identity through their beliefs, ways of thinking and feeling about events in their lives. The hope of phenomenology is to unearth what is hidden between the lines of meaning construction to allow a picture of the phenomenon to emerge. There is, however, a danger “in which some form of pre-established, reality is taken to be reflected in people’s words and actions” (Gunaratnam, p. 137). Through

106

dialogue based on open-ended questions, the researcher remains open to what emerges. This openness acknowledges that the understanding of the constructions of identity that are rendered tend to be “transitory and situational” (Gall, Borg, & Gall, 2007). Data collection for my research involved in-depth, semi-structured interviews to capture the experiences of participants.

Interviews are considered the best method of eliciting data that could not be readily observed in participant behavior and those behaviors that may have taken place at some previous time

(Merriam, 2009). Interview texts are described as “dynamic constructions of subjectivities for both interviewee and interviewer” (Wright, 2003, p.40). The interview questions included questions about participants’ lives in their country of origin as well as the post-migration context.

This was necessary to establish a context for analyzing the historical aspects of identity construction/formation. Semi-structured interviews are helpful when the researcher holds that individuals “define the world in unique ways” (Merriam, 2009, p. 90). The semi-structured format allows for flexibility in the wording and ordering of the questions, even as specific information is sought from all participants.

The first set of interviews was carried out between the end of March and May 2016, at which time only seven students had been recruited. Six of those recruited were interviewed. The seventh declined to participate due to commitments of school and work. Between May and

September many students were unavailable due to examinations or were completing final course work assignments. After the examination period many were off for the holidays. Data collection resumed in October 2016 and an additional eight interviews were conducted. The interviews lasted an average for an hour and were conducted face to face with each participant. The first section of the interview focused on biographical or demographic information (Merriam, 2009) related to where students were born or raised; early schooling including secondary schooling in

107

Jamaica; decisions to emigrate and with whom; as well as expectations of the move to and settlement in Canada. The second set of questions concentrated on university activities, expectations, experiences and interactions. The third set of questions asked about students’ perception of cultural identity, people’s perceptions of them on and off campus; and changes they have experienced since arriving in Canada and university. All interviews were audio recorded with the permission of the participants and later transcribed. The interviews were transcribed and initial coding (Charmaz, 2006) was ongoing over the course of the interview process and in the months following.

Method of Data Analysis

Laverty (2003) has indicated that in hermeneutic phenomenology data analysis may be done in several ways. A part of my process as the “human instrument” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985;

Patton, 1990) of data collection, was to co-construct meaning with the participants (Laverty,

2003) during the interviews to explore the interpretation of the data. For validation, I shared several examples of my analyses of participant accounts with my supervisor as I moved back and forth between the transcripts and my reflections on the data. What I encountered throughout the process of data analysis was the “wonder” to which van Manen (2002) alluded which comes from the experience of awe when something you believed was so familiar “turned profoundly unfamiliar, when our gaze has been drawn by the gaze of something that stares back at us” (p.5).

Cultural identity as a construct carries with it taken for granted meanings because we believe our cultural backgrounds to be part and parcel of who we are. Through a phenomenological analysis of the experience of cultural identity construction, I was mindful to pay close attention to the participants’ stories to remain “true” to what was spoken even as I tried to interpret what was shared to construct a possible interpretation of the experience of cultural identity construction.

108

My data analysis process involved familiarising myself with the data; transcription; initial coding; searching for themes; reviewing and refining themes; defining and naming themes. My insights, thoughts and impressions as researcher were integral in the data collection and analysis processes and allowed for constant reflections on the data collected through field notes and interviews. As suggested earlier, this allows the process of data analysis and data collection to happen concurrently (Marshall & Rossman, 1995; Merriam, 1998; Miles &

Huberman, 1984).

Through van Manen’s approach, interpretation of the “texts” of life may be possible by using themes as “structures of experience” (Sloan & Bowe, p. 14) or that which gathers aspects of lived experience into “meaningful wholes” (van Manen, 1997, p. 90). Thematic analysis is a method of identifying, analyzing and reporting the patterns or themes found within the data

(Braun & Clarke, 2006). I used the detailed line by line approach to thematic analysis guided by the question, what does the sentence or sentence cluster reveal about the phenomenon or experience being described (van Manen, p.93); that is, the experience of cultural identity construction. Reflecting on my own decisions about moving to live in Canada, I tried to understand the emigration experience from the participants’ perspectives.

Table 2:

Example of sentence cluster coding in interview transcript

Sentence/sentence cluster in interview Coding by sentence Mommy would talk about moving; noise factor was an issue; Decision to move was wanted to explore finance and Canada was a better fit than USA. planned; desired Even traffic problems would make me encourage her to push for move.

109

Doing thematic analysis requires a telling about each situation that bears some similarity and then questioning each to arrive at possible interpretations. The example in the table is about moving to a new country. Something meaningful in the moving experience is the decision to leave and how those decisions were arrived at in the first place. As I reflected and wrote about what I noted as “moving” decisions I theorized some as intentionally planned and thought through; largely parental; involved financial considerations; and may have been based on unexpected situations. This theme is one possible way of interpreting the decisions to move; in other words, an “essence” of moving decisions is revealed in the formulations but there are many others. Hermeneutic phenomenological data representation, according to Nielsen (2000), aims to get ‘to the bottom’ of phenomena and focuses on their faithful reflection in the portrayal of the findings (Fendt, Wilson, Jensen, Dimmock, & Weeks, 2014, p.403). By using the participant’s perspectives, the researcher uses “the matrices of the person’s worldview to understand the meaning of what that person is saying, rather than what the researcher expects that person to say”

(Hycner, 1985, p.281). Knowledge then becomes co-constructed by researcher and researched because both the participant’s and the researcher’s interpretation of the experiences are brought together (Pickering, 2008). Co-construction brings out the social relational nature of how we come to know what we know, highlighting how the interview questions as well as the recorded experiences of the participants become part of the data collected (Langdridge, 2007).

In the tradition of phenomenological research, van Manen (1997) surmised that four existential themes “pervade the life worlds of all human beings regardless of their historical, social or cultural situated-ness” (p.101). There are four fundamental existentials: lived space

(spatiality); lived body (corporeality); lived time (temporality); and lived human relation

(relationality or communality) which may be “differentiated but not separated” (p.105) to

110

varying degrees. The data are compiled from the “lived worlds” as experienced in everyday circumstances by recent immigrant students from Jamaica. I approached exploration of the participants in their life worlds as emigrant and immigrant, young adults in families, university students, part-time worker, and club member or leader. These life worlds are inhabited at different points in time and represent the spaces in which participants construct their cultural identities.

Within the accounts of the participants, lived space was reflected on as “felt space” because it considered how the participants’ felt about leaving Jamaica and moving to Canada.

Lived time is explored through the conversations about their “ways of being” in or navigating

Ontario as they reflected on their past lives in Jamaica and aspire for meaningful futures. The connections of the past to the present and future are considered “horizons” of their temporal landscape. Participants bring aspects of their past to their present circumstances through memory. These memories served to enable or hinder the adjustment process for some participants. Included within this temporal dimension are cultural values passed on by parents and teachers that transcended the geographical spaces of the heritage country and influenced their interactions in their new Canadian environment.

The lifeworld existential of the lived body has some bearing on how participants represent themselves and are represented in their new world. When the opportunity for interaction arises between people in a new society, it takes place “first through their body”

(p.103) and in the moments of interaction we are open to the gaze of others. In the process of meeting there is both revelation and concealment of aspects of the self as a deliberate or subconscious response to the gaze of others. The gaze of others is revealed in the ways participants spoke of the constructs of visible minority, being Jamaican, or a Black female and

111

the impression offered and received in relation to others in the new society. Lived body corresponds with the relational dimension of the lifeworld. Lived human relation (relationality or communality) is likewise construed as “lived other” (p. 104). The lived experience is always a relational experience as individuals seek for meaning of self in relation to others with whom they interact.

The lifeworld existential are incorporated within the various themes and sub-themes in the three chapters. The overarching theme of each chapter is reflected in the title of each data chapter. The following is an outline of the dominant themes by chapter. Chapter 5 presents introductions to the participants, what they had to say about living in their heritage country, and what contributed to their decisions to move to Canada. The second data chapter explores the impact of immigration, connections participants made between past experiences and their experiences during the settlement period, tapping as well into the issues of discrimination and stereotypes encountered in the migratory experiences. The third data chapter explored experiences in university, treating it as a context for being and becoming. The chapter documents how participants navigated educational structures and how they constructed their cultural identities through different interactions and experiences.

Acknowledgement of location

The research focus is to explore how students construct their cultural identities in their everyday lives and interactions. As a recent immigrant to Canada, my familiarity with the phenomena of migration and settlement makes me intuitive about the ideas shared. In this way, my values become a part of the research process. Qualitative research is not value-free

(Crowson, 1987). My mindfulness of structures of immigration and settlement as well as higher education structures and the cultural context do not exist outside of the research and the

112

meanings made of what is observed. In a hermeneutical or interpretive approach, the researcher’s personal experience is a tool for reflection (Laverty, 2003, p.18). I acknowledge my location as an immigrant from Jamaica with an interest in researching the lived experience of identity construction in contexts of immigration, settlement and university. Foster (2010/1994) has discussed “invoking the insider status” in the research process (p. 393) which made me think about how participants responded to me when they spoke to me on the phone and then met me in person. The personal interaction involved in qualitative interviews offers the participants an opportunity to get to know who the researcher is and may influence the information shared and received in an interview (Brenner, 2006). The fact that the participants identified me as a

Jamaican appeared to make them more relaxed in sharing their experiences. I find it interesting that most gave consent to being interviewed without knowledge of my Jamaican nationality.

Even the interchange between researcher and researched in the interview process is called into question as participants are believed to perform the self they want the interviewer to receive or the story they chose to tell (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005). The interplay goes beyond the performance of selves. There is a sense of anticipation and expectation that comes with sharing

“community” with those whom you interview. My participants were curious about what led to my research interest and expressed their hopes about what research into their cultural identity construction and experiences might produce. As I reflect on how I am situated as a researcher, I recognize the privilege I had of sharing their stories and co-constructing meaning as they guided me through their experiences.

The insider status is significant at a time when more work is being done on immigration and immigrant communities. In the past much of the work carried out on immigrants was done by others, outside the experience, who wrote “the narratives of our past” (Hall, 1996). Today,

113

more immigrant researchers are filling the gaps on this topic by presenting the “storied lives”

(Reissman, 2008) of immigrants of similar backgrounds. My research joins other similar research to address the gaps in understanding students’ cultural identities and how these identities are constructed and construct their social worlds. Mahalingam and Rabelo (2013) encourage the researcher to acknowledge how the “performativity” of both researcher and researched may play out in the process of data collection, and “how students’ various social identities interact and inform the way they perceive and are perceived by others in society” (p. 26). It is through a process of reflexivity that we may trace the decisions we make at various stages in the research process, such as why I combine phenomenological analysis with a critical lens in exploring the experiences of cultural identity construction among recent immigrant students from Jamaica.

Member checking/Feedback

Input of participants was sought throughout the data collection though the co- construction process. Throughout the interviews participants were informed of my interpretations of their experiences and they were given opportunities to refute or clarify or request further clarification from me. During the immediate post interview stage, a preliminary data analysis report was emailed to each participant with a request for their input on my interpretations and to express any opinions on the findings. Three of the 14 responded but expressed no desire to add or refute any of the findings.

Other thoughts on the study

At the outset I considered the study of a small subset of an already small student population to be a concern. However, the intent in doing this research has little to do with numbers. The stories of a few were not intended to elucidate the experiences of all students

114

within that population (Grayson, 2009). Conversely, even within groups, each student undergoes diverse experiences, and the issues considered salient to some will not carry the same level of significance for others. Each experience, and there are diverse and multiple experiences among the 14 participants, contributes to the conversation about cultural identity construction among recent immigrant students from Jamaica. The interpretivist paradigm which underpinned the study opens it up to criticism about the validity of the analysis. If the foundation of the paradigm is that reality is socially constructed and subject to individual interpretations of multiple realities, then even efforts at triangulation, member checking, and peer review are problematic (Angen,

2000). Brah (1996) reiterated by quoting Joan Scott that “experience is at once always already an interpretation and is in need of interpretation” (p.116). In other words, the process of interpretation is ongoing. Research that uses interviews as the sole method of data collection is limited to the information that participants choose to share. The researcher is mindful that what individuals choose to share is partial and situated (Wright, 2003) and that the “lives people talk and the lives they walk and live are not the same” (Knowles, 2003, p.112). But beyond seeking some pre-given truth in their accounts, what is necessary as Gunaratnam (2003) suggested is a doubled research practice that interrogates meaning. In her view, categories of ethnicity should be utilized with a mindfulness about the meanings assumed. For example, use of the category,

“Jamaican” may appear one-dimensional, thus, ignoring other dimensions of an individual’s life.

Gunaratnam has asserted that,

in order to do research with individuals and/or social groups who might identify or be

identified with these categories, we can neither take for granted the meanings or effects

of these identifications, nor can we ignore their relationships to other categories of

difference, such as age, disability and gender. (p.38)

115

Summary

The chapter presented the methodology and methods utilized in this research. It outlined a strategy for the use of phenomenology including hermeneutics (van Manen, 1997) along with a critical component related to a “doubled practice” (Gunaratnam, 2003) in research. The chapter explained the processes of ethics, data collection and analysis. It included an acknowledgement of my location as well as some thoughts on my research process.

116

Chapter 5

Growing up in Jamaica: Narratives of identity

Every immigrant is an emigrant too.

--Richard Warnica, ‘Americanah’ reminds us that every immigrant is an emigrant too

This chapter is the first of three data chapters in which I present an analysis of the accounts of the 14 participants in my research. The analysis is aimed at understanding the interrelations of migration, settlement, and university attendance in the construction of cultural identities of recent immigrant students from Jamaica. The three chapters encompass a triad of transitions in the lives of the 14 students: transition during adolescence to early adulthood, transition to a new country of residence, and transition to university. Chapter 5 serves as an introduction to their lives in the pre-migration and emigration experiences. The specific focus of the chapter is how participants reveal “existential conceptions” (Knowles, 1999, p. 119) about themselves by divulging how they spent their time, where they lived and attended school, and the things they found to be important in their day to day experiences in Jamaica, as well as what circumstances led to their emigration. Having introduced the lives of the participants, the second data chapter allows the reader to better contextualize the experiences they share about living in a new country.

Specifically, we get a sense of how they interpret their encounters during the settlement period through the lens of their past lives in Jamaica. The third data chapter explores construction of cultural identity in university from the standpoints of being and becoming. These two “states” in the process of identity construction are discussed through the expectations and challenges, possibilities and promises of the university experience.

The introduction to the participants is presented at the outset as a sketch of their lives, illustrating the number of years completed in high school in Jamaica; their immigration status;

117

the number of years lived in Ontario, Canada; number of years spent in high school in Ontario

(where applicable); year group in university (this is not necessarily a reflection of numbers of years spent in university at the time of the interviews); field of study being pursued at the time of the interview; and the desired profession or career aspiration. The chapter expands on the sketches with introductions of each participant during the “growing up” years in Jamaica. The introductions are descriptions by the participants of their lives in Jamaica. These descriptions are incorporated in the chapter to give the reader an understanding of the meanings that the participants “assigned to events and conditions in their lives” (Chase, 2010, p. 212) through a process of reflection on their cultural backgrounds, family relationships, peer relationships, and schooling, accounting for social dimensions of class, skin color and “space” in their identity negotiations.

An Introduction to the Participants

The 14 participants in this research all grew up in Jamaica and completed most if not all their secondary schooling there, before emigrating to Canada between the ages of 15 and 20.

Table 2 provides a sketch of the participants in the order in which they were interviewed.

Pseudonyms were assigned by the researcher to protect the identity of the participants. The introductions that follow are presented in the direct words of the participants and are pieced together, generally, in the order in which the stories are shared (see Knowles, 1999 as an example). The introductions vary in length depending on how much the participants chose to share with the researcher. I modified each introduction by removing any information that may identify the participant; specifically, name of community and/or parish of residence, name of high school attended, and any other named institutions. The section is sub-titled “Growing up

‘Jamaican’ noting that participants are sharing about their lives as they occur in memory.

118

The participants were asked to talk a little bit about themselves and their lives growing up in Jamaica. By opening the conversation in such a broad manner, participants had the opportunity to share freely any memory of growing up that they considered significant. I did not ask them to speak about any specific dimension of their identities. Rather, I listened for the participants’ self-definitions, cognizant that what was shared were partial versions of their experiences, and that the “absent/presences in their conversations are key parts of the data too”

(Hall, 2012, p.34). In research using a life story approach, Knowles (1999) problematized the idea of getting to know who a person is through the story told by the person, since “lives resist telling” (p. 110). This is a reminder to researchers that “most of life occurs beyond the researcher’s gaze” (p.112) which, of course, has implications for how to examine what the participants’ share. The limitations are worth noting since, according to S. Hall, “though we speak, so to say, ‘in our own name,’ of ourselves and from our own experience, nevertheless, who speaks, and the subject who is spoken of are never identical” (1993, p.222). It is a statement that raises concerns about transparency and credibility because, as it were, we have no way of knowing the inner core or “the subject spoken of” (S. Hall, p.222). We can only gather information about identities and lives based on what participants choose to tell us and through our interactions during the research process. However, the research process itself is not unproblematic, often fraught with “tensions, contradictions, and power imbalances” (Lutrell,

2010, p.258). Luttrell suggests that by naming the issues involved in the process of conducting research, researchers may address concerns about elevating our views and interests above those of our research subjects.

119

Table 3 Participants

Pseudonym # of Immigration Years living # of Years Year in Field of study Self - years of Status in Canada of high university and desired identification/ high at time of school in profession identity school in interview Ontario (if construction Jamaica applicable) Simon 7a Permanent 3+ 0 3e Finance; Stock Real Jamaican Resident broker North American James 4 Permanent 2+ N/A d 4e Science; Jamaican/ Resident Neurosurgeon Black Segree 5 Citizen b 3+ 1 2 Psychology/ Middle-class Statistics; Jamaican CPA Neesa 7a Citizen b 2+ 0 2 Science; Jamaican Medicine Black Rosita 5 Permanent 3+ 0 3e Political Middle-class Resident Science; Jamaican Lawyer/Teach Black woman er Destiny 5 Permanent 2+ N/A d 2 Science; Upper-class Resident Neurology Jamaican Black Donald 7a Citizen b 3+ 0 3 Business; Middle-class Businessman Jamaican Aaron 7a Permanent 3 0 3 Communicatio Jamaican Resident n Studies; Lawyer Anne 7a Permanent 2+ 0 3e Political Jamaican Resident Science; Lawyer Essie 5 Citizen c 4 1 4 Social work; Jamaican Social worker Leah 3 Permanent 4 2 2 Social work; Middle-class Resident Social worker Jamaican Wayne 7a Permanent 6 0 4f Sociology; Lower class resident Community Jamaican Development Oneise 5 Citizen c 6 1 5 Biomedical Canadian Sciences; Jamaican Medicine Black woman Teeah 4 Permanent 7 2 3f Business and Middle-class Resident Society; Jamaican Business woman

a Indicates sixth form completed. Sixth form comprises two advanced years of high school b Citizenship status by parental sponsorship/parental immigration status c Born in Canada but raised in Jamaica. Returned to Canada one year prior to start of university d N/A Attended two years of high school in the USA e Started university/college program elsewhere prior to moving to Canada f Stopped out of university for a period due to financial or other circumstances

120

In view of Luttrell’s suggestion, I restate that my experiences as a recent immigrant from

Jamaica influenced my research interest—to learn how other recent immigrant students made sense of their lives as students and immigrants negotiating a new society and university. Armed with previous knowledge and personal experiences about the importance of higher education to immigrants, I set out to “gain entry into the conceptual worlds of the subjects” (Geertz, 1973, p.24). I wanted to experience the “worlds” of my research participants and be enlightened about the process through which connections were made about their past and their present situations.

The interview sessions opened in a similar manner for all participants: a general question about life growing up in Jamaica. Below are their accounts in their words.

Participant Accounts in Their Words

Simon

Outside of school, I feel like my life was kind of sheltered. We were never without in my

family. We always had what we needed, and life was kind of comfortable. There were

places that were unsafe, but I was never put in any dangerous situation. And it was

comfortable, I think. The way how I was grown in Jamaica, it draws me to certain things

[Simon spoke about involvement in a Bible study group later in the conversation]. I have

never been attracted to the “Jamaican” things back home, like dancehall stuff. The way I

grew up drew me to … different kinds of sports that I have always been interested in …. I

attended up to sixth form …. I always wanted to be a stock broker .

Simon reflected on two major “spaces” in his identity narrative: a space “outside of school” and school. The space outside of school is where his family is, where life is comfortable and sheltered. This sheltered space is juxtaposed to a less sheltered space which is school. In the

121

space outside of school he mentions a few things that give clues about his identity. He never felt deprived, rather, he enjoyed “comfortable” circumstances and felt secure. From Simon’s interview there is evidence that his family (parents) had the resources to meet his needs and keep him away from dangerous situations. He shared that it was the way he was raised that shaped his interests. For example, he revealed that he was not drawn to “Jamaican things,” an example of which is, “dancehall stuff.” The dancehall features prominently in Jamaica’s popular culture, but

Simon was very clear that he was not a participant in that aspect of Jamaican heritage. M. Hall

(2010) has suggested, albeit a generalization, that middle-class Jamaican culture is resistant to the lyrics of dance hall music. What is revealed in Simon’s account is that it was how he was raised by his parents that influenced his interests.

James

I was on campus all the time because it was an ‘all boys’ boarding school and it was

somewhat far away from home. I started high school, 2007 and it was ranked number 1.

So, I was like cool, I’m gonna go to a number one school. I get there it was great, first

year…naturally I’m Jamaican, I’m a boy, I do bad stuff … like you give talking, like you

are above it all, like you’re cool. So, you know, I was getting good grades, but I was

doing stupid stuff like typical 12 or 13-year-old would do. But I wasn’t at home, so I

didn’t have that supervision. It was practically me on my own, trying to follow all the

rules … doing track [track and field], doing all of this and trying to fit in all of that, plus

classes from 7 to 3, so it’s like, it was somewhat kind of hectic but at the same time it was

liberating in a sense. After the first year it got easier. It felt like I had been there my entire

life. The teaching aspect was gruesome to be honest. It was just like non-stop learning …

they tell you to pick three majors that you want to do. So, I was like, my top three were

122

being a doctor, a lawyer, and a geologist, for some reason. I don’t know the point. My

math teacher thought that my friends were pulling me down, so she split us up. From that

point in time I realize that I have certain people who were not necessarily my guardians,

but they were looking out for me in certain things. And I started learning from that …. I

would still get into trouble here and there …. I was kicked off boarding at school … [and]

had to board off campus which was way more expensive … I tried to reiterate to my

mother and grandmother that [just] because you are sending me money doesn’t mean I

am getting the emotional support I should be getting.

James’ “awayness” from home and living in a boarding school environment helped him carve out an identity of independence embedded in an essentialized “bad boy” image which he attributes to be “natural” to Jamaican boys. This articulation of his 12/13-year old self is intersected by gender, ability, socio-cultural ideas about schooling, and the roles of peers, parents, and teachers on his identity formation. James alluded to the importance of performance ranking and doing well in school. He felt liberated by the absence of his mother and grandmother who lived overseas but recognized that their support was needed for his well-being. The effects of separation on children whose parents live abroad is documented as an aspect of the transnational discourse.

Segree

Well growing up in Jamaica, my dad was [from] the city; my mom is from the country so

the way I grew up was like a city child and a country child because my mom would grow

me like her mom grew her. I went to school and the people I was around were like upper

class children, but my family wasn’t one of those. So, I guess my parents, my dad is from

123

the ghetto, so I guess he was glad that I wasn’t surrounding myself around people like that [people from the ghetto] because he knows it, right. I felt like I had no worries when

I was in school. My parents were always there for me; not anything I wanted but anything

I needed, my parents, they had it for me and … there were no struggles as some people would say…. When I went to high school …, that’s when I started to meet people from all over, right? That’s when I learned how to speak patois because my parents never spoke it in the house. I think maybe because some people … the way you speak some people look down on it and I guess my parents didn’t want me to get into any altercations with anybody. So, they just tried to keep me away from that part of Jamaican culture.

Some people once you speak patois you’re from ‘here’ and you do ‘this,’ they think different things of you. So, I guess they were trying to avoid people thinking ‘things’ of me as a child. The older I got the more I realized that life isn’t as good as it is, right, like for other people, but personally I always had my parents to drop me to school and pick me up; drop me to extra classes and pick me up. But I had some friends that had to take the bus. Like some friends, that even though their parents were able to pick them up, they still had to take the bus, but my parents always made sure that I was picked up. Because they are very overprotective. So, I enjoyed high school for the most part. I got along with most of my teachers. I liked the way they taught. My parents sent me to extra classes, so I was never behind in school. I even did CSEC math in grade 10 and I did advanced math in grade 11, so school wasn’t an issue for me. I was always doing well. The friends I also made in high school they were from different backgrounds. I still had upper class friends,

I still had lower class friends and middle-class friends just like myself. Friends from everywhere. High school actually brought out my true me, because I was always very

124

shy. In prep school I was always just follow whatever is going on. I would never talk or

make decisions for myself and then in high school, the friends I had were strong, so they

made me strong. They kept me on my feet. You couldn’t be too soft to be around them

because the things they would say would break soft people.

My initial reaction to Segree’s identity narrative was that it conveys, at the outset, an ambivalence about her identity as a child growing up in Jamaica. She identified with the city

(ghetto) upbringing of her father and the country upbringing of her mother. However, as I re-read her account and questioned what she meant, I realized that Segree had described herself as a composite of the backgrounds of both parents with the mother’s influence being more dominant.

Segree reflected on two significant markers of identity that made an impression on her growing up years: language and social class. She positioned herself as middle-class and declared that she was not upper or upper middle-class; rather, she maintained friendships across social classes.

However, her parents preferred that she associate with the upper echelons to reduce the chances of stigmatization. Her interpretation of her parents’ response to the use Patois or Jamaican Creole language is that her parents tried to protect her image—"the way you speak, some people look down on it”—and Standard English was the yard stick that measured status and affluence so that

Segree would fit with her peers in the “upper-class school.”

Neesa

Growing up, I guess it was pretty average. Just cool. I wasn’t a really party person, so it

was just school and home. I went to a [High School] for girls, so yeah and for sixth form

I went to a Technical High. It was fine. It was an okay transition. I would say the only

thing I really did was family based; like weekends and holidays I would always go to my

grandparents’ house, see my family, things like that. But I wasn’t a really party person, so

125

I was not really out much. So, it was basically just home and school.… I have been

travelling [between Jamaica and Canada] since I was a baby … my father lived here.

Neesa’s narrative involved going back and forth between her mother in Jamaica and her father in

Canada from approximately the age of two. The transnational nature of her growing up experience suggests that Neesa has a strong attachment to both her parents. The familial influence on her identity was evident in how she located herself in relation to her extended family. Her involvements revolved around the spatial contexts of family and rural living because she is “not a city person” (a view of herself which she shared several times in the interview) nor a party person. Neesa’s construction of herself in this introduction and throughout the interview reveals a strong sense of self. She refers frequently to “who she is” or “who she is not” affixing her identity to specific categories and spaces.

Rosita

I grew up in Jamaica and attended [High School]. It was intense and good but very

stressful. The teachers ‘pushed’ you to do well and my parents did too. They sacrificed a

lot to make certain that I attended university. My mom believed that university is a must

to get a stable job .... I must have at least a bachelor’s degree. Growing up in Jamaica,

where the population is mostly Black, I didn’t have to prove myself to people. The big

issue in Jamaica is classism, and, being from a middle-class family with my mom

working with the government for so many years, I did not have that problem.

Rosita’s brief narrative of growing up in Jamaica focused, at the outset, on the collusion of home and school in ensuring that children who were perceived as having the capabilities to do well were channeled in the direction of university. She was not critical of the effort. Rather she

126

described it as “sacrificial.” Her position reflects a historical belief about education as a vehicle of upward social mobility for which Caribbean parents would “undergo many sacrifices in order to benefit from it” (Calliste, 1980). Rosita referred to two dimensions of identifications in her introduction—race and class. She highlighted classism as “the big issue” but not race because of the majority Black population of the country. However, she also did not feel adversely impacted by the classist stratification of the society because being in the middle class provided some stability.

Destiny

Growing up in Jamaica was interesting. Well, I would say I was very sheltered. A lot

happened in Jamaica and a lot happened around me and my parents … were like, I’m

going to keep you in this bubble and I’m going to keep you very tight. I went to a

preparatory school that was a Catholic school. Then I went to [High School]. The whole

status thing was definitely a part of my reality; the whole uptown versus downtown ...

That was my experience and I had like an internal struggle with what to identify myself

as because I was very aware of the fact that I was given certain privileges and I was

looked at; people always looked at me and said she ‘speaky spokey’; she ‘talk’ like this;

her father probably ‘have’ money; and then she goes to [named high school]. All of that

was a part of my reality and I found myself trying to reject it somehow because it never

sat well with me and I like to identify with people who have to work hard for what they

have because that’s what my parents were …. It was like a tug of war; a push and pull ….

I gravitate to people who are just as humble, just as considerate and people who identified

with working hard and not being better than other people. But I did associate with people

too who did not have that frame of mind necessarily. So, like in situations where we are

127

hanging out, and someone says, “this person is this’, like looking down on people, that

would happen; that was a part of my reality and that’s when I would feel out of place. I

couldn’t associate with the whole up town upper class…. It’s strange because I even had

friends from other schools, and I would hear my friends too sometimes, talk down to

people who go to [another named school]. It is a lot of profiling. Everyone was all for

who gets the distinction and who can get the best report card; who is head girl; who is

head boy… to the point where number one in Jamaica became the biggest achievement.

And it never helped you grow as a person.

Destiny reflected on her growing up years as a period of discovery, conflict, contradictions and tensions. She questioned the contradictions around work and status realizing that hard work earned her parents an upper-class status but did not translate in similar ways for other Jamaicans whom she believed worked equally hard. For her the high school years spent among her peers were most illuminating. It was in this space that the connections between status and prejudice became more apparent. Destiny’s account reveals how she perceived herself and the perceptions she felt others had of her. School reflected social standing; language reflected financial status and worth; the uptown/downtown dichotomy created a struggle in identity construction; and performance ranks did not necessarily signal personal growth. Destiny struggled with what she considered to be her reality—the upper-class status, the tension between her peers of a similar status and those who were not. She experienced ambivalence about her social class status.

Donald

Looking back … I actually loved the experience there. [High School] is one of the most

prominent schools. I would say one of the best high schools, all male school, because

they have a mix of all types of people. I got to meet so many people there ... I’m like

128

middle class and so I got to see the people lower than me. I got to see people higher than

me. I got to meet so many people. I got to broaden my experience and my whole

horizon, so that was a good experience and I became a part of something. I was … a

Prefect, like different stuff where I was involved in school, different sports. It was a real

experience. I got to know ‘streets’ and stuff. I got to know everything about business,

everything. I wouldn’t say I was popular, but it’s like some people they want to stick to

one type of crowd. My friends always get mad at me because I like to interact with

everybody. My friends, I guess were the cool group at school, but then I would hang out

with the people that have conversations about politics at lunch time and Christianity. I

just liked hearing different opinions of people and so, I got that good mixture and ... I

know different people in different areas because of [named High school]. I always had

consciousness of who I was, because I told you I was an only child, so I always was by

myself and always got to know what I wanted. My friends know ... if I say I’m not doing

something I’m just not going to do it. I always knew what I wanted. My parents and my

friends could see that.

Donald’s introduction revealed a consciousness of a society organized around class status within which he is positioned or positions himself in the middle. He recognized there were people with whom he interacted who had more privilege and those who had less than he had. He saw within those interactions an opportunity to enrich his experiences. In doing so, Donald found himself at odds with his friends who perceived that students should stick with those of “their kind.” Donald rejected the idea that interactions should be limited to those “in-group.” His attitude of openness to hearing different points of view may give the impression that he “floats” with any discourse.

129

Yet, the stance taken against his middle-class peers and his insistence that he will not do what he does not choose to reveal a consciousness of “who he was” and “what he wanted” out of life.

Aaron

I went to school in Jamaica. I went there from first to sixth form and completed my

experience there. In terms of what I was like back in high school, I didn’t say much, I

didn’t do much to be honest with you. Stuff like extracurricular activities, sports, stuff

like that I was almost never involved in. There were one or two occasions where I was a

Cadet for a bit, and I did Taekwondo in my last year of high school. Besides that,

though, I shied away from anything that put me in the spotlight. No clubs. I wouldn’t

run for President for any organizations, anything like that, nothing of the sort. I did

school, I was home and that was that. I was in high school and I had to do my work and

stuff like that, but at the same time there was always someone who was responsible for

me. My mother was always there for me whenever I needed her, anything like that. I was

always appreciative of that fact because I was raised by my grandmother. I was never

really “attached” to my mother. I love her, but I could deal with not being where she is

because I didn’t actually live with my mother until I was around 15, when my

grandmother passed. I was sort of accustomed to not being where she was.

Aaron’s narrative of growing up in Jamaica centred on two women—his grandmother and mother. His father was not “present” in his early years and his mother was available to him although he did not live with her until he turned 15. Aaron acknowledged the support of his mother but emphasized that how he felt about her did not require her physical presence. An absent father and the upbringing of a child left to the grandmother are commonplace phenomena

130

in Jamaican society. Aaron admitted that he separated himself as much as possible from social interactions and involvements throughout school and was a loner.

Anne

I attended an all girls’ high school, and then I went to sixth form at an all boys’ school.

So, it’s like 30 girls out of 2000 plus boys. So that was different. It wasn’t culturally

shocking or anything like that. I’ve interacted with the opposite sex before, but in terms

of the surrounding, it’s for sure the “old boys” [This is a reference to the alumni who had

significant influence in how the school was governed] didn’t really want girls at the

school, and so you get a little hostility from some of the teachers, in a sense, but overall it

was a good experience. I really enjoyed my experience there. Our education system is a

challenge. You have to always be on top of your game, because you don’t want to fall

out because you have CSEC and CXC [exit examinations], so it feels like an always

challenging environment because of the level of difficulty and the amount you had to

learn at a time. It’s like a heavier load. My greater experiences were at [the all boys’

school] because I was more involved in school there.… It was always this competitive

thing with the guys and girls. Who can be smarter, who got more A’s. So that pushed

me …. I actually put out more effort in school and everything, and the school community

that I was involved in was school leadership. I was involved in 6th Form Association,

different clubs at school, being a Prefect .... At the Girls’ school it feels like … more

hostile “trying to be on top” type of thing, but at a co-ed school, or when the girls are the

minority, you have to prove yourself and so, you do more, I guess to try ‘prove’ yourself.

Anne situated her narrative of growing up in Jamaica through the lens of gender, marking the differences between attending an all girls’ school and a majority boys’ setting for her advanced

131

high school years. In the co-ed setting where girls were in the minority, her focus was proving that girls are better than boys. This focus contrasts with the time spent in the all girls’ environment where she admitted that the competition was more about appearance. Anne acknowledged that both challenges and rewards formed her high school experiences. It was the rigour of high school that forged an identity of striving to prove herself, which continued to play out in her educational experiences beyond high school. For Anne, the significant aspect of her growing up years was high school because within that setting she interacted with peers, and through them was able to define who she really was. She stated, “you form different friendships.

You get a sense of who you are when you’re a part of a club and community.”

Essie

I lived in Jamaica between the age of one and 17, did everything, basic school, prep

school, high school and then immigrated here in 2012. So, where I’m from … I haven’t

been to any other Parish outside of there. Jamaica is where my identity was formed,

basically at the age of one, as a baby. I don’t think I was speaking yet to be honest.

That’s where I rode my first bike. I went to a small community school, and then a small

preparatory school. That’s where I did my GSATs, [started] high school, everything was

done there. [High school] partly molded me into much of the woman I am today.

Essie reflected on her formative years in Jamaica as the space in which the process of her identity construction began. She emphasized the stages of her schooling from basic (early childhood) through high school in Jamaica to establish that these formative years contributed to her construction of identity. In this presentation of her “self” there is a suggestion of continuity of identity; that which gives coherence despite changes in situations and times. This in evident in her statement that her identity “began” taking form at the age of one; continued through her

132

learning to ride her first bike; through her school experiences, especially high school; and continuing through her “womanhood.”

Leah

I grew up in Jamaica … my mom, younger sister, and I. I built a lot of relationships. I’m

really close to my family members … we are a family-oriented sort of people. It was so

good. I was a part of my middle-class community. My mom had a car, she had a house.

I was so financially stable. It was the best experience ever. I actually think I had a better

experience in Jamaica than here with high school in terms of the education itself. It was

really, really good. I had really great teachers. The only thing that would be a

disadvantage is that the work is too .... I want to say “forceful,” but there’s a lot of

pressure when it comes down to school work …. In Jamaica, in grade 9 you have to do

about 12 subjects, it gets you ready for grade 10. But I think besides that, high school for

me was the best experience ever.… I always looked into guidance counselling in Jamaica

…. In Jamaica they instill in you that it’s either you’re to be a doctor or a lawyer or a

dentist. It’s just three different ways ... or business. You can’t be a psychologist. You

can, it’s just not instilled in you to do that.

Leah’s narrative has a dual occupation with family and school. She expressed strong familial ties and high regard for her teachers. However, her perspectives on schooling in Jamaica and the meanings she assigned to her learning situation were contradictory. Schools play a vital role in identity development, but Leah found that aspects of high school were “forceful,” juxtaposing the good experience and good teachers with the pressure of the work. She was critical of the

Jamaican educational context for providing a limited conception of professional pathways.

Despite the minimalist conception of professional pathways within the education system, she

133

revealed a capacity for divergence in thinking about the pathway she planned to pursue. Her decision to pursue a path that was not “the norm” revealed that she was not a passive participant in the sociocultural contexts of school and society, but actively engaged in shaping her experiences.

Wayne

Well, let’s see. First, I was raised with a single mom and my mom didn’t have the

opportunity to go to school, so she enforced that we had to go to school. She didn’t tell us

that she was trying to change the generation, but her actions geared towards that. So, it

was me and a younger sibling and we had to go to school and there were certain things

that we had to do to follow through … we had to ensure that we came out better than her

in a sense to kind of make the generation better. So, if we were to have kids they would

have to be better than how we turned out because we are better than how she turned out

in that sense. So that is what pushed me toward always wanting a better life, seeing how

mommy struggled to ‘throw partner’ [an informal way of saving money outside of

banking arrangements] to send us to school; to sell at school gate; being a vendor; to

understand that the sacrifices she made are what stays within, is what’s embedded in me

to always push for better; to always yearn to make my life improve, Ok so high school—

now remember I am from a low socio-economic background with a single parent or

single mom, right—my high school was geared toward helping boys from a low socio-

economic background but over the years people from higher socio-economic background

find the education at my school … to be vital …. So, I’ve had bad experiences in high

school … the whole classism thing [which] played a major role in high school for me,

personally. When I introduced myself, and said where I was from, I remember students

134

who their parents were from higher socio-economic backgrounds: lawyers, teachers,

doctors, and stuff like that—the professions—compared to my mom who was a vendor

… or like a self-employed person … I am a person like this, I will tell you as it is. So, I

had to defend myself to say well your parents may be from a higher socio-economic

background compared to my mom but isn’t it ironic that we are in the same structure or

in the same class (grade)? So that was my challenge. So throughout high school I had my

fair share of being picked on because of my surname too … I always tried to remember

why I was there and what I want out of life and the struggles mommy put in. So, I always

reflected on mommy’s struggle and knew that I had to make my life better. And even

though she didn’t come out how she wanted to, she could see how she has impacted our

lives for the better.

Wayne framed his narrative around the beliefs of his mother who had the desire to generate better circumstances for her children than she enjoyed. In Wayne’s account, identity is perceived as generational, and the changes to one’s circumstances are incumbent on each generation that follows. School was that conduit through which Wayne could begin to realize his mother’s vision. Her vision is illustrative of a socio-historical belief that education can change the fortunes of students who are disadvantaged by poverty. Of interest in Wayne’s reflections on high school is that there was a dual “play” of identity. The dualism is observed in efforts by members of the upper echelons of society to ensure that their children had every advantage to maintain status and identity. On the other hand, Wayne was working hard at changing his status and identity. He was intrigued by the measures that parents undertake to engineer the success of their children. His account reveals that class and status are obscured in the desire for educational success but illuminated in unequal resources. In Wayne’s words, “isn’t it ironic that we are in the same

135

structure?” In my view, lives operate within similar structures but the relations to those structures are different for individuals based on multiple subjectivities. The race for success is not restricted to one social class, although opportunities are not available in the same way to everyone. Wayne saw his life circumstances as the channels through which he would redefine himself, rather than being defined by those circumstances.

Oneise

Ok so, around grade 3 was when I would be talking (you know how we would be talking

in Jamaica) and the kids around me would me would say, ‘why you sound White?’ I

would be like, what do you mean sound ‘White?’ And then I would realize that I wasn’t

speaking … I didn’t have an accent, or my accent wasn’t strong enough. I didn’t sound

Jamaican. And I went home, and I would tell mommy that the children were saying that I

sounded White and I didn’t understand what that meant … she explained to me that I visit

[Canada] so often and I was born up there … and because my cousins were here, I would

always be around my cousins, so I tend to not have so much of a Jamaican accent. So that

was about the time I realized I’m Canadian. I felt somewhat… I felt as if I was

intimidating my friends around me in a way because I realize that when I would talk to

them they tend to want to “twang,” as they would call it, back to me as I speak. And I

would wonder why they are talking like that? Just talk normal, but I realize that that’s

why they would. And what I didn’t like about it was that people would associate me with

having money growing up because of how I sound. Well to be honest, going to primary

school I was more “well-off” than the other kids there. But like I said, it wasn’t until I

realized that a lot of my friends were saying, “why you sound White?” Why you talk like

you come from foreign? Why you sound like a foreigner? So that when I found out that I

136

was not really the same. And I was kind of disappointed and I wanted to fit in; going to a

primary school, I wanted to talk like everyone else, but I couldn’t. Yes, that was how I

felt, and it seemed like I intimidated some of my friends in a way and that was sad. I

attended [named High School] for 5 years up till grade 11. My school did not have a sixth

form at the time, so the next step would be community college for two years.

Oneise framed her narrative of identity around the difference in speech between herself and her school peers and social class. The difference in speech was attributed to her movement between

Jamaica and Canada each summer to spend time with her cousins, a reality of her upbringing until she turned eighteen years old. She shared that it was when she questioned her mother about her speech that her place of birth—Canada—was revealed. The revelation of her Canadian birth led her to associate her speech with nation of birth rather than her interactions with her cousins; this, despite her primary interactions taking place in Jamaica. Language is learned; however,

Oneise resisted her Jamaican peers’ efforts to learn or pattern her speech. Instead, she normalised the Jamaican speech as something that belonged to their experience as Jamaicans; something she had not acquired because she was not born in Jamaica. In the same way that her speech was altered by interactions with her Canadian cousins, her peers’ day to day interactions with her influenced the way they spoke in her presence. Oneise’s account provides a sense of the complexities surrounding language identity and its capacity to complicate social relationships by excluding even those who are part of the “in-group.” But language does not operate in a vacuum.

There were other intervening factors in Oneise’s construction of a language identity. Oneise observed that, “people associated me with having money growing up because of how I sound.”

This association of speech and wealth is indirectly complicated by the construct of skin color, as evidenced by her friends stating that she “sounded White.” The social meaning of “White-ness”

137

in the experience of Onesie and her friends meant having wealth, status, and a language befitting of wealth and status.

Teeah

I was born and raised in a village, considered a ghetto in Jamaica … and then we moved

… I spent all my life in [named parish]. Growing up in Jamaica, I was from, I wouldn’t

say a wealthy but a well-off family. I was okay. I went to school … I completed most of

my secondary education … up to grade 10. Well … after grade 9 you go into just

preparing for CXC (exit examination) grade 10 and 11. So I had actually done part of my

CXC in grade 9, English at CXC .... I was one of those very privileged students. High

school for me in Jamaica was good. In terms of academics I was privileged as I said. My

parents invested a lot into schooling. Both my parents went to [university] in Jamaica …

they understand the importance of education and they invested a lot into that. It started

with me doing sciences and they made sure that I had all the necessary classes …. They

invested a lot in after school programs and stuff to prepare me to be successful in CXC

for grade 10 and 11. I played field hockey, so I was very involved in my school

community outside of my academics also. My parents were very hell bent on me doing

some kind of sport …. When you enter a class, you are generally stuck with that class the

entire year … So, you are almost like a family … by the time you get to grade 10, you

know who your friends are. You envision what your future is going to be, and it’s already

set in concrete, according to me at that point …. You already know what to expect in

terms of your classes and it wasn’t a constantly changing environment where you had to

change and adapt all the time. The only thing that’s changing is what you’re learning. I

don’t know; growing up in Jamaica when you are from certain backgrounds they kind of

138

stress on certain careers more. And so, for my family, my mother did business all the way

through and she just said, there’s no job in the business side …. You know doctors make

the most money. And my father was in science; a computer engineer, and I was never

interested in that side, so … it was either business or science for me, pretty much. And

then I went the science route.

Teeah’s narrative of growing up Jamaican is etched in memories of an academically privileged life, where her parents ensured that she had all the resources needed to be a step ahead. She framed her identity around her family’s expectations of her and she worked hard to operate within those expectations. She extended the idea of ‘family’ to her high school experiences, using the metaphor to describe how relationships were nurtured in that setting. For Teeah, the families at home and school gave her a sense of stability and continuity in negotiating her growing up experiences. She revealed that she did not adapt well to changes in two examples— the future is set in concrete, according to me,” and “it wasn’t a constantly changing environment.” Teeah spoke about her future aspirations through the lens of her parents’ professional backgrounds. She was steered from the path of Business, her mother’s field to pursue a more lucrative profession in the sciences with the hope of becoming a medical doctor.

Later in her introductory account she alluded to an interrelationship between a person’s background and the professional path they are expected to pursue.

The introductory excerpts of the 14 participants suggest clear differences in their life experiences, but some commonalities as well. Common themes in the experiences they shared included familial influences, peer relationships, social class salience, speech as a signifier of wealth and status, education and culture, and spatial dimensions of identity. Although I have listed these themes as though they are discrete categories, I am mindful that there are overlaps in

139

the lived experiences. For example, through all their conversations the influence of class and status categories was evident. Classism was a reality of life in Jamaica and served as “continuous frames of reference and meaning” (S. Hall, 1993, p.223) throughout high school. Beyond the issue of class, the influence of parents and family during the growing years was the most significant theme running through the introductory accounts. Parents featured in the meanings participants made of their identities, and their influence was highlighted as the main driver behind emigration from Jamaica. As will be seen in the next section, parents’ desire for better opportunities for their offspring led the participants along different pathways but with a similar objective of “betterment.”

Background to Emigration: A Desire for “Better”

Social mobility ideals feature significantly in the desire for emigration to a more developed country. For seven of the participants, their parents were the initiators of emigration via the skilled worker/economic immigrant class; five participants had at least one parent who held Canadian citizenship and utilized the family class route to immigration; and the two remaining participants were born in Canada. They disclosed that their parents did not have permanent residence status in Canada at the time of their birth. They remained in Canada only a short time after they were born and were then raised in Jamaica. At the age of 17 and 18, respectively, they left Jamaica and took up residence in Canada. Most participants indicated that their input was sought in the decision to emigrate, and they had no aversion to the move to

Canada. A few admitted that they resisted the idea. The strongest influence in the decision to emigrate was attributed to parents. Each participant articulated one way or other the way their parents initiated or negotiated the decision to leave Jamaica. The decisions were overwhelmingly characterized as a “desire for better.” The desire for better education, better opportunities, and

140

better lives are the main themes employed in the narratives of departure. The participants and their parents believed that there was something more favorable to be attained by moving to

Canada. They understood the discourse of upward social mobility through education and employment.

Better opportunities.

The idea of better opportunity runs through the narratives of most of the participants.

Wayne captures the idea of better opportunities most aptly in the following statement,

I guess a part of my mom’s decision was that you will have a better life if you go abroad;

not that I wouldn’t have a good life if I stayed in Jamaica, but its like giving me more

opportunities … like going abroad will widen your opportunity in achieving your goals or

aspiring to your dreams in that sense.

A further example of the parental drive to provide a better life for their offspring is offered by Anne, who shared that, “after my mom got married, the idea came about that, okay, we should move to Canada because there are better opportunities, especially for me and for my younger sister who was 10 years younger than me.”

Leah cited the example of her mother whose opportunity came through her qualifications and position in an offshore bank in Jamaica. He mother felt that “it would be a good opportunity” for Leah and her younger sibling if they moved to Canada.

Another participant, James, who had been living and attending university in the USA, said it was his mother’s influence that led him to Canada and to lower tuition rates than he was paying in the USA. James stated that, “it was basically about education and university to be honest.”

141

Teeah was one participant who was not eager to leave Jamaica. She recounted her parents’ explanation:

It was really for creating more opportunities according to them. My parents were well off

in Jamaica, and they would have survived in Jamaica if they still wanted to live there, but

for them, there were no opportunities for the younger generation. We would struggle to

make ends meet. Crime was getting out of hand in Jamaica, and they were just like, no,

this is it.

It is clear from this account that the opportunity factor plays a substantial part in the drive for emigration, even among those who are financially able to survive in a developing economy. Still, there are those recurring notions of future and aspirations that continue to activate the desire to become something better than one is at a given time.

As well Rosita explained how the decision by her mother came about. She said,

[M]om planned to apply for immigration to Canada under the Skilled Worker program.

We had never been to Canada before, and since I did not enjoy living in Atlanta [she had

spent a year in community college there], and was not attending university there, and the

goal was to attend university, it seemed the right thing to do.

Within Rosita’s statement there is a clear connection between the desire for “betterment” and educational opportunities. In an earlier portion of the interview, Rosita indicated that she had considered two universities in Jamaica for continuation of her education after high school.

However, the fact that her father lived in the USA led her to an institution there.

142

Educational advancement opportunities.

The focus on leaving Jamaica and moving to Canada was not based on the absence of opportunities to participate in higher education in the nation of origin. In fact, as the introductory excerpts reveal, four participants had matriculated for university prior to emigration and two of them had completed a year of studies. Obtaining credentials from a developed country was considered optimal, as was evident in Neesa’s explanation of how her father’s immigration status provided the opportunity for her to pursue her studies in Canada.

Well, my father lived here, and it was a good idea to come to school here, mainly

because, even though the University of the West Indies is a good school, when it comes

to opportunities, especially when you consider doing medicine, I don’t want to limit

myself to only practising in Jamaica or the Caribbean.

Simon echoed similar beliefs as Neesa, that the opportunity to attend university outside of Jamaica was one that would “expand” his experiences. Simon shared how he would encourage his mother to proceed with the immigration process every time he had an opportunity. He believed that, “getting a North American degree would mean more global recognition, so that if you want to go back to Jamaica or anywhere else for that matter, it would probably be easier.”

With the prospect of achievement in the receiving country, there is an accompanying consideration of return. Making the return to Jamaica after “better” is achieved is an economic calculation in anticipation of their future lives.

Anne believed that the chance to complete postsecondary education outside of Jamaica was important for a “full university experience” that was removed from the usual faces and places to which she had grown accustomed. This desire is contrary to what was expressed by

143

some participants. It also reveals the ambivalence that the participants experienced. As they shared earlier, they did not resist the idea of moving away from Jamaica; however, many dreaded leaving the familiarity and belongingness in the friendship of their peers. Nonetheless, better educational opportunities trump friendships, as Oneise was advised by her mother. Her mother had weighed what would be in her best interest in deciding that she would return to live and complete higher education in Canada, and she later appreciated the wisdom of her mother’s decision. She stated, “I’d have the amazing opportunity for the price of someone actually living in Canada. My mom was preparing for my future.” This amazing opportunity to which Oneise referred was paying “domestic” rather than “international” student fees based on her immigration status.

The opportunity to pursue higher education overseas was echoed by another participant who was born in Canada. Essie admitted, “I personally wanted to do university in Jamaica, but my mom always had the mindset to send me back. She wanted me to come back to make use of the opportunities I have here as a Canadian citizen.”

One additional consideration in the desire to emigrate which is related to the “better life” discourse is reflected in an excerpt from Wayne’s interview. Wayne stated that “Canada was a place where a lot of people wanted to go to better their lives; a place of peace and harmony and the first world ‘thing.’” Incidents of violence and disturbance were raised by three participants as contributing to parents’ decision to emigrate. In these accounts the “push” of the challenges of living in Jamaica made the “pull” of escape more appealing. The excerpts of those accounts are framed as a theme of escapism but also have meaning for how space is “lived” and “felt.”

144

Escapism – Going for “better.”

Teeah’s desire to continue her life with in Jamaica where she felt privileged and comfortable was disrupted when her brother was murdered. This experience prompted the decision to seek residence in Canada. Teeah stated,

Well, coming to Canada was my parents’ decision. We had no role in the decision. It was

merely my parents. We had a tragic event in the family. My brother actually died. He was

shot in Jamaica, and shortly after that my parents decided that this was it for them.

Destiny shared that it was her mother’s exposure to violence that was the driving force in emigration. In Destiny’s account, the attack on her mother brought heightened awareness of how violence can negatively impact one’s life in the “space” of the homeland. Destiny reflected on the experience was illuminating as she related how her father decided that “this was no way for a woman, especially, to live.” Her statement brings the discourse of gender and violence into the discussion. Her mother was not keen to remain in Jamaica and her father supported the decision for them to leave. Yet, he remained. It was the experience of violence that led her parents to send her to the United States upon completion of grade 11 as she awaited the finalization of immigration to Canada.

One participant attributed the decision of his parents to pursue the opportunity to move to

Canada to a desire for peace and quiet. He did not present this as their primary reason, but the experience was significant enough for him to mention it. They had experienced constant disturbance from “sound systems” entering their lived space. The experience of intrusion from the unsettled what they believed was a settled space. He shared his mother’s comment that she was “sick and tired of the increasing noise from the dances over the other side of the road, and all

145

the inconveniences with the system” revealed that it was not simply the noise, but “the system” that was unresponsive to her complaints that was problematic.

Leaving one’s heritage country in search of better opportunities, especially educational and economic opportunities, forms part of what is described in literature on immigration as the meritocratic discourse (James, 2005). Meritocracy shrouds the challenges of advancement in

Canadian society for prospects from so-called developing or Third World countries who seek for a better life in developed countries. Despite this view, many immigrants believe in the promises and possibilities of migration to a developed country.

In this chapter I have introduced the 14 participants in the study through the accounts of the experiences of growing up in Jamaica and what they perceived were the factors that led to their emigration to Canada. The similarities in the accounts are evident; however, the differences are notable. In the section that explored the reasons for moving to Canada, I found that there were several considerations, but the overarching influence was that of the parents. In some instances, one parent was already living overseas, and emigration meant reunification with that parent. In other instances, opportunity was the factor of significance. Parents who had opportunity to apply for immigration through the skilled worker/economic class route capitalized on the chance to seek “a better life” for themselves and their offspring. In other examples, there were social forces of violence, crime, and physical discomforts that precipitated the decision to leave Jamaica. Overall, participants were influenced by a discourse of “betterment” through emigration and this gave them the impetus to leave their homeland.

146

Chapter 6

From (an)Other land to Ontario, Canada: Interpreting/Negotiating the present through the

past

Whereas the migrant can do without the journey altogether, it is no more than a necessary evil; the point is to arrive . (Rushdie, 1997, p. 96)

The previous chapter explored the personal narratives of participants on their lives in

Jamaica prior to migration to Canada. The meanings they attached to their social identities in that context were based on beliefs about family values and expectations, especially regarding education, social mobility aspirations, and social interactions. The participants discussed how multiple dimensions of their identities intersected in their experiences with family, in school and relations with peers. As Abes, Jones and McEwen (2007) suggest, “relationships define identity”

(p.4). Their conversations revealed a consciousness that their identities and the beliefs of their families are historically connected. I discovered that parents were the major drivers of the decision to emigrate even as there were several intervening factors. Essentially, emigration was driven by the desire for a better life and better opportunities (Alfred 2003; Calliste, 1980;

Palmer, 1983; C. Suarez-Orozco & Suarez-Orozco, 2001).

This chapter extends the discussion of the lived experience of identity construction to the context of migration and settlement in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) in Ontario. In the epigraph, the view expressed by Rushdie (1997) is that the focus of the migration process is to arrive in the host country. However, the experience of immigration is not just a physical movement in terms of locale but a transition in mind, spirit (the emotions) and identities.

Anzaldua (1999) suggested that the physical movement does not end at arrival in a new country.

Rather the immigrant is in state of constant transition: a “borderland… created by the emotional

147

residue of an unnatural boundary” (p.25). I pay attention to what the experience of “arriving” meant to the participants and their attitudes toward immigration and settlement as shared in the interviews. This attention to the arrival period was with a view to explore the interrelationships of migration, settlement and identity construction during the early post-migration period. I use the phrase “early post-migration period” to demarcate the activities that participants were involved in shortly after arriving in Ontario, including settlement activities and transitions to work, high school, or university. These contexts represent the initial contact points for the participants. The settlement experiences are considered through three general themes. The first theme, (un)settling, is used to illustrate the experiences that participants found to be unsettling during the early post-arrival period. The idea of “settling” is also taken up to explore the circumstances under which participants had to “settle,” meaning to accept or come to terms with their new situations. The second theme, thinking through “difference,” includes the conversations about multiculturalism and identity commitments. The third theme, confronting stereotypes, focused on their conversations around cultural understandings and misunderstandings.

(Un)Settling

The theme “(un)settling” is inclusive of themes of displacement, disruption, fracture, and culture shock which marked the experiences of all participants, although in different ways. Many of the participants described immigration as a period of ambivalence about settling in a new environment, even for those who had had prior experience traveling to the country of settlement.

There is evidence of this in Donald’s statement that “even though I was coming here regularly, I wasn’t really … in the system to know just little stuff…tips and tricks, you know?” This statement suggests that it is the day to day living; the “little stuff” that had the potential to be

148

“unsettling” for those who were unfamiliar with the system. This should not be read as a shared reality for all the participants; however, research bears out the idea that moving to a new country entails learning new things and requires a period of adjustment (Alfred, 2002; Kim & Diaz,

2013; Portes & Rambaut, 2001; C. Suarez-Orozco & Suarez-Orozco; 2001). All participants discussed times during the settlement period when they had to try to figure out how to adjust to the “newness” that they encountered. Some of the contexts in which the phenomenon of unsettling was experienced were living with a “new” family; navigating their new communities; meeting the legal obligations for residence in Canada; “continuing” high school education; and preparing for life through employment and university.

Displacements, disruptions, and dislocations .

In this section, Donald, Aaron, Essie, Wayne, Segree and Teeah discuss the experiences of living in their new homes and families in the early period of settling in Toronto. Aaron and

Wayne had each moved in with their fathers and families that they barely knew. Their stories indicate the displacement, dislocation and disruption that they experienced. Both participants expressed similar feelings about what being in their new home environments meant to them.

They felt disconnected from their new family. Aaron explained that when he met his father and

“new” family, he had difficulty expressing his emotions in the moment:

I got here, and I didn’t know how to feel, because I was with my father whom I had no

real relationship with besides talking on the phone a few times, and my stepmother and

two brothers who I barely knew. They were children. I suppose the only consolation was

that my aunt who was basically like a second mother to me came up with me. I felt

immediately isolated, coming to the house. I don’t really know these people. They’re

family, but I don’t really know them – [that] type of thing.

149

The inability to articulate what he was experiencing was temporary given that Aaron later expressed feeling “immediately isolated.” This isolation was attributed to being in the same house as his father which, for Aaron, was a new experience. Aaron experienced a double displacement of being in an unfamiliar country and an unfamiliar family. Being in family and feeling isolation seem contradictory; almost like expressing an oxymoron of being alone together. The reality for Aaron was that he had not had a relationship with his father. He elaborated further in the conversation that,

Living with my father, I felt so isolated. I just never felt that I belonged with him. He’s

very particular about certain things and I feel I can’t breathe. I don’t think the place

where you live should be a place that you feel insecure in.

In this account, Aaron revealed why he felt displaced at “home,” a place that is usually described as a place of belonging (Brah, 1996). Aaron’s idea of home as a place of safety had been disrupted in the experience of immigration and settlement.

Wayne recalled his own difficulty in trying to find fit with a family he barely knew and struggling to develop a meaningful connection with his father. In the process of trying to establish a meaningful connection, he grappled with questions about his existence in relation to his father, questioning his father’s “unwillingness” to entertain his views. Wayne gave some background to the displacement he experienced:

I was not raised by my dad, so I don’t know him, and I’ve had issues with coming here,

trying to get a better sense of him, trying to understand him, trying to build that

relationship that is missing for like 20 years. Yes, I met him on occasions, one or two

150

times coming to Jamaica. But trying to catch up on all those 20 years—to me it is still to

come to fruition. It’s like I’m pushing water up a hill in my sense. But it’s like even

though I try to reach out and talk and to get a feel of what is happening, it’s like it is

always on me and I don’t think this is necessary because communication is two ways. It

can’t be that I am trying to build something that I didn’t choose to happen … and it drains

me, but I try not to think about it because it’s like, how do you grapple with trying to

build a relationship with one of your parents that you didn’t grow with?

The metaphor of “pushing water up a hill” that Wayne used to express his efforts to bridge the relationship with his father illustrates the chasm between them. He realized the efforts were one- sided and questioned why the burden of relationship building fell to him, when he had no control over the circumstances. Wayne came to realize that rebuilding a fragmented relationship after 20 years of separation was complicated because it was coupled with the process of settling into a new country of residence. The experience left Wayne feeling destabilized.

In Donald’s situation he shared how the settlement experience was disruptive as his father was unable to accommodate him at the time he “immigrated” because “it was him [his father] alone.” Donald had not expected his settlement transition to be a challenge because he had been traveling between Jamaica and Toronto “each summer holiday from about the age of 9 or 10.” However, with no place to live after a quick decision to finally take up residence, Donald had to “settle” for accommodations with relatives. For Donald, it was an experience of dislocation from what he regarded as his “normal” lifestyle:

I knew what Canada was; I knew how it is, but I never lived here. All the stuff was just

different. I had to learn to live with my family. I had to learn to live with different people.

That was like a different challenge. I was living with all women, so [laughs], and you

151

know it’s their house. I was just a visitor in their house, and that aspect … not being in

your own home; you can’t have certain stuff with you. As an only child I was used to

having my own space.

In Donald’s account, the same space carries different meanings when one is visiting, and when one is settling permanently. The “different challenge” to which Donald referred was not just living in an all female household but more so an issue of a change of lifestyle due to immigration. Having to depend on family or friends for accommodations is not an uncommon situation when individuals move to a new country of residence. Often the new immigrant must be prepared to adapt, and “settle” for what is available, at the expense of their comfort and the families that extend help. The dislocations from such arrangements may have an impact on family relationships.

Segree understood how family relationships may suffer dislocations in the circumstances of settlement. Her parents had maintained residence status in two countries, concurrently. This is not an unfamiliar practice among newcomers as they seek to ensure that they are able to establish life in the new country before severing ties with the heritage country. In Segree’s story, her parents maintained their primary residence in Jamaica so that they could continue working at the jobs they held before applying for permanent residence in Canada. Segree indicated that their challenge with finding employment in Canada that paralleled what they had in Jamaica led to their decision to return to Jamaica. She remained in Canada with relatives, but this was an unhappy arrangement for Segree. Despite her parents’ explanation that their decision was in her best interest, Segree did not enjoy being separated from them. She admitted to the tensions between her and her relatives and shared that she “felt that my family was against me because of that. I just didn’t want to be around them without my parents.”

152

The theme of displacement, disruptions and dislocation was evident in Essie’s account of her settlement experience as well. She disclosed that she and her grand aunt, whom she was entrusted to until her mother joined her in Canada, had “a little bit of a falling out.” By “falling out,” Essie explained that she had lost favour with her grand aunt who was “basically unhappy with me not being able to contribute, and so I ended up moving after living there for two years and not finding a job.”

Essie expanded the conversation from the familial relationship to consider the larger social forces that were at work in her inability to find employment. She stated,

[T]he difficulty [was] finding a job when everything on my cv was school back home and

things from back home. So, for the first two years I didn’t work; and didn’t have an

income for myself.

Essie believed that her inability to find a job was because her resume did not reflect Canadian work experience—"everything was from back home,” meaning Jamaica. The issue of lack of

Canadian work experience appeared in accounts of other participants and is a major concern during the initial settlement period, for many newcomers.

In Teeah’s account of a lack of Canadian work experience, she cited the example of her parents who were highly educated professionals and held successful careers up to the point of emigration from Jamaica.

My father struggled, struggled. He couldn’t find a job. Everybody was telling him … he’s

a computer engineer in Jamaica and worked for one of the biggest companies there, and

when he came here, and he would tell people that he was a senior networking manager,

he got so many interviews, and they would ask him, “where are your Canadian

153

experiences?” He would say, I don’t have any Canadian experience, but a computer is a

computer is a computer. And then my dad started working minimum wage at $10 an

hour; like seriously! He has three kids to feed. So, it was rough.

Teeah’s family had assumed that their level of education and transferable skills would have made their transition to Canada easier than it turned out to be. She shared at one point during the interview that her dad had traveled ahead of the family to ensure that everything was in place for a smooth transition. However, transitions are complexly negotiated. Moving from highly paid jobs in the heritage country to minimum wage labor is a contentious issue for economic class immigrants. These immigrants are generally well educated and gain landed status based on education and skills; characteristics that assume that their integration into Canadian society will be relatively easy. Yet, these immigrants are often unable to find employment that parallels what they had in the heritage country or their skills are underutilized (Reitz, 2005).

When expectations do not match with reality, shifts in identities result and relationships are often affected. Teeah said,

It was kind of difficult for them [parents] at first settling here. The good thing was that

they had a few … in terms of income they were fine before they came here. By the time

they were working, they were already drained out: paying rent, sending three kids to

school, feeding everybody, they were already drained out.

Displacements, disruptions, and dislocations are treated, in some measure, as “normal” occurrences as newcomers settle in a new country of residence. The following statement by

Oneise bears out the connections that she made between “recent immigration” and “struggle”

She stated, “I always want to put out [that] I was born here, but I lived most of my life in

Jamaica. I guess I would say that because people associate, oh you’re just moving to Canada;

154

you’re Jamaican which means you are probably struggling right now.” Her response illuminates the assumption that all recent immigrants experience similar levels of “unsettled-ness.” She was emphatic about the absence of any “real” struggle in her daily living.

The latter examples of dislocation in employment reveal how discourses are

“normalized” in day to day experiences with little consideration of the impact on individual lives. Participants reflected on the anxieties that resulted from dwindling funds and low paid jobs and the inability to meet financial obligations. They spoke of how relationships were impacted by the lack of work. Settlement issues do not operate in a vacuum. There are often other social factors at work to unsettle the experience of the transition to a new country.

Negotiating the system .

As indicated in the previous section, the process of settlement involved adjusting to new families and communities and finding the means to live day by day. The period was considered disruptive by some participants. The process of becoming settled also entailed meeting certain legal requirements as new residents in the country. Participants had to learn to navigate different spaces and places within and outside their new communities. They described the experiences of navigating the formal activities of settlement as a process of learning things that later formed part of their everyday lives. One participant emphasized that getting through the activities that legitimized his status in Canada made him “feel more at home” but still not quite settled.

[T]here were a lot of different things to learn and to accomplish at the outset. So, like

getting a job, getting the Social Insurance Number, getting this and that, and credit card,

etc. And then after you settle now, it kind of became more routine—those things. Now

155

that you know it and understand it you feel a bit more at home even though not a hundred

percent.

In the above statement, Simon acknowledged that the settlement period was a process of learning what was required for settlement in the new country of residence. He suggested that the initial challenges of this period became easier to navigate through learning. However, he admitted to feeling a sense of liminality, as if he had not “translated” the fulfilment of the requirements of permanent residency to feeling at “home.” Again, “home” appears to represent a sense of belonging to this new space in which he now resides.

For Donald, negotiating the system meant figuring out how to settle into life as a resident rather than a “tourist.” He conveyed feelings of inadequacy as he prepared for his new situation.

The necessity of learning the system, as suggested in Donald’s account, is to become acquainted with how to navigate his everyday. As he realized, things “are not the same” as they were in the heritage country. The reality of immigration is that things that are commonplace to some, are challenging for others. Donald realized that the visits each summer did not afford sufficient knowledge of the system for him to successfully negotiate settlement; even a taken-for-granted experience of certain weather conditions:

Winter time you have to do certain little things. … [such as] trying to learn the new

school system, because it’s not the same. I was adjusting to that and then the distance

because I had to travel… [and] learn how to balance; getting money and learning

everything all by myself, at once. I just had to learn all that through trial and error.

In Donald’s account, “not being in the system” does not mean he was “illegal.” He is, in fact, a

Canadian citizen through sponsorship by his father. However, he had not permanently resided in

156

Ontario, so he needed to “figure out” several things: what to do in winter conditions, the school system, how to live a balanced life, managing finances, developing independence, and, generally, how to negotiate routine activities.

The participants rationalized that the settlement process was necessary to prepare them to live “permanently” in Canada. Beyond the formal settlement apparatus with which some interfaced, there were everyday issues during the period of settlement that could not be easily overcome. Leah spoke about the difficulty in coming to terms with the life she left behind in

Jamaica and the conditions under which she lived for the last four years in Toronto. Leah shared the following:

We’ve been here four years …. Moving from a Third World country to a First World

country, and I’m living in an apartment, without a car. So, it’s like we’re going

backwards. I found it very ironic. I thought that after six months living in Canada we’d be

financially stable.

Leah’s mention of a six-month time frame is indicative of her interpretation of the official discourse of settlement at the time her family applied to immigrate to Canada. It might be unrealistic to consider “financial stability” within a six-month period. However, what Leah realized was that her expectation of a “better life” in Canada would take a longer time than she had anticipated.

Teeah’s perspective on the settlement period was like Leah’s as illustrated in the accounts she shared earlier; however, in the account that follows she revealed how she negotiated her new situation to help her family manage their everyday necessities. Teeah shared that she did not sit back and wait on her parents to find work. She and her younger sibling took on paper routes and,

157

“somewhat helped ourselves while my parents tried to take care of the bigger responsibilities.”

Although she tried to gain access to resources to help her family, Teeah expressed how the lack of knowledge about where to access help led to discouragement:

I literally felt I was left to fend for myself in a country that I knew nothing about…. I

came not knowing; wake up in the morning and don’t know what to do, who to go to,

where to go, and all that stuff.

For Teeah’s family, the settlement period was a period of disillusionment with the life they had lived up to that point in Canada. In the early postmigration, period lives were altered, and as the excitement of moving to a new country diminished, it became less clear how daily expenses would be met.

Wayne spoke about his experience of disillusionment with immigration and settling into

Canadian living. He stated,

I expected Canada to be this place of peace, with a plethora of opportunities, so I

wouldn’t have to come here and see these social ills as I would call them, like racism …

stuff like that, that challenges the notion of how people should be perceived in society.

So, reality hit me, like, no. Canada is not all that. It kind of draws on me saying, you

never know until you know.

The experience of discrimination altered Wayne’s view of the Canada. He had encountered discrimination during the process of trying to obtain employment. His disappointment stemmed from the reality that his human capital was devalued in his new country of residence. His prior work experience and the “cultural capital (Bourdieu, 1986) of my sister, family, and friend” were not sufficient to help him gain employment in some situations. Wayne realised that expectations

158

do not necessarily translate to reality and that there can be no real knowledge about a place outside of a lived experience.

The lived reality of settlement in Aaron’s experience meant identifying ways to negotiate his everyday expenses. For him, the motivation to find employment was two-fold. In the first instance, he wanted to get away from his new home environment. He shared the following:

I started working about a month afterwards. I was consistently looking for something,

because I was in the house all day and I had no friends and, so I needed to find something

to do. On top of that, my father wasn’t expected to be, at least, the general understanding

was that I wasn’t there to “sit on my hands” as he said a few times…. I found a job ...

Second, he believed that his father expected him to take charge of his own expenses. He stated,

after I came here, and I realized, I live with my father now. I’m responsible for my

clothes. I’m responsible for my own living arrangements. I’m responsible for how I eat.

Stuff like that. I was pretty much just a tenant in the house. Yes, he’s my father, but at

the same time, I was fully responsible for myself.

Aaron had shared during the interview that he was appreciative of the opportunity to work; however, “the intention was always to go back to school, but I couldn’t start right away because of the time I arrived here.” Aaron revealed in this statement that his goal in moving from Jamaica was to attend school and that he had every intention of sticking with his plan. Despite the ease with which Aaron acquired his first job, he later found out how precarious the work environment could be for newcomers when he was laid off after a few months.

Simon and Anne were not as fortunate in obtaining work as quickly as Aaron. They admitted that their perceptions of living in Canada were far removed from the reality that they

159

experienced. They had both completed a year of university before moving to Ontario and had anticipated the possibilities that the “land of opportunity” had to offer. Simon reflected on the job opportunities that he pursued; he was turned down due to lack of Canadian experience. Similarly,

Anne reflected on how optimistic she had been about “finding a job and making money easily.”

She stated:

I had this image in my head that because you are new or something, that gave you an

advantage. But I realize that it sets you back a little bit, especially because, “Oh you’re

Jamaican; probably they think you don’t know how to speak English properly to

communicate to customers or do a job well.” So, they categorize you. It’s not easy,

especially for a newcomer, it’s even harder than I expected.

Anne’s statement mirrors the lived experience of settlement for many recent immigrants who believe that the “permanent resident” status acquired while transitioning from “landed immigrant” makes the settlement process easier to negotiate. Anne expressed the view that as a new immigrant, she was believed to lack the necessary skills to successfully integrate in the labour market. Besides the lack of Canadian experience, Anne believed there were at least three ways that her identity was illuminated during the process of seeking employment: being

Jamaican, being assumed to have poor communication skills, and unlikely to “fit in” with the workplace culture. She resisted the reductionist categorisation that was attached to her as a newcomer to Ontario.

Navigating “difference” in assessment and high school processes.

From negotiating the formalities of settlement to seeking work, we move to the participants’ accounts of navigating entry to high school. This sub-theme explores the

160

experiences of assessment for placement in high school and attending high school in the early settlement period. The experiences are analyzed based on the differences described between high school in Ontario and Jamaica. The accounts shared are by the participants who emigrated prior to completing high school, and those who had completed the five-year secondary education requirement in Jamaica but entered grade 12 for ease of transition to university in Ontario. The participants who sought placement in grades 11 or 12 had to undergo a process of assessment of their competence in math and English courses. Essie, Teeah, Segree, Leah, and Oneise recount their experiences of the assessment exercise and/or their encounters in high school.

Essie described the assessment exercise as something that happens when one “comes here.” In other words, Essie presumed that the activity was mandatory for students who were new to the environment. She shared the following:

When you come here, you have to do an assessment to go to grade 12, like a ... yeah,

when I came here, in order to go to high school, they wanted to see my level of

proficiency in English and math. So, I had to do an assessment. I went somewhere

downtown … and I did a test for English and math. Math was average. You know

everybody’s weak spot is math, but when it came to English, my English was

impeccable, and she turned to me and she said “wow! Your English is so good. Did you

go to a private school?” And I had to remind her, I said “Miss, we speak English in

Jamaica, it’s our first language.” I think they have the mindset that all we speak is

broken English.

When Essie said, “they have a mindset,” she moved the context of discussion beyond herself and the assessor to the wider society, suggesting that Jamaicans are believed to speak what she described as “broken English.” Essie’s observation was that assumptions are made about people

161

based on country of origin; yet, her Jamaican” identity was not “visible” in the exchange between herself and the assessor. She was marked as different by speaking in a way that was not normally associated with Jamaicans. This marking of difference played out in a different scenario in her high school classroom. Essie had tried to disguise her “accent” during a class presentation, admitting that she had not wanted to be singled out as “different.” She stated, “I do well with masking my Jamaican accent with a Canadian accent; but there are certain words which I pronounce, and they can pick out that I am probably from the Islands.” However, Essie’s teacher detected the differences in her diction, and later shared that his relationships with

Jamaicans enabled him to recognize those differences.

Essie regarded the latter experience as refreshing compared to her experience during assessment. Generally, she described the year of high school as

[A] very weird environment for me in the sense that, you know, when you grow up in

Jamaica, especially coming from a rural school, you are taught to respect your teachers,

and you can’t really talk, talk in class. It’s seen as disrespectful. Many instances I’ve

been in class [here] and the teachers are at the front and giving their lecture, and kids are

there talking back to the teacher ... And that just took me aback, first of all coming from

Jamaica, you would never, ever think of doing something like that.

Essie had shared earlier that high school in Ontario was “the biggest culture shock” for her due to students’ behavior towards teachers. She was not alone in thinking of high school as different from what she experienced in Jamaica. Segree believed that students in Ontario had little appreciation for the opportunities that high school afforded them. She suggested that “they did not take high school as seriously as I see Caribbean children taking school. Just the things they get away with …”

162

The refrain of “little appreciation” continued in Leah’s account. She shared that,

[O]ne thing that stood out to me was the fact that the students did not appreciate what

they had because I was comparing it to Jamaica and saying, if we had all the technology

that you guys have; if we had all the desks and chairs, all of that; the spacing even, oh my

gosh, it would be so appreciated … it broke my heart because Jamaica is a Third World

country, and even though we don’t have all that stuff, we try to make ends meet … and

they’re here in class disrespecting teachers … that really got to me.

Leah echoed what was suggested in the accounts of Essie and Segree that there was an element of disrespect towards teachers in the classroom. She observed, as well, differences in the resources available to students in Ontario when compared with Jamaica. She seemed to believe that students did not understand their privilege.

Privilege was evident in the resources available to schools but was observed, as well, in the latitude that students enjoyed from a behavioral perspective. Oneise was surprised that some practices that were prohibited in high school in Jamaica “went out the window” in her experience in Ontario. She stated that,

Here we could chew gum in our school uniform which was very interesting to me. They

had this thing called ‘freedom of speech’ where you could just pretty much say anything

you wanted to anybody. I would hear kids in the hallways cursing bad words and I was

like, “oh my gosh, are they gonna get detention?” Are they going to be called to the

principal’s office or something? But no.

Through this experience, Oneise realized that behavior is subjective and what counts as a standard in one context may not apply to other situations. At another point in the interview, she

163

again demonstrated how she filtered her present experiences through her past. She spoke of the

“mentality” that made her regard skin color as a sign of intellectual ability. She reflected on the associations she had made between the two constructs:

I guess the challenge for me was really a mental thing where I needed to realize that …

for example, growing up in Jamaica some people would associate being smarter or more

intelligent with someone who is from prep school; maybe light skinned … so coming

here, I brought that over with me; so, I would be thinking this White girl is smarter than

me because she is White; she probably has money.

The mentality Oneise spoke of was something she attributed to her cultural background, and how what “being White” represented from a Jamaican worldview. Her association of “race and intelligence” was based on her experience of seeing lighter skinned students in preparatory schools in Jamaica. These schools are historically viewed as well-resourced and the reserves of children whose parents are financially well off.

Teeah’s experiences focused less on the behaviors observed in her peers and more on the mechanisms that altered the course of her high school years. She described being more “out” than “in” high school for her grade 11 and 12 years. Teeah gave the following account:

I actually stopped [going to school] halfway through the year.… I would only go to

school if there was an exam or a test, or something of some significance towards my

grades …. My reasoning for not going to school was that whatever they were teaching, I

already learned that. It wasn’t true … but the “community” at school, I didn’t like it. I

didn’t feel like I fit in.

164

When Teeah said she had not liked the “community” at school, the first impression was that she did not feel a sense of belonging to the new school. However, upon further examination of her account she attributed her “lack of fit” to the pre-assessment requirement.

I suppose when I first came here, … you had to do some test that determines what grade

you go into when you start school. I don’t even know who administers the test. The

Ministry I guess. When you come here you had to go sit and do the English exam, the

math exam. And they actually wanted to set me back in English and math. I still had to do

it at the grade 11 level because that was the grade I was entering school at. So, when I got

to school I was already just like, I’m over this. I went to one class. I started off in the

sciences, so they put me back in Biology, Chemistry, and Physics ... but I looked at the

curriculum and realized I had already done this; done that…. So, I was like, I am not

coming to school to learn what I already learnt.

Being downgraded was very upsetting for Teeah because it questioned her authenticity, her identity. In Jamaica she was ahead of her game, passing the grade 11 English exit examination during her grade 9 year, and she was on track with her studies in the sciences. Fast forward to high school in Canada, and she was on a downward spiral, being “put back” in the very courses in which she had excelled in Jamaica. She felt deflated and demoralised, but there is as well a sense of confusion. When she examined the curriculum, she was unable to figure out why she was being “demoted” when the subject content was like what she had covered in Jamaica. She later admitted that this was not completely true and that there were areas she still had to learn.

The reality was that she felt a loss of confidence when her achievements in Jamaica were, seemingly, revoked in the new society. Her response was to withdraw from high school.

165

According to the participants, much of the culture shock during the transitional period of emigration to early settlement took place in the context of high school. Each evaluated the experience against their experience of high school in Jamaica. By doing so they drew on their

“cultural schema” (Holland, et al., 1998, p.55) by transferring the past experiences to the present circumstances. Holland and her colleagues described this as “generalizations of past experiences that people try to reassert even under new conditions” (p.55). The accounts reveal how sociocultural issues of “culture, context, and early schooling socialization” (Alfred, 2003, p.244) were influential in negotiations of new learning environments.

Different Views of Multicultural Experiences

The analyses of the preceding sections provide a snapshot of initial settlement encounters in the “spaces” of new homes and families; immigration and employment processes; and new high school experiences. The findings of this section examine participants’ reception to the ethnic diversity in a multicultural environment, and the comparisons they make with their heritage country.

Seeing the familiar in the ‘different’ and difference in difference.

This sub-theme explores the perspectives offered by some participants on the Canadian ideal of multiculturalism. Some observed similarities in the mix of cultures in Ontario and

Jamaica. Some focused on the different understandings of the expressions of multiculturalism, and some were simply excited at the familiar symbols of their cultural background that were evident in Ontario. Rosita was particularly excited to witness the level of ethnic diversity in

Ontario. She anticipated that she would easily fit into this environment where she found evidence of food, dress and other symbols of Jamaican culture. Even more surprising to her was the reality

166

that her Jamaican high school credentials were recognized in Ontario and “qualified her” to attend university here. She stated,

[W]hat I liked was seeing the Jamaica education system represented here because when I

looked at the admissions information and saw CSEC (Caribbean Secondary Examinations

Council), and they [university admissions] looked at my qualifications and said I was

qualified for entry, I wondered how they knew about the passes—Range 1, 2 etcetera?

What Rosita conveyed through this account is the impact of globalization in the everyday experience. Forces of globalization allowed her to enjoy the foods she would normally have in

Jamaica and provided educational mobility through credential recognition. Other participants were surprised and elated about the diverse cultures witnessed, a departure from what they had anticipated based on media representations of Canada. Simon expressed the view that “as diverse as Jamaica is, no matter if you’re Chinese, Indian, or whatever, you’re still Jamaican. But you have different races coming together here.” In this statement, Simon suggested a distinction between the ethnic diversity of people of Jamaican nationality and the racial and cultural diversity in the Ontario. He believed that there was unity and singularity in his nation of heritage, despite different ethnic enclaves. Yet, he did not make a similar application in the context of

Ontario.

Similarly, Oneise suggested that there was a unity within the Jamaican culture compared to the individualism that she observed in her new country of residence. She stated,

I suppose in Jamaica our culture is very collective, like, we just think of ourselves as

being one, and just like, we’re all Jamaicans. Whereas, coming up here, it is very

individualistic in a way where I am me; you are you. We are different.… In Jamaica,

167

everyone is pretty much Jamaican, up here, what’s your background? Where are you

from?

Oneise suggested that in Jamaica there was unity of thought about belonging to the nation, but in

Ontario she had not observed a similar expression. Instead she believed that the focus on cultural difference kept groups so distinct from each other that there was a sense of individualism rather than unity. In this latter sense, she felt excluded despite being born in Canada. In the example of the question “Where are you from?” she recognized the ambiguity of her situation. She was

Canadian born, raised in Jamaica, but there was a lingering question about where she belonged.

Donald talked about the diversity encounters he had in Ontario in a similar way as he spoke of dealing with individuals from different social classes back in Jamaica. He explained that,

I always had that thinking that you accept people from different backgrounds and stuff. I

don’t really like to judge people based on where they are coming from or based on how

they look or whatever. I just deal with them on the basis of if they’re a good person or a

bad person. I don’t judge them based on other factors. Canada is a place with so many

different people.

Donald’s reaction to the presence of “many different people” that he came across in Ontario was to relate to people as people. He did not believe difference should be measured by nation of origin or appearance. Rather, his relational strategy was focused on an individual’s moral character.

Neesa held a similar belief about accepting other cultures, as Donald. However, her acceptance of other cultures was based on a unifying element of difference. Neesa did not extend

168

a similar understanding to mainstream Canadians; rather she explained coming from a different culture,

I am probably more accepting of certain things rather than a Canadian who was born in

Canada and never left Canada …. They look at things … they are kind of standoffish …

when it comes on to people like Indian or Muslim culture doing certain things ….

Because we are used to them [Whites] looking at us the same way, we are more

understanding.

Neesa framed her acceptance of different cultures by enacting the “us/them” binary. She intimated that mainstream “Canadians” have a limited capacity to understand people from different backgrounds if they have never experienced “certain things” that they have. However, she did not make a similar observation regarding people from cultures different from mainstream. She believed that there was a shared state of being “looked at” as outsiders. In this sense, she believed that Jamaican immigrants could relate easily to the experiences of differentially treated groups, themselves being “outsiders among outsiders.”

Aaron expressed some of the contradictions of multiculturalism in Ontario when he stated that,

[I]n a place like Canada where there are so many cultures just mixed together, it’s

important that someone like me that is from somewhere other than Canada maintains

what was instilled in me when I was back there [Jamaica], and, as much as I want to fit

in, not be lost in Canadian culture; not become I suppose, vague.

Aaron believed that to hold to what was instilled (values, attitudes, beliefs) during his years in

Jamaica was more important than fitting into Canadian culture. This view is seemingly contrary

169

to the spirit of multiculturalism, which is premised on the notion of plurality of cultures living harmoniously (CIC, 2012). Of importance too is the distinction between the many “cultures mixed together” and Canadian culture. Aaron seemed to infer from “mixing,” that what may result is irrelevance or loss of identity, and he was not prepared to have that happen.

The other participants who spoke about multiculturalism focused mainly on the opportunity to see their culture represented among the many other cultures in Ontario. They were less concerned about the cultural mixing of ethnic groups and more relieved that they “did not feel too out of place” in the new place of residence. Their understanding of living in the multicultural space of Ontario was mainly through the lens of locating familiar in the unfamiliar.

Being visibly “different.”

In the previous section participants spoke of their reaction to seeing familiar symbols of

Jamaican culture in Ontario and the ethnically diverse populations in their heritage country as compared to that of the GTA where they reside. Their accounts revealed how they made sense of and drew conclusions about the meaning of multiculturalism in their lived experiences. The common thread that runs through this section, as a follow-up to the previous, is the interpretation of difference in the lived experience of the participants and how they use the past to evaluate the present. The accounts that follow provide other examples of “difference” as constructed by the participants. In the two accounts below, difference is discussed through the constructs of visible minority and race.

Unlike the other participants who focused on nationalist distinctions between Jamaica’s collectivism and Canada’s perceived individualism, Destiny and James spoke of “difference” as a racial construct. Destiny’s account foregrounds the experience of being labeled as a visible

170

minority. James, on the other hand, directed his focus to covert racism. Destiny shared the following:

Here I realize the concept about being minority versus being White. I feel like it is to the

point where that’s all you ever think about if you let it get to you. In terms of what can I

have access to? What are my opportunities? What schools can I go to? Who is education

provided to? It’s like it is being flashed in your face every day. You are Black; you

should feel this. In Jamaica, race is not beaten into your head. You need to feel this way;

you need to feel like a minority; you need to feel underprivileged. Transitioning into that

new mindset has been like a conflict of interest for me because I still want to hold on to

the fact that race is not the first thing that comes to mind when I think about what I want

to achieve.

Destiny experienced “difference” as being “placed” or “positioned” (S. Hall, 1988) as a visible minority. In her account, Black was construed as a visible feature that operated to fix her to the category of visible minority, and “schooled” her about where she belonged in the social hierarchy. The “schooling” of the visible minority was to ensure that they understood their position in society, that there would always be differential access to resources for those who are privileged and those who are not. In making a comparison to the Jamaican context, Destiny suggested that race is not a determinant of status and that it does not operate to limit or fix an individual’s access to resources. She argued that,

In Jamaica you do have the blurring of the lines because it really doesn’t matter. You can

be a Black person, dark as you can be and still have the mindset where, ‘I am

unbreakable; I am unstoppable; I’m very educated. I will fill this position; I will be the

171

executive … and it doesn’t occur to you, ‘Oh, I’m Black; I don’t have these

opportunities.’

Destiny’s account revealed an understanding of race as a social phenomenon, rather than a simple matter of pigmentation. In her opinion, the shade of the skin operated differently in

Ontario than it did in Jamaica; in the former to restrict mobility, and in the latter, a possibility.

She grappled with the extent to which she could reject the restrictive label and harness the possibility of achievement.

James talked about incidents of racism in his experiences in Ontario and in the USA where he lived before moving to Canada; however, he suggested that “it’s just like they hide it and pretend its not happening, when it is.” James believed that his encounters with racism in

Ontario were problematic because they were covert and hindered him from confronting the actions as racist. He felt that pretending to accept difference was a greater cause for conflict than open expressions about the way one truly feels. He stated,

I find that people here, or even in the States, pretend that they’re accepting of other

cultures; but realistically you are really not if you’re going to undermine everything that’s

being said, and put it under the rug as not being logical.

James was suggesting openness in recognizing and acknowledging difference as a reality in people’s lives results in fewer tensions than pretending cultural difference is not an issue. James continued,

You don’t need to come across like you’re literally shunning them. I try to come across in

a way…like educate me on this. Don’t think I am trying to discredit anything about you

or your culture, or anything about your identity.

172

James recognized that matters of identity operate complexly in lives and are based on different worldviews as well as intersections with multiple forms of difference. He concluded that,

“whether it be culture, whether it be sexuality, whether it be body shape, body figure, whether it be color, it’s all just a sensitive topic …. It’s not black and white.” This multidimensional operation of difference as highlighted in James’ account is why he argues for educating about difference rather than stigmatizing.

Speaking in “different” tongues.

One salient marker of difference that featured in discussions of participants about the settlement period was language. Language reflects the culture of a people and conveys how they make sense of the world in which they live. Language may serve as a means of identifying people with nation of origin. However, assuming identity through speech may be misleading. A superficial understanding of a nation or culture can also lead to targeting individuals because they “appear to embody a particular identity” (Mahalingham & Rabelo, 2002, p.34). This thematic frame brings attention to how social representation of immigrants, particularly through media reports may lead to misinformation. The participants shared that they were raised to believe that English is their official language and the language used in formal situations. They were also aware that their native tongue or everyday language is Jamaican Creole. This understanding was commonplace to them; however, they also knew that this was not the understanding of mainstream Canadians or others who were unfamiliar with Jamaica’s cultural history.

The participants disclosed that they were surprised that many people with whom they interacted in Ontario did not perceive Jamaica as an English-speaking country or believed that people from Jamaica generally do not speak English. Simon gave an idea of the misidentification

173

of his nationality in this brief statement, “half the time people who meet me think I am British because they don’t know that we speak English.” A similar view was expressed by Teeah who stated that,

People think that we can’t talk good English; that English is not even our first language.

If anyone asks, I tell them proudly that English is my first language. We have a dialect

that we speak, and it’s broken English but we do know how to speak proper English like

everyone else.

The notion of a “proper” English is what some refer to as Standard English, and begs the question, whose standard? This was a question that Wayne articulated:

When I go somewhere, and I speak, people ask me where I’m from and I tell them

Jamaica. They say they have heard Jamaicans speak and they don’t speak like that. I tell

them English is our first language …. So, I applied to a job and they called me based on

how I speak over the phone, but when they see me in person it’s like they’re saying you

are not supposed to have that kind of English. It’s like you’re forbidden to speak

Canadian English or the Queen’s English, or something like that.

Like Wayne, Aaron’s language was called into question in his interactions with “non-

Jamaicans.” He noted that when he identified as Jamaican, the first question that he is asked is,

“‘how come you’re not talking Patois?’ and I am like, ‘would you understand me if I were speaking Patois? Do you think we don’t speak English?’”

Some participants believed that this perception of Jamaicans and their language accounted for the placement of immigrant children from Jamaica in second language learning situations (Anisef & Kilbride, 2003). None of the 14 participants had been placed in ESL classes

174

but some had knowledge of this occurrence among their peers. Teeah and Wayne had known students from Jamaica who were placed in ESL classes for not demonstrating facility in Standard

English. Teeah shared that, “through talking to other people, I realize that some people who came here were set back. Personally, I have not gone through it, but I know people who have.”

Teeah and Wayne found the practice of placing Jamaican students in ESL classes to be both offensive and discriminatory. The basis for offence was the belief that being Jamaican automatically endowed the individual with the ability to speak English. However, language, like nation is not something that you are born with (Hall, 1996).

Some participants expressed irritation at suggestions that Jamaica’s official language is

Jamaican Creole. They believed that the implication of such suggestions was that their use of

English was a form of mimicry. The suggestion of mimicry questioned their legitimacy and placed them in a defensive mode. Wayne contested the reductionist conceptualization of the language patterns of Jamaicans and rationalized that,

we might have an accent which points to ‘accentism’ but English is our language. So, are

you trying to say that we’re not English speakers? We are English speakers and you

should respect that.

Wayne’s statement grounds the issue of the language in the sound of words, suggesting that the accent in the use of English serves to place Jamaicans outside of the group of English speakers.

His emphasis on English as “our” language was his strategy for placing Jamaicans within the collective of those who speak English. In the concluding sentence he called for a recognition or

“respect” of Jamaicans as speakers of English.

175

The attention to the accented speech of immigrants to Canada leads many to enter language training programs to “correct” their speech, with the hope of finding fit in the labour market. Anne did not enter a program to modify her speech; however, she admitted that she resorted to mimicry of Canadian speech to try to get a job. She indicated that,

sometimes I disguise … when I am talking to other people I disguise my accent so not

talk Jamaican. So, if you don’t know, you’re not going to put me in a category or try to

separate me.

When Anne spoke of being “put in a category,” it reflects the marginality that newcomers and recent immigrants often experience during settlement. Disguising her accent was her strategy to navigate the terrain of perceived discrimination by accent (Lippi-Green, 1998). Jones and Abes

(2013) view “masking of certain elements of one’s identity to succeed in certain contexts”

(p.159) as the individual’s effort to live authentically within the complex negotiations of self- definitions. Thus, Anne’s insistence on not being reduced to a specific category was her way of indicating that she did not want to be singled out as different or deficit.

The participants’ accounts reveal that they were opposed to the stereotypical profiling of

Jamaicans as being speakers of Jamaican Creole only and lacking a facility to speak a standard form of English. They rejected the perception that they were incompetent in the use of English, thus requiring training in English as would people who are speakers of another language.

A Discourse of Jamaicans: Unsettling Representations

In this section, participants’ descriptions of other “unsettling” stereotypes of Jamaicans aside from language are analyzed. Participants indicated that the experiences of discrimination were often direct as well as indirect. The sub-theme reflects the perception of Jamaicans in the

176

eyes of mainstream Canadians and later generations of Jamaicans living in Ontario. It analyses two sides of representation that emerged in the conversations with participants. The first was the

“unsettling” feeling that results from negative representations of Jamaicans in the receiving society, and the second was how the participants “unsettle” or disrupt these representations. The stereotypes alluded to work ethic; inferior education; negative perceptions of Jamaican female and male behaviors including criminality, sexuality, loudness and aggression; weed (marijuana) or drug culture; and the wearing of dreadlocks.

Participants associated poor work ethic to the following expressions: chill, easy going and laid back. The words, by themselves are not offensive. However, in the contexts in which they were experienced, the participants believed that these words implied that Jamaicans were lazy and unwilling to do hard work. Simon objected to the characterization of Jamaicans’ attitudes and behaviors in negative ways. He made it clear that when he is “recognized” as a

Jamaican, it must not be based on a belief that “I smoke weed, chill, and don’t know English.”

He regarded the reference to “chill” as a suggestion that Jamaicans are lazy and put little or no effort into work.

Similarly, Donald believed that non-Jamaicans “have a stereotype of dancehall music, easy going, and partying; stereotype of bad man” that they ascribe to Jamaicans. Aaron listed the stereotypes he encountered when he first met non-Jamaicans who believed they had some knowledge of Jamaicans. He stated,

[I]t is ‘yah mon; do you have weed?’ I don’t sound like that, and that’s not me. That’s

just not what we’re all about; just marijuana and ‘yah mon.’ That’s not it. We don’t live

in huts; we’re not barefoot on the beach all the time; and we’re not all Rastafarians. And I

177

hate that in this day and age, when the media is so open, where you can actually see what

things are, people are still using those stupid stereotypes to judge us.

There are some participants who recognized the stereotypes for what they were: a means of reducing, homogenizing, and stigmatizing groups of people who share nation, background, culture, and more.

In another example, Oneise shared an experience where her sorority sisters were smoking marijuana. She explained,

I do try to use the opportunity to stray away from the stereotype. For instance, there are

girls in my sorority that smoke weed and obviously them knowing I am Jamaican, they

are going to ask questions. I don’t deny that I smoke it, but I don’t want to come off to

them as a pothead or anything like that.

In this account, Oneise was suggesting that where her actions cast a negative light on Jamaicans, she would resist the behaviour to not perpetuate the stereotype. But stereotypes are also perpetuated within community and are constantly repeated.

The stereotype regarding education was based on a perception of the Jamaican education system as deficient. In Teeah’s account,

people think that we are not as good as Canadians here. Through talking to others, I

realize that some people who came here were set back a year or two when they were

really competent of continuing on the same path that they were on.

178

Anne shared that she encountered a similar stereotype of the Jamaican education system. This one was expressed as “Third world” representing the Jamaican education system as deficient in comparison to Canada’s.

The stereotype regarding the image of Jamaican women and men as “bad” was one of the most pervasive in the conversations. More than half the number of participants discussed the stereotyped image of Jamaican women and men as “bad.” Being “bad” was as well linked to dancehall culture and other musical forms in the Jamaican experience. Most participants agreed that the musical forms are a part of Jamaican culture. However, they refuted the idea that all

Jamaicans embrace dancehall culture or reggae music or that the image assigned to the space of

“dancehall” should render Jamaican women as lewd and oversexualized, and Jamaican men as violent and promiscuous.

Another prevalent stereotype expressed in the conversations of participants was that of

Jamaicans as loud, aggressive, and argumentative people. The participants argued that there may be situations that justify loud and aggressive behavior. As well, this is not a behavior that is only observed in Jamaicans and Blacks. Participants dispute this representation of Jamaicans in that it ignores the context of actions and assigns a permanence to these behaviors as if there is no room for change. Rosita made it clear that, “I deal with it by not giving in to the stereotypes; even though stereotypes are close to the truth; very close actually; but I try not to feed it.” Here Rosita shows her ambivalence, believing or not believing. But she settles on “not feeding the stereotype” which she clarified later as she explained that actions are based on context. So, “I am

Black, and I might be loud, but I am not going to be loud for no reason. I like to argue but I know when to do it.”

179

The participants reasoned that presenting an image of Jamaicans based on stereotypes does not only stigmatize but also marginalizes by expressing them as truths. As Hall (2012) postulated, when stereotypes are used, it is an attempt to fix meaning to certain groups or types.

However, the stereotypical representations of Jamaican immigrant communities are complex, ambivalent and contradictory (Bhabha, 1994, p. 70) so that they may be read in one way at some point in time but, at another time may lack consistency. Despite the foregoing, stereotypes affect the relations of the targeted group with others in society.

Participants recounted that these stereotypes were mainly deployed in their interactions within their communities of residence and work, as well as on campus. They rejected the stereotypes, arguing that such generalizations about Jamaicans reduced the group to actions that may be characteristic of some persons, under some circumstances but not of all Jamaicans under all circumstances. They also regarded the stereotypes as a means of “othering” (Hall, 2012) bringing into question the problems of integration. Segree spoke of the challenge of integrating by suggesting that she “can’t be associated with people who think of Jamaican as one thing.” She said this regarding the stereotype of Jamaicans as violent. Likewise, Aaron was adamant that he could not relate to Canadians “who think that way.”

Aaron and James as well spoke of the challenge of working to undo the stereotypes through education. As leaders of student associations, they express the challenge on their campuses changing the perceptions that later generations of Jamaicans have of Jamaica and

Jamaicans. James remarked,

Its kind of frustrating when you try to go about changing the aspect or changing the

perception of a whole country in a little subdivision of Jamaican descendants or

Jamaicans …. when you have been immersed so long in this culture. The Jamaican

180

diaspora is way bigger than the actual number of Jamaicans living in Jamaica, and that’s

where the problem lies …. When you try to educate people about Jamaicans living in

Jamaica and Jamaicans that have been born outside of Jamaica or Jamaicans who have

migrated; it’s like a whole different conversation…

Rosita, James, Destiny, Wayne, and Teeah believed that negative stereotyping offered the chance to educate about cultural difference and by extension open doors to integration. Rosita spoke about how she negotiated the stereotypes by “deciding if I am going to take it in a negative or positive way and inform them about the facts.” James, Teeah and Wayne felt changing the stereotypes should focus on educating people about Jamaica. James explained that it is necessary

“to educate about certain aspects of what’s in Jamaica and what’s not … it’s hard to tackle the ignorance which surrounds Jamaica [but] when you get education, you have no reason not to change.” Destiny, however, moved beyond education as she expressed, “it’s kind of like my duty to introduce people … to open their minds on the fact that Jamaicans are way more than those things. And I think I can do that. I don’t sit down and school them but just live my life and show them.” The focus on living and showing is an idea that links with the conceptualization of cultural identity; that is, living with and through difference (S. Hall, 1993).

The findings presented in this chapter revealed what the participants had to say about moving to Canada and experience of “being” in unfamiliar spaces. Although immigration processes legalized their status in Ontario, they did little to ease the financial difficulties that they experienced. The chapter explored the connections they made between past experiences and the experiences of early settlement in Ontario. Although not every voice is recorded in relation to each theme, there are obvious connections in the stories shared. Some experiences were considered surprising; some were taken for granted; some elucidated the misconceptions that the

181

participants held about Canada; and some revealed stereotypical representations of Jamaicans.

This chapter examined the accounts of arrival and settlement in a new society from the micro level of meeting and living with a new family; attending a new high school; interacting with processes of settlement at the macro level; and settling into communities as newcomers. The taken for granted idea of living with family is discussed as a highly disruptive experience for four of the participants. The encounter with the new society exposed the vulnerabilities of being recent immigrants whose desire for upward social mobility was met with challenges on several levels.

In Chapter 7, the conversation moves beyond early settlement to the context of university in participants’ conversations about being represented and representing themselves as recent immigrant students from Jamaica in Ontario.

182

Chapter 7

The lived experience of university: Cultural identity construction in contexts of “being”

and “becoming”

not who we are or where we came from, so much as what we might become. How we have been represented and how that bears on how we represent ourselves… (S. Hall, 1996a, p.4)

Chapter Six of the study presented what the study participants expressed about their experiences in the initial periods of settlement in Ontario. In this interstitial space, between emigration and their ambition to enter university, the participants tried to make sense of the new society of residence through the experiences of their past lives in Jamaica. These experiences, as their accounts exemplified, are inextricably bound to their histories and culture, and therefore their identities (S. Hall, 1993). Their histories and culture influenced how the participants interacted during settlement as they negotiated various structures of immigration, employment, and high school. The formalities of settlement were negotiated alongside more personal engagements with new families and communities. Within these interactions participants discovered that home and community may be contentious and disruptive spaces. However, navigating through the anxieties, pleasures, disruptions and displacements to settle into their new lives was essential to the ongoing production of cultural identity for these recent immigrant students.

In this chapter, participants’ accounts of cultural identity construction through the lens of

“being” in and “becoming” through university are examined. Being in university is of major significance in the lives of the participants. It represents a moment when they embarked on the

183

journey to fulfil one of their expectations in moving to Canada. The first section of the chapter analyzes their reflections on the “moment” of being in university and what that meant to them.

Their reflections include the choice of a university pathway; their engagement with administrative mechanisms in university under the umbrella of domestic students; their interactions inside and outside of classes; and the tactics that they employed to negotiate these varying experiences en route to what they might “become.”

The second section of the chapter picks up the theme of “becoming” by attending to how participants gave meaning to their cultural identity through the experiences in university. The main ways in which they construct their cultural identity were through language; dialogue; affiliation with fellow Jamaicans; heritage nation; race; resisting assimilation; embracing difference; and infusing new ideas.

Being in University

The route to university is discussed in relation to the aspirational component of participants’ cultural identity construction. Attending university has socio-historical relevance in the lives of these immigrant students. Most or all spoke about attending university as if it were a pre-determined feature of their lives. For some the route was circuitous; for others it was a direct path from high school to university. Whatever the pathway, participants made it clear that they grew up believing that university attendance was a necessary aspect of their future. This belief is not without foundation. As expressed elsewhere in this research, many Caribbean people consciously or unconsciously hold as truth that aspirations are components of their cultural identity, and that their aspirations will be realized through higher education (Gonzales, Stein and

Huq 2013). For the participants in this study, the choice of university over college was reflected

184

a desire to achieve education at the highest echelon of the education system. In their accounts,

“being” in university represented the better option for them to “become” what they desired.

The “path” taken.

This sub-theme elucidates the significance of attending university to the construction of identities of the participants. The concept “path” is highlighted in the sub-theme to emphasize the university trajectory which participants spoke of as if it were their rite of passage. Many attributed their enrolment in university to parental influence; however, they accepted that there were personal gains that accrue from attending university. They offered various thoughts on attending university and some explained the choice of university rather than college. Whereas attending college has been suggested by some scholars to be a “rite of passage from adolescence to adulthood” for first generation students (London, 1992, p.6), for the participants in my research university was the path they had to traverse. Of note, as well, is that university or at least obtaining an undergraduate degree was not discussed as an endpoint. Rather, they considered it a gateway through which they would become who the professionals that they aspired to be.

James sets the context for understanding what attending university overseas means by placing it within the general outlook of Jamaican students. He stated,

that’s sort of the goal of the majority of Jamaican high school students … attending

university overseas was the plan, to be honest, after high school. I probably would have

done sixth form and then moved.

James indicated that had his mother not sponsored him at the time she did, he would still have left Jamaica to attend university overseas. Similarly, Destiny expressed the view that, “It wasn’t

185

that rare … a lot of students were kind of exploring this idea of leaving in fifth form (grade 11)

…. It wasn’t a new thought, and I was kind of excited to see what was out there.” Destiny shared that it was not uncommon for students in the high school she attended to explore overseas options for studies nearing the end of high school, and that boarding school was a point of entry for many.

For Simon and Neesa, attending university in Canada afforded the prospect of better jobs if they decided to return to Jamaica, because “gaining overseas credentials” would offer greater opportunities. Simon added that there would likely be fewer limitations, “and you can work anywhere in the world for that matter.” Neesa agreed that with Canadian credentials, “wherever you get a job in the world you take the job.” In contrast, a Jamaican credential in the field of medicine would “not be considered outside of the Caribbean.” There is some truth to the assertion regarding the credentials of medical professionals from Jamaica. Certainly, in Canada most non-Canadian immigrants who were practising medical professionals in Jamaica are unable to obtain work in their fields of specialization when they migrate to Canada.

For Segree, the path to university was already laid out by her parents who planned that upon completion of grade 11 she would begin the next phase of preparation for university. She shared that,

[M]y parents wanted me to go to university in Canada. My sister went to grade 12 here

and then university and my parents let me know that it is the same step that I would be

taking …. The transition would be easier if I did grade 12, so that’s why they said do

grade 12 here.

186

Other participants took a similar route to university by completing their grade 12 year in Canada after graduating high school in Jamaica. As discussed in Chapter 5, Essie and Oneise who were both born in Canada but raised in Jamaica, returned to Canada at the end of high school to complete a grade 12 year before transitioning to university. Both participants indicated that their parents “had that planned all along.” According to Essie,

I personally wanted to do university in Jamaica, but my mom had always had the mindset

to send me back … she always wanted me to come back to make use of the opportunities

I have as a Canadian citizen, but yeah, I even wanted to do sixth form there.

In Oneise’s account, students in Jamaica were always talking about attending university; however, her route to university back in Jamaica would have been via community college because the school she attended did not have a sixth form program. She rationalized, “am I going to go to community college then university or am I just going to come up here [Canada] for grade 12 and then go to university? I figured I would do the shorter route.” Oneise decided that it was unnecessary to wait an additional two years to begin university; however, after coming to

Canada, she again confronted that choice. She “realized in grade 12 that they divided the school at the college and university level [but] college did not even cross my mind.”

Although college was not her plan for her future educational pathway, Oneise indicated that “a lot of the children in the college level [stream] in high school were Black.” She questioned,

Why don’t we have more Black students at the university level? Is it a problem with the

school or the community on a whole? What’s going on? And all now [Up to this point] I

187

cannot really answer that problem; maybe multiple factors. So, I guess the stereotype of,

“Oh you’re Black you struggle in school.”

Oneise alluded to a system of streaming in some high schools that saw some Black students placed on a college pathway and contemplated where the blame for their placement should fall.

She concluded that the factors that led to their placement in the college pathway are both racial and societal. By drawing this conclusion, Oneise made intersectional connections of race and social circumstances in the lived realities of students of color.

Teeah articulated her understanding of the university and college pathways by sharing the information communicated in high school about postsecondary trajectories:

I had already learned the difference between what they had said; the difference between

college and university was that college was for students who could not make it to

university. I was like, I am not going to college. All my cousins in the States go to

university so why should I go to college? I am too smart for that.

The discourse around university and college attendance privileged attending university over college. In Teeah’s view, attending college again position her as inferior in high school and would be a devaluation of her standards, especially in comparison to her cousins who did not attend college. She projected herself as being “too smart” for college, and, conversely, smart enough for university, and by so doing, reproduced the idea of college as being below par in relation to university.

Donald, who had matriculated for university both in Jamaica and Ontario, held a similar view. He talked about the value he placed on attending university when I asked about his choice to attend university and not college. He responded:

188

university is the higher level. If I was going to university in Jamaica, I wouldn’t come

here to go to college. I wouldn’t lower my standards like that. I was going to a good

school in Jamaica. I was going to go to university there. I wouldn’t come here and go to

college just because it’s abroad. I would not come here and say I went to a lower school.

No, I wouldn’t do that.

Evident in Donald’s explanation of his choice of university is the belief that college enrolment does not carry the premium that university does. What is also clear is that Donald transferred the perception he held of colleges in Jamaica to colleges in Ontario. His statement, “I wouldn’t come here and go to college just because it’s abroad” may be interpreted to suggest that despite the overseas (abroad) postsecondary context, which is usually considered “better than” the heritage country, it would not be comparable to attending a university.

In Rosita’s account, she had considered the local universities but having a father overseas made the decision to attend university overseas an easier one for her. She indicated that “after finishing high school I considered UWI and UTech, but my dad lived in the US and encouraged me to come there to study. So, I had the opportunity to study there as well.” She started out by attending community college for a year in the USA. However, with the finalization of her mother’s application for residence in Canada she saw the opportunity as “a good idea since … I was not attending university there [in the USA] anyway, and the plan was to attend university.”

Rosita’s statement made it clear that her aspiration for higher education did not rest in the college system. She applied to university when she moved to Ontario based on her mother’s encouragement and her own belief that “university was a must”; a gateway to the professions.

The perception of college as an institution lower in rank than university reflects the socio- historical beliefs of the participants and their parents. The feeling was that the bar set by parents

189

and participants themselves would have been lowered if they pursued studies in college rather than university. We recall from earlier accounts that the decision to move to Canada included an expectation of attending university. None of the 14 participants expressed any apprehension about attending university. Having shared how they got there, the next section explores how they experienced and negotiated the daily activities of university.

Navigating university--learning “who you are” based on “who you are not.”

In this section, participants highlight ways in which “fixed” categories may influence access to resources in university. The participants spoke about the classification of students as

“domestic” or “international” that are ascribed based on permanent or temporary residence status. Students who reside in Canada or have permanent resident status fall in the category of domestic. Others who attend university in Canada but have their permanent homes outside of the country are temporary residents and referred to in PSE as visa or international students. Recent immigrant students often find themselves in a very ambiguous position. They are considered domestic students as permanent residents of Canada; however, for those who are unfamiliar with how Canadian PSE operates, they often experience a sense of uncertainty like newly arrived international students. Teranishi, M. Suarez-Orozco, and Suarez-Orozco (2011) have suggested that these systems of categorization are reductionist and tend to obscure the complexities of identifications, rendering recent immigrant students as “inaccurately categorized” students in universities.

Participants discussed the merits as well as the limitations of being cast in the “domestic student” category. Although they all welcomed the privilege of paying domestic fees which were, by far, less than international fees, they found themselves in the ambivalent position of not having access to certain resources. They argued that their “domestic student” status did not

190

permit access to some programs that they felt would be beneficial to them as recent immigrants.

Such programs provide orientation to Canada and navigational resources for international students. The problem of this binary categorization of domestic and international students was that some participants were unsure of their “fit” with either. Destiny explained the ambivalence,

I don’t feel like this is my home yet. I feel I might want to identify with international

students more often than not because they too know what it feels like to be in a place that

is not home. And I realize that I’m not entirely like them either because they cannot have

access to OSAP or OHIP or things that permanent residents can access. So, I am kind of

in the middle; and because I am in the middle I feel like people can overlook permanent

residents a lot. They don’t really see the ‘in-between.’

The failure to consider the “in-between” strikes at the heart of the issue raised by Destiny. As a permanent resident in Canada, she fell within the domestic category assigned to all students born in Canada or who possess legal/permanent status. She believed that by focusing on the two distinct categories of international and domestic students, institutions tend to overlook the needs of individuals within the broader categories. Destiny suggested that,

[W]hen resources are advertised as purely for international students, I feel it is important

for the people organizing the events and resources to bear in mind that all the information

that they are giving to these international students may be just as useful for those

permanent residents who are clumped together into the whole Canadian group.

The idea being conveyed by Destiny is that student categories are not homogeneous, and to treat categories as fixed boundaries is problematic given the differences that exist within groups as

191

well as between groups. For her, navigating between home and university was “a lot of trial and error” which she felt could be alleviated with resources to assist recent immigrants.

However, neither birth nor resident status operates as a guarantee of knowledge of educational structures and processes. In Donald’s account, he experienced frustration when he began his university program. He attributed his frustration to being “from abroad” (a foreign or other country) and that “there are so many avenues that you have to navigate.” He explained how the mundane tasks of university can be problematic for those who are unfamiliar with its operations:

Sometimes I get lost …. I was in first year and I was so lost. You have to get Moodle;

you have to do online quiz sometimes, and I was … ‘where do you get the quiz?’ You

have to buy the code…. You have to go to the bookstore, you have to get class code

…learning all of that, and nobody telling you this stuff. They expect you to know…. I

feel that comes from going to high school here. They kind of train you to know that

everything is online, and you have to constantly check. In Jamaica it wasn’t like that.

Donald found that there was a lack of consciousness that students come from different places and backgrounds to attend university. In other words, Donald was suggesting that the characteristics of students such as their readiness to interact with the learning environment was not given due consideration. He expressed that there is an assumption of familiarity with the operations of the school system because you reside in Ontario. However, the new resident requires navigational guidelines in the initial stages of university “to help you move through with ease.” James agreed that “some professors just expect you to know.”

192

There was some timidity in navigating university, but participants believed that having domestic students’ status was their “good fortune.” For these participants, the opportunity to pay lower fees was an advantage that they enjoyed over international students. James stated explicitly that he had moved to Canada for cheaper fees than he was paying in the USA. Oneise as well expressed that “Just realizing that I was going to be attending university in Canada, and realizing it is a lot of money, but [as well] knowing that it is not as much money as if I was international… is an amazing opportunity.”

As participants expressed appreciation for the lower fee levels resulting from their domestic student status, they acknowledged, as well, the opportunity they had through the

Ontario Student Assistance Program (OSAP) to defray expenses associated with higher education. Anne stated,

I love the opportunity given to me; I’m appreciative of it. Because even with OSAP

because I am a permanent resident here, I get that opportunity for the government to pay

the majority of my school fees for me.

Participants were grateful that their permanent resident status allowed them access to the OSAP arrangement that deferred their fee payments or much of their fees in university. However, later in the interview they found that the blessing of OSAP could as well be a burden as they became more aware of OSAP’s regulatory requirements.

Challenges of “being” in university.

Realizing the need to know.

As we learned in the previous section, many of the participants had mixed feelings about their classification as domestic students in university. They were concerned that they had had

193

limited access to some resources due to being “broad brushed” as domestic students. Being

“domestic” carried the underlying assumption that they were familiar with the rudimentary details of life in their geographic locale. Notwithstanding, they were appreciative of lower fees and access to OSAP to assist with paying for their education. However, inadequate understanding of the OSAP mechanism placed two participants in a quandary when they

“stopped out” of university. Some were anxious about the amount they had to repay at the end of university and were anxious about employment prospects.

Access to OSAP requires postsecondary students who are dependent on family to contribute to their education to provide information about parents, for example income and tax assessments. Wayne and Teeah described how these requirements affected their university experiences. Wayne shared that “I had to apply for OSAP and that was a challenge because I had to get my father’s tax information.” Getting the tax information of a father with whom he was barely familiar placed Wayne in an uncomfortable position. He insisted, “I’m not living with this man, where do [they] expect me to get this?” His inability to provide that information resulted in a smaller amount of funds than Wayne had anticipated. He reasoned that,

because of that, OSAP gave me less money. This past school year I wasn’t in school

because I took the maximum number of credits and OSAP gave me only a certain amount

of money. The money from OSAP was less than the money I had to pay for schooling so,

I owed the school. How the system is set up, if you owe, you cannot enroll in classes. So,

I had to stop out of school; put school on pause and go work for a year, and mark you, I

live on my own, so I had to ensure that my bills were paid; my rent; phone bill; I have

food money; bus ticket money; stuff like that.

194

Wayne’s account illuminates how routine activities are impacted by broader social processes and affect the everyday lives of students in university. He continued by stating that, “I was out for one year working, trying to save money so that when I start back I would have that money saved up to deal with my personal things.”

In Teeah’s account, the amount of money that she obtained from OSAP was less than what she required to cover her expenses. She shared her story of being in and out of university due to financial constraints:

As much as OSAP gives you a certain amount … it’s like, your parents make this amount

of money so this is all we can give you. It was still not enough …. I lived on campus, and

my school fee in the first year was like $17,000. OSAP gave me only $5,000, and it just

wasn’t enough. So, what do I do for $10,000? I started trying to work; trying to do this

and that at the same time trying to do my academics. I really couldn’t manage. And so,

after two years of it, I was physically drained. I had nowhere else to turn. I didn’t know

where to go to in terms of finding help financially; and so, I just dropped out of school

and got a full-time job.

Teeah’s story does not end there. She realized while out of university that that was not the plan she had had for her life. She returned to complete her studies. However, her story highlights several issues including that the measurements used by administrative systems like

OSAP did not have a full picture of her individual experience. Teeah said that she called OSAP to get advice concerning her situation and was told, “we don’t care, in six months you still have to pay interest.” Another issue was that she was unaware of resources within the university to assist her. After being out for two years, she finally spoke with an advisor who pointed her in the direction of some services that she could access.

195

The issue of seeking help came up as a challenge in a few accounts by participants who suggested that it was not in their nature to seek help or that they were afraid of being stigmatized.

The section that follows examines how participants spoke about learning how to negotiate university and available resources; how their understanding of some things changed; and how they had to unlearn and/or relearn some things.

Accessing resources and other lessons in navigation and negotiation.

Learning affects identity formation. As students learn what resources are available to them in university, they become more proficient at utilizing those resources, and those resources further aid them to position themselves for success. The importance of resources in the university experience is a thread that runs through the conversations of the participants in their reflections on their day to day lives in university. The main resources highlighted were academic and financial advice; mentorship; emotional/mental support; and help for students to navigate the terrain beyond their undergraduate degree.

Some participants had vivid recollections about the point in their university experience when they became aware of the resources that were available to them. As mentioned in the previous section, Teeah’s awareness came about when she resumed her studies after stopping out for two years. Teeah indicated that

when I finally started back school, I spoke to … I had one conversation with an academic

adviser and she said, let me tell you straight up, nobody cares … she walked me through

and told me to take these workshops.

Teeah reported that the advisor wanted her to learn to take ownership of her life and learn how to be successful for her own sake. The idea of taking ownership may be read in different ways.

196

Owning or taking responsibility may be used to instill a sense of responsibility on the part of the student; an assumption that the student has a deficit in this area. It might also be read as an attempt at deflecting responsibility from the institution, leaving the burden for a successful outcome in the ambit of the student. Whatever the motive behind the advice, Teeah used the information to help her get back on track with her studies.

Donald reflected on his experience of negotiating university by contrasting his first-year and third-year experiences. He was very adamant that information regarding resources—where to access, how, and when—would have served him well in his early stages of university. He stated, “I never knew about those stuff until the end of second year. I know it’s on us to find those resources, but it’s so hard for us to manage all these … and learn other stuff.” Donald suggested that the lack of knowledge of available resources affected his transition through university up to his third year. He continued, “The transition was kind of hard going from first year to second and third. I feel like now that I know how to do certain stuff, my life will be a little easier.”

Anne’s concern was the lack of resources to help students develop professional careers beyond university. She believed that there is greater emphasis on pointing students in the direction of masters or doctoral degrees rather than providing students with guidance to move on to professional fields such as law and medicine. Anne made the assertion that

it’s not like there is anything put in place for pre-Law students or students who want to

study Law or anything like that, or even for political science to say you are guaranteed

something after graduating or some type of internship or something. There’s no support

like that out there. They don’t tell you, “pick this course because it will help you apply

for Law school or help you apply yourself to LSAT.” Nothing like that.

197

Some participants who had an interest in the medical profession shared similar concerns about the absence of support services to prepare them for their fields of interest. Given the underrepresentation of individuals of similar background in the medical field, they believed that university should provide conditions that enable their entry to the profession. Destiny was one participant who decided to explore possible access points to the medical profession. She was concerned that, when compared to the USA, there was a lack of resources to help Black students enter the field of medicine in Canada. She stated,

When I compare it to my friends’ experiences in the States, they have pre-Med programs

set in place for all of them; all the requirements spelled out to them and provided for

them right there. Here it’s kind of like you have to find your own…there is no pre-Med

program and because all our requirements are concentrated in one place, you miss certain

steps. You know you have a high ambition, but you don’t feel supported in that ambition.

Destiny’s focus was on achieving her ambition even as she challenged the university to be supportive of students’ career aspirations. James, on the other hand, shared that, in his experience, “there were professors, tutors, mentors who were available to help you in furthering your education.” However, he suggested that students have a role to play in that they

have to build the initiative to actually go out and be willing to learn. There’s only so

much a school can do, per se, because at the end of the day everyone is different. They

really cannot cater to the thousands they have here. So, when you have different … more

and more people coming in and there’s not a lot of facilities that can actually cater to

every single student, students have to go out…. If you lack initiative, it’s going to be

harder for you.

198

The point raised by James was that students had to take some responsibility by seeking opportunities and assistance; if not, the challenges would be even greater. Again, the burden of navigating the complexities of university is placed on the student, and they get to a point where they reproduce the discourse of ownership. But seeking help may be a challenge in and of itself.

Segree shared that she had sought help through the academic advising and office hour facilities; however, she highlighted two challenges that arose in the process. She stated,

The thing with me is that I really don’t know what questions to ask. That’s one problem I

have, like I’ll have a problem with a course and I’m not sure exactly what to ask to get

the help. So, I went to office hours and I asked what I think would help me, but it didn’t.

Segree shared as well that, “my TA was Chinese and could barely speak English so that just affected a lot of things.” In Segree’s account, she was aware that resources were available and sought out those resources. However, she had difficulty articulating what she needed and found the barrier of language differences between herself and her TA challenging to negotiate.

Other participants indicated that they had not found the information on available resources to be readily accessible until later in their programs. Many admitted that they lacked the courage to seek the help they knew they needed. Rosita’s view was that cultural background may deter some students from seeking help. She shared the following:

professors keep office hours and insist on making time or changing their schedules to

assist you. Jamaicans do not normally ask for help. I did not want to ask for help, but I

decided to go to my TA who helped me and extended the deadline without penalty when

I expressed that getting a good grade was important to me.

199

Rosita’s account reveals that learning “the right question to ask” or the specific resource needed makes it possible to access assistance. Some participants believed, however, that there were too many instances where students had to “fill in the blanks” for themselves.

The onus placed on students to learn how to locate the assistance they need is a part of the process of managing themselves and developing competence in university (Chickering &

Reisser, 1993). Donald admitted that seeking ways to overcome the challenges in university were

“partly the blame of students like me, and partly the blame of the university.” He blamed the university for not demonstrating an awareness that students come from different backgrounds and with varying levels of knowledge about university. He conceded that “it’s kind of hard for some people to break out of their shell and go on their own to ask for help.”

In Aaron’s view, “the university tries to help out in terms of giving academic advisers and stuff like that, but even then, they are just doing the job.” He suggested that the university’s services were obligatory, but “I don’t think they necessarily care about every individual student that comes here.”

Aaron’s understanding echoes the remark made to Teeah by the academic advisor that

“no one really cares. They may pretend to, but no one really cares.” As well, James expressed that “I feel like, at the university, they don’t factor in people’s lives to be honest.” James believed that the pressure that comes from the level of independence that is required of students in university often leads to mental stress that they are unable to handle. He believed that the pressure to separate their personal from their academic lives places students’ success at university in jeopardy—a matter to which universities need to be attentive. The participants’ accounts suggest that navigating university entails a combination of issues that they are expected

200

to “figure out” but there is a consciousness that many of these issues cannot be addressed without assistance from their institutions.

Challenges in “mind.”

The focus on “mind” is given significance in the accounts of four participants -- Segree,

Essie, Wayne and Teeah. Their accounts emphasize that their personal lives cannot be separated from their academic lives. They discuss the impact that moving to new spaces of living and learning and moving away from loved ones had on their state of mind, and recalled periods of isolation, anxiety, and homesickness in their time away from family and friends. The psychological stress that participants experienced was not a phenomenon that they had anticipated. Segree and Essie disclosed that they developed anxiety shortly after moving to

Ontario, and Teeah and Wayne experienced bouts of depression shortly after entering university.

As I mentioned in Chapter 6, transitions are difficult points in experiences of immigration and entry to university. It is conceivable therefore, that when both experiences happen within a short time frame, the impact on the individual could be an inability to cope with the new demands of the experiences.

Essie spoke about her experience of anxiety by stating, euphemistically, that, “my mind was not right.” She attributed her anxiety to homesickness. She shared the following:

This was my first year at university. I was very, very depressed just because I had been

uprooted from my comfort zone in Jamaica … having all my friends there. I think it

affected me during my first year because I ended up failing a couple of courses because

my mind just wasn’t right. I missed my parents. I missed my mother, my grandmother,

my brother who I lived with all the time.

201

Essie admitted that she resorted to taking “frequent trips back home” to Jamaica to help her cope; however, she knew that was unsustainable. She stated that “I had this need that if I see them I’ll feel better and it will get my mind right … it took me a while to adapt to the fact that I live here now.”

Wayne shared a similar scenario of needing family support to deal with the early days of university. Like Essie he took frequent trips back to Jamaica where he said, “I regain that strength to come back and deal with this plethora of things I have to deal with.” Wayne attributed his “periods of breakdown” to an absence of “belonging” in his family and coping with different issues. Wayne as well offered a view that “people believe that mental health is only about women and White people.” Wayne did not clarify the gendered and racial connections that he had made to the issue of mental health. It may be related to a perception that males do not experience “emotional issues.” However, his experience problematized that stereotype.

Teeah’s experiences between emigration and entry to university read as a series of traumatic events. She had left Jamaica after the trauma of losing a brother to violence, endured significant dislocations in high school, and at the stage where she felt that things were turning around in her life, she suffered a setback. She recounted that

In my first year coming here, I actually suffered from depression; the first two years of

my university life. When I started my first year, I lived on campus … it was all by

myself. I knew nobody here. Absolutely nobody. I was away from my parents. They were

a phone call away, but I was trying to do this, like university, right? There was nobody to

sit and eat lunch with … frosh week, you came; you partied with them but there were no

actual building connections with anybody.

202

The experiences were so vivid in Teeah’s memory that she made specific mention of the timing of the incident; two years after the family moved from Jamaica and at the outset of her university life. She considered these events to be stressful and attributed her mental breakdown to the experiences. She admitted that her absence for much of the high school period placed her in a position of uncertainty that high school offered any facility to prepare students to cope with the stress of university. She stated that she was “unsure that there was anything in high school that actually helps you to prepare for university.” By trying to navigate without assistance from anyone, Teeah revealed that the situation had escalated

to the point where I was admitted to hospital. I just, like I literally couldn’t take it

anymore. I felt like I was going crazy and they had me doped up on all these

medications…. I went unconscious, passed out, and they had to rush me to the hospital

and I was there for three days.

Teeah’s depression was deemed to have been caused by loneliness, and because of that diagnosis she was medicated and placed in a support group to help foster a sense of belonging. This arrangement through an “imposed” community did not bring the sense of fit that Teeah was anxious to experience. She relayed that it was through the Jamaican students’ association on campus that she finally met immigrants like herself, “who all moved here, trying to still feel a sense of home.” This statement is poignant, reflecting the very nature of the diasporic experience. In trying to retain a sense of the heritage country, collectives of people with shared backgrounds, nationalities and interests converge within the immigrant experience. These communities are important agents of identity formation and transformation, though some scholars theorize that they are only “imagined communities” (see for example, Anderson, 1982).

203

Different ways of learning and being in class.

Another strand in the discussion of challenges in negotiating university focused on different ways of learning and being in the classroom. Some participants spoke of the absence of culturally relevant information, in classes as a contradiction to the cultural diversity present on university campuses. Culturally relevant courses or material were those that related to their heritage culture, Black culture or Black experiences in general which were largely absent from the curriculum. Anne insisted that “not one of my courses has done anything remotely

Caribbean. We talk about [other] countries, but Caribbean people are here too, so why isn’t that included when we are talking contemporary politics. It’s not there.” Anne problematized what she believed to be teaching with little consideration for cultural differences. She explained how she negotiated the situation.

When the TA was asking questions about the reading or whatever, I put in things about

colonization … struggle … and I talked about Jamaica. I am going to put it in there

anyway …. I applied the theory to the cases …. I am always going to use the theory to

apply to my country and people.

By making the decision to bring visibility to her culture in her courses of study, Anne affirmed the importance of teaching with sensitivity to cultural differences. In an opposite scenario, Rosita, indicated that she observed efforts to include “other” cultural content in instruction and not just Euro-centric material. She had been able to identify courses in which she saw different cultures represented, even courses related to “Jamaican Creole.” She maintained that she felt a greater sense of belonging to the institution because of the inclusion of artifacts from her cultural background. From these accounts it is evident that experiences of inclusion and omission were both important considerations in the construction of identity.

204

Leah’s negotiation of a “new way of being” was in relation to engaging in class discussions. She shared the following: “I am a very shy person, very, very shy, so I don’t go to see my professors if I’m not understanding something. I prefer to look it up myself. Yeah. I don’t even ask questions in class.” She reflected on how professors would encourage students to talk by reminding them about participation marks. She said, “I feel like I’m being forced when that happens. What if you are really shy and you’re just nervous because there are so many people in the class.” Leah struggled with her shyness and admitted that it affected her ability to participate in class; however, she believed that individual styles of learning should be accommodated; suggesting that she would be more comfortable talking to a professor “one on one.” What Leah experienced is what Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger and Tarule (1986) found in their research on women’s ways of knowing, that classrooms of higher education can be disempowering places for women and minority groups as they try to overcome feelings of inadequacy (Goldberger, 1996;

Hayes, 2001; Tisdell, 1995).

Accommodation of students’ differences was a focal point in Wayne’s account as well.

He shared his recollections of signing up for his program of study and having the feeling that it was a “test of his ability or resilience.” Wayne expressed that,

[W]hen you choose certain classes, it is like it is geared toward certain people, but when

you prove that you can receive an A or A+ in the class you defy the odds. I like defying

odds and going against what they say I cannot do. I prove people wrong. That is me.

Wayne’s defiance was a reaction to from a constant feeling of being stigmatized. He made mention of “the way they [administrators] look at and react to you” as an indicative of “a playing out of new and old racism, where you’d not say the word ‘race’ but it would lead back to the same thing.” Wayne admitted that it was what he was learning in university that allowed him to

205

assess the situations he confronted in the manner he had. He stated, “I do these courses, and I read and take in different contexts, and I see it everywhere I go. Everywhere you go it’s the same. It’s ubiquitous.”

Lost in “translation.”

In addition to learning new ways of being in the learning environment, some participants had to “relearn” some course content that they had covered in other programs of study. Three of the 14 participants had transitioned to their current programs from other universities outside of

Canada. James transitioned to university in Canada after completing two years in the USA, and

Simon and Anne had each completed a year of university in Jamaica.

The major focus of this section is how these participants negotiated the transition and what they lost and gained in the transition process. Both Simon and Anne indicated that they suffered loss of credits for some courses that were deemed to be irrelevant to the Canadian context of their studies; however, James did not face any such challenge. Simon and Anne were unable to transfer credits for some courses that they deemed to be comparable to course content covered in Jamaica. In fact, Anne believed that much of her first year was a repeat of content that she had previously learned in Jamaica. She insisted,

I already knew. I sat in the class, and I was like, I’ve done this before [laughs]. They say

it’s a Caribbean versus a Canadian thing. It’s not much different. You pull back my

credits for a course that I already did, but I got an ‘A’ because I have done it before. You

took away the credit because you said I learned the Caribbean way. Not the

international/Canadian way.

206

Although the university applied credits for some courses, Anne and Simon believed that time and financial resources were lost doing courses that reflected content they had already covered.

Although Anne attested to the gains she accrued by obtaining high marks and later, winning an award, she suggested a deeper look at the system of credit transfer system was warranted. There was an assumption that some “knowledges” took precedence over others. She stated, “people who have never experienced Third World life, they’re like, ‘you have a Third World education.’”

The misconception about the knowledge and capabilities of students from so-called Third World countries is what made the transfer of credits issue so contentious for the affected participants.

However, as Anne expressed, the downgrading of her course credit prompted her to work hard to prove that she could do as well as any other student, and she was confident after winning course awards that, “they’re going to see my face again, so they better get used to it.”

The broad theme in the foregoing section considered being in university through the lens of the possibilities and challenges that participants experienced as they negotiated the various aspects of university life. The next section examines negotiations of cultural identities in different aspects of the university experience.

Constructing a “Cultural” Identity

This section examines accounts of how being in university influences what students might become, providing different “spaces” in which participants construct identities.

Universities represent spaces of opportunity, challenge, resistance, knowledge, and inquiry, among other possibilities. Universities are routes to be traversed in the journey of finding one’s identity. As students negotiate, they are confronted with different possibilities and choices about their lives. In this section we hear how participants construct their cultural identities through the examples they offer about their experiences in relation to other Jamaican immigrants, to students

207

from various cultural backgrounds, and to their Canadian counterparts. Their discussions did not simply illuminate their perceptions of being different from mainstream and other cultures, but also highlighted the heterogeneity among Jamaicans as they navigated through university. Much of the discussion about their university experiences addressed their interactions with fellow

Jamaicans or Caribbean immigrants through the activities of clubs and societies. Through these discussions we see evidence of strength in community through similarities and differences; how differences can divide those who identify with similar national background, intergenerational conflicts through language, how they live with being different from mainstream and other cultures, and how they process their differences to construct their cultural identities.

Participants expressed the feeling that their connections to other Jamaican and Caribbean immigrants gave them a sense of community in university. Through cultural groups like

Jamaican/Caribbean clubs and/or student associations, participants emphasized not only the unity and sense of home that they experienced, but also the sense of safety that was fostered. Tatum

(1997) in research on identity formation among Black students in school settings found that being among people of similar racial or ethnic background provided a sense of safety from the

“perceived threat of racism” (p.62).

Together (similarities) in difference.

Participants generally framed the concept of community through their involvement in student clubs or associations -- spaces where they could enjoy the unifying experience that comes from being with those “like” themselves and away from those who were unlike them.

Aaron shared his conception of the Jamaican and Black Students’ Associations:

208

It’s just a place where Black people can come in and feel comfortable without being

invaded by outsiders …. We started to talk to people over here [Jamaican Students’

Association] and everyone became pretty good friends …. I found myself being very

happy to be around people that understood me; people that I understood in general. I felt

a bit just alienated talking to people out there, and I had actually been worried about it

when I just started [university] because the people I met weren’t people like me.

Implicit in Aaron’s statement is that his comfort level hinges on being understood and understanding people who are like him. He was not opposed to talking to the students who were outsiders to his culture. However, he was not convinced that their cultural divide could be easily bridged outside of similarities in cultural experiences.

The sentiment that Aaron expressed was echoed by others in the study. For example,

Donald shared that he gravitated to people who were of Caribbean background from the outset.

He stated that

I don’t really speak to too many people that’s in my field [of study]. I speak to people

who have the same background as me. I will speak to Caribbean [people]. It’s not

necessarily that I have a preference to kind of speak to other people, but it’s that I find

that I gravitate more towards people with Caribbean background. So, I stick to that group .

“Sticking with my group” was a common refrain amongst the participants. Anne revealed that it was through identifying and associating with students of similar background that her involvement in university was strengthened. She stated:

The first thing I wanted to do when I came to university was find the Jamaicans,

basically, but it was summer, so I had to stick with different people. I didn’t even have

209

friends like that because I’d rather stay to myself because I didn’t know how to socialize

with those other groups of people. But when school started in the Fall, the first thing I did

was seek out the Caribbean people, and that’s when I became entrenched in [university]. I

got through it and knew how to “ride the waves” because of the people, the Jamaicans or

the Caribbean people around me.

Anne went on further to suggest that

I wouldn’t have been able to be me if I wasn’t around my people. They made it easier for

me. They taught me to do this; this is a good thing to get involved in; choose these types

of courses. These people around me were basically my guideline in having a better

experience here [in university].

Anne expressed how the support of people who shared similar experiences augmented the experiences of university. Like Anne, Leah believed that her interactions with the Jamaican community on campus allowed her to be her true self. Leah explained that in the collective environment she had

the chance to be around people who understand me; people who grew up in the same

country that I grew up in; some attended the same high school; and so, they have so much

to relate to, and it’s really impacting my life. Coming to Canada four years ago, I never

knew that I would be in this space. I didn’t know there would be a Jamaican group, and it

made me so happy because when I just want to relax, chilling, and speak Patois; just to be

myself.

Leah conceptualized the “space” of the Jamaican group as a place of relaxation; a place where her speech could be understood; and a place where her “true self” could be revealed. This idea

210

resonated with Essie, who indicated that “you can just come here and talk Patois, and the vibe is there.” By “vibe” she was referring to the sense of being in community, which she expressed as,

just coming to something of familiarity; like we’ll be in here and we’ll talk about stuff

that we used to do in high school – “Oh do you remember this?” It brings a sense of

home and familiarity …. This was a resource in itself that helped me, to be completely

honest. Just coming here and not having to pretend to assimilate yourself into Canadian

culture for people to take you seriously.

Her account and those of others that refer to “back home” show how memory plays a role in constructing cultural identity; however, it is also through interacting with those of a shared background that the memories have meaning. In addition, Essie credited the “social space” of the students’ association for providing the therapy that she needed after her bout with depression.

She remarked that interacting with “her community” in university “helps me a lot in coping, to get better.”

For Teeah, finding out that there was a Jamaican community on campus gave her assurance and support. She described the experience of being a part of the group:

Jamaican people, all with the same mission; all moved here trying to still feel a sense of

home here. So, I joined, and that’s when I started to feel, not that I don’t miss home

anymore, but I started to feel like I belonged somewhere. Like now I have friends. And

that gave me hope for second year because I was ready to give up. I was financially

stressed; physically going through a lot of stuff; emotionally and everything. I really

didn’t have that sense of community until I came here [students’ association].

211

Teeah aligned herself with the immigration experience of her fellow Jamaican students, and held the assumption that students of similar background would seek out a collective environment.

From Wayne’s perspective, the sense of “community” that he experienced in interaction with the

Jamaican student association helped build his social and cultural capital. He shared the view that collectives help to build individuals and said, “we all need people in our lives, but it’s the kind of people we put in our lives and how we position them to help us while we are helping them on the journey.” He affirmed that the Jamaican collective played “a major role in how I interact … and has helped to shape and influence.”

These expressions by the participants indicated that they place significant emphasis on unity and collectivism in their Jamaican or Caribbean identity. Of course, some believed this is fictive. However, from the accounts of the participants, there was a genuine belief that being together as a community of Jamaicans living abroad gives coherence to their individual identities. They discussed “being in community” as being “home” because it was a space of belonging; a resource for navigating university where they otherwise felt the support was lacking to deal with the challenges of university; it provided friendship; it was therapeutic; and it represented a safety net. Oneise summed it up by stating that “just having that Jamaican community on campus really helped me somewhat with being complete. Having a place to stay, to interact with people and make friends. That helped me a lot, mentally as well. Just keeping me sane.”

The value placed on community may be one of the most important features in how participants understood their cultural identity. bell hooks (1989) refers to such a community as

“homeplace” where Black people can “return for renewal and self-recovery, where we can heal our wounds and become whole” (p.42). As evident in the participants’ accounts, this idea is not

212

without foundation. The significance was evident in the universities that students chose to attend so that they could be around people of similar background. Some communities may be

“imagined,” but in the way in which participants make sense of their lives in Canada, it is an important part of their lived realities. As I discussed in the previous section, the presence of students in universities in Ontario and living in Ontario itself provide a sense of community, imagined or otherwise. Essie made this quite clear when she stated,

the mass population of Jamaican and Caribbean populations are here [in the GTA] so I

didn’t really feel a sense of isolation. If I had moved from Jamaica to another part of

Canada, I’d feel more isolation there. It makes it easier to assimilate into the culture

without feeling like you’re losing anything.

Essie’s statement signals two things about how she associates space with identity: spaces where there are more Jamaicans (diaspora) feel less isolated, and spaces where more Jamaicans live provide greater motivation to become a part of the receiving nation. The fact that students can see aspects of Jamaican culture grafted into the everyday of living in their new geographical space allows them a certain level of comfort in adapting to life here; despite the exclusion they face in some situations.

Recognizing differences “within” unity.

When the participants talked about themselves and their experiences in university, they spoke mainly from platforms of comparison using “us and them,” and “here and back home” binaries. These comparisons served to strengthen their collective identification as Jamaicans.

There is evidence of a collective consciousness in their values about education and upward social mobility; as well, they used these values as the springboards to fulfill their aspirations. This

213

underscores the view that when people share a culture, “they interpret the world in roughly the same way” (Hall, 1997b, p.2). Participants gravitated to other Jamaicans because they believed that, despite the differences that emerged at times in their interactions, they had shared understandings. Aaron attested to this reality when he said, “I don’t know, but it’s just good to be here and have people that understand what it’s like back home. We joke about being from ‘bush’

(rural) versus town.” What is embedded in Aaron’s statement is a recognition that the members of the collective come from different spaces in Jamaica. It was a “difference” that was understood in the context of what it meant to them back in Jamaica. However, this would not be understood by persons who were unfamiliar with that cultural context.

There were circumstances, however, when participants moved away from collective involvements and asserted positions of individuality. In these instances, participants chose to bring visibility to themselves either to disrupt the essentialist stereotypes of Jamaicans or to focus on an area where their interests differed from those of the collective. Four accounts of divergence in the relationships with the collective are highlighted in the examples of Simon,

Rosita, Destiny, and Oneise. Simon distinguished himself from what he described as “the usual

Jamaican” by suggesting that he engaged in activities that were not typical of Jamaicans including his mode of dress. In his account he stated, “you wouldn’t normally know of a

Jamaican who … dresses the way I do.” Simon, distanced himself in practice and patterns of clothing from what he associated with the collective of Jamaicans on campus. By suggesting that his values did not align with theirs it disrupts a notion that shared values means all values are shared by all members of the same culture.

Destiny indicated that she mainly stuck with people from Jamaican or Caribbean backgrounds and was supportive of the collective of Jamaicans on campus. For her, that was how

214

she showed her support for “home.” However, she believed that the issues with which the

Jamaican student association were concerned did not align with hers. She felt their focus was more superficial where she was “concerned with the complexities of being a Jamaican who migrated to Canada, the Jamaican economy, and, social issues.”

Oneise admitted to separating herself from the collective at times when she felt that her personal aspirations were in jeopardy. She stated,

second year when I just found out about the Jamaican population on campus, I was

associating with them more because it made me feel like home, but further along the line

I realized that I cannot spend too much time in the social setting; my grades were starting

to slip, so that’s when I somewhat strayed from it.

Oneise felt that it was necessary to take control of how she engaged with the collective to ensure that her personal aspirations would not be compromised. Anne took a different approach in that she encouraged the collective to work towards and showcase examples of excellence among the collective. She spoke about the importance of accentuating the positive achievements of the community in the context of the perception among some of her counterparts that “oh, you have a

Third World education.” She defied that representation through her insistence that the “Jamaican education system is not Third World but first class.” Generally, the participants wanted to highlight that there was more to them than perceived by the dominant culture.

Intergenerational language differences.

This section focuses specifically on the issue of language in cultural identity construction from oppositional viewpoints expressed by the participants. The language issue in question is referred to as “Toronto slang” which, according to James,

215

is just basically some of the things people say … living in the GTA, there are a lot of

Jamaican parents who come here, and they have their kids and they use certain words;

they [the children] mix it up with their Canadian language or their English…. They try to

make it into something else or change the meaning and alter it.

My understanding of James’ description of “Toronto slang” places it as a form of syncretism, as it blends some words from Jamaican Patois or Creole usage with Canadian English. The participants who talked about “Toronto slang” represented differing positions in the debate.

Some were opposed to its use because they viewed it as “corrupting” the Jamaican Patois by second and later generations of Jamaican immigrants who had little knowledge of Jamaican culture. In this sense, it was opposed due to intergenerational conflicts. Other participants had more positive reactions to the use of “Toronto Slang” indicating that it demonstrated the strong influence of Jamaicans on popular culture in Toronto.

Simon was one of the participants who attributed the development of the “Toronto slang” to the strong Jamaican influence. He described it as a “mixed kind of North American Jamaican language spoken by the young people” in Toronto. Although he acknowledged the influence of the Jamaican Patois on a new language formation, he made it clear that, “it annoys me very, very much,” indicating that he was bothered by its use. He provided specific examples of the usage,

“instead of saying ‘men’ they would say ‘mans’ and they take what we say [in Jamaican Patois],

‘man dem’ and somehow turn it into saying ‘mans.’”

Whereas Simon was annoyed with the use of the Toronto slang, James was offended by the manner in which it “stereotyped Jamaicans.” He justified his view by stating that, altering the

Jamaican Patois as done through the use of Toronto slang means that,

216

it doesn’t stay authentic and … if they come to Jamaica, some of the things that you say,

you’d never hear a Jamaican say it …. You’re leaving a stereotypical prejudicial way of

looking at how Jamaicans do things and how they act.

In James’ account, he situated knowing and understanding the Jamaican language with those who reside in or are from Jamaica. He did not believe that those who have never been there could appreciate the language in its entirety. James was in fact stating that language is contextual; therefore, to take the words out of the original context altered the original meanings of the words. He repeated and elaborated his claim that,

if they go to Jamaica you realize that this is not actually our culture. It’s a culture that has

been broken and pieced together by different … like second and third, or even fourth and

fifth generations of Jamaicans.

Aaron made a similar statement about Jamaican immigrant students who were generations removed. He expressed the view that

they put on this façade of having been from there, and they behave extra … I don’t know

if they think that’s what Jamaicans are, but the thing is a lot of people from the outside

who don’t know Jamaicans believe that’s how we all are, and I don’t like that …

especially when I hear for myself that the Patois they’re using is forced. You’re not from

there; you never were grown there. So, don’t behave this way to project that specific

person when that’s not you, and that’s not us.

James and Aaron both had a belief in an “authentic” Jamaican culture. They held the belief without realizing that the very claim to an authentic Jamaican culture is predicated on mixing; and that the evolution of what has become known as Jamaican Creole was historically produced

217

through the mixing of the languages of Africans and their slave masters during the period of slavery.

The participants on the other side of the debate about “Toronto slang” celebrated its usage. Segree and Essie both felt that Toronto slang reflected positively on Jamaican culture.

Segree stated that,

everyone here likes Jamaican culture. If you realize, a lot of the things they say, are stuff

that we would say back in Jamaica. It’s something they get excited over. Here, I think

from the time you are born, … they will speak it with you.

Segree was alluding to the Toronto slang when she said, “the things they say” are what “we would say in Jamaica.” She had not noted any difference between the Jamaican Creole spoken in

Toronto and what was spoken in Jamaica. In contrast to Segree, Essie recognized some differences, and believed, as James did, that the meanings of some expressions were altered.

Nevertheless, she did not believe that altering the meanings downgraded Jamaican Creole.

Essie, like the other participants who spoke about “Toronto slang,” believed that it derived from Jamaican Creole. She was opposed to views that generalized it to Caribbean culture. She argued that “it is Jamaican-based because a lot of the words are words that we say back home.” She shared an example, “they say here ‘a lie’ but ‘a lie’ means like to validate a statement, whereas back in Jamaica you literally mean, ‘you’re lying’. So, you’d say something like, I’m going to the party tonight. A lie.” She expressed being a “prideful Jamaican” because

“my entire culture has influenced a whole language/slang in a big, metropolitan city as Toronto.

So, I carry my pride of Jamaica everywhere I go.” She attributes, what she coined as the

“slanguage,” to earlier Jamaicans in Toronto who “had to uproot themselves and bring their

218

whole culture here.” Her perception of how the language came into being varies slightly from

James’ view. However, what both accounts indicated was that cultural exchange has the potential of yielding something new or different.

Living with and through difference.

In this section, participants discuss how they “live with difference” - that is, how they operate/behave when confronted with difference - and how they “live through difference” as a survival tactic. James problematizes living with difference especially as a student leader who was required to be objective in his dealings with others. He stated,

It’s challenging because at the same time you still have your opinion, but then you have

to remain neutral and you have to cater to your community. So, the fact that you’re

battling to be neutral in every sense and then you still have your opinion, and you’re

trying to educate people about your culture and your society and the way they think, you

are conflicting four things.

He explained that being “neutral” conflicts with having an individual opinion and the opinions of the dominant culture conflict with the nation of heritage culture. He believed that addressing these four potential conflicts would require sensitivity so as not to “insult people’s opinions but also enhancing the educational aspect to move from set opinions they originally had.”

Donald could relate to the necessity of changed opinions when one confronts difference in a new society. He suggested that where a same-sex relationship would draw attention or, as he expressed it, “a big hoopla” in his heritage country, it was commonplace in Ontario. He said that

“learning about different aspects of the world … changes your thinking … so that you see things in a different light.”

219

Aaron admitted to struggling to reconcile the differences between himself and Canadians.

In the category of Canadians, he included “third generation Jamaicans” with whom he had relational problems. Aaron specified his issue with third generation Jamaicans as being behavioral in that their conduct misrepresented what it meant to be Jamaican. His unwillingness to accommodate the differences between himself and this group resulted in avoiding relationships with them. He stated, “as an individual, I try to avoid people like that, and then make sure that people that know me, know that’s not how I am.”

Like Aaron, Rosita and Destiny expressed the difficulties that may exist in interaction with others; and this was not limited to the mainstream Canadians. They seemed to assume that relations would be easier in contexts where people share things in common. For example, the assumption that working or attending institutions with people of similar backgrounds makes it easier to find their fit in those situations. However, some participants admitted that some interactions with people whom they considered to be “like them” were also marked by negativity. Rosita shared an account of an experience where a co-worker of similar racial background suggested that she preferred being the sole Black person to work with in the organization. Rosita expressed both surprise and disappointment at this admission. She stated, “I find it difficult to understand because we’re in the same boat; why’re you trying to put me down?

We’re supposed to be trying to help each other go up the ladder.” Her disappointment was premised on the binary notion of ‘us’ (Blacks) versus ‘them’ (anyone else). The statement by

Rosita’s co-worker is evidence that she did not view shared racial identity as an automatic symbol of unity. Rosita’s perception was that Black people working in a similar environment meant they should support each other, believing that shared race relations would be a unifying experience without accounting for other issues that may affect relationships.

220

Destiny expressed intuitively that “people are not the same. We have had different experiences. This person right beside me may be off the boat [an immigrant] as me, and we are still not the same.” In this statement Destiny revealed an understanding that individuals may share similar experiences; however, the meaning of those experiences may be different.

Wayne’s response to living with difference embraces the possibilities that may accompany understanding of other worldviews. Wayne recognized that being around “a plethora of other cultures means understanding people and their culture. So, I understand that we have differences and we do things differently. It’s a matter of rethinking and doing self-introspection to understand cultures and respecting cultures.”

Becoming resistant.

Some participants shared their resistance to acculturate to Canadian values and practices; suggesting that adopting any behavior observed in Canadians would affect their authenticity as

Jamaicans. Aaron affirmed his Jamaican identity in resistance to “becoming Canadian.” He insisted,

I will continue to present myself as Jamaican. I have nothing against Canadians or

Canada, but I feel like … yes, I’m trying to get Canadian citizenship, so I can cross the

border without having to pull a visa out. Otherwise though, I will always say I am

Jamaican. People ask me, ‘how your accent has not started to leave you yet?’ That’s not

going to happen. It’s just not going to happen. As bad as stuff might be back home, and

as far as people misrepresenting us, I will always be proud of where I am from; and I feel

like in a place like Canada where there are so many cultures just mixed together, it’s

important that someone like me, that is from somewhere other than Canada, maintains

221

what was instilled in me when I was back there, and not, as much as I want to fit in, not

be lost in Canadian culture. Not become, I suppose, vague.

Aaron’s account raises important concerns about the immigrant in a multicultural country; and a belief in a stable identity. Implicit in his account is resistance to cultural assimilation. He believed that cultural maintenance was a necessary means of surviving the new society in which he lived. Aaron as well believed in the possibility of fixed aspects of one’s identity, as well as continuity of his identity in a “pure” state. This pureness and continuity were important in the way he represented the Jamaican identity that was being misrepresented in the receiving society.

One aspect of Aaron’s account that was alluded to by other participants was that of the heritage language. Simon, like Aaron, was adamant that his language had not and will not change. The attachment to the language of the heritage country is symbolic of continuity. By resisting changes in their speech, the participants believed that they remained true to their cultural identity. They did not view changes in speech as a positive reflection of cultural mixing

(Rushdie, 1992).

Another aspect addressed in Aaron’s account that resonated with other participants was a maintenance of culture and cultural values. Rosita was of a similar mindset that,

coming here helped me to embrace my culture even more because you have all these

cultures around you, and if you are not secured in your culture, you’re going to get lost.

You’re going to try to be like another culture that you’re not. You’re going to try fitting

into a group that you cannot be part of.

222

In a similar manner Anne shared that, “I’ve become more Jamaican since I’ve been here, honestly.” This statement supports the suggestion by Hall that cultural identity construction is foregrounded in experiences of “awayness.” She continued,

I can’t think of anything that has changed about my personality or how I perceive myself,

it has just become enforced. Certain music that I wouldn’t have listened to back home,

because it is … whatever, but here I feel like I have to hold onto that and try to listen to

Jamaican music more; try to read more on Jamaica happenings, because I don’t want to

lose that. So, I interact with my friends back home a lot, just to hold on to …try my

hardest not to lose that …and become too Canadian.

Anne contradicted her own perception that she had not changed. However, in the process, she revealed how she “enforced” her Jamaican-ness in her state of “awayness.” She expressed a real fear of “losing her cultural identity” to the “different type of mentality” that she observed in her

Canadian counterparts who had no connection to Jamaica. Like Aaron, she expressed an appreciation for some things that she had gained from living in Ontario as a resident; however, did not want to lose her cultural identity. Having defined her cultural identity as Jamaican, Anne was in fact suggesting that she did not want to lose that attachment to that identity.

Essie, Leah, and Teeah did not believe, as Anne did, that there was danger of losing their

Jamaican identity. They felt a strong attachment to being identified as Jamaican and with positive associations of Jamaicans. But they were open to the changes that occur when cultural mixture happens and were very proud of the influence that they believed the Jamaican culture had in Ontario. They believed, and this is supported by literature on cultural hybridity, that the mixing of cultures will impact their own conception of their cultural identity.

223

James, Donald, and Wayne agreed that cultural identity inevitably changes based on knowledge acquisition. As a person learns more and is exposed to different cultures and ways of life, one’s position changes even as one holds to the cultural values of one’s upbringing. All three of them expressed strong social affiliations with other Jamaicans in university and identified as Jamaican, in Donald’s word, “one hundred percent.” But Donald stated that,

I understand Canadian culture and I can say that I’m influenced by it, and that it kind of

molded me as a person now because I can’t say I am the same person I was when I was

living in Jamaica. I have broadened my horizon to different kinds of stuff.

James also identified as Jamaican; he framed his cultural identity as Black. He said,

being born in Jamaica my culture might be different from other Black folks but

predominantly I say Black. When you talk about where you’re from as a people: your

make up, your level of education, certain things that you have to be in life, your

aspirations; for me that’s just being Black. I am not going to limit myself to being

Jamaican when it comes to the grand scale of uplifting Black folks.

James was making the point that culturally he aligned with his Jamaican upbringing but with respect to issues of oppression, he aligned with Black folks in general. In one sense, he was suggesting that an alignment with his heritage country does not sufficiently elucidate the struggles and oppressions of being Black. By aligning with the struggles of Black folks, his presence in university was meant to signify the possibility of upliftment; therefore, as he uplifted himself, he uplifted Blacks in general. James also demonstrated through his account that cultural identities are unfixed and are complexly defined, even in the context of national identity. He shared that

224

at the end of the day you have to realize that I am Black regardless of where I am from.

So, I tackle that on a daily basis. It depends on who wants to know. So, if it’s a White

person then I’m Black, but if it’s a Black person, I’m Jamaican.

What James’ account reveals is that identity is constructed based on who you are interacting with at the point in time. To mainstream Canadians his identity construction was framed as a

Black/White binary; while to other Caribbean origin individuals he used a national distinction.

James’ account conveys the idea of positional identities as discussed by Holland, Lachicotte,

Skinner, and Cain (1998), who describe the concept as the “day to day and on the ground relations of power, deference and entitlement, social affiliation and distance – with the social- interactional, social-relational structures of the lived world” (p.127). James positioned himself as

Black or Jamaican based on who he was interacting with in the moment. But James made another significant point by his statement. When he stated that if he is talking to a Black person he identified as Jamaican, he was reiterating that Black is not a homogenous category. In the same way that there is heterogeneity in a Black identity, there are profound differences among persons of shared nationality.

Neesa’s account captured some aspects of Wayne’s, Donald’s and James’ views on cultural identity. She stated definitively that she frames her cultural identity as Jamaican, and

“that would be all there is to it.” However, in explaining her stance she incorporated her racial identity to position herself as “proud of being Black” where some “don’t want to be seen as

Black.” Her interpretation of the actions of Blacks who try to “bleach” their skins and disguise their blackness is that they believe “the whiter you are is the easier it is to be successful.” She, indicated however, that she understood the struggle that comes from being different, especially when that difference is viewed in a deficit manner. Based on this understanding, she felt more

225

open to accepting people and the way they think, because she said, she has been “an outsider among outsiders.”

Living through difference.

Other participants positioned their cultural identity by highlighting multiple dimensions.

Oneise and Destiny focused on national, racial, and gendered aspects of their identities, but gave salience to their Jamaican identity. Both Onesie and Destiny, like James, stated at the outset that they framed their cultural identity as Jamaican. Destiny based her construction of identity on her positionality on issues of access and power. She stated that “having a title like Jamaican” had to do with who has access to what resources.” By making this statement, Destiny problematized relations of power in the broader society, not just in university. She also addressed the racial element by stating that “being Black or a Black girl” was just another label, “so whatever titles there are, I hope for people to see me as an individual, a person, and then she how she is

Jamaican, she is Black but that is not all she is.” She believed that the opportunity to show that she is more, comes first through educating herself about what her cultural identity really means in the Canadian context and then educating others.

Oneise highlighted the ambivalence that she sometimes experienced as she realized that the types of music and dances that she loved sometimes “signified” her as a “bad Jamaican woman.” She did not want to be ostracized by her Canadian peers in the sorority; however, she felt that it was important that they recognized her dance, not as provocative, but as a reflection of her culture. She stated,

I’ve been in situations where we’re having fun and everything, and other clubs looking at

us like, ‘what are they doing? Why are they dancing like that?’ And I have felt kind of

226

awkward…. Even one time a sorority sister was telling me about a video that she likes

but hates the way the girls dance. I wasn’t really offended, but I took the opportunity to

say, you cannot really say that because it is our culture. There is nothing wrong with it

where we come from.

Oneise understood that not everyone would appreciate another person’s culture. She used the opportunity to educate about her culture, while consciously shifting the gaze from the style of dancing to her professional aspiration. As she shared, “coming up here when they talk about

Black female there is this stereotype to it; not that you’re not smart, but you are bad.” Oneise positioned herself in the statement which follows to deflect the criticism, “I am Jamaican, and I am in the Bio-medical science program” which, she said, “kind of throws them off. It’s not like I am like that stereotype. It’s like the total opposite of that.” This example of “living through difference” by Oneise is a “third space” (Bhabha, 1994) where she re-articulated an understanding of Jamaican culture. She demonstrated, as well, that she simultaneously negotiates different aspects of her identity: Black, female, Jamaican, university student. She was not a single entity nor was she like every other female Jamaican.

By raising the issue of gender, Oneise shone the spotlight on differences, not just along a male/female binary but to highlight differences within groups as well. Oneise distinguished herself from a negative perception of Jamaican females and by positioning herself as a composite of different identities--gender, race, and intellect. She contested the notion of a single reality for females, disrupting the idea of an essential Jamaican woman experience.

Many experiences may be common to Jamaican immigrant students but there are other identifications that complicate the experiences of cultural identity construction. It is in the vein of intersecting identities or multiple identifications, that Hall spoke of cultural identity as “points

227

of suture” to suggest that we are always adding or taking away something as the course of history unfolds. Hall was suggesting that social identifications such as race, gender, or class are unfixed categories and therefore change according to the contexts in which they operate. Hall compelled us to see the fluidity in the way we conceive of an identity. This is what the idea of becoming means. This is as well why Hall submitted that it is “not who we are or where we are from SO MUCH ( emphasis mine ) as what we have become…” (p.4). That is, we must embrace the heterogeneity as a necessary and deliberate act of living with and through, not despite difference (S. Hall, 1993, p. 235). This is the only way that we can understand the places from which we speak.

When I say I’m Jamaican--defining a national cultural identity.

This section links back to the previous section in examining the definitions of Jamaican identity in the cultural constructions of identity by the participants. The previous section focused on the resistance to becoming Canadian, participants’ affirmation of Jamaican and Black identities, and situations of ambivalence in constructing a cultural identity. Within the accounts of the participants there is evidence of the complexity that accompanied their constructions of cultural identity. Among the ways in which they defined their Jamaican identity, participants spoke about cultural practices; symbols of food, flag, and fun (music, sports and dance/festivities, and other celebrations); attitudes; and language which is perhaps the most definitive feature of a Jamaican identity.

Some participants articulated an awareness of the contradictions that accompany a construction of Jamaican identity. Aaron spoke about how individuals in the students’ association would tease each other - “who come from bush versus who come from town”; who

228

occupied lower versus upper classes; and who was “speaky spokey” versus who used the vernacular.

Although some understood the fluidity and uncertainties around the concept of a cultural identity, others offered more fixed conceptualizations based on “who we naturally are.”

Examples of the complex, fluid nature of their cultural identity constructions were articulated in various ways in their accounts.

Some combined aspects of personality, childhood, experiences, family and geography to suggest that there are multiple factors to consider in defining a Jamaican identity. For example,

Essie stated that her experience with the culture and understanding “how mediums of music, sports, and art help us to channel our suppressions and oppressions.”

Some participants focused on the time and space dimension of a Jamaican identity; with one suggesting that, “it is not just to live there [Jamaica] but to migrate and come here… [while realizing that] who I was in Jamaica plays no role here.” Other participants posit another angle; that is, that the “real learning” about Jamaica and being Jamaican happens in “awayness” from the geographical boundaries.

Simon summed it up aptly: there is no single coherent way in which one can consider what being Jamaican means because in that sense “there would be a lot of people who don’t fit that description and you wouldn’t call them real Jamaicans even though they were born there and are in fact real Jamaicans.” In this vein, he refused to reduce his cultural identity to a single construction of what it means to be Jamaican.

229

New ways of thinking about cultural identity--becoming.

Identification matters to legitimizing selves, but even more empowering is the effort that the participants make to become the people they want to be, not just professionally but personally. When participants spoke of themselves in the post-migration encounters as being

Jamaican, being Black, and being a woman, they focused mainly on the negative representations in these intersectional identities. As they moved through university there was evidence of a change in how they constructed their identities. The stereotypes had not changed but how they handled the negative representations changed. They focused on being Jamaicans who were cultural agents within university and in their respective home communities in the GTA and

Jamaica. They positioned themselves against other generations of Jamaican immigrants who perpetuated negative images of Jamaicans. They re-invented the collective space of clubs and affiliations to include other interests that were not previously accommodated. Some acknowledged the benefits of a Canadian identity, such as Oneise who spoke of it as “having a super power.”

Several participants -- for example Destiny, Neesa, and James -- spoke of the collaborations they developed with faculty and other administrators to get a program going for newly immigrated students interested in entering the medical field. Some forged alliances with other Caribbean or Jamaican clubs across institutions in Ontario or the GTA, and others reached beyond the boundaries of Canada to assist their native country and help improve the state of education for disadvantaged youth in Jamaica. Aaron, Wayne, and several other participants took part in initiatives to give back to their heritage country. As Wayne shared, “if you’re here and you want to make your life better…look back at how you were cultured.” Wayne’s admonition to

“look back” is consistent with Hall’s (1995) assertion that attention to the past should be less

230

about the “rediscovery of roots” and rather in what “these roots as cultural resources” (p.12) help individuals to produce in the future. Wayne realized that being a recent immigrant student in

Canada would require strategizing – creating ‘a self’ he described as, “my brand, how I see myself and where I want to be and how I want to get there.”

Participants reproduced and rewrote their narratives by offering up their own suggestions on how the university may use students as resources to help fill gaps where there is limited staff.

One idea was to use the spaces of clubs and associations as vehicles of information for newcomers as they transition through university and to disseminate information that will assist students in making a success of university. The clubs/associations were happy to play an informal role in efforts which would serve as opportunities to enact their cultures (Mahalingam

& Rabelo, 2013). However, they argued that universities need to be more mindful to the nature of the lived realities of recent immigrant students rather than essentialize the experiences of students, particularly as domestic and international. They expressed that, by reducing them to these categories, their needs are often overlooked, or they remain unaccounted for in the grander scheme of things.

This chapter revealed the views of participants on their cultural identities. It provided evidence of the myriad ways in which they considered themselves and the experiences that they had as recent immigrant students from Jamaica. There was some evidence of belief in a stable identity or a desire to “stabilize” their identities for the sake of authenticity. However, they were keenly aware of the differences that comprise their experiences. The unifying historical experience for the Jamaican student participants is the reality of struggle and hardship but the experiences are varied, and the conceptualizations of identity include multiple dimensions that complexly interplay in positive and negative ways to suggest what they might “become.” Their

231

conversations were thick and rich and require further unpacking beyond the quotations shared in this and previous data chapters. This project is taken up in the discussion chapter.

232

Chapter 8: Discussion

Contextualizing cultural identity construction

This research study has sought an understanding of how recent immigrant students from

Jamaica construct or give meaning to their cultural identities. The contexts of migration, settlement and university experiences in Ontario, Canada have influenced how these research participants construct their cultural identities which S. Hall (1993) described as “positionalities”

(points of identification). These positionalities, according to S. Hall, are “constructed from different parts and histories of ourselves” (p. 237) and help students live as hybrids in Ontario.

In this chapter, I discuss the major findings from the three data chapters, guided by Hall’s theorizing of cultural identity which recognizes the necessity of “heterogeneity and diversity” and “lives with and through, not despite, difference; by hybridity” (p. 235). Hall’s thesis is supported by other scholarship on identity and difference, particularly Brah (1996), who contextualizes difference in experience, social relations, subjectivity, and identity, and Bhabha

(1994) who theorizes it as a way of thinking through “becoming” by hybridity.

I begin the chapter by providing a rationale for using Hall’s Caribbean cultural identity framework and restating the framework and its importance in bringing together the key concepts of identity, culture, immigrants (migration and settlement), and university experiences. The findings are then summarized and analyzed to show the interrelationship of the contexts of migration, settlement, and university participation in the accounts of the participants. I apply the filters of similarity and continuity; difference and rupture; and, finally, “becoming” by hybridity as guided by the conceptual framework.

233

The discussion considers whether and how the meanings participants attach to their cultural identities may further the understanding of students’ lives both within and outside of university, advancing the conversations on Caribbean immigrants in higher education. Hall’s thesis is thus a heuristic for bringing into focus the relevance of history and culture in the identity construction of postcolonial subjects. University is an important pathway in the lives of students, representing the beginning of their pursuit of careers. For recent immigrant students from

Jamaica, matriculation to university signals an achievement that puts them on par with other students who have achieved this status. However, they have a consciousness of university as an unstable terrain, where they negotiate states of being accepted as students and stereotyped based on nation of origin. Against this background, it is important to be acquainted with their lived experiences as students and to contextualize the meanings they assign to their identities.

Understanding students’ lives allows one to observe their unique cultural traits as they pursue their aspirations and continue to think about who they want to be, being mindful that “experience is not a guarantor of some essential authenticity” (Brah, 1999, p.9).

Rationale for use of Stuart Hall’s Cultural Identity Theory

Recent investigations of students’ identity development in university have explored the complexities of identity construction when their lives are taken into consideration (see Abes &

Jones, 2004; Abes, Jones & McEwen, 2007; Jones & McEwen, 2000). Whereas traditional student development research has tried to capture identity development processes through stages and categories, when lives are brought into the equation, it is difficult to trace the development in any linear fashion. Evans, Forney, Guido, Patton and Renn (2010) observed that it is difficult to

“pin down” an identity for Caribbean people given the mediations that influence their identity formation (S. Hall, 1993). However, they propose that one way by which the “Black ethnic

234

identities” (Evans, et al., p.286) of some students might be understood was based on a

“nationalist perspective of a liberated Caribbean people” (p.286). Bearing in mind how nationalist sentiments may inform the construction of identities, they called for more complex ethnic development models that provide a more complete picture “examined from the intersections with other social identities” (p.287). Of course, such an examination must be mindful of histories and cultures of students, especially as social relations of power feature in the negotiations of immigrant students from less developed societies. Jones (2009) conducted an autoethnographic study using an intersectional approach to explore lived experience of identity construction and negotiation when multiple identities are considered (p.289). Her research built on earlier conceptual models developed Abes and Jones (2003; 2007) and has taken into consideration many of the complexities involved in the process of identity construction. My research takes a similar slant. Although not described as intersectional research, my study

provides accounts of the multiple, shifting, and sometimes simultaneous ways that self

and other are represented, the way that individuals identify and disidentify with other

groups, how one category is used to differentiate another in specific contexts, and how

particular identities become salient or foregrounded at particular moments. (Valentine,

2007, p.15)

This description of intersectional research by Valentine (2007) overlaps with my rationale for using Hall’s theory of identity rather than traditional student development models. It is possible that some circumstances may require information about stages of growth and dimensions of identity development in students; however, lived experiences are hardly contained in tidy categories, and only partially represent narratives of identity (Jones, 2009). Some theories attempt to simplify the roles of administration by focusing on what is similar in students’

235

experiences. These theories address those commonalities, rather than recognize the differences that complexly operate in their lives, which may better inform how institutions may assist students. Hall’s thesis provides a theoretical lens based on differences that acknowledges commonalities in groups as well. Difference is illuminated in everyday existence, yet Hall emphasized the need to live with it or to at least, learn to do so. As a globalized world allows for relatively free flow of people and information from one country to another, the reality of operating in “a gradual spectrum of mixed-up difference” (Geertz, 1988, p.148) is undeniable.

Living with and through difference recognizes that different people of various cultural backgrounds, experiences and identities share similar spaces. Difference, as it pertains to identity, is thus connected to experience, subjectivity, and social relations (Brah, 1996, p.123) and, differences elide in the close encounters that are necessary on university campuses.

Stuart Hall’s thesis of cultural identity in relation to participants

S. Hall’s (1993) thesis of cultural identity is conceptualized as a “dialogic relationship between two axes” (p. 227) that operate simultaneously: one vector of similarity and continuity; the other of difference and rupture. The research participants are marked by similarity and difference; where similarity organizes their beliefs about the world in which they live, “providing them with continuous frames of reference” (p.223) and difference suggests the shifts that happen in identity as participants produce and are products of new practices that they incorporate into their representation of themselves.

S. Hall deliberately downplayed “who we are” and “where we came from” in his framework of cultural identity, not to suggest that “who” individuals consider themselves to be is inconsequential, but to illuminate the slippery definitions of “who” and “where,” given the contextual and relational nature of identities. In an example of how context and social relations

236

operate as historical interventions, S. Hall (1993) referred to the mediations of slavery and colonialism, and how these events have “irrevocably” altered the lives of Caribbean people. By

S. Hall’s logic, the narrative of identity, given history’s intervention, cannot be treated as a finished idea or an accomplished fact; rather, the shifts and changes in life allow for an ongoing

“production of re-telling the past” (p.224). Rewriting or retelling does not mean dismissing the strategic essences that may allow individuals to “recognize the different parts and histories of ourselves” (p.237). S. Hall, therefore, proposed a “double-ness” in the conceptualization of cultural identity where similarity and continuity operate parallel to difference and rupture.

Traditional student identity development research attaches emphasis to “who students are,” more so in their adolescent lives, as scholars try to trace how they develop ideas about themselves. However, the research hardly acknowledges that these ideas emerge through the discourses in society. S. Hall (1986) has addressed this issue arguing that self-perception is “not an individual but a collective phenomenon, a consequence of the relationship between ‘the self’ and the ideological discourses which compose the cultural terrain of a society” (p. 22). The ideological discourses that comprise the cultural terrain of Canadian society and university are multiple in relation to immigrants. There are discourses of who is a desirable immigrant; what is the desirable language; and what cultures best fit with Canadian culture. These discourses, among others, convolute the process of “becoming” in the lives of recent immigrant students from Jamaica.

The spectrum of identities for the 14 participants spanned their lives in high school

(although some made mention of primary school where they considered the information important to the research), moving to the Greater Toronto Area (GTA), Ontario and attending university. Because the participants were born or raised in Jamaica, their sense of attachment to

237

their Jamaican identity was salient (Phinney & Ong, 2007) to “who” they considered themselves to be. Thus, they expressed a view that they would always be Jamaicans, despite migration.

However, through immigration they demonstrated an openness to “becoming” something else (in addition to being Jamaican) or something more.

The desire to maintain an identity as Jamaican reflects what S. Hall discussed as

“continuity.” Continuity authenticates “who we are” and is related to “where we came from.”

But continuity, according to S. Hall, operates alongside difference and rupture. I argue that this parallel operation of continuity and rupture is possible where some participants, in the very acts of trying to authenticate their Jamaican identities, accentuate the differences between “us and them,” sometimes resulting in a contentious relationship. Furthermore, S. Hall’s attention to

“what we might become” entails conditions of “how we have been represented and how that bears on how we represent ourselves” (1996a, p. 4). These conditions are important because participants’ perceptions of how they had “been represented” in the receiving society were not always positive. Representations through stereotypes and stigmatization create a challenge for constructing cultural identity that “lives with and through difference” (S. Hall, 1993, p.235).

Despite Hall’s positing of hybridity as a solution to living with and through difference,

Ang (2003) has suggested that the role of hybridity is to “alert us to the difficulty of living with difference” (p.149). What Ang has suggested is that hybridity has no guarantees for any “happy, harmonious merger or fusion” (p. 149) but, rather, reveals the complex web of entanglements as individuals try to make sense of who they are in relation to others. Hybridity carries the effect of rupturing and disrupting what presents itself as “normal” by operating within and outside the boundaries that have been erected. In Anne’s account for example, the “normal” function of course instruction was “disrupted” by an insertion of relevant aspects of her history. This action

238

might not have been appreciated by her instructor or peers but was necessary for breaking the silence around the history of Black people. By suggesting that practices of living with and through difference were possible, S. Hall was aware that conflicts and disagreements, even among those of shared national backgrounds, could result. Identities must be understood as

“more the product of the marking of difference and exclusion than they are the sign of an identical, naturally-constituted unity” (p.4). Furthermore, categories of exclusion may sometimes be construed as boundaries but, as revealed in the data, these categories are “differential points along a sliding scale” (1993, p. 228). So, what are the implications for this line of thinking to how the research participants constructed their cultural identities? In the section that follows I offer a summary of the findings of their accounts of their experiences.

Summary of findings

A summary of the findings of the three data chapters is presented in this section. It contains the accounts of the participants, which were rendered in their reflections on growing up in Jamaica, their interpretations of the circumstances that influenced emigration to Canada, the disruptions that they felt upon arrival, negotiations of newness and difference, and being and becoming in university. Chapter 5 revealed that participants attach significance to several influences: parental support, especially their beliefs about education and social mobility opportunities; peer interactions; spatial issues; language and social class as signifiers of status and privilege or the lack of thereof. Social class had salience in their lives in Jamaica, and social, cultural and historical influences contributed to the decision to emigrate. In Chapter 6, the participants spoke retrospectively about being in a new world and confronting difference. The main theme addressed what it meant to be from (an)other land and live in Ontario. The findings revealed that being new immigrants meant feeling displaced, dislocated in family and in society;

239

it meant navigating systems of settlement and confronting differences in education systems; and representations of Jamaican identity in language, cultural symbols and negative stereotypes. In

Chapter 7, the participants spoke about “being and becoming” in the context of university, bearing in mind the emphasis they placed on university participation. The findings revealed that participants assert a nation of origin identity but are cognizant that this identification is multiply and complexly constructed. They identified challenges of being in university related to their status as immigrants or Jamaican immigrants. They adopted practices that they believed

“authenticated” their Jamaican identity, but also integrated new ideas to re-define themselves.

Participants used the spaces of collectives (clubs and associations) to develop strategies for negotiating university and to resist assimilating into Canadian culture. They acknowledged that differences exist within and between groups of both similar and different cultural backgrounds.

Finally, they believed that education was the key to negotiating difference.

In bringing together S. Hall’s conceptualization of Caribbean cultural identities, Bhabha’s hybridity theory and Brah’s classification of difference as identity, subjectivity, experiences, and social relations, these findings are examined to respond to the question of how identities are constructed when immigration settlement and university participation are considered. Social relations of difference are about the “institutional practices and economic, cultural, and political discourses” (p. 117) that operate in assigning meaning to the experiences of participants who share common historical experiences as well as “deep significant difference [emphasis in original]” (S. Hall. 1993, p.225). Brah (1996) has shared this double-ness in thinking about difference and commonality, as she has suggested that they are “relational signs, interweaving narratives of difference with those of a shared past and collective destinies” (pp. 117-118). In my research, participants share a past through nation of origin and racial identifications. They also

240

share the similarity of being university students and immigrants. Aside from gender and other forms of difference Brah was most concerned with what material circumstances and cultural practices led to the conditions for constructing group identities or this “differential positioning” in social relations. Attending to the way Jamaican immigrants are signified in Ontario and how the participants talk about their daily experiences of being Jamaican immigrant students in university—that is, how they believe they are represented—are important considerations in this discussion. The breakdown of the vectors of similarity and continuity and difference and rupture

(as seen in Table 4, page 241) is a useful point of reference for the discussions that follow.

Similarity and Continuity

S. Hall’s vectors of similarity and continuity and difference and rupture are premised on the historical, cultural, ever-changing nature of identities that are constantly mediated by different life experiences. Hall wanted to provide an explanation for why Caribbean cultural identities could not be bound to any simple essentialism: whatever we were has been already disrupted; therefore, the focus must be on what we might become. Still, the past is relevant and shapes the way identity is constructed. Hall (1993) therefore suggested how Caribbean cultural identities might be understood as simultaneously similar and different. I will discuss the relevance of S. Hall’s suggestion that identities are simultaneously similar and different through examples in the accounts of participants before concluding with the notion of “becoming” as hybridity.

241

Table 4:

A breakdown of Stuart Hall’s conceptualization of Black Caribbean cultural identity in participants’ examples

Vector of similarity and continuity – who we Vector of difference and rupture – what we are really are or have become due to mediations Features Examples Features Examples

Grounding in past Slavery and colonialism Future and past Cultural resources of continue to be evident in past (history, language, construction of status in culture) used to present day Jamaica - produce cultural parental expectations; identities skin color; social mobility; language One shared culture Mainly creole culture Becoming and being Creolized/hybridized based on African and European colonial encounter; Language, traditions; music Shared history or Immigration – Contextual regarding Construction based on common historical Jamaicans are people place, time, history, who the conversation is experiences from all over the world culture with and where it takes place A collective ‘one true Continuous self (this is Constant Knowledge changes self’ within many just who I am) transformation way of thinking other selves Continuous frames of National identities – no Multiply constructed Multiple dimensions, reference and meaning matter where I am, I am experiences and still Jamaican subjectivities occurring simultaneously Shared ancestry Most Jamaicans are of Names we give to ways Subjected to African descent but we are positioned by stereotypes based on whatever our ethnicity, and position self in cultural power and we are still Jamaicans. narratives of past representation – norms (some give salience to a Black identity) Shared cultural codes Jamaican Creole--when Constructed through Practices of homeland we meet in the clubs or memory, fantasy, perpetuated in new associations or talk with narrative, and myth society each other we are understood

242

Cultural identities are grounded in the past.

The results indicate that participants grounded their identities in the past through the narratives of socialization in families, schools and the wider society in which they had been raised. Identities are embedded in parental beliefs about the value of education, illustrated in the admonition about “changing the generation” by gaining a good education. Changing the generation is a call for changing how one has been positioned in the narratives of the past. If participants could change the generation, they would effectively be changing history.

Educational advancement and betterment is a part of the discourse of social mobility in Jamaica

(Alfred, 2003; Hussain, 2011; McFarlane, 2006; Palmer, 1983) and is considered a primary means of changing one’s identity.

The participants were socialized to believe the social mobility ideals of betterment and educational advancement, with focus on the professions in medicine, law and business (Table 3).

Four participants stated their intention to pursue medicine upon completion of their first degree; three indicated that law was their desired field, although one participant was less certain she would pursue that path; two indicated business; one accounting; and one finance. The desire for these professions was based on the influence of parents and the society in which they grew up.

For many Jamaicans these professions represent symbols of status that will project a certain definition of self to the wider society. This supports Hall’s (2017) 2 idea that “social practices entail meaning, and those meanings shape and influence what we do” (p.15). Some participants maintained their aspirational paths after migration, but some saw other possibilities for what they could become professionally. Maintaining the path to highly sought-after professions might also

2 Hall, S. (2017). The Fateful Triangle is a compilation of W.E. B Du Bois lecture notes published posthumously.

Hall, Stuart 1932-2014

243

be construed as the desire to prove that they were just as capable as any member of the dominant culture to be high achievers (Harper & Quaye, 2009). Some participants expressed their awareness that people perceived their “Third World” origin as indicative of a “Third World” education and, therefore, not credible in the eyes of Canadian state and employers. This was not a deterrent to the social mobility pursuits of the research participants. However, discrimination and stigmatization can negatively impact aspirations as found in a study carried out by Gonzales,

Stein and Huq (2013) targeting Latino immigrants. Their study does not deny that there is an aspirational aspect of cultural identities among recent immigrant populations, but that context is a factor in how these aspirations are pursued.

One shared culture.

Jamaican culture is mainly a “Creole construction” (Olwig, 1993, p. 364) that is based on the encounter between the African slaves and the European colonizers. This encounter allowed for retention of African traditions and, simultaneously, resistance to complete domination by

European slave masters through the activities that slaves indulged in the privacy of the slave quarters. The similarities revealed in the accounts of the participants are linked to discourses of social mobility, skin color, language, and class, and serve as “sutures” for different practices of

‘interpellation’ (Hall, 1996a, p.6). Practices of interpellations position individuals as “subjects of particular discourses” and place them by the same discourse. For example, speech was not just a signifier of education in Jamaica, but also an indication that one had status within the society.

When Segree shared that her parents did not “allow” her to speak Jamaican Creole, she interpreted it to mean that they did not want her to be viewed by her peers from higher social strata as being inferior to them, as Jamaican Creole was considered a subordinate language to

Standard English. Several participants spoke about the construct of language as a signifier of

244

status (Pulis, 2003). Segree’s parents had a consciousness that the use of Jamaican Creole was signified in Jamaican society as a language of the uneducated and lower classes. This association of language with status meant that Segree had to maintain an image that did not contradict her rank in society. In migration, this association was reversed in that Jamaican Creole was taken to be the Jamaican language by mainstream Canadians. The discourse of Jamaican language identity subjected the participants as speakers of a non-standard language in the context of the new society, so much so that they were “misrecognized” (Mahalingham & Rabelo, 2013) when they did not use the language. Although the stereotypes about their language were resisted, the participants understood that the Jamaican Creole was a part of their cultural identity; something that unified them across their differences as well as a sign of their similarity.

Included in the shared cultural experiences of participants was the music of the dancehall.

They did not all participate in dancehall culture but acknowledged it as a part of Jamaican culture. Some were offended by the suggestion that Jamaicans are all about dancehall and reggae music. The offence was based on the association of dancehall culture to lewd behavior and criminality. This idea had not originated in Canada but was propagated through media communications globally. Some participants were offended by the stereotypes, but others regarded the experiences as opportunities to educate and inform. This is evidence that, despite shared culture, participants had different responses to essentialist views of Jamaicans. It is a way of thinking about what S. Hall (1993) meant when he stated that “difference … persists—in and alongside continuity” (p.227).

One “true” self.

The participants’ similarities and continuities were evident as well in the belief by some participants that retained their pre-migration identities and would not change. By suggesting that

245

they had not changed, they tried to present themselves as stable individuals, despite the transitional experiences they had been through. Scholars of migration agree that immigrants redefine themselves in the process of migration, a view that resonates with Hall’s thesis.

However, the point of departure is the idea that “in relocation there is psychological acculturation that allows the immigrant to internalize an identity that reflects that of the receiving nation” (Grant, 2007, p.89). This statement suggests a guarantee of identifying with receiving society. For S. Hall, where identities are concerned, there is no guarantee. S. Hall’s view that identities are always in production, belonging to the future and the past, suggests that identities are continuously being processed. Grant’s view homogenizes the experiences of immigrants suggesting that they all internalize an identity that reflects the receiving nation. The contradictions of stability in identity are evident in participants’ accounts of their day to day experiences where some had to deal with disruptive family situations that led them to seek new places of abode. Some had to re-enter high school, and others had to find jobs to survive the settlement experiences and prepare for university.

The participants constructed their identities based on how they located themselves ethnically. Hall (1996c) stated that as people who are ethnically located, “our ethnic identities are crucial to our subjective sense of who we are” (p.448) and form the basis of how we narrate ourselves, our lives, so we know where we came from (Hall, 1995). The research participants’ ethnic location is Jamaican; however, they did not just speak about themselves as Jamaicans, they spoke about how they wanted to be regarded by others with whom they interacted. Much of their accounts entailed not only how they believed they had been represented as Jamaicans but also how they wished others to see them. Ricoeur (1991) has argued that “a life can be understood by the stories told about it” (Knowles, 1999, p.114). In the narrations of their lives,

246

some participants spoke about themselves as unchanged; like Aaron who insisted, “a so me stay”

(translated, that’s just how I am) as if his identity is singular and continuous. This continuous identity is what Hall (1993) described as “a sort of collective ‘one true self’ hiding inside the many other, more superficial or artificially imposed ‘selves’” (p.223). Hall here was referring to a collective of multiple identities that make up our “many” selves. He exposed how the claim to a true self emerged; revealing its basis in cultural codes and historical understandings (S. Hall,

1993, p.223). In other words, participants took up those discourses and understandings, using them as needed.

Shared historical experiences, ancestry, common frames of reference and meanings.

The participants’ accounts illuminated experiences to which those of a shared cultural background could relate. Some of their responses that expressed their commonality are as follows: being understood; being like me; knowledge of cultural experiences; revelation of true self; being in community; home and familiarity; no pretense; same mission; feeling like I belong; and being complete. By finding the similarities among themselves, they as well observed differences in others. They were aware that there were differences within their community, but those differences were not considered significant because they could be understood by each member of their group. However, not all participants subscribed to all the practices of the collective Jamaican groups or participated in the activities of the collectives.

Two points of identification are noteworthy as examples of continuous frames of reference and meaning. These are issues of race and class that were alluded to earlier but require further discussion. The participants had a general perception that race was not the most salient construct in systems of stratification in Jamaica, a majority Black country. However, they each discussed the salience of social class status, as well as how it intersected with other forms of

247

identification. They were aware that being Black in Jamaica had limitations, historically; however, they were equally aware that being Black no longer prevented them from achieving upward social mobility in Jamaica. Of note is the elucidation of class and status in participants’ accounts; however, the association of class and status to the shade of the skin was not ignored and was significant to their understanding of their identity. One of the things I found interesting as I read the participants’ accounts is that they referenced class status directly or indirectly although there was no item in the interview protocol that asked about social class identification in the Jamaican context. The fact that that “positionality” was taken up by each participant may reflect a reconceptualization of the past experiences in relation to how they view their Canadian experiences. By affixing their identities to their, mainly, middle class status they consciously disrupt the myth that Jamaicans are all poor working-class individuals.

In the narratives of living in Jamaica, the social meanings of class, skin tone, and language, and how these were produced in interactions with their peers, school, and communities contributed to how they made sense of their identities. Social class was explicitly discussed as a means of separating and hierarchizing identities in Jamaica, but not as a deterrent to moving up the hierarchy for individuals of poorer social classes. Social class status was therefore given significant traction due to the potential to change one’s identity. However, social class difference was not only determined by wealth, but also measured by speech, with the Standard Jamaican

English being associated with middle and upper classes and the Jamaican Creole reserved for lower classes.

In the context of Ontario, participants did not speak explicitly about social class; rather, their concerns were about economic issues such as financing their education and paying back their student loans. It is possible that the reality of their changed economic circumstances was

248

not considered a change in class status since most were economic migrants of middle-class status and the conditions of acquiring permanent residence status meant that they had to have some economic means at the time they landed. Their presence in university may have also contributed to a “retention” of this positioning. Their declaration of social class identities without being asked means that the construct has salience for them. The sole participant who explicitly used the social class construct in talking about postmigration experiences was Wayne who identified as lower class.

Participants held differing views of race relations. However, most did not speak explicitly of issues of race as a deterrent to achieving their ambitions. The absence of a direct reference to social class or race should not assume that participants’ constructions of their experiences do not account for these identifications. Experiences of migration and settlement, and discourses of nation of origin position individuals from “particular countries” in fixed categories. These categories involve “ready-worked narratives” (Knowles, 1999, p.199) through which individuals make sense of their lives in the new society. Examples of Anne’s statements about disguising her speech so that her nation of origin identification does not prevent her from accessing employment. Destiny, an upper-class Jamaican, believed that the systems of representation in

Ontario were set up to ensure that, as a Black woman, she felt inferior. She made the point after moving to Ontario that “being Black is not the first thing that comes to mind when I think of what I can achieve.” What accounts for most participants downplaying a racialized identity in

Ontario may be subject to their personal experiences. However, despite its absence in the accounts of most participants they understood that relational differences existed between them and members of the dominant culture. They understood as well that there was an assumption that if you were from Jamaica, then you are Black (Simmons & Plaza, 1998). Participants who

249

discussed race described Black as oppressive and as synonymous to visible minority (Galabuzi,

2006). The racial category, Black, was deployed by some participants based on who was asking about their identity. In this sense Black took on a social relational and situational characteristic.

Black produced overt and covert forms of racism, and Black assumed inferiority or deficit. The participants did not appear to avoid the issue of race because of the negativity surrounding a

Black identity. Brah (1996) has suggested that a person’s conception of an event is contingent on how the individual who is “culturally constructed” (p.117) assigns meaning to those everyday social relations which include economic, cultural, political discourses, and institutional practices

(Brah, 1996, pp. 117-118).

Language as shared cultural codes.

In migration some of the issues raised about their experiences in Jamaica were foregrounded in migration but played out in slightly different ways. In Ontario, language signified where one was from, not on the social hierarchy, but nation. However, it carried a similar status effect in the sense that one’s status as belonging to Canada or being an outsider to

Canada is judged by one’s facility with Canadian English standards. The participants’ accounts highlighted some similarities in their settlement experiences. One area of similarity was the reductionist category of language as demonstrated in the perception that Jamaicans only speak

Jamaican Creole. Norton (1997) has highlighted the importance of language in identity, not just from a standpoint of who we are, but where we come from, and in our relations with the social world. Language use is therefore about identity construction and negotiation (p.410).

Participants identified as English speakers as their first and official language (Nero, 1997) but also speakers of a dialect. This identification was at odds with how they were perceived in among mainstream Canadians. Norton has explained this contradiction as a problem of

250

categorization, suggesting that categories, when used, should remain open to be co-constructed with learner” (p. 424). Bourdieu’s (1977) argument that “a language is worth what those who speak it are worth” (p. 652), raises the question of what is the worth of the language of Jamaican immigrants and the immigrants themselves? Participants were of the view that the reductionist categorization of Jamaicans in relation to their language did not indicate that it was worth much.

Norton believed that whether standard or non-standard, English belongs to those who speak it.

The question then becomes, what if your speech is not recognized as English. How is your identity legitimized through language? This was a concern that several participants had, but that

Wayne queried, “it’s like they’re saying you’re not supposed to have this kind of English. Who decides the official English or the acceptable forms?” Participants wanted to control how their speech was defined in different contexts. One participant acknowledged that in the early settlement period, she desired that her speech reflect the Canadian accent to enable her to get a job. This desire was based on survival needs rather than to seek affiliations. Other participants indicated that they used Jamaican Creole for recognition when they wanted to seek out and align with those from similar nation. Their language use was strategic, so, they resisted a fixed language construction by those who lacked knowledge of their history. Nero and Ahmad’s

(2014) research has highlighted the contradictions surrounding vernaculars and problematized the tendency to “link vernaculars to specific identities and behaviors in prejudicial ways” (p. 50).

Recall Essie’s experience with the administrator of the English proficiency test, who noted that her “grammar was impeccable” and questioned if she had been enrolled in private school in

Jamaica. To return to the idea of value, if the speech of Jamaicans is deficit, then the value of the speaker is also deficit. The participants contested the deficit notion ascribed to their way of

251

speaking, as well as the stereotype of Jamaicans as non-speakers of English which they believe resulted in some of their peers being placed in ESL situations.

As I move the discussion to the vector of difference and rupture, I must restate the difficulty in gaining a full understanding of the multiple dimensions of students’ identities (Kim

& Diaz, 2013) and the multiple selves with which students identify, in the shifts and changes of the context of new experiences and exposures. S. Hall’s strategy in shifting the focus from “who we are” was precisely because of the slippery nature of identity. He implied that who we are matters, but not as much as what we might become. I would like to suggest that Hall did not intend to discount the significance of individual identities, but wished to engender a greater awareness of identity as always “becoming” and “forever producing,” not locked to a single, unchanging version of a true self. Hall was insistent that identity changes in moments; a lesson that history has taught us. By inserting the words, “ so much,” Hall qualified his definition of identity formation. Identities matter in the way participants construct themselves. Therefore, without misrepresenting Hall’s intentions, I rework his description of identity as, “who we are and where we came from, but more important, what we might become.” The use of the word

“might” in S. Hall’s conceptualization of identity is to emphasize possibilities rather than guarantees. The narratives of participants lend themselves to a more positive interpretation of

“what we might become” in the context of representation, though Hall was not necessarily expressing optimism. Nor was he suggesting that “what we might become” would signal the end of the question of identity, certainly not in the way that some identity development theorists suggest a resolution of identity (see Cross, 1991; Erikson, 1968; Marcia, 1966; Phinney, 1990).

Rather, he recognized the reality that identity was a dynamic process in which multiple dimensions of identity are involved. In the next few paragraphs, I will elaborate on why “who we

252

are” has implications for “what we might become” in the specific experiences of 14 recent immigrant students from Jamaica.

Difference and Rupture

Future and past.

The decision to emigrate is not usually made lightly. The participants indicated that they had mixed feelings about departing their heritage country although they did not resist the move.

Alfred (2004) points out that it is important to attend to the border-crossing experiences and how these experiences relate to immigrant lives in the new country of residence. Most participants in the research disclosed that they were “comfortable” financially before moving to Ontario. This information is significant in the context that parents made the choice to give up a comfortable lifestyle mainly, for the benefit of opportunities for their children, moving into situations of uncertainty in the hope of making life better. In this vein, “migrations do not just happen, but are produced” (Sassen, 1998, p.56) by social forces within both heritage and receiving countries. In the decision to emigrate, the single most important consideration for parents, was their children, believing that immigration would improve the prospects of their children’s future (Olwig, 2007;

Palmer, 1983).

The decision to leave Jamaica was discussed mainly through the lens of sociohistorical beliefs in the opportunities that immigration offers. There is an assumption of “better” that underpins each migration decision. However, existing research shows that the reality of immigration is that lives may get worse before they get better (Simmons, 2010). The future lies ahead of the participants. Despite the uncertainty of what the future holds for them, their hope lies in their aspirations. These aspirations are connected to their past. In thinking through how

253

identities are configured in both future and past the participants referred to the conditions under which students emigrated, the varying routes taken, and how they felt about emigrating to

Canada to gain some sense of impact on identities. Participants indicated three pathways that they took for emigration: as dependents of parents under skilled worker/professional class; family sponsored immigrant; and citizenship. The majority fall under the professional skilled worker category and are the participants who indicated that their status pre-migration was middle to upper class. Some admitted that theirs was not a lateral move during migration because of everyday circumstances of which led to shifts in their identities. By everyday circumstances I mean that some had difficulty coping with the day to day demands of finances due to having to take on low paid low skilled jobs (Statistics Canada, 2003) which affected their overall wellbeing. Thomas-Hope (2004) has suggested that treating migration as a simple phenomenon reduces a complex experience of displacement without giving due consideration to culture and institutional structures. The nature of immigration for most meant that they were bringing to the new society cultural and economic capital to establish their lives in the receiving nation. What they found on arrival was that they could not immediately replicate the past in their present circumstances. Still, Rushdie (1997) has indicated, the point is to arrive because in arrival, the possibilities are endless.

Contextual identities (place, culture, time, history).

The ruptures and displacements highlighted in the experiences of “being” in unfamiliar situations through disruptive family situations; identity crises in high school; undergoing psychological or acculturative stress (Berry 1990, 1992); and confronting stereotypes in contexts of work and community are discussed. Participants’ accounts of their experiences of the settlement process varied which suggests that their construction of their identities in those

254

contexts were unique. The settlement context is the liminal space between emigration and university where participants came to be “recognized” as Jamaicans in ways they had not been previously identified when they had lived in Jamaica. In this context, the fluidity in identity construction becomes more evident in the positions taken. As seen in Table 4 (p. 67), one of the features of difference and rupture is the contextual nature of cultural identity.

Figure 2: The interrelationships of history, culture, and context in constructions of cultural identity.

Interventions of history over time and space affect “what we have become” (Hall, 1993, p.225) and contribute to constructions of cultural identities. Figure 2 also provides a sense of the dynamic interplay of history and culture in understandings of self (who we are); nation (where we came from); and migration, settlement, and university experiences (what we have and might become). Jamaican immigrants are defined historically through race and nation. In the context of

Ontario, there is a lingering perception that Jamaicans are all Black and of African origin. This is

255

a partial rendition of Jamaicans and demonstrates a lack knowledge of the ethnic mixture evident in Jamaica’s population. Jamaicans are treated as the “essential Black subject,” to borrow from

S. Hall (1993), in some Canadian contexts. Some scholars have suggested that the perception is based on the number of Jamaicans residing in the GTA (James & Davis, 2012; Simmons, 2010).

Participants acknowledged the false perception but regarded it as one based on ignorance rather than an attempt to denigrate. Admittedly, most Jamaicans are of African descent, but Jamaica’s mixed ethnic heritage (Austin-Broos, 1994/2001; Braithwaite, 1971/2001; C. Palmer & Knight,

1989) is a composite of European, American, Spanish, French, East Indian, Chinese, Portuguese,

Jew, and Dutch ancestries that formed part of the historical landscape of Jamaica. The participants believed that perpetuating the view of Jamaica as a “Black-only,” inaccurately represented the nation and undermined the historical significance of its ethnic composition. One area of pride that they expressed in talking about their heritage nation was reflected in the country’s motto—"Out of many, one people.” James suggested that cultural education was needed to transform the thinking about “what Jamaica is and what it is not.” It is an important recommendation to dispel the idea of a universal Jamaican identity. As Destiny has pointed out,

“you cannot really look at somebody and say they’re Jamaican. I come across people who think that only Black people come from Jamaica, and if they see Chinese people they think they cannot be Jamaicans.”

In another example that illustrates that homogenizing treatments of groups can be very problematic, Destiny’s recalled how the term “visible minority” was shoved in her face to remind her of what she can and cannot access. She became aware of how she was “positioned” in the country to which she had immigrated-- a visible minority, a woman who was Black, and who should experience certain emotions because of her situation. Destiny shared that when she

256

lived in Jamaica, she had no awareness of limitations based on Black skin. This is perhaps what

Ng (1981) meant when she suggested that constructions of ethnicity become an issue in immigration. In Canada, Destiny learned that labels are assigned to position groups vis-à-vis resources. These can operate in positive ways to target the needs of marginalized groups.

However, Destiny’s contention was the presumption that the label carried. Her personal experience was irrelevant and erased through the label of visible minority, which “placed” and silenced. Hall (1993) suggested that such silences need to be broken because if not, “they produce, in Fanon’s vivid phrase, ‘individuals without an anchor, without horizons, colourless, stateless, rootless’” (p.226).

The participants were very vocal about their nation of origin identity. Perhaps that was why they felt the need to educate about the racial composition of Jamaica rather than ignore the perception that all Jamaicans are Black. Most participants gave salience to their Jamaican identity. The context of this construction of identity through nation-of-origin is what Hall

(1996c) describes as “attempts to fix an autonomous origin or point of reference making one’s experience authentic—something that tells me where I came from” (p.10). The question of where they came from, as James (1995) has suggested is never innocent. It is for some of them a simple question of origin-- whether it is place of birth, where they grew up, or where they have lived most of their lives. Others, regarded the question with suspicion. Their responses were contingent on “who is asking the question.” This is an example of the fluidity of identity construction. Recall that James expressed a that to “Whites” he answers that he is “Black” and to

“Blacks,” he is from Jamaica. The distinction James made between a racial and a national identification was not to suggest that they operate independently but as a “positionality” (S. Hall,

1993, p. 237). James’ response simultaneously addressed the complexities of race and nation

257

embedded in the discourse of Jamaicans. He addressed Blackness from the standpoint of identifying with oppression as he explained later in the interview, and he addressed nation to disrupt the idea of an essential Blackness.

I wish to discuss three ways in which I believe participants spoke about where they came from to reside in Ontario: as location or nation of origin; as memory; and as attachment or symbolic identification. I begin with participants’ interpretation of where they came from, as a question of nation of origin or heritage. Participants viewed the nation of origin as a crucial component in their lived experience and a means of crafting a place or establishing themselves in the receiving country. None of the participants had resided in Ontario for longer than seven years. The duration of residence may be a contributing influence on their attachment to the heritage culture, a point borne out in other literature (for example, Schimmele & Wu, 2015;

Waters, 1994). Hall posited that the “national cultures into which we are born are one of the principal sources of cultural identity” (Hall, 2006, p. 253). However, being born into national cultures does not imply that we receive fixed national identities at birth. Rather, national identifications are formed and transformed in relation to representation (Hall, 2006, p.253).

I found that most of the participants identified Jamaica as the nation of origin because this is where they were born. Simon’s position was that national identification is fixed at birth.

He disputed the notion of hyphenated identities. Segree supported Simon’s view and, by their logic, the naturalization process would be irrelevant in assigning citizenship. In opposition to their position, Oneise and Essie are two examples of participants who were not born but raised in

Jamaica, and still identified Jamaica as nation of origin. Essie maintained, “I dare anyone to tell me I am not from Jamaica” because “I was raised there from the age of one.” Essie’s example reveals the instability of national identification which is supportive of Hall’s point. Hall’s

258

position was not in relation to citizenship, but, rather predicated on how homogenizing national discourses trap subjects to some objective truth that where they were born signals who they are.

Hall was proposing a release from the fixed notions of national identity which limit what is possible beyond the boundaries of nations. Hall believed that the attachment to nation-of-origin definitions of ourselves as “English or Welsh or Indian or Jamaican” (p. 611) reduced the individual to a homogenous identity. Hall emphasized that these identifications are metaphoric by way of similarities shared with a group or nation (Scruton, 1986, p.156) and serve as a means of presenting an essential self.

S. Hall maintained that “where we came from” is not a universally fixed idea; however, it remains important to identity construction for the participants in the study. The importance is connected to the perception that their view of the world began to take shape in the country of origin, as one participant had indicated. Therefore, to make sense of the world to which they immigrated, they looked to the heritage culture as a “framework of interpretation for the new and unfamiliar” (Regis, 1989, pp. 61-62). But those interpretations are not a given, nor are they easily accessed. I frame this aspect of the discussion of “where we came from" outside of the physical location Jamaica. I see it in how participants talk about their memories of past; in the expectations that they had coming to Ontario; and the realities that they confronted. James and

Destiny captured succinctly, the idea of an elusive Jamaican identity, in that being a Jamaican in

Jamaica means something different from being a Jamaican here in Ontario. For Aaron and

Wayne, the families they left behind were the object of their desire to make sense of their lives in

Ontario. Both drew on cultural and social capital to help them navigate settlement. Their accounts are examples of the continuous constructions that take place, justifying Hall’s conceptualization of identity as never finished, “evading absolute closure” (Davis, 2004, p. 181).

259

The interventions of migration into their lives, being in a new family, wanting to stay true to the values and beliefs instilled by their mothers, but wanting success for themselves presented them with challenges as well as opportunities in the settlement process.

The third meaning ascribed to where they came from is based on attachment. The symbolic representation of Jamaican-ness is accounted for in how the participants define their cultural identity: language, customs and traditions, music and dance. Stuart Hall’s conceptualization of national culture presented it as that which “constructs identities by producing meanings about ‘the nation’ with which we can identify; these are contained in the stories told about it, memories that connect its present to its past, and images that are constructed of it” (p.254). Participants had their moments of “remember when” as they shared stories that resonated in their memories of the homeland.

Brubaker (2005) has suggested that the identification with home or “homeland orientation” is a part of the diasporic experience. Tracing the changes in how diaspora was discussed, Brubaker examined the views of Safran 1991; Clifford 1994; and Armstrong 1976 to test the criteria of dispersion, homeland orientation and boundary maintenance. The discussions reflect some of the ways in which the participants speak about their relationship to Jamaica in the experience of being “away.” Safran’s (1991) conceptualization of the orientation to homeland is as follows:

maintaining a collective memory or myth about the homeland; second ‘regarding the

ancestral homeland as true, ideal home and as a place to which one would (or should)

eventually return’; third, being collectively ‘committed to the maintenance or restoration

of the homeland and to its safety and prosperity’; and fourth, ‘continuing to relate,

260

personally or vicariously’, to the homeland, in a way that significantly shapes one’s

identity and solidarity. (Safran, 1991, p 83-84)

The participants’ accounts reflected in different ways and to varying degrees all the characteristics contained in Safran’s conceptualization. Most spoke of a possible or “an eventual” return to Jamaica. Some like Wayne, Aaron, Teeah, and Anne were committed to maintenance or restoration of the “homeland.” Wayne was particularly vocal about contributing to the prosperity of the homeland. Others maintained relationships with friends and family or through the media were kept apprised of what was happening in Jamaica. Some scholars dispute this orientation of a “return” for people in diaspora, arguing that there is “not so much an orientation to roots in a specific place and a desire to return as around an ability to recreate a culture in diverse locations” (Clifford, 1994, p.306). Clifford may be right, but by his own admission, these definitions are not bounded, and even the “‘pure’ forms … are ambivalent”

(p.306).

Cultural meanings of Jamaica were received by the participants through the symbol of the flag as a reminder of the country from which they came and to which they belonged. Coupled with that sense of belonging are the sensory perceptions of “being” in the country, vicariously, heightened through the sights, tastes and sounds that transported them to a place and time of their origin. These sensory aspects played a role in creating the essence of being from Jamaica (Gans,

1979). But Jamaica is not imaged only through national and cultural symbols. A few participants expressed the view that “everyone loves Jamaica”; “they love the food and language.” However, even those participants were aware of the negative stereotypes surrounding Jamaica and

Jamaicans. reductionism in the accounts of the participants was through socially deficit behaviors including violence, drug use, promiscuity, aggression and lewdness. Ascribing these

261

behaviors to Jamaicans as though they all indulge in deviant practices ignores the differences in individual experiences, but as well, portrays the immigrant community as “culturally inferior and deficient” (Mahalingam & Rabelo, 2013, p.34). The images of Jamaica and Jamaicans described earlier in the paragraph, are partial and result in misidentification which can carry “profound consequences for those who embody these identities” (Mahalingham & Rabelo, 2013, p.34).

Mahalingam and Rabelo illustrated in their research on immigrant communities how Sikh men were vulnerable to “being misread and misidentified” (Mahalingham & Rabelo, 2013, p.34). In much the same way, participants spoke of being approached by persons in their communities and asked about “weed” (marijuana) as though, because they are Jamaicans, they had to smoke it or know how and where to locate it. Jamaica’s portrayal in the Canadian country is mainly through messages relayed through the media representations. They believed that the media plays a role in creating images of Jamaica as a nation of poverty, criminality, and corruption. These misperceptions filter into the spaces of interactions of the immigrant students in the receiving country, allowing for a “negative figuration” (S. Hall, 1989, p.443) of Jamaicans in the eyes of the dominant culture. Participants indicated that the media portrayals result in stigmatization because they paint a picture that many Jamaicans or most are involved in these activities. The participants did not dispute that there were incidences of crime or violence in Jamaica but suggested that these representations treat as total and absolute what is only partial knowledge

Jamaican society.

Becoming and being--multiculturalism and difference.

Participants admitted that their comfort level in Ontario was influenced in part by the diversity that was evident. Rosita, Simon, Essie, Leah and Donald were particularly encouraged by the opportunity to be a part of such a mixed society because it reminded them of the mix of

262

ethnicities in Jamaica. Despite this appreciation of multiple cultures, some expressed the view that they had not sensed the collectivism that was entrenched in the character of Jamaican-ness.

This may be the basis for lack of interest in assimilating. Robert Park’s (1950) theory of assimilation asserted that immigrants undergo a linear process from contact to competition, to accommodation and assimilation into mainstream culture; however, the participants’ expressions were contrary to that view. Although Canada does not make an explicit claim to policies of assimilation, it is assumed within the multicultural discourse that the values of immigrants should not conflict with Canadian values (Bannerji, 2000). Some participants, like Wayne and

Destiny, questioned the illusion of equality in Canada (Allahar, 2010) when there was glaring evidence of discrimination. For many of the participants, there was no denying that Canada was open to many cultures. They questioned, however, the definition of openness as some cultures appeared to be more acceptable than others. Their ambivalence about the multicultural discourse was that it did not align with their lived experiences as immigrants to Canada.

Other participants like Anne and Aaron interpreted the discourse through an assimilationist lens. Both expressed fear of “becoming too Canadian” and Aaron indicated that it was important for him to “hold on” to who he was in this multicultural space and not feel vague.

There are some scholars who theorize these different interpretations of multiculturalism as segmented assimilation (Zhou, 1997). This theory presents three possible modes of acculturation—straight line host nation identity; oppositional racial identity; and adaptation based on strong bonds within ethnic groups (p.4). I am careful about assigning participants’ interpretations of their experiences to any category. Evident in how they spoke about multiculturalism was their sense-making process as they were more concerned with “losing” their Jamaican-ness a Canadian identification. The construction of themselves through their

263

Jamaican identity underscores what Hall spoke of as “something that tells me who I am and where I came from”; affirming a Jamaican identity was an affirmation of self.

The Participants’ accounts revealed how they came to be in Ontario, how the settlement period was constructed in their experiences and their reception to multiculturalism in Canada.

Each responded to multiculturalism in different ways. For some it was an opportunity to maintain a diasporic culture; for Anne and Aaron, it meant erasure; for Destiny it meant hypervisibility, as she said “here, its thrown in your face you are Black, you have to feel this;” for Simon, separation of mainstream from the rest; and for Oneise, a collective versus individualistic policy toward immigrants. Participants did not appear to be opposed to adaptation but held differing interpretations of multiculturalism. Some embraced multiculturalism as being inclusive of diverse cultures and encouraging the retention of the traditions and values that they held; others believe the inclusion of diverse cultures to be superficial and individualistic and therefore exclusionary toward immigrants’ ways of being in the world. These differing perspectives represent a conflict for immigrant students from Jamaica who compare the multicultural outlook of Canada to the “out of many, one” in Jamaica and see a stark distinction.

The difference they observe is that in Jamaica, despite being from varied backgrounds and cultures there is an experience of oneness, not erasure of individuality, but as collectivism. They believe Canadian multiculturalism represents out of many, many, and therefore, individualism.

Hall’s response to multiculturalism that underpins a construction of a dominant, exclusive identity, that is, one that makes an “unbridgeable separation” (1992, p.448), is that it requires re- articulation. Th re-articulation of multiculturalism should recognize and account for the different places, histories, cultures and experiences from which people speak without containing them to those positions. In other words, difference should not be discounted or suppressed, but

264

acknowledged. Notwithstanding multicultural activities on campuses, the celebrations of different cultures as acceptable still treat those cultures as “‘foreign bodies’ in the midst of the nation” (Bhabha, 1996, p.57). Hence, S. Hall (2017) has cautioned about the “spectacle of ethnicity” (p.93) within the multiculturalist discourse as a diversion from real issues of racism, for example.

Constructed through memory, fantasy, narratives and myth.

Hall’s belief that cultural identities are slippery was based on the role of memory in how individuals construct their identities. We rely on stories (narratives of our past) to help us make sense of our present lives and situations. However, these narratives are subject to change in the context in which they are told. Hall was not opposed to re-telling of narratives. Notwithstanding, he recognized that stories may be altered, hence the focus on “what we might become.” Identities are unfixed; and there is always some rupturing of experience that will shape what we might become, so “where we came from” is necessarily placed in the background. Culture is not a fixed thing within us that lies unchanged when all things around us change. Although Wayne continues to hear the echoes of his mother’s words about “changing the generation,” it is his constantly changing circumstances that will make that available or unavailable to him, hence what he might become. So, the past, through the motivation of his mother, continues to speak to him and influences what he might become but that too is subject to deferral.

Constructing cultural identity: Not what we have but what we do – It is in the living.

The evidence in my findings suggests that participants construct their identities through similarity and continuity as well as through difference and rupture. Constructing identity through their everyday lives during settlement and university was challenging and often based on

265

disruptive and convoluted experiences. In discussing how they this construction of identity was undertaken the data reveal that for some participants, it was in shared meanings. Neesa for example, explained that the ability to understand what is meant when a Jamaican speaks on certain issues, the language, attitudes and values are central to her understanding of her identity.

For Anne and Essie, it was finding their voices, places from which to question the exclusion of their history or cultural knowledge in the classroom and challenging the instructor to bring other knowledges into the instructional arena. By excavating their cultural knowledge and histories, they heeded the call to action by Hall (1993) to live by hybridity. A few participants interrogated language use in different settings. Wayne questioned what standard is acceptable in a world that is so complexly constructed. He was conscious that living in a global world makes all kinds of information available, so that the accent of one’s nation of origin should not be presumed as deficit, uncultured or lacking a facility with standard English. Despite these questions, he has a desire to re-create himself. Wayne’s question brings to focus the tendency to view skills of immigrants as deficit or suspect. The call to live with and through difference is a radical call that opens possibilities but also runs the risk of reifying differences. It would require a shift in ways of thinking about difference that moves beyond a mere recognition of individual differences to thinking differently, difference as constituted within. To return to the question of whose version of English sets a standard for the rest of the world, there is need to be cognizant that different countries have different standards. Rather than treating the differences as deficit, the classroom can be a space that contests the norm and work though difference, so students and instructors alike become co-leaners. The standard accepted within the host situation may be introduced alongside heritage language. The challenge is the willingness of instructors to teach in that way.

266

Some research has already begun in this area (see for example, Nero and Ahmad, 2014 discussed in Chapter 2).

Some negotiations of difference are unpleasant even within groups of a shared background. It is important to underscore that not all participants will have the same experience in university, nor will all will understand similar experiences in the same way. Each negotiates identity in ways that may be offensive to some. A major consideration of the subject of difference was language difference among people of shared heritage. Some participants who spoke about the use of Toronto slang by second generation Jamaicans did not consider its use to be creative or inventive. Rather, they saw it as offensive. However, there is a historical meaning that was missed given that the Jamaican language was formed in a similar manner. Knowledge of one’s history is important in cultural identity construction, but people’s knowledge may be partial. Among members of the same group, different backgrounds related to socio-economic or geographic locations can all interplay in identity construction. Therefore, difference operates within our identities, not as pure “otherness.” Hall’s focus on what we might become is to unleash new ways of thinking and doing, rather than be trapped in what was. No matter what students encounter in the receiving society, the experiences of the participants demonstrate that there are many likenesses, yet profound differences even within-group.

The challenges students discussed in settlement and university are not particular to

Jamaican immigrant students nor to all Jamaican students. Some challenges may be understood through structural issues of university and society that operate in everyday lives such as coping with transport or finances. These are structural matters that may be addressed through policies or other accommodations. Living with and through difference is an argument for working with your difference, not about being differentially treated because you are an immigrant or racialized

267

other. It is an opportunity to consider how these negative discourses of the self or collective may be negotiated. Wayne understood the subculture of students who are from wealthy backgrounds.

He experienced this in Jamaica and he was again confronted with it in Canada. Wayne determined to develop his own cultural capital and to go against the us/them binary of his

Jamaican peers and as he said, “think differently.” His negotiation of his cultural identity involved interactions with people of diverse backgrounds as he explored opportunities for cultural exchange. What was clear from the participants’ accounts was that they did not dispense with the cultural artifacts of the home society; rather, new ideas, normative discourses and values were incorporated in their new learning environments (Foner, 1978; Olneck, 2001), as the new society and university became sites for identity construction.

Another sense in which participants constructed cultural identity through difference, was by demonstrating who they are not. S. Hall has stated that “the other” is always needed in identity construction. The participants distanced themselves from the stereotypes projected onto them both by the dominant Canadian culture and by second and later generations of Jamaicans

(Foner, 1978). To illustrate their differences, Aaron described second generation Jamaicans as being “White washed,” and Destiny stated that they were “not off the boat,” indicating the generational differences in their experiences. The conflict between generational groups stems from a question of authenticity and who is believed to be more authentically Jamaican. But it speaks to broader issues as well, perhaps social class divisions, and leaves a question of how relationships thrive through difference. The point about living with and through difference is that it is not just about gaining satisfaction in university, achieving success and feeling a sense of belonging. It is living life differently or living a life of difference. No matter who people are or where they came from, there are possibilities within them to become. Recent immigrant students

268

from Jamaica can rewrite the narratives of the past, by deconstructing the stereotypes and educating people, as James and Donald have suggested. Once educated, you cannot remain the same. That is the basis of representing yourself, given how you have been represented. It is not guaranteed to work out successfully all the time, but ultimately it is possible.

University is an appropriate space for a change in mind. Learning to live with and through difference requires a destabilization of the inner – university represents a place for new insights and theorizations. Hall believed that theorizing cultural identity was necessarily an intellectual activity so that the “settled” beliefs and stereotypes are unsettled, and there is opportunity for repositioning. In Rushdie’s (1996) view, there should be no shying away from the new and unfamiliar. The new and unfamiliar are “spaces” of potential – opportunities to become. As they navigate through university they are building a repertoire of abilities and skills to assist them in their advanced years. Donald observed, after the intensity of the first two years of trial and error, things did become easier and he understood much better what was required of him. The progress through university is not without its disruptions and tensions, but as their knowledge expanded, participants found that they were better able to question and consciously consider the meaning of their life experiences. As they encountered new processes, new people, new circumstances the participants through processes of negotiation rejected, challenged, or embraced “newness.” Constructing cultural identities involves a process of self-reflection as the participants position themselves. What does it mean when you must find work, live with people you do not know, cannot get along with family members, must pay your bills, must get assignments done or must explain yourself to professors and participate in discussions that you do not want to be a part of? All these activities involve thinking through and living through difference to develop agency.

269

The third space of hybridity as suggested in the writings of Hall and Bhabha is the space of agency, where resources for living with and through difference are available. Bhabha (1994) described this space using the metaphor of a stairwell. He stated,

the hither and thither of the stairwell, the temporal movement and passage that it allows

prevents identities from either ends of it from settling into primordial polarities. This

interstitial passage between fixed identifications opens up the possibility of a cultural

hybridity that entertains difference without an assumed or imposed hierarchy. (p. 4)

Bhabha has suggested through the imagery of the stairwell that hybridity requires a necessary movement back and forth without settling at either end a fixed identification. The stairwell imagery is constructive in the potential to reflect the aspirational component of the participants’ identities, but also instructive in the uncertainty that it represents. You may go up or down but not remained fixed at either end. The stairwell may be applied to the participants’ lives in several ways. Segree had to change her program because she was not achieving the success she desired. Wayne and Teeah had to stop out due to mental stress and monetary issues. Essie had a delay in her studies because of mental stress. Anne and Simon had to do an additional year because their credits were not transferable. In all these examples the participants repositioned bearing in mind their aspirations. Intra-cultural and intergenerational differences can also be analyzed through the stairwell imagery. Difference is evident among the recent immigrant students from Jamaica. Simon was clear that he does not define his identity in “Jamaican things.”

So, difference by hybridity is also individual. What is clear in Bhabha’s imagery is the ongoing movement back and forth representative of the never-ending process of identity construction.

Cultural identity construction by hybridity takes place in contexts where participants keep in touch with friends, read Jamaican newspapers, attend functions and events that replicate what

270

is done in the source country. Bhabha may regard this as holding on to past traditions; however, they were indicating that staying in touch kept them “inside” of what was happening in Jamaica and helped “secure” or keep their identities “safe from the intrusions” of the mainstream culture.

This was a false hope, and the participants realized it was not possible. Hall made it clear that mediations always influenced identity construction. However, some participants harbor real fears about becoming “Canadian” in their behavior. When Aaron suggested that being in the Black students’ association meant being in a space where he could exist without “outside interference,” that was the idea. Some participants had the idea that they could avoid mediations in their lives that would affect “true” identity.

The “Difference” Matters--Cultural Identity as “What We Might Become.”

This section discusses how students constructed their cultural identities in the contexts of living with and through difference. The results from Chapter Six revealed that although participants embraced the similarities in their Jamaican identity, there were points of discord as well. Furthermore, participants were very vocal in their belief that difference mattered to them.

Segree was emphatic that she wanted nothing to do with anyone who just thought of Jamaicans as one thing or that we all behaved in the same way. There was evidence of both accommodation and discordance in the conversations. On one hand, the participants constructed their cultural identities through their similarities and “what made” them Jamaicans. Some constructions were the very things they resisted from non-Jamaicans. However, they believed that they could essentialize their own behaviors, being keenly aware of the differences that comprise their experiences. As the accounts were closely examined it was clear that students constructed their identities in multiple ways. The unifying historical experience for the participants is the reality of

271

struggle and hardship, but the experiences are varied, and the conceptualizations of identity complexly intermingle in positive and negative ways to affect what they might “become.”

S. Hall (1996a) placed history, language (because meanings are subject to context) and culture at the forefront of constructions of identity as “historically specific, contextually bound and thus subject to position and circumstance or time and space” (p. 424). Hall posited that circumstances or mediations offer opportunities for rewriting the narratives of the past. Cultural identities have their histories, and these histories form an important aspect of what individuals might become. However, fixation with the history denies the opportunity to rewrite those histories. S. Hall (1993) stated that, like everything that is historical, our cultural identities undergo transformation. The space of university and cultural practices developed in university are considered spaces of becoming. University is one context in which new ways of defining identity become possible. If individuals remain locked into essentialist notions of the self, then it may likely stymie what they might become. That is not to suggest that there is not a place for

“excavating” the essences of the Jamaican identity through what Hall determines to be a process of recovery of the past. It is narrated in ourselves (S. Hall, 1997a). One cannot, by merely resisting stereotypes, recover the essence of our identities, because there are no guarantees in identity. Cultural identities remain “subject to political and economic forces outside of us and can be articulated in different ways” (p.57).

Many experiences may be common to Jamaican immigrant students, but there are other identifications that complicate the experiences of cultural identity construction. It is in the vein of intersecting identities or multiple identifications that Hall spoke of cultural identity as “points of suture” to suggest that we are always adding or taking away something as the course of history unfolds. Hall was suggesting that social identifications such as race, gender, or class are

272

unfixed categories and therefore change according to the contexts in which they operate. Hall compelled us to see the fluidity in the way we conceive of an identity. This is what the idea of becoming means; embracing heterogeneity as a necessary and deliberate act of living as hybrids

(p. 235). This is the only way that we can understand the places from which we speak.

Becoming processors of political and economic knowledge.

Knowles (1999) argued that “identities are better understood through the existential/social processes through which they work” (p.122). My participants were subject to several social processes shaped by politics and economics. The political and economic forces that affected the identity constructions of participants included placement in the category of domestic student which limited the access to certain resources and information. Destiny and

Donald spoke about limited access to resources based on the erasure of their recent immigrant status. They wanted their difference from students who grew up in the Canadian system to be realized and made to matter, enabling their successful navigation of university. All the participants welcomed the Ontario Student Assistance Program (OSAP) as offering the economic resources to help them in university. However, some aspects of the program caused further strain on participants’ finances, leading them to shift their identities to part-time worker.

Some of the most gripping accounts of how identities are entangled in social processes were expressed by Teeah and Wayne, who both dropped out of university twice, once due to psychological health issues, and in the other instance to raise enough funds to continue university. These situations are evidence that identities are contingent. There can be no guarantees, despite the value that participants placed on higher education. More important is the re-entry of the two participants to continue their education on the way to what they might become.

273

Opening “spaces” of le arning.

Hall’s notion, “not who we are or where we come from,” is a contested issue in learning situations because in the absence of cultural understandings of difference, how can students progress to success? Immigrants who enter university without having been through the high school system in the receiving country feel themselves at a disadvantage, given that they often have very limited knowledge of the system of education in the new country of residence. The university is a place where interactions among groups are encouraged. Kaufman and Feldman

(2004) viewed college as an arena of social interaction in which the individual encounters a multitude of actors in a variety of settings. One participant spoke of the assumption by professors that they were all aware of how everything works at university, and he blamed universities for not being more in touch with the international population of students. He later admitted that students do not go for help, which begs the question why? In thinking about what he said, I believe that students are afraid of how they will be perceived if they go for help. This is an issue of cultural safety. Given the stereotypes that recent immigrant students potentially face, they may be hesitant to seek out help for fear of being perceived as lazy or intellectually deficient. It is in situations such as the fear of discrimination that participants indicated that the collective of

Jamaican students provided a space for guidance and support (Hernandez-Ramdwar, 2009).

In other examples of living with and through difference, participants discussed the context of classroom learning, where they expressed that their cultural knowledges were unaccounted for. In those contexts, participants experienced some sense of marginalization in relation to the dominant culture. They believed that their prior knowledge and cultural experiences had no place in their classrooms and were illegitimate forms of knowledge. Hall explained that in the contexts of dominant/ legitimate and marginal/illegitimate the argument is

274

never one-sided (Proctor, 2004, p.47). In other words, there are always going to be binary considerations. What the participants shared as their response to the omission of their cultural knowledge is how they negotiated their position in the classroom discussions. Anne, Essie, and

Leah’s examples have already been discussed. However, I wish to reiterate Anne’s statement because it captures the marginalization that was experienced. Anne suggested that there is no one in her class who could relate to her experience as a Jamaican. Anne’s assertion and legitimation of her identity and knowledge was her way of filling the “gaps and silences” as Bannerji (1995) has described it, “where people like us were never present in what we taught and read” (p. 43).

Anne was not dismissive of the information on the dominant culture that was being discussed in class. However, she exercised the agency to make the applications that she felt were appropriate, and by doing so asserted her identity as someone whose knowledge can be included. She used the product available to her through the curriculum, to bring information that is usually omitted to the center of instruction. She recovered what had been erased. The inventive aspects of the self that arise in new situations are also described as ways in which heterogeneity comes into recognition. It is through inventive processes that hybridity takes shape as well.

Becoming in language--embracing and resisting.

There are two examples of shifts in language in the participants’ accounts. In one instance participants problematized the act of “tarnishing” Jamaican Creole by second and later generation Jamaican immigrants. The other shift may be viewed as a positioning; how individuals strategized to access certain resources. The shifts are significant because, in the case of the former, it brought disruption to what was considered pure or authentic Jamaican language.

It is a relevant theme in the discussion of cultural identity construction on two levels first, it illustrates how the first-generation immigrant students position themselves as real and authentic

275

in comparison to later generations, and second, it revealed how difference is illuminated within collectives. As already discussed in Chapter Six, the “Toronto slang” is a hybrid of Jamaican

Creole and Canadian English thought to be developed by second and later generation Jamaicans in Canada. Nero and Ahmad (2014) describe this mixing as “language borrowing and identity crossing” (p.50) which is a phenomenon observed in large metropolitan areas. Three participants spoke about “Toronto slang” as a source of pride in the influence that Jamaican language could have in a new country, while three others objected to what they perceived to be diminishing the language. The idea of language borrowing and identity crossing is acknowledged in the writings of Bhabha (1994) and Rushdie (1992) as what happens “when newness enters the world”

(Rushdie, p.394). For these writers, the mixing of language and other cultural practices represent a celebration of difference through hybridity, by the intermingling of identities and transformations. The three participants who celebrated the mixing of the language discovered that language can be agentic; that something new can emerge that may be claimed, for good or bad, as one’s creation, and be acknowledged as a part of Toronto’s urban culture. For Bhabha

(1994), this agency is inevitable through the migratory experience. He has suggested that migrants are “agents of innovation and translation, mediators between the cultures. It is through agency that the migrant survives the “new world.”

Nero and Ahmad (2014) expanded the idea of identity crossing by citing examples from the immigrant experience in Britain. They explained how teachers had attributed a “romantic bilingualism” (p. 50) to their students of Indian or Pakistani descent. In their example they showed that these students identified in multiple ways and spoke a variety of languages including

London Jamaican English which they learned through intermingling with students of Jamaican backgrounds. In a related example in my research, some first-generation immigrant students

276

fixed the identities of their second and later generation counterparts to their birthplace, Canada.

They tend to regard these later generations as illegitimate because they were born outside of the country of their parents’ heritage, and, hence this discounts their claim to the national identity.

Aaron made this claim as he spoke of the later generations as “White-washed.” Aaron’s and other’s resistance to the use of the Toronto slang was because they felt that it made the language inauthentic. In this instance, Aaron constructs Jamaican Creole as a fixed language, undermining the fluidity that is evident in its use even among Jamaican nationals.

The second shift is one of re-presenting themselves to access jobs or other facilities through mimesis. Anne and Oneise indicated that they utilized code-switching as a form of cultural fluidity, an act which Burton (2009) described as to “shift, morph and change behavior patterns as seen fit to meet some particular needs” (p.11). Rushdie (1992) would argue that the hybridity in the language used by recent immigrants is a celebration of the contact between cultures, creating avenues for further interactions. Others would argue that the shifts in language are mainly adaptations for social mobility and survival purposes, and even, in this view, Anne’s and Oneise’s use of code switching would be regarded as agentic.

Shared language of an ethnic group is the basis on which understanding of values and beliefs is transmitted to members of the group. This shared language that the participants spoke about was not the official language of the country but is still considered the “common tongue” that identifies anyone who uses it as Jamaican. It follows therefore, that language is inextricably linked to identity (Eastman, 1984; Fishman, 1997). Despite the mixture of ethnicities in Jamaica, use of the Jamaican Creole in foreign spaces serves as a symbol of national identity. Through the process of encoding, people of similar background comprehend what may not be readily comprehended by outsiders to the group. The Jamaican Creole language was the one true way in

277

which Wayne believed there could be an authentic construction of Jamaican identity. Even in other aspects of their cultural lives, participants illustrated the power of language. When Oneise alluded to her ambivalence about some of the music and dance of Jamaicans because she knew the negative perceptions it accorded them as a group, she could rationalize almost immediately that it was an undeniable part of the Jamaican culture (Thomas 2004), and one for which she should not be apologetic. This understanding comes from a knowledge of the language of her culture. The meaning of the dance to outside cultures was in question, but to those who shared the history, the symbolic value grounded them to what they believed to be their roots.

Language was not only discussed as instrumental and symbolic but also as therapeutic.

The participants expressed the view that in the collective spaces language was a means of

“relaxation.” Participants spoke of the opportunity to “chill” and speak Jamaican Creole. They were mindful, however, that using the vernacular around people outside of their culture might make them feel excluded. They demonstrated that they could operate as hybrids, moving between standard English and Jamaican Creole in the presence of outsiders to the group. When

Simon, Leah, Anne, Essie, Teeah, Donald and Wayne spoke about the “coming together through the language” and being understood, their appreciation of the language was based on its unifying effect with fellow Jamaicans, but also gave them “a sense of home.”

The participants were not deluded in thinking that being in the collective of clubs meant that they were unified in all areas of their lives. They understood that the unity they experienced was often due to the shared experiences of migration, dislocation and cultural discrimination while adjusting to life in a new country. As Aaron indicated, even when their differences were illuminated during conversations within the student associations, those were moments were set aside in the interest of working through collective struggles.

278

Hall held that the solidarity that comes with the shared history and experiences and ignites the collective spirit might itself be jeopardized by the play of difference. The dialogue between similarity and difference is a most contentious issue for Hall. He articulated the complexity of constructing a politics that works with and through difference that “builds the forms of solidarity and identification which make common struggle and resistance possible, but without suppressing the real heterogeneity of interests and identities” (p.445). Rather than focusing on what was considered stable about identities, and recreating essentialist categories,

Hall (1997) argued for “loosening the moorings” (p. 33). Hall believed that ignoring the differences within subverts the potentialities of becoming.

Becoming through the community of clubs and associations .

Hall’s notion of becoming suggests that there is some agency to determine through activities what we might become. I would venture, as well, that there is agency in the choices participants made to construct a cultural identity that aligned or was discordant with that of the collective. Oneise negotiated back and forth between her Jamaican and Canadian identities in the two groups with which she affiliated. Oneise exemplified the “situated self” (Valentine, 2009) believed that she was one self with her sorority sisters and another self in the Jamaican association, but even these categories are unstable. She admitted to negotiating her identities between groups when her Jamaican culture was on display, for example, when reggae or dancehall music was played. This is described in some literature as selective acculturation

(Portes & Rumbaut, 1996, p. 243-245), where immigrants adopt some aspects of both cultures.

Selective acculturation supports Hall’s view that no category of identity is stable, and no experience is singular and straightforward. Simon’s claim to love North American things while claiming a “real Jamaican” identity showed an openness to accommodate difference and set

279

himself apart from the collective. Simon’s identity construction reflects Kim and Diaz’s (2013) interpretation of selective acculturation where cultural values support integration to mainstream activities (p. 33).

Many of the participants’ involvement with the collectives of Jamaican students fostered opportunities for developing new cultural strategies that would empower the collective or contribute something to their heritage country. James and Aaron led several initiatives in their respective student affiliations that helped rupture the negativities surrounding Jamaicans. Others like Neesa and Destiny were engaged in projects to tip the scale of power and allow

Jamaican/Caribbean/Black students to have opportunities to enter fields of study not usually open to them. Some, like Teeah and Wayne, engaged with larger and more established collectives of Jamaicans in projects to assist Jamaican immigrant communities. Some made annual visits to Jamaica to assist in one project or the other. In this context, they were involved in a type of transnational migration, defined by Fouron and Glick-Schiller (2001) as “a process of movement and settlement across international borders in which individuals maintain or build multiple networks of connection to their country of origin while at the same time settling into a new country” (p.60).

The presence of clubs and associations of a cultural nature helps in the assertion of a collective identity. Lorick-Wilmot (2010) spoke of the collective identity of Caribbean people as a social construct that is hinged on a “shared definition of a group that derives from members’ common interests, experiences and solidarity constructed through interaction in the community”

(Taylor & Whittier, 1995, p.172). In other words, the convergence of the group originated with common understandings, knowledges, and practices, but what solidifies the collective identity is the opportunity for networking as a community.

280

The participants’ involvement in these activities indicated that they were not content with a single definition of themselves. They wanted to become, represent and disrupt stereotypical and deficit representations of themselves. But their efforts to do so, though presented as collective efforts in this section, were not always communal. Not all participants engaged with the collective student associations. Bhabha (1994) suggested that innovations could involve individual strategies of selfhood that engage reinventions of the self. Bhabha defined these as

“in-between spaces” (p.1) where collective strategies were deployed and “new signs of identity, and innovative sites of collaboration, and contestation” (Bhabha, 1994, p.1) rendered new definitions of themselves in relation to the society in which participants resided. Cultural identity constructed by hybridity defies superficial collaborations based merely on traditional ties. The work done by collectives does not have to always be affiliative, as in the concept of imagined community (Anderson, 1982). Bucholtz and K. Hall (2003) indicated that social groupings are a process not merely of discovering or acknowledging a similarity that precedes and establishes identity but more fundamentally of inventing similarity by downplaying difference (p. 371).

There is an implied similarity between their view of invention and Stuart Hall’s expression regarding “imagined communities”; however, S. Hall did not favour a downplaying of difference, rather an acknowledgement of difference. The idea is to work beyond the fixity of essentialist alignments, and discover, as Hall implored, “the places from which to speak” (1993, p. 235). Those spaces when discovered do not have to suppress differences in search of community or a diaspora; rather, the space is liminal. “Becoming” within the liminal space is recognizing that limitations exist, but those limitations do not have to be constantly debated. The idea is to speak from the liminal space beyond the usual recall of the past, “reconfiguring it as a

281

contingent ‘in-between’ space” (Bhabha, 1994, p. 7) through which new practices come in existence.

Becoming through aspirations.

What Hall proposed as what we might become is a part of the focus of the new ethnicities that arise in the “crisscross of various social categories of identification. This includes an aspirational component that is evident among many immigrant students and their families” (Picot

& Hou, 2012); “university aspiration among students and their parents account for the largest portion of factors explaining the advantage that immigrant background students have in

Canadian universities. As participants aspired to “become,” they were involved in interrogating, negotiating, and manipulating their circumstances to achieve Canadian credentials and future professions. Wayne was adamant that he is “Jamaican in every way, in everything I do, and everywhere I go.” However, he discussed issues on which he parted ways with the Jamaican collective. He self-identified as someone whose “brand” entailed cultural understandings and tolerance for other groups. He did not intend the similarities within to interfere with learning and empowering himself to deal with differences outside the collective. He was interested in opening more opportunities to become. What Wayne realized was that sometimes there had to be discontinuities in collective relationships to become what one aspired to be. Oneise expressed moments of discontinuity as well when her grades began to slip. Wayne also demonstrated the complexities of constructing multiple dimensions of identity through the interventions of everyday life. He spoke, mainly about having “to work, do school, try to participate in extracurricular activities, try to deal with family”; thus, he was constantly negotiating his identity.

282

Becoming through resistance .

Resistance as an element in cultural identity construction was discussed in different ways by participants. Some resisted being identified as anything but Jamaican; others identified as both Jamaican and Black; one wanted to be identified more generally as Black to mark historical moments of enslavement and its continuous traumatic effects on those who are descendants of slaves. But there were participants who refused to be fixed by the phenotypes that positioned them to hierarchical categories in society. Most resist a hyphenated national identification.

Rather than describing themselves as Jamaican-Canadians, most of them indicated an identification with the heritage culture (Jamaican) and the country of residence (Canada) in what some theorists consider “compartmentalization” (Huynh, Nguyen, & Benet-Martinez, 2011).

When Aaron stated, “a jus’ so mi stay” (this is just who I am), he was laying claim to a fixed identity. Hall, however, would argue that it is a position taken in a moment to serve a purpose--

“Just now this is what I mean; this is who I am … Full stop. OK” (Hall in Proctor, p.45). Hall’s focus, according to Proctor (2004) is not an attempt to anchor or fix identity to a spot but to not treat it as “free floating” either (p.121). Aaron’s statement is not to be read as a complete closure but interpreted in the context in which it was stated.

Summary

This chapter revealed that most participants identified with a nation of origin identity even as they realized the complexities involved in such a definition. Most of what the participants shared resonated with the framework that guided the research. The participants’ processes of cultural identity construction were embedded initially in parental beliefs and the values transmitted to their offspring. In migration, participants confronted stereotypes and discrimination that challenged their perceptions of themselves but served as spaces from which

283

to speak out against such discrimination. They also placed much value in their friendships with other Jamaicans whether individuals or in the collective. Faced with challenges in their new environment and stereotypes due to misconceptions from both mainstream culture and through generational differences, the participants realized that there was more to them than the stereotypes; more to them than the binaries of us/them; more to them than inter-generational differences. These were not revealed as stable categories in their accounts.

Hall’s writings repeatedly demonstrate that identity is never complete, but always in production. Uncertainty, shifts, splits, and transformations are just a few ways in which I interpret how the participants describe their cultural identity. Despite some examples of attempts to “fix” or stabilize their cultural identity, it was through the lived experiences that participants demonstrated that they were more than the sum of their identifications of self, of nation, of race, and of class. Their accounts, as well, illustrated that although their memories of the past, their beliefs and parental influences were part of their cultural backgrounds that mattered in the receiving society; they were not stuck in the memories of the past. All participants desired to move beyond their nation of origin; not as an indication of never returning to the “homeland” because in all accounts there is a desire to return, but not in the same way as how they left. Some desired to explore other places in the world, work in other countries before returning to Jamaica.

Others wished to return as soon as they have completed higher level studies to lend a helping hand to their origin-nation. The process of identity construction was on going and participants were reinventing themselves. By their own admission, there is no a single way in which they describe their process of cultural identity construction. Through their determination and desires to achieve their personal ambitions, they positioned themselves to contribute to the Canadian way of life through university participation. Through university participation, other avenues of

284

becoming became available to them. The struggles of their past, and even the traumatic historical narratives, were part of the memories that they recovered in the experiences of being visible minorities. But the labels did not prevent them from moving beyond or rethinking what boundaries meant. Bhabha (1994) suggested that the “boundary becomes the place from which something begins its presencing in a movement not dissimilar to the ambulant, ambivalent articulation of the beyond” (spelling in original, p.5). The argument by Bhabha, as well as S.

Hall, was that there is always desire for movement. Even within the “boundaries” of stereotypes and discriminatory practices toward some groups, there are opportunities to negotiate. he presencing or “positionings” from the margins are the moments of possibilities for articulation.

S. Hall called for a self-reflexive mode of understanding categories of essentialism, and a recognition that identities need not be limited to fixed categories. In the end, I think the participants’ accounts reveal that despite some expressions of static identities, unchanged by time, their lived experiences tell a very different story about the ways in which they constantly negotiate, and live with and through difference; by hybridity.

S. Hall’s writings suggest not only that identity shifts and changes in migration but also that there are possibilities of losses and gains through the experience. In a few of the narratives, participants acknowledged the loss of privilege and status which were not recovered in migration or not recovered in a similar manner. In view of the losses and gains as well as the differences in the everyday experiences of participants, being Jamaican is a fluid and contextual construction of identity, subject to change in relation to how it is being experienced in the historical moment.

Being Jamaican is also complexly difficult to define in relation to the multiple dimensions of social identities and the discourses around these recent immigrant students make sense of themselves.

285

Chapter 9 Conclusion

The purpose of the study was to explore the cultural identity construction process of recent immigrant students from Jamaica who live in and attend university in Ontario. The research on participants’ experiences was undertaken within a seven-month time frame and involved semi-structured interviews with 14 students who identified as recent immigrants from

Jamaica, all living in Canada between 2 and 7 years at the time of the interviews and all attending university in the Greater Toronto Area, Ontario. The research was exploratory and therefore raised additional questions through the process of data analysis and discussion. In keeping with a phenomenological tradition, the research was an opportunity to hear how these students made meaning of their lives through the experiences of migration, settlement, and university attendance. Investigation of lived experience use “surrender and catch” to articulate with the perspectives of the participants and to move away with some appreciation of what it is like to be in the situation (Polkinghorne, 1989). Through hermeneutic phenomenology, a richer understanding of the contexts of migration, settlement and university participation that give meaning to participants’ cultural identity construction experiences was derived. Some aspects of their narratives may resonate with other students in PSE, other students of immigrant backgrounds, or other students of racialized backgrounds. In recognition of the complexities involved in doing research on identity construction, I drew on Gunaratnam’s (2003) idea of a

“doubled research practice” which allows for “working with and against racial and ethnic categories” (p. 29) to consider the relational aspects of identity and interrogate these relationships.

286

The Canadian context is an important aspect of the study, as the phenomenon of migration continues to propel people from lands of turmoil—people seeking peace and security, educational advancement, and better financial prospects to this country. Canada presents itself to the rest of the world as a country of immigrants, open and tolerant. Notwithstanding the fact that many immigrants have settled well in Canada and are on the path to fulfilling their dreams, little is known about the everyday lives of immigrants and how they have lived through transitions from their homelands to Canada. Some immigrants admit to the challenges of living in a country where the prevailing perceptions about “who you are” affect your everyday relations to society, resulting in constant negotiations of cultural identities. My research interrogated how recent immigrant students from Jamaica constructed the meanings about “who they are” and “where they came from” and how those meanings influence “what they might become.” The general understanding that emerged from the research is that learning how to live with and through the stereotypes, the discrimination, and the “otherness” (Mercer, 2017) requires strategic positioning.

This chapter concludes the study and presents a summary of the preceding chapters; an overview of the findings; and an examination of the major contributions in view of the three research questions. It addresses the implications of the findings for theory and practice for institutions of higher education, as well as recommendations for future research.

Overview of Study

Chapter One of the study provides a background, purpose, questions driving the research study, and significance setting the stage for what follows in subsequent chapters. The research is significant for understanding how the construction of identity operates in the lives of recent immigrant students, especially when immigration, settlement and university experiences are considered. In a province such as Ontario that attracts growing numbers of immigrants, and with

287

a Black population comprised largely of Jamaicans, understanding the resource needs, concerns, challenges and trepidations of this population has implications for their acclimation to society and university. Through partnerships of immigration and settlement agencies with universities, supports may be garnered that offer recent immigrants avenues to effectively navigate their university experiences. Universities consider diversity, including cultural diversity, to be a part of their mandate; yet, there is little evidence of the cultural knowledge of underserved groups or curriculum reflecting these groups. This situation is untenable in a society that boasts of being among the most “multicultural” in the world.

Chapter Two presents a literature review, which provides a brief history of Jamaican encounters with other worlds and cultures in the context of conquest, slavery, and colonialism. It discusses early migration patterns leading into discussions of Jamaica’s history of immigration to

Canada after a period of exclusion in the 1950s. The Jamaican experience in Canada is examined against the backdrop of Canadian multiculturalism as the hallmark of Canadian identity. The chapter entails a review of some of the existing literature on immigrants and analyses how migration is historically connected to identity construction of immigrants from Jamaica. The literature bears out the suggestion by Hall that identities are contextualized through history, culture and language. Hence, the history of colonial relations, creolization and language development are aspects of the past that continue to influence the constructions of cultural identities of Jamaicans. The relational nature of cultural identity is highlighted through discourses of social mobility that are taken up by participants and their parents. The discourse of nation of origin is a significant aspect of the literature review and reinforces the collective nature of identity.

288

Chapter three discusses the theoretical and conceptual underpinnings of the research. The conceptual framework is drawn from Stuart Hall’s (1993) thesis of cultural identity by hybridity.

The primary focus of this chapter is to consider the views of Hall on cultural identity as one that

“lives with and through, not despite, difference; by hybridity (p. 235, italics in original). To support S. Hall’s conceptualization, the work of Brah (1996) on difference and Bhabha (1994) on hybridity contribute to the framework for considering how Jamaican immigrant students construct their cultural identities in Canadian spaces. The chapter emphasizes how identities that live with difference and through difference are complexly negotiated and historically contingent, destabilizing any simple or linear construction, especially when contexts of immigration, settlement and university are considered.

Chapter four outlines the methodological framework and research process for this study.

It outlines the use of semi-structured interviews which were analyzed using a combined methodological approach of hermeneutic phenomenological inquiry (van Manen, 1997) and

Gunaratnam’s (2003) “doubled research practice.” Few research undertakings in the student development field employ mixed theoretical and methodological approaches. My research contributes this combined approach as a way of exploring the complexities of identity construction among students in higher education. It extends the practices of other scholars such as Abes and Jones (2007) and Kinchloe and Mclaren (2005). Together these approaches helped me explore the influences of migration, settlement and university experiences in the construction of cultural identities. A “doubled research practice” requires interrogating participants’ understanding of constructs by working through their narratives to locate evidence of meaning. I utilized this approach by questioning how participants interpreted multiculturalism and

Jamaican-ness to “open up” these categories to other categories where difference is illuminated.

289

In undertaking a doubled practice, one must be mindful about remaining true to the stories of the participants because the research represents their experiences and perspectives of living in

Ontario, Canada.

Chapter five is the first of three data chapters and introduces the participants as they described themselves in their reflections on pre-migration. The two major themes, “Growing up

Jamaican” and “emigration decisions,” are discussed along with the subthemes that emerged from the findings. The analysis reflects a co-construction of the findings of the semi-structured interviews that were conducted. Chapters Six and Seven discuss the findings during settlement and university, respectively, to trace how participants discuss their identities in the encounters with a new society and university. The major themes of Chapter Six are “Unsettling” and

“Different views of multiculturalism” which are unpacked through a multiplicity of sub-themes about displacements, disruptions, stereotypes and social interactions. In Chapter Seven, the major themes are “Being in university” and “Constructing cultural identities.”

Chapter Eight discusses the findings of the data chapters using the conceptual framework to explore the construction of cultural identities in relation to migration, settlement and university. It discusses the interpretations of the findings, especially with respect to participants’ definitions of their cultural identities and how they perceive that these identities have been formed or transformed “to become” within Canadian society and university.

Research Questions and Themes

The overarching research question asked what is the lived experience of cultural identity construction among recent immigrant students from Jamaica when migration, settlement, and university contexts are considered? The sub-questions are as follows:

290

1. How is cultural identity given meaning in lives of recent immigrant students from

Jamaica? That is, how do they understand and articulate their cultural identities?

2. How do migration, settlement and university contexts influence their cultural identity

construction?

3. By what mechanisms are cultural identities negotiated?

The research questions help to make sense of the findings in the research. Research sub- question 1 asks how cultural identity is given meaning in the lives of recent immigrant students.

This question is linked mainly to the first major theme as students turned to the past to articulate what gives their lives meaning. They reflected on their lives in Jamaica; how they were socialized by their families; and the influences of schools and peers in forming their identities.

The accounts began at home and the beliefs and values passed on by parents about education, about social relationships, about use of language and the importance of advancement and mobility (Alfred, 2003). Participants articulated multiple considerations in identity construction as they realized how skin color, language, where they lived were all linked to status in their origin country. As Jones (2009) suggested,

we cannot separate ourselves from the contexts in which we grew up, as these are the

very experiences that influence what stands out today in relation to individual

experiences … in the heightened sensibility of these relationships when negotiating

experiences of ‘difference.’ (p. 294)

The findings suggest that parental influence “stands out” in the way participants articulate their cultural identities. Participants constructed parental influence on identity through the following effects: upbringing; interests; protectiveness; choice of peers; routes to university; emotional support; parental vision; and aspirations. Parents were also the drivers of the decision to emigrate

291

which heightened participants’ awareness of their cultural identities and allowed for further shifts and changes in identity construction. The past represents the reason that participants emigrated.

So, the reference to identities as being grounded in the past is both to a colonial past as well as how traces of history are reflected in the reasons participants gave for leaving Jamaica. Knowles

(1999) has referred to ways that spatial practices are reflected in immigrant biographies, global movement, and the racial categories of cities (p.115). I aimed to apply this analysis in part to how cultural identities are given meaning in the accounts of the participants.

The participants’ self introductions in Chapter Five reveal the role of space whether lived or felt in pre-migration experiences. Most described a comfortable home, yet these home environments were disrupted by noise, separation from significant family members, and violence and crime. In some instances, the families functioned across two geographical spaces and so the participants moved between Jamaica and Canada or the USA for much of their lives. Some research has been done on transnational movements of Caribbean immigrants (Plaza, 2008;

Thomas-Hope, 2004). Further research is needed to examine the transmigration behaviors of immigrant students and the impact on heritage and receiving nations. The spatial element is important in looking at shifts in identities. The growing literature on space and identity has established an understanding that identity shifts and cannot be regarded as a fixed construct.

However, significant to this research is that participants acknowledged a change in their financial circumstances when they moved to Ontario but never referred to a change of class status between emigration and immigration. They each alluded to their social class status in Jamaica, but aside from Wayne, who continued to refer to himself as lower income, they did not discuss class directly. There seemed to have been an unspoken acceptance that social class status changed during migration, seen in Destiny’s statement that “who I was in Jamaica plays no role here.”

292

Alternately, the “assumed” middle-class status of students in university may have been a consideration or the prospect of what they anticipated through their aspirations. The social mobility ideal was a push factor in migration, but once university enrolment was attained, social class was less visible or downplayed in their accounts. I question whether the fact that they were in university made it a more level playing field in relation to other Canadian students, as Bhatti

(2003) suggested that university is often viewed as a province of the privileged. For the participants in my research, the desire for better through university participation remained a fixture in their cultural identity construction.

Research question 2 asks how migration, settlement and university contexts influence cultural identity construction. The experiences that influenced participants’ construction of identity during migration and settlement were addressed around the following: navigating administrative structures; finding resources to assist with settlement; finding employment; re- entry to high school and coping with new school structures; managing perceptions of others about self; and dealing with stereotypes and language differences. These conditions that were political, material, and cultural enabled formation and transformation of cultural identities.

Within the political sphere, immigration policies in both Jamaica and Canada made migration possible. However, material conditions and discourses intervened in participants’ experiences as well and S. Hall (1993) has noted, affects what “we might become.”

The examples that follow illustrate how participants consciously tried to make meaning of their experiences during settlement and university. Rosita’s questions about the meaning of being Black and woman in relation to her work environment and her community reveal how power relations operate in the lives of many immigrant females. She questioned the perception of

Black women by those who view the Black female body as one that is deviant. She also

293

questioned how Black people could be complicit in “fighting against” other Blacks rather than present a unifying front against oppression. Destiny was very aware of the complexity of a

Jamaican identity and reflected on what Jamaican means when you are inside (Jamaica) and when you are outside (immigrant, second-generation). Her consciousness of race caused her to grapple with an identification of herself through an understanding of “who she is not” in Canada.

James was very conscious of a Black identity and reflected on the psychological oppression of living in a predominantly White country. He acknowledged that living in Canada has its benefits and sees it as an opportunity to take back what was taken from “him” (meaning his slave ancestors). In other words, James believed that whatever gains he achieved in Canada were reparations for what slaves had suffered. Neesa fixed the notion of identity in a person’s actions or behaviours and did not readily accept ideas of transformation of identity. She believed the lightening or bleaching of the skin by Black individuals is an attempt to erase their history.

Through oppression and discrimination, she saw opportunities to reflect on her history but not allow it to hinder her progress. Her views resonated with Hall (1993) and Bhabha (1994).

Segree and Aaron spoke of their relationship to Canada through the material value of a passport (Plaza, 2001) more than anything else. Segree indicated that does not feel a sense of belonging to Canada which she refers to as “their country.” Other participants like Wayne,

Simon, Teeah, Oneise, Essie and Simon were optimistic about the possibilities that Canada offers while resisting the stereotypes that confronted them during the settlement period. They were very realistic about what they wanted to achieve by living in Canada, but their ambivalence about complete assimilation to Canadian life was also evident.

This ambivalence is present in how participants interpret the experiences of university. In

Simon’s example, he could not get a job initially due to lack of Canadian experience and he lost

294

credits in university because the courses done in the source country were not considered to be compatible with the ones offered in his program at university. Disruptions in his university experiences and delays in finding employment were a part of his process of “becoming.” He learned to accept the changes that came with migration and determined that his career goal as an investment banker (see Table 3) would be realized. For participants who faced stereotypes and questions about their identity, who struggled with intercultural relationships in university, getting through each day was an exercise in doing what needed to survive. This idea of survival is communicated through Hall’s conceptualization of a cultural idea that lives with and through difference. It becomes a question of how to make meaning of self by living “loosening the moorings” (Hall quoted in Osborne & Segal, 1997).

Research question 3 asks by what mechanisms are cultural identities negotiated? The response to that question is found in the inner drives and cultural resources that participants drew on to live day by day in Ontario and help them to navigate university. The participants often questioned their identities in the liminal space of university where some struggled to find their fit. All participants relied on peers from similar backgrounds within or outside of a collective student group. These affiliations were the main mechanisms of collaboration, education, and innovation which influenced their cultural identities. Donald admitted to having academic struggles that persisted into his third year; however, he acknowledged that with education comes a change in identity. The issues of the previous years that made him feel ill-prepared for university were replaced confidence that he would have a successful outcome. He credited the collective for helping him through the struggles, but he does not believe it should be left to student groups alone. His recommendation for institutions is to be more proactive in preparing for students who are newcomers to Canada and do not understand “the system.” Aaron, James

295

and other participants mobilized members of their collectives to participate in activities that educate other cultural groups about Jamaica and Jamaicans. They acknowledged that the social aspect of the association is often given more attention. The social aspects of parties and dances were important to their solidarity as groups of Jamaicans and were symbols of their culture.

However, through these symbols they were perceived as being “just about the party.” They responded by reconstructing themselves to accommodate the varied interests of their members.

Anne, Essie, and Leah “located” spaces from which to bring the “history-in-person” (Holland et al., 1998, p. 18) to the classroom by “improvising and using cultural resources” (p.18). Destiny,

Neesa, James and Oneise moved boundaries to create spaces where more Black students can enter the medical field. Wayne has charted his own paths to reinvent himself; positioning himself as a “brand” and becoming hybrid. Teeah and other participants engaged in projects to assist their country of origin, but Teeah also participated in a Jamaican organization in Ontario that helps Jamaican immigrants during their settlement period.

Living through stigmatization and discrimination was possible for the participants through their affiliations with those of shared nationality. Aside from relationships with students from the nation of origin, participants connected with other Caribbean background or African groups in acknowledgement of a shared history. Despite a strong connection to their nation of heritage, they aligned with other “marginalized” groups who belonged with them to the

“borderland” (Anzaldua, 1999); the margins from which they could speak about those “parts and histories of themselves” (S. Hall, 1993, p.237). In this borderland, shared language was a mechanism for negotiating identity and belonging as well as resistance.

296

Significance

Much of the literature and findings reviewed here addressed the fluid and complex nature of identity construction and has acknowledged that when everyday lives are considered, the process is difficult to define through linear stages, phases, categories or dimensions. Contextual influences always mediate how identities are constructed because they are not just products of but producers of the circumstances in which they are constructed (Knowles, 1999). Student development research has tended to emphasize the stages of development that students undergo as they enter and move through university. University has been considered as the transition point between adolescence and adulthood, where students are less dependent on parents as they move on to develop new relationships and fulfil their aspirations (Chickering & Reisser, 1993).

Contrary to the view of Chickering and Reisser (1993) the participants in this research demonstrated that family remains an integral part in how they construct their identities and attach meaning to their lives (Jones, 2009) and that socio-cultural factors play a significant role in negotiating contexts when you are “from the outside.”

Being “from the outside” or in the margins can be spaces of opportunity where differing ways of viewing the world are reckoned and where dominant views are interrogated and resisted.

The literature review reveals a gap in understanding how identities are constructed when discourses of immigration, nation of origin, race, and settlement conditions such as access to employment are considered. These are some of the issues that Hall believed need to be addressed in research on identity, not as discrete categories but how they bear on how individuals see themselves in relation to the society in which they live. Gaining the perspective of the individual is important; therefore, research should include the voice of the subaltern (Spivak, 1993), and my research addresses the gap by foregrounding the voices of recent immigrant students.

297

I expect that research on recent immigrant student populations will contribute perspectives that inform about the challenges and opportunities that are a part of their

“settlement” and university experiences and may offer valuable insights into what structures— family, peers, university—have helped them form strong cultural identities in their own unique ways. In the end, the lived experience of cultural identity construction when migration, settlement, and university participation are considered is as individual as it is collective.

Participants constructed their unique identities through their personal locations, but the meanings are taken up through cultural understandings included in the process. Their experiences were often alike but also different and, in the context of their experiences, their identities were always shifting; always becoming. These experiences expressed in their own voices are important to honoring and valuing their contribution to Canadian society as they live with and through difference, by hybridity. The research offers the opportunity to share experiences to which other students in similar circumstances might relate.

Contributions

Data collection for this research was carried out in the Greater Toronto Area only and was based on the convenience of access to GTA institutions given the short period over which data had to be gathered. It was not a deterrent to collecting rich data given that most students who identify as first-generation Jamaicans in university in Ontario, live and attend university in the GTA. However, as one participant suggested, her experiences would likely be very different if she lived and attended university in a part of the province with a smaller Jamaican community.

Research that includes perspectives of recent immigrant Jamaican students in less culturally- diverse provinces is an idea for a future project. At the same time, the findings are not meant to be generalizable to all recent immigrant students from Jamaica as it is clear from the research

298

that the experience of one is not the experience of all. Throughout the interviews, participants indicated strong beliefs in their aspirations as an important component of their cultural identities.

Whether these aspirations are achieved, by no means affects the outcome of the research.

Implications and Recommendations

For Research

As suggested in the previous section, research should involve theories that extend the discussions on how students in higher education contribute to the societies and institutions of which they are a part. The findings are useful points of reference for the complex ways that students negotiate their cultural identities. There are assumptions in some of the literature that immigrant students have a desire to assimilate and by doing so erase their Caribbean/Jamaican identities (see Woodall, 2007); however, this research has found, that there are many instances where assimilation was not desired. In this research, students indicated a preference for continuing to identify with their heritage country rather than the receiving country. They desired to have their knowledges and ways of being in the world acknowledged as different, but not rendered as deficit. The view of Jamaicans as non-standard speakers of English is problematic for the participants who regarded this perception as inaccurate. Further research to expand the work done by Nero and Ahmad (2014) may illuminate ways in which culturally relevant knowledge from “outside” may be incorporated in mainstream classrooms.

For Practice

Student Affairs practitioners and faculty in higher education may find some useful information in the way participants describe their experiences of negotiating university and a new society. The complexity of negotiating societal structures that governs participants’ day to

299

day lives and institutional demands in university can assist practitioners in designing programs that account for the diverse student bodies that they serve (Torres, Howard-Hamilton, & Cooper,

2003). The research highlights that even in groups where similarities are normalized there is a recognition of difference, and the difference matters because it provides students with opportunities to chart other ways of being in the world. The findings have implications for how universities organize cultural activities. The recommendation is to move beyond the superficiality of multicultural days and cultural displays and endorse more culturally inclusive content in university courses. Some events reproduce the boundaries between different cultural groups, rather than bring them together. Therefore, planning for any exchange across cultural groups should be done with sensitivity to the histories of these groups.

Universities need to consider disaggregating categories of domestic students to address the specific needs of those who are recent immigrants and consider settlement units for students who self-identify as recent immigrants, or else incorporate into some of the activities of international students but remain attuned to the differences within groups. The findings have implications for research practices regarding student development in postsecondary institutions that tend to categorize students without giving close attention to their cultural backgrounds.

Silence around the experiences of settling into a new country and adjusting to the unfamiliar spaces of both province and university for recent immigrant students has been unsettling. This research has the potential to break ground as it breaks the silence to alert universities to the presence and potential of immigrant students. Students who experience education up to the secondary school level in developing countries and move into first world institutions anticipate some differences in pedagogical practices in the classroom (Alfred, 2003; McFarlene, 2006).

Their ability to integrate in university is pertinent to their success. Some immigrant students,

300

who are Black and of Jamaican origin, often question the extent to which they experience an equal chance of success in Canadian PSE and subsequently, the labor market when compared to their Canadian counterparts. I believe their narratives can contribute to a greater awareness of the concerns of recent immigrant students. As King and Howard-Hamilton (2003) have suggested, it is important that institutions be aware of their own positions or attitudes toward diverse groups of students, so that those students whose ethnicity is not considered dominant are not isolated or marginalized (Patton, McEwen, Rendon, Howard-Hamilton, 2007).

For Policy

This research is not a critique of immigration and settlement policies. The results suggest, however, that institutions that formulate policies on immigration and settlement are implicated in how identities are constructed. Immigration and settlement operate as macro-level discourses that may reify subject positions. As one participant indicated, through the discourse of immigration that labels immigrants as visible minority and sometimes “at risk,” you are made to feel that your experience must be one that is subordinated to the dominant culture. Notwithstanding, there needs to be consideration for students and their families who require certain accommodations to receive these accommodations without feeling stigmatized. At the same time, the experience of one is not the experience of all, so there should be attention to differing needs. Research on experiences of adaptation will allow policy makers to make better informed decisions about immigrants.

Concluding Thoughts

Cultural identity construction involves the interplay of history and culture in the identity construction processes of individuals. History and culture are not separate from the lives of

301

individuals. These elements connect students to their past and help them articulate their worldviews; however, they also help them appreciate the ongoing and complex developments that take place in society and mediate how they construct their identities. Student development research that appreciates that there are commonalities as well as differences in experiences, social relations, and subjectivities that influence the construction of identities in a complex, constantly changing world, is what is required by institutions of higher learning. There is growing evidence of these layers of consideration in student development research as observed in the works of Abes (2009), Abes et al. (2007), Jones (2010) and Stewart (2009). One model that continues to be reconceptualised to encompass the complexities of students’ identity development in college is the Model of Multiple Dimensions of Identity (Jones & McEwen,

2000). In its reconceptualised form it is described as a holistic student development model that incorporates meaning-making to determine its interaction with contextual influences (Abes,

Jones & McEwen, 2007). This laudable effort by Abes, et al. (2007) was to get students to understand and articulate their perceptions of core (personal) identities in relation to other dimensions. They admitted that this was a limitation of their work that may be addressed through further research that take other factors into consideration. My research has begun that undertaking by considering the unique positions of students who are recent immigrants from a perceived Third World country who undergo multiple transitions simultaneously, and are struggling to negotiate multiply constructed identities. I believe that there is no single theory on student development that can completely capture the nuances of such a student population. Their identities are most appropriately studied as difference accounting for both the multiple dimensions suggested by Abes et al. (2007) and the fact that these dimensions are also multiply constructed (Hall, 1993) and influenced by various contexts.

302

In this study, participants acknowledged the importance of communities of Jamaicans in communities and on campuses to provide a network of support from persons who “were like them.” Ultimately their accounts revealed an attachment to nation of origin as an attachment to some kind of “roots” although they were not fixed to the idea of living in Jamaica. They were open to “what they might become” wherever the roads lead. They embraced Canada for the possibilities and opportunities that it offered; however, were not delusional about possible obstacles to achieving their aspirations. They demonstrate a desire to live by hybridity through the different activities in which they engaged and the institutional boundaries that they challenged. The challenge for universities to open spaces where multiple cultures are known, listened to, and respected. Institutions need to talk less about diversity and make living through diversity a way of life. Milem, Chang and Antonio (2005) have also suggested that institutional leaders should reflect on “any history of exclusion that has occurred on their campus, talk about efforts over time to be more inclusive, and address any persistent negative consequences that this history has had” (p.16). I believe that this mindfulness will be beneficial for fostering students’ development on campuses where they feel welcomed and included. Living with and through difference is a call to action, not for the immigrant, racialized and marginalized only, but for all members of society. Hall (2005) has reminded,

it is not a question of what our traditions make of us so much as what we make of our

traditions. Paradoxically, our cultural identities in any finished form lie ahead of us. We

are always in the process of cultural formation. Culture is not a matter of ontology, of

being, but of becoming (p.556).

303

References

Abes E., Jones, S., & McEwen, M. (2007). Reconceptualizing the model of multiple dimensions

of identity: The role of meaning-making capacity in the construction of multiple

identities. Journal of College Student Development, 48(1) , 1-22.

Association of Canadian Community Colleges. (2008). Pan-Canadian Study of First Year

College Students. Report 2: The characteristics and experience of aboriginal, disabled,

immigrant and visible minority students: HS28-119/2-2009-PDF – Government of

Canada Publications – Canada.ca. (2018). Retrieved from

http://publications.gc.ca/site/eng/343901/publication.html

Adamuti-Trache, M., Anisef, P., Sweet, R., & Walters, D. (2013). Enriching foreign

qualifications through Canadian post-secondary education: Who participates and why?

Journal of International Migration and Integration, 14(1) , 139-156.

Ahmed, S. (2000). Strange encounters, embodied others in post-coloniality . London: Routledge

Alfred, M. (2003). Socio-cultural contexts and learning: Anglophone Caribbean women in

United States postsecondary education. Adult Education Quarterly, 53 (4), 242 -260.

Alfred M. (2004). Immigration as a context for learning: What do we know about immigrant

students in adult education? Adult Education Research Conference.

http://newprairiepress.org/aerc/2004/papers/3

Allahar, A. (2010). The political economy of ‘race’ and class in Canada’s Caribbean Diaspora.

American Review of Political Economy 8(2) , 54-86.

Alleyne, M. (2002). The construction and representation of race and ethnicity in the Caribbean

and the world . Kingston: University of the West Indies Press.

304

Alleyne, M. (2003). Language in Jamaican culture. In R. Harris & B. Rampton (Eds.), The

Language, ethnicity and race reader (pp. 54-68). London and New York: Routledge.

(Originally published 1989).

Altugan, A. S. (2015). The relationship between cultural identity and learning. 5 th World

Conference on Learning, Teaching and Educational Leadership, WCLTA 2014. Procedia

– Social and Behavioral Sciences, Volume 186 , pp. 1159-1162.

Anderson, B. (1982). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of

nationalism . London, UK: Verso.

Anderson, M. L. & Collins, P. H. (2007). Systems of power and inequality. In M. L. Anderson &

P.H. Collins (Eds.), Race, class and gender: An anthology 6th edition , (pp.61-90).

Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

Ang, I. (2003). Together-in-difference: Beyond diaspora, into hybridity. Asian Studies Review ,

27(2) , 141-154. Doi:10.1080/10357820308713372

Angen, M. J. (2000). Evaluating interpretive inquiry: Reviewing the validity debate and opening

the dialogue. Qualitative Health Research, 10 , pp. 378-395.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/104973230001000308

Anisef, P., Brown, R., Phythian, K., Sweet, R., & Walters, W. (2010). Early school leaving

among immigrants in Toronto secondary schools. Canadian Review of Sociology .

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-618X.2010.01226.x

Anisef, P., & Kilbride, K.M. (Eds.). (2003). Managing two worlds: The experiences and

concerns of immigrant youth in Ontario . Toronto, ON: Canadian Scholar’s Press.

305

Anisef, P., Sweet, R., Adamuti-Trache, M., & Walters, D. (2009). Recent immigrants: A

comparison of participants and non-participants in Canadian postsecondary education .

Ottawa: Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC).

Anzaldua, G. (1999). Borderlands/La frontera: The new mestiza (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Aunt

Lute Books.

Ashcroft, B., Griffith, G., & Tiffin, H. (2002). The empire writes back: Postcolonial Literatures,

Theory & Practice . Routledge.

Association of Colleges and Universities. (2002). Greater Expectations. A new vision for

learning as a nation goes to college. National Panel Report. Washington, DC: AACU.

Retrieved https://www.aacu.org

Association of Universities and Colleges in Canada. (2011). Trends in Higher Education:

Volume 1 – Enrolment. Ottawa, ON: AUCC. Retrieved https://www.aucc

Austin-Broos, D.J. (2001). Race/Class: Jamaica’s discourse of heritable identity. In C. Barrow

and R. Reddock (Eds.), Caribbean Sociology: Introductory Readings (pp. 256 – 269).

Kingston: Ian Randle Publishers (Original work published in 1994).

Aydemir, A., & Sweetman, A. (2008). First and second-generation immigration education

attainment and labour market outcomes: A comparison of the United States and Canada.

Research in Labour Economics, 27, 215-270.

Balibar, E. (2007). Is there a “neo-racism?” In T. Das Gupta, C. E. James, G.-E. Galabuzi, & C.

Andersen (Eds.), Race and racialization. Essential readings (pp. 83-88). Toronto,

Ontario: Canadian Scholars’ Press.

Bannerji, H. (1995). Thinking through: Essays on feminism. Marxism and anti-racism . Toronto,

Canada: Women’s Press.

306

Bannerji, H. (2000). The paradox of diversity: The construction of a Multicultural Canada. In H.

Bannerji (Ed), The dark side of the nation: Essays on multiculturalism, nationalism, and

gender (pp. 15-61). Toronto: Canadian scholars Press.

Baptista, M. (2005). New directions in Pidgin and Creole studies. Annual Review of

Anthropology, 34 , 33-42.

Basch, L., Glick-Schiller, N., Szanton-Blanc, C. (1994). Nations unbound . New York: Gordon

and Breach.

Baxter-Magolda (2013). Foreword. In S. Jones and E. Abes (Eds.), Identity development of

college students: Advancing frameworks for multiple dimensions of identity . San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R. & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Women’s ways of

knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. New York: Basic Books

Benhabib, Seyla (2002). The Claims of Culture: Equality and Diversity in the Global Era

Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Berger, J. (2009). Participation in postsecondary education: Recent trends. The price of

knowledge: Access and student finance in Canada. (4th Edition). Retrieved

https://library.carleton.ca/sites/default/files/find/data/surveys/pdf_files/Price-of-

Knowledge_4th-edition_2009-11_chapter-2_en.pdf

Bergerson, A. & Huftalin, D. (2011). Becoming more open to social-identity based difference:

Understanding the meaning college students make in this movement. Journal of College

Student Development, 52(4) , 377-395.

Berry, J. W. (1984). Multicultural policy in Canada: A social psychological analysis

Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 16 , 353-370.

307

Berry, J. W. (1990). Psychology of acculturation: Understanding individuals moving between

cultures. In R. Brislin (Ed.), Applied cross-cultural psychology (pp. 232-253). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Berry, J. W. (1992). Acculturation and adaptation in a new society. International Migration, 30,

69-85.

Berry, J. (1997). Immigration, acculturation and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An

International Review 46 , 5-34.

Berry, J. W, (2005). Acculturation: Living successfully in two cultures. International Journal of

Intercultural Relations 29(6) , 697-712. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2005.07.013

Berry, J. W., Phinney, J. S., Sam, D. L., & Yedder, P. (2006). Immigrant youth. Acculturation,

Identity and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 55(3) , 303-

332.

Best, J.W. & Khan, J. (2006). Research in education . New Delhi: Prentice Hall of India Pvt, Ltd.

Bhabha, H.K. (1996). Culture’s In-Between. In S. Hall and P. du Gay (Eds.), Questions of

Cultural Identity , pp. 53 - 60. London: SAGE.

Bhabha, H. K. (1994). The Location of Culture. New York, NY: Routledge.

Bhavnani, K.-K. (1993). Tracing the contours of feminist research and feminist objectivity.

Women’s Studies International Forum, 6(2) , 95-104.

Bhugra, D., & Becker, M. A. (2005). Migration, cultural bereavement and cultural identity.

World Psychiatry 4(1) , 18-24.

Bickford, S. (1997). Anti-Anti-identity politics, feminism, democracy and the complexities of

citizenship. Hypatia 12(4) , 111-131.

308

Bogdan, R. & Bilken, S. (2010). Foundations of qualitative research in Education: An

introduction. In W. Luttrell (Ed.), Qualitative Educational Research. Readings in

reflexive methodology and transformative practice (pp. 21-44). New York: Routledge.

(Original work published in 1998).

Bourdieu, P. (1977). The economics of linguistic exchanges. Social Science Information, 16 ,

645–668.

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and

research for the sociology of education (pp. 241-258). New York: Greenwood Press.

Bracken, S. (200). Discussing the importance of ontology and epistemology awareness in

practitioner research. Worcester Journal of Learning and Teaching (4) . Retrieved

http://eprints.worc.ac.uk/843/1/FinalSBrackenPractitionerResearch.pdf

Brah, A. (1996). Cartographies of diaspora: Contesting identities . London: Routledge

Braithwaite, E. K. (2001). Creolization. In C. Barrow and R. Reddock (Eds.), Caribbean

Sociology: Introductory Readings (pp.108-117). Kingston: Ian Randle Publishers.

(Original work published 1971).

Brand, D. (1984). Black women in Toronto: Gender, race and class. Fireweed, 19

(Summer/Fall), 26 – 43.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in Psychology. Qualitative Research in

Psychology 3(2) , 71-101.

Brenner, M. (2006). Interviewing in educational research. In J. Green, G. Camilli, P. Elmore

(Eds.), with A. Skukauskaiti, & E. Grace. Handbook of Complementary Methods in

Education Research . American Educational Research Association, 357-370.

309

Brown, G. (2013). The revolt of aspirations: Contesting neoliberal social hope. ACME: An

International E-Journal for critical geographies, 12(3) , 419-430.

Brubaker, R. (2005). The ‘diaspora’ diaspora. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 28(1) , pp. 1-19. Taylor

and Francis Ltd.

Bryce-Laporte, R. S., & Mortimer, D. S. (Eds.). (1976). Caribbean Immigration to the United

States. Issue 1 RIIES Occasional Papers . Research Institute on Immigration and Ethnic

Studies (Smithsonian Institution).

Bucholtz, M. and Hall, K. (2003). Language and identity. In Alessandro Duranti (Ed), A

Companion to Linguistic Anthropology (pp. 368-394). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Burke, P. (2009). Cultural Hybridity . Cambridge: Polity Press

Burns, L. (2009). Becoming-postcolonial, becoming-Caribbean: Edouard Glissant and the

poetics of creolization. Textual Practice, 23(1) , 99-117.

Burton, R. (2009). Globalisation and Cultural Identity in Caribbean Society: The Jamaican Case.

Caribbean Journal of Philosophy, 1(1) , 1-18.

Byron, M., & Condon, S. (1996). A comparative study of Caribbean return immigrants from

Britain and France: Towards a context-dependent explanation. Transactions of British

Geographers 21(1) , 91-104

Calliste, A. (1980). Educational and occupational expectations of high school students: The

effects of socioeconomic background, ethnicity and sex (Unpublished Doctoral

dissertation). University of Toronto, Toronto.

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative

analysis . London: SAGE Publications.

310

Chase, S. (2010). Narrative inquiry. Multiple lenses, approaches, voices. In W. Luttrell (Ed.),

Qualitative Educational Research. Readings in reflexive methodology and transformative

practice (pp. 258-278). New York: Routledge.

Cheung, S. (2007). Education decisions of Canadian youth: A synthesis report on access to

postsecondary education . Toronto: HEQCO.

Chickering A. W. & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and identity (2 nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass.

Chow, R. (1998 ). Ethics after idealism: Theory-Culture-Ethnicity-Reading . Bloomington:

Indiana University Press.

Central Intelligence Agency. (September 2017). The World Factbook. Retrieved from

www.cia.gov/library/publications/resources/the-world-factbook/

Citizenship and Immigration Canada. (2011). Facts and Figures. Retrieved from

www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/statistics/menu- fact.asp

Citizenship and Immigration Canada (2012). Discover Canada: The rights and responsibilities of

citizenship . Ottawa, ON: Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada.

Clifford, J. (1994). ‘Diasporas.’ Cultural Anthropology , 9(3), 302-338.

Codjoe, H. (2006). The role of an affirmed Black cultural identity and heritage in the academic

achievement of African-Canadian students. Intercultural Education, 17(1) , pp. 33-54.

Cross, W.E., Jr., & Fhagen-Smith, P. (2001). Patterns in African-American identity

development: A lifespan perspective. In C. L. Wijeysinghe & B. W. Jackson, III (Eds.),

New perspectives on racial identity development: A theoretical and practical anthology

(pp. 243-270). New York: New York University Press.

311

Crossley, M., & Tikly, L. (2004). Postcolonial perspectives and comparative and international

research in education: A critical introduction. Comparative Education , 40(2).

Doi:10.1080/0305006042000231329

Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research, meaning and perspective in the research

process . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Crowson, R. (1987). Qualitative research methods in higher education. In J. C. Smart (Ed.),

Higher Education: Handbook of theory and research 3 (pp. 1-55). New York: Agathon.

DaCosta, P. (2011). A study of factors that influence the engagement activities that contribute to

the academic performance of landed immigrant female students from Jamaica, Trinidad

and Tobago and Guyana in Ontario Universities . (Unpublished Master’s MRP).

Toronto: University of Toronto.

Davis, H. (2004). Understanding Stuart Hall . London: Sage Publications.

Dei, G. S. (1997a). Race and the production of identity in the schooling experiences of African-

Canadian youth. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 18(2) , 241-

257.

Dei, G. S. (1997). Reconstructing ‘dropout’: A critical ethnography of the dynamics of Black

students’ disengagement from school . Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Dei, G. S., & Calliste, A. M. (Eds.). (2000). Power, knowledge and anti-racism education: A

critical reader . Halifax: Fernwood Publishing.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.) (2011). Handbook of Qualitative Research . Los

Angeles: SAGE Publications.

312

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative

research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook for Qualitative

Research 3 rd edition . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Dhamoon, R. (2007). The politics of cultural contestation. In B. Arneil, M. Deveaux, R.

Dhamoon, & A. Eisenberg (Eds.), Sexual Justice/Cultural Justice: Critical perspectives

in political theory and practice (pp. 30-49). New York: Routledge.

Donaldson, I., & Jedwab, J. (2003). Intersections of diversity. Canadian Ethnic Studies Journal,

35(3) , p. 1+. Academic OneFile.

http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A116860847/AONE?u=utoronto

Eastman, C. (1984). Language ethnic identity and change. In J. Edwards (Ed.), Linguistic

minorities, policies and pluralism (pp. 259-276). London: Academic Press Inc.

Erasmus, Z. (2011). Creolization, colonial citizenship(s) and degeneracy: A critique of selected

histories of Sierra Leone and South Africa. Current Sociology 59(6) , pp.635-654.

Erikson, E. H. (1980). Identity and the life cycle . New York: Norton. (Original work published

1959).

Evans, N. J., Forney, D.S., Guido, F. M., Patton, L. D., & Renn, K. A. (2010). Student

development in college. Theory, research, and practice (2 nd edition). San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Fendt, L. S., Wilson, E., Jenkins, J., Dimmock, K., Weeks, P. (2014). Presenting

phenomenology: Faithfully recreating the lived experiences of surfer girls. Annals of

Leisure Research 17(4) , pp. 398-416.

Field, J. & Morgan-Klein, N. (2010). Student-hood and identification: Higher education as a

liminal space. In: B. Merrill and P. Armstrong (Eds.), SCUTREA: Proceedings of the 40th

313

Annual Conference, Warwick, UK: 40 th Annual SCUTREA, 6.7.2010 – 8.7.2010,

University of Warwick, UK.

Finnie, R., & Mueller, R. E. (2008). The backgrounds of Canadian youth and access to

postsecondary education: New evidence from the Youth in Transition Survey. In Ross

Finnie, Richard Mueller, Arthur Sweetman, and Alex Usher (Eds.), Who goes, who stays,

what matters: Access to and remaining in postsecondary education in Canada, (pp. 78-

108). Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queens University Press and School of Policy

Studies, Queen’s University.

Finnie, R., & Mueller, R. E. (2009). Access to postsecondary education among the children of

Canadian immigrants. A Measuring the Effectiveness of Student Aid (MESA) Research

Paper . Educational Policy Institute. Retrieved

scholar.ulethbridge.ca/mueller/publications/access-post-secondary-education

Fishman, J. A. (Ed.). (1997). In praise of the beloved language: A comparative view of positive

ethnolinguistic consciousness . Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. (Contributions to

the sociology of language: 76).

Foner, N. (1977). The Jamaicans: Cultural and social change among migrants in Britain. In

James L. Watson (Ed) Between two cultures: migrants and minorities in Britain pp. 120-

150. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Foner, N. (1978). Jamaica farewell: Jamaican migrants in London . Berkeley: University of

California Press

Foner, N. (1999). The immigrant family: Cultural legacies and cultural changes. In C.

Hirschman, P. Kasinitz, & J. DeWind (Eds.), Handbook of international migration: The

American experience (pp. 237-256). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

314

Foner, N. (2005). The immigrant family: Cultural legacies and cultural changes. In C. Suarez-

Orozco, M. Suarez-Orozco & D. B. Qin (Eds.), The new immigration: An

interdisciplinary reader (pp. 157-166). New York: Routledge.

Foster, M. (2010). The power to know one thing is never the power to know all things:

Methodological notes on two studies of Black American Teachers. In W. Luttrell (Ed.),

Qualitative Educational Research. Readings in reflexive methodology and transformative

practice (pp. 384-397). New York: Routledge. (Original work published in 1994)

Fouron, G. E., & Glick-Schiller, N. G. (2001). The generation of identity: redefining the second

generation within a transnational social field. In H. R. Codero-Guzman, R. C. Smith, &

R. Grosfoguel (Eds.), Migration, transnationalism, and race in a changing New York (pp.

58-86). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Gadamer, H. (1975). Truth and method . New York: Seabury Press.

Galabuzi, G. E. (2006). Canada’s economic apartheid: the social exclusion of racialized groups

in the new century . Toronto: Canadian Scholar’s Press.

Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (2007). Educational research: An introduction, 8 th

edition . Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.

Gans, H. J. (1979). ‘Symbolic ethnicity: The future of ethnic groups and cultures in America,’

Ethnic and Racial Studies, 2(1) , 1-20.

Geertz, C. (1973) The interpretation of cultures: selected essays. New York: Basic Books, pp.3-

30.

Geertz, C. (1988). Thick description. Toward an interpretive theory of culture. In R. Emerson

(Ed.), Contemporary field research (Page). Prospect Heights: Waveland.

315

Gilmore, J. & Le Petit, C. (2008). The Canadian immigrant labour market in 2007: Analysis by

region of postsecondary education. The Immigrant Labour Force Analysis Series .

Ottawa, ON: Statistics Canada.

Glick, J. E., & White, M. J. (2004). Postsecondary school participation of immigrant and native

youth: The role of familial resources and educational expectations. Social Science

Research 33 , 272-299.

Gmelch, (1992). Double passage: The lives of Caribbean migrants abroad and back home . Ann

Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Goldberger, N. R. (1996). Cultural imperatives and diversity in ways of knowing, In N.

Goldberger, J. Tarule, B. Clinchy, & M. Belenky (Eds.), Knowledge, difference, and

power (pp. 335-371). New York: Basic Books.

Gonzales, L. M., Stein, G. L., & Huq, N. (2013). The influence of cultural identity and perceived

barriers on college preparation and aspirations of Latino youth in emerging immigrant

communities. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 35 (1) , 103-120.

doi:10.1177/0739986312463002.

Gosine, K. (2008). Living between stigma and status: A qualitative study of the social identities

of highly educated Black Canadian adults. Identity: An International Journal of Theory

and Research, 8 , 307-333. Taylor and Francis Group: Psychology Press.

Government of Canada. Multiculturalism Act. Retrieved http://www.canada.ca/en.html

Grant, P. R. (2007). Sustaining a strong cultural and national identity: The acculturation of

immigrants and second-generation Canadians of Asian and African descent. Journal of

International Migration and Integration, 8(1 ), 89-116.

316

Grayson, J. P. (2009). Language background, ethno-racial origin, and academic achievement of

students at a Canadian university. International Migration, 47(2), 33-67

Grayson, J. P. (2011). Cultural capital and academic achievement of first generation domestic

And international students in Canadian universities. British Educational Research

Journal, 37(4) , 605-630.

Gubrium, J. F. & Holstein, J. A. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of constructionist research . New

York: Guilford.

Gunaratnam, Y. (2003). Researching ‘race’ and ethnicity: Methods, knowledge and power .

London: Sage Publications.

Gupta, A., & Ferguson, J. (1992). Beyond “culture”: Space, identity, and the politics of

difference. Cultural Anthropology 7(1) , 6-23.

Hall, S. (1993). Cultural identity and Diaspora. In P. Williams & L. Chrisman (Eds.), Colonial

discourse and postcolonial theory , 392 - 403. New York: Columbia University Press.

Hall, S. (1995). Negotiating Caribbean identities. New Left Review 209(1 ).

Hall, S. (1996a). Who needs identity? In S. Hall and P. du Gay (Eds.), Questions of

Cultural Identity (pp. 1 – 17). London: SAGE.

Hall, S. (1996b). When was the postcolonial? Thinking at the limit. In I. Chambers & L. Curtis

(Eds.), The postcolonial question: Common skies divided horizons (pp. 242-260).

London: Routledge.

Hall, S. (1996c). New ethnicities. In D. Morley & K-H. Chen (Eds.), Stuart Hall. Critical

dialogues in Cultural Studies (pp. 442- 451) . London: Routledge.

317

Hall, S. (1997a). Old and new identities. Old and new ethnicities. In A. King (Ed.), Culture,

globalization and the world system, (pp.41-68). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota

Press.

Hall, S. (1997b). Introduction. In Stuart Hall (Ed.). Representation: Cultural representations and

signifying practices. London: Thousand Oaks, and New Delhi: Sage Publications.

Hall, S. (2005). Thinking diaspora: Home thoughts from abroad. In G. Desai & S. Nair (Eds.),

Postcolonialism: An anthology of cultural theory and criticisms (pp. 543-560). New

Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Hall. S. (2006). The future of identities. In S. Hier and B. Singh Bolaria (Eds.), Identity and

belonging: Rethinking race and ethnicity in Canadian society (pp. 249-274). Toronto:

Canadian Scholars Press

Hall, S. (2017). The fateful triangle: Race, ethnicity, nation . Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Hall, M. L. (2010) Re-Constituting Place and Space: Culture and Communication in the

Construction of a Jamaican Transnational Identity, Howard Journal of Communications,

21(2) , pp. 119-140, DOI: 10.1080/10646171003727425

Hancock, B. H., & Garner, R. (2009). Changing theories: New directions in sociology . Toronto:

University of Toronto Press.

Harper, S.R. & Quaye, S.J. (Eds.). (2009). Student engagement in higher education: Theoretical

perspectives and practical approaches for diverse populations. New York: Routledge

Hayes, E. (2001). A new look at women’s learning. New Directions for Adult and Continuing

Education 89 , 35-42.

318

Hebert, Y. (2001). Identity, diversity and education: A critical review of literature. Canadian

Ethnic Studies, 33(3) , 155-186.

Heidegger, M., (1962). Being and time . New York: Harper. (Original work published 1960).

Heidegger, M. (1971). Building dwelling thinking. In M. Heidegger (Ed.), Poetry, language,

thought (pp.145–161). (Translation and introduction: Albert Hofstadter). New York:

Harper & Row.

Henry, F. (1994). The Caribbean Diaspora in Toronto: Learning to live with racism . Toronto:

University of Toronto Press.

Henry, F. (2002). Canada's contribution to the "management" of ethno-cultural diversity.

Canadian Journal of Communication. 27(2/3) , 231-242.

Henry, F & Tator., C. (Eds.). (2009). Racism in the Canadian University: Demanding social

justice and inclusion. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Hernandez-Ramdwar, C. (2009). Caribbean Students in the Canadian academy: We’ve come a

long way? In F. Henry and C. Tator (Eds.), Racism in the Canadian university:

demanding social justice, inclusion and equity (pp 106 – 127). Toronto: University of

Toronto Press

Holland, D., Lachicotte, W. Jr., Skinner, D., & Cain, C. (1998). Identity and agency in cultural

worlds . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. hooks, b. (1989). Talking back: Thinking feminist, thinking black. Boston: South End Press.

Hultgren, F. H. (1990). [ Review of Researching lived experience: Human science for an action

sensitive pedagogy , by Max van Manen]. Phenomenology + Pedagogy, Vol. 8, 1990.

Hurtado, S., Alvarez, C. L., Guillermo-Wann, C., Cuellar, M., & Arellano, L. (2012). A model

for diverse learning environments. In J. Smart & M. Paulsen (Eds.), Higher Education:

319

Handbook for Theory and Research, Vol 27 (pp. 41-122). Springer, Dordrecht.

Doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2950-6_2

Hussain, A. (2011). Black Guyanese immigrant women’s concepts of success: Four stories in

Canada . Lap Lambert Academic Publishing.

Husserl, E. (1970). The idea of phenomenology . The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.

Hutnyk, J. (2005). Hybridity. Ethnic and Racial Studies 28(1) , 79-102.

Hutnyk, J. (2003). The Chapatti story: how hybridity as theory displaced Maoism as politics in

Subaltern Studies. Contemporary South Asia , 12(4), 481-491

Huynh, Q.-L., Nguyen, A. M., & Benet-Martinez, V. (2011). Bicultural identity integration. In S.

J Schwartz, K. Luyckx, & V. L. Vignoles (Eds.), Handbook of Identity Theory and

Research (pp. 827-844). New York: Springer.

Hycner, R.H. (1985). Some guidelines for the phenomenological analysis of interview data.

Human Studies 8(3) , 279-303.

Jamaica Information Services. History of Jamaica . Retrieved jis.gov.jm/information/Jamaica-

history/

James, C. (1990). Making it: Black youth, racism and career aspirations in a big city . Oakville:

Mosaic Press.

James, C. (1995). Seeing ourselves: Exploring race, ethnicity and culture . Toronto: Thompson

Educational Publishing.

James, C. (2010). Schooling and the university plans of immigrant Black students from an urban

neighbourhood. In H. R. Milner (Ed.), Culture, curriculum, and identity in education (pp.

117-139). New York, NY: Palgrave Mcmillan.

320

James, C. (2012). Students “at risk”: Stereotypes and the schooling of Back boys. Urban

Education 4(2) , 464-494. Doi:10.1177/0042085911429084

James, C. & Davis, A. (Eds.). (2012). Jamaica in the Canadian experience: A multiculturalizing

presence . Canada: Fernwood Publishing.

Johnson, M. (2012). “To ensure that only suitable persons are sent”: Screening Jamaican women

for the West Indian Domestic Scheme. In C. James and A. Davis (Eds.), Jamaica in the

Canadian experience: A multiculturalizing presence (p. 36-53) . Canada: Fernwood

Publishing.

Jones, S. R. (2002). (Re) writing the word: Methodological strategies and issues in qualitative

research. Journal of College Students Development 43(4) , pp. 461-474.

Jones, S. R. (2009). Constructing identities at intersections: An autoethnographic exploration of

multiple dimensions of identity. Journal of College Student Development 50(3) , pp. 287-

304.

Jones, S. & Abes, E. (2013). Identity development of college students: Advancing frameworks for

multiple dimensions of identity . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass

Jones, S. R., Rowan-Kenyon, H. T., Ireland, S. M-Y, Niehaus, E., & Skendall, K. C. (2012). The

meaning students make as participants in short-term immersion programs. Journal of

College Student Development 53(2) , 201-220. Doi. 10.1353/csd.2012.0026

Josselson, R. E. (1996). Revising herself: The story of women’s identity from college to midlife .

New York: Oxford University Press.

Kafle, N. (2011). Hermeneutic phenomenological research method simplified. Bodhi: An

Interdisciplinary Journal 5 , pp. 181- 200. Nepal: Kathmandu University.

Kalra, V., Kaur, R., & Hutnyk, J. (2005). Diaspora and hybridity . London: Sage Publications.

321

Kaufman, P., & Feldman, K. A. (2004). Forming identities in college: A sociological approach.

Research in Higher Education, 45 , 463-496.

https://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:RIHE.0000032325.56126.29

Keeling , R. P. (2004) Learning Reconsidered: A campus-wide focus on the student experience .

National Association of Student Personnel Administrators and the American College

Personnel Association.

Kim, J. (2001). Asian American identity development theory. In C.L. Wijeyesinghe & B. W.

Jackson, III (Eds.), New perspectives on racial identity development: A theoretical and

practical anthology (pp. 67-90). New York: New York University Press.

Kim, E., & Diaz, J. (2013). Immigrant students in higher education: ASHE Higher Education

Report 38(6), 1-170. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Kinchloe, J. L., & McLaren, P. (2005). Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research. In N.

K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 303-

342). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

King, P. M., & Howard-Hamilton, M.F. (2003). An assessment of multicultural competence.

NASPA Journal, 40(2) , 119-132.

Kluckholn, C. (1949). Mirror for man: The relation of anthropology to modern life . New York:

Whitssley House.

Knowles, C. (1999). Race, identities and lives. Sociological Review, 74(1) , pp. 110-135.

Krahn, H., & Taylor, A. (2005). Resilient teenagers: Explaining the high educational aspirations

of visible minority youth in Canada. Journal of International Migration and Integration,

64(3-4) , 405-434. Doi:10.1007/s12134-005-1020-7

322

Kuh, G., Kinzie, J., Buckley, J., Bridges, B. & Hayek, J. (2006). What matters to student

success: A review of literature. Commissioned report for the National Symposium on

Postsecondary Student Success: Spearheading a dialog on student success. National

Postsecondary Education Cooperative. http://nces.ed.gov/npec/pdf/kuh_team_report.pdf

Kuh, G., Kinzie, J., Cruce, T., Shoup, R., & Gonyea, R. M. (2006). Connecting the dots: Multi-

faceted analyses of the relationships between student engagement results from the NSSE,

and the institutional practices and conditions that foster student success: Final Report

prepared for Lumina Foundation for Education . Bloomington, IN: Indiana University

Center for Postsecondary Research.

Kuo, B. C. H., & Roysicar, G. (2006). An exploratory study of cross-cultural adaptation of

adolescent Taiwanese unaccompanied sojourners in Canada. International Journal of

Intercultural Relations 30 , 159-183.

Kusow, A. M. (2006). Migration and racial formations among Somali immigrants in North

America. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 32(3) , 533-551.

Doi:10.1080/13691830600555079

Kvale, S., & Brinkman, S. (2008). InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative research

interviewing (2 nd edition) . Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc.

Kymlicka, W. (1995). Multicultural citizenship: A liberal theory of minority rights .

New York: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/0198290918.001.0001

Kymlicka, W. (1998). Finding our way: Rethinking ethnocultural relations in Canada . Ontario:

Oxford University Press.

Ladson-Billings, G. (Ed). (2003). Critical Race Theory perspectives on the social studies: The

profession, policies, and curriculum . Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

323

Langdridge, D. (2007). Phenomenological psychology: Theory, research and methods . London:

Pearson Educational Ltd.

Lather, P. (2006). Paradigm proliferation as a good thing to think with: teaching research in

education as a wild profusion. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education,

19(1 ), 35-57.

Laverty, S. M. (2003). Hermeneutic phenomenology and phenomenology: A comparison of

historical and methodological considerations. International Journal of Qualitative

Methods, 2(3) , 21–35.

Lee, J. W., & Hebert, Y. M. (2006). The meaning of being Canadian: A comparison between

youth of immigrant and non-immigrant origins. Canadian Journal of Education, 29(2) ,

497-520.

Lee, J. J., & Rice, C. (2007). Welcome to America? International students’ perceptions of

discrimination. Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher Education and

Educational Planning 53(3) , 381-409.

Leung, H., Hendley, M., Compton, R., & Haley, B. (Eds.). (2009). Imagining Globalization:

Language, identities, and boundaries . USA: Palgrave Macmillan.

Doi:10.1057/9780230101586

Lewis, G. (2000). ‘ Race’, gender, social welfare: Encounters in a postcolonial society . London:

Polity Press.

Lewis, G. (2004). Growth of the modern West Indies . Ian Randle Publishers.

Li, P. (2000). Cultural diversity in Canada: The social construction of racial difference. Strategic

Issues Series (rp02-8e). Department of Justice, Canada: Statistics Canada.

Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry . Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

324

Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (2005). Paradigmatic Controversies, Contradictions, and Emerging

Confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative

research (pp. 191-215). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Ltd.

Lindsay, C. (2007). Profiles of ethnic communities in Canada: The Caribbean community in

Canada 2001. [Analytical Paper] (89-621-XIE - No. 7). Statistics Canada, Ministry of

Industry, Ottawa.

Lindsay, C. (2007). Profiles of ethnic communities in Canada: The Jamaican community in

Canada 2001. [Analytical Paper] (89-621-XIE - No. 12). Statistics Canada, Ministry of

Industry, Ottawa.

Lippi-Green, R. (1998). English with an Accent . New York: Routledge.

London, C. (1990). Educating young new immigrants: How can the United States cope?

International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 2 , 81-100.

London, H. (1992). Transformations. Cultural challenges faced by first generation students. New

Directions for Community Colleges, 80 (Winter). Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Lorick-Wilmot, Y. S. (2010). Creating Black Caribbean Identity . El Paso, Texas: LFB Scholarly

Publishing.

Lum, L. & Grabke, S. (2012). Academic engagement of Recent Immigrant Adult Students (RIAS)

in postsecondary education: A case study of Ontario colleges and universities . Toronto:

Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario.

Lutrell, W. (2010). “Good enough” methods for life-story analysis. In W. Luttrell (Ed.),

Qualitative Educational Research. Readings in reflexive methodology and transformative

practice (pp. 258-278). New York: Routledge.

325

Magocsi, P. (Ed.). (1999). The Encyclopedia of Canada’s Peoples . Toronto: University of

Toronto Press.

Mahalingham, R., & Rabelo, V. C. (2013). Theoretical, methodological, and ethical challenges

to the study of immigrants: Perils and possibilities. In M. G. Hernandez, J. Nguyen, C. L.

Saetermoe, & C. Suarez-Orozco (Ed.), Frameworks and Ethics for Research for

Research with Immigrants. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 141 ,

25-41.

Marcia, J. (1966). Development and validation of ego identity status. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 3 , 551-558.

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1995). Designing qualitative research (2 nd edition) . Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

McFarlane, T. (2006). The intersection of race, gender and class in social transitions: Caribbean

immigrant women negotiating United States higher education . New York: CUNY.

Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). The phenomenology of perception . London, England: Routledge &

Kegan Paul.

Merriam, S. B. (1988). Qualitative research and case study applications in education 2 nd edition .

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation . San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Mertens, D. (1998). Research methods in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with

quantitative and qualitative approaches . London: Sage Publications.

326

Milem, J. F., Chang, M. J., & Antonio, L. A. (2005). Making diversity work on campus: A

research-based perspective . Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and

Universities.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new

methods . Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

Miller, E. (2001). Body image, physical beauty and colour among Jamaican adolescents. In C.

Barrow and R. Reddock (Eds.), Caribbean Sociology Introductory Readings (pp. 305-

319). Kingston, Jamaica: Ian Randle Publishers Ltd.

Mohanty, S. (2000). The epistemic status of cultural identity: On beloved and the postcolonial

condition. In P. M. L. Moya & M. R. Hames-Garcia (Eds.), Reclaiming identity: realist

theory and the predicament of postmodernism (pp. 29-66). London, England: University

of California Press Ltd.

Mohanty, J. N. (2008). The philosophy of Edmund Husserl. A historical development . London:

Yale University Press.

Moores, L., & Popadiuk, N. (2011). Positive aspects of international student well-being: A

qualitative inquiry. Journal of College Students Development, 52(3) , 221-306.

Doi:10.1353/csd.2011.0040

Moran, C. (2007). The public identity work of evangelical Christian students. Journal of College

Students Development 48(4) , 418-434.

Morrison, K. (1995). Dewey, Habermas and reflective practice. Curriculum 16 , 82-94.

Mueller, J. A. & Cole, J.C. (2009). A qualitative examination of heterosexual consciousness

among college students. Journal of College Student Development, 50(3), 320-336.

327

Murphy, J. (2010). The settlement and integration needs of immigrants: A literature review .

Ottawa, ON: The Ottawa Local Partnership. Retrieved from http://olip-

plio.ca/knowledge-base/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Olip-Review-of-Literature-Final-

EN.pdf

Neegan, E. (2008). Constructing my cultural identity: A reflection on the contradictions,

dilemmas, and reality. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research 54(3) , 272-282.

Nero, S., & Ahmad, D. (2014). Vernaculars in the classroom: Paradoxes, pedagogy,

possibilities . New York: Routledge.

Nesdale, D. (2002). Acculturation attitudes and the ethnic and host country identification of

immigrants. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 32(7) , 1488-1507.

Ng, R. (1981). Constituting ethnic phenomenon: An account from the perspective of immigrant

women. Canadian Ethnic Studies 13(1) , 97-108.

Nielsen, T. W. (2000). Hermeneutic phenomenological data representation: Portraying the

ineffable [online]. Australian Art Education 23(1) , 9-14.

Nilan, P. and Feixa, C. (2006). Introduction. Youth hybridity and plural worlds. In P. Nilan and

C. Feixa (Eds.), Global youth? Hybrid identities, plural worlds, (pp. 1-13). New York:

Routledge.

Norton, B. (1997). Language, identity and the ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly 31(3) ,

409-429.

Ogbu, J. U., & Simons, H. D. (1998). Voluntary and involuntary minorities: A cultural-

ecological theory of school performance with some implications for education.

Anthropology and Education Quarterly 29(2) , pp. 155-188. American Anthropological

Association.

328

Olesen, V. L. (2000). Feminisms and qualitative research at and into the millennium. In N. K.

Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research 2 nd edition (pp. 215-

256). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Olneck, M. (2001). Immigrants and education. In J. A. Banks & C. A. Banks, (Eds.). Handbook

of research on multicultural education . (pp. 310-330). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Olwig, K.F. (1993). Defining the national in the transnational: Cultural identity in the Afro-

Caribbean diaspora. In Global culture, island identity, continuity and change in the Afro-

Caribbean community of Nevis . Studies in Anthropology and History . Reading: Harwood

Academic Publishers.

Olwig, K. F. (2007). Caribbean journeys: An ethnography of migration and home in three family

networks . Durham: Duke University Press.

Osborne, P., & Segal, L. (1997). Culture and power: Interview with Stuart Hall. Radical

Philosophy 86 , 24-41.

Palmer, A. (1983). Afro-Caribbean women in the United States: Images and reality. Washington

D.C: ERIC Clearinghouse.

Palmer, C. (1989). Identity race and Black power in independent Jamaica. In F. Knight &

C. Palmer (Eds.), The Modern Caribbean (pp. 111- 128), USA: The University of North

Carolina Press.

Park, R. (1950). Race and culture . New York, NY: Free Press.

Parker, L. (2004). Race is…race ain’t: An exploration of the utility of critical race theory in

qualitative research in education. Qualitative Studies in Education 11 , 43-55.

Pascarella, E.T. and Terenzini, P.T. (2005). How College Affects Students: Volume 2, A Third

Decade of Research . Jossey-Bass. San Francisco.

329

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3 rd edition). Thousand Oaks,

CA: SAGE.

Patton, L., McEwen, M., Rendon, L., & Howard-Hamilton, M. (2007). Critical race perspectives

on theory in student affairs. New Directions for Student Services 120 , 39-53.

Perruchoud, R., & Redpath-Cross, J. (Eds.). (2011). Glossary on migration (2nd edition). Geneva,

Switzerland: IOM. International Organization for Migration.

Phinney, J. S., (1992). The multigroup ethnic identity measure: A new scale to for use with

diverse groups. Journal of Adolescent Research 7 , 156-176.

Phinney, J. S., & Ong, A. D. (2007). Conceptualization and measurement of ethnic identity: Current status and future directions. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54(3), 271-281. Pickering, M. (Ed.). (2008). Research Methods for cultural studies . Edinburgh: Edinburgh

University Press Ltd.

Picot, J. & Hou, F. (2012). Immigrant pursuit of postsecondary education: A comparison of

Canadaand Switzerland. Economic Insights No. 013. Statistics Canada.

Pieterse, J. N. (2004). Hybridity, so what? The anti-hybridity backlash and the riddles of

recognition. Theory, culture & Society, 18(2-3) , 219-245. London: SAGE.

Pillay, Y. (2005). Racial identity as a predictor of the psychological health of African-American

students at a predominantly White university. Journal of Black Psychology, 31(1) , pp.46-

66. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095798404268282

Plaza, D. (2004). Disaggregating the Indo-and African-Caribbean migration and settlement

experience in Canada. Canadian Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Studies,

29(57/58) , 241-266.

330

Plaza, D. (2006). The construction of a segmented hybrid identity among one-and-a-half

generation and second-generation Indo-Caribbean and African Caribbean Canadians.

Identity, 6(3) , 207-229. doi:10.1207/s1532706xid0603_1

Polkinghorne, D. (1989). Methodology for the human sciences: System of inquiry . Albany, New

York: State University of New York Press.

Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R.G. (2001). Legacies: The story of the immigrant second generation.

Berkeley: University of California Press.

Proctor, J. (2004). Stuart Hall . Oxon, OX: Routledge.

Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R.G. (1996). Immigrant America: A portrait (2 nd ed.). Berkeley:

University of California Press.

Pryce, J. (1997). Similarities between the debates on Ebonics and Jamaican. Journal of Black

Psychology 23(3) , 238-241.

Pulis, J. W. (2003). Word-sound-power: Language, social identity, and the worldview of

Rastafari. In R. K. Blot (Ed.), Language and social identity (pp. 243-260). Westport,

Conn: London: Praeger.

Puri, S. (2004). The Caribbean post-colonial. Social equality, post-nationalism, and cultural

hybridity . NY: Palgrave McMillan.

Rabushka, A. & Shepsle, K. (1972). Politics in plural societies: A theory of democratic

instability . Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company.

Radhakrishnan, R. (1993). Postcoloniality and the boundaries of identity. Callaloo 16(4) , 750-

771.

331

Ramkisoon, M., McFarlane, T., & Branche, C. (2007). Do race and ethnicity matter in Jamaica?

Category labels versus self-descriptions of identity. Caribbean Journal of Psychology,

2(2) , 78-97.

Ratner, Carl (2005). Epistemological, Social, and Political Conundrums in Social

Constructionism [33 paragraphs]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum:

Qualitative Social Research, 7(1) , Art. 4, http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-

fqs060142.

Razack, S. (1998). Looking White people in the eye: Gender, race and culture in courtrooms and

classrooms . Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Reay, D. (2003). Shifting class identities? Social class and the transition to higher education. In

C. Vincent (Ed.), Social justice, education and identity , pp. 51-64. London:

Routledge Falmer.

Reay, D. (2009). ‘Strangers in paradise’? Working-class students in elite universities. Sociology

43 , 1103-1121.

Regis, H. A. (1989). A theoretical framework for the investigation of the role and significance of

communication in the development of the sense of community among English-speaking

Caribbean immigrants. Howard Journal of Communications , 2, 57–80.

Reissman, C. K. (2008). Narrative methods for the human sciences . USA: Sage Publications.

Reitz, J. G. (2005). Tapping immigrants’ skills: New directions for Canadian immigration policy

in the knowledge economy. Law and Business Review of the Americas, 11 , 409-432.

Richardson, B. C. (1989). Caribbean Migrations, 1838-1985. In F. Knight & C. Palmer (Eds.),

The Modern Caribbean (pp. 111- 128), USA: The University of North Carolina Press.

332

Richmond, A. (1989). Caribbean immigrants: A demo-economic analysis. Current Demographic

analysis . Ottawa: Statistics Canada (catalogue 91-536E). Minister of Supply and Services

Canada.

Richmond, A. (1993). Education and Qualifications of Caribbean Migrants in Metropolitan

Toronto. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 19:2, 263-280, DOI:

10.1080/1369183X.1993.9976360

Ricoeur, P. (1991). Life in quest of narrative. In D. Wood (Ed.), On Paul Ricoeur (pp. 20-33).

London: Routledge.

Rodgers, R. F. (1990). Recent theories and research underlying student development. In D. G.

Creamer & Associates, College student development: Theory and practice for the 1990s

(pp. 27-79). Alexandria, VA: American College Personnel Association.

Rodriguez, A. (2004). The burden of postcolonialism. In M. L. Hall, J. Keane-Dawes & A.

Rodriguez (Eds.), Embodying the postcolonial life: Immigrant stories of resistance (pp.

137-151). Amherst, NY: Humanity Books.

Rollin, A. (2011). The income of immigrants who pursue postsecondary education in Canada.

Perspectives on labor and income (Catalogue no. 75-001-X). Statistics Canada.

Root, J., Gates-Gasse, E., Shields, J., & Bauder, H. (2014). Discounting immigrant families:

Neo-liberalism and the framing of Canadian immigration policy change. A literature

review . RCIS Working Paper No. 2014/7. Ryerson University.

Rumbaut, R. G. (1994). The crucible within: Ethnic identity, self-esteem, and segmented

assimilation among children of immigrants. International Migration Review, 28(4) , 748-

794.

Rushdie, S. (1992). Imaginary Homelands . London: Penguin.

333

Rushdie, S. (1997). The satanic verses . Toronto: Vintage Canada. (Originally published in 1988).

Rutherford, J. (1990). The third space: Interview with Homi Bhabha. In J. Rutherford (Ed.),

Identity: Community, culture, difference (pp. 201-221). London: Lawrence & Wishart.

Safran, W. (2006). Diasporas in modern societies: Myths of homeland and return. Diaspora 1(1) ,

83-99.

Said, E. (1985). Orientalism . London: Routledge& Kegan Paul.

Sanford, N. (1967). Where colleges fail: The study of the student as a person . San Francisco,

Jossey-Bass.

Sassen, S. (1998). Globalization and its discontents: Essays on the new mobility of people and

money . New York: New Press.

Scheurich, J., & Young, M. (1997). Coloring epistemologies: Are our research epistemologies

racially biased? Educational Researcher, 26(4) , 4-16.

Schilller, N., Basch, L., & Blanc, C. S. (1995). From immigrant to transmigrant: Theorizing

transnational migration. Anthropological Quarterly, 68(1) , 48-63. Doi:10.2307/3317464

Schimmele, C & Wu, Z. (2015). The new immigration and ethnic identity. Population Change

and Lifestyle Strategic Knowledge Cluster Discussion Paper Series : Vol.3: Iss. 1, Article

1. http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/pclc/vol3/iss1/1

Schutz, A. (1970). On Phenomenology and Social Relations: Selected Writings. H. Wagner

(Ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Schwandt, T. A. (1994). Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry, In N. K.

Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 118-138).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

334

Schwartz, S. J., Montgomery, M. J., & Brione, E. (2006). The role of identity in acculturation

among immigrant people: Theoretical propositions, empirical questions, and applied

recommendations. Human Development , 49, pp.1–30. DOI: 10.1159/000090300

Scruton, R. 1986. Authority and allegiance. In J. Donald and S. Hall (Eds.) Politics and ideology .

(pp. 105-109). Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Shadish, W. R. (1995). Philosophy of science and the quantitative-qualitative debates: Thirteen

common errors. Evaluation and program planning, 18(1), 63-75.

Shields, K. (1989). Standard English in Jamaica: A case of competing models. English World-

Wide 10(1) , 41-53.

Simmons, A. (2010). Immigration and Canada: Global and transnational perspectives . Toronto:

Canadian Scholars Press.

Simmons, A., & Plaza, D. (1998). Breaking through the glass ceiling: The pursuit of university

training among African-Caribbean migrants and their children in Toronto. Canadian

Ethnic Studies: Canadian Immigration , 30 (3), 99-120. Calgary.

Simmons, A., & Plaza, D. (2006). The Caribbean community in Canada: Transnational

connections and transformations. In L. Wong and V. Satzewich (Eds.), Transnational

identities and practices in Canada, (pp.130 -149). Vancouver: University of British

Columbia Press.

Sinacore, A.L. & Lerner, S. (2013). The cultural and educational transitioning of first generation

immigrant undergraduate students in Quebec, Canada. International Journal for

Educational and Vocational Guidance, 13 , 67-85. DOI 10.1007/s10775-013-9238-y

Sloan, A., & Bowe, B. (2014). Phenomenology and hermeneutic phenomenology: The

philosophy, the methodologies and using hermeneutic phenomenology to investigate

335

lecturers’ experiences of curriculum design. Quality & Quantity 48(3) , 1291-1303.

Doi:10.1007/s11135-013-9835-3

Smith, M.G. (2001). Pluralism and social stratification. In C. Barrow and R. Reddock (Eds.),

Caribbean Sociology. Introductory Readings (pp. 118-138). Kingston, Jamaica: Ian

Randle Publishers Ltd.

Smith, J.A., Flowers, P. & Larkin, M. (2009). Interpretative phenomenological analysis:

Theory, method and research . Sage Publications Ltd.

Smith, A., Schneider, B. H., & Ruck, M. D. (2005). Thinking about making it: Black Canadian

students’ beliefs regarding education and achievement. Journal of Youth and

Adolescence 34(4) , 347-359.

Solorzano, D.G., Ceja, M., & Yosso T. (2000). Critical race theory, racial microaggressions, and

campus racial climate: The experiences of African American college students. Journal of

Negro Education, 69(1-2), 60-73.

Spivak, G.C. (1999). Critique of Postcolonial reason: Towards a history of the vanishing

present . Cambridge: Harvard University Press

Stasiulis, D., & Bakan, A. (2005). Negotiating citizenship: Migrant women in Canada and the

global system. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.

Statistics Canada (2011 ). Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Canada: A portrait of early

settlement experiences . (Catalogue no. 89-614-XIE) Statistics Canada, Ottawa, ON.

Statistics Canada (2011). Immigration and ethnocultural diversity in Canada. National

Household Survey (Catalogue no. 99-010-X2011001) Statistics Canada, Ottawa, ON.

Statistics Canada. (2016). CANSIM-477-0031. Postsecondary enrolment by student status,

country of citizenship and se x. Retrieved http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/cansim/a47

336

Statistics Canada. (2017). Gateways to immigration in Canada. 2016 Census of Population .

Retrieved http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-627-m/11-627-m2017029-eng.htm

Stewart, D. (2009). Perceptions of multiple identities among Black college students. Journal of

College Students Development, 50(3) , 253-270.

Stone, C. (2001). The nature of social class and class conflict. In C. Barrow and R. Reddock

(Eds.), Caribbean Sociology: Introductory Readings (pp. 189-200). Kingston, Jamaica:

Ian Randle Publishers Ltd. (Original work published in 1973).

Suarez-Orozco, C., & Suarez-Orozco, M. (2001). Children of immigration . Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

Suarez-Orozco, C., Suarez-Orozco, M., & Todorova, I. (2008). Leaving a new land: Immigrant

students in American society . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Sue, D.W., & Sue, D. (2003). Counseling the culturally different: Theory and practice, (4th ed.) .

New York: Wiley.

Tatum, B.D. (1997). “ Why are all the black children sitting together in the cafeteria?” and other

conversations about race . New York: Basic Books.

Taylor, C. (1991). The ethics of authenticity . Harvard University Press.

Taylor, V., & Whittier, N. (1995). Analytical approaches to social movement culture: The

culture of the women’s movement. In H. Johnston & B. Klandermans (Eds.), Social

movements and culture (pp. 163-187). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Teranishi, R., Suarez-Orozco, C., & Suarez-Orozco, M. (2011). Immigrants in community

colleges. The future of Children 21(1) , 153-169. Doi:10.1353/foc.2011.0009

337

Thiessen, V. 2009. The pursuit of postsecondary education: A comparison of first nations,

African, Asian, and European Canadian youth. Canadian Review of Sociology 46(1) ,

5-37.

Thomas, D. (2004). Modern blackness: Nationalism, globalization, and the politics of culture in

Jamaica . Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Thomas-Hope, D. (2004). Migration situation analysis, policy and program needs for Jamaica .

The Planning Institute of Jamaica, Kingston: PIOJ and UNFPA.

Tisdell, E. (1995). Creating inclusive adult learning environments: Insights from multicultural

education and feminist pedagogy. Information Series no. 361 . Columbus: ERIC

Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education.

Torczyner, J. L. (2003). The shaping of Toronto’s Black identity: A demographic analysis of the

Black community in Toronto and Regions . Montreal: McGill Consortium for Ethnicity

and Strategic Social Planning.

Torres, V., Howard-Hamilton, M. F., & Cooper, D. L. (2003). Identity development of diverse

populations: Implications for teaching and administration in higher education. ASHE

Higher Education Report 29(6) . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Torres, V., Jones, R., & Renn, K. (2009). Identity development in student affairs: Origins,

current status, and new approaches. Journal of College Student Development, 50(6) ,

577-596.

Upcraft. Finney, & Garland (1984). Orientation: A context. In M.L. Upcraft (Ed.), Orienting

Students to college. New Directions for Student services , No. 25. San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass.

338

Valentine, G. (2007). Theorizing and researching intersectionality: A challenge for feminist

geography. The Professional Geographer , 39(1) , 10-21. van Manen, M. (1984). Practicing phenomenological writing. Phenomenology + Pedagogy 2(1) ,

36-69. van Manen, M. (1990, Researching lived experience: Human science for an action-sensitive

pedagogy. SUNY Press. van Manen, M. (1997). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action-sensitive

pedagogy 2 nd edition . London: Althouse Press.

Van Manen, M. (2002). Writing in the dark. Phenomenological studies in interpretive inquiry.

Winnipeg: Althouse Press.

Van Manen, M. (2007). Phenomenology of practice. Phenomenology & Practice 1(1) , 11-30.

Walkerdine, V. (2003). Reclassifying upward mobility: Femininity and the neo-liberal subject.

Gender and Education, 15(3) , 237-248.

Walters, D., Phythian, K., & Anisef, P. (2007). The acculturation of Canadian immigrants:

Determinants of ethnic identification with the host society. Canadian Review of

Sociology & Anthropology , 44(1) , 38-64.

Waters, M. C. (1994). Ethnic and racial identities of second-generation Black immigrants in New

York. International Migration Review 28(4) , 795 -820.

Waters, M. (1999). Black identities: West Indian immigrant dreams and American realities . New

York: Russell Sage Foundations; Harvard University Press.

Waters, M., (2001). The intersection of gender, race, and ethnicity in identity development of

Caribbean American Teens. In B. J. Ross Leadbeater & N. N. Way (Eds.), Urban Girls:

339

Resisting stereotypes, creating identities ( pp. 65-81 ). New York: New York University

Press.

Weber, L. (1998). A conceptual framework for understanding race, class, gender, and sexuality.

Psychology of Women Quarterly 22 , 13-22

Werbner, P. (2004). Theorising complex diasporas: Purity and hybridity in the South Asian

public sphere in Britain. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 30(5) , 895-911

Whitt, E. J. (1991). Artful science: A primer on qualitative research methods. Journal of College

Student Development 32 , 406-415.

Willig, C. (2001). Introducing qualitative research in psychology. Adventures in theory and

method . Buckingham: Open University Press.

Winer, L. (2006). Teaching English to Caribbean English Creole-speaking students in the

Caribbean and North America. In S.J. Nero (Ed.), Dialects, Englishes, creoles, and

education (pp. 105-118). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Wolff, K. H. (1976). Surrender and catch . Holland: D. Reidel Publishing Company.

Woodall, R. (2007). (Re)-Thinking my ‘-Ness’: Diaspora Caribbean Blacks in the Canadian

context. Shibboleths: A Journal of Comparative Theory, 1(2) , 120-126.

Wright, J. (2003). Poststructural methodologies – The body, schooling and health. In J. Evans, B.

Davies, & J. Wright (Eds.), Body knowledge and control. Studies in Sociology of

Physical Education and Health (pp. 34-59). Routledge.

Young, R. J. C. (1995). Colonial Desire: Hybridity in Theory, Culture and Race . London,

UK: Routledge.

Young, H. B. (2006). Haunting capital. Memory, text, and the Black diasporic body . Hanover:

Dartmouth College Press.

340

Zambrana, R. E. & Dill, B. T. (2009). Conclusion. Future directions in knowledge building and

sustaining institutional change. In B. T. Dill & R. E. Zambrana (Eds.), Emerging

intersections: Race, class, and gender in theory, policy, and practice (pp. 274-290). New

Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Zeilke, B. (2006). Not “anything goes:” A critical assessment of constructionism and its

misinterpretation. A comment on Carl Ratner’s “epistemological, social and political

constructionism.” [21 paragraphs]. Forum: Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum:

Qualitative Social Research, 7(1) , Art. 27

http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0601275 .

Zhao, C., Kuh, G., & Carini, R. (2005). A comparison of international student and

American student engagement in effective educational practices. The Journal of Higher

Education, 76(2), 209-231.

Zuberi, D., & Ptashnick, M. (2011). In search of a better life: The experiences of working poor

immigrants in Vancouver, Canada, International Migration.

Doi:10.1111/j.1468-2435.2010.00659.x

341

Appendix A: Interview Protocol Guide

Semi-structured Interview Guide Introductory – Getting here 1. How did the idea about your move to Canada first come about? What was it like when you first arrived? 2. Were you involved in the decision to migrate? 3. How did you feel about moving to Canada? Explain how you would describe what moving to Canada has meant to you. 4. What was the highest-grade level completed prior to migration? Can you say a bit about your early experiences of schooling in Jamaica? 5. Did you apply to attend a Canadian university prior to immigration? If yes, how did you come to choose (name of the university)? If not, when did you matriculate for university? 6. To what extent would you say that attending university in Canada played a part in the decision to immigrate? 7. With whom did you immigrate? 8. What were your expectations coming to this country/province? 9. How long have you lived in Ontario? Talk to me a little bit about settling in Ontario. Interactions on campus/Strategies and mechanisms 10. What year are you currently at university/college? (first, second, third, etc.) 11. Thinking about yourself as a recent immigrant from Jamaica in a university in Ontario, what are some of the challenges that you would say you have experienced up to this point? 12. What have your experiences been since you moved to Canada? Have you felt welcomed as a resident? Student? What would make you feel more welcomed? 13. How have your experiences matched with the expectations you had prior to moving to Ontario? 14. What are your aspirations through your participation in postsecondary education? 15. In what ways do you believe that your university might help/is helping you fulfill your aspirations? 16. Are you aware of any services/resources in your university that assist students who are newcomers to Canada? If so, name the services/resources that you are aware of. 17. Have you utilized any of those services/resources? If so, which ones? If not, why not?

342

18. With whom do you usually associate [a] socially [b] academically while on campus? 19. Would you describe your associates as being from similar or different cultural/ethnic/national backgrounds? 20. Do you belong to a community on or off campus that shares similar cultural/ethnic/national backgrounds? 21. Can you give examples of some of the activities you participate in on campus? Cultural identity/Hybridity 22. When you are asked by someone within or outside the university where you are from, how do you respond? How would you frame/define your cultural identity? 23. How important is it for you to think about your identity in this way? 24. How important is your identity to your interactions in university? In your community? 25. Are there specific activities that you gravitate to in university or your community? 26. Do you believe your involvement in these activities influence the way you construct your cultural identity? 27. Can you explain ways in which you believe your cultural identity has formed or transformed during the time that you have lived in Ontario and at university? 28. Talk about how you identify yourself to others and with others. 29. Explain how you feel that you are perceived within you’re a) home/community and b) university (peers, faculty, administration/if applicable). 30. Any other relevant question that may emerge/any item suggested by participant that is considered appropriate/relevant.

343

Appendix B: Letter of Introduction

OISE ONTARIO INSTITUTE FOR STUDIES IN EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO

Dear:

My name is Paula DaCosta and I am a PhD student at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education at the University of Toronto. I am doing a research study on Jamaican students who are recent immigrants to Ontario and attend university in the Greater Toronto Area. The purpose of this research is to explore how students perceive that their cultural identities have been formed/transformed by their encounters with Canadian society and university.

I plan on interviewing approximately 15 students who identify as recent immigrants from Jamaica, that is, students who have emigrated from Jamaica within the last 5 years and completed most or all their secondary education in Jamaica. If you have indicated that you meet the criteria for inclusion and that you are willing to be interviewed for this study, please be aware that your participation is voluntary, and will be kept strictly confidential. You have the right to refuse to participate, withdraw at any time, or refuse to answer any of the questions without any negative consequence. If you choose to withdraw your participation, any data that I have collected from you will be destroyed. There is no compensation for this study. However, as an expression of thanks for your time, I will offer a prepaid gift card. All identity information will be kept confidential, and pseudonyms will be used in place of your name, and the names of people and places that might reveal your identity.

I do not anticipate any special risks nor are there direct benefits to you for participating in this interview. The interview will be carried out at a mutually agreed upon time and location. I expect the interview to last for approximately one to one and a half hours, and will be recorded using a digital recording device. The transcribed recordings will be assigned pseudonyms. All recordings and transcripts will be secured in encrypted files, and will be accessible to my supervisor and me. Please be advised that in the interest of quality assurance, a University of Toronto representative of the Human Research Ethics Program (HREP) may review the research files to ensure strict adherence to the required laws and guidelines. All material accessed by HREP will be accorded the same level of confidentiality previously outlined by the researcher. All recordings and transcripts will be destroyed within five years of the completion of the final report. Be advised that the final report will form the basis of my PhD dissertation and will likely be submitted for scholarly publications and conference presentations. Should you have any questions or concerns or need further information, please see below for contact information for me and my thesis supervisor. You may also contact the Research Oversight and Compliance Office – Human Research Ethics Program at [email protected] or at 416-946-3273 if you have questions regarding your rights as a participant.

Sincerely,

344

Appendix C: Letter of Informed Consent

OISE ONTARIO INSTITUTE FOR STUDIES IN EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO

Dear Participant:

The purpose of this research study is to explore how Jamaican students who are recent immigrants to Canada perceive that their cultural identities have been formed/transformed by their encounters with Canadian society and university. It will be based on interviews with undergraduate students at Universities in the Greater Toronto Area in Ontario. It is an exploratory study that is intended to inform the complex ways in which students negotiate their identities in new situations. The interview will be conducted by me and will focus on a. Decision to emigrate b. Expectations prior to arrival c. Experiences since arrival d. Campus activities and interactions e. Perceptions of cultural identity The interview will be carried out at a mutually agreed upon time and location. I expect the interview to last for approximately one to one and a half hours, and will be digitally recorded. If you have any objections to having the interview digitally recorded you may indicate this on the consent form, in which case written notes will be taken. You have the right to refuse to answer any questions and to withdraw from the study at any time without any negative consequences. Should you have any questions or concerns or need further information, please see below for my contact information. You may also contact the Research Oversight and Compliance Office – Human Research Ethics Program at [email protected] or at 416-946-3273 if you have questions regarding your rights as a participant or if you have any concerns about how the research is being conducted. Your participation in the study will be kept strictly confidential. Your participation in the study will not be disclosed to the university administration, faculty or other students.

Thank you in advance for your participation.

Sincerely,

______

345

By signing below, you indicate your willingness to participate in the study. That you have received a second signed copy of this letter for your records, and that you are fully aware of the conditions above.

Printed name: ______

Signed: ______Date: ______

Initial if you agree to have your interview recorded: ______