University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The intersection of grit and social capital: a mixed methods examination of successful first-generation college students

(USC Thesis Other)

The intersection of grit and social capital: a mixed methods examination of successful first-generation college students

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

THE INTERSECTION OF GRIT AND SOCIAL CAPITAL:
A MIXED METHODS EXAMINATION OF
SUCCESSFUL FIRST-GENERATION COLLEGE STUDENTS

by

Daniel Jason Almeida

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(URBAN EDUCATION POLICY)

August 2016

Copyright 2016 Daniel J. Almeida
i

Table of Contents
Dedication ...................................................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... iv
Abstract . …………………………………………………………………………………………vi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ iv
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... ix
Chapter 1: The Intersection of Grit and Social Capital …………………………………………….1
Research Problem ...………………………………………………………………….……2
Research Purpose ………………………………………………........................................4
Research Questions ...……………………………………………………………………..6
Definitions and Terms …………………………………………………………………….6
Profile of FGCS …………………………………………………………………….….….8
Supporting FGCS Academic Success and Persistence ……………………………..…….13
Study Overview ……………………………………………………………………....….19
Chapter 2: Understanding Grit and Social Capital .........................……………………………..22
Grit in the Context of Higher Education ………………………………………...22
Theories of Capital ……………………………..………………………………..35
Chapter 2 Summary ……………………………………………………………...50
Chapter 3: Methods for Studying Grit and Social Capital ………………………………………52
Research Design …………………………………………………………………..……..52
Research Method ………………………………………………………………………...59
Chapter 3 Summary ……………………………………………………………………...74
Chapter 4: Presentation of Results ……………………………………………………………….75
ii

Sample …………………………………………………………………………………...76
Answering the Research Questions ……………………………………………………...81
Chapter 4 Summary …………………………………………………………………….147
Chapter 5: Rethinking Grit ..........................................................................................................167
Limitations of the Study ………………………………………………………………..170
Interpretation of Results: Review of Major Findings …………………………………..173
Theoretical Implications: The Heterogeneity of Grit, Social Capital, and FGCS……....193
Implications for Research ……………………………………………………………....208
Concluding Remarks …………………………………………………………………...213
References ...................................................................................................................................215
Appendix A: Student Survey ......................................................................................................245
Appendix B: Faculty/Staff Survey ..............................................................................................263
Appendix C: Student Interview Protocol ....................................................................................271
Appendix D: Faculty/Staff Interview Protocol ............................................................................273
Appendix E: IRB Forms ..............................................................................................................274

iii

Dedication
First and foremost, I thank my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ for blessing me with the gifts
and opportunities that have led me to pursue a PhD. At every twist and turn on this rollercoaster
ride completing a PhD and a dissertation, You were with me when I was afraid and discouraged,
strengthening and helping me and holding me up with Your victorious right hand (Isaiah 41:10).
I dedicate this dissertation to the first-generation college students at PU and across the
nation, and the institutional agents who go the extra mile to empower first-generation students to
succeed in college and beyond. I also dedicate this project to first-generation college students’
extended families, like my own, whose support, encouragement and pride mean more to us than
you know.
To my own parents, your unconditional love, support, and encouragement throughout my
life has been priceless. You both have sacrificed so much for me to prosper and to become the
man I am today. This achievement is as much yours as it is mine. To my extended family and the
village that raised me, grandparents, aunts, uncles, siblings, cousins, and family friends who all
believed in and encouraged me from such an early age. It was that support system that built such
a strong foundation for me to thrive. A special thank you to my godmother Eleanor who has been
a role model for educational excellence, generosity and perseverance throughout my life. Your
continued love, support, and words of wisdom and encouragement have been invaluable to me.
Also, thank you Auntie Dot for so many things, but most of all for giving me a cello as a gift
when I was 10, which helped keep me balanced as I played almost every day during breaks from
my writing. To my nieces and nephews Eric, Lilly, Sara, Armanna, Abby, and RJ. Knowing that
I am an example for you has been one of the most motivating factors in my success. Thank you
for being my inspiration.
iv

To the Cape Verdean community in Southern California, especially the Caffeys and other
friends. You have been my west coast family for close to a decade. I thank you for welcoming
me and keeping me balanced and connected to my roots. To Jen Herda and Landmark’s Team,
Management & Leadership Program who have become my extended family. Thank you for
listening to me as greater than I know myself to be. I will never forget the stand that you all have
been for me these past 2 years.
And last but certainly not least, to my roommate Lydia. You have been much more than a
roommate to me in this past year and half. You have been my great friend, big sister, confidant,
counselor, spiritual guide, and of course the best chef that this busy PhD student/foodie could
have ever dreamed of! Thank you for welcoming me into your home and creating a living
environment for me to thrive academically and personally during an important period in my life.
And I am forever grateful for you sharing the love of your dogs, Bernie and Cocoa, who helped
keep me balanced more than anything else while working on this dissertation.

v

Acknowledgements

I wish to acknowledge and thank my faculty advisor and dissertation chair, Dr. William
G. Tierney. You have truly been a “full service advisor” who has not just cared about my grades,
research and writing. You authentically care about my happiness, health, family, and my future. I
know for a fact I would not have finished this degree in 4 years or be starting a tenure-track
faculty position this fall had it not been for your mentorship, structure, foresight, sage feedback,
and confidence in me. Thank you for your thoughtful responses to my frantic emails. Thank you
for being my coach, stretching me, setting the bar high and for transforming me from a student
into a scholar. To the other members of my dissertation and qualifying exam committees. Thank
you for your generosity, time, feedback, and expertise. You each taught classes that in part
inspired this dissertation. I will be forever grateful for all the contributions you have made to me.
I also acknowledge the wonderful faculty and staff of the Rossier School of Education
who have all contributed to making me the scholar I am today and making this dissertation a
reality. I especially want to thank Laura Romero, the PhD Program Director and the staff of the
Pullias Center for Higher Education, especially Diane Flores, Monica Raad, Zoe Corwin, and
Lisa Garcia. From the time I entered as an intimidated first-year student in 2012 until now
completing my dissertation, I have benefited greatly from your assistance and support in so many
different ways. Whether it was the behind the scenes magic that you produce to schedule
meetings and reserve rooms, or the words of encouragement before or after a meeting with Bill,
you helped create the environment that supported me and many others to flourish. To my PhD
student colleagues, especially Maxine, Cheryl, Ayesha, Jenna, Sean, Julia, Bryan, Stephani,
Drew, Michelle, Raquel and many others who helped me throughout the dissertation process.
Thank you for your friendship, mentorship, feedback and encouragement.
vi

And last but not least, to my oldest friend in California, Dr. Karen Ravago-Ballaret.
Starting over a decade ago, we supported each other completing our Master’s degrees in Boston
and throughout our many career and life transitions. I was blessed when you came to work in
Rossier. I have been so grateful to have your friendship, encouragement and support these last
several years and especially in completing this dissertation!

vii

Abstract

First-generation college students (FGCS) represent a disproportionate amount of the students
who do not finish college. Understanding successful FGCS is useful to address the gap between
college access and completion. One factor found to be predictive of success in higher education
is grit, conceptualized as an individual trait with two components: consistency of interests and
perseverance of effort. This individualistic conception which places grit in the realm of human
and cultural capital diminishes the role of institutional actors in student success or failure. Unlike
theories of human and cultural capital which focus on the individual, social capital posits that
students derive benefits like institutional resources, information, and support through students’
social networks to achieve success in higher education. Using a sample of FGCS (N=156) and
faculty and staff (N=71) at one 4-year private institution, this study endeavors three tasks. First is
to explore the relationship between grit and social capital, and how these concepts relate to
FGCS success. The second is to understand FGCS access and use of social capital through their
network of relationships with supportive faculty, staff, and peers on campus. The third is to re-
conceptualize grit in the context of higher education. This study employs a mixed methods
design using a survey methods, social network analysis and qualitative interviewing. The author
discusses four findings: (a) grit is complex and dynamic especially for FGCS; (b) Grit is not
found to be related to FGCS GPA, yet access to social capital with faculty and staff is predictive
of GPA; (c) FGCS grit is related to social capital in multiple ways; and (d) FGCS access to and
benefits of social capital varies based on students’ background and involvement on campus in
expected and unexpected ways. The implications of these findings are discussed in a proposed
conceptual model of grit as the intersection of consistency of interests, perseverance of effort,
and social capital, and a model of the ideal type of institutional agent to support FGCS and grit.
viii

List of Tables

Table 4.1 Gender, Ethnicity, Family Education of Survey and Interview Respondents ..............149
Table 4.2 Academic Preparation of Survey and Interview Respondents ....................................150
Table 4.3 College Data of Survey and Interview Respondents ...................................................150
Table 4.4 Student Housing, Financial Aid and Employment of Survey and Interview Respondents
......................................................................................................................................................151
Table 4.5 Campus Involvement of Student Survey & Interview Respondents ............................152
Table 4.6 Focal Variables of Survey and Interview Respondents ..............................................153
Table 4.7 Faculty/Staff Informational Support Networks ...........................................................154
Table 4.8 Peer Informational Support Network .........................................................................155
Table 4.9 OLS Regression Results, Final Model ........................................................................156
Table 4.10 Pearson’s Correlations among Focal Variables ......................................................157
Table 4.11 Answering Research Question 1 - Significant Two-Tailed T-Tests Exploring
Relationships among Grit, Social Capital, and College GPA ....................................................158
Table 4.12 Answering Research Question 2 - Significant Two-Tailed T-Tests Exploring
Differences in Access to Social Capital Based on Demographics, Prior Academic Performance
…………………………………………………………………………………………………..159
Table 4.13 Answering Research Question 2 - Significant Two-Tailed T-Tests Exploring
Differences in Access to Social Capital Based on Student Involvement .....................................160
ix

Table 4.14 Answering Research Question 2 - Significant Two-Tailed T-Tests Exploring
Differences in Faculty/Staff and Peer Informational Support Based on Student Involvement....161
Table 4.15 Answering Research Question 2 - Significant Two-Tailed T-Tests Exploring
Differences in Faculty/Staff and Peer Informational Support Based on FGCS-Specific Intentional
Organizations ..............................................................................................................................162
Table 4.16 Answering Research Question 2 - Significant Two-Tailed T-Tests Exploring
Differences in Informational Support Based on Demographics .................................................163
Table 4.17 Answering Research Question 2 - Significant Two-Tailed T-Tests Exploring
Differences in Social Support Based on Student Involvement ....................................................164
Table 4.18 Answering Research Question 2 - Significant Two-Tailed T-Tests Exploring
Differences in Social Support Based on Demographics .............................................................165
Table 4.19 Focal Variables of 6 FGCS Interview Respondents Profiled in Chapter 4 ...............166

x

List of Figures

Figure 2.1. Grit’s two components and underlying theories and constructs ................................25
Figure 2.2. Current individualistic conception of grit at the intersection of human capital and
cultural capital ...............................................................................................................................37
Figure 2.3. Grit at the intersection of human capital, cultural capital, and social capital ............51
Figure 4.1. Sociogram of all student interview respondents and their ego networks ...................95
Figure 4.2. Maria’s ego information support network at PU .......................................................96
Figure 4.3. Joseph’s ego information support network at PU ......................................................98
Figure 4.4. Julia’s ego information support network at PU .........................................................99
Figure 4.5. Joseph’s, Maria’s, and Julia’s combined information support networks .................100
Figure 4.6. Sara’s ego information support network at PU ........................................................102
Figure 4.7. Stella’s ego information support network at PU ......................................................103
Figure 4.8. Thomas’ ego information support network at PU ....................................................105
Figure 4.9. Maria’s extended information support network at PU .............................................133
Figure 5.1. Current individualistic conception of grit at the intersection of human capital and
cultural capital .............................................................................................................................195
Figure 5.2. Grit at the intersection of human capital, cultural capital, and social capital ..........196
Figure 5.3. Grit’s two components and underlying theories and constructs ..............................197
Figure 5.4. Conceptual model of grit at the intersection of consistency of interests, perseverance
of effort and social capital ...........................................................................................................198
xi

Figure 5.5. Ideal type of institutional agent for FGCS and grit ..................................................204

1

Chapter 1: The Intersection of Grit and Social Capital

“None of us got where we are solely by pulling ourselves up by our bootstraps. We got here
because somebody - a parent, a teacher, an Ivy League crony or a few nuns - bent down and
helped us pick up our boots.” –Thurgood Marshall

The phrase “pulling yourself up by your bootstraps” suggests that if one only works hard
enough, one can surely achieve success in life no matter what obstacles lay ahead. This
meritocratic notion pervades American culture and is at the root of achieving the American
Dream. Whereas this ideal of achieving success through individual effort is centuries old, the
newest version is the concept known as ‘grit.’ Defined in the Educational Psychology literature
as perseverance and passion for long-term goals in the face of obstacles (Duckworth, Peterson,
Matthews, & Kelly, 2007)—grit has gained more attention in recent years in educational
discourse and has been associated with success in challenging environments like higher
education (Duckworth & Quinn, 2009; Shechtman, DeBarger, Dornsife, Rosier, & Yarnall,
2013; Strayhorn, 2013). Government and foundation grants have funded research pertaining to
grit in education leading to grit appearing in the Common Core State Standards and as one of the
‘21
st
-century skills’ promoted by many employers, educators and policymakers (Shechtman et
al., 2013). In 2015, school districts across California began grading students’ grit on report cards
(Kalb, 2015). Another example are the Knowledge Is Power Program (KIPP) charter schools,
whose mission focuses on developing character traits in students such as grit that KIPP
identifies as “needed to succeed in college and the competitive world beyond” (KIPP, n. d.).
While grit may be relevant to and indeed found to be predictive of success in college, as
the quote at the beginning of this dissertation from former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood
2

Marshall suggests, I shall argue that it is not solely through grit that one succeeds. All students
who successfully complete college likely require the support of others (e.g., family, peers,
mentors, college faculty, staff) to ‘pull up their bootstraps’ to overcome obstacles in college.
First generation college students (FGCS)—those who do not have parents who have completed a
bachelor’s degree—are less likely to have college-educated individuals in their networks outside
of school. As a result, what I shall define as the social capital is integral to FGCS successfully
navigating college until graduation. Unlike grit, which focuses on the individual, social capital
acknowledges the role of higher education institutions and institutional actors in understanding
how FGCS are successful. Social capital theory posits that individuals derive benefits like
institutional resources, information, and support through their social network of relationships that
help them achieve success (Bourdieu, 1986; Coleman, 1988; Lin, 2001; Stanton-Salazar &
Dornbusch, 1995). Social capital can be particularly useful in overcoming obstacles as students
navigate educational contexts like higher education (Dika & Singh, 2002; Stanton-Salazar,
2011).
This study explores the relationship between grit and social capital and how these
concepts relate to FGCS success. This research recasts the notion of grit as solely an individual
trait showing that grit and social capital are intimately linked and both concepts are integral to
‘pulling up your bootstraps’ in higher education. Next, I discuss the research problem, which
provides context for why understanding FGCS success is of import to society, followed by the
central purposes of this dissertation, and the research questions that motivate the study.
Research Problem
Although college going rates have risen in recent decades, college completion in the
United States has not increased at a comparable rate (Bound, Lovenheim, & Turner, 2009;
3

Johnson, 2009; Tinto, 2012). One third of students who enter college leave without a degree,
ranking the United States last of the developed countries in college graduation (Johnson, 2012;
OECD, 2010). The degree completion rate in the U.S. is unsustainable if the nation is to meet the
workforce needs to compete effectively in the global economy (Brown, Lauder & Ashton, 2008;
Howell, Kurlaender, & Grodsky, 2010). Over 60% of jobs in the U.S. necessitate at least some
higher education which is an increase from 30% just 4 decades ago (Hyslop & Tucker, 2012).
There is also a financial impact on both students and taxpayers when students leave
college before completing a degree (Schneider & Yin, 2011). For instance, a student that
graduates with a bachelor’s degree, on average, earns $1 million more in lifetime income
compared to a student who never attends college (Baum & Ma, 2007; Tinto, 2012). Collectively
one cohort of students who start but do not complete college loses approximately $3.8 billion
over a lifetime (Schneider & Yin, 2011). Taxpayers are saddled with over $9 million per year
for educating freshmen who never return to college (Schneider, 2010). And the cost in future tax
revenue lost is about $730 million per year from just one cohort of college non-completers
(Schneider & Yin, 2011).
The rate of college completion differs for individuals based on a variety of factors. For
example, the rate of college completion of students from low-income families has only risen 4%
while high-income students’ college graduation rates have risen 18% over the same period
(Bailey & Dynarski, 2011). Regarding race, by the age of 25, 29% of whites earn a bachelor’s
degree, compared to only 18% of African Americans and 13% of Latinos (Ogunwole, Drewery,
& Rios-Vargas, 2012). FGCS who are disproportionately from racial and ethnic minority groups
and lower-income families graduate within four years at a much lower rate (27.4%) than do
students with college-educated parents (42.1%; DeAngelo &, Franke, 2011). As the vast
4

majority of students who depart higher education do so in the first year or two of college
(Johnson, 2012; Tinto, 2012), understanding what has contributed to the success of FGCS who
persist beyond the freshman and sophomore year will be important in creating a strategy for
addressing the gap between college access and college completion. Improving FGCS academic
achievement and college graduation rates is essential to meeting the nation’s workforce needs as
well as creating a more equitable society (Tierney & Duncheon, 2015). Furthermore, focusing on
the conditions that support the needs and success of FGCS is likely to benefit all students,
whereas concentrating on the academic success and persistence of the general student population
without attending to the unique needs of FGCS will less likely improve the success of FGCS
(Thayer, 2000).
Research Purpose
The purpose of this dissertation is to explore the potential relationship between grit and
social capital and how these concepts relate, if at all, to FGCS success. The goal of this research
is also to address conceptual and methodological limitations of how grit has been studied to date.
I contend that the current conception of grit as solely an individual trait is misguided as the role
of societal forces and institutional policies, practices, and actors is lacking in the research and
discourse on grit. I will argue that this conceptualization of grit is inadequate, especially
considering the nature of the various obstacles (i.e., academic, financial, social, emotional)
students face in higher education. I will posit that, although grit may be relevant to consider in
FGCS success, the idea of grit is very much connected to factors of the social structure and
institutional actors, represented by social capital (Coleman; 1988; Musoba & Baez, 2009;
Stanton-Salazar, 1997). The role of social capital is particularly relevant to how students employ
grit to navigate college. All students who complete college likely require the support of others
5

including family, peers, and institutional agents to overcome setbacks in college. However, for
FGCS who are less likely to have college-educated individuals in their networks outside of
school, the social capital these students develop on-campus with other students, faculty and staff
is integral to successfully completing college.
Although grit is often discussed in reference to low-income, often first-generation college
students, much of the research concerning grit has drawn from samples of mostly white, elite,
non-FGCS (e.g. Duckworth & Quinn 2009; Duckworth, Kirby, Tsukayama, Bernstein, &
Ericsson, 2011; Maddi, Matthews, Kelly, Villarreal, & White, 2012). I address this concern by
including a diverse sample of FGCS who have persisted to their junior or senior year at one
private four-year university. Another concern is grit has been examined almost exclusively
through quantitative methods using the 12-item self-assessment grit scale (Duckworth et al.,
2007). Even Angela Duckworth who created the grit scale acknowledges the limitations of self-
assessments like the grit scale, such as students’ different interpretations of items on the scale
and the difficulty of some to evaluate their own abilities and mindsets (Duckworth & Yeager,
2015; Shechtman et al., 2013).
This study contributes to the understanding of grit by employing a mixed methods design,
which not only applied the quantitative grit scale scores but also uses qualitative interviews to
contextualize students’ grit, allowing for an interrogation of students’ perceptions of the different
aspects of grit in relation to their experiences overcoming various obstacles to succeed in
college. Executing a mixed methods design to study grit will aid our understanding of this
concept that has been often too simplified in both the academic and popular presses. This
research also utilizes Social Network Analysis to assess students’ patterns of relationships with
faculty, staff, and peers on campus—a proxy for social capital. I compare differences in social
6

network measures of students based on their grit scale score, as well as student demographics,
academic preparation and performance, and student involvement on campus including a
mentoring program for FGCS.
Research Questions
The following research questions guide this study:
• What is the relationship, if any, between FGCS grit and social capital in their academic
success in college?
• Does FGCS access to and benefits of social capital differ based on mentoring program
and student organization participation, demographic characteristics, grit, academic
preparation (i.e., SAT) and academic performance (i.e., college GPA)?
• How do FGCS employ grit and social capital to succeed academically and persist in
college?
Although I outline the social capital framework and the concept of grit in detail in Chapter 2, I
briefly define some essential terms and concepts here to guide the reader, including FGCS,
academic success, grit, and social capital.
Definitions and Terms
FGCS are identified by some scholars and institutions of higher education as students
whose parents have never attended college (Chen & Carroll, 2005; Warburton, Bugarin, &
Nunez, 2001; Ward, Siegel, & Davenport, 2012). Others use a definition that includes students
with parents who have some experience in college, but have not persisted to complete a degree;
within this group there is much variation, from a parent who left during the first semester of
college to one who completed most of the requirements to graduate yet did not earn a degree
(Davis, 2012). Even if these students’ parents may be able to provide advice about accessing
7

higher education, because the parents have not completed college they may be less equipped to
support their children in overcoming the obstacles to complete a degree than parents who have
graduated. Even though I draw from literature that uses the other definitions, I adopt the more
expansive definition that includes all college students for whom neither parent has received a
bachelor’s degree (Clauss-Ehlers & Wibrowski, 2007; Pike & Kuh, 2005). Institutions that
employ the more inclusive definition ensure that fewer students are left out who may need
support due to their families’ relative lack of experience in higher education (Davis, 2012).
Grit is defined in this study as passion and perseverance for long-term goals and has two
interrelated aspects: (a) consistency of interests and (b) perseverance of effort (Duckworth et al.,
2007). Consistent with what many may note as important to successfully completing college, grit
has also been characterized as “the capacity to sustain effort and interest in projects that take
months or even longer to complete” (Duckworth & Quinn, 2009, p.166).
Academic success in this study refers to academic achievement and persistence in
college. Although there are several measures that can be used to assess academic success (see
Kuh et al., 2010), a recent review of the literature (see York, Gibson, & Rankin, 2015) suggests
that academic success is most often measured by grades in specific subjects and overall grade
point average (GPA). As such, I utilize students’ cumulative college GPA as the primary
measure of academic success. I also include persistence in college as part of academic success.
According to Tinto’s (2012) analysis of college completion using data from the National Center
for Education Statistics, approximately two-thirds of those who leave college early do so in the
first two years of college. By choosing to focus on first-generation college juniors and seniors, I
am suggesting that they all have been successful to a degree by persisting in college until the
junior or senior year.
8

Social capital, unlike other forms of capital (e.g., human, cultural), is not located within
an individual, but within the relationships of an individual’s social network (Bourdieu, 1986;
Coleman, 1988). Stanton-Salazar and Dornbusch’s (1995) definition of social capital as “social
relationships from which an individual is potentially able to derive various types of institutional
resources and support” appropriately characterizes how social capital is conceptualized in this
study. Although the term institutional agents, which I use in this project, most often refers to
employees of an institution like faculty and staff who can facilitate or inhibit the transmission of
institutional resources and opportunities, peers can also serve as institutional agents on a college
campus if they are well-connected to faculty and staff and have more direct access to social
capital relevant to succeeding in college (Gibson, Gándara, & Koyama, 2004).
Social capital access refers to the relationships that students have with peers, faculty and
staff on campus. The social capital benefits that I focus on are informational support and social
support. Informational support includes information or advice on selecting classes, study tips,
campus resources, jobs/internships, student organizations, choosing/changing majors, or career
advice. For social support, I highlight three key determinants of perceived social support (Russell
& Cutrona, 1984); that is (a) guidance in the form of advice or information about resources
helpful to succeeding in college; (b) reliable alliance, or the confidence that others on campus
can be depended on for assistance when students are confronted with challenges; and (c) social
integration, a sense that others on campus share students’ interests and values.
Profile of FGCS
Even with a definition on which we all agree, FGCS are still not a homogenous group
(Ward et al., 2012). They come from various racial and socioeconomic backgrounds and have a
range of educational experiences both before and during college. As a result FGCS have diverse
9

needs in order to be successful in higher education. Even so, FGCS generally share some
common characteristics and trends that are important to consider in promoting their
postsecondary success. In this section I first share information about pre-college factors,
including demographic characteristics, college preparation, and college choices. I then discuss
the academic mindsets and behaviors of FGCS. Finally I turn to the literature summarizing
FGCS outcomes regarding degree completion, academic achievement, and career goals.
Pre-college Factors
In a seminal review of the literature on FGCS, Terenzini, Springer, Yaeger, Pascarella,
and Nora (1996) found that significant differences exist between FGCS and non-FGCS on over a
third of 37 pre-college characteristics. For instance, compared to students with college-educated
parents, FGCS are more likely to be older, female, academically underprepared, immigrants, and
student-parents who work and study part-time (Chen & Carroll, 2005; Choy, 2001; Warburton et
al., 2001; Ward et al., 2012). Approximately 86% of FGCS are also students of color (Davis,
2012). Students who do not have college-educated parents are also more likely to be from low-
income, working-class families with fewer financial resources to dedicate to higher education
than middle- or upper-income families have (Horn & Nunez, 2000; Hossler, Schmitt, & Vesper,
1999). However, many FGCS are not low-income; in fact, less than a quarter of FGCS are in the
lowest quartile of family incomes (Nunez & Cuccaro-Alamin, 1998).
Only approximately 54% of students with parents who have a high school diploma enter
college after high school, compared to 93% of students who have at least one parent with a
bachelor’s degree (Choy, 2001). Despite these challenges, three out of four FGCS who enroll in
college aspire to complete a bachelor’s degree (Ishitani, 2003). Although approximately one
third of all undergraduate students are first-generation, only one sixth of all students attending
10

four-year universities have parents who did not complete college (Saenz, 2007). The proportion
of FGCS attending four-year institutions has declined significantly since 1971 when FGCS made
up approximately 40% of the student population at four-year universities. Instead of beginning
higher education at a four-year institution, an increasing amount of FGCS today attend 2-year
community colleges or for-profit higher education institutions which are often seen by FGCS as
more welcoming environments for them (Nunez & Cuccaro-Alamin, 1998). More of these FGCS
who begin at 2-year colleges are transferring to 4-year institutions often less tailored to the needs
of FGCS (Ward et al., 2012).
Academic Mindsets and Behaviors
FGCS often behave and think differently than students with the advantage of exposure to
significant amounts and types of college knowledge
1
throughout their education and upbringing.
Many FGCS have the experience of feeling like an ‘imposter’ both inside and outside of the
classroom on college campuses, often having thoughts that the institution made a mistake by
offering them admission (Davis, 2012; Jehangir, 2010). While many non-FGCS may experience
a degree of anxiety about their performance especially during the transition to college, FGCS
academic as well as social and cultural challenges tend to be longer and more pronounced
(Pascarella, Pierson, Wolniak, & Terenzini, 2004). The transition process for FGCS has been
characterized as a ‘disjunction’ (Terenzini et. al, 1994) as FGCS are departing from family and
home communities often vastly different than the collegiate environment and adjusting to a new
campus culture with expectations and procedures different from what they have become
accustomed to in high school. Research suggests that the cultural mismatch between the

1
College knowledge is information about the application process, financial aid, higher education options, and importantly, the
difference in culture and expectations between secondary and postsecondary education (Bell, Rowan-Kenyon, & Perna, 2006;
Conley, 2008; Hooker & Brand, 2010; Roderick, Nagaoka, & Coca, 2009).
11

interdependence norms of many of the home communities of FGCS and the primary focus on
independence in most traditional 4-year higher education institutions contributes to the lower
academic performance of FGCS (Stephens, Fryberg, Markus, Johnson, & Covarrubias, 2012).
Many FGCS also become isolated from family who are unfamiliar with the challenges students
are facing in college, and disconnected also from much of the campus community who often lack
an understanding of FGCS experiences (Collier & Morgan, 2008; Ward et al., 2012).
FGCS with a sense of self-efficacy—or belief and confidence in their capacity to learn
and perform at the collegiate level —have been found to have higher grades and greater
persistence in college (Inkelas, Daver, Vogt, & Leonard, 2007; Wang & Casteneda-Sound,
2008). Likely due to their unfamiliarity with the collegiate environment and expectations, FGCS
report lower levels of self-efficacy throughout the first year of college (Ramos-Sanchez &
Nichols, 2007). More than confidence, as is central in self-efficacy, the related construct of grit
implies the importance of having a passionate interest to help one to overcome setbacks in
pursuit of a long-term goal, like completing college. Although the research regarding grit has
generally used on elite student populations, two studies with samples consisting of large numbers
of first-generation students (e.g. Duckworth & Quinn, 2009; Strayhorn, 2013) suggest that
students’ grit predicts academic success and persistence in challenging environments more than
measures of cognitive ability alone.
This imposter phenomenon and other academic mindsets (i.e., lower self-efficacy or grit)
may prevent FGCS from adopting the productive academic behaviors that have been found to
contribute to academic success and persistence (Davis, 2012; Farrington et al., 2013). For
example, speaking in class has been identified as an important academic behavior to be
successful in college which FGCS are more likely to avoid (McConnell, 2000; Strayhorn, 2006).
12

FGCS are also more likely to study by themselves rather than in study groups where they can
benefit from engaging with classmates on course material (NSSE, 2011; Ward et al., 2012).
Although FGCS may be less likely to engage with faculty and classmates because they feel
unwelcome or excluded (Jehangir, 2010; Rendon, 1995; Richardson & Skinner, 1992), these
lower levels of engagement unfortunately make it more difficult for students to learn the
procedures and expectations of them as college students (Ward et al., 2012).
Postsecondary Outcomes
FGCS on average tend to experience lower rates of persistence than their counterparts
with college-educated parents (DeAngelo & Franke, 2011). Only 27% of FGCS graduate within
four years, compared to 42% of students with college-educated parents. Even after controlling
for several factors including demographics and academic preparation, FGCS are still less likely
to complete a bachelor’s degree than non-FGCS (Chen & Carroll, 2005). Those FGCS that do
persist have been found to make gains in important skills, like critical thinking, reading
comprehension and writing on par with their non-FGCS classmates (Pascarella et al., 2004).
Despite these improved skillsets, FGCS receive lower grades on average in most subjects
compared to others (Chen & Carroll, 2005).
FGCS also take more time to complete degrees, on average, relative to their non-FGCS
peers (Chen & Carroll, 2005; Roderick, Nagaoka, & Coca, 2009). The literature reveals several
factors that contribute to this disparity. For example, FGCS are more likely to withdraw from or
repeat courses than their traditional college-going counterparts (Chen & Carroll, 2005). FGCS
also tend to spend more hours working off-campus, commuting to class, and providing care for
family (NSSE, 2011; Ward et al., 2012). Relatively higher rates of developmental course-taking
further increase time-to-degree for first generation youth; most developmental courses do not
13

award college credits but may be prerequisites to enrolling in credit-bearing classes (Chen &
Carroll, 2005; Roderick, Nagaoka, & Coca, 2009).
FGCS tend to choose college majors that are associated with a vocational or technical
field which are less valued in society, whereas students with college-educated parents are more
likely to choose a major in science, math, and engineering, or the humanities and social sciences
(Chen & Carroll, 2005). Also because FGCS are more likely to be lower-income and need to
work during college to pay for tuition, they are less able to take advantage of extracurricular
activities and unpaid internships which often lead to post-college employment (Delaney, 2010;
Pascarella et al., 2004). Although the difference in early career earnings between first- and non-
first-generation college graduates is minimal, FGCS are less likely to enroll in graduate school,
which enhances earning potential and career advancement (Pascarella et al., 2004).
Supporting FGCS Academic Success and Persistence
Research shows that particular conditions are likely to support the academic success and
persistence of FGCS. I discuss these factors in two broad categories: pre-college preparation and
the support once in college provided by institutional agents and structures on college campuses.
Pre-College Preparation
Academic preparation. The first condition that makes a difference in the collegiate
success of FGCS is ensuring that they have strong academic preparation prior to entering
college. Only about one third of FGCS are academically prepared for college (Ward et al., 2012).
Providing a rigorous high school curriculum with advanced classes such as calculus and
expository writing can increase the likelihood of FGCS academic success in higher education
(Adelman, 2006). Unfortunately, schools in lower socioeconomic status (SES) areas where
FGCS more often attend offer far fewer advanced courses than schools in higher SES
14

communities (Attewell & Domina, 2008). Participating in summer enrichment activities that
reinforce students’ learning from the academic year can also help promote the academic
preparedness of FGCS (Castleman & Page, 2013). These summer enrichment programs can
combat the summer learning loss which accumulates over the course of their academic careers
making them less prepared for the academic work in college (Blazer, 2011). Concentrating on
the academic preparation of FGCS before they enter higher education can help reduce the
disparities between these students and their non-FGCS classmates regarding college grades and
the rate of developmental course placement (Chen & Carroll, 2005).
College knowledge. In addition to academic preparation, FGCS who have significant
college knowledge

(see footnote 1) have a better chance of success in college (Conley, 2008).
Ensuring that high schools have a college-going culture that promotes the expectation of college
enrollment and helps students understand the procedural and cultural aspects of higher education
can increase the prospect of success for FGCS (McAlister & Mevs, 2012; Roderick et al., 2009).
For example, providing students with accurate and timely information about higher education
options is crucial for students to select an institution that best fits their interests and needs—a
choice that contributes significantly to students’ likelihood of persistence in college (Hooker &
Brand, 2010). During the summer between high school and college, summer bridge programs
can help to smooth the transition for FGCS by not only providing developmental academic
support, but also by exposing students to campus resources and developing their college
knowledge (Kezar, 2000; Strayhorn, 2011). Like pre-college preparation, postsecondary
conditions also influence the success of FGCS, which I discuss next.

15

Institutional Agents and Structures Supporting FGCS
FGCS with strong networks that support not only their academic needs but also their
emotional development during college are more likely to successfully persist to graduation
(Martinez & Klopott, 2005). Social support that encourages students’ self-efficacy leads FGCS
to more productively manage stressful situations in college (Phinney & Haas, 2003). Assisting
students in clarifying their interests to choose an appropriate major may increase the likelihood
that they exhibit grit and persevere through challenging times in college (Chen & Carroll, 2005).
Social support contributes to students’ integration on campus, which has long been seen as a key
determinant of college completion, especially for FGCS (Harper & Quaye, 2009; Rendon, 1995;
Strage, 1999; Strayhorn, 2006). Thus I review research on three potential sources of support for
FGCS: faculty, campus staff and programs, and peers.
Faculty-student interactions. University faculty play an important role in the support
that students receive on college campuses as professors’ interactions with students have positive
effects on both academic achievement and persistence in college (Cole & Espinoza, 2008; Kim,
2010; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). Lohfink and Paulsen (2005) found that faculty-student
interactions mattered more for FGCS persistence than for non-FGCS. Unfortunately, faculty
interact with FGCS much less than they do with students with college-educated parents (Kim &
Sax, 2009; Ward et al., 2012). Studies of faculty interaction with minority students—who are
much more likely to also be FGCS—suggest that those interactions contribute to increased
academic achievement only if students perceive their professors to be understanding and
encouraging (Cole & Espinoza, 2008; Kim, 2010; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). Research also
indicates that faculty of color are apt to interact with students more often and in more meaningful
ways, like discussing career goals and engaging in research projects (Allen, Epps, Guillory, Suh,
16

& Bonous-Hammarth, 2000; Umbach, 2006). Unfortunately, professors of color generally
comprise a small proportion of faculty, especially at 4-year college campuses.
Various obstacles may prevent productive student-faculty interactions from occurring and
contributing to student success in college, especially for students of color (Greene, Marti, &
McClenney, 2008). These impediments include limited cross-cultural skills of faculty, one-size-
fits-all approaches to teaching, or cues from faculty that deter students from seeking help outside
of class. More holistic approaches to advising FGCS are beneficial. In addition, there are
structural impediments to faculty-student interactions, not the least of which is the promotion and
tenure process which places little value on out-of-class student contact (Tierney & Bensimon,
1996). Institutions that encourage more affirming, comprehensive, and proactive advising and
incentivize faculty to dedicate more time for mentoring may overcome these barriers to further
increase the likelihood of academic success and persistence for FGCS (Cole, 2008; Museus &
Ravello, 2010; Steele, 1997).
Campus staff and programmatic support. In addition to faculty, other programs and
staff on campus can contribute to the academic achievement and persistence of FGCS. Academic
advisors have been shown to contribute to the academic and personal growth particularly of
FGCS (Sickles, 2004; Varney, 2007). Ongoing advising and mentoring is even more beneficial
than meeting once to sign a form for selecting classes (Harrell & Forney, 2003). Ishiyama (2007)
found that FGCS in a research mentoring program reported that in addition to research and
academic support, they benefited from guidance on career and personal concerns in their
relationships with mentors in college. Furthermore, when mentors share common characteristics
and experiences with students and particularly when a sense of trust is developed between
mentor and mentee, students are more likely to benefit from the mentoring relationship (Museus
17

& Neville, 2012).
Given that the transition from high school to college is a critical period for FGCS,
campus orientation programs can play a crucial role in socializing FGCS, exposing them to
campus resources, connecting them to other students, and setting them up for success (Davis,
2012). The orientation programs with the most success are intensive and individualized, and tend
to exist on smaller campuses with more staff per student (Robinson, Burns, & Gaw, 2004).
While focusing on the initial transition into college is essential, many students need the same
level of support continued over the first few weeks of the freshman year, after orientation
programs have ended and when additional challenges occur (Upcraft, Gardner, & Barefoot,
2005).
Learning communities are another programmatic structure that offers collaborative and
holistic social and academic support to FGCS (Davis, 2012; Ward et al., 2012). Learning
communities can be tailored to the unique needs of students by combining living spaces with
academic and social spaces that can be used for multiple purposes (Thayer, 2000). This strategy
particularly benefits FGCS who in addition to studying, sleeping, and socializing are more often
visiting or taking care of family and working off campus. A learning community can serve as a
central space for FGCS to integrate and receive social and academic support on college
campuses (Davis, 2012). The integrated learning that is central to learning communities has been
shown to be beneficial to FGCS social integration and achievement on campus (Inkelas et al.,
2007; Somers, Woodhouse, & Cofer, 2004).
Peer relationships. Students’ network of relationships to peers on campus are important
sources of social support, especially for FGCS (Dennis, Phinney, & Chuateco, 2005; Grant-
Vallone, Reid, Umali, Pohlert, 2003; Tierney, Corwin, & Colyar, 2005; Yazedjian, Purswell,
18

Sevin, & Toews, 2007). During the transition to college, support from peers can be even more
instrumental than from other sources (Grant-Vallone, et al., 2003). FGCS in particular turn to
peers for support with academic issues once they recognize that their own and their families’
college knowledge is not sufficient to succeed (Dennis, Phinney, & Chuateco, 2005).
Thomas (2000) found that students with between 7 and 17 friends performed the best
academically and had stronger institutional commitment, an important precursor to persistence in
college. Students with more dense social networks, that is, more relationships with peers who are
also connected to each other, also tend to have higher grades in college (Flethcer & Tienda,
2009; Rizzuto, LeDoux, & Hatala, 2009). Research also suggests the characteristics of those
students with whom relationships are formed matters to academic achievement and persistence.
For example, having a high achieving roommate can enhance a student’s academic performance
(Biancani & McFarland, 2013), and likelihood of students departing college prematurely
increases significantly with each friend that has left college early (Eckles& Stradley, 2012).
Commuter students and students of color, who are more likely to be FGCS, tend to have less
dense social networks containing fewer people with significant college knowledge (DeFour &
Hirsch, 1990; D’Augelli & Hershberger, 1993; Kenny & Stryker, 1994; Skahill, 2002). This
translates to less access to resources relevant for completing college for FGCS.
Despite some apparent benefits of dense peer groups, some evidence suggests that having
a high percentage of one’s relationships on campus within one peer group can negatively affect
one’s success in college (Thomas, 2000). Not only are these students less likely to be positively
influenced by classmates outside of their peer group, they are also more reliant on the limited
resources of their peer group, rather than gaining access to resources outside their close-knit
group (Lin, 2001; Thomas, 2000). College students in general have been found to make
19

connections more often with those of similar backgrounds, academic interests and abilities
(Mayer & Puller, 2007; Newman, 2003; Rovai, 2002). However, peer interactions of diverse
groups of students often result in discussions with various viewpoints which have been found to
positively impact students’ cognitive development during college (Whitt, Edison, Pascarella,
Nora, & Terenzini, 1999).
Many peer relationships on campus develop through students’ involvement in student
clubs and organizations on campus. Due in part to the family and work demands of many FGCS
and their often part-time student status, engagement with peers on campus in general and in
campus organizations in particular, is limited for this student group (Delaney, 2010; Lundberg,
Schreiner, Hovaguimian, & Slavin-Miller, 2007; Pascarella et al., 2004; Ward et al., 2012). This
problem may be attributable to many FGCS perception that their campus environment is not
supportive (Ward et al., 2012). Those FGCS who do engage in university-sponsored activities
tend to do so later than their non-FGCS counterparts, and thus miss opportunities to develop
meaningful peer relationships early on in college that can provide a host of benefits academically
and socially (Terenzini et al., 1994).
Study Overview
Recall the central research questions of this study are: (a) what is the relationship, if any,
between FGCS grit and social capital in their academic success in college? (b) does FGCS access
to social capital differ based on mentoring program and student organization participation,
demographic characteristics, grit, academic preparation (i.e., SAT) and academic performance
(i.e., college GPA)? and (c) how do FGCS employ grit and social capital to succeed
academically and persist in college?
20

In Chapter 2, I unpack the concept of grit, and elaborate on social capital theory as a
framework for understanding FGCS success. I delineate grit’s two interrelated components of
consistency of interests and perseverance of effort, and include a discussion of related theories
and constructs to help understand this often-oversimplified concept. The current conception of
grit in educational discourse focuses on the individual student, which is limited in scope for
understanding FGCS success. Social capital theory posits that individuals derive benefits through
their social networks that help them achieve success (Bourdieu, 1986; Coleman, 1988; Lin,
2001) and can also be useful in educational contexts like higher education (Dika & Singh, 2002).
In addition to individual student effort, I posit that the support that FGCS derive from their
network of relationships is also instrumental in FGCS success.
In Chapter 3, I outline the rationale and design of this mixed methods study. The
quantitative data is derived through a survey of 156 FGCS at Parkville University (PU), a 4-year
private religiously-affiliated university, conducted in January – February 2016. The survey
consists of social network questions about student relationships to peers, faculty and staff on
campus. The survey also contains the 12 items of the grit scale and questions regarding students’
demographics, involvement on campus, grade point average, and perceived social support. Social
Network Analysis is used to assess students’ relationships on campus—a proxy for social capital.
The first research question is answered primarily through OLS regression methods and
correlational analyses examining if and how students’ grit scale scores, network measure proxies
of social capital, and elements of perceived social support relate to academic success measured
by cumulative college GPA. The second research question is answered through a series of t-tests,
exploring potential differences in access to and benefits of social capital based on academic
performance, grit scale score, student involvement, and demographic characteristics. The
21

qualitative component of the study consists of interviews conducted with student survey
respondents as well as faculty and staff who are identified by FGCS survey respondents. The
interview data will be used primarily to answer the third research question, describing how
students utilize grit and social capital to be successful in college. The interview data also serves
to contextualize the grit scale scores and social network measures by providing detailed accounts
of students’ experiences building relationships and overcoming challenges in college (Creswell,
2009).
Chapter 4 presents the results that answer each of the three research questions, and to
answer question 3, I profile six FGCS interviewed that exemplify the heterogeneity of how grit
and social capital are employed to achieve success at PU. In Chapter 5, I integrate the
quantitative and qualitative results presented into four central findings. I discuss the implications
of these findings by proposing a model re-conceptualizing grit and as well as the ideal type of
institutional agent for FGCS and grit. Implications for future directions for research are also
addressed in the concluding chapter.

22

Chapter 2: Understanding Grit and Social Capital
In the previous chapter, I outlined the core components of this study, explaining the
importance of FGCS success and summarizing the literature concerning FGCS and the
conditions that support their success in higher education. The purposes of this chapter are to: (a)
provide the current conceptualization of the construct of grit that has become increasingly
prominent and controversial in educational discourse, and (b) outline the theory of social capital
and its relevance to FGCS success.
I first situate grit as one of many non-cognitive factors relevant to student success. I
distinguish grit from other related non-cognitive factors by discussing grit’s two essential
features (i.e., consistency of interests and perseverance of effort) and include relevant theoretical
constructs that underlie the two aspects of grit for a more complete understanding of the concept.
I also summarize the literature and the critiques of grit and its application in education. Finally, I
introduce theories of capital that are used to understand student success and focus on social
capital which is utilized as the theoretical framework for this study.
Grit in the Context of Higher Education
Non-Cognitive Factors in Higher Education
In an analysis of university administrators’ perspectives on their institutions’ norms and
expectations of college students, Stephens and colleagues (2012) found that colleges primarily
value norms of independence, rather than interdependence. This emphasis on independence that
pervades U.S. higher education is consistent with the idea that student success or failure rests
primarily on students’ skills, abilities and effort. Student success in college is generally predicted
using standardized assessments (e.g., ACT or SAT) which purport to measure cognitive ability
and a limited range of academic skills (Burton & Ramist, 2001; Sternberg, Bonney, Gabora, &
23

Merrifield, 2012). Even though cognitive academic ability and academic preparation have been
found to be important to success in postsecondary education (Adelman, 2006), academic
outcomes among students with comparable levels of ability and preparation vary significantly
(Dweck, Walton, Cohen, Paunesku, & Yeager, 2011).
Scholars, faculty teaching college students, and companies hiring college graduates alike
acknowledge the value of what are commonly referred to as non-cognitive factors in successful
college students, including interpersonal skills, leadership, adaptability, and perseverance (Credé,
& Kuncel, 2008; Kyllonen, 2005; Le, Casillas, Robbins, & Langley, 2005; Oswald, Schmitt,
Kim, Ramsay, & Gillespie, 2004; Schmitt, 2012; Stemler, 2012; Sternberg et al., 2012). Both
Astin (1975) and Tinto (1993) identified non-cognitive factors—such as study habits and
academic self-esteem—that mattered in their models of college persistence that have influenced
much of the research in higher education.
Understanding Grit
Grit is one non-cognitive factor that is often used erroneously as a synonym to work
ethic, determination, or tenacity. More precisely, grit is defined in the educational psychology
literature as “perseverance and passion for long-term goals” (Duckworth et al., 2007, p. 1087).
Other useful characterizations of grit are “the capacity to sustain effort and interest in projects
that take months or even longer to complete” (Duckworth & Quinn, 2009, p.166), “passionate
commitment to a single mission and an unswerving dedication to achieve that mission” (Tough,
2012, p. 74), and “self-discipline wedded to a dedicated pursuit of a goal” (Tough, 2012, p. 136).
Although grit is most often associated with its perseverance of effort aspect, it also has a
component called consistency of interests, which is less often discussed. The concept of grit
originally derived from interviews with successful individuals in various professions (i.e., artists,
24

academics, lawyers, bankers, etc.) who shared that this idea of grit mattered as much as talent or
intelligence to success in their field (Duckworth et al., 2007). Research has also suggested grit’s
utility for individuals to succeed in challenging environments, including college (Duckworth et
al., 2007; Duckworth & Quinn, 2009; Strayhorn, 2013).
Whereas the notion of grit was introduced in the psychology literature in 2007, other
related concepts have been studied for much longer. Perseverance, or persistence, for example,
has been studied for over a century in psychology as a factor that accounts for differences in
individuals’ behaviors (Ryans, 1939). Grit is highly correlated with the personality trait of
conscientiousness which has been found to have a positive relationship with college student
retention (Duckworth & Quinn, 2009; Le et al., 2005). Even if the two constructs are similar
regarding short-term endeavors, grit is distinct from conscientiousness as grit is relevant to
particularly long-term accomplishments and goals (Duckworth et al., 2007). Academic tenacity
is conceptually similar to grit as well. Academic tenacity is defined as “mindsets and skills that
allow students to look beyond short-term concerns to longer-term or higher-order goals, and to
withstand challenges and setbacks to persevere toward these goals” (Dweck et al., 2011, p. 5).
Academic tenacity does not attend to the important aspect of grit that concerns one’s passion or
interests. Other traits similar to grit are academic discipline (Le et al., 2005), ambition (Maltby et
al, 2008), hardiness (Maddi, 2006), or need for achievement (McClelland & Liberman, 1949).
However, these are all distinct from grit as they are not entirely consistent with the two facets of
grit, consistency of interests and perseverance of effort (Duckworth et al., 2007).

25

Consistency of interests. Grit scale
2
items such as “My interests change from year to
year,” or “I often set a goal but later choose to pursue a different one” are measuring students’
“consistency of interest over time” (Duckworth et al., 2007, p. 1090). The consistency of
interests aspect of grit accounts for half of the grit scale items, yet is less often considered in the
discourse about grit. As seen in Figure 2.1, intrinsic interests, harmonious passion, and mastery
goal orientation are relevant constructs to consider for understanding this aspect of grit.

Figure 2.1. Grit’s two components and underlying theories and construct

Intrinsically-motivated interests. Intrinsic motivation is experienced by individuals who
are motivated by internal factors such as personal interests and view themselves in control of
their own behaviors (Fredericks, Alfeld, & Eccles, 2010). This is distinct from extrinsic
motivation, which is due to external factors such as rewards or punishments. Consider two

2
The grit scale (Duckworth et al, 2007) is a 12-item self-assessment asking individuals to respond to statements that fall under
two categories: (1) Consistency of Interest and (2) Perseverance of Effort. Responses range from ‘very much like me’ to ‘not like
me at all.’ The score on the grit scale can range from a low of 1 to a high of 5.
Perseverance of Effort
• Possible Selves & Self-efficacy
• Higher Order Purpose
• Resilience & Optimistic
Explanatory Style

Consistency of Interests
• Intrinsic Interests
• Harmonious Passion
• Mastery Goal Orientation

GRIT
26

biology majors. Lilly has had a long interest in science and in particular how cells function. This
has led Lilly to read books about cell function and nutrition during breaks from school. She also
sought out a particular biology professor conducting research on nutrition to be his unpaid
research assistant over the summer. Ricardo also chose biology as a major in college, yet has less
of a direct or specific interest in the subject.
Ricardo’s family expects him to be the family’s first doctor. He likes the idea of being a
doctor and making his family proud. Ricardo felt pressure to choose biology as a major because
he had been advised that many successful physicians majored in the subject. Intrinsic motivation
is experienced by individuals, like Lilly, who view themselves as in control of their own
behavior and are motivated by internal factors. Extrinsic motivation is more characteristic of
Ricardo. The experience of an intrinsic interest can be described by “positive feelings, greater
knowledge and value for content area than other activities, and a desire to pursue the activity if
given the choice” (Fredricks, Alfeld, & Eccles, 2010, p. 19). As intrinsic interests are more
sustainable in the long-term, such as completing 4 years or more of college, they are more
germane to the concept of grit especially in the context of higher education (Geiger & Cooper,
1995).
Harmonious passion. A very strong intrinsic interest may also be characterized as a
passion, or “a strong inclination and desire toward a self-defining activity one likes (or even
loves), finds important, and in which one invests time and energy on a regular basis” (Vallerand,
2012, p. 3). Passion can drive people’s motivation, and has been associated with promoting
well-being, and providing meaning to everyday life (Vallerand, 2012). When one takes part in
his or her passion, they often experience what is called flow, or the intense attention, immersion,
27

and engagement resulting in a feeling of joy and fulfillment (Csikszentmihalyi, Rathunde &
Whalen, 1993). Not all passions, are motivated intrinsically, however.
Similar to extrinsic motivation, with obsessive passion a person may feel pressure or
external control that results in an experience of compulsion rather than choice to adopt behaviors
and values (Marsh et al., 2013; Vallerand, 2012). In contrast, harmonious passion is
characterized by a person willfully choosing to participate in an activity which contributes to his
or her happiness and other positive emotions (Stoeber, Childs, Hayward, & Feast, 2011;
Vallerand, 2012). In the context of higher education, harmonious passion has been shown to be
predictive of higher dedication and lower levels of cynicism among college students (Stoeber et
al., 2011).
Mastery goal orientation. A student’s goal orientation, or his or her view of intelligence
and approach to learning, is also relevant to the duration of interests over time (Harackiewicz,
Barron, Tauer, & Elliot, 2002). Generally, the theory asserts that students can either adopt a
performance goal orientation or a mastery goal orientation. With performance goal orientation, a
student views his or her intelligence as fixed and is more concerned with receiving positive
feedback and avoiding failure (Blackwell, Trzesniewski, & Dweck, 2007; Dweck & Leggett,
1988). In contrast, a student with mastery goal orientation believes that his or her intelligence is
malleable and has the ultimate goal of understanding and becoming competent despite the grade
or feedback received. Mastery goal orientation is the only type of goal orientation that has been
found to influence an individual’s continued interest or passion in a given area (Harackiewicz et
al., 2002), and thus is most consistent with grit. In fact, in a recent study college students with
higher levels of grit were found to more likely espouse a mastery goal orientation (Akın &
28

Arslan, 2014).
Perseverance of effort. The other facet of grit most often connected to the concept,
“perseverance of effort,” is reflected in grit scale items such as “I finish whatever I begin” or
“Setbacks don’t discourage me” (Duckworth et al., 2007, p. 1090). Several other theories and
constructs (i.e., possible selves and self-efficacy, higher-order purpose, resilience and optimistic
explanatory style) are helpful to comprehend the sustained effort aspect of grit.
Possible selves and self-efficacy. Students’ possible selves are “the cognitive
manifestation of durable goals, aspirations, motives, fears, and threats” (Markus & Nurius, 1986,
p. 954). An individual creates images of what he or she would like to become, could feasibly
become, and is fearful of becoming (Markus & Nurius, 1986). College students’ possible selves
influence their effort in ways that will either promote or constrain them from putting in the effort
to pursue long-term goals to become their desired selves (Markus & Nurius, 1986; Oyserman,
Terry, & Bybee, 2002; Pizzolato, 2006). The concept of possible selves, especially regarding
what one could feasibly become, is connected to self-efficacy or the confidence about what one
can achieve (Sullivan & Guerra, 2007).
Self-efficacy research regarding education suggests that students of all ages apply extra
effort in school and take on more challenging goals, on average, when they have a sense of self-
efficacy (Multon, Brown, & Lent, 1991). FGCS who have higher degrees of self-efficacy have
been found to perform better academically and are more likely to persist in higher education
(Inkelas, Daver, Vogt, & Leonard, 2007; Wang & Casteneda-Sound, 2008). Individuals having
the belief that people similar to themselves are able to achieve a certain long-term goal are more
likely to have increased effort in that area (Lockwood & Kunda, 1997). Students’ self-efficacy
supports students’ use of self-regulation and discipline that help students learn effectively over
29

longer periods of time (Zimmerman, Bandura, & Martinez-Pons, 1992). Wolters and Hussain’s
(2014) research suggests that these self-regulating learning strategies may serve as mediating
factors between grit’s perseverance of effort component and college students’ academic success.
Higher-order purpose. College students who attach their current effort to a higher-order
purpose tend to engage in tasks for longer periods thus increasing their likelihood of achieving
long-term goals (Damon, 2008; Hill, Burrow, & Bronk, 2014; McKnight & Kashdan, 2009;
Pizzolato, 2006). A purpose transcending oneself can produce the motivation and energy often
necessary for pursuing a goal to completion (Damon, 2008). High school students concerned
with contributing to society as their higher-order purpose have been found to be more motivated
to put in effort and less concerned with avoiding failure (Lee, McInerney, Liem, & Ortiga, 2010).
For many students their success in higher education is connected to their ability to support their
current and future family (Campa, 2010). This can function as a higher-order purpose that
supports their sustained effort to complete college. Regarding encouraging students’
development of higher-order purpose, Yeager and colleagues (2014) found that students in
learning environments that repeatedly engage students in this idea of higher-order purpose have
been found to more often benefit from short-term interventions designed to promote students’
higher-order purpose (Yeager et al., 2014).
Resilience and optimistic explanatory style. Resilience is a concept that is often
collapsed with grit, as it is particularly relevant to the perseverance of effort aspect of grit.
Resilience, however, is not tantamount to grit. A resilient person more often implies someone
who is exceptional in overcoming extraordinary odds, while that is not necessarily the case for a
person with grit. Although the two facets of grit are interrelated, resilience has less to do with the
consistency half of the grit scale items. Also, whereas grit is traditionally conceptualized as an
30

internal trait of individuals independent of social context, resilience in contrast, is understood as
the interaction between internal as well as external environmental risk and protective factors
(Rutter, 2006). Numerous theories of resilience relate to FGCS success.
Educational resilience refers to the achievement in educational institutions of students
who overcome adversities due to contextual factors, which is closely aligned with grit as it is
conceptualized in this study of FGCS (Wang, Haertel, & Walberg, 1994). Cultural resilience
(HeavyRunner & Marshall, 2003) is a theory suggesting all cultures have unique protective
factors that can be drawn upon to support success in education and other areas of life. Drywater-
Whitekiller (2010), for example, found that factors such as support from family and elders, oral
traditions, spirituality, and prayer matter a great deal to Native American college students. These
findings underscore the interdependence of internal and external protective factors of resilience.
The theory of critical resilience (Campa, 2010) recognizes that power, race, class and gender,
and social and cultural contexts shape the experiences of students in higher education. Campa
(2010) used qualitative inquiry to show how underrepresented students of color have been
resilient to succeed in college. Campa’s work reveals that students connect their efforts in
college to the higher-order purpose of uplifting not only themselves, but their families and
communities as well.
Explanatory style, or the manner in which individuals internally explain (i.e., either
optimistic or pessimistic) the events of their lives (Peterson & Seligman, 1984) is a useful
concept in understanding students’ resilience and their perceptions of the possibility of
overcoming challenges in college. Consider that one’s explanatory style is an internal protective
(optimistic) or risk factor (pessimistic) that influences resilience. A student with an optimistic
explanatory style will likely view obstacles in college as short-term and limited to a given period
31

or event (Seligman, 1990). As such, this explanatory style may be a protective factor consistent
with grit, rather than a pessimistic explanatory style, a risk factor that is antithetical to grit.
College students who use an optimistic explanatory style to account for academic difficulties
have been found to perform better than students who use a pessimistic explanatory style, even
after controlling for factors such as prior achievement and depression (Peterson & Barrett, 1987).
Support of Grit’s Relevance in Higher Education
Standardized assessments like the SAT and ACT used to predict college success fail to
measure non-cognitive factors like grit that help students persist in college (Sternberg et al.,
2012). Although research suggests that standardized assessments of cognitive ability provide
value in projecting college grades and persistence (Burton & Ramist, 2001; Daniels, Gibson,
Carmack, & Smith, 2012; Geiser & Santelices, 2007), they have been found to be less accurate in
forecasting success of low-income and underrepresented minority students who are often also
FGCS (Burton & Ramist, 2001; Hoffman & Lowitzki, 2005; Steele, 1997; Zwick & Sklar,
2005). In general, including measures of non-cognitive factors in models predicting college
grades reduces the differences in accuracy between white students and students of color that exist
when traditional measures (i.e., SAT, ACT, high school grades, etc.) are used alone (Oswald et
al., 2004; Sternberg et al., 2012).
Empirical research in higher education contexts has suggested the utility of grit
specifically (Duckworth et al., 2007; Duckworth & Quinn 2009; Maddi et al., 2012 Strayhorn,
2013). For example, when added to measures of cognitive ability, scores on the grit scale
increase the prediction of educational attainment of adults, academic success of freshman
psychology majors at a selective higher education institution (Duckworth & Quinn, 2009) and of
black male college students attending predominately white institutions (Strayhorn, 2013). In
32

Strayhorn’s (2013) sample of black male college students—a majority of whom were FGCS—
grit appeared to matter in forecasting grades almost as much as students’ high school GPAs and
standardized test scores. This evidence has raised the profile of grit amongst the multitude of
non-cognitive traits that are considered relevant to student success.
The theoretical constructs that underlie the components of grit suggest the value grit has
an analytic tool specifically for FGCS. For example, motivation research suggests that unlike
extrinsically motivated interests, intrinsically motivated interests promote grit and are preferable
in the context of completing college (Geiger & Cooper, 1995). Being motivated by extrinsic
factors like financial gain rather than intrinsic interests (consistent with grit) has been found to
contribute to lower college grades more so for FGCS than for non-FGCS (Prospero & Vohra-
Gupta, 2007). Also, while evidence suggests that espousing a goal of learning or mastery
promotes persistence of interests and effort and academic achievement, unfortunately first-
generation college freshmen have been found to more likely adopt performance avoidance goals
than their non-first-generation counterparts (Jury, Smeding, & Darnon, 2015). In the context of
persisting in higher education for four or more years, performance avoidance goals will less
likely sustain students’ interest or effort if they are constantly motivated by avoiding failure. This
evidence that these theoretical constructs related to grit’s components are more relevant to FGCS
than their non-FGCS peers supports the application of grit to understanding the academic success
of FGCS.
Concerns about Grit in Higher Education
Despite the empirical evidence supporting grit’s relevance to FGCS success, there are
areas of concern with grit, particularly how it has been studied, conceptualized, and applied in
educational contexts. One area of concern relates to the psychological and interpersonal well-
33

being of students. Under certain conditions, grit may have risks (Shechtman et al., 2013). For
example, a gritty student pursuing a long-term objective that is driven by fear is at risk for
harmful effects on his or her psychological well-being over time. With excessive passion, grit
can be particularly disadvantageous as this combination can induce negative feelings and may
result in stubborn behavior (Marsh et al., 2013). When grit is coupled with obsessive rather than
harmonious passion, conflict between the passion and other life activities is likely (Vallerand et
al., 2003; Vallerand, Paquet, Philippe, & Charest, 2010). Obsessive passion can cause an
overpowering craving to partake in the passion and an unwillingness to disengage (Marsh et al.,
2013). Grit with obsessive passion may ultimately create an imbalance in one’s life and
adversely affect one’s psychological health. The ability to discontinue pursuit of truly
inaccessible goals and instead aim for ones that are more realistic has been found to be related to
both physical and psychological well-being (Miller & Wrosch 2007; Wrosch, Scheier, Miller,
Schulz, & Carver, 2003).
In a set of recent experimental studies concerning grit (Lucas, Gratch, Cheng, &
Marsella, 2015) individuals scoring higher on the grit scale were more likely to persist and
increase their effort in activities even though failure was imminent. Grittier individuals continued
their effort in tasks during the experiments even when there was a monetary cost to doing so.
Instead of solely promoting grit and closely related self-control (Duckworth & Gross, 2015) in
all situations, perhaps the focus should be on developing students’ ability to distinguish between
the circumstances when it is appropriate to persevere and when it may be more advantageous to
turn attention to other pursuits (Block, 2002; Kohn, 2008).
Another concern stems from research that suggests that students who are overly self-
controlled are less likely to be creative, open to new experiences, or interested in culture or
34

artistic pursuits (Block, 2002; Duckworth & Seligman, 2005; Kohn, 2008). A person with too
much grit may also have difficulties in relationships with others as they may have trouble
relating to others with lower levels of grit (Tough, 2012). For example, in a challenging
environment like college, a student with a lot of grit may be less likely to understand others who
complain about difficulties. In general, gritty individuals who are also rigid or unyielding may
have difficulties expressing empathy for others who are not at their level of grit, which may be
detrimental to their relationships (Block, 2002).
I assert that the concept of grit is underdeveloped due to limited diversity of the samples
used in the research, the manner in which grit is measured and the fact that the research
concerning grit has been void of qualitative or mixed methods inquiry. The interviews used to
construct the grit scale were conducted with successful individuals in a variety of professions
(Duckworth et al., 2007) whose backgrounds and experiences overcoming setbacks are likely
much different than successful FGCS. While one study by Strayhorn (2013) focused on black
male college students, the samples in the foundational grit studies (e.g. Duckworth et al., 2007;
Duckworth & Quinn, 2009) consisted mostly of white and non-FGCS (e.g. Ivy League
psychology majors, West Point cadets, National Spelling Bee champions). The fact that few
FGCS have been included in the samples in studies validating and employing the grit scale
suggests that the theory of grit developed from these findings may not be as germane to FGCS.
Another concern pertains to the subjective nature of how grit is measured; that is, either
through the grit scale or teachers’ subjective descriptions of students, rather than indicators that
reflect something students have actually done (Kohn, 2014). The methods of one recent study
(Robertson-Kraft & Duckworth, 2014) began to address this concern by using biographical data
of past behaviors, activities and experiences, known as biodata (Kyllonen, Lipnevich, Burrus,
35

Roberts, 2008), to assess the grit of novice teachers in low-income schools to predict teacher
effectiveness and retention. Researchers created a rubric to code resumes of new teachers for
evidence of grit in college activities, employment, and leadership roles.
Although this more objective method was used recently, grit has almost exclusively been
measured by the subjective 12-item self-assessment grit scale. Findings from one quantitative
examination of the psychophysiological automatic processes of grit (Silvia et al., 2013) suggests
variability in how grit occurs for different individuals, and questions whether one’s score on the
subjective grit scale will always translate to the objective behaviors commonly associated with
grit, like continued effort. This and the other quantitative analyses of grit highlight a need for
qualitative and mixed methods investigations to further develop the theoretical construct of grit
especially as it relates to specific populations like FGCS. Prior to a discussion of the mixed
methods research design for this undertaking, however, I turn to the theoretical framework I shall
utilize as the intellectual scaffolding for the project. I begin by introducing theories of capital in
general, and then turn to a discussion of social capital which I shall argue is more connected to
the concept of grit than the current research has suggested.
Theories of Capital
The general concept of ‘capital’ is one that is pervasive in many arenas in our society and
generally refers to an investment in resources that can be converted into beneficial outcomes for
an individual, group, or organization. For instance, political capital in government refers to the
goodwill a politician has earned with constituents and the politician’s access to other
policymakers to ultimately exert influence in the policymaking process (Schugurensky, 2000;
Sørensen & Torfing, 2003). In business we hear of financial capital which generally refers to
monetary assets, such as savings or investment earnings that are used to produce goods and
36

services (Coleman, 2004), and economic capital, or resources that can be directly converted to
money such as a business’ land or equipment (Bourdieu, 1986). The notion of capital has been
applied to educational contexts as well, namely human capital (Becker, 1975/1994), cultural
capital (Bourdieu, 1973/1986), and social capital (Bourdieu, 1986; Coleman, 1988; Stanton-
Salazar, 1997/2011; Stanton-Salazar & Dornbusch, 1995).
Both human capital and cultural capital reside within the province of the individual.
Human capital pertains to knowledge, skills, and abilities that one acquires most often through
education that can help an individual to gain an economic advantage in society (Becker, 1994).
The theory of human capital implies that the deliberate investment of time, money and other
resources in developing the knowledge base and skillset of individuals will result in their
increased productivity (Schultz, 1989). Cultural capital is characterized as cultural resources (i.e.,
attitudes, behaviors, appearance, style of speech, credentials) that are valued in educational
contexts and ultimately promote social mobility (Bourdieu, 1986; Lamont & Lareau, 1998).
Pierre Bourdieu (1973/1986), the father of the theory of cultural capital, postulates that the
intergenerational transfer of cultural capital maintains society’s class hierarchy. The assumption
is that social structures (e.g. educational systems) perpetuate this transmission by determining
what constitutes dominant cultural capital—primarily possessed and taken for granted by
college-educated middle- and upper-income individuals—and non-dominant cultural capital—
more often found in low-income communities where college-educated individuals are scarce
(Carter, 2003; Lareau, 1987).
The individualistic manner in which grit has been conceptualized in the literature is a
cross between human capital (i.e., skills or attributes) and cultural capital (i.e., behaviors or
attitudes) valued in higher education (See Figure 2.2 below). The role of societal forces or
37

institutional policies, practices, or actors is lacking in the research and discourse on grit (Kohn,
2014; Ravitch, 2014). Using only a human capital and cultural capital perspective to explain
FGCS achievement can be viewed as “blaming the victim” (Ryan, 1976) by holding low-
achieving FGCS responsible for not succeeding in college (Ravitch, 2014; Rose, 2009). The
emphasis on students’ grit or lack thereof takes the attention away from the larger structural and
bureaucratic barriers for many students to perform to their full capacity in college (Rose, 2009).
Using the concept of grit alone without considering the structural impediments to or facilitators
of FGCS success can provide an insufficient perspective of FGCS academic achievement and
persistence in college. I posit that while grit is relevant to consider in FGCS success, the theory
of social capital representing the social structure (Coleman; 1988; Musoba & Baez, 2009) is
inextricably linked to FGCS success in college.

Figure 2.2. Current individualistic conception of grit at the intersection of human capital and
cultural capital
Human Capital
• Knowledge
• Skills
• Abilities
• Health

Cultural Capital
• Attitudes
• Behaviors
• Appearance
• Style of speech

GRIT
38

Understanding Social Capital
Unlike both human and cultural capital, social capital is comprised of resources located
not within an individual, but embedded within an individual’s social network of relationships
(Bourdieu, 1986; Coleman, 1988; Lin, 2001; Stanton-Salazar, 2011). A major strength of
employing social capital theory is that it attends to issues related to the social structure rather
than focusing solely on individual student characteristics, as is so often the case in higher
education research, especially concerning students of color and FGCS (Bensimon, 2007). Pierre
Bourdieu (1973/1986) is generally thought of as the father of social capital theory. His theory of
social capital is primarily concerned with issues of power dynamics and the reproduction of
social class hierarchies. In Bourdieu’s social capital theory not everyone in a society can employ
social capital equally. To effectively use social capital, Bourdieu (1986) theorized the necessary
presence of other forms of capital such as economic capital, human capital, or cultural capital.
Bourdieu posited that the intergenerational transmission of all these forms of capital is
facilitated by the forces of the social structure, including within educational institutions. He
conceives the idea of social capital as a form of oppression as it serves to maintain the social
hierarchy from generation to generation. Bourdieu diminished the role of human agency,
maintaining that the social structure prevents those in lower classes from accessing the requisite
human, economic, or cultural capital, and constantly shifts the requirements to keep the dominant
class in power (Bourdieu, 1986; Musoba & Baez, 2009).
I, along with others (Musoba & Baez, 2009), view Bourdieu’s theory of social capital as
overly-deterministic deemphasizing the power of one’s agency in shaping one’s outcomes and
focusing too much on the role of institutionalized structures as barriers to social capital. In a
future study, I may examine grit through a Marxist lens, a study for which Bourdieu’s social
39

capital is well-suited. In this current study, I primarily call on James Coleman’s (1988) version
of social capital which is a more optimistic alternative to Bourdieu as it acknowledges human
agency and is cited most often in educational literature (Dika & Singh, 2002). The study is also
informed by Lin’s (1999/2001) network theory of social capital which fits well with social
network analysis as it emphasizes on the embedded resources within one’s network of
relationships. I also draw on Stanton-Salazar’s (1995, 1997, 2011) work on institutional agents,
or faculty, staff and peers on college campuses “who have the capacity and commitment to
transmit directly or negotiate the transmission of institutional resources and opportunities”
(Stanton-Salazar & Dornbusch, 1995, p. 117). These three perspectives of social capital, taken
together, acknowledge both the role of individual and institutional actors in the generation and
use social capital in partnership. Next I further explain these three perspectives on social capital
and why they are relevant to this study.
Coleman’s social capital. Coleman (1988) stated that “social capital is defined by its
function” (p. 302), which is to enable activity among individuals within a social structure and
primarily focuses on community relations. Coleman’s theory assumes the rational actions of
individuals who participate as members of a community and acquire social capital through
reciprocal exchanges of resources (Coleman, 1988; Small, 2009). A system such as this
engenders mutual trust; members of the network are obligated to provide support when they can
and also have an expectation that their needs will be met by others in their community (Coleman,
1988; Museus & Neville, 2012). Coleman’s theory of social capital also emphasizes the
importance of closure among relationships; that is, connections between individuals are closer
when they also are connected to the same people in the network (Coleman, 1988; Museus &
Neville, 2012). Closure helps to create and maintain social capital within a social network by
40

enforcing norms and sanctions that promote trust in the network (Burt, 2000).
Coleman (1988) emphasizes the role of parents in the generation of social capital. While
parents continue to play an important part in the success of FGCS (Dennis, Phinney, &
Chuateco, 2005), parents without a college education have limited ability to provide the college-
relevant information and guidance that FGCS need to be successful (Auerbach, 2004). Applying
Coleman’s perspective on social capital to the campus community, and the establishment of
norms for reciprocal exchanges to build trust among students and between students and other
institutional agents can shed light on how FGCS successfully navigate college. While there are
many forms and sources of social capital, there are two in particular outlined by Coleman (1988)
that pertain to FGCS overcoming obstacles in college: (a) information potential and (b) social
organizations (both intentional and appropriable).
Information potential. Information potential (Coleman, 1988) is particularly germane to
succeeding in college as students need information about financial aid, course requirements,
campus resources, etc. to overcome various obstacles in college. Knowledge and information
that can assist students in navigating college can be accessed through one’s network of
relationships on campus (Stanton-Salazar, 1997). Students with college-educated parents are
likely to gain access to valuable information through their already-established network prior to
entering higher education (Bell, Rowan-Kenyon, & Perna; 2009; Wellman, 1983). FGCS, in
contrast, associate with fewer college-educated people and thus have less college-relevant
information potential (Almeida, 2015). While non-FGCS have amassed much of their college-
relevant social capital prior to beginning college, FGCS must acquire information potential
primarily from the relationships they build on campus.

41

Intentional and appropriable social organizations. Organizations to which individuals
become members can be ripe for generating social capital. Some groups known as intentional
organizations are those in which members join specifically to derive a benefit (Coleman, 1988).
For example, some college campuses, including the research site for this study, have FGCS
mentoring programs that explicitly state in their mission statements that developing social capital
is a primary goal (Ward et al., 2012). Through joining an organization like this, the intention is
for students to develop relationships with faculty, staff and peers who can provide social support
and informational support, such as sharing opportunities and information about resources on and
off campus that may help in succeeding in college. In an appropriable social organization, in
contrast, members join and receive unintended benefits (Coleman, 1988). For instance, although
students may not intend to draw benefits beyond personal satisfaction from joining a community
service organization or an intramural sports club, they may nevertheless gain college-relevant
social capital from their participation and association with other members.
Lin’s network perspective on social capital. Lin’s (1999/2001) addition to social
capital theory lies in the idea that resources are embedded in one’s network of relationships.
Individuals thus can exert their agency and intentionally invest in social relationships within an
institution with the hopes of deriving a return on their investment (Lin, 1999), by joining an
intentional organization, for example. Three essential components are central to Lin’s network
theory of social capital and are relevant to this study as they speak to the symbiotic role of
institutional actors and individuals in social capital: (a) resources such as information and
support that are located within a social network or social structure; (b) availability of these
resources to individuals; and (c) the utilization of the resources by individuals (Lin, 2001).

42

Inequity exists in the access to opportunities and information between those familiar and
those unfamiliar with an institutional context like higher education (Wellman, 1983). College-
relevant resources are plentiful for students with college-educated networks outside of campus as
students likely can learn from the first-hand college experiences of their connections. Perhaps
through their social ties that may hold important positions in the network, these students can
obtain opportunities and useful advice on strategies to actually employ these resources to
successfully complete college (Lin, 2001). Thus, the location of individuals in a network
becomes important to consider as the flow of social capital resources may not only come directly
from one’s relationships, but also indirectly through the connections of their personal
relationships (Adler & Kwon, 2002). The role of individuals who serve as bridges in networks or
brokers of information, can be instrumental to the distribution of resources located in a network
(Lin, 2001; Small, 2009). It is often through acquaintances that information flows to more people
especially those on the periphery of networks (Granovetter, 1972; Lin 1999).
Social capital and institutional agents. Social capital as it is employed in this research
project is defined as access to and mobilization of informational and social support embedded in
students’ social networks (Lin, 1999; Stanton-Salazar, 2011; Stanton-Salazar & Dornbusch,
1995). As has been discussed, students’ social networks on college campuses consist of
institutional actors like faculty and staff, as well as other students. An institutional actor becomes
an institutional agent once he or she takes action to provide or facilitate the transmission of
institutional resources, information, support, or opportunities that promote the likelihood of
student success (Stanton-Salazar, 2011).
Stanton-Salazar (2011) outlined criteria that are ideal for an institutional agent which are
particularly relevant to this study. For instance, an institutional agent preferably occupies a high-
43

status position in the institution. He or she has a relatively high-level of human, cultural and
social capital providing the institutional agent with the ability to strategically mobilize
institutional support using their position, authority, reputation, or personal relationships on
campus. Ideally an institutional agent can also fill multiple roles (e.g., professor, academic
advisor, and counselor) and provide directly or mobilize support in multiple areas (e.g.,
academic, financial aid, and social). Although the term institutional agents most often refers to
employees of an institution like faculty and staff, peers can also serve as institutional agents on a
college campus if they are student leaders or well-connected to faculty and staff, and have more
direct access to institutional support relevant to succeeding in college (Gibson, Gándara, and
Koyama, 2004). Particularly relevant to this study of grit, as Stanton-Salazar (1997, 2011) posits,
institutional agents are more likely to provide support to students who demonstrate mainstream
values of individualism. Grit’s individualistic conceptualization suggests that students exhibiting
the trait of grit may be more likely to receive the embedded benefits in social networks on
college campuses.
Empirical Research on Social Capital and Student Success
Evidence from both quantitative and qualitative analyses supports the notion that social
capital is connected to student success in both K-12 and higher education settings (Croninger &
Lee, 2001; Museus, 2010; Museus & Neville, 2012; Stanton-Salazar, 1997; Palmer & Gasman,
2008; Pascarella et al., 2004). Based on a measure of social capital that consisted of both
students’ and teachers’ reports of guidance provided to high school students, Croninger and Lee
(2001) found that social capital reduced the likelihood of leaving high school prematurely by
half. The benefit of social capital in this study was particularly salient for students who were
identified as ‘at-risk,’ either due to their prior academic difficulty or coming from low-income
44

families. Low-income and Latino students—often the first in their families to pursue a higher
education—who derived information-related support through their network of institutional
agents (i.e., teachers, counselors, and peers) received higher grades in high school, on average
(Stanton-Salazar & Dornbusch, 1995). Stanton-Salazar (1997) also found that students of Latino-
descent who have not persisted in high school have reported a lack of social capital in the form
of social and academic support from their teachers and peers.
All students who successfully complete college likely require the support of others to
overcome setbacks in college. However, for FGCS who are less likely to have college-educated
individuals in their networks outside of school, the social capital these students develop from
their relationships on-campus with other students, faculty, and staff is essential to successfully
complete college. Rios-Aguilar and Deil-Amen’s (2012) analysis of the on- and off-campus
social networks of first-year Latina/o college students suggests that while most students had
established and employed social capital prior to college to gain admission, few had benefited
from social capital developed on campus that helped them succeed in college or plan for their
careers. This study highlights the importance of not only developing relationships on college
campuses, but also deriving useful benefits from those relationships that make a difference in
students’ success in college and beyond.
Among the results of Pascarella and colleagues’ (2004) study of FGCS were findings
suggesting that these students who developed social capital with students who have college-
educated parents benefited with regard to increased motivation and intellectual development,
controlling for other factors. Palmer and Gasman (2008) heard from African American college
students in their qualitative study that peers were instrumental in students’ motivation to succeed
in college. Students reported seeking out peers who “have goals…are ambitions…have drive,
45

passion…and all see themselves as successful” and derived the benefit of a positive type of “peer
pressure” to persist and succeed in college (Palmer & Gasman, 2008, p. 60). This research in
particular speaks to the relationship that I assert students’ grit has with social capital through
their network of peers.
Social capital theory has been used to examine student clubs and organizations
(Pascarella et al., 2004; Strayhorn, 2010), many of which can be considered appropriable social
organizations—a determinant of Coleman’s (1988) theory of social capital. Students who are
actively engaged in student organizations have been found to more likely persist in higher
education than those who are not involved (Tinto, 2008). In these organizations which are
generally created around a common student interest or background characteristic, FGCS not only
derive the social benefits that are intentional, they also unintentionally develop skills and gain
knowledge that is helpful to their success in college through their relationships with others in
these organizations (Pascarella et al., 2004; Strayhorn, 2010). Although Pascarella and
colleagues (2004) found that FGCS are less likely to be engaged in extracurricular activities,
those FGCS that did participate in appropriable student organizations on campus were found to
have enhanced critical thinking skills and an increased sense of control and ownership over their
success in college. FGCS were also found to benefit more in these areas from their
extracurricular participation than did non-FGCS. These finding highlight not only the importance
of promoting FGCS involvement on campus, but also the need of examining organizations to
understand how they make a difference for FGCS success.
With regard to relationships with faculty, Anaya and Cole (2001) found that both
academic and personal relationships with faculty, as well as student perceptions of the quality of
these relationships, were associated with higher grades for a sample of Latino college students.
46

Other research (Cole & Espinoza, 2008; Kim, 2010; Lohfink & Paulsen, 2005; Pascarella &
Terenzini, 2005) has been consistent with these findings suggesting the importance of social
capital developed through quality student-faculty interactions on campuses for both academic
achievement and persistence in college, especially for FGCS (Lohfink & Paulsen, 2005).
Students have also been found to receive benefits such as faculty and staff providing emotional
support, mentoring, role modeling, and advocating for students (Museus & Neville, 2012;
Rendón, Jalomo, & Nora, 2000; Smith, 2007; Stanton-Salazar, 1997).
In a qualitative study (Museus & Neville, 2012), college students of color shared details
about the faculty and staff institutional agents who were instrumental in their success. Similar to
Stanton-Salazar’s (2011) suggestions discussed earlier, these institutional agents provided
holistic—not just academic—support and were proactive with students, checking in on them and
sending them unsolicited important information to help them succeed. They also engendered
closure of network relationships on campus by connecting students with each other and with
other institutional agents. Trusting relationships were developed especially with institutional
agents who shared similar backgrounds with students based factors such as educational.
Similarly, Palmer and Gasman’s (2008) qualitative study of African American college students
suggests that faculty who go ‘above and beyond,’ and exhibit empathy and treat students as
academically capable were effective institutional agents in promoting student success.
Intentional organizations (Coleman, 1988) are a relevant source of social capital,
especially for FGCS to build relationships with institutional agents. Student organizations and
environments that are intentionally designed to generate relationship building and social capital
among students and between students and faculty and staff have been recommended by scholars
to support FGCS success (Strayhorn, 2006). Mentoring programs, whether they consist of
47

faculty, staff, or peer mentors, are one type of organization that are intentional in their efforts to
build social capital between FGCS and institutional agents (Engle & Tinto, 2008; Tinto, 2012).
Students can receive advice around career planning, guidance on research and academics, and
support with personal matters through their mentoring relationships (Ishiyama, 2007).
Ascertaining the effectiveness of mentoring programs is difficult, however, due to the internal
and external validity issues of many studies examining them (Smith, 2007).
Smith’s (2007) qualitative analysis of academic mentoring programs for college students
suggests that although mentors and mentees establish norms and build trust, a lack of
maintenance of the social capital initially developed diminishes its utility for promoting student
success. Specifically, there is an absence of closure in that mentors generally did little to
facilitate connections of mentees to other institutional agents. Also, as Coleman (1988) suggests,
effective sanctions that enforce the norms that are initially established are necessary to maintain
social capital over time and realize the maximum benefit of social capital. That there were no
enforceable consequences to violations of the norms established at the beginning of the
mentoring relationship meant that social capital was less likely to be maintained.
Critiques of Social Capital
A weakness of commissioning social capital in general (and Coleman’s version in
particular) is the conceptual confusion that surrounds the theory (Dika & Singh, 2002). The
distinction between access and mobilization of social capital is one area of confusion that is a
flaw of the theory’s application to FGCS success (Lin, 2001). Often unclear is whether students
who have developed relationships with faculty, staff and peers are able to employ the social
capital to enjoy the benefits. Similarly, understanding the direction of the sources of and benefits
gained from social capital is particularly problematic (Lareau & Horvat, 1999; Stanton-Salazar &
48

Dornbusch, 1995). For instance, it may be difficult to determine whether FGCS who have
developed social capital subsequently earn better grades and persist, or if those that perform well
in class benefit from their academic performance by developing social capital with faculty and
staff (Portes & Landolt, 1996).
Coleman’s emphasis on parents in his theory of social capital is another weakness (Dika
& Singh, 2002; Morrow, 1999), especially as it relates to FGCS. While the parents of FGCS
continue to play an important role in the success of FGCS (Dennis, Phinney, & Chuateco, 2005),
parents without a college education have limited ability to provide the college-relevant
information and guidance that FGCS need to be successful. Though Coleman’s focus on the
home community of students may not be particularly relevant, it is useful to apply his theoretical
perspective to the campus community, and the establishment of norms for reciprocal exchanges
to build trust among students and between students and other institutional agents.
Although Coleman’s theory is much less deterministic than Bourdieu’s interpretation
(Musoba & Baez, 2009), Coleman’s prominence of the family in the generation of social capital
also minimizes the agency of FGCS themselves in acquiring social capital (Dika & Singh, 2002).
The theory obscures student agency in not only accessing social capital but also the actual use of
social capital which produces a benefit. While institutions can organize themselves to generate
social capital among students and broker valuable information and resources (Small, 2009), the
motivation of FGCS to build their own social capital is also relevant to consider (Adler & Kwon,
2002).
Coleman’s emphasis on intergenerational closure
3
is unlikely to apply to FGCS as much
as it would students whose parents and other family members may have even attended the same

3
Intergenerational closure suggests that the ties between the parents of two different student friends makes the students’ ties
stronger, resulting in more social capital (Coleman, 1988)
49

college. The idea of closure, however, may be relevant to consider with FGCS with the faculty,
staff, and peers with whom they interact. Applying the theory in this way suggests that closure
among these individuals committed to FGCS success can lead to increased social capital for
these students and preservation and maintenance of resources for their benefit (Lin, 2001). The
argument of the importance of closure also diminishes the role of bridges in networks or brokers
of information (Lin, 2001; Small, 2009). It is through weaker ties or acquaintances that
information flows to more people especially those on the periphery of networks (Granovetter,
1972; Lin 1999), like many FGCS.
Coleman’s theory of social capital also has the potential to become yet another aspect of
“deficit thinking” or “blaming the victim” which permeates the literature concerning
marginalized populations, including FGCS (Dika & Singh, 2002; Morrow, 1999). Unlike
Bourdieu and others (Lareau, 1989; Lareau & Horvat, 1999; Stanton-Salazar, 1997), Coleman
does not view society with regard to class divisions and thus has not accounted for the influence
of societal forces of power and domination or structural, institutional, or individual
discriminatory practices in students’ lack of relationships with faculty, staff, and well-connected
students on campus (Dika & Singh, 2002). Coleman fails to acknowledge the role of closure in
social reproduction as Bourdieu theorizes (Lin, 2001). Closure can potentially disadvantage
FGCS if these students are excluded from dense networks of non-FGCS and the faculty and staff
with whom they have relationships (Portes & Landolt, 1996). The prevalence of homophily, or
the tendency to associate with those similar to oneself (Lin, 2000), suggests that closure among
those faculty, staff and students of similar backgrounds is likely to occur and the resources
embedded this network are less likely to reach FGCS.

50

Despite these weaknesses, using Coleman’s theory alongside Lin’s network theory of
social capital and Stanton-Salazar’s work on institutional agents serves to mitigate some of the
flaws with Coleman’s version. The combination of these perspectives on social capital provide a
useful analytic tool to examine the role of student agency, institutional agents and institutional
structures—like intentional and appropriable social organizations—in the generation and use of
social capital for FGCS success.
Chapter 2 Summary
Grit has emerged as a non-cognitive factor seen as relevant to success in challenging
environments, like higher education. Although appearing similar to other constructs, the
literature suggests that grit comprises two defining aspects: consistency of interests and
perseverance of effort. Most of the research on grit comes from the field of psychology. While
this research is useful, it is limited in scope and in conceptualizing grit as solely an individual
trait. I have argued that grit essentially has been seen as a combination of human and cultural
capital. By applying the theoretical lens of social capital to the study of grit and FGCS, I am
suggesting that grit is more than characteristic of an individual student. Rather, grit is at the
intersection of human, cultural, and social capital, which acknowledges the role of institutions
and institutional agents (See Figure 2.3 below). Given this reconceptualization of grit, one
wonders how one might study this intersection. In Chapter 3 I elaborate on the study’s mixed
methods design. I utilize a survey with the grit scale (Duckworth et al., 2007) and a social
support scale (Russell & Cutrona, 1984), social network analysis to generate proxies for social
capital and visualize student networks, and in-depth interviews with students, faculty and staff to
provide a comprehensive account of how grit and social capital relate to one another and to
51

FGCS success.

Human
Capital

Cultural
Capital

GRIT
Social
Capital

Figure 2.3. Grit at the intersection of human capital, cultural capital, and social capital

52

Chapter 3: Methods for Studying Grit and Social Capital
The purpose of this study was to explore the intersection of grit and social capital as it
concerns FGCS. In the previous chapter, I unpacked the construct of grit to better understand its
determinants and how these are relevant to FGCS success. I also outlined social capital theory
and highlighted primarily Coleman’s (1988) version of the theory. The study was also informed
by Lin (1999, 2000) and Stanton-Salazar (1995, 1997, 2011) as their work also contributed to the
theoretical framework and design of this study. The purpose of Chapter 3 is to review the
methods of the study.
First, I outline the research design, including rationales for conducting a mixed methods
design for this study, and purposes for integrating survey methods, social network analysis and
qualitative interviewing. Next, I turn to the data collection and analysis of this study. I begin this
section by including details of the research site and participant sampling, and then elaborate on
the quantitative and qualitative strands of the study which use survey data and interview data,
respectively, from first-generation juniors and seniors as well as faculty and staff at Parkville
University (PU), a 4-year private non-profit Catholic university. I conclude by addressing issues
of the integration of methods and researcher bias.
Research Design
A discussion of students’ grit absent the role of institutional agents in students’ academic
achievement and persistence fails to reflect the reality of success in higher education, especially
for FGCS. Accordingly, the following research questions were proposed for this study:
(a) What is the relationship, if any, between FGCS grit and social capital in their academic
success in college?
53

(b) Does FGCS access to and benefits of social capital differ based on students’ involvement
in mentoring programs and student organizations, demographic characteristics, grit,
academic preparation (i.e., SAT) and academic performance (i.e., college GPA)?
(c) How do FGCS employ grit and social capital to succeed academically and persist in
college?
To answer this study’s research questions I designed a mixed methods study that was
informed by a pragmatic paradigm (Creswell, 2009; Howe, 1988; Johnson & Onwuegbuzie,
2004; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998). The pragmatic perspective acknowledges both the natural,
physical reality as well as the socially constructed world that consists of language, subjective
interpretations, and culture (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). Pragmatism focuses on ‘what
works’ to understand a research problem, which often entails the use of both quantitative and
qualitative approaches to inquiry (Creswell, 2009). As such, the choices made in this study were
primarily on the basis of their utility in achieving the goals of the study rather than based on
strict interpretive or positivist paradigmatic assumptions that often guide qualitative and
quantitative inquiry, respectively (Small, 2011; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998).
Rationale for Mixed Methods
Whereas many rationales exist for studying a topic with a mixed methods design (see
Bryman, 2006; Greene, Caracelli, & Graham, 1989), my purpose for mixing both qualitative and
quantitative research traditions in this study was twofold. First, the integration of both
qualitative and quantitative methodologies provided a more complete picture of complex
concepts like grit, social capital and FGCS success than either method could have produced
alone (Bryman, 2006; Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Morse, 2003). Both qualitative and
quantitative methodologies have strengths and weaknesses (Bogdan & Biklan, 2007). For
54

example, unlike qualitative research, quantitative methods allowed for the examination of the
potential relationships students’ grit scale scores had to social network measures of social capital
or demographic characteristics. Although through qualitative inquiry I developed an appreciation
for how individual research participants viewed the idea of grit, determining a potential statistical
relationship between grit scale scores and other variables of interest was not feasible with
qualitative methods. And, whereas quantitative research was not well-suited to capture details of
students’ experiences overcoming obstacles in college, the close engagement with participants of
qualitative research provided the opportunity to explore students’ perspectives, as well as the
views of faculty and staff, on factors and strategies related to FGCS success. Employing mixed
methods allowed for maximizing the assets and minimizing the drawbacks of both approaches
(Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003). This was especially needed for
developing a comprehensive appreciation of a diverse student group like FGCS and a
multifaceted construct like grit in a dynamic environment such as a 4-year university.
In addition to achieving a more complete view of FGCS success in college, another
rationale for mixing methods in this research was to produce new interpretations of a
phenomenon (i.e., grit) that diverge from prevailing knowledge (Greene et al., 1989; Rossman &
Wilson, 1985). For example, as I have argued, grit has been traditionally viewed as an element of
human capital, an individual character trait of students. Through this mixed methods study,
contradictions to this conceptualization of grit have been revealed such that students’ social
networks are viewed as integral to enabling FGCS to employ grit to successfully navigate
college. Before turning to a discussion of the details of the data collection and data analysis of
this study, I first provide rationales for using quantitative survey methods, social network
analysis and qualitative interviewing in this study.
55

Rationale for Quantitative Surveys
Surveys were used in this study to collect the data from a large sample, which allowed for
a statistical investigation of a particular sample, that is first-generation college juniors and
seniors. (Fowler, 2002). This design of the quantitative strand of the study followed the research
concerning grit to date (i.e., Duckworth et al., 2007; Duckworth & Quinn, 2009; Eskreis-
Winkler, Duckworth, Shulman, & Beale, 2014; Strayhorn, 2013), which has largely been
quantitative using surveys to collect students’ grit scale scores, as well as data concerning
students’ academic performance and demographic characteristics. The advantage of studying grit
using quantitative methods was the ability to estimate the effect of the grit scale score on
predicting an outcome like cumulative college GPA compared to other factors such as prior
academic performance. The survey allowed for the collection of data on a wide range of
variables from large samples of participants that are necessary for performing the statistical tests
performed in this study. Instead of solely considering individuals’ characteristics and
background, the survey also afforded the opportunity to include network questions that allowed
for examining FGCS network of relationships on campus and how these relationships, if at all,
related to FGCS grit and academic success. Next, I briefly introduce social network analysis
(SNA) and its role in the design of this study.
Rationale for Social Network Analysis
I employed SNA in this study as it focuses on the network of one’s relationships (Scott,
2000; Valente, 2010). This idea of the importance of one’s network of relationships has informed
student retention theory (see Tinto, 1975), which stresses the significance of academic and social
integration on campus for student persistence in higher education (Eckles & Stradley, 2012).
Rather than examine solely individuals’ attribute data (i.e., demographics, attitudes, behaviors)
56

as factors contributing to academic success and persistence in college, I included relational data
through SNA to provide another dimension in the analysis of FGCS success in college.
A major rationale for analyzing relational data in this study was its conceptual
congruence with social capital theories. As social structures are generally built upon social
relations, relational data is particularly valuable in examining the structural aspects of higher
education (Kezar, 2014; Scott, 2000). Just as social capital does not exist within an individual
(Coleman, 1988), relational data also cannot be reduced to an individual’s properties (Scott,
2000). Instead, relational data concerns information about the ties between individuals. Social
networks are generally either focused on an individual (ego-centric) or on the whole network
(socio-centric; Kadushin, 2012). I analyzed FGCS ego-centric social networks which are
comprised of an individual (ego) and his or her immediate relationships with others (alters).
These types of networks were appropriate for this study as the goal was to learn if and how
FGCS immediate network of relationships were associated with students’ academic performance,
grit, and various demographic characteristics and student involvement. Although the inclusion
of SNA provided the opportunity to reveal another dimension of FGCS success on campus,
SNA, like other quantitative methods, lacked the ability to provide a rich, detailed understanding
of the experiences of FGCS at PU and how grit and social capital may have played a role in their
success in college. Qualitative inquiry, particularly one-on-one interviews, uncovered much of
that knowledge for a more complete understanding of FGCS success.
Rationale for Qualitative Interviews
Qualitative methods are generally informed by an interpretive paradigm, rather than the
positivist (or post-positivist) worldview that informs much of quantitative research (Bogdan &
Biklan, 2007). Conducting research from an interpretive perspective suggests the researcher’s
57

values are integral to the research process and a belief in multiple, constructed realities of social
phenomena (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). By closely engaging with participants I co-created
knowledge with them during one-on-one interviews, privileging the views of participants over
my own (Creswell, 2009; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). At the end of this chapter, I attend to the issue
of my own subjectivity as the sole researcher in this project.
Studies such as this which are designed to acquire the viewpoints and perspectives of a
particular set of individuals (i.e., FGCS) on a certain topic (i.e., success in college) are amenable
to using one-on-one interviews as the primary or only mode of qualitative inquiry (Hatch, 2002).
Specifically, through conducting one-on-one interviews, I gained insight into how grit was
perceived by students aside from how they answered the grit scale on a survey. Interviews
afforded me the benefit of hearing the voices of FGCS, often those marginalized in some
quantitative research, as they described how they developed their interests and passions and how
they overcame various obstacles to be successful in college. Interviewing students, faculty and
staff also provided contextual insight valuable to understanding grit and social capital at
Parkville University that was not available through quantitative methods alone.
Integration of Methods and Data
A number of decisions were made in the design of this study concerning the level of
integration, priority, timing and mixing of the qualitative and quantitative strands of the study
(Creswell, 2009; Creswell & Clark, 2011). The quantitative and qualitative methods were
conducted concurrently and were also given equal priority in this study to address the issue of
FGCS success (Creswell & Clark, 2011). I designed the study to have varying levels of
interaction between the qualitative and quantitative components of the study throughout the data
collection and data analysis to provide a more complete understanding of grit and social capital
58

as they relate to FGCS success. Although the quantitative and qualitative data were collected
concurrently, many of the interviews with faculty and staff were conducted as a result of the data
obtained through the surveys of student participants. Also the analysis of the social networks of
individual students informed changes to the interview protocols and the addition of targeted
probing questions for many of the participants. In the presentation of data in Chapter 4, the
level of integration was dictated by the research questions.
For instance, the first two research questions lend themselves to quantitative methods.
The first question was designed to determine potential statistical relationships among variables
of interest, that is, cumulative GPA, grit, and social capital measures of a large sample of FGCS.
The second question sought to identify statistical differences in FGCS access to and benefits of
social capital. Because of the nature and purpose of these questions—to determine statistical
relationships and differences—quantitative analyses were well-suited to provide the answers
(Johnson & Christensen, 2012). The third question was designed for different purposes—to
understand how FGCS succeeded in college, and how grit and social capital may have played a
role. A question like this that asked “how” and sought to understand the process by which
students employ grit and social capital to be successful called for qualitative inquiry (Bogdan &
Biklan, 2007; Johnson & Christensen, 2012). Therefore the third research question was
appropriately answered primarily with qualitative interview data as the goal was to understand
FGCS perspectives on the challenges they faced and how they overcame them at PU. Where
appropriate, social network data and other quantitative data collected from surveys was
incorporated in presenting data answering the third research question. The data were further
integrated in discussing the implications of the findings in Chapter 5 to provide a new
59

understanding of grit and FGCS success. At the end of this chapter, I revisit the integration of
methods as it relates to increasing validity in the study.
Research Method
Research Site and Participant Sampling Criteria
The site for this research was a 4-year selective, private, non-profit university in the
southwest and affiliated with Roman Catholicism. The pseudonym used for the research site was
Parkville University (PU). Unique access was gained to this research site due to my relationships
with key administrators on campus from my prior employment at the institution. A total of over
9000 students attend PU with approximately 6000 undergraduates, with more than half living in
on-campus housing. Approximately 45% of PU’s students are White, 21% Hispanic, 11% Asian,
and 6% African American. Approximately 20% of PU’s students are FGCS. For the past 6 years,
PU has implemented several programs and structures specifically to support FGCS, including a
mentoring program with faculty and staff members who were FGCS, a learning community for
first-year FGCS, and other programs targeting FGCS like writing workshops, job shadowing,
and low-cost study abroad opportunities.
As this study was aimed at understanding FGCS success, the student participants who
were at the center of this research were chosen based on two criteria. First, students must be
considered a FGCS as defined by the university—that is, a college student for whom neither
parent has received a bachelor’s degree in the U.S. Second, as the focus was on college students
who persisted in college, the student participants all continued in college for at least 2+ years
until their junior or senior year in college. A total of N=156 FGCS responded to the online
survey, and N=21 FGCS survey respondents also completed one-on-one interviews for the study.
Student survey respondents named N=241 faculty and staff as people on campus who have
60

provided “support in the form of information that has helped [them] succeed in college (such as
information about selecting courses, study tips, campus resources, campus policies, opportunities
on/off-campus, etc.)” Seventy-one of these faculty and staff completed an online network survey
to determine their network of collaborative relationships with faculty and staff on campus, and
N=19 of these faculty and staff survey respondents were also interviewed for the study.
Qualitative Data Collection
The data collection began with informal conversations beginning in early 2015 and a
formal one-on-one interview in December of 2015 with a key informant who oversaw the first-
generation community at PU. These initial conversations with this key informant led to the
construction of the survey and interview protocols for the study (See Appendices A – D) and also
identified other faculty and staff to be interviewed who the key informant viewed as partners on
campus in supporting first-generation student success. The primary qualitative data source for
this study came from the 21 one-on-one interviews with first-generation juniors and seniors that
began in December of 2015. I reached out to many of the faculty and staff identified by the key
informant who helped recruit students to sign up for interviews. Interviews were semi-structured,
lasting between 60 and 90 minutes, and were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim (Merriam,
1998).
During the interviews with students, I asked questions related to what they perceived as
leading to their success in college. I also asked questions concerning the components of grit I
identified in Chapter 2 (i.e., consistent interests and perseverance of effort). With regard to
student participants’ relationships to other students, faculty and staff on campus, I focused my
questioning on how these relationships were formed, students’ use of informational and social
support, and the benefits, if any, that have been realized through their relationships, particularly
61

benefits relating to students’ academic success and persistence in college. I also interviewed 19
faculty and staff to supplement the data from students’ interviews. In these interviews with
faculty and staff, the questions centered on their perspectives of FGCS success and strategies
employed to support FGCS versus non-FGCS (see Appendix D). I also asked them questions to
understand their network of relationships on campus with other faculty and staff and how those
potentially benefit students.
Qualitative Data Analysis
The analysis of the qualitative data began during data collection by conducting
transcription concurrently with data collection, writing detailed field notes, contact summary
sheets about each participant, and analytic memos throughout data collection and analysis
(Charmaz, 2006; Ochs, 1979; Miles & Huberman, 1994). I also discussed ideas and impressions
of the data with colleagues and informants throughout the process. While there are several
strategies offered by qualitative research experts (see Bogdan & Biklan, 2007; Hatch, 2002;
Maxwell, 2012; Miles & Huberman, 1994), I drew from multiple approaches to create a unique
strategy that fit this study. The data analysis was iterative starting with an initial reading of the
interview transcripts to familiarize myself with the data, followed by coding, identifying
categories to which the codes belonged, grouping categories into broader themes, and cycling
back to the data again (Miles & Huberman, 1994). I used Atlas.ti software for the qualitative data
analysis.
I employed a combination of deductive and inductive analytic strategies to analyze the
qualitative data, developing pre-existing codes for analysis based on theory, and also using an
open coding scheme (Charmaz, 2006; Creswell, 2009). Coding started with a list of codes
derived from the research questions and relevant literature and theories (Miles & Huberman,
62

1994). For example, codes for ‘intrinsic interests’ and ‘optimism’ were among the codes relevant
to understanding students’ perspectives of concepts that underlie grit. As data collection
progressed, the interview protocol evolved to reflect the inductive themes that materialized that
were unanticipated and not consistent with existing theory. This iterative process of coding data
in multiple rounds resulted in a coding scheme more consistent with the inquiry (Merriam,
1998).
I utilized a version of Glaser and Strauss’s (1967) constant comparative method, known
to be useful for revealing relationships and hypotheses and inductively clarifying categories of
codes in the data. This method was particularly relevant to the study of FGCS at PU who were a
diverse group with varied experiences and perspectives on what has contributed to their success
in college. Using cross-case data displays and conceptual maps assisted me in the data analysis
process to compare and contrast participants and link related codes (Maxwell, 2012; Miles &
Hubermann, 1994). The constant comparative method ultimately allowed for not only
establishing themes or patterns in the data, but also importantly identifying outlier perspectives
thus increasing the trustworthiness of the findings (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). I wrote analytic
memos throughout the analysis and connected the memos to particular participants, codes, or
themes within Atlas.ti.
I ultimately chose to profile 6 of the 21 FGCS interviewed when presenting the
qualitative data answering research question 3. The 6 students were chosen after analyzing the
qualitative data and the quantitative measures of grit, social capital, and the social networks of
the 21 students interviewed. The profiled students were selected primarily based on the diversity
they represent on a host of factors including grit scale scores, cumulative college GPA, social
network measures, student involvement in intentional organizations and appropriable social
63

organizations, commuting experiences, etc. Although I profiled 6 students, I used data from
other FGCS, faculty, and staff to supplement the stories of the profiled students.
Quantitative Data Collection
The quantitative data collection began concurrently in December of 2015 when the
interviews commenced. Using the Qualtrics software, I administered an ego-centric network
survey. I used a technique known as a name generator (Burt, 1984) to create students’ ego
information support networks at PU. Survey respondents were asked to identify student peers,
faculty and staff on campus from whom they received informational and/or social support during
college. The survey also included the 12 items of the grit scale (Duckworth et al., 2007), the
social provisions scale (Russell & Cutrona, 1984), which is a self-report assessment of perceived
social support, and questions regarding students’ demographics, involvement on campus, and
prior and current academic achievement (See Appendix A).
The students who completed an interview during December 2015 were the initial survey
respondents and were emailed the survey directly after their interview. In January 2016, PU’s
survey administrator emailed the survey to the remaining 418 juniors and seniors enrolled at PU
who the university identified as FGCS. The survey administrator sent two reminders and the
survey was also sent to FGCS through several student organizations and others on campus from
January – February of 2016. A total of N=156 first-generation juniors and seniors at PU
completed the survey for a response rate of 37.3%.
I also employed snowball sampling (Johnson & Christensen, 2012) to collect data from
the faculty and staff the student participants named in their surveys. Student survey respondents
named 241 faculty and staff on campus who have provided informational support. Seventy-one
of these faculty and staff completed an online network survey to determine their network of
64

collaborative relationships on campus. (See Appendix B). As an incentive to participate, each
participant received up to two entries (one for the survey and one for the interview) in a raffle for
a $100 and one of five $20 Amazon gift cards.
Quantitative Data Analysis
The quantitative data analysis began with cleaning the data and constructing variables in
Stata. In what follows are descriptions of the variables used in the quantitative analyses in the
study and how I constructed the variables. This is followed by a discussion of the methods I
deployed to analyze the quantitative survey data that served to answer the first two research
questions: Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression, Pearson’s correlations, and two-tailed t-
tests.
Constructing variables.
Cumulative college GPA. I utilized students’ cumulative college GPA as the primary
measure of academic success, as it has been one of the most often employed measures for
academic success (York, Gibson, & Rankin, 2015) and commonly used in extant research
concerning grit and college students (Duckworth et al., 2007; Strayhorn, 2013). In this study
students were asked to self-report their cumulative GPA and asked to estimate if they did not
remember. I provided a key on the survey indicating, for instance “A = 4.0; A- = 3.67; B+
=3.33…,” to guide students’ choices for overall GPA on the survey. I constructed a continuous
variable for cumulative GPA, ranging from 0 to 4.0. I also created a dummy variable for average
GPA for the analysis (1=above average GPA; 0=below average GPA).
Grit. Grit was assessed by the 12-item grit scale (Duckworth et al., 2007). Items were
scored on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (not much like me at all) to 5 (very much like me). The
average of the 12 items comprised the grit scale score, a continuous variable ranging from 1 to 5.
65

For social science research, an α above 0.70 is considered to be a reliable measure (Acock,
2010). The grit scale was internally reliable for this study’s sample (α=0.78) and has been
validated using a variety of populations including samples of college students (see Duckworth et
al., 2007 and Duckworth & Quinn, 2009). As I have discussed the grit scale is comprised of 6
items each for the two components, consistency of interests and perseverance of effort. I
constructed continuous variables ranging from 1 to 5 for these two components by taking the
means of the 6 items that correspond to each of the two components. Both consistency of
interests (α=0.80) and perseverance of effort (α=0.71) are internally reliable for this study. I also
produced dummy variables for average scores of grit, consistency of interests and perseverance
of effort for the analysis (1=above average score in the sample; 0=below average score).
Social network measures.
Outdegree centrality. One’s centrality in a network can help determine their access to
valuable social capital, particularly in the form of informational support and social support (Lin,
2001). In this study, centrality was assessed through peer outdegree and staff outdegree. Student
survey respondents were asked to name up to 7 peers, and in a separate question, 7 faculty and
staff who provided “support in the form of information that has helped [them] succeed in college
(such as information about selecting courses, study tips, campus resources, campus policies,
opportunities on/off-campus, etc.)” The total number of peers that a survey respondent listed was
a measure of the continuous variable peer outdegree, and the total number of faculty and staff
named was the continuous variable staff outdegree, which both range from 0 to 7.
Strength of ties. The strength of one’s relationship, or strength of ties, is understood to be
a function of frequency of contact, perceived closeness and reciprocal exchanges of information
(Granovetter, 1972). In a socio-centric network study the reciprocal exchanges would be
66

determined, for example, if Student A and Student B both named each other in their surveys.
Because of the nature of this study which examines ego-centric network data, reciprocal
exchanges are not available. In this study strength of ties was determined based on the other two
criteria: (a) students’ perceived closeness to the peer, faculty or staff (on a five-point Likert-like
scale, with 1 = “Very Distant” and 5 = “Very Close”) and frequency of seeking advice/support
(on a five-point Likert-like scale, with 1 = “Rarely” and 5 = “Very Often”). To calculate the peer
strength of ties, I multiplied the mean perceived closeness of all peers a student named by the
mean frequency of contacts, producing a continuous variable for strength of ties
4
that ranged
from 0 to 25. I calculated the staff strength of ties in a similar fashion and it also ranged from 0
to 25. In the analysis I also used an alternative specification for strength of ties by adding the
mean value for perceived closeness with the mean frequency. This specification
5
of strength of
ties ranged from 0 to 10.
Informational support. Survey respondents were asked to indicate which types of
informational support they received from each of the faculty, staff, or peers they named in the
survey. I produced separate variables for informational support received from peers and from
faculty and staff. I constructed variables for each of the following types of information: (a)
selecting classes, (b) study tips, (c) campus resources, (d) job/internship opportunities, (e)
choosing/changing major, (f) career advice. A “1” indicated the student received that type of
advice or support from a particular peer or faculty and staff member, and a “0” implied that the
student did not receive that type of information. The continuous variable for each information
type was the sum of all “1’s” for that type of informational support. These variables ranged from

4
This specification of strength of ties is denoted by an “x”.
5
This specification of strength of ties is denoted by a “+”.
67

0 (i.e., no peer/faculty or staff provided that type of support) to 7 (i.e., 7 peers/faculty or staff
provided that type of support).
Social support. Social support was measured by the 24-item social provisions scale
(Russell & Cutrona, 1984), which was internally reliable for this study’s sample (α=0.92) and
has been validated using a variety of populations including a sample of college students (see
Cutrona, 1982 and Russell et al., 1984). In the survey respondents were prompted to think about
their “current relationships on campus with student peers, faculty, and staff” before answering
this scale. The items were scored on a four-point scale ranging from 1= “Not true at all” to 4=
“Completely true.” There were six aspects of social support measured by the scale (i.e.,
guidance, attachment, nurturance, reassurance of worth, social integration, and reliable alliance).
I calculated a continuous variable for overall social support by averaging the responses to each of
the 24-items, for a 1 to 4 point scale for social support. I focused on three components of
perceived social support that were most relevant to this study of grit and successful FGCS: (a)
guidance in the form of advice or information about resources helpful to succeeding in college;
(b) reliable alliance, or the confidence that others on campus could be depended on for
assistance when students were confronted with challenges; and (c) social integration, a sense that
others on campus shared students’ interests and values. I constructed continuous variables for
each of these components by taking the mean of the 4 items that represented each of the aspects
of social support, and producing variables for each of the three components that ranged from 1 to
4. All three subscales for guidance (α=0.93), reliable alliance (α=0.92) and social integration
(α=0.91) were internally reliable for this sample. I also created dummy variables for average
scores of social support, guidance, reliable alliance, and social integration for the analysis
(1=above average score; 0=below average score).
68

Student demographics, prior achievement and family education. Students were also
asked questions about their demographic characteristics on the survey. I created dummy
variables for gender and for races/ethnicities (i.e., Latino, African American, Asian American,
white). As many students are multiracial, students were allowed to choose more than one race. I
constructed separate dummy variables for students who identify with a single race/ethnicity (e.g.,
white only=1; not white=0). Given that PU is affiliated with Catholicism, I produced a dummy
variable for Catholicism (1=Catholic; 0=not Catholic). To gauge students’ family/personal
income, I constructed a dummy variable for Pell Grant (1=Pell grant recipient; 0=not a Pell grant
recipient). To assess students’ prior achievement, I created continuous variables for SAT scores
and high school GPA as well as dummy variables for average SAT scores and average high
school GPA to be used in the analysis (1=above average score; 0=below average score).
I also produced dummy variables for parents’ education (1=one or more parents with
some college experience; 0=neither parent has experience in college); origin of birth of each
parent (1=mother/father was born in U.S.; 0=mother/father born outside of U.S.); and students’
country of birth (1= born in U.S.; 0= born outside of U.S.) I also created a dummy variable to
distinguish between students who were the very first in their immediate family to attend college
and those students who had the benefit of older siblings attending college before them (1=very
first to attend college; 0=not the very first in their family to attend college).
Student involvement, employment, and majors. I constructed a dummy variable for
student involvement (1=involved in at least 1 student organization; 0=not involved in any student
organizations). I operationalized two determinants of Coleman’s (1988) social capital: (a)
intentional organizations, those that are specifically designed to generate social capital and
connect students with faculty, staff, and campus resources, and (b) appropriable social
69

organizations, those organizations and activities (i.e., sports teams, community service
organizations) in which social capital is more likely an unintended advantage from membership.
I produced dummy variables for involvement in appropriable social organizations, intentional
organizations generally, and the specific intentional organizations—the FGCS mentoring
program and the scholars cohort learning community for freshmen. I also created dummy
variables for students who have had a work study job on campus and one for students that had
off-campus jobs. I produced a categorical variable for total hours worked in on-campus and off-
campus jobs (1=5 hours or less; 2=6-10 hours; 3=10-15 hours; 4=15-20 hours; 5=20+ hours).
Students were also asked to indicate in which of PU’s six schools or colleges students’ majors
were affiliated. I created dummy variables for each of the schools and colleges on PU’s campus
(i.e., Business, Liberal Arts, Science & Engineering, Film & Television, Communication & Fine
Arts, and Education).
Missing data. Data was missing for a number of the focal variables in this study. For
instance, between 7 and 10% respondents were missing of each of the 12 grit scale items,
between 17 and 20% respondents were missing items on the social support scale, 6 % had
missing college GPAs, and between 17 and 20% were missing one of the three SAT scores. For
these variables (i.e., grit, social support, college GPA, high school GPA, SAT scores) I used
mean imputation to increase the power and precision of standard error estimates which would
have been biased in the default method for addressing missing data in Stata, casewise deletion
(Donders, van der Heijden, Stijen, & Moons, 2006). For these variables I utilized the mean of
those survey respondents who did answer these questions to replace the missing values.
OLS Regression. Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression was part of the strategy to
answer the first research question: What is the relationship, if any, between FGCS grit and social
70

capital in their academic success in college? I explored an OLS regression model predicting the
dependent variable of cumulative college GPA, the measure of academic success used in this
study. I investigated several models using various combinations of independent variables,
including social network measures that represent access to social capital (i.e., staff outdegree,
peer outdegree, peer strength of ties
x+
, staff strength of ties
x+
), benefits of social capital (i.e.,
social support and its key determinants, and the types of informational support received from
one’s social network), and grit and grit’s components (i.e., consistency of interests and
perseverance of effort). I used variables such as student involvement on campus, Pell grant,
family education, race/ethnicity, prior achievement (i.e., high school GPA and SAT score), and
the school or college of the students’ majors as control variables. I examined various interactions
between grit and social network measures as well to explore the potential relationship of grit and
social capital and how the interaction of the two may be predictive of college GPA. The final
OLS model is presented in Chapter 4.
Pearson’s correlations. In addition to OLS regression, I conducted correlational
analyses in Stata to help answer the first research question. I ran Pearson’s correlations to
explore potential relationships among grit and its components, various social network measures
and determinants of social support and informational support, and cumulative college GPA.
T-tests. I conducted a series of two tailed t-tests to continue to explore the potential
relationships among grit, social capital, and college GPA to answer the first research question.
For example, using the dummy variable constructed for cumulative college GPA (1=above
average GPA for the sample; 0=below average GPA for the sample), I compared the mean
differences in grit, social network measures, and social support between students with an above
71

average GPA and those with a below average GPA. I used similar dummy variables for above
and below average values for grit and social support.
I conducted two-tailed t-tests also to answer the second research question: Does FGCS
access to and benefits of social capital differ based on student involvement in mentoring
programs and student organizations, demographic characteristics, grit, academic preparation (i.e.,
SAT) and academic performance (i.e., college GPA)? Using the dummy variables discussed
earlier, I compared the mean values of social network measures and informational and social
support for groups of students who had above and below average SAT scores, high school GPA,
college GPA, and grit scale scores. I also compared mean values of measures of social capital
based on FGCS involvement in intentional organizations, appropriable social organizations, the
FGCS mentoring program, and the FGCS scholars cohort. Lastly, I conducted t-tests to
determine potential differences in FGCS access to and benefits of social capital by comparing
students based on race/ethnicity, religion, parental education, students’ and parents’ birth
country, students’ receipt of the Pell grant, work study, and whether or not the student is the very
first of their siblings to attend college.
Sociograms. Sociograms, or graphs of social networks were generated using UCINET
software. I assigned a unique identification number to each student, faculty, and staff survey
respondent and every student, faculty, or staff named in surveys. A sociogram containing each of
the networks of the students interviewed in the study is presented in Chapter 4 and separate
sociograms for each of the 6 students profiled also appear in Chapter 4. I also portray some
student networks together in a single sociogram to visualize the potential of deriving benefits
through members of their extended networks. In the sociograms students are represented with
72

squares, and faculty and staff with circles. Individuals who have been interviewed appear in the
color blue, whereas those who have not been interviewed are pink.
Integrating Methods to Increase Validity
I addressed several validity concerns regarding data collection, data analysis and the
interpretation of data by integrating the quantitative and qualitative strands (Creswell & Clark,
2011). First, I collected qualitative and quantitative data concurrently in order to ensure the
methods assessed the same topics during the same time period in different ways. For example,
participants responded to the 12 items of the grit scale in the surveys and were also asked
questions regarding grit and its components during interviews conducted within a month of the
survey. Second, to make the quantitative and qualitative data comparable, I selected the
participants for both methods from the same population of students, faculty and staff at the same
institution.
Third, I addressed the concern of inappropriate converging of data in the data analysis of
mixed methods studies by using joint displays of the quantitative statistical and social network
data and the qualitative themes to converge the data from the two strands. For example, the
qualitative data concerning how relationships were developed and the actual benefits derived
from these relationships was exploited to illuminate the social network data from the survey. In
particular, I included quotes from individual participants’ interviews alongside the sociograms
constructed in UCINET that portray individuals’ social networks and the social network
measures calculated as proxies of social capital. This allowed for the social network to be
represented and analyzed graphically, numerically, and qualitatively.
Lastly, where appropriate, I utilized the data from one strand to triangulate the data from
the other, maximizing the trustworthiness of initial findings by using both corroborating
73

evidence to reinforce and conflicting data to refine the initial conclusions drawn (Creswell,
2009). Consistent quantitative and qualitative data serves to enhance the validity of overall
findings, and contradictory data from the two strands prompted further investigation of potential
explanations for discrepancies. For example, I used interview data regarding the two domains of
grit (i.e., consistency of interests and perseverance of effort) to clarify students’ quantitative grit
scale scores, and posed follow-up questions to participants when data from the two strands did
not align. Overall, the combining of the quantitative and qualitative data concerning both grit
and social capital shed light not only on each construct, but also the intersection of the two as it
related to FGCS success at PU.
Researcher Bias
As the principal investigator of this research study, I played an active role in choosing the
research site, recruiting students, faculty and staff participants, choosing which questions to ask
and which pieces of data were relevant to analyze and ultimately how the final report was
written (Jackson, 1996). My personal and professional connection to the topic of this research
and the research site influenced my choices and conduct during the research process.
I was a first-generation college student myself and my formative experiences in higher
education played a role in motivating and executing this line of research. I also worked as a
student affairs practitioner at various college campuses, including PU, and worked closely with
FGCS as well as some of the faculty and staff participants in this study. Although I sought
advice from my dissertation advisor, colleagues, and informants at PU, I used my own discretion
to make choices throughout the study which ultimately shaped how the data was analyzed,
interpreted, and presented.
74

As such, I placed a high priority on being a reflexive researcher throughout the research
process by continually reflecting on my own preconceptions and assumptions from my
experiences as a FGCS and my professional experience working with students at PU and other
institutions (Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2009; Hatch, 2002; MacBeth, 2001). By actively engaging
in discussions with and seeking insights from participants, informants and colleagues throughout
the process, I was made aware of and minimized my own biases as a researcher. I also wrote
several reflexive memos often to explore my own preconceptions throughout data collection and
analysis and conducted member checks with participants to ensure accuracy of the data and my
interpretations (Hatch, 2002; Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
Chapter 3 Summary
To review, this chapter began by offering the rationale for executing a mixed methods
design to study grit and social capital of successful FGCS. I provided a rationale for continuing
to use survey methods as the extant grit research has done and for including relational data
through social network analysis. I also discussed the benefit of qualitative interviewing to
supplement the quantitative data, providing the opportunity to understand the context and hear
the voices of FGCS describing what has led to their success in college. I then detailed the data
collection and data analysis for both the quantitative and qualitative strands of the study, and
discussed the varying levels of integration of the two throughout the study. I concluded the
chapter by appropriately discussing how I mitigated my own biases as a researcher. The next
chapter provides the results of the analysis to answer each of the study’s three research
questions.

75

Chapter 4: Presentation of Results
In the previous chapter I outlined the methods employed in this mixed methods study
examining the intersection of grit and social capital in the success of FGCS. In this chapter I
present the results of the quantitative and qualitative strands of the study that serve to answer the
study’s three research questions:
• What is the relationship, if any, between FGCS grit and social capital in their academic
success in college?
• Does FGCS access to and benefits of social capital differ based on student involvement in
mentoring programs and student organizations, demographic characteristics, grit,
academic preparation, and academic performance in college?
• How do FGCS employ grit and social capital to succeed academically and persist in
college?
As this study was informed by the pragmatic paradigm which focuses on ‘what works’ in a study
to understand a phenomenon (Creswell, 2009), I created research questions for different purposes
that called for different types of data and analyses to answer them. In designing the study I
sought to explore the effect of grit and social capital on FGCS academic success. I also aimed to
understand FGCS perspectives on their success in college and how they may have employed grit
and social capital to make it to their junior or senior year in college.
The nature of the first two research questions, which seek to determine statistical
relationships between specific variables and statistical differences between different groups of
students, called for quantitative analyses of the survey results to appropriately answer the
questions (Johnson & Christensen, 2012). Therefore, the results of the OLS regression analyses,
76

correlations, and t-tests were used to answer research question 1. The results of a series of t-tests
were utilized to answer question 2.
The third research question differed as it sought to understand the process by which
FGCS employed grit and social capital to succeed. Surveys were limited in collecting the desired
data that would have elicited detailed, nuanced information about students’ network of
relationships and vivid descriptions of FGCS experiences overcoming challenges to succeed in
college. As such I primarily used qualitative interviews with student respondents to answer the
third research question. Interviews with faculty and staff, and the social network sociograms
generated from the network question of the survey supplemented the student interviews. Before
turning to these research questions, I provide descriptive statistics of the sample of FGCS.
Sample
Student Demographics and Prior Education
Both the student survey and interview samples are predominately female (76%), which
may be reflective of the fact that PU’s student population is approximately 55-60% female, and
nationally FGCS are also more likely to be female (See Tables 4.1 – 4.3). As perhaps expected
given national trends and the location of PU in an urban area in the Southwest, the largest ethnic
group in the sample is Latinos/as (44%), followed by Whites (31%), Asian and Pacific Islanders
(12%), African Americans (9%), and Native Americans (3%). Seventeen percent also indicate
that they are multi-ethnic. Approximately 11% of survey respondents are immigrants to the
United States, and 47% of survey respondents’ mothers and 52% of their fathers immigrated to
the United States. As PU is a university affiliated with Roman Catholicism, not surprisingly, a
majority of students (52%) in the sample are Catholic. Fifty-nine percent of student survey
respondents attended a public high school, whereas 35% attended a Catholic high school, and 6%
77

attended other private secondary schools. Students’ mean high school GPA is 3.71 out of 4.00
and their mean SAT score is 1532 out of 2400. Less than a third (29%) of survey respondents are
transfer students who attended another higher education institution before enrolling in PU.
Although all students in the study identify as FGCS in the United States as defined by
PU, small percentages of students in the survey sample have parents with 4-year college degrees
or higher from countries other than the United States. Even so, a total of 86% of students’ fathers
and 86 % of students’ mothers did not graduate from a 4-year institution of higher education. In
fact, 59% and 60% of survey respondents’ fathers and mothers, respectively, received a high
school diploma or less. Many of these students (35%) are also the very first in their immediate
families to finish college, without the benefit of having an older sibling paving the way before
them.
Students’ College Experience
Over half (51%) of the survey respondents have college majors in Liberal Arts, and 21%
in Science & Engineering, 13% in Communications & Fine Arts, 5% in Film & Television, and
less than 1% in Education (See Table 4.3). The average cumulative college GPA for the sample
is 3.29 (SD=0.35) (See Table 4.6). A majority of the students in the sample receive financial aid
and work in jobs on-campus, off-campus, or both to cover their college costs. Over half of the
student survey respondents (55%) receive federal Pell grants to help support the cost of their
higher education (See Table 4.4). Seventy-five percent earn work-study money from the federal
government for their on-campus jobs. In addition to on-campus jobs, 58% of the students have
jobs off campus. Thirty-two percent of survey respondents work at jobs both on and off campus.
Roughly 20% of these students work more than 20 hours per week, while almost half (49%)
work 10-20 hours, and about 30% spend 10 or less hours per week working.
78

Most students in the sample have lived on campus for part or all of their time at PU and
are involved in student organizations on campus. Almost two-thirds of the students in the sample
(65%) have never commuted from their family home to attend college. Over 38% of student
survey respondents have lived on campus for 3 or more years, 26% for 2 years, and 13% for 1
year of their college experience. Almost three-quarters (73%) of student survey respondents are
involved in student organizations on campus (See Table 4.5). Between 25% and 30% of
respondents are associated with Greek, community service, religious student, and cultural student
organizations. Smaller numbers of student respondents are involved in intramural (15%) and
varsity athletics (7%). In addition, some students report participating in PU’s first-generation
mentoring program (13%). A smaller subset of these students (7%) were part of a first-
generation scholars cohort who took classes together freshman year, as well as participated in
other activities designed to build their social capital and support their academic success. Other
students in the sample take part in a variety of on-campus learning communities designed to
enhance their academic success and encourage graduate school aspirations and preparation. In
all, 23% of student respondents participate in programs or initiatives that seek to develop
underrepresented students’ academic success and social capital on campus.
Students’ Grit Scale Scores
Table 4.6 depicts the focal variables of this study, beginning with the Grit Scale
(Duckworth et al., 2007). The range for the overall grit score and the two components is 1 – 5.
The mean grit score of student survey respondents is 3.61 (SD=0.52). As a reference point, the
mean grit scale score is 3.46 (SD=0.61) in Duckworth and colleagues’ (2007) study of Ivy
League undergraduates which is significantly lower (p < 0.001) than the average grit scale score
for the current study’s sample. The average grit scale score in Strayhorn’s (2013) study of
79

African American male college students at predominately white universities is 4.08 (SD=0.88),
which is significantly higher (p < 0.0001) than the average grit scale score for the FGCS in the
current study. The average value for the perseverance of effort component is 4.10 (SD=0.56) and
3.13 (SD=.72) for consistency of interests for the FGCS surveyed in this current study. These are
both significantly higher than the mean values of 3.7 (SD=0.7) and 2.9 (SD=0.9) for
perseverance of effort (p < 0.001) and consistency of interests (p < 0.0001), respectively, in
Duckworth & Quinn’s (2009) study of adults aged 25 and older.
Student Informational Support Networks
In the survey students answered two primary network questions, identifying up to 7
student peers and 7 faculty or staff on campus from whom the respondents previously received
informational support to help them succeed in college. The number of individuals named by
respondents is the social network measure of outdegree. Students in the sample have received
informational support more from peers than they have from faculty and staff. The mean peer
outdegree for survey respondents is 2.89 (SD=2.64), which is significantly higher (p<0.01) than
the mean faculty/staff outdegree of 2.23 (SD=2.20). In addition to the quantity of relationships,
survey respondents also indicate stronger ties (p<0.0001) to peers than to the faculty/staff from
whom they have received informational support.
The social network survey also captured information about the shared characteristics of
students and their informational support networks (see Tables 4.7 and 4.8). For example, of the
451 total peer outdegree relationships, 68% are the same year in college, 69% are of the same
gender, and 48% are of the same race or ethnicity. Additionally, 26% named peers who are also
FGCS. Over a third of the peer relationships (38%) are with students in the same student
organization and about a quarter are with students in the same major (28%) or roommates (25%).
80

The type of information most often shared through peer networks is information or advice about
choosing or registering for classes (41%), followed by study tips (38%), career advice (34%),
campus resources (34%), jobs/internships (25%), and choosing a major (14%). See in Table 4.7
the descriptive statistics that show, on average, how many peers students have providing each
type of informational support. For example, survey respondents have 1.20 peers, on average,
who have provided support in the area of selecting and registering for classes.
Of the 348 student relationships with faculty and staff on campus, 54% are with
faculty/staff in the same field of study as the student and 52% are with faculty/staff of the same
gender. Only 30% are of the same race/ethnicity and only 21% are with faculty and staff who the
student survey respondents believe are also FGCS. Over a quarter of students’ relationships to
faculty/staff on campus are with their assigned faculty advisor (28%), while 46% are with faculty
and staff in the same department as the student’s major. Some students also received
informational support from faculty and staff who work in the same on-campus office where the
student works (15%), from an advisor to their student organizations (18%), or from a mentor
(7%). Career advice (55%) is the most common type of information shared by faculty and staff
with students. Informational support regarding choosing and registering for classes is second
(52%), followed by campus resources (47%), study tips (38%), jobs/internships (38%), and
choosing a major (28%). See Table 4.8 for the statistics representing how many faculty/staff, on
average, students named that offered informational support in each of the five areas. Information
about choosing a major is the only type of advice that students received more from faculty/staff
than from students (p<0.05).

81

Students’ Perceived Social Support
In addition to informational support, social support is another benefit that students may
have received through their relationships with faculty, staff, and peers on campus. In the online
survey, students’ perception of social support is captured by the 24-item Social Provisions Scale
(Russell & Cutrona, 1984), which asks them to think about their current relationships to faculty,
staff, and students on campus when answering the questions. On a scale of 1-4, the mean value
for overall perceived social support is 2.78 (SD=0.26) (see Table 4.6). Three subscales on the
Social Provisions Scale are also of interest. The first is guidance (M=3.02; SD=0.54), or support
and advice on accessing resources and navigating college. Next is reliable alliance (M=2.96;
SD=0.31), or the belief that others on campus can be depended on when students face
challenges. Finally, there is social integration (M=2.28; SD=0.46), which represents the sense
that others on campus share one’s interests and values.
These descriptive data concerning the demographic characteristics, students’ and
families’ prior education, students’ educational and extracurricular experiences, and the focal
variables of college GPA, grit, access to social capital (i.e., outdegree and strength of ties) and
the benefits of social capital (i.e., informational support and social support) not only help to
understand the sample, but also set the stage to answer the three research questions of this study.
Answering the Research Questions
RQ1: What is the relationship, if any, between FGCS grit and social capital in their
academic success in college?
In what follows I answer the first research question by presenting the final regression
model I discussed in Chapter 3, which uses grit scale scores and the size of students’ networks
with faculty and staff to predict FGCS cumulative college GPA (see Table 4.9). I also discuss
82

results of statistically significant correlations and t-tests examining the relationships among the
focal variables in this study (see Tables 4.10 and 4.11).
OLS regression results. As I discussed in Chapter 3, I explored an OLS regression
model predicting FGCS academic success, operationalized as the dependent variable of FGCS
cumulative college GPA. The focal independent variables that I investigated through a series of
over 50 OLS regression models are grit scale scores, grit’s components (i.e., consistency of
interests and perseverance of effort), network measures that represent access to social capital
(i.e., faculty/staff outdegree, peer outdegree, peer strength of ties, staff strength of ties), benefits
of social capital (i.e., social support and its key determinants, and the types of informational
support received from one’s social network).
Table 4.9 displays the results of the final OLS model (p<0.0001) and the equation is
presented below:
𝑌𝑌 𝑖𝑖 = 𝛼𝛼 𝑖𝑖 + 𝛽𝛽 𝑖𝑖 𝑥𝑥 G rit 𝑖𝑖 + 𝛽𝛽 𝑖𝑖 𝑥𝑥 S C 𝑖𝑖 + 𝛽𝛽 𝑖𝑖 𝑋𝑋 d em 𝑖𝑖 + 𝛽𝛽 𝑖𝑖 𝑋𝑋 𝑃𝑃 𝑃𝑃
+ 𝑒𝑒 i
(4.1)
Where 𝑌𝑌 𝑖𝑖 is the outcome, cumulative college GPA. 𝑥𝑥 G rit 𝑖𝑖 represents FGCS grit scale scores. 𝑥𝑥 S C 𝑖𝑖
indicates a measure of social capital, in this case faculty/staff outdegree. 𝑋𝑋 d em 𝑖𝑖 is a vector of
control dummy variables for student demographics factors (i.e., transfer student, commuter, Pell
grant recipient, campus involvement) and 𝑋𝑋 𝑃𝑃 𝑃𝑃 is a vector for continuous variables of prior
achievement (i.e., SAT scores and high school GPA). 𝛼𝛼 𝑖𝑖 is the constant which represents the
cumulative college GPA when all other variables are equal to 0, and 𝑒𝑒 i
is the error term.
Throughout all of the regressions I ran predicting college GPA, grit and its components
are curiously not found to be significant predictors of cumulative GPA. The variables for
perceived social support and its relevant determinants (i.e., reliable alliance, guidance, social
integration) and the various types of informational support operationalized in the study also are
83

not significant predictors of cumulative GPA in any of the regression models. I also explored the
intersection of grit and social capital by including interactions between grit (and its components)
and variables representing access to or benefits of social capital (e.g. grit interacted with
faculty/staff outdegree, consistency of interests interacted with reliable alliance, etc.). None of
the interaction terms run in the regressions are significant. Furthermore, I controlled for the
schools and colleges of students’ majors which did not change the results of the final regression
model.
The only social network measure that is consistently significant in the regression models
is the size of FGCS informational support network of faculty and staff, or faculty/staff outdegree.
Controlling for other factors in the model, each additional faculty or staff from whom a FGCS
received informational support is associated with a 0.03 unit, or a 0.20 standard deviation,
increase in college GPA (p<0.05). Also significant in this model are the control variables for
SAT scores and commuter students. Controlling for other variables in the model, with every 100
point increase in SAT score, students are predicted to have a 0.06 increase in cumulative GPA
(p<0.0001). Students who have ever lived at home with family and commuted during their time
at PU are projected to have a .13 lower cumulative GPA (p<0.05), controlling for other factors in
the model.
Significant correlations. Table 4.10 displays the Pearson’s correlations among the focal
variables with the significant correlations appearing in bold. FGCS cumulative college GPA is
not correlated with any of the grit or social capital variables. Only one correlation of students’
grit scale scores with social capital variables was statistically significant. Grit was weakly
correlated (r=0.17; p<0.05) with reliable alliance, a component of the social support benefit of
social capital. Reliable alliance represents students’ belief that others on campus—faculty, staff,
84

or other students—can be depended on for support when students face challenges. Interestingly,
whereas reliable alliance is not associated with the perseverance of effort aspect of grit
considered more relevant to overcoming challenges, the other component measured in the grit
scale, consistency of interests, is correlated with reliable alliance (r=0.18; p<0.05). Reliable
alliance is the only aspect of social capital that is found to be associated with grit or the
consistency of interests component of grit.
The perseverance of effort component of grit, however, has three statistically significant
correlations with social capital measures. Two of the three relate to social capital with faculty
and staff on campus. Students’ perseverance of effort is weakly correlated with the prevalence of
having a relationship with faculty or staff member that yielded information and advice on
studying (r=0.16; p<0.05). Students’ strength of ties to the faculty and staff from whom they
receive informational support is also positively associated with perseverance of effort (r=0.20;
p<0.05). Interestingly, a negative relationship is suggested by the correlation between
perseverance of effort and the strength of peer-to-peer ties (r=-0.19; p<0.05).
One other interesting, yet not surprising, correlation to note due to its relative strength
compared to the others is between the perseverance of effort aspect of grit and the hours that
students work in jobs and internships on or off campus (r=0.24; p<0.01). And, lastly, the two
components of grit (consistency of interests and perseverance of effort) are moderately correlated
in this sample (r=0.28; p<0.001). These two correlations will be discussed further in Chapter 5.
Significant t-tests. By running a series of two-tailed t-tests, I further examined potential
relationships among the focal variables of grit, social capital, and college GPA (See Table 4.11).
Students who have college GPAs above the average in the sample (M=3.29; SD=0.35) have
statistically larger informational support networks of peers (p<0.05), faculty and staff (p<0.01)
85

and combined faculty/staff/peer (p<0.01) than did students who have below average college
GPAs. Similarly, students with above average GPAs in the sample have more faculty/staff
relationships from whom they receive support with selecting and registering for classes than do
students with GPAs below the sample’s average (p<0.05).
Students in the sample with above average grit scale scores (M=3.61; SD=0.52) have a
statistically larger combined faculty/staff/peer information support network than do students with
lower than average grit scale scores (p<0.05). Moreover students who score above average on the
grit scale are also more likely to have relationships with faculty or staff in which career advice is
shared than students with below average grit scores (p<0.05). One last statistically significant t-
test that serves to answer the first research question involves the social integration aspect of the
social support benefit of social capital. Students who score above average on perceived social
integration (M=2.49; SD=0.26) have a mean grit scale score significantly higher than the mean
grit scale score of students who are below average on the social integration subscale of social
support (p<0.05).
Summary of Answer to RQ1
In summary, I highlight five key findings that serve to answer Research Question 1:
1. The number of faculty and staff that FGCS identify as providing informational
support is predictive of cumulative college GPA.
2. Despite no significant interactions between aspects of grit and elements of social
capital in the regression analyses, grit and consistency of interests have significant
relationships to a benefit of social capital, reliable alliance.
86

3. Perseverance of effort is related to receiving informational support from faculty and
staff on study tips and strategies, yet negatively related to the strength of peer-to-peer
ties.
4. FGCS with above average GPAs received more informational support from faculty,
staff and peers, and particularly faculty/staff support with selecting and registering for
classes.
5. FGCS with above average grit scale scores received useful information from a higher
number of peers, faculty, and staff; and are also more likely to receive career advice
from faculty and staff than students with below average grit scale scores.
RQ2: Does FGCS access to and benefits of social capital differ based on mentoring
program and student organization participation, demographic characteristics, prior
academic preparation, and current college performance?
More two-tailed t-tests were run to answer the second research question. The results of
these t-tests suggest that access to and the receipt of social capital benefits differ based on a host
of demographic characteristics and type of involvement on campus (See Tables 4.12 – 4.18).
Access to social capital.
Access to social capital and demographics and prior achievement. FGCS who identify as
African American at PU have, on average, a larger information support network of faculty and
staff (p<0.05) and peers (p<0.01) than non-African American FGCS (see Table 4.12). The same
trend is apparent for first-generation Latino students with regard to their larger information
support networks of faculty and staff (p<0.0001) and peers (p<0.05) compared to non-Latino
FGCS. Latino FGCS also have stronger ties to faculty and staff (p<0.01),
x+
on average, than do
87

FGCS who do not identify as Latino. White FGCS are found to have less strong ties to faculty
and staff at PU than do non-white FGCS (p<0.01)
x
.
Factors other than race and ethnicity also appear to be relevant to consider regarding
differences in FGCS access to social capital at PU, including students’ prior achievement,
parents’ birthplace and income level, For example, although students with above average SAT
scores do not have statistically larger faculty/staff information support networks, these students
do have larger peer support networks (p<0.05) than FGCS with below average SAT scores.
Some other t-tests reveal surprising results. For instance, FGCS whose mothers and fathers were
born in the U.S. have higher outdegree, on average, for peer information networks than do
students whose mothers (p<0.01) or fathers (p<0.01) were born outside of the U.S. FGCS
parents’ birthplace also seems to matter in the strength of relationships FGCS have with faculty
and staff. Students with parents born in the U.S. unexpectedly have lower strength of ties to
faculty and staff than FGCS with mothers (p<0.05)
+
and fathers (p<0.05)
+
who are foreign born.
FGCS with fathers born in the U.S. also curiously have less strong ties to peers than do students
with immigrant fathers (p<0.05)
x
. In addition to parents’ birthplace, students from lower-income
families, suggested by receiving the federal Pell grant, unexpectedly have stronger ties to faculty
and staff than students who do not receive the Pell grant (p<0.05)
x+
.
Access to social capital and student involvement. FGCS access to social capital in this
study depends on their involvement on campus (See Table 4.13). Students who are involved in at
least one student organization have on average a higher outdegree for both faculty and staff
(p<0.01) and peers (p<0.0001) than students who are not involved in any student organizations.
FGCS at PU involved in intentional organizations, those with the intention of developing social
capital and/or providing academic and social support, have larger information networks of both
88

faculty/staff (p<0.01) and peers (p<0.05) than students not participating in these types of
programs. Those participating in intentional organizations also have stronger ties to faculty and
staff (p<0.01)
x+
.
One intentional organization on PU’s campus is a first-generation mentoring program
that has a mission that includes generating social capital. Survey respondents who indicate they
have a mentor in the program have, on average, larger faculty/staff outdegree (p<0.01) and
combined faculty/staff/peer outdegree (p<0.01) than students who are not part of the program.
Mentees in the program also report stronger relationships to faculty and staff (p<0.01)
x+
. A
subset of students in the mentoring program were also part of a FGCS scholars cohort that took
classes together freshman year. Cohort members’ peer and faculty/staff outdegree and strength of
ties are not significantly different than the students who were part of the mentoring program but
not in the cohort freshman year.
Two-thirds of students in the sample are members of one or more appropriable student
organizations, or groups that are intended for purposes other than generating social capital (e.g..,
community service, sports), yet likely provide social capital benefits like informational and
social support. Survey respondents who are members of appropriable social organizations, not
surprisingly, have larger peer outdegree for informational support than students not involved in
an appropriable social organization (p<0.001). In addition, FGCS at PU who are members of
appropriable social organizations also report receiving informational support from more
faculty/staff on average (p<0.01). Unlike members of intentional organizations, students in
appropriable social organizations do not have statistically stronger ties to faculty and staff than
students who are not involved in appropriable social organizations. Lastly, having a work study
job also appears to be related to students’ access to information support networks of faculty,
89

staff, and students. Students who have work study jobs on campus also have larger combined
faculty/staff/peer outdegree (p<0.01) and also larger peer outdegree than non-work study
students (p<0.001).
Benefits of social capital. The results reported below suggest that disparities exist
between who experiences the benefits of social capital at PU, informational support and social
support (See Table 4.14 – 4.18).
Informational support and student involvement. FGCS who are involved in at least one
student organization at PU, on average, receive information about campus resources (p<0.01)
and career advice (p<0.05) from more faculty and staff than students not involved in campus
organizations. Students involved on campus similarly have more peers, on average, that provide
them information concerning campus resources (p<0.01) and career advice (p<0.01), and also
have more peers providing them with informational support related to studying (p<0.05) and
jobs/internships (p<0.05). The results regarding t-tests concerning intentional and appropriable
social organizations suggests that generally membership to an intentional organization yields
more faculty/staff informational support of various types and appropriable student organizations
produce more informational support from peers (See Table 4.14).
For example, intentional organization members at PU receive informational support from
more faculty/staff about campus resources (p<0.0001), career advice (p<0.001), jobs/internships
(p<0.001), and selecting/registering for classes (p<0.05). The only statistically significant
difference in peer informational support based on membership to an intentional organization is
regarding information about campus resources. In contrast, members of appropriable student
organizations are offered informational support from more peers than students who are not part
of an appropriable student organization on four of the six topics: campus resources (p<0.01),
90

career advice (p<0.05), jobs/internships (p<0.05), and study tips (p<0.05). Regarding
faculty/staff informational support, the only statistical difference between appropriable social
organization members and non-members is regarding campus resources (p<0.05) and
jobs/internships (p<0.05).
Table 4.15 presents the differences in informational support between members of the
FGCS mentoring and scholars programs and students who are not members of these programs.
Students in the mentoring program obtain informational support from more faculty and staff than
students who are not in the mentoring program on the topics of campus resources (p<0.0001),
career advice (p<0.0001), jobs/internships (p<0.01), and selecting/registering for classes
(p<0.05). Students in this intentional organization also receive information from more peers
about campus resources than do non-members (p<0.05). As for the FGCS scholars cohort
members, they receive more faculty and staff information on campus resources (p<0.0001),
career advice (p<0.01), and job/internships (p<0.01) than non-members of the cohort.
Informational support and demographics. The results of the t-tests displayed in Table
4.16 suggest most of the demographic differences that do exist concern faculty and staff
informational support rather than peer support. For example, Latino FGCS receive more
informational support from faculty and staff at PU than non-Latino students in all five categories:
campus resources (p<0.0001), career advice (p<0.0001), choosing a major (p<0.0001),
registering for classes (p<0.0001), jobs/internships (p<0.001), and study tips (p<0.01). No
significant differences in peer support are found between Latinos and non-Latinos. African-
American FGCS, in contrast, have more peers providing informational support in the areas of
career advice (p<0.01) and campus resources (p<0.05) than non-African American FGCS at PU.
91

No differences exist in faculty support between African-American and non-African American
FGCS at PU.
Other factors such as family experience in college, income level, and mother’s birthplace
are found to be significant to FGCS informational support at PU. Lower-income students (i.e.,
those who receive the Pell grant), interestingly obtain support from more faculty and staff than
students who do not receive the Pell grant regarding study tips (p<0.05), career advice (p<0.05)
and jobs/internships (p<0.05). FGCS with parents who have some experience in college receive
support from fewer faculty and staff regarding study tips than students whose parents have no
experience in higher education (p<0.05). FGCS who are the first of their siblings to complete
college receive information from fewer faculty and staff about jobs and internships (p<0.05).
Lastly, FGCS students who have mothers born inside the U.S. curiously receive informational
support from fewer faculty, on average, on study tips (p<0.05), jobs/internships (p<0.05), and
choosing a major (p<0.05).
Social support and student involvement. The t-test results presented in Table 4.17 suggest
being involved on campus at PU matters to students’ perceived social support on campus
(p<0.01) and in particular for guidance (p<0.01) and social integration (p<0.001). Similarly,
FGCS members of appropriable social organizations perceive more social support (p<0.001),
guidance (p<0.01) and social integration (p<0.001). Although no significant differences in social
support are found between intentional organization members and non-members generally,
students in the intentional FGCS mentoring program, similar to the results concerning
appropriable social organizations, experience more social support than students not in the
program (p<0.05). More specifically, participants experience more guidance (p<0.05) and social
integration (p<0.05). Curiously, no significant differences are found regarding reliable alliance,
92

the one aspect of social support that is found to be correlated with grit and consistency of
interests in this study.
Social support and demographics. Table 4.18 depicts the results of significant t-tests
suggesting differences in social support based on various demographic characteristics. Latino
and Catholic students report experiencing on average more social integration on campus than
students who are non-Latino (p<0.01) or non-Catholic (p<0.01). There are several factors
suggesting which FGCS are less likely to experience the benefits of social support at PU. For
instance, students who receive Pell grants, on average, perceive less reliable alliance with
faculty, staff, and students on campus than students who do not receive Pell grants for financial
aid (p<0.05). Also white FGCS experience less social integration than non-white FGCS
(p<0.0001). Unexpectedly, students who have parents with some experience in college, on
average, also experience less social integration at PU than students whose parents have no
college experience (p<0.01). Also, counterintuitively, students whose fathers were born in the
U.S. report lower levels of social integration on PU’s campus than FGCS with foreign-born
fathers (p<0.05). Not surprisingly, FGCS who report being the very first to attend college in their
immediate family experience less guidance from peers, faculty, and staff than do FGCS who
have siblings with college experience (p<0.05). These findings, many unanticipated, will be
discussed further in Chapter 5.
Summary of Answer to RQ2
In summary, the data highlight three overall findings that serve to answer research
question 2:
93

1. FGCS involved in student organizations or work study jobs on campus have larger
support networks but the type of organization matters regarding the benefits of social
capital:
• Members of intentional organizations at PU receive various types of informational
support from more faculty and staff than non-members, yet did not perceive higher
levels of social support;
• Conversely, students in appropriable social organizations obtain informational
support on a wide range of topics through more peers than students not participating
in an appropriable social organization, and they also experience more social support,
especially guidance.
• Members of the FGCS mentoring program received informational support from more
faculty than non-mentoring program members in all five categories, and also
experienced more social integration and guidance from the support networks.
2. Racial/ethnic disparities exist among FGCS at PU:
• African American and Latina/o FGCS have larger informational support networks
than non-African American and non-Latino FGCS, respectively;
• Latinas/os have stronger relationships to faculty and staff and experience more social
integration on campus than non-Latinos.
• White FGCS have less strong ties with faculty and staff and perceive less social
integration than non-white FGCS at PU.
3. Other differences in access to and benefits of social capital, some counterintuitive, exist
based on other factors, including:
94

• Pell grant recipients have stronger faculty/staff ties, receive informational support
regarding studying, jobs/internships, and career advice from more faculty, yet report
lower levels of reliable alliance than non-Pell recipients.
• Not surprisingly, students who are the very first to attend college in their family have
fewer faculty and staff providing support regarding jobs and internships;
• Counterintuitively, students with immigrant mothers have more faculty providing
support about choosing a major, studying, and jobs/internships.
• Non-Catholics, students with some family experience with college, and those who
have fathers born in the U.S. experience less social integration on campus.
RQ3: How do FGCSs employ grit and social capital to succeed in college?
The first two research questions lend themselves well to quantitative analysis as they
sought to: (a) explore relationships among variables of interest (i.e., grit, social network
measures, GPA, perceived social support) and (b) determine differences between groups of
students based on a variety of factors (i.e., student involvement, demographics, etc.) (Johnson &
Christensen, 2012). The answer to the third research question requires qualitative data given the
purpose is to understand the process and context of FGCS success at PU. Although this third and
final research question is answered primarily through the qualitative interviews with 21 FGCS, I
also integrate quantitative and social network data derived from students’ surveys. Figure 4.1
depicts the sociogram graphs of the ego-networks of all 21 student interview participants. The
ego-network comprises the student interview participant with each of the student peers, faculty,
and staff on campus who have provided them with important informational support that has
helped them succeed in college. In this section, I highlight cases of specific students to illustrate
95

the different shades of grit and social capital that have enabled them to overcome various
challenges and obstacles at PU in persisting in college to their junior or senior year.

I begin by introducing 6 key students by pseudonym – Maria, Joseph, Julia, Sara, Stella,
and Thomas. These students were chosen primarily due to the compelling nature of their stories,
and the diversity of experiences, student involvement, grit, and social networks that they
represent. Table 4.19 lists these 6 students’ focal variables including GPA, grit scale scores and
social network measures. I highlight these students as I discuss themes of overcoming challenges
that affect FGCS more often than non-FGCS students, including overcoming cultural differences
on campus, for many navigating commuting to a traditional 4-year campus, managing financial
Figure 4.1. Sociogram of all student interview respondents and their ego networks
Student = Blue=Interview
Faculty/Staff = Pink=No Interview
96

challenges, and defining and developing their interests in college. Although I profile these 6
students, I also bring in quotes from other students, faculty, and staff for whom I also use
pseudonyms. I conclude with a section that highlights different variations of grit as exhibited by
the 6 profiled students, and how their network of relationships on campus have contributed to the
grit mindset.
I start by presenting the three students who take part in the FGCS mentoring program at
PU, beginning with Maria (Figure 4.2).

Figure 4.2. Maria’s ego information support network at PU
Student = Blue=Interview
Faculty/Staff = Pink=No Interview
97

Maria’s first language was Spanish and her parents, both born in Mexico, have less than a high
school diploma. She has half siblings in Mexico who attended college there, but as she says “it’s
different.” Her parents were encouraging her to attend college at a young age. They attended
parent information sessions about college when Maria was in elementary school. Her family
qualifies as low-income as Maria is a Pell grant recipient. Maria has a 3.4 GPA and has two
majors, and last year she added a minor. Maria previously had an internship and currently has a
work study job. Each week she works 10-15 hours. Maria is one of the 19 students who took part
in the first-generation scholars program as a freshman. She is now a leader in the program and
has taken advantage of many of the opportunities for the first-generation community, including
the writing workshops and contributing to the first-generation student journal. Although Maria
only named two students in her network survey, Maria happens to be one of the most frequently
named students as providing informational support to other survey respondents. One student
who Maria has supported is Joseph (Figure 4.3).
Joseph was also part of the first-generation scholars cohort during his freshman year at
PU. At that time he lived on campus. He has since moved home to live with his family. Even
though Joseph tells me that Maria “became distant” after she, unlike Joseph, “ended up getting
into more activities…we still talk occasionally” as they both continue to participate in first-
generation program activities. In particular, Maria knowing that Joseph has a passion for social
justice has recommended resources, opportunities, and programs that can help Joseph hone his
interests. Joseph’s parents have some college experience, but Joseph would be the first college
graduate in his immediate family. He has held a work study job all 4 years of college and works
10-15 hours per week. His current GPA is 2.6—as Joseph says his motto is “C’s get degrees.”

98

Joseph commutes from about an hour away, and maybe more than most other students has
experienced a prolonged “culture shock” while attending PU. I will describe in the next section
one of Joseph’s major challenges, balancing “the two different lives you're living.”
Figure 4.3. Josephs’ ego information support network at PU
Student = Blue=Interview
Faculty/Staff = Pink=No Interview
99

Julia (Figure 4.4), is currently involved in the first-generation mentoring program at PU,
but was not part of the initial smaller cohort in the first-generation scholars program like Joseph
and Maria.

Julia attended Catholic schools her whole life because of her mother’s negative perception of and
experience with public schools in Central America, from where both of her parents immigrated
Figure 4.4. Julia’s ego information support network at PU
Student = Blue=Interview
Faculty/Staff = Pink=No Interview
100

before Julia was born. Julia recalls, “The idea of going to college was brought into my life
because of her [mother].” Laughing, she conveys, “and I have no idea where she got that idea
because I’m the very first person in my whole entire family to go to college.” In her interview,
Julia has a difficult time choosing who among her nominations has had the greatest impact on
her success in college. “I think, honestly, every single one of them has had a huge impact. And I
feel like we’re all interconnected somehow.”

Figure 4.5. Joseph’s, Maria’s, and Julia’s combined information support networks
Student = Blue=Interview
Faculty/Staff = Pink=No Interview
101

In Figure 4.5 you can see much of that interconnection through the combined ego networks of
Julia, Maria, and Joseph, who are the three students profiled here that are part of the FGCS
student programs at PU. Julia recollects how Maria and her other friends who she met through
“socializing” and “through all the clubs” connected her to the mentoring program and to the
Director, Dr. G. Julia names Dr. G. as one of the key institutional agents who has supported her
at PU, and my key informant for this study.
There are varying of levels of engagement in the FGCS mentoring program. One other
student interviewed declares he is “technically” in the first-generation mentoring program, but
met with his mentor only once. This student, who is heavily involved in a well-respected service
organization on campus, has 3 jobs on campus, and says “if I was like struggling, I probably
would have been in there a lot but I managed to like keep myself busy and I managed to be
relatively happy.” Other students who were not part of the first-generation mentoring program
may have thought it didn’t apply to them, for example, “because both of my parents started
college, and then I had two siblings who went to college.” Though, in hindsight, she shares, “I
realized that my parents didn’t know much about school, my dad particularly.” Although this
student wasn’t connected to the first-generation program, she had benefited from another
intentional organization freshman year, a learning community for African American freshmen,
and is currently in another intentional organization designed to support underrepresented
minority students pursuing graduate school. Others may have been confused between the
scholars cohort and the mentoring program. One student said, “it conflicted with the [Political
Science] learning community,” referring to the time of the first-generation cohort class. The
mentoring program is for all four years and has many other components and offerings throughout
students’ time at PU. She said that few people she does know in the program are “really
102

passionate about it, and over time I've become more like, wow, these students on campus are
really amazing, and I feel like I wish I would have been part of that somehow.”
Sara (Figure 4.6) who I profile next is one of the students who is not part of the FGCS
mentoring program.

Sara was, however, a member of a sorority for all four years of college. Sara is a 21-year old
senior English major at PU who previously attended college part time. Sara has lived on-campus
for three years and now a senior, lives off campus with other students. Sara identifies as
“biracial. Half Filipino and half Mexican.” She went to a Catholic high school and “grew up in
suburbia...that was a very white area.” Her mother had some experience in college and her father
Figure 4.6. Sara’s ego information support network at PU

Student = Blue=Interview
Faculty/Staff = Pink=No Interview
103

has a high school diploma. Sara also has two siblings who have experience in college and 3
members of her extended family have also attended college. Sara has a 3.3 GPA. She held a few
work study jobs on campus during her time at PU. She named a wide variety of supportive
faculty, staff, and students in her survey.

Also not part of the first-generation programs at PU, Stella (Figure 4.7) is a first-
generation Mexican American who transferred to PU from a 2-year institution. Stella says that
she heard “something about [the mentoring program] from a professor last semester,” during her
senior year, but still “didn’t really understand too much about it.” Stella is a commuter student
Figure 4.7. Stella’s Ego Information Support Network at PU
Student = Blue=Interview
Faculty/Staff = Pink=No Interview
104

who lives 15 miles east of PU and works 15 miles north of her home. In addition to the challenge
of commuting, like many of the other students in the study she is a Pell grant recipient and
financial challenges were among her most difficult obstacles in college. She sees money as the
major barrier to her achieving her long-term goal to “eventually go to graduate school,
eventually get my Ph.D., if possible.” Stella is not involved in any student organizations on
campus and did not name any peers at PU who have provided her with informational support.
She did, however, name one faculty member in her major, Dr. Paul, with whom she developed a
useful relationship. She is visibly excited when she tells me that “this is my third semester taking
his courses.” As I will describe in greater detail, Dr. Paul has helped Stella greatly in engaging
her growing interests in journalism and international relations. She also spoke of the invaluable
support she received from her supervisor in her work study job at her previous institution.
Despite their differences in racial background, parents’ birthplace, and income, Thomas
(Figure 4.8), a white, male, formerly home-schooled, FGCS, shares some similarities with Stella.
Thomas is also not part of the first-generation mentoring program, is the first of his siblings to
attend college, and commutes to PU from 30-60 minutes away depending on traffic. Like Stella,
he works off campus. He has an IT job he received through a connection at church right out of
high school. A key difference between Stella and Thomas is that he has a home base when he is
on campus, where he has developed some important relationships with both peers and faculty.
When he is on campus, “I'm typically either in class or in the CS lab, and Eric and Abby (his
only two peer nominations) were just two of the people who just happened to hang out in the CS
lab a lot, too.” He continues to say that “most of my other circle of friends [are from the lab], too,
because that's where I am.” Thomas has a 3.7 GPA in computer science, his major, but almost
105

every semester he has failed at least one class outside his major. His connection to the CS lab, as
will become clear, helped him navigate and overcome this challenge.

In the next sections, I highlight salient themes that emerged in the qualitative data,
beginning first with the various types of cultural challenges that students faced, and how they
were supported in overcoming them.

Figure 4.8. Thomas’ ego information support network at PU

Student = Blue=Interview
Faculty/Staff = Pink=No Interview
106

Support in Overcoming Cultural Challenges
Sara, who is biracial, says that her “parents didn't really emphasize anything from a
cultural aspect when I was growing up.” She resumes explaining that “I didn't really see myself,
oh, I'm Asian or I'm Mexican. My race wasn't a big factor to me, and so when I came [to
PU]…people were treating me differently because of my ethnicity. And so by the time I was a
junior, I was having a major identity crisis.” Uncertainty over her identity was one of the major
challenges that Sara faced as she moved towards her senior year. “It was really bad. It was when
my boyfriend and I had broken up, and he told me that I basically wasn't Filipino enough to be in
his family.” The frustration she felt as she recalls the story is palpable. “And it was just - I was
like, I don't know what that means, I - and I was really confused about it.”
Sara shares how she got through this obstacle with the active support of “professors who
have been amazing support systems,” one in particular. “Dr. Lee would read my reflections and
he would give his input, and I remember there was one week where he pulled me out of class”
when he said, “if you need to talk about this, you totally can.” Sara explains that “identity was
one of the really big topics that we were talking about, and I wrote about that because I didn't
know how to deal with that.” She was thankful to “even have that resource available to me, and I
definitely went to talk to him about it.”
Another biracial student—half black, half white— struggled with “coming to PU,
everything was really racially segregated, at least from what I witnessed in the beginning, and it
was very difficult for me to adjust.” She also comments on having difficulties with “a lot of
racial stereotypes or racial incidents that I didn't expect on campus.” One key friendship was
helpful to her adjustment. She found a friend to live with in college who shared a similar
background—they “both had kind of a struggle growing up. So having someone who can
107

understand that and can relate to makes it easier.” In particular, both of their fathers “were in jail
most of our lives, and we have a strained relationship with them, and we pretty much just grew
up with our moms.” She points out that going “to college and then meeting someone whose dad
was in jail their whole lives, just like you, that's not like, a common thing, you know?”
Maria says the “hardest thing” that she has had to overcome at PU is that she “just can’t
relate to a lot of people” in her two majors, especially those who “come from a different lifestyle,
where...you’re talking about Spring Break in Cancun…that is an actual thing! I was like, I don't
know, I don't do that.” She describes the girls who “come in with their bags and everything. Like,
I can't identify.” And in her other department, “I feel so dumb.” She laughs, “Everyone's so
smart.” She continues to say:
The one thing that I don't like about our program is [it’s] very Eurocentric. So
there was one class specifically last semester that I took where the student and
teacher just started talking in German. Like, straight up just starting talking in
German and I was like - Hello? Can't understand you, and it was just like, I'm not
able to relate to them in another way, and then they're all just super smart. But a
lot of their intellect comes from like, ‘my father is also a history buff, and we
talk about this and go to Civil War reenactments all the time,’ or ‘my father has a
library with all these books that I've been exposed to growing up.’ So I feel dumb
in a lot of ways, like, not smart enough, but I'm able to realize where their
advantage comes from.

She goes on to say that “it still continues to be a challenge, where I'm just like, not able to see
myself reflected a lot in the students or in the curriculum.”
These kinds of experiences are common for FGCS and it is the reason why Maria’s
participation in the first-generation student scholars program at PU was so important. In her own
words, “it was a learning community, a cohort of 19 of us took a class together. We were all first-
generation college freshman.” She clarifies that “some of us lived on campus, some of us didn't,
but we all generally had similar experiences. We were the support system for each other.” In
addition, there were “faculty and the staff that we met through that program that really helped.”
108

Without having the experiences she had in this scholars program, she says “I feel like I would
have really felt out of place” at PU. She further informs me, “I wouldn't have learned so much
about myself as I did now.” She realizes that “I'm able to relate to people” at PU. After having
the first-generation scholars experience at the beginning of college, “I know there's people that I
can go to and be genuine with because we've been through similar experiences.”
For Joseph, who was also part of the cohort freshman year, not only is his home
community far in proximity from PU’s campus, the types of people he associates with at home
are also from “another world” compared to PU. Due to the vast differences between his two
worlds, Joseph believes that the “culture shock” was the “hardest thing” about being at PU. He
explains, “I've kind of been able to adapt now, but then I still get that [culture shock when] I'm
over here [at PU].” He says, “it's easier because I [commute] back home, and I manage to merge.
But at the same time you’re like, damn, it's very different, you know? I can't be the same.”
Joseph discloses that his friends at home “don’t like how I present myself, with my tattoos
[covered up], with the way I dress and stuff.” Joseph describes the “whole debate on college”
with his friends who say things like “you're going to get a degree or whatever, but what if you
don't like doing that?” Joseph shares that his friends “don’t get it,” that Joseph will have many
“other options if I don't like doing that. It's not necessarily I have to do that for the rest of my
life…but they don’t see that.” Joseph’s friends from home are not college-bound, and some are
involved in illegal activities. Joseph is pursuing his interest in becoming a gang interventionist,
but struggles with what this means for him being between two worlds. “It's two different lives
you're living, I've kind of done that to a certain extent with college life and back home life, and
then how I present myself in different environments.”
109

In his survey Joseph named Denise, one of the instructors in the first-generation scholars
program. It is with Denise that Joseph opened up and “was pretty straightforward, because what
happened was I was feeling like, culture shock.” Joseph believes that his mother is the reason he
made it to college, “but actually staying through college and getting through it was more the
[first-generation scholars] program here,” which “helped tremendously,” especially with the
culture shock. He recalls during “my first year [I really didn’t realize that college] is really more
stressful [than high school]. And then my parents didn't really have too much [college]
knowledge. So that was a struggle for me.” He recognizes that “the program really helped me,
because I did the scholars course, and that really helped with the culture shock and helped me get
through it in various ways.” He continues to explain, “sometimes we would just hang out with
either the group, or a lot of the [faculty and staff] mentors helped me tremendously, so that was a
big factor for me.”
Joseph’s mentor in the program, Mario, was a former student at PU who is now a staff
member. Mario comes from an area not far from Joseph’s home. Joseph states that most of all,
Mario is “relatable.” Having been through some of the same struggles, “he empathized with me,
and he kind of helped me out with a couple things.” Joseph says that he “[doesn’t] have an
interest in [going to talk to professors]” and that even though Mario “has referred me to people
[on campus], me actually following through – [Mario] knows that most of the time I won't.” But
that doesn’t stop Mario from “occasionally he'll take me and he'll say we're going to walk over
and talk to this person or that person, depending on what it is.” Asking him if he could imagine
being in his senior year without the first-generation mentoring program, he said “Honestly, I
don't know if I would have graduated if I didn't have the program.”
110

Another student who is Latina expresses also that the hardest things for her was “a
culture shock that I didn't expect” given that she grew up only 45 minutes away. She thought she
had already gone through a culture shock attending an upper middle class high school away from
where she grew up. She communicates how clear it is to her that “I didn't grow up like these
people, I don't have the things these people have. I don't know the people that these people
know.” She vents to me that “taking classes with these people and then trying to be friends with
them, it's hard sometimes.” However, she says about this challenge, “I don't think it's affected my
academic work. I think if anything it's made me more studious. I've become very particular in the
people I surround myself with.”
Navigating Commuting Challenges
One of the biggest challenges that Maria navigated throughout college involved
transportation. Maria doesn’t have a car. “I tried commuting from home [taking public
transportation], and that took forever. I would get back home around like, 10:30, 11:00 at night
and have to leave at like, 4:00 in the morning. So it was terrible.” At another point during
college, Maria lived off campus with friends “not too far away from PU, but I don't have a car.”
Her roommates had cars and “it was easy for them to just go back and forth, and for me it
wasn't.”
This transportation issue began to impact her studies as she “realized that I had gotten
used to studying on campus, so the library was my place, the Academic Resource Center was my
place.” She tried “to study in my apartment and I'm like, I can't, it's just not working for me, I
need to be on campus.” So she would “walk over [to PU] at 3:00 in the morning kind of thing,
and then there were a couple times where I just had to sleep in a [university academic building]
111

because I was like, I'm too tired to walk back.” She admits that this “really affected me in terms
of my grades. I didn't pass one of my classes, so I'm taking that class again this semester.”
Maria ultimately utilized her network of friends to help with her transportation issues. In
addition to asking for rides when needed, one summer, she asked one of the peers she named in
her survey and who was also a member of the first-generation scholars cohort, Sofia, “if I could
live with her, and her parents were very like, yes, like, we'll take you in. She lives closer to this
area, and getting from here to the [office where Maria was interning] is much easier.” Maria has
“gone to Sofia for a lot of things, and so last year when I didn't live on campus she's like, just
stay over here. I can provide you with a shower, a roof, like, just stay here.”
Another student whose commute is “on a good day, 45 minutes, on a bad day like, an
hour, an hour and 15 minutes,” and works off campus for “20 or 30 hours a week” says that
“people aren't understanding that are in different situations” and most make “an assumption” that
she lives on or near campus since “most of the people that go here live around here.” She speaks
of one friend, her freshman roommate who is “in a completely different situation than I am, and
she's probably been one of the most understanding people.” When she asks her former roommate
questions, “the response she'd give me would be with those things taken in mind (i.e., first-
generation, commuter, works long hours off campus), as opposed to if I asked someone else, they
would probably just be thinking of their situation.” She explains that her friend supports her by
“putting a lot of effort into making me feel like I am still at PU, even though I don't live here.”
She goes on to say that her friend “invites me to things, lets me spend the night at her house all
the time…that's a big thing” and laughs as she quotes her friend saying “‘Hey, you have to drive
30 miles away, do you want to just sleep here?’”
112

For another commuter student, her options are constrained. “I know some people sleep
over in their friend's dorm, but honestly, in my culture, my dad's really strict, so I can't do that.”
She continues, “Yes, I'm 21, but he still doesn't feel comfortable with me doing that, so I respect
him because I still live in his house.” She once was involved on campus but now “I'm not really
that involved anymore, because the meetings are at night, the social events are at night, and I
know I would be too sleepy to drive back home. This student also had two older sisters who had
previously commuted to and graduated from PU. She went on to say in reference to overcoming
the obstacle of commuting to PU, “I would always see my sisters, who went through [PU]
already, and I was able to see that if they could do it, I could do it, too. I just have to keep going.”
Even some of the non-commuters recognize the advantages with regard to campus
resources especially as FGCS who live on campus. “I know a handful of commuters, and I know
that living on campus, for me, has also definitely helped me with my resources.” The student
continues to ponder, “I don't know if it's because I spent all of my time on campus, or just
because they're more readily available, but that has definitely helped me with building the
community and being here.”
Recall Stella, who lives 15 miles from PU and has a job that is 15 miles in the opposite
direction, named only one faculty and no peers in the network survey. She reveals that she
doesn’t have friends at PU, but many “acquaintances.” She has met some people through Dr.
Paul, her one faculty nomination, such as one of his TA’s who she says she’s drawn to because
“her personality is just very open, she laughs at everything and just enjoys life.” Even with her,
however, “it’s still more just kind of casual, not really too close.”
Stella goes on to say that “the hardest thing” for her attending PU is directly related to her
commuting challenges. She is “not able to participate in everything that I want to. I wanted to
113

actually be part of Greek life and participate in clubs and just being able to work on campus and
just student life.” Her experience is that “I kind of feel like I’m missing out…because my crazy
work schedule, once class is over, I have to go to work right away.” One professor who is an
advocate for FGCS states that “there really has to be this recognition that students are working a
lot to pay for college.” She points out that “they got to work in the summer; they got to work in
the school year. And that really takes away time from what they can do as enrichment and
experiences.”
Another staff member who has previously worked at a “large commuter campus,” shares
her perspective that “PU is not very commuter friendly.” She expresses her concern, “Why are
we doing this to our student groups?” They meet at 10:00pm, and she says “you do realize that
commuter students can’t come.” She goes on to say that she’s seen students who want to be the
“superstars of commuter students,” who are committed to “show all commuter students that you
can be involved, to the point where they become ill, because they're not getting any sleep,
because if you're leaving campus at 1:00 and you have to come back at 8:00.” Furthermore, she
and others informed me that up until this year PU had set aside time called Convo Hour every
Tuesday and Thursday afternoon when classes were not scheduled. This had been a common
time for student groups to meet and very convenient for commuter students.
Similar to Stella, Thomas tries to “structure my time so I have to come out to campus as
few days as possible, because then I have to drive less, and it gives me time to work.” This often
means that he isn’t around for campus activities and events. Regarding resources on campus, he
says, “as a commuter, I feel like I don't have very much knowledge of what's available,” and like
most FGCS, “it's not like my parents can be like, oh, doesn't your school have X, Y , or Z? So it's
very much like, I don't know what's there, and even if I did know it was there, I can't.” Similar to
114

other commuters’ experience Thomas explains, “a lot of my professors, when I look at their
office hours I'm like, well, I can't go to that office hour … because the one day I'm on campus, I
have a class, and then the other days they have office hours I'm either not on campus or I'm
working or something else.”
Physical Space on Campus Supporting FGCS and Commuters
When Thomas is on campus, he has an academic and social home in the Computer
Science (CS) Lab. Thomas is excited to describe how great the CS Lab is. “The great thing about
the CS lab is it's a shared communal space among the CS students, but it's also a very social
place. So pretty much the entire room is mostly full of desks like this”—he draws a detailed
diagram of the Lab—“but one of the big things that we have is we have a corner that has
couches. There's a TV set up there, and there's game consoles.” In addition to completing
computer science assignments, “people hang out there, they play video games, there's an attached
annex that has a projector and surround sound system. So a lot of times we'll watch movies there.
We'll play board games at the desks.”
Throughout the interview, Thomas continues to fill in more important details about the
CS Lab, including the important fact that faculty offices are in very close proximity. “One thing
you should know about the way the CS department is laid out is the lab kind of occupies this
entire quadrant of the building.” He points out where several faculty offices are located around
the lab and describes what he sees as the benefit of this configuration. “So as you're walking to
class or as you're walking in and out of the labs, professors will sometimes be hanging out in the
lab, and just swing by to see like, hey, what's going on here?” Thomas appreciates that for some
faculty “they'll be in their office and they'll keep their office door open so you can walk by and
say hi, see what's happening. So it's a very open atmosphere.” Thomas has access to faculty who
115

frequent the Lab, especially Dr. Hull. Thomas expounds on the benefit he continually receives. “I
still go to him for particularly thorny advising issues.” More specifically, “he can advise you
like, hey, this semester the CS load is really high, you should take easier classes that semester.”
When I ask Thomas what his experience would be like without the CS Lab, he shakes his head
and says, “I'm not sure.”
The importance of departmental physical spaces on campus is shared by other students,
faculty, and staff. Another Computer Science major reveals that one of his peer nominations who
he first met in the CS lab “would be there to help, and I immediately realized that she’s really
smart and really on top of everything.” Not only did she provide him with academic support, she
was “a role model for me, just her work ethic and going above and beyond.”
Another student talks about the Engineering lounge. “If there was homework I didn't
know how to figure out or didn't feel like doing homework in my room alone, I could just go [to
the Engineering lounge] and I knew at least one other person would be there working.” He
continues, “It's big, a lot of space to work privately with other people.” And, similar to the CS
Lab, he tells me the lounge is not just for studying. “They usually have football games, soccer
games, and a lot of meetings happen there, or just where you have some time between class, just
sit in there and hang out.” And also similar to the CS Lab, there are professors whose “offices are
in the lounge itself. Even if someone in my class isn't there to help, they're usually there to help.”
Other departments call their areas “villages,” where the faculty offices are located and
there are lounge areas that vary in size and scope where students can study and socialize. One
professor comments, “What’s beautiful about that physical space is that students are visible to us.
I can see them, they can see me. And my colleagues, some of them are visible to me too.” He
explains that this set up is conducive to referring students to some colleagues with whom he
116

collaborates closely. Referring to some other colleagues in this large department, “I’m less
certain that their door would be open or that if it was open, that I’d be able to just say here’s a
student. But certainly there are a handful of folks around here who I do that with.” He also
importantly shares that the open area for students in the village is “always being threatened.
They’re always thinking of carving out offices in the middle of here and taking away.”
A professor in another department expresses frustration that before she moved into the
new beautiful state of the art life sciences building, faculty “offices actually opened into the labs.
We could be sitting at our desk, a student had a question, and just ask it type thing, or we could
just poke our head in and say what’s going on.” She goes on to say students really benefited from
the co-mentoring that could happen in this configuration, “getting advice from two different
people, and I think that certainly for the three students that we were directly mentoring together
it was really beneficial for them to have both of us keeping tabs on them.” She said the
administration asked the faculty’s advice about the lab and office space before designing the new
building, and unfortunately, she expresses with disappointment, “they didn’t take our advice.”
Managing Financial Challenges
One of the staff members that was critical to Maria’s success at PU is Mrs. Brown, who
has since left PU. Maria met her before even applying to PU. Mrs. Brown happened to host an
event for high school seniors in her local community who were interested in applying to PU and
Maria’s high school counselor invited Maria to attend. Mrs. Brown eventually became a mentor
to Maria, or in Maria’s own words “my life guru kind of thing.” Maria also says she “had a job
on the first day of college” in Mrs. Brown’s office. And during Maria’s first year of college, Mrs.
Brown helped Maria secure a “few one year scholarships, which really helped me a lot. She was
117

like, I know people, just write letters to them. Write them, I'll give it to them, they'll give you
money. I was like, okay!”
Financing higher education has been the most challenging obstacle during college for
Julia as it has been for many others interviewed in this study. The concerns about finances are
not just about their current expenses, but also for what is to come after graduating from PU. Julia
expresses her anxiety. “Even now, the grad school and stuff. I hope I get in and I hope I get
financial help, because I have so many loans, so many government loans and just all that stuff
you need to pay off.” About life after PU, she tells me, “I’m in this place where if I don’t get in,
that’s okay, because then I can start working…Just financially, I’m very scared. But I’ll figure it
out.” When I ask how she will figure it out, she sighs, then laughs and says “I don't know. I
think it’s just continuing to ask questions.” And when I probe further asking who she will ask,
she shares “I have been going to Dr. G. [Director of first-generation mentoring program]” She
laughs, “That poor woman has so much on her shoulders. I feel like we’re all kind of just kind of
clinging on to her.”
But even before Julia met Maria and her other peers on campus, or Dr. G. and the first-
generation mentoring program, another institutional agent on campus who worked for Alumni
Relations, Susanna, was instrumental in Julia’s overcoming financial barriers to allow her to
succeed at PU. As she begins to talk about Susanna, Julia reveals “I can’t think of her because I
start crying all the time, but I met Susanna the summer before school started. I had just gotten the
bill, how much school’s going to cost, and my family had just gotten evicted from a house.” She
continues to describe how stressful it was to begin college this way. “I had no idea how I was
going to pay for it and I had no idea where we were going to live. We were living at my uncle’s
two-bedroom apartment.” She told her mother “I’m not going to go [to PU]. I’m going to take
118

some time off. I want to get a job and I’m going to – I’m going to help you.” This was an
unacceptable option to Julia’s mother. “What are you talking about?” her mother says. “My job
is taking care of you. It’s not your job to take care of me.” Julia explains that “what we did that
whole summer is that we basically lived in the financial aid office”, at the same time as “helping
her [mother] work and looking for a place to live.”
Julia continues the story, “And then after a whole day of just kind of fighting with the
financial aid office, asking them for more money they’re like, ‘You can try to appeal, but there’s
not much money.’” Then her mother and she “met a student, and she gave me Susanna’s
number.” It was Julia’s mother that pushed her to call Susanna at 5:00pm on a Friday while they
were still on campus. “This person probably wants to go home, you know. Like why am I going
to bug her? She’s probably not even in her office anymore.” But she called and Susanna
answered and immediately met with her to discuss her situation. “We sat with Susanna and she
gave me the application for a scholarship, which is $6,000.”
Wiping her eyes, Julia expresses her gratitude. “Susanna’s the reason why I came to PU.”
And Susanna’s advice and support did not end there. In subsequent years Susanna was able to
support Julia in navigating more financial obstacles. “One year I had like an $8,000 balance
still…And then, out of nowhere, I log on to try and see [my account] and Susanna gave me like
an $8,000 scholarship one year.” She recalls Susanna telling her that “‘We had so many left over
and we decided to give it to a couple of you’ and I’m just like, how the hell did I get this money,
you know? And [because of the alumni association scholarship] I was able to continue [at PU].”
Other students interviewed in the study mention the importance of this particular alumni
association scholarship that helped them pay for their college expenses. One student mentions
learning about the scholarship through her network of relationships. “My support system is just
119

absolutely incredible and things just kind of come up, opportunities will come up. I talked to a
student who [I know through a student organization], and she told me about the scholarship.”
She goes on to say that “even though it was not my freshman year and [I was] not an incoming
student, I received a scholarship from there, as well, just because she told me about it and I
reached out to Susanna.”
Another student learned about the scholarship through none other than Maria, who recall
was one of the most named students providing informational support in the survey sample. Maria
had received the scholarship and told her about an event where Susanna would likely be in
attendance. “And through that I built a connection.” After the event, Julia “sent [Susanna] an
email and asked her and said ‘I still need some money to make sure that I can come to school and
not have this financial burden on my shoulders. Can you help me?’ Susanna replied ‘Of course,
we still have some funds left. We can offer you a scholarship. You just need to fill out this
application.’”
Almost all faculty and staff members comment about the financial challenges that
disproportionately impact FGCS, not only at PU, but nationwide. Jessica, Joseph’s boss says,
“Barriers? The first one I'd say is financial aid, and not at PU, in the United States. FAFSA is
confusing to those of us with an education,” she continues, “let alone a parent who doesn't even
know how to go in there, or the student.” Several staff members even mention the alumni
scholarship as a resource to which they refer students.
Lydia, the one staff member from the financial aid office who was identified as an ally to
the first-generation population on campus by several staff and students, informs me that when
students are “asking for additional financial aid options, I always tell them, outside of this office,
have you talked to the Latino Alumni Association? Do you know they offer scholarships every
120

year? Have you talked to the African American Alumni Association?” Joseph’s mentor, Mario,
fills me in that, “It’s tricky, the way that they dish out the money. Students need to apply really
early in the year, and they sometimes have money left over that might help a student who
suddenly doesn’t have a scholarship anymore.” He says, unfortunately, both times [he referred
students, they] were a no, but at least it was good [for the students] to know that I tried.”
Other faculty and staff interviewed also mention this particular scholarship during their
interviews. For example, Veronica Mendez is a key institutional agent on campus named by a
total of six students, faculty and staff at PU in the surveys. She tells me of another Latina faculty
colleague on campus, Theresa Gomez, “she'll refer students to me because they're struggling
financially, they're looking to pay their tuition and they haven't gotten anything. We've worked
specifically on students together with other people on our campus.” The first person they would
work with would be Jessica in Student Affairs to see if they have the student on the radar.”
Veronica goes on to explain how collaboratively she and her colleagues support students with
financial challenges.
For instance, “I had talked to the student, and Theresa was saying, we need to help this
student,” and her next step was she “checked in with Jessica, and she also said, ‘oh no, we've
been working with him.’” She then says that Jessica reported back that “‘Well, the student hasn't
followed up with A, B, and C.’” Next she would go back to Professor Gomez “and say, ‘Hey,
he's on the radar, however, if you do talk to him, you need to let him know that he needs to get
back to Jessica with A, B, and C.’” Otherwise, “I will either move to financial aid, Jessica will
take it from there” to investigate and eventually “loop [Veronica] back in.”
When asked what other options there are for students with financial difficulties, she lets
students know about a small “textbook scholarship” she’s aware of, and the alumni association
121

scholarships that others have mentioned. A couple semesters ago, Veronica informs me that the
scholarship that was “originally for freshman now has two scholarships for seniors who are
business majors. And at that point I started reaching out to students that I had and other people”
on campus who may know of students in need who meet the criteria. And Veronica also refers
students to the “dean's office [of their college] to inquire about any scholarships that they may
have.” She continues to explain that the colleges will likely contribute once they know that other
resources have been tapped. “I think when Jessica’s office is working with a student or when
financial aid is working with a student, then [Deans’ Offices] will tap into some of these
monies.”
Another staff member who is seen as an ally to the first-generation community on
campus works a lot with undocumented students. She conveys a current situation with an
undocumented student who came to her “about needing $4,000 to be able to enroll in her classes.
She owed money. I ended up having a call with the Alumni Association for another student
trying to secure some funding, which also isn't my role,” she reminds me, “but it just kind of
happens sometimes. And, they were looking for a very specific demographic.” She proceeds to
tell them, “I have this student that needs $4,000, and so they're going to be able to provide
funding for her now.” She says that “a lot of what we do is just this very grassroots, unorganized,
way of helping students.” Interestingly, she goes on to say that she feels she “could do a better
job” if she wasn’t “very introverted,” and that if she “challenge[s] myself a little more” to
develop more relationships “I could help more students, but it’s just not comfortable for me.”
Contrast this staff member with Professor McDowd. She didn’t answer the network
question on the faculty/staff survey asking her to identify up to 5 faculty/staff with whom she
collaborates to gain insight into her network of relationships on campus. She explains her lack of
122

response is “because I could have given you five black names, five Latino names. So which five
should I choose? I've been here 15 years. I've been on tons of committees, tons of projects, tons
of students’ things. So there’s a range.” She continues to say, “I have worked with everyone,
straight, gay, transgender – I could give you someone I've worked with – and not just casual, but
like, we did something together. So that's why I didn't answer that.” This particular faculty
member does not only refer students within her department. She is well connected on campus.
She gave at least a dozen of examples to show the diversity of her network that benefits students
in various ways, including making referrals about the alumni scholarship. One memorable
example related to financing college was a student who had won a prestigious award for her
service and who couldn’t “afford school anymore. [So] I go to the Dean's office and I gather
everyone I know that knows her, I make them write letters, and at the Dean's office I say, you
need to fund her next year.”
Particularly striking is how many faculty, staff and students knew about the resource of
the alumni scholarship, except for some students, like Stella, who were less connected to the
campus and to the institutional agents connected to the first-generation student program in
particular. I also asked if she ever went to her college or department for financial help, and she
answered “No, I don’t really know who to go to.” Professor McDowd, who made referrals about
the scholarship to others and connected so many students to opportunities, happens to be a
professor in the department of Stella’s major. And Professor Gomez, who Stella had in class, was
the same professor collaborating with Veronica and Jessica in Students Affairs to support a
student with financial aid struggles.
Stella complains that “It’s just like every year there’s always something new with money,
like either one of my grants is missing or something like an extra charge or something.” She
123

reveals that she “actually almost wasn’t able to attend this school year” due to the fact that “since
it’s my fifth year, my Cal Grant got taken away,” which resulted in her being “$10,000 short.
So, luckily, my mom was able to get a parent loan, and so I was able to attend school this year.”
She has used the financial aid office at PU and they have been helpful “to an extent” and told
“me talk to this person or go online to this website [for] private lenders but, even then, I still
have to struggle to actually get through it.” Stella says that she “feel[s] like [financial aid] could
be more helpful,” she goes on to say, importantly, “especially before they told me about the
loans, I had gone to them to ask if there was any extra grants or scholarships that they had extra,
just so I could pay a little bit less.” She disappointedly says, “And they just kind of brushed me
off.”
Dr. G.’s, the Director of the first-generation program, perspective on FGCS and financial
aid here is useful:
I found that you have to have an ally [in financial aid]. It’s really tough for us to
say, just go to the financial aid office. We need to say, you go and talk to Lydia,
and then that makes a big difference. They find [financial aid] either cold and/or
intimidating. But if I send them to a person, especially someone actually like
Lydia, just her empathy and explaining things, and she’ll send a link and, you
know, all that. And then what happens is there are times when they may have
been to the financial aid office and heard it, but they need to hear it differently, or
they need to hear it with some warmth. And it’ll be almost the exact same thing
but they’re like, oh, okay, now I got it, you know.

Despite developing a strong relationship with her one faculty nomination, Dr. Paul, Stella
did not share her financial aid challenges with him. Stella tells me a current experience she is
having that she did not share with Dr. Paul, and instead is “figuring it out on her own.” She left
her appointment with an assigned faculty advisor excited and relieved. “Well, this is really the
only class that you need. So you can just like take filler classes if you want. If not, just take the
units that you need,” she recalls the advisor saying. Stella was relieved to reduce her commute
124

and the time she would have to spend working, and looking for new positions that use her degree
from PU. But then she found out, “I have to be full-time in order to get my full aid from school,”
she sighs. “[My advisor] never told me that and I had to find out this week, actually, when I tried
to go pay.” Her frustration is visible as she continues to explain the process she needs to go
through due to that omission from her advisor:
I’m actually late on the payment, because I actually enrolled in another class.
So [with] this new class, I’ll actually have 13 units. However, I’m still trying
to add it because I got the signature from the professor, but I need the chair’s
signature, but he’s not responding to me and I need to track him down so I can
get that done and just take it to the Dean’s [office] so they can put me in the
registration. Once I’m in the registration then I can finally go back to the
financial aid and tell them to not take away that money, but they’re going to
start taking away the grants this week. So I’m like, I need to get this done
now.

The end result is the when she “tried to make the first month’s payment, to enroll in a
payment plan, but they said that it’s $150 just in fees that I have to pay, plus whatever tuition I
have to pay for the month.” And, because the tuition deadline was the previous day, “I’m going
to have even more late fees and I’m going to have to be paying even higher payments for tuition
because I missed that month.” Stella’s ultimately left with experience that “the administration is
very disconnected from the student population.” When I asked her if anyone was helping her
navigate this situation, she laughs “Not really,” other than the advice she received from the
student worker in the financial aid office who said to add another class. In response to my
question if she thought to ask Dr. Paul to help her navigate this situation, she replied “I mean, I
could, but I already kind of know what to do already” from the student assistant in financial aid.
More than Financial Support through On-Campus Work
Joseph, like 75% of the student survey respondents, has a work study job on campus.
When Joseph was a freshman, he had been on a few interviews for work study jobs and hadn’t
125

heard back. Denise, one of Joseph’s nominations who works with the first-generation scholars
program, referred Joseph to Jessica, another of Joseph’s nominations on the survey. Jessica then
met with Joseph and arranged for him to interview with someone in her area for a position that
he has been in ever since. Joseph says that he “actually found out a year or two later, [Jessica]
told [her staff] straight up we got to hire you regardless.” Joseph explains that “when my work
study ran out, [Jessica] gave me [departmental funds] just to keep working, because they liked
how I worked.”
Jessica did not only provide him with this opportunity to earn money. “She's helped me
with English projects and with citations.” As Joseph remembers, Jessica “hinted that, ‘you know,
I'm an English teacher, too, you can always come to me if you have a question about that.’
Sometimes I forget, because I just look at her as like, the boss.” Joseph also benefited because he
learned about a lot of campus resources through his work in this office. He also developed
friendships there that were helpful to him. For example, he says about one of his peer
nominations, “We actually first met when she came into my office on campus…and she ended up
being hired.” After freshman year, “I ended up having to commute. So she offered, ‘Hey, if you
want, you can stay at my house. It's cool.’ So then gradually from there we became good
friends.”
Sara has a work study job in an administrative office, where her supervisor Tracy, who
Sara named in the survey, has “helped me to become more assertive” in general, and even when
handling “calls from disgruntled parents or students.” Learning skills like these that are not
typically taught in the classroom has helped Sara navigate other issues on campus. Now she is
“much more aware of how I'm speaking… of my tone. For instance, she describes, “When I get
nervous I say ‘um’ and ‘like’ a lot, but I think that because of Tracy, I've been much more aware
126

of how I speak and just knowing that that's not very professional.” Sara also has a non-work
study job on campus, and has an unpaid internship. She works 20 or more hours per week total.
Other students comment on the unintended benefits they have received from their work
study jobs on campus. For many, it was their first time working in an office. Another student
refers to her work-study supervisor in the call center. “She introduced me to what it means to be
a professional and to have etiquette. So, ‘this is what business casual is,’” for example. She goes
on to say, “I feel like it also taught me how to become more of a leader as well. I started off as a
caller, who would call alumni, and I later became a supervisor.” Another warmly discloses that
the women in the office she works in “are kind of like my moms, too…and they've been giving
me options, too, like, what to do after graduation. So they're always there to hear me out.” One
other student had two deaths in her family and declares that she “had seriously considered
getting a leave of absence and just leaving until I recuperated.” But it was her supervisor in her
work study position that supported her most through that time. “He would just tell me, ‘This is
not what they would want for you. Like leave your dream and just basically not do anything
with your life when you know that they wanted something more for you.’” She says that
conversations like this with her supervisor “really actually opened my eyes a lot and that was my
initial push to stay in school.”
One other unintended benefit that I learned from one faculty or staff member speaks to
the creativity and the lengths that some faculty and staff go to support their students at PU. This
person shared the following on the condition of anonymity: “I've got work study money, I can
hire someone to work for me, and I tell them I don't want you to do any work.” Because the
student is so behind in their studies because they are working so many hours, he tells them “I
have 50 hours at ten dollars an hour, and instead I want you to commit five hours a week, which
127

is the time that you're working for me, and you just study, and you're getting paid for it.” He tells
the student, “So quit the job at the mall and just – here's the money.”
Support in the Challenge of Developing and Refining Interests
Maria only named two staff in her survey as providing her with informational or social
support at PU. The two current staff members she named happen to be two key institutional
agents for FGCS at PU. One is Dr. G, the Director of the first-generation mentoring program and
scholars program. Speaking on behalf of the other students in the program, Maria affectionately
calls her “Dumbledore. That's what we always call her. She's like, the person we go to.” She
recalls a specific conversation where Dr. G. potentially removed a perceived barrier for Maria.
I remember sitting down and having conversations with her about adding my
history major. I loved history. I've always loved history, but I didn't think it was
something I could pursue. She listened to me for probably 40 minutes. Quiet, just
nodding, agreeing and stuff, and then she was like, ‘what it sounds like is you
want to add that major. You want to do this, what's holding you back?’ And I was
like, oh no, you're right! Yeah, so she's always that one person that motivates.

Maria’s second staff nomination, Veronica Mendez, is someone she can turn to about
“more personal aspects, like my family. She's able to relate as Latina. She's like, ‘Oh my
gosh, my parents do that too,’ kind of thing.” She first met Veronica as her instructor in a
leadership course. Now Veronica is also a role model for Maria due to the position she
holds at the university. She is also Maria’s mentor for a fellowship program for
undergraduates interested in a Student Affairs career.
Maria also remembers fondly Mrs. Brown, her “life guru,” who has since left PU, “She
helped me so much, because I feel like most of the time I didn't really know what was going on,
but she was there guiding me.” Maria reminisces during one of their breakfasts once per semester
“Mrs. Brown just sat me down. She was like, ‘What do you want to do with your life?’” Maria
laughs with a surprised wide-eyed look on her face, “This was like my sophomore year when she
128

asked me ‘What do you want to do with your life?’ And I was like, I'm trying to have bacon and
eggs.” Maria says, “At that point, I forgot what I wanted to do. I feel like it was something way
different than what I'm interested in now.” Maria remembers that she “was all over the place my
freshman year,” and “took a lot of intro courses. Intro to Women's Studies, Intro to Sociology,
Intro to like, everything basically. So I have - on my CAPP report, there's a whole bunch of
electives with intro to everything.” Each college she “applied to was under a different major.”
She admits that “I didn't really know what I wanted to do with my life. Kind of still don't but it's
a little bit better.”
Maria’s interests did not necessarily change, but she added to them and refined them as
she was exposed to more in college, and as she said “they’ve been defined” and there have been
a network of people on campus who have helped her define them. Dr. G. knew of Maria’s
interest in Student Affairs and sent her an email about a conference in Student Affairs. Maria was
surprised at “the fact that I acted upon it - because I'm usually very passive, honestly. And I was
like, okay, I'll go. I'm interested.” Maria was one of two undergraduates from PU that attended.
Maria says she can talk to Veronica and also noted that several other Student Affairs
professionals at PU, especially in the Student Housing department where Maria works, have also
supported her in exploring her interest in the field.
Dr. Lee, who was curiously not one of the faculty members that Sara named in her
survey, not only helped her through her identity crisis, he also was one of the key faculty who
reinforced Sara’s interest and skills in writing. “He was a really big one when it came to just
reaffirming my writing. Dr. Lee, Mary O’Leary, even - I had a professor, Theresa Gomez, this
past semester.” Sara laughs, “I think it's really bad, but I definitely do need a lot more
129

reassurance, in terms of my writing, because I'm my own biggest critic.” One of the English
professors who she named in the information network survey question was Mary O’Leary.
I’ve had her for a very creative class and I currently have her for an
incredibly academic class. She's a professor who just writes on your
paper. It's not ‘this is wrong’, ‘this is wrong’, but it's ‘I really enjoy this,’
‘great flow,’ and all that. But I think that reading her comments, it gave
me a lot more confidence in my writing because, like I said, I went from
being a psych major who's really, really bad at [Psychology] to maybe I
can try this [English major, writing emphasis] out and maybe it will
work, but I just need to get my grades up, and so she was one of those
professors - she just really instilled a lot of confidence in my writing
abilities.

It was Sara’s friend and sorority sister Melanie who helped her through another obstacle
related to developing her interests and changing her major from psychology to English. “Melanie
was an English major and she was telling me, hey, I know that you write really well, so why
don't you try taking this class with this professor?” Melanie encouraged her to take “the creative
writing class. You can see kind of if you like it. And if you really enjoy it, you can talk to him
about joining the English program.” Sara credits Melanie’s support as instrumental in Sara taking
“my first step into English.”
From Stella’s descriptions, Dr. Paul’s courses are all very innovative and in the arena of
international relations, which is an interest that has grown during her time at PU. She also loves
how he can be “politically incorrect” and “crack jokes” to get people feel[ing] uncomfortable
because he wants to get people out of their comfort level.” She goes on to say that “he always
tells us, ‘if you’re confused about where you’re going to go, or if you have any questions about
where you should go, like graduate schools, law schools, policy schools” she adds, “or even just
what course we could take, depending whatever it is we want to pursue.” Dr. Paul makes himself
available and he says, “just come and talk to me, and you know, we’ll figure something out.”
130

Through his classes and her discussions with Dr. Paul outside of class, Stella is receiving
support in exploring her interests and how those relate to her long-term goals. “I actually was not
aware about policy schools before. So that is something that I have seriously considered.” She
continues to say that through her discussions with Dr. Paul and some of the assignments for his
courses, she’s “really more interested in journalism now. Before, my plan was to be a CIA
analyst. But I’m really kind of leaning more towards journalism now. I want to travel…I want to
really get into the mix and really see what is going on and report it. And so he has supported me
through that.”
Specifically, Dr. Paul has helped her to “brush up on [my] writing skills. He kind of tells
me like, this is what you need. And, even though I’m still not exactly sure [what I want to do],
he’s just ‘whatever it is you want to do, just let me know and I’ll keep giving you tips. I’ll keep
giving you pointers, whatever it is. If I know a specific place or a specific person that I can refer
you to, you’re going to be the first one I think about, and I’ll let you know.’” She shared that Dr.
Paul even “gave me homework, like to research a position that I would be interested in so we
can, later on, go more in-depth about it.”
Despite being a commuter student and not being on campus for many days per week,
Thomas says “the support that I've received from my professors has been invaluable.” He singles
of out “Professor Hull, in particular for navigating the class space and kind of the path to the
degree has been very valuable, as well, because that's not really something I can get at home,
necessarily.” Thomas is excited to share even more great things about his department and “Hull
in particular” who “stays up with what alumni are doing and so it's really helpful. You can be
like, hey, do you know any start-ups in this area, and they can, Hull, in particular, can always
point you in a good direction.”
131

Professor Hull also brings in alumni and others “from local businesses to come and
chat…generally people he has a good working relationship with…so [he’s] very open to be, hey,
you need a job, or you want an internship for the summer?” Professor Hull taught several courses
that Thomas had taken, and is also his assigned academic advisor. “Plus he's in the lab a lot,
too,” Thomas adds. Even though Thomas “finished my last class with him last semester, but we
still hang out in the lab and talk about weird esoteric programming languages,” which is of
particular interest to Thomas as he prepares to enter the world as a programmer after graduating
from PU.
Different Shades of Grit: The Role of Social Support in the Grit Mindset
Not many students, faculty or staff interviewed for this study were familiar with the term
grit before I defined it for them at the end of the interviews as perseverance and passion for long-
term goals. Those with some understanding of the concept associate it primarily with the
perseverance of effort aspect and not the consistency of interests component of grit. And many
refer to their “mindset” when referring to their conception of grit. The purpose of this final
section is twofold. First, my goal is to provide the different shades of the grit mindset by sharing
some final salient accounts from the students I have profiled throughout the chapter - Maria,
Joseph, Julia, Sara, Stella, and Thomas, including their scores on the grit scale. The second is to
present data that underscore the role that students’ social network of relationships contributed to
their developing or maintaining the grit mindset.
The deceivingly well-connected student with an unexpectedly low grit scale score.
Maria only named 2 faculty/staff on her survey. Those two individuals happen to be two of the
most connected faculty/staff that completed the survey, Dr. G. and Veronica Mendez. Given that
Maria’s 2 staff nominations and 2 peer nominations also completed the network survey, I was
132

able to create a sociogram to depict Maria’s extended network in Figure 4.9. Also included in
Figure 4.9, is the Student Housing office which is a large department of resourceful Student
Affairs staff from whom Maria mentioned in her interview as being supportive of her developing
and refining her interests in Student Affairs. And although Maria did not name her “life guru”
Mrs. Brown who has since left PU on her survey, I also included Mrs. Brown in Figure 4.9.
Maria expresses her gratitude to “just have her as a support system…She would
encourage me to talk to people, like the dean of my college, and I made an appointment with him
because of that.” That meeting with the Dean gave Maria the confidence to call him to request he
speak to a class she was facilitating for the first-generation scholars program a couple years later.
Maria realizes this is one way that her connection to Mrs. Brown even benefitted other students.
Even though Maria’s ego-network in Figure 4.2 may seem sparse with only 2 peers and 2
faculty/staff, Figure 4.9 begins to show the reach that Maria’s extended network at PU has and
the potential for institutional resources, informational and social support to be gained for herself
and for her peers. More than any other student I interviewed, Maria herself is an institutional
agent given the composition of her extended network and being one of the most named students
in the network survey who provides informational support to her peers.
133

Maria also has the lowest score on the grit scale self-assessment of all the 156 survey
respondents, 2.17. Her consistency of interests score was 1.17, which was the lowest score on
that component in the sample. Her score for perseverance of effort was higher at 3.17, which put
her in the 6
th
percentile of the survey sample. Maria, with this low grit scale score, has two
majors and a minor, and is very involved on campus and navigated cultural and commuting
challenges in time at PU. “I'm not a good student,” she laughingly says. “The grades, honestly,
haven't reflected how much I've learned. I try to tell my professors that not as an excuse, but it's
like, you've honestly impacted me so much and I'm sorry that it doesn't reflect necessarily in my
grades.” The three disciplines she studies “together have taught me so much, and I'm extremely
grateful.” Yet, she continues to explain, “I have always struggled with the notion of like, asking
Figure 4.9. Maria’s extended information support network at PU
Student = Blue=Interview
Faculty/Staff = Pink=No Interview
134

for help, in terms of my grades.” After defining grit for Maria at the end of her interview as
perseverance and passion for long-term goals, I asked her what she thought her grit score would
be on a scale from 1 – 5.
She answers, “For a long time I didn't know what I was going to do, and even now, life
throws curveballs at you. But I think I have a very positive attitude of moving forward,” she
expresses, “and having no regrets, rather learning - even if you did make a mistake, just looking
back and learning from that.” Maria continues to explain that, “I constantly have to remind
myself about that,” she says, “especially when I'm having a hard day. But I feel very driven to
move forward towards current goals that I do have, knowing that they can change, but accepting
and embracing that. So I would say a 5.”
Maria acknowledges the role of her support system in how she can maintain a positive
attitude. “I talk about my personal attitudes, but that's been influenced by the experiences I've
had, and just that motivation I constantly receive from people.” She admits, “I'm not going to say
that I always keep that positive attitude, but I always come back to it because I talk to people.
And those people say things like, ‘Remember, this is what you want to do, remember, this is who
you are, you can do it’” Maria also recognizes a particular recurring challenge that her support
network helped her overcome.
She tells me, “I'm bad at taking criticism. I'm very prideful, and that's just if I had let that
part of my attitude stop me, I feel like I wouldn't have gotten anywhere.” She credits the
influence from her peers and mentors, “other people giving me constructive criticism and letting
me understand this is not an attack in any way, ‘We're trying to help you grow.’” Now, Maria
says, “I'm starting to see it that way now more, and if it hadn't been for people telling me,
reassuring me and reaffirming that that's the reason for the constructive criticism, I feel like I
135

wouldn't be moving forward.” Overall, Maria is confident that she will achieve her goals. “Oh, I
mean, I have a lot of hesitations, but I know that I'm going to get there somehow. I'm not saying
it's going to be easy.” She not only believes in herself, but she’ll also get the support she needs.
“I know myself, I ask questions. I ask questions a lot. It’s annoying.”
A student living in two worlds whose network pulls for his success. Joseph says he has
the “mindset, you know, just you need to get your work done type of thing.” He also shared that
where he “struggled the most was the emotional support and then the personal support. So that's
where I think [peers] benefitted me the most in general.” Maria has been one of those who has
provided emotional support to Joseph, who appreciates Maria’s “uppity personality. So that's
really positive” and describes himself as “a little bit the opposite, but at the same time I just like
to mess with people but I also like to get business done. And she's the type, ‘I'll do business but
then I'll be really uppity.’ So it kind of balances you out.” He shares that there are times,
especially during finals where he thinks:
I don't want to do this no more, like, I want to quit, you know, drop out,
whatever. I guess, camaraderie, like, hey, you know, I feel the same way, but
we're still going to do it regardless. It's just how we feel, and it's those moments
that I feel like at least someone understands me, versus, [others who don’t
understand say things like], you know, ‘you just got to get through it,’ or ‘it's just
the way of life,’ that's kind of how my mom looked at it, even though she didn't
go to college. She was like, ‘oh, you know, you just got three more years. That's
all. Three more years?!

Joseph’s grit scale score is a 3.00, which puts him in the bottom 15% of survey
respondents. His score for consistency of interests is 2.83, which is in the bottom third of survey
respondents. His score for perseverance of effort, 3.17, is in the bottom 7% of the sample.
Despite these perceived grit scores, Joseph’s interview reveals that he has displayed grit and
overcome challenges to make it to his senior year of college at PU, not the least of which were
136

the culture shock, commuting, and reconciling his two worlds of home and PU. For each of these
he received social support from peers, mentors, and other institutional agents.
When asked what he thought his grit score would be, Joseph accurately guesses:
2.5 to 3.0, because I continuously have ups and downs. It all depends on how
much work I have to get done and what do I have to look forward to. If this
weekend I'm having a nice party, for most of the week I'm like, I've got to get all
this stuff done, but as soon as I'm done I'm having a great weekend, you know?
Versus, if I don't have anything going on or if I have a bunch of work that I still
need to get done, I'll start doing it and then I'll be like damn, this is too much. I
need to take a break, and next thing you know I'm three hours not doing it. So I
think like, 2.5 to a 3, that's really where it's been.

When asked if he thought his own grit being important to his success, he says: I think that really
has, because it's really been my only drive, like, besides, you know, my mom was telling me [I
can succeed].
When asked about how much the informational and social support he’s received have
helped him succeed, Joseph replies: “I think tremendously, because I think information is really
knowledge, because without me knowing that stuff, I wouldn't have gotten as far as I have.” He
admits, “I know I don't take advantage of all the possibilities that there are on this campus, but I
think that, you know, I've taken all the ones that are really necessary to me.” He remembers that
“Ever since freshman year, I've always had that resource, because I worked in an office, and our
motto was basically that hey, you know, if we can't help you, we'll find someone that can.”
Gritty student using her large network of strong ties to ‘figure it out.’ Julia has the
second highest grit scale score of the interview sample, 4.33, which places her in the 95
th

percentile of the entire sample surveyed. Her perseverance of effort was the highest of the
students interviewed for this study, 4.67, and in the 90
th
percentile of the entire survey sample.
Her consistency of interests was the third highest among the interviewees and in the 93
rd

percentile of the survey sample. After discussing the idea of grit with Julia at the end of her
137

interview, she says that “I think [grit’s] been everything, honestly, and it’s been my own grit and
the grit or the motivation of other people who believe in my grit. She continues to explain that
“finding that group of people, it’s just been essential.”
Julia remembers towards the beginning of her time at PU “[one of her peers] coming to
me for questions and like asking me for advice.” But, like so many other FGCS, Julia
experiences that she “is so clueless about some things” when it comes to college. Julia’s friend
asked her, “What classes are you taking next semester? But I’d be like, oh, I have no idea?
What are you taking next semester?” Julia laughs as she continues to explain that she and this
sorority sister who was in the same major “were both completely lost, completely confused, but
we figured it out together.” Julia has the same “figure it out together” relationship with yet
another peer as it relates to her current situation of applying to graduate schools.
One of her other peer nominations is “applying to the same Master’s programs that I am.”
She says that “We’ve always been very close, but then like one day we were just talking” and
figured out that they had similar interests in graduate programs. During the graduate school
application process “she was the person who would message me every single day. ‘Have you
finished apps? How’s the GRE? And I’m like, how the hell do I deserve you in my life, right?”
Julia smiles and laughs, “I guess right now I feel like she’s my person that I’m working
alongside with.”
This same peer has also been able to pull Julia out of a pessimistic perspective. “She’s
just been that person that kind of like gets me out of that, ‘What do you mean you can't do it?’
She’ll tell me like without sugarcoating it. She’ll tell me ‘no, you’re going to do it because you
can.’” Not only for academics and graduate school aspirations, but also personal issues that
oftentimes distract students from the academic goals in college. Julia laughs, “We were just
138

talking, like boy stuff. Yesterday, she was like, ‘Julia, you’re so beautiful.’” Julia’s gratitude for
the support of her peers in college is evident in her interview.
Julia also explains how she initially benefited from her friends’ participation in the first-
generation mentoring program. “Whenever I had like any type of question when it came to like
registration, that’s where Maria and all them came in, because they were very involved with the
[first-generation mentoring] program and I had no idea about it.”
Julia credits Maria and her other friends in the program as the “ones who kind of like
pointed me to Dr. G and then that’s how Dr. G kind of became such an integral part of my life,
too.” Julia recollects how Dr. G. says she has “such a first-generation student mind.” She
continues, it’s “like this idea that I have to - I need to go in one direction only. And like this
[opportunity] - I see it and I’ve got to do it right away and I’m going to do this and I’m going to
do that.” Dr. G tells her to “slow down. See what you got. You have so many things in front of
you. Like, consider it, you know? Don’t feel like you have to do just one track.” Julia shares that
Dr. G’s impact on her is that now “I feel like I’ve become more realistic. Like grad school, if I
don’t do it right away, it’s okay. I can find a job, you know, and I know I’ll do it. But I think
I’ve just become more realistic.
Julia further enlightens me how her network provides her access and information about
important opportunities—especially her study abroad experience. “Dr. G. introduced me to
Patricia in Study Abroad, [who] sent me abroad and then introduced me to all these different
[experiences] - the world.” Last semester, Julia had returned back from studying abroad in
Europe through a PU study abroad program specifically designed to encourage and support
FGCS to study abroad. Julia’s experience abroad seems to have been transformational, in
particular as it relates to her mindset about her goals. She says, “I’m going to be honest. I just
139

feel like studying abroad really opened up that idea that there’s so many places you can turn to.”
She tells me that she says to herself “‘Stop being so crazy with yourself,’ and just getting
comfortable with the idea that I don’t have to be a lawyer, you know.” She laughs, “But I still
struggle with it.” This internal dialogue and struggle, she explains, is coupled with the
expectations of her mother.
“When I told [my mother] that instead of going to law school or even considering the
LSAT, I was going to go into a Master’s program.” She remembers her mother saying “So what
is that? What does that entail? When you graduate, what’s going to be your title?” She replies to
her mother, “I’m not going to have like a doctor title, but it’s like I want to learn more about
this.” Conversations like these with her mother give her more anxiety. “And I have arguments
with my mom all the time, like I’m like, mom, the only reason I’m becoming a lawyer is because
you want me to be a lawyer.” Julia quotes her mother’s response. “I didn’t say you were going to
be a lawyer. You told me you were going to be a lawyer. I’m just following what you said a
couple years ago.” Julia expresses that her mindset her “whole entire life was very tunnel-
visioned and I feel like it has to do with [my mother], too, this idea of, you need to somehow
reach the end. What the end is, who knows?” Julia laughs, “Who knows what the end is? But
that’s where I got to end up.” Julia says, “To this day, I’m just so scared and I’m like, I’m doing
so many random things that what am I going to use this for?” And, in the end, she says “But in
that sense, I still want to be a lawyer.”
Highest grit scale score with supportive sorority sisters. Sara, the half-Filipino, half-
Mexican English major has the highest grit scale score (4.42) of the 21 FGCS interviewed in this
study. She is in the 98
th
percentile of grit scale scores and third highest score in the entire survey
sample. Her score for consistency of interest was 4.17, which is in the 95
th
percentile of the
140

entire sample and the second highest of the students interviewed. Her score for perseverance of
effort was 4.67 and was in the 90
th
percentile of the entire sample and the top score among the
participants interviewed.
On her information support network survey Sara named sorority sisters, Lena, Mary, and
Kelly, all of whom have provided support in different ways. For example, Lena tutors Sara in
Old English, which for Sara is “really hard to understand,” but for Lena, “that's kind of her
thing.” Mary provides Sara with a model of working hard. “I lived with Mary my junior year,
and I currently live with her right now. And she's a bio major, and she is one of the most focused
people I know. She is so on top of everything. I see Mary and I'm like, this is what I should be
doing. God, she's so smart, it's ridiculous.” Sara even credits her ex-boyfriend with whom she is
still very close for the emotional support he provides in difficult times, and also in “learning
what not to do,” as in “not managing his time well” and “waiting until two days before a test to
start studying.” Sara compares this with Mary who she is less close to, but views as a role model
who would always “do a two week cushion” to study before tests.
Sara tells me, “The hardest thing about being at PU was really putting my priorities
straight.” She goes on to say “my first semester I had a 2.95, my second semester I had a 2.75
GPA…and I had never gotten anything under a 3.5 in my entire life.” She shares that she “was
still in the same party mindset and the social mindset, so I rushed a sorority, I got in.” Her
sorority “really prided themselves on academics,” says Sara. “So in order to actually attend
events and do things in the sorority, I had to get A’s on assignments that were 15 percent or more
of my grade.” She explains her thinking and actions, “I really wanted to have a social life, so I
did that, and that was the first semester I made the dean's list.”
141

This seemed to be a turning point for Sara’s academic mindset and behaviors. “After that
I felt so good and so proud of myself. I was like, I'm not dumb.” She admits being “very hard on
myself after my freshman year, but I think after seeing that I can do this if I just put a little bit
more work into it.” After realizing how much money she was wasting per class she missed, “I
stopped skipping classes, I made it a point to go. At one point my goal for the end of the semester
was to have perfect attendance for all my classes.” And she achieved that goal, she says “by the
first semester of my junior year.”
I asked Sara, “Do you think if you hadn't joined the sorority that things would have gone
the same direction?” And, she replies “No, I don't think so.” She credits her sorority for helping
her “to surround myself with people who also focus on school and who have the same priorities
as me and the same values and mindset, and I think that after I did that, everything fell into
place.”
Gritty, positive yet disconnected commuter figures it out on her own. Stella says that
her own positive outlook is “what’s gotten me this far as well. I think if I would've had a
negative mindset, I would've just given up a long time ago.” She goes on to say “I would
probably say like I am realistic. I do know what’s within my boundary, like what’s within like
my reach. However, I do feel I have a more optimistic outlook. Like, okay, well, if I can do this,
then that means I can get to that. So like I kind of do try to find ways to still look at the bright
side. It just feels so draining, physically draining to be so negative sometimes, you know? But it
does get to that point where I’m just like, okay, this is just too much for me. I feel like I am
going to be physically ill if I continue.” That’s the point at which she says Dr. Paul noticed.
Stella says that she generally would not share with him personal issues but “last semester, when I
was really struggling, he was just like, I feel like any minute now, you’re going to like die on me
142

here. So he does keep an eye on when our stress level gets too much. He does care in that sense.
Because I was so frustrated, so stressed out last semester, I was just like, I really don't know what
to do. I feel like I’m at my breaking point.”
She vents further that “It was just like the workload, and because I work outside of
school. So it’s just the commute.” And also when she “tend[s] to reach out, either to my family,
or even just to as a distraction.” She says for example, “go out, like family night or something, to
get my mind back in that positive mindset.” She continues to share some of what she says to
herself to get herself back into her “positive mindset,” she says, “[I] start thinking, okay, I can do
this, I can do that, just thinking about ways that I can.” She admits that the specific actions she
thinks of and takes may “not make a difference, [but] it’s okay. At least you’re doing something
to get back in that mindset.”
Stella’s score on the grit scale is 3.67, just above the mean of the survey sample (3.61).
Her consistency of interests (2.83) and perseverance of effort (4.5) are in the 35
th
and 81
st

percentiles, respectively. Stella’s scores show one of the larger differences between the two
components of grit among the interview respondents. She has the lowest score in social support
(2.29 out of 4.00), and the lowest score in the guidance subscale (2.25 out of 4.00) of all
interview respondents. Despite her interview, which suggests the “hardest thing” at PU is her
lack of connection to campus life and that she says she only has “acquaintances” on campus, her
score of 2.5 on social integration puts her in the 80
th
percentile of the survey sample.
After defining grit for Stella I asked her what she thought her score would be and she
said, “Probably five.” She explains, “Because I also think, everything that I’ve gone through, all
the obstacles that I’ve gone through. I’ve gotten this far. I just tell myself, like imagine if you
just continue, how far you’re going to get.” She continues to say that, in regards to seeking
143

support with challenges in college, “I just really kind of more like do it on my own, but then
when I know I’m reaching a level where I just can't anymore, I try to reach out.” But, she
admits, “I don’t always know where to reach out.”
At home in the CS lab where only his interests drive effort. Thomas’ value of 3.00 out
of 4.00 for reliable alliance, or confidence someone on campus will help when faced with
challenges, puts him in the 70
th
percentile of the survey sample. Thomas’s value for guidance, or
support in navigating college (2.75), however, is in the bottom 15% of the survey sample, though
his interview suggests otherwise. Thomas received guidance from Professor Hull on more than
one occasion.
Thomas reveals that “in my eight semesters here now, I have failed at least a class in
every semester except for one. And the one semester I didn't, I think I had all CS classes.” He
says that he “briefly” thought of dropping out of school, especially given that many companies
he would apply to won’t care as much because of his unique skillset. Thomas also says that “I
tend to talk to Hull to kind of plot an academic path around it” so he does not end up taking extra
classes or need to pay for extra semesters of tuition. I asked Thomas about his experience in
failing so many classes. “I tend to characterize myself by what I do, and I tend to base my feeling
of self-worth on how well I perform tasks. So failing classes was annoying, because here's three
units I have to make up.” But he continues to explain “at the same time, it isn't so much in the
arena of what I wanted to do. So I don't think I really beat myself up over it. It was definitely
annoying.” None of the classes he failed were ones in his major. In fact, his major GPA is a 3.7.
He admits that “there's a substantial difference in between how I perform in the classes I really
enjoy and I like putting in the work versus the classes that I have to take and I really don't want
to.”
144

Thomas describes a computer science problem that exemplifies the extent of his effort
when he cares about something. “The list of all the solutions you have to search through to solve
the problem is really, really, really, really big,” he says and estimates that “even if you can guess
tens of thousands of solutions per second, you would not be expected to finish before the heat
death of the universe.” He goes on to explain that in his algorithms class “you learn all these
generalized problem-solving techniques. One of the last assignments is to solve this problem.
You spend a week in class discussing it, various strategies, and usually from each class maybe
one or two people finish it.” So, once it was assigned, Thomas and his CS lab friend Eric
“barricaded ourselves in a classroom at like, 9:00 PM. We worked all through the night. Finally,
4:00 AM we were like, okay, we're just done.” For now, that is. They slept for a few hours. “Eric
came and woke me up in the lab, like, come on, let's go. We went and got Jamba Juice, we went
to class, we came back and worked on it and we ended up solving it at 9:00 PM” Although
Thomas said that his passion for computer science problems like this would have had him do this
project regardless, without Eric he likely wouldn’t have solved it in 24 hours. Thomas says,
“Progress probably would have been slower. It's really good for me to have someone to bounce
ideas off of as I'm working, and Eric and I mesh doing that really well.”
Despite the intense effort he exhibited to complete this project, Thomas labels himself as
“one of those smart but lazy people. I have a knack for picking up a lot of things quickly, but at
the same time I'm also like, what's the minimum amount of work I can do to get by?” He sees the
pros and cons of this characteristic. “So I feel like the knack for learning things quickly helped
me a lot, but then the – also the inability to sometimes buckle down and put in the hard work has
hurt me, as well.” Unlike the classes where he doesn’t put much effort, the computer science
project Thomas describes is just one clear example of working hard to overcome obstacles to
145

achieve a goal about which he is passionate. When asked if he got discouraged when
encountering obstacles during this project, Thomas replies, “Not too much. If it's a thing I care
about, I would like to do well in, I tend to see it as just another problem to be worked around.
And so then it just goes on the list of problems to solve.” And I ask him, what if it were in one of
those classes for which he failed at PU? Thomas replies, “I tend to not care enough to put in the
effort to surmount the roadblock. So I just go on and do something else.”
As he begins to transition from PU, Thomas sees using his “unique skill set, which is
programming, which is a relatively small subset of humankind, to try and better society in some
way.” He tells me that those goals have focused more through his exposure to the concept of
social justice, a cornerstone of PU’s mission, and how a professor imparted to him that he is now
among “scientists who know more than the average human and you have a very different skill
set. You should use that for good.” To which Thomas says, “I'm like, oh, that makes sense.”
Thomas’ grit scale score of 3.33 overall (29
th
percentile) and also 3.33 for both
consistency of interests (67
th
percentile) and perseverance of effort (11
th
percentile) are not
entirely consistent with the qualitative data from his interview. In answering the questions, “I
finish whatever I begin,” and “Setbacks don’t discourage me,” Thomas answered “somewhat like
me.” And, for “I am a hard worker,” Thomas responded with “mostly like me.” Thomas says that
he did not remember these questions from the survey, and that he would have answered
differently had he been primed to consider computer science when answering the questions. The
comments of another interviewed FGCS about her grit (Grit Scale: 3.33; Perseverance of Effort
4.17; Consistency of Interests: 2.5) speaks to the potential changing nature of grit in FGCS:
It’s not consistent. It's not constant. It fluctuates. Even within the past year, I’ve
had so many mind changes. I didn't know that I possessed [grit] until someone
else told me, and I don't think I would have made it with the way I think, like I
146

did this wrong, I don't think I'm worth it, you know? It's because other
professors have told me, you can do it, that I've stayed persistent.

These accounts from students concerning the grit scale and their own conceptions of grit
highlight the need for qualitative methods investigating students’ experiences relating to FGCS
consistency of interests and their perseverance of effort in college. By understanding FGCS
experiences overcoming obstacles to succeed in college through their interviews, we can
contextualize their grit scale scores and hear stories consistent or inconsistent with grit scale
scores. As we saw in the profiled students here, we also begin to see that FGCS success is at
least in part dependent on their social network on campus and the informational and social
support they receive from peers, faculty and staff.
Summary of Answer to RQ3
In summary, the data highlight five findings that serve to answer research question 3:
1. FGCS networks of faculty and staff can support FGCS particularly in mitigating
cultural challenges in attending a predominately white, selective institution and in
helping FGCS develop and refine their interests and goals.
2. Peer relationships primarily through appropriable and intentional organizations are
most helpful in providing social support, role modeling, and figuring it out together.
3. Connections with key institutional agents are particularly relevant to navigating
financial challenges at PU.
4. FGCS receive unexpected support from campus employment and the physical spaces
on campus that promote grit.
5. For many FGCS, their ability to maintain the grit mindset—that is, focused on their
interests and goals, and confidence and knowledge of resources to persevere—is
inextricably linked to the support they receive through their social network.
147

Chapter 4 Summary

The results presented in Chapter 4 serve to answer three research questions. The first
question sought to explore relationships between grit and social capital and their relationship to
FGCS cumulative GPA as a measure of academic success. Whereas grit was not found to be
predictive of college GPA, the size of students’ network of faculty and staff was found to be a
significant predictor. In exploring the relationship between grit and elements of social capital,
grit, and in particular the consistency of interests aspect of grit, was found to be related to the
reliable alliance aspect of social support. Perseverance of effort is positively associated with
strength of ties to faculty and staff and to receiving informational support from faculty and staff
on studying strategies, yet negatively related to the strength of ties FGCS have to peers on
campus.
The results from research question 2 suggest that FGCS involved in intentional
organizations receive various types of informational support from more faculty/staff than
students who are not members of these organizations. Members of appropriable social
organizations experience more social support and have more peers offering informational
support. Both intuitive and counterintuitive disparities in access to and benefits of social capital
found in the data based on race and other factors will be discussed further in Chapter 5.
Finally, the qualitative data answering question 3 reveals that grit is much more complex
than the grit scale score suggests. We learned that faculty and staff can support students to
succeed and develop their grit by helping FGCS through the cultural challenges many face upon
entering a higher education environment like PU. FGCS network of peers are most useful in
providing social support, connecting students to resources, and role modeling positive behaviors,
many of those associated with grit, hard work and perseverance.
148

Next, in the concluding chapter, I make sense of and integrate the quantitative and
qualitative data presented here in Chapter 4. I discuss the limitations of the study, distill the data
into 4 central findings and present a conceptual model that re-conceptualizes grit. I also
conceptualize the ideal type of institutional agent for FGCS and grit and offer implications of
this study for future research.

149

Table 4.1

Gender, Ethnicity, Family Education of Survey (N=156) and Interview Respondents (N=21)
Variable Survey % Interview %
Gender
Male 24.00% 23.81%
Female 76.00% 76.19%
Ethnicity
White 31.41% 28.57%
African American 8.97% 19.05%
Latino 44.23% 66.67%
Asian 12.18% 19.05%
Native American 2.56% 0.00%
Multiethnic 17.31% 28.57%
Mother's Education
Less than High School 21.77% 28.57%
High School 37.90% 38.10%
Some College 27.42% 33.33%
4-year College Degree 7.26% 0.00%
Above College 5.65% 0.00%
Father's Education
Less than High School 26.83% 23.81%
High School 31.71% 23.81%
Some College 27.64% 47.62%
4-year College Degree 4.07% 0.00%
Above College 9.76% 4.76%
Older Sibling in College
Yes 64.75% 52.38%
No 35.25% 47.62%
Religion
Roman Catholic 52.42% 57.14%
Other Christian 19.35% 19.05%
Other Religion 12.91% 9.52%
Atheist/Agnostic 15.33% 14.23%
Born in the U.S.
Student 88.80% 90.48%
Mother 47.54% 42.86%
Father 52.03% 52.38%

150

Table 4.2

Academic Preparation of Survey (N=156) and Interview Respondents (N=21)
Survey M (SD) [Range] Interview M (SD) [Range]
High School GPA 3.71 (.36) [0-4] 3.68 (.43) [0-4]
SAT Scores 1532.31 (59.18) [600 - 2400] 1658.57 (129.58) [600 - 2400]

High School Type % %
Public 59.03% 55.00%
Private Catholic 35.42% 30.00%
Other Private 5.56% 15.00%

Table 4.3

College Data of Survey (N=156) and Interview Respondents (N=21)
College Survey Interview
Liberal Arts 51.28% 57.15%
Science & Engineering 21.15% 23.81%
Film & TV 5.13% 4.76%
Education 0.64% 0.00%
Business 13.46% 9.52%
Communications & Fine
Arts 9.62% 4.76%
Transfer Student
Yes 28.67% 23.81%
No 71.33% 76.19%
Part-time Student
Yes 7.38% 14.29%
No 92.62% 85.71%

151

Table 4.4

Student Housing, Financial Aid and Employment of Survey (N=156) and Interview Respondents
(N=21)
Living with Family During College Survey Interview
Never 64.74% 52.38%
1 year 14.74% 14.29%
2 years 3.85% 9.52%
3 or more years 16.67% 23.81%
Living on Campus During College
Never 22.44% 14.29%
1 year 13.46% 14.29%
2 years 25.64% 19.05%
3 or more years 38.46% 52.38%
Pell Grant
Yes 55.13% 57.14%
No 44.87% 42.86%
Work Study Job
Yes 75.00% 95.24%
No 25.00% 4.76%
Off-Campus Job
Yes 57.69% 42.86%
No 42.31% 57.14%
Total Hours Worked per Week
(including off campus jobs, internships, etc.)
5 hours or less 7.64% 5.00%
6-10 hours 22.92% 20.00%
11-15 hours 31.25% 30.00%
16-20 hours 17.36% 25.00%
20+ hours 20.83% 20.00%

152

Table 4.5

Campus Involvement of Student Survey and Interview Respondents
Survey N=156 Interview N=21
Involved in On-Campus Organizations 73.08% 85.71%

Intentional Organizations 23.08% 23.81%

First-generation Mentoring Program 12.82% 19.05%

First-generation Scholars Cohort 7.05% 14.29%

Learning Community
for African American Freshman 5.77% 4.76%

Learning Community Supporting Graduate
Education of Underrepresented Students 8.97% 9.52%

Appropriable Student Organizations 66.67% 71.43%

Greek Organization 26.92% 28.57%

Service Organization 26.92% 33.33%

Cultural Organization 29.49% 42.86%

Religious Organization 28.21% 38.10%

Intramural Sports 14.74% 9.52%

Varsity Sports 7.05% 4.76%

153

Table 4.6
Focal Variables of Survey (N=156) and Interview Respondents (N=21)
Variable Survey M (SD) [Range] Interview M (SD) [Range]
College GPA 3.29 (.35) [0-4] 3.21 (.40) [0-4]
Grit 3.61 (0.52) [1-5] 3.50 (0.51) [1-5]
Perseverance of Effort 4.10 (0.56) [1-5] 4.00 (0.46) [1-5]
Consistency of Interests 3.13 (.72) [1-5] 3.03 (0.76) [1-5]
Informational Support Network
Peer Outdegree 2.89 (2.64) [0-7] 3.90 (2.17) [0-7]
Peer Strength of Ties
x
16.30 (6.18) [0-25] 19.45 (4.81) [0-25]
Peer Strength of Ties
+
7.79 (2.30) [0-10] 8.77 (1.16) [0-10]
Faculty/Staff Outdegree 2.23 (2.20) [0-7] 3.62 (1.83) [0-7]
Faculty/Staff Strength of Ties
x
13.05 (4.65) [0-25] 13.61 (4.65) [0-25]
Faculty/Staff Strength of Ties
+
7.07 (1.65) [0-10] 7.30 (1.20) [0-10]
Combined Outdegree 5.12 (4.10) [0-14] 7.75 (3.35) [0-14]
Combined Strength of Tie
x
30.75 (7.20) [0-50] 33.30 (7.33) [0-50]
Combined Strength of Tie
+
15.45 (2.14) [0-20] 16.13 (1.87) [0-20]
# of Faculty/Staff Providing Info Support
Career Advice 1.23 (1.46) [0-7] 2.24 (1.58) [0-7]
Register/Select Classes 1.16 (1.37) [0-7] 2.29 (1.42) [0-7]
Campus Resources 1.04 (1.38) [0-7] 1.81 (1.83) [0-7]
Studying Tips 0.85 (1.34) [0-7] 1.24 (1.67) [0-7]
Jobs/Internships 0.84 (1.17) [0-7] 1.48 (1.36) [0-7]
Choosing Major 0.62 (0.92) [0-7] 1.33 (1.11) [0-7]
# of Peers Providing Info Support
Register/Select Classes 1.20 (1.45) [0-7] 1.62 (1.43) [0-7]
Studying Tips 1.09 (1.52) [0-7] 2.24 (2.02) [0-7]
Career Advice 0.99 (1.45) [0-7] 1.76 (1.73) [0-7]
Campus Resources 0.97 (1.47) [0-7] 1.62 (1.86) [0-7]
Jobs/Internships 0.73 (1.28) [0-7] 1.05 (1.40) [0-7]
Choosing Major 0.40 (1.05) [0-7] 0.71 (1.65) [0-7]
Perceived Social Support Scale 2.78 (0.26) [1-4] 2.85 (0.25) [1-4]
Subscales of Interest
Guidance 3.02 (0.54) [1-4] 3.21 (0.50) [1-4]
Social Integration 2.28 (0.46) [1-4] 2.48 (0.31) [1-4]
Reliable Alliance 2.96 (0.31) [1-4] 2.75 (0.24) [1-4]
x
Specification calculated by multiplying degree of closeness and frequency of contact
+
Specification calculated by adding degree of closeness and frequency of contact

154

Table 4.7

Faculty/Staff Informational Support Networks (N=348) %
Students Shared Characteristics with Faculty/Staff
Major/Field of Study 53.74%
Gender 52.30%
Race/Ethnicity 29.89%
First-Generation Status 20.69%
Religion 16.38%
How Has Student Accessed Faculty/Staff
Worked in Department of Student's Major 45.98%
Faculty Advisor 27.87%
Student Organization Advisor 17.53%
Worked in Same Office 14.94%
Mentor 7.18%
Information Support From Faculty/Staff
Career Advice 55.17%
Choosing/Registering for Classes 52.01%
Campus Resources 46.84%
Study Tips 37.93%
Jobs/Internships 37.64%
Choosing a Major 27.87%

155

Table 4.8

Peer Informational Support Networks (N=451)
Students Shared Characteristics/Experiences with Peers %
Gender 68.74%
Year in College 68.29%
Race/Ethnicity 48.34%
Student Organization 38.36%
Religion 38.14%
Major/Field of Study 27.72%
First-Generation Status 26.39%
Roommates 25.28%
Information Support From Peers
Choosing/Registering for Classes 41.46%
Study Tips 37.69%
Career Advice 34.37%
Campus Resources 33.70%
Jobs/Internships 25.28%
Choosing a Major 13.75%

156

Table 4.9

OLS Regression Results, Final Model
OLS College GPA B Β
Grit -0.0004 -0.0005
(0.0512)
Faculty/Staff Outdegree 0.0317 0.1992
(0.0123)*
Involved on Campus -0.0237 -0.0607
(0.067)
Transfer Student 0.1155 0.1479
(0.0607)
Commuter Student -0.1327 -0.1817
(0.0568)*
Pell Recipient -0.0396 -0.0565
(0.0547)
High School GPA 0.1253 0.1285
0.0788
SAT Scores 0.0006 0.3411
(0.0001)****
_cons 2.8108
(0.3332)****
N 156
R
2
0.1190
Adj. R
2
0.1554
F 4.56
* p<0.05 ** p<0.01 ***p<0.001 ****p<0.0001

157

Table 4.10

Pearson’s Correlations Among Focal Variables

College
GPA Grit
Consistency
of Interests
Perseverance of
Effort
Grit 0.02
Consistency of Interests 0.01 0.85***
Perseverance of Effort 0.02 0.74*** 0.28***
Social Network Measures
Faculty/Staff Outdegree 0.14 0.01 -0.04 0.07
Faculty/Staff Strength of Ties
x
-0.07 0.11 0.03 0.20*
Faculty/Staff Strength of Ties
+
-0.07 0.04 -0.04 0.13
Peer Outdegree 0.06 0.00 -0.03 0.04
Peer Strength of Ties
x
-0.12 -0.09 -0.04 -0.14
Peer Strength of Ties
+
-0.09 -0.15 -0.09 -0.19*
Combined Outdegree 0.11 0.00 -0.04 0.06
Combined Strength of Ties
x
-0.09 0.11 0.04 0.18
Combined Strength of Ties
+
-0.06 0.01 -0.04 0.08
Perceived Social Support
-0.08 0.12 0.09 0.11
Perceived Social Support
++
-0.11 0.14 0.13 0.09
Reliable Alliance -0.09 0.17* 0.18* 0.08
Guidance -0.06 0.07 0.06 0.05
Social Integration
-0.08 0.08 0.06 0.08
Faculty/Staff Info Support
Career 0.04 0.05 -0.02 0.11
Choosing Major -0.07 0.00 -0.03 0.03
Jobs/Internships -0.01 0.02 -0.07 0.14
Campus Resources -0.06 -0.02 -0.05 0.04
Studying Tips -0.02 0.13 0.06 0.16*
Register/Select Classes 0.07 0.05 -0.01 0.12
Peer Info Support
Career -0.05 -0.02 -0.04 0.02
Choosing Major -0.02 -0.01 -0.05 0.05
Jobs/Internships -0.06 0.02 -0.02 0.06
Campus Resources 0.09 0.01 0.00 0.02
Studying Tips -0.02 0.01 -0.01 0.03
Register/Select Classes 0.05 -0.04 -0.05 0.00
* p<0.05 ** p<0.01 ***p<0.001
x
Specification calculated by multiplying degree of closeness and frequency of contact
+
Specification calculated by adding degree of closeness and frequency of contact
++
Specification comprises only guidance, reliable alliance, and social integration
158

Table 4.11

Answering Research Question 1 - Significant Two-Tailed T-Tests Exploring Relationships among
Grit, Social Capital, and College GPA
College GPA
Below Average Above Average t df
Faculty/Staff Outdegree 1.66 (2.05) 2.71 (2.22) -3.02** 154
Combined Outdegree 4.07 (4.13) 6.00 (3.89) -3.00** 154
Peer Outdegree 2.41 (2.72) 3.29 (2.52) -2.11* 154
Faculty/Staff Info-Choosing Classes 0.89 (1.27) 1.39 (1.41) -2.31* 154
Grit Scale Score
Below Average Above Average
Combined Outdegree 4.49 (3.59) 5.79 (4.09) -2.00* 154
Faculty/Staff Info-Career Advice 0.96 (1.40) 1.51 (1.48) -2.38* 154
Social Integration
Below Average Above Average
Grit Scale Score 3.42 (0.61) 3.66 (0.48) -2.38* 154
* p<0.05 ** p<0.01 ***p<0.001

159

Table 4.12

Answering Research Question 2 - Significant Two-Tailed T-Tests Exploring Differences in
Access to Social Capital Based on Demographics, Prior Academic Performance
Latino?
No Yes t Df
Faculty/Staff Outdegree 1.56 (2.02) 3.07 (2.14) -4.51**** 154
Combined Outdegree 4.08 (4.10) 6.43 (3.74) -3.70*** 154
Peer Outdegree 2.52 (2.77) 3.36 (2.40) -2.01* 154
Faculty/Staff Strength of Ties
x
11.38 (4.45) 14.32 (4.42) -3.32** 100
Faculty/Staff Strength of Ties
+
6.56 (1.78) 7.46 (1.44) -1.44** 100
African American?
No Yes
Peer Outdegree 2.70 (2.58) 4.79 (2.61) -2.88** 154
Faculty/Staff Outdegree 2.11 (2.18) 3.43 (2.17) -2.16* 154
White?
No Yes
Faculty/Staff Strength of Ties
x
13.67 (4.77) 10.50 (3.04) 2.83** 100
Pell Grant Recipient?
No Yes
Faculty/Staff Strength of Ties
x

11.56 (4.92) 13.98 (4.25) -2.63* 100
Faculty/Staff Strength of Ties
+

6.57 (1.91) 7.38 (1.39) -2.45*
100
Father Born in United States?
No Yes
Peer Outdegree
2.63 (2.18) 3.92 (2.71) -2.90** 121
Faculty/Staff Strength of Ties
+

7.52 (1.54) 6.95 (0.99) 2.20* 96

Peer Strength of Ties
x

18.34 (5.20) 16.38 (4.54) 2.02* 99
Mother Born in United States?
No Yes
Peer Outdegree
2.58 (2.06) 4.15 (2.76) -3.59*** 120
Faculty/Staff Strength of Ties
+
7.47 (1.47) 6.93 (1.03)
-2.03* 96
Prior Achievement

Below Average
SAT
Above Average
SAT
Peer Outdegree 2.48 (2.56) 3.45 (2.66) -2.32* 154
* p<0.05 ** p<0.01 ***p<0.001 ****p<0.001
x
Specification calculated by multiplying degree of closeness and frequency of contact
+
Specification calculated by adding degree of closeness and frequency of contact

160

Table 4.13
Answering Research Question 2 - Significant Two-Tailed T-Tests Exploring Differences in
Access to Social Capital Based on Student Involvement
Involved on Campus?
No Yes t df
Combined Outdegree 2.83 (3.26) 5.96 (4.07) -4.48**** 154
Peer Outdegree 1.48 (2.21) 3.41 (2.60) -4.29**** 154
Faculty/Staff Outdegree 1.36 (1.79) 2.55 (2.26) -3.08** 154
Intentional Organization?
No Yes
Faculty/Staff Outdegree 1.92 (2.03) 3.28 (2.44) -3.36** 154
Combined Outdegree 4.54 (3.91) 7.06 (4.17) -3.33** 154
Peer Outdegree 2.63 (2.65) 3.78 (2.44) -2.33* 154
Faculty/Staff Strength of Ties
x
12.26 (4.56) 15.35 (4.20) -3.04** 100
Faculty/Staff Strength of Ties
+
6.82 (1.74) 7.79 (1.06) -2.64** 100
FGCS Mentoring Program?
No Yes
Faculty/Staff Outdegree 2.01 (2.09) 3.75 (2.40) -3.42** 154
Combined Outdegree 4.79 (4.04) 7.35 (3.94) -2.65** 154
Faculty/Staff Strength of Ties
x
12.44 (4.49) 16.35 (4.19) -3.23** 100
Faculty/Staff Strength of Ties
+
6.89 (1.68) 8.04 (1.06) -2.65** 100
FGCS Scholars Cohort?
No Yes
Faculty/Staff Outdegree 2.12 (2.14) 3.73 (2.53) -2.37* 154
Combined Outdegree 4.94 (4.09) 7.45 (3.64) -1.98* 154
Faculty/Staff Strength of Ties
x
12.62 (4.49) 17.47 (4.14) -3.11** 100
Faculty/Staff Strength of Ties
+
6.95 (1.65) 8.32 (1.00) -2.45* 100
Appropriable Social Organization?
No Yes
Peer Outdegree 1.54 (2.12) 3.57 (2.62) -4.84**** 154
Combined Outdegree 3.10 (3.35) 6.13 (4.08) -4.64**** 154
Faculty/Staff Outdegree 1.56 (1.94) 2.57 (2.25) -2.76** 154
Work Study Job?
No Yes
Peer Outdegree 1.69 (2.53) 3.29 (2.56) -3.38*** 154
Combined Outdegree 3.36 (4.11) 5.71 (3.94) -3.19** 154
* p<0.05 ** p<0.01 ***p<0.001 ****p<0.001

161

Table 4.14

Answering Research Question 2 - Significant Two-Tailed T-Tests Exploring Differences in
Faculty/Staff and Peer Informational Support Based on Student Involvement
Involved on Campus?
No Yes t df
Peer Info-Campus Resources 0.40 (0.80) 1.18 (1.59) -3.02** 154
Faculty/Staff Info-Campus Resources 0.52 (0.94) 1.24 (1.47) -2.92** 154
Peer Info-Career Advice 0.50 (0.86) 1.18 (1.58) -2.62** 154
Peer Info-Study Tips 0.62 (1.29) 1.26 (1.57) -2.38* 154
Faculty/Staff Info-Career Advice 0.79 (1.30) 1.39 (1.49) -2.34* 154
Peer Info-Jobs/Internships 0.36 (1.08) 0.87 (1.33) -2.24* 154
Intentional Organization?
No Yes
Faculty/Staff Info-Campus Resources 0.80 (1.13) 1.86 (1.81) -4.25**** 154
Faculty/Staff Info-Career Advice 0.99 (1.29) 2.03 (1.72) -3.89*** 154
Faculty/Staff Info- Jobs/Internships 0.67 (1.07) 1.42 (1.32) -3.49*** 154
Peer Info-Campus Resources 0.80 (1.36) 1.53 (1.70) -2.63** 154
Faculty/Staff Info-Selecting Classes 1.03 (1.31) 1.61 (1.44) -2.29* 154

Appropriable Social Organization?
No Yes
Peer Info-Campus Resources 0.48 (0.85) 1.22 (1.64) -3.05** 154
Faculty/Staff Info-Campus Resources 0.65 (1.19) 1.24 (1.44) -2.54* 154
Peer Info-Career Advice 0.62 (0.97) 1.18 (1.61) -2.33* 154
Faculty/Staff Info- Jobs/Internships 0.56 (1.07) 0.98 (1.20) -2.15* 154
Peer Info-Jobs/Internships 0.42 (1.04) 0.88 (1.37) -2.14* 154
Peer Info-Study Tips 0.75 (1.33) 1.26 (1.59) -1.99* 154
* p<0.05 ** p<0.01 ***p<0.001 ****p<0.0001

162

Table 4.15

Answering Research Question 2 - Significant Two-Tailed T-Tests Exploring Differences in
Faculty/Staff and Peer Informational Support Based on FGCS-specific Intentional Organizations
FGCS Mentoring Program?
No Yes
Faculty/Staff Info-Campus Resources 0.85 (1.15) 2.4 (2.01) -5.05**** 154
Faculty/Staff Info-Career Advice 1.05 (1.31) 2.45 (1.82) -4.20**** 154
Faculty/Staff Info- Jobs/Internships 0.74 (1.13) 1.55 (1.19) -2.97** 154
Peer Info-Campus Resources .87 (1.37) 1.70 (1.89) -2.40* 154
Faculty/Staff Info-Selecting Classes 1.07 (1.32) 1.80 (1.51) -2.27* 154
FGCS Scholars Cohort?
No Yes
Faculty/Staff Info-Campus Resources .90 (1.19) 2.91 (2.26) -4.98**** 154
Faculty/Staff Info-Career Advice 1.14 (1.39) 2.36 (1.96) -2.72** 154
Faculty/Staff Info- Jobs/Internships .77 (1.15) 1.73 (1.19) -2.65** 154
* p<0.05 ** p<0.01 ***p<0.001 ****p<0.0001

163

Table 4.16

Answering Research Question 2 - Significant Two-Tailed T-Tests Exploring Differences in
Informational Support Based on Demographics
Latino?
No Yes T df
Faculty/Staff Info-Campus Resources 0.54 (0.91) 1.68 (1.60) -5.59**** 154
Faculty/Staff Info-Career Advice 0.70 (1.08) 1.90 (1.61) -5.54**** 154
Faculty/Staff Info-Choose Major 0.33 (0.68) 0.99 (1.05) -4.70**** 154
Faculty/Staff Info-Selecting Classes 0.77 (1.14) 1.65 (1.47) -4.22**** 154
Faculty/Staff Info -Jobs/Internships 0.52 (0.97) 1.25 (1.28) -4.05*** 154
Faculty/Staff Info-Study Tips 0.56 (1.14) 1.20 (1.48) -3.05** 154
African American?
No Yes
Peer Info-Career Advice 0.89 (1.43) 2.00 (1.24) -2.78** 154
Peer Info-Campus Resources 0.89 (1.42) 1.86 (1.66) -2.39* 154
Pell Grant Recipient?
No Yes
Faculty/Staff Info-Study Tips 0.56 (0.97) 1.08 (1.53) -2.48* 154
Faculty/Staff Info -Jobs/Internships 0.60 (0.92) 1.03 (1.31) -2.34* 154
Faculty/Staff Info -Career Advice 0.94 (1.33) 1.47 (1.53) -2.25* 154
Very First of Siblings in College?
No Yes
Faculty/Staff Info –Jobs/Internships 1.20 (1.24) 0.74 (1.18) 1.98* 120
Parents with College Experience?
No Yes

Faculty/Staff Info –Study Tips 1.34 (1.71) 0.79 (1.02) 2.19*
120
Mother Born In United States?

No Yes
Faculty/Staff Info –Study Tips 1.36 (1.66) 0.78 (1.04) 2.30*
120
Faculty/Staff Info -Jobs/Internships 1.30 (1.28) 0.79 (1.12) 2.30*
120
Faculty/Staff Info-Choose Major 0.97 (1.05) 0.57 (0.84) 2.30*
120
* p<0.05 ** p<0.01 ***p<0.001 ****p<0.0001

164

Table 4.17

Answering Research Question 2 - Significant Two-Tailed T-Tests Exploring Differences in Social
Support Based on Student Involvement
Involved on Campus?
No Yes T df
Social Support 2.77 (0.22) 2.89 (0.20) -3.03** 154
Social Support
1
2.78 (0.24) 2.92 (0.22) -3.55*** 154
Social Integration 2.37 (0.28) 2.53 (0.24) -3.48*** 154
Guidance 3.05 (0.38) 3.26 (0.41) -2.87** 154
Appropriable Social Organization?
No Yes
Social Support 2.78 (.21) 2.89 (.20) -3.44*** 154
Social Support
1
2.79 (.23) 2.93 (.23) -3.65*** 154
Social Integration 2.37 (.28) 2.54 (.23) -3.96*** 154
Guidance 3.06 (.38) 3.27 (.41) -3.14** 154
FGCS Mentoring Program?
Social Support 2.84 (.21) 2.95 (.22) -2.19* 154
Social Support
1
2.87 (.23) 3.00 (.23) -2.44* 154
Social Integration 2.47 (.24) 2.60 (.35) -2.18* 154
Guidance 3.18 (.41) 3.37 (.41) -1.98* 154
* p<0.05 ** p<0.01 ***p<0.001 ****p<0.0001
1
Specification comprises only guidance, reliable alliance, and social integration

165

Table 4.18

Answering Research Question 2 - Significant Two-Tailed T-Tests Exploring Differences in Social
Support Based on Demographics
Latino?
No Yes t df
Social Integration 2.44 (0.24) 2.55 (0.28) -2.65** 154
White?
No Yes
Social Integration 2.53 (0.23) 2.30 (0.29) 4.45**** 154
Catholic?
No Yes
Social Integration 2.41 (0.31) 2.55 (0.25) -2.81** 154
Father Born In United States?

No Yes

Social Integration 2.55 (0.29) 2.43 (0.29) 2.38*
121
Parents with College Experience?

No Yes

Social Integration 2.56 (0.26) 2.42 (0.31) 2.69**
120
Pell Grant Recipient?
No Yes
Reliable Alliance 3.02 (0.29) 2.91 (0.32) 2.12* 154
Very First of Siblings in College?
No Yes
Guidance 3.27 (0.43) 3.09 (0.47) 2.23* 120
* p<0.05 ** p<0.01 ***p<0.001 ****p<0.0001

166

Table 4.19
Focal Variables of 6 FGCS Interview Respondents Profiled in Chapter 4
Maria Joseph Sara Julia Stella Thomas Survey M (SD) [Range]
College GPA 3.1 2.6 3.3 3.1 2.7 2.7 3.29 (.35) [0-4]
Grit 2.17 3.00 4.42 4.33 3.67 3.33 3.61 (0.52) [1-5]
Consistency of Interests 1.17 2.83 4.17 4.00 2.83 3.33 3.13 (.72) [1-5]
Perseverance of Effort 3.17 3.17 4.67 4.67 4.50 3.33 4.10 (0.56) [1-5]
Peer Outdegree 2 3 7 7 0 2 2.89 (2.64) [0-7]
Faculty/Staff Outdegree 2 6 4 7 1 2 2.23 (2.20) [0-7]
Peer Strength of Ties
X
25.00 20.22 25.00 25.00 0.00 18.00 16.30 (6.18) [0-25]
Peer Strength of Ties
+
10.00 9.00 10.00 10.00 0.00 8.50 7.79 (2.30) [0-10]
Faculty/Staff
Strength of Ties
X
12.00 19.50 13.13 22.20 9.00 12.25 13.05 (4.65) [0-25]
Faculty/Staff
Strength of Ties
+
7.00 8.83 7.25 9.43 6.00 7.00 7.07 (1.65) [0-10]
# of Peers Provide
Info Support on:
Registering for Classes 0 2 4 4 0 0 1.20 (1.45) [0-7]
Study Tips 1 3 5 7 0 0 1.09 (1.52) [0-7]
Career Advice 0 2 3 7 0 0 0.99 (1.45) [0-7]
Campus Resources 0 2 3 7 0 1 0.97 (1.47) [0-7]
Jobs/Internships 0 1 2 6 0 0 0.73 (1.28) [0-7]
Choosing Major 0 1 3 7 0 0 0.40 (1.05) [0-7]
# of Faculty/Staff Provide
Info Support:
Career Advice 2 6 2 3 1 0 1.23 (1.46) [0-7]
Registering for Classes 0 5 2 2 0 1 1.16 (1.37) [0-7]
Campus Resources 0 6 2 6 1 0 1.04 (1.38) [0-7]
Study Tips 0 2 0 6 0 0 0.85 (1.34) [0-7]
Campus Resources 0 6 2 6 1 0 1.04 (1.38) [0-7]
Study Tips 0 2 0 6 0 0 0.85 (1.34) [0-7]
Jobs/Internships 1 3 2 2 0 2 0.84 (1.17) [0-7]
Choosing Major 1 3 2 3 1 0 0.62 (0.92) [0-7]
Career Advice 2 6 2 3 1 0 1.23 (1.46) [0-7]
Perceived Social Support 2.96 2.79 3.25 3.04 2.29 2.67 2.78 (0.26) [1-4]
Reliable Alliance 3.00 3.00 3.25 3.25 2.50 3.00 2.96 (0.31) [1-4]
Social Integration 2.75 1.75 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.00 2.28 (0.46) [1-4]
Guidance 3.50 4.00 4.00 3.25 2.25 2.75 3.02 (0.54) [1-4]
x
Specification calculated by multiplying degree of closeness and frequency of contact
+
Specification calculated by adding degree of closeness and frequency of contact

167

Chapter 5: Rethinking Grit
FGCS are a diverse group who are increasing in enrollment in U.S. higher education yet
represent a disproportionate amount of the students who do not complete their degrees
(DeAngelo & Franke, 2011). A better understanding of the factors that contribute to successful
FGCS is important to effectively addressing the current gap between their college access and
college completion. Not only are the nation’s workforce needs and global competitiveness at
stake in improving outcomes of FGCS, but also is creating a more equitable society as an
growing amount of decent paying jobs require a college degree (Hyslop & Tucker, 2012; Tierney
& Duncheon, 2015).
Whether the daughters and sons of working-class whites or the children of immigrant
parents, hard work and determination are likely terms with which FGCS and their families
identify. Grit has become a popular yet controversial synonym for hard work and determination
in recent years as scores on the 12-item grit scale have been found to be predictive of success in
challenging environments including higher education (Duckworth & Quinn, 2009; Strayhorn,
2014). Although most commonly associated with work ethic and perseverance, the grit research
has conceptualized the construct as having two components: consistency of interests and
perseverance of effort (Duckworth & Quinn, 2009).
As a result of the solely quantitative research and the popular press discourse (see Tough,
2012), grit has permeated the field of education. This is evidenced by grit’s inclusion in the
Common Core State Standards, on students’ report cards in California, and as one of the ‘21
st
-
century skills’ promoted by educators and governments around the world (Kalb, 2015;
Shechtman et al., 2013). Critics of grit’s increasing prominence in education (e.g., Ravitch, 2014;
Rose, 2009) consider it as a new form of “blaming the victim,” holding low-achieving students
168

solely responsible for not succeeding. And, as I have argued in this dissertation, grit essentially is
the latest version of “pulling up yourself by your bootstraps,” fitting with the meritocratic ideal
in U.S. education and society of achieving success simply through hard work and determination.
This individualistic conception of grit and success in higher education is problematic as it
diminishes the role of institutional actors in student success or failure, especially for FGCS who
are less likely to have college-educated individuals in their networks outside of school to help
navigate success in higher education.
The current understanding of grit, as I have argued, lies theoretically at the nexus of
human capital and cultural capital focusing on the individual student. In contrast to the extant
research on grit, I have examined the construct through a social capital lens. As such I posit that
students derive benefits like institutional resources, information, and support through students’
social networks that support their consistency of interests and perseverance of effort (i.e., grit) to
achieve success in higher education (Bourdieu, 1986; Coleman, 1988; Lin, 2001; Stanton-Salazar
& Dornbusch, 1995; Stanton-Salazar, 2011).
This study accomplished three tasks. First I explored the relationship of the notion of grit
with elements of social capital, and how these concepts relate to FGCS success. Second I
provided a deeper understanding of FGCS access to and use of social capital through their
network of relationships with supportive faculty, staff, and peers on campus. And lastly I re-
conceptualized grit in the context of higher education as the intersection of consistency of
interests, perseverance of effort, and social capital. To accomplish these objectives, I have
extended the solely quantitative grit research by designing and executing a unique mixed
methods study.
169

I administered an online survey to first-generation juniors and seniors at one 4-year,
private university. Not only did I collect and analyze FGCS attribute data, I also employed social
network analysis to include relational data about FGCS relationships to faculty, staff and
students on campus. The survey consisted of the grit scale (Duckworth & Quinn, 2009), a social
support scale (Russell & Cutrona, 1984), as well as questions regarding students’ demographics,
involvement on campus, prior achievement, and cumulative college GPA. Also collected was
ego-centric network data about the peers, faculty and staff that have provided informational
support that has helped the survey respondents succeed in college.
To analyze the survey data I followed the existing grit research and investigated an OLS
regression model predicting cumulative college GPA. I considered several models using various
combinations of independent variables, including the focal variables of grit and its two
components. Unlike prior research, I also included as predictors social network measures that
represent access to social capital (i.e., staff outdegree, peer outdegree, peer strength of ties, staff
strength of ties) and benefits of social capital (i.e., social support and informational support). By
analyzing the results of various correlations, I further evaluated the relationship among grit,
social capital, and college GPA. Through two-tailed t-tests I compared differences in social
network measures of students based on their grit scale scores as well as students’ demographics,
academic preparation and performance, and involvement on campus. Further adding to the
novelty of this study, I collected and analyzed qualitative data. I conducted 1-on-1 interviews
with students, faculty and staff to contextualize students’ grit scale scores and social network
measures in relation to FGCS experiences overcoming various obstacles to succeed in college.

170

In what follows I review the major findings of the study which conclude that:
• Grit is complex and dynamic especially due to the diversity of FGCS challenges and
perceptions of interests and perseverance.
• Grit is not significantly related to FGCS cumulative GPA, but access to social capital
with faculty and staff is predictive of FGCS cumulative GPA at PU.
• FGCS grit is related to social capital in multiple ways.
• FGCS access to and benefits of social capital varies based on students’ background and
involvement on campus in expected and unexpected ways at PU.
I then advance the understanding of grit in the context of higher education by presenting a
conceptual model (Figure 5.4) that draws from this study’s findings. The model is a re-
conceptualization of grit as the intersection of: (a) consistency of interests, (b) perseverance of
effort, and (c) social capital. I also extend the work of Stanton-Salazar (2011) on institutional
agents and conceptualize the ideal type of institutional agent for supporting FGCS and promoting
grit (Figure 5.5). I offer implications for future research that draw from lessons learned in this
study to strengthen the research pertaining to grit and expand the use of social network analysis
to study the networks of FGCS relationships to institutional agents and others on college
campuses. Before turning to the heart of the matter, I first provide a brief discussion of some
limitations to the study.
Limitations of the Study
Access
Even though I had unique access to PU due to my prior relationship with the institution,
the approval process and the participant recruitment took longer than expected. Prolonged
engagement at the research site was desirable particularly for the qualitative strand of the study,
171

but was not possible due to these challenges. The compressed timeline for data collection and
analysis also resulted in the study being a concurrent mixed methods design rather than a
sequential explanatory design. This prevented me from analyzing the survey data in advance of
conducting the interviews. Many of the interviews with participants were conducted before
surveys were completed even though ideally the surveys were to be completed first.
Sampling
Although the surveys were distributed to all first-generation juniors and seniors at PU, I
could only include the responses of those who were willing to participate. Because of this self-
selection bias, it is possible that those students who participated in the study are not
representative of all FGCS at PU. As part of the strategy to recruit student participants was to
reach them through student organizations, the students that participated in the study tended to be
involved on campus. Disengaged students were likely underrepresented in the sample.
Also while the focus of this research is about successful FGCS, including non-FGCS and
first-generation non-completing college students may have been useful. Comparing and
contrasting the experiences of FGCS and non-FGCS may shed light on important distinctions
between these groups of students at PU. Furthermore, though often difficult to access, including
FGCS who have departed PU would allow insight into why they left the institution and if they
were any different from successful students regarding grit and social capital.
I also did not seek the input of faculty and staff at PU that were not named by FGCS as
supportive. By including the perspectives of these individuals on campus, I may have been able
to highlight how their perspectives and strategies for supporting FGCS may differ than those of
faculty and staff who have been identified as supportive of FGCS. The inclusion of this data may
have been helpful to understand the factors that inhibit FGCS success at PU.
172

Survey Design
Given the goal of this research was to collect network and attribute data from a
representative sample of first-generation juniors and seniors at PU in a short timeframe, a self-
report cross-sectional network survey was the most appropriate method. However, as with any
method there are limitations to its use in this study. One limitation of the survey is that it was
cross-sectional, rather than longitudinal. Using a longitudinal survey over time may have allowed
studying students’ grit and social capital measures over time. For example, having access to a
student’s grit scale score and social network data prior to entering and after completing the
FGCS scholars program perhaps could allow making causal inferences about these programs.
Another major limitation is the self-reporting nature of the survey. A drawback of self-
assessments is that students are not always effective evaluators of their own abilities or mindsets
(Duckworth & Yeager, 2015; Shechtman et al., 2013). Furthermore, other issues with self-
assessments include that participants may have an interpretation different from the intent of the
survey item (Duckworth & Yeager, 2015). The frame of reference may also be different for any
particular item among students. The frames of reference used to make choices on either student
self-assessments varies among individuals based on a variety of factors including individuals’
cultural norms (Heine, Lehman, Peng, & Greenholtz, 2002).
In addition to measuring the construct of grit, the survey also collected other self-report
data, including the focal variable of cumulative GPA. Although the use of self-reported GPA is
cautioned due to its threat to construct validity (Kuncel, Crede, & Thomas, 2005), linking survey
data to institutional data (Bowman, 2010), like student’s official GPA, was not feasible at PU.
Other potentially important variables may have been missing that would have meaningfully
contributed to the analysis. For example, financial aid advice is a variable that would have been
useful to include in the options of types of informational support.
173

To collect the social network data, I used a technique known as a name generator (Burt,
1984) to create students’ ego social networks. Unfortunately, access to a roster of all students,
staff, and faculty was not available to me in this study. In the preferable roster method,
respondents can choose names from the roster instead of recall names which generally produces
more strong ties that the student remembers rather than the weak ties of acquaintances (Scott,
2000). Also limiting the number of supportive faculty, staff, and peers may have limited
respondents and reduced the variability of the outdegree variables. Despite these limitations, the
study produced four central findings, which I outline next, that integrate the quantitative and
qualitative data to contribute to the understanding of grit, social capital, and FGCS.
Interpretation of Results: Review of Major Findings
Finding 1: Grit is complex and dynamic especially due to diversity of FGCS challenges and
perceptions of interests and perseverance.
The concept of grit in education is generally understood to be synonymous with
determination, tenacity, endurance, and perseverance. Not many students, faculty or staff
interviewed for this study were familiar with the term grit before I defined it for them as
perseverance and passion for long-term goals. Those with some understanding of the concept
associated grit primarily with the perseverance of effort aspect. The other part of grit,
consistency of interests, accounts for half of the items on the 12-item grit scale yet is lacking
from the common understanding of and discourse about grit. Simply acknowledging consistency
of interests in the discourse, while essential, does not nearly speak to the different layers of grit
that became evident particularly from the qualitative data in this study. The nature and variety of
student interests, experiences, and challenges increase the difficulty of understanding the concept
of grit in the context of higher education.
174

Relating interests to effort. The moderate correlation between perseverance of effort
and consistency of interests (r=0.28; p<0.001) suggested that indeed the two components of grit
are related to one another in this sample. The various ways they may be connected could not be
answered with a correlation, however. The qualitative data began to address this question.
Remember Thomas, the computer science major, who may have been the most salient example
of how these two aspects of grit can strongly relate. The question he asked himself in many
endeavors was “What's the minimum amount of work I can do to get by?” In contrast, Thomas
explained “If it's a thing I care about, I would like to do well in, I tend to see [setbacks] as just
another problem to be worked around. And so then it just goes on the list of problems to solve.”
A clear example of this was detailed in Chapter 4 when Thomas worked long hours through a
difficult computer science project to become one of the very few students to finish.
Rather than an interest in a specific project or topic, for other participants it was more of
an interest in exploring a long-term goal or career option that prompted effort or action. Like
Maria, who after receiving an email about a conference in Student Affairs was surprised that she
“acted upon it – because I’m usually very passive,” except this time, she said “Okay, I’ll
go…I’m interested.” Joseph’s effort in college may have been also be motivated by an interest,
but a much different type of interest—that is, “what I have to look forward to,” in the short-term,
like “if this weekend I'm having a nice party.” Students often asked for clarification regarding
what I meant by “interests” in the interview questions, which suggested that many survey
respondents may have considered a variety of types of interests when answering survey
questions associated with consistency of interests.
For other participants, their effort seemed less related to their interests. Recall Stella who
has a large differential between perseverance of effort (4.5) and consistency of interest (2.83).
175

The nature of Stella’s challenges at PU, including her commute from home to school, and home
to work in the opposite direction, and her recurring financial difficulties that she faced without
much guidance were not connected to her interests. She instead persevered by reminding herself
about the challenges she had already overcome. “I think, all the obstacles that I’ve gone through.
I’ve gotten this far. I just tell myself, like imagine if you just continue, how far you’re going to
get.” Sara also seemed to increase her effort in college not due to her interests, but instead thanks
to the influence of the rules and role models in her sorority.
Dynamic nature of grit. Sara’s story was also a useful example of the dynamic nature of
grit. Sara, who had the highest grit score at the time of the survey, likely would have answered
the grit scale items differently before joining her sorority. Her cumulative GPA used in this study
included not only the recent grades from after she got her “priorities straight,” but also her poorer
grades from the beginning of college, perhaps when her grit scale score would have been lower
as well.
Maria has taken on two majors and a minor and struggled with relating to the more
privileged students in her classes. She also spoke of commuting challenges that resulted in her
often walking to campus in the middle of the night and sleeping in academic buildings. Despite
having the lowest score on the grit scale of the students interviewed (2.17), she estimated that she
would have a 5 on the grit scale due to her “positive attitude of moving forward” and “learning
even if you did make a mistake.” She also said “for a long time I didn't know what I was going to
do” but now believes that she is “very driven to move forward towards [her] current goals.” Her
actual grit scale score and her own estimation of her grit, particularly consistency of interests,
would most likely have been lower when she was “all over the place my freshman year,” as she
took “intro to everything,” and as each college she “applied to was under a different major.”
176

Different conceptions of perseverance. Just as various conceptions of interests exist
among students, so do numerous ways of thinking about perseverance of effort. For example,
one student I interviewed named no one in her survey, and spoke of her “stubbornness” and
“hardheadedness” that gave her a “drive to not give up on anything. Like spending four and a
half years as an accounting major” and repeating several classes two or three times when she did
not pass. She finally switched her major to a better fit after talking with an advisor semesters
after she should have, she admitted in the interview.
Some students like Stella, spent so much time researching for answers and navigating
bureaucratic structures that it likely detracted from their studies. As Stella said, “I just really kind
of more like do it on my own, but then when I know I’m reaching a level where I just can't
anymore, I try to reach out.” But, she acknowledged, “I don’t always know where to reach out,”
regarding financial aid challenges in particular. Other students seemed to use their grit to seek
out any and all support to meet their needs. Almost apologetically, Maria laughingly answered
how she will overcome obstacles going forward to achieve her goals. “I know myself, I ask
questions. I ask questions a lot. It’s annoying.” Similarly, Julia shared “I think it’s just continuing
to ask questions” to navigate financial obstacles. And, when it came to challenges with creating
course schedules and applying for graduate schools, Julia said she has found peers for each of
these to “figure it out together.”
FGCS respond to many of the same challenges, as well as several others that their non-
FGCS counterparts likely either do not face, or at least have college-educated parents who can
help them navigate. Applying the construct of grit to these types of challenges (i.e., financial,
commuting, cultural, etc.) makes understanding the construct even more complicated than when
considering strictly academic challenges or only students with college-educated parents. As we
177

know, in higher education, academics are only part of the experience, and students with college-
educated parents are decreasing in proportion on many college campuses.
This initial finding concerning grit’s complexity in the context of higher education relates
particularly to Findings 2 and 3. Perhaps the largest reason that grit is more complex than the
initial grit research suggests relates to Finding 3, which connects grit to elements of social
capital. Before explaining that finding central to this study, I first attend to the finding that this
multifaceted construct of grit is not statistically related to academic success as measured by
cumulative GPA, yet social capital is predictive of FGCS students cumulative GPA at PU.
Finding 2: Grit is not related to FGCS cumulative GPA, but access to social capital with
faculty and staff is predictive of FGCS cumulative GPA at PU.
Grit and cumulative GPA. Despite prior research using OLS regression suggesting grit
scale scores were predictive of college students’ GPA (Duckworth et al., 2007; Strayhorn, 2013),
in this study, grit was not found to be a significant predictor of FGCS cumulative GPA.
Moreover none of the correlations exploring the relationship of FGCS cumulative GPA with grit
scale scores or its two components (consistency of interests and perseverance of effort) produced
significant results. Several explanations may have existed for this such as the use of self-reported
GPA and not collecting major GPA in this study. Also the prior studies using grit to forecast
GPA were either with all psychology majors (Duckworth et al., 2007) or all black male college
students (Strayhorn, 2013), whereas this current study had a diverse group of FGCS with a wide
variety of majors. One additional plausible explanation was that the increased complexity of grit
in the context of FGCS lives had contributed to the lack of significant relationship between grit
and GPA.
178

For instance, one of the few significant correlations involving grit’s components, not
surprisingly, was a positive relationship between perseverance of effort and the combined
number of hours that students worked on and off campus. This was consistent with prior research
that suggested that grittier individuals work longer hours in general (Duckworth et al., 2007).
Prior research suggested higher academic performance for college students working between 10
and 19 hours per week (Dundes & Marx, 2014). Over 20% of the FGCS in this study worked
more than 20 hours per week and many added on several hours for their commutes. One of these
students was Stella, who traveled to three different areas between home, school and work. In
addition to financial necessity, students' grit, particularly perseverance of effort, may have led
them to work longer hours (i.e., over 20) at the expense of their grades, particularly those who
commuted. At least one professor recognized this as he gave a FGCS the option of “quitting the
job at the mall” to instead get paid through work study funds to study in the professor’s office for
10 hours per week. Perhaps if FGCS were not faced with the burden of working longer hours or
navigating the other cultural, commuting and financial challenges that are less often experienced
by their non-FGCS counterparts, FGCS grit—perseverance and passion for long-term goals—
may be found to be associated with their overall GPA.
Students’ cumulative GPA included many classes that were less relevant, if at all, to their
interests than the classes they have taken for their major courses of study. Although not collected
in this study, students’ major GPA may have been a much more appropriate outcome variable
given their majors were more likely to be relevant to the consistency of interests portion of grit,
and perhaps even the perseverance of effort. Thomas was a classic example of this idea that
major GPA may have been more appropriate. He told me his major GPA was 3.7 while his
cumulative GPA was 2.7. Cumulative GPA also included the grades from freshman year, which
179

was two or three years prior to the time of the survey. Recall Sara, as with many other students,
who struggled with grades in the beginning of college more so than later in college. As a result,
using a more recent measure of GPA may have been useful in this analysis.
Social capital and cumulative GPA. In the final OLS regression model (4.1) presented
in Chapter 4, faculty/staff outdegree—a proxy for access to social capital—was found to be a
significant predictor of cumulative GPA. FGCS cumulative GPAs were projected to increase
0.03 points for each additional faculty or staff member a student named as someone on campus
that had provided informational support that had helped the survey respondent succeed in
college. None of the other social capital measures were found to be significant in any of the
regressions run in the analysis. Also significant in the final model, however, was whether or not
students commuted to campus.
Not surprisingly, commuter students were predicted to have a negative effect on their
cumulative GPA, that is, an expected decrease of 0.13 in GPA. The magnitude of this negative
effect (0.13 points) on cumulative GPA was over 4 times larger than the positive effect (0.03
points) of one additional faculty or staff member in the student’s network. These results
suggested that a commuter student may have been able to make up for the negative effect of
living at home with 5 faculty and staff in their information support network. Joseph is the only
commuter student profiled in Chapter 4 with more than 5 or more faculty and staff, 6 to be exact,
in his information support network. He was one of only 9 commuters in the survey sample who
had 5 or more faculty and staff in his information support network. No statistical difference
existed, however, between staff outdegree of commuter and non-commuter FGCS in the survey
sample.
180

Some of the advantages Joseph received through this support network of faculty and staff
included (a) gaining a work study job for four years in a central office on campus where he
learned about many of the important resources on campus; (b) connecting to a peer through the
work study job who ultimately supported him in managing the challenge of his commute by
offering her couch to him many nights when he had early classes; (c) obtaining academic
assistance with his writing assignments from a supervisor, and (d) receiving individualized
support in overcoming his culture shock from the FGCS program staff, as well as from a mentor
who personally identified with his circumstances. All these benefits provided resources and/or
removed barriers that allowed Joseph to focus more on academics than he otherwise would have
been able to without the benefit of his network. Joseph, who was in the 94
th
percentile of
faculty/staff network size in the sample, happened to provide disconfirming evidence for the only
other quantitative evidence that suggested a connection between GPA and social capital.
T-tests results suggested that students with above average cumulative GPAs in the
sample compared to students with below average GPAs had more faculty and staff who had
provided them with informational support generally, and specifically with regard to selecting and
registering for classes. This was expected as it was consistent with prior research reported in
Chapter 1 that found that faculty support and encouragement were related to increases in
students’ cumulative GPA (Lohfink & Paulsen, 2005; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). In Joseph’s
case, he had one of the largest faculty/staff networks yet has the lowest GPA of the 6 profiled
students (2.6) and only 5 of the 156 students surveyed had a lower cumulative GPA than Joseph.
The difference was that Joseph joined the FGCS scholars cohort his freshman year where he
began to build the network he now has that as a commuter student would not have been likely.
The other commuters profiled, Stella and Thomas, have 0 and 2 faculty in their networks,
181

respectively, and neither of them were involved or worked on campus. As Joseph said, his
mother was the reason he made it to college, “but actually staying through college and getting
through it was more the [FGCS] program here,” which “helped tremendously.”
The results of another t-test suggested that students with average GPAs also had larger
peer information support networks than do students with below average GPAs. This was
consistent with much of the qualitative data suggesting the students have academic role models
and study partners that likely supported their academic success. Also, as with Joseph, peers also
can mitigate other challenges in college that would have otherwise distracted from academics,
like offering a place to stay or recommending scholarships and other campus resources. No other
significant differences were found between students with above average and below average
GPAs regarding (a) their access to other types of informational support from faculty and staff or
peers, (b) the strength of ties to faculty, staff, or peers, or (c) their perception of social support on
campus, a benefit of social capital.
As I claimed earlier with grit, the inclusion of major GPA is relevant to the discussion of
social capital as well. The descriptive statistics and qualitative data suggested that the effect of
faculty/staff outdegree may have been even greater on major GPA in the OLS regression model
than the effect of faculty/staff outdegree on cumulative GPA in this study. A majority of
relationships through which students received informational support were with faculty and staff
connected to their major. Most of the academic support that was evident in the qualitative data
concerned students’ majors, rather than the other varied classes that make up students’
cumulative GPA. For examples remember Sara’s honing her interests in writing with the help of
her English professors and Stella’s developing interest in international relations and journalism
with the guidance of Dr. Paul. The only other faculty and staff that were named very often were
182

those institutional agents who are connected to the FGCS programs at PU or students’ work
study positions. Thomas, in contrast, seemed to receive support “particularly with thorny
advising issues” from Professor Hull who taught in his major but ultimately was most helpful in
mitigating the damage Thomas’s failing grades in core classes had on his cumulative GPA.
Finding 3: FGCS grit is related to social capital in multiple ways.
Part of the heterogeneity of grit that I began to explain with Finding 1 and will elaborate
throughout the chapter concerned the relationship between students’ grit and elements of social
capital in this study. The quantitative results suggested the following regarding grit and
informational support networks:
• Students with above average grit scale scores for this sample had larger
combined information support networks of faculty, staff, and peers than
participants with grit scale scores below the sample’s average.
• Students with above average grit scale scores were more likely to receive career
advice from faculty and staff the participants named in the survey than students
with below average grit scale scores.
• Students’ perseverance of effort was related to having stronger ties with a faculty
or staff member and had more relationships with faculty/staff that yielded advice
on studying.
For all of these findings relating aspects of grit to informational support, remaining unclear was
if the students who have higher grit scale scores took action to build these networks or to seek
advice; or, alternatively if faculty or staff, for example, may have been more likely to offer
career advice to students who happened to score highly on the grit scale or exhibit behaviors seen
183

to be consistent with perseverance of effort. The qualitative data shed some light on this
question.
Students’ agency vs. faculty/staff approach. Stella described Dr. Paul’s approach to
career advice. He made himself available to all students in his classes and said “if you’re
confused about where you’re going to go, or if you have any questions about where you should
go, graduate schools, law schools, policy schools…just come and talk to me, and we’ll figure
something out.” Stella’s above average grit score and high score on perseverance of effort
suggested that she would likely be one that would go on her own without coaching to talk to this
professor. She did just that and received individualized advice and referrals from Dr. Paul.
Despite her close and helpful relationship with Dr. Paul, Stella did not think to ask for his advice
when she perennially had financial aid difficulties that almost had her leave PU. Instead, she did
what she and others most often did, “figure it out on my own,” which was often consistent with
how students and others thought about perseverance.
Contrast Dr. Paul’s approach with Mrs. Brown’s, who was not one of the two staff
members Maria named on the survey, yet Maria talked about Mrs. Brown at length in her
interview as a key source of support at PU. Recall that Maria had the lowest grit scale score of
the sample and described herself as “usually passive.” Maria credited Mrs. Brown who “would
encourage me to talk to people, like the dean of my college, and I made an appointment with him
because of that.” Maria made it clear that the meeting would not have happened without Mrs.
Brown’s encouragement. This meeting, which later led to the Dean accepting Maria’s request to
speak to her class, likely increased her confidence in reaching out to faculty and staff in the
future. And recall that Maria now said she asks lots of questions and her robust extended network
can be seen in Figure 4.9.
184

An example of a student who may have needed even more direction in building social
capital is Joseph, whose grit scale score was well below the average for the sample. Joseph
expressed that he “[doesn’t] have an interest in [going to talk to professors]” and that even
though his mentor Mario “has referred me to people [on campus], me actually following through
– [Mario] knows that most of the time I won't.” But that did not stop Mario. “Occasionally
[Mario] will take me and he'll kind of like, we're going to walk over and talk to this person or
that person, depending on what it is.” These three examples of students—Stella, Maria, and
Joseph—establishing their social networks on campus speak to the differences in student agency
or grit in seeking support and building social capital, and faculty and staff approaches or
capability to both facilitate indirectly or directly provide support to students.
Like-minded peers and grit. FGCS who experienced above average social integration
on campus at PU had higher grit scale scores. Social integration on the Social Provisions Scale
used in this study refers to students having the experience that others on campus share their
values and interests (Russell & Cutrona, 1984). One explanation may have been that students
who had grit find other students who had grit to support one another. Sara credited her sorority
for helping her “to surround myself with people who also focus on school and who have the
same priorities as me and the same values and mindset, and I think that after I did that,
everything fell into place.” Julia also said for her it was “finding that group of people. It’s just
been essential.” She said, “It’s been my own grit and the grit or the motivation of other people
who believe in my grit.” These accounts were consistent with prior research (e.g., Palmer &
Gasman, 2008) that reported “positive peer pressure” (p. 60) as helpful to students’ success.
One computer science student pointed out that not only did his peer who he always found
in the engineering lounge directly support him academically, she was “a role model for me, just
185

her work ethic and going above and beyond.” This student also shared about role models that
were alumni from his major with whom the faculty and current students were still engaged.
“Seeing all the computer science students that have graduated already…now at companies like
Pandora, Yahoo, Google, and at SpaceX and it’s crazy, just seeing them actually do that and
actually follow through…that’s just like the next step, and seeing what I’ll be able to do.” Sara
who said “the hardest thing about being at PU was really putting my priorities straight,” said it
was her sorority sister Mary that provided Sara with a model of working hard. “[Mary] is one of
the most focused people I know. She is so on top of everything…I see Mary and I'm like, this is
what I should be doing. God, she's so smart. It's ridiculous.”
Interestingly, a negative relationship was suggested by the correlation between
perseverance of effort and the strength of ties to peers from whom students receive informational
support. One question this raised was, who were the peers the students responding to the surveys
are close to? Are they peers who have a positive influence? The presumption is that students will
only name peers who are role models for being successful in college and putting in the effort to
do so. Most peer nominations of the students interviewed for the study were either role models or
peers who the students “figured it out together.” However, there were at least a few examples of
“learning what not to do,” as Sara said of her ex-boyfriend with whom she was still very close.
She received a lot of emotional support from him and would compare him “not managing his
time well” and “waiting until two days before a test to start studying” with another peer, to
whom she said she was less close, but viewed as a positive role model who would always “do a
two week cushion” to study before tests. One of Joseph’s three peer nominations was a friend
who had left PU before graduating. Fortunately, another of Joseph’s peer nominations was
Maria.
186

Faculty and staff as reliable alliance for consistency of interests. One component of
perceived social support, reliable alliance, was found to be related to grit and consistency of
interests, but surprisingly not significantly associated with the perseverance of effort aspect of
grit. Reliable alliance represents students’ belief that others on campus—faculty, staff, or other
students—can be depended on for support in any circumstance. Developing and refining interests
was one common challenge that I highlighted in Chapter 4 where many FGCS found reliable
alliances at PU.
Maria, for example, added one of her majors after an impactful conversation with Dr. G.
She’s “that one person that motivates,” Maria stated. “You want to do this? What's holding you
back?” said Dr. G. after quietly listening to Maria for about 40 minutes talk about her interest in
the subject. Maria also had her “life guru” Mrs. Brown asking her questions early on in college
like “What do you want to do with your life?” And, now as she completes college, she extended
her network to others on campus who have supported her interest in the field of Student Affairs.
Sara initially had her sorority sister and later multiple faculty who supported her in
honing her skills and interest in writing, and also “instilled a lot of confidence in my writing
abilities.” It was clear that Stella’s discussions with Dr. Paul and taking three of his classes had
helped her to hone her interests and goals to attend graduate school. And Thomas was very
appreciative of the access he had to his faculty. Not only did Thomas receive guidance on what
he called his “thorny advising issues,” and “to talk about weird esoteric programming
languages,” he was also grateful for his faculty’s willingness to share their network of alumni
and others working in students’ area of interest. All of these forms of support and access to social
networks serve to engage and deepen students’ interests, contributing to their grit in general, and
consistency of interests in particular.
187

Reliable alliance is a measure of students’ confidence that people on campus will be
present to help them persevere when challenges arise. Given that characterization of reliable
alliance, the fact that it was not found to be significantly related to perseverance of effort was
surprising. There was qualitative evidence, however, that students found reliable alliances
whether with their peers with whom they “figured it out together,” or (other than Stella) in
navigating financial aid, or in completing challenging assignments. For example, one computer
science student and one civil engineering student who both had relatively high scores for reliable
alliance (3.25 out of 4.00) also both commented on knowing they could always find support from
peers or faculty in their respective departmental lounges when they encountered challenges with
their academic work in particular. These academic challenges were relevant to their respective
major fields of study which perhaps contributed to their consistency of interests in these subjects.
A useful example of a reliable alliance was Joseph’s mentor in the FGCS mentoring
program, Mario. Remember, Joseph overcame an extended culture shock in coming to PU and
was fortunate to be paired with a mentor who not only attended PU years earlier, but also grew
up in the same area as Joseph to help him. Mario also modelled for Joseph what it looked like to
be a professional person from their neighborhood working at a university. Mario was able to
provide a unique support to Joseph. He understood what it took to persevere through the
challenges of being one of the few young men from their neighborhood to pursue a higher
education, and at PU in particular. Joseph, who joined the FGCS scholars cohort which
connected him to a job on campus and a male mentor from his home area, is a great example of
the final theme I discuss next, concerning the variation in FGCS access to social capital at PU.

188

Finding 4: FGCS access to and benefits of social capital varies based on students’
background and involvement on campus in expected and unexpected ways.
The FGCS at PU were diverse on a number of levels, including family background and
campus involvement. The results of this study suggested that many of these differences were
involving students’ access to and benefits of social capital at PU in many predictable and some
unanticipated ways. Both the qualitative and quantitative data support the assertion that student
involvement on PU’s campus was how many FGCS gained access to and ultimately benefitted
from social capital. Not surprisingly, FGCS involved in an appropriable social organization or
intentional student organization have access to larger networks of faculty, staff, and peers. In
addition to the traditional appropriable social organizations like community service organizations
or Greek organizations, some alternatives to these appropriable social organizations emerged in
the qualitative data as important sources of social capital for FGCS, namely work study jobs and
department lounges/labs.
Alternatives to appropriable social organizations. Work study jobs were created for
another purpose—to supplement students’ grant and loan financial aid—yet the unintended
benefits students received may be as valuable as the paycheck. FGCS in this study who had work
study jobs had larger peer and combined faculty/staff/peer support networks than FGCS who did
not have work study jobs. As discussed in Chapter 4, students benefited in many ways, including
learning to work in a professional environment, leadership skills, social support of staff and
peers, knowledge of campus resources, exploring career options, and access to institutional
agents’ referrals.
Several departments had different versions of the Computer Science lab that Thomas
described in great detail in Chapter 4. Other students who lived on campus credited the CS lab
189

and other hybrid academic/social spaces where faculty were also accessible. These sorts of
physical spaces on campus were useful for FGCS wanting to connect with faculty and peers who
shared their academic and other interests, especially one like Thomas who commuted and had
limited time on campus due to his job off campus. Fisher, Landry, and Naumer (2007) had
conducted work on what they had called “information grounds,” which included information-rich
social spaces on college campuses and other settings. These spaces could be designed to
facilitate interaction between faculty, staff, and students, and promote the flow of information
and support.
The added benefit of being intentional. Students who were members of the FGCS
mentoring program at PU, an intentional organization designed to foster social capital (Coleman,
1988), not surprisingly experienced more social support than non-members, particularly
reporting higher levels of guidance and social integration through their support system at PU. As
reported in Finding 3, FGCS who experienced above average social integration on campus at PU
have higher grit scale scores, on average, compared to FGCS who report below average social
integration.
Whereas the data suggested that appropriable social organizations were valuable in
generating social capital among peers primarily, intentional organizations were more likely to
facilitate social capital between students and faculty and staff institutional agents. Members of
intentional organizations in general, and the FGCS mentoring program in particular, had larger
networks of faculty and staff and stronger ties to them as well. They also received informational
support in all five categories (i.e., campus resources, career advice, jobs and internships,
selecting and registering for classes, choosing a major) from more faculty and staff than did non-
members. From the qualitative data, we learned that much of the advice on careers, jobs and
190

internships related to engaging students’ academic interests and career goals. The guidance
students received in academic course selection was also mostly in the realm of their academic
major as a majority of the faculty/staff relationships were connected to students’ major course of
study.
Attending to the most vulnerable. Despite the evidence of social capital benefits for the
FGCS involved on campus, there was evidence that certain populations experience less social
support on campus. For example, Pell grant recipients were less likely to perceive having a
reliable alliance at PU. This is not a surprising finding given that we know that not only do Pell
grant recipients have a lower income, they also are more likely to be financially independent or
have dependents of their own (Wei & Horn 2002). As the Pell grant recipients at PU perhaps
have dealt with challenges in life with little or no support, they may have assumed that they will
“figure it out on their own” in college as well.
As I have said, the reliable alliance that emerged in the qualitative data relates to faculty
and staff serving as a consistent support for students in developing and refining their interests.
The qualitative data suggested that Dr. Paul, Stella’s sole faculty/staff nomination may be
considered a reliable alliance for Stella in this area. However, Stella, a Pell recipient who
struggled to navigate financial aid never thought to ask Dr. Paul for his support or advice, and
Dr. Paul never asked. The data also suggested that in Dr. Paul’s department and at PU in general,
there likely were resources that could have been of some assistance to Stella if she had been
connected to the right people.
Similarly students who were truly the very first in their immediate families to complete
college not surprisingly experienced less guidance than other FGCS. Also expectedly, these
students had fewer faculty and staff providing support regarding jobs and internships. Students
191

who were the first sibling to go to college were presumably less likely to have had significant
college knowledge prior to entering college, or to have known about or taken advantage of
campus resources. A different approach or level of guidance from matriculation to graduation
may be necessary for these FGCS compared to those who had immediate family members with
college experience. One specific area of guidance that these FGCS need more often was
supporting students in having specific conversations with parents about college, including about
their changing majors, internships (often unpaid) and the various career options they may
consider. Julia, who was the very first in her family to go to college, experienced anxiety as she
struggled to discuss with her mother that her initial goal of pursuing law school after PU may
change. Luckily, Julia had Dr. G.’s guidance in having these conversations.
Counterintuitive disparities: the intersection of race, religion, and immigration at
PU. Many of the results regarding differences in access to and benefits of social capital between
students of different backgrounds were counterintuitive. One unanticipated result was that
African American and Latino FGCS had larger networks of faculty, staff and students from
whom they receive informational support. Latino FGCS also had closer ties with the faculty and
staff from whom they receive informational support than non-Latinos. The strength of
relationships was evident in the interviews of several Latinos.
Although Maria only had two staff nominations, both were strong connections to Dr. G.
and Veronica. Also she had her close relationship with her “life guru” Mrs. Brown who had since
left PU. Julia referred to Dr. G. as an “integral part of my life,” speaking to the importance and
strength of that relationship for her. Most of these relationships that these and other Latinas/os
had with faculty and staff were through the FGCS programs or other intentional organizations on
campus that are directed to underrepresented students of color. Curiously, Pell grant recipients
192

had stronger faculty/staff ties, and receive informational support regarding studying,
jobs/internships, and career advice from more faculty than non-Pell grant recipients. As it turns
out, 77% of Pell recipients in the sample were students of color who were likely connecting with
faculty through intentional organizations, or cultural organizations on campus.
Given that white students generally have been found to be more integrated academically
and socially on predominately white campuses like PU than students of color (Tinto, 2012), it
was initially surprising that white FGCS at PU experienced less social integration. That is, they
less often perceived sharing common interests and values with others on campus. White FGCS
also had less strong ties to faculty and staff than did non-white FGCS. This might be explained in
part by the fact that white FGCS in the sample were less involved than non-white FGCS in
appropriable social organizations (61% vs. 69%) and intentional organizations (12% vs. 28%).
Only two white FGCS surveyed were in the FGCS mentoring or scholars program which were
found to be associated with social integration at PU. And, although only 31% of the FGCS in this
study were white, 42% of the students who were the very first in their immediate family to attend
college were white.
Furthermore, 81% of FGCS in the sample who had a mother born in the U.S. were white
and 72% of students with immigrant mothers were Latino. This helped to explain the
counterintuitive finding that students with immigrant mothers had stronger ties to faculty and
staff than students whose mothers were born in the U.S. The same findings applied to Latino
FGCS vs. non-Latinos as Latinos were largely the same group as students with immigrant
mothers, just as students who had mothers who were born in the U.S. were largely the same
group as white FGCS in the sample.
193

Given that PU is a Catholic university, the result suggesting Catholic FGCS experienced
more social integration than non-Catholics was not particularly surprising. Interestingly only
24% of white FGCS at PU were Catholic, compared to 71% of non-white FGCS. This may have
also contributed to white FGCS not feeling as integrated on campus. Also counterintuitively, t-
test results suggested that students who had parents with some college experience and students
who had fathers who were born in the U.S. were also less socially integrated at PU. These made
more sense after considering that 56% of the students with parents who had some college
experiences and 64% of those with fathers born in the U.S. were white FGCS.
Not surprisingly, FGCS who had an immigrant father had smaller peer networks. They
also unexpectedly had stronger peer ties than students whose fathers were born in the U.S.
Perhaps these students simply had smaller numbers of closer peers. Over three quarters (78%) of
the FGCS whose fathers were foreign born were Latino, and 61% of commuters had immigrant
fathers. One Latina commuter talked about “[her] culture, [and that her] dad’s really strict” as
reasons for not having been able to sleep over a friend’s residence hall at PU. This spoke to her
and others’ constrained options for building peer relationships at PU.
These findings together suggest FGCS grit is multifaceted in large part due to the benefits
of social capital, informational and social support received through their social network of
relationships on campus that had contributed to their grit and success in higher education. Next, I
apply these findings to a re-conceptualization of the theoretical construct of grit, and to creating
an ideal type of institutional agent for FGCS and encouraging their grit.
Theoretical Implications: The Heterogeneity of Grit, Social Capital, and FGCS
Though FGCS at PU may have shared some commonalities in their experiences in
college—they were a very diverse group in many respects. Some of these differences highlighted
194

in this study include, but were not limited to, race and ethnicity, religion, immigrant experience,
parent and sibling experience with college, employment and level of student involvement on
campus. Some common challenges for FGCS emerged in interviews that were likely faced less
often with non-FGCS (e.g., developing interests, cultural challenges, commuting, financial aid).
Even so, much heterogeneity existed in how these challenges were experienced and overcome by
students, particularly the degree of their access and use of social capital. In what follows I
discuss the theoretical implications of this study to the concept of grit, highlighting the
importance of consistency of interests and the intersections with social capital. I also extend
Stanton-Salazar’s (2011) concept of institutional agents and distinguish the ideal type of
institutional agent for FGCS and encouraging grit. To help understand the theoretical
implications of the study, I present and explain a conceptual model of the intersection of grit and
social capital, Figure 5.4.
Conceptual Model: Intersection of Grit and Social Capital
A brief review of the theoretical argument from Chapter 2 helps make sense of the
conceptual model of grit I present in this chapter. First, refer to Figure 5.1 which reflects the
current individualistic view of grit, placing it in the center of circles representing human capital
and cultural capital, which both reside within the province of the individual. Next, Figure 5.2
shows the new conceptualization of grit which now is located at the center of human, cultural,
and social capital. I have argued that grit, especially in the context of higher education, is not
only an individual’s characteristic, but also a function of factors related to the social structure
and institutional actors, represented by social capital. Lastly, refer to Figure 5.3 depicting the
conceptualization of grit as the overlap of consistency of interests and perseverance of effort,
with related theories and concepts for both components. Figure 5.4 which I describe below is a
195

revision of Figure 5.3, using the findings of this study that support the addition of social capital
into the conception and discourse of grit.

Figure 5.1. Current individualistic conception of grit at the intersection of human capital and
cultural capital

Human Capital
• Knowledge
• Skills
• Abilities
• Health

Cultural Capital
• Attitudes
• Behaviors
• Appearance
• Style of speech

GRIT
196

Human
Capital

Cultural
Capital

GRIT
Social
Capital

Figure 5.2. Grit at the intersection of human capital, cultural capital, and social capital

197

Figure 5.3. Grit’s two components and underlying theories and construct

Figure 5.4 shows grit located at the center of consistency of interests, perseverance of effort, and
social capital. Now, direct your attention to the bottom left of Figure 5.4., which represents the
connection between social capital and the often overlooked, consistency of interests.
Perseverance of Effort
• Possible Selves & Self-efficacy
• Higher Order Purpose
• Resilience & Optimistic
Explanatory Style

Consistency of Interests
• Intrinsic Interests
• Harmonious Passion
• Mastery Goal Orientation

GRIT
198

The important overlooked role of consistency of interests. As has been discussed
earlier, the discourse on grit privileges the perseverance of effort aspect of grit. For example, if a
student persists to graduation and receives a respectable GPA, it is thought to be because he or
she has grit to overcome obstacles to persevere. This common misconception of grit excludes the
other half of the construct—consistency of interests. The study’s findings suggest that
overlooking or diminishing this half of grit is problematic particularly for FGCS.
Figure 5.4. Conceptual model of grit at the intersection of consistency of interests,
perseverance of effort and social capital
199

We know that FGCS not only likely have less knowledge about college, including the
options for majors and careers as they enter college (Bell, Rowan-Keyon, Perna, 2006; Conley,
2008). Also nationwide, FGCS tend to limit their choices of college majors to ones that they can
easily see connecting directly to a particular job or profession, often in a vocational or technical
field (Chen & Carroll, 2005). They less often choose majors in the social sciences, humanities,
sciences, and engineering, which may be more related to the interests they have yet to explore
meaningfully.
All of the juniors and seniors I interviewed at PU were currently in majors consistent
with their interests, which was in part what had led to their successfully persisting in college. Just
like many college students, many had not begun college having their interests clearly defined.
The findings of the study suggested that FGCS overcame that challenge in part through the
informational and social support received through their network of relationships at PU. This
support included in particular one aspect of social support—reliable alliance—or confidence that
faculty, staff, and peers on campus can be depended on in any circumstance, including in
developing and refining emerging interests. Informational support in the form of internship and
career advice helped to bring awareness that students’ interests were relevant to a wider variety
of career options than many FGCS had been previously exposed. And, lastly, connecting
students to resources, including individuals on and off campus, relevant to the students’ interests
and career goals further supported their development of grit.
According to Coleman’s (1988) theory of social capital, connecting students to other
students or faculty and staff also promotes closure within the network. That is, connections
between network members are stronger when individuals in the network associate with the same
individuals in the network (Coleman, 1988; Museus & Neville, 2012). See Figures 4.5 for the
200

combined networks of the three students profiled in the FGCS mentoring program (i.e., Maria,
Joseph, and Julia) and Figure 4.9 for Maria’s extended network. These are two useful visual
examples of the interconnections of a social network with a degree of closure. As we know,
closure helps to create and maintain social capital within a network and also to promote trust
within the network (Burt, 2000). Intentionally connecting FGCS to network members based on
interests and goals can be a way to promote both grit and social capital. Next, direct your
attention to the bottom right corner of Figure 5.4, for the interaction of perseverance of effort
with elements of social capital. As I will discuss, students’ interests continue to be relevant to
this relationship, further increasing its importance to grit overall.
Social capital and perseverance of effort lead back to interests. Much of the evidence
of a relationship between elements of social capital and the perseverance of effort aspect of grit
related back to consistency of interests. For example, one type of informational support—study
tips—was found to be consistent with perseverance of effort, but not to consistency of interests.
Some of the discussions about classes and studying were occasionally regarding electives or core
requirements. Most often, however, students were seeking support around courses within their
majors. This support was likely relevant to consistency of interests.
Another way that social capital played a role in students’ perseverance of effort was
through peer role models who exhibited productive academic behaviors and work ethic that
successful FGCS followed. Role models in this study were also formal and informal mentors.
Especially when the mentors shared common interests, values, or backgrounds with the students,
they could have had a unique influence on students’ persistence in college by first empathizing
with the student, providing advice, referring students to resources and relevant individuals with
the mentor’s network.
201

Students’ peers as well as close relationships with faculty and staff were also
instrumental in many of the students’ college careers in helping students maintain what I called
in Chapter 4 the “grit mindset.” Fostering a grit mindset includes (as discussed in Chapter 2 as
consistent with perseverance of effort; see Figure 5.3): (a) encouraging an optimistic explanatory
style (Seligman, 1990) and (b) self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977; Multon, Brown, & Lent, 1991). To
promote the grit mindset institutional agents may also often remind FGCS of their (c) higher
order purpose for pursuing and completing their higher education (Campa, 2010; Damon, 2008)
and (d) how today’s efforts are connected to their long-term goals, or their possible selves
(Markus & Nurius, 1986; Pizzolato, 2006). Consistently reminding FGCS of these ideas
especially during hard times can foster the grit mindset. Essentially the grit mindset keeps FGCS
focused on their interests and goals.
Theories at the nexus of interests and effort. The results of the study were inconclusive
regarding exactly how the consistency of interests aspect of grit related to perseverance of effort.
However, two of the theories that I have argued are underpinnings of perseverance of effort and
the grit mindset (i.e., higher order purpose and possible selves) are also relevant to the
consistency of interests discussion. They are depicted at the top of Figure 5.4 as helping to
understand the relationship between perseverance of effort and consistency of interests. A
student can be supported in connecting his or her interests to a purpose that transcends the self,
increasing effort and engaging interests in a way that is likely to encourage them to persist over
time. For example, Thomas credited PU’s mission of social justice and Professor Hull in
particular, for helping Thomas to recognize he was in a “relatively small subset of humankind”
with a “unique skill set (i.e., computer programming)…to better society in some way.”
202

Maria’s relationship with Veronica, a Latina Student Affairs staff member, was a
valuable example of how social capital and consistency of interest related to possible selves.
Maria struggled connecting her academic interests to career options until she saw her possible
self through a role model on campus, Veronica, who also shared Maria’s ethnic background. By
having access to the advice and guidance of someone like Veronica in a professional role to
which she aspired, Maria was empowered to achieve her long-term goal or, as the theory would
suggest, her desired possible self (Pizzolato, 2006). These examples of theoretical constructs in
action that reside conceptually at the nexus of perseverance of effort and consistency of interests
further support the argument that the consistency of interests side of grit receive much more
consideration when conceptualizing grit and in the practice of supporting FGCS to be successful.
Although the use of social capital theory to re-conceptualize grit in this study pointed to
issues related to social structure and institutional agents, this was not to suggest students did not
have agency in their success or failure in college. As Coleman’s (1988) view of social capital
suggested, student agency or grit played a role in developing and using social capital. But as I
have also suggested above, faculty and staff had an active part to play in developing and
encouraging grit and facilitating the development of social capital even when students were
reluctant to initially take action.
Grit’s role in developing and using social capital. The direction of relationships
between elements of grit and social capital were often unclear. For example, career advice was
more readily available to FGCS with above average grit scale scores in the study. The double-
sided arrows in Figure 5.4, between consistency of interests and social capital, for instance, are
meant to suggest a potential bidirectional influence of the two. For example, we do not know
whether (a) students higher in grit sought out career advice more often, exhibiting student
203

agency; (b) students who had exhibited some traditional grit-like qualities or behaviors (e.g.,
strong work ethic) had signaled to faculty and staff their worthiness of this important benefit of
social capital—an example of faculty and staff gatekeeping resources (Stanton-Salazar, 2011); or
the more likely scenario was that (c) there was a combination of these two explanations. Varying
levels of student agency likely depended on a combination of students’ understanding the
importance of and comfortability in taking actions necessary to develop and employ social
capital. Student willingness to take action, or to at least reveal relevant information, was often
necessary for students to build or benefit from social capital in this study. However, institutional
agents on college campuses, like PU, can still play a multidimensional proactive role in
facilitating social capital with FGCS on campus, and developing students’ grit in the process.
Conceptualizing the Ideal Type of Institutional Agent for FGCS and Grit
Some of the supportive faculty, staff, or peers that were named by students in this study
supported students in overcoming challenges in one particular area or domain. If a FGCS had a
network consisting of different people for different domains, the student may have been
sufficiently supported. In contrast, if the student had one or very few connections with supportive
faculty and staff, they may have been “figuring it out” on their own in other domains unless they
were connected to someone who was well-connected to other network members to support them
in other domains. Being well-connected is an important part of being an institutional agent.
However, as I introduced in Chapter 2, other important criteria have been identified by Stanton-
Salazar (2011). Using the findings of this study I extend the definition and criteria of institutional
agents of Stanton-Salazar (2011) to create what I call the ideal type of institutional agent for
FGCS and for promoting grit (see Figure 5.5). I now turn to the five areas the results of this
204

study suggested will enable institutional agents to support FGCS developing grit and succeeding
in college.

1. Knowledge of FGCS needs. Institutional agents, in general, are willing to facilitate
resources and support to benefit students. An ideal type of institutional agent for a FGCS knows
what resources, opportunities or support will make a difference for the student. An individual
student may or may not volunteer all the necessary information, however, to effectively support
the student. Essential for the ideal type of institutional agent is knowing the cues and questions to
ask that are likely to draw out relevant information from the student. Sharing the FGCS status or
Figure 5.5. Ideal type of institutional agent for FGCS and grit
205

some other commonality based on academic or other interest, gender, race/ethnicity, class,
geography, etc. is helpful in developing a closer relationship with students who then may feel
more comfortable sharing important information that will ultimately allow the institutional agent
to best support the student.
2. Empowering FGCS. Stanton-Salazar (2011) wrote about the opportunity for
institutional agents to empower students not only in navigating the terrain of the university to
retrieve useful resources, but also empower students with a “critical consciousness, with the
means to transform themselves, their communities, and society as a whole.” (p. 7). In the
context of this study, the ideal type of institutional agent for FGCS and grit in part can empower
students by first supporting students in refining and engaging their interests, passions, and goals
on an ongoing basis.
By continuously encouraging students’ grit mindset, drawing upon possible selves and
higher order purpose for their higher education and career goals, institutional agents may be
more successful engaging FGCS in critical conversations about transforming their communities
and society. These types of conversations are likely to help students persist when challenges
arise. Not only will FGCS know they have support from the institutional agent, but also are
reminded of and are focused on the big picture to keep them engaged in their interests and
motivated to sustain their effort.
3. Detailed knowledge of network. To fully empower students in creating social capital
that develops grit, the ideal type of institutional agent will not only have a resource-rich social
network (Stanton-Salazar, 2011). Also essential is detailed knowledge of the resources
embedded in the network. In particular, the ideal type of institutional agent for developing FGCS
206

grit is fully aware of the interests—academic and otherwise—of those in the institutional agent’s
social network to deliberately connect with students.
Whereas knowledge of interests of faculty and staff is essential, also pertinent is
knowledge of the student body and alumni. Familiarity with those students who are well-
connected or can serve as role models for perseverance of effort and academic success is
especially important for the ideal type of institutional agent. This aspect of the ideal type of
institutional agent, as has been discussed earlier, will also generate closure among relationships
(Coleman, 1988) in the network based on interests which ultimately will maintain social capital
and trust in the network.
4. Willingness to play active ongoing role. Similar to students, as we saw in the
qualitative data, faculty and staff also have varying degrees of comfortability or willingness to
take actions necessary to generate social capital. Coleman’s theory of social capital (1988)
implies that a sense of obligation motivates institutional agents, possibly due to reciprocation or
trust from prior interactions and common relationships to others in the network. Or perhaps the
obligation is experienced as a professional responsibility or simply belonging to a community
like PU, one that has a mission to care for the whole student.
The obligation or willingness of the ideal type of institutional agent is not just simply to
recommend a resource or referral, but to play an active role in referring a student to resources
and individuals in the institutional agent’s network. This may look like making a direct phone
call to a colleague, being proactive in following up with the student and “closing the loop” with
the referral within the institutional agents’ network. A faculty, staff or peer may provide a
blanket invitation to offer support in a particular area, which is helpful but is not sufficient for an
institutional agent for a FGCS. The ideal type of institutional agent also offers individualized
207

support on an ongoing basis in an area of expertise and ensures the student is aware of the
opportunity to ask questions or discuss issues outside of the institutional agents’ area. This gives
the institutional agent the opportunity to connect the FGCS to someone else in the network who
can offer more specialized support.
5. Bringing intentionality. Lastly, the ideal type of institutional agent has the ability to
influence and bring intentionality to one or more of the following sites for social capital
formation for FGCS: (a) student organizations, (b) campus employment positions, and (c)
physical spaces on campus. Bringing intentionality comprises two interrelated aspects. First is
understanding the diversity of FGCS on one’s campus (i.e., race, ethnicity, income, immigration,
family experience with college, commuters, transfers, etc.). This is helpful in addressing the
intersectionality of identities and circumstances, and the complexity of the challenges FGCS face
in higher education. For example, the data suggest that PU ought to pay closer attention to their
white FGCS, perhaps creating a strategy to recruit them to join intentional organizations for
FGCS.
The second facet of bringing intentionality is learning lessons from successful intentional
organizations (Coleman, 1988), which recall are designed for the purpose of facilitating social
capital, and applying these lessons intentionally to other sites for students to access social capital.
Appropriable social organizations at PU, then, may be able to help students develop more
meaningful relationships early in college with faculty and staff similar to what happened with the
FGCS mentoring and scholars programs at PU. Recall that faculty/staff relationships (i.e.,
faculty/staff outdegree) were found to be predictive of increases in GPA. The qualitative data
also suggested students benefited in manifold ways from their connections to faculty and staff.
Only 23% of FGCS at PU participate in intentional organizations and 67% participate in
208

appropriable social organizations. Bringing this intentionality of connecting students to faculty
and staff based on common interests to appropriable social organizations can ultimately benefit
more FGCS and their academic success.
Aspects of appropriable social organizations may be adopted in intentional organizations
as well as members of appropriable social organizations tended to experience more social
integration on PU’s campus. Bringing the intentionality to how students in jobs on campus are
mentored and how physical spaces in academic departments and other common areas on campus
are designed to facilitate access to social capital are also ways that the ideal type of institutional
agent supports the generation of social capital for FGCS and promote grit.
Implications for Research
Although many of the results in the study were not significant, the methods used and
lessons learned in this study are useful to future researchers with access to larger and more
diverse samples (i.e., including non-FGCS). Next I discuss two overall implications for research.
I first focus on strengthening and expanding the research on grit, and then turn to a discussion of
using socio-centric networks for social network analysis studying FGCS and social capital on
college campuses.
Strengthening the Grit Research
Different academic outcomes. Given the findings of this study regarding grit’s
relationship to cumulative college GPA and the importance of interests to the construct of grit,
using major GPA as an outcome variable will be useful in future studies. By including an
academic indicator that is relevant to students’ interests and career goals, grit scale scores will
more likely be found to be related to academic success. Collecting student transcripts would
provide even more opportunities for exploring grit’s relationship to academics. For example, a
209

study could explore grit’s relationship to courses with long writing assignments vs. courses with
shorter weekly assignments. Comparing the effect of grit in different majors would also be useful
in understanding if and how grit is relevant in different fields. Also, to focus a study on FGCS
persistence, using outcomes (i.e., following years’ enrollment data) that directly reflect students’
persistence, or intent to persist would be useful in determining grit’s impact on college student
success.
Longitudinal studies. Prior research suggests that grit increases as individuals get older,
though that research examined people 25 years and older (Duckworth & Quinn, 2009). In this
study, I surveyed and interviewed students asking them to reflect up to 4 years or more prior to
this research about their experiences in college. Conducting a longitudinal study of college-aged
students, perhaps collecting grit scale data at the beginning of the freshman year, and again at the
end of the senior year, would allow for determining if the college experience significantly
contributed to a change in the grit scale scores. Similarly, collecting grit scale data before and
after each semester may provide even more opportunity to determine at what points during
college, if at all, their consistency of interests or perseverance of effort has changed in a
meaningful way.
Continuing to add qualitative inquiry. Each of the future studies proposed concerning
grit will benefit, as did the current research, from including a qualitative element. For example,
in the proposed longitudinal study, conducting one-on-one interviews after each time participants
take the grit scale will allow researchers to probe students concerning their answers to the grit
scale questions to determine if specific events may have impacted how students answered
particular questions. The inclusion of qualitative methods provided the opportunity to provide
context to students’ grit scale scores and add marginalized voices of FGCS to the discourse on
210

grit. This revealed the nature and complexity of the challenges that FGCS face and overcome in
college. Although we learned that faculty and staff connections are a significant predictor of
GPA, the qualitative interviews also revealed details of how students were supported by faculty
and staff in their networks that would not have been accessible through the network survey
alone. Future research can also explore further in-depth any one of the diverse challenges that
emerged for FGCS in this study, or the types of support that students received from their support
networks.
The addition of interviews also revealed that students’ survey responses were not always
reflected in their interview responses. A future study may ask students to respond directly to grit
scale items during an interview and compare these to their grit scale responses via a survey.
Interviewers can ask probing questions encouraging students to reflect on their experiences,
giving the participants an opportunity to explain or revise their responses to grit scale items. This
method may obtain more accurate grit scale scores than using the survey alone.
Using different theoretical frames. One final area to discuss regarding strengthening the
research on grit is using a diverse set of theories in research seeking to examine and understand
grit. In Chapter 2, and earlier in Chapter 5, I highlighted theories and constructs that are
consistent with one or both of the components of grit. For example, higher order purpose and
possible selves emerged as relevant to consider in future research, particularly because they
pertain to both aspects of grit—consistency of interest and perseverance of effort. Applying
theories of cultural capital would also be pertinent to examining FGCS and grit, mainly because
most students have developed grit through their upbringing and education prior to college. One
particular theoretical frame that would uniquely extend the grit research and this current study is
Yosso’s (2005) community cultural wealth.
211

Yosso’s (2005) model of community cultural wealth attends to students’ social networks
as social capital and is one of the six forms of capital that comprise community cultural wealth.
Others, particularly aspirational capital and navigational capital, are particularly congruent with
how grit has been conceptualized in this study. Familial, linguistic, and resistance are the other
three forms of capital that together form a critical consciousness of students in higher education
to understand their histories, communities, and society in ways that empower them to succeed.
Applying community cultural wealth to a study of FGCS and grit ultimately may provide a more
complete holistic view of the resources available to students that empowered them to be
successful in college. This framework is also useful in attending to the structural barriers and
constraints that successful FGCS overcome in higher education, perhaps through resistant capital
or navigational capital.
Expanding the Use of Social Network Analysis
This current study used ego-centric network data which allowed me to importantly gain
information about students’ immediate network of relationships on campus. The ego-centric
approach restricts the ability to assess the structure of the entire network which may reveal
constraints on FGCS access to social capital and other valuable information. With a socio-centric
network researchers can examine structural features of the whole network of an institution,
department, or program that may help understand FGCS academic achievement and persistence
(Borgatti & Ofem, 2010). I conclude this section by discussing two of these network features:
centrality and density.
Centrality. Students’ centrality in this study was measured by the number of outdegree
nominations. Given the nature of this study and the limitation of only surveying FGCS rather
than all students at PU, indegree nominations would not have been appropriate. A socio-centric
212

network of an entire department, program or university would allow a meaningful use of
indegree centrality, as Thomas (2000) employed finding indegree centrality associated with
college persistence. Future research with socio-centric networks can also deploy other centrality
measures such as eigenvector, a measure of access to other highly connected individuals in the
network (Valente, 2010). Eigenvector would be useful in understanding student access to
institutional agents on campus and the embedded support and resources within the network.
In the current study, institutional agents were identified through their number of
nominations and having the opportunity to interview the institutional agent and in many cases the
students who named them. Other institutional agents that were not identified in this study using
ego-centric networks may be easily located in the network when using a socio-centric network
approach. Furthermore, not only will the socio-centric approach examining a department or
university be able to identify the highly connected individuals, including institutional agents, it
also will allow researchers to identify isolated individuals with low indegree and outdegree
centrality. This is useful information for targeting support to the students who may need it the
most (Kezar, 2014).
Network Density. Future research that uses a socio-centric network approach will also
have the added benefit of determining important factors of the network, like density, which
relates to the proportion of actual relationships in a network out of the total possible relationships
in the network (Kadushin, 2012). Also by surveying all students in a network we can determine
the connectivity of the individuals in the ego’s network (Valente, 2010). An ego whose
relationships have not also formed relationships with one another has a less dense network.
Generally speaking, the density of students’ networks has been associated with higher academic
performance (Flethcer & Tienda, 2009; Rizzuto, LeDoux, & Hatala, 2009).
213

Density is also related to closure, a familiar term from Coleman’s (1988) social capital
theory, suggesting the increased connectivity among those whom a student is connected to
increases social capital through enforcing norms and sanctions and promoting trust in the
network (Burt, 2001). Preserving and maintaining resources is more likely in a denser network;
however, searching for and attaining resources may be more difficult due to lack of connectivity
to new sources of information outside of the network (Lin, 2001). The limited access to new
information could result in network closure having negative or unintended effects on the college
persistence of FGCS. The benefits and adverse consequences of network density and closure as it
concerns FGCS can be explored in future studies that use a socio-centric approach.
Concluding Remarks
This study sought to provide a re-conceptualization of the construct grit—perseverance
and passion for long-term goals—as it relates to FGCS success at one 4-year, private university.
To accomplish this goal, I used a mixture of qualitative and quantitative methods, including
social network analysis, to examine grit through the lens of social capital. The resulting analysis
produced a robust account of the challenges that FGCS faced and overcame primarily through
the conception of grit that I outlined and presented in Figure 5.4. This study suggests two major
interrelated conclusions about grit, an often over-simplified concept in educational discourse.
The first is that the consistency of interests aspect of grit is at least as important as the
perseverance of effort part of grit. Giving appropriate attention to this aspect of grit in research
and practice will likely benefit college students in general and FGCS in particular. Secondly,
especially for FGCS, maintaining a grit mindset and employing grit to navigate college and
overcome obstacles to succeed is very much intertwined with the use of embedded resources in
one’s social network on campus.
214

In particular, institutional agents can be more engaged in three areas: (a) with students, by
encouraging grit through engaging students’ interests in manifold ways; (b) with their network,
to have up-to-date knowledge of the interests of network members and resources within one’s
network; (c) with the campus leadership, insofar as the institutional agent can influence the
design and implementation of student programs and social spaces with the intention of
facilitating social capital that particularly benefits FGCS and encourages their perseverance and
passion for long-term goals.
With this study’s findings, along with future studies I have suggested in this chapter
using alternative outcomes, theories and methods, we may come to a more thorough and nuanced
understanding of FGCS success, grit and social capital on college campuses. And through the
process, we can collect evidence for Thurgood Marshall’s assertion that “None of us got where
we are solely by pulling ourselves up by our bootstraps. We got here because somebody - a
parent, a teacher, an Ivy League crony or a few nuns - bent down and helped us pick up our
boots.”
215

References
Acock, A. C. (2010). A gentle introduction to Stata. College Station, TX: Stata Press.
Adelman, C. (2006). The toolbox revisted: Paths to degree completion from high school through
college. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S. W. (2002). Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy of
Management Review, 27(1), 17-40.
Akin, A., & Arslan, S. (2014). The relationships between achievement goal orientations and
grit. Egitim Ve Bilim, 39(175).
Allen, W. R., Epps, E. G., Guillory, E. A., Suh, S. A., & Bonous-Hammarth, M. (2000). The
black academic: Faculty status among african americans in U.S. higher education. The
Journal of Negro Education, 69(1/2), 112-127.
Almeida, D. J. (2015). College readiness and low-income youth: The role of social capital in
acquiring college knowledge. In W. G. Tierney & J. C. Duncheon (Eds.). The problem of
college readiness. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Alvesson, M., & Sköldberg, K. (2009). Reflexive methodology: New vistas for qualitative
research. Sage.
Anaya, G., & Cole, D. G. (2001). Latina/o student achievement: Exploring the influence of
student-faculty interactions on college grades. Journal of college student
development, 42(1), 3-14.
Astin, A. W. (1975). Preventing students from dropping out. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Attewell, P., & Domina, T. (2008). Raising the bar: Curricular intensity and academic
performance. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(1), 51–71.
216

Auerbach, S. (2004). Engaging Latino parents in supporting college pathways: Lessons from a
college access program. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 3, 125–145.
Bailey, M. J., & Dynarski, S. M. (2011). Gains and gaps: Changing inequality in US college
entry and completion (No. w17633). Washington, DC: National Bureau of Economic
Research. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w17633
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.
Baum, S., & Ma, J. (2007). Education pays: the benefits of higher education for individuals and
society: 2007. New York: The College Board
Becker, S. (1994). Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis, with special reference
to education. (2nd Ed.) Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Bell, A. D., Rowan-Kenyon, H. T., & Perna, L. W. (2009). College knowledge of 9th and 11th
grade students: Variation by school and state context. The Journal of Higher
Education, 80(6), 663-685.
Bensimon, E. M. (2007). The underestimated significance of practitioner knowledge in the
scholarship on student success. The Review of Higher Education, 30(4), 441-469.
Biancani, S., & McFarland, D. A. (2013). Social networks research in higher education. In
Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 151-215). Springer Netherlands.
Blackwell, L. S., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Dweck, C. S. (2007). Implicit theories of intelligence
predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an
intervention. Child Development, 78(1), 246-263.
Blazer, C. (2011). Summer learning loss: Why its effect is strongest among low-income students
and how it can be combated. Information Capsule. Volume 1011. Research Services,
217

Miami-Dade County Public Schools. Retrieved from
http://files.eric.ed.gov.libproxy.usc.edu/fulltext/ED536514.pdf
Block, J. (2002). Personality as an affect-processing system: Toward an integrative theory.
London: Psychology Press.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theories and methods (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Borgatti, S. P., & Ofem, B. (2010). Overview: Social network theory and analysis.
Bound, J., Lovenheim, M., & Turner, S. (2009). Why have college completion rates declined? An
analysis of changing student preparation and collegiate resources (No. w15566).
Washington, DC: National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from http://www-
ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.libproxy.usc.edu/pmc/articles/PMC3140225/
Bourdieu, P. (1973). Cultural reproduction and social reproduction. In R. Brown (Ed.),
Knowledge, education, and cultural change: Papers in the sociology of education (pp.
71-112). London: Tavistock Publications Limited.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and
research for the sociology of education (pp. 241-258). New York, NY: Greenwood Press.
Brown, P., Lauder, H., & Ashton, D. (2008). Education, globalisation and the future of the
knowledge economy. European Educational Research Journal, 7(2), 131-156.
Bryman, A. (Ed.). (2006). Mixed methods. SAGE Publications Limited.
Burt, R. S. (2001). Closure as Social Capital. Social capital: Theory and research, 31-55.
Burt, R. S. (2000). The network structure of social capital. Research in Organizational Behavior,
22, 345-423.
Burt, R. S. (1984). Network items and the general social survey. Social Networks, 6(4), 293-339.
218

Burton, N. W., & Ramist, L. (2001). Predicting success in college: SAT studies of classes
graduating since 1980.New York, NY: College Entrance Examination Board.
Campa, B. (2010). Critical resilience, schooling processes, and the academic success of Mexican
Americans in a community college. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 32(3), 429-
455.
Carnevale, A. P., & Strohl, J. (2013). Separate and unequal: how higher education reinforces the
intergenerational reproduction of white racial privilege. Washington DC: Georgetown
University Center on Education and the Workforce.
Carter, P. L. (2003). ''Black' 'cultural capital, status positioning, and schooling conflicts for low-
Income African American youth. Social Problems, 50(1), 136-155.
Castleman, B. L., & Page, L. C. (2013). A Trickle or a torrent? Understanding the extent of
summer “melt” among college-intending high school graduates. Social Science
Quarterly, 1–19.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative
research. SagePublications Ltd, London.
Chen, X., & Carroll, C. D. (2005). First-generation students in postsecondary education: A look
at their college transcripts. Postsecondary Education Descriptive Analysis Report. NCES
2005-171. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from
http://files.eric.ed.gov.libproxy.usc.edu/fulltext/ED485756.pdf
Choy, S. (2001). Students whose parents did not go to college: Postsecondary access,
persistence, and attainment (NCES Rep. No. 2001-126). Washington, DC: National
Center for Educational Statistics. Retrieved from
http://files.eric.ed.gov.libproxy.usc.edu/fulltext/ED460660.pdf
219

Clauss-Ehlers, C. S., & Wibrowski, C. R. (2007). Building educational resilience and social
support: The effects of the educational opportunity fund program among first- and
second-generation college students. Journal of College Student Development, 5, 574-584.
Cole, D. (2008). Constructive criticism: The role of student-faculty interactions on African
American and Hispanic students' educational gains. Journal of College Student
Development, 49, 587-605.
Cole, D., & Espinoza, A. (2008). Examining the academic success of latino students in science
technology engineering and mathematics (STEM) majors. Journal of College Student
Development, 49(4), 285-300. Retrieved from
http://muse.jhu.edu.libproxy.usc.edu/journals/journal_of_college_student_development/v
049/49.4.cole.html
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. The American Journal of
Sociology, 94(S1), S95-S120
Collier, P. J., & Morgan, D. L. (2008). "Is that paper really due today?": Differences in first-
generation and traditional college students' understandings of faculty expectations.
Higher Education, 55(4), 425-446.
Conley, David T. (2008). Rethinking college readiness. New Directions for Higher Education,
2008(144), 3-13.
Credé, M., & Kuncel, N. R. (2008). Study habits, skills, and attitudes: The third pillar
supporting collegiate academic performance. Perspectives on Psychological Science,
3(6), 425-453.
Creswell, J. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
220

Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Croninger, R., & Lee, V. (2001). Social capital and dropping out of high school: Benefits to at-
risk students of teachers' support and guidance. The Teachers College Record, 103(4),
548-581.
Cutrona, C. E. (1982). Transition to college: Loneliness and the process of social adjustment. In
L. A. Peplau & D. Perlman (Eds.), Loneliness: A sourcebook of current theory, research,
and therapy (pp. 291-309). New York: Wiley Interscience.
Damon, W. (2008). The path to purpose: Helping our children find their calling in life. New
York: Simon and Schuster.
Daniels, L., Gibson, N., Carmack, P., & Smith, T. (2012). Predictive Power of Standard
Variables on Postsecondary Achievement in Arkansas. Journal of College Student
Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 14(2), 181-193.
Davis, J. (2012). The first generation student experience: Implications for campus practice, and
strategies for improving persistence and success. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.
D'Augelli, A. R., & Hershberger, S. L. (1993). African American undergraduates on a
predominantly White campus: Academic factors, social networks, and campus climate.
Journal of Negro Education, 67-81.Davis, J. (2012). The first generation student
experience: Implications for campus practice, and strategies for improving persistence
and success. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, LLC.
DeAngelo, L., & Franke, R. (2011). Completing college: Assessing graduation rates at four-year
institutions. Higher Education Research Institute, University of California Los Angeles.
Retrieved from http://heri.ucla.edu/DARCU/CompletingCollege2011.pdf
221

DeFour, D. C., & Hirsch, B. J. (1990). The adaptation of Black graduate students: A social
network approach. American Journal of Community Psychology, 18(3), 487-503.
Delaney, R. (2010). About those unpaid internships. The American Prospect. Retrieved from
http://prospect.org/cs/articles?articleabout_those_unpaid_internships
Dennis, J. M., Phinney, J. S., & Chuateco, L. I. (2005). The role of motivation, parental support,
and peer support in the academic success of ethnic minority first-generation college
students. Journal of College Student Development, 46, 223-236.
Dika, S. L., & Singh, K. (2002). Applications of social capital in educational literature: A critical
synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 72(1), 31-60.
Donders, A. R. T., van der Heijden, G. J., Stijnen, T., & Moons, K. G. (2006). Review: a gentle
introduction to imputation of missing values. Journal of clinical epidemiology, 59(10),
1087-1091.
Duckworth, A., & Gross, J. J. (2014). Self-control and grit related but separable determinants of
success. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(5), 319-325.
Duckworth, A. L., Kirby, T. A., Tsukayama, E., Berstein, H., & Ericsson, K. A. (2011).
Deliberate Practice Spells Success Why Grittier Competitors Triumph at the National
Spelling Bee. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2, 174-181.
Duckworth, A. L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M. D., & Kelly, D. R. (2007). Grit: Perseverance and
passion for long-term goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 1087-
1101.
Duckworth, A., Quinn, P. (2009). Development and validation of the short grit scale (Grit-S).
Journal of Personality Assessment, 91, 166-174.
222

Duggan, M. (2001). Factors influencing the first-year persistence of first generation college
students. ERIC( ED459673) Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED459673
Duckworth, A. L., & Yeager, D. S. (2015). Measurement matters: Assessing personal qualities
other than cognitive ability for educational purposes. Educational Researcher, 44(4),
237-251.
Dundes, L., & Marx, J. (2006). Balancing work and academics in college: why do students
working 10 to 19 hours per week excel?. Journal of College Student Retention: Research,
Theory & Practice, 8(1), 107-120.
Drywater-Whitekiller, V. (2010). Cultural resilience: Voices of native american students in
college retention. The Canadian Journal of Native Studies, 30(1), 1.
Durkheim, E. (1897). Le suicide: étude de sociologie. Alcan.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and
personality. Psychological Review, 95(2), 256.
Dweck, C., Walton, G. M., Cohen, G. L., Paunesku, D., & Yeager, D. (2011). Academic
tenacity: Mindset and skills that promote long-term learning. Gates Foundation. Seattle,
WA: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Eckles, J. E., & Stradley, E. G. (2012). A social network analysis of student retention using
archival data. Social Psychology of Education, 15(2), 165-180.
Engle, J., & Tinto, V. (2008). Moving beyond access: College for low-income, first-generation
students. Washington, DC: The Pell Institute.
Eskreis-Winkler, L., Shulman, E. P., Beal, S. A., & Duckworth, A. L. (2014). The grit effect:
predicting retention in the military, the workplace, school and marriage. Frontiers in
Psychology, 5.
223

Farrington, C. A., Roderick, M., Allensworth, E., Nagaoka, J., Keyes, T. S., Johnson, D. W., &
Beechum, N. O. (2013). Teaching adolescents to become learners: The role of
noncognitive factors in shaping school performance--A critical literature review.
Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago School Research. Retrieved from
http://ccsr.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/publications/Noncognitive%20Report.pdf
Fisher, K. E., Landry, C. F., & Naumer, C. (2006). Social spaces, casual interactions, meaningful
exchanges:'information ground'characteristics based on the college student experience.
Information Research, 12(2), 3.
Fletcher, J. M., & Tienda, M. (2009). High school classmates and college success. Sociology of
Education, 82(4), 287-314.
Fowler, F. J. (2002). Survey research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Fredricks, J. A., Alfeld, C., & Eccles, J. (2010). Developing and fostering passion in academic
and nonacademic domains. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54(1), 18-30.
Geiger, M. A., & Cooper, E. A. (1995). Predicting academic performance: The impact of
expectancy and needs theory. The Journal of Experimental Education, 63(3), 251-262.
Geiser, S., & Santelices, M. V. (2007). Validity of high-school grades in predicting student
success beyond the freshman year: High-school record vs. standardized tests as indicators
of four-year college outcomes. Center for Studies in Higher Education.
Gibson, M. A., Gandara, P. C., & Koyama, J. P. (Eds.). (2004). School connections: US Mexican
youth, peers, and school achievement. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for
qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine Publications.
Goodwin, B., & Miller, K. (2013). Teaching self-regulation has long-term benefits. Educational
224

Granovetter , M. S. (1982). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. In P. Marsden,
& N. Linn (Eds.), Social structure and network analysis (pp. 201-233). Beverly Hills,
CA: SAGE.
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American journal of sociology, 1360-1380.
Grant-Vallone, E., Reid, K., Umali, C., & Pohlert, E. (2003). An analysis of the effects of self-
esteem, social support, and participation in student support services on students'
adjustment and commitment to college. Journal of College Student Retention: Research,
Theory & Practice, 5(3), 255-274.
Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for
mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational evaluation and policy analysis, 11(3),
255-274.
Greene, T. G., Marti, C. N., & McClenney, K. (2008). The effort-outcome gap: Differences for
African American and Hispanic community college students in student engagement and
academic achievement. The Journal of Higher Education, 79, 513-539.
Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Tauer, J. M., & Elliot, A. J. (2002). Predicting success in
college: A longitudinal study of achievement goals and ability measures as predictors of
interest and performance from freshman year through graduation. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 94(3), 562.
Harrell, P. E., & Forney, W. S. (2003). Ready or not, here we come: Retaining Hispanic and
first-generation students in postsecondary education. Community College Journal of
Research &Practice, 27, 147-156.
Harper, S. R., & Quaye, S. J. (2009). Student engagement in higher education: Theoretical
perspectives and practical approaches for diverse populations. New York: Routledge.
225

Hatch, A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in education settings. Albany, NY: State University
of New York.
HeavyRunner, I., & Marshall, K. (2003). Miracle survivors: promoting resilience in Indian
students. Tribal College Journal, 14(4), 14-18.
Heckman, J. J. (2000). Policies to foster human capital. Research in economics, 54(1), 3-56.
Leadership, 70(8), 80–81
Heine, S. J., Lehman, D. R., Peng, K., & Greenholtz, J. (2002). What's wrong with cross-cultural
comparisons of subjective likert scales?: The reference-group effect. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 903-918.
Herzog, S., & Bowman, N. A. (Eds.). (2011). Validity and Limitations of College Student Self-
Report Data: New Directions for Institutional Research, Number 150 (Vol. 110). John
Wiley & Sons.
Hill, P. L., Burrow, A. L., & Bronk, K. C. (2014). Persevering with positivity and purpose: An
examination of purpose commitment and positive affect as predictors of grit. Journal of
Happiness Studies, 1-13.
Hoffman, J. L., & Lowitzki, K. E. (2005). Predicting college success with high school grades
and test scores: Limitations for minority students. The Review of Higher Education,
28(4), 455-474.
Hooker, S., & Brand, B. (2010). College knowledge: A critical component of college and career
readiness. New Directions for Youth Development, 2010(127), 75–85.
Horn, L., & Nuñez, A. M. (2000). Mapping the road to college first-generation students' math
track, planning strategies, and context of support. Darby, PA: DIANE Publishing.
226

Hossler, D., Schmit, J., & Vesper, N. (1999). Going to college: How social, economic, and
educational factors influence the decisions students make. Baltimore, MD: Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Howe, K. R. (1988). Against the quantitative-qualitative incompatibility thesis or dogmas die
hard. Educational Researcher, 17(8), 10-16.
Howell, J. S., Kurlaender, M., & Grodsky, E. (2010). Postsecondary preparation and
remediation: Examining the effect of the early assessment program at California State
University. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 29(4), 726-748.
Hyslop, A., & Tucker, B. (2012). Ready by design: A college and career agenda for California.
Washington, DC: Education Sector Reports. Retrieved from
http://www.educationsector.org/publications/ready-design-college-and-career-agenda-
california
Inkelas, K. K., Daver, Z. E., Vogt, K. E., & Leonard, J. B. (2007). Living-learning programs and
first-generation college students’ academic and social transition to college. Research in
Higher Education, 48, 403-434.
Ishitani, T. T. (2003). A longitudinal approach to assessing attrition behavior among first-
generation students: Time-varying effects of pre-college characteristics. Research in
Higher Education, 4, 433-449.
Ishiyama, J. (2007). Expectations and perceptions of undergraduate research mentoring:
Comparing first generation, low income White/Caucasian and african american
students. College Student Journal, 41(3), 540
227

Jackson, P. W. (1996). Handbook of research on curriculum: A project of the American
Educational Research Association. Macmillan Library Reference USA; Simon &
Schuster Macmillan.
Jehangir, R. R. (2010). Higher education and first-generation students: Cultivating community,
voice, and place for the new majority. Palgrave Macmillan.
Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2012). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and
mixed approaches, 4
th
edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Johnson, H. (2009). Educating California: Choices for the future. San Francisco: Public Policy
Institute of California.
Johnson, N. (2012). The institutional costs of student attrition. Delta Cost Project at American
Institutes for Research. Retrieved from
http://www.deltacostproject.org/resources/pdf/Delta-Cost-Attrition-Research-Paper.pdf
Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm
whose time has come. Educational researcher, 33(7), 14-26.
Jury, M., Smeding, A., & Darnon, C. (2015). First-generation students' underperformance at
university: The impact of the function of selection. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 710.
Kadushin, C. (2012). Understanding social networks: Theories, concepts, and findings. Oxford
University Press.
Kalb, L. (2015, January 26). Grit and gratitude join reading, writing and arithmetic on report
cards. Sacramento Bee. Retrieved from
http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/education/article8217330.html
Kenny, M. E., & Stryker, S. (1994). Social Network Characteristics of White, African-American,
Asian and Latino/a College Students and College Adjustment: A Longitudinal Study.
228

Kezar, A. (2014). Higher education and social networks: A review of research. The Journal of
Higher Education, 85, 91-125.
Kezar, A. (2000). Summer bridge programs: Supporting all students. ERIC Digest. Retrieved
from http://files.eric.ed.gov.libproxy.usc.edu/fulltext/ED442421.pdf
Kim, Y. K. (2010). Racially different patterns of student-faculty interaction in college: A focus
on levels, effects, and causal directions. Journal of the Professoriate, 3(2), 161-189.
Retrieved from http://jotp.icbche.org/2010/3-2_Kim_p161.pdf
Kim, Y. K., & Sax, L. J. (2009). Student–faculty interaction in research universities: Differences
by student gender, race, social class, and first-generation status. Research in Higher
Education, 50, 437-459.
Knowledge Is Power Program (KIPP) (n. d.) Our approach. Retrieved from
http://www.kipp.org/our-approach
Kohn, A. (2008). Why self-discipline is overrated: The (troubling) theory and practice of control
from within. Phi Delta Kappan, 90(3), 168-176.
Kohn, A. (2014, April 8). Ten concerns about the ‘let’s teach them grit’ fad. The Washington
Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-
sheet/wp/2014/04/08/ten-concerns-about-the-lets-teach-them-grit-fad/
Kuncel, N. R., Credé, M., & Thomas, L. L. (2005). The validity of self-reported grade point
averages, class ranks, and test scores: A meta-analysis and review of the literature.
Review of educational research, 75(1), 63-82.
Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Buckley, J. A., Bridges, B. K., & Hayek, J. C. (2006, July). What matters
to student success: A review of the literature. InCommissioned report for the national
symposium on postsecondary student success: Spearheading a dialog on student success.
229

Kyllonen, P. (2005). The case for noncognitive assessments. R & D Connections, 1-7.
Kyllonen, P. C., Lipnevich, A. A., Burrus, J., & Roberts, R. D. (2008). Personality, motivation,
and college readiness: A prospectus for assessment and development. Princeton:
Educational Testing Service.
Lamont, M., & Lareau, A. (1988). Cultural capital: Allusions, gaps and glissandos in recent
theoretical developments. Sociological theory, 6(2), 153-168.
Lareau, A. (1987). Social class differences in family-school relationships: The importance of
cultural capital. Sociology of education, 73-85.
Lareau, A., & Horvat, E. M. (1999). Moments of social inclusion and exclusion race, class, and
cultural capital in family-school relationships. Sociology of education, 37-53.
Lee, J. Q., McInerney, D. M., Liem, G. A. D., & Ortiga, Y. P. (2010). The relationship between
future goals and achievement goal orientations: An intrinsic–extrinsic motivation
perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35(4), 264-279.
Le, H., Casillas, A., Robbins, S. B., & Langley, R. (2005). Motivational and skills, social, and
self-management predictors of college outcomes: Constructing the Student Readiness
Inventory. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 65(3), 482-508.
Lin, N. (1999). Building a network theory of social capital. Connections, 22(1), 28-51
Lin, N. (2001). Social capital: A theory of social structure and action. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G.(1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hi11, CAs: Sage.
Lockwood, P., & Kunda, Z. (1997). Superstars and me: Predicting the impact of role models on
the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(1), 91.
230

Lohfink, M. & Paulsen, M. B. (2005). Comparing the determinants of persistence for first-
generation and continuing-generation students. Journal of College Student Development,
46, 409-428.
Lucas, G. M., Gratch, J., Cheng, L., & Marsella, S. (2015). When the going gets tough: Grit
predicts costly perseverance. Journal of Research in Personality, 59, 15-22.
Lundberg, C. A., Schreiner, L. A., Hovaguimian, K., & Slavin-Miller, S. (2007). First-generation
status and student race/ethnicity as distinct predictors of student involvement and
learning. NASPA Journal, 44(1), 57-83.
Macbeth, D. (2001). On “reflexivity” in qualitative research: Two readings, and a third.
qualitative inquiry, 7(1), 35-68.
Maddi, S. R. (2006). Hardiness: The courage to grow from stresses. The Journal of Positive
Psychology, 1(3), 160-168.
Maddi, S. R., Matthews, M. D., Kelly, D. R., Villarreal, B., & White, M. (2012). The role of
hardiness and grit in predicting performance and retention of USMA cadets. Military
Psychology, 24(1), 19-28.
Maltby, J., Day, L., Giles, D., Gillett, R., Quick, M., Langcaster‐ James, H., & Linley, P. A.
(2008). Implicit theories of a desire for fame. British Journal of Psychology, 99(2), 279-
292.
Marburger, D. R. (2006). Does mandatory attendance improve student performance? The
Journal of Economic Education, 37(2), 148-155.
Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41(9), 954.
Marsh, H. W., Vallerand, R. J., Lafrenière, M. A. K., Parker, P., Morin, A. J., Carbonneau, N., &
231

Paquet, Y. (2013). Passion: Does one scale fit all? Construct validity of two-factor
passion scale and psychometric invariance over different activities and languages.
Psychological Assessment, 25(3), 796.
Martinez, M., & Klopott, S. (2005). The link between high school reform and college access and
success for low-income and minority youth. American Youth Policy Forum. Retrieved
from http://p20.utsa.edu/images/uploads/Articles%202.pdf
Masten, A. S., Best, K. M., & Garmezy, N. (1990). Resilience and development: Contributions
from the study of children who overcome adversity. Development and Psychopathology,
2(04), 425-444.
McClelland, B. T. & Liberman, A. M. (1949). The effect of need for achievement on recognition
of need-related words. Journal of Personality, 18, 236.
Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach: An interactive
approach. Sage.
Mayer, A., & Puller, S. L. (2008). The old boy (and girl) network: Social network formation on
university campuses. Journal of public economics, 92(1), 329-347.
McAlister, S., & Mevs, P. (2012). College readiness: A guide to the field. Annenberg Institute
for School Reform at Brown University. Retrieved from
http://files.eric.ed.gov.libproxy.usc.edu/fulltext/ED531948.pdf
McConnell, P. J. (2000). ERIC Review: What community colleges should do to assist first-
generation students. Community College Review, 28(3), 75.
McKnight, P. E., & Kashdan, T. B. (2009). Purpose in life as a system that creates and sustains
health and well-being: an integrative, testable theory. Review of General Psychology,
13(3), 242.
232

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. Revised
and Expanded from. Jossey-Bass Publishers, 350 Sansome St, San Francisco, CA 94104.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook.
Sage.
Miller, G. E., & Wrosch, C. (2007). You've gotta know when to fold'em: Goal disengagement
and systemic inflammation in adolescence. Psychological Science, 18(9), 773-777.
Morrow, V. (1999). Conceptualising social capital in relation to the well‐ being of children and
young people: a critical review. The Sociological Review, 47(4), 744-765.
Morse, J. M. (2003). Principles of mixed methods and multimethod research design. In
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (Eds.). Handbook of mixed methods in social and
behavioral research, (pp. 189-208). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Multon, K. D., Brown, S. D., & Lent, RW (1991). Relation of self- efficacy beliefs to academic
outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38, 30-38
Museus, S. D. (2010). Delineating the ways that targeted support programs facilitate minority
students’ access to social networks and development of social capital in college.
Enrollment Management Journal, 4(3), 10-41.
Museus, S. D., & Neville, K. M. (2012). Delineating the ways that key institutional agents
provide racial minority students with access to social capital in college. Journal of
College Student Development, 53(3), 436-452.
Museus, S. D., & Ravello, J. N. (2010). Characteristics of academic advising that contribute to
racial and ethnic minority student success at predominantly white institutions. NACADA
Journal, 30(1), 47-58. Retrieved from
233

http://nacadatest.nacada.ksu.edu/portals/0/AnnualConf/2011/documents/CommRead2011
.pdf
Musoba, G., & Baez, B. (2009). The cultural capital of cultural and social capital: an economy of
translations. Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, 24, 151-182.
NSSE survey instrument. (2011). Available from
http://nsee.iub.edu/html/survey_instruments.cfm
Nunez, A. M., & Cuccaro-Alamin, S. (1998). First-generation students: Undergraduates whose
parents never enrolled in postsecondary education. Statistical analysis report.
Postsecondary education descriptive analysis reports. Washington, DC: National Center
for Education. Retrieved from
http://files.eric.ed.gov.libproxy.usc.edu/fulltext/ED420235.pdf
Ochs, E. (1979). Transcription as theory. Developmental pragmatics, 10(1), 43-72.
Ogunwole, S. U., Drewery, M. P., & Rios-Vargas, M. (2012, May). The population with a
bachelor’s degree or higher by race and Hispanic origin: 2006 – 2010. (American
Community Survey Brief No. 10-19). Washington, DC: The United States Census
Bureau. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/acsbr10-19.pdf
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECS). (2010). Education at a
Glance 2010: OECD Indicators. Washington, DC: OECD
Oswald, F. L., Schmitt, N., Kim, B. H., Ramsay, L. J., & Gillespie, M. A. (2004). Developing
a biodata measure and situational judgment inventory as predictors of college student
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(2), 187-207.
Oyserman, D., Terry, K., & Bybee, D. (2002). A possible selves intervention to enhance school
involvement. Journal of Adolescence, 25(3), 313-326.
234

Palmer, R., & Gasman, M. (2008). " It takes a village to raise a child": The role of social capital
in promoting academic success for African American men at a Black college. Journal of
College Student Development, 49(1), 52-70.
Pascarella, E. T., Pierson, C. T., Wolniak, G. C., & Terenzini, P. T. (2004). First-generation
college students: Additional evidence on college experiences and outcomes. The Journal
of Higher Education, 3, 249-284.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P.T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of
research San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Peterson, C., & Barrett, L. C. (1987). Explanatory style and academic performance among
university freshman. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(3), 603.
Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. (1984). Causal explanations as a risk factor for depression:
Theory and evidence. Psychological Review, 91(3), 347-374
Pike, G. R., & Kuh, G. D. (2005). First- and second-generation college students: A comparison
of their engagement and intellectual development. The Journal of Higher Education, 3,
276-300.
Pizzolato, J. E. (2006). Achieving college student possible selves: Navigating the space between
commitment and achievement of long-term identity goals. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic
Minority Psychology, 12(1), 57.
Portes, A., & Landolt, P. (1996). The downside of social capital. The American Prospect, 26(94),
18-21.
Próspero, M., & Vohra-Gupta, S. (2007). First generation college students: Motivation,
integration, and academic achievement. Community College Journal of Research and
Practice, 31(12), 963-975.
235

Ramos‐ Sánchez, L., & Nichols, L. (2007). Self‐ efficacy of first‐ generation and non‐ first‐ generation college students: The relationship with academic performance and college
adjustment. Journal of College Counseling, 10, 6-18.
Ravitch, D. (2014, March 22). Lauren Anderson: Why the focus on “grit”? [Web log post]
Retrieved from http://dianeravitch.net/2014/03/22/lauren-anderson-why-the-focus-on
grit/
Rendón, L. I. (1995). Facilitating retention and transfer for first generation students in
community colleges. Washington, DC: National Center on Postsecondary Teaching,
Learning, and Assessment. Retrieved from
http://files.eric.ed.gov.libproxy.usc.edu/fulltext/ED383369.pdf
Rendón, L. I., Jalomo, R. E., & Nora, A. (2000). Theoretical considerations in the study of
minority student retention in higher education. Reworking the student departure puzzle, 1,
127-156.
Richardson, R. C., & Skinner, E. F. (1992). Helping first-generation minority students achieve
degrees. New Directions for Community Colleges, 1992(80), 29-43.
Rios-Aguilar, C., & Deil-Amen, R. (2012). Beyond getting in and fitting in an examination of
social networks and professionally relevant social capital among Latina/o university
students. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education,11(2), 179-196.
Rizzuto, T. E., LeDoux, J., & Hatala, J. P. (2009). It’s not just what you know, it’s who you
know: Testing a model of the relative importance of social networks to academic
performance. Social Psychology of Education, 12(2), 175-189.
Robinson, D. A., Burns, C. F., & Gaw, K. F. (1996). Orientation programs: A foundation for
student learning and success. New Directions for Student Services, 1996(75), 55-68.
236

Robertson-Kraft, C., & Duckworth, A. L. (2014). True grit: Trait-level perseverance and passion
for long-term goals predicts effectiveness and retention among novice teachers. Teachers
College Record, 116(3), 1.
Roderick, M., Nagaoka, J., & Coca, V. (2009). College readiness for all: The challenge for urban
high schools. The Future of Children, 19(1), 185-210.
Rose, M. A. (2009). Why School?: Reclaiming Education for All of Us. New York, NY: The
New Press.
Rossman, G. B., & Wilson, B. L. (1985). Numbers and Words Combining Quantitative and
Qualitative Methods in a Single Large-Scale Evaluation Study. Evaluation review, 9(5),
627-643.
Rovai, A. P. (2002). Sense of community, perceived cognitive learning, and persistence in
asynchronous learning networks. The Internet and Higher Education, 5(4), 319-332.
Russell, D. W., & Cutrona, C. E. (1984). Social provisions scale. Iowa State University.
Russell, D., & Cutrona, C. E., Rose, J., & Yurko, K (1984). Social and emotional loneliness: An
examination of Weiss's typology of loneliness. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 6, 1313-1321.
Rutter, M. (2006) Implications of resilience concepts for scientific understanding. Annals of the
New York Academy of Sciences, 1094(1), 1-1.
Ryan, W. (1976). Blaming the victim. New York: Random House LLC.
Ryans, D. G. (1939). The measurement of persistence: An historical review. Psychological
Bulletin, 36(9), 715-739.
237

Saenz, V. B. (2007). First in my family: A profile of first-generation college students at four-year
institutions since 1971. Higher Education Research Institute. Retrieved from
http://www.heri.ucla.edu/PDFs/resSummary051807-FirstGen.pdf
Scott, J. (2000). Social network analysis: A handbook, 2
nd
edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Schmitt, N. (2012). Development of rationale and measures of noncognitive college student
potential. Educational Psychologist, 47(1), 18-29.
Schneider, M., & Yin, L. (2011). The high cost of low graduation rates: How much does
dropping out of college really cost?. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.
Retrieved from: http://www.air.org/resource/high-cost-low-graduation-rates
Schneider, M. (2010). Finishing the first lap: The cost of first-year student attrition in America’s
four-year colleges and universities. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.
Retrieved from
http://www.air.org/files/AIR_Schneider_Finishing_the_First_Lap_Oct10.pdf
Schugurnesky, D. (2000). Citizenship learning and democratic engagement: Political capital
revisited.
Schultz, T.W. (1971). Investment in human capital: The role of education and research. New
York: The Free Press.
Seligman, M. E. P. (1990). Learned optimism. New York: A.A. Knopf.
Shechtman, N., DeBarger, A., Dornsife, C., Rosier, S., & Yarnall, L. U.S. Department of
Education, Office of Technology. (2013). Promoting grit, tenacity, and perseverance:
Critical factors for success in the 21st century. SRI International: Center for Technology
in Learning.
238

Sickles, A. R. First generation students Categories: Student Populations. NACADA
Clearinghouse Academic Advising Resource Retrieved from
http://www.nacada.ksu.edu/Resources/Clearinghouse/View-Articles/First-generation-
students.aspx
Silvia, P. J., Eddington, K. M., Beaty, R. E., Nusbaum, E. C., & Kwapil, T. R. (2013). Gritty
people try harder: Grit and effort-related cardiac autonomic activity during an active
coping challenge. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 88(2), 200-205.
Skahill, M. P. (2002). The role of social support network in college persistence among freshman
students. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice, 4(1), 39-
52.
Small, M. L. (2009). Unanticipated gains: Origins of network inequality in everyday life. New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Small, M. L. (2011). How to conduct a mixed methods study: Recent trends in a rapidly growing
literature. Sociology, 37(1), 57.
Smith, B. (2007). Accessing social capital through the academic mentoring process. Equity &
Excellence in Education, 40(1), 36-46.
Somers, P., Woodhouse, S. R., & Cofer, J. E. S. (2004). Pushing the boulder uphill: The
persistence of first-generation college students. Journal of Student Affairs Research and
Practice, 41(3), 2. Retrieved from
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.407.9660&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2003). Network politics, political capital, and
democracy. International journal of public administration, 26(6), 609-634.
239

Stanton-Salazar, R. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the socialization of
racial minority children and youths. Harvard educational review, 67(1), 1-41.
Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (2011). A social capital framework for the study of institutional agents
and their role in the empowerment of low-status students and youth. Youth &
Society, 43(3), 1066-1109.
Stanton-Salazar, R. D., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1995). Social capital and the reproduction of
inequality: Information networks among Mexican-origin high school students. Sociology
of Education, 116-135.
Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and
performance. American Psychologist, 52(6), 613.
Stemler, S. E. (2012). What should university admissions tests predict? Educational
Psychologist, 47(1), 5-17.
Stephens, N. M., Fryberg, S. A., Markus, H. R., Johnson, C. S., & Covarrubias, R. (2012).
Unseen disadvantage: How american universities' focus on independence undermines the
academic performance of first-generation college students. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology,102(6), 1178-1197.
Sternberg, R. J., Bonney, C. R., Gabora, L., & Merrifield, M. (2012). WICS: A model for
college and university admissions. Educational Psychologist, 47(1), 30-41.
Stoeber, J., Childs, J. H., Hayward, J. A., & Feast, A. R. (2011). Passion and motivation for
studying: predicting academic engagement and burnout in university students.
Educational Psychology, 31(4), 513-528.
240

Strage, A. A. (1999). Social and academic integration and college success: Similarities and
differences as a function of ethnicity and family educational background. College Student
Journal, 33(2), 198
Strayhorn, T. L. (2011). Bridging the pipeline: Increasing underrepresented students’ preparation
for college through a summer bridge program. American Behavioral Scientist, 55(2), 142-
159.
Strayhorn, T. L. (2013). What role does grit play in the academic success of black male
collegians at predominantly white institutions? Journal of African American Studies, 1-
10.
Strayhorn, T. L. (2006). Factors influencing the academic achievement of first-generation
college students. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 43, 1278-1307.
Sullivan, J. R., & Guerra, N. S. (2007). A closer look at college students: Self-efficacy and goal
orientation. Journal of Advanced Academics, 18(3), 454-476.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral
research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and
quantitative approaches (Vol. 46). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Terenzini, P. T., Springer, L., Yaeger, P. M., Pascarella, E. T., & Nora, A. (1996). First-
generation college students: Characteristics, experiences, and cognitive development.
Research in Higher Education, 37, 1-22.
Thayer, P. B., & Educational Resources Information Center (U.S.). (2000). Retention of students
from first generation and low income backgrounds. Washington, D.C: Office of
Educational Research and Improvement, Educational Resources Information Center
241

Tierney, W. G. & Almeida, D. J. (forthcoming). Academic responsibility: Toward a cultural
politics of integrity. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education.
Tierney, W. G., & Bensimon, E. M. (1996). Promotion and tenure: Community and socialization
in academe. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Tierney, W. G., Corwin, Z. B., & Colyar, J. E. (2005). Preparing for college: Nine elements of
effective outreach. SUNY Press.
Tierney, W. G., & Duncheon, J. C. (Eds.). (2015). The Problem of College Readiness. Albany,
NY: SUNY Press.
Tierney, W. G., & Garcia, L. D. (2010). Remediation in higher education: The role of
information. American Behavioral Scientist, 55(2), 102-120.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student
attrition. (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Tinto, V. (2008). Learning better together: The impact of learning communities on the
persistence of low-income students. In Opportunity Matters.
Tinto, V. (2012). Completing college: Rethinking institutional action. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Tough, P. (2012). How children succeed: grit curiosity, and the hidden power of character.
Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Umbach, P. D. (2006). How effective are they? exploring the impact of contingent faculty on
undergraduate education. The Review of Higher Education, 30, 91-123.
Upcraft, M., Gardner, J., & Barefoot, B. (2005). Challenge and support: Creating climates for
first-year student success. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
242

Valente, T. W. (2010). Social networks and health: Models, methods, and applications. New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Vallerand, R. J. (2012). The role of passion in sustainable psychological well-being. Psychology
of Well-Being, 2(1), 1-21.
Vallerand, R. J., Blanchard, C., Mageau, G. A., Koestner, R., Ratelle, C., Léonard, M., &
Marsolais, J. (2003). Les passions de l'ame: on obsessive and harmonious passion.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(4), 756.
Vallerand, R. J., Paquet, Y., Philippe, F. L., & Charest, J. (2010). On the role of passion for work
in burnout: A process model. Journal of Personality, 78(1), 289-312.
Varney, J. (2007). Intrusive advising. Academic Advising Today, 30(3), 11.
Walters, D. (2004). The relationship between postsecondary education and skill: Comparing
credentialism with human capital theory. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 34(2),
97-124.
Wang, C. D. C., & Castaneda-Sound, C. (2008). The role of generational status, self-esteem,
academic self-efficacy, and perceived social support in college students' psychological
well-being. Journal of College Counseling, 11, 101.
Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D., & Walberg, H. J. (1997). Fostering educational resilience in inner-
city schools. Publication Series No. 4.
Warburton, E. C., Bugarin, R., & Nunez, A. M. (2001). Bridging the gap: Academic preparation
and postsecondary success of first-generation students. Statistical analysis report.
Postsecondary education descriptive analysis reports. Washington, DC: National Center
for Education Statistics. Retrieved from
http://files.eric.ed.gov.libproxy.usc.edu/fulltext/ED456168.pdf
243

Ward, L., Siegel, M. J., & Davenport, Z. (2012). First-generation college students:
Understanding and improving the experience from recruitment to commencement. San
Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons
Wellman, B. (1983). Network analysis: Some basic principles. Sociological theory, 1(1), 155-
200.
Wei, C. C., Horn, L., & Carroll, C. D. (2002). Persistence and attainment of beginning students
with Pell Grants. US Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and
Improvement, National Center for Education Statistics.
Whitt, E. J., Edison, M. I., Pascarella, E. T., Terenzini, P. T., & Nora, A. (2001). Influences on
student's openness to diversity and challenge in the second and third years of
college. Journal of Higher education, 172-204.
Wolters, C. A., & Hussain, M. (2014). Investigating grit and its relations with college students’
self-regulated learning and academic achievement. Metacognition and Learning, 1-19.
Wrosch, C., Miller, G. E., Scheier, M. F., & De Pontet, S. B. (2007). Giving up on unattainable
goals: Benefits for health?. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(2), 251-265.
Yazedjian, A., Purswell, K., Sevin, T., & Toews, M. (2007). Adjusting to the first year of
college: Students' perceptions of the importance of parental, peer, and institutional
support. Journal of the First-Year Experience & Students in Transition, 19(2), 29-46.
Yeager, D. S., Henderson, M. D., Paunesku, D., Walton, G. M., D’Mello, S., Spitzer, B. J., &
Duckworth, A. L. (2014). Boring but important: A self-transcendent purpose for learning
fosters academic self-regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(4),
559.
244

York, T. T., Gibson, C., & Rankin, S. (2015). Defining and measuring academic
success. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 20(5), 2.
Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community
cultural wealth. Race ethnicity and education, 8(1), 69-91.
Zimmerman, B. J., Bandura, A., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1992). Self-motivation for academic
attainment: The role of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal setting. American
Educational Research Journal, 29(3), 663-676.
Zwick, R., & Sklar, J. C. (2005). Predicting college grades and degree completion using high
school grades and SAT scores: The role of student ethnicity and first language. American
Educational Research Journal, 42(3), 439-464.

245

Appendix A: Student Survey
246

247

248

249

250

251

252

253

254

255

256

257

258

259

260

261

262

263

Appendix B: Faculty/Staff Survey
264

265

266

267

268

269

270

271

Appendix C: Student Interview Protocol
Introduction: Thank you for agreeing to participate in an interview. Many of the questions I will
ask you are follow up questions to the answers you gave in the survey you completed.

What contributed to where you’ve gotten today? How do you explain how you’ve made it to
your Junior/Senior year in college?

In the survey you identified the following students as people who have provided you with
support in the form of information such as information about selecting courses, campus
resources, student organizations, campus policies, etc. that has helped you succeed in college: [1,
2, 3, 4, 5].
Which of these people would you say was the most helpful to you?
• Describe your relationship with this person.
• How did the relationship develop?
• How have you used the information/advice/support from this person?
• What benefits have you gained from the information/advice/support from this person?

What campus resources have you used that have helped you to be successful in college/helped
you make it to your Junior/Senior year?

How did you find out about these resources?

Have your interests changed during college or have they been pretty consistent?
• What is an example of an interest that has changed? Or has been consistent?
• Has anyone on campus influenced (either deterred or reinforced) the interests that you
have? If so, who? How so?

Have your long-term goals changed much during college? How so?
• Has anyone on campus influenced you in keeping or changing your long-term goals?
• Do you have difficulty maintaining focus on projects that take more than a few months to
complete?
• What kind of project would you want to work on long-term, if any?
• What can professors, administrators, staff or others do to help a student such as yourself
maintain focus on long-term projects or goals?

What has been the hardest thing for you being at LMU?
• What was a major setback or failure you experienced during college?
• Explain how discouraged did you get from these setbacks?
• Is there anyone on campus who did or said anything to help you overcome these
obstacles? What did they do?
• Are you more of an optimistic person when you encounter obstacles, or pessimistic?
• Have you ever thought of dropping out of college? Transferring?
272

• What are some “structural barriers” at LMU? (i.e. registration, financial aid) How have
you navigated them?

These questions have all been part of this concept called grit. Have you heard of it? Grit is
defined as passion and perseverance for long-term goals. Grit has been found to predict success
in challenging environments, like college.
• On a scale of 1-5, 5 being a lot of grit, how would you rate yourself on having passion
and perseverance for long-term goals, particularly as it relates to you making it to your
junior/senior year in college?

273

Appendix D: Faculty/Staff Interview Protocol
Introduction: Thank you for agreeing to participate in an interview. Many of the questions I will
ask you are follow up questions to the answers you gave in the survey you completed.

The first faculty/staff member you identified as someone with whom you collaborate is [1].
• Describe your relationship with [1].
• How did the relationship with [1] develop?
• How has this partnership/collaboration benefitted students, if at all?
• Have you ever referred students to [1]?
• Why do you refer students to them?
• To your knowledge, what benefits have students received from your referrals?

(repeat questions for each faculty and staff member nominated by participant in survey)

FGCS vs. non-FGCSs
• In your view, what is important to student academic success and college completion?
• How is this different for FGCS vs. non-FGCSs?
• In your experience, what are the different challenges that FGCSs face than non-FGCSs
do not face?
• How do you support FGCSs?
• How is this different than non-FGCSs?
• What campus resources have you suggested to FGCSs?
• What are some “structural barriers” at LMU that may impact first-generation students?
(i.e. financial aid nationwide) How have you helped them navigate these?

Are you familiar with the concept of grit? (defined as passion and perseverance for long-term
goals)?
• What are your thoughts on the importance of grit for students to be successful?
• Any difference between FGCSs and non-FGCSs with regards to grit in your opinion?

274

Appendix E: IRB Forms

275

276

277

LOYOLA MARYMOUNT UNIVERSITY

Informed Consent Form

Date of Preparation August 28, 2015

Loyola Marymount University
The Intersection of Grit and Social Capital of First-generation college students

1) I hereby authorize Daniel Almeida to include me in the following research study: The
Intersection of Grit and Social Capital of First-generation College Students.
2) I have been asked to participate on a research project which is designed to understand the
potential relationship between grit and social capital and how each of these concepts
relates to the academic success and persistence of first-generation college students
and which will last for approximately 60 minutes.
3) It has been explained to me that the reason for my inclusion in this project is that I have
been named as a supportive faculty or staff member by an LMU student survey
respondent.
4) I understand that if I am a subject, I will complete interview for approximately 60 minutes.
The investigator(s) will ask me questions about my social network of faculty/staff on
campus and my perspectives on first-generation college student success.
These procedures have been explained to me by Daniel Almeida, PhD Candidate_.
5) I understand that I will be audiotaped in the process of these research procedures. It has
been explained to me that these tapes will be used for research purposes only and that my
identity will not be disclosed. I have been assured that the tapes will be destroyed after
their use in this research project is completed. I understand that I have the right to review
the tapes made as part of the study to determine whether they should be edited or erased
in whole or in part.
6) I understand that the study described above may involve the following risks and/or
discomforts: None.
7) I also understand that the possible benefits of the study are being entered in a raffle for a
$100.00 or one of five $20.00 Amazon.com Gift Cards.

8) I understand that the alternative to participation is to not participate.
9) I understand that Daniel Almeida who can be reached at djalmeid@usc.edu will answer any
questions I may have at any time concerning details of the procedures performed as part
of this study.
278

10) If the study design or the use of the information is to be changed, I will be so informed and
my consent reobtained.
11) I understand that I have the right to refuse to participate in, or to withdraw from this
research at any time without prejudice to my relationship to LMU/my employer nor my
professional standing will be affected whether or not I participate in the study.
12) I understand that circumstances may arise which might cause the investigator to terminate
my participation before the completion of the study.
13) I understand that no information that identifies me will be released without my separate
consent except as specifically required by law.
14) I understand that I have the right to refuse to answer any question that I may not wish to
answer.
15) I understand that I will receive an entry into a drawing for a $100.00 or one of five $20.00
Amazon.com gift cards for my participation in this study; I further understand that if I
withdraw before the study is completed I will receive only an entry for one of five $20.00
Amazon.com gift cards. I understand that in the event my participation is terminated
through no fault of mine, I will be compensated with an entry into a drawing for a $100.00
or one of five $20.00 Amazon.com gift cards.
16) I understand that if I have any further questions, comments, or concerns about the study
or the informed consent process, I may contact David Hardy, Ph.D. Chair, Institutional
Review Board, 1 LMU Drive, Suite 3000, Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles CA
90045-2659 (310) 258-5465, david.hardy@lmu.edu.
17) In signing this consent form, I acknowledge receipt of a copy of the form, and a copy of the
"Subject's Bill of Rights".

Subject's Signature _________________________________________ Date ____________

Witness ________________________________________________ Date ____________

Abstract (if available)

Abstract First-generation college students (FGCS) represent a disproportionate amount of the students who do not finish college. Understanding successful FGCS is useful to address the gap between college access and completion. One factor found to be predictive of success in higher education is grit, conceptualized as an individual trait with two components: consistency of interests and perseverance of effort. This individualistic conception which places grit in the realm of human and cultural capital diminishes the role of institutional actors in student success or failure. Unlike theories of human and cultural capital which focus on the individual, social capital posits that students derive benefits like institutional resources, information, and support through students’ social networks to achieve success in higher education. Using a sample of FGCS (N=156) and faculty and staff (N=71) at one 4-year private institution, this study endeavors three tasks. First is to explore the relationship between grit and social capital, and how these concepts relate to FGCS success. The second is to understand FGCS access and use of social capital through their network of relationships with supportive faculty, staff, and peers on campus. The third is to re-conceptualize grit in the context of higher education. This study employs a mixed methods design using a survey methods, social network analysis and qualitative interviewing. The author discusses four findings: (a) grit is complex and dynamic especially for FGCS

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Significant others in the lives of Latino first-generation college students: how social capital aids persistence

PDF

Examining the relationship between Latinx community college STEM students’ self-efficacy, social capital, academic engagement and their academic success

PDF

Examining the networks of program leaders in the community college component of the Puente Project within the context of a social capital framework

PDF

First-generation college students: perceptions, access, and participation at urban university

PDF

Community college education for the incarcerated: the provision of access, persistence and social capital

PDF

The contribution of family members to first-generation college student success: a narrative approach

PDF

Beyond persistence and graduation rates: examining the career exploration processes of first-generation college students

PDF

Staff members’ transfer of social capital to first-generation, low-income Latino/a students of Mexican descent

PDF

The writing studio as co-requisite remediation: a relational ethnography of academic discourse and social capital

PDF

High-achieving yet underprepared: first generation youth and the challenge of college readiness

PDF

And still we rise: examining the strengths of first-generation college students

PDF

Collaborative social networks in student affairs: an exploration of the outcomes and strategies associated with cross‐institutional collaboration

PDF

The lived experience of first-generation latino students in remedial education and navigating the transfer pathway

PDF

Assessing persistence for low-income students at community colleges: the impact of student-parent relationships

PDF

First-generation student retention and completion at a California community college: evaluation study

PDF

The experiences of successful higher education Latino administrators and educational leaders in selected western United States community colleges

PDF

The use of students funds of knowledge to increase college success among low-income and first-generation students

PDF

First-year persistence of rural high school graduates at four-year, urban colleges and universities

PDF

A pathway to success: experiences of first-generation minority students in academic jeopardy

PDF

The relationship between academic capitalism and student culture at two four-year higher education institutions

Asset Metadata

Creator Almeida, Daniel Jason (author)

Core Title The intersection of grit and social capital: a mixed methods examination of successful first-generation college students

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Urban Education Policy

Publication Date 07/29/2016

Defense Date 06/22/2016

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag academic success,college persistence,first-generation,grit,Higher education,OAI-PMH Harvest,social capital,social network analysis

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Tierney, William (committee chair), Melguizo, Tatiana (committee member), Valente, Thomas (committee member)

Creator Email almeidadanielj@gmail.com,djalmeid@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-288124

Unique identifier UC11281152

Identifier etd-AlmeidaDan-4681.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-288124 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-AlmeidaDan-4681.pdf

Dmrecord 288124

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Almeida, Daniel Jason

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA