1 Examining Adultism in Higher Education

Home , Adultism, Legal age, List of age restrictions, Suffrage

Examining Adultism in Higher Education: A Three-Study Dissertation

Dissertation

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of

Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University

Vu T. Tran

Graduate Program in Educational Studies

The Ohio State University

2018

Dissertation Committee:

Dr. Marc P. Johnston-Guerrero, Advisor

Dr. Susan R. Jones

Dr. Jen D. Wong

Copyrighted by

Vu T. Tran

2018

Abstract

Age is a topic that has been elusive in the field of higher education and student affairs. One lens that can be used to conceptualize age dynamics is adultism, which is defined as the systemic way that individuals benefit or experience harmed based on adult status (DeJong, 2014). The three studies in this dissertation are intended to examine adultism within various spheres of higher education and student affairs, including scholarship, professional culture, and where students have learned to form relationships based on political beliefs. Each study is intended to stand on its own as a manuscript. The findings from these three studies aim to open doors for future research and practice on age and adultism.

Using critical discourse analysis methodology (Fairclough, 2012), Study One examines discourse on adulthood in journal articles from five higher education journals.

A sample of 11 articles were selected based on adult-related terms included in the title of the article. The findings of this study show that traditionally-aged college students are not viewed as adults, that age is used as a way to construct vulnerable populations, and there exists models of criticality on adult discourse. Critical questions on adultism in higher education research are poised to push scholars in the field to become more conscious of adultist norms and values.

Study Two is an ethnographic case study (Merriam, 1998) of a national student affairs conference and critically examines the phenomenon of giving advice through the iii lens of adultism to unpack adult status and power within the profession. Data sources of this case study included field observations, informal member checks, follow-up interviews, and archived tweets using the conference hashtag. The primary theme from this study suggests that student affairs professionals view themselves as adults and helpers to young people. Two secondary themes emerged as consequences of this dynamic, where advice-giving maintains generational divides and reproduces a hegemonic concept of professionalism.

To deepen understanding of social divisions in the context of politically charged atmospheres, Study Three is a social network analysis that examines peer networks of first-year college students at a large, public institution in the U.S. Midwest. This study found that adults serve as reference points for how young people have learned to factor political beliefs into their relationships with others. In addition, young people initially claim that political beliefs are not factors in the formation of their friendships in college.

However, their narratives show that certain values and beliefs created political divides.

The dissertation concludes with a final chapter which calls for higher education scholars and practitioners to begin identifying and addressing adultism within higher education and student affairs. I offer four potential approaches that can be taken: incorporate adultism into intersectional work, move beyond chronological age, emphasize age diversity, and foster intergenerational communities. I provide these approaches, as well as the findings of the study, as only the beginning of examining age and adultism in higher education in the hopes that future scholars and practitioners will join in the conversation.

Dedication

In dedication to my parents, who were the first adults in my life. Their love and sacrifice

gave me the opportunity to be where I am today. Cám ơn ba mẹ

Acknowledgments

My first words of appreciation must go to the ones who have been by my side for the entire duration of this dissertation. To Annabelle, my wife: I thank you for all of encouragement, understanding, celebration, and mugs of tea you provided me as I navigated through this journey of research and writing. I am forever thankful to have you as my lifelong co-author. To Sonny, my faithful four-legged companion: Thank you for laying by me as I sat and typed for all of these years. You are the only being in this world who does not have a harsh thing to say about my writing. I promise you more treats in the future. To my family, including my parents, my siblings Vy and Van, and all of the countless aunts, uncles, and cousins I have: even though you may not know much about my academic journey, you are an important part of my life story, and have contributed enormously to who I have become today. To my three grandparents in the sky and grandfather who is probably more physically healthy than I am: Thank you for being the beacons that have guided our family, through all the joys and hardships we have endured.

The labor I have put into this dissertation is nothing compared to the labor you all went through to support our family through war, violence, and migration. Everyone in our family owes eternal gratitude to you all. The words on these pages belong to you as much as they do to me.

To Marc, my brilliant and generous advisor: You are the sole reason I chose to come to The Ohio State University. I cannot imagine where my scholarly journey would vi have taken me if I did not have you by my side as my intellectual compass. I will miss our conversations about identity, social justice, and life that start as a few minutes and turn into two hours. To Susan: Thank you for being such a wonderful model of the type of scholar and educator I strive to become in the future. I can only hope to achieve a fraction of your impact on the field and in the classroom. To Jen: You have been my invaluable window to the world of age studies, and a wonderful coach who will not let me quit on a manuscript.

I also want to acknowledge some of the many folks who have been instrumental in my journey through higher education as I grew into my adult skin. As it does with many people, it all started at my alma mater, the University of Connecticut. But the entirety of the credit for my maturation during college goes to the folks at the Asian

American Cultural Center: Angela Rola, Sheila Kucko, Jeffrey Alton, and all of my

AsACC family who gave me a place to call a second home. You all are the people who lit my sociopolitical fire and pointed me into the direction of education. To my A Minor family: Thank you for all of the laughs, tears, harmonies, and life experiences I have been able to share with you thus far. My heart will forever be flying in heaven with Kyunga and Dave. To my dear friends who molded and nurtured me as a social justice education at the University of Michigan’s Program on Intergroup Relations: Taryn Petryk, robbie routenberg, Roger Fisher, Monita Thompson, Rhian Waterberg, and Linh Nguyen. You all have been, and continue to be in my corner, and I am proud to call you all my social justice family.

vii

Then there are the people who have I have had the pleasure of befriending during my professional career in residential life at the University of Vermont and University of the Pacific: Nate Panelo, Jimmy Doan, Christine Nguyen, Viraj Patel, Rafael Rodriguez,

Learie Nurse, Tomás Sanchez, Christina Olstad, Stacey Miller, Torry Broulliard-Bruce,

Dan Ocampo, and Ana Romero. Each of you have had played a vital part in my growth as a person and a professional, and I owe my thanks and appreciation to the impact you have had on me in my career and my life. And a special acknowledgement goes to Kathy

Cook. You saw something in me to take a chance on someone with absolutely zero experience in residential life, and ended up teaching me more than you will ever realize.

May you rest in peace with a big, 16-ounce steak.

Finally, I would like to acknowledge The Ohio State University’s College of

Education and Human Ecology, the Department of Educational Studies, the Higher

Education and Student Affairs Program, Dennis Learning Center, and the Portersfield-

Dickens Scholarship. The financial support from these entities made it possible for me to complete my academic program and dissertation project.

viii

Vita

B.S., Chemistry with a minor in Sociology 2007 University of Connecticut

M.A., Higher Education Administration 2008 University of Michigan

Residence Director, Department of Residential Life 2009-2012 University of Vermont

Area Coordinator, Department of Housing and Greek Life 2012-2014 University of the Pacific

Graduate Research Associate 2014-2017 The Ohio State University

Graduate Teaching Associate 2015-2017 The Ohio State University

Publications

Reece, B. J., Tran, V. T., DeVore, E. N., Porcaro, G. (Eds.) (in press). Debunking the myth of job fit in student affairs. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, LLC.

Johnston-Guerrero, M. P. & Tran, V. T. (in press). Is it really the best of both worlds? Exploring notions of privilege associated with multiraciality. Understanding and Dismantling Privilege. Manuscript accepted for publication.

Tran, V. T. (2017). An open letter to Dr. Jonathan Higgins. ACPA Commission for Social Justice Educators Blog. Invited blog post. Retrieved from https://acpacsje.wordpress.com/2017/07/21/an-open-letter-to-dr-jonathan-higgins/

Tran, V. T. & Johnston-Guerrero, M. P. (2016). Is transracial the same as transgender? The utility and limitations of identity analogies in multicultural education. Multicultural Perspectives, 18(3), 134-139. http://doi.org/10.1080/15210960.2016.1186548

Johnston-Guerrero, M. P. & Tran, V. T. (2016). Born this way? How U.S. college students make sense of the biological underpinnings of race and other identities. International Journal of Multicultural Education, 18(2), 107-124. http://doi.org/10.18251/ijme.v18i2.1126

Tran, V. T. (2016, January 12). Five ways to utilize the new social justice competences. ACPA Commission for Social Justice Educators Blog. Invited blog post. Retrieved from https://acpacsje.wordpress.com/2016/01/12/five-ways-to-utilize- the-new-social-justice-competencies/

Tran, V. T. (2014, May 27). Being on my best social justice behavior. ACPA Commission for Social Justice Educators Blog. Invited blog post. Retrieved from https://acpacsje.wordpress.com/2014/05/27/being-on-my-best-social-justice- behavior-by-vu-tran/

Tran, V. T. (2012, November 13) Social justice educators and their pesky inner voices. ACPA Commission for Social Justice Educators Blog. Invited blog post. Retrieved from http://acpacsje.tumblr.com/post/35634745503/social-justice- educators-and-their-pesky-inner

Tran, V. T. (2011, October 10) Let us be more forgiving of men. NASPA Men and Masculinities Knowledge Community Blog. Invited blog post. Retrieved from https://naspammkc.wordpress.com/2011/10/10/let-us-be-more-forgiving-of-men/

Fields of Study

Major Field: Educational Studies

Specialization: Higher Education and Student Affairs

Table of Contents

Abstract ...... iii Dedication ...... v Acknowledgments ...... vi Vita ...... ix List of Tables ...... xv List of Figures ...... xvi Chapter 1: Examining Age and Adultism in Higher Education...... 1 Dissertation Purpose and Research Questions ...... 4 Positionality ...... 6 Multiple Realities and Complex Epistemologies ...... 7 On Terminology: Theories and Concepts of Age ...... 10 Adultism ...... 11 Generational Intelligence ...... 13 Key Definitions of Age ...... 14 The Three Studies ...... 18 Significance...... 20 References ...... 21 Chapter 2: Critical Discourse Analysis of Adulthood in Higher Education Journals ...... 27 Researcher Positionality...... 29 Literature Review...... 31 Psychosocial Conceptions of Age and Adulthood in Higher Education ...... 31 Adults as Neoliberal Subjects ...... 34 The Paradox of Adult Learners ...... 36 Theoretical Foundations...... 38 xi

Defining Terms ...... 38 Critical Theory and Adultism ...... 40 Examining Power in Discourse ...... 42 Critical Discourse Analysis Methodology ...... 44 Core Tenets of CDA ...... 45 Data Sources: Journal Articles as Discursive Practice ...... 46 Study Limitations ...... 48 Discourse Analysis of Higher Education Scholarship ...... 49 Traditionally-Aged College Students are Not Adults ...... 50 Using Age to Construct Vulnerable Populations ...... 53 Models of Criticality on Adult Discourse ...... 56 Critical Questions on Adultism in Higher Education Scholarship ...... 58 Conclusion ...... 61 References ...... 63 Chapter 3: The Adultism in Giving Advice Within Student Affairs...... 70 Who Are the Young People and Who Are the Adults? ...... 72 Adultism ...... 74 Student Affairs as a Helping Profession ...... 75 Scholarly Position ...... 76 Literature Review...... 77 Student Affairs Professional Culture and Conferences ...... 78 Socialization of Student Affairs Practitioners...... 80 Ethnographic Case Study Methodology ...... 84 The Bounded Case ...... 84 Data Sources ...... 85 Limitations ...... 87 Results ...... 88 Primary Theme: Student Affairs Professionals as Adults and Helpers ...... 88 Secondary Theme: Sustaining Generational Divides ...... 95 Secondary Theme: Reproducing “Professionalism” ...... 99 Discussion ...... 104 Implications: Disrupting Adultism in Student Affairs Professional Culture ...... 106

xii

Conclusion ...... 109 References ...... 111 Chapter 4: What do Young People Learn from Their Parents? Vignettes of College Student Social Networks Based on Political Beliefs ...... 117 Understanding Homophily ...... 120 College Students as Young People ...... 122 Literature Review...... 123 Intergroup Contact of College Students ...... 124 Homophilous Relationships in College ...... 126 Age Homophily ...... 128 Political Homophily ...... 130 Social Network Analysis Methodology ...... 132 Foundations and Core Tenets of Social Network Analysis ...... 132 Qualitative Social Network Analysis and Narrative Inquiry ...... 134 Study Sample and Recruitment ...... 136 Data Collection ...... 139 Data Analysis ...... 140 Limitations ...... 143 Positionality: The Scholar as The Narrator ...... 143 Composite Narratives: Mixing Politics and Friendships ...... 144 The Characters and Setting ...... 145 Vignette 1: Getting Ready for Parents Visit Weekend ...... 147 Vignette 2: A Classroom Discussion ...... 149 Vignette 3: Conversing at Dinner ...... 154 Discussion ...... 158 Implications...... 160 Conclusion ...... 161 References ...... 163 Chapter 5: Identifying and Addressing Adultism in Higher Education ...... 171 Identifying Adultism ...... 171 Generational Transmission of Knowledge and Adultism ...... 172 The Problems with Quantifying Age in Higher Education ...... 174 Critical Questioning of Adult Power and Authority ...... 176 xiii

Addressing Adultism: Implications for Research and Practice on Adultism in Higher Education and Student Affairs ...... 177 Incorporate Adultism into Intersectional Work ...... 178 Move Beyond Chronological Age ...... 179 Emphasize Age Diversity ...... 180 Foster Intergenerational Communities ...... 181 Lessons Learned...... 181 The Future of Research and Practice on Age...... 183 References ...... 185 References ...... 188 Appendix A: Articles Including Adult Terms in Title ...... 204 Appendix B: Documented Observation Schedule ...... 206 Appendix C: Ethnographic Case Study Interview Protocol ...... 207 Appendix D: Social Network Analysis Interview Protocol ...... 209

xiv

List of Tables

Table 1. Excerpts from the Worldview Exercise (Jones et al., 2014) ...... 9 Table 2. Sources of Collegiate Social Networks for PAC Students ...... 146

List of Figures

Figure 1.Tweet of quote from Francis Gonzalo’s keynote talk ...... 88 Figure 2. Tweet from a student affairs graduate student ...... 90 Figure 3. Tweet from keynote speaker Peter Wood ...... 91 Figure 4. Tweet from keynote speaker Vincent Brooks ...... 91 Figure 5. Tweet from an attendee from a conference session focused on Latino professionals ...... 92 Figure 6. Tweet from a presenter at a conference session for aspiring Vice Presidents... 92 Figure 7. Tweet from conference attendee Sam Davidson about anti-Millennial talk ..... 96

xvi

Chapter 1: Examining Age and Adultism in Higher Education

When I entered my first full-time professional position as a Residence Director at the University of Vermont at age 24, I was overcome with all sorts of doubts. Some of these doubts were related to the fact that I had little experience in the functional area of residential life, though I figured that I would be able to learn and adapt with the training and support provided. In reflection, I would say that more of my doubts were related to my age. While I always felt more mature than my chronological age might suggest, the number still affected me personally and professionally. I was stepping into a scenario where I was responsible for the safety and well-being of hundreds of college students, and supervising a staff of Resident Advisors, many of whom were not much younger than myself. Additionally, I was responsible for supervising a graduate student, who was essentially the same age as me. Who would bother to take someone who looks like a peer seriously as an authority figure? The impacts of age did not end there, as they also appeared in my interactions with others within my department, institution, and beyond.

There were many meetings where I would feel the presence of my youthfulness in the room, and interactions with parents and guardians which would resonate with undertones of condescension. How could I be taken seriously if I am literally young enough to be the child, or even grandchild of some of these people with whom I am interacting with?

Early on, I was given different pieces of advice on establishing professional credibility: dress professionally, speak confidently, and add my degree credentials to my 1 business card and e-mail signature. While they did not resolve all the jitters, and a part of me felt some internal conflict about abiding by this advisement, I did these things anyway. These actions made sense to me at the time, but in hindsight, they were just strategies to compensate for experiences with adultism, or the ways I was marginalized based on my perceived lack of adult status (DeJong, 2014). These challenges were compounded by my personal life experiences at the time, where I was transitioning into a new stage in my life and a new geographical location. Looking back, I wish I had an awareness and knowledge about age to better navigate these challenges. While my

Master’s academic program included developmental and identity-based theories, none focused explicitly on matters of age. Without the words to articulate these things, and people with whom I could talk and relate, age was not a consistently salient aspect of my identity. It was not until I had my first experience of supervising someone who was older than me in chronological age where issues of age boiled over and pushed age to the foreground for me.

Beginning a conversation with someone about age can be challenging, since the concept of age has often been understood chronologically as a number – specifically the number of years since someone was born. In these types of conversations, there is a social significance to birthdays, and legal implications for issues such as voting age (de

Schweinitz, 2015) and drinking age (Cole, 2015). However, age can be assumed in other ways, which can sometimes lead to misunderstandings. For example, age can be understood in generational cohort terms, whether that is based on family generations

(e.g., grandparents, parents, children), immigrant waves, or societally created ideas such

2 as Millennials and Baby Boomers (Biggs, Haapala, & Lowenstein, 2011). Alternatively, age can be explained in the context of life stages (e.g. childhood, adolescence, adulthood) within the lives of individuals. Markers of life transitions within a person’s life (e.g. attending college, getting married, buying a house) can serve as indicators for age (Elder,

1975). Finally, there is also the notion of subjective age, which is one’s own perception of their age based on how they look, feel, and behave (Montepare, 2009).

These various conceptions of age are understandable, and have relevancy in congruent contexts. However, these differing notions of age can sometimes end up in misunderstandings, as one person may be referencing chronological age, while someone else may be discussing generational cohorts. Similarly, introducing a conversation about age with an academic field is difficult for the same reasons as it is challenging at the individual level. While ideas of age are pervasive, and impact the work of many scholars, it is likely that different people grasp onto different ideas of age, eventually leading to misunderstandings or a conflation of ideas. For instance, scholars may insist on different ideas about what they mean when referring to young people. One person may picture a specific chronological age group, while another person may approach it using life stage markers such as marriage and parenthood. This dynamic extends into the field of higher education and student affairs, which has become prominent in student development theory (Baxter Magolda, 2009; Jones & Stewart, 2016). Age and development have been researched extensively in studies of childhood and adolescence (Barak, 2009), but age has seldom been explicitly explored within higher education and student affairs. As such, there is much room for incorporation of age concepts into higher education literature.

Adulthood is one such concept that that seems to create trepidation amongst higher education scholars, practitioners, and college students. Contemporary understandings of adulthood are murky at best. Individuals in their late teens and early twenties often feel unsettled in their sense of adult identity (Arnett, 2000, 2014), but this phenomenon spans across the spectrum of chronological age (Beck, 2016). This murkiness can serve as a starting point for various considerations for scholars. How is adulthood defined? At what age does someone become an adult? What are the differences in being an adult today compared to thirty years ago? What does it feel like or look like to be an adult? How should adults appropriately behave in different settings? Who gets to define what adulthood looks like? What types of power and privileges do adults receive access to? These hypothetical questions represent some of the larger philosophical curiosities that inform the subtext of this dissertation.

Dissertation Purpose and Research Questions

The purpose of this three-study dissertation is to examine adultism within various spheres of higher education and student affairs, including scholarship, professional culture, and where students have learned to form relationships based on political beliefs.

Study One is a critical discourse analysis (CDA; Fairclough, 1992) of higher education and student affairs journals, Study Two is an ethnographic case study (Yin, 1994) on adultism at a student affairs conference, and Study Three is a narrative social network analysis (Hollstein, 2011) of political beliefs as a factor in social relationships for young people. Accordingly, three overarching questions guide this collection of studies:

1. How does higher education research reinforce or dismantle hegemonic norms and

values of adulthood?

2. How do student affairs professionals enact or resist adultism within a professional

culture?

3. How do political beliefs impact the ways that college students form social

relationships and where do these beliefs come from?

These three studies complement one another by incorporating concepts of adultism

(DeJong, 2014) and generational intelligence (Biggs et al., 2011) as analytic tools.

Ultimately, these studies aim to provide college students, practitioners, and scholars with entry points to engaging in constructive discussions about age and the impact that it has on the collegiate experience.

Age is something that impacts everyone, and not just particular groups of people.

Thus, it would not be sufficient to cite statistics about how higher education has become more age diverse over the past several decades. Furthermore, citing chronological age as a motivation for advancing age studies in higher education misses the numerous other ways that age is conceptualized. Increasing awareness and knowledge regarding matters of age can help in scenarios like the one I shared about myself, and other tricky situations where age is an underlying factor. An increased understanding of age concepts allows for the establishment of a discourse that can aide in naming issues that are related to age, particularly in the context of higher education.

In this introduction chapter, I begin by positioning my experiential, epistemological, and ontological perspectives on knowledge. Then, I offer an overview of

5 adultism and generational intelligence as overarching theoretical concepts for multiple studies. Next, I offer clarity regarding conceptions of age, and the extent to which they will be referred to across the studies. Then, I briefly describe each of the three research studies that comprise this dissertation project. Finally, I discuss the significance of these studies for the field of higher education and student affairs research and practice.

Positionality

It is fitting that each of the three studies centers a unique dimension of higher education with which I have personal touchpoints, with the first focusing on academic scholarship, the second on a professional culture, and the third on the social network of students. It is not coincidental that these studies have turned out the way they are, as each study has personal relevance to me, which affects the lens through which I approach my research. Instead of creating a false sense of objectivity by maintaining distance between myself and the research subjects, I use this section to place my biases in the foreground, acknowledge my own individual relationship with each study and allow readers to make their own determinations about the end-product.

As an emerging scholar in the field of higher education, I find myself submersed in the world of academia and engaging with published journal articles daily. Therefore, the sample of journal articles in Study One were written by scholars whom I have read and cited regularly, and from journals that I have paid close attention to, as they have been prominent in the field of higher education and student affairs. Similarly, the conference that I attended for Study Two is one that I have attended in the past, even holding a leadership position at one point in an entity group within the organization. The

6 individuals and the culture of this conference were familiar to me and helped me navigate the conference without much of a learning curve. Finally, Study Three drew upon my own political orientation as a liberal Democrat, as well as my personal experiences as a college student at three different levels (undergraduate, master’s, and doctorate). My prior and current experiences as a college student, professional experience in residential life, and current role as a graduate student have informed the ways that I view social networks on college campuses. They are complicated, interwoven, but rarely accidental.

These personal experiences have created a beginning foundation for my approach to these studies, as well as my worldviews in general. In the next section, I discuss my epistemological and ontological perspectives and the ways that they relate to these research studies.

Multiple Realities and Complex Epistemologies

A simple question such as “What is an adult?” hedges on epistemological and ontological worldviews that both researchers and consumers of research hold (Jones,

Torres, & Arminio, 2014). Two individuals who reference the term adult may hold very different perspectives and understandings of this concept based on the ways that knowledge is produced (epistemology), and what is considered reality (ontology). For example, a person who holds a positivist or postpositivist epistemological standpoint may believe that adulthood is something that can be measured objectively and empirically. A different person who views the world through a constructivist lens may believe that the concept of adulthood is something that exists purely because societies have created and reinforced specific ideas about it. Many scholarly conflicts and disagreements arise due

7 to misunderstandings and lack of explicit epistemological and ontological clarity. Thus, I will state my position on epistemology and ontology within this dissertation.

Jones and colleagues (2014) invite scholars to engage in what they call a

“Worldview Exercise” where individuals are asked to select statements from four columns based on their perspectives about knowledge and reality. Table 1 offers an excerpt of two rows of choices pertaining to matters of reality and truth. This exercise can be immensely valuable for researchers to think deeply about their epistemological and ontological standpoints, but the forced choice could also become inadvertently limiting or confining. Readers who engage in this exercise may feel the need to select and exclusively claim that they believe in particular forms of truth and reality. The need for drawing clear, distinct lines about truth and reality may be useful if scholars existed in a vacuum. But because we engage with individuals from all different perspectives, it becomes less about whose perspectives are right and wrong, and more about developing an understanding of what people are attempting to communicate. Thus, I contend that scholars can exist in theoretical borderlands (Abes, 2009) and take multiple philosophical stances of reality and truth dependent on the specific context in which they are in without contradicting themselves.

Table 1. Excerpts from the Worldview Exercise (Jones et al., 2014) A B C D Reality is a physical Reality is Reality is shaped by Reality is socially and observable constructed through social, political, co-created by event. local human economic, and other individuals through interaction. values crystallized the surrounding over time. environment.

Truth is universal Truth is an Truth is influenced Researchers cannot and verifiable; agreement between by history and know or create truth. findings are members of a societal structures. considered true. stakeholding community.

Reality is something that can be both observable and socially created. The coffee mug that is currently next to me is real, because it is a physical item that I can see and touch. However, even if the coffee mug was not present, it would still be real because it was given to me by my father and we both know of its existence. Additionally, the societal context of the United States has embedded and reinforced specific ideas about what coffee mugs should look like. Instead of making a claim that one of these things are true about the mug, I argue that they all have some basis in truth. In a dissertation project about an abstract concept such as adultism and age networks in higher education, it may seem apparent for me to claim that adultism exists based on social, political, and economic values. However, I would not discount the possibility of adultism being understood in other forms, as I discovered during my various forms of data collection.

What others consider to be real is just as important to me as what I consider to be real – it is moreso a matter of the context of time and space.

Similarly, the notions of truth and knowledge are highly contextual and dependent on any unique instance at a point in time. To engage in qualitative research should not mean that I wholeheartedly subscribe to the notion that researchers are able to fully know or create truth, nor should I wholly disavow the possibility of truth being universal and objective. In what Eaton (2015) calls a complexivist epistemology, he “question[s] what it means to know, how knowledge is explored, and the grand metanarratives that drive all inquiry, research, and knowledge production” (p. 3). My view of this dissertation project is not so much about being able to assert definitive claims about age networks and adulthood in higher education, but rather to be in constant questioning and curiosity about the various ways in which these concepts are observed and experienced within higher education. By maintaining an open stance on epistemology, I will not narrow myself to specific understandings of adultism.

On Terminology: Theories and Concepts of Age

Age has been a concept that has been oversimplified for far too long in higher education research (Tran & Wong, 2016). There are a number of ways to approach studies on age, and my aim is to be as explicit as possible. Two primary theoretical concepts inform the analysis of these three research studies: adultism (DeJong, 2014) and generational intelligence (Biggs et al., 2011). While each concept appears differently in all the studies, they will appear in some form or fashion. In this section, I introduce these theories to provide a common understanding of concepts that will be embedded

10 throughout each study. Additionally, I will explain how these ideas of age are different from other conceptions of age.

Adultism

One of the cornerstones of this research project is the recognition that adulthood is not just a life stage, but includes the relative and subjective nature of adult status.

College students often do not view themselves as adults (Nelson & Barry, 2005).

Similarly, younger student affairs professionals work in a dichotomous environment where they may be viewed as the adult when they are interacting with students in one setting, and then perceived to be a kid in another meeting because they are visually marked as a college student. These types of experiences can create a constant internal negotiation of adult identity as well as relationships of distrust and resentment amongst professionals. The stresses of marginalization for student affairs professionals have been well-documented for experiences of racism (Fasching-Varner, Albert, Mitchell, & Allen,

2014), but only within the past few years has conceptual language been made available to address the ways young people are systemically oppressed.

Adultism (DeJong, 2014) offers such a theoretical framework, as it challenges the ways adult status has been normalized and valued, ultimately creating a society where young people experience systemic oppression based on their age identity. Drawing upon

Gramsci (1971), DeJong (2014) describes hegemony as

a process by which a ruling group sustains domination not only through economic

wealth and political power but by making the ruling group’s own culture into the

dominant culture, thereby legitimizing their rule. The language, values, norms,

practices, knowledge, and worldview of the dominant culture are centered as both

“standard” and more valuable than other cultures. The idea of hegemony refers to

a process by which power is maintained by winning a large degree of the

subjugated people’s spontaneous consent. (p. 79)

When this notion of hegemony is applied to age, the resulting concept is hegemonic adultism, which privileges adult culture, values, behaviors and norms to be absolute in rule and correctness. This dominant adult culture manifests itself differently and can vary based on various geographical and geopolitical cultures, but is ultimately built on the idea that being adult is desirable and superior. Adult status thus becomes equated, and often conflated, with power and authority. Accordingly, adultism is the systemic way that individuals benefit or are harmed based on adult status. Based on these dominant cultural norms and values of adulthood, systems of adultism emerge which privilege those who hold adult status and oppress children, with systemic ageism negatively impacting older adults.

DeJong’s (2014) conception of adultism comes from their dissertation study centered on how young people in a high school and a community-based setting experienced age status and power. The author discovered that negative beliefs (e.g., irresponsible, lazy, disrespectful) about young people were pervasive interpersonally, culturally, and institutionally. Young people were rarely seen as equal partners in relationships with adults. While there are assumed differences between high school and higher education institutions, it is reasonable to be curious about whether these dynamics of adultism are transferrable.

One of the few examples in which this concept has been applied in the higher education setting is in Junco’s (2014) research on social media and college student identity development. Junco calls the norms and behaviors that are defined as appropriate by student affairs adult normative beliefs. As with adultism, adult normative beliefs place adults in the position of creating, reinforcing, and reproducing societal rules about adulthood. The framework of adultism questions and challenges socially defined norms and beliefs of the privileges and power that are assigned to adulthood, even if that adult power is being used in a well-intended manner. Thus, this theoretical framework was utilized as a focal spotlight for data analysis in studies 1 and 2.

Generational Intelligence

Identifying discrete boundaries across generations is a difficult task, as people often disagree about exact date ranges of generations. As Markert (2004) explained, “the range of dates is compounded because the term cohort and generation are often used interchangeably when they measure distinctly different time periods, making it impossible to disentangle the group’s size and their distinctive lifestyles” (p. 11). For example, scholars have not agreed on whether the Baby Boomer generation begins in

1940 or 1950 (Markert, 2004). Furthermore, popular ideas of generations such as

Millennials and Baby Boomers are often discussed in essentialist ways during conversations about young and old people. These generational categories are helpful in that they provide a starting basis for understanding generational differences, but become harmful when they are used to generalize and stereotype entire groups of people.

Thus, when referring to generations, I limit my references to such social constructs. Instead, I draw upon generational intelligence theory (Biggs et al., 2011) to approach generations from a more phenomenological perspective. Generational intelligence suggests that there are three contexts for generational identity (birth cohort, family lineage, and personal maturation), and that individuals develop this intelligence by reflecting and acting upon these three dimensions. Birth cohort acknowledges the persisting significance of chronological age, birthdays, and more importantly, a presumed shared set of social experiences related to major life events (e.g., large-scale tragedies, economic circumstances). Family lineage is explained as “one’s position in terms of lineage, the roles and expectations associated with a particular age-position in relation to other family members” (Biggs et al., 2011, p. 1110). Personal maturation addresses the individual-level development that each person experiences throughout the course of their life, and the ways it may affect their understanding of generations. In other words, as people age and grow older, their unique set of life experiences will affect how they relate to people of similar and different generations.

Key Definitions of Age

Though adultism and generational intelligence are the theories which inform the current studies, they are not the only ways that age can be understood. Given that individuals latch onto different conceptions of age, it is crucial for me to be adaptive in my use of age as each study progresses. In this section, I will address other concepts of age, and discuss the degree to which each might play a role in the studies.

Chronological age. This conception of age is most common in all forms of research, as it is taken as the number of years since a person has been born. This number is often asked for in questions such as “How old are you?” Such is the case in higher education research, where age data is often collected in terms of age range and reported as means (Tran & Wong, 2016). A benefit of considering chronological age is that it allows for researchers to account for biopsychosocial human development (Whitbourne

& Whitbourne, 2014). However, the current studies were not centered through such a lens where chronological age would be valuable in this way.

Consideration is also given for the socially constructed nature of chronological age, as different societies have assigned significance to such numbers. Most commonly, there is a tendency to subdivide by decades. People often talk about differentiations of being a teenager compared to being in one’s twenties, thirties, forties, and so on. While these studies will pay attention to the assumptions and generalizations that exist in higher education spaces regarding such ideas about age, it will not be a main focus. The major limitation of using this conception of age is the arbitrary nature of comparison based on the number of years that someone has been alive, and the dangers of essentializing entire groups of people based on chronological age.

Subjective age. Subjective age, or how young/old someone perceives themselves to be, has emerged as an important area of study since a subjective age scale was first introduced by Benny Barak in his dissertation on marketing towards the elderly (Barak,

1979). Within subjective age, individuals may differ in their perception of age based on how they look, feel, behave, and think (Barak, 1979, 2009). Subjective age scales have

15 been shown to be valid and reliable in studies across many countries (Barak, 2009) and have expanded to fields beyond human development, including medicine (Stephan, Sutin,

& Terracciano, 2015) and social psychology (Schafer & Shippee, 2010). For the purposes of this dissertation, subjective age will be acknowledged as relevant, as individuals in

Study Two and Study Three are subject to their own self-definitions of age.

Functional Age. In addition to chronological and subjective age, individuals can vary based on their capacity to function and perform activities of daily living (ADLs) such as feeding oneself, bathing, and getting dressed. Functional age is defined as “a measure of maturation of the organism in terms of relative functional capacity or biological indices” (Anstey, Lord, & Smith, 1996, p. 246). Extended to the context of this dissertation, functional age provides further specificity on individual and group differences within and across age groups. For example, Master’s students in student affairs preparation programs may be of a similar chronological age group, but they might vary based on their skills and professional competencies. The addition of functional age helps account for such variation in discussions about age.

Life stages. Life stage theories are prevalent in the field of human development, as many scholars focus their work on studying specific brackets of human life, such as childhood, adolescence, adulthood, and old age. Historically, there has been a great deal of disagreement amongst scholars from many academic disciplines about what life stages exist and where adulthood fits into the life course. Scholars have attempted to differentiate adulthood into more specific stages such as midlife (Barrett, 2005), middle adulthood (Whitbourne & VanManen, 1996), and Emerging Adulthood (Arnett, 2000,

2014). In this dissertation, adulthood is approached as an ambiguous life stage, which is subject to the perspectives and experiences of individuals. In conjunction with the concept of adultism, it is useful to consider adulthood in both its life stage concept as well as power status.

Life Course Perspective (LCP). In the development of models explaining the life course, there are several important concepts that are relevant to this dissertation.

Elder, Johnson, and Crosnoe (2003) explained the definitions and uses of social pathways, trajectories, and turning points before discussing the core principles of LCP.

Social pathways are the trajectories of education and work that individuals experience over the course of their life. These pathways can be shaped by historical and large-scale social forces, such as economic fluctuation. Trajectories, or sequences of roles and experiences, are themselves made up of transitions, or changes in state or role. Elder and colleagues (2003) explain that “transitions often involve changes in status or identity, both personally and socially, and thus open up opportunities for behavioral change” (p.

8). Then there are turning points, which “involve a substantial change in the direction of one’s life, whether subjective or objective” (Elder et al., 2003, p. 8).

Like a story arc, social pathways, trajectories, and turnings points are concepts that can be used to visualize the rises, climaxes, and falls in an individual’s life journey.

As the emphasis on the entirety of an individual’s life span increased, scholars needed a theoretical perspective to help ground their research, particularly with longitudinal studies. Elder his perspective on the life course has been the most prominent among social scientists. LCP is based in five principles: lifelong development and aging; lives

17 and historical times; the timing of lives; linked lives; and human agency (For a detailed explanation of these principles, see Elder, 1994; 1998; Elder & Giele; 2009).

The Three Studies

The first study is a critical discourse analysis of adulthood in five higher education journals between 2010 and 2014. I examined the ways that higher education scholarship reinforces or dismantles hegemonic norms of adulthood. The five journals included are Community College Journal of Research & Practice, Journal of College

Student Development, Journal of Higher Education, Research in Higher Education, and

Review of Higher Education. These journals are considered to be influential within higher education research (Bray & Major, 2011) and represent a broad base of scholarship in higher education and student affairs, as demonstrated in their inclusion of various content analyses in the field (e.g. Donaldson & Townsend, 2007; Kasworm, 1990). Using

Fairclough’s (1992) Textually Oriented Discourse Analysis (TODA) approach, I analyze three forms of discourse (text, practice, and social) within articles which include the terms “adult” and “traditional/nontraditional” in the title of the article.

Second is an ethnographic case study (Yin, 1994) of advice-giving and professional behavior within the profession of student affairs, using a large, national student affairs conference as the bounded case. This study was centered on the following propositions:

1. There are unwritten rules of professionalism which influence the behaviors of

conference attendees.

2. Senior-appearing student affairs professionals are often seen as the “adults” at

student affairs conferences.

3. There are meaningful generational differences in regard to perspectives on the

unwritten rules of professionalism across generations.

As with adulthood, the concept of professionalism has been a difficult one for the profession to define (Carpenter & Stimpson, 2007). However, there may be potential overlaps between how adult behavior and professionalism are understood. Through observing the ways in which individuals engage with one another in giving/receiving advice, reviewing archived Tweets on Twitter, and interviewing individuals following the conference, this study illustrated the ways adulthood is enacted in the bounded system

(Creswell, 2013) of a professional conference setting.

Third, a narrative network analysis study examined the influences on political beliefs on social relationships of first-year college students. This study draws upon a qualitative approach of social network analysis (Hollstein, 2011) by incorporating the use of participant-aided sociograms (Hogan, Carrasco & Wellman, 2007) and vignettes generated through narrative analysis (Coulter & Smith, 2009; Polkinghorne, 1995;

Taylor, 2017). The study is based in a residential learning community at a large, public university in the U.S. Midwest, and was guided by the following sub-questions: (a) To what extent do political beliefs affect the social relationships of young people? (b) How do political beliefs influence how young people form relationships with one another? (c)

How politically diverse are peer networks of young people? The findings of this study are

19 presented in the form of restoried vignettes (Creswell, 2013; Taylor, 2017), where participant quotes are incorporated into cohesive narratives.

Significance

Phenomena that go unquestioned will remain unanswered. For far too long, age has been left unquestioned by higher education scholars and practitioners, and this triad of research studies aims to make a concerted effort to advocate for the consideration of age within teaching, research, and practice. In the scenario that I shared about myself at the start of this chapter, I discussed several challenges that I faced as a new professional, which I was not able to acknowledge through an age lens at the time. Without naming such issues as age issues, the field of higher education risks the continual propagation of systemic ageism and adultism. The implications for increasing age consciousness in higher education are limitless, and these studies intend on serve as doorways to additional future inquiries on age and adulthood in higher education.

References

Abes, E. S. (2009). Theoretical borderlands: Using multiple theoretical perspectives to

challenge inequitable power structures in student development theory. Journal of

College Student Development, 50(2), 141–156.

Anstey, K. J., Lord, S. R., & Smith, G. A. (1996). Measuring human functional age: A

review of empirical findings. Experimental Aging Research, 22(3), 245–266.

http://doi.org/10.1080/03610739608254010

Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens

through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55(5), 469–480.

Arnett, J. J. (2014). Emerging adulthood: The winding road from the late teens through

the twenties. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2009). The activity of meaning making: A holistic perspective

on college student development. Journal of College Student Development, 50(6),

621–639.

Barak, B. (1979). Cognitive reference age among the elderly: A new concept for

marketing (Doctoral dissertation, City University of New York).

Barak, B. (2009). Age identity: A cross-cultural global approach. International Journal of

Behavioral Development, 33(1), 2–11.

Barrett, A. E. (2005). Gendered experiences in midlife: Implications for age identity.

Journal of Aging Studies, 19(2), 163–183.

Beck, J. (2016, January 5). When are you really an adult? The Atlantic. Retrieved from

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/01/when-are-you-really-an-

adult/422487/

Biggs, S., & Lowenstein, A. (2011). Generational intelligence: A critical approach to age

relations. London, England: Routledge.

Biggs, S., Haapala, I., & Lowenstein, A. (2011). Exploring generational intelligence as a

model for examining the process of intergenerational relationships. Ageing and

Society, 31(07), 1107–1124.

Bray, N. J., & Major, C. H. (2011). Status of journals in the field of higher education. The

Journal of Higher Education, 82(4), 479–503.

Carpenter, S., & Stimpson, M. T. (2007). Professionalism, scholarly practice, and

professional development in student affairs. NASPA Journal, 44(2), 265–284.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Cole, T. (2015). “Old enough to live”: Age, alcohol, and adulthood in the United States,

1970 – 1984. In C. T. Field & N. L. Syrett (Eds.) Age in America: The Colonial

era to the present. (pp. 237 – 258). New York, NY: NYU Press.

Coulter, C. A., & Smith, M. L. (2009). The construction zone: Literary elements in

narrative research. Educational Researcher, 38(8), 577–590.

De Schweinitz, R. (2015). “The proper age for suffrage”: Vote 18 and the politics of age

from World War II to the age of Aquarius. In C. T. Field & N. L. Syrett (Eds.)

Age in America: The Colonial era to the present. (pp. 209 – 236). New York,

NY: NYU Press.

DeJong, K. L. (2014). On being and becoming: An exploration of young people’s

experiences with status and power (Doctoral Dissertation). University of

Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.

Donaldson, J. F., & Townsend, B. K. (2007). Higher education journals’ discourse about

adult undergraduate students. The Journal of Higher Education, 78(1), 27–50.

Eaton, P. W. (2015). #Becoming: Emergent identity of college students in the digital age

examined through complexivist epistemologies (Unpublished dissertation).

Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA.

Elder, G. H. (1975). Age differentiation and the life course. Annual Review of Sociology,

1(1975), 165–190.

Elder, G. H. (1994). Time, human agency, and social change: Perspective on the life

course. Social Psychology Quarterly, 57(1), 4–15.

Elder, G. H. (1998). The life course as developmental theory. Child Development, 69(1),

1–12.

Elder, G. H., & Giele, J. Z. (2009). Life course studies: An evolving field. In G. H. Elder

& J. Z. Giele (Eds.) The Craft of Life Course Research (pp. 1–24). Guilford

Publications.

Elder, G. H., Johnson, M. K., & Crosnoe, R. (2003). The emergence and development of

life course theory. In J. T. Mortimer & M. J. Shanahan (Eds.), Handbook of the

Life Course (pp. 3–19). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Malden, MA: Polity Press.

Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks (Q. Hoare & G. Smith, trans.).

London, England: Lawrence and Wishart.

Hogan, B., Carrasco, J. A., & Wellman, B. (2007). Visualizing personal networks:

Working with participant-aided sociograms. Field Methods, 19(2), 116–144.

Hollstein, B. (2011). Qualitative approaches. In J. Scott & P. J. Carrington (Eds.), The

SAGE Handbook of Social Network Analysis (pp. 404–416). Thousand Oaks:

SAGE.

Jones, S. R., & Stewart, D. (2016). Evolution of student development theory. In E. S.

Abes (Ed.) Critical perspectives on student development (new directions for

student services, no. 154, pp. 17–28). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Jones, S. R., Torres, V., & Arminio, J. (2014). Negotiating the complexities of qualitative

research in higher education: Fundamental elements and issues (2nd ed.). New

York, NY: Routledge.

Junco, R. (2014). Engaging students through social media: Evidence‐based practices for

use in student affairs. San Francisco, CA: Jossey‐Bass.

Kasworm, C. (1990). Adult undergraduates in higher education: A review of past

research perspectives. Review of Educational Research, 60(3), 345–372.

Marin, B. A., & Wellman, B. (2011). Social network analysis: An introduction. In J.

Scott & P. J. Carrington (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Social Network Analysis

(pp. 11–25). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Markert, J. (2004). Demographics of age: Generational and cohort confusion. Journal of

Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 26(2), 11–25.

Montepare, J. M. (2009). Subjective age: Toward a guiding lifespan framework.

International Journal of Behavioral Development, 33(1), 42–46.

National Center for Education Statistics (n.d.). Characteristics of postsecondary students.

Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_csb.asp.

Nelson, L. J., & Barry, C. (2005). Distinguishing features of emerging adulthood: The

role of self-classification as an adult. Journal of Adolescent Research, 20(2), 242–

262.

Polkinghorne, D. E. (1995). Narrative configuration in qualitative analysis. International

Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 8(1), 5–23.

Schafer, M. H., & Shippee, T. P. (2010). Age identity in context: Stress and the

subjective side of aging. Social Psychology Quarterly, 73(3), 245–264.

Fasching-Varner, K. J., Albert, K. A., Mitchell, R. W., & Allen, C. (Eds.) (2014). Racial

battle fatigue in higher education: Exposing the myth of post-racial America.

London, England: Rowman & Littlefield.

Stephan, Y., Sutin, A. R., & Terracciano, A. (2015). How old do you feel? The role of

age discrimination and biological aging in subjective age. PloS One, 10(3), 1-12.

Taylor, K. B. (2017). Contextualizing how undergraduate students develop toward

critical consciousness (Doctoral Dissertation). The Ohio State University,

Columbus, OH.

Tran, V. T. & Wong, J. D. (2016). Collecting, Counting, Describing, and Analyzing Age

Data: A Content Analysis of Age Data in U.S. Higher Education Research.

Unpublished manuscript, Department of Educational Studies, The Ohio State

University, Columbus, OH.

Whitbourne, S. K., & VanManen, K.-J. W. (1996). Age differences in and correlates of

identity status from college through middle adulthood. Journal of Adult

Development, 3(2), 59–70.

Whitbourne, S. K., & Whitbourne, S. B. (Eds.) (2014). Themes and issues in adult

development and aging. In Adult Development & Aging: Biopsychosocial

Perspectives (pp. 1–18). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Yin, R. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Chapter 2: Critical Discourse Analysis of Adulthood in Higher Education Journals

Academic scholarship has the power to greatly influence the worldview and knowledge base of individuals. As a form of discursive practice (Fairclough, 1992a,

1992b; Suspitsyna, 2012), journal articles contribute to the shaping of such knowledge across different academic fields. Each word, sentence, and paragraph that is written and published adds rhetoric to the intertextuality (Kristeva, 1986) of extant literature, where the production of text occurs by engaging with historical text to generate new text. As new theories and research emerge within various academic fields, there is a need to examine such discourse within the sociohistorical contexts in which they are produced.

Critical discourse analysis (CDA; Fairclough, 1992a) offers scholars such a tool to engage in this type of examination.

In the realm of higher education research, one area of discourse that has historically lacked examination includes texts pertaining to age and adulthood. Critical analysis of texts can aide scholars in identifying how norms and assumptions of adulthood are reinforced. For instance, many scholars and practitioners often talk about young college students as individuals who lack maturity, academic preparation, and regularly misbehave (Miller, Fleming, & Reed, 2013). At the same time, these students are expected to demonstrate civic engagement as members of a democratic society

(Weerts, Cabrera, & Meíjas, 2014). There has seemingly been a great deal of contradiction and inconsistency when discussing college students in terms of adulthood. 27

Additionally, there are many unstated assumptions about the nature of adulthood and the role it plays in higher education for students, faculty, and staff.

As an object of knowledge (Foucault, 1972), the term adult has been transformed and commodified by scholars in many academic fields, including higher education. A part of this issue has been exacerbated by the term adult learner, commonly understood to be college students who are above the age of 22 (Donaldson & Townsend, 2007;

Kasworm, 1990). The existence of this concept implies that individuals below this age threshold are not quite considered adults. This assumption aligns with the popular notion that adulthood has been gradually pushed back by this current generation of individuals in their twenties (Arnett, 2000, 2014), or even that normalized ideals of adulthood (e.g., maturity, responsibility) themselves have come to an end (Petri, 2014). Without a critical examination of discourse on adulthood in higher education, scholars and practitioners will continue to perpetuate narratives of traditionally-aged college students as less mature than adult learners (Day, Lovato, Tull, & Ross-Gordon, 2011). Additionally, this study can help identify adult power and disrupt potential adultist practices in higher education scholarship.

Although chronological age is not always indicative of one’s maturity, intellect, and abilities, it has been considered a necessary metric to distinguish between adults and youth (Field & Syrett, 2015). This is likely the reason why many people default to chronological age as a marker of adulthood (Field & Syrett, 2015). For instance, in the

United States, a person is legally considered an adult the instant they turn age 18, though this arbitrary numerical marker has been debated. For example, in the 1990s, the United

States legal system lowered the age that youth could be tried in criminal courts while increasing the possible severity of penalties (Grisso et al., 2003). However, when individuals reach age 18, they are conferred certain adult rights such as voting, working full-time, purchasing tobacco, and legally consenting to sexual intercourse (with some variability based on state). Coming of age rituals based on chronological age are also found in various cultures. For example, Jewish boys acknowledge a coming of age ritual of Bar Mitzvahs when they reach the age of 13. Similarly, girls in South and Central

American countries celebrate their quinceañeras at the age of 15, while young women in the Philippines observe a Debut when they turn 18. These chronologically-based determinations of adulthood have been, and continue to be, important across various cultural contexts, including higher education. What might be uncovered with a critical examination of the ways that adulthood has been conveyed in higher education scholarship?

CDA provides higher education scholars with a tool to disrupt and dismantle existing power structures, such as persisting ideas of age and adulthood. One such example is the analysis of U.S. Department of Education speeches as neoliberal discourse and the ways they have been utilized to advance economic motives (Suspitsyna, 2012).

Using Fairclough’s (1992a) approach to Textually Oriented Discourse Analysis (TODA) and DeJong’s (2014) concept of adultism, this study centered around the following research question: In what ways does higher education research reinforce or dismantle hegemonic norms and values of adulthood?

Researcher Positionality

Admittedly, I enter this research project from a place of uncertainty in my own adult identity. As a 32-year-old person, when others ask me if I feel as though I am adult,

I am never quite sure of how to respond. I recognize that the answer to this question is not a binary of yes or no, and that people are not either adult or non-adult. In fact, the term non-adult, itself, is problematic because it signifies the differentiation and demeaning of those who are not adults. It would be more useful to consider adult status as temporal, fluid, and ever-changing. In fact, the defiant side of me is tempted to reject all socially-created metrics of adulthood and simply exist without those labeled bounds.

Yet, I recognize that words are necessary to communicate certain aspects of our identity to ourselves and to one another. The issue is that words, themselves, can perpetuate systems of age inequality that have existed to oppress children and older individuals.

Personally, I would claim that my experience as a doctoral student has offered me a greater inner-sense of adulthood, especially in contradistinction from my master’s experience. While I do not feel “complete” in my adulthood by any means, I feel much more adult today than I did ten years ago when I was entering my senior year of college and considering higher education and student affairs master’s programs.

Moreover, I have participated in the reinforcement of hegemonic norms and values of adulthood with my engagement with higher education scholarship throughout the past ten years. For the purposes of this study, I maintain a sense of awareness that my past notions of adulthood inform the lens with which I entered this study. As I continue to expand my interdisciplinary knowledge of age and adulthood, I am repeatedly challenged in my prior assumptions and beliefs about these ideas. Additionally, I recognize that my

30 own work contributes to the intertextuality of discourse on adulthood, in the hopes to challenging past norms and beliefs. As Fairclough (1992a) emphasized, CDA should ideally be aimed at influencing discursive change. It is from this standpoint that I step back and critically examine the ways that concepts of adulthood have been shaped by higher education research.

Literature Review

Conceptions of age in the field of age studies can be separated into two broad camps: age consciousness and age grading (Field & Syrett, 2015). Given the broad nature of higher education literature, scholars have approached adulthood from various approaches, including psychosocial theory (Erikson, 1950; Slater, 2003), neoliberal perspectives (Hagestad & Uhlenberg, 2006), and andragogy (Knowles, 1973). While it is beyond the scope of this study to provide a comprehensive review of each area, an overview of these three perspectives provides a foundation for critical analysis. What follows is a brief review of past literature pertaining to adulthood in higher education.

Psychosocial Conceptions of Age and Adulthood in Higher Education

Age consciousness considers age as a part of one’s identity, or subjective sense of self. Scholars who have taken this approach have tended to move away from seeing age as a number. For instance, subjective age has been an area of study that aims to expand beyond chronological age by considering the age that people feel and look (Montepare,

2009). While there may still be a number involved, subjective age moves beyond a biologically essentialist approach to the consideration of age (DeJong, 2014). Another theoretical framework that has advanced the conceptualization of age consciousness is

31 generational intelligence, which is a theory that speaks to the notion that one’s sense of age identity is always shifting based on their relative environments and proximity to other aged individuals, or “age-others” (Biggs & Lowenstein, 2011). This concept assumes that a person’s instantaneous conception of their aged selves is always occurring in relation to individuals around them.

In alignment with research on subjective identities and sense of self, a large portion of higher education discourse pertains to student development theory. Thus, there needs to be a consideration of how adults are conceptualized from a developmental perspective. In Eriksonian terms (Erikson, 1950; Slater 2003), the adult stage of life is understood along a spectrum of generativity and stagnation. On one end, generativity focuses on the development and furthering of the next generation of humankind. As

Slater (2003) wrote:

The stage of generativity versus stagnation represents the major conflict of

adulthood. The survival of the human species depends on the willingness of

parents to take care of children. There is a mutuality of benefit for the child and

the adult. The child needs to be cared for, and the adult needs to be needed. (p.

57)

On the other end of this conflict, stagnation represents the scenarios where adults unconsciously become parents, decide not to become parents, or want to become parents and are not able to do so. This psychoanalytic perspective on adulthood has profoundly informed many theoretical perspectives as part of the “first wave” of college student development, and has rippled throughout the second and third waves (Jones & Stewart,

2016). However, integrating scholarship on age studies adds an important layer of sophistication to Erikson’s characterization of the adult life stage.

Life stage theories would also fall under the category of age consciousness. One of the more popular conceptual life stage theories used in higher education is known as

Emerging Adulthood (Arnett, 2000, 2014). This theory argues for the existence of a life stage in between adolescence and adulthood, where individuals between the approximate ages of 18 and 25 are in a phase of exploration in aspects of love and work (Arnett, 2000,

2014). Given that many college students do not see themselves as adults (Nelson &

Barry, 2005), higher education scholars are beginning to accept this categorization of individuals in their research on college students. Two recent studies published in the

Journal of College Student Development exemplify the incorporation of this life stage.

First, in a study of 320 college students, Johnson, Gans, Kerr and LaValle (2010) found that the coping styles of emerging adults ages 18 to 25 moderated the relationship between family environment and adjustment to college. More specifically, those who avoided emotions and came from challenging family environments tended to struggle in their college transition. Second, Leenaars and Lester (2011) studied indirect aggression of emerging adult college students and found that individuals who identified as aggressors also often identified as victims in any type of conflict. While the focus of these two studies differ greatly, they both use emerging adulthood as a categorical parameter for their sample.

As scholars continue to draw upon psychosocial theories of development to understand college students as subjects, accounting for dimensions of age and adult

33 identity can provide greater learning on the relationship between age and various forms of development. While there may be some discernible developmental patterns and trends based on chronological age, they may not necessarily align with individuals’ perceptions of adult identity in higher education. Some of this can be explained by the institutionalization of age in higher education, which reduces adult status to quantifiable numbers and figures.

Adults as Neoliberal Subjects

In contrast to an age consciousness focus, age grading focuses on the way that neoliberal institutions (e.g., schools, government) use chronological age as a basis for organization. Age grading is often seen as a pragmatic approach to categorizing individuals, though there is an irony in using age as a way of grouping individuals, since it can be both integrative and divisive. Proponents of age grading would argue that it is intended to create an artificial in-group or cohort of individuals with assumed, shared experiences. Those who are more cynical would claim that age segregation has created social rifts amongst individuals (Hagestad & Uhlenberg, 2006). Examples of age grading can be found in many organizational systems, such as schools in the United States. Since the latter half of the nineteenth century, schools have adopted a system where children are segregated into classrooms based on age (Silberman, 1970). Beyond schools, some prisons have also taken the approach of grouping older individuals together based on age

(Kerbs & Jolley, 2008).

Age grading also impacts the ways local, state, and national policies are created.

The most notable debate in recent history relevant to chronological age has pertained to

34 issues of voting rights and legal drinking age. As a part of the national debates on voting rights persisted through the 1960s, age came into play along with issues of race and gender. Many argued that if the age of 18 was enough for people to be enlisted in the military, then it was enough for people to have the right to vote (de Schweinitz, 2016).

The outcome of that political movement has conferred voting rights to individuals once they reach the age of 18 today.

Cole (2015) similarly recounted the recent history of the legal drinking age in the

United States. His perspective sheds a critical eye on the political discourse surrounding this issue in the 1970s. While many opponents of lowering the legal drinking age to 18 were using the prevention of drunk driving as their impetus for maintaining the legal age at 21, Cole (2015) argued that “historically, these laws have also functioned as a means of controlling young Americans’ behavior, of preserving adult privileges and authority, and of drawing clear distinctions between children and adults” (p. 239). The issue of legal drinking age served as a proxy for a deeper, underlying tug-of-war for adult power. Many parents faced the threat of losing control over their children, and were not willing to yield this aspect of their influence.

These institutionalized designations of adulthood influence the ways that scholars approach their research. Many scholars within higher education, and outside of higher education, have focused on college students as subjects of research. In doing so, researchers have often been aware of the legalities of researching individuals who are minors (under age 18) and may have chosen to limit the parameters of their study to those who are age 18 or over to avoid the need to ask for parent/guarding permission to

35 participate. Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) have also been highly conscious of studies that involve participants who are under age 18, to protect individuals who are assumed to be unable to make responsible decisions for themselves. As if somehow, on the eighteenth birthday, people miraculously develop a newfound intelligence, emancipate themselves, and self-select into these studies. The delineation of adults and children has seemingly been a confusing issue for scholars to grapple with. Ultimately, age grading has resulted in the formation of age categories of higher education consumers, such as traditionally-aged students and adult learners.

The Paradox of Adult Learners

There is a constituency that higher education scholars refer to as “adult learners”

(Donaldson & Townsend, 2007; Kasworm, 1990), or sometimes “nontraditional-age college students” (Justice & Dornan, 2001). Currently, adult learner appears to be the preferred term that is utilized by higher education researchers (e.g. Hagedorn, 2014;

Jameson & Fusco, 2014; National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], n.d.). The paradox here is that discourse pertaining to adult learners conflicts with legal, institutional definitions of 18 as the age of majority. The concept of adult learners implicitly signifies that individuals who do not fall into this category are not considered adults.

While there is no definitive history on the creation of the adult learner concept, the emergence of this area can be credited to Malcolm Knowles’ (1973) introduction of andragogy, or the approach of teaching adult learners. In this seminal piece, Knowles constrasts andragogy from pedagogy, in which they point out that pedagogy is dereived

36 from the Greek words paid (meaning child) and agogus (meaning guide). Since this publication, scholarship on adult learners has grown enormously, as indicated by reviews of journal articles by Kasworm (1990) and Donaldson and Townsend (2007). As one of the earliest scholars on undergraduate adult learners, Kasworm (1990) reviewed literature on adult learners between the years 1940 and 1986 and generated five domains that these studies fell into: implied deficiency, student entry and adaptation, description and characterization, psychosocial development, and equity and outcome. Following that study, Donaldson and Townsend (2007) reviewed studies on adult learners from 1990 to

2003 and generated their own set of six categories: student retention, student needs, classroom behavior and perceptions, new perspectives, professional development, and other. While these reviews have provided important pathways towards extending research on adult learners, they are also descriptive in nature and presented in a seemingly neutral fashion, though one could argue that discourse is never truly neutral and are always subject to the viewpoints of the authors. This dynamic seems to mirror the way in which scholars seem unclear about what makes an adult learner different from a traditionally- aged college learner.

It is crucial to acknowledge the sociopolitical contexts of adult learners in contemporary higher education. This is where the current study differs from past reviews. The neoliberalization of the modern higher education institution has shaped the ways that adult learners and traditionally-aged college students are approached by researchers and campus leaders. Instead of centering a mission of engaged citizenship, these students are viewed as consumers of higher learning with the aim of economic

37 advancement (Suspitsyna, 2012). Additionally, there needs to be an acknowledgement of the position of power that higher education scholars utilize to engage in discursive practice through their research. The publication of articles provides scholars a platform to disseminate their ideas, which can reinforce or dismantle problematic norms of adulthood within higher education contexts. Accordingly, readers of higher education articles can be enabled and empowered by such notions of adulthood. As such, this CDA study

(Fairclough, 1992a, 1992b, 1993) study aims to offer a critical understanding of discourse on adulthood in higher education journals.

Theoretical Foundations

To establish a basis of understanding, I utilize this section to provide some functional conceptual grounding for this study. First, I will begin by providing initial definitions which reflect my scholarly interpretations of age at the time of writing, but may evolve as scholarship on age expands. Second, I specify the “critical” component of this CDA as it relates to centering adult power. Third, I introduce Foucault’s (1980) conceptualization of power as an analytical tool for critically examining textual discourse.

Defining Terms

While it may be contradictory to establish defined terms in a CDA study, there still needs to be some general foundation created for the use of terms throughout. For the purposes of this study, the focus is on the construction of adulthood in higher education scholarship. Thus, definitional concepts of age are based on scholarly perceptions of individuals. Adult status is a socially constructed identity understood as a desirable age

38 identity based on one’s internal and external perceptions of being an adult. These perceptions can be based on one’s chronological age (Field & Syrett, 2015), subjective age (Barrett, 2005), or functional age (Anstey, Lord, & Smith, 1996). Chapter 1 provides further explanation on each age concept. This definition also implies that adult status can be temporarily based on the social context that an individual is in. For example, a teenager may not feel very adult-like if they are asking their parents for money to buy books for college. However, they may feel more like an adult if they happen to be taking care of their infant sibling for the evening. Of course, as most individuals age, their realms of power and responsibility grow until some tipping point where physical, cognitive, and emotional capacities begin to diminish. Adulthood, while being associated with adult status, is not entirely the same thing. Instead of being a social identity, adulthood is descriptive of the life stage that a person experiences the greatest standing and duration of adult status. Even though adult status can be experienced temporarily in other life stages, adulthood is the life stage where this status is most salient for the self and for others.

Given that adults are often used as a comparative marker, as terms such as young adult and older adult would indicate, it is imperative to consider terms that have been used to describe individuals of other age identities and life stages. DeJong (2014) argues that the category of children serves as an essential comparison group to adults, and examines conceptions of childhood from biological, sociological, and linguistic discourse perspectives. Most essential to DeJong’s review of discourse on childhood is their claim that the dominant discourse surrounding childhood is one of dependency. To synthesize

DeJong’s definition, I offer that children can be defined as individuals who have not experienced adulthood and are not perceived as adults. Admittedly, there is much room for interpretation with these terms, as other terms such as adolescents and teenagers also contribute to discourse pertaining to young people.

On the other end of the life course spectrum, the term elderly has been widely used as the accepted term within the field of gerontology (e.g., Barnhart & Peñaloza,

2013), for which I define as those who have passed adulthood and are perceived to be in decline of functional age. While elderly individuals have often been the target of ageism in higher education (Cottle & Glover, 2007), this study overlays the theoretical concept of adultism and begins to explore where there might be overlap between age and adult status.

While I offer these working definitions of children, adults, and elderly folks, I acknowledge that these are objects of knowledge which have been defined by dominant

Western modern culture with which I am most familiar. I am limited by my own researcher and personal worldviews and biases and cannot speak about adultism in universal terms. However, as DeJong (2014) demonstrated in their dissertation, I aim to expand and trouble these definitions through the lens of critical theory and CDA.

Critical Theory and Adultism

The “critical” component of CDA comes from the tradition of Critical Theory. As

Rogers, Malancharuvil-Berkes, Mosley, Hui, and O’Garro Joseph (2005) acknowledge,

“critical theorists generally agree that language is central in the formation of subjectivities and subjugation” (p. 368). They continue to claim, “critical discourse

40 analysts locate power in the arena of language as a social practice” (Rogers et al., p. 369).

Similarly, MacLure (2003) argues that scholars place emphasis on “the social and institutional dimensions of discourse, and attempt to relate these to the textual fabric of everyday life” to “identify the workings of power and domination that inhere in discursive practices, and thereby to facilitate emancipatory social change” (p. 186).

To highlight this power, adultism (DeJong, 2014) will be used as a primary critical theoretical framework for analysis in this study. Drawing upon Gramsci’s (1971) concept of hegemony, DeJong (2014) articulates that certain groups of individuals maintain their power and authority by preserving their culture as the dominant culture

(values, traditions, and beliefs). In other words, one aspect (out of many) that sustains one group’s dominance over others is through the reinforcement of values, traditions and beliefs that favor that group. For instance, hegemonic masculinity (Donaldson, 1993) speaks to the idea that there is a singular mode of enacting masculinity that sustains social norms that are beneficial to men and detrimental to women.

Similarly, adultism assumes that “adult culture, values, behaviors, and norms are viewed as superior and correct” (DeJong, p. 80). This concept explains that adults, who are inherently ascribed power over children, enforce social expectations that maintain their position of power, even if that power is used with love and positive intent (DeJong,

2014). Children, usually against their will, also subscribe to these norms. As DeJong

(2014) stated, “Both children and adults are impacted by the production of this power relationship to which they are confined—adults to the role of dominant and youth to the role of subordinant” (p. 85). Because the current study considers this power dynamic

41 within the spectrum of adult and young people, it is necessary to integrate Foucault’s

(1972) conceptualizations of the ways that power is generated, reinforced, and perpetuated from a discourse perspective.

Examining Power in Discourse

Foucault’s (1980) concept of power is one that many scholars have drawn upon as a tool for critical analysis (e.g., DeJong, 2014; Urick, 2013). Foucault (1980) argued that power is defined through the nature of language and discourse within Western societies.

All power, whether it be from above or below, whatever level one examines it on,

is represented in a more-or-less uniform fashion throughout Western societies….

It’s the characteristic of our Western societies that the language of power is law,

not magic, religion, or anything else. (p. 201)

Fairclough (1993) extended this characterization of power as pervasive by arguing that there is an “emphasis in 20th-century social theory upon ideology as the key means through which social relations of power and domination are sustained” (p. 139). Jackson and Mazzei (2012) expanded upon this notion by explaining that “people’s actions are local reactions and responses, struggles, and resistances, and are temporarily embedded within specific, and shifting, relations of power” (p. 49).

The nature of power is not always obvious or apparent, but rather inconspicuous and left untroubled. As Foucault (1981) explained:

Power is implicit within everyday social practices which are pervasively

distributed at every level of all domains of social life, and are constantly engaged

in; moreover, it is tolerable only on condition that it masks a substantial part of

itself. Its success is proportional to its ability to hide its own mechanisms. (p. 86)

In this vein, Fairclough (1992a) discusses Foucault’s concept of bio-power as a modern form of power, which has “brought life and its mechanisms into the realm of explicit calculations and made knowledge/power an agent of transformation of human life”

(Foucault, 1981, p. 143). Jackson and Mazzei (2012) argue that integrating Foucault’s conceptualization of power into an analytic lens within qualitative studies pushes scholars to ask important questions such as “What is power?” and “Where does power come from?”

Foucault takes the position that academic disciplines often generate objects of knowledge, which Fairclough (1992a) explains as “the entities which particular disciplines or sciences recognize within their fields of interest, and which they take as targets for investigation” (p. 41). Examples of such objects which are popular within the field of higher education are self-authorship (Baxter Magolda, 2001), multicultural competence (Pope, Reynolds & Mueller, 2004), and learning outcomes (Kuh & Ewell,

2010). Just as DeJong (2014) examined childhood as an object of knowledge, adulthood is an object that has been produced and commodified for consumption by scholars. It has been repackaged into other variants, such as emerging adults, young professionals, traditional students, and adult learners. CDAs also help build upon content analysis studies (e.g., Donaldson & Townsend, 2007; Kasworm, 1990; Tran & Wong, 2016) that are descriptive in nature by examining power structures within systems of oppression, such as adultism. Given that power is created and reinforced by discourse, CDA

(Fairclough, 1992a, 1992b) provided a method to problematize discourse on adulthood within higher education journal articles, and the ways it may reflect the standpoint of higher education scholars and the field of higher education research itself.

Critical Discourse Analysis Methodology

Given that the aim of this study was to critically examine how higher education research has reinforced or dismantled hegemonic norms and assumptions of adulthood,

CDA served as an ideal methodology for this study. Scholars consider Norman

Fairclough’s theorization of CDA to be one of the most extensive and elaborate

(Blommaert & Bulcaen, 2000; Suspitsyna, 2012). CDA is founded from a reconstructed approach to linguistics as an academic discipline and is centered on the analysis of the state of language and discourse (Fairclough, 1992a). While there have been qualitative shifts in dominant culture of academic research regarding discursive practices, Fairclough recognized the need for a perspective that would synthesize language studies and social theory. While a linguistic perspective of discourse is understood as an extended sample of spoken dialogue or written language which emphasizes interaction between speaker and addressee or between writer and reader, social theory would explain discourse as the different ways of structuring areas of knowledge and social practice (e.g., medical science as dominant in health care). As Fairclough (1993) explains, CDA

aims to systematically explore often opaque relationships of causality and

determination between (a) discursive practices, events, and texts, and (b) wider

social and cultural structures, relations, and processes; to investigate how such

practices, events and texts arise out of and are ideologically shaped by relations of

power and struggles over power; and to explore how the opacity of these

relationships between discourse and society is itself a factor securing power and

hegemony. (p. 135)

Educational researchers have used CDA to “make meaning in educational contexts”

(Rogers et al., 2005, p. 366) in scenarios such as investigating rhetoric in government speech regarding education (Suspitsyna, 2012) and examining community college mission statements for neoliberal ideology (Ayers, 2005). As MacLure (2003) points out,

“critical discourse analysts have achieved considerable success in showing how the discursive ‘fabrication’ of identities and realities work through the textual fabric itself”

(p. 187). While CDA can be a rich tool for analysis, there has been minimal consensus on best practices and methods for this approach (MacClure, 2003; Rogers et al., 2005;

Suspitsyna, 2012). Discourse analysis itself can range from focusing on verbal speech to written text (Rogers et al., 2005), which can make it even more challenging to identify acceptable standards for research.

Core Tenets of CDA

Influenced by Foucault, Fairclough (1992a) highlights five important aspects of

CDA: (a) The constitutive nature of discourse; (b) the primacy of interdiscursivity and intertextuality; (c) the discursive nature of power; (d) the political nature of discourse; and (e) the discursive nature of social change. These assumptions formulate the foundation for Fairclough’s operationalization of a methodological approach that brings together both social theory and linguistic investigation, which he calls Textually-Oriented

Discourse Analysis (TODA). Through a power-informed analysis of text, discourse

45 practice, and social practice, scholars can affect historical change by troubling current hegemonic understandings of objects.

An important tenet of CDA is the consideration of interdiscursivity, which

Fairclough (1992b) defines as “the normal heterogeneity of texts in being constituted by combinations of diverse genres and discourses” (p. 137). This concept comes from

Kristeva’s (1986) idea of intertextuality, which is “the productivity of texts, to how tests can transform prior texts and restructure existing conventions to generate new ones”

(Fairclough, 1992b, p. 270). By considering the plurality of discourse across genres, a lens of discursivity allows for an “emphasis upon the heterogeneity of texts, and a mode of analysis which highlights the diverse and often contradictory elements and threads that make up a text” Fairclough, 1992b, p. 272).

Additionally, Fairclough (1992a) emphasized the importance of scholars using

CDA to maintain a strong orientation towards discursive change. The critical standpoint of CDA assumes that there are “connections and causes which are hidden” (Fairclough,

1992a, p. 9) and need to be uncovered by scholars. Similarly, there needs to be an intervention – one which addresses issues which have historically affected certain groups that have been impacted by present-day forms of discourse.

Data Sources: Journal Articles as Discursive Practice

Discursive events, as Fairclough calls them, include three dimensions: spoken or written text, discourse practice, and social practice (Fairclough, 1993). The written text found in higher education journal articles served as the discursive events were central to my analysis. The five higher education journals included in this study are Community

College Journal of Research and Practice (CCJRP), Journal of College Student

Development (JCSD), Journal of Higher Education (JHE), Research in Higher Education

(ResHE), and Review of Higher Education (RevHE). These journals represent a broad base of higher education research spanning student outcomes, student development, policy, and institutional types. They also represent some of the top tiers of higher education journals (Bray & Major, 2011). Additionally, they are all based in the United

States, which creates a specific Western context in which this analysis occurs. While I am mindful of the dangers over-generalizing all U.S. higher education research, these journals do offer a breadth of research topics and methodologies that provide a level of robustness to my data sample. JHE, ResHE, and RevHE are widely considered to be three essential higher education journals when conducting content analyses of research (e.g.,

Creamer, 1994; Donaldson & Townsend, 2007; Hutchinson & Lovell, 2004). JCSD and

CCJRP respectively add important dimensions of student development and community colleges as they are leading journals in these specific areas of focus.

Five volumes from each journal were used between 2010 and 2014, as five years has been found to provide stability in research methodologies (Goodwin & Goodwin,

1985; Hutchinson & Lovell, 2004; Johnston-Guerrero, 2017). Book reviews, presidential addresses, research briefs, and editorial commentaries were not included. The date range for this data coincides with a content analysis that I have conducted on age data use from these same set of journal articles (Tran & Wong, 2016). The intent is for this study to build upon the first study using a second layer of analysis to offer an added level of depth in understanding of discourse on adulthood in higher education research.

To establish the corpus, there needs to be an identification of critical samples which represent the purpose of study (Fairclough, 1992a; Suspitsyna, 2012). The original corpus consisted of 1,028 individual journal articles from all five volumes of five journals. Thus, the first step in sorting was to identify only articles that included the terms adult and traditional in the article title. From this search, seven articles specifically referenced adult or adulthood in the title and five articles utilized terminology related to traditional/nontraditional students, with one article where both terms overlap in the title.

All five journals are represented in this corpus. Combined, these eleven articles may be more likely to have an explicit use of adult terminology within the text. The references specified in this sample are available in Appendix A.

Study Limitations

There are limits which are important to acknowledge from this study. First, the five journals included are robust and represent a broad spectrum of higher education scholarship but are not topically directed towards research related to adulthood such as

Adult Learning or Adult Education Quarterly. The reason for excluding journals that focus on adulthood as a topic is purposeful, as the inclusion of such journals could

“skew” the results. Additionally, the focus of this study is on the field of higher education and not specific subfields. However, the results of this study open the possibilities of doing comparative studies between journals which are explicit in their focus of adulthood, and those which are not.

Second, the decision to narrow the original sample of 1,056 articles based on article titles which include adult-related terms is a pragmatic one, but potentially misses

48 articles that center adulthood in its study without including adult-related terms in the title.

This methodology is similar to Donaldson and Townsend’s (2007) study of higher education journal discourse on adult undergraduate learners where they examined the table of contents of 7 peer-reviewed higher education journals between 1990 and 2003 for journal article titles, which resulted in a sample of 53 articles in their review. While this was a difficult decision to exclude the abstract and content of each article, there is something to be said about the importance of the title, and the ways that titles of journal articles represent a type of discourse practice. Future studies could be conducted to examine the relationship between journal article titles and the central focus of the study.

However, the fact that only approximately 1% of articles from the full corpus included the terms adult or traditional in the title speaks volumes to the lack of explicit attention paid to age in higher education researcher.

Discourse Analysis of Higher Education Scholarship

Following Fairclough’s (1992a) three dimensions of discourse, coding occurred in three phases. The first phase entailed an exploratory coding process, where I closely read through each article, analyzed each one as discursive text, and identified key passages.

Key passages are portions where concepts of age and adulthood are discussed explicitly.

This step included analysis for initial themes pertaining to adulthood as presented by the authors. What are the authors saying about adulthood through the text? According to

Blommaert and Bulcaen (2000), this can involve “choices and patterns in vocabulary, grammar, cohesion, and text structure” (p. 448). Next, I examined these key passages as discursive practice and analyzed each article in consideration of the authors, potential

49 audiences, and the journals in which they appear. Who are the authors? Who are they speaking to? Who are the people involved in the publication process? Finally, I analyzed the select passages through the lens of discourse as social practice. This step is directly pertinent to my research question on how higher education research reinforces or dismantles hegemonic norms and beliefs of adulthood. From this analysis, three themes emerged regarding adulthood from higher education scholarship.

Traditionally-Aged College Students are Not Adults

Based on the analysis of discursive practice by authors in this study sample, a theme that is abundantly clear is that young people, namely traditionally-aged college students, are not viewed as adults. The concept of the traditionally-aged student has been deeply engrained into higher education scholarship, and many authors have reinforced various assumptions about this population, including their age, their developmental capacity, and their life experiences.

There were numerous examples found within the data. One comes from a study by Cox and Ebbers (2010) about adult women and their experiences with persisting in a community college setting. One participant from this study, Jen, shared who they chose to interact with in the class:

I don’t talk to 16, 19 year olds. We don’t really have anything in common. I talk

to the older, like, my friends that have been around a while. I mean, they’ve been

here longer and they know what things are there to help you and what they’re

doing ... A lot of us here at [downtown] campus have been out there and we’re

back and we know what we need to get. We’re driven. Then you throw a bunch of

people that aren’t driven [younger students]—it kind of disturbs the rhythm of it.

(p. 352)

Similarly, in Clark’s (2012) study of persistence of nontraditional students in a community college setting, one participant shared their experience with having older peers in the classroom:

I actually think that the age range helped, you know, I didn’t feel like I was going

to school with a bunch of 18 year olds. I felt like I was going to school with a

group of my peers, so some of us have kids too, so we like got it more. (p. 515)

Another participant in this study echoed similar sentiments:

The students was another main reason I stayed in the program, all the different

ages, I didn’t feel so like, oh man, I was in high school again looking at all these

young kids. It shouldn’t matter, you are coming here to do something with your

life. (p. 515)

Though the intent of these authors is to highlight the voices of adult learners, there is a clear and overt tone of adultism in their participants’ reference of traditionally-aged college students.

In addition to adult learners’ perceptions of traditionally-aged college students, scholars themselves are complicit in their framing of this population. In describing the differences in learning processes for adult learners and traditional students, Gilardi and

Guglielmetti (2011) explained that “first-year university students often find themselves in large classes (150–200 students) and receive a ‘talk and chalk’ teaching method: this kind of teaching method is not conducive to student participation (Tinto, 2002), especially for

51 mature students” (p. 47). What is striking in this claim is the use of the term mature to describe adult learners. Maturity is something that adult learners can claim, and specifically used to set them apart from traditional college students. This can be viewed positively for adult learners, but also implies that traditional college students are not mature.

Finally, higher education literature reinforces the notion that young people are not adults based on power differentials within their personal relationships. One such example comes from an article about how student relationships with their parents change as they transition into college. In their Journal of College Student Development article, Cullaty

(2011) wrote:

Separation from parents does not imply ending these relationships altogether. In

this transitional period a crucial change occurs in the character of the relationship

with parents, and the relationship must be transformed. Autonomous college

students develop adult-to-adult relationships with their parents (Chickering &

Reisser, 1993). In this process, both parents and children negotiate what they will

keep in the relationship and what they will give up (Levinson, 1990). They reject

certain aspects of the relationship but build in new qualities such as mutual

respect between distinctive individuals. (p. 427)

The language of “adult-to-adult relationships” implies that there is an adult status that college students need to attain in order to be seen as a credible person in serious discussions with their parents. Cullaty (2011) frames this as a negotiation with their children, but underneath this negotiation is actually a conferral of power. Parents, as

52 individuals who hold adult power over their children, can choose to confer power to young people and empower them as adults. However, children have little agency in this relational process.

The effect of viewing college students as adults can be instrumental for a college students’ sense of growth and maturity. In the same article, Cullaty (2011) discussed the impact of college students being treated as equal partners with their parents:

They [students] recognized a greater equality with their parents and realized that

they could trust their own opinions and ideas. Having adult-like relationships with

parents furthered the students’ feelings of independence. Sam described “a sense

of mutual respect and understanding that has allowed me to have a great degree of

independence from them but to also feel a strong appreciation for them and

connection to them and enjoy spending time with them.” These comments

illustrate how establishing an adult-to-adult relationship characterized by mutual

respect and understanding engenders feelings of independence. (p. 432)

This passage demonstrates the potential positive impact that can be achieved when college students are reframed as adults. However, this type of explicit language on adulthood was not commonplace across this sample of eleven articles, which all included some language about adulthood or age in their titles.

Using Age to Construct Vulnerable Populations

The second major finding of this study shows that higher education scholars have a tendency of referencing age as a factor in conveying certain populations as vulnerable, including adult learners, young people, and older adults. Three of the eleven studies

53 specifically framed adult learners as a vulnerable population by identifying challenges that are unique to this group, such as time constraints, job roles, and parental responsibilities. An example of this is shown in a study about adult learners in a community college context: “Adult students generally think of themselves as adults first and students second as they tend to spend the majority of their time engaged in activities outside their role as student” (Cox & Ebbers, 2010, p. 348). Here, the authors make it a point to accentuate the conflicting priorities that adult students have in addition to their academic expectations. They go on to add that managing emotional challenges serve as another difficulty for adult learners. However, emotional challenges are not solely experienced by adult learners. Highlighting these vulnerabilities of adult learner populations perpetuates a deficit-based perspective and can further marginalize this community of students.

In another study of adult learners in a community college setting, Clark (2012) defined nontraditional students as those who satisfied one of the following criteria: first generation to college, adult student, employed, parent, LGBT, veteran, historically underrepresented ethnic groups, and lower socioeconomic status. The inclusion of parents, adult students, and those who are employed, in this list associates adult learners with other groups that have been historically marginalized. In comparison, traditional college students were defined as those between the ages of 18 and 23 without the

“disadvantages” of being a first-generation college student or from a low-income socioeconomic background. The sample in their study ended up being 15 community college students between the ages of 20 and 67. Similarly, a study by Titus and Pusser

(2011) placed significant emphasis on issues of inequity for adult students. In their article, they reference a term called adult-serving institutions. However, this is not a federally recognized designation, yet mirrors the language of minority-serving institution.

This serves as an explicit example of scholars who associate adult learners as disadvantaged students in higher education.

Young people are also framed as a vulnerable population in higher education literature. A study by Johnson, Gans, Kerr, and LaVelle (2010) framed college students as emerging adults (Arnett, 2000) who are in a challenging time of newfound independence, often leading to an increase in perceived stress, risky behaviors, suicide rates, and mental health utilization. Their study sample ended up being college students between ages 18 and 21, and did not provide much further substantiation of emerging adults.

Similarly, Leenaars and Lester (2011) studied the relationship between indirect aggression and victimization amongst undergraduate college students. The authors explained that this topic has been widely studied amongst adolescent populations, and that their study aims to extend this line of research for older populations. They framed their sample as emerging adults, for which their mean age was 20.6 (SD = 2.8). While the topic of victimization itself is inherently about vulnerable populations, it is impossible to dissociate the connections between the construction of youth as those who are subordinated and disempowered. This is evident in their framing of contemporary

Emerging Adulthood: “Today 18-to- 25-year-olds are not as socially established as they were in the past; that is, married with children and careers. Instead, they continue to

55 explore their options and move from a life of dependence on their families to a life of independence” (Leenaars & Lester, 2011, p. 64). This framing of Emerging Adulthood rests upon assumptions that young people today are not as socially stable as past generations, and that it is an imperative worth paying attention to.

Models of Criticality on Adult Discourse

The third major finding of this study shows that while there are many ways that age and adult discourse appear in higher education scholarship, there are also models of criticality that can be drawn upon. Not all studies reified the notion that young people are not adults, or used age to frame populations as vulnerable. Rather, there were several scholars who used their scholarly positions to dispel myths about age and presented nuanced conceptions of adulthood. One such study specifically centered older adults.

This invisible category of older adults was introduced as the “Silver Tsunami” by Cruce and Hillman (2012), where older adults were categorized as individuals over the age of

55. For their study, Cruce and Hillman (2012) drew upon a sample between ages 55 and

79. The authors framed this age group as one that is living “longer and healthier lives, and they are abandoning traditional notions of retirement” (p. 594). And instead of taking a deficit-based perspective on older individuals, the study was focused on the values that older adults add to colleges and universities, and what they can gain from continuing their education.

In addition to dispelling myths about age, there were also a number of studies that purposefully explained the complexities of age and avoided engaging in a reductionist manner with this construct. Gilardi and Guglielmetti (2011) studied nontraditional

56 students and went through a valuable exercise of acknowledging the pluralism of the term nontraditional. They drew upon Kim’s (2007) review on the term, which explained that nontraditional can be utilized in three different approaches: age differentiation; different backgrounds (ethnic minority, lower SES, first-generation, and employment status); or risk factors for dropping out (delayed enrollment, attends part-time, works full-time, is financially independent, has dependents other than spouse, is a single parent, or does not have a high school diploma). While the utility of these categories can be debated, the scholarly practice of defining their use of the term represents some level of criticality.

In this vein, Johnson and Nussbaum (2012) troubled the concepts of traditional and nontraditional in their cluster analysis study of 178 undergraduate students. In this article, they argued that “the use of age as the differentiating factor between traditional and nontraditional students is the most prevalent method of classifying student status, yet agreement on the cutoff age has also been inconsistent” (p. 47). The authors utilized cluster analysis methodology to identify clusters using multiple input variables. In this case, Johnson and Nussbaum used age, marital status, parental status, and time away from school to create two discrete clusters of traditional and nontraditional. Two clusters became readily identifiable: Group A consisted of 94 people, average age of 20.8, all of whom never took time off school, never married, and never had children. Group B comprised of 84 people, average age of 27.3, with some taken time off school, married, and/or had children. This study offered explicit empirical data to critically examine what traditional and nontraditional mean, and implicitly challenge the language and assumptions associated with these two commonly used concepts.

Finally, in a study of adult women returning to college, Deutsch and Schmertz

(2011) offered a valuable qualifier of their choice to use nontraditional as a concept. In their article, they wrote:

In using this definition of “nontraditional,” we are not suggesting that college

students ages 18 through 24 years old are not adults. We do not envision the entry

into adulthood as determined by entering the workforce (which would be 18 or

earlier for non-college-bound individuals and 20–24 for those who attend

college). Rather, we use 24 as a cut-off age to define “adult student” because they

are entering higher education with a different set of adult life experiences than

students 18–22, who have traditionally constituted the student body for most four-

year institutions of higher education. (pp. 477-478)

Even though their study was not about traditionally-aged students, the fact that they offered such clarification works to challenge assumptions and beliefs about both traditional and nontraditional students. Their explanation leaves room for continued scholarly debate about how the field moves forward with conceptualizing students by age and adult status.

Critical Questions on Adultism in Higher Education Scholarship

Returning to the overarching research question in this study, what does this critical discourse analysis reveal about the ways that higher education scholarship reinforces or dismantles hegemonic norms and values of adulthood? The discourse itself shows a spectrum of consciousness in which authors have approached this concept. Some authors have reinforced certain adultist ideas about college students – namely that

58 traditionally aged college students do not qualify as adults, and that age can be a criterion used to describe certain populations as vulnerable. Others have demonstrated the desire to engage with these ideas from a more critical stance and question existing assumptions about the discourse on adulthood in higher education. Expanding upon these findings, the social practices of writing, editing, publication, and consumption of scholarship must be questioned as a part of critically analyzing this discourse. While there are no simple answers to any of these questions that follow, I present them as a way to generate future critical thought for the field in the hopes of disrupting certain practices that have been normed. Without the disruption of these norms, they will continue to be culturally acceptable, persist, and manifest in future generations of higher education scholarship.

First, who are the scholars that are creating and gatekeeping this scholarship? As a question of social practice (Fairclough, 1992a), this consideration shines a light at editorial boards and authors of higher education research. Without researching the chronological ages of each person (which would be a provocative future research study),

I would propose that individuals who research, write, and edit about topics such as adulthood and nontraditional students would primarily self-identify as adults. The adult power clearly rests with the individuals who are in positions of scholarly authority to dictate the research approach, theory, and methodology that guide their work. While there may be some exceptions, young persons are unlikely to be participants in research processes. Rather, they are more likely to be the subject of study. As young people continue to consent to being subjects of study, they are submitting to systemic adultism

(DeJong, 2014). Peterson (2001) has already troubled the assumptions of college students

59 serving as surrogates for consumer research. This consideration further compels the ethics of “backyard research” (Malone, 2003) and how researchers engage with college students. Additionally, this question calls for more opportunities for young people to be involved as co-authors and co-editors, especially in research studies about college students.

Second, who is consuming this scholarship and how is it impacting their work?

Different journals are geared towards difference audiences. JHE, ResHE, and RevHE are more likely to appeal to higher education scholars – those who study and conduct research within the field. The discourse of adulthood in these journals join in as part of a larger web of scholarship, and either reinforce or disrupt such discourse. Journals like

JCSD and CCJRP, while also scholarly, tend to be directed towards practitioners. Here, there may be more of a one-directional transmission of knowledge, where scholars are passing on language for practitioners to use in their daily practice. Consider the widespread use of pedagogy amongst scholars and practitioners. Knowles’ (1976) explanation that the term is a derivative of the Greek words child and guide creates a further bifurcation of traditionally aged students and adult learners. Perhaps there needs to be a serious consideration about framing teaching practices as andragogy, especially if educators want to treat college students more like adults (Nelson & Barry, 2005). While this may be an oversimplification of such a social dynamic, my hope is that these assertions help agitate more ideas about the potential harms of perpetuating adultist discourse within higher education research.

Finally, how does adultist discourse in higher education literature negatively impact college students, whether they are traditionally-aged or adult learners? As individuals who are subject to the wisdom and teachings of college faculty, students have the least amount of agency in the research and publication process, and are the recipients of resources that may be generated from this scholarship. For instance, if dichotomous pedagogical tools are proposed for traditionally-aged students and adult learners, it can reinforce the that college students who are 18 and 19 are not adults, or that adult learners need “special treatment” because they are especially disadvantaged compared to their younger counterparts. There may also be a certain segment of students who chose to pursue academic careers and carry these internalized adultist messages with them into their fields. The use of age to construct college students as vulnerable populations draws upon a deficit-based perspective, which has been critiqued by many scholars in higher education (e.g., Abes & Hernandez, 2016; Bensimon, 2005). Until more scholars give critical thought to their language and discourse on adulthood, higher education literature will continue to reproduce adultist ideas and spread them within the field.

Conclusion

This study encourages discursive shifts toward hegemonic perceptions of adulthood. Counter-discourses that disrupt such hegemonic adultist ideas begin with an identification of the texts, discourse practices, and social practices which embody such notions. Texts can be examined with increased scrutiny in regard to ways that adulthood may be framed in rigid, monolithic fashions. The specificity of language used to express ideas about traditionally-aged college students and adult learners can be given increased

61 attention. Moreover, the critical examination of discourse on adulthood in higher education journals also considers the involvement of actors within it. The publication of journal articles is an elaborate and rigorous process, where many individuals become involved. The results of this study can encourage researchers, teachers, students, journal editors, and other consumers of research to challenge their own beliefs and assumptions about adulthood. Each of these actors play an important role in reinforcing or disrupting discourse, and this study can help add to individuals challenge hegemonic norms and values of adulthood.

This study also adds theoretical and methodological considerations for higher education scholarship. Theoretically, a critical study of adulthood brings about a focus on age that moves beyond chronological age. The centering of discourse on adulthood emphasizes the ways that age is socially constructed (Mortimer & Moen, 2016) and encourages greater attention on the ways that this discourse reinforces adult status as desirable while children and older persons continue to be marginalized. This critical examination of higher education literature uncovers the power in scholarship, and its perpetuation of adultism and ageism as a part of interconnected systems of oppressions.

Methodologically, CDA can aide scholars in giving greater attention to how discourse contributes to such systems, yet it has not been commonly used in higher education research (Suspitsyna, 2012). The use of CDA helps further a healthy culture of critical study within the field of higher education.

References

Abes, E. S., & Hernandez, E. (2016). Critical and poststructural perspectives on

development toward self-authorship. In E. S. Abes (Ed.), Critical perspectives on

student development. New Directions for Student Services (pp. 97–108). San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Anstey, K. J., Lord, S. R., & Smith, G. A. (1996). Measuring human functional age: A

review of empirical findings. Experimental Aging Research, 22(3), 245–266.

http://doi.org/10.1080/03610739608254010

Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens

through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55(5), 469–480.

Arnett, J. J. (2014). Emerging adulthood: The winding road from the late teens through

the twenties. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Ayers, D. F. (2005). Neoliberal ideology in community college mission statements: A

critical discourse analysis. The Review of Higher Education, 28(4), 527–549.

Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2001). Making their own way: Narratives for transforming

higher education to promote self-development. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Bensimon, E. M. (2005). Closing the achievement gap in higher education: An

organizational learning Perspective. New Directions for Higher Education,

2005(131), 99-111.

Biggs, S., & Lowenstein, A. (2011). Generational Intelligence: a critical approach to

age relations. New York, NY: Routledge.

Blommaert, J., & Bulcaen, C. (2000). Critical discourse analysis. Annual Review of

Anthropology, 29, 447–466.

Bray, N. J., & Major, C. H. (2011). Status of journals in the field of higher education. The

Journal of Higher Education, 82(4), 479–503.

Creamer, E. G. (1994). Gender and publications in core higher education journals.

Journal of College Student Development, 35(1980), 35–39.

Cole, T. (2015). “Old enough to live”: Age, alcohol, and adulthood in the United States,

1970 – 1984. In C. T. Field & N. L. Syrett (Eds.) Age in America: The Colonial

era to the present. (pp. 237 – 258). New York, NY: NYU Press.

Cottle, N. R., & Glover, R. J. (2007). Combating ageism: Change in student knowledge

and attitudes regarding Aging. Educational Gerontology, 33(6), 501–512.

http://doi.org/10.1080/03601270701328318

Day, B. W., Lovato, S., Tull, C., & Ross-Gordon, J. (2011). Faculty perceptions of adult

learners in college classrooms. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education,

59(2), 77–84. de Schweinitz, R. (2015). “The proper age for suffrage”: Vote 18 and the politics of age

from World War II to the age of Aquarius. In C. T. Field & N. L. Syrett (Eds.)

Age in America: The Colonial era to the present. (pp. 209 – 236). New York,

NY: NYU Press.

DeJong, K. L. (2014). On being and becoming: An exploration of young people’s

experiences with status and power (Doctoral Dissertation). University of

Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.

Donaldson, J. F., & Townsend, B. K. (2007). Higher education journals’ discourse about

adult undergraduate students. The Journal of Higher Education, 78(1), 27–50.

Donaldson, M. (1993). What is hegemonic masculinity? Theory and Society, 22(5), 643–

657.

Erikson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and society. New York, NY: Norton.

Fairclough, N. (1992a). Discourse and social change. Malden, MA: Polity Press.

Fairclough, N. (1992b). Intertextuality in critical discourse analysis. Linguistics and

Education, 4(3–4), 269–293.

Fairclough, N. (1993). Critical discourse analysis and the marketization of public

discourse: The universities. Discourse & Society, 4(2), 133–1.

Field, C. T. & Syrett, N. L. (2015). Age in America: The Colonial era to the present. New

York, NY: New York University Press.

Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge. London, England: Tavistock.

Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings by

Michael Foucault, 1972-1977 (C. Gordon, Ed. & trans.). New York, NY:

Routledge.

Foucault, M. (1981). History of sexuality, vol. 1. Harmondsworth: Penguin books.

Goodwin, L. D., & Goodwin, W. L. (1985). Statistical techniques in AERJ articles, 1979-

1983: The preparation of graduate students to read the educational research

literature. Educational Researcher, 14(2), 5–11.

Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks (Q. Hoare & G. Smith, trans.).

London, England: Lawrence and Wishart.

Grisso, T., Steinberg, L., Woolard, J., Cauffman, E., Scott, E., Graham, S., … Schwartz,

R. (2003). Juveniles’ competence to stand trial: A comparison of adolescents’ and

adults’ capacities as trial defendants. Law and Human Behavior, 27(4), 333–363.

Hagedorn, L. S. (2014). Engaging returning adult learners in community colleges. In S. J.

Quaye & S. R. Harper (Eds.), Student Engagement in Higher Education:

Theoretical Perspectives and Practical Approaches for Diverse Populations (pp.

307–321). New York, NY: Routledge.

Hagestad, G. O., & Uhlenberg, P. (2006). Should we be concerned about age

segregation? Some theoretical and empirical explorations. Research on Aging,

28(6), 638–653.

Hutchinson, S. R., & Lovell, C. D. (2004). A review of methodological characteristics of

research published in key journals in higher education: Implications for graduate

research training. Research in Higher Education, 45(4), 383–403.

Jackson, A.Y. & Mazzei, L.A. (2012). Thinking with theory in qualitative research:

Viewing data across multiple perspectives. New York, NY: Routledge.

Jameson, M. M., & Fusco, B. R. (2014). Math anxiety, math self-concept, and math self-

efficacy in adult learners compared to traditional undergraduate students. Adult

Education Quarterly, 64(4), 306–322.

Johnson, V. K., Gans, S. E., Kerr, S., & LaValle, W. (2010). Managing the transition to

college: Family functioning, emotion coping, and adjustment in emerging

adulthood. Journal of College Student Development, 51(6), 607–621.

Johnston-Guerrero, M. P. (2017). The (mis)uses of race in research on college students:

A systematic review. Journal Committed to Social Change on Race and Ethnicity

(JCSCORE), 3(1), 6-41.

Jones, S. R., & Stewart, D. (2016). Evolution of student development theory. In E. S.

Abes (Ed.) Critical perspectives on student development (new directions for

student services, no. 154, pp. 17–28). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Justice, E. M., & Dornan, T. M. (2001). Metacognitive differences between traditional-

age and nontraditional-age college students. Adult Education Quarterly, 51(3),

236–249.

Kasworm, C. (1990). Adult undergraduates in higher education: A review of past

research perspectives. Review of Educational Research, 60(3), 345–372.

Kerbs, J. J., & Jolley, J. M. (2008). A commentary on age segregation for older prisoners:

Philosophical and pragmatic considerations for correctional systems. Criminal

Justice Review, 34(1), 119–139.

Knowles, M. (1973). The adult learner: A neglected species. Houston, TX: Gulf

Publishing Company.

Kristeva, J. (1986). Word, dialogue and novel. In T. Moi (Ed.), The Krisfeva reader.

Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell.

Kuh, G. D., & Ewell, P. T. (2010). The state of learning outcomes assessment in the

United States. Higher Education Management and Policy, 22(1), 9–28.

Leenaars, L., & Lester, D. (2011). Indirect aggression and victimization are positively

associated in emerging adulthood: The psychological functioning of indirect

aggressors and victims. Journal of College Student Development, 52(1), 62–76.

MacLure, M. (2003). Discourse in educational and social research. Philadelphia, PA:

Open University Press.

Miller, V., Fleming, R., & Reed, S. (2013). Mapping the early college research literature.

Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 37(9), 664–676.

Montepare, J. M. (2009). Subjective age: Toward a guiding lifespan framework.

International Journal of Behavioral Development, 33(1), 42–46.

Mortimer, J. T. & Moen, P. (2016). The changing social construction of age and the life

course: Precarious identity and enactment of “early” and “encore” stages of

adulthood. In M.J. Shanahan, J. T. Mortimer, & M. K. Johnson (eds.) Handbook

of the Life Course (pp. 111-129). Switzerland: Springer.

National Center for Education Statistics (n.d.). Fast facts. Retrieved from

https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=89.

Nelson, L. J., & Barry, C. (2005). Distinguishing features of emerging adulthood: The

role of self-classification as an adult. Journal of Adolescent Research, 20(2), 242–

262.

Peterson, R. A. (2001). On the use of college students in social science research: Insights

from a second order meta-analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(3), 450–

61.

Petri, A. (2014). The death of adulthood? Yes, please. The Washington Post. Retrieved

from https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/wp/2014/09/11/the-death-

of-adulthood-yes-please/

Rogers, R., Malancharuvil-berkes, E., Mosley, M., Hui, D., Joseph, O. G., & Joseph, G.

O. G. (2005). Critical discourse analysis in education: A review of the literature.

Educational Research, 75(3), 365–416.

Silberman, C. (1970). Crisis in the Classroom: The Remaking of American Education.

New York, NY: Random House

Slater, C. L. (2003). Generativity versus stagnation: An elaboration of Erikson’s adult

stage of human d. Journal of Adult Development, 10(1), 53–65.

Suspitsyna, T. (2012). Higher education for economic advancement and engaged

citizenship: An analysis of the U.S. Department of Education discourse. The

Journal of Higher Education, 83(1), 49–72.

Tran, V. T. & Wong, J. D. (2016). Collecting, Counting, Describing, and Analyzing Age

Data: A Content Analysis of Age Data in U.S. Higher Education Research.

Unpublished manuscript, Department of Educational Studies, The Ohio State

University, Columbus, OH.

Urick, M. J. (2013). Intergenerational interactions in organizations: A grounded theory

examination (Unpublished dissertation). University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH.

Weerts, D. J., Cabrera, A. F., & Mejías, P. P. (2014). Uncovering categories of civically

engaged college students: A Latent class analysis. The Review of Higher

Education, 37(2), 141–168.

Chapter 3: The Adultism in Giving Advice Within Student Affairs

In the movie Star Wars, master-apprentice relationships are commonplace and abundant. One person is positioned as a sage full of wisdom, while the other person is the beneficiary of such wisdom. This romantic image of a master-apprentice relationship can also exist in real life scenarios, as is sometimes the case in the field of student affairs. As scholars and professionals within a helping profession, helping others is not just part of one’s job description. It can represent actions that one can take personal pride in and display as badges of honor. In some ways, helping others has been its own form of capital within the profession, where more service to others can help bolster one’s professional profile and lead to advancement within the field (Price, 2017).

This professional culture of helping is pervasive within the student affairs profession, and one of the places where it can manifest is at large, national student affairs conferences. Often times, the culture of helping can yield many wonderful benefits such as mentoring relationships, collaboration, and shared knowledge. However, cultures that go unquestioned inevitably form certain norms and values that can become problematic

(Kezar & Eckel, 2002). In 2015, for example, the NASPA – Student Affairs Professionals in Higher Education Annual Conference in New Orleans made national headlines regarding controversy over social media usage by some attendees. Yik Yak, a social media platform that allows for individuals to anonymously communicate real-time thoughts with those in a shared physical proximity, enabled some (presumed) NASPA 70 attendees to make snide remarks about other attendees’ appearance, share malicious comments about conference presenters, and even use sexually violent language to convey physical attraction to other persons (Brown, 2015; Robinson, 2015). When this behavior was brought to light through other social media formats such as Facebook and Twitter, there was no shortage of opinionated responses by many who were outraged by this

“unprofessional behavior,” with a small minority of individuals who defended the freedom and autonomy of using conference and social media spaces as they pleased.

Given that Yik Yak was considered a recent innovation at that time, there were several people who were unsure and confused about how the program worked. While trying to figure out the mechanics of this social media tool, many individuals concluded that new professionals and graduate students were the likeliest individuals to use Yik

Yak, and hence the ones responsible for posting these offensive remarks. As such, many critical comments happened to be directed towards “young professionals” and their presumed misuse of social media and lack of professional behavior in a conference setting (Robinson, 2015). One outcome of this incident was an outpouring of online discourse and rhetoric about professional behavior at professional conferences. Often, such critical comments were embedded with the notion of helping young professionals avoid making such mistakes at future conferences. While well-intended, this type of discourse from current professionals served to reinforce certain norms and ideas about what professionalism looks like within the field.

This example is one of many that informs the current study, which was an ethnographic case study (Yin, 1994) of a large student affairs conference centered on the

71 following proposition: senior-appearing student affairs professionals are often seen as the “adults” at student affairs conferences. One of the core assumptions of this proposition stems from a relative form of subjective adult, or senior, status that exists within higher education and student affairs. Being a senior does not necessarily relate to age or positional status. For example, a second-year Master’s student in student affairs can be viewed as a senior relative to first-year students. The second-year student may be expected to offer guidance to newer students, which can be similar in some ways to a director-level, senior administrator, or tenured faculty member providing advice to those who are in their early socialization stages to the profession. Just as adults are societally positioned to give advice and mentor youth, “senior” student affairs professionals similarly engage in this phenomenon across all levels. However, is all advice beneficial?

Can some experiences of advice be experienced as patronizing? I investigate these questions and my above proposition through an ethnographic case study methodology, using the theoretical concept of adultism (DeJong, 2014) to analyze field notes, archived tweets, and participant interviews. This study was intended to shed light on the prevalence and potential limitations of giving advice within higher education and student affairs.

Who Are the Young People and Who Are the Adults?

To begin understanding adultism, it is necessary to unpack the meanings of age and adult identity. Age can be a tricky topic to discuss, as there are a number of ways to conceptualize it. Most people tend to think about age in quantitative terms – something that can be counted, measured, and numerically understood. In the field of age studies,

72 this is often referred to as chronological age, which is determined by one’s date of birth.

Chronological age is utilized across almost all institutions in the United States, including systems of higher education (Field & Syrett, 2015). In the United States, constitutionally speaking, individuals are considered minor until they reach age 18 – the age of majority.

This age confers additional constitutional rights to individuals, such as the right to vote and, depending on the state, hold a driver’s license.

Adulthood as a life stage, however, is not something that can be quantified in the same way. As Settersten and Mayer (1997) wrote, “the measurement of age, age structuring, and the life course has become more problematic as the study of human lives has moved toward more detailed analyses and explanations” (p. 233). As individuals move across the life course, they are conferred more adult status, which is a socially constructed idea that is deemed as desirable within many cultures, including the United

States (DeJong, 2014). Adult status is contextual, fluid, and ever-changing as individuals navigate different spheres and spaces within the world. Consider the example of a 14- year-old babysitter of a 7-year-old child. To that child, the babysitter is very much the adult authority figure – the person who is responsible for their well-being, and has been conferred a certain amount of power over them. However, to the parents of that child, the babysitter may not be viewed similarly as an adult.

Applied to the context of student affairs, youth and adult statuses are even more dynamic and ever-changing. In addition to chronological age and social age, position levels (e.g., new professional, mid-level, senior-level) can affect one’s view of adult status. Like many other professions, the field of student affairs has adopted the concept of

73 seniority – those who have been in the field for longer are deemed as sources of knowledge and expertise. It can be tempting, even for myself, to fall into implicit biases about what new professionals and senior-level professionals should look like in regard to age. Taken one step further, an important assumption in this study was that there are certain behaviors and beliefs that are valued and specifically assigned to one’s perception as an adult, which is where DeJong’s (2014) concept of adultism comes into play.

Adultism

In their dissertation of how young individuals in a high school setting learn and navigate status and power, DeJong (2014) put forth a concept called adultism, which explains how “adult culture, values, behaviors, and norms are viewed as superior and correct” (p. 80). As part of their dissertation study, DeJong describes in detail the ways that unequal status shapes the relationships that young people in a high school setting have with adults and one another. These relationships tended to be adult-centric, where

“the needs and experiences of adults actually shape, limit, and define those relationships”

(DeJong, 2014, p. 187-188). Adultism provides a theoretical concept that challenges and disrupts norms and values of adulthood. It offers a critical lens to consider how certain individuals in society hold adult power in different circumstances, and how young people can experience marginalization based on systems that value adulthood. For this study, adultism offered a critical perspective on the adult-centric nature of advice in student affairs.

Dynamics of giving advice are defined, influenced, and maintained through power relations (Nussbaum, Pitts, Huber, Raub Krieger, & Ohs, 2005). More specifically,

74 current professionals are often, though not always, situated as those in positions of authority and power. Stated differently, they are the “adults in the room.” Accordingly, new professionals and graduate students would be positioned as the youth, kids, or children and deemed to have less power. DeJong (2014) explained that “childhood as a category has been discursively constructed as a period of social control, meant to guide and teach young people how to think, feel, and behave in relation to others and to themselves” (p. 70).

Unequal adult status in a setting like high school can be easier to define when there are clear roles of student, teacher, and administrator. However, the student affairs conference setting is not as clear. As an example, new professionals have also been constructed as those who require help, support, and socialization into the field. In many ways, the experiences of new professionals can be analogous to that of childhood, in which their socialization into the field of student affairs has been dictated by current, senior professionals. However, that is not to say that all new professionals experience the same type of adultism. A part of this study aimed to examine the nuances in which professionals navigate this phenomenon.

Student Affairs as a Helping Profession

An important cultural element within the field of student affairs is its orientation as a helping profession. For the past several decades, student affairs professionals have been conditioned to be helpers within their graduate preparation programs. Evidence of this value can be found in the Student Services Handbook (Schuh, Jones, & Torres,

2017), a staple textbook for many student affairs programs for which there have been a

75 number of editions published since 1980. Starting from the fourth edition, the then- editors of the book decided to include a chapter entitled “Counseling and Helping Skills” where Winston (2003) conceptualized the relationship between helpers and helpees, and offered Carkhuff’s (1969) four-phase model of the helping process as a way for student affairs professionals to deepen their knowledge and understanding about helping others.

This value has been transposed into a professional competency area which addresses skills such as active listening, establishing rapport with students, and mentoring students and staff (ACPA & NASPA, 2015). However, establishing who takes on helping roles have not been well-defined, particularly for student affairs professionals. Such ambiguity leads to questions about who is often seen as a resource, and identifying individuals who require help. Utilizing the lens of adultism, this study begins to explore the role that adult status plays in the helping profession of student affairs.

Scholarly Position

Given the messiness of age and adult identity, a number of different concepts of age are brought into this study, including chronological age, social age, and generational theory (e.g., Millennials, Baby Boomers). Some of muddle can be attributed to the common language that individuals within the field use, and some of this is my own decision as a scholar to embrace the messiness of constructions of age. There is no single, correct way to think about age, and thus there may be parts of this paper where certain concepts of age appear to be conflated. As an emerging scholar, I invite and encourage more scholarly discussion about the use of age in higher education.

Clandinin and Connelly (2001) urged researchers to “step back and see their own stories in this inquiry” (p. 81). Thus, I believe it is also valuable for readers to relate in to my positionality with this topic. At the time of writing this paper, I am a doctoral candidate who intends to graduate within the current academic year and will soon be on the job market for faculty positions. Before this, I moved through a fairly common student affairs track where I went entered a Master’s higher education program directly after my undergraduate degree. Afterward, I worked for five years full-time in residential life. For those who are trying to do some math, I will save you the trouble. I am currently a 32-year-old at the time of this paper. Born in 1984, most people in the United States would consider me a Millennial. However, I have recently been garnering a lot of comments about my blooming grey hair, which might affect how others view me as a professional. Additionally, my visible features as a male and an Asian American person can impact how others view my age from a gendered and racialized lens. All of these age factors became relevant in this study, as my perceived age and professional status both played a role during this study.

Literature Review

This section offers a brief review of the history of student affairs professional associations and conferences, as well as the culture of helping within the field of student affairs. Additionally, a review of literature pertaining to the socialization of student affairs practitioners helps inform the observation of professional behavior in this case study. Included in this review is also the role of professional competencies in shaping the student affairs profession.

Student Affairs Professional Culture and Conferences

Because ethnographic case studies are about gaining deeper understanding of a closed system, it is necessary to examine current literature related to student affairs professional culture. This culture can be difficult to pinpoint, especially given the expansive nature of the profession as unique subcultures can develop based on functional area, institutional type, and even geographical region (Hirt, 2006; Kezar & Eckel, 2002).

However, there is one particular venue where these unique differences coalesce into a larger conglomerate of professional culture: a national student affairs conference. The professionalization and socialization of new professionals into the field of student affairs has often started with professional associations (Janosik, 2009), graduate preparation programs (Bureau, 2011), and the creation of standards (Council for the Advancement of

Standards in Higher Education, 2015), values (Bureau, 2011; Janosik, 2009), and core competencies (ACPA & NASPA, 2015).

For the past century, professional associations have been a way for student affairs professionals to “develop a professional identity and a community within the profession”

(Chernow, Cooper, & Winston, Jr., 2003, p. 44). The establishment of the National

Association of Deans of Women in 1916, known to be the first student affairs professional association in the United States, gave rise to numerous other professional student affairs associations (Chernow et al., 2003; Janosik, 2009). One of these associations included the creation of a male gender equivalent organization in 1938 called the National Association of Deans of Men, which later became NASPA as it is known today (Janosik, 2009).

Given that many professionals have turned to conferences as a source of professional development (Bureau, 2011; Chernow et al., 2003; Roberts, 2007), the student affairs profession in the United States has experienced an enormous uptick in the growth of national and regional conferences. In addition to NASPA, associations such as

ACPA, American Colleges and Universities Housing Officers International (ACUHO-I), and National Orientation Directors Association (NODA) sponsor their own respective sets of national and regional conferences. In particular, many large-scale national conferences such as NASPA and ACPA cater to a broad professional audience. In a study regarding level of involvement with professional associations, Chernow et al. (2003) found that there was no statistically significant difference on conference attendance based on position level. New, mid-level, and senior-level professionals alike turn to conferences as primary sources of professional development.

Conferences offer numerous modes of professional growth for student affairs practitioners. Most conferences offer a plethora of program sessions from which attendees select. Professional conference programs have been cited as one of the most preferred forms of professional development by student affairs professionals (Roberts,

2007). Additionally, many formal and informal networking opportunities present themselves at such conferences (Bureau, 2011; Chernow et al., 2003). However, social networking is also a major component to conference attendance (Chernow et al., 2003).

In addition to professional development, conferences serve the purpose of social connection through helping professionals keep in touch with their friends and colleagues from other institutions (Janosik, 2009).

Given the diversity of institutions and cultures across the United States (Hirt,

2006; Kezar & Eckel, 2002), these conferences have served as emblems of a larger student affairs culture by bringing together subcultures within it. However, it could also be that these conferences have worked against forming any semblance of a unified identity for the profession. As Carpenter and Stimpson (2007) argue, “our sense of professional culture seems high, but it is fragmented by our multiple associations and specialties” (p. 269). Additionally, there has historically been an enormous lack of consistency and continuity in program content from year to year (Janosik, 2009). Only since 2010 have ACPA and NASPA drawn upon a student affairs curriculum matrix

(Janosik, Carpenter, & Creamer, 2006) to develop competencies to be considered by the profession (ACPA & NASPA, 2010). Thus, in addition to formal professional development opportunities, there is also a reliance on socialization of student affairs professionals (Perez, 2016).

Socialization of Student Affairs Practitioners

As decades of student affairs professionals have become indoctrinated into this helping profession, this culture has shaped the professional identities of individuals within the field. Molinero and Pereira (2013) explained professional identities as “the definition that an individual makes about him or herself in terms of the work he or she does” (p. 1605), which can be shaped by the types of professional development opportunities that are pursued. On a day-to-day basis, their immediate department and campus context dictates how they show up in the workplace as helpers. However, professional conferences afford the opportunity for student affairs professionals to move

80 beyond their immediate context to connect with a broader socialization of the espoused values and stated core competencies of student affairs.

The socialization of graduate students and new professionals has been explored extensively within the student affairs profession (Bureau, 2011; Janosik, 2009; Tull, Hirt,

& Saunders, 2009). Scholarship in this area has taken on numerous topical areas, such as professional competencies (Burkhard et al., 2005; Dickerson et al., 2011; Estanek et al.,

2011) and graduate preparation (Herdlein, 2004; Liddell, Wilson, Pasquesi, Hirschy, &

Boyle, 2014). I will briefly discuss each of these two areas and their connection to the current study.

Professional competencies have played a major role in shaping the student affairs profession, and thus student affairs professionals themselves. Interestingly, a large portion of the literature seems to be interested in the beliefs and perceptions of Senior

Student Affairs Officers (SSAOs) in regard to core competencies for student affairs professionals (e.g., Burkhard et al., 2005; Estanek et al., 2011). Given the positions of power that SSAOs hold within organizations, research studies that center on the perspectives of this population can reify and reproduce inequalities that might exist within the profession.

Based on this body of literature, it is clear that senior professionals in the field have valued traits that enhance interpersonal relationships. As an example, SSAOs have placed more emphasis on skill development and disposition in comparison to specific knowledge (Estanek et al., 2011) such as supervision and collaboration. Similarly,

Burkhard and colleagues (2005) found that SSAOs rated personal qualities and human

81 relation skills to be most important. These competencies included flexibility, interpersonal relations, time management, managing multiple tasks, oral and written communication, problem-solving abilities, critical thinking, creativity, assertiveness, and analytical abilities. Such competencies do not always take into consideration cultural differences and hegemonic norms and behaviors. The competencies that these individuals value can affect how new professionals become socialized into the field.

However, SSAOs are not the only ones with an interest in professional competencies. Dickerson and colleagues (1997) conducted a study comparing expectations of entry-level professional competencies between student affairs faculty and

SSAOs. Their findings showed that learning outcomes developed by faculty need to

“meet the expectations of senior student affairs officers who provide direction, guidance, and funding to those practitioners who directly hire and supervise entry-level student affairs professionals” (p. 465). They also found that there was a significant gap in expectations between SSAOs and student affairs faculty regarding competencies of fiscal management, planning, assessment, the application of theory to practice, critical thinking, collaboration, conflict management, and written communication. In a later study,

Herdlein (2004) found that SSAOs are interested in graduate programs incorporating courses beyond the core curriculum related to finance, politics in higher education, and legal issues. The differences between faculty teaching and SSAO expectations also inform how new student affairs professionals are being socialized into the field.

In addition to professional conferences, graduate preparation programs have been incredibly formative for aspiring student affairs professionals (Bureau, 2011). There are

82 very specific aspects of graduate level education that have been influential in shaping professional identity. In a survey study of 148 entry-level professionals, Liddell and colleagues (2014) found that the professional identities of student affairs professionals are significantly correlated with program quality (e.g., theory/practice-based, diversity of faculty and peers, collaborative peer culture), use of professional standards (e.g., CAS standards), and enrichment activities (e.g., social/academic events, international study tours). Their study also found that experiences outside of the classroom (e.g., assistantships, internships, practica) were more impactful on professional identity than those inside the classroom. In addition to professional associations, these specific components of graduate preparation have shaped the professional development and professional identities of student affairs professionals.

The student affairs profession, just like many others, continues to struggle to adapt to the current generation of young people. It is estimated that between 50 to 60% of student affairs professionals leave the field within their first five years (Tull, 2006). A study on student affairs professionals who left the field between 2009 and 2011 showed that being valued and supported, having supporting supervisors, and having work/life balance are key reasons that people leave the field (Frank, 2013). Most of these individuals were between ages 26 and 30 at the time that they left the field, and chose to pursue other fields that would better meet their needs. Frank (2013) also found that the lack of opportunities for career advancement served as a key reason for young professionals leaving the field. Given this growing concern about attrition of young

83 people in the field, this study aimed to deepen consciousness of adultism in student affairs and how it can affect individuals of all ages.

Ethnographic Case Study Methodology

This study drew upon ethnographic case study methodology to examine adultism within the culture of student affairs. Case studies are understood as “intensive descriptions and analyses of a single unit or bounded system” (Merriam, 1998, p. 19). In this case study, a large, national student affairs conference in the United States served as the bounded system. For purposes of anonymity, the actual conference itself will remain nameless. A student affairs conference serves as an ideal site for study, as it is an embodiment of a broad student affairs culture that cuts across campus types, functional areas, and geographical region. Rooted in an anthropologic tradition, ethnographic case studies can be powerful when used to study a specific culture or subculture (Merriam,

1998). Ó Riain (2013) asserts that ethnographic methodology has been closely tied to case studies, as they are both “grounded in the local and situated in specific, well-defined and self-contained social contexts” (p. 290). In this study, I follow Merriam’s (1998) definition of culture as “the beliefs, values, and attitudes that structure the behavior patterns of a specific group of people” (p. 13). As a profession, student affairs has a distinguishable culture with a definable group of individuals and distinct set of beliefs, values, and attitudes that can be observed.

The Bounded Case

Boundaries in case studies between the phenomenon being examined and context of the situation are not always clear and need to be well-specified (Yin, 1994). First, the

84 conference itself was not bounded by physical location. Given the prevalence of social media use at past conferences, certain social media spaces such as Twitter hashtags and

Facebook groups were monitored for activity related to the conference. The conference itself took place in March, 2017 and lasted for four days, but these social media spaces were monitored before and after the conference dates.

Secondly, the conference experience expanded beyond sponsored programs and spaces. Persons who were spotted wearing a name tag at a restaurant off-site, at the airport, or any other proximal space to the conference were considered a part of this case.

Similarly, the conference extended beyond the actual conference time itself. Attendees have continued to post reflections and photos of their conference experiences after they returned home to their campuses. These events were all considered as part of the boundaries of this case study.

Data Sources

I drew on a number of data sources for this study. First, field notes from researcher observations of various conference proceedings and environments served as a primary data source and were taken through typed notes, photographs, and audio recordings. I documented my time spent at the conference using a calendar to record the exact times and locations of where I was located (Appendix B). I attended all major conference programs and speakers, such as the opening and closing. Throughout the conference, I used informal member checks to clarify researcher observations and attain real-time feedback and perspective from conference attendees. These member checks were informal in the sense that I did not sit down with individuals in a recorded

85 interview. Instead, they were follow-up conversations after certain events or incident had occurred. For example, I approached a few individuals after the session designed for first- time attendees to ask them about what they thought of the program.

To assist in triangulating my findings, I drew upon two additional forms of data: the conference Twitter feed and follow-up interviews. Over the past decade, Twitter has become an essential component of many conferences, as it allows for individuals to be connected to multiple parts of the conference without having to physically be present in multiple spaces. Twitter Archiver, a program that tracks and saves tweets, was used to log all tweets using hashtag #CONF17 (pseudonym) beginning seven days before the conference, all throughout the conference, and fifteen days after the conference. In total,

17,370 tweets were archived in this process. While tweets are technically public data,

Rivers and Lewis (2014) suggested that researchers protect the anonymity of individuals by not publishing any identifiable information without consent. Thus, the tweets included in this article are composites of multiple tweets to protect the identities of individuals while maintaining the original meaning (Rivers & Lewis, 2014). Figures of tweets were produced by using a tweet generator called Simitator, and all Twitter handles (user names) on these tweets were given pseudonyms.

Finally, follow-up semi-structured interviews (Appendix C) were conducted in

March and April of 2017 with conference attendees as a form of peer examination. After review of Twitter data, attendees who Tweeted about age-related dynamics at the conference were invited to participate via e-mail. The reason for such purposeful sampling was to identify information-rich cases where participants are likely to have

86 much to share related to the central topic of research (Jones, Torres, & Arminio, 2014;

Patton, 2002). While individuals who utilize Twitter lean toward younger generations

(Statista, 2017), student affairs conferences have placed an emphasis on educating all generations on using this social media tool as a part of an integrated conference experience.

Nine individuals were sent e-mail invitations to participate in these follow-up interviews, and five individuals self-selected into this study, three of whom identified as men and two identified as women. Three individuals were in entry-level positions and identified as Millennials (born between 1983 and 1997), one was a mid-level manager who identified with the Sandwich generation (somewhere between Generation X and

Millennial), and one was an SSAO who was resistant to generational labels. These individuals all expressed explicit views on age, adulthood, or generational labels during the conference, and were recruited throughout the conference and through direct messages on social media (e.g., Twitter, Facebook). Unlike the informal member checks that I utilized on-site, these interviews consisted of formal consent process with consent waiver forms. Pseudonyms are used for interview participants, as well as any individuals named in this case study.

Limitations

The results of this study offer new insight into the culture of helping within student affairs, though they are not intended to be generalizable to the entirety of the profession. Utilizing a student affairs conference as a proxy for student affairs culture does not capture the average, day-to-day experiences of student affairs professionals in

87 their work environments. Future ethnographic studies can consider using a more granular approach to examining helping culture. Additionally, my personal biases as an observer impact the ways in which I observe and record information, including my perceptions of individuals based on race, gender, age, and other identity groups. Finally, interviews in this study were limited to five individuals who posted on Twitter about age, which may not be representative of all professionals’ beliefs about age.

Results

Analysis of the multiple data sources (field observations, archived tweets, and interviews) using adultism as a primary critical theoretical framework produced one primary theme and two secondary themes pertaining to advice-giving within the profession of student affairs. The primary theme problematizes the most essential dynamic pertaining to the adultism in advice-giving, while the two secondary themes represent consequences of this dynamic within student affairs culture.

Primary Theme: Student Affairs Professionals as Adults and Helpers

Figure 1.Tweet of quote from Francis Gonzalo’s keynote talk 88

Given that many student affairs professionals view themselves as helpers, it was noteworthy to observe this dynamic unfold at a large student affairs conference. A dominant overtone that resonated throughout the conference was about supporting future generations of people, including college students and young professionals. Keynote speakers included many popular and well-respected names within the field and in popular culture, and often provided catchy soundbites that spread quickly through social media.

These speakers were invited to share their wisdom with the audience and speak to issues within the field of student affairs. A number of keynote speakers spoke directly about helping young people, and it resonated with many attendees. One such speaker was

Francis Gonzalo, a United States politician. Gonzalo was referenced 451 times in tweets during the conference using the #CONF17 hashtag. Many quotes that were regularly tweeted and retweeted directly referenced young people, including the one in Figure 1.

While it was not explicitly stated who the young people were in this talk, it is reasonable to presume that Gonzalo was talking about college students. It seems to be an unstated assumption that college students are synonymous with young people, and that they are generally in need of help and support.

This type of advice was not just heeded by older generations, but also young professionals. Jamal Rose, a person who identifies as an #SAGrad (student affairs graduate student) on Twitter tweeted the following:

Figure 2. Tweet from a student affairs graduate student

This cultural notion of helping others is taught at early stages of career development.

Those who are in the early stages of their career, such as graduate students, are indoctrinated with their roles as helpers. While they are relatively younger than other professionals, they are already assuming such a position in their work with students.

Age and adult status can be quite fluid and amorphous concepts to define, so the helper and helpee can sometimes be difficult to distinguish. Interestingly, two other prominent speakers took a more poetic approach and reflected on their younger selves.

These were two quotes that received many tweets and retweets:

Figure 3. Tweet from keynote speaker Peter Wood

Figure 4. Tweet from keynote speaker Vincent Brooks

While Peter Wood and Vincent Brooks were talking about themselves as young people, there are still underlying assumptions of what it means to be young: individuals who need the help of others, and a certain level of naiveté. Given the prominence of the platform for these two speakers, the referencing of their younger selves reinforced the notion of adults as helpers and young people as needing help.

The status of being a young person was quite relative at this conference. While college students were generally equated as young people, there was also a certain hierarchy of adulthood at the conference, where new professionals and graduate students are positioned as young people. The following tweets spoke toward this phenomenon:

Figure 5. Tweet from an attendee from a conference session focused on Latino professionals

Figure 6. Tweet from a presenter at a conference session for aspiring Vice Presidents 92

The fluidity of status as a younger person can be seen through these two particular tweets.

It is not impossible to imagine that a mid-career professional could be a panelist in one session, and an attendee in another session. Said another way, they may be positioned as the giver of help in one space, while viewed as someone who needs help in another space.

These tweets also represent the sense of power and responsibility that more senior student affairs professionals have to advise young professionals in their work.

This sense of role and responsibility to aide young professionals during the conference was generally well-intended, but was sometimes experienced as unexpected or unwelcome. An excerpt from my field notes speaks to this dynamic:

I settled into my seat for the first session, Challenges of New Professionals in

Student Affairs, and I quickly realized that there was a relatively large audience

for a morning session – approximately 100 people to my best estimate. There

were two presenters, both from the same institution and the same department.

Both self-identified as “third-year professionals” and specified that they did not

want to be viewed as experts numerous times throughout the presentation. Like

many presentations at this conference, the presenters wanted the session to be

“more of a conversation” where attendees would contribute their own knowledge

and experiences to the space.

There was also someone who immediately caught my eye – a person who I

perceived to be an older, white man. Possibly in his fifties or sixties. I went up

and introduced myself to him after the session. He turned out to be a VPSA who

proudly proclaimed to have 37 years of experience and attended the session

because he was concerned about the attrition of new professionals in the field. He

was telling me that he developed a program for new professionals to help support

them at his institution. I shared with him that I was a PhD student and a little bit

about my research and he ended up giving me unsolicited advice about my

dissertation. A good dissertation is a done dissertation - it is not worth

compromising more important parts of your life to have your dissertation change

the world.

In the above scenario, adult status proved to be fluid and amorphous once again as it passed around the room while various individuals claimed their status. The presenters who were “third-year professionals” may have assumed that they would be in a room full of people who would benefit from their pieces of advice given their three years of full- time work experience. Indeed, there were individuals who were in their first years of their first full-time job who wanted to learn how to find professional success as early career professionals. However, they were not the only ones in the room. During the Q&A, a person stood up, introduced themselves as a “fourth-year professional,” and proceeded to affirm the information being shared by the presenters, almost in a condescending tone. At that very moment, the adult power seemingly shifted to that person as the “senior” in the room. Except, of course, for the older white man, who likely drew the attention of many others in the room. The motivation he expressed for attending this session - to help support new professionals at his institution – aligns with DeJong’s (2014) concept of

94 adult-centric relationships. While the discourse is seemingly youth-centered, it is still adults who are in control in the end.

Secondary Theme: Sustaining Generational Divides

The general discourse about helping young people can be difficult to grapple with, especially since the positionality of a young person is fluid and ever-changing depending on individuals and contexts. However, when concepts of generational cohorts are brought into the conversation, it can help offer individuals a way to conceptualize young people.

As such, one of the secondary themes pertains to advice-giving as a way of sustaining generational divides. As a prime example, Leslie Johnson, a senior student affairs officer, offered a keynote talk on the topic of Generation Z and pleaded with the audience to think positively about the current generation of young individuals.

I need you to believe in this generation. They are our product. And when you

believe in someone, you ask them who they are. You don't tell them who they are.

And right now, the biggest skillset for all of us is the ability to learn. To learn, to be

adaptable. You're not gonna get that time in the chair you used to get. You have to

be adaptable and they can do it. There are many ways to get something done and get

it done well. Your job is to bridge it. You that are in performance mode, take these

folks and learn mode, and bring them with you. Partner with them and show them

what you know. Show them the tricks and help them bring their greatness to the

table. Help them navigate the path. No one needs to learn it when they trip. Save

them from the trips that you made by helping them out. Be their gladiator. I need

you to believe in them, I need you to advocate for them, and most of all, I need you

to protect them from the people who say they aren't worthy. Because they are, after

all, our product, aren't they? Or our outcome in higher ed - the students.

Johnson’s talk epitomized the paradox of helping within student affairs. In her attempt to bridge a generational gap between older generations and the current young generation, she exclusively addressed older generations almost as though there were no young people in the crowd. The you was clearly directed towards older (and wiser) individuals as the helpers, and them were the helpees – the young people.

Figure 7. Tweet from conference attendee Sam Davidson about anti-Millennial talk

Following the conference, I went through my archive of Twitter posts with the hashtag #CONF17 in search of posts about generations, and came across a tweet about

“anti-Millennial talk” (Figure 7) from a person named Sam (pseudonym), a 37-year-old who has been in a director-level position in student affairs for approximately 10 years. I

96 connected with Sam for an interview, where he shared his perspectives on Millennials’ and advice in the field of student affairs.

I remember what it's like to be a new professional. I know what I liked and didn't

like in terms of being guided and mentored. I think about, I'm very conscious

about that in my practice as a supervisor. I have three full-time, all new

professionals that I work with and I recruited and I'm training and I'm grooming

for them to be who they want to be and how they want to be in the field…

…Do this, do that. But those grad advisors might be 20, 30 years removed from

what's happening in 2017 with people who are coming of age in 2017, etc. Not to

say that advice isn't valid, but is it current? Is it relevant? Does it speak to the

realities of who and how people are living and coming of age in the profession

today? It's kind of like moving old furniture into a brand-new apartment. Are you

getting some outdated advice and information for stuff that's not relevant in 2017?

Maybe some of it is kind of trying to force adulting on people in a way that they

perceive adulting and professionalism to be but then my challenge is, and I talk

about this with some of my mid-level pro's I'm with.

It is important to note that Sam does not identify as either Millennial or Gen X, but as part of the “sandwich generation” in between those two generational categories, which has recently been coined as the Xennials generation (D’Souza, 2017). The sandwich imagery might also be a fitting descriptor for Sam’s positional status as a director of a department. He shared about his oversight of three full-time, early career professionals, but he is also in a position where he reports to a superior. He spoke confidently about his

97 adult status, which is both something that is self-ascribed and perceived by others. His chronological age status would position him as an adult in relation to new professionals, who are often in an emerging adulthood life stage (Arnett, 2000). And in a final declaration of his adult status, he speaks about “mid-level pros” as his peers to place himself solidly in that category.

There were a number of people who responded to Sam’s original tweet about anti-

Millennial talk. One of those individuals included Quinn, who is in her first full-time professional position as a hall director. Quinn echoed Sam’s perspectives on older generations from her standpoint as a Millennial.

I think the old generations, because they're used to doing things a certain way, that

they're intentionally turning a blind eye to the new generation, and what their needs

are. That has to do systemically with the higher education system in general. They

don't have time. They don't have the ability. They're just trying to make ends meet

to make us a future, or themselves the future. Cause they're just trying to do the job.

Just do a job for them. They need you to help them to grow, and prosper, and move

forward with their life.

If we wanted to go back to the 20s, where you didn't have a teenage time period,

you were either a child or an adult, it's not effective. That's part of going to college,

and that college experience is, be an adult on a microcosm level. And successfully

mitigate, and understand how to have those conflict mediation talks. How to

approach somebody in person. How to talk to a roommate about the fact that the

toilet is dirty all the dang time, is ... In a workplace generally speaking, unless you

happen to work in res life, and that's a thing you have to do. But, what you want,

and what you need in a human interaction is very difficult for somebody who's

never had to do it. Who's always been behind the screen. Whose parents have

always been connected to their phone. Who they have always been connected to a

phone. Only an iPad for all of their schoolwork, as opposed to reading a book, and

looking at text, and searching through an encyclopedia. They've never had to do it.

They have never had to do it.

Quinn expresses a certain frustration about older generations not fully grasping the experiences that the current Millennial generation is experiencing within the profession, and specific ways that this disconnect can create tension across generations. While advice-giving may come from a place of positive intent, it can inadvertently sustain existing generational divides between professionals.

Secondary Theme: Reproducing “Professionalism”

Another secondary theme from this study speaks to the ways in which advice- giving serves as mechanism to reproduce and maintain certain ideas of professionalism.

During the conference, a First-Time Attendee Orientation was hosted and brought in about 500 people. It included an icebreaker to help first-time attendees meet one another, an overview of the conference schedule, and “pro tips for success.” The program organizers even included a pocket handout of tips for attendees, with advice on attending this conference for the first time. Most of these tips were about successfully navigating the conference, but one spoke specifically about being on good behavior: “Follow the advice you give to students: make a plan, identify priorities and commit to them, follow

99 your passions, eat well and get some rest. Don't get ‘turnt up’ too much. Ask questions and have fun.” At the time of this conference, getting “turnt up” was a term generally used by younger individuals. In the context of this specific conference, this piece of advice was referencing inappropriate behavior that can sometimes occur during conferences, usually involving alcohol while socializing. This type of message is a warning to new professionals that their behavior is being monitored, especially if they are currently on the job market.

Professionalism is also heavily defined by dress and appearance. One of the featured panels at the conference was about professional dress within the field, which brought in well over 100 attendees. The panel included a moderator and five panelists who were all supervisors at different levels in student affairs organizations. The aim of this session seemed to be about challenging and redefining how the field thinks about professional dress, and this happened to a certain degree. However, there also were a number of ways in which the panelists drew a hard line on professionalism. One example was when a panelist told a story about a person who wore flip flops to an interview. The story drew audible gasps and laughs from some members of the audience. Even in a session about critiquing concepts of professional dress, there were still strong sentiments expressed about the boundaries of professionalism.

One person I spoke with after the conference was Dani, who is a 25-year-old hall director in his first position out of graduate school. Dani spoke about the conflicting messages he receives about professional dress.

100

A lot of individuals were [wearing suits]. Especially younger professionals and

older professionals, but the thing about the older professionals, like vice presidents,

presidents, I would say they were a lot more lax in their approach that I noticed. I

saw someone wearing shorts and a Hawaiian shirt, and I was like, "What." Then I

ran into the elevator with some of these individuals it's just like, "Wow," I'm like,

"Wow, you look pretty relaxed." And they're just like, "Yeah." It's like, it is what it

is. Then I'm thinking, man, you've gotten to a point where that's okay. That's what

I'm saying. Me, I'm thinking if I dress like that, and I started talking to someone, it

would almost be frowned upon, but you, you can do it as many times as you want.

Your buddy, you're hanging out with your friends, you're hanging out with other

professionals, and they see nothing about it. It's funny because I was noticing the

same thing with ... So going into the receptions, I went to the NYU reception, and a

lot of the directors and stuff like that were very dressed a lot less casual than the

other individuals, like their hall directors and stuff like that were dressing similar to

what I was. Khakis, shoes, shirt, and the first thing they were saying was just like,

"Wow, you look real casual." And throwing these passive aggressive, like, "You're

looking really casual."

The messages that he has received about professional dress is that young professionals are expected to “dress to impress” while senior-level professionals can get away with dressing more casually. Even in the context of a reception, Dani felt like he needed to wear a suit to impress older professionals. It should be noted that Dani was adamant about following advice he has received about dressing professionally, to the point that he

101 even made sure to wear a dress shirt and tie during our follow-up interview. This example highlights the power differences that exist based on seniority within the field, which can also intersect with age privilege and adult status.

Another individual I followed up with in an interview was Morgan, who is a

“Senior Director of Campus Life” at her institution and also a doctoral student. She is in her mid-thirties, and has a strong disdain for generational labels. Morgan spoke bluntly about her feelings on professionalism.

I hear a lot of coded language about professionalism or soft skills or looking

professional, and I think that's all bullshit just to be totally blunt about it because

when you're working with students of color, when you're working with low income

students, when you're working with international students, when you're working

with women, especially women of color and black women, how each of those

populations need to show up is really different. I don't like the expectation that they

should just be willing to show up in the way that other people want them to. The

way that I approach it when I'm talking to young people is to say like, here are the

things that are seen as the ideal in a workplace, and only you can decide how much

you're willing to code switch or adapt or assimilate, and I will respect however you

choose to navigate that.

Morgan was quite animated during this portion of the interview, as this is a subject she has strong feelings about and has spent a lot of time considering. She talks about professionalism as a coded language, one that is not always explicit but a social force that

102 creates certain parameters for professionals to abide by. Morgan continues on to talk about how she navigates the challenges of dress for herself.

For me, I wear a suit to work because I know that I get a different type of power

and authority, and I get pulled into different rooms, and I get to sit at different

tables, simply because of what I'm wearing. To me, as much as I hate it, and it

certainly is an investment and has been in expensive investment when I first got

my first dean check, it's a sacrifice that I make because I think it helps students,

because I think that I can offer a voice at a table that isn't already at the table.

That's how I reconcile those two things where I show up in the way that people

want me to show up because I think that the way it benefits is worth it. But I have

friends who are simply not willing to do that, and I respect them so profoundly for

that decision because I think it is a braver and more complex role to take on. But

yeah, I think that in student affairs, I think we sometimes act like we're further

along than we actually are. I think that we act like we're kind of woke as a field,

and I just don't think that we are because I've sat on enough search committees

and I've heard enough of the conversation behind the scenes to tell me that there's

not a practice of what you're preaching. So the voice that I bring on that table is

that for person, it's having a technology issue that makes the video conference

difficult for an interview, that's not a deal breaker, if a person is not wearing a

jacket or a suit on an on-campus interview for a job that pays $30,000, that's not a

deal breaker, that we have to be more thoughtful about people's circumstances and

what's realistic to expect of them.

103

She acknowledges the paradox of power that she receives from dressing in a certain manner alongside the problematic expectations of dress within the field. She views herself as someone who can have a positive impact on this paradigm of professionalism within the field of student affairs by strategically gaining access to certain tables.

Discussion

The theme of student affairs professionals as adults and helpers provides new insight into prior research on the experiences of new professionals in the field of student affairs. This study demonstrates not only the importance of relationships (Renn &

Hodges, 2007), but that many relationships are based on the dynamic of one person helping another. Whether it is a supervisory relationship, a mentoring relationship, or even a peer relationship, there is a component of helping that is involved. The challenge then becomes the determination of how certain individuals become established as credible enough to be deemed as a source of knowledge, especially in a field where many individuals consider themselves to be helpers. This can lead to conflict in cases where there are differing perspectives on how something should be accomplished. Even if relationships are important to new professionals (Renn & Hodges, 2007) and SSAOs

(Burkhard et al., 2005), these relationships can depend on differing needs of individuals and different contexts.

The discourse on young people at these large student affairs conferences set the tone for how the field treats new professionals. Leslie Johnson’s keynote talk, for instance, truly was directed to more senior individuals in the field. “I need you to believe in this generation - they are our product,” Johnson said. While it is a positive message, it

104 can also perpetuate the nurturing role that supervisors, mentors, and student affairs faculty play in the lives of young people. This can be in conflict with what young people today need. Millennials have much higher expectations from supervisors (Hall, 2014), and are much more honest and direct about feedback than prior generations (Espinoza,

Ukleja, & Rusch, 2010). As demonstrated in Quinn’s and Sam’s comments, older generations of supervisors and senior administrators may not be adapting as quickly as necessary to meet the needs of today’s new professionals. Young people today expect more collaborative relationships with their supervisors, but they are still subject to the adult authority of senior professionals within the field. As Morgan shared in her comments about wearing a suit to work, she has a strong desire to break norms and stereotypes, but will not have a voice or seat at certain tables if she does not conform to professional norms and expectations.

While it has not been named as such, adultism has been firmly a part of the fabric of socialization for student affairs professionals. Cultural and systemic adultism can be truly detrimental to the longevity of careers for student affairs professionals. New professionals want to feel like they fit and belong in the profession (Renn & Hodges,

2007), but if they are forced to conform to certain professional norms and behaviors, they may slowly lose faith in student affairs. One such norm is the desire for career advancement within the field (Frank, 2013). However, the bottleneck of opportunities can limit the number of individuals who are able to transition from entry-level to mid-level positions. This dynamic is created and controlled by senior professionals within the field, where young people have very little voice and agency. In order to begin disrupting

105 adultism, individuals at various levels and spaces within the profession must choose to act and break adultist norms and behaviors.

Implications: Disrupting Adultism in Student Affairs Professional Culture

The field of student affairs has traditionally prided itself in being a helping profession, where giving advice is often seen as a positive act. In most cases, this value results in benefits that have made the profession an instrumental component of the contemporary college campus. However, this study shows that there is a layer of adult power that has lies underneath each instance of advice. As with most forms of power, it can be used to do good but unintentionally harm people along the way. Adultism has been shown to negatively impact the way young people see themselves (DeJong, 2014), which can ultimately affect their sense of professional identity. Moving forward, I propose that adultist norms and values need to be agitated within various spheres of student affairs culture, including mentorship, training, and supervision.

There needs to be critical consideration of how the field has marked certain individuals as receivers of mentorship, and those who are providers of mentorship.

Whether such labels take the form of “first-year” graduate students, “early career” faculty, or “new professionals,” assuming that such individuals require advice and mentorship diminishes the skills and knowledge that people bring into a certain role.

Additionally, these labels can enable adultist behavior from those who are more senior –

“second-year” graduate students, “senior” faculty, and “senior student affairs administrators.” Morgan reflects upon her positionality as an SSAO and mentoring professionals:

106

I've been guilty of it when I'm mentoring somebody and almost telling them how

they're supposed to show up in order to navigate it. I've had to really set myself

back and rather take the approach I said before which is like, here's some of the

things that I do and here's where I do them. Here's some of the things that I think

will help you, have an easier go at things. But leaving that power with the person

to decide how they want to navigate it, I think, is really important, and I don't

always know that that happens. I think it's very well intended.

This reflection demonstrates the agency that can be taken away from young people when well-intended senior professionals are prescriptive in their mentoring capacities. When contextualized with additional systems of oppression – such as adultism, racism, genderism, classism, homophobia, xenophobia – such mentorship can reproduce problematic standards of professionalism.

Mentorship, advice-giving, and helping are all learned practices that are passed on from generation to generation. The manner in which senior student affairs professionals enact their roles as helpers is based on how they were socialized as young professionals.

This cultural transmission of helping is cyclical and passed on across generations.

However, this cycle can be disrupted if helping and advice-giving can be approached in a bi-directional manner, where young people can also be seen as sources of wisdom. When asked whether Dani seeks advice from younger individuals, he speaks about his little brother.

I guess he because he's gone through a lot in his experience through, from the whole

schooling process, and he has this "I don't give up" mentality which I have always

107

admired from him, because it's just like, based on the things you've gone through in

education, [overcoming] language barriers, you having a language disability, and

you're still going at it full force and not letting your dreams just settle. You're not

letting that phase you one bit, and you ... I've always admired that, so I always talk

about that stuff with him. It's just like, "What would you do in your case? What

would you do in this case?" And I guess he's the only person that I don't see ... The

reason I don't see it as mentorship going back is just like, he's my younger brother,

but I still learn from him about what drives him.

Dani opens up the possibility for advice-giving to be a mutually beneficial experience that can be bidirectional within a relationship. Instead of foreclosing on his younger brother’s potential as a resource based on age, Dani acknowledges the unique experiences that his brother can share with him. With this mindset as a new professional, Dani is likely to view his work with younger college students as collaborative instead of being an adult authority figure. Similarly, this perspective on age and adult status can help him in his relationships with older individuals.

As new generations of professionals enter the field, there is an opportunity for adultist norms and values to be disrupted. Sam speaks to this idea as more Millennials gradually move into positions of influence within student affairs.

I feel like some of the advice might still be the same but I think it's going to be up to

my middle generation at work, Millennials who are soon to become or move into

mid-level positions who will be the ones to change that. I think that's going to be

really exciting to see the ways in which Millennials lead when they become

108

department directors and assistant deans and deans and vice presidents. To see

what's going to happen within the next five or ten years within our field and if

there'll be changes. Or, and this is the way doctoral students think, or is it going to

stay the same? Will it still be the ivory tower and hierarchical type decision making,

conversations, leadership, etc. It will be really interesting to see what happens when

Millennials move into senior leadership positions. Will they be authentic to self and

how they came of age or will there be this sense of conformity that people think has

to happen with moving up and moving into senior leadership? I think those will be

some powerful observations and questions to see in the next five or ten years.

Without disrupting ideas of professionalism, young people will likely continue to reproduce patterns of behavior and beliefs that they have been taught as young professionals. In order to break this cycle, individuals of all generations must work together to critique and problematize ways in which dominant forms of professionalism have negatively impacted the field.

Conclusion

Moving forward, I would not necessarily argue for the elimination of helping and advice giving as values in student affairs. Advice giving is a part of what makes student affairs the profession it has become, especially when offered in a context and manner that respects the knowledge and experiences of all individuals involved. Advice and wisdom can come from all places, including during research interviews. The Star Wars metaphor introduced at the beginning of this study was actually inspired by one of the participants,

Dani. During our interview, he shared the following wisdom with me:

109

I see it as like, I am the student, and they are that master in this way. I'll bring it in

that type of basic terms and Jedi lingo, is like, them being the master in their area,

because they have this status, so I feel like I can learn so much from them,

because they've been in similar experiences that I have, and we relate on that

level, which makes it more easier to go towards these experiences that makes it

more ... Like, makes it easier to grasp in that area. They've done it so I can do it

too.

Dani’s metaphor offers a reminder of the primary theme of this where student affairs professionals view themselves as adults and helpers to young people.

Seen through a critical lens of adultism, where adult power is considered as a central point of analysis, the relative nature of adult status means that the positions of those who are helpers and those who are helpees are always changing. Along with that comes constantly shifting power dynamics within tangled webs of relationships within the profession. The secondary themes of sustained generational divide and reproduction of professionalism are outcomes of this adult role phenomenon within student affairs.

Individuals within the field need to begin disrupting adultist norms and behaviors toward young people by challenging assumptions about mentorship, recognizing young people as sources of wisdom, and unsettling traditional ideals of professionalism.

110

References

American College Personnel Association, & National Association of Student Personnel

Administrators. (2010). Professional competency areas for student affairs

educators. Professional Competencies Task Force. Washington, DC: Author.

American College Personnel Association, & National Association of Student Personnel

Administrators. (2015). Professional competency areas for student affairs

educators. Professional Competencies Task Force. Washington, DC: Author.

Brown, P. G. (2015, March 24). Listening in on and making sense of the NASPA Yik

Yak backchannel at #NASPA 15 #YY15 (Blog post). Retrieved from

https://paulgordonbrown.com/2015/03/24/listening-in-on-and-making-sense-of-

the-naspa-yikyak-backchannel-at-naspa15/.

Bureau, D. A. (2011). “Making them my own”: Student affairs master’s students

socialization to professional values (Doctoral dissertation). Indiana University,

Bloomington, Indiana.

Burkhard, A. W., Cole, D. C., Ott, M., & Stoflet, T. (2005). Entry-level competencies of

new student affairs professionals: A Delphi study. Journal of Student Affairs

Research and Practice, 42(3).

Carpenter, S., & Stimpson, M. T. (2007). Professionalism, scholarly practice, and

professional development in student affairs. NASPA Journal, 44(2), 265–284.

Chernow, E. K., Cooper, D. L., & Winston, R. B. (2003). Professional association

involvement of student affairs professionals. NASPA Journal, 40(2), 43-58.

111

Clandinin, D. J. & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in

qualitative research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education (2015). CAS professional

standards for higher education. 9th Edition. J. B. Wells (Ed.). Washington, DC:

Author.

D’Souza, J. (2017, June 28). Xennials, the microgeneration between Gen X and

Millennials. Huffington Post. Retrieved from

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/06/28/xennials_a_23006562/

DeJong, K. L. (2014). On being and becoming: An exploration of young people’s

experiences with status and power (Doctoral dissertation). University of

Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.

Dickerson, A. M., Hoffman, J. L., Anan, B. P., Brown, K. F., Vong, L. K., & Bresciani,

M. J. (2011). A comparison of senior student affairs officer and student affairs

preparatory program faculty expectations of entry-level professional’s

competencies. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 48(4), 463–479.

Espinoza, C., Ukleja, M., & Rusch, C. (2010. Managing the Millennials: Discover the

core competencies for managing today’s workforce. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley &

Son.s

Estanek, S. M., Herdlein, R., & Harris, J. (2011). Preparation of new professionals and

mission driven hiring practices: A survey of senior student affairs officers at

Catholic colleges and universities. College Student Affairs Journal, 29(2), 151–

163.

112

Field, C. T. & Syrett, N. L. (2015). Age in America: The Colonial era to the present. New

York, NY: New York University Press.

Frank, T. E. (2013). Why do they leave? Departure from the student affairs profession

(Doctoral dissertation). Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,

Blacksburg, VA.

Hall, M. R. (2014). Job one 2.0: The new generation. In P. M. Magolda & J. E. Carnaghi

Job One 2.0: Understanding the next generation of student affairs professionals

(Second edition). Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Herdlein III, R. J. (2004). Survey of chief student affairs officers regarding relevance of

graduate preparation programs. NASPA Journal, 42(1), 51-71.

Hirt, J. (2006). Where you work matters: Student affairs administration at different types

of institutions. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Janosik, S. M. (2009). Professional associations and socialization. In A. Tull, J.B. Hirt, &

S.A. Saunders (Eds.), Becoming Socialized in Student Affairs Administration

(pp.194-214). Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Janosik, S. M., Carpenter, S., & Creamer, D. G. (2006). Intentional professional

development: Feedback from student affairs professionals. NASPA Journal, 43(4),

127-146.

Jones, S. R., Torres, V., & Arminio, J. (2014). Negotiating the complexities of qualitative

research in higher education: Fundamental elements and issues (2nd ed.). New

York, NY: Routledge.

113

Kezar, A., & Eckel, P. D. (2002). The effect of institutional culture on change strategies

in higher education: Universal principles or culturally responsive concepts? The

Journal of Higher Education, 73(4), 435-460.

Liddell, D. L., Wilson, M. E., Pasquesi, K., Hirschy, A. S., & Boyle, K. M. (2014).

Development of professional identity through socialization in graduate school.

Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 51(1), 69–84.

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education.

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Molinero, A. B., & Pereira, R. C. (2013). Professional identity construction in higher

education: A conceptual framework of the influencing factors and research

agenda. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, 78(6), 1176–

1181.

Ó Riain, S. (2009). Extending the ethnographic case study. In D. Byrne & C. Ragin

(Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Case-Based Methods (pp. 289–307). London,

England: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Newbury

Park, CA: Sage.

Perez, R. J. (2015). A conceptual model of professional socialization within student

affairs graduate preparation programs. Journal for the Study of Postsecondary and

Tertiary Education, 1, 35-52.

Price, S. (2017, August 5). Why helping others is key to accelerating your career.

Huffington Post. Retrieved from https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/why-

114

helping-others-is-key-to-accelerating-your-

career_us_598dbe1ce4b0caa1687a5f71

Renn, K. A., & Hodges, J. P. (2007). The first year on the job: Experiences of new

professionals in student affairs. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice,

44(2), 367–392.

Reynolds, A. L. (2011). Helping competencies of student affairs professionals: A delphi

study. Journal of College Student Development, 52(3), 362–369.

Rivers, C. M., & Lewis, B. L. (2014). Ethical research standards in a world of big

data. F1000Research, 3(38). Retrieved from https://f1000research.com/articles/3-

Roberts, D. M. (2007). Preferred methods of professional development in student affairs.

Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 44(3), 561–577.

Robinson, A. (2015, March 24). On NASPA, Yik Yak, and perhaps what really matters

(Blog post). Retrieved from https://ashleynrobinson.com/2015/03/24/on-naspa-

yik-yak-and-perhaps-what-really-matters/.

Settersten, R. A., & Mayer, K. U. (1997). The measurement of age, age structuring, and

the life course. Annual Review of Sociology, 23, 233–261.

Statista (2017). Distribution of Twitter users in the United States as of December 2016,

by age group. Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/statistics/192703/age-

distribution-of-users-on-twitter-in-the-united-states/

115

Tull, A. (2006). Synergistic supervision, job satisfaction, and intention to turnover of new

professionals in student affairs. Journal of College Student Development, 47(4),

465–480.

Tull, A., Hirt, J. B. & Saunders, S. (Eds.) (2009). Becoming socialized in student affairs

administration: A guide for new professionals and their supervisors. Sterling,

VA: Stylus.

Yin, R. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

116

Chapter 4: What do Young People Learn from Their Parents? Vignettes of College

Student Social Networks Based on Political Beliefs

Scholars have argued for centuries that it is human nature for people to be drawn to others who are perceived to be similar to themselves in a phenomenon known as homophily (McPherson, Smith-Lovin & Cook, 2001). There is often an order to the ways in which people connect to others. As McPherson and colleagues (2001) asserted,

“homophily in race and ethnicity creates the strongest divides in our personal environments, with age, religion, education, occupation, and gender following in roughly that order” (p. 415). Bishop (2009) calls this social phenomenon “The Big Sort” in his book about how the United States has clustered into like-minded neighborhoods over the past several decades. More specifically, Bishop describes how post-presidential election data have shown that people in the United States have grown more divided along political beliefs and voting behaviors. He argues that people who live in areas without others who share their beliefs eventually migrate to places where they can find such affinity.

In his book, Bishop talks about his own personal experience and subconscious thoughts while buying a home in the overwhelmingly politically-conservative state of

Texas, where he naturally ended up in the politically-liberal city of Austin. This geographical separation is not only based on politics, but also race, religion, nationality, and education (Bishop, 2009). Conversely, it has been clear that these divides are not only driven by individual-level choices, but deeply-rooted systems of inequality in 117 segregated school systems and neighborhoods (Orfield & Lee, 2005, 2006). Homophily is often viewed as an inconspicuous human condition, but can be consequential when the desire to be with others who are the same is at the exclusion and marginalization of others. The effect of individuals clustering along such characteristics will continue to create homogenous communities, but how might this be playing out on college campuses?

College students have been shown to form racially-homophilous groups, or what

Sidanius, Van Laar, Levin, and Sinclair (2004) called “ethnic enclaves” within college campuses. These enclaves can be viewed as social networks, or a set of socially relevant nodes connected by one or more relations (Marin & Wellman, 2011). Similarly, a report from the Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP) described the incoming first-year class of 2016 as “the most politically poliarized” group in history (Eagan,

Stolzenberg, Zimmerman, Aragon, Sayson, & Rios-Aguilar, 2016). This same report found that 35.5% of students described themselves as liberal, while 22% identified as conservative, which puts numbers to the perception that college campuses are overwhelmingly liberal (Young, 2017).

The examination of social networks of college students can lead to a deeper understanding of campus climate, such as the network effects of cross-race ties of college students (Clarke & Antonio, 2012). Clarke and Antonio drew upon Granovetter’s (1973,

1983) strength of weak ties theory, and discuss the importance of these ties creating

“connections between otherwise disconnected parts of a network” (p. 34). They postulated that:

118

1. Cross-race ties among college students are likely to be weak ties.

2. To the extent that they are weak ties, cross-race ties are also likely to be local

bridges between less connected subnetworks.

3. Weak bridging cross-race ties produce the greatest positive effects for individuals

on outcomes associated with active thinking processes.

4. Weak bridging cross-race ties produce the greatest positive effects for individuals

on democratic outcomes that relate to the micro-processes of perspective-taking.

(p. 36)

These principles help form the theoretical basis for the current study, which is part of a larger network analysis study investigating the political diversity of social networks amongst college students based on age, race, and education. Focusing on three different characteristics is important, because multidimensional homogeneity has rarely been studied (Kalmijn & Vermunt, 2007) due to the theoretical complexities of examining multiple dimensions of identity (Jones & McEwen, 2000).

The overarching research question for the broad study was as follows: How politically homophilous are social circles of college students? Specifically, the current study examined the social relationships of first-year students in a residential college at a large, public university in the U.S. Midwest based on political beliefs (among other factors), and was guided by the following sub-questions: (a) Where do young people learn how to navigate political differences?; (b) To what extent do political beliefs affect the social relationships of young people and their generational peers?; And (c) How do political beliefs influence how young people form relationships with other generational

119 peers? This narrative network analysis study aims to encourage higher education scholars and practitioners to consider age diversity as a factor in learning and development of college students.

Understanding Homophily

McPherson and colleagues (2001) famously drew upon the “birds of a feather” proverb to articulate a sociological perspective on homophily and the ways that it affects human interaction. The principle of homophily they proposed is simple: “similarity breeds connection” (p. 415). In terms of interpersonal connection, people are likely to find affinity with those whom they deem as similar to themselves. They further explained: “homophily implies that distance in terms of social characteristics translates into network distance, the number of relationships through which a piece of information must travel to connect two individuals” (p. 416). Such characteristics can include both status (e.g., attitudes, beliefs, abilities, aspirations) and values (e.g., race, gender, age, social class, education) as salient dimensions of identity (McPherson et al., 2001).

Since this publication, thousands of studies have drawn upon the concept of homophily across all types of disciplines, such as sociology (Simpson, Brashears,

Gladstone, & Harrell, 2014), psychology (Syed & Juan, 2012), medicine (Christakis &

Fowler 2007), political science (Putnam, 2007), and organizational management (Van

Der Vegt & Bunderson, 2005). This concept is also familiar to education, as it is essentially the basic premise of Beverly Tatum’s (1997) famous book entitled Why Are

All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria: And Other Conversations About

120

Race. This book has sparked critical conversations about the effects of decades of systemic racism, and the racial homophily that has emerged within educational spaces.

The concept of homophily can easily be confused with segregation or self- segregation. While homophily speaks to the connections that people make based on similarity at an individual level, segregation is a dynamic that exists at a broader, macro level. Segregation, or the forced separation of individuals based on definable differences, is often the manifestation of systems such as institutional racism (Harper, 2012) and age- graded education systems (Hagestad & Uhlenberg, 2005). While homophily recognizes the human condition of affinity based on sameness, segregation is something that exists institutionally, culturally, and spatially (Hagestad & Uhlenberg, 2005). However, homophily is also predicated on the opportunities that individuals have to be in contact with others who are like them (Godley, 2008), which can be determined by such systems.

Age homophily is inescapable given that the K-12 education structure in the

United States is primarily based on chronological age cohorts, even though this dynamic grows weaker as children progress into later grades (McPherson, Smith-Lovin & Cook,

2001). In other words, schools and classrooms become more age diverse as additional circumstances enter people’s lives, such as failing courses, dropping out, and other unplanned life events. In many ways, social age, or the ways we determine age based on societal constructions (Mortimer & Moen, 2016), becomes more significant as people grow older. One example of this is the current change in trends of life course transitions, such as marriage and parenting. Older individuals who are married and have children tend to have different relationships than those who are single without kids (Smith,

121

McPherson & Smith-Lovin, 2014), thus representing one manifestation of age homophily. However, the social construction of age raises an important question: Who is similar or different to us based on age? One theoretical concept that may provide a helpful foundation is generational intelligence (Biggs, Haapala, & Lowenstein, 2011).

College Students as Young People

While not all college students would choose to view themselves as young, the prevailing perception is that all college students are young people (See Chapter 2). Fair or not, college students have been constructed as individuals who are on a pathway towards adulthood. There is a great deal of subjectivity in establishing youth and adults, especially in the collegiate environment. Generational intelligence allows for a discussion about the subjectivity of college students as young people. The intersection of three dimensions of generations (birth cohort, family lineage, and personal maturation) offers a nuanced approach to conceptualizing age identity and aiding individuals in their understanding of who is similar or different to them in age. For an explanation of each dimension, refer to Chapter 1. Additionally, Biggs and Lowenstein (2011) offer a concept called age-other as

someone who is constructed as being of a different group to oneself, based on age.

Age-otherness may include aspects of life course and family position and cohort

identity. Whether an individual is seen as being “other” will be affected by the

interaction of these elements of generational identity. (p. xii)

122

In a way, these dimensions of age-otherness serve as parameters for age-sameness and age homophily. Individuals can be identified as the same, or similar, in age based on cohort, family, and maturation.

For college students, these dimensions have a very particular social context, as the dominant belief about college students is that they are under age 25, especially at traditional 4-year institutions (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], n.d.).

Students who visually and socially fit into this age image will likely expect to be surrounded by peers, while those who appear to be older may be deemed as an age-other.

This is also true of the inverse: those who are chronologically older in age may enter a classroom anticipating that they are the age-other, depending on their awareness of generational differences. While the participant sample in this study has a very specific commonality with their generational context and chronological age, the claims about young people are meant to contribute to larger scholarly discourses about how young people are subject to adult beliefs and behaviors regarding politics and social relationships.

Literature Review

Research related to homophily amongst college students is quite extensive, though homophily is not always drawn upon as a primary theoretical consideration. Three broad areas of past research are considered for this review: intergroup contact of college students, homophilous relationships amongst college students, and studies of age homophily from fields outside of education. The ultimate goal here is to connect the relevance of understanding age homophily within the college context.

123

Intergroup Contact of College Students

The extant literature regarding intergroup contact amongst college students provides an informative basis for this study, as it demonstrates an understanding of the degree to which students of different backgrounds interact with one another. Intergroup contact is understood as interactions amongst people of different backgrounds based on class, gender, race, sexual orientation, religion, nationality, age, ability, and other social identities (Allport, 1954; Gurin, Nagda & Xúñiga, 2013; Pettigrew, 1998). Sometimes these interactions take place in formal, structured settings such as Intergroup Dialogues

(Maxwell, Nagda, & Thompson, 2012; Zúñiga, Nagda, Chesler, & Cytron-Walker, 2007), while most interactions can be considered as friendships and informal connections

(Bowman, 2013; Bowman & Park, 2014). Since past studies have offered extensive reviews on the benefits of formal intergroup dialogue (see Buckley & Quaye, 2016;

Hoefle, 2014), I will offer a review of studies focused on informal intergroup contact.

Many studies on intergroup contact across differences have emerged over the past

10 years within higher education (e.g., Bowman & Park, 2014; Buckley & Quaye, 2016;

Garibay, Herrera, Johnston-Guerrero, & Garcia, 2014). Bowman (2013) utilized data from three cohorts of the Wabash National Study of Liberal Arts Education and found that college students who had frequent intergroup interactions experienced growth in leadership skills, psychological well-being, and intellectual engagement, while students who had rare or moderate contact experienced no growth, or even a decrease in these areas. These results were consistent “regardless of students’ race, institutional characteristics, and whether the interactions are interracial or across multiple forms of

124 difference” (p. 874). This study affirmed the importance of intergroup contact, whether it is in a formal or informal setting.

While institutional characteristics do not affect the outcomes of intergroup contact, factors such as structural diversity (based on numbers) do play an important role in the level of intergroup contact within a campus setting. In another study using data from the National Longitudinal Study of Freshmen (NLSF), Bowman (2012) found that structural diversity is positively correlated to White students’ interracial friendships and romantic partners. However, this study also showed that structural diversity had no effect on interracial contact for Black and Hispanic students. Bowman suggested that

“increasing the number of Hispanic college students would result in Hispanic students’ having a smaller proportion of non-Hispanic friends” (p. 133). Other researchers have found that the proportion of students of color at an institution is unrelated to the frequency of positive interracial interactions among students of color, particularly at

Predominantly White Institutions (Saenz, 2010; Saenz, Ngai, & Hurtado, 2007). Thus, while campuses with greater levels of racial diversity increase the amount of positive cross-racial interactions for White students, this may not necessarily the case for students of color.

As studies on intergroup contact continue to emerge, scholars have searched for more specific factors that affect the quality and quantity of these connections. Bowman and Park (2014) drew upon NLSF data to examine such factors, which resulted in several findings. First, Asian American, Black, and Hispanic students had much greater cross- racial interactions and intergroup friendships than White students. Second, involvement

125 in racial and ethnic student organizations negatively affected cross-racial interactions and inter-racial friendships for college students. Participation in a racial/ethnic student organization is generally associated with lower levels of inter-racial friendship, as students of color may be less likely to interact with White students. This is consistent with a study by Syed and Juan (2012), which found that college-age “ethnic minority” students were more likely to find similarity in ethnic identity amongst other ethnic minority students, while white students do not share as much similarity in ethnic identity.

Third, other factors such as structural racial diversity and time spent socializing were found to be positively related to cross-racial interactions. Additionally, social science majors tended to have more cross-racial interactions compared to students from other majors. Finally, “parental education, high school diversity exposure, and study abroad were positively related to interracial friendships, whereas participating in a religious student group was negatively related” (p. 675). These findings offer a multitude of directions for researchers to expand scholarship on intergroup contact, including homophily, which was included as a measure in this study.

Homophilous Relationships in College

As stated earlier, the idea of homophily is essentially the natural tendency for individuals to connect with others whom they perceive to be similar to themselves. This phenomenon is as true for college campuses as it is for broader societies. Research on homophily can be broadly characterized in two groups: personal preference and opportunities for contact (Godley, 2008). Personal preference presumes that individuals actively choose to connect with those who are the same as themselves. For instance, adult

126 friendships have been found to be homophilous based on age, sex, and religion (Godley,

2008), and gender and race homophily is consistent across all levels of education

(Kuperschmidt, DeRosier, & Patterson, 1995). Similarly, Kalmijn and Vermunt (2005) studied the relationship between age and marriage, and found that age is a significant predictor for marriage choice.

While homophily suggests that there is individual agency in selecting relationships, such interactions are predicated on the opportunity for contact with others.

In a study of college students at a small liberal arts college in the northeastern United

States, Godley (2008) found that college student friendships were disproportionately homophilous based on gender and race, and are often predicted by personal preference during freshman year. In fact, 83% of friendships were with same-race friends. However, opportunity for contact is the strongest factor over the course of four years. The result of this study shows that it is not necessarily preference or convenience that predicts homophily in friendships, but that it is both factors. Placed in a brand-new environment

(such as college), personal preference will take precedent. However, convenience will dictate diversity in relationships over the long-term. This is similar to the suggestion that there are structural and organizational factors that affect student networks and “the need to account for dynamic processes that occur within organizations and which affect observed levels of racial mixing” (Clarke & antonio, 2012, p. 38).

Students’ sense of ethnic identity has also been shown to mediate whether students of color join ethnic student organizations, or white students join fraternities and sororities (Sidanius et al., 2004). In a study by Sidanius and colleagues (2004), they

127 found that the effects of such involvement (increased sense of ethnic victimization; decreased sense of common identity and social inclusiveness) were similar for both students of color and white students. This study demonstrated that the formation of ethnic enclaves is not something that is enacted only by minority groups, but also by dominant groups. Comparatively, there may potentially exist a similar dynamic as it relates to age, where those in the dominant group (adults) form their own in-groups, while others in various age categories also form unique groups which are influenced by age.

Age Homophily

More specific to the current study is the way in which age homophily takes shape on college campuses. Smith, McPherson, and Smith-Lovin (2014) explained that there has been an increase in social distance between young and middle-aged individuals.

Given the growing age diversity of college campuses, how much do students gravitate to others whom they perceive to be the same age as themselves? A recent study by Dong,

Lizardo, and Chawla (2016) found that young people (between ages 20 and 35) have tighter social networks and experience a more connected world than older individuals.

Young people also have a “relative closeness to their same age counterparts” (p. 4) and their relationships to people in their parent’s generation. This explains why young people are generally more connected, likely due to expanding social media technology, and that they are primarily interacting with others who are also the same age through social media. At the same time, they still maintain cross-generational interactions within their family structures. Conversely, this study found that middle-aged individuals are sociometrically closer to younger people than those of their own age. Dong and

128 colleagues concluded that as people grow older, there is an attrition in social ties to those of the same generation. This conclusion is consistent with assertions that life events can change social networks (Wrzus, Hanel, Wagner, & Neyer, 2013).

The context of college, which is a distinctive life event within the life span for many people, provides a unique circumstance for investigating social networks. In a meta-analysis of age-related social network changes across the life course, Wrzus and colleagues (2013) examined 277 studies and found four results. First, overall social networks of individuals grew until young adulthood, and then slowly decreased from that point onward. Second, personal and friendship networks decreased throughout adulthood.

Third, family networks were stable in size from adolescence through old age. And fourth, certain networks with individuals such as coworkers and neighbors were only important in specific age ranges. These findings help contextualize the relationships that are established in college. Some may last a lifetime, but it is more likely that many such networks are situational and will likely change after students leave college.

While physical and digital spaces continue to offer opportunities for connection,

Hagestad and Uhlenberg (2005) argue that there remains a separation between young and old individuals. They suggest that non-family networks are strongly age homogeneous, and are concerned that “separation by age continues to be accepted as “natural” and its consequences are seen as benign” (p. 345). They explain three different dimensions of age segregation: institutional, spatial, and culture. Institutional age segregation explains how institutionalized structures, such as chronological age, can dictate access or restrictions for people to participate in opporunities such as school, work, and activities

129

(e.g., drinking alcohol, voting). Spatial age segregation accounts for the differentiation of space and lack of face-to-face (or online) interactions between people of different ages.

And finally, cultural age segregation offers a contrast between age groups based on language and lifestyle. Hagestad and Uhlenberg argue that institutional and spatial age segregation create restrictions on the types of age networks that can be created by individuals, which would limit the opportunity for individuals of different ages to connect

(Godley, 2008). Schools are a prime example of this argument, as education in the United

States is predominantly age-graded, so students are more likely to interact with others of the same age group. However, other social structures such as families continue to persist as spaces of age heterogeneity. With the understanding that college students are likely to simultaneously navigate multiple social structures and spaces, this study accounts for a vast array of networks by utilizing a network analysis methodology.

Political Homophily

As demonstrated by Bishop (2009), political self-sorting in the United States has intensified through the 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s. While the literature is surprisingly sparse on this topic (Huber & Malhotra, 2013), there are scholars across various disciplines who have begun empirically researching political homophily over the past five years (e.g., Colleoni, Rozza, & Arvidsson, 2014; Gerber, Henry, & Lubell, 2013;

Huber & Malhotra, 2013). Such studies help contribute to a growing body of knowledge on this topic.

First, it can be useful to understand whether there are differences in whether all homophily looks the same, or whether there may be group level differences. In a study of

130 political homophily on social media, Colleoni, Rozza, and Arvidsson (2013) found that

Democrats demonstrate greater levels of homophily than Republicans overall, but not as much as Republicans who follow Republican Twitter accounts. This can account for a growing trend of liberalism across younger generations, and also the influence of where people attain their news from.

Another important point to consider are the challenges of research approaches in studying homophily. Huber and Malhotra (2013) pointed out in their study of political beliefs in dating choices that most studies on homophily are conducted after relationships are formed, thus not capturing information about relationships that may not have formed because of political differences. In their study of online dating preferences, they were able to factor out existing relationships and still found that individuals overwhelmingly preferred those with similar political beliefs as their own, as well as rated such profiles more positively. This dynamic of filtering potential friendships and connections can also happen in real-time in collegiate contexts.

Beyond individual-level factors in political homophily, groups have been shown to operate more efficiently and expeditiously when they are politically similar. In a study of planners and government officials in California, Gerber, Henry, and Lubell (2013) found that local governments were more likely to work collaboratively in communities where individuals were more similar in their partisanship and voting behavior than those that were politically diverse. Translated onto campus communities, this phenomenon could help provide perspective on how various communities and organizations are motivated to exist homogenously in their political beliefs.

131

Social Network Analysis Methodology

Much of the early development and evolution of social network analysis has been ascribed to the field of social psychology (Carrington & Scott, 2011). Today, social network analysis spans a wide variety of academic fields including social psychology, social anthropology, communication science, organizational science, economics, geography, sociology, and even physics. Social network analysis methodologies can also vary, as social network analysis can be conducted quantitatively or qualitatively. The current study follows a qualitative, narrative inquiry (Coulter & Smith, 2009;

Polkinghorne, 1995) approach to social network analysis to create a deepened understanding of the nature of college students’ personal relationships.

Foundations and Core Tenets of Social Network Analysis

In the introductory chapter in The SAGE Handbook of Social Network Analysis

(Scott & Carrington, 2011), Marin and Wellman (2011) defined a social network as “a set of socially relevant nodes connected by one or more relations.” These nodes are generally comprised of individuals or organizations, but can potentially be any measurable unit

(e.g., web pages, journal articles, countries, neighborhoods). One of the foundational assumptions of social network analysis is that “social life is created primarily and most importantly by relations and the patterns formed by these relations” (Marin & Wellman,

2011, p. 11). The examination of social networks allows for scholars to take a perspective that is broader in comparison to studies that focus on individualistic or attribute-based perspectives (Marin & Wellman, 2011). To further emphasize this point, Marin and

Wellman (2011) claimed that:

132

To study the effects of attributes such as race, gender or education… researchers

sort individuals based on their attributes and determine which outcomes are

disproportionately common to individuals with particular attributes. This

endeavour treats causation as something that comes from within individuals, with

common attributes acting independently on individuals to produce similar

outcomes. (p. 13)

Instead of attributing causation to individual attributes, social network analysis allows for the examination of a larger social structure (Marin & Wellman, 2011). They continued to explain that:

By studying behaviour as embedded in social networks, social scientists are able

to explain macro-level patterns not simply as a large number of people acting

similarly because they are similar, but as a large number of people acting on one

another to shape one another's actions in ways that create particular outcomes. (p.

13)

A focus on such macro-level patterns of behavior can allow for researchers to avoid essentializing groups, which has been a consistent concern pertaining to scholarship focused on specific identity groups. For the purposes of the current study, age is examined as a socially defined construct that is created by the relations between individuals, which may confirm, diverge from, or add onto existing knowledge about certain age “groups.”

133

To this effect, Marin and Wellman (2011) emphasized that social network analysis is concerned with the study of networks, and not discrete groups. As they explained,

It is too easy an oversimplification for researchers seeking to understand the

effects of opportunities and constraints afforded to people in various positions to

operationalize these positions by dividing research subjects into discrete groups,

such as employees in different departments, residents of different city districts or

members of different school clubs. Treating these group memberships as having

discretely bounded or mutually exclusive memberships makes invisible the

importance of differing levels of group membership, membership in multiple

groups and cross-cutting ties between groups. (p. 13)

For instance, all 19-year-olds are not the same. They may have some shared characteristics in regard to their biological and psychological development, but it would not be reasonable to conclude that any two 19-year-old persons are the same just because they have the same age, even controlling for various other factors. From a social network analysis perspective, a more pragmatic question is to ask what are the ways in which two different 19-year-olds relate to people of different ages. For this reason, the current study takes on a narrative inquiry approach to social network analysis.

Qualitative Social Network Analysis and Narrative Inquiry

While many forms of social network analysis are quantitatively focused on

“measuring” the magnitude and strengths of networks, there is also a necessity to

134 interpret and develop deeper understanding of such networks. As Hollstein (2011) explained:

Qualitative research methods offer special tools for addressing challenges faced in

network research, namely to explicate the problem of agency, linkages between

network structure and network actors, as well as questions relating to the

constitution and dynamics of social networks. (p. 404)

Holstein (2011) continued to explain that there are two key elements to understanding the meaning between networks: contextuality and a methodically controlled understanding of the other, which I will refer to as openness. First, contextuality simply accounts for the relevance of the context of certain actions or behaviors. Data collected from social network analyses cannot be considered in a vacuum, and needs to acknowledge the immediate and broader social contexts within which such networks exist. Second, openness asks that “the researcher be open to the subject matter and acknowledge that any previous understanding of the topic in question is only preliminary” (Hollstein, 2011, p. 405).

As a qualitative methodology, social network analysis can be integrated with a secondary qualitative approach such as grounded theory, narrative inquiry, ethnography, phenomenology, and case study. The secondary qualitative methodology provides a more directed approach to data collection and analysis. As such, this study drew upon narrative inquiry to center the stories of individuals (Polkinghorne, 1995) within a network, while acknowledging that I maintain a role as a narrator in sharing such stories through my

135 research (Coulter & Smith, 2009). Specific elements of narrative inquiry are provided in the data analysis section of this study.

Study Sample and Recruitment

The starting network for this study was first-year students in a course section at

Landgrant State University (LSU; pseudonym), which is large, public, 4-year, highly- selective, doctoral granting university, and considered a Predominantly White Institution

(PWI) as white students account made up for approximately 75% of first-year students in

Fall 2016. In comparison, the rest of the first-year cohort identified as about 10%

Black/African American, 7% Asian, 5% Hispanic/Latino and 4% as Two or More Races.

Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, American Indian/Alaska Native, and Other were all less than 1% of the population. Additionally, about 14% of cohort were comprised of international students and 10% identified as first-generation students.

Participants were recruited from a course at LSU’s Public Affairs College (PAC; pseudonym) entitled “PAC 200: Introduction to Public Affairs.” Permission was granted from PAC’s Program Director, as well as the Associate Dean regarding this study. PAC itself is a residential college that offers courses on public policy and public affairs. As such, PAC students are likely to be more aware of sociopolitical systems and current political events, particularly in a U.S. national context that is becoming more and more politically divided. First-year students were an ideal population for the current study, as they are likely to be in a transition period with their social networks where they explore new networks at their university, while also maintaining prior networks from their home

136 life. This offers the opportunity to explore the expansive networks that first-year college students are likely to have in college, and beyond college.

Incoming first-year cohorts at LSU average approximately 8,000 students, with about 300 of those students in Public Affairs College. As a residential college, these students are primarily traditionally college-aged (18-22) and coming directly from high school. PAC students predominantly live in an area of campus known as “South

Campus,” which includes three residential communities. All first-year PAC students are required to take PAC 200, which is the course from which I recruited participants.

Students were invited to participate by completing a screening survey, which asked for demographic information about students such as name, date of birth, place of birth, high school name/location, transfer status, parents’ college, college major, race, gender, political beliefs, and political affiliation. Twenty-seven students completed the survey, all of whom were invited to participate in the interview process. Sixteen students opted to participate in the interview, which ended up being the final sample. Students received a

$10 Amazon.com gift card for participating in the study.

Participants in this study came from quite a unique age cohort. All participants were exactly 18-years-old at the time of their interview, but they were all 17 at the time of the 2016 U.S. presidential election, meaning that none of them were legally able to vote. Nine students identified as female, while 7 students identified as male, which is nearly proportional to the gender breakdown of PAC students (approximately 58% female, 42% male), but not representative of the overall student population at LSU

(approximately 50% female, 50% male). All participants were born and raised in the state

137 that LSU is located, though several participants shared that they have temporarily lived in other parts of the U.S. Participants also varied in their political beliefs, as 9 students identified with being either somewhat liberal or very liberal, 4 students identified as moderate, 2 students as somewhat conservative or very conservative, and 1 student as libertarian. In terms of political affiliation, 8 students identified as Democrats, 5 as

Republicans, 2 as Independents, and 1 as Libertarian. Unfortunately, the sample was very racially homogenous, as all participants self-identified as White, except for one person who identified as Asian. This racial skew is not representative of the demographics in

PAC, which is approximately 75% white.

The first-year students in their first semester provides an ideal sample for this study, as they are in a transition period where they are likely still connected to their home networks of family and friends, while also making new friendships in college. This period can also create a context where these students are negotiating multi-generational relationships with family members, teachers, and friends. PAC is also an ideal context for this study as the academic focus on public affairs is likely to yield information-rich cases where participants are likely able to speak to the impact of political beliefs on their social networks. Additionally, as a residential college, PAC creates a more enclosed environment for students to live and learn with one another, which is important at an institution as large as LSU. Without the structure of PAC, students may have more diffuse social networks, which can make it more difficult to identify emerging patterns and trends.

138

Data Collection

Semi-structured interviews (Josselson, 1996) served as the primary source of data for this study, and they centered on students’ social networks, but allowed for possibility of emerging topics to enter the conversation. These interviews were conducted in two parts, in which protocols can be found in Appendix D. The first part involved the student drawing a participant-aided sociogram (Hogan, Carrasco & Wellman, 2007) of their close personal network. Sociograms are name generators that allow for participants to visually depict their social networks. Hogan, Carrasco, and Wellman (2007) outlined specific steps in this name generator process. First, participants (egos) are initially asked to generate a list of names (alters) through a free recall or a specific set of questions. For this study, participants were asked to generate a list of approximately 10 – 20 names of individuals whom they consider to be friends at the university, and outside of the university. While people can realistically have upwards of 150 people, most people have approximately 5 people who are in their closest kin circle, and 12 – 15 who make up a second level of kinship (Dunbar, 1998; Hill & Dunbar, 2003). Each name that the participant generated was written on a separate sticky note and placed on a large whiteboard. After names were generated, participants were asked questions about the network, the specific individuals, and the dyadic relationship between the participant and the individuals. In addition to the participants self-selecting pseudonyms, the names generated during this step were also given pseudonyms. As participants expanded upon the network, individuals, and relationships, they were asked to draw lines to visually

139 diagram their networks. These sociograms were primarily used as an interview tool to help students reflect upon their social networks, and not part of the analysis itself.

The second part of the interview involved the participant explaining their sociogram and answering questions about the diversity of their social network in regard to age, race, education level, and political beliefs. Incorporating a narrative, story-telling approach, participants were invited to share stories about individuals with whom they referenced. For example, if participants referenced their network of friends from their hometown, they were asked to share memories from these friendships. Such stories help discern the strength of these relationships, which are based on emotional intensity, time spent with the person, reciprocity, intimacy, and mutual confiding (Clarke & antonio,

2012). Interviews lasted between 45 and 60 minutes, were audio-recorded, and transcribed verbatim for the purposes of data analysis.

Data Analysis

Polkinghorne (1995) posited that there are two emergent camps of data analysis in narrative inquiry: Analysis of Narratives and Narrative Analysis. Analysis of narratives tend to resemble more general forms of qualitative research, where themes and categories are generated based on narrative data (Coulter & Smith, 2009). Conversely, narrative analysis consists of “studies whose data consist of actions, events, and happenings, but whose analysis produces stories” (Polkinghorne, 1995, p. 6). The analytical approach taken in this study resembles the latter, where I present such stories as a relevant form of knowledge. As Coulter and Smith (2009) argued, “stories emerge as data are collected

140 and then are framed and rendered through an analytical process that is artistic as well as rigorous” (p. 577). Similarly, Polkinghorne (1995) stated:

Narrative analysis relates events and actions to one another by configuring them

as contributors to the advancement of a plot. The story constituted by narrative

integration allows for the incorporation of the notions of human purpose and

choice as well as chance happenings, dispositions, and environmental presses.

The result of a narrative analysis is an explanation that is retrospective, having

linked past events together to account for how a final outcome might have come

about. (p. 16)

Thus, all the participants in this study are considered characters brought together in a plotline – one which gradually emerged through the analytic process. Each participant was given a pseudonym, which served as their character’s name in this composite narrative. Individuals named within their network were also given pseudonyms to also protect their privacy. Given that some narratives that participants shared were personally sensitive, pseudonyms offered one way in which the identities of participants will be protected. Additionally, no identifiable information (e.g., institution names, personal information, date of birth) was included as part of the composite narrative.

Polkinghorne (1995) suggested that “the process of narrative analysis is actually a synthesizing of the data rather than a separation of it into its constituent parts” (p. 15).

This is where a Qualitative Data Analysis (QDA) program was used to support my analysis. All interview transcripts and memos were inputted into ATLAS.ti 1.0.50

(atlasti.com), a QDA program that helps manage and code large amounts of qualitative

141 data sources. I first coded transcripts for mentions of politics (e.g., liberal, democrat, conservative, republican) and age (e.g., adult, generation, millennial, young). Then I read through each transcript and marked key passages where participants made specific mentions about engaging with others about political beliefs. Next, I grouped key passages into themes that emerged, and generated three composite narratives that were generated in the form of vignettes (Taylor, 2017) using reorganized quotes from segments of interviews I conducted with participants. Creswell (2013) calls this process of reorganizing stories as restorying, which can result in a composite narrative. Compositing can be helpful in “bringing similar themes that arose across narratives together to present a more cogent picture of the participants’ experiences, while simultaneously allowing unique experiences to unfold” (Patton & Catching, 2009, p. 717). The content and ordering also took into consideration a three-dimensional space approach of interactions, continuity, and situation (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000; Creswell, 2013). The scenarios for the vignettes came directly from participants themselves.

Given my role of being both a narrator and a researcher, it is understandable that narrative analysis can create some doubt and skepticism for readers. Smith (2009) points out that while a goal of narrative analysis is to represent multiple perspectives, many authors fail to do so. This is challenging because many qualitative researchers also aim to use thick description of observations and interviews to convey a level of depth in their results. This balance of a multiplicity of perspectives, and providing rich, thick description conflicts with word limits that are often associated with strong qualitative research. To ensure trustworthiness (Lincoln & Guba, 1989) within this study, I involved

142 a peer debriefer who is a trained scholar in narrative analysis during the analysis of study data. The peer debriefer read through several transcripts, and provided consultation on emerging themes.

Limitations

While this study provides important insight into the ways that political beliefs influence college student relationships, there are limitations that need to be named. First,

LSU as an institution and PAC as a residential college are not generalizable to other collegiate contexts. The university is a large, land grant institution that is highly decentralized and contains many different subcultures, including PAC. PAC is unique in itself as a residential college that focuses in public affairs, so students tend to have an affinity for discussing political and social issues. The sample was also racially homogenous, and only offers enough insight into the experiences of white students as they navigate political beliefs in their relationships. Future studies should seek to examine the experiences of students of color, as they may have different experiences with this phenomenon. Finally, this study only provides the perspectives of a unique age cohort. Future studies can be replicated with a broader cross section of students across different chronological ages, and potentially offer more insight into the experiences that young people have with navigating political beliefs in their relationships.

Positionality: The Scholar as The Narrator

Politics can be a sensitive subject to write and research about, and it is important that I express my own position on this matter. My motivation for this study comes from a place of genuine frustration with the ways that politics have created social division within

143 the United States. After the 2016 election, I took a long, hard look at the limited nature of my own social circles and reflected on where my boundaries exist with my own social networks. As a person who grew up in a highly ethnocentric Vietnamese Catholic community, I learned about closed communities and in-groups at a very early age. In addition, growing up in an urban environment exposed me to a significant amount of racial, class, and religious diversity, but shielded me from individuals who grew up in more suburban and rural environments, which is the case for many participants in this study.

A part of my motivation in this study is to also create greater consciousness about political diversity for myself and for others within the field of higher education and student affairs. While I come from a family where older generations have identified as politically conservative, I consider myself as someone who is solidly liberal in my beliefs about social and fiscal issues. If pressed to reflect upon my own social network, I would admittedly have a difficult time naming more than a handful of individuals who identify as politically conservative. I was especially conscious of this during interviews with conservative students and during data analysis. While my positionality uniquely affects the ways that I approached this study, I maintained my focus on the issue of political divide for this generation of young people.

Composite Narratives: Mixing Politics and Friendships

Results will be presented as composite narratives, where quotes from individual participant interviews will be embedded within a connected narrative that depicts college students’ experiences with political homophily within and across generations. The results

144 for the three research questions will be presented in the form of vignettes, with each vignette addressing the specific research question at hand. As a reminder, the three research questions are as follows: (a) Where do young people learn how to navigate political differences from?; (b) To what extent do political beliefs affect the social relationships of young people and their generational peers?; And (c) How do political beliefs influence how young people form relationships with other generational peers?

The Characters and Setting

As first year students began their collegiate careers at Landgrant State University in Fall 2017, the dust was only starting to settle from the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

For all students in this composite narrative, there was a sense of lingering resentment about the fact that they were not legally able to vote because they were under 18 years of age at the time. However, it did not mean that they were not engaged with the political environment. These students were all in-state residents and came from various corners of the state, which has historically been a political battleground during presidential elections. Some of them came from large high schools where many of their classmates also attended LSU, which is a large, flagship institution for the state. Others came from smaller home communities where the graduating class sizes of their high school were less than 50 people. The students in this program were highly ambitious, with many knowing what they want to do professionally in the future. Many students in the program have aspirations to become lawyers, policy makers, and politicians, and cited their career ambitions as an important factor that led them to LSU and specifically Public Affairs

College.

145

These students also all lived together in Smith Hall (a pseudonym), which is an essential part of the PAC residential learning experience. It was only six weeks into their first semester, so many of them were experiencing a great deal of transition to collegiate life. Most of them have established their collegiate friendship groups through Public

Affairs College, social events and involvement with student groups, while others were still relying on their connections from their home life as a source of social support. This dynamic can be seen in Table 2. Because it is still very early in the college experience for these students, new relationships are constantly being formed as the first semester progresses.

Table 2. Sources of Collegiate Social Networks for PAC Students

Student Political Collegiate Social Network Affiliation Nicole Democrat Orientation; Convocation Jake Democrat PAC Bill Democrat Baseball team Elizabeth Independent PAC; Sorority Allison Republican High school connections; Roommate Rose Democrat PAC Joseph Republican Religious student organization Prinshu Democrat Ethnic student organization; High school connections Paul Democrat PAC; Orientation Cincinnatus Libertarian Marching band Meagan Democrat PAC; Roommate, High school connections Alyssa Republican PAC; High school connections Sarah Independent PAC; LGBT organization Chris Democrat PAC; High school connections Camden Republican PAC; Political student organization Note: High school connections denote individuals from high school who also attend LSU

146

Vignette 1: Getting Ready for Parents Visit Weekend

As Parent’s Weekend drew near at LSU, many students started to realize that this would be the first time that different spheres in their lives would overlap. The students in

PAC were experiencing a brand-new environment, meeting new people, and engaging with new ideas. However, with the anticipation of visits from their parents, there was a certain sense of anxiety that some students felt. A few students who all identified as liberal were sitting around the lounge on their laptops after coming back from a heated political discussion in class, so political issues were brewing in their minds. With

Parent’s weekend coming, Micah broke the silence by asking the small group of students around them about how their family felt about politics. Julia responded:

It’s kind of hard, especially with ... I have a huge extended family on my mom's

side and they are all conservative, and some of them were really obnoxious about

it, and some of them didn't know everything, so I just kind of took myself out of

certain conversations and situations so I didn't have to listen to anyone.

Micah nodded approvingly. The group seemed to share an unspoken moment of understanding. Glad that he received some affirmation, Micah replied, “Especially through social media, my mom is liberal, but there's people she's friends with, like parents of kids that I'm mutual friends with on Facebook, and they will post things politically that are conservative.”

147

This comment opened up the conversation and others started to jump in. Prinshu made a motion with her hand, got everyone’s attention, and shared her thoughts with the group:

I've seen it in my life. Again, for social aspects, I would totally agree that

grandparents, or older people, or even 40-year-olds are less likely to accept the

LGBT community than me or people younger than me. It makes sense, too,

because it wasn't that normalized, where it is now. There's way more to go... 30

years from now it wouldn't be a big deal. People would be like, "Okay, this is

fine, this is where it is." But my mom didn't even know... Growing up in India,

she didn't know what being gay was. So someone coming here and learning about

it is a huge shock, and it seems wrong to her. But now she's way better about it.

She's like, "If someone wants to be gay, they can be gay. It's none of my

business."

This was the first time Prinshu was able to share this perspective to her peers in PAC.

The students in the lounge, who were all white, demonstrated appreciation for Prinshu sharing her perspective coming from an Indian family.

There was a pause. After some hesitation, Hailey joined in on the conversation and added:

I think [our] generation is moreso liberal, like looking for change. Inspired,

inspired generation or whatever. But I think [our] generation is more so like that

than like... I think the older generation like my dad's my generation is more so

like conservative, but our generation is open minded, and I guess that has to do

148

with how we grew up and our technology in a way, if that makes sense. And I

think that will continue on with the younger generation. I don't know. Yeah, I

think if we raise our kids in the way that we want it to be and the world we want it

to be, then they'll follow the beliefs of more liberal rather than conservative.

From this brief conversation, the students calmed some of their anxieties about interacting with their parents. Politics would be an unavoidable conversation topic, so they would all have to figure out how to navigate it within their own relationships.

So where have young people learned about how political beliefs influence their social relationships? This vignette shows that adults serve as reference points for how young people develop their understanding of politics and relationships. As part of their socialization to learning about relationships, parents and older adults are often the individuals who set examples for young people to engage with others within political landscapes. As shown in this vignette, students have experienced (or at least observed) political conflict within their experiences of early socialization. If their parents tended to avoid political conflict, their children may be more likely to do the same. It could also be the case where political tensions develop over time with their parents. As college students continue to develop and grow their political perspectives, their relationships with their parents, older relatives, and other authority figures may become more and more challenging, especially if there are divergent beliefs that conflict with one another.

Vignette 2: A Classroom Discussion

Political overtones always seemed to permeate the air within both residential and academic spaces of the PAC community, as if it was just a normal part of its

149 environment. Some of this came from the nature of the college itself, which is focused on public affairs and public policy. For instance, a book which focused on geopolitical climates in the United States was assigned to incoming PAC students as summer reading.

In addition, the state was a hotbed for political events covered by national media. Thus, political discussions and debates in the PAC community were quite commonplace.

The PAC faculty, conscious of the current political environment at LSU, wanted to ensure that they created a suitable environment for students to respectfully engage in political discussions. One day, during a class discussion in PAC 200, the professor asked the students to share their opinions about how they view others based on political beliefs and affiliations. Prinshu, who identifies as a liberal Democrat began the conversation:

I guess now, in college, there's more diversity in terms of political beliefs. I would

like to think I don't consider political beliefs in friendships, but I probably do.

Especially at this time, with this election, a lot of... even normal conversations

that you have about food will end up... a lot of times [Kara] and I would have

lunch, and we're just talk about class or food or whatever, and it suddenly turned

something about politics. It's also a bad habit when she has to ask people about

politics.

As someone who grew up in a very liberal, urban area, Prinshu has found it stimulating to be on a campus that is politically diverse. She also enjoyed that conversations about politics were commonplace in PAC, even if they got contentious from time to time.

150

Nicole, who identifies as a Democrat and politically moderate, added to the discussion by sharing about how her perspectives regarding Trump voters in her life have changed:

After the election it was pretty intense, because we were all in this kind of gray

area where 90% of my friends, including myself, were... No, not 90, like 99% of

my... None of my close friends could vote. But people outside, like acquaintances,

I knew like two or three people that could vote and everyone I knew voted for

Trump. It definitely changes the way I saw people. I didn't stop being friends with

them but I... You see somebody as different now. You think, "Oh, that girl, we're

cool but she's for Trump," if that makes any sense. It's not like... I'm not shunning

them. I'm not going to suddenly stop talking to them, or I'm not going to hate

them because they believe something because views can change over time.

Everything's fluid, you know?

Another student, Bill, who identifies as a Democrat and is somewhat liberal, shared that he would not let political differences affect past friendships: “Obviously I like politics and they know I do. But [Brooks], he was a really big supporter of Trump, but we were still, we'd eat lunch together, we'd talk about it. We were able to respect each other's opinions.”

This sentiment of respect seemed to be a common tone that carried throughout the class discussion. Elizabeth, who identifies as Independent and somewhat liberal, added:

I don't judge people just because of like, oh, you're a Republican. I like to look at

what was your life like, like what made you that way, what made you believe

151

that… I'm friends with Republicans, I'm friends with Democrats. That wouldn't

really end a relationship unless someone is an extremist and I just really don't

agree with that.

The professor found this discussion interesting, but felt like students were feeling timid about sharing on this subject. They decided to ask a more provocative question to the students: Would you consider dating, or even marrying, someone who was completely opposite of you politically? There was a bit of a pause. Then Elizabeth, who built up some confidence from just sharing aloud, was the first person to bite on this question:

I don't associate political beliefs with personal morals and values… I could [date

someone who is pro-Trump]. A lot of the guys from my school are pro-Trump. I

mean, although sometimes it was kind of annoying the way that they would be on

Twitter like, "Oh, I love Trump." They were pretty out there with it, but I could.

Like I said, political beliefs wouldn't steer me away from anyone.

Allison, who is a moderate Republican, added, “To me, you believe what you believe. I'm not gonna bash you for it. It doesn't affect... It's not what I believe, but I can agree with you on things. I can understand where you're coming from. We just don't agree.” Rose, who identifies as a Democrat and is somewhat liberal, shared that her mother and father are political opposites. Her father voted for Trump, and mother voted for Clinton. She then hesitantly shared her personal feeling about dating:

I mean, like... I couldn't see [myself dating someone conservative] right now. But

if I look at my parents, it's fine. But then again, my mom isn't very outspoken with

her beliefs as I am, so I don't think... Our personalities aren't the same, I'm more

152

outspoken on what I believe than she is. So, I don't necessarily think it would

work that well.

While Rose expresses some hesitation about dating someone conservative, she also points to her parents as an example of how two people with political differences can co-exist in a relationship.

Thus, to what extent do young people allow political beliefs to influence their social relationships with their generational peers? All in all, students initially expressed that political beliefs were not a primary consideration in their formation of relationships with peers. Students attributed their relationships in college more to proximity in residential areas, classroom interactions, and attending campus programs, as demonstrated in Table 2. Some students referenced the collegiate environment as a place where they are picking up cues on how to engage with others who are politically different from them. Specifically, the decorum of classroom debates and pedagogical approaches to leading discussion by faculty serve as models for students to engage in these sensitive conversations in a civil manner. As such, the students in this vignette demonstrate a great deal of openness to diverse ideas from others. Some of this openness can also be attributed to the tense, on-going political climate within the state and the country. Many participants cited examples of conflicts and broken relationships from others within their social networks, and seemed adamant to not replicate that in their own lives. It is important to point out that while many participants articulated this desire not to judge others, this sentiment was not consistent as they were pushed to speak about others who are different from them politically. As such, there is more underneath what students

153 initially shared about the formation of their friendship groups, as the third vignette will convey.

Vignette 3: Conversing at Dinner

Many of the PAC students who grew up in the state came from politically conservative communities. As part of the current generation of college students, it was common for students to experience tension between what they believed in and what they were taught to believe. In particular, liberal-identified college students were quite outspoken about their thoughts on issues of discrimination.

After class, a group of five friends decided to head to dinner. This group, who are all solidly Democratic and politically liberal, emerged from a series of connections during orientation. At dinner, Rose continued reflecting on what she shared during class, and added some thoughts about where she would draw the line on potentially dating a conservative-learning person:

The race views [are non-negotiable]. If they're racist, which, I don't want to label

the conservative people as being more towards that side, you know what I mean?

But if they were speaking in that sense of way or... gay rights, I don't like people

talking about that either in a negative sense, or going out of their way to talk

about it in a negative sense. Like, if you don't believe it don't push it on other

people, if that makes sense? I guess the more social value of it, putting down

people. I hate that, I don't enjoy that.

This comment from Rose resonated with everyone at the table. Jake chimed in immediately in agreement:

154

I guess, straight up like I don't like you because you're this kind of thing, you

know what I mean, like a discriminatory belief, then typically, like homophobia,

someone who straight up didn't like gay people or something, that's like messed

up. Or like people who are like “all Muslims are bad, they're all terrorists.” I don't

really want to talk to you if that's your genuine belief. It's those, those are usually

the two that occasionally come up and I'm like well that's really, I don't really

think that's tolerable world view, that's straight up discriminating against people.

But that's rarely happened in my social life.

Again, everyone nodded in approval. This was not the first time they talked about politics during dinner. They all knew where each person stood politically. Meagan echoed sentiments from Rose and Jake:

Using slurs against immigrants, or using the n-word, just in casual conversation,

or being like, "Well, I'm not racist, but..." Type of things. Arguing against female

rights, or abortion rights, they're like, "Oh no, these things shouldn't exist," that

just pissed me the frick off. So, those are definitely non-negotiables. Or they'll

joke like, "A women's place is in the house." I have a shirt that says, "A women's

place is in the House and the Senate." So, it's just... They'll mean it literally, and I

just can't work with that. I might be able to sit down with them for lunch or

coffee, but I don't think I'd pursue a friendship with them... I'd be willing to work

with them, and just be like, "Okay, well, why do you believe this?" But I don't

think I could, really, be friends with them.

155

Whether it was about race, gender, or sexuality, there was a clear and definitive position on these issues. It would be rather surprising if anyone at the table brought up a dissenting perspective.

As with many conversations these days, it was difficult to talk about politics without talking about Donald Trump. Prinshu made it a point to highlight differences of being a Trump supporter and being a conservative:

Well, there's a difference between having a conservative viewpoint and being a

Trump supporter. I think if you have a conservative viewpoint, or not even that...

There's a difference between having a conservative viewpoint on economic issues,

versus social issues. I feel like, if you have a knowledgeable argument or

whatever, against economic issues, or any other issues except for social issues,

then I wouldn't care. It's an educated opinion, you're not just making this up. But,

however, for social issues, like LGBTQ communities or... Pronouns, abortion,

anything like that. Or race. Anything like that. When they make, not stupid...

ignorant or rude comments about it, and they're unwilling to share someone else's

opinion. They're like, "No, I'm right, there's no way you can be right."

Jake, who was pretty sure how Prinshu would respond, asked her if she would ever date a

Trump supporter. “No,” Prinshu replied. “We were talking about a list of qualities, or someone you would date, and number four on my list is being a liberal.”

Jake then turned to another person at the table and asked him. “How about you,

Bill?” Bill replied:

156

Probably not. I don't think so… It would depend. If they were, I guess if they

were well-educated on the issues and they were able to counter argue what I say,

but at the end of the day they realize that politics isn't the defining factor of who

we are. Then yeah, I could see that… Probably not [if they were a Trump

supporter] because I don't believe anybody who supports Donald Trump is either

educated enough on the issues or they have some bias in them that they are, I

don't know. I wouldn't say they're flawed as a person, but they have something

they need to figure out.

Being “well-educated” about issues really meant that there was a clear sense of right and wrong, and to these students, someone who supports Donald Trump is complicit with supporting various forms of discrimination.

How do political beliefs influence how young people form relationships with one another? At least for liberal students, there were clear deal breakers that influenced the relationships that are formed within college. The five liberal students from this vignette demonstrated an unfiltered conversation that is not moderated by a classroom environment. In this setting, the students spoke more candidly about their non-negotiable values of inclusion and unwillingness to tolerate various forms of discrimination. This vignette also provides deeper insight into the significance of political beliefs in forming new relationships, as these liberal-identified young people spoke about their hesitancy to date those who are conservative or Trump supporters. In particular, Bill’s perspective on

Trump supporters being uneducated on issues made it apparent that political beliefs can be deal breakers for young people in forming new relationships.

157

Discussion

The results of this study provide three unique insights into the ways that political beliefs affect how young people navigate relationships, especially new ones that are being formed. A key point of discussion in this study is about the context of the environment. These were all first-year students in their first semester of college, where transition to college can be the most difficult. Students here are leaving behind their past social networks, and developing new ones on-campus. As a semi-closed system, PAC served as a helpful support network for this transition, as it allowed for students to connect with one another both in and beyond the classroom setting. While it has been shown that students will resort to personal preferences when creating their social networks in brand new environments (Godley, 2008), it is unclear how much political beliefs factor into this compared to other qualities and identities.

The findings in this study also speak to both internal and external stresses that college students experience when navigating relationships within a highly politicized climate. As young people in a period of social transition, they are internally negotiating their political beliefs from their home life, as well as a new collegiate environment. As past studies have shown, a sense of belonging can be critical for college students’ decision to either persist or drop out when experiencing challenges (Museus & Maramba,

2010; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). For liberal students who grew up in conservative areas, college might be seen as a space where they can begin to explore their beliefs with individuals who can support their ideas. Conversely, conservative students may

158 experience feeling isolated given the perception that college campuses are overwhelmingly liberal (Eagan et al., 2016; Young, 2017). Given the liberal hegemony of many collegiate environments, liberal voices are likely to be more outspoken about their beliefs about bias and discrimination. It might be difficult to envision a conservative student participating in these types of conversations, or even being in a space that is considered by many to be a bastion of liberal beliefs. These internal dilemmas can play a role in how young people choose with whom they trust and spend their time.

It is also important to note that structural diversity of political orientation factors into the likelihood of whether students connect with people who have similar or different political beliefs. While it is not certain what the demographic representation is in terms of political orientation, participants often cited political diversity as a beneficial factor for their experience in PAC, such as when Prinshu shared about the political diversity of the college. This is consistent with past research which has shown the benefit of structural diversity (Bowman, 2012). However, what students shared during their interviews may not tell the entire story, as they only communicated existing relationships. As Huber and

Malhotra (2013) argued, this is one of the core challenges of studies on homophily. Even when pressed to ask about potential broken relationships, or whether students hypothetically chose not to connect with people because of political beliefs, participants did not provide very many concrete responses.

The final point of discussion is in regard to the socialization (Harro, 2013) experiences that young people have received about politics and relationships. Many parents and older family members, in their good intentions to teach young people well,

159 can inadvertently teach them politically divisive beliefs and behaviors that they carry with them to college. Additionally, as young people, many have been subject to the geographical boundaries of their home life based on their upbringing. Particularly for young people who have not had the resources to travel and experience other parts of the country and the world, their worldview may be limited. In the case of this study sample, all participants grew up in the state the LSU is located, and only a few had travelled outside of the United States or temporarily lived in other parts of the country.

As college students in a traditional collegiate setting (4-year, residential), they are coming into their adult identity and experiencing a greater amount of independence than they have had before (Baxter Magolda & King, 2007; Baxter Magolda, King, Taylor, &

Wakefield, 2012). They are no longer subject to the authority of figures such as parents, coaches, and teachers, and are also exposed to a greater diversity of thought and experiences. As Baxter Magolda and colleagues (2012) found in their study, college students in their first year moved from primarily depending on authority figures for knowledge to a “crossroads” where they experience tension between what they were taught and their own internal system of meaning making. This broadening of experience and worldview can impact their values, beliefs, and who they choose to surround themselves with in their social networks.

Implications

Faculty and student life staff can use the findings of this study to inform their approach to teaching, learning, and college student development efforts. While self- sorting processes can be informed by race and class, they can also be affected by political

160 beliefs and ideologies. There needs to be a serious consideration given to the perception of colleges and universities as liberal bastions, and how they can influence students of all political backgrounds. For staff and faculty, there can be more intentional efforts to create spaces where members of a campus community can join together and truly dialogue across differences. Without such efforts, students who graduate from higher education institutions will remain comfortable within their own circles, and not be well-equipped to work with others who differ in political beliefs.

In addition, parents and older adults must be mindful of the example that they are setting for younger generations. The United States has become accustomed to debates and harsh, nasty rhetoric as normal ways to engage with others politically. In order to break this vicious cycle of political combativeness and divisiveness, the current generation of adults in power must consider the type of political world they want to pass onto future generations. This also places an onus on educators and campus administrators to cultivate environments where there is healthy and productive political discourse, particularly when tensions arise due to critical incidents or election seasons.

Conclusion

The clustering of individuals into like-minded groups, or “The Big Sort,” as

Bishop (2009) described it, does not have to be the destined future for the United States.

Colleges and universities can play a role in disrupting a generation of divisiveness by teaching younger generations how to engage one another with respect and empathy.

Similarly, young people can develop agency to not sustain political norms and behaviors that are destructive to efforts in building communities. This study shows that while

161 political homophily may be alive and present on college campuses, there are positive examples that show young people a way to act differently and choose pathways that can perhaps lead to a “Big Joining” in the future.

162

References

Allport, G. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Atlasti.com (n.d.). ATLAS.ti: The qualitative data analysis & research software.

Retrieved January 31, 2017 from http://atlasti.com/.

Baxter Magolda, M. B., & King, P. M. (2007). Interview strategies for assessing self-

authorship: Constructing conversations to assess meaning making. Journal of

College Student Development, 48(5), 491-508.

Baxter Magolda, M. B., King, P. M., Taylor, K. B., & Wakefield, K. M. (2012).

Decreasing authority dependence during the first year of college. Journal of

College Student Development, 53(3), 418–435.

Biggs, S., Haapala, I., & Lowenstein, A. (2011). Exploring generational intelligence as a

model for examining the process of intergenerational relationships. Ageing and

Society, 31(7), 1107–1124.

Biggs, S., Lowenstein, A. (2011). Generational intelligence: A critical approach to age

relations. New York, NY: Routledge.

Bishop, B. (2009). The big sort: Why the clustering of like-minded America is tearing us

apart. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Bowman, N. A. (2012). Structural diversity and close interracial relationships in college.

Educational Researcher, 41(4), 133–135.

Bowman, N. A., & Park, J. J. (2014). Interracial contact on college campuses: Comparing

and contrasting predictors of cross-racial interaction and interracial friendship.

The Journal of Higher Education, 85(5), 660–690.

163

Buckley, J. B., & Quaye, S. J. (2016). A vision of social justice in intergroup

dialogue. Race Ethnicity and Education, 19(5), 1117-1139.

Carrington, P. J., & Scott, J. (2011). Introduction. In J. Scott & P. J. Carrington (Eds.),

The SAGE Handbook of Social Network Analysis (pp. 1–8). Thousand Oaks:

SAGE.

Christakis, N. A., & Fowler, J. H. (2007). The spread of obesity in a large social network

over 32 years. New England Journal of Medicine, 357(4), 370-379.

Clarke, C. G., & Antonio, A. L. (2012). Rethinking research on the impact of racial

diversity in higher education. The Review of Higher Education, 36(1), 25–50.

Colleoni, E., Rozza, A., & Arvidsson, A. (2014). Echo chamber or public sphere?

Predicting political orientation and measuring political homophily in twitter using

big data. Journal of Communication, 64(2005), 317–332.

http://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12084

Coulter, C. A., & Smith, M. L. (2009). The construction zone: Literary elements in

narrative research. Educational Researcher, 38(8), 577–590.

Dong, Y., Lizardo, O., & Chawla, N. V. (2016). Do the young live in a “smaller world”

than the old? Age-specific degrees of separation in a large-scale mobile

communication network. ARXIV, 1–8. Retrieved from

http://arxiv.org/abs/1606.07556

Dunbar, R. (1998). The social brain hypothesis. Evolutionary Anthropology, 6(1), 178–

190.

164

Eagan, K., Stolzenberg, E. B., Zimmerman, H. B., Aragon, M. C., Sayson, H. W., Rios-

Aguilar, C. (2016). The American freshman: National norms fall 2016.

Cooperative Institutional Research Program. Retrieved from

https://www.insidehighered.com/sites/default/server_files/files/TheAmericanFres

hman2016PREPUB.pdf

Garibay, J. C., Herrera, F. A., Johnston-Guerrero, M. P., & Garcia, G. A. (2016). Layers

of influence: Exploring institutional- and state-level effects on college student

views toward access to public education for undocumented Immigrants. Research

in Higher Education, 57(5), 601–629. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-015-9400-0

Gerber, E. R., Henry, A. D., & Lubell, M. (2013). Political homophily and collaboration

in regional planning networks. American Journal of Political Science, 57(3), 598–

610.

Godley, J. (2008). Preference or propinquity? The relative contribution of selection and

opportunity to friendship homophily in college. Connections, 1(403), 65–80.

Granovetter, M. S. (1983). The strengths of weak ties: A network theory revisited.

Sociological Theory, 1(1), 201–233.

Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology,

78(6), 1360–1380.

Gurin, P., Nagda, B. R. A., & Zuniga, X. (2013). Dialogue across difference: Practice,

theory, and research on intergroup dialogue. New York, NY: Russell Sage

Foundation.

165

Hagestad, G. O., & Uhlenberg, P. (2005). The social separation of old and young: A root

of ageism. Journal of Social Issues, 61(2), 343–360.

Harper, S. R. (2012). Race without racism: How higher education researchers minimize

racist institutional norms. The Review of Higher Education, 36(1S), 9–29.

Harro, B. (2013). The cycle of socialization. In M. Adams, W. J. Blumenfeld, C.

Castañeda, H. W. Hackman, M. L. Peters, & X. Zúñiga (Eds.), Readings for

Diversity and Social Justice (3rd ed.) (pp. 45 - 56). New York, NY: Routledge.

Hill, R. A., & Dunbar, R. (2003). Social network size in humans. Human Nature, 14(1),

53–72.

Hoefle, S. N. (2014). Engaging differences of religious belief: Student experiences with

an intergroup dialogue course (Unpublished dissertation). Bowling Green State

University, Bowling Green, OH.

Hogan, B., Carrasco, J. A., & Wellman, B. (2007). Visualizing personal networks:

Working with participant-aided sociograms. Field Methods, 19(2), 116–144.

Hollstein, B. (2011). Qualitative approaches. In J. Scott & P. J. Carrington (Eds.), The

SAGE Handbook of Social Network Analysis (pp. 404–416). Thousand Oaks, CA:

SAGE.

Huber, G., & Malhotra, N. (2013). Dimensions of political homophily: Isolating choice

homophily along political characteristics. Working Paper.

Jones, S. R., & McEwen, M. K. (2000). A conceptual model of multiple dimensions of

identity. Journal of College Student Development, 41(4), 405–414.

166

Josselson, R. (1996). Revising herself: The story of women’s identity from college to

midlife. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Kalmijn, M., & Vermunt, J. K. (2007). Homogeneity of social networks by age and

marital status: A multilevel analysis of ego-centered networks. Social Networks,

29(1), 25–43.

Lincoln. Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA:

Sage. 22 1-240.

Marin, B. A., & Wellman, B. (2011). Social network analysis: An introduction. In J.

Scott & P. J. Carrington (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Social Network Analysis

(pp. 11–25). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

Markert, J. (2004). Demographics of age: Generational and cohort confusion. Journal of

Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 26(2), 11–25.

Maxwell, K. E., Nagda, B. R., & Thompson, M. C. (2012). Facilitating intergroup

dialogues: Bridging differences, catalyzing change. Sterling, VA: Stylus

Publishing, LLC.

McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in

social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415–444.

Mortimer, J. T. & Moen, P. (2016). The changing social construction of age and the life

course: Precarious identity and enactment of “early” and “encore” stages of

adulthood. In M.J. Shanahan, J. T. Mortimer, & M. K. Johnson (eds.) Handbook

of the Life Course (pp. 111-129). Switzerland: Springer.

167

Museus, S. D., & Maramba, D. C. (2010). The impact of culture on Filipino American

students’ sense of belonging. The Review of Higher Education, 34(2), 231–258.

National Center for Education Statistics (n.d.). Characteristics of postsecondary students.

Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_csb.asp.

Orfield, G., & Lee, C. (2005). Why segregation matters: Poverty and educational

inequality. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University.

Orfield, G., & Lee, C. (2006). Racial transformation and the changing nature of

segregation. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University.

Pascarella, E., & Terenzini, P. (2005). How college affects students (Vol. II): A third

decade of research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Patton, L. D., & Catching, C. (2009). “Teaching while Black”: Narratives of African

American student affairs faculty. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in

Education, 22(6), 713–728.

Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual review of psychology, 49(1),

65-85.

Polkinghorne, D. E. (1995). Narrative configuration in qualitative analysis. International

Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 8(1), 5–23.

Putnam, R. D. (2007). E pluribus unum: Diversity and community in the twenty‐first

century the 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture. Scandinavian Political

Studies, 30(2), 137-174.

168

Saenz, V. B. (2010). Breaking the segregation cycle: Examining students’ precollege

racial environments and college diversity experiences. Review of Higher

Education, 34, 1–37.

Saenz, V. B., Ngai, H. N., & Hurtado, S. (2007). Factors influencing positive interactions

across race for African American, Asian American, Latino, and White college

students. Research in Higher Education, 48, 1–38.

Sidanius, J., Van Laar, C., Levin, S., & Sinclair, S. (2004). Ethnic enclaves and the

dynamics of social identity on the college campus: The good, the bad, and the

ugly. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(1), 96–110.

Simpson, B., Brashears, M., Gladstone, E., & Harrell, A. (2014). Birds of different

feathers cooperate together: No evidence for altruism homophily in networks.

Sociological Science, 1(December), 542–564.

Smith, M. W. (2009). Comments on Coulter and Smith: The issue of authorial surplus in

narrative research. Educational Researcher, 38(8), 603–607.

Smith, J. A., McPherson, M., & Smith-Lovin, L. (2014). Social distance in the United

States: Sex, race, religion, age, and education homophily among confidants, 1985

to 2004. American Sociological Review, 79(3), 432–456.

Syed, M., & Juan, M. J. D. (2012). Birds of an ethnic feather? Ethnic identity homophily

among college-age friends. Journal of Adolescence, 35(6), 1505–1514.

Tatum, B. (2003). Why are all the black kids sitting together in the cafeteria? And other

conversations about race (Revised edition). New York, NY: Basic Books.

169

University of Michigan Libraries (n.d.). Michigan’s story: The history of race at U-M.

Retrieved from https://www.lib.umich.edu/online-exhibits/exhibits/show/history-

of-race-at-um/diversity-in-student-life/activism

Van Der Vegt, G. S., & Bunderson, J. S. (2005). Learning and performance in

multidisciplinary teams: The importance of collective team

identification. Academy of Management Journal, 48(3), 532-547.

Wrzus, C., Hanel, M., Wagner, J., & Neyer, F. J. (2013). Social network changes and life

events across the life span: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 139(1), 53–

80.

Young, J. T. (2017, March 20). Why colleges lean left. The Washington Times. Retrieved

from https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/20/colleges-show-

liberal-bias/

Zúñiga, X., Nagda, B. R. A., Chesler, M., & Cytron-Walker, A. (2007). Intergroup

Dialogue in Higher Education: Meaningful Learning About Social Justice: ASHE

Higher Education Report, Volume 32, Number 4. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley &

Sons.

170

Chapter 5: Identifying and Addressing Adultism in Higher Education

Unlike other issues that have caught the attention of scholars in the field, it can be difficult to grasp onto a sense of urgency with adultism in higher education and student affairs. What makes adultism an imperative issue to address? The concept may seem inconsequential at first glance, but I have found that once I start talking to people about the work I am doing, the lightbulbs go off and people start to connect past experiences and observations to adultism. While this dissertation has been comprised of many components in its different methodologies, theories, and analyses, the thesis of this concluding chapter is fairly straightforward. Said plainly: it is time to begin acknowledging, identifying, and addressing the issue of adultism for the field of higher education and student affairs. In this chapter, I begin by offering three broad approaches to conceptualizing adultism in higher education and student affairs. Next, I argue for four different ways to address adultism within the profession. Finally, I share my own lessons learned from this dissertation project, and urge readers to continue asking critical questions of adultism within student affairs.

Identifying Adultism

Introducing an unfamiliar concept such as adultism to a scholarly field and profession such as higher education and student affairs can be rather difficult, and it starts by being able to identify and name individual behaviors, events, and systems as adultist.

The three studies in this dissertation dove into specific spheres of higher education - 171 scholarship, professional culture, and student networks – to examine adultism across various spaces and communities. Each study aimed to add unique perspectives on how age and adultism impact people, places, and processes. Here, I will zoom out a bit further and discuss three points of contention that cut across all three studies and ultimately add to the overall consciousness on this topic. I utilize the language of contention because my aim is to explicitly combat normative systems and cultures of adultism within higher education.

Generational Transmission of Knowledge and Adultism

The first point of contention is about the ways that systems of adultism influence and inform the transmission of knowledge across generations. Education has been a vessel for the transmission of knowledge for centuries, if not millennia, whether it is through formal (classrooms) or informal (conversations) means. The process of transmitting knowledge has generally assumed that one party is the holder, and another party is the receiver. From an Eriksonian perspective, one would argue that education is necessary for the survival of the human species (Slater, 2003). In general, education has been perceived as a high social value within most societies, and highly emphasized as a necessity for young people. However, the studies in this dissertation show that there is a generational context and adultist component to this transmission of knowledge.

With a focus on higher education scholarship, Study One demonstrated that the language and concepts utilized in journal articles can be productive and/or harmful. As sources of knowledge, higher education research itself can perpetuate adultist forms of knowledge and influence the knowledge and perspectives of future generations. Scholars

172 not framing traditionally-aged college students as adults serves to reify existing notions of young people being immature and incapable of being taken seriously. Moreover, the utilization of age as a proxy for constructing vulnerable populations can affirm that young people are often in need of advice, as was seen in Study Two. Such a fatalistic perspective on young people can make it nearly impossible for them to be considered for senior-level professional opportunities in higher education, such as faculty, directors, and vice presidents. Young professionals in the field of student affairs will often be cast as individuals who need mentoring and development, which can be disempowering in spaces where they are looking to share their individual knowledge and skills within their roles. Their position as the receiver of transmitted knowledge also socializes them to do the same for those who are younger than them.

In the context of higher education, college students as mostly young people are most likely to bear the burdens of systemic adultism. This was demonstrated in Study

Three, where parents and older relatives have served as reference points for understanding how political beliefs can influence one’s personal relationships. This transmission of knowledge is not one based on scholarship, but one based on socialization. In Harro’s (2013) Cycle of Socialization, the Early Socialization period is when young people are subject to their surrounding environment, which has been predominantly created by adults. When Harro discusses socialization as something that is cyclical, they are really describing generational cycles. Until individuals decide to break norms and assumptions that uphold systemic adultism, these conditions will be passed onto future generations.

173

The Problems with Quantifying Age in Higher Education

The second point of contention I will raise is about the overuse and oversimplification of chronological age in higher education. Age has often been reduced to numerical terms, without the consideration of how it is truly something socially constructed (Mortimer & Moen, 2016). While colleges and universities are not as age- graded as K-12 educational systems in the United States, there are still many issues with the ways that chronological is utilized. This issue was evident across all three studies.

As shown Study One, articles in higher education journals were prone to using differentiating categories of traditionally aged college students and adult students to create discrete populations. Sometimes, these categorizations were explained using chronological age, where traditionally aged college students can range from 18-22, or 18-

24. Meanwhile, adult learners and non-traditional students have been categorized in all sorts of ways (Deutsch & Schmertz, 2011; Gilardi & Guglielmetti, 2011; Johnson &

Nussbaum, 2012). This arbitrary categorization of groups based on chronological age can minimize other important factors, such as personal life experiences. As Johnson and

Nussbaum (2012) found, chronological age is not the only factor that defines nontraditional students. Marital status, whether someone has taken time off from college, and/or whether someone has children are also important factors to consider (Johnson &

Nussbaum, 2012). To only draw upon chronological age oversimplifies age groups and creates artificial differences that may not be reliable for research purposes. Moreover, these categorizations perpetuate socially constructed ideas of who young people and adult learners are, which can lead to age stereotypes and microaggressions.

174

This quantification of age has led to a culture where seniority is also given numerical value. This was shown in the observation field notes included in Study Two, where various new professionals were claiming the number of years they have had as a professional (e.g., first-year professional, third-year professional) The quantification of seniority gives more legitimacy to the notion that certain individuals should be more respected and valued based on the number of years they have done something. I can say with full confidence that years of experience do not always immediately denote good experience, and perpetuates “the idea that maturity is conflated with biological/chronological age” (DeJong, 2014; p. 142). The immediate assumption that one’s chronological age or years of experience can determine a person’s seniority continues to be an issue within the field.

And while age-grading is not as prevalent in higher education as it is in K-12 education, colleges and universities are still recipients of students from that very same K-

12 structure. That context needs to be contemplated with more criticality, especially considering the chronological age sameness of the cohort that participated in Study

Three. When asked about how age affected who they chose to befriend and spend time with, most participants were not entirely sure how to respond. A part of this is likely due to age-grading in K-12 education. Young people are often limited to primarily interacting with others of the same chronological age, which is not something they do because of choice. Educational leaders in the United States have deemed that these age-graded structures provide the most benefit to learning (Hagestad & Uhlenberg, 2006; Shanahan,

2000), but I argue that one of the biggest consequences of such age stratification is

175 sustained generational divides (Binstock, 2010), as Study Two highlighted within the context of the student affairs profession.

Critical Questioning of Adult Power and Authority

Finally, my third point of contention is related to acknowledging the existence of adult power within the field of higher education. To do so, the social actors within an adultist system and culture must be identified, and each of the three studies include such persons. In Study One, the consideration of social practice considers that adults are the creators and arbiters of good research in higher education scholarship. While there are adultist concepts that have been normed within theories and methodologies, it is the consciousness of senior scholars who must be woken in order to begin addressing such ideas. I recognize that while these claims come from my own projection as an early career scholar, journal editorship is a nearly impossible topic to research and critique because most journal editorial boards are closed systems. From my personal perspective, it seems that the few roles that graduate students and young scholars can contribute are as copy editors and administrative support persons.

The same case can be made for the culture of professionalism within student affairs, which has been predominantly defined by senior administrators within the field.

The rules of professionalism may be unwritten, but they are passed along from generation to generation by adults in the profession. This dynamic can be projected onto Harro’s

(2013) Cycle of Socialization, where there are periods of early socialization, institutional/cultural socialization, and reinforcements of adultist norms and behaviors.

New professionals are rewarded for playing by the rules that have been created by well-

176 established individuals in the field. It can be more difficult for young people to question authority within this context, as there is risk of damaging their professional reputation.

However, as Sam (from Study Two) shared during our conversation, “Millennials who are soon to become or move into mid-level positions who will be the ones to change that.” Questioning and disrupting adult power does not need to happen all at once, but a bit at a time.

And finally, Study Three showed that while young people can be politically engaged, it is adults who maintain the political voice and power of these folks. It is professors, administrators, and parents who dictate what is appropriate and inappropriate to discuss within political spheres. It is past generations of adults who created arbitrary laws where young people had to reach a certain chronological age to vote, drive a vehicle, or consume alcohol (Cole, 2015; De Schweinitz, 2015). Young people do not always have a seat at the table when it comes to certain discussions and decisions, but they should also not be taught that “this is just the way it is.” Thus, regardless of the higher education sphere being discussed, it is critical to consider the social actors within the sphere and where the adult power rests.

Addressing Adultism: Implications for Research and Practice on Adultism in

Higher Education and Student Affairs

Because of the wide range of practice and scholarship within higher education and student affairs, it can be difficult to identify where one can start to address systemic and cultural adultism. However, I offer four potential considerations for future research and practice for readers to consider. These are not intended to be comprehensive, but help

177 serve as points of entry for scholars and practitioners to begin engaging with issues of adultism in student affairs.

Incorporate Adultism into Intersectional Work

These studies contribute to the integration of age and adultism in the advancement of social justice education and intersectional scholarship. Extending research utilizing an analytic lens that spotlights adult power helps further develop theoretical grounding for examining systems of ageism and adultism. These oppressive systems can operate in conjunction with other systems of oppression, as demonstrated by Crenshaw’s (1991) concept of intersectionality, which was originally created to acknowledge the systematic ways in which women of color are multiply and uniquely harmed by racism and sexism.

DeJong (2014) reminds scholars that “oppressions are all interconnected and mutually dependent, in that one form of oppression maintains other forms of oppression” (p. 94).

Thus, adding a lens concerned with systemic forms of age oppression and adult power can ultimately contribute to addressing racism, sexism, and other types of oppression by challenging scholars to ask more poignant questions about the oppressive, systemic forces working against young, black and brown girls, how they affect black and brown women in their adult life stage, and how they carry through into elder life stages.

One of the core competencies for social justice and inclusion work calls for individuals to “identify systems of socialization that influence one’s multiple identities and sociopolitical perspectives and how they impact one’s lived experiences” (ACPA &

NASPA, 2015). Individuals who are engaged in social justice education work can also incorporate adultism in classrooms, workshops, and facilitator trainings. Infusing

178 adultism concepts into social justice education adds to individual understandings of identity, and can help people connect with prior personal experiences of adultist behaviors.

Move Beyond Chronological Age

Second, utilizing Generational Intelligence (Biggs, Haapala, & Lowenstein, 2011) as a phenomenological perspective on age can help scholars find more clarity on the element of age in student development and identity development theories. Instead of considering age as simply a chronological construct, Generational Intelligence offers that age can be considered along the three dimensions of social context, family history, and individual experiences. Additionally, age can be incorporated into Jones and McEwen’s

(2000) Model of Multiple Dimensions of Identity (MMDI). A stronger understanding of age identity can help better answer the age-old questions of “Who am I?” A model such as MMDI provides individuals with a way of reflecting on the degree to which age is salient at any given point in their life, and how much individuals consider age to be a core of who they are. Individuals who experience age as a temporally salient part of their identity can have avenues to explore their age identity through increased scholarship and resources for age awareness.

Practitioners can also benefit from thinking about age as more than numbers.

Surveys and assessments can be better designed to capture not only date of birth, but other factors that are correlated with traditional/nontraditional students such as marital status, parental status, or time taken off from school (Johnson & Nussbaum, 2012).

Additionally, practitioners can be more mindful about various ways that they might cater

179 programs and resources to people of differing chronological age groups by considering that pluralism that exists within each group. Finally, trainings on age bias can incorporate multiple conceptions of age to help individuals learn that age oppression is based on more than chronological age.

Emphasize Age Diversity

Third, these studies centering age can help higher education leaders become better-informed in decisions which affect students of different ages in college, particularly at 4-year institutions. As the number of adult learners and non-traditionally aged students enter college continues to grow, higher education becomes more age diverse. Although 2-year institutions have been well-versed in being adaptive to the needs of older students (see Hagedorn, 2014), 4-year institutions still tend to cater to the majority, which are mostly students under the age of 25 (NCES, n.d.). In addition, scholars can join in by acknowledging age or generational differences that might exist within their work. As national and global economies continue to change, it is likely that the trend of older students entering college will increase. Thus, colleges and universities need to be prepared to support these students in their academic, social, and career success.

Academic research on college student social networks can continue to deepen understanding or intergroup relationships across generations. While Study One was able to incorporate scholarship regarding community colleges, it is not always possible. The third study in this dissertation offered such a focus but was limited to the institutional

180 context of it being a large, public institution. Future studies can explore such social relationships within settings such as community colleges.

Foster Intergenerational Communities

Fourth, an increased awareness of age issues, along with increasing age diversity, can lead towards increased intergenerational interaction. Creation of intergenerational programs, such as examples at Ohio State University (agingconnections.osu.edu) and

Virginia Tech (intergenerational.clahs.vt.edu), can offer students the opportunity to interface with age-others who they would likely not connect with under normal circumstances. These spaces are unique in that they offer traditionally aged college students opportunities to engage with children as well as older individuals within the community. Similarly, age can be considered as a potential topic for an intergroup dialogue course, which centers on matters of age difference and helps lessen social divides that may be based on age. Ultimately, increasing education and awareness regarding age issues can help shift attitudes and beliefs about hegemonic adult norms and values.

Lessons Learned

This dissertation has been an enormous learning experience for me as a scholar and a practitioner. The experience of moving through the research process across multiple spheres of higher education has allowed me to gain more knowledge and insight about what the field looks like through a lens of systemic adultism. My senses of observing adultism through noticing words, images, videos, behaviors, and any other form of communication has heightened beyond what I imagined it would be. Much of

181 this can be attributed to my experience with Study One, where I combed through texts and meanings of higher education scholars with a critical lens of adultism.

Beyond my scholarly gains, I also find myself a different person than when I started this process. I was surprised to find myself so immersed in this research that I have trouble taking the researcher hat off. For example, I recently found myself sharing a space with someone who is considered a well-established senior scholar within the field of higher education. In a previous version of myself, I would have been very eager to make conversation with this person, share about the research I am doing, and tap them for their wisdom and knowledge.

But my experience in Study Two has changed all of that for me. I am now hyper- conscious about social norms and expectations of what I role I should play as an “early career scholar” and how I should interact with “senior scholars” within the field. This is not to say that I do not hold admiration or respect for those who are older or have more experience than me. After all, respecting elders is one of the cultural traditions I grew up with in a Vietnamese household. However, I find myself uncomfortable with fulfilling age norms and stereotypes, and more suspicious than ever about how adult power affects spaces that I am in.

Additionally, this process has tested and challenged my political positionalities, particularly when it came to interviews with conservative students in Study Three. I remember the physiological sensations of sitting down with students who spoke well of

Donald Trump, and trying to keep an empathetic expression while listening attentively to what they shared with me. I wonder if I did this almost too well, as one of the students

182 felt compelled to ask me about my political beliefs at the end of the interview. It was a liberal student, and they were wondering if I might have identified as conservative and was afraid that they were offending me with what they were sharing during the interview.

That was surprising to me, because I thought that my liberal ideologies might come through in the research process.

Finally, there has been the perpetual process of conveying and sharing my research with others. As I have continued to engage with others on topics of age identity and adultism, I have come to realize how deeply this topic affects individuals and communities. This has been especially true when I have shared my work in spaces with many graduate students and new professionals. There is usually an immediate connection that people are able to make to the topic, and a sense of emotional energy and vigor that people speak with when they start to verbalize their experiences. Even when I have shared with older individuals, there is a sense of empathy and understanding – usually based on their own past experiences with adultism. The more I have shared this work with others, the more potential I have found for this topic to affect change in the field of higher education and student affairs.

The Future of Research and Practice on Age

I believe that questions are the true value of scholarship, and my hope is that this dissertation leaves readers with more questions than answers. While the results in these three studies offer more definition in understanding adultism in higher education, they are truly intended to be windows of opportunities for further research. Each one of the findings could truly be their own unique research study. And if there are individuals who

183 have become more conscious about adultism and feel more compelled to join in disrupting adultist systems and cultures, then I invite them to join in on this effort.

184

References

American College Personnel Association, & National Association of Student Personnel

Administrators. (2015). Professional competency areas for student affairs

educators. Professional Competencies Task Force. Washington, DC: Author.

Biggs, S., Haapala, I., & Lowenstein, A. (2011). Exploring generational intelligence as a

model for examining the process of intergenerational relationships. Ageing and

Society, 31(7), 1107–1124. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X10000978

Binstock, R. H. (2010). From compassionate ageism to intergenerational conflict? The

Gerontologist, 50(5), 574–85. http://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnq056

Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and

violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299.

Cole, T. (2015). “Old enough to live”: Age, alcohol, and adulthood in the United States,

1970 – 1984. In C. T. Field & N. L. Syrett (Eds.) Age in America: The Colonial

era to the present. (pp. 237 – 258). New York, NY: NYU Press.

De Schweinitz, R. (2015). “The proper age for suffrage”: Vote 18 and the politics of age

from World War II to the age of Aquarius. In C. T. Field & N. L. Syrett (Eds.)

Age in America: The Colonial era to the present. (pp. 209 – 236). New York,

NY: NYU Press.

DeJong, K. L. (2014). On being and becoming: An exploration of young people’s

experiences with status and power (Doctoral dissertation). University of

Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.

185

Deutsch, N. L., & Schmertz, B. (2011). “Starting from ground zero:” Constraints and

experiences of adult women returning to college. The Review of Higher

Education, 34(3), 477–504. http://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2011.0002

Gilardi, S., & Guglielmetti, C. (2011). University life of non-traditional students:

engagement styles and impact on attrition. The Journal of Higher Education,

82(1), 33–53. http://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2011.0005

Hagedorn, L. S. (2014). Engaging returning adult learners in community colleges. In S. J.

Quaye & S. R. Harper (Eds.), Student Engagement in Higher Education:

Theoretical Perspectives and Practical Approaches for Diverse Populations (pp.

307–321). New York, NY: Routledge.

Hagestad, G. O., & Uhlenberg, P. (2005). The social separation of old and young: A root

of ageism. Journal of Social Issues, 61(2), 343–360.

http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2005.00409.x

Harro, B. (2013). The cycle of socialization. In M. Adams, W. J. Blumenfeld, C.

Castañeda, H. W. Hackman, M. L. Peters, & X. Zúñiga (Eds.), Readings for

Diversity and Social Justice (3rd ed.) (pp. 45 - 56). New York, NY: Routledge.

Johnson, M. L., & Nussbaum, E. M. (2012). Achievement goals and coping strategies:

Identifying the traditional/nontraditional students who use them. Journal of

College Student Development, 53(1), 41–54. http://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2012.0002

Jones, S. R., & McEwen, M. K. (2000). A conceptual model of multiple dimensions of

identity. Journal of College Student Development, 41(4), 405–414.

186

Mortimer, J. T. & Moen, P. (2016). The changing social construction of age and the life

course: Precarious identity and enactment of “early” and “encore” stages of

adulthood. In M.J. Shanahan, J. T. Mortimer, & M. K. Johnson (eds.) Handbook

of the Life Course (pp. 111-129). Switzerland: Springer.

National Center for Education Statistics (n.d.). Characteristics of postsecondary students.

Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_csb.asp.

Shanahan, M. J. (2000). Pathways to adulthood in changing societies: Variability and

mechanisms in life course perspective. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 667–692.

Slater, C. L. (2003). Generativity versus stagnation: An elaboration of Erikson’s adult

stage of human development. Journal of Adult Development, 10(1), 53–65.

http://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020790820868

187

References

Abes, E. S. (2009). Theoretical borderlands: Using multiple theoretical perspectives to challenge inequitable power structures in student development theory. Journal of College Student Development, 50(2), 141–156.

Abes, E. S., & Hernandez, E. (2016). Critical and poststructural perspectives on development toward self-authorship. In E. S. Abes (Ed.), Critical perspectives on student development. New Directions for Student Services (pp. 97–108). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Allport, G. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

American College Personnel Association, & National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. (2010). Professional competency areas for student affairs educators. Professional Competencies Task Force. Washington, DC: Author.

American College Personnel Association, & National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. (2015). Professional competency areas for student affairs educators. Professional Competencies Task Force. Washington, DC: Author.

Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55(5), 469–480.

Arnett, J. J. (2014). Emerging adulthood: The winding road from the late teens through the twenties. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Atlasti.com (n.d.). ATLAS.ti: The qualitative data analysis & research software. Retrieved January 31, 2017 from http://atlasti.com/.

Ayers, D. F. (2005). Neoliberal ideology in community college mission statements: A critical discourse analysis. The Review of Higher Education, 28(4), 527–549.

Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2001). Making their own way: Narratives for transforming higher education to promote self-development. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2009). The activity of meaning making: A holistic perspective on college student development. Journal of College Student Development, 50(6), 621–639. 188

Baxter Magolda, M. B., & King, P. M. (2007). Interview strategies for assessing self- authorship: Constructing conversations to assess meaning making. Journal of College Student Development, 48(5), 491-508.

Baxter Magolda, M. B., King, P. M., Taylor, K. B., & Wakefield, K. M. (2012). Decreasing authority dependence during the first year of college. Journal of College Student Development, 53(3), 418–435.

Barak, B. (1979). Cognitive reference age among the elderly: A new concept for marketing (Doctoral dissertation, City University of New York).

Barak, B. (2009). Age identity: A cross-cultural global approach. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 33(1), 2–11.

Barrett, A. E. (2005). Gendered experiences in midlife: Implications for age identity. Journal of Aging Studies, 19(2), 163–183.

Beck, J. (2016, January 5). When are you really an adult? The Atlantic. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/01/when-are-you-really-an- adult/422487/

Bensimon, E. M. (2005). Closing the achievement gap in higher education: An organizational learning Perspective. New Directions for Higher Education, 2005(131), 99-111.

Biggs, S., & Lowenstein, A. (2011). Generational intelligence: A critical approach to age relations. London, England: Routledge.

Biggs, S., Haapala, I., & Lowenstein, A. (2011). Exploring generational intelligence as a model for examining the process of intergenerational relationships. Ageing and Society, 31(07), 1107–1124.

Binstock, R. H. (2010). From compassionate ageism to intergenerational conflict? The Gerontologist, 50(5), 574–85. http://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnq056

Bishop, B. (2009). The big sort: Why the clustering of like-minded America is tearing us apart. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Blommaert, J., & Bulcaen, C. (2000). Critical discourse analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology, 29, 447–466.

Bray, N. J., & Major, C. H. (2011). Status of journals in the field of higher education. The Journal of Higher Education, 82(4), 479–503. 189

Brown, P. G. (2015, March 24). Listening in on and making sense of the NASPA Yik Yak backchannel at #NASPA 15 #YY15 (Blog post). Retrieved from https://paulgordonbrown.com/2015/03/24/listening-in-on-and-making-sense-of- the-naspa-yikyak-backchannel-at-naspa15/.

Bowman, N. A. (2012). Structural diversity and close interracial relationships in college. Educational Researcher, 41(4), 133–135.

Bowman, N. A., & Park, J. J. (2014). Interracial contact on college campuses: Comparing and contrasting predictors of cross-racial interaction and interracial friendship. The Journal of Higher Education, 85(5), 660–690.

Bureau, D. A. (2011). “Making them my own”: Student affairs master’s students socialization to professional values (Doctoral dissertation). Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana.

Buckley, J. B., & Quaye, S. J. (2016). A vision of social justice in intergroup dialogue. Race Ethnicity and Education, 19(5), 1117-1139.

Burkhard, A. W., Cole, D. C., Ott, M., & Stoflet, T. (2005). Entry-level competencies of new student affairs professionals: A Delphi study. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 42(3).

Carpenter, S., & Stimpson, M. T. (2007). Professionalism, scholarly practice, and professional development in student affairs. NASPA Journal, 44(2), 265–284.

Carrington, P. J., & Scott, J. (2011). Introduction. In J. Scott & P. J. Carrington (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Social Network Analysis (pp. 1–8). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

Chernow, E. K., Cooper, D. L., & Winston, R. B. (2003). Professional association involvement of student affairs professionals. NASPA Journal, 40(2), 43-58.

Christakis, N. A., & Fowler, J. H. (2007). The spread of obesity in a large social network over 32 years. New England Journal of Medicine, 357(4), 370-379.

Clarke, C. G., & Antonio, A. L. (2012). Rethinking research on the impact of racial diversity in higher education. The Review of Higher Education, 36(1), 25–50.

Colleoni, E., Rozza, A., & Arvidsson, A. (2014). Echo chamber or public sphere? Predicting political orientation and measuring political homophily in twitter using big data. Journal of Communication, 64(2005), 317–332. http://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12084 190

Coulter, C. A., & Smith, M. L. (2009). The construction zone: Literary elements in narrative research. Educational Researcher, 38(8), 577–590.

Creamer, E. G. (1994). Gender and publications in core higher education journals. Journal of College Student Development, 35(1980), 35–39.

Clandinin, D. J. & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Cole, T. (2015). “Old enough to live”: Age, alcohol, and adulthood in the United States, 1970 – 1984. In C. T. Field & N. L. Syrett (Eds.) Age in America: The Colonial era to the present. (pp. 237 – 258). New York, NY: NYU Press.

Cottle, N. R., & Glover, R. J. (2007). Combating ageism: Change in student knowledge and attitudes regarding Aging. Educational Gerontology, 33(6), 501–512. http://doi.org/10.1080/03601270701328318

Coulter, C. A., & Smith, M. L. (2009). The construction zone: Literary elements in narrative research. Educational Researcher, 38(8), 577–590.

Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education (2015). CAS professional standards for higher education. 9th Edition. J. B. Wells (Ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Day, B. W., Lovato, S., Tull, C., & Ross-Gordon, J. (2011). Faculty perceptions of adult learners in college classrooms. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 59(2), 77–84. de Schweinitz, R. (2015). “The proper age for suffrage”: Vote 18 and the politics of age from World War II to the age of Aquarius. In C. T. Field & N. L. Syrett (Eds.) Age in America: The Colonial era to the present. (pp. 209 – 236). New York, NY: NYU Press.

DeJong, K. L. (2014). On being and becoming: An exploration of young people’s experiences with status and power (Doctoral Dissertation). University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.

Deutsch, N. L., & Schmertz, B. (2011). “Starting from ground zero:” Constraints and experiences of adult women returning to college. The Review of Higher Education, 34(3), 477–504. http://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2011.0002 191

Dickerson, A. M., Hoffman, J. L., Anan, B. P., Brown, K. F., Vong, L. K., & Bresciani, M. J. (2011). A comparison of senior student affairs officer and student affairs preparatory program faculty expectations of entry-level professional’s competencies. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 48(4), 463–479.

Donaldson, J. F., & Townsend, B. K. (2007). Higher education journals’ discourse about adult undergraduate students. The Journal of Higher Education, 78(1), 27–50.

Donaldson, M. (1993). What is hegemonic masculinity? Theory and Society, 22(5), 643– 657.

Dong, Y., Lizardo, O., & Chawla, N. V. (2016). Do the young live in a “smaller world” than the old? Age-specific degrees of separation in a large-scale mobile communication network. ARXIV, 1–8. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1606.07556

Dunbar, R. (1998). The social brain hypothesis. Evolutionary Anthropology, 6(1), 178– 190.

Eagan, K., Stolzenberg, E. B., Zimmerman, H. B., Aragon, M. C., Sayson, H. W., Rios- Aguilar, C. (2016). The American freshman: National norms fall 2016. Cooperative Institutional Research Program. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/sites/default/server_files/files/TheAmericanFres hman2016PREPUB.pdf

Eaton, P. W. (2015). #Becoming: Emergent identity of college students in the digital age examined through complexivist epistemologies (Unpublished dissertation). Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA.

Elder, G. H. (1975). Age differentiation and the life course. Annual Review of Sociology, 1(1975), 165–190.

Elder, G. H. (1994). Time, human agency, and social change: Perspective on the life course. Social Psychology Quarterly, 57(1), 4–15.

Elder, G. H. (1998). The life course as developmental theory. Child Development, 69(1), 1–12.

Elder, G. H., & Giele, J. Z. (2009). Life course studies: An evolving field. In G. H. Elder & J. Z. Giele (Eds.) The Craft of Life Course Research (pp. 1–24). Guilford Publications.

192

Elder, G. H., Johnson, M. K., & Crosnoe, R. (2003). The emergence and development of life course theory. In J. T. Mortimer & M. J. Shanahan (Eds.), Handbook of the Life Course (pp. 3–19). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

Espinoza, C., Ukleja, M., & Rusch, C. (2010. Managing the Millennials: Discover the core competencies for managing today’s workforce. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Son.s

Estanek, S. M., Herdlein, R., & Harris, J. (2011). Preparation of new professionals and mission driven hiring practices: A survey of senior student affairs officers at Catholic colleges and universities. College Student Affairs Journal, 29(2), 151– 163.

Fairclough, N. (1992a). Discourse and social change. Malden, MA: Polity Press.

Fairclough, N. (1992b). Intertextuality in critical discourse analysis. Linguistics and Education, 4(3–4), 269–293.

Fairclough, N. (1993). Critical discourse analysis and the marketization of public discourse: The universities. Discourse & Society, 4(2), 133–1.

Fasching-Varner, K. J., Albert, K. A., Mitchell, R. W., & Allen, C. (Eds.) (2014). Racial battle fatigue in higher education: Exposing the myth of post-racial America. London, England: Rowman & Littlefield.

Field, C. T. & Syrett, N. L. (2015). Age in America: The Colonial era to the present. New York, NY: New York University Press.

Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge. London, England: Tavistock.

Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings by Michael Foucault, 1972-1977 (C. Gordon, Ed. & trans.). New York, NY: Routledge.

Foucault, M. (1981). History of sexuality, vol. 1. Harmondsworth: Penguin books.

Frank, T. E. (2013). Why do they leave? Departure from the student affairs profession (Doctoral dissertation). Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA.

Garibay, J. C., Herrera, F. A., Johnston-Guerrero, M. P., & Garcia, G. A. (2016). Layers of influence: Exploring institutional- and state-level effects on college student views toward access to public education for undocumented Immigrants. Research in Higher Education, 57(5), 601–629. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-015-9400-0 193

Gerber, E. R., Henry, A. D., & Lubell, M. (2013). Political homophily and collaboration in regional planning networks. American Journal of Political Science, 57(3), 598– 610.

Gilardi, S., & Guglielmetti, C. (2011). University life of non-traditional students: engagement styles and impact on attrition. The Journal of Higher Education, 82(1), 33–53. http://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2011.0005

Godley, J. (2008). Preference or propinquity? The relative contribution of selection and opportunity to friendship homophily in college. Connections, 1(403), 65–80.

Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks (Q. Hoare & G. Smith, trans.). London, England: Lawrence and Wishart.

Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380.

Granovetter, M. S. (1983). The strengths of weak ties: A network theory revisited. Sociological Theory, 1(1), 201–233.

Grisso, T., Steinberg, L., Woolard, J., Cauffman, E., Scott, E., Graham, S., … Schwartz, R. (2003). Juveniles’ competence to stand trial: A comparison of adolescents’ and adults’ capacities as trial defendants. Law and Human Behavior, 27(4), 333–363.

Gurin, P., Nagda, B. R. A., & Zuniga, X. (2013). Dialogue across difference: Practice, theory, and research on intergroup dialogue. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

Hagedorn, L. S. (2014). Engaging returning adult learners in community colleges. In S. J. Quaye & S. R. Harper (Eds.), Student Engagement in Higher Education: Theoretical Perspectives and Practical Approaches for Diverse Populations (pp. 307–321). New York, NY: Routledge.

Hagestad, G. O., & Uhlenberg, P. (2005). The social separation of old and young: A root of ageism. Journal of Social Issues, 61(2), 343–360.

Hagestad, G. O., & Uhlenberg, P. (2006). Should we be concerned about age segregation? Some theoretical and empirical explorations. Research on Aging, 28(6), 638–653.

Hall, M. R. (2014). Job one 2.0: The new generation. In P. M. Magolda & J. E. Carnaghi Job One 2.0: Understanding the next generation of student affairs professionals (Second edition). Lanham, MD: University Press of America. 194

Harper, S. R. (2012). Race without racism: How higher education researchers minimize racist institutional norms. The Review of Higher Education, 36(1S), 9–29.

Harro, B. (2013). The cycle of socialization. In M. Adams, W. J. Blumenfeld, C. Castañeda, H. W. Hackman, M. L. Peters, & X. Zúñiga (Eds.), Readings for Diversity and Social Justice (3rd ed.) (pp. 45 - 56). New York, NY: Routledge.

Herdlein III, R. J. (2004). Survey of chief student affairs officers regarding relevance of graduate preparation programs. NASPA Journal, 42(1), 51-71.

Hill, R. A., & Dunbar, R. (2003). Social network size in humans. Human Nature, 14(1), 53–72.

Hirt, J. (2006). Where you work matters: Student affairs administration at different types of institutions. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Hoefle, S. N. (2014). Engaging differences of religious belief: Student experiences with an intergroup dialogue course (Unpublished dissertation). Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH.

Hogan, B., Carrasco, J. A., & Wellman, B. (2007). Visualizing personal networks: Working with participant-aided sociograms. Field Methods, 19(2), 116–144.

Hollstein, B. (2011). Qualitative approaches. In J. Scott & P. J. Carrington (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Social Network Analysis (pp. 404–416). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

Huber, G., & Malhotra, N. (2013). Dimensions of political homophily: Isolating choice homophily along political characteristics. Working Paper.

Hutchinson, S. R., & Lovell, C. D. (2004). A review of methodological characteristics of research published in key journals in higher education: Implications for graduate research training. Research in Higher Education, 45(4), 383–403.

Jackson, A.Y. & Mazzei, L.A. (2012). Thinking with theory in qualitative research: Viewing data across multiple perspectives. New York, NY: Routledge.

Jameson, M. M., & Fusco, B. R. (2014). Math anxiety, math self-concept, and math self- efficacy in adult learners compared to traditional undergraduate students. Adult Education Quarterly, 64(4), 306–322.

195

Janosik, S. M. (2009). Professional associations and socialization. In A. Tull, J.B. Hirt, & S.A. Saunders (Eds.), Becoming Socialized in Student Affairs Administration (pp.194-214). Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Janosik, S. M., Carpenter, S., & Creamer, D. G. (2006). Intentional professional development: Feedback from student affairs professionals. NASPA Journal, 43(4), 127-146.

Johnson, V. K., Gans, S. E., Kerr, S., & LaValle, W. (2010). Managing the transition to college: Family functioning, emotion coping, and adjustment in emerging adulthood. Journal of College Student Development, 51(6), 607–621.

Johnson, M. L., & Nussbaum, E. M. (2012). Achievement goals and coping strategies: Identifying the traditional/nontraditional students who use them. Journal of College Student Development, 53(1), 41–54. http://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2012.0002

Johnston-Guerrero, M. P. (2017). The (mis)uses of race in research on college students: A systematic review. Journal Committed to Social Change on Race and Ethnicity (JCSCORE), 3(1), 6-41.

Jones, S. R., & McEwen, M. K. (2000). A conceptual model of multiple dimensions of identity. Journal of College Student Development, 41(4), 405–414.

Jones, S. R., & Stewart, D. (2016). Evolution of student development theory. In E. S. Abes (Ed.) Critical perspectives on student development (new directions for student services, no. 154, pp. 17–28). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Jones, S. R., Torres, V., & Arminio, J. (2014). Negotiating the complexities of qualitative research in higher education: Fundamental elements and issues (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

Josselson, R. (1996). Revising herself: The story of women’s identity from college to midlife. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Junco, R. (2014). Engaging students through social media: Evidence‐based practices for use in student affairs. San Francisco, CA: Jossey‐Bass.

Justice, E. M., & Dornan, T. M. (2001). Metacognitive differences between traditional- age and nontraditional-age college students. Adult Education Quarterly, 51(3), 236–249.

Kalmijn, M., & Vermunt, J. K. (2007). Homogeneity of social networks by age and marital status: A multilevel analysis of ego-centered networks. Social Networks, 29(1), 25–43. 196

Kasworm, C. (1990). Adult undergraduates in higher education: A review of past research perspectives. Review of Educational Research, 60(3), 345–372.

Kerbs, J. J., & Jolley, J. M. (2008). A commentary on age segregation for older prisoners: Philosophical and pragmatic considerations for correctional systems. Criminal Justice Review, 34(1), 119–139.

Kezar, A., & Eckel, P. D. (2002). The effect of institutional culture on change strategies in higher education: Universal principles or culturally responsive concepts? The Journal of Higher Education, 73(4), 435-460.

Knowles, M. (1973). The adult learner: A neglected species. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing Company.

Kristeva, J. (1986). Word, dialogue and novel. In T. Moi (Ed.), The Krisfeva reader. Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell.

Kuh, G. D., & Ewell, P. T. (2010). The state of learning outcomes assessment in the United States. Higher Education Management and Policy, 22(1), 9–28.

Leenaars, L., & Lester, D. (2011). Indirect aggression and victimization are positively associated in emerging adulthood: The psychological functioning of indirect aggressors and victims. Journal of College Student Development, 52(1), 62–76.

Liddell, D. L., Wilson, M. E., Pasquesi, K., Hirschy, A. S., & Boyle, K. M. (2014). Development of professional identity through socialization in graduate school. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 51(1), 69–84.

Lincoln. Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 22 1-240.

MacLure, M. (2003). Discourse in educational and social research. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.

Marin, B. A., & Wellman, B. (2011). Social network analysis: An introduction. In J. Scott & P. J. Carrington (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Social Network Analysis (pp. 11–25). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Markert, J. (2004). Demographics of age: Generational and cohort confusion. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 26(2), 11–25.

197

Maxwell, K. E., Nagda, B. R., & Thompson, M. C. (2012). Facilitating intergroup dialogues: Bridging differences, catalyzing change. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, LLC.

McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415–444.

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Miller, V., Fleming, R., & Reed, S. (2013). Mapping the early college research literature. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 37(9), 664–676.

Molinero, A. B., & Pereira, R. C. (2013). Professional identity construction in higher education: A conceptual framework of the influencing factors and research agenda. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, 78(6), 1176– 1181.

Montepare, J. M. (2009). Subjective age: Toward a guiding lifespan framework. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 33(1), 42–46.

Mortimer, J. T. & Moen, P. (2016). The changing social construction of age and the life course: Precarious identity and enactment of “early” and “encore” stages of adulthood. In M.J. Shanahan, J. T. Mortimer, & M. K. Johnson (eds.) Handbook of the Life Course (pp. 111-129). Switzerland: Springer.

Museus, S. D., & Maramba, D. C. (2010). The impact of culture on Filipino American students’ sense of belonging. The Review of Higher Education, 34(2), 231–258.

National Center for Education Statistics (n.d.). Characteristics of postsecondary students. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_csb.asp.

National Center for Education Statistics (n.d.). Fast facts. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=89.

Nelson, L. J., & Barry, C. (2005). Distinguishing features of emerging adulthood: The role of self-classification as an adult. Journal of Adolescent Research, 20(2), 242– 262.

Ó Riain, S. (2009). Extending the ethnographic case study. In D. Byrne & C. Ragin (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Case-Based Methods (pp. 289–307). London, England: SAGE Publications Ltd.

198

Orfield, G., & Lee, C. (2005). Why segregation matters: Poverty and educational inequality. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University.

Orfield, G., & Lee, C. (2006). Racial transformation and the changing nature of segregation. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University.

Pascarella, E., & Terenzini, P. (2005). How college affects students (Vol. II): A third decade of research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Patton, L. D., & Catching, C. (2009). “Teaching while Black”: Narratives of African American student affairs faculty. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 22(6), 713–728.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Perez, R. J. (2015). A conceptual model of professional socialization within student affairs graduate preparation programs. Journal for the Study of Postsecondary and Tertiary Education, 1, 35-52.

Peterson, R. A. (2001). On the use of college students in social science research: Insights from a second order meta-analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(3), 450– 61.

Petri, A. (2014). The death of adulthood? Yes, please. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/wp/2014/09/11/the-death- of-adulthood-yes-please/

Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual review of psychology, 49(1), 65-85.

Polkinghorne, D. E. (1995). Narrative configuration in qualitative analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 8(1), 5–23.

Price, S. (2017, August 5). Why helping others is key to accelerating your career. Huffington Post. Retrieved from https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/why- helping-others-is-key-to-accelerating-your- career_us_598dbe1ce4b0caa1687a5f71

Putnam, R. D. (2007). E pluribus unum: Diversity and community in the twenty‐first century the 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture. Scandinavian Political Studies, 30(2), 137-174.

199

Renn, K. A., & Hodges, J. P. (2007). The first year on the job: Experiences of new professionals in student affairs. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 44(2), 367–392.

Reynolds, A. L. (2011). Helping competencies of student affairs professionals: A delphi study. Journal of College Student Development, 52(3), 362–369.

Rivers, C. M., & Lewis, B. L. (2014). Ethical research standards in a world of big data. F1000Research, 3(38). Retrieved from https://f1000research.com/articles/3- 38

Roberts, D. M. (2007). Preferred methods of professional development in student affairs. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 44(3), 561–577.

Robinson, A. (2015, March 24). On NASPA, Yik Yak, and perhaps what really matters (Blog post). Retrieved from https://ashleynrobinson.com/2015/03/24/on-naspa- yik-yak-and-perhaps-what-really-matters/.

Rogers, R., Malancharuvil-berkes, E., Mosley, M., Hui, D., Joseph, O. G., & Joseph, G. O. G. (2005). Critical discourse analysis in education: A review of the literature. Educational Research, 75(3), 365–416.

Saenz, V. B. (2010). Breaking the segregation cycle: Examining students’ precollege racial environments and college diversity experiences. Review of Higher Education, 34, 1–37.

Saenz, V. B., Ngai, H. N., & Hurtado, S. (2007). Factors influencing positive interactions across race for African American, Asian American, Latino, and White college students. Research in Higher Education, 48, 1–38.

Schafer, M. H., & Shippee, T. P. (2010). Age identity in context: Stress and the subjective side of aging. Social Psychology Quarterly, 73(3), 245–264.

Settersten, R. A., & Mayer, K. U. (1997). The measurement of age, age structuring, and the life course. Annual Review of Sociology, 23, 233–261.

Shanahan, M. J. (2000). Pathways to adulthood in changing societies: Variability and mechanisms in life course perspective. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 667–692.

Sidanius, J., Van Laar, C., Levin, S., & Sinclair, S. (2004). Ethnic enclaves and the dynamics of social identity on the college campus: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(1), 96–110.

200

Silberman, C. (1970). Crisis in the Classroom: The Remaking of American Education. New York, NY: Random House

Simpson, B., Brashears, M., Gladstone, E., & Harrell, A. (2014). Birds of different feathers cooperate together: No evidence for altruism homophily in networks. Sociological Science, 1(December), 542–564.

Slater, C. L. (2003). Generativity versus stagnation: An elaboration of Erikson’s adult stage of human d. Journal of Adult Development, 10(1), 53–65.

Smith, M. W. (2009). Comments on Coulter and Smith: The issue of authorial surplus in narrative research. Educational Researcher, 38(8), 603–607.

Smith, J. A., McPherson, M., & Smith-Lovin, L. (2014). Social distance in the United States: Sex, race, religion, age, and education homophily among confidants, 1985 to 2004. American Sociological Review, 79(3), 432–456.

Statista (2017). Distribution of Twitter users in the United States as of December 2016, by age group. Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/statistics/192703/age- distribution-of-users-on-twitter-in-the-united-states/

Stephan, Y., Sutin, A. R., & Terracciano, A. (2015). How old do you feel? The role of age discrimination and biological aging in subjective age. PloS One, 10(3), 1-12.

Suspitsyna, T. (2012). Higher education for economic advancement and engaged citizenship: An analysis of the U.S. Department of Education discourse. The Journal of Higher Education, 83(1), 49–72.

Syed, M., & Juan, M. J. D. (2012). Birds of an ethnic feather? Ethnic identity homophily among college-age friends. Journal of Adolescence, 35(6), 1505–1514.

Tatum, B. (2003). Why are all the black kids sitting together in the cafeteria? And other conversations about race (Revised edition). New York, NY: Basic Books.

Taylor, K. B. (2017). Contextualizing how undergraduate students develop toward critical consciousness (Doctoral Dissertation). The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.

Tran, V. T. & Wong, J. D. (2016). Collecting, Counting, Describing, and Analyzing Age Data: A Content Analysis of Age Data in U.S. Higher Education Research. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Educational Studies, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.

201

Tull, A. (2006). Synergistic supervision, job satisfaction, and intention to turnover of new professionals in student affairs. Journal of College Student Development, 47(4), 465–480.

Tull, A., Hirt, J. B. & Saunders, S. (Eds.) (2009). Becoming socialized in student affairs administration: A guide for new professionals and their supervisors. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

University of Michigan Libraries (n.d.). Michigan’s story: The history of race at U-M. Retrieved from https://www.lib.umich.edu/online-exhibits/exhibits/show/history- of-race-at-um/diversity-in-student-life/activism

Urick, M. J. (2013). Intergenerational interactions in organizations: A grounded theory examination (Unpublished dissertation). University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH.

Van Der Vegt, G. S., & Bunderson, J. S. (2005). Learning and performance in multidisciplinary teams: The importance of collective team identification. Academy of Management Journal, 48(3), 532-547.

Weerts, D. J., Cabrera, A. F., & Mejías, P. P. (2014). Uncovering categories of civically engaged college students: A Latent class analysis. The Review of Higher Education, 37(2), 141–168.

Whitbourne, S. K., & VanManen, K.-J. W. (1996). Age differences in and correlates of identity status from college through middle adulthood. Journal of Adult Development, 3(2), 59–70.

Whitbourne, S. K., & Whitbourne, S. B. (Eds.) (2014). Themes and issues in adult development and aging. In Adult Development & Aging: Biopsychosocial Perspectives (pp. 1–18). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Wrzus, C., Hanel, M., Wagner, J., & Neyer, F. J. (2013). Social network changes and life events across the life span: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 139(1), 53– 80.

Yin, R. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Young, J. T. (2017, March 20). Why colleges lean left. The Washington Times. Retrieved from https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/20/colleges-show- liberal-bias/

Zúñiga, X., Nagda, B. R. A., Chesler, M., & Cytron-Walker, A. (2007). Intergroup Dialogue in Higher Education: Meaningful Learning About Social Justice: ASHE

202

Higher Education Report, Volume 32, Number 4. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

203

Appendix A: Articles Including Adult Terms in Title

Clark, L. (2012). When nontraditional is traditional: A faculty dialogue with graduating community college students about persistence. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 36(7), 511–519.

Cox, E. M., & Ebbers, L. H. (2010). Exploring the persistence of adult women at a Midwest community college. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 34(4), 337–359.

Cruce, T. M., & Hillman, N. W. (2012). Preparing for the silver tsunami: The demand for higher education among older adults. Research in Higher Education, 53(6), 593– 613.

Cullaty, B. (2011). The role of parental involvement in the autonomy development of traditional-age college students. Journal of College Student Development, 52(4), 425–439.

Deutsch, N. L., & Schmertz, B. (2011). “Starting from ground zero:” Constraints and experiences of adult women returning to college. The Review of Higher Education, 34(3), 477–504.

Gilardi, S., & Guglielmetti, C. (2011). University life of non-traditional students: engagement styles and impact on attrition. The Journal of Higher Education, 82(1), 33–53.

Johnson, V. K., Gans, S. E., Kerr, S., & LaValle, W. (2010). Managing the transition to college: Family functioning, emotion coping, and adjustment in Emerging Adulthood. Journal of College Student Development, 51(6), 607–621.

Leenaars, L., & Lester, D. (2011). Indirect aggression and victimization are positive associated in Emerging Adulthood: The psychological functioning of indirect aggressors and victims. Journal of College Student Development, 52(1), 62–76.

Titus, M. a., & Pusser, B. (2011). States’ potential enrollment of adult students: A stochastic frontier analysis. Research in Higher Education, 52(6), 555–571.

204

Wilsey, S. A. (2013). Comparisons of adult and traditional college-age student mothers: Reasons for college enrollment and views of how enrollment affects children. Journal of College Student Development, 54(2), 209–214.

205

Appendix B: Documented Observation Schedule

Time Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday 9:00am 9:30am Job placement Session 10:00am Breakfast 10:30am Lobby 11:00am Candidate Session Session Closing Speaker 11:30am workroom 12:00pm Field notes Break Lunch 12:30pm 1:00pm Break Session 1:30pm 2:00pm Featured Session 2:30pm Speaker 3:00pm Break 3:30pm Lobby Session 4:00pm First-time 4:30pm attendee Featured Break orientation Speaker 5:00pm Break 5:30pm Break 6:00pm Opening Speaker 6:30pm 7:00pm Dinner 7:30pm 8:00pm Opening Dinner Socials 8:30pm reception 9:00pm Socials 9:30pm 10:00pm Socials 10:30pm 11:00pm 11:30pm

206

Appendix C: Ethnographic Case Study Interview Protocol

Introduction & Background Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to sit down and talk with me about your experience at #CONF this year. The purpose of this study is to explore the ways that professionalism and adult behavior are enacted within student affairs. Please keep in mind that anything discussed during this interview is completely confidential, and that you will have the opportunity to select a pseudonym at the end of this conversation.

Guiding Questions 1. Background information • Tell me a little bit about yourself. Where did you grow up? Where did you go to school? What is your current role? What brought you into student affairs? What do you hope to do professionally in the future? • How many #CONF conferences have you attended prior to this one? Do you attend other conferences?

2. Past messages about professional and adult behavior in student affairs: • Who do you go to when seeking professional advice? • What are some “dos” and “don’ts” that you have been taught regarding professional behavior? • What types of rules do you follow in regard to professionalism in student affairs? • What have you learned through your classes regarding professionalism? • What have you learned through supervisors, peers, and others across the university? • What have you observed regarding professionalism on social media? • Do you believe that other students, staff, and faculty regard you as someone who is professional? Why or why not?

3. Professional and adult behavior at #CONF: • How would you describe the culture of #CONF? Dress? Language? Behavior? How does this culture compare to the larger culture of the student affairs profession? • Did you observe any behavior that you would deem “unacceptable” at this past conference? • What did you notice about the behavior of others based on different situations at the conference? Major speakers? Educational programs? Receptions? Social media? • What was the role of alcohol at the conference? • Were there differences in professional behavior based on race? Gender? Sexual orientation? Age?

207

• Do you believe that other conference attendees regarded you as someone who is professional? Why or why not?

Closing • Those are all the questions I have for you. Is there anything else that you’d like to add? • And are there any questions that you’d like to ask me?

208

Appendix D: Social Network Analysis Interview Protocol

Introduction & Background Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to participate in this interview. The purpose of this study is to understand the ways that different factors affect social relationships of college students. Please keep in mind that anything discussed during this interview is completely confidential, and that you will have the opportunity to select a pseudonym at the end of this conversation.

Guiding Questions 4. Background information • Tell me a little bit about yourself. Where did you grow up? Have you had to move often in your life? What is your major? How did you decide on coming to this institution? What do you hope to do professionally in the future?

5. Creating the sociogram • You will first be asked to create a sociogram, which is a visual depiction of your close, personal network. This can include individuals at the institution, friends on social media, as well as anywhere else in the world. To do this, you will first generate a list of ten names of people who you consider to be your friends. They do not necessarily have to be close friends, but you should not count acquaintances as friends. Each name should be written on a separate sticky note. You can have as much time as you need for this step. • Provide the participant sufficient time to write down names. • Now that you have generated a list of names of your friends, place the names of those you would consider to be your closest friends on the whiteboard, and use the red dry erase marker to draw lines between individuals who are connected. For example, if two of your other friends are also friends themselves. • Next, add the rest of the names onto the whiteboard, and use the black marker to draw lines between individuals who are connected.

6. Explaining the sociogram • Now that you have completed your sociogram, tell me a little bit about it. What do you notice? Is there anything about the sociogram that surprises you? • Tell me about some of the individuals who you consider to be close friends? Share a story or two about these people. • How frequently do you interact with your close friends? • Tell me about some of the individuals who are more distant friends. How did you meet them? How often do you interact with them? • How would you describe your social network? How racially diverse is it? Age? • What did your social network look like before college? How does it compare to now?

209

• What do you anticipate your social network to look like after college?

Closing • Those are all the questions I have for you. Is there anything else that you’d like to add? • And are there any questions that you’d like to ask me?

210