Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Grinding all my life: the role of a community college men of color program in supporting masculine identity exploration
(USC Thesis Other)
Grinding all my life: the role of a community college men of color program in supporting masculine identity exploration
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Grinding All My Life: The Role of a Community College Men of Color Program in
Supporting Masculine Identity Exploration
Rohan Desai
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
August 2024
© Copyright by Rohan Desai 2024
All Rights Reserved
The Committee for Rohan Desai certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Adrian Huerta
Cecilia Rios-Aguilar
Sheila Bañuelos, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2024
iv
Victory Lap
This qualitative case study explored the experiences of staff and student participants in a men of
color program at one California community college. The research aimed to understand how
program staff creates environments conducive to exploring masculine identity among men of
color. Grounded in validation theory and the multiple masculinities framework, the study
addressed how program staff cultivates spaces for masculine identity exploration and how their
students navigate and perceive such spaces. Data collection involved semi-structured interviews
with four staff members and 10 student participants and observations of two program events.
Key findings reveal several themes, such as creating safe and inclusive spaces, facilitating open
discussions about masculinity, providing role models and mentorship, encouraging vulnerability
and emotional expression, and navigating systemic and structural challenges. The themes
highlight intentional community building, culturally affirming spaces, and addressing the
challenges men of color face in higher education. The study underscores the need for supportive
environments in fostering positive masculine identity exploration and offers insights for
enhancing similar programs in other educational settings.
Keywords: men of color, masculine identity, masculinity, community college,
mentorship, emotional vulnerability, inclusive spaces, higher education, validation theory,
hegemonic masculinity, qualitative research, academic support services.
v
Dedication
To the parents who have made immense sacrifices to come to this country in hopes that it will
provide greater opportunities for themselves and their children.
Thank you.
To the boys and men of color who are uncertain of what is in store for them in the future.
Through struggle and discomfort comes growth.
Believe that.
To the families and communities, bonded by blood or chosen, who collectively help shape these
boys into men by allowing them to express the full range of vulnerability and emotionality.
Thank you.
To the hope that we will be living in a future where our social and educational systems ensure
that young boys and men of color can achieve their dreams and those of their ancestors.
Let us make it happen.
To my mother, Harsha, my father, Mahesh, my brother, Raghav, and my wife, Sahar.
I love you.
vi
Love
First, I would like to thank the four program staff members and 10 student participants
from the Brothers Reaching Out program at Indigenous Land College. I appreciate your time,
vulnerability, and dedication to promising practices for community college men of color
nationwide. I hope this dissertation will make you feel proud of your excellence.
I would like to thank the best dissertation chair in the game, Dr. Sheila Bañuelos, who
exemplifies the meaning of validation and support in ways that are beyond words. The countless
meetings, text messages, and phone calls filled with encouragement to keep persisting despite all
the changes I was experiencing in my life will never be forgotten. I am truly fortunate and
honored to have been your student, and anyone who has you as their chair is lucky.
I would like to thank my committee: Dr. Cecilia Rios-Aguilar and Dr. Adrian Huerta.
Thank you for your ongoing support through this process and for inspiring me to do a study that
was meaningful and to produce a dissertation that will have a positive impact on the lives of men
of color in community colleges. Your feedback, support, and demanding the best from me have
impacted me in more ways than you can imagine.
I have to thank the people who have guided and supported me along my journey as a
higher education professional: Dr. Barbara Freund, Professor Beverly Tate, Dr. Brock Klein,
Cecile Davis-Anderson, Katherine Swain, Dr. Shelagh Rose, Dori Saporito-Rosental, Dr.
Michael Carter, Dr. Emily Hernandez, Monica Borunda, Deborah Bird, Sandy Lee, Lynell
Wiggins, Dr. Cristina Salazar-Romo, Dr. Myriam Altounji, Dr. Michael McClellan, Dr. Cecilia
Medina, Dr. Rebecca Cobb, Dr. Michaela Mares-Tamayo, Dr. William Syms, Dr. Anthony
Francoso, Armando Duran, and Dr. Cynthia Olivo. Without you all, I would not be where I am
today. I am truly honored to have you on my side.
vii
I would like to give a special shoutout to my Pasadena City College Counseling, IEDJ,
CORE, and MOCAN families. You all bring out the best in me every day and give me hope that
together, we can dismantle oppressive systems that create barriers for students and cultivate
environments where students feel welcomed, accepted, and appreciated. To all my PCC
colleagues, past and present, I am grateful for your collegiality. You have made the honor and
privilege of serving our students something that I look forward to every day. Not many people
can say that they love their jobs, and you are all a huge part of why I am able to say that I do.
I would like to thank my brothers on the Men of Color Action Network Executive Board
for your brotherhood, guidance, and support. You have given me a community within higher
education where I truly feel like I belong. I cannot wait to see what the future has in store for us.
Eric Robinson, my therapist, and confidant, you probably did not expect to see your name
in here, but you have helped me break generational cycles that I never would have broken on my
own. I wish every man of color had an Eric. The world would be a brighter place.
I would not be here without my chosen family, my Wilson Knights homies and GDUBS
Familia. The bond I have with you all will never be broken. You have stuck with me through my
ups and downs and have always given me a home base, even when I did not feel one elsewhere.
Your friendship and the love you share with me is something I will never take for granted.
Mom, Dad, and Raghav, thank you for being my tribe. I wear your names on my chest
proudly. You have been there every step of the way. I know that you are all proud of me. Our
lives have been filled with unexpected roadblocks, but I am hopeful for the future. Raghav, thank
you for showing me the power of brotherhood. You have all instilled a desire in me to not settle
for anything but the best and to create a lasting legacy.
viii
Sahar, you are the partner I could have never even dreamt of. You exemplify the meaning
of true unconditional love. Thank you for accepting me for who I am and for being such an
instrumental part of my growth as a man. I learn from you and grow because of you every day.
You have helped me understand that masculinity is the delicate balance of strength and
vulnerability. I am excited for the beautiful life we will continue to build together. I love you.
Lastly, to the students in community colleges. You are the reason I do what I do and love
what I do. I have learned more from you than any book could ever teach. You are the future.
Fight on.
ix
Table of Contents
Victory Lap .................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication........................................................................................................................................v
Love ............................................................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ xii
Chapter One: On the Floor...............................................................................................................1
Background of the Problem .................................................................................................3
Statement of the Problem.....................................................................................................7
Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................................9
Significance of the Study...................................................................................................10
Definition of Terms............................................................................................................11
Organization of the Study ..................................................................................................14
Chapter Two: Last Time That I Checc’d .......................................................................................15
A Brief Overview of Community Colleges.......................................................................16
Men of Color in California Community Colleges .............................................................29
Masculine Identity Among Men of Color..........................................................................50
Conceptual Framework......................................................................................................63
Summary............................................................................................................................72
Chapter Three: I Do This...............................................................................................................73
Research Questions............................................................................................................74
Research Design and Methods...........................................................................................74
Instrumentation ..................................................................................................................78
Data Collection ..................................................................................................................81
Data Analysis.....................................................................................................................82
Role of the Researcher.......................................................................................................83
Trustworthiness..................................................................................................................85
x
Summary............................................................................................................................86
Chapter Four: Hussle & Motivate..................................................................................................87
Indigenous Land College Brothers Reaching Out Context................................................88
BRO Program Observations ..............................................................................................90
Program Staff Interviewees................................................................................................94
Findings for Research Question 1 From Program Staff Interviews and Observations....100
Findings for Research Question 2 From Student Interviews and Observations..............144
Summary..........................................................................................................................186
Chapter Five: The Marathon Continues.......................................................................................188
Discussion and Analysis of Research Question 1............................................................189
Discussion and Analysis of Research Question 2............................................................210
Limitations.......................................................................................................................229
Delimitations....................................................................................................................230
Recommendations............................................................................................................231
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................244
References....................................................................................................................................247
Appendix A: Recruitment Email for Program Staff Participants ................................................265
Appendix B: Screening Questionnaire and Demographic Data Form for Program Staff
Participants...................................................................................................................................267
Appendix C: Recruitment Email for Student Participants...........................................................270
Appendix D: Recruitment Flier for Student Participants.............................................................272
Appendix E: Screening Questionnaire and Demographic Data Form for Student Participants..273
Appendix F: Information Study Sheet for Program Staff Participants........................................279
Appendix G: Information Study Sheet for Student Participants..................................................281
Appendix H: Interview Protocol for Program Staff Participants.................................................283
Introduction......................................................................................................................283
xi
Program Overview...........................................................................................................284
Strategies and Activities ..................................................................................................284
Observations on Student Engagement .............................................................................284
Support and Validation ....................................................................................................285
Challenges and Adaptations.............................................................................................285
Personal Reflections.........................................................................................................285
Improvements and Future Directions...............................................................................285
Closing Questions............................................................................................................285
Appendix I: Interview Protocol Overview for Student Participants............................................287
Introduction......................................................................................................................287
Opening Questions...........................................................................................................288
Identity Exploration and Development............................................................................288
Exploring Program Experience........................................................................................289
Validation Theory Application ........................................................................................289
Support and Empowerment..............................................................................................289
Challenges and Improvements.........................................................................................289
Closing Questions............................................................................................................290
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................290
Appendix J: Observation Protocol...............................................................................................291
Pre-Observation Preparation............................................................................................291
Observation Guidelines....................................................................................................292
Data Analysis...................................................................................................................292
Ethical Considerations.....................................................................................................292
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................293
xii
List of Tables
Table 1: Community College Enrollments by Race in Fall 2018 19
Table 2: Three-Year Community College Completion Rates for the Cohort Entering in 2013 20
Table 3: Racial Breakdown of CCC Enrollment in 2021–2022 22
Table 4: Program Staff Interviewees 96
Table 5: Themes and Subthemes for Research Question 1 101
Table 6: Student Interview Participant Demographics 138
Table 7: Themes and Subthemes for Research Question 2 145
1
Chapter One: On the Floor
My name is Rohan Desai (pronounced “row-hon de-sy), but my closest people call me
“Ro.” As a first-generation, low-income, straight, cisgender man of color from Los Angeles with
immigrant parents from Fiji and India, my personal experiences as a college student are
noteworthy in centering this study.
As a commuting student at a mid-sized public state university in the greater Los Angeles
area, I faced many environmental pressures similar to those mentioned in literature pertaining to
men of color (MOC) in higher education. Due to my family’s socioeconomic status, I took on
two part-time jobs while attending college full-time, which limited my ability to focus on my
studies. The limited amount of financial aid I received was simply not sufficient to assist myself
and my family given the challenges we faced at the time. At home, family conflict and a
generational history of addiction, mental illness, and legal problems, coupled with a lack of
access to affordable mental health resources, led me to develop depression, anxiety, and
unhealthy coping through substances. I was asked to decide on my major during freshman
orientation, but I had no idea what I wanted to do. Growing up in my financial situation made the
idea of making a lot of money very appealing. This notion led me to an uninformed decision to
major in business. I found very little interest in what I was learning in my business classes and
constantly questioned why I was in college in the first place. My stressors at home, at work, and
financially began to make school less of a priority. Due to the lack of counseling services and
resources available to me, a sense of community, and institutional support, I felt lost and
overwhelmed in college, almost dropping out at least twice during my undergraduate experience.
Furthermore, due to my ethnic identity, I did not find support through culturally affirming
organizations or clubs at my campus, nor did I know where to find such organizations.
2
Like many of my peers who identify as MOC, I felt the pressure of assimilating to the
historically Eurocentric standards of higher education, which led to a lack of self-confidence and
motivation as a student. I did not believe that I was the model student whom the college system
had intended to serve. Yet, I did not communicate these feelings with anyone. Vulnerability and
emotionality were not commonplace in my household. As a man, I was taught to be strong and to
work hard, keep my head down and my nose clean, and keep my complaints to a minimum.
Feelings were something to be kept to yourself. I rarely, if ever, was asked by my father to
discuss vulnerable or emotional issues. As a result, I rarely did the same for my younger brother.
Many of my friendships, mostly with other men, were not conducive to sharing feelings or
expressing vulnerability. It was encouraged and modeled to mask these feelings with great
displays of hypermasculinity. I felt alone in my feelings of sadness, anxiety, and uncertainty
about the future and did not know where to find male mentorship within social and educational
environments. Nonetheless, I finished my degree, still searching for a greater purpose in life.
This all began to change when I started working at a community college in the greater
Los Angeles area shortly after earning my degree. My part-time role in the athletics department
of this college allowed me the opportunity to work for an African American and Latino male
leadership academy. My supervisor at the time, an African American woman, thought that I
could bring a diverse perspective to this space. This experience sparked my interest in the world
of counseling and mental health. Shortly thereafter, I began my training as a therapist and
academic counselor at low-income schools and colleges in the greater Los Angeles area. My
lifelong role as an older brother came in very handy in my interactions with boys and young men
at the schools and community-based agencies I worked at. These experiences led me to seek
therapy, as I realized that I could not help others if I were not willing to help myself. Through
3
therapy, I developed a more positive sense of my masculinity and embraced vulnerability and
emotionality as a man. This newfound openness and willingness to seek help also allowed me to
seek male mentors of color who have supported me throughout my career.
I now serve as a tenured counselor, professor, and coordinator for a program for MOC at
the very same place where I got my first opportunity to work in community colleges.
Additionally, I have served on the executive board for a statewide organization supporting MOC
in community colleges for the past 5 years. I look back at my experiences and often wonder how
different my story would have been had I had other men in my life, especially MOC, to
encourage me to share what I was going through and to assure me that they would be there to
support me along the way.
My hope for this study is that it will amplify the need for more supportive and dedicated
environments for community college MOC, which aim to engage these men in conversations and
experiences that allow them to express the full range of emotionality and vulnerability and to reimagine traditional masculine norms.
Background of the Problem
Despite community colleges being recognized as the most common entry point to higher
education for MOC (Felix & Gonzalez, 2022; Harris & Wood, 2013), completion rates for this
population tend to be the lowest of any demographic group (Felix & Gonzalez, 2022; Harris &
Wood, 2013). The following section provides an overview of national enrollment and completion
data for MOC in community colleges, current barriers and supports, and the impact of traditional
masculine norms on this population’s experiences.
4
Men of Color in Community Colleges
Community colleges in the United States are promoted as a cost-effective and easily
accessible choice for higher education (Heelan & Mellow, 2017). They offer opportunities to
earn associate degrees, complete certificate programs, or transfer to 4-year universities as an
alternative to the traditional path of going from high school directly to a 4-year university
(Heelan & Mellow, 2017). However, a large percentage of the students enrolled in community
colleges in the United States belong to ethnic minority groups, come from lower socioeconomic
backgrounds, and are less likely to have parents with a college education (Bray et al., 2019;
Center for Community College Student Engagement, 2014; Harris & Wood, 2013; Heelan &
Mellow, 2017; Weiss et al., 2019).
According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES, 2022), the breakdown
of community college enrollments by race in 2021-2022 was 45% White, 25% Latino, 13%
Black/African American, 7% Asian, 0.3% Pacific Islander, 4% two or more races, 4.6%
unknown, and 0.8 % Native American (NCES, 2020). However, 3-year community college
completion rates for these groups are as follows for the cohort entering in 2013: 27% for White
students, 21% for Latino students, 13% for Black/African American students, 32% for Asian
students, 20% for Pacific Islander students, 20% for students with two or more races, and 17%
for Native American students (NCES, 2019).
The lowest rates in regard to national community college completion rates occur among
MOC, specifically Black/African American (12%), Latino (14.6%), and Native American
(18.7%) males when compared to their White (22%) and Asian (24%) counterparts (Harris et al.,
2017). Moreover, compelling data indicate that males from Southeast Asian and Pacific Islander
backgrounds may experience adverse outcomes when it comes to the rates of completing a 3-
5
year college program at community colleges (Harris et al., 2015). However, there is a lack of
data disaggregation concerning Asian ethnic subgroups (Harris et al., 2015; Xiong & Wood,
2016). These low completion rates among MOC in community colleges demonstrate a need to
further investigate this issue.
Men of Color Programs and Initiatives
Community colleges serve as the primary entry point for MOC in higher education (Felix
& Gonzalez, 2022; Harris & Wood, 2013). However, the low rates at which these students
complete their educational goals at these colleges have created a need for educational researchers
to explore potential barriers to completion for MOC. Research suggests that issues such as
family and financial pressures, hostile campus climates impacting students’ sense of belonging,
and a lack of tailored resources for MOC have contributed to disproportionately lower rates of
community college completion among this population (Bray et al., 2019; Brooms, 2019; Felix &
Gonzalez, 2022; Harper, 2012; Harper & Hurtado, 2007; Harris & Wood, 2013; Harris et al.,
2015; Huerta & Dizon, 2021; McCoy et al., 2020; Sáenz, Ponjuan, et al., 2015; Wood & Harper,
2015; Wood et al., 2015).
To address these barriers to completion, many community colleges implemented MOC
programs or minority male initiatives (MMIs). The majority of these efforts consist of academic
and social support, personal development, institutional support, and career preparation (Brooms,
Franklin, et al., 2018; Brooms, 2019; Harris & Wood, 2013; Huerta, 2022; Huerta, RomeroMorales, Dizon, & Nguyen, 2021; Huerta, Romero-Morales, Dizon, Salazar & Nguyen, 2021;
Keflezighi et al., 2016; McCoy et al., 2020; Person et al., 2017; Sáenz, Ponjuan et al., 2015).
However, there is a dearth of evidence regarding their effectiveness in enhancing persistence and
college completion rates (Harris & Wood, 2013). Over the past 15 years, MMIs have
6
demonstrated limited or nonexistent progress in enhancing effective performance outcomes for
MOC (Huerta, Romero-Morales, Dizon, & Nguyen, 2021; Huerta, Romero-Morales, Dizon,
Salazar & Nguyen, 2021; Wood, Harris & White, 2016). This ineffectiveness is due to myriad
factors. Institutional agents, such as instructional and counseling faculty and classified staff, have
expressed receiving insufficient dedicated institutional resources and allocated time in their
schedules, with the majority of these efforts being understaffed and underfunded (Briscoe et al.,
2020; Burmicky et al., 2023; Harris & Wood, 2013; Oliver, 2018). This reveals a disparity
between institutions’ professed commitment to diversity and equity and their actual
implementation (Felix & Gonzalez, 2022).
Research has also indicated that MOC programs and initiatives often do not adopt datadriven approaches, including analyzing data by gender and race/ethnicity, and often operate in
silos within larger institutional frameworks (Cervantes et al., 2022; Harris & Wood, 2013;
Huerta, Romero-Morales, Dizon, & Nguyen, 2021). Despite the well-intentioned efforts of
community colleges to provide support to MOC in the form of programs and initiatives, research
suggests that these efforts have not been effective in attempting to close equity gaps for this
population (Felix & Gonzalez, 2022; Harris et al., 2017; Wood et al., 2015). While MOC
programs and initiatives strive to address the educational barriers, their limited effectiveness
highlights the need for deeper exploration into other contributing factors. One such factor is the
concept of masculine identity, which partly shapes the experiences and outcomes of MOC in
higher education (Huerta, 2022; Sáenz, Ponjuan, et al., 2015).
Masculine Identity of MOC
Most community college programs and initiatives for MOC have primarily addressed
academic and social support, personal growth, and professional readiness. However, there is a
7
notable absence of consideration for the gender-specific experiences of MOC. Historically, MOC
in higher education have been socialized to embrace conventional hegemonic traits associated
with masculinity, including resilience, success, breadwinner orientation, physical prowess,
authority, confidence, competitiveness, and independence (Harper, 2004; Harris & Edwards,
2010; Harris & Harper, 2015; Harris et al., 2015; Huerta, 2022; Huerta, Romero-Morales, Dizon,
& Nguyen, 2021; Sáenz, Mayo, et al., 2015). While these attributes might have a perceived
benefit in specific circumstances (Harris & Edwards, 2010), they can impede the academic
achievement of MOC, especially when it comes to seeking help (Huerta, 2022). Furthermore,
many MOC find it increasingly difficult to meet rigid societal and cultural standards of
masculinity, which can result in feelings of inadequacy, sadness, and anxiety (Connell, 1995;
Harris et al., 2015; Vogel et al., 2014). The societal indoctrination toward self-reliance and the
stigmatization of seeking assistance is troubling, particularly considering the already low rates of
college graduation and perseverance among MOC. Therefore, programs and initiatives intended
to address the needs of MOC must incorporate the exploration of masculine identity to challenge
harmful traditional norms and encourage help-seeking and self-efficacy.
Statement of the Problem
Despite the role of community colleges in offering a cost-effective and accessible path to
higher education, MOC exhibit the lowest completion rates among all demographic groups
(Felix & Gonzalez, 2022; Harris et al., 2017). Socioeconomic background, first-generation
college student status, and barriers in higher education often exacerbate this issue. National data
reveals a disparity in completion rates among MOC compared to their non-MOC counterparts,
with particularly low rates observed among Black/African American, Latino, Pacific Islander,
and Native American males (Felix & Gonzalez, 2022; NCES, 2022).
8
The low completion rates for MOC indicate a systemic issue that requires comprehensive
investigation and understanding to identify causes, develop targeted interventions, enhance
support services, and measure and monitor progress. Factors contributing to this dilemma include
familial and financial pressures, hostile campus climates that affect students’ sense of belonging,
and a scarcity of resources tailored to the needs of MOC (Bush, 2004; Felix & Gonzalez, 2022;
Harris & Wood, 2013; Jones et al., 2023; Sáenz, Mayo, et al., 2015; Sáenz, Ponjuan, et al., 2015;
Wood, 2012). Additionally, the impact of traditional masculine norms on the experiences and
academic achievements of MOC cannot be overlooked. Such gendered norms often discourage
help-seeking behaviors and promote unrealistic standards of self-reliance and independence
(Harris & Harper, 2015; Huerta, 2022), further hindering academic success.
Despite the implementation of MOC programs and MMIs across many community
colleges aimed at addressing these barriers, evidence regarding their effectiveness remains
limited (Keflezighi et al., 2016). The limited progress observed over the past decade and a half in
enhancing performance outcomes for MOC through these initiatives points to a need for
reevaluation. The lack of dedicated institutional resources, insufficient staffing, and the
operational silos within which these programs function suggest a gap between institutional
declarations of diversity and equity and their practical application for the specific needs of MOC
in community colleges. Moreover, the absence of gender-specific considerations relating to
traditional masculine norms in these programs highlights an oversight in addressing the
challenges MOC face, further complicating their path to academic success and degree
completion.
This problem statement underscores the necessity of a qualitative investigation into the
systemic barriers MOC face in community colleges, the efficacy of existing support programs,
9
and the role of masculine identity in shaping their educational experiences. Such research is
imperative to identify effective strategies and interventions that can significantly enhance the
community college completion rates and overall educational outcomes for MOC in higher
education.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to gain further insight into the role and impact of
community college MOC programs on their participants’ experiences. As previously mentioned,
MOC in community colleges have among the lowest college persistence and completion rates
(Wood, Harris, et al., 2016). They experience a wide range of systemic barriers to these
outcomes, such as family and financial pressures (Harris & Wood, 2013; Sáenz, Ponjuan, et al.,
2015), hostile campus climates (Harris & Wood, 2013; Wood, 2012), and a lack of dedicated
resources, such as book grants, scholarships, and work-study opportunities (Huerta & Dizon,
2021), culturally affirming programming with dedicated funding (Briscoe et al., 2020; Felix &
Gonzalez, 2022), and mentorship from other MOC faculty and staff (Brooms, Clark & Smith,
2018; Harris & Wood, 2013). Furthermore, the societal and cultural perpetuation of traditional
masculine norms may impede their likelihood of seeking help and experiencing a sense of
belonging in college environments (Harris & Edwards, 2010). Thus, this study aimed to shed
light on the experiences of students and program staff participating in a MOC program at a
community college in one Southern California institution. Additionally, it examined how this
program and its staff cultivate spaces for exploring masculine identity among its participants.
Two research questions guided this study:
1. How do community college MOC program staff foster spaces to support student
participants’ exploration of masculine identity?
10
2. How do participants of community college MOC programs perceive and navigate the
exploration of masculine identity within spaces fostered by program staff?
Rendón’s (1994) validation theory and Connell’s (1995) concept of multiple
masculinities serve as the guiding framework for this research. The study utilized the six
elements of validation as a frame to assess the program staff’s role in the academic and
interpersonal validation of MOC participants (Rendón, 1994), with particular emphasis on
aspects of participants’ multiple masculinities (Connell, 1995). Participants were active students
and program staff at one community college MOC program in Southern California. Adding to
qualitative research on the impact of MOC programs on masculine identity development, this
study employs a qualitative research design that uses a single-case study methodology, including
questionnaires and demographic data forms, semi-structured interviews, and field observations as
its primary data collection instruments. This study sought to understand the challenges and
gendered experiences of community college MOC to raise awareness of how MOC program staff
can intentionally provide validation by addressing their participants’ masculine identity.
Significance of the Study
This study is significant in its potential to inform community college administrators,
faculty, and staff of the challenges and inform MOC students’ experiences with a focus on
masculine identity. Furthermore, this study can inform institutional agents, such as faculty, staff,
and administrators, interested in developing or revamping programming and initiatives for MOC
on the utility of validation and masculine identity development as key considerations in their
implementation of such programs in community college settings. Considering the challenges
MOC might face in higher education, often exacerbated by traditional cultural and societal
masculine norms, this study aims to explore the potential for increasing the number of spaces on
11
community college campuses where MOC can explore their masculine identities and challenge
harmful hegemonic masculine norms. Enhancing the focus of programming for MOC to include
healthy masculine identity development could potentially contribute to closing equity gaps in
outcomes such as persistence, retention, and completion for community college MOC.
Definition of Terms
The following is a list of the terminology used throughout the study, along with an
explanation of why I chose some terms over others when applicable.
Academic validation: What takes place when institutional and non-institutional agents
take action to help students trust their innate capacity to learn and to acquire confidence in being
a college student (Rendón, 1994).
Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC): a term specific to the United States
intended to center the experiences of Black and Indigenous groups and demonstrate solidarity
between communities of color.
Caballerismo: A concept of positive masculinity emphasizing emotional connection,
responsibility, and family orientation, which positively affects Latino men’s well-being (Estrada
& Arciniega, 2015; Sáenz, Mayo, et al., 2015)
College completion: Certificate and/or degree attainment and/or transfer to a 4-year,
bachelor’s-degree-granting institution (California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office
[CCCCO], 2022).
Emotionality: The quality or state of being emotional or the capacity to experience or
express emotions (Schwab & Dupuis, 2020).
12
Four-year degree-granting institutions: These are postsecondary institutions offering
bachelor’s degrees or higher. These are typically known otherwise as 4-year universities (NCES,
2022).
Hegemonic masculinity: This traditional definition of masculinity is hegemonic in that its
central organizing principle is placing men above women and some men (e.g., White, ablebodied, educated, heterosexual, middle and upper class) above other men (e.g., MOC, [dis]abled,
gay, bisexual, low-income). This definition of masculinity relies on misogyny and homophobia
as its primary means to enforce rigid and limited gender norms for men (Harris & Edwards,
2010)
Interpersonal validation: What takes place when institutional and non-institutional agents
take action to foster students’ personal development and social adjustment (Rendón, 1994).
Machismo: Latino community cultural expectations that dictate that men must display
qualities such as pride, power, strength, and competitiveness (Sáenz, Mayo, et al., 2015).
Male gender role conflict (MGRC) is a condition in which rigid or overly restrictive male
gender roles conflict with incompatible situational demands and lead to negative consequences
for men and those around them. GRC has four components: (a) restrictive emotionality; (b)
restrictive affectionate behavior between men; (c) success, power, and competition; and (d)
conflict between work and family relations (Vogel et al., 2014).
Masculine identity refers to attributes, values, and behaviors culturally associated with
being male. It encompasses how men perceive themselves and how they think they should
behave in their social contexts based on societal norms and expectations of masculinity (Harper,
2004).
13
Men of color: Individuals who self-identify as non-White men; this includes men who
identify as Black/African American, Latino/x, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native, and as having
more than one race (Harris & Wood, 2013).
Minority male initiatives: Initiatives intending to engage minority males in multiple
experiences that are designed to connect them to college to facilitate their academic, social, and
emotional success (Keflezighi et al., 2016).
Men of color programs: Programs providing targeted efforts to serve male students of
color through culturally relevant approaches, especially by emphasizing critical mentoring,
identity development, sense of belonging, and more exposure to staff and faculty of color
(Burmicky et al., 2023; Huerta, 2022; Huerta, Romero-Morales, Dizon, & Nguyen, 2021).
Silence: Silencing of male emotional experiences (Addis, 2011).
Stigma: The pressure some men may feel to live up to aspects of the male gender role
may lead to a decreased willingness to seek help (Vogel et al., 2014).
Two-year degree-granting institutions: Postsecondary institutions offering certificates
and associate’s degrees, but not typically offering bachelor’s degrees. These are typically known
otherwise as 2-year institutions or community colleges (NCES, 2022)
Validation theory: A framework that emphasizes acknowledging and affirming the life
experiences, cultural backgrounds, and inherent worth of students, particularly those from
underrepresented and non-traditional backgrounds, in higher education settings (Rendón, 1994).
Vulnerability: The quality or state of being exposed to the possibility of being physically
or emotionally harmed (Huerta, 2022).
14
Organization of the Study
This dissertation study consists of five chapters. In Chapter One, I introduce the problem
statement, a broad overview of the study’s information, the purpose, and the key terms. In
Chapter Two, I review the literature on community colleges, MOC in community colleges, and
the masculine identity of MOC, and introduce validation theory and multiple masculinities as the
theoretical frameworks guiding this study. In Chapter Three, I describe the methodology for the
study, including sample and population, instrumentation, data collection, and data analysis. In
Chapter Four, I will present the findings of the research questions. In Chapter Five, I discuss the
study findings, explore their relationship with existing literature, and examine their implications.
This dissertation research project concludes with policy and practice recommendations and
suggestions for future research.
15
Chapter Two: Last Time That I Checc’d
The purpose of Chapter Two is to provide a historical context and provide a rationale for
exploring this topic through an overview of existing literature. Chapter Two begins with an
examination of research on community colleges in the United States, specifically enrollment and
completion data for the California community college (CCC) system. The literature suggests that
community colleges have been among the most accessible spaces in higher education for
historically marginalized populations (Heelan & Mellow, 2017); however, these populations are
not as successful in completing their studies at these campuses. In this study, college completion
is defined as earning a certificate or 2-year degree and/or transferring to a 4-year institution. This
chapter provides an overview of research on MOC enrolled in community colleges. For this
study, MOC are individuals who self-identify as men who are non-White; this includes men who
identify as Black/African American, Latino, Asian American, Pacific Islander, Native, and as
having more than one race or ethnicity. Most of MOC research focuses on the experiences of
Black/African American and Latino men (Brooms, 2016, 2018, 2019; Harper, 2012; Harris &
Wood, 2013; Huerta & Martinez, 2022; Kugiya et al., 2021; Lawson Bush & Bush, 2013; Sáenz,
Mayo, et al., 2015; Sáenz, Ponjuan, et al., 2015; Wood, 2014). Therefore, there is evidence for a
need to conduct further research on Asian American, Pacific Islander, and Native men, as well as
men who have more than one race or ethnicity enrolled in community colleges.
This chapter explores literature highlighting potential supports and barriers to success for
MOC in community colleges. A significant portion of this section will explore the efficacy of
MOC support programs and MMIs at both 2-year and 4-year institutions. With a focus on the
lived experiences of MOC in community colleges as well as the socio-emotional issues that
contribute to these experiences, research on manhood, masculinity, and emotional socialization
16
in higher education will be explored in this chapter. The research describes the need for
community colleges to institutionalize support to aid in reducing the equity gaps existing among
MOC as it pertains to outcomes such as retention, persistence, success, and completion. Lastly,
the chapter will conclude with an exploration of Rendón’s validation theory and Connell’s
(1995) multiple masculinities as a conceptual framework to ground the study.
A Brief Overview of Community Colleges
In the United States, community colleges have been marketed as affordable, open-access
institutions where students can earn associate degrees, certificates, and/or transfer to 4-year
institutions (Kisker et al., 2023). In 2022, there were approximately 24.3 million students
enrolled in postsecondary institutions in the United States across 3,889 degree-granting
institutions (NCES, 2022). Approximately 7 million of them were enrolled in one of 1,265 2-
year degree-granting colleges (NCES, 2022). This data suggests that nearly 33% of all U.S.
postsecondary education students attend a 2-year degree-granting college as opposed to a 4-year
degree-granting university (NCES, 2022). The majority, 52%, of students who attend community
colleges in the United States are ethnic minorities, from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, and
are less likely to have parents who earned college degrees (Bray et al., 2019; Center for
Community College Student Engagement, 2014; Harris & Wood, 2013; Heelan & Mellow, 2017;
NCES, 2022; Weiss et al., 2019). This data suggests that there is an overrepresentation of
minoritized students enrolled at 2-year degree-granting institutions.
Therefore, students’ diverse and disadvantaged backgrounds underline community
colleges’ role in fostering educational equity. However, community colleges across the nation
struggle to close equity gaps in degree completion for most of their minoritized student
populations (Felix & Gonzalez, 2022; Heelan & Mellow, 2017; Weiss et al., 2019). According to
17
Heelan and Mellow (2017), “community colleges serve those who are the most in need of
support in order to succeed in college” by offering low to no-cost tuition, financial aid assistance,
development education, career education and employment services, flexible learning options,
and student support services (p. 20). Despite these efforts, the persistent equity gaps in degree
completion highlight the ongoing challenges and need for enhanced support and resources for
minoritized students in community colleges.
Community College Enrollment and Completion
Despite their role in supporting the nation’s most disproportionately harmed groups, less
than 25% of community college students earn a degree or certificate within 3 years, and only
42% do so within 6 years (Weiss et al., 2019). The study conducted by Weiss et al. (2019) on the
effectiveness of CUNY’s ASAP program in boosting community college completion rates in
New York cited several possible reasons for these low completion numbers. For example, past
studies (Baum et al., 2013; Braxton, 2000; Calcagno et al., 2008) suggest that factors such as
college affordability, lack of preparedness for college coursework, low rates of progression
through remedial coursework, shortages and underutilization of student support services, high
student-to-counselor ratios, negative classroom experiences, career uncertainty, familial and
employment obligations, food and housing insecurities, and negative perceptions regarding the
utility of a college degree may be contributing to low college completion rates in the United
States. The implications of these low completion rates are exacerbated when considering that the
requisite of possessing a postsecondary degree for employment has nearly doubled within the
past 40 years, and this demand is expected to grow (Baum et al., 2013; Weiss et al., 2019).
Higher education enhances an individual’s long-term income and decreases the
probability of being unemployed (T. Bailey et al., 2015; Belfield & Bailey, 2017). Research has
18
demonstrated that the completion of a credential or degree beyond high school significantly
enhances employment prospects and income levels (T. Bailey et al., 2015; Belfield & Bailey,
2017). Entry-level positions in various industries are increasingly demanding higher education
credentials in the job market, which presents a greater difficulty for individuals lacking
postsecondary education in obtaining profitable employment opportunities (Gándara &
Rutherford, 2018; Hillman et al., 2015). Education completion disparities contribute to the
perpetuation of socioeconomic inequalities; therefore, promoting greater rates of completion
among underrepresented and marginalized groups narrows these disparities and fosters a more
equitable society (M. J. Bailey & Dynarski, 2011; Hillman et al., 2017). An educated workforce
is essential for a nation to maintain its competitiveness in the global economy; thus, higher
education fosters innovation, enhances productivity, and bolsters a nation’s overall economic
well-being (Carnevale et al., 2017; Holzer & Baum, 2017).
In addition to its economic advantages, postsecondary education promotes individual
development, critical thinking, and civic engagement in society, providing individuals with the
skills and knowledge to effectively navigate and make positive contributions to society (Ma et
al., 2019). Despite the myriad societal and economic benefits of earning a postsecondary degree,
most of the nation’s community college students will not complete a degree after 6 years of
attendance and remain ineligible for higher-income and more stable employment opportunities
requiring a postsecondary degree (Bray et al., 2019; Weiss et al., 2019).
Despite the low community college completion rates, the completion data by race and
ethnicity exposes equity gaps. Table 1 shows the breakdown of community college enrollments
by race in Fall 2018, according to the NCES (2020). Table 2 shows the 3-year community
college completion rates for the cohort entering in 2013 (NCES, 2019). As the tables show,
19
students who identify as Black/African American, Latino, Pacific Islander, Native American, and
having two or more races experience significant gaps in 3-year community college completion
rates.
Table 1
Community College Enrollments by Race in Fall 2018
Group Rate
White 45%
Latino 26%
Black/African American 6%
Asian/Pacific Islander 4%
Two or more races 4%
Note. Adapted from IPEDS Fall 2018 Enrollment Survey by National Center for Education
Statistics, 2020. (https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cha.asp). In the public domain.
20
Table 2
Three-Year Community College Completion Rates for the Cohort Entering in 2013
Group Rate
White 27%
Latino 21%
Black/African American 13%
Asian/ 32%
Pacific Islander 20%
Native American 17%
Note. Adapted from Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Groups by National
Center for Education Statistics, 2019.
(https://nces.ed.gov/programs/raceindicators/indicator_red.asp#info). In the public domain.
When examining the intersection of race and gender, community college completion rates
are even more startling. The gender breakdown of community college enrollments in Fall 2018
was 57% female as compared to 43% male (NCES, 2020). For the cohort of students entering in
2013, males experienced a 3-year community college completion gap of 4% when compared to
their female counterparts, meaning that females completed community college at a rate that was
4% higher than that of males (NCES, 2017; NCES, 2020). Nationally, MOC have the lowest
community college completion rates. Specifically, the lowest rates of 6-year community college
completion were as follows: 33.8% of Black/African American men, 36.8% for Pacific Islander
men, 37.4% for Latino men, and a 40.4% gap for Native American, all falling below the national
average of 45.3% for men (Harris et al., 2017).
Additionally, there is evidence that suggests that Southeast Asian men are also
disproportionately impacted in regard to 6-year college completion rates at community colleges;
however, there is a lack of disaggregation of Asian subgroup data at many institutions (Xiong &
21
Wood, 2016). Research suggests that Southeast Asian men are more likely to attend community
colleges than 4-year colleges and universities, and they are less likely to earn a degree and twice
as likely to leave school for nonacademic reasons than their majority Asian counterparts (Xiong
& Wood, 2020). The low rates of community college completion within 6 years for
Black/African American, Latino, Pacific Islander, and Native American men, coupled with a
lack of availability of community college completion data for Southeast Asian men,
demonstrates a need for further examination of this problem to improve these rates and ensure
educational equity for MOC. Given the focus of this study, the next section will center on
relevant CCC data.
California Community Colleges
This study focuses on the experiences of MOC enrolled in CCCs. Therefore, it is
important to gain a deeper understanding of this higher education system, particularly its student
demographics, performance outcomes, and policies impacting MOC. The CCCs are the nation’s
largest system of higher education (CCCCO, 2022). The mission of the system is to provide open
access to students with academic preparation for certificate and/or degree attainment, transfer to
4-year universities, career education for the workforce, adult non-credit education, and
community service courses and programs (CCCCO, 2022; Cohen et al., 2013). The significant
representation of MOC in this system calls for examining how these colleges support their
education and address the barriers they face. Understanding challenges and opportunities in the
CCC system may inform strategies to improve educational outcomes for MOC, ensuring they
have equitable access to higher education. The next section will discuss CCC enrollment,
performance outcomes, and relevant legislation.
22
Enrollment
For the academic year of 2021–2022, approximately 1.9 million students were attending
one of the state’s 116 degree-granting public community colleges (CCCCO, 2022). The
breakdown of CCC student enrollment in 2021-2022 by sex was approximately 54% female,
44% male, 1.72% unknown, and 0.58% who identified as non-binary (CCCCO, 2022). Table 3
shows the racial breakdown of CCC enrollment in 2021-2022 (CCCCO, 2022).
Table 3
Racial Breakdown of CCC Enrollment in 2021–2022
Group Rate
Latino 48%
White non-Latino 23%
Asian 11%
Black/African American 5.5%
Unknown 5%
Multi-ethnicity 4%
Filipino 2.2%
Pacific Islander 0.38%
American Indian/Alaskan Native 0.3%
Note. Adapted from Annual/term Student Count Report by California Community Colleges
Chancellor’s Office, 2022.
(https://datamart.cccco.edu/Students/Student_Headcount_Term_Annual.aspx). In the public
domain.
23
To fully understand the impact of these enrollment figures, it is essential to examine the
performance outcomes of these student populations.
Performance Outcomes
Aiming to enhance transparency and accountability, the CCCCO began utilizing the
Student Success Scorecard in 2013, which provided individual campuses access to data
disaggregated by race, gender, age group, and socioeconomic status on student performance
indicators such as persistence, retention, transfer English and math attainment, and 6-year
completion data over time. Since the implementation of the Student Success Scorecard, statewide
data for these performance outcomes has been concerning because although most students persist
from year to year, they are not completing college at reasonable rates. For the student cohort who
started CCCs in the 2011–2012 academic year, 76% of students persisted from year to year, yet
only 48.2% of students completed within 6 years (CCCCO, 2013). For the cohort entering during
the 2015–2016 term, transfer-level English attainment within the 1st year was 41.2% and 59.3%
by the end of the second year. For math, the transfer-level attainment within the 1st year was
only 18.4% within the 1st year and 30.4% by the end of the second year (CCCCO, 2013). These
figures point to a problem with community colleges in California. Students are not completing
programs at reasonable rates, meaning that public investment is not yielding opportunities for
social and economic mobility for these students.
When examining why CCCs struggle to support their students’ completion, research
suggests that several factors play a role. State budget fluctuations can lead to inconsistent
funding levels, making it difficult for colleges to plan and sustain long-term student success
initiatives (Moore & Shulock, 2014). These campuses often operate with limited financial
resources, which restricts their ability to provide comprehensive student services, hire sufficient
24
faculty, and maintain up-to-date facilities and technology. This underfunding can lead to larger
class sizes, reduced course offerings, and fewer support services (CCCCO, 2013). Bureaucratic
challenges, such as complex administrative processes, can create barriers for students to
enrollment, financial aid, and transfer processes (Moore & Shulock, 2014). Variability in
instructional quality and teaching practices across colleges and courses can also affect student
learning outcomes. Professional development for faculty is often underfunded or inconsistently
implemented (CCCCO, 2013). High rates of students requiring remedial education courses can
delay their progress toward degree completion. Remedial courses often do not count toward
degree requirements, prolonging the time and increasing the cost of obtaining a degree (CCCCO,
2013).
Non-traditional students make up a significant portion of CCC students, including parttime students, working adults, and those with family responsibilities (Moore & Shulock, 2014).
Many CCC students come from low-income backgrounds and face economic challenges that can
impede their ability to focus on and complete their studies. Financial instability often necessitates
part-time or full-time employment, which can interfere with academic commitments (CCCCO,
2014b). These students often face challenges in balancing their educational pursuits with other
life responsibilities (Moore & Shulock, 2014). A significant number of students experience food
and housing insecurity, which can severely impact their academic performance and overall wellbeing (Moore & Shulock, 2014). Many students enter community colleges without clear
academic goals or career aspirations. High student-to-counselor ratios leading to reduced access
for students to seek these can impact students’ motivation to persist and succeed in their
educational pursuits (Moore & Shulock, 2014). Given these challenges, the state of California
25
has enacted several legislative measures aimed at improving student success and addressing the
systemic issues community colleges face.
Relevant California State Legislation
In 2012, the state’s response to consistently low community college outcomes data came
in the form of the passing of Senate Bill 1456, more commonly known as Student Success and
Support Programs (SSSP), which was implemented statewide by 2014 (Coney, 2017). Data from
1990 to 2004 consistently showed that while many students persisted year-to-year, completion
rates within 6 years were notably low (Moore & Shulock, 2014). For instance, reports from the
late 2000s indicated that a significant proportion of students required remedial education, which
delayed their progress and increased their dropout rates (Moore & Shulock, 2014). The goal of
SSSP was to provide colleges with funding to support the transition of new community college
students by providing support that promoted academic achievement and timely completion of
their stated educational goals (CCCCO, 2014b; Coney, 2017). In the 2014–2015 academic year,
the total SSSP funding for CCCs was approximately $199 million (CCCCO, 2014a). Larger
colleges, such as those with higher enrollment numbers and more extensive support services,
such as the Los Angeles Community College District and San Diego Community College
District, received substantial allocations (CCCCO, 2014a). Smaller colleges received lesser
amounts but were still provided with sufficient base funding to offer essential student services
(CCCCO, 2014a).
The funding was also intended to minimize racial equity gaps in community colleges,
focusing on Latino and Black/African American students as priority groups to be targeted for
equity intervention support due to lower statewide success outcome data for these populations
(CCCCO, 2014b; Felix & Fernandez Castro, 2018). The California Community Colleges Student
26
Success Task Force (2012) believed that by strengthening the matriculation process and
increasing support services offered by CCCs, outcomes such as retention, persistence, and
completion would improve. Therefore, all CCCs were tasked with using SSSP funds to
implement matriculation interventions and increase support services that ensured that new
students received mandatory orientation, math and English assessment, and educational planning
(CCCCO, 2014a).
Felix and Fernandez Castro (2018) examined equity interventions at community colleges
in response to SSSP and found that only 16% of the activities examined specifically targeted
Black and Latino students with “culturally relevant, data-driven, evidence-based strategies” (p.
2). This low percentage of targeted evidence-based strategies is important to note, given that the
lowest rates of retention, persistence, and completion were found among Black and Latino
students. Furthermore, many interventions implemented were one-size-fits-all approaches, such
as “expanding library hours, adding more tutors, or updating marketing materials that did not
account for factors that may affect specific student groups” (Felix & Fernandez Castro, 2018, p.
21).
The emphasis of these interventions “was on scaling-up existing services without
considering how the specific groups identified could benefit in strategic ways from the proposed
activity” (Felix & Fernandez Castro, 2018, p. 21). These generic interventions, such as extended
hours of operation, placed the onus for success onto historically marginalized racial and ethnic
students rather than the institutions tasked with serving them (Bensimon, 2016; Felix &
Fernandez Castro, 2018; Harper, 2012). The implementation of SB 1456 and SSSP was a
seemingly critical step toward improving student success in CCCs by addressing long-standing
performance issues, enhancing support services, and focusing on equity. However, these
27
interventions have not been tailored to the specific needs of students with the lowest outcomes
(Felix & Fernandez Castro, 2018). This highlights the need for continued evaluation and
adaptation of support strategies implemented through state funding.
Another relevant California legislative measure is Assembly Bill 705, implemented in
2018, which mandates that colleges prioritize helping students complete transfer-level math and
English courses within 1 year, or 3 years for those in the English as a second language sequence
(Willett, 2023). The law requires institutions to replace the math and English assessment system
with multiple measures assessment, which utilizes high school records to place students into
transfer-level math and English courses and eliminate most basic skills, or remedial, courses
from community colleges. As previously mentioned, the system-wide completion rates for
transfer-level math and English within the 1st year were approximately 18% and 42%,
respectively, prior to AB 705 (CCCCO, 2014b). This is problematic given that completing
transfer-level English and math is a requirement for earning a degree or transferring to a 4-year
institution. These figures were significantly lower for MOC, as gaps in transfer-level English
attainment within 1 year between 6% and 25% were reported among all MOC when compared to
White men (CCCCO, 2014b). The equity gaps for transfer-level math completion within 1 year
among MOC when compared to their White peers were slightly lower. While Asian and Filipino
men completed transfer-level math within 1 year at higher rates than their White peers, nonAsian and non-Filipino MOC exhibited gaps ranging from 11% to 17% (CCCCO, 2014b).
One of the most significant contributors to these low completion rates was the math and
English assessment system in place before AB 705. Through this process, most students were
placed in remedial math and English courses and could not move forward in the sequence
without completing the previous level. One reason was the dependence on standardized tests to
28
determine student placement. Research has found that these exams are not reliable indicators of
students’ potential to succeed in college-level courses, particularly when compared to high
school English and math attainment and grade point average, which is a more precise measure of
student aptitude (Belfield & Crosta, 2012). This was especially true for students such as
Black/African Americans, Native Americans, Latinos, Pacific Islanders, and Filipinos. These
students were 20% more likely than their comparable peers to be taking math classes in
community college, which they had already completed in high school (CCCCO, 2014b; Willett,
2023).
Despite the implementation of AB 705, challenges in transfer-level math and English
attainment remain. The transfer-level English and math completion rates of historically
marginalized students remain lower than comparable peers (CCCCO, 2022). Despite placing
students directly into transfer-level English and math courses, students still repeat coursework
previously completed in high school, such as calculus and statistics, due to completion of high
school courses in these subjects not yielding college credit unless accompanied by a passing
score on an AP exam (Willett, 2023). Lastly, the decision to place students directly into transferlevel math has created a possible dilemma in major and career choice, with students being forced
to decide on their math pathway within their first semester of enrollment between either the
business, science, technology, engineering, and math or the statistics liberal arts math sequences
(Willett, 2023). This is problematic because students may not have the time to make an informed
career or major decision prior to beginning their math pathway. Students desiring to change their
career and/or major path could be forced to take additional math courses to earn a degree or
transfer, prolonging their time to degree. It will be important to stay abreast of forthcoming AB
29
705 data to make decisions that will prevent additional unintended consequences for their
students.
This section examined the experiences of MOC in CCCs, focusing on student
demographics, performance outcomes, and policies affecting them. As the largest higher
education system in the United States, CCCs aim to provide broad access to higher education and
career training for MOC. The significant representation of MOC in CCCs necessitates an
understanding of how these colleges support their education and address specific barriers.
Performance data indicate low completion rates, prompting state legislation like SB 1456 and
AB 705, aimed at improving performance outcomes and equity for historically marginalized
groups. Despite these efforts, challenges in community college completion persist, highlighting
the need for ongoing evaluation and tailored interventions. As the primary gateway to higher
education for the majority of MOC in California, this historical context can be instrumental in
providing possible solutions to improve the low rates of community college completion for
MOC.
Men of Color in California Community Colleges
Addressing the role of CCCs in serving as the primary point of entry into higher
education for MOC highlights the access and opportunities these institutions provide for a
significant and underrepresented demographic. By examining recent performance outcomes data,
potential barriers to success, and current supports, stakeholders can identify and address gaps in
equity and effectiveness. This understanding can inform the development of targeted
interventions and policies to enhance the academic success and overall well-being of MOC,
ultimately contributing to broader goals of educational equity and social mobility. The following
30
section will address the challenges within CCCs in achieving equitable outcomes for college
completion of MOC.
The Men of Color Completion Crisis
Most of the MOC entering postsecondary education in California are enrolled in the
community college system, thus serving as the state’s primary entry point for MOC in higher
education (Felix & Gonzalez, 2022; Harris & Wood, 2016). Given the number of MOC enrolled
in CCCs, the system must promote economic mobility for this population through education;
however, statewide completion data suggests that MOC complete college disproportionately
lower than their White male and female peers.
The CCCCO provides public access to system-wide outcomes data semesterly and
annually through a system called Data Mart. One important outcome measure available to view
is the time it takes a cohort of students to complete community college within 6 years, also
known as the 6-year completion rate. The most recent 6-year completion data for the cohort
entering college in 2011-2012 revealed a 4% 6-year completion rate gap between men and
women (CCCCO, 2022). Whereas the system-wide 6-year completion rate was 48.2%, only 46%
of men completed within 6 years (CCCCO, 2022). The completion gap for CCC MOC compared
to White men (52%) was disproportionately lower for every racial and ethnic group, with the
exception of Asian (62.7%) and Filipino men (53%; CCCCO, 2022). The lowest 6-year
completion rates among men in the CCC system were American Indian/Alaskan Native (32%),
African American (37%), Pacific Islander (38.9%), and Hispanic men (39.1%) (CCCCO, 2022).
It is important to note that aside from Filipino students, the CCCCO does not provide data
disaggregated by ethnic subgroups of its Asian student population. An article by Xiong and
Wood (2016) highlighted the need to further explore outcomes data for Southeast Asian men in
31
community college, as national data suggests that less than half of them will complete a degree
(Harris et al., 2015; Xiong & Wood, 2016, 2020).
Challenges CCC Men of Color Face
Myriad factors contribute to the challenges MOC face in CCCs. Such challenges include
financial instability, academic preparedness, career uncertainty, limited access to support
services, bureaucratic challenges, lack of culturally relevant support, food and housing
insecurity, high student-to-counselor ratios, stereotypes and discrimination, balancing multiple
responsibilities, and variability in instructional quality (Felix & Gonzalez, 2022; Harris & Wood,
2013; Sáenz, Ponjuan, et al., 2015; Wood et al., 2015). These issues hinder academic success and
affect the overall well-being and persistence of MOC in higher education. For this study, the
challenges have been organized into three themes: familial and financial pressures, campus
climate and sense of belonging, and a lack of institutional resources tailored to the needs of
MOC. These themes may lead to a better understanding of the experiences of MOC and to
developing strategies to address these multifaceted challenges effectively. The first challenge
discussed will be familial responsibilities and financial pressures, followed by campus climate
and sense of belonging, and concluding with the lack of intentional resources dedicated to MOC.
Familial Responsibilities and Financial Pressures
Familial responsibilities and financial pressures contribute significantly to low
community college completion among MOC (Abrica & Martinez, 2016; Sáenz, Ponjuan, et al.,
2015; Wood et al., 2015). These pressures present additional challenges for MOC to complete
college, including the necessity for students to work jobs while enrolled in college without a
meaningful connection to their educational goals, such as manual labor, to financially support
themselves or their dependents (Wood et al., 2015), a higher prevalence of housing and food
32
insecurity (Wood & Harper, 2015), and transportation concerns (Harris et al., 2017). According
to Wood et al. (2015), 39% of Black men who leave college state family responsibilities as the
primary reason. Latino college men share these financial and familial challenges, as Abrica and
Martinez (2016) found that these men often face immediate financial challenges, such as food,
transportation, and housing expenses; structural financial challenges, such as challenges
associated with living under undocumented status; and financial challenges associated with
family, such as supporting parents or extended family members.
Similarly, Harris and Wood (2013) found that working off campus and having family
responsibilities negatively impacted MOC engagement and success in college. Furthermore,
research suggests that student finances present a significant barrier to MOC as it relates to
community college persistence and degree attainment (Harris & Wood, 2013; Wood & Harper,
2015; Wood et al., 2015). Sáenz. Mayo, et al. (2015) suggested that culturally masculine beliefs
influence Latino men to feel a need to support themselves and their families financially. Sáenz et
al. highlighted that the pressure to support their family is coupled with not viewing higher
education as a viable pathway to financial security. Also, Newman et al. (2015) found that MOC
in community colleges often place work above their studies because of the pressure to act as the
primary breadwinner, which detrimentally affects their academic involvement. For these men,
supporting their families is a central aspect of their identity, causing them to undervalue the
significance of earning a college degree. This capitalistic perspective results in heightened
financial stress and reduced academic engagement (Newman et al., 2015).
The above research suggests that MOC often negotiate between their academic
responsibilities and financial obligations to themselves and/or their families, which may lead to
prioritizing earning money over attending school. Hora et al. (2022) found that many Latino
33
students face financial barriers that prevent them from taking unpaid or low-paying internships,
particularly those located in expensive cities. Heavy course loads and the need for employment
further limit students’ ability to pursue internships (Hora et al., 2022). Collectively, these could
explain decisions to seek employment over completing college.
Research on parenting community college students suggests that MOC students who are
fathers may experience challenges such as time poverty, known as a lack of time due to
balancing responsibilities related to parenthood with work and school, financial stressors
associated with the high cost of childcare, a lack of student support services tailored to parents’
needs, and inflexible campus policies, such inability to bring children to classes (Huerta et al.,
2022). When coupled with the concept of breadwinner orientation, the societal expectation for
fathers to serve as providers for their families may result in parenting MOC reducing their course
loads, taking leaves of absence, or ending their college aspirations altogether to support their
families financially.
In viewing the issue of student finances through an equity lens, research also suggests
that the costs associated with attending community colleges account for a more significant
portion of the annual incomes of Black and Latino men as compared to their White counterparts
(Bray et al., 2019). In 2016, the average net price (after grant aid) of tuition, fees, and living
expenses at public 2-year institutions accounted for 43% of Black men’s incomes and 38% of
Latino men’s incomes (Bray et al., 2019). In addition, the percentage of Black men with unmet
financial need at public 2-year institutions was 82%, while for Latino men, it was 76% (Bray et
al., 2019). This data suggests that the costs associated with attending college alone are a financial
barrier for MOC in community colleges. Given that earning maximum federal financial aid is
contingent upon full-time enrollment and satisfactory academic progress, Black/African
34
American and Latino men are disproportionately harmed by placement on academic probation
and loss of financial aid (Huerta & Martinez, 2022), which typically results in leaving college or
necessitating working more hours outside of school (Harris & Wood, 2013). For Black and
Latino men, the high cost of college and significant unmet financial need after grant aid make the
loss of financial aid due to academic probation a significant barrier to completing college.
Familial responsibilities and financial pressures are significant factors contributing to low
community college completion rates among MOC. These pressures often force MOC to work
jobs unrelated to their educational goals to support themselves and their families and lead to
challenges like housing, food, and transportation insecurity. Studies reveal that financial barriers,
coupled with culturally masculine beliefs of needing to serve as the primary breadwinner, lead
many MOC to prioritize work over academics, resulting in reduced academic engagement and
persistence. Additionally, the high costs of college and significant unmet financial needs
disproportionately affect Black and Latino men, making it challenging for them to sustain their
college education.
Campus Climate and Sense of Belonging
Research suggests that MOC’s low community college completion rates stem from a lack
of a sense of belonging and racially hostile campus climates, defined as campuses on which
students encounter discrimination or harassment; there is a lack of representation of racially
diverse peers, faculty, and staff; faculty and peers act on implicit biases, and institutional
response to these issues is nonexistent (Brooms, 2018; Harris & Wood, 2013; Wood et al., 2015).
Men of color engage less due to institutional climates and cultures characterized by racism,
stereotypes, and a lack of staff and faculty commitment to their success (Brooms, 2018; Harper,
2012; Harris et al., 2015). In a study of 87 MOC students enrolled at four community colleges,
35
Gardenhire-Crooks et al. (2010) participants reported experiencing several instances of
challenges with campus climate, leading to a diminished sense of belonging on campus. They
reported facing low expectations and negative stereotypes based on race, ethnicity, and gender,
which varied in nature and intensity but were universally acknowledged (Gardenhire-Crooks et
al., 2010). While some positive initial interactions with counselors and advisors were noted,
long-term negative interactions with faculty and staff due to racial stereotyping were reported
(Gardenhire-Crooks et al., 2010). As a result, few participants formed close relationships with
faculty or peers, often due to mistrust and a focus on self-reliance (Gardenhire-Crooks et al.,
2010). These negative experiences of MOC on community college campuses may exacerbate
existing feelings of mistrust and inadequacy (Rendón, 1994), resulting in prolonged self-reliance
and independence while navigating their college experience. This is especially problematic when
research suggests that sense of belonging and academic engagement for community college
MOC correlate positively with positive student-faculty interactions, exposure to diversity, and
usage of student services (Brooms, 2019, 2020; Wood & Harris, 2015).
Faculty–student engagement is a significant determinant of increased academic
performance, student retention, and goal completion for MOC (Brooms, 2018, 2019, 2020;
Harris et al., 2015). Although Black men are more likely than their peers to need interactions
with faculty and support services, they are the least likely to experience these interactions or
receive support from their institutions (Harris et al., 2015). Black men reported examples of
faculty–student interactions that increased their academic engagement, such as affirming
messages of belonging and capability, engaging with faculty in class discussions on courserelated topics, engaging with faculty in dialogue to clarify academic concepts, faculty providing
guidance and clarifying doubts related to coursework during office hours, discussing personal
36
challenges or family matters impacting course performance or well-being with faculty or
engaging in conversations with faculty on current events or topics of interest that help build
rapport and a more personal connection (Brooms, 2018; Harris et al., 2015). Furthermore,
programs specifically designed for Black male students, such as Black Male Initiative programs,
provide essential support and create spaces where students feel they belong. These programs help
students build community, resist negative stereotypes, and persist in their educational endeavors
(Brooms, 2018). Peer interactions and bonding are also important, as Black male students who
participate in peer support programs or informal peer networks report a stronger sense of
community and belonging, which contributes to their academic success (Brooms, 2019).
Rodriguez et al. (2019) found that Latino men who experienced interactions with
professors and peers, both during and outside of class, felt a strong sense of belonging and
connection at the community college. The close-knit nature of community colleges made it easier
for students and professors to build relationships, fostering a welcoming and supportive campus
atmosphere (Rodriguez et al., 2019). Professors and academic advisors were instrumental in
creating positive experiences for Latino men, often setting higher expectations for them than they
set for themselves and offering encouragement and support (Rodriguez et al., 2019).
Additionally, peers created a supportive environment by sharing common goals and providing
assistance, which helped build a sense of community and mutual respect among Latino men
(Rodriguez et al., 2019).
Although research on Asian American and Pacific Islander men is limited, Xiong (2022)
found that faculty relationships, such as faculty knowing important information about students,
and faculty validation, such as faculty communicating students’ ability to succeed, were
significant predictors of faculty–student engagement for Southeast Asian American community
37
college students. The study revealed important differences in how predictors of faculty–student
engagement vary among different Southeast Asian ethnic groups, emphasizing the need for
disaggregated analyses to capture these nuances (Xiong, 2022).
Faculty–student engagement significantly influences sense of belonging for MOC, yet
Black men, despite needing these interactions the most, often receive the least support (Harris et
al., 2015). Latino men in community colleges feel a strong sense of belonging and support
through interactions with professors and peers who encourage and set high expectations for them
(Rodriguez et al., 2019). For Southeast Asian American students, faculty relationships and
validation facilitate engagement, with notable variations among different ethnic groups,
highlighting the need to disaggregate analyses (Xiong, 2022). These findings suggest that MOC
are more likely to remain engaged and persist in college when they feel a sense of belonging
cultivated by their professors inside and outside of the classroom.
Another factor influencing campus climate and sense of belonging for MOC is the
representation of other MOC on these campuses. The Campaign for College Opportunity
(Bustillos & Siqueiros, 2018) suggested a lack of representation of faculty, administrators, board
members, and staff of color across all three of the state’s public higher education systems (UC,
CSU, CCC). This lack of representation of institutional agents who reflect identities similar to
their students is concerning when multiple studies have emphasized the need for MOC to have
meaningful relationships with other MOC working on campus to remain engaged and feel
supported in college (Harper, 2012; Harris & Wood, 2013; Harris et al., 2015; Huerta &
Fishman, 2014, 2019; McCoy et al., 2020; Sáenz, Ponjuan et al., 2015; Wood et al., 2015).
In examining campus ethos at various CCC campuses, Harris et al. (2015) found that
increased engagement between MOC and faculty members, both inside and outside the
38
classroom, was positively correlated with increased students’ sense of belonging. They also
tested the interaction effects of masculine and racial identities. Their findings suggest that
negative racial-gender stereotypes are less likely to impact MOC’s sense of belonging when they
perceive school as not solely a feminine domain but equally suited for both genders, have a
healthier perception of their role as breadwinners (not seeing it solely as a male responsibility),
and have a healthy view of competition (not defining themselves by it; Harris et al., 2015).
Harper (2012) found that exposure to racism and racial stereotypes among college MOC
poses a serious threat to their sense of belonging, engagement, academic achievement, and
persistence and claims that producing measurable gains for MOC on predominantly White
campuses requires confronting racism at an institutional level. Lastly, through a qualitative study
done on diverse college students’ perceptions of campus racial climate, Harper and Hurtado
(2007) unveiled nine major themes: cross-race consensus regarding institutional negligence; race
as a four-letter word and an avoidable topic; self-reports of racial segregation; gaps in social
satisfaction by race; reputational legacies for racism; White student overestimation of minority
student satisfaction; the pervasiveness of whiteness in space, curricula, and activities; the
consciousness-powerlessness paradox among racial/ethnic minority staff; and unexplored
qualitative realities of race in institutional assessment (Harper & Hurtado, 2007). These themes
emphasize negligence on the part of institutions, racial segregation on college campuses,
disparities in social satisfaction, reputational legacies of racism, and the widespread presence of
whiteness in different aspects of campus life. Given that MOC are more likely to experience
gender-based and racially based discrimination and stereotypes, which negatively affect their
college experiences, institutions must assess and re-examine current practices and policies that
contribute to hostile campus climates and a lower sense of belonging for MOC.
39
Lack of Institutional Resources Tailored to Men of Color
Contributing to low community college completion among MOC is a lack of institutional
resources tailored specifically to their needs. These students are more likely to succeed
academically if institutional agents contact them, form and sustain personal relationships with
them, and connect them with campus resources (The Education Trust-West, 2017). An example
is that of a college with existing support specifically for MOC also having MOC institutional
agents who contact potential students and personally invite them to a summer bridge program for
MOC where they can establish relationships with faculty, staff, and peers as well as receive
important information on campus resources prior to the start of the year. Programs that address
multiple needs, such as academic, socio-emotional, and career, have the greatest opportunities
for supporting the college success of MOC (Brooms, 2018; The Education Trust-West, 2017;
Huerta, 2022; Huerta & Dizon, 2021; Huerta, Romero-Morales, Dizon, & Nguyen, 2021; Huerta,
Romero-Morales, Dizon, Salazar & Nguyen, 2021). Thus, it is essential for community colleges
to better understand and meet the needs of their MOC to assist them in establishing clear goals,
making a connection between their academic path and their goals, ensuring they receive
appropriate supports along their path, and gain the skills they need to attain their goals (Center
for Community College Student Engagement, 2014).
Huerta and Dizon (2021) found that institutional resources for MOC overly depend on
temporary or “soft” funding, which restricts the impact and long-term viability of support
programs. Several MOC programs rely on the entrepreneurial endeavors of their staff and faculty
to obtain limited and frequently uncertain funding, which hinders their ability to expand services
and have a substantial impact on the institution (Huerta & Dizon, 2021). Institutional resource
allocation frequently falls short in addressing the diverse and complex needs of MOC, leading to
40
fragmented support that does not reduce equity gaps (Huerta & Dizon, 2021). For these
initiatives to succeed and grow, they need sustainable, long-term financial investment and a
dedication to redistributing resources (Huerta & Dizon, 2021). This lack of institutional
commitment to dedicated resources for MOC challenges the implementation of long-term
sustainable support services that could improve persistence, success, retention, and completion
among this population.
Felix and Gonzalez (2022) analyzed student equity plans at 42 community colleges and
found that only 64% of these campuses explicitly named MOC as a target group, and only 6.5%
of all proposed activities at these institutions targeted MOC specifically. These statistics are
concerning, given that targeted interventions for populations stated in student equity plans
receive funding allocations (Felix & Gonzalez, 2022). Their study found that of the 57 million
equity dollars allocated to 42 community college campuses, only 5.6 million were earmarked for
specific interventions for MOC (Felix & Gonzalez, 2022). Most equity interventions described in
these plans were one-size-fits-all solutions, such as extended library or tutoring hours or faculty
professional development, which did not address MOC’s specific needs (Felix & Gonzalez,
2022).
The Center for Community College Student Engagement (2014) reported that Black and
Latino men report higher rates of overall engagement, such as utilizing counseling and advising,
participating in summer bridge programs, visiting tutoring centers, enrollment in student success
courses, and visiting computer labs, than their White counterparts yet report lower graduation
outcomes. This could be because the majority of colleges studied did not intentionally allocate
reasonable resources, both fiscal and human, to address the needs of diverse MOC on their
campuses (Felix & Gonzalez, 2022; Huerta & Dizon, 2021). For example, student success
41
courses may not include curricula that center MOC’s experiences, programming for MOC may
not have dedicated full-time staff, and tutoring may not be offered on evenings and weekends for
MOC who work full-time while attending college.
According to Huerta and Dizon (2021), many colleges have set aside minimal funding, if
any, and hired only one part-time staff to address the needs of MOC. This limits their capacity to
serve a larger number of students and achieve significant institutional impact (Huerta & Dizon,
2021). This makes it difficult to receive ongoing or increased funding, as programs often need to
demonstrate their effectiveness continuously to secure ongoing support (Huerta & Dizon, 2021).
Furthermore, many of the proposed interventions may lack clarity regarding the intended target
population (e.g., Latino men, African American men, all MOC), which may lead to confusion for
students or cultural mismatches (Huerta & Dizon, 2021). Such challenges highlight the necessity
of a more robust and nuanced approach to addressing the needs of all MOC in community
colleges, including those from underrepresented groups.
It is important to note that there is a need for further scholarship relating to the
community college experiences and the needs of Asian American, Pacific Islander, and Native
men, as there is not an abundance of such literature for these groups (Xiong & Wood, 2016).
Despite recent scholarship by Xiong and his colleagues regarding the experiences of Southeast
Asian community college students, a gap in the literature on Asian American, Pacific Islander,
and Native men remains. Xiong (2023) found that in addition to encouragement from parents and
guidance from older siblings who had previously attended college, programs like AVID and
TRIO Upward Bound offered support, information, and experiences that helped Hmong men
navigate the college application process and develop their academic and career aspirations.
Furthermore, Xiong and Wood (2020) found that less than half of Southeast Asian American
42
men in community colleges reported having one to two faculty members who communicated that
they were capable of college work or succeeding in college, and only one-third felt faculty
communicated that they belonged at the institution (Xiong & Wood, 2020). These recent
findings on Southeast Asian men demonstrate a need to further investigate the experiences of
diverse MOC who may not identify as Black/African American and Latino to offer institutional
resources relevant to their needs and experiences.
To implement institutional resources for diverse MOC, it is important to understand their
needs based on their experiences. Much of the scholarship on MOC in higher education
predominantly centers on Black and Latino men, with limited focus on Asian American,
Indigenous, and multiracial men (Cabrera et al., 2022; Xiong & Wood, 2016). There is minimal
attention to other social identities of MOC, such as sexual orientation and socioeconomic status.
The theoretical frameworks these studies use often focus on systemic racism and the strengths
among marginalized communities but often overlook gender-based social oppression (Cabrera et
al., 2022). Scholarship tends to ignore how patriarchy and gender privilege interact with systemic
racism to impact the experiences of MOC (Cabrera et al., 2022). Given the complexities of
identity formation for community college MOC, institutions should enable them to engage in
dialogue and explore their individual and intersecting identities and masculinities (Sáenz,
Ponjuan et al., 2015). By inquiring about the exploration of masculine identity and gendered
experiences, institutions might gather data leading to promising practices and dedicated
resources to directly address this population’s needs.
Supports for CCC Men of Color
Given the myriad challenges community college MOC face, institutions have offered
innovative solutions to mitigate barriers. The primary focus has been on professional skills and
43
leadership development, as well as mentorship and peer support (Brooms, 2018; Cervantes et al.,
2022; Sáenz, Ponjuan, et al., 2015). Studies have found that MOC encounter personal and
systemic problems, including lacking support networks, direct experiences of racism and ethnic
isolation, and few connections with faculty and staff members of color who can serve as mentors
(Huerta, 2022; Huerta & Fishman, 2014). Huerta (2022) noted that administrators believe that
granting MOC access to previously limited or restricted resources and services results in
completion rates on par with those of comparable peers (Huerta, 2022). The next section will
highlight key findings and recommendations for improving MMIs and MOC programs.
Minority Male Initiatives and Men of Color Programs
In 2010, the American Association of Community Colleges established an MMI database
to capture activities, interventions, and programs aimed at improving the achievement of MOC
in community colleges (Wood, Harris & White, 2016). Building on these efforts, in 2013, former
President Barack Obama’s administration launched the My Brother’s Keeper initiative, which
sought to bring national attention to the challenges MOC face in society, such as entering school
ready to learn, reading at grade level by third grade, graduating from high school ready for
college, completing postsecondary education or training, entering the workforce, and providing
support for those who have interacted with the justice system to get a second chance. (Xiong &
Wood, 2016). Shortly thereafter, states across the country, including New York, Georgia, North
Carolina, and Texas, enacted statewide investment into and implementation of education
initiatives supporting MOC (Harris et al., 2017).
A convergence of activities has occurred in California to address the structural and
systemic issues that boys and MOC face. The California Assembly Select Committee on the
Status of Boys and MOC and the California Alliance for Boys and MOC (CABMC) have served
44
as catalysts for these efforts (Harris et al., 2017). The California Assembly Select Committee on
the Status of Boys and MOC is responsible for policy development and advocacy, research and
analysis, community engagement and collaboration, monitoring institutions and government
agencies and holding them accountable, and allocating resources and support (Harris et al., 2017;
Wood, Harris & White, 2016). The CABMC focuses on several key areas to address systemic
inequities and promote positive outcomes for boys and MOC, such as advocacy and policy
change, community engagement and mobilization, research and data collection, capacity
building, public awareness and education, youth empowerment and leadership, and collaborative
initiatives (Wood, Harris & White, 2016). These organizations provide leadership and guidance
to policymakers and institutional leaders on improving the outcomes for boys and MOC in the
state. The initiatives based in California tackle various concerns such as employment, housing,
health care, and the criminal justice system. However, the primary focus has been on education,
as Harris et al. (2017) noted.
Despite being recognized as the largest community college system in the nation,
California does not currently have a formalized statewide education initiative for diverse MOC
in community colleges (Harris & Wood, 2013). One such justification could be that the CCC
system already offers culturally affirming programs, such as Puente for Latino/a/x students and
Umoja for African American students (Cuellar Mejia et al., 2022; Keflezighi et al., 2016)
however, neither of these programs specifically addresses MOC’s experiences and needs.
As of 2022–2023, the CCCCO reserved a portion of its budget for the African American
Male Education & Network Development (A2MEND), which focuses its efforts on providing
mentorship, professional development, culturally affirming programming, and leadership
opportunities for African American male community college students and institutional agents
45
across the state (A2MEND, 2021; CCCCO, 2022). As of 2024, A2MEND’s student charters,
individual campus student organizations for African American males, existed at only 29% of the
state’s community college campuses with limited access to student charter participation figures
(A2MEND, 2024). Further research on the effectiveness of A2MEND’s efforts in increasing
college success for African American males may be essential to informing promising practices
for community college programming tailored to their needs.
Transitioning from the specific efforts state-funded efforts to broader research on MOC
in higher education, there have been numerous studies on programs and initiatives targeting
MOC in higher education (Felix & Gonzalez, 2022; Keflezighi et al., 2016); however, the
majority of studies have focused on the experiences of African American and/or Latino males at
4-year universities (Brooms, 2018, 2019; Cervantes et al., 2022; Huerta, 2022; Rodriguez et al.,
2019; Sáenz, Mayo, et al., 2015; Sáenz, Ponjuan, et al., 2015). This is problematic due to the
higher concentration of MOC in community colleges and the experiences and challenges they
face compared to their 4-year university MOC counterparts (Harris & Wood, 2013).
Research suggests that there are some common themes in regard to what MOC programs
and MMIs typically offer: academic and social support, tutoring, academic advising/counseling,
mentorship, peer networks, personal development, interpersonal and intrapersonal development
opportunities, racial and gender-identity development, leadership development, and institutional
support. They also offer access to campus resources and services tailored to the needs of MOC,
such as culturally affirming events or acute basic needs support; career preparation: guidance and
resources for professional skills and career planning (Brooms, 2018, 2019; Harris & Wood,
2013; Huerta, 2022; Keflezighi et al., 2016; McCoy et al., 2020; Person et al., 2017; Sáenz,
Ponjuan, et al., 2015). Given the various challenges to successful outcomes for MOC mentioned
46
earlier in this chapter, these content areas provide a holistic range of support for them. However,
areas such as masculine identity development, mental health, emotional well-being,
vulnerability, and trauma are often not specifically addressed (Harris & Edwards, 2010; Huerta,
2022; Huerta & Dizon, 2021)
Despite community college MOC programs and initiatives, there is a lack of research on
their efficacy in increasing persistence and college completion. During the last 15 years, MMIs
have shown minimal results in promoting MOC’s success (Keflezighi et al., 2016). According to
Harper (2014), this could be attributed to interventions described as “flimsy” and “fragmented”
(p. 126). Harper specifically criticized MMIs for frequently lacking deliberately defined
interventions and assessments to evaluate the effectiveness of adopted measures. Wood (2011)
observed that community college MMIs frequently lack predetermined goals and built-in
methods for assessing efficacy. Huerta, Romero-Morales, Dizon, and Nguyen (2021) highlighted
using institutional data to assess and improve MOC program effectiveness, such as data on
graduation rates, academic performance, and student engagement, which provide insights into
areas needing improvement and help tailor programs to better support MOC.
Informing program adjustments and development requires normalizing data collection
and use. This involves collaboration with institutional research offices and sharing findings with
a wide range of stakeholders to drive change (Huerta, Romero-Morales, Dizon, & Nguyen,
2021). Recommendations for program improvement include accommodating the schedules and
needs of commuter and working students, advertising programs through student organizations,
and creating a welcoming environment through inclusive recruitment practices (Huerta, RomeroMorales, Dizon, & Nguyen, 2021). Successful programs incorporated holistic support, such as
mentoring, peer support, scholarships, and workshops designed to address the psychosocial
47
development of MOC (Huerta, Romero-Morales, Dizon, & Nguyen, 2021). They found that
disparity in funding across different MOC programs significantly impacted their scope and
effectiveness and suggested that consistent and adequate funding is essential for the
sustainability and success of these programs (Huerta, Romero-Morales, Dizon, & Nguyen,
2021). Programs that involve collaboration with local communities, businesses, and other
external partners are more effective as they can provide additional resources, mentorship
opportunities, and real-world engagement for students (Huerta, Romero-Morales, Dizon, &
Nguyen, 2021). They found that effective programs are tailored to their students’ histories,
cultures, and needs, integrate previously successful strategies, and continuously adapt based on
feedback and data analysis (Huerta, Romero-Morales, Dizon, & Nguyen, 2021).
Research on MOC programs and MMIs suggests that MOC benefit from mentors and
peers who are committed to promoting academic success and cultivating the ability to achieve
this goal (Center for Community College Student Engagement, 2014; Harper, 2004; Harper &
Harris, 2012). Countless studies have discussed the importance of same-sex mentorship and its
positive correlation with MOCs’ ability to persist and complete higher education, especially
because many MOC are first-generation college students (Brooms, 2018, 2019; Coney, 2017;
Huerta & Fishman, 2014; McCoy et al., 2020; Sáenz, Ponjuan, et al., 2015). Furthermore, MOC
in higher education benefit from positive interactions with institutional agents who share their
racial and gender identity (Brooms, 2016; Kugiya et al., 2021). These interactions with more
experienced MOC can affirm students’ sense of belonging and self-confidence in their perceived
ability to achieve their educational goals (Harper, 2012; Howard & Rodriguez-Minkoff, 2017;
Huerta & Fishman, 2014). Current scholarship on MOC programs and initiatives highlights the
need for institutions to diversify their faculty, staff, and administrators to more closely reflect the
48
identities of the MOC on their campuses (Burmicky et al., 2023; Bustillos & Siqueiros, 2018;
Center for Community College Student Engagement, 2014; Coney, 2017; Harris & Wood, 2013;
Sáenz, Ponjuan, et al., 2015).
As previously mentioned, MOC programs and initiatives have historically lacked efficacy
in promoting success for their participants (Keflezighi et al., 2016). Several studies have pointed
to a plethora of factors contributing to the disconnect between these well-intentioned efforts and
their outcomes, most of which are at the institutional level. Most of these programs are
understaffed and underfunded (Huerta & Dizon, 2021). Program directors have reported being
offered limited institutional resources and dedicated time in their schedules, a discrepancy
between institutional commitments to diversity and actual actions, non-specific diversity efforts
with MOC not specifically mentioned, and a lack of buy-in from key stakeholders at the
executive administration level (Briscoe et al., 2020; Burmicky et al., 2023; Harris & Wood,
2013; Keflezighi et al., 2016). For example, Briscoe et al. (2020) found that MOC program
directors often face significant challenges due to changing leadership and budget constraints.
Keflezighi et al. (2016) found that 47% of MOC programs studied had three or more funding
sources, demonstrating that these initiatives had yet to be institutionalized. Burmicky et al.
(2023) highlighted institutional leadership’s varied and loose definitions of what it means to
serve MOC, resulting in interventions that did not specifically address the needs of MOC but
served as equity interventions for all.
Although prior research has examined the experiences of MOC students and programs in
community colleges, research on the roles and responsibilities of program staff is limited.
Program staff are typically current institutional agents, such as faculty and staff, who either
volunteer their time or are sometimes provided release time for a portion of their regularly
49
assigned duties (Huerta & Dizon, 2021; Oliver, 2018). Their responsibilities may range from
mentoring student participants, facilitating workshops, counseling and advising, and leading
initiatives, events, and meetings for these programs (Torrens et al., 2017). Many MOC program
staff cite mentorship they received resulting in a sense of duty to serve other MOC (Torrens et
al., 2017). A study by Torrens et al. (2017) of volunteer MOC program staff found that staff had
shared frustrations with a lack of support and validation from administrators for their mentoring
efforts. Furthermore, studies have suggested that these programs and initiatives are often
underfunded, understaffed, and lack dedicated interventions specific to the needs of MOC on
their campuses, resulting in high turnover and low sustainability (Briscoe et al., 2020; Cervantes
et al., 2022; Huerta & Dizon, 2021; Huerta, Romero-Morales, Dizon, & Nguyen, 2021; Lott et
al., 2022; Oliver, 2018). Lott et al. (2022) suggested that MOC program staff need ongoing
professional development to ensure they are equipped with the skills and knowledge to
effectively support MOC, including cultural competence and understanding the challenges these
students face.
Furthermore, the study sheds light on the importance of collaboration among program
staff across different institutions, whereas creating networks and consortia can help in sharing
best practices, resources, and strategies for supporting MOC (Cervantes et al., 2022; Lott et al.,
2022). Program staff should be involved in the processes of implementing regular evaluation and
assessment of MOC programs to understand their impact, identify areas for improvement, and
ensure their insights and experiences are considered (Cervantes et al., 2022; Lott et al., 2022).
Additionally, program staff and administrators need to define success metrics for MOC programs
beyond traditional academic measures, incorporating factors like sense of belonging and
mentorship (Cervantes et al., 2022). Kugiya et al. (2021) suggested that program staff should
50
focus on providing holistic support that addresses academic, personal, and social needs, as
recognizing the multifaceted nature of student success is essential. They also suggest that
program staff must be flexible and adaptable to changing circumstances, such as those brought
on by the COVID-19 pandemic, which includes modifying requirements and finding new ways
to engage students (Kugiya et al., 2021). The majority of research on MOC programs focuses on
student participants’ experiences, program activities, and the challenges experienced by program
directors or institutions attempting to implement such programs. However, there is a lack of
information on the specific day-to-day roles and responsibilities of MOC program staff, their
experiences in these roles, and their perceived challenges, which demonstrates a need for further
research in this area.
Furthermore, studies have suggested the need for MOC programs and initiatives to utilize
a data-informed decision-making process in their implementation, including disaggregation of
data by gender and race/ethnicity, and to collaborate with critical institutional units (Cervantes et
al., 2022; Harris & Wood, 2013; Huerta, Romero-Morales, Dizon, & Nguyen, 2021). Lastly,
studies have found that the impact of COVID-19 is an area for further research, with initial
findings suggesting that the pandemic exacerbated environmental and academic challenges for
college MOC, especially regarding virtual learning and acute basic needs (Martinez et al., 2021;
Palacios & Wood, 2016).
Masculine Identity Among Men of Color
With the increasing number of programs for MOC in higher education, it is important to
prioritize initiatives focused on emotional well-being and vulnerability specifically related to
gender identity, including masculine identity (Huerta, 2022). Most postsecondary MOC
programs and initiatives have focused on academic and social support, personal development,
51
and career preparation (Keflezighi et al., 2016); however, there is a lack of attention given to the
gendered experiences of MOC. Much of the scholarship regarding MOC in higher education
suggests that consideration must be given to the impact of intersectional identities, specifically
the intersection of race and gender, on these students’ experiences and outcomes (Harris &
Edwards, 2010; Harris & Harper, 2008; Harris & Wood, 2013; Huerta, 2022). Furthermore, the
social construct of masculinity plays a significant role in the experiences of MOC in higher
education (Harris & Edwards, 2010; Harris et al., 2015). Developing healthy gender identities is
particularly challenging for MOC in higher education (Huerta, 2022). Many college men avoid
sharing personal issues with peers to avoid appearing weak, and they even hesitate to suggest
others seek emotional support (Schwab & Dupuis, 2020). This reluctance to be open is
influenced by societal pressures to conform to traditional notions of masculinity, leading them to
hide their true selves (Harris & Edwards, 2010). Furthermore, pre-college gender socialization
significantly impacts how they perceive and enforce healthy masculinity among their peers, often
resulting in engagement in high-risk behaviors as a form of acceptable interaction (Harper et al.,
2005).
Men of color in higher education have historically been conditioned to accept traditional
hegemonic characteristics of masculinity, such as toughness, achievement, breadwinner
orientation, strength, power, pride, competitiveness, and self-reliance (Harper, 2004; Harris &
Edwards, 2010; Harris & Harper, 2015; Harris et al., 2015; Sáenz, Mayo, et al., 2015). Although
helpful in certain situations, such as an individual’s orientation toward competitiveness
motivating them to gain admission to a prestigious university, these characteristics can hinder
college success for MOC, particularly in help-seeking behaviors (Elliott, 2021; Vogel et al.,
2014). For example, traditional masculine traits such as self-reliance and toughness may prevent
52
MOC from sharing personal issues affecting performance in their classes, such as the recent loss
of a close family member, with a counselor or professor due to the belief that they must man up
(Huerta, 2022). Therefore, colleges and universities aiming to address disparities among MOC
must help them explore and challenge these traditional gender norms of masculinity, which may
not serve them in higher education.
Masculinity as a Social Construct
Masculinity is a socially constructed concept that can be defined as “the meanings,
values, and behaviors that are associated with being a man” (Harris et al., 2015, p. 63). Young
boys begin to learn and adapt to the social and cultural norms of masculinity as early as age two
(Schwab & Dupuis, 2020). Traditional gender norms often fall into the binary of masculine and
feminine. In contrast, masculinity is what it means to be a man, and femininity is what it means
to be a woman. Though there is often overlap in the experiences of men and women, this binary
of masculine and feminine is typically in competition. As suggested by the author (Connell,
1995), one cannot be masculine and feminine simultaneously in this traditional sense of
masculinity. These competing concepts of gender identity can lead to young boys feeling that
they must conform to masculine norms to be accepted by peers and society, regardless of their
own beliefs and feelings (Vogel et al., 2014).
Traditional concepts of masculinity promote the need for men to be strong, tough, stoic,
self-reliant, and competitive, whereas traditional concepts of femininity promote the need for
women to be vulnerable, sensitive, nurturing, and emotional (Connell, 1995; Connell &
Messerschmidt, 2005; Harris & Edwards, 2010; Schwab & Dupuis, 2020). Boys and men are
often rewarded for performing traditionally masculine behaviors and punished for not doing so
(Harper, 2004; Harris & Harper, 2008; Harris et al., 2015). For example, Harris and Harper
53
(2015) shared that a man of color who does not share a story of sexual promiscuity or dominance
with his peers might have his masculinity questioned. Fathers, male peers, teachers, coaches, and
other influential adult figures are key contributors in shaping the gender socialization of boys
(Harris et al., 2015; Sáenz, Mayo et al., 2105). These influencers communicate and reinforce
societal norms and expectations regarding masculinity, often without realizing it, and expect
boys to conform to these standards (Harris & Edwards, 2010; Harris et al., 2015).
The societal promotion of all things masculine to men can be problematic in that men are
often being socialized to think that exhibiting traditionally feminine traits, such as vulnerability
or emotionality, makes them a lesser man when, in reality, all people experience these
phenomena (Harris & Edwards, 2010; Harris et al., 2015; McGuire et al., 2014). This is
especially problematic for MOC in higher education, as they are often the first in their families to
attend college and have trouble navigating college through connecting with peers and
institutional agents due to a fear of seeming vulnerable or weak (Harper, 2004; Harris & Harper,
2015; Huerta, 2022; McGuire et al., 2014). Therefore, college MOC often feel they have to
navigate higher education on their own, which can be a tall task given the complexities of the
community college and university experiences.
Kolluri (2022) found that young MOC were less likely to ask for support from adults or
peers, often preferring to rely on their own limited knowledge or familial support, which was
often inadequate. This reluctance stemmed from past negative experiences and a desire not to
appear weak or bothersome (Kolluri, 2022). Additionally, he found that the presence of
supportive relationships and programs specifically designed to aid college transitions was crucial
for MOC (Kolluri, 2022). This further illustrates students’ need for supportive networks at the
community college to provide guidance and support to navigate their identities and experiences.
54
Understanding masculinity as a social construct lays the foundation for examining how gender
role conflict impacts educational experiences and outcomes.
Male Gender Role Conflict and Education
The concept of MGRC is especially important when attempting to understand
masculinity’s role in educational settings. It occurs when inflexible or excessively limiting
expectations of masculinity clash with incompatible situational pressures, resulting in adverse
outcomes for men and their social circles (Harris & Edwards, 2010; Harris et al., 2015; Huerta,
2022; Schwab & Dupuis, 2020; Vogel et al., 2014) The MGRC model consists of six distinct
components: restrictive emotionality, where men often feel pressured to suppress their emotions
to conform to societal expectations of stoicism and toughness; homophobia or fear of intimacy,
where the fear of being perceived as less masculine can lead to discomfort with close, same-sex
friendships and aversion to behaviors deemed non-masculine; socialized control, power, and
competition, or a strong emphasis on achieving success, wielding power, and engaging in
competitive behaviors, often leading to stress and interpersonal conflicts; restrictive sexual and
affectional behavior, where adherence to strict, traditional masculine norms can limit personal
expression and lead to conflicts in various life domains; obsession with achievement and success,
where balancing career aspirations with family responsibilities can create stress, particularly
when societal norms prioritize work over familial involvement for men; and health care
problems, where pressure to maintain a certain physical appearance and fitness level can
contribute to unhealthy behaviors and mental health issues (Harris et al., 2015; O’Neil et al.,
1995; Vogel et al., 2014). O’Neil et al. (1995) found that conforming to the rigid roles of
traditional masculinity can be problematic for men as it causes psychological distress,
interpersonal problems, physical health challenges, and work and career challenges. It also has
55
broader societal implications by maintaining gender inequalities and limiting the potential for
more equitable gender relations. The pressures of performing rigid expectations of masculinity
can be unsurmountable for many men, leading to feelings of inadequacy, depression, and anxiety
(Harris et al., 2015; O’Neil et al., 1995; Vogel et al., 2014).
Furthermore, men may attempt to resolve these feelings of inadequacy by exhibiting
hyper-masculine maladaptive behaviors, such as sexual promiscuity, aggression, alcohol and
drug abuse, and/or violence, to prove their sense of worth as men (Harris et al., 2015). This is
evident by examples of men on college campuses engaging in risky behaviors such as binge
drinking, excessive partying, engaging in sexual relationships with multiple partners, and
prioritizing dominant status over academic achievement (Harper, 2004; Schwab & Dupuis,
2020). This is problematic because these behaviors may serve as short-term coping strategies for
emotional struggles but often lead to consequences such as legal problems, unplanned
parenthood, and general physical and mental health challenges without addressing the root of the
problem (O’Neil et al., 1995).
At the core of MGRC and its corresponding behaviors is men’s fear of femininity or
being perceived as gay or unmanly by others (Harris et al., 2015; O’Neil et al., 1995; Vogel et
al., 2014). Men who experience an aversion to healthy expressions of masculinity, such as
vulnerability, emotional expression, and help-seeking due to perceiving these traits as feminine
or gay, may be significantly limited in their abilities to engage in healthy relationships and
receive emotional support when needed (Huerta, 2022). Additional examples of this
phenomenon are evident in college men who may prioritize activities that emphasize their
hegemonic masculinity, such as going to the gym, earning money outside of school, participating
in competitive sports, and attending parties (Harris & Harper, 2015) instead of attending
56
professors’ office hours or tutoring, joining campus clubs, forming study groups, and being
vulnerable with other male peers (Brooms, Clark & Smith, 2018; Harper, 2012). Male-to-male
peer relationships have been attributed to the need for men to perform hyper-masculine
behaviors, as they may seek acceptance or approval in male peer social circles, particularly
important to their socialization in new spaces such as college and university environments and
fraternities (Brooms, 2019; Harper, 2004; Harris & Edwards, 2010; Harris & Harper, 2015;
McGuire et al., 2014; Sáenz, Mayo, et al., 2015). The impact of MGRC on MOC’s perceived
expectations to conform to hegemonic masculinity creates pressure to perform masculinity in a
very rigid manner, which might harm them, as described earlier in this chapter.
One prominent example of how MGRC can negatively impact college men is the concept
of breadwinner orientation or the idea that a man must be the sole or primary provider for
himself and his family (Harris & Harper, 2008). In many cultures, breadwinner orientation is
rewarded as an expectation of masculinity, as men feel they are fulfilling their societally
proclaimed duty as a breadwinner (Harris & Edwards, 2010; Harris et al., 2015). As previously
stated, MOC experience disproportionately greater financial challenges when compared to their
White male and female counterparts, which may serve as one reason for them to assume a
breadwinner orientation (Wood & Essien-Wood, 2012). This can create a challenge for MOC as
they experience an obligation to prioritize working over school. As a result, this decision to
prioritize work over school has led many of these men to face challenges in balancing their work
schedules with the requisite time and engagement to succeed academically (Wood & EssienWood, 2012). When considering the correlation between degree attainment and income potential,
MOC who assume a breadwinner orientation might prioritize working two to three part-time jobs
57
while in college for short-term financial gain, hindering or halting their progress toward a degree
that might yield greater financial potential in the long-term.
The perceived expectations of MOC to serve as breadwinners while navigating financial
challenges coupled with the long-term commitment required to complete their college education
has led to these students devaluing a college degree (Harris et al., 2015; Wood & Essien-Wood,
2012). Lastly, it is important to note that although the implications of breadwinner orientation
may seem negative, the breadwinner role is seen as a sign of strength and responsibility in many
cultures, such as Latino (Sáenz, Mayo, et al., 2015) and Black/African American (Wood &
Essien-Wood, 2012) cultures. Therefore, further research should be conducted on how
breadwinner orientation benefits MOC from diverse cultural backgrounds in their educational
pursuits.
Masculinity and Race/Ethnicity
Given this study’s focus on the experiences of MOC in community colleges, it is
imperative to discuss research findings on masculine identity regarding the intersections of
gender, race, and/or ethnicity. When compared to their White peers, MOC live in low-income
neighborhoods and attend schools with limited resources (Ferguson, 2000; Harris et al., 2015;
Noguera, 2003). Consequently, their opportunities to access universities, well-paid employment,
and other advantages are significantly restricted, given the financial, environmental, and
psychosocial pressures associated with poverty and limited access to quality education
(Ferguson, 2000; Harris et al., 2015; Noguera, 2003). Due to historically low-performance
outcomes in higher education for MOC, several studies have examined the masculine
experiences of college men from diverse racial backgrounds.
Black/African American Men of Color
58
The masculine expression of Black men in higher education can be attributed to early
experiences in their schooling. Ferguson (2000) states that Black boys have historically
experienced disproportionately high disciplinary actions in public schools, leading to their
criminalization and marginalization. Furthermore, the existence of hostile institutional practices
and spaces serve to maintain and reinforce racial and gender stereotypes, which in turn have a
significant impact on the educational experiences and masculine identities of Black male
students (Ferguson, 2000; Noguera, 2003). Harris et al. (2011) examined how Black men at a
private research university expressed masculinity. The study found that some participants
displayed homophobia and sexism to assert their dignity and respect as men within an
institutional context where they were marginalized and seen as inferior (Harris et al., 2011).
Alternatively, studies have suggested that Black men, given their low enrollment
numbers on college and university campuses, benefit from programs, organizations, and
initiatives that cater to more positive aspects of masculinity, such as brotherhood, mentorship,
peer accountability networks, and leadership (Brooms, 2018, 2019; Brooms, Clark & Smith,
2018; Brooms, Franklin et al., 2018). Studies have also found that Black men’s participation in
fraternities can enhance social peer support, instill values of leadership and mutual
accountability, and inform their identities as Black men, in turn, leading to a greater sense of
belonging and self-efficacy on college campuses (Brooms, 2019; Harper, 2012; Harris & Harper,
2015; McGuire et al., 2014). Harper (2012) suggested that traditionally deficit-minded narratives
of Black men in higher education must be challenged, and research should instead focus on the
experiences of Black men and MOC who have navigated college to gain more insight into what
contributes to their success. Overall, fostering supportive environments and positive expressions
59
of masculinity through dedicated programs and initiatives can significantly improve the
educational experiences and outcomes for Black men in higher education.
Latino MOC
In addition to the scholarship on Black men in higher education, several scholars have
studied the experiences of Latino males on college and university campuses. Sáenz, Mayo, et al.
(2015) found that the Latino community’s cultural expectations, which dictate that men must
display qualities such as pride, power, strength, and competitiveness (referred to as machismo),
result in their reluctance to seek assistance, even when confronted with the possibility of failure.
Whereas the concept of machismo may hinder Latino men’s college success, caballerismo
positively affects Latino men’s well-being (Estrada & Arciniega, 2015; Sáenz, Mayo, et al.,
2015). Furthermore, religious participation amplifies the beneficial effects of caballerismo on
Latino men’s well-being, indicating a notable interplay between cultural values and religious
rituals (Estrada & Arciniega, 2015).
Research suggests that programs and initiatives with a focus on challenging the negative
aspects of machismo among Latino males have been effective in increasing their self-concept,
ability to express vulnerability, and increasing interdependence among peers and institutional
agents (Brooms, 2019; Estrada & Arciniega, 2015; Sáenz, Mayo, et al., 2015; Sáenz, Ponjuan, et
al., 2015). Huerta and Fishman (2014) studied first-generation college, low-income urban Latino
males, finding that factors such as family motivation, supportive college environments, and
mentorship significantly positively impacted their ability to feel as though they matter and
belong in higher education. This body of research highlights addressing cultural nuances and
fostering supportive environments to enhance the educational experiences and outcomes of
Latino men in higher education.
60
Asian American, Pacific Islander, and Native MOC
There is limited research on the masculine experiences of Asian American college men,
mostly because national performance outcomes data typically does not suggest a
disproportionate impact for this population (Xiong & Wood, 2016). However, this could be
because institutions rarely disaggregate data on Asian men by ethnicity (Xiong & Wood, 2016).
Research suggests that the model minority myth, in which Asian Americans are perceived to
have inherent intellectual capabilities that place them in a position of academic dominance over
their peers, could contribute to this lack of data disaggregation and further exploration of the
topic (Harris & Wood, 2013; Harris et al., 2015; Shek, 2006; Xiong & Wood, 2016). Shek
(2006) asserted that the social construction of Asian American masculinity is characterized by
meekness, effeminateness, asexuality, and non-threatening.
Furthermore, the concept of breadwinner orientation is also found among Asian men, as
serving as the leader of their household is a common cultural norm (Harris et al., 2015; Shek,
2006). A common misconception that Asian Americans do not face obstacles because of their
gender, color, or ethnicity could jeopardize their ability to succeed in college (Harris et al., 2015;
Shek, 2006; Xiong & Wood, 2016). Preconceived notions about the successful status of Asian
Americans cause many to ignore the diversity that makes up the Asian American and Pacific
Islander communities and conceal the inequities that Filipino, Southeast Asian (Hmong, Laotian,
Cambodian, and Vietnamese), and Pacific Islander men face (Harris & Wood, 2013; Xiong et al.,
2021). There is a clear need for further research on college men from Southeast Asian, Pacific
Islander, Native American, and multiracial/multiethnic backgrounds, as such literature is sparse.
61
Masculinity and Help-Seeking
Men of color have historically been taught not to seek assistance; instead, they are urged
to be strong and solve problems independently (Huerta, 2022). This social conditioning to be
self-sufficient or being seen as weak for asking for help is concerning, especially given the
already low rates of college completion and persistence among MOC. As discussed previously,
concepts such as breadwinner orientation and machismo perpetuate a masculine culture of
independence and self-reliance (Brooms, 2019; Harper, 2004; Sáenz, Mayo, et al., 2015).
Furthermore, common traits of traditional masculinity, such as competitiveness, power, control,
and stoicism, also promote a culture that is not conducive to help-seeking behaviors (Harper,
2004). This is especially true in education, as the normative expectations of independence among
MOC negatively affect their ability to ask for help, regardless of how much they may be
struggling (Elliott, 2021). Elliott (2021) purported that MOC may also be oriented toward
independence by postsecondary institutions where the messaging to new and incoming students
regards the importance of independence without clarifying existing support and services.
In regard to voicing needs relating to mental health and emotionality, hegemonic
masculinity can promote silence among MOC (Schwab & Dupuis, 2020). Addis (2011)
described three specific forms of silence among men that aid in keeping vulnerability and
emotional experiences hidden (personal, private, and public silence). Personal silence occurs
when men cannot identify or describe their feelings (Addis, 2011). Furthermore, private silence
occurs when a man chooses not to share his feelings or emotional experiences with others
(Addis, 2011). Lastly, public silence occurs when people in a man’s environment communicate
that they do not want to hear about his emotional experiences (Addis, 2011). The hegemonic
masculine ideal of emotional stoicism is upheld by all of these forms of silence, which can
62
maintain the stereotype of the strong, silent man who is emotionless, does not show his feelings
to others, and has come to terms with the fact that people do not want to hear about his feelings
(Addis, 2011; Schwab & Dupuis, 2020).
One significant factor that influences help-seeking behaviors is stigma. Traditional, or
hegemonic, masculinity tends to stigmatize vulnerability, emotionality, and reliance on others
(Vogel et al., 2014). Given the relationship between MGRC and mental health, men who
experience greater MGRC also experience greater stigma toward mental health issues, thus
making them less likely to seek help for their emotional and mental health challenges (Vogel et
al., 2014). When you combine these factors of MGRC and stigma with the concept of silence,
you end up with a culture of white-knuckling it throughout life with little hope of situational
improvements. In the context of higher education, one example of this phenomenon could show
up in the classroom with MOC feeling embarrassed to ask questions in class due to fear of
“looking dumb.” However, by not asking questions, they may feel more lost after class and
experience feelings of shame, inadequacy, and lowered self-confidence. This example elucidates
how MOC’s difficulty in asking for help in academic settings, resulting from traditional
masculine norms, can also lead to diminishing self-efficacy.
Another example, this time in a social setting, could involve MOC experiencing a
reluctance to communicate their emotional struggles with male peers out of fear of being
perceived as weak or having their masculinity challenged. Again, this combination of MGRC,
silence, and stigma perpetuates a culture that makes it difficult for men to seek help (Addis,
2011; Schwab & Dupuis, 2020; Vogel et al., 2014). Therefore, colleges and universities must
foster environments that promote help-seeking among MOC, which includes mentorship from
other men, same-sex peer support and community, and normalizing the use of support services
63
on campus (Brooms, 2019; Elliott, 2021; Xiong & Wood, 2016). Lastly, for community college
MOC, community colleges must enact programs and initiatives that allow MOC to navigate the
complexities of their masculinity by validating their experiences and challenging harmful aspects
of hegemonic masculinity, which may impede their ability to ask for help (Huerta, 2022).
Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework for this study is anchored in two primary theories: Rendón’s
(1994) validation theory and theory of multiple masculinities (Connell, 1995). Validation theory
focuses on how institutional agents provide support and validation for students’ experiences,
especially those from marginalized backgrounds (Rendón, 1994; Rendón Linares & Muñoz,
2011). The framework aids in comprehending how MOC programs in community colleges
establish environments that encourage the investigation and validation of masculine identities.
Rendón (1994) argued that validation is an active process initiated by educators and staff, both
inside and outside the classroom, that enhances students’ sense of capability and confidence in
their academic and personal growth (Rendón, 1994; Rendón Linares & Muñoz, 2011). This
theory emphasizes consistent and supportive interactions in institutions to enhance student
outcomes, such as persistence, retention, and degree completion.
In this study, Connell’s (1995) theory of multiple masculinities complements Rendón’s
(1994) validation theory by acknowledging the varied and hierarchical nature of masculine
identities, thereby challenging the conventional, uniform perception of masculinity (Connell,
1995). Connell’s framework categorizes different manifestations of masculinity, including
hegemonic, complicit, marginalized, and subordinate, which exist and interact within social
environments (Carrigan et al., 1985; Connell, 1995; Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005). This
theory is especially applicable in educational environments, such as MOC programs, where
64
various forms of masculinity can have an impact on students’ behaviors and experiences.
Connell’s theory explores the intricacies of masculine identity. It can offer a detailed insight into
how community college MOC programs can promote the cultivation of positive and genuine
forms of masculinity. These theories provide a comprehensive perspective on how MOC
programs affect participants’ exploration of masculine identity in supportive educational settings.
In this section, I give an overview of both theoretical frameworks in further detail.
Validation Theory
This study examined how community college MOC programs foster spaces where MOC
can explore their masculine identity. Rendón’s (1994) validation theory was used to seek to
understand how community college MOC programs cultivate support and validate student
participants’ experiences surrounding masculine identity (Rendón, 1994; Rendón Linares &
Muñoz, 2011). According to Rendón (1994), “validation is an enabling, confirming and
supportive process initiated by in and out-of-class agents that fosters academic and interpersonal
development” (p. 44). Minoritized students, such as MOC, feel more “capable of setting and
meeting high expectations” in higher education when institutional agents engage in validationfocused actions (Rendón, 2002, p. 659). In this framework, facilitating the validation process is
the primary responsibility of institutional agents to ensure that students complete their
educational goals and experience a sense of belonging in the campus community (Huerta, 2022;
Rendón Linares & Muñoz, 2011).
In the early 1990s, a qualitative study supported by the U.S. Department of Education led
Rendón to develop the idea of academic validation. In this study, Rendón and colleagues
conducted group interviews with 132 students enrolled in various higher education institutions to
evaluate how students’ activities outside of the classroom affected their retention and learning
65
(Rendón, 1994). Through the analysis of interview data, Rendón (1994) found that nontraditional community college students were more likely than their traditional peers to doubt
their capacity to succeed in college. Furthermore, they found that higher education institutions
perpetuated a notion that the responsibility of learning was solely that of the student. In contrast,
the institution’s responsibility was to “afford students the mechanisms (i.e., organizations,
tutoring centers, extracurricular activities) to get involved” (Rendón, 1994, p. 43). The study
found that non-traditional students flourish when they receive institutional validation, which
happens when institutional agents actively support them (Rendón, 1994). When students feel
engaged and receive consistent attention, investment, and support from the institution and its
agents, persistence, retention, and degree completion increase (Huerta, 2022; Rendón, 1994,
2002).
As a framework, validation theory intends to guide research that examines the college
experience for student populations such as low-income, first-generation, developmental
education, immigrants, community college, and international students (Rendón, 1994). There are
two primary types of validation: academic and interpersonal. Academic validation occurs when
institutional and non-institutional agents take action to assist students to “trust their innate
capacity to learn and to acquire confidence in being a college student” (Rendón, 1994, p. 40).
Interpersonal validation takes place when institutional and non-institutional agents take action to
foster students’ personal development and social adjustment (Rendón, 1994, p. 40). Rendón’s
(1994) six elements of validation theory state the following:
Institutional agents are responsible for initiating contact with students of color
(Huerta, 2022, p. 55).
66
Institutional agents must support students of color to ensure that they “feel capable of
learning” and instill in students a sense of self-worth and reassurance that they matter
to the institutional fabric of the university (p. 48).
Validation must be done consistently, not only on a singular occasion or irregular
duration during the academic year (Huerta, 2022, p.55).
Validation can happen in and outside the classroom and can include during
enrichment and transition programs (Huerta, 2022, p. 55).
Validation matters for students throughout the college experience (Huerta, 2022, p.
55).
Validation has an especially impactful effect on students in the “first few weeks of
class” and during their “first year of college” (Rendón, 2002, p. 645).
These six elements are applicable in the context of community college MOC programs, as the
institutional agents working in these programs can validate program participants’ experiences
and identities academically and interpersonally, particularly their masculine identity.
This study is inspired by an existing study conducted by Huerta (2022) on how two 4-
year university MOC programs validated participants’ experiences to foster spaces where they
could “share emotions, explore trauma, and challenge traditional gender norms to build healthy
identities” (Huerta, 2022, p. 55). The findings highlighted the role of MOC programs in
validating participants’ experiences, offering resources to heal from past traumas, and
contributing to their overall well-being and success in college (Huerta, 2022). Furthermore, these
programs cultivated safe spaces for emotional expression, facilitating healthy gender-identity
development and enhancing academic engagement among Black, Latino, Asian American, and
67
Pacific Islander male students (Huerta, 2022). Lastly, the study amplifies that students involved
in such programs desire to feel supported and validated by peers and staff (Huerta, 2022).
Like Huerta’s (2022) study, this study utilized validation theory to learn how MOC
programs foster spaces to explore masculine identity for student participants. However, unlike
Huerta’s study, which focused on participants in 4-year university MOC programs, this study
focused on participants in community college MOC programs. Another point of distinction
between the two studies is that this study focused on the masculine identity of participants as
opposed to vulnerability, emotional well-being, and trauma. Lastly, the participants were
students and program staff, whereas Huerta’s (2022) study included students only. The study
aims to contribute to current literature on community college MOC participating in MOC
programs with an emphasis on promoting positive aspects of masculinity.
Multiple Masculinities
Connell’s (1995) theory highlights the wide range and intricate nature of masculine
identities. This theory questions the conventional perception of masculinity as a single, unified
concept by emphasizing how various manifestations of masculinity interact within a social
hierarchy (Carrigan et al., 1985; Connell, 1995).
Connell’s concept of multiple masculinities demonstrates that masculinity is not a
singular, homogeneous identity but a spectrum of identities influenced by diverse social and
cultural factors (Carrigan et al., 1985; Connell, 1995). The theory categorizes various forms of
masculinities, such as hegemonic, complicit, marginalized, and subordinate masculinities
(Connell, 1995; Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005). This framework is essential for
comprehending power dynamics and social structures that impact gender relations and individual
identities.
68
The theory of multiple masculinities is intricately connected to Connell’s involvement in
broader socio-political movements, theoretical advancement, and extensive empirical research
conducted over many years (Connell, 1995). Connell’s academic background in sociology
provided the basis for her subsequent theories on gender (Connell, 1995). Her initial work was
shaped by social constructionist viewpoints, which assert that gender identities are formed and
upheld through social mechanisms rather than inherent biological characteristics (Connell, 1995).
Connell utilized Marxist theory to examine the impact of economic and class structures on power
dynamics in gender relations in her sociological framework (Connell, 1995). The feminist
movements of the 1960s and 1970s also influenced Connell’s (1995) work. During that period,
scholars like Simone de Beauvoir and Judith Butler were analyzing and dismantling conventional
gender roles while emphasizing the various ways patriarchy subjugated women (Connell, 1995).
The concept of hegemonic masculinity was initially coined by Carrigan et al. (1985).
Connell (1995) further expounded on this notion by offering a comprehensive analysis of how
hegemonic masculinity validates male authority and marginalizes alternative forms of
masculinity (Connell, 1995). Connell’s empirical research in educational settings elucidated how
boys and young men negotiate and form their masculine identities in reaction to societal norms
and pressures. Connell’s research on boys’ education revealed how school environments
frequently perpetuate dominant masculinity by emphasizing sports, peer relationships, and
disciplinary measures, thereby excluding boys who do not adhere to these standards.
Connell’s later work highlighted the significance of intersectionality, a concept
popularized by Crenshaw (as cited in Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005), that examines how
different social identities (such as race, class, and sexuality) intersect to influence individual
experiences. Connell and Messerschmidt (2005) responded to criticism and integrated new
69
perspectives, such as intersectionality, global contexts, and relational dynamics, thereby
enhancing the original concept and reaffirming its significance in present-day gender studies.
The framework of multiple masculinities is particularly relevant to understanding college
students’ experiences. In educational settings, various forms of masculinity can influence
students’ behaviors, interactions, and academic performance (Connell, 1995). Recognizing and
addressing the diversity of masculinities can help create more inclusive and supportive
environments for all students (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005).
Connell’s (1995) theory of multiple masculinities categorizes various distinct forms of
masculinity:
Hegemonic masculinity refers to the prevailing cultural norm prioritizing
characteristics such as competitiveness and control (Connell, 1995).
Complicit masculinity refers to men who derive advantages from the privileges
associated with hegemonic masculinity yet do not entirely embody its characteristics
(Connell, 1995).
Marginalized masculinity encompasses various expressions of masculinity that are
subordinate to both dominant masculinity and more expansive societal systems,
frequently influenced by factors such as race and socioeconomic status (Connell,
1995).
Subordinate masculinity refers to forms of masculinity that are directly oppressed by
the dominant model and are frequently linked to femininity or homosexuality.
These categories serve to demonstrate the intricate and hierarchical structure of masculine
identities.
70
The concept of multiple masculinities encompasses various fundamental components.
Intersectionality emphasizes the interconnectedness of race, class, sexuality, and other social
factors with gender, collectively influencing the formation of various masculine identities
(Connell, 1995; Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005). The fluidity of masculinity highlights that it is
not a static characteristic but is constantly redefined within various social environments (Connell
& Messerschmidt, 2005). Power dynamics encompass the hierarchical relationships between
different manifestations of masculinity and their interactions with larger societal power
structures (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005). These elements offer a comprehensive framework
for comprehending the intricacy and flexibility of masculine identities.
The concept of multiple masculinities is critical in designing and implementing programs
for college MOC (Harris & Edwards, 2010). These programs must consider the diverse
expressions of masculinity influenced by racial, cultural, and socioeconomic backgrounds
(Harris & Edwards, 2010). By addressing the specific needs and challenges MOC face, these
programs can foster a more inclusive and supportive environment.
In addition to Huerta (2022), a study by Harris and Edwards (2010) inspired this study.
They examined the gender-identity development of college men through two independent
grounded theory studies conducted at two 4-year universities, one public and one private. The
main objective was to propose theoretical models grounded in the diverse experiences of the men
studied. In two case studies, Harris and Edwards (2010) utilized hegemonic masculinity as a
theoretical framework to explore and understand the influences and pressures these men face,
how they perform and understand their masculinity, and the implications of these behaviors and
attitudes for their development and well-being.
71
Both studies found that college men often feel compelled to meet external expectations of
masculinity, leading to behaviors that align with hegemonic norms, such as competitive
heterosexuality, substance abuse, and rule-breaking (Harris & Edwards, 2010). This performance
of masculinity often results in adverse emotional outcomes, including feelings of inauthenticity
and disconnection from their true selves (Harris & Edwards, 2010). Despite these pressures,
some participants tried to transcend traditional masculinity by seeking authentic expressions of
their identity and valuing self-honor and personal values (Harris & Edwards, 2010).
The studies offer various implications for higher education, highlighting that educators
may foster the growth of college men by promoting genuineness, cultivating introspection, and
improving the faculty and administrators’ capacity to interact effectively with men (Harris &
Edwards, 2010). Tackling the broader societal factors that support dominant forms of
masculinity can assist men in attaining genuine gender identities and enhancing the atmosphere
on campus (Harris & Edwards, 2010). The presence of older men and role models who defy
traditional masculinity norms had a substantial impact on the participants’ ability to redefine
their gender identities. This underscores the value of diverse viewpoints and inclusive settings
(Harris & Edwards, 2010).
Harris and Edwards (2010) suggested establishing environments that enable men to
openly express their identities and highlight continuous discussions on gender (Harris &
Edwards, 2010). They also emphasize the necessity of educational approaches that tackle the
intricacies of male gender identity (Harris & Edwards, 2010). These findings underline the
significance of comprehending college men’s pressures and difficulties when conforming to
conventional masculine norms (Harris & Edwards, 2010). They also highlight the necessity for
72
educational practices supporting and promoting healthier gender identities (Harris & Edwards,
2010).
Summary
The literature in this chapter highlights the need for additional research on how
community colleges can better serve diverse MOC through programs and initiatives that take
into account how masculinity shapes their positionality and epistemology. It is abundantly clear
that MOC face disproportionately low community college completion rates when compared to all
other demographic groups, both nationally and in California. Therefore, it is imperative to
continue to assess the effectiveness of community college policies and practices, which may
lower the performance outcomes of MOC. It is the responsibility of community colleges to
address the challenges their MOC continue to face, such as hostile campus climates, familial and
financial pressures, and a lack of resources tailored to this population’s needs. Furthermore,
community college MOC programs and initiatives should enhance students’ abilities to explore
their masculine identities and challenge harmful traditional masculine norms. Lastly, this study
sought to contribute to the literature on how MOC programs in CCCs can foster spaces where
students’ experiences and intersectional identities are validated and where they can cultivate and
develop positive masculinity, thus leading to improved performance outcomes for this population
as a whole.
73
Chapter Three: I Do This
Men of color in CCCs are the student population with the lowest college persistence and
completion rates (CCCCO, 2022; Harris & Wood, 2013; Harris et al., 2015). Despite programs
and initiatives in community colleges to support this population, these efforts have historically
not closed equity gaps (Harris & Wood, 2013; Keflezighi et al., 2016). Given the challenges
MOC face associated with traditional masculine norms, such as MGRC, stigma, and silence,
additional research on how MOC programs support positive masculinity identity development is
imperative (Addis, 2011; Brooms, 2019; Harper, 2004; Huerta, 2022; Schwab & Dupuis, 2020;
Vogel et al., 2014). This chapter will include the study’s research questions, research design,
methods, site description, population selected, data collection process, data analysis, and the role
of the researcher.
This study sought to examine the experiences of student participants of CCC MOC
programs to assess how such programs foster spaces for exploration and cultivation of positive
masculine identity. Furthermore, it sought to explore the role of institutional agents in validating
the experiences and masculine identities of MOC, including challenging traditional masculine
norms that may impede their ability to succeed in community college. The study was inspired by
Huerta’s (2022) narrative case study examining the experiences of institutional agents and
student participants in 4-year university MOC programs as they relate to vulnerability, emotional
well-being, and trauma. I received Dr. Huerta’s verbal consent to utilize similar methods and
protocols while modifying the components of his study for this dissertation study.
74
Research Questions
Research questions reflect the issues and core components of the problems examined by a
study (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The study sought to answer the following
research questions:
1. How do community college MOC program staff foster spaces to support student
participants’ exploration of masculine identity?
2. How do participants of community college MOC programs perceive and navigate the
exploration of masculine identity within spaces fostered by program staff?
Research Design and Methods
Given that this study primarily sought to understand the experiences of community
college MOC in California, a qualitative approach would be useful in producing findings that
could help me understand such experiences through the lens of the research participants.
Qualitative research is “based on the belief that people construct knowledge in an ongoing
fashion as they engage in and make meaning of an activity, experience, or phenomenon”
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 23). Qualitative research aims to comprehend events and the
meaning that study participants attribute to them (Maxwell, 2013). Therefore, this type of
research allows for a broad exploration of how participants in MOC programs attribute meaning
to their experiences in such programs.
Case studies allow researchers to examine a specific phenomenon within a bounded
context (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). A case can be considered a
bounded system comprising several components or processes that collaborate to create the whole
(Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). This study utilized a single-case design with two embedded cases
(program participants and program staff; Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). This strategy was
75
necessary due to the site’s characteristics, serving as one of only a handful of community college
campuses in Southern California with a dedicated program for MOC in operation for over 3
years. The primary data sources in this case study were questionnaires with embedded
demographic data forms, semi-structured interviews with students and institutional agents, and
observations of two program activities. The case study focused on participants and institutional
agents at one community college MOC program located in Southern California during the 2023–
2024 academic year.
Site Selection
My site is a CCC, Indigenous Land College (ILC), located in the greater Los Angeles
area. The college is known for its equity work and is a highly ranked transfer institution, offering
over 200 degrees and certificates. The college is in a single-college district, and the college has
six satellite campuses, five in the same city as the main campus and one in a neighboring city.
The college is a Hispanic-serving institution (HSI) and has a majority non-White student
population. For the academic year 2022–2023, ILC had approximately 32,000 students enrolled.
Also, MOC make up approximately 64% of the male student population.
I selected this site because of the high percentage of MOC attending the college and the
existence of a formalized program dedicated to this population for at least 3 years. The BRO
program, which is the focus of this study, has existed since 2020 and has 149 active student
participants and four active staff members as of Spring 2024. The only criteria for student
participation in the program are to identify as a man of color and apply for the program. I
intentionally chose not to select the campus where I am the coordinator for the MOC program, as
it may be considered a conflict of interest given my role in the program.
76
Sample and Population
The target population for this study was MOC students who participated in and
institutional agents who worked for the BRO program at ILC in the 2023–2024 academic year.
Selected students must have participated in the program for at least one full semester, and the
program must employ selected institutional agents for at least a year. These criteria ensured that
respondents could describe the program’s influence on masculine identity and reflect on how
they experienced the program and college life. Since it aligned with the study’s goal and made it
possible to gather the most robust data, this criteria-based selection was an essential component
of the research (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). A limited population of students and institutional
agents were selected to participate and adapt to the time constraints of this study. I selected
student respondents and all four institutional agents working for BRO to participate in semistructured interviews. Additionally, I observed two BRO program events throughout the Spring
2024 term.
This study utilized convenience and snowball sampling to select the site and participants
(Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Purposeful sampling is a non-randomized method of
choosing participants who fit specific study criteria (Johnson & Christensen, 2008). Purposeful
sampling also reflects the average or typical person of interest for the study. I used it for this
study because I sought insight to understand participants’ experiences and specific needs related
to participation in the BRO program (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I used
convenience and expert sampling to select the site and staff participants. I have developed a
rapport with the staff of the BRO program at ILC due to my collaboration and involvement with
them on a larger statewide MOC initiative. All staff members of the BRO programs are
77
considered experts in the field of MOC programming in community colleges. All members of the
BRO staff have verbally agreed to participate in the study if approved by IRB at ILC and USC.
Furthermore, given my role as a part-time faculty member in a different program at ILC,
the location, availability of participants, and dates of observable events were convenient, given
the time constraints associated with this study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I used snowball
sampling, a referral-based sampling technique, to identify student participants who were most
active in the BRO program (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). These individuals
received the screening questionnaire and demographic data form based on referral from BRO
program staff. I selected students to participate in the study while striving to provide a diverse
and representative sample of men with intersecting identities. Convenience sampling does not
typically produce a representative sample; however, when combined with criteria-based,
purposeful sampling, it can produce reliable, robust data for analysis, which is conducive to the
purpose of this study (Lochmiller & Lester, 2107; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Recruitment
Upon IRB approval, I sent a recruitment email (Appendix A) to the program staff
including a link to a specific screening questionnaire and demographic data form (Appendix B).
The program staff participants include four program staff of the BRO program at ILC: one fulltime coordinator/counselor and three part-time counselors. Criteria for program staff participants
include identifying as a man of color and serving in a program staff capacity for BRO at ILC for
at least 1 year. Currently, all four program staff members meet these criteria. Although these
individuals verbally consented to this study, participation was voluntary, and there were no
repercussions for not participating.
78
Once program staff participation was solidified, I asked the coordinator/counselor to
identify all BRO student participants who meet the following criteria: identify as a man of color,
must be 18 years of age or older, have participated in the BRO program at ILC for at least one
semester, have completed program requirements for at least one semester, and participate
regularly (at least once per semester) in program activities. Once the coordinator/counselor
identified student participants who met these criteria, I asked him to send eligible students a
recruitment email (Appendix C) containing a flier (Appendix D) for the study, including a link to
the screening questionnaire and demographic data form (Appendix E) for student participants. I
selected a representative sample of participants from among the students who submitted the
screening questionnaire and demographic data form and met all criteria for participation. All
participants received an information study sheet via email upon selection (Appendices F and G).
Instrumentation
Upon disseminating a screening questionnaire and demographic data form, I conducted
semi-structured interviews with all four staff members and 10 students. I also observed two inperson BRO program events, referred to as Barbershop Talks (pseudonym), which are capstone
events offered every semester. At these events, program participants engage in dialogue with
each other and program staff on various topics related to their experiences as college students
and their intersectional identities as MOC. These methods allowed me a holistic view of how the
program fosters validation of student experiences and exploration and cultivation of positive
masculine identity for its participants.
Screening Questionnaire and Demographic Data Form
I used a screening questionnaire to serve as a screening tool and a demographic data
form. Only students identified as active in the BRO program received this questionnaire via
79
email. The demographic information collected were age, racial and ethnic identity, gender and
sexual identity, duration enrolled in the BRO program, academic goals, and employment and
socioeconomic status. I invited individuals who completed the questionnaire and met the
participant criteria to schedule an interview. I emailed a second screening questionnaire and
demographic data form to the four BRO program staff.
Semi-structured Interviews
Interviews are a useful tool for determining and comprehending characteristics, emotions,
and/or perspectives of respondents’ previous and present experiences that are not easily
observable (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). To gather qualitative data about the experiences and
perceptions of MOC in the BRO program at ILC, I conducted semi-structured interviews with
students who had been active in the program for at least one semester. Interviews that are less
structured provide an environment in which participants might feel more at ease discussing their
experiences (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The BRO program staff referred all students and sent
them a screening questionnaire and demographic data form embedded into a recruitment email
with an attached flier. I was intentional in interviewing a diverse group of MOC based on their
self-reported demographic attributes. I also plan to conduct interviews with the four staff
members who work in the BRO program. To address the research question, I gathered data on
how participation in the BRO program influenced participants’ individualized perceptions of
masculine identity. Furthermore, I seek to gather data on how, if at all, the BRO program
cultivates spaces conducive to the exploration of masculine identity.
The interview protocol for program staff (Appendix H) and students (Appendix I)
included open-ended, semi-structured questions, and I asked questions without impeding the
flow of conversation. Open-ended questions extend the conversation during an interview and
80
allow the researcher to listen to the respondents actively and follow conversation threads that
may yield insightful comments (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I conducted 60-minute semistructured interviews. There were 15 questions listed in the interview protocol, which was
organized into the following categories: personal identity, academic experiences, BRO program
experiences, and experiences related to masculine identity. I recorded the interviews on Zoom
using my laptop and my phone as a backup recording device, as both devices have transcription
capabilities. I also took notes. Interviews were the most effective way to gather data for this
study due to time restrictions, resource limitations, and the information needed (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016).
Observations
In addition to interviews, I triangulated the data by observing two Barbershop Talks
events. Doing so allowed me to more holistically address the research question, as it is difficult
to fully comprehend how the program affects masculine identity development solely through
individual interviews. I had access to the calendar for these events, including the dates and times,
along with descriptions of the events. Each event lasted approximately 60 minutes. All events
were scheduled to be in-person on campus at ILC. During the observations, I utilized an
observation protocol (Appendix J) and took thorough field notes. I utilized a rubric that I
generated based on the theoretical framework of validation theory, which consists of six
framework components. I evaluated the observation data once I determined the interview codes.
I utilized Dedoose analytical software to assist in organizing and structuring the codebook,
analyzing the data, and categorizing similar excerpts (Huerta, 2022).
81
Data Collection
Upon IRB approval from USC and ILC, I contacted the interim dean of special programs
and the counselor/coordinator for BRO via email to inform them of the purpose of the case study
and to obtain their permission to use their program, staff, and students as participants for the
study. I also asked the counselor/coordinator of BRO to send the screening questionnaire and the
demographic data form, including the nature of the study, to all students identified as active
program participants. Upon receiving responses from the screening questionnaire, I identified 10
students for individual interviews. I contacted the interviewees via email to schedule interviews.
During this time, I asked the interviewees and program staff to select pseudonyms to protect their
anonymity (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Emails to interviewees included the purpose of the
study, the length of the interviews, and a description of incentives for participation ($30 Amazon
gift card). I conducted the interviews via Zoom. The participants permitted the recording of the
conversations. I used two devices to record the interviews: a phone recorder and the Otter.ai
transcription software utilized by the Zoom platform.
I began the interviews by introducing myself and expressing my gratitude to the
participants for their willingness to share their experiences. I provided all interviewees with an
interview protocol outlining our roles and explaining the study’s purpose. I made participants
aware that participation was voluntary and that they could choose not to answer any questions or
to end the discussion at any moment. I described how I would store data and recordings on a
password-protected device to ensure confidentiality and maintain anonymity by using
pseudonyms. Following each interview, I transcribed the recordings and examined them using
Otter.ai software.
82
For observations, participants received an informed consent sheet detailing the purpose of
the study and ensuring their confidentiality. I plan to utilize Otter.ai software on my laptop to
record and transcribe the dialogue at the event, as well as my phone’s audio recording
application as a backup. I will be mindful not to include data obtained from students who do not
consent to participate in the study and will delete their comments from the transcription. I will
provide all attendees with my contact information in the event that they have questions regarding
their participation in the study in the future. During these events, which will last approximately
an hour, I will be seated in a location where I am not a distraction to the proceedings of the event
and will take field notes quietly on my laptop.
Data Analysis
Initially, I focused on interview data to identify themes regarding students’ gendered
experiences, thoughts, and opinions of their role in the BRO program and the aspects of the
program that assisted in exploring and cultivating their masculine identity and providing
academic and interpersonal validation. I first listened to the recordings and then read the
transcriptions to provide a preliminary analysis of the data (Gibbs, 2018). I utilized a deductive
coding process to create a provisional list of codes relevant to validation theory, specifically one
code for each of the six components of the framework (Rendón, 1994; Vanover et al., 2021).
Following the first interviews, I reviewed the transcriptions that Otter.ai produces and conducted
a first cycle of analysis based on the research question and theoretical framework (Vanover et al.,
2021). This enabled me to add to the preliminary set of codes (Gibbs, 2018). For each
subsequent interview, I produced in-depth analytical memos to help organize the data into the
major coding categories (Gibbs, 2018). This process entailed journaling what thoughts and
feelings arose for me as I reviewed the recordings and transcriptions (Gibbs, 2018). Through this
83
process, I hope to gather comparison data between various interviews of both students and
program staff. I utilized these memos to develop thematic codes into larger coding categories. I
derived these coding categories from the research question and theoretical framework (Gibbs,
2018). I conducted a second cycle of analysis and coding and added categories as needed,
considering what the interview data revealed (Vanover et al., 2021). This enabled me to create
more precise codes inside each larger category.
Role of the Researcher
My positionality, as stated in Chapter One, instilled a passion within me to conduct
myself through a lens informed by racial and social equity and justice and an appreciation of
diversity and intersectionality. I intend to operate through this lens as a researcher, which I hope
will enhance the participants’ experience by ensuring respect, empathy, unconditional positive
regard, and a genuine appreciation for their experiences and narratives. I hope that the findings
of this research help to enhance the opportunities and experiences of historically marginalized
and disproportionately impacted populations.
My personal experiences have always guided me professionally and led me to develop
and coordinate a MOC program at a community college in the greater Los Angeles area since
2020. My passion for equity and justice work, especially for the MOC community, has also led
me to assume a role as an executive board member for a statewide community college MOC
organization in California.
In regard to the power dynamics of the research setting, my position as a counselor for
formerly incarcerated students at the college where I interviewed and observed student
participants created a power dynamic. However, because I interviewed and observed student
participants who do not participate in the program I work with, the fear of breach of
84
confidentiality and/or retaliation is lessened. Given the potential for overlap between students in
the formerly incarcerated student program and the BRO program at ILC, this study did not
include students with whom I have worked. Nonetheless, the fact that I am a faculty member at
the college meant that I had to be mindful of the faculty–student dynamic. Students might have
seen me in a position of power since I have access to academic records and have served the
college in administrative capacities. It is also important to note that students may feel
uncomfortable sharing negative experiences of the campus or institutional agents with me out of
fear that I would disclose the interview findings to institutional agents. I will address how I plan
to ease students’ concerns in the next section of this chapter.
In regard to my race, ethnicity, class, gender, and other identifying characteristics
affecting my interactions with participants, it was important to check my biases and assumptions
as a man of color interviewing other MOC. As an Indian Fijian American man, I do not share the
same ethnic identity as the participants, as this is an uncommon identity on the campus that
serves as the research site. Nonetheless, it is important to understand the cultural and historical
differences between my ethnicity, class, and gender and those of the participants. Additionally, I
did not make assumptions regarding similarities and differences between us, regardless of our
shared identities.
Furthermore, it was my responsibility as a researcher to allow the participants to create
their narratives, especially when, socially and historically, many of them have been victims of
racial and ethnic stereotypes or generalizations. The fact that we are all MOC does not mean that
students identified with me, as the only two identities we definitely share are being men who are
non-White. That said, it was important to be mindful of the many intersections of identities that
make students who they are and, more importantly, to allow them to express this in their
85
responses comfortably. As Milner (2007) stated, it is important that “researchers’ multiple and
varied positions, roles, and identities are intricately and inextricably embedded in the process and
outcomes of education research” (p. 389).
Trustworthiness
I addressed these issues of power and positionality in several ways to ensure
trustworthiness in this study. Various approaches can be employed to verify the genuineness and
reliability of a qualitative study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Ensuring the validity of qualitative
research requires conducting the study ethically (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Aside from
obtaining IRB approval, I obtained verbal consent from the participants to conduct interviews
and observations and record their responses. Before initiating the research, I provided a
comprehensive explanation of the study’s purpose, the structure and objective of the interviews,
the duration of the study, and my positionality. The participants received information regarding
the dissemination of the data.
When providing participants with my researcher positionality statement and study
information sheet, my hope was that they would have a better sense of who would interview
them and that this study was aimed at improving the experiences and outcomes of community
college MOC. I also asked participants if they felt comfortable given our faculty–student
dynamic at the beginning of the interviews to better understand their concerns and hopefully
establish a stronger rapport through honest dialogue. I stated that I was conducting this study
outside of my role as a college employee, that I would not share their responses with college
personnel, and that their identities and the identities of the individuals they discussed would be
anonymized.
86
At the conclusion of the study, all recordings, transcripts, and other identifiable
documents will be deliberately destroyed. In addition, I notified participants of their right not to
answer questions and terminate interviews at any point. These measures enhance the safeguards
for participants, ensuring their entitlement to privacy and informed consent while preventing
deceit (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Summary
This chapter provided a detailed and logical explanation of the specific methodological
techniques used in this study. The chapter outlined the research inquiries, the process of
recruiting and selecting participants, as well as the techniques employed for gathering and
analyzing data. In addition, I explained my responsibilities and potential biases that are relevant
to the research. Chapter Four will examine the process of gathering data and provide the results
obtained using the methods described in Chapter Three.
87
Chapter Four: Hussle & Motivate
This case study focused on the experiences of staff and student participants in the BRO
program at ILC. This study intended to gain an understanding of how program staff in the MOC
program cultivated spaces in which program participants could navigate the complexities of
masculine identity. Additionally, it intended to understand the gendered experiences of MOC
program participants and how they perceived the program’s ability to aid in masculine identity
exploration, if at all. This study consisted of semi-structured individual interviews, most of
which were between 60 and 90 minutes in length, with four program staff and 10 student
participants. All participants identified as MOC, and I met with all of them via Zoom. In addition
to the interviews, I observed two program-specific events in person: the Brothers Reaching Out
March Madness Barbecue and the Brothers Reaching Out Barbershop Talk. Both events were
attended by faculty, staff, administrators, and student participants, some of whom also
participated in individual interviews. These two events provided a window into interventions to
engage participants in an exploration of their masculine identity.
The study was grounded in two theoretical frameworks: Rendón’s (1994) validation
theory and Connell’s (1995) multiple masculinities. The following two research questions guided
the study:
1. How do community college MOC program staff foster spaces to support student
participants’ exploration of masculine identity?
2. How do participants of community college MOC programs perceive and navigate the
exploration of masculine identity within spaces fostered by program staff?
Chapter Four will begin by providing an overview of the BRO program at ILC, which
includes a brief history of the program, the staffing structure, programmatic outcomes, program
88
requirements, and student demographics. Next, I will introduce the two in-person events that I
observed and provide a brief narrative of these observations. I will then introduce the four
program staff interviewees, followed by a discussion of the themes and subthemes that arose
from program staff interviews and observations to address Research Question 1. The next section
will introduce the 10 student interviewees, followed by a discussion of themes and subthemes
that arose from student interviews and observations aimed to address Research Question 2.
Lastly, I will offer a summary of the findings, synthesizing the outcomes of interviews and
observations.
Indigenous Land College Brothers Reaching Out Context
At the time of this study, ILC had a dedicated program for MOC in operation for at least
3 years. The college offers several programs and initiatives aimed at creating culturally affirming
spaces for historically marginalized students on campus, but the college did not have a
recognized program for MOC until 2020. This case study focused on the experiences of staff and
student participants in that program.
Brief History of BRO at ILC
The Brothers Reaching Out (BRO) program is housed under the student equity center,
which also oversees two larger programs, one for Black/African American students and the other
for Latino students. The college has regularly hosted group counseling sessions specifically for
Latino men and Black/African American men through the two larger programs for these
demographic groups on campus. In 2018, a small group of ILC faculty and administrators
created an unofficial mentorship program on campus for MOC in which students were paired
with MOC mentors who worked at ILC. Due to the popularity and student demand generated by
this mentorship program, two ILC counselors advocated for the creation of a formalized program
89
for MOC on campus. By the Fall 2020 semester, BRO was developed and recognized as a
formalized MOC program at ILC.
Program Staffing Structure
As of Spring 2024, there are 153 active student participants and four active staff members
(1 full-time counselor with release time and 3 part-time counselors) in BRO at ILC. Additionally,
the staff hired four of its current student participants as paid interns. Each intern works directly
with a program staff member and assists them with event planning, case management, and
staffing the front desk. In addition to the official program staff, BRO asks its student participants
if they would like to be paired with a faculty, staff, or administrator mentor. Based on the
number of students interested, the program pairs students with volunteer mentors. In the 2023–
2024 academic year, 15–20 students were paired with their designated mentor on campus. These
mentors were responsible for setting up individual meetings with their mentees and attending
BRO events and workshops throughout the year.
Program staff have student caseloads, and they support and monitor their students
throughout the students’ time at ILC. Each counselor and their intern have a caseload of 20 to 40
students a given year, depending on how many hours per week the counselor works.
Student Participant Demographics
The BRO program recruits student participants on a rolling basis, with the majority of
their incoming students entering in the weeks leading up to the fall semester. The program
accepts students who identify as MOC, which they define as any man who does not identify as
White. The breakdown of the program’s students by race is 24% Black/African American, 63%
Latino, 7% two or more races, 2% Asian American, 0.65% Native American, and 0.65% Pacific
Islander. Despite BRO program staff’s encouragement for students to enroll full-time, only 45%
90
of the program’s students were enrolled full-time (12 or more units) in the Spring 2024 term,
with the other 55% enrolling in fewer than 12 units. In regard to financial status, 71% of BRO
program students received financial aid, and 63% were classified as low-income, which the
college defines as having the maximum financial need based on their financial aid application.
Program Outcomes and Requirements
The BRO program at ILC is focused on improving its participants’ 3-year degree and/or
transfer attainment. Additionally, counselors in the program shared that an unofficial outcome of
the program is to increase a sense of community and belonging among its participants.
The only criteria for student participation in the program are to identify as a man of color
and to apply for the program. Program staff strongly encourage full-time enrollment (at least 12
units per semester or more), but this is not a requirement to be eligible for the program as staff
are aware of the various responsibilities their students may have outside of school. All BRO
students are required to meet with their program counselor once per semester and are required to
attend at least two BRO events or workshops per semester. The program offers six to eight
events or workshops for students to select from each semester. Examples of these events and
workshops are basketball tournaments, barbecues, an anime watch party, barbershop talks,
Black/African American group counseling, Latino men’s group counseling, MOC group
counseling, healthy relationships workshops, combatting imposter syndrome workshops, and
field trips to professional conferences and campus tours. The planning and execution of these
events and workshops are done by the four program staff and the four paid student interns.
BRO Program Observations
The BRO program hosts several events and workshops for its students each semester. As
mentioned in the previous section, these events include social events such as barbecues,
91
competitions such as basketball tournaments, and group counseling workshops on a variety of
topics relevant to the experiences of MOC. As part of the data collection, I attended two of these
events to support the interview findings. The first event I observed was the BRO March Madness
Barbecue, which was a social event for BRO students, including a three-on-three basketball
tournament and a barbecue. The second event I observed was the BRO Barbershop Talk, which
was a reflective space for BRO students, staff, and mentors to discuss various topics relating to
their experiences as MOC. The following sections share relevant information about these two
events. I will share relevant findings from these two observations in the sections for findings for
both research questions later in this chapter.
BRO March Madness Barbecue
The BRO program hosts barbecues at least twice per semester. These events are intended
to be spaces where BRO students, program staff, interns, and mentors can socialize in a more
casual setting over a free meal provided courtesy of the BRO program. These events are typically
held at a public park near the ILC campus where the BRO program staff host activities such as
basketball, soccer, flag football, board and card games, music, and opportunities to engage in
conversation with one another. They typically last between two to 3 hours, depending on
attendance. Given that the time of year coincided with the NCAA Men’s March Madness
Tournament, the BRO program staff hosted the Spring 2024 barbecue at the ILC gymnasium and
hosted a three-on-three basketball tournament. The staff invited students and staff from three
neighboring community college MOC programs to expand the network of support for all
students involved. In addition to the basketball tournament, participants were offered hot dogs,
pizza, snacks, and drinks and had the option to socialize with each other or to be spectators if
they chose not to participate in the tournament.
92
On the day of the event, I sat with other spectators in a chair in the middle of the
gymnasium, where I observed over 50 student participants and approximately 15 faculty and
staff participants. Four program staff organized the participants into teams of three, and the
tournament consisted of four single-elimination rounds, including a championship game in which
the winners were awarded trophies and gift cards. When the tournament began, one program
staff served as the emcee and DJ, one monitored the tournament bracket, and the two others
engaged with attendees who were not playing in the tournament. Several of the participants
chose to watch the tournament as spectators or to socialize with other participants rather than
play in the tournament. There were approximately six to seven spectators who identified as
women of color, but the approximately 12 to 15 other spectators were MOC. Participants in the
basketball tournament all identified as MOC and were actively involved as students, staff, or
mentors at either ILC or a neighboring college. There was racial and age diversity among them,
the majority of whom were Black/African American, Asian American, and Latino based on my
assumptions. All students from the neighboring colleges were offered free transportation to and
from the event by their home campuses. At the conclusion of each round, most teams that had
been eliminated from the tournament chose to remain at the event to either socialize or observe
the subsequent rounds. Most of the participants who arrived at the beginning of the event stayed
until its conclusion. Throughout the observation, I witnessed a sense of brotherhood and
camaraderie among participants and several displays of positive emotional gestures, such as
laughing, smiling, handshakes, hugs, and high-fives.
BRO Barbershop Talks
The other event that I observed was part of a series called barbershop talks, which the
program hosts monthly. These events are intended to serve as a space where MOC can discuss
93
relevant topics associated with their gendered and racialized experiences. Typically, a barber is
hired for the event and offers free haircuts to interested participants while the rest of the
participants engage in conversation with one another in a circle surrounding the barber. Food is
served, and background music is typically played throughout the event. The barber and the
individual in the barber chair also actively participate in the discussion. The program staff shared
that this event is intended to simulate the casual and inviting environment of an actual
barbershop, which they feel many men in communities of color view as a place for camaraderie
and community building. The event is typically held in a classroom in the student services
building and lasts for approximately 1 hour.
On the day of the event, I shared that I was observing the event as part of doctoral
research and obtained verbal consent from all participants to take notes. The attendees were two
program staff members, three faculty mentors, two student interns, seven students who were not
interns, and one barber, totaling 15 participants. Based on their introductions, these participants
ranged in age from 18 to 46, and their racial demographics were as follows: 5 Black/African
Americans, 8 Latinos, and 2 Asian Americans. Two of the student attendees, Panda and Drake,
were also interviewees in this study. All self-identified as MOC. The event facilitator was John, a
program staff member and counselor who was also an interviewee. While participants entered
the space, which was a large classroom in the student services building, they were offered to sign
up for a haircut and to serve themselves lunch provided by program staff.
John began by displaying a chart of different emotions and asked participants to answer
the prompt, “Which emotions are you feeling today and why?” After each participant answered
the introductory prompt, the main topic for the session was introduced: “What are you most
proud of this semester and why?” All participants shared their responses, which ranged from
94
academic, professional, and interpersonal accomplishments to forming new habits. Based on one
response, one of the mentors introduced an impromptu second topic, which led to a deeper
discussion. The topic was “How do you navigate between compassion and setting boundaries?”
This topic led to a group discussion about navigating expectations from family, friends,
professors, and romantic partners, as well as the challenges associated with navigating traditional
masculine norms depending on one’s cultural or familial background. At the 1-hour mark, John
asked each participant to share one key takeaway from the session, and the event concluded with
announcements regarding upcoming program events and deadlines. I observed that the
participants valued the space to reflect and discuss with their peers, as evidenced by their verbal
and nonverbal gestures of gratitude to one another.
Program Staff Interviewees
To gather qualitative data to address Research Question 1, I conducted semi-structured
interviews with all four of the program staff of BRO at ILC. Given my relationship with BRO
program staff through membership in a larger professional organization for MOC working in
community colleges, I garnered their support for this study through an email invitation. As a
current part-time counselor at ILC in a different program, I was aware of the BRO program but
lacked knowledge of the day-to-day functioning of the program. These interviews provided me
with a deeper understanding of how the BRO program functions at ILC and how the program
staff attempts to address specific issues relating to the experiences of college MOC through their
programming.
All four of the program staff are academic counselors and identify as MOC, with three
identifying as Latino and one identifying as Black. Three out of four program staff are the first in
their families to attend college. All four program staff have been employed by ILC in a
95
counseling role for at least 2 years. Only one out of the four program staff is a full-time
counselor at ILC, whereas two program staff are working part-time at ILC and full-time at other
community colleges and one is working part-time at four community colleges. All four program
staff have indicated a need for a full-time staff role in the BRO program, as the full-time
counselor working on release time for BRO is also a counselor for the Latino and Black/African
American student programs on campus. All four program staff completed a screening
questionnaire and demographic form in which they selected a pseudonym for the study. I
included the data from this form in Table 4. I will share a more detailed introduction of each
participant to provide context for the findings throughout the chapter.
Table 4
Program Staff Interviewees
Chosen
pseudonym
Participant
type Race Ethnicity
Gender
identity
Sexual
identity Age
First-gen
student
Highest
level of
education
Years at
ILC
Years in
BRO
GXI
Program
staff Black Black Man Straight 42 No Master’s 11 2
John
Program
staff Latino Honduran Man Straight 33 Yes Master’s 6 2
Pablito
Program
staff Latino Mexican Man Straight 27 Yes Master’s 2 2
Guillermo
Program
staff Latino
Salvadorian/
Mexican Man Straight 45 Yes Doctorate 17 5
96
97
Guillermo
Guillermo resides in Los Angeles County with his wife and two children. He holds a
doctorate in educational leadership and was the first in his family to attend college. He studied at
three community colleges in Orange County before completing a bachelor’s degree program at
UCLA. Guillermo has dedicated 17 years working at ILC, with five of those years working in the
BRO program as a coordinator and counselor. He also founded a Latino employee coalition and
serves as a counseling faculty member for Latino and Black student programs at ILC. Guillermo
is passionate about supporting MOC on campus, creating structured programs, and fostering a
sense of community and trust among students. When asked why he has chosen to work with
MOC students in community colleges, Guillermo stated,
My own experience was very challenging. I struggled through middle and high school,
often feeling like a failure. I had always struggled in school, but a community college
counselor helped me turn my life around. I wanted to do the same for others, particularly
young MOC who might be going through similar struggles … starting off [at ILC] with
creating a mentoring program for middle school boys really showed me the importance of
structured support.
John
John is a 33-year-old cisgender heterosexual Latino man of Honduran ethnicity who
resides in Los Angeles County with his partner. He holds a master’s degree in educational
counseling. He is the first in his low-income family to attend college, having attended a
community college in Los Angeles before completing his bachelor’s degree at UC Santa
Barbara. John currently serves as a part-time counselor in the BRO program at ILC, a role he has
held for 4 years within his 6 years of total employment at the college. John is also a full-time
98
counselor at another community college in Los Angeles County, where he works with MOC and
the general student population. John is committed to fostering a supportive community for MOC,
addressing issues of masculinity and personal development through activities such as the BRO
Barbershop Talks. His passion for this work stems from his own upbringing in Southeast Los
Angeles, where he witnessed the lack of care and support for Latino students, motivating him to
provide the guidance and resources he wished his friends had received. When asked why John
works with MOC students, he shared, “Man, it really stems from just my own upbringing. I grew
up in Southeast Los Angeles and had a predominantly Latino K–12 experience. I think what
really started all this was just the lack of care that I saw from my teachers, my counselors, and
administrators when it came to providing us an outlet in terms of education. I think what started
the work was just seeing a lot of my friends just fall through the cracks in terms of the
educational system. … When in my senior year in high school, I actually became a peer
counselor for our college center because I wanted to help out a little bit more. I also wanted to
know the college process a little bit better. That experience made me want to become a counselor
for people who need it most.”
GXI
GXI is a 42-year-old cisgender heterosexual Black man of Black ethnicity who resides in
Los Angeles County with his partner. He holds a master’s degree in educational counseling and
has completed some coursework in a doctoral program in education. He is not the first in his
family to attend college and has attended several community colleges, including ILC and two
other colleges in the Los Angeles district, before completing his bachelor’s degree at UCLA.
Currently, GXI serves as a part-time counselor in the BRO program, a role he has held for 4
years during his 11 years of total employment at ILC. He is also a full-time student equity
99
counselor at another community college. Prior to his work as a community college counselor, he
held a position as a K–12 teacher in a low-income public high school. He aims to foster a sense
of community and belonging, offering accountability and support from a gendered perspective.
GXI was motivated to pursue his work with MOC due to his own experiences in higher
education, recognizing the scarcity of Black men in direct support roles. When asked why he
serves as a counselor for MOC students, GXI shared,
As a man of color, I didn’t see any male counselors that looked like me during my
academic journey, and I felt that gap needed to be addressed. Male students of color often
don’t have role models who look like them in support roles. I believe having male
counselors of color provides a different sense of belonging and accountability.
Pablito
Pablito resides alone in Los Angeles County. He holds a master’s degree in educational
counseling and has aspirations to enroll in a doctoral program in the future. He is the first in his
low-income family to attend college, having attended a community college in Los Angeles
before completing a bachelor’s degree program. Currently, Pablito serves as a part-time
counselor in the BRO program, a role he has held for 2 years. He is also a part-time counselor at
three other community colleges in Los Angeles, serving populations ranging from 1st-year
experience, MOC, and general population. Pablito coordinates and counsels students in the
program, focusing on professional development, personal growth, and academic success. He is
dedicated to creating a supportive environment where students can explore their identities and
develop a sense of belonging. He entered this field due to his experiences navigating higher
education, which drove his passion to support students facing similar challenges. When Pablito
was asked why he works in his role, he shared,
100
I mean, I do identify as somebody who is a man of color as well. Navigating just higher
education, in general, was difficult as somebody who came from my background. I think
there’s definitely a special place in my heart for these types of students. That’s how I
ended up here in this role. I see a lot of these people, a lot of these students, specifically
… remind me a lot of my family members that I saw that didn’t go to college. I just want
to help more of them further their education because I know it’s a ticket to upward
mobility.
Findings for Research Question 1 From Program Staff Interviews and Observations
Five themes emerged from the interviews with BRO program staff and observations of
program events. These themes are correlated to Research Question 1, which asks how program
staff foster spaces to support student participants’ exploration of masculine identity. The
following themes will be further highlighted below: Intentional community building for MOC,
facilitating open discussions about masculinity, providing role models and mentorship,
encouraging vulnerability and emotional expression, and navigating systemic and structural
challenges. Each of these themes includes subthemes, which provide additional context to the
primary findings. I have included a list of themes and subthemes addressing RQ 1 in Table 5.
101
Table 5
Themes and Subthemes for Research Question 1
Themes Subthemes
Intentional community building for men of
color
Personal validation by program staff
Inclusivity by program staff
Creating culturally affirming spaces
Facilitating open discussions about
masculinity
Exploration of masculine identity
Strategies for open discussions
Providing role models and mentorship Caseload model for counseling
Peer and faculty mentorship
Encouraging vulnerability and emotional
expression
Encouraging vulnerability
Challenging traditional masculine norms
Navigating systemic and structural challenges Lack of full-time staff and permanent funding
Lack of training on masculine identity and other
intersectional identities
Additional challenges
Theme 1: Intentional Community Building for Men of Color
The theme of intentional community building for MOC was highlighted in the individual
interviews with program staff as well as in the observations of events. The program staff meets
weekly to discuss common themes arising from student appointments and workshops and work
collectively to plan future events and workshops that enhance their students’ feeling of
connection to the program and college. The BRO program staff emphasizes approaching their
students from a strengths-based lens, as they have all stated what it was like being treated from a
deficit-minded lens firsthand. Guillermo, one of the founders of BRO at ILC, stated that when he
102
first started working in higher education over a decade ago, “No one saw me as just a man. When
I walk into a room, they’re going to see, oh, this is like a vato or some other label. Oh, he’s a
professor, and he’s Latino. There’s something shady tied to it.” Due to their own struggles
feeling accepted in higher education and academia, the program staff strives to empower their
students by validating their experiences as MOC and creating opportunities to build a sense of
brotherhood. The following subthemes emerged from the data analysis: personal validation and
inclusivity by program staff and creating culturally relevant inclusive spaces.
Subtheme 1.1: Personal Validation by Program Staff
One aspect of intentional community building for MOC, which was highlighted by the
program staff interviews and observations, was the persistent personal validation by staff. When
asked how program staff believe they validate students’ experiences in the BRO community, all
four participants shared several examples. Many stated it was much easier to build a sense of
community among program participants after the COVID-19 pandemic due to the possibility of
in-person activities. The program staff shared that offering hybrid options for events and
workshops, although increasing access for some students, made it more difficult to build a sense
of community. However, they made an effort to take advantage of opportunities to build rapport
with students, even in a remote environment. John recalled seeing a student at a Zoom workshop
whom he had previously only met with the student’s camera off and feeling excited to finally see
his face. He stated,
I just commented on his haircut. I was like, oh, dude, that’s a nice lineup that you got! He
was like, oh, man, thank you for that! I never thought that I would turn on my camera, but
I’m glad I did. It’s just those little conversations with the students that make them feel
seen. I think the most important thing, in my opinion, is just making students feel seen.
103
Similarly to John, GXI offered examples of how he validates his students’ experiences in the
program by the way he approaches his counseling sessions. He shared,
I validate my students by being non-judgmental and listening more than speaking and
holding space for them to be able to express themselves authentically. I am constantly
hearing from them that it’s appreciated. When students share, I thank them for sharing,
appreciating them for communicating whatever is going on with them. I let them know
how brave it is in certain spaces to share personal stories that they may not have thought
was a brave thing to do.
In regard to validating his students from a strengths-based perspective, even when things are not
going as well for them academically, Guillermo shared,
If you look at a student’s transcript and you’re like, shit. In your mind, you’re like,
there’s a lot of freaking Ds and Fs and only an A here and a B there. Instead of asking
them what happened with that class, they got a D or an F in, a lot of times, it’s starting
with, hey, what worked for you in that class you got an A in? So what were you doing in
that class? You did a great job there. I think just starting things off in a positive way
really helps reframe the conversation towards strengths.
At both the BRO March Madness Barbecue and the BRO Barbershop Talk, I observed
several instances of program staff encouraging student participants. I observed cheering through
a megaphone for a student who made a basket during the basketball tournament and praising
students for their vulnerability in the men’s circle discussion. Validation was at the core of the
program staff’s professional skills. The program staff had a strong rapport with the students, and
the students trusted them. A statement from a program staff member at the barbershop talk event
exemplified this. As a student shared that he had recently been dealing with emotional struggles
104
and had started seeing a therapist, one of the program staff members validated him by sharing his
own experience with therapy:
Can I piggyback off of that? Because that’s so huge. I’m a therapy guy. That’s my thing
now. For several years, I had a bunch of crazy shit going in my life, and I was like, I can’t
deal with this on my own. And I tried so hard, and I just was like, all right, I got to find a
guy. It’s changed my life so much. So, major props to you, brother. I hope you stick with
it. I’m proud of you.
The interview responses and observations revealed that program staff fosters a safe space
to explore masculinity by building authentic connections with their students and providing them
with interpersonal and academic validation, which they may not be receiving elsewhere.
Subtheme 1.2: Inclusivity by Program Staff
In addition to the program staff’s intentionality in validating their students, they also
shared that creating an inclusive environment, regardless of identity, is important to their core
values as a program. GXI shared, “We have to acknowledge that our students come from diverse
backgrounds, and their experiences shape their identities. We aim to support them in
understanding and embracing who they are.” Pablito shared that supporting diverse expressions
of masculinity is a key component of his work: “It is critical for us to create spaces where
students feel safe and valued for who they are, regardless of their background or personal
experiences.” He added the importance of using inclusive language and shared that in group
counseling sessions, he makes sure to ask for attendees’ pronouns and to use the term “partner”
instead of “boyfriend” or “girlfriend” so as not to perpetuate a heteronormative culture. In regard
to ensuring that all event and workshop attendees feel welcomed, GXI shared, “We try to give all
communities that are present an opportunity to feel seen and heard and to know that we’re all
105
together trying to build community to make everybody feel included and supported.” When
asked how staff can accomplish this in a program that caters to MOC’s needs, GXI added,
The reality is that this program is specifically designed to address the needs of our men,
[MOC]. So, trying to intentionally keep the space for men by advertising it as such, but
not being exclusionary to anyone since we are a public institution in a public
organization. So, just trying to find that balance of keeping it safe for men and their
emotions and their concerns. But then also, I guess, yeah, just being open to all. That’s
the main challenge, being for men, but not always being able for it to be only exclusive to
men. I would say that even those who attend our events who are not [MOC] can take
something positive away from the experience.
Guillermo shared a unique perspective on feeling frustrated with the need to be inclusive to other
demographic groups on campus to avoid negative perceptions of the program by the campus
community as being “exclusionary.” Guillermo shared,
I think that [MOC] shouldn’t be put in the same category as White men or women. We
have different experiences in society based on our identities. And so, then what happens
is we’re trying to stay open about things and can’t always have our own spaces. So, in
our meetings, we never kick anybody out. But I think sometimes, people be like, ahh,
they’re having an all-man meeting. So, when we’ve had some White guys show up, or we
had some women show up, women students, we can’t say no. But then it’s also like, man,
we’re trying to have this one [emphasis added] space for our young [MOC]. But if we say
something, people might look at it as like, oh, they don’t want to be open to everybody.
So, I think there’s also that side of it as well. It’s very political, unfortunately.
106
All attendees of the barbershop talk were MOC. This event served as more of a reflective space
to discuss topics relevant to their experiences as men, and it was only marketed to the students in
the program. The March Madness BBQ event, however, included attendees who identified as
women as well as White men. This event was open to the public, as well as to students attending
neighboring colleges, but the presence of non-MOC attendees did not seem to impede the sense
of community for program participants.
Despite the program’s attempts to be inclusive of diverse expressions of masculinity,
three of the four program staff shared a need for additional representation from LGBTQ
members and students and training on working with MOC in the LBGTQ+ community. Pablito
shared that he knows of only a handful of students in the program who openly identify as
LGBTQ+. When asked about areas for future improvement for the program, GXI shared,
Being four heterosexual counselors, we need to work on allowing space for LGBTQ+
colleagues and students to feel included and feel welcomed as well and trying to have
them accept our invitations as genuine and sincere, as opposed to them feeling like we
just have to do it to be inclusive.
On the topic of being inclusive of diverse expressions of masculinity, Pablito shared that he
would benefit from additional training on creating opportunities for LGBTQ+ MOC to feel more
comfortable in the program. He stated that he does not believe that there are many LGBTQ+ men
participating in the program, and he feels it could be due to the lack of LGBTQ+ faculty
representation in the program. Pablito shared that he finds it challenging to address issues
surrounding LGBTQ+ identities in group sessions and could use additional training. Related to
inclusivity, he shared,
107
Addressing issues for LGBTQ+ students who are [MOC]. I think that is a very sensitive
topic, especially if we’re talking about someone who maybe grew up in a household
where you had your macho-macho typical father figure. I think helping navigating the
students’ issues but remaining sensitive. Like, hey, how can I ask about that without
being intrusive in the sense where the student feels like, why does that even matter? How
can I make the student comfortable around other students who may be homophobic or
feel like being gay or trans is not something a man should be? It’s tricky.
The interviews and observations revealed that the BRO program staff believe that
inclusivity is an important aspect of community building for their student participants. In
addition to offering barbershop talks for all program participants, they also offer similar sessions
specifically for Black/African American and Latino men. Program staff shared their internal
struggles with balancing the importance of inclusivity and the political challenges associated
with holding spaces exclusively for MOC on the ILC campus. Lastly, program staff stated a need
for additional training on creating inclusive spaces for LGBTQ MOC and that the addition of
LGBTQ staff members could enhance the program’s ability to serve more students who identify
as both LGBTQ and MOC.
Subtheme 1.3: Creating Culturally Affirming Spaces
In addition to validating their students’ experiences and promoting an inclusive program
culture, the BRO program staff strive to create culturally affirming spaces to build a sense of
community among participants. The program staff defined culturally affirming spaces as spaces
similar to their students’ social environments outside of school. Examples of such spaces are
specific talking circles for students based on their ethnic identity, basketball and flag football
tournaments, barbecues at the local park, barbershop talks, which are group counseling sessions
108
where students can get haircuts while engaging in discussions about their experiences, and
loteria, video game, and anime parties. When asked what types of culturally affirming spaces the
program offers, Pablito shared,
One thing is that we actually have this event called Hombre a Hombre, and that’s tailored
to our Latino men. Then, we have Brother to Brother, and that is specifically tailored
towards our African American men here. These are just safe spaces for them to be able to
engage with one another and also be able to just speak truthfully about what’s going on
for them. It allows them to embrace their cultural backgrounds and to be in community
with other folks who share their gender and racial background and even share a similar
language or way of speaking, whether that’s Spanish, Spanglish, slang, whatever. There’s
no need to code-switch when you’re in there.
Aside from these more structured spaces, several of the staff said that it is important to
hold events off campus so that students can get out of the academic space and into a more
relaxed environment. John shared about how many of his students and he grew up having
barbecues at the park or at their homes with their families. He explained that for many of his
Latino and Black peers, barbecues are a place to enjoy each other’s company over food and
drinks. John shared that his colleagues in BRO host barbecues at a nearby park at least twice per
semester that is open to students, staff, and mentors in the program:
I think the BRO barbecues, the ones that I’ve attended, have definitely been one of those
events where I’ve seen students get to meet other guys and start to get comfortable with
one another. We’ve all been to barbecues growing up, you know? We would start off by
having them introduce one another, and then students realize, hey, this is actually pretty
cool that all these dudes gathered together and are enjoying pizza, hot dogs, listening to
109
music, playing basketball, soccer, whatever it is. I think it’s a way to let loose of who
they think they have to be in school. Start unpacking who they are outside of college and
be like, hey, man, now that I’m in college, I should make some friends here.
Similarly, Guillermo shared how the BRO barbecues allow student participants to highlight some
of their nonacademic interests:
Just even having things like the barbecues, where students, maybe academically,
sometimes they struggle, but then they get to play Uno, and they’re really good at Uno, or
chess, or flag football, basketball, just something to give them that opportunity to just
have fun with other students and show everyone else what they’re good at. It’s also a
great way for them to connect with the staff and mentors in a more casual environment.
Another example of culturally affirming spaces hosted by the BRO program is the
barbershop talks, one of which I observed. The events typically start with participants circling up
around a barber who will provide them with free haircuts. Similar to an actual barbershop, there
is music playing in the background and a sign-up sheet. The program staff will have each
interested participant sign up for a haircut and answer a check-in prompt. On the day of the
observation, the prompt asked, “Which emotions are you feeling today and why?” After the
check-in prompt, the program staff would introduce a specific topic and participants are free to
share. Participants ranged from students in the program, program staff, mentors to students in the
program, and other MOC who work at the college. One example that highlighted how this
culturally affirming space allowed students to open up came after staff had shared the prompt,
“What is the relationship between compassion and boundaries?” A student participant shared that
he had been raised to always take care of his family as a Latino man. He shared that he was
110
asked by his relatives to help with some unexpected medical bills and that he felt like he did not
have the option to say no. The student shared,
I was trying to save $100 a week, and I was going to start my own business. Then people
got sick, and then I had to take care of them. They were like, oh, I promise I’ll pay you
back for this, or whatever. When the time came around, I knew they weren’t going to pay
me back. A part of me was angry, and I was just all over the place because I felt like I
stretched thin and wide for you, and you still haven’t paid me for what I’m doing. I did
my part. I grinded. I was in the summer, lifting heavy tables and chairs. I had night shifts.
I deserve this. This is my money. What the hell? But I had to understand that they were
family, and family had to come first. With whatever money I had left over, I was like,
you know what? I’m going back to school. I can’t keep working like this only to have my
money taken away at any moment.
This student’s share opened up a fruitful discussion on setting boundaries with our loved ones.
Many participants shared similar struggles and presented solutions that had worked for them.
The casual barbershop-like environment seemed to allow for a more casual and free-flowing
discussion among the participants.
As the program staff interviews and observations evidenced, the program staff
intentionally built community for MOC by validating their students’ diverse experiences and
identities, fostering spaces that were inclusive to diverse expressions of masculinity, and
incorporating spaces that are culturally affirming and relevant to the lived experiences of their
students.
111
Theme 2: Facilitating Open Discussions About Masculinity
The theme of facilitating open discussions about masculinity was highlighted in
individual interviews with program staff as well as in the observation of the barbershop talk
men’s circle. The interviews asked for each program staff’s definition of masculinity. Although
the responses differed, some common characteristics that came up for the staff were:
● “being comfortable in your own skin”
● “being self-aware”
● “confidence”
● “being responsible for your community”
● “being a provider”
● “being respectful to women and men”
● “communicating your needs effectively”
● “being willing to ask for help”
● “being comfortable not knowing everything”
● “vulnerability”
● “having an open mind”
The following two subthemes emerged from the data analysis: exploration of masculine identity
and strategies for open discussions.
Subtheme 2.1: Exploration of Masculine Identity
Several interview questions specifically addressed how BRO program staff engage their
students in conversations and activities that aid in the exploration of masculine identity.
Examples of such activities are one-on-one counseling sessions, workshops on topics relevant to
masculinity, Hombre a Hombre sessions, Brotha to Brotha sessions, and BRO Barbershop Talks.
112
These activities are not explicitly advertised as events intended to address masculine identity;
however, event and workshop facilitators often incorporate guiding questions and topics that
directly foster the exploration of masculine identity. For example, John elaborated, “You know,
it’s not like we advertise this as, come here and talk about your feelings, about masculinity
specifically, because I don’t think the students would respond well to that. Instead, we try to just
offer these spaces, and the topic usually comes up organically.” GXI shared, “Our discussions in
sessions and workshops often revolve around redefining masculinity in a way that is inclusive
and true to our students’ lived experiences, but we don’t always say, oh, this event is about
challenging toxic masculinity.” The program staff have shared that their students are all at varied
levels of readiness to explore masculinity. GXI believes that students’ readiness to explore
masculinity is dependent on their maturity level. He shared,
Some students appreciate the space to be able to be authentic and sincere and express
emotional concerns. Some students, based on maturity, are not quite there. They don’t
feel they need it. As men, they may still not be at the point of development to understand
that as a man, you still need to also explore all those elements of humanity and to be
vulnerable.
Guillermo shared an example of how he used self-disclosure to elaborate on a topic that came up
in an Hombre a Hombre session:
One of the things we have talked about a lot during the sessions is the idea of what’s
machismo and what’s a caballero? What’s the difference? And talking about how for me,
I want to be what the stereotype is of a caballero in a sense of respecting my mother, the
women around me, the men around me, being a provider. Then, it’s asking students how
113
they identify with these concepts. Students are at different levels of understanding, so it
helps to give them examples from our own life.
John highlighted the use of BRO Barbershop Talks for deep conversations on topics like police
brutality, masculinity, friendships, and romantic relationships. These sessions were structured
like group counseling and allowed for a deeper exploration of personal experiences and themes
related to masculinity. He shared an example of how these conversations encourage students to
identify where they learn to perform masculinity, oftentimes linked to their fathers, and to think
critically about their own concept of masculinity. He shared, “For example, one student
particularly shared about the issue with his father being machista himself and how he’s trying to
be different than that, and how challenging the machismo concept really resonated with him.”
Additionally, Pablito explained how the program staff often pose questions in their workshops
and events related to the topic of masculinity to intentionally challenge traditionally toxic
masculine behaviors:
We’ve had sessions before with our workshops where we talk about masculinity and
what that actually means. We really do more of an open discussion with open-ended
questions and really talk about, okay what is it? How are emotions associated with
masculinity? Do you have to be macho to be a man? Are there other ways you can be a
man that aren’t so old school?
Pablito added,
We’ve had to really challenge the traditional views of masculinity in our sessions because
so much of it is conditioned from a young age, so it’s important to encourage students to
think about what it truly means to be a man outside of what they know.
114
Subtheme 2.2: Strategies for Open Discussions
The second subtheme unveiled through data analysis related to facilitating open
discussions about masculinity was specific strategies used for open discussions. The BRO
program staff shared several strategies for facilitating open discussions with student participants.
These strategies included individual counseling sessions focusing on masculinity and manhood,
setting clear expectations or ground rules for group sessions, sharing personal stories, and
incorporating cultural and community contexts. Since all four program staff members are
academic counselors, open discussions about masculinity were central in counseling sessions.
Pablito shared how he addresses masculinity in his counseling sessions by asking open-ended
questions in his first session. He shared,
Yeah, you know, I ask students pretty early on. I guess this goes to helping them
understand that this program is specifically for [MOC], so I ask them specific questions
in the first session. Like, what does being a man mean to you, where did you learn how to
be a man, who are your male role models and why, what are the expectations of men in
your culture? You know, like, these questions open up some deep dialogue and I think it
gets the point across, like, this is a program where I will be expected to talk about this
kind of stuff that maybe I’ve never talked about.
All of the program staff shared that the students appreciate the space to share their experiences as
men and have not had many opportunities to have these discussions elsewhere. In his individual
interview, GXI said,
You know, a lot of our men aren’t used to being asked these types of questions. They
aren’t getting it at home, and they definitely aren’t getting it in their classes, so we have a
115
unique opportunity to offer them a space to explore the aspects of manhood that they
maybe don’t think about often.
John shared that an important strategy to facilitate these open discussions is to set ground rules,
or norms, for the students in individual and group settings. He shared that the community norms
for group sessions encourage students to be open-minded and to intentionally discuss things they
might not otherwise be comfortable sharing. He shared,
I think setting those rules or expectations earlier on has really helped students feel more
comfortable when they hear one another share. Like this is the expectation: to push
yourself outside of your comfort zone and knowing that it’s okay to talk about it because
you have all these other guys talking about it, too.
Guillermo added that one strategy used often by program staff is self-disclosure when
appropriate. He shared,
I think when we, as staff, can be vulnerable with our students, sharing personal stories
about manhood, it is really effective in helping the students feel comfortable to share.
Like, hey, if this older dude can talk about his feelings and issues about being a man, then
I should be able to do it, too. Like this is a space where they can express themselves
without feeling judged because they see that we have all struggled with some of this stuff,
too.
Another strategy to facilitate open discussions about masculinity was incorporating cultural and
community contexts. Staff did this by holding specific spaces, such as Brotha to Brotha and
Hombre a Hombre, for students to share about manhood based on their racialized experiences.
Pablito shared that in Hombre a Hombre sessions, students identified aspects of masculinity that
are unique to their Latino identities:
116
In Hombre a Hombre sessions, we get students sharing aspects of their masculinity that
are specific to growing up in a typical Latino household, and they’re able to bond over
that. Like, we get a lot of our Latino students sharing how their dads were super macho
and whatnot and how this has shaped their lens. So, as counselors leading these
discussions, we help them explore this idea, like is it okay to just act the way our dads
acted, or are there other ways?
The observations revealed that the community context of the March Madness basketball
tournament and barbecue and barbershop talk provided a more casual setting for students to feel
comfortable engaging with each other. In the observation of the barbecue, I observed students
discussing how they were doing in their classes and giving each other advice on where to seek
help. Although this was not specifically a conversation about masculinity, it was evidence that
these more casual settings allowed students to share strategies for help-seeking behaviors and
openly communicate about their struggles. At the Barbershop Talk, the ice-breaker prompt
allowed each student to express a specific emotion they were feeling at the moment. The casual
environment of the event was highlighted by one student participant who shared, “The feeling
I’m feeling today is grateful. I have finals coming up, so I’m also definitely stressed, but you
know, to come here, see a bunch of my friends, my counselors, just chillin’, talking about life,
eating pizza, it’s relaxing. It feels good to know that we’re all in the same situation. It feels less
lonely.”
Theme 3: Providing Role Models and Mentorship
The theme of providing role models and mentorship emerged through my analysis of
individual interviews with program staff and observations. Program staff shared how they model
their expression of positive masculinity through self-disclosure in their individual and group
117
sessions with students. Furthermore, the program utilizes a caseload counseling model to ensure
that students have the same BRO program counselor for the entirety of their time at ILC. In
addition to role modeling and mentorship by BRO counselors, the program utilizes paid student
interns and volunteer ILC faculty mentors to offer their students additional mentorship and
support. Lastly, by building strong peer-to-peer relationships in their group sessions, BRO offers
their students opportunities to support and learn from one another. The subthemes that emerged
for this theme are the caseload model for counseling and peer and faculty mentorship.
Subtheme 3.1: Caseload Model for Counseling
The BRO program staff intentionally utilizes a low student-to-counselor ratio so that
they are able to develop meaningful relationships with the students in their caseloads. These
caseloads are typically between 20 and 40 students per counselor, and the same counselor will
remain with their student caseload until the students leave ILC. Due to a relatively small
caseload, the program staff, all of whom are counselors, get to know each of their students more
personally. The small caseloads also allow them to monitor their students more closely through
tracking software, phone calls, text messages, and email communication. Many of them
highlighted personal relationships with each of their students as aiding them in their exploration
of masculine identity development. GXI shared, “In order for us to be able to go deep with our
men, they have to be able to trust us, be able to confide in us to an extent. That’s only possible if
we get to know them as people.” Guillermo shared his intention to shift to a caseload counseling
model for the program:
When we first started BRO, it was only a couple of us. It was hard to see every single
student and build those strong bonds that are necessary for trust. I wanted the students to
be able to see [the counselors] as people who they can come to when they are struggling
118
or need someone to talk to. So, as we added more counselors to the team, it was
important that we didn’t put too many students in their caseloads. I really want our
counselors to be able to check in with their students regularly and to be able to look at the
list and be like, oh yeah, I haven’t seen this guy in a while. Let me pick up the phone and
call him to check in.
By maintaining a relatively small caseload, the counselors can meet with their students more
often than counselors in the general counseling office, who may not have the time to see a
student more than once per semester, given the large number of students they serve. Guillermo
added,
I think the caseload model that we have is really beneficial. I only have about 30 students
on my caseload, and it allows me to really get to know them, understand their needs, and
support them in a more personalized way.
Similarly, John discussed the caseload counseling model’s importance to his students’
knowing where to turn for help:
The caseload thing has helped a lot. Like, every student might not need to see a counselor
two or three times a semester, but the door is always open for them. My students know,
oh, John, he’s my guy for counseling in BRO. That’s the person I can go to for advice on
classes and just to talk about stuff, whatever it might be. Sometimes, students might be
working two or three jobs while they’re in school, but it’s like, hey, let’s chat, even if it’s
for a little bit. It’s just being intentional about getting to know the students in your
caseload that makes a difference.
Pablito shared how the caseload model has allowed him to connect with students beyond
academics. Whereas counselors working with students in the general population may not have
119
the luxury of knowing a student’s name until they book their appointment, BRO counselors are
able to have in-depth conversations with their students about the origins of their name. He shared
an example of a student who felt embarrassed about his name:
He was telling me how he is ashamed or embarrassed of his name. It was a Mexican
name and he was pronouncing it kind of differently. But I was like, look, you need to
empower yourself and know that it’s such a unique name, and there’s so much beauty to
it. It’s a beautiful name in our culture. So, embrace it and you’re going to end up loving it
at some point. You got to approach it with pride. I wish I had a Mexican name, but I have
a generic-sounding American name, you know, so you’re lucky to have such a beautiful
name. We talk about those things in my one-on-one sessions, and I don’t think this would
be coming up in other spaces for him.
Other examples of connecting with students beyond academics came up in interviews as
counselors shared how they know about students’ family situations, where they work, what their
hobbies are, and what their favorite sports teams are.
Counselors also shared how the caseload model allows them to have more opportunities
in which they model behaviors that challenge harmful traditional masculine norms. John shared
that he models help-seeking behaviors that may resonate with his students in individual sessions:
I think it’s important for our students to see that we’re not perfect either. Like, I always
tell my students in appointments that counselors need help, too. I ask for help when we
need it, too. Like, if I don’t know something, I have to ask my colleagues for help, and
there’s no shame in it. Or that if I have personal problems, I ask my friends or my partner
for support too.
120
He shared that by minimizing the stigma associated with asking for help and normalizing
interdependence over self-reliance, he helps his students feel more comfortable in engaging in
such behaviors.
Subtheme 3.2: Peer and Faculty Mentorship
In addition to the caseload counseling model, peer and faculty mentorship is a critical
component of the program’s ability to aid in participants’ exploration of masculinity. In addition
to the four staff who are all also counselors in the program, they have hired four current BRO
students as interns. These interns are all in their 2nd or 3rd year at ILC and serve in the capacity
of mentors to students. Each intern is paired with a counselor and assists with managing their
student caseload, including making check-in phone calls, sending texts and emails, and inviting
them to events and workshops. A third level of mentorship is the BRO faculty/staff mentor
program, in which willing student participants are paired with an individual volunteer mentor
who works at ILC. These mentors identify as MOC and volunteer their time to the program to
serve as mentors to their students. This year, there are approximately 20 BRO faculty/staff
mentors assigned to students in the program. In observations of BRO program events, all four
student interns attended and participated in both events, four faculty/staff mentors attended the
barbershop talk event, and 14 faculty/staff mentors attended the March Madness barbecue event.
The interactions between participants showed that the interns and mentors had developed a
strong sense of camaraderie with the program staff and students in the BRO program. I witnessed
several instances of interns and mentors alike engaging in individual and group conversations
with students in the program. At the barbershop talk event, all four faculty/staff mentors shared
personal stories relevant to the topics presented.
121
BRO program staff member and founder Guillermo shared how the incorporation of
professional mentorship differentiates BRO from other programs on campus:
The difference that separates BRO from some of the other programs on campus is that
other programs have maybe a handful of staff, one faculty, and an administrator, but our
students have access to 40 plus faculty and staff around campus who constantly attend
our events and who are here to support them. If a student is interested in accounting, for
example, then we can literally walk them over to one of our ILC accounting professors,
who is also a BRO mentor. They will get to know each other, and maybe it even opens up
some employment opportunities.
Similarly, GXI shared the important role of the student interns, who work with program staff to
ensure day-to-day operations run smoothly and serve in a mentorship capacity to the other
students in the program. He also shared,
Our interns play a crucial role in maintaining engagement among students. They help
facilitate discussions and make sure no one feels left out, which is essential for creating
an inclusive environment. They also serve as role models. If a student in the program is
struggling academically, the interns often offer to tutor them or talk to them about their
challenges. When our interns earn accolades like winning a scholarship or acceptance to a
university, we make sure to highlight these accomplishments at our events to help other
BRO students see that it is a possibility for them as well.
The student intern program and mentorship program provide BRO students with access to
individuals who share some of their identities and life experiences to whom they can go for
additional support, guidance, and fellowship. Pablito summarized this concept by stating,
122
Our intern and mentorship program is designed to show students that there are successful
MOC on this campus who have navigated some of the same challenges they face. Since
they were able to do it, our students can seek advice on how they did it and how they can
do it, too. Put simply, it’s just about expanding their network of support.
Theme 4: Encouraging Vulnerability and Emotional Expression
Another theme that arose when analyzing the BRO program staff’s ability to foster
spaces to support student participants’ exploration of masculine identity was encouraging
vulnerability and emotional expression of its student participants. This was accomplished
through individual counseling sessions and various program events and workshops. The two
subthemes that emerged from the analysis of this theme were encouraging vulnerability and
challenging traditional masculine norms.
Subtheme 4.1: Encouraging Vulnerability
During interviews, all four program staff reiterated the importance of encouraging
vulnerability and emotionality to help students engage in help-seeking and self-reflective
behaviors. I witnessed this when observing the barbershop talk event. During this event,
participants were asked to identify their current emotions and to share their challenges and
successes throughout the academic year. An example of this occurred at the beginning of the
session when one student shared his anxiety about his upcoming finals:
At the moment, I’m feeling a bit anxious because my finals are coming up, and I only
have this week and next to prepare, so I really have to try to cram and get this put
together so I pass my classes. It feels like a lot is riding on this semester because my
grades will pretty much determine the GPA that the universities will look at for
123
admission. So, it’s stressful. At the same time, I feel pleasant because I know that no
matter what happens, I’ll be able to relax in a month.
After the student shared his concerns, various program staff and student participants immediately
paused and took time to validate the student’s emotions and to offer support and suggestions.
One program staff member normalized the anxiety he was feeling and reassured the student that
it was healthy to feel anxious, given the situation. One student offered to form a study group with
the student, as he was also feeling anxious about his finals and was looking for an accountability
partner. Similar examples of students expressing vulnerability and emotionality occurred
throughout the hour-long event.
All four program staff participants shared stories in which they facilitated discussions that
allowed students to be vulnerable and share their feelings. GXI shared one specific example of a
conversation he remembered from when the program was still operating remotely due to the
COVID-19 pandemic:
During the pandemic, we were doing our barbershop talks virtually. I remember the
conversations getting deep in regard to students’ feelings of isolation and loss and things
of that nature due to where they were at during that time. I think as men who run this
program, those conversations happen organically for us, but we hold space for our
students to feel safe in discussing whatever questions or concerns or perspectives they
may have in regards to masculinity. It requires us to push them outside their comfort
zone, but they usually respond well to it.
Similarly, Pablito shared topics from various workshops that he facilitated throughout the year
that required students to be vulnerable, such as imposter syndrome, toxic masculinity, healthy
124
relationships with women, code-switching, and mental wellness. He shared his perspective on
the topic of vulnerability:
Many of our students have shared experiences of having an older generation of folks in
their families who are very prideful in the sense of not seeking help, especially men. We
try to stress that not seeking help can easily translate into mental illness. I think mental
health is a huge issue for our students. We encourage them to seek help, whether through
us, their community, or professional therapists. I talk about putting your pride and ego to
the side when it comes to dealing with tough emotions and not associating having
emotions with weakness. In reality, we’re all human. We’re all emotional beings. Talking
about your emotions is more masculine than avoiding them. We try to reframe
vulnerability as a strength since so many of our young men see it as a weakness.
Guillermo shared some challenges with getting his students to engage with their emotions and to
be vulnerable in front of their peers. He shared that for many of his students, the BRO program is
the first space where they have been forced to think critically about their feelings associated with
being men, so getting them to be vulnerable and engage with their emotions takes scaffolding
and prompting. He shared,
Our students don’t always come in with the language and other tools to process what
they’re going through. It takes time and patience. Sometimes, it’s in counseling sessions
and other times in our workshops, but it takes time. Like, I’ll ask them to identify their
feelings, and it’s like, I’m good, or I’m fine. So, I have to go deeper, probe more. Like,
okay, cool, so what does good mean, or what does fine mean? And why do you feel that
way? And most importantly, helping them understand why it’s important to be able to
share their feelings and to be vulnerable. It’s challenging but such important work.
125
BRO program staff consistently reiterated normalizing vulnerability and emotionality as a part of
being a healthy person to their students, regardless of gender. Pablito shared, “We tell our
students that it’s not only okay to express their feelings and be open about their struggles, but it
is actually a crucial part of their development.”
Subtheme 4.2: Challenging Traditional Masculine Norms
In addition to encouraging vulnerability and emotionality, interviews and observations
revealed the subtheme of challenging traditional masculine norms as a practice in the BRO
program. According to program staff, many MOC participating in the BRO program had not
previously encountered spaces where they could openly reflect on topics relating to masculinity
or being a man. All four of the program staff stated that one of the program’s core values is to
help students challenge traditional norms of masculinity, specifically those that may be harmful
to their development as people. Although program staff acknowledged that there are healthy and
positive characteristics traditionally associated with masculinity, such as hard work,
perseverance, and responsibility, they also shared that these characteristics are not specific to
men alone. Guillermo offered a unique perspective on this topic:
You know, as a father and as a man who didn’t grow up in a household where I heard
things like “man up” and “boys don’t cry,” I think I see things differently from people
who had those experiences. I think that many of our students see masculinity as a very
black or white way of doing things. Like, men do this and women do that. The way their
own dads did, maybe. But we also have to help them understand that it’s not just men
who possess these traits. Like, women can be resilient and hard workers and the leaders
of their household too. I don’t want my sons to grow up with a mentality that they can
only be one type of way.
126
Pablito, having a different experience throughout his upbringing, shared a common sentiment:
I grew up in a very traditional Latino household. Very machismo. And I think that there
were some things I liked about it and some things I didn’t like. For example, I liked the
idea of a man being the rock of his household, like making sure he takes care of his tribe.
But I didn’t like that, oh, you come home from work, and you get to tell the wife to do
this and do that. I think seeing how women get treated badly because of this macho
macho culture made me want to go about things differently.
Although the BRO program staff attempt to challenge traditional masculine norms in their
individual counseling sessions, workshops, and events, it is not always readily accepted by their
students. GXI discussed the challenges in addressing the topic in Brotha to Brotha sessions:
For the most part, these conversations are well-received by the students, but you do get
some contrarians who will push back. They’ll hear us, but they’re going to hold on to
what those truths are to them that they feel are in their best interest. Like, they might feel
being a man is actually aligned with all the machismo stuff. At the end of the day, what
we say only holds so much weight.
In his individual sessions with students, John makes it a point to assess his students’ readiness to
engage in conversations about masculinity and masculine norms. He shared that he likes to get a
full picture of where his students are coming from. He might ask questions about what their
home lives are like, what being a man means to them, who their role models are, etc. Many of his
students shared with him that they grew up in households in which traditional masculinity was
the expectation. To challenge these viewpoints, he offered insights:
You know, I think it’s tough. You have to really build that rapport with them. They have
to trust that you mean well. If they’re used to things being one way their whole life, and
127
you come in and try to tell them it’s actually a different way, there might be some
resistance. For me, it’s about helping them see some of the hypocrisies or inconsistencies
in what they were taught growing up and their actual values. Like, do you really believe
that in order to be considered a man that you have to act the way you have been taught,
like men can’t be emotional, etc., or is it okay to do things differently that are more in
line with your values and still be considered manly or masculine?
The observations showed that the program staff intentionally creates spaces for men to be
their authentic selves and challenge unhealthy norms traditionally associated with masculinity.
This was evidenced through observation of the March Madness barbecue event, which included a
3-on-3 basketball tournament. Although program staff encouraged healthy levels of competition
throughout the event, there were several instances where they also encouraged empathy and
support between participants who had encountered a tough defeat. The program staff rallied the
students around one another, which led to losing teams supporting teams that had defeated them
in the previous round. The concepts of brotherhood and camaraderie were on display throughout
the event, regardless of the outcome of the games.
Theme 5: Navigating Systemic and Structural Challenges
Program staff identified several systemic and structural challenges. Program staff stated
the need for a full-time staff person dedicated to the BRO program, as all four worked for the
program on a full-time basis. Furthermore, staff discussed the challenge of not being formally
funded as an institutionalized program. Despite their best efforts to foster conversations and
programming relating to masculine identity, at least two program staff identified the need for
formal training on issues surrounding masculinity, with an emphasis on working with LGBTQ+
MOC. Therefore, the subthemes that emerged for this theme were lack of dedicated full-time
128
staff and permanent funding, lack of training on masculinity and intersectional identities, and
additional challenges.
Subtheme 5.1: Lack of Dedicated Full-Time Staff and Permanent Funding
As mentioned, all BRO program staff are also counselors at ILC. Guillermo is the only
full-time ILC counselor assigned to the program, but he splits his time as the counselor for ILC’s
programs for Black/African American and Latino students. Guillermo shared that even though he
is a full-time counselor at ILC, his time working with BRO students is limited to about 16 hours
per week, given his other responsibilities on campus. GXI works the greatest number of
dedicated hours of all BRO program staff at 18 hours per week, whereas John and Pablito
dedicate 9 hours per week each. Given the current program enrollment of 153 students and the
high likelihood that this number will continue to grow over the upcoming years, staff shared the
need for a full-time dedicated staff member. They highlighted the challenges of balancing their
student counseling caseloads with the need to develop effective programming.
GXI shared his insights regarding program staffing, saying, “I think one of the biggest
challenges is that there’s not one sole dedicated full-time person attached to it.” The concept of
having limited time came up several times in the interviews with program staff. Pablito shared
that his duties in his 9 hours of work per week in the BRO program include managing his
caseload of students, conducting outreach, facilitating individual counseling sessions, attending
weekly planning meetings, and developing and facilitating workshops and events. He shared a
challenge with managing counseling appointments on a day-to-day basis given the limited time
he works each week, stating,
I think with the 30-minute appointments, it’s hard, especially if you’re back to back to
back and you know that you might not see that student again for maybe 2 or 3 weeks.
129
You want to make sure you prioritize their academics, but at the same time, what can we
do to have that space where we can talk about just life and hang out in these one-on-one
sessions. I think that would be one of the things that I wish we could do or we can talk
about, maybe potentially increasing it to 45 minutes would be great.
All four program staff stated that they wanted to expand on what they offer their BRO program
students in regard to intentional programming tailored to the issues that MOC experience,
including masculinity. However, they stated time constraints and limited staffing as main reasons
they have not done so yet. To this point, John shared,
I don’t think there’s enough time in the day, man, especially to be as intentional as we
want. I think one of the biggest challenges is, more so, the availability of staffing and
how much time people can dedicate to it. Having a full-time person dedicated to the
program would definitely help us a lot.
In addition to the challenge of staffing, BRO program staff alluded to the challenge of not
having access to permanent consistent funding. Guillermo stated that the institution contributes
funding to the BRO program for staffing, but it can be somewhat difficult to receive funding for
events, swag, and other financial incentives due to institutional red tape and bureaucracy. He also
expressed an inequity in opportunities for program staff to earn financial incentives, such as
stipends, whereas program staff in other programs on campus have access to such incentives. He
shared,
There is time. However, it’s not the ideal amount of time. And then there’s an inequity in
terms of financial incentives for counselors. Whereas other programs may get stipends,
our program staff does not. And so it makes it difficult to scale up if you really want to do
130
a good job because you’re like, okay, well, the institution might not be funding scaling
up, or we may be working beyond our hours, or we may not be getting compensated.
Guillermo shared that although the program is recognized as an official program, the website and
organizational charts do not reflect this. In reviewing the organizational chart, I did not find the
BRO program listed in their student services or student equity areas. Guillermo elaborated on
this by stating,
The reality is that financially, we’re not set up the way other programs are. If you look at
our websites and org charts, you’re going to notice that there’s certain places we’re not
put in. Part of it is because we’re so damn organic that we’re not even a legit program in
the sense that there’s no funding for a coordinator like other programs.
The program staff interviews revealed that the majority of institutional dollars that go
toward the BRO program are through the Student Equity and Achievement Program (SEAP)
funds. However, this funding is not guaranteed year-to-year, and with upcoming statewide
budget cuts, program staff fear that funding will be reduced in the years to come. GXI shared his
frustrations with the lack of dedicated funding for the program:
It should not be an equity program because it should be institutionalized. But when
you’re targeting disproportionately marginalized groups, I understand why you would
think that equity funds should be used for it. But if you’re trying to close these equity
gaps, it should be an institutional issue beyond just an equity issue. These equity gaps are
a systemic issue that the school should care about trying to close, not just by throwing
some equity funds at the problem. Because equity funds did not create this problem, nor
would they solve it. The systems of inequity in this country created this problem, and so
the institution needs to put permanent funds and resources behind it to try to solve it.
131
The BRO program at ILC faces significant challenges due to a lack of dedicated full-time
staff and permanent funding, with staff members balancing multiple responsibilities and limited
hours. Despite recognizing the importance of tailored programming for MOC, the program’s
development is hindered by time constraints, insufficient staffing, and inconsistent financial
support, highlighting a need for institutional commitment and resources.
Subtheme 5.2: Lack of Training on Masculine Identity and Other Intersectional Identities
In addition to the challenges associated with not having permanent staffing or funding,
program staff interviews revealed a need for intentional training on masculinity and
intersectionality, with an emphasis on LGBTQ+ men. Several of the program staff mentioned
that they would feel more comfortable engaging in workshops or group sessions specifically
tailored to masculine identity if they had additional training. Guillermo shared that although the
program staff does their best to address such issues, they may not all feel comfortable going
deeper due to a lack of knowledge of theory and best practices. He shared,
I don’t want to assume that we all have the training or experience to talk about
masculinity in great detail. I feel like it’s such an important topic that, in a sense, we
don’t really address it in a big group because I feel like it’s putting my team on the spot if
they’re not trained or ready to talk about it. We don’t know how everyone feels about
masculinity. What if one of us was raised differently from the other, and then they start
spreading a certain idea different from my idea, and that could create conflict not only
within our team, but within our students as well.
Program staff also mentioned that the majority of conversations surrounding masculine
identity came up organically, with a focus on masculinity during workshops and events not
always being explicitly stated. GXI shared that in his experiences working at another campus in a
132
similar role, he has seen more intentional targeted interventions surrounding masculine identity
development, such as workshops on toxic masculinity or negative stereotypes affecting men, but
he does not believe that BRO at ILC focuses on these issues as much. He also shared that at the
other campus, specific individuals have an interest and an academic background in these topics,
so they may be more comfortable facilitating such discussions. He shared, “None of us are
experts on masculinity, or toxic masculinity, but I think we do a good enough job to address
these topics in the best way we can based on what we know.” Guillermo stated a need for
specific training on how to address masculinity with diverse MOC, which he believes would be
possible if they had additional staffing. He shared,
From the outside, it might be like, oh man, you guys are doing a great job. But when it
comes to these types of conversations around our identities and masculinity, we don’t
have the training and, unfortunately, the time to do the training. But the way I would
envision it would be that if we had a full-time person, they could develop training and
facilitate it with us and the entire campus.
It is important to mention that all four program staff shared that there has been training offered
for working with specialized populations, such as LGBTQ+, veterans, and undocumented
students, but nothing specifically for masculine identity.
In addition to the need for training on masculine identity, program staff also
communicated a need for training on working with other intersectional identities, such as MOC
who identify as gay, bisexual, transgender, or non-binary, and MOC who identify as Asian
American, Native American, and Pacific Islanders. Pablito shared that he does not feel as
comfortable addressing issues surrounding LGBTQ+ identity due to his own positionality and
identity as a heterosexual man. He shared,
133
I think we are welcoming to people from all identities, and we do our best to address their
needs, but I would say specifically for LGBTQ folks, I don’t want to make assumptions
or say anything that might be potentially harmful to them.
Pablito and the other program staff shared that they have not engaged in any training specifically
focusing on MOC who are LGBTQ+, but they would be interested in attending such training.
GXI shared that there are students in the program who identify as LGBTQ+ and that it would be
beneficial to have someone on campus provide additional training. He shared,
We have some non-binary students in the program who come in with makeup and nail
paint and don’t necessarily adhere to traditional gender norms. I’m not the expert on that
identity, and nobody intentionally pushes them away or anything like that. But it would
be great if, perhaps, someone from that community could come in and offer their
expertise on how to make these students feel more comfortable in our program. Our goal
is for all of our [MOC] to feel a sense of community with us.
In regard to other intersectional identities, Guillermo shared that the BRO program offers
specific affinity spaces for Black/African American and Latino men but that there is a need for
exploration on what can be done for Asian American, Native American, and Pacific Islander
men. He elaborated on this by sharing, “We have Brotha to Brotha for our Black men and
Hombre a Hombre for our Latino men, but we need to do more for our Asian, Pacific Islander,
and Native men. I don’t know what that would be exactly, but I think some staff representation,
at least, would help us increase our numbers for those populations.” Guillermo shared that there
are currently no BRO program staff who identify as Asian American, Native American, or
Pacific Islander and that the enrollment of BRO students from these backgrounds is only three,
one, and one, respectively.
134
Three program staff members partially attributed a lack of diversity among the program
staff to the fact that there has not been training relating to LGBTQ+ and other intersectional
identities for MOC. All four staff members are cisgender heterosexual MOC of either Latino or
Black/African American race and in their late 20s to early 40s. Given the relatively homogenous
demographics of the program staff, they have expressed a need for individuals from differing
backgrounds to facilitate specific training on working with MOC with diverse expressions of
masculinity and/or having other intersectional identities.
Subtheme 5.3: Additional Challenges
The BRO program staff communicated the systemic and structural challenges created by
the lack of full-time staff and permanent funding. They also conveyed a need for additional
training relating to masculine identity development and other intersectional identities of MOC
students in their program. Additionally, they conveyed challenges associated with ILC’s location
in relation to where their students live, leading to lower attendance at BRO program events and
workshops.
In regard to the geographic location of ILC relative to where most BRO students reside,
John shared that 85% of the students in the BRO program do not live in the local ILC area. He
also shared that nearly 70% of BRO students are classified as low-income and that many of his
students convey that they face significant financial challenges. He and other staff members
shared that despite the distance from their homes, their students attend ILC due to its reputation
as a leading transfer institution and its location in a neighborhood of higher socioeconomic
status. John shared that this has led to students not always engaging in BRO program activities:
Even just getting students to come to events can be a struggle. They tell us, “Hey, I take
the bus, and it takes me over an hour to get to campus.” Given where we’re located and
135
where they are located, they’ll even tell us, oh, there’s no way. I’m going to be stuck on
the freeway going to campus. I think transportation and the location of the campus create
some structural barriers to our students being able to engage in the way we want them to.
Staff members also addressed the issue of transportation as a barrier for their students to
attend workshops and events, even remotely. For example, GXI shared his insight into this
challenge:
Many of our students take the bus or use ride-sharing apps from low-income
neighborhoods just to attend ILC. They might be working two, maybe three part-time
jobs, and it could take them more than an hour to get here. Coming to a workshop or
event isn’t something they’re always able to prioritize. We understand that in order for
them to be successful, their basic needs have to be attended to first.
Program staff shared that due to the program’s inability to provide additional financial incentives
to students to combat some of these financial hurdles, they don’t reprimand or remove students
for not fulfilling their requirement to attend two BRO events per semester. Pablito shared that the
program had offered hybrid sessions in the past, but these were not well-attended, so they have
since moved to all of their events and workshops being held in person. He shared,
We did some stuff on Zoom, but the turnout was pretty low. I mean, students would be
joining in while they’re on the bus or in the car, so it’s hard for them to be fully engaged.
I think that since we have moved to everything being in person, attendance might be
lower, but the level of engagement within these spaces is definitely higher.
In addition to interviews with program staff, observations aligned with some of these
challenges. Student attendance for the March Madness barbecue was approximately 50 students.
This event was held on a Friday and included MOC students at neighboring community colleges.
136
These colleges provided round-trip transportation from their campuses to ILC, which may have
led to an uptick in attendance. At the barbershop talk event, the approximately 12 attendees
stated that they were already on campus for classes on the day of the event, which made it easier
for them to attend.
Based on interview and observation data, BRO program staff have communicated several
structural and systemic challenges that have hindered their ability to offer their students the
support they believe they are capable of providing. These challenges included the lack of fulltime staff, the lack of permanent and consistent funding that is institutionalized, the need for
additional training on masculine identity development and supporting MOCs’ intersectional
identities, and challenges associated with their students’ ability to fully engage in the program
due to financial, geographic, and transportation barriers.
Student Interviewees
To gather qualitative data to address Research Question 2, I conducted semi-structured
interviews with 10 BRO program student participants. Once I secured participation from the four
staff members, I asked if they could help me identify college students who identified as MOC,
were 18 or older, enrolled in the BRO program, participated and completed all program
requirements for at least a semester, and attended at least one program event or workshop in the
past 3 years.
Once I received the list of students who met the criteria, I sent them a recruitment email
and a flier containing the screening questionnaire and demographic data form. I received 10
responses by the deadline to submit and all 10 participants agreed to participate in the study. I
conducted 60- to 90-minute interviews via Zoom. As a coordinator of a MOC program at a
different community college, I was familiar with the population at my campus but lacked
137
knowledge of how MOC perceived the support they received from the BRO program at ILC.
These interviews provided me with a more nuanced understanding of how the BRO program
functions at ILC and how students in the program perceive and navigate the exploration of
masculine identity development through BRO programming.
All 10 students completed a screening questionnaire and demographic form on which
they selected a pseudonym for the study. Table 6 presents their demographic characteristics. In
the next section, I will share a more detailed introduction of each participant to provide context
for the findings throughout the chapter.
Table 6
Student Interview Participant Demographics
Pseudonym Race Ethnicity
Gender
ID
Sexual
ID Age
Firstgen Status Major
# of
sem at
ILC
# of
sem in
BRO
Fin
Aid
Work
outside of
school
Work hrs
per wk
Charlton Latino Mexican Man Straight 19 Yes
Parttime Psychology 2 2 Yes No 0
Panda Black Kenyan Man Straight 26 Yes
Fulltime Geography 6 4 Yes Yes 31–40
Hypnotic Latino Mexican Man Straight 22 Yes
Fulltime
Business
administration
Accounting 8 4 Yes Yes 21–30
Darius Black American Man Straight 21 Yes
Fulltime
Aerospace
engineering 5 4 Yes Yes 11–20
Drake Latino Mexican Man Gay 23 Yes
Fulltime
Business
administration 4 4 Yes Yes 11–20
Vukubcane Latino
Salvadorean/
Lenca Man Straight 22 Yes
Fulltime
Astrophysics
Astronomy 5 2 Yes Yes 1–10
Toro Latino Mexican Man Straight 20 Yes
Fulltime
Sociology
Psychology 4 4 Yes Yes 21–30
Wayne Latino Mexican Man Straight 29 Yes
Fulltime
Interaction
design 5 2 Yes Yes 31–40
Carter
Black/
African
American
African
American Man Straight 29 Yes
Fulltime
Business
administration
Political
science 9 3 Yes Yes Over 40
138
Pseudonym Race Ethnicity
Gender
ID
Sexual
ID Age
Firstgen Status Major
# of
sem at
ILC
# of
sem in
BRO
Fin
Aid
Work
outside of
school
Work hrs
per wk
Bobby Asian Chinese Man Straight 42 Yes
Fulltime Accounting 4 3 Yes Yes 21-30
139
140
Panda
Panda graduated from high school and is pursuing an associate degree for transfer and
hopes to transfer to UCLA. He has completed 60 units with a GPA of 3.0. Panda has attended
several community colleges, including at least one other community college in the Los Angeles
area. Panda’s work schedule requires him to effectively manage his time to accommodate his
class schedule and BRO program events. His goal is to become a city planner. He began
attending ILC in the Spring of 2021 and has been a part of the BRO program since the spring of
2022. Panda initially joined the program to find a supportive community and resources to help
him navigate college life and achieve his academic and career goals. He actively participates in
the program’s events and is dedicated to supporting MOC. When asked what led to him joining
the BRO program, he shared,
I went to a barbecue, and I met a few of the BRO counselors. And then, after the event,
they were like, yeah, if you want to join us, you can join the program, and then we’ll help
with the resources. We’ll give you mentors. We’ll give you just all the information you
need to be successful. So, I joined.
Carter
Carter graduated from a public high school and holds an associate degree. Carter has
completed 106 units with a GPA of 3.5. He works as a sheriff and is pursuing associate degrees
for transfer. Having grown up with a father who has been in and out of the carceral system, his
goal is to become an attorney, and he plans to transfer to UCLA. Carter enrolled in ILC several
years ago, but after his grandparents became ill, he became the sole caretaker of his family. This
led to his grades declining due to prioritizing work and family over school. He was subsequently
dismissed from ILC due to his probation status. Following his dismissal from ILC, he began to
141
work full-time as a sheriff and later enrolled in courses at another community college. After
some time, Carter returned to ILC to finish what he had started. He was introduced to the BRO
program by Counselor GXI, who encouraged him to take advantage of support and resources to
help him navigate his academic and professional goals. Carter has been part of the BRO program
since Spring 2023. He actively participates in program events and supports his peers. He was
recently admitted to several UC campuses for transfer as a political science major. When asked
what led him to join the program, he shared, “After I met GXI, he just texted me saying to sign
up, and I did it because he asked, and I trusted him.”
Drake
Drake graduated from a public magnet high school, is pursuing an associate degree for
transfer, and has completed 30 units with a GPA of 3.3. He works as a peer mentor in the BRO
program. His goal is to become a business analyst, and he plans to transfer to UC Riverside.
Drake joined the BRO program through the encouragement of one of his high school friends who
was already engaged in the program. He joined to find a community that could guide and support
his academic and career aspirations. He values the support and guidance he receives from the
program. When asked what led him to join the program, he shared, “I joined the program to find
support and community as I navigate my academic and career goals.”
Charlton
Charlton graduated from a large public high school in Los Angeles, is pursuing an
associate degree for transfer, and has completed 21 units with a GPA of 3.6. He plans to transfer
to the University of Southern California. He works part-time outside of school and began
attending ILC in the summer of 2023. Charlton joined the BRO program after being added to it
without prior knowledge but found it beneficial for his academic and personal growth. He has
142
found support and guidance from the program, which he feels helps him overcome challenges
and achieve his goals. He has been part of the BRO program since Fall 2023. He actively
participates in the program’s events to support his peers. When asked what led him to join the
program, he shared, “I honestly didn’t even know I was added to the program, but it turned out to
be a good choice because of the support I received.”
Hypnotic
Hypnotic graduated from a large public high school in Los Angeles, is pursuing an
associate degree for transfer, and has completed 80 units with a GPA of 3.4. He works outside of
school while attending ILC full-time. He aims to become a CPA and transfer to California State
University, Long Beach, or UC Davis. Hypnotic joined the BRO program to find a community
that could help him succeed academically and professionally, as he needed more guidance in
high school. He has been part of the BRO program since Fall 2022 and actively and regularly
engages in program activities. When asked what led him to join the program, he shared, “I joined
BRO because the smaller group meant more personalized support from the counselors, which I
really needed.”
Darius
Darius is from Pasadena and graduated from a private high school where he was a star
student-athlete. Darius is pursuing an Associate Degree in Aerospace Engineering and has
completed 60 units with a GPA of 2.9. He plans to transfer to California State University, Long
Beach. Darius joined the BRO program to receive support and guidance for his academic and
career goals. He has been part of the BRO program since Spring 2022 and is dedicated to
becoming an aerospace engineer. When asked what led him to join the program, he shared, “I
143
honestly just joined for the early enrollment, but I stayed for the community and support I found
in the program.”
Bobby
Bobby is married and is a father to two young children residing in Santa Monica. He
graduated from high school and earned a master’s degree in China. Bobby is the first in his
family to attend college in the United States and is currently pursuing an associate degree for
transfer. He has completed 36 units with a GPA of 3.57, and his goal is to become a certified
public accountant and chief financial officer. Bobby joined the BRO program on the
recommendation of a professor who suggested he attend an event. He found the program’s
diversity, organization, and positive energy appealing. Bobby has been part of the BRO program
since Spring 2023 and values the program’s support in navigating his educational and
professional goals. When asked what led him to join the program, he shared, “My professor is a
mentor for BRO, and he suggested I enroll in this program after I attended one of their events. I
think it’s pretty good because everything is all organized and it’s organized well.”
Vukubcane
Vukubcane graduated from a public magnet high school and is the first in his family to
attend college. Daniel is pursuing an associate degree for transfer and has completed 64 units
with a GPA of 3.5. He plans to transfer to UC Berkeley. His goal is to become a research
scientist and science diplomat. Vukubcane joined the BRO program to find support and
resources for his challenging academic path. He has attended ILC and another community
college in Los Angeles County and has been part of the BRO program since Spring 2023. He
actively participates in program events and supports his peers’ academic achievement. When
144
asked what led him to join the program, he shared, “I joined [BRO] to advocate for those around
me and give back to the community.”
Toro
Toro graduated from a public high school and is the first in his family to attend college.
He is pursuing an associate degree for transfer and has completed 16 units. He plans to transfer
to California State University, Long Beach. Toro joined the BRO program to receive guidance
and support for his academic and career goals. He has been part of the BRO program since the
summer of 2022 and actively participates in program events. When asked what led him to join
the program, he shared, “I signed up at a campus club fair without much intention of attending,
but after meeting Dr. Guillermo and seeing what BRO offered, I decided to stick with it.”
Wayne
Wayne graduated from a public high school and will earn a bachelor’s degree in user
experience at ILC. Wayne has completed 64 units with a GPA of 3.4. He works as a freelance
designer and is pursuing a career in enterprise sales. Wayne joined the BRO program to receive
support and guidance for his academic and career aspirations. He has been part of the BRO
program since Fall 2022 and values the support and guidance he receives from the program.
When asked what led him to join the program, he shared, “It was an accidental thing. Like, I
think I just said yes to this email invitation, but once I saw what BRO was about, I knew I
wanted to be a part of it.”
Findings for Research Question 2 From Student Interviews and Observations
Five themes emerged from the data analysis. These themes are correlated to Research
Question 2, which asks how program participants perceive and navigate the exploration of
masculine identity in spaces fostered by program staff. The following themes will be further
145
highlighted in this section: navigating cultural expectations and masculine identity, support and
validation from program staff, redefining masculine roles through mentorship and role models,
redefining masculinity through emotional expression, and the role of community and
brotherhood. Each of these themes includes subthemes, which provide additional context to the
primary findings. I have included a list of themes and subthemes addressing RQ 2 in Table 7.
Table 7
Themes and Subthemes for Research Question 2
Themes Subthemes
Navigating cultural expectations and
masculine identity
Personal definition of masculinity
Impact of culture and community on
masculine identity
Intersectional Identities
Support and validation from program staff Recognition and validating experiences from
program staff
Affirmation of identity by program staff
Redefining masculine roles through
mentorship and role models
Role models
Guidance and mentorship
Redefining masculinity through emotional
expression
Healthy expression of masculinity
Engagement with vulnerability
The role of community and brotherhood Positive energy
Engagement in a brotherhood
146
Theme 1: Navigating Cultural Expectations and Masculine Identity
The theme of navigating cultural expectations and masculine identity emerged in
interviews and observations with BRO program students. Participants shared how they navigated
the expectations of their cultural or familial upbringing relating to performing masculinity. I first
asked participants to define manhood and masculinity, which resulted in a wide range of
definitions. Participants shared examples of how their cultural and community backgrounds
impacted their views on masculinity, as well as how the BRO program has either affirmed or
challenged these beliefs. Participants also shared the impact that their other intersecting identities
had on their concept of masculinity and manhood. The subthemes within this theme are
participants’ personal definitions of masculinity, the impact of culture and community on
masculinity, and intersectional identities.
Subtheme 1.1: Personal Definition of Masculinity
To get a sense of how participants defined masculinity and manhood, I asked them what
it meant to them to be a man and how they would define masculinity. Each participant shared
their responses, and some common themes emerged. Before providing a summary of these
themes, I provide each participant’s definitions of manhood and/or masculinity below. This will
provide additional context to themes and subthemes addressed later in this chapter.
Darius shared,
I feel like masculinity is having integrity, trusting yourself, trusting your morals, trusting
your belief in God, and not compromising on these things, even if it’s for financial
wealth.
Panda shared,
147
It means being a provider. I feel like, being a man, you need to provide, and you also
need to be a leader in everything that you do, regardless of what you’re doing. I think you
should be a leader. So, I see leadership and also providing, as well as just knowing what
to stand for, because you can’t stand for the wrong things. So, setting a path and
following it through, I think that’s what makes you a man. I feel like being able to
communicate and get the message across, I feel like that is masculinity, too.
Hypnotic shared,
I think there’s various definitions, but for me, it would probably be doing everything you
can for a family. Even when the going gets rough, you still have to go out and perform,
whether that be work or whatever it is, your own business, whatever. You still have to
find a way to provide financially. Most important financially because I feel like most
problems arise because of money. Being able to be caring, loving when it’s tough, and
not getting emotional. Just being able to be a strong pillar when everything around you is,
like, crumbling. You get the nerves down; you get the calm down. You motivate people
around you. That’s what masculinity is to me.
Wayne shared,
I feel like being a man is what you’re born to be. Masculinity is just a set of traits that,
again, anybody can carry them differently, but at its core, I would say it’s, like, the base
is what a man is, and masculinity is the frosting with the cherry on top. That’s one way I
can put it. It’s not being ego-driven, being in service to others. It’s super important.
Standing your ground, having a perspective and owning that is important, too, to the trait
of what masculinity is from my perspective.
Charlton shared,
148
I want to say being able to provide for my family and just being able to do things on my
own. I want to say being able to push myself through hard times. I don’t know, being able
to just overcome adversity whenever encountered with it.
Drake shared,
It is what is described through your actions, how well you are at following your word,
providing for your family, always giving to other people. Masculinity is just the concept
of seeing yourself as a man, I guess you could say. Just portraying a lot of toughness and
grit in the sense that you’re more mature and able to handle difficult situations.
Toro shared,
For me, being a man is more like, you have to care. You have to know what your values
are. Your values make a man. Not what you do. It’s like what you think, how you act, or
what you say. I feel like that’s what makes you a man. I feel like being respected makes
you a man. I feel like knowing what you stand for and being true to yourself. I feel like
that’s what makes a man. I feel like it has to be being strong. Being like, I’m the provider.
You do what you say you will do and take care of others. I feel like that’s what
masculinity is.
Bobby shared,
Just like to be a man, I need to take more responsibility and be stronger for myself. …
Masculinity means, I think, I need to invest more time in my personal life to do
something like that, to do the job, get the job done, and to make an income, and to
explore, to develop a better life. For myself, if it’s a man, it means a lot of responsibility,
like duties. So, men normally carry more things than others. More social responsibilities
and family duties.
149
Vukubcane shared,
I think a man is somebody who is disciplined and a provider, but at the same time,
encourages safety and growth among those of his peers. Then, within that environment
around him, it’s just an example, lead by example. I think, by having those virtues of
being disciplined, living by principles, and being a provider in almost every way of
safety, just pretty much a provider of safety and leading by example as a mentor, that’s
what it is to be a man. Masculinity, in this aspect, is an aspect of what it means to be a
man. I think if there were just certain traits that align with that, it would be a provider,
more of a provider, a leader, and presenting more of a confident and leading attitude. I
think that would be the best way I could provide it.
Carter shared,
Being a man means a lot. When I say this, like I said, when adversity hits, how are you
going to handle it? What are you going to do? That is my main thing. How are you going
to pick yourself back up? That’s what separates boys from men. How are you going to
handle this situation and conquer this situation? Masculinity goes in hand-to-hand with
gender, right? As a male, how are you going to show sadness? How are you going to
show weakness? How are you going to show … as a man, it’s okay to cry. I didn’t have
nobody to tell me that. But as I got older, yeah, there’s been many nights I broke down,
and it’s okay. Especially in our communities, you better not cry. You better not show
weakness. Honestly, If you do, you are, excuse my language, but you are a B-I-T-C-H, a
bitch, right? But that’s not true.
From these responses, several common themes emerged regarding how students define manhood
and masculinity, such as integrity and morals, providing and responsibility, leadership and
150
setting an example, strength and resilience, care and emotional expression, communication and
clarity, and self-improvement and growth. These themes reflect a multifaceted view of manhood
and masculinity that encompasses traditional roles of providing and leading, as well as modern
considerations of emotional intelligence, integrity, and personal growth. The participants’
concepts of manhood and masculinity will be unpacked throughout the rest of this chapter.
Subtheme 1.2: Impact of Culture and Community on Masculine Identity
As student participants shared their experiences in the BRO program at ILC, it became
clear that their cultural and community backgrounds played a significant role in their concepts of
masculine identity. All student participants shared varied levels of their masculine identity being
influenced by their cultural background. When asked how his cultural and community
backgrounds influence his concept of masculinity, Bobby shared, “In Chinese culture, normally
the man, … how do I say this? The man needs to cover the problems, needs to take care of
others, needs to take care of their friends or their family or the social group. It’s a lot of
responsibilities.” Bobby’s response illustrated that his ethnic cultural background emphasized the
roles of “provider” and “problem solver.” When asked the same question, Carter discussed the
concepts of “stoicism” and “toughness,” which he sees as defining masculine characteristics in
the African American community. He shared, “Growing up in the African American community,
weakness better not be seen, man. You better not show it. You better not cry. You better not
show emotions. That shit will get you fucked with or fucked up even.” Carter shared that
although this was the norm in his culture and community, he did not share the same sentiment, as
he has learned through difficult experiences, such as his father’s incarceration and his
grandparents falling ill, that emotional expression and vulnerability are what he believes “truly
defines a man.”
151
In regard to the impact of one’s family background on masculine identity, Charlton
shared that his upbringing in a “traditional Mexican family” has perpetuated a negative stigma
associated with seeking help for mental health issues. He shared, “My cultural background, I
want to say, they expect you to be less in touch with your emotions. I think they see mental
health as insignificant, or if you see a therapist, then you must be crazy.” Charlton expressed
how his relationship with his BRO counselor has challenged these views and helped him view
seeking mental health support as an asset. Similarly, Drake shared examples of how his family’s
promotion of a certain “toxic” version of masculinity has led him to challenge their viewpoints.
He stated,
Mainly, I would say my family was the stereotypical standard of masculinity, like a toxic
trait of how a man should view themselves as strong, non-emotionless, fearless, and able
to just, I guess, provide for their family and also view emotion I guess as a weakness.
He shared how, since joining BRO and meeting other Latino men who have been
nurturing, vulnerable, and open-minded, he no longer shares the same concept of masculinity as
his family.
Similarly, Vukubcane shared how he often questioned the concept of masculinity
stemming from his cultural and familial background and that this concept has shifted as a result
of participating in the BRO program. He illustrated this by sharing:
My culture has portrayed to me a very specific notion of what it means to be a man and
masculinity. … Like, in Hispanic culture, and in the way my father portrays masculinity,
which was, in my opinion, flawed to a degree because they had a very black-and-white
standard. Men do this, and women do that. Men have to be this way, and women have to
be this way. When I came to college and started to meet other men who also thought
152
these ideas were wrong, I started to know that men can be however they want. It’s not so
black and white.
Darius offered a unique perspective, as he was the only participant to share how his
community, outside of his familial and cultural background, had affected his views on
masculinity. In regard to how the culture of his neighborhood in Northwest Pasadena influenced
his concept of masculinity, Darius shared a unique perspective:
The city that I’m from, I feel like the masculinity there has definitely been negative, if
I’m being completely honest. A lot of people encourage people to fight a lot, which is
something that I never really liked as a child. I was there in fourth grade, realizing that.
Kids trying to fight and stuff, it actually made me mad. I think a lot of that masculinity
from my city, particularly, comes out of desperation. People typically do some bad things
out there just to survive.
Darius shared that he actively avoided other children in his neighborhood because he did not
agree with how they displayed their masculinity and wanted to “stay out of trouble.” He stated
that he chose to “channel” his “masculine aggression” into competitive activities, such as
athletics, which he excelled in throughout high school.
All student interviewees shared experiences of learning masculinity through their
cultural, familial, and community backgrounds. Many shared that their ideas of masculinity
began to shift over time as they were exposed to other men who demonstrated masculinity
differently from what they had previously experienced. All agreed that participating in BRO had
a positive impact on their concept of masculinity and helped them challenge some traditional
beliefs surrounding masculinity held by their cultures, families, and communities.
153
Subtheme 1.3: Intersectional Identities
The concept of intersectionality, or the interplay of various aspects of identity in shaping
masculinity, was highlighted by many student participants throughout the interviews. At least six
student participants stated that their intersectional identities other than that of a man of color had
played a role in shaping their concept of masculinity. Some of these identities included ethnicity,
sexual identity, family role, religion, and system impaction. Most of these students felt like they
had a place within BRO to discuss the role their intersectional identities played in their lives.
However, this was not the case for Drake, who felt like the BRO program was a place where he
could go and feel accepted by other men, but he did not feel comfortable sharing his identity as a
gay man with other students in the program. He shared how his masculine identity as a gay man
of color, in particular, was something that he was still grappling with but did not find a safe
space to discuss it within BRO. He shared,
I guess I could go back to me being gay. I don’t see a lot about it being discussed, I
guess, in topics for workshops. And it’s just my sense. I feel it might be my fault because
I don’t talk about it either. But, yeah, I’m not too sure when they have talked about issues
like that. Probably never. I am still trying to figure out what it means to be masculine and
gay at the same time.
Aside from Drake, all participants shared that the BRO program helped them navigate
their experiences relating to their intersectional identities. One example of how an intersectional
identity influenced a participant’s masculine identity came up in my interview with Carter, who
shared that having a father who has been incarcerated has affected his views on masculinity. As
someone who has had to take on a lot of additional responsibilities and experienced emotional
struggles at a young age, he shared,
154
He got arrested again. It was about 2 or 3 hours before I went to one of the Brotha to
Brotha meetings. Again, I know this is an open space, but still … that’s my father. No
matter what he does or how much I try to help, no man or no son, regardless, wants to see
their father in prison. I don’t care how many times he goes to jail. It affects you in a
different way every time. … I had to grow up quick. I have been the man of the house
since a young age. … Earlier, I told you how in the African American community, you
can’t cry and have to be tough, right? Well, I have to cry sometimes … because I have a
lot to cry about. And I know that that’s okay. If I just bottle it up, it’s not gonna end well
for me.
Carter shared that after finding out his father had been incarcerated just a few hours prior, he still
attended the Brotha to Brotha session. In the session, he shared that he “broke down” and opened
up to his fellow students and felt comforted by receiving validation and support from staff and
students.
Only Bobby shared that he had children of his own and identified as a father. He shared
that his identity as a father has influenced aspects of his masculine identity, such as being a “role
model,” “family man,” “responsible,” and a “provider,” but he also stressed finding a healthy
balance as a parenting student. He shared how it has helped to meet program staff and other
students who are also fathers because it gives him a sounding board to discuss his experiences
and decisions needing to be made. He shared,
I talk with the counselor [Guillermo] because I have family, so I have more stress when
I’m in college. So, I always talk with the counselor. The counselor has a family. We’re
going to talk about, okay, how to be successful, how to balance as a man and as a father
155
and also a student, how to balance the studies with jobs and the family and to keep the
education going. Yeah, we talk many times, and it’s helpful.”
This subtheme highlights the role of intersectional identities in shaping participants’
concepts of masculinity, with many students acknowledging the influence of factors such as
ethnicity, sexual identity, family role, religion, and system impaction. While most found the
BRO program supportive in navigating these identities, one participant, Drake, felt less
comfortable discussing his identity as a gay man in the program.
Theme 2: Support and Validation from Program Staff
All student interviewees shared that the program staff had made a lasting impact on them.
Given the caseload counseling model, all participants could name their assigned counselor and
provide examples of how their counselor had supported them. In addition to counseling, students
shared about the impact of group facilitation and its positive impact on their feelings of
connectedness, self-worth, and security. The program staff helped the students attend college and
feel supported and more confident as they navigate college. Furthermore, students shared
specific examples of feeling validated by program staff, both academically and interpersonally.
The subthemes within this theme are recognition and validating experiences from program staff
and affirmation of identity by program staff.
Subtheme 2.1: Recognition and Validating Experiences from Program Staff
All student interviewees stated that they felt a sense of recognition and validation from
the program staff. Two participants shared how they had been encouraged to apply for and were
recommended for large scholarships by their BRO counselors, and both individuals won the
awards. They shared how this experience made them feel that their counselors believed in them
and recognized their hard work. For these first-generation college students, this act of
156
recognition was instrumental to their ability to believe in themselves. Panda shared how his
relationship with BRO program staff member and counselor GXI has impacted him:
You know, GXI even introduced me to people from the schools I’m interested in
transferring to. Sometimes, he just shoots me an email like, yo, I saw this opportunity,
and I thought about you. I’d like you to apply. Then, sometimes, he sends me something
and says just read about this, and we can discuss how you feel about it, and we can go on
from there. I can tell he cares about me because he makes it a point to take an interest in
what I’m interested in. Because of his help, I won a big scholarship that I never thought I
could have won in the past.
Similarly, when asked to describe how the program staff in BRO have influenced him, Charlton,
a 1st-year student at ILC, stated,
They’ve all been very supportive. That’s something that I’m going through for the first
time. I’ve never had anyone’s help with school. I believe they understand that feeling
very well. As I’m trying to figure out what to do in college, they’re right there guiding
me and playing the same role as an older brother would, just aiding me to be the best
version of myself during my time in community college.
Charlton was not the only student participant who described feeling a familial
relationship with his BRO counselor. Hypnotic, who has been at ILC for eight semesters and
participated in the BRO program for four of those semesters, shared that “A lot of students don’t
have father figures, and they’re kind of replicating that, which I think is very noble. It’s a very
noble thing to do. And they really are trying to help these students to navigate life and college.”
In my interview with Charlton, he alluded to a specific conversation with his counselor, Pablito,
that validated his masculine identity when he was struggling with mental health challenges
157
resulting from his home life. He shared, “The conversation with my counselor, Pablito, when we
talked about mental health being included as being masculine too, that really helped me feel like
what I was going through was normal.” Toro, whose relationship with his counselor, Guillermo,
has influenced him to pursue a career in counseling, shared examples of academic validation
from the program staff at BRO. He shared, “My counselor, Guillermo, always tells me how I’m
doing well and to keep going. It feels good, especially as a man. We don’t hear that as much.
That people are proud of us. And that was a good feeling.”
In the observation of the barbershop talk, a BRO student pursuing a STEM major shared
that he is most proud of bringing his GPA up from a 3.1 to a 3.3 after the current semester.
Following his share, BRO program staff and interns immediately clapped for him and validated
him by verbalizing what a huge accomplishment this was and how proud of him they were. The
student shared his gratitude for their support and for recognizing his hard work. This was only
one example of many instances I observed of BRO program staff recognizing and validating
their students throughout this event.
Subtheme 2.2: Affirmation of Identity by Program Staff
Student interviewees expressed their appreciation for how program staff have helped
them feel affirmed in their various identities. Many of them shared that the identities most salient
to them were often not affirmed in educational settings. When asked which identity or identities
they feel are most important to them, four participants stated their racial and gender identities,
three participants stated their ethnic identity, two participants stated their racial and sexual
identities, and 1 stated his religious and racial identity. When asked how the BRO program has
affirmed or validated these identities for them, Drake shared that his BRO counselors belong to a
small group of people who know about his gay identity. He shared, “I guess I don’t always feel
158
really heard, or I guess you could say, technically, my gay side doesn’t. I’m just really in the
closet, but I feel comfortable telling the counselors, like, yeah, I have a boyfriend or that I’m
gay.” When asked how the program staff responded to him sharing about his gay identity with
them, he replied, “Honestly, they have been cool about it, which helps a lot.” However, he shared
his fears of disclosing his identity to students in the program, stating,
I just don’t know how the other students will perceive it because there’s always that fear
of coming out and people just being like, oh, they’ll treat you differently, or they’ll lose
contact with you. It’s still that fear with me because I’ve seen it happen to some friends
or family friends where mostly the people would not want to associate themselves with
them because of their sexual orientation.
Drake’s reluctance to share his sexual identity with other students in the program is further
highlighted in the subtheme of intersectionality of identities later in this chapter.
When asked about specific spaces cultivated by BRO program staff that have either
affirmed or challenged his beliefs about his identities, if any, Carter, who is a system-impacted
BRO student who identifies as a Black Christian man, pointed to the Brotha to Brotha sessions
for Black/African American BRO students facilitated by his counselor and BRO program staff
member, GXI. He shared, “These are spaces for us Black men to talk. … Whatever we’re
feeling, whatever we’re going through, we can have these open dialogues or conversations with
other Black men and leave everything on the table and not be judged.”
Bobby offered a unique perspective as the only interviewee of Asian American identity.
He shared that despite being one of the few Asian American students in the program, he is
“treated as just a normal member of the group.” He shared how program staff, despite not
159
sharing his Asian identity, have aided him in navigating his experience as an Asian American
man who recently immigrated from China. He shared,
My counselor, he enforced my identity. I ask him, coming from China and now being an
Asian American, what am I going to experience? What challenges am I going to have in
the [United States]? He shares some valuable advice and is telling me to stay proud of my
Asian background. He is not Asian, but he is also a father like me, so it helps to hear his
experiences. It’s not very different from me. I know I can always ask him for help.
Similarly, Charlton shared how his ethnic identity has been affirmed by his counselor and BRO
program staff member, Pablito. Like Bobby, Charlton shared that he is one of a handful of BRO
students who share his ethnic and cultural identity of being Oaxacan. He shared, “Being Oaxacan
is probably the most important part of my identity. Pablito has encouraged me to celebrate that
part of myself. … I want to move forward into higher education to increase the representation of
Oaxacans in education.”
For many students, having a counselor who shared their ethnic or racial background was
affirming in itself. Participants stated that having a counselor who “looks like me” contributed to
their sense of belonging in the program. For example, Toro has been in the program for four
semesters and now aspires to be a college counselor due to the impact made on him by his BRO
counselor, Guillermo, who shares his identities of being a cisgender heterosexual Latino man
from a low-income background in Los Angeles. When asked how the BRO program staff has
affirmed his identities, Toro shared,
As a Mexican man, I feel like seeing Dr. [Guillermo], you know, he has been through a
lot of the same things as me, speaks the same language, slang as me, and he has his
160
doctorate, and he’s a college professor. It makes me feel like us Mexicans can be a lot of
better things than what we see in our neighborhoods. It makes me feel like I can do more.
The BRO program staff have affirmed their students’ diverse identities, providing a
supportive environment where many feel seen and validated for the first time in an educational
setting. This affirmation fosters a sense of belonging and encourages students to embrace and
celebrate their identities.
Theme 3: Redefining Masculine Roles Through Mentorship and Role Models
Another theme in interviews and observations was how students redefined masculine
roles through mentorship and role models in the BRO support network. In addition to the four
staff members, students highlighted learning new ways to express their masculinity through their
relationships with BRO student interns, faculty and staff mentors, and other students in the
program. The subthemes that emerged for this theme were (a) role models and (b) guidance and
mentorship.
Subtheme 3.1: Role Models
All student participants shared how they perceived certain program staff, mentors,
interns, and peers as role models. In addition to the BRO program supporting participants’
academic and personal growth, when asked who has supported or challenged them to express
their masculinity in healthy and positive ways, many students pointed to specific examples of
individuals they view as role models in the program. These examples of role modeling included
academics, interpersonal skills, leadership traits, emotional intelligence, career achievements,
and friendship. The following examples highlight the role modeling students received.
For example, Darius shared that he did not feel like his father was an ideal role model for
him. He felt like his father’s exhibition of traditional masculine behavior toward women was not
161
in line with his own views on romantic relationships. He also shared that he did not believe that
his father had prioritized his life in a way that was an exemplary model for him to follow. He
shared,
My father, for example, is very big when it comes to the ladies. Sees a beautiful woman,
starts flirting with her instantly. Very embarrassing, to be honest. I don’t think he’s
necessarily trying to be rude per se, but at a certain point, it gets to me. Like, how do you
have enough time to entertain this many people while we’re broke? I don’t know. I just
feel like a big part of being a man relates to how we engage with women. I think that
young men, we do have to focus on our responsibilities, of course, but I feel like not
addressing how we feel about women or just dating in general or in relationships, not
having conversations about that can be a bit of a disservice because that is a very big
thing that young men talk about.
Darius shared that his participation in a BRO workshop about healthy relationships with women
was especially impactful to him. He shared how the men facilitating this workshop were “better
role models” when it came to romantic relationships than his own father. He added, “Seeing how
they approach relationships with women respectfully and are trying to teach us about the
consequences of not doing that was a real game changer.”
Toro, whose relationship with his counselor, Guillermo, has inspired him to become a
community college counselor, shared how Guillermo’s role modeling of attaining a doctoral
degree has been inspiring to him:
Dr. Guillermo would be my role model because I haven’t had any family who has a
doctorate or even a bachelor’s degree. I would technically be the first in my family to
have anything like that and I guess, the only one pursuing a higher education. It isn’t very
162
expressed in my family. So, Dr. Guillermo is a role model because that’s who I hope to
become like him one day.
At least five student participants shared examples of how other students in the BRO
program have served as role models to them throughout their time at ILC. Wayne shared how
one of the BRO program’s student interns, J.C., has become a friend and role model to him at
ILC:
J.C., he’s an intern from the program, super successful dude. Inadvertently, I would say
he’s helped me just acknowledge that it’s okay to have a different perspective because he
gives me the space to talk. I feel like, okay, it’s not even if what I say has value or
doesn’t, but it’s like, okay, I can say what I think even if it’s not the popular thing. J.C.
definitely, in reflecting, I would say has helped me see that it’s okay for you to voice
your opinions because he does it all the time, and look where he is at.
Similarly, Hypnotic, who is a business major in his fourth semester in the BRO program, shared
how his relationships with his peers in the program have motivated him to continue pursuing his
goals of transferring to a University of California campus. He shared about his relationship with
one BRO student in particular, D.L., who he views as a role model:
I’d say D.L. probably influenced me the most because he was struggling with a lot more
classes than I was but always asking for help. And I saw how great he was doing. That
motivated me to just, I guess, just follow. Like, hey, if he could do it, so can I. And he
was taking a lot more units than I was. Yeah, I just saw him, and since we were taking the
same path, it motivated me. It motivated me to just try harder, get help when I needed it,
and just do the best that I could. So, that’s why I really enjoy having talks with him and
his friendship. Very ambitious guy. And also, he played soccer, too. So, he’s in great
163
shape. We always play. He invited me to a couple of games, and we went outside of
school.
Drake shared his past insecurities about his age compared to some of the younger students in the
program. He shared how he used to feel down on himself about not completing his educational
and career goals within the timeframe he had originally anticipated. This has improved through
his relationship with another BRO student, K.C., who is also his age. Drake shared,
I’m 23 right now, and it feels as if I should already have a job or something secure. So, in
that sense, I would internalize what took me so long, what took me so long to not be done
with college. But K.C., he’s honestly just inspired me to keep going because he knows he
has to. And I feel like if I hadn’t seen it for myself, someone almost similar to the same
age as me, same experience as me, to just keep going, keep pushing forward, is also what
inspired me to try and go to a 4-year university.
The BRO program has provided students with role models among staff, mentors, interns,
and peers, offering guidance in both academic and personal growth. These role models have
positively influenced students’ perspectives on masculinity, relationships, and career aspirations,
helping them navigate their identities and motivating them to pursue their goals.
Subtheme 3.2: Guidance and Mentorship
Student participants discussed the impact that guidance and mentorship they received
through BRO had on their ongoing development of masculine identity. In addition to the
guidance and mentorship from BRO program staff and student interns, six student participants
had requested to be assigned a mentor through the BRO’s mentor program. All six of these
participants had already met with their mentors at least once during the Spring 2024 term. The
mentors, all of whom were volunteers, ranged in positions on campus, such as counselors,
164
professors, administrators, and classified staff members at ILC. The BRO program staff intended
for mentors to offer an additional layer of support for BRO students, both on and off the ILC
campus. Bobby shared how his BRO mentor, Professor B., an African American man who
teaches business and accounting at ILC, has given him a different perspective on professors. He
shared,
Many people influenced me, but the first one is Professor B. He influenced me a lot
because he’s a very nice professor. I mean, he is a very nice accounting professor. He
always at the BRO events, and we talk there. We talk about my major because he is my
professor and also about my family. He also shares with me about his job and his family.
In my country, the professors are very strict, and they don’t speak to you after class.
Professor B. is a very nice man. He helps me a lot.
As a somewhat recent immigrant who earned a master’s degree from China, Bobby stated that he
has never had a personal relationship with any of his previous college instructors. His
relationship with Professor B. has allowed him to humanize his professors in a way that has
allowed him to become more comfortable asking them for guidance and advice not exclusive to
his academics. Similarly, Charlton described that his BRO mentor, Professor C., who is a Latino
man who teaches mathematics at ILC, has become someone in whom he can confide about issues
outside of his math class. He shared,
My mentor for BRO is Professor C., and he has helped me in so many ways. He helped
me overcome the hardships in my math course that I’m struggling with, but also, I feel
like I can talk to him about anything. Recently, I was going through some stuff at home,
and he invited me to get lunch with him and our conversation really helped a lot.
165
These examples illustrate how both students have been able to express vulnerability and
emotionality and seek guidance and support from other men in ways that they described as
atypical of the traditional masculine norms in their cultures and families.
Students said that seeing their mentors outside of the academic environment of ILC has
helped them connect more authentically and deeply with their mentors, many of whom are also
their professors. For Toro, engaging with the mentors at BRO events, such as the barbecues and
basketball tournament, helped reduce his reluctance to speak to his professors and other
institutional agents:
At the barbecues, yeah, there are, like, faculty there. I don’t know, they have a role of
authority at the campus. But at these events, you see them as they are; they’re people. At
the end of the day, they’re people, and you just get to vibe with them. You get to connect
to them. I feel like those connections, getting to spend some time outside of a classroom,
an office, it’s a very good connection to have. It’s really cool. You get to see how they
act on an everyday basis. You get to see the way they act, and you get to visualize what
you want to be. You got to use them as examples of the person that you want to be. So, I
think, yeah, those connections have really helped me out.
Toro expressed how informal environments in which he sees the BRO mentors as “just people”
disrupted the traditional power dynamic of the faculty–student relationship for him, making it
easier for him to seek guidance and mentorship from them outside of class.
Vukubcane shared examples of how he appreciated the nurturing mentality of his mentors
in the BRO program. Vukubcane’s assigned mentor, John, is a program staff member and
counselor in BRO. Vukubcane shared that John guided him in navigating new professional
spaces, such as a space diplomacy institute in Washington, DC, in which he participated. He
166
shared that he was initially reluctant to take on the opportunity because he felt like he wouldn’t
perform to his own standards, given the timing conflicting with his final exams. He shared how
he had been talking to John about how, as a man, he constantly overextended himself and felt
pressure to achieve mastery. After receiving what he described as “logical mentorship” from
John, he came to the following conclusion:
I decided I should take it because it’s a good opportunity, not because of anything else.
And I think that reaffirmed for me, hey, it’s not an issue of can you do it or not? Because
at the end of the day, it’s an ego battle, and that ego stems from that identity of
masculinity I have in my brain. It just became, hey, this is a great opportunity. Go and do
it and see what you learn from it. So, I think through his mentorship, he’s taught me
virtuous traits when it comes to being a guy who is navigating these waters for the first
time.
As evidenced by his response, Vukubcane’s relationship with his BRO mentor, John, exemplifies
the role that mentorship and guidance have played for him in redefining masculine norms he had
previously conformed to, such as “mastery,” “conquering,” and “overextending” himself to being
more patient and open to new experiences that require vulnerability and taking a healthy risk.
Carter described how his BRO mentor, Mr. X, went “above and beyond” for him, which
is something he had rarely experienced from other men, especially in an academic setting. He
shared his experience of reaching out to Mr. X outside of work hours and being pleasantly
surprised to receive a response:
I’m trying to get a class at 12 o’clock at night, and I’m stressing out. I decided to text Mr.
X, and they responded to me at 12 at night, and we’re going back and forth. He’s doing
whatever waiver it is, you know, at 12 at night, just so I can get the class. So, it’s deeper
167
than just a program. He’s always like, hey, we got to look out for our own because if we
don’t do it, nobody else is going to do it. You know what I’m saying?
Carter shared that Mr. X’s willingness to go out of his way to assist him has made him more
conscious of his duty to “pay it forward” to other MOC in his life who may need guidance and
mentorship.
The barbershop talk demonstrated guidance and mentorship were important. Students
were asked to reflect on their proudest moment of the semester. They were also asked to offer
any strategies for success in college to the rest of the group. One BRO student, who was proud to
announce that he had been accepted to a prestigious research university, highlighted how his
BRO mentors have served as sources of emotional support and hope for him as he navigated
college life at ILC. He shared, “As I struggled through higher education with different obstacles,
I learned something new from them every time, whether something about their journey,
something about my journey, or the way we tackle these obstacles in academia.”
Interviews and observations revealed that guidance from mentors, ranging from
counselors and professors to administrative and classified professionals, significantly influenced
how students navigated and redefined traditional masculine roles and norms. Student participants
stated that mentors provided academic support as well as emotional and personal guidance.
These relationships fostered a supportive environment where students felt empowered to
challenge conventional notions of masculinity, embrace vulnerability, and pursue personal
growth. The mentorship and guidance received have been instrumental in helping BRO students
reconcile their cultural backgrounds with their evolving identities, underscoring the impact of
these connections in their education and personal development.
168
Theme 4: Redefining Masculinity Through Emotional Expression
The capacity for emotional expression emerged as a theme in the observations and
interviews with student participants. The interviews revealed how students are redefining
traditional notions of masculinity by embracing healthier ways to express their emotions. The
insights gathered revealed that the BRO program fosters environments where emotional
expression is encouraged, which leads students to a more holistic understanding of masculinity.
Two significant subthemes surfaced from the data: healthy expression of masculinity and
engagement with vulnerability. Together, these subthemes underscore the transformative power
of emotional expression in reshaping masculine identities.
Subtheme 4.1: Healthy Expression of Masculinity
The first subtheme, healthy expression of masculinity, highlights how the BRO program
has helped students learn to communicate their emotions constructively. This subtheme explores
how participants articulated their feelings and how this practice contributed to a more nuanced
and positive self-concept. By adopting healthier emotional practices, BRO students are
challenging and expanding the conventional boundaries of masculinity. Student participants
shared how program staff modeled and encouraged emotional expression throughout individual
and group activities.
Toro was particularly influenced by the BRO counselors’ abilities to express their own
emotions in BRO counseling sessions. He shared,
I remember a meeting I had once where the counselor actually started talking about his
emotions, which to me was insane. It was like, wow. It’s an actual man talking to another
man about emotions. You never hear that. I haven’t had deep conversations like that with
my own father. Usually, when we talk, we talk basic stuff, generic stuff. We talk about
169
sports, we talk about the day, but we never really go down to emotions. I feel like that has
really stood out to me. It was insane to see, and it was also very inspiring because I feel
like now I have a better understanding, and I feel like I’m more open to speak about my
emotions to another person. I feel like I wouldn’t feel comfortable back then. I wouldn’t
feel comfortable speaking about my emotions, but now I’m starting to learn a little bit
how to do it and how to feel more comfortable as well.
Carter shared how his involvement with the BRO program has encouraged him to
challenge traditional masculine norms perpetuated by his community throughout his upbringing.
He shed light on how traditional masculine norms in the Black/African American community
have taught him about violence and incarceration of Black and Brown individuals and how he
feels programs that encourage healthy emotional expression play a role in addressing these
systemic issues. He shared,
You show weakness, excuse my language, but you’re a bitch. That’s what the perception
is, right? Yeah, and that’s real where I come from. You can’t show emotion, and that’s
horrible because people are going decades and years without letting this stuff out and this
building up. And then now you’re wondering the cause and effect of why Black and
Brown people are incarcerated. Because they didn’t have an outlet. They didn’t have the
power to say, hey, it’s okay to cry. Now they take their anger out on somebody and beat
them or whatever the case may be, or kill them or whatever the case may be because
society said, don’t go to therapy. Society said, “Don’t cry.” Society said, “Don’t talk to
somebody about this.” That’s basically why I feel this program is so necessary. Because
everything I said society said not to do, they’re saying we should do. Simple as that.
170
Carter shared how individual counseling sessions with his BRO counselor and BRO workshops
and group counseling sessions, such as Brotha to Brotha, have enabled him to more freely
express his emotions in these safe spaces with like-minded individuals from similar
backgrounds, which has resulted in increased self-awareness and emotional intelligence.
Similarly, Darius shared the impact that BRO has had on his ability to challenge harmful
traditionally masculine norms, allowing him to redefine aspects of masculinity in a way that
aligns with his values. He shared,
I used to think, oh, being a man was about being rich. You got to have a lot of money.
You got to be very tough. You should be immune to pain. But by talking with students
and counselors in BRO, I realize being a man, for me, is leading by example. To take
responsibility for your emotions and actions, be disciplined. I wouldn’t consider you to
be a good man, even if you made millions of dollars. I think what really ties it together
for me is integrity. But integrity in the sense that even when people don’t see who I am, I
know who I am. I still need to hold myself with integrity and I still continue to lead by
example, even if no one else can see that example.
Panda shared how the BRO program has helped him to become more patient, reflective, and
willing to ask for help when he needs it, which is not something he had typically done in the
past. He shared,
I’d say I’m better at asking for help now because of the counselors. They’re very
involved in students’ lives. And I think I’m communicating better now. I’m making
decisions that align to my goals. And I’m thinking about them. I’m not just making
decisions. And I feel like from talking with like, GXI and Guillermo, they have instilled
171
that in me. You don’t have to make the decision now. You can wait and then make the
decision after. I guess I’m being more patient now, yeah.
Prior to joining the BRO program, Panda shared that he did not have relationships with a lot of
supportive MOC outside of his home. He stated that his role models growing up were his father
and his elder brothers, but that emotional expression was not a common practice for the men in
his household. Through the BRO program, Panda has learned to engage with his emotions and
share his feelings with men in the program, which he feels is something he will continue to do
throughout his life, as it has contributed to his success at ILC.
The BRO program has significantly impacted students by encouraging the healthy
expression of masculinity, helping them to communicate their emotions constructively. By
modeling and promoting emotional expression, the program has enabled participants to challenge
traditional masculine norms, resulting in increased self-awareness, emotional intelligence, and a
more positive self-concept.
Subtheme 4.2: Engagement with Vulnerability
The second subtheme, engagement with vulnerability, explores the participants’
experiences with revealing their deepest emotions and difficulties. This subtheme highlights how
BRO students have been courageous in displaying vulnerability and the substantial influence it
has had on their development and interpersonal connections. BRO students are reshaping the
concept of strength and masculinity by confronting their vulnerabilities. They are showing that
being open and emotionally honest are essential aspects of their developing identities.
This was evidenced when Hypnotic shared that his friendships with students in the BRO
program have evolved from solely engaging in physical activities together, such as soccer and
working out, to holding space for discussion about their personal challenges. He shared,
172
For example, if I have a problem, I can talk about it now. I know I have friends [in BRO],
other men who I can talk to about stuff. So, I have a handful of guys who I could be like,
hey man, I just had a rough day. Let’s go work out or something. And then we go work
out. And afterwards, we just talk about the stuff, get it off our chest. I feel like (those
friends) are the right people for me.
Hypnotic shared how BRO and his relationships with peers through the program have
encouraged him to be more vulnerable, open, and honest about his feelings. He shared that his
friends in the program demand honesty from one another and, in doing so, have created mutual
accountability. He shared,
I feel like they have my back. There’s that love, and there’s that mutual agreement that, at
least between me and them, they don’t lie to me. Just tell me how it is. I know the truth
hurts, but sometimes you need to hear it.
Carter described the BRO program as a place where he can be his “authentic self.” He
shared how the grief surrounding his grandparents’ illnesses and his father’s incarceration had
been a great source of emotional pain for him. By engaging in the BRO program, he has access
to emotional outlets to share these vulnerable experiences without fear of judgment. In
describing the BRO program’s impact on his ability to challenge traditional masculine norms, he
shared,
I have to say that was the one place that I could just let it go, and I could be myself, and I
could tell these brothas how I feel, and I could fight through all the pain that I was
fighting through. I just got to be myself when I got to just let open and let my emotions
free without feeling the edge of being judged.
173
He shared how systemic issues, such as addiction, poverty, and incarceration, are not easy for
him to discuss in most spaces on campus, such as with his professors. However, within BRO, he
feels safe to discuss his feelings about such issues due to “having the supportive community of
people who understand what real life is out here for some of us.”
The barbershop talk event showed that the staff have instilled a belief in their students
that vulnerability is a healthy way to express masculinity, especially given the barriers and
challenges they may face as an underrepresented population in colleges and society as a whole.
When asked by the facilitator about how to navigate compassion and boundaries, one participant,
also a BRO student, shared a particularly vulnerable experience. He shared,
I think for me, compassion means to come to terms with the oppression. I have a
girlfriend. She’s White. For me, I think being in a relationship like that has helped me see
some new perspectives. Because I used to have a lot of hate towards White people.
Maybe I still do. It was unreasonable. I mean, it was actually reasonable because of
history and what I see in the media, but whatever. And even my daily life is full of
discrimination. But seeing that some White people have been nice to me keeps me
hopeful that maybe we could someday accomplish a change in different people, an equal
society. So, for me, compassion [is] to see that there’s hope, I guess. And the boundary is
knowing that I’m allowed to see how others treat me before forming an opinion.
Similarly, another student in the group displayed vulnerability by sharing how he had
experienced mental health-related challenges in his 1st year at ILC but has seen an improvement
since being encouraged by his BRO counselor to seek therapy. He shared,
For me, my mental health has taken a very big upgrade, I guess. Last semester was
absolutely horrible. I had no one, really. I was crying, hurt, holding back tears. I’m on the
174
way to the bus and I was just absolutely miserable. But this year, I had an experience that
changed my life around by going to therapy. I just realized that things I’m dealing with
sometimes are not really as serious as I make them seem. I’ve learned how to cope with it
better.
By supporting participants in redefining masculinity through emotional expression, the
BRO program demonstrates its significant impact on students by fostering environments that
encourage the healthy expression of masculinity and engagement with vulnerability. The
program helps students communicate their emotions constructively and challenge traditional
masculine norms, resulting in increased self-awareness and emotional intelligence. Through
modeling and promoting emotional openness, BRO students are reshaping their masculine
identities.
Theme 5: The Role of Community and Brotherhood
The data analysis revealed a prominent theme regarding the significant impact of
community and brotherhood on BRO students’ masculine identities. This theme explores the
influence of establishing supportive networks and communal relationships on the personal and
academic growth of participants. The subthemes of positive energy and engaging in brotherhood
provide a more detailed explanation of this theme, demonstrating how positive energy in the
program creates a supportive community environment and how actively participating in program
activities strengthens the sense of brotherhood, or belonging, and mutual support among
participants. These factors highlight the significance of community and brotherhood in
influencing students’ masculine identities.
175
Subtheme 5.1: Positive Energy
The subtheme of positive energy emphasizes the dynamic and inspiring environment
fostered by BRO program staff for their students. An inviting and supportive environment
enhances the participants’ general well-being and motivation. The positive energy is
demonstrated through the program staff’s ability to foster interactions that are uplifting, cultivate
relationships that provide support, and foster a shared sense of optimism.
The best example of the positive energy in the BRO program was the March Madness
barbecue event. In this event, students and staff alike engaged in uplifting positive behaviors
such as cheering for one another, dancing, and encouraging each other on and off the basketball
court. The environment was filled with music, laughter, and positive interactions between BRO
students, MOC students from other colleges, BRO staff, BRO mentors, and ILC faculty, staff,
and administrators. Although the basketball games were competitive, participants seemed to be
enjoying themselves, as evidenced by smiles, laughs, and warm embraces between tournament
participants. Wayne shared his recollection of the event’s positive environment:
I would say that the March Madness event was a positive recent experience. That was the
second time I ever played basketball. Even though I sucked, nobody cared. We were all
having fun. Cracking jokes, laughing, and just having a good time. Competition
embodies, from my perspective, what traditional masculinity is all about, but even though
it was, like, a competitive environment, everyone, for the most part, was like, hey, I’m
just happy to be here. This is just for fun.
Six interviewees mentioned specific off-campus experiences the BRO program had
invited their students to. One of these events was an annual MOC leadership conference hosted
by a larger statewide organization for community college students and professionals at another
176
CCC campus. Students shared how witnessing such a large number of MOC in attendance for
this conference contributed to their sense of belonging beyond ILC. Vukubcane shared how the
conference made him feel like he was part of something greater than he had previously imagined.
He shared,
Man, the conference was a trip. Like, I know we have BRO at ILC, but to see all these
[MOC], all from different colleges, wearing suits, encouraging each other, dapping each
other up, blasting music with a DJ in a packed room and just vibing together, that was
something special. I felt like, okay, this is what it’s all about. Being part of this
community of MOC who are all pursuing higher education together.
Vukubcane shared how this event was just an extension of the positive environment that he feels
in BRO at ILC and that he looks forward to being a student panelist at the next conference.
BRO students shared how being engaged in workshops and attending student speaker panels at
the conference motivated them to strive to reach their academic and career goals. One student in
particular, Bobby, shared about the positive impact that the keynote speakers at this conference
had on him:
Actually, the most important thing is positive energy. The conference has a positive
energy; from the organizers, the counselors, the professors, and the keynote speaker.
They have positive energies. The keynote speakers. These are very professional people,
also very impressive. I mean, their experience and their personality, their perspective, and
positive energy, it helps to encourage, inspire us to conquer some difficulties. Because no
matter what, people are going to be facing some challenges and difficulties. So, the
keynote speakers gave us some positive energy to conquer the difficulties.
177
Charlton also shared that he feels that a key factor in his decision to continue to
participate in the BRO program is the positivity, encouragement, and motivation he receives
from individuals in the program. He shared, “It’s just a positive environment. Everybody there is
trying to motivate you. They’re all cool people. I feel like even when things are tough, they will
be there to encourage you. They help me see the best in situations.”
The subtheme of positive energy underscores the dynamic and inspiring atmosphere
fostered by the BRO program staff, which significantly enhances the well-being and motivation
of its participants. Through uplifting interactions, supportive relationships, and a shared sense of
optimism, the BRO program creates a welcoming environment that encourages students to strive
for their academic and personal goals.
Subtheme 5.2: Engagement in a Brotherhood
The second subtheme, engagement in a brotherhood, explores the sense of belonging and
mutual support that is fostered among program staff and participants. This subtheme unveils how
students have established meaningful connections and support networks by actively participating
in BRO, which has helped them develop a strong sense of camaraderie. The BRO program
establishes a space in which students can be their authentic selves, rely on one another, and work
together to achieve personal and academic success. By participating in group activities,
mentorship opportunities, and collaborative experiences, students feel they are part of a
community that recognizes and appreciates their distinctive experiences, thereby reinforcing
their masculine identities in constructive and empowering ways.
In my interview with Darius, he shared how meaningful relationships with his friends in
the BRO program have expanded his social network beyond the program. He shared how the
178
sense of brotherhood he feels as a result of these friendships makes him feel more connected to
the greater ILC community. He shared,
I want to talk about my friend, D. This dude is really cool. He’s a part of BRO. For some
reason, he knows everybody on the planet. He’s, like, my closest friend now. What I like
about D is that every time I see him, he smiles, he daps me up, and I can tell there’s
nothing phony about that glow he has on his face. He’s genuinely happy to see me,
genuinely happy to be around me. It’s funny because I’m a bit of an outcast, but I’m a
very social person, but I’m studying aerospace engineering, so I’m always busy. There’s
a lot of times where I’m alone walking on campus to the library to study, and I’ll see him
with other people I don’t know, and they’re like, oh, we’re about to go walk to get pizza,
come with us. I’m like, I guess I’m going, too. So, I’ve met a lot of new people through
him.
Eight interviewees mentioned the word “brotherhood.” Charlton exemplified the sense of
brotherhood in the program:
I feel like BRO is like a family of men from different parts of life where we just want to
better ourselves through education. I can go to them with anything, and I know that
they’re going to look out for me. I’m probably one of the younger ones in the group, but I
see a lot of these guys, the counselors, interns, and some of the students like older
brothers.
Similarly, Panda shared how engaging in conversations with other students who share his
identity has helped him feel a close bond with them, given that they face similar challenges in
college. He shared an example of a discussion with other BRO students that helped him feel
more connected:
179
We talked about how professors teach Black students and White students differently. So,
we talked about those issues. And I feel like these are fun conversations because I’ve
noticed some of these things, but I never talked about it with anyone. So, when we talked
about it, I was like, okay, so that’s true. What I was thinking is actually true. And we are
all experiencing the same thing. It was a good feeling to know that.
In my conversation with Drake, he shared how, prior to joining BRO, he felt the need to
be self-reliant and independent. However, through building strong relationships with program
staff and students, he has become more collaborative. He shared,
I guess my arrogance, as in my ego, has been for sure reduced because I felt that I could
handle anything in the sense that I could do it alone. I don’t need anyone’s help. BRO has
changed me from that type of mindset to being more collaborative. Let’s talk this out.
Let’s create a study group, which I felt I would have never done before because I felt the
sense that I had to prove something to, I guess anyone, that I don’t need help. I can figure
this out on my own. So, I’m thankful to this program for helping me understand that
brotherhood and being connected by our experiences and just talking together about our
struggles [is] a healthier way to understand each other and, I guess, work together.
Given the brotherhood and support in the BRO program, students voiced a sense of
accountability, or a duty, to contribute to the program through their actions, ideas, or simply by
their presence. Several students shared how they would like to volunteer their time to “give
back” to their fellow BRO students, such as by serving as panelists for the annual leadership
conference. Darius, who had already served as a panelist at the MOC leadership conference in
2023, shared that he felt a sense of pride and desire to contribute to BRO because of the
180
encouragement and validation he received from program staff when he offered an idea for future
program events:
They had me on a student panel, another moment where I definitely felt validated. I gave
a suggestion, too. I gave a suggestion for us to have a certain type of event because I
noticed that a lot of people in the college and in the community enjoyed anime. So, I
suggested that we have an anime watch party. And although I don’t work for BRO,
they’re still doing that event. And I thought that was actually pretty cool. Like, wow, you
all took what I was saying and made it happen. And now I’m happy to see that it’s a
mainstay event at the school. I’m actually pretty proud of it.
Program staff provided Darius an opportunity to suggest future events and helped him transform
one of these ideas into reality, which made him feel like a valued member of the BRO
brotherhood who accepts accountability for the program’s success.
The theme of community and brotherhood significantly influences students’ masculine
identities through supportive networks and communal relationships. The subthemes of positive
energy and engagement in brotherhood illustrate that the program fosters an inviting
environment and strengthens connections among participants, enhancing their well-being and
motivation. Through meaningful interactions and mutual support, the program empowers
students to embrace their identities and contribute to the community, reinforcing their sense of
belonging and accountability.
Other Relevant Findings: Challenges and Suggestions
Fully examining students’ experiences in the BRO program requires addressing the
challenges they face and gathering their suggestions for program improvement. Other relevant
findings included challenges that BRO students face as MOC at ILC and the areas in which
181
participants perceive there is potential for program improvement. In interviews and observations,
students disclosed logistical and systemic barriers to success. Furthermore, they provided
innovative ideas and constructive feedback to improve the program’s effectiveness. The program
can continue to develop by recognizing these obstacles and respecting the students’ suggestions.
Challenges Men of Color Face at ILC
All interviewees spoke about the challenges that they face outside of the program. These
included logistical and systemic barriers to their academic success and ability to engage more
often with the program. At least six participants discussed the time it takes them to get to
campus, given access to transportation and ILC’s geographic location. Panda shared that he takes
several buses, which makes it very difficult for him to participate in extracurricular activities. He
shared that his “commute takes 3 hours each day, and it’s exhausting. It really affects my ability
to participate fully in college life.” Six interviewees shared that their commute is between 31
minutes to over an hour each way. These six students shared that their access to transportation is
often inconsistent and can range from taking public transportation and ride-sharing apps to rides
from friends or family members. Even students who had cars described long commutes due to
the traffic from central Los Angeles to the ILC campus.
Another common challenge interview participants experienced was the lack of
representation of other MOC in their academic classes. Both Panda and Darius, Black/African
American men in STEM classes, shared experiences of being the only Black men in many of
their classes. Panda shared, “There are not many Black students in my geography classes, and it
feels isolating sometimes.” Darius shared that he is “the only Black kid” in most of his STEM
math and science courses, which has made it difficult for him to find a community with students
and faculty in his major. As a Latino student also in STEM classes, Vukubcane shared a similar
182
sentiment, stating, “It’s kind of crazy sometimes when you look around the room and you’re
maybe one out of two or three Latino males in the entire class, but I’ve gotten used to it by now.”
However, he shared that the lack of diversity in STEM classes at ILC has been a motivating
factor for him to complete his studies to “be the change” he wants to see in his field of
astrophysics.
Similarly to the challenge of a lack of representation of other MOC students in their
classes, five participants shared that they have never had professors who identified as MOC at
ILC. These individuals discussed the lack of representation of faculty who looked like them
outside of the BRO program. As a student who had multiple MOC professors at ILC, Carter
talked about this type of representation: “It’s hard to find mentors who look like me or share my
experiences. It feels like there’s a gap, so to see someone who looks like me teaching a class is a
huge benefit.”
All participants cited the need to balance responsibilities outside of school as a prominent
challenge for them while at ILC. Nine participants worked a job outside of school, with six of
them working more than 21 hours per week. In addition to occupational responsibilities, most
participants shared familial responsibilities as being a challenge to prioritizing school. Bobby
shared, “I have family duties and it adds a lot of stress. Balancing being a student and a parent is
tough. I have a job, but I have to take my kids to school and doctor appointments and then make
the time for classes and study. It’s a big challenge.” Similarly, Carter shared how his schedule is
very “hectic,” explaining,
Check it out. So, I sometimes have to work the overnight shift from 10 pm to 6 am. I go
from work straight to class in heavy traffic, go to my classes, maybe go see a counselor
183
or my professor, come home to do some work for school, and then sleep, maybe, and if
I’m lucky, I’ll have some time to eat when I get home.
Lastly, several students addressed challenges associated with online learning. These
challenges ranged from a lack of access to professors’ office hours, difficulty navigating selflearning expectations, a lack of community in the classroom, and challenges with managing
unclear deadlines and course expectations. Bobby stated, “With most of my online classes, it’s
hard to engage in the material and to feel a sense of community.”
The BRO program participants at ILC face various challenges, including long commutes,
lack of representation in classrooms and among faculty, balancing work and familial
responsibilities, and difficulties associated with online learning. Despite these obstacles, the
support and community provided by the BRO program help students navigate these issues and
persist in their academic and personal goals to the best of their abilities.
Suggestions from BRO Students to Staff
During interviews with BRO students, several suggestions for improvement were offered
to more effectively facilitate their exploration of masculinity and the overall college experience.
The participants expressed a desire for more direct discussions and workshops on masculinity
and recommended the development of more structured activities that specifically addressed
masculinity. In addition, they emphasized the underrepresentation of specific identity groups in
the program and urged for improved outreach and inclusion initiatives. Students also
recommended the establishment of more inclusive and interactive platforms for ongoing support
and the maintenance of a balance between academic and personal support.
The majority of the participants stated that the BRO program had a limited focus on
specific masculinity discussions and suggested a need for more structured activities on
184
masculinity. When asked to describe how the program addressed or engaged with concepts of
masculinity in its activities or discussions, all students pointed to the same three activities: the
BRO Barbershop Talks series, Hombre a Hombre, and Brotha to Brotha. Four participants stated
that they didn’t think the program specifically addressed masculinity at all. One of these students
was Charlton, who shared, “I can’t say there was anything specifically with masculinity. A lot of
the events felt more like hangouts, but the topic comes up from time to time.” Vukubcane shared
a similar sentiment, stating, “I don’t think that any of the workshops or events were about
masculinity specifically. I can’t think of any. It’s a topic that I think there should be more
specific sessions about because it’s such a huge topic for us men.”
Only Bobby identified as Asian American, whereas the other nine participants identified
as Black/African American or Latino. Bobby suggested that the program conduct more
intentional outreach to Asian American and Pacific Islander students, as he was surprised to
learn he was only one of three Asian American students in the BRO program:
I think maybe they need to do some more promotion in Asian social groups. I only knew
because of my professor. I think they’re going to get some interest because many Asian
people don’t know they can be in BRO. If they do know about it, I think it is because I
talked with them about it. I have a friend; I think he’s Filipino. He told me he didn’t
know he could join. I said, yes, it’s open to all [MOC].
Bobby was not the only student to share a need for more diversity in the program. Hypnotic, a
Latino-identifying BRO student, shared that he didn’t think Asian American and Pacific Islander
students were allowed to join BRO, but once he found out they were, he brought friends from his
class to an event. He shared that the friends chose not to join BRO, which he believes was due to
a lack of representation. He shared,
185
I took two Asian friends, not Asian American. One was from Bangkok, and the other one
was from Manila, the Philippines. They spoke good English, but I guess they felt like
they didn’t fit the mold because everybody there was literally just, like, Latino or Black. I
would follow up with them the next month, and they would keep saying they would come
next time, so I got the hint. I think it’s because there were no other Asian men in the
event. The same thing happened when I took my two Middle Eastern Jewish friends from
my calculus class. They felt like it wasn’t supposed to be for them.
In addition to the suggestion for more inclusion of students from specific racial and ethnic
identities, all interviewees stated that they did not engage in any workshops or events specific to
the LBGTQ+ identity. This was particularly disheartening for Drake, the only LGBTQ+-
identifying student interviewed. Drake previously shared that he had a difficult time opening up
to other students in the program about his gay identity, though he felt comfortable sharing about
it with his BRO counselors. Drake suggested offering more conversations about diverse
identities within the MOC spectrum. Specifically, he stated, “I think if they had more
conversations or workshop topics about being gay or homosexual, it would make more people
who are gay feel comfortable to join. I think it would help them feel less alone, too.”
At least half of the participants suggested that the BRO program utilize more interactive
platforms for communication, such as Discord, TikTok, and Snapchat. Darius shared that
“having a Discord channel would help students connect with each other more when they’re not at
school” through different activities like gaming, viewing online content together, or chatting.
Lastly, students suggested that the BRO program offer more of a balance between
academic, career, and personal support. Students suggested offering tutoring in specific subjects
by current BRO students who recently completed the course they are tutoring. They suggested
186
workshops related to career and employment opportunities, such as resume and interview
workshops or workshops on finding internships. Other suggestions included offering more
information on free mental health resources outside of ILC, more events that are student-led or
student-developed, and having more opportunities to meet professionals in the field of study they
are interested in.
BRO students suggested that the program should offer more structured activities and
discussions specifically focused on masculinity, improve outreach to underrepresented identity
groups, and utilize more interactive communication platforms. Additionally, they recommended
balancing academic, career, and personal support with more tutoring, career workshops, mental
health resources, and opportunities for student-led events and professional networking.
Summary
The findings chapter of this qualitative dissertation explores the experiences of staff and
student participants in the BRO MOC program at ILC. The study aims to understand how
program staff cultivates spaces that support participants’ exploration of masculine identity and
how participants perceive and navigate this exploration. Data were collected through semistructured individual interviews with four program staff and 10 student participants, as well as
observations of two program events, the BRO March Madness Barbecue and BRO Barbershop
Talks.
Key themes identified in response to the first research question related to spaces fostered
by program staff to explore masculine identity included intentional community building for
MOC, facilitating open discussions about masculinity, providing role models and mentorship,
encouraging vulnerability and emotional expression, and navigating systemic and structural
challenges. These themes highlight personal validation by staff, inclusivity, creating culturally
187
affirming spaces, and offering support and mentorship through both structured and informal
activities.
For the second research question related to students’ perceptions of spaces created by the
program for the exploration of masculine identity, themes include support and validation from
program staff, navigating cultural expectations and masculine identity, redefining masculine
roles through mentorship and role models, redefining masculinity through emotional expression,
and the role of community and brotherhood. Additional relevant findings included the challenges
BRO students faced as well as suggestions from students to program staff to improve the
program. The findings emphasize the significance of fostering a sense of community and
belonging, addressing traditional masculine norms, and providing opportunities for open
dialogue and self-expression. Overall, the chapter underscores the interplay of individual
experiences and programmatic interventions in supporting the masculine identity of MOC in
community college settings.
188
Chapter Five: The Marathon Continues
This study sought to understand how MOC program staff at a CCC fostered spaces that
supported the exploration of masculine identity and how participants perceived and navigated
these spaces. By employing a qualitative research design guided by validation theory (Rendón,
1994) and multiple masculinities (Connell, 1995), this study acknowledges MOC’s validating
experiences in community colleges in relation to their masculine identities. Rendón’s (1994)
validation theory emphasizes validating students’ cultural and social identities, while Connell’s
(1995) multiple masculinities framework recognizes the existence of diverse expressions of
masculinity, with hegemonic masculinity being the masculine norm perpetuated by patriarchy.
Similar to Huerta (2022), who used validation theory to study emotional vulnerability and
trauma experiences of students in MOC programs at two 4-year colleges, and Harris and
Edwards (2010), who used the concept of hegemonic masculinity to study masculine identity
development of men at two 4-year universities, this study used a case study approach to
comprehend current strategies implemented to cultivate exploration of masculine identity
development among community college MOC. The case study utilized a screening questionnaire
and demographic data form, along with semi-structured interviews with four program staff and
10 college students, in addition to observations of two program-specific events of the BRO
program at ILC.
By combining validation theory to assess program staff’s academic and interpersonal
validation strategies with their students and multiple masculinities to assess how program staff
promote masculine identity beyond traditional, hegemonic norms, this study sought to identify
helpful strategies in developing community college MOC programs that promote a healthier,
more diverse expression of masculine identity for its participants, which may result in improved
189
college completion rates for these students. To examine how BRO program staff cultivated such
spaces, if at all, the first research question was, how do community college MOC program staff
foster spaces to support student participants’ exploration of masculine identity? To examine the
masculine identity of BRO program students and how they perceived and navigated such spaces,
the second research question asked how program participants perceived and navigated the
exploration of masculine identity in spaces fostered by program staff.
This chapter will include four sections. First, I will begin with a discussion and thematic
analysis of the findings for Research Question 1, which focused on program staff and consisted
of five themes, each with two to three subthemes. The chapter will continue with a discussion
and thematic analysis of the findings for Research Question 2, which focused on program
students and consisted of five themes, each with two to three subthemes. I will then discuss the
limitations and delimitations of the study. Lastly, I will provide recommendations and
implications for policy, practice, and future research.
Discussion and Analysis of Research Question 1
This section will discuss the findings and analysis of the emerging themes drawn from
the case study that are relevant to Research Question 1: How do community college MOC
program staff foster spaces to support student participants’ exploration of masculine identity?
The discussion will focus on the experiences of four program staff of the BRO program, which
serves approximately 150 MOC student participants at ILC. The discussion on the findings of the
first research question stems from responses to interview questions and observations, which
focus on program strategies and activities, observations on student engagement, support and
validation, challenges and adaptations, and personal reflections. This discussion is organized into
five themes for Research Question 1: intentional community building for MOC, facilitating open
190
discussions about masculinity, providing role models and mentorship, encouraging vulnerability
and emotional expression, and navigating systemic and structural challenges. The discussion will
begin with an analysis of each theme for Research Question 1, followed by a discussion and
analysis of findings for Research Question 2.
Intentional Community Building for Men of Color
The theme of intentional community building for MOC emerged as a significant finding
in the individual interviews with BRO program staff and observations of events. This theme
highlights the deliberate efforts of BRO staff at ILC to foster a supportive and inclusive
environment for their students. Research suggests that feeling like they are part of a community
on campus enhances students’ sense of belonging, resulting in a higher likelihood of persistence
and completion (Brooms, 2018; Harper & Hurtado, 2007; Harris & Wood, 2013; Kugiya et al.,
2021). The following discussion analyzes the key subthemes that contribute to this intentional
community building, such as personal validation by program staff, inclusivity by program staff,
and creating culturally affirming spaces.
One of the most impactful strategies employed by BRO program staff was the persistent
personal validation of their students. Rendón (1994) states that “the more students get validated,
the richer the academic and interpersonal experience” (p. 44). Program staff’s approach to
validation was rooted in their own experiences of being viewed through a deficit-minded lens in
higher education. By contrast, they emphasized a strengths-based approach to support their
students, similar to the support they received from past mentors. Guillermo shared his struggles
with acceptance in academia, underscoring the importance of empowering students by
acknowledging their strengths and achievements. This desire of MOC program staff to mentor
and guide other college MOC based on their past experiences of mentorship in their lives, or lack
191
thereof, is consistent with scholarship on the motivations of MOC program staff for serving in
their roles (Torrens et al., 2017).
Program staff can foster a sense of belonging for their students, which is key to MOC’s
ability to navigate educational spaces (Brooms, 2019). Program staff stated that this ability to
connect with students and make them feel seen built a sense of belonging and community. John
and GXI demonstrated this through small, meaningful interactions, such as complimenting a
student’s haircut or actively listening during counseling sessions. According to program staff,
these gestures reinforced students’ values and contributed to a positive and supportive
environment. Observations of BRO events further highlighted the staff’s commitment to
validation, with numerous instances of encouragement and praise, whether during a basketball
tournament or in a men’s circle discussion. Such validation fostered strong rapport and trust
between staff and students, creating a safe space for students to express themselves authentically.
These findings were consistent with scholarship on MOC programs emphasizing the positive
impact of validation from institutional agents on MOC and how it enhances students’ sense of
belonging on campus, which enhances persistence and completion of college for MOC (Brooms,
2018; Harris et al., 2015; Rodriguez et al., 2019).
Inclusivity was a foundational value of the program. The staff’s intentional efforts to
create a welcoming environment for all students, regardless of identity, are evident in their
practices and interactions. For example, GXI and Pablito emphasized using inclusive language
and acknowledging the diverse backgrounds of their students. The staff mentioned that this
approach ensured that all students felt valued and supported. These findings were consistent with
recommendations by scholars to promote inclusivity in MOC program spaces to enhance
192
participants’ feelings of belonging and self-concept (Harris & Edwards, 2010; Huerta, RomeroMorales, Dizon, & Nguyen, 2021; Huerta, Romero-Morales, Dizon, Salazar & Nguyen, 2021;).
However, the program faced challenges in balancing inclusivity with its specific focus on
MOC. Guillermo expressed frustration with the need to be inclusive to other demographic groups
to avoid negative perceptions by campus community members of being “exclusionary.” This
political tension often complicated the program’s ability to provide exclusive spaces for MOC.
This finding was consistent with studies on the experiences of MOC program directors and their
frustrations with a reluctance from institutional leadership to unapologetically commit dedicated
institutional resources toward MOC programming rather than addressing MOC’s challenges
through broad equity interventions for all (Briscoe et al., 2020; Burmicky et al., 2023; Harris &
Wood, 2013; Keflezighi et al., 2016). Despite these challenges, the observations revealed that
inclusive events like the March Madness BBQ fostered a sense of community, even with diverse
attendees.
Nonetheless, the staff recognized the need for additional representation and training to
better support LGBTQ+ MOC, highlighting an area for future improvement. This finding is
particularly consistent with research by Huerta and Dizon (2021), who found that MOC program
leaders did not have explicit strategies for engaging or prioritizing gay, bisexual, trans, queer,
and man-identifying MOC in their programs. Program staff could provide a more inclusive
environment for MOC by taking into account socioeconomic status, sexual identities, family
structure, and other significant factors that influence how students perceive and represent
themselves on college campuses (Huerta & Dizon, 2021).
The creation of culturally affirming spaces was another critical aspect of the BRO
program’s community-building efforts. These spaces mirrored the social environments familiar
193
to the students outside of school, providing a sense of comfort and belonging. Events such as
Hombre a Hombre and Brother to Brother offered safe spaces for Latino and Black/African
American men to connect and embrace their cultural backgrounds. Barbershop Talks exemplified
the program’s commitment to culturally affirming spaces. These events created a barbershop-like
atmosphere where MOC students, regardless of race or ethnicity, could receive free haircuts
while engaging in open discussions about their experiences, fostering engagement in emotional
expression and vulnerability. This casual environment encouraged students to share personal
stories while receiving support and validation from peers and staff, reinforcing a sense of
community. Off-campus activities, like barbecues, a familiar social experience in many students’
personal lives, further facilitated bonding in a more relaxed setting. These findings were
consistent with findings of past research suggesting MOC programs’ ability to enhance MOC’s
sense of belonging in college through culturally affirming programming and events (Brooms,
2016; Cervantes et al., 2022; Harris & Harper, 2015; Huerta, Romero-Morales, Dizon, &
Nguyen, 2021; Huerta, Romero-Morales, Dizon, Salazar & Nguyen, 2021; Newman et al., 2015).
The program staff’s deliberate efforts to build community for MOC were evident in their
strategies of personal validation, inclusivity, and culturally affirming spaces. By validating
students’ diverse experiences, fostering an inclusive culture, and creating spaces that resonate
with their cultural backgrounds, the BRO program enhances the academic and personal growth
of its participants. These findings highlight intentional community building in supporting the
success and well-being of MOC in higher education.
Facilitating Open Discussions About Masculinity
The theme of facilitating open discussions about masculinity emerged prominently
through interviews with program staff and observations of the Barbershop Talk men’s circle.
194
Program staff provided varied definitions of masculinity, emphasizing attributes such as selfawareness, responsibility, respectfulness, effective communication, vulnerability, and an open
mind. Interestingly, many of these definitions of masculinity embodied what Connell (1995)
would categorize as subordinate masculinity. This finding suggests that BRO program staff view
masculinity in ways that are fundamentally opposed to traditional, hegemonic norms. In viewing
masculinity in this more nuanced and holistic manner, program staff were better equipped to
facilitate open discussions about healthy masculinity with their students. This finding
demonstrates a need for further research on the impact of MOC program staff’s concept of
masculinity and their ability to foster spaces to explore healthy masculine identity for their
students. In this section, I will discuss and analyze two significant subthemes: exploration of
masculine identity and strategies for open discussions.
Program staff engaged students in conversations and activities that fostered the
exploration of masculine identity through individual sessions, workshops, and group sessions
like Hombre a Hombre, Brotha to Brotha, and Barbershop Talks. Although these activities are
not explicitly advertised as focusing on masculinity, facilitators incorporated relevant topics and
guiding questions related to masculinity. John noted that topics about masculinity arose
organically, without explicit advertising, as students may not respond well to direct invitations to
discuss masculinity. John emphasized setting ground rules to create an open-minded
environment where students feel comfortable sharing. GXI emphasized redefining masculinity in
ways that resonated with students’ lived experiences, acknowledging that students are at varied
levels of readiness to explore masculinity, often linked to their maturity and pre-college
experiences. Guillermo added that staff vulnerability, through self-disclosure, helps students feel
more comfortable expressing themselves.
195
Guillermo used self-disclosure in Hombre a Hombre sessions to help students relate to
concepts like “machismo” and “caballero,” sharing his own experiences to facilitate
understanding. This finding was consistent with scholarship by Estrada and Arciniega (2015) and
Sáenz, Mayo, et al. (2015), who found that encouraging caballerismo positively affects Latino
men’s well-being. John highlighted BRO Barbershop Talks as a platform for deep conversations
on topics like police brutality, masculinity, and relationships. These sessions helped students
critically examine their concept of masculinity, often linked to their fathers’ influences. Pablito
emphasized posing open-ended questions in workshops to challenge traditional masculine
behaviors, encouraging students to consider non-traditional ways of being a man. These findings
were consistent with literature on challenging traditional masculine norms often influenced by
MOC’s pre-college gender socialization and peer and family influences to encourage healthier
expressions of masculinity leading to behaviors such as emotional expression, vulnerability, and
help-seeking (Harris & Edwards, 2010; Harris et al., 2015; Huerta, 2022; Sáenz, Mayo, et al.,
2015).
All staff members noted that students appreciated opportunities to discuss their
experiences as men, which they rarely encountered elsewhere. GXI pointed out that many
students are not accustomed to discussing manhood and benefit from a space that encourages
such exploration. These findings were consistent with Harper’s (2004) and Harris and Edwards’s
(2010) research on masculinity among undergraduate MOC, which found that institutional agents
did not often engage MOC on topics involving masculinity and manhood but appreciated the
space to do so. In providing MOC with spaces to openly discuss masculinity with other MOC in
a safe environment, BRO program staff helped to model and normalize such interactions inside
and outside of school with students who had not done so previously.
196
Incorporating cultural and community contexts was another key strategy. Sessions like
Brotha to Brotha and Hombre a Hombre provide spaces for students to discuss masculinity in
relation to their racialized experiences. Pablito noted that these sessions allowed Latino students
to bond over shared experiences and explore different ways of expressing masculinity. Similarly,
GXI shared that Brotha to Brotha sessions allowed Black students to speak truthfully about
experiences of racism and discrimination on the ILC campus, which they did not feel safe to do
so outside of the context of the BRO program. These findings are consistent with Brooms’s
(2016, 2018, 2019) work on Black Male Initiatives and scholarship by Huerta and Fishman
(2014), along with that of Kugiya et al. (2021) and Sáenz, Ponjuan et al. (2015), which found
that MOC’s sense of belonging and mattering benefited from safe spaces on college campuses
where they could engage in critical discussions with peers and staff of the same racial and ethnic
backgrounds.
Observations of the March Madness barbecue and basketball tournament and Barbershop
Talk highlighted the effectiveness of casual settings in encouraging open discussions. The
relaxed atmosphere allowed students to share advice and strategies, fostering a sense of
camaraderie and reducing feelings of isolation without adhering to a formal program agenda
prescribed by program staff. This was a unique finding in this study, as there is limited research
on the role of unstructured social community events on MOC’s ability to engage in emotional
expression and vulnerability. At the Barbershop Talk, one student expressed gratitude to program
staff and peers for the supportive environment, emphasizing the positive impact of these casual,
community-oriented discussions on his ability to “open up about serious problems.” This finding
was consistent with findings from Huerta (2022) in that the emotional support that students
197
receive from staff and peers in MOC programs when facing trauma has not been thoroughly
examined.
The BRO program staff’s multifaceted approach to facilitating open discussions about
masculinity significantly enhances the masculine identity development of MOC. By
incorporating a diverse understanding of masculinity that includes self-awareness, responsibility,
and vulnerability, program staff create a supportive environment conducive to exploring healthy
masculine identities. The strategic use of individual and group sessions, workshops, and
culturally affirming spaces and events allows for meaningful engagement with students in both
structured and unstructured environments, allowing students to engage more freely in diverse
expressions of masculinity. This holistic approach fosters a sense of belonging and challenges
traditional masculine norms, promoting healthier expressions of masculinity. The program staff’s
success in these efforts underscores the need for safe spaces for MOC to discuss their masculine
identities and experiences and highlights the need for further research on the impact of such
conversations.
Providing Role Models and Mentorship
The theme of providing role models and mentorship was a significant finding from the
analysis of interviews and observations of program staff. This theme was a core aspect of the
BRO program’s philosophy and practice, emphasizing how the program promoted positive
masculinity through role modeling, mentorship, and peer relationships. The implementation of
role modeling and mentorship in the BRO program is consistent with scholarship suggesting that
colleges must foster environments for MOC that promote help-seeking through role modeling
and mentorship from other men, often resulting in the normalization of engagement with support
services on campus (Brooms, 2019; Elliott, 2021; Huerta, Romero-Morales, Dizon, & Nguyen,
198
2021; Huerta, Romero-Morales, Dizon, Salazar & Nguyen, 2021; Xiong & Wood, 2016).
Furthermore, the inclusion of mentorship as a component of services offered by BRO to its
students is consistent with recommendations from scholars, such as Huerta et al. (2021) and
Sáenz et al. (2015), who suggested that peer-to-peer and faculty–student mentorship are effective
practices utilized by MOC programs in establishing support networks for MOC as they navigate
college life. Lastly, the BRO program’s peer intern and mentor models have been supported by
research, as formal and informal mentorship by program staff and student peers has been found
to contribute to the promotion of emotional well-being, healthy gender-identity development,
and challenging traditional gender norms for MOC program participants (Huerta, 2022).
Program staff highlighted their efforts to exemplify positive masculinity by sharing
personal experiences during individual and group sessions with students. This approach of selfdisclosure helped build a trustworthy and supportive environment. The program’s culturally
responsive counseling model, where students stayed with the same BRO counselor throughout
their time at ILC, strengthened these mentorship dynamics. Alongside counselors, the program
involved paid student interns and volunteer ILC faculty, along with staff MOC mentors, creating
a comprehensive support system for the students. By creating a wide and consistent network of
support, the BRO program staff increased MOC participants’ sociocultural capital on campus,
which will improve their transition into college (Brooms, 2016).
Additionally, the BRO program maintained a low student-to-counselor ratio to foster
meaningful relationships. Counselors managed caseloads of 20 to 40 students, providing
continuity throughout the students’ time in college. All four program staff interviewed shared
how this setup enabled counselors to form deeper personal connections and closely monitor their
students’ progress through regular communication and tracking. In a community college system,
199
where it is common to find ratios of several hundreds of students to one counselor (Felix &
Gonzalez, 2022), the significantly lower counselor-student ratios implemented by BRO program
staff are backed by research that suggests that this strategy is recommended for improving
college completion rates for historically marginalized ethnic and racial students, such as MOC
(Weiss et al., 2019). Furthermore, the program staff’s ability to develop deep and meaningful
relationships through these low student-to-counselor ratios is supported by evidence that
suggests that these types of relationships between MOC and institutional agents increase college
students’ sense of belonging, mattering, and overall well-being (Brooms, 2018; Harris &
Edwards, 2010; Huerta & Fishman, 2014; Sáenz, Ponjuan, et al., 2015).
Staff emphasized the significance of these personal relationships in facilitating the
exploration of masculine identity. One staff member, GXI, noted that deep connections and
modeling positive aspects of masculinity are only possible if students can trust and confide in
them, which requires getting to know students as individuals. This finding is consistent with
Harris and Edwards’ (2010) study, which found that mentoring and support from figures who
exemplified well-rounded concepts of masculinity and took a notable interest in students’ lives
helped participants overcome traditional hegemonic masculinity. Guillermo discussed the
strategic shift to the caseload model to improve student–counselor relationships, explaining that
as more counselors were added to the team, caseloads remained manageable to allow for
building the strong bonds necessary for trust. Trusting relationships between BRO program staff
and their students was particularly important in fostering a healthier sense of masculinity among
MOC, as research suggests that MOC in community college campuses often encounter negative
experiences with faculty and staff, resulting in feelings of inadequacy, mistrust, and prolonged
self-reliance (Gardenhire-Crooks et al., 2010).
200
This model has allowed counselors to interact more frequently and personally with their
students, providing tailored support. One counselor, Pablito, mentioned the benefit of the
caseload model, noting that while not every student might need to see a counselor multiple times
a semester, the door was always open for them. Another counselor, GXI, shared how the model
facilitated deep, personal conversations beyond academics, aiding students in embracing their
identities. Additionally, this intimate BRO counseling model helped counselors demonstrate
positive behaviors, such as help-seeking and challenging harmful traditional masculine norms, as
they had multiple opportunities to engage with individual students throughout the semester. One
counselor, John, explained how normalizing asking for help for his students in sessions reduced
stigma and promoted interdependence over self-reliance.
The BRO caseload counseling model allowed program staff to develop close
relationships with their students, leading to intentional conversations about masculine identity
and challenging traditional masculine norms. These authentic conversations enable the
successful navigation of masculine identity and promotion of healthy help-seeking behaviors for
community college MOC when considering that many college men shy away from discussing
personal problems with faculty and peers to avoid seeming weak due to societal pressures to
adhere to traditional masculine norms, causing them to conceal their true identities and feelings
(Harris & Edwards, 2010; Huerta, Romero-Morales, Dizon, Salazar & Nguyen, 2021; Schwab &
Dupuis, 2020).
In this case study, peer and faculty mentorship were central components of the BRO
program. Four students served as paid interns, assisting counselors and mentoring peers. This
mentorship extended to the BRO faculty/staff mentor program. Guillermo highlighted the
advantage of having numerous faculty and staff mentors, noting that the program offered access
201
to over 40 faculty and staff around campus who regularly attended events and supported
students. These mentors created an inclusive environment, facilitated discussions about identity
and masculinity, offered academic support, and served as role models. These findings were
consistent with scholarship that found that encouraging MOC community college students to
engage in campus activities, programs, and mentorship that promote healthy identity
development results in positive outcomes (Harris & Harper, 2008; Torrens et al., 2017).
Another staff member, GXI, emphasized the role of interns in maintaining engagement
and providing peer mentorship. This finding was consistent with scholarship by Brooms (2018),
who found that Black men reported that their connections with peers provided emotional and
academic support, which aided in their persistence and success in college. Additionally, recent
studies have found that strong bonds with peers have increased the sense of belonging, academic
engagement, and persistence of Latino (Estrada & Arciniega, 2015; Kugiya et al., 2021; Sáenz,
Mayo, et al., 2015) and Southeast Asian American (Xiong & Wood, 2020) community college
men. Per program staff, the impact of the intern and mentorship programs was that it connected
their students with successful MOC on campus who have navigated similar challenges and could
offer critical advice and support to BRO students. Given the lack of research on multi-tiered
systems of mentorship for MOC at CCCs, the findings of the BRO program’s intern and mentor
models in this study demonstrate a consideration for further research on this topic.
The BRO program staff’s comprehensive approach to providing role models and
mentorship significantly contributed to students’ personal and academic development,
particularly in regard to adopting healthy masculine behaviors such as help-seeking and
emotional expression. Through intentional caseload management and a robust mentorship
network, the program fostered a supportive environment that promoted positive masculinity and
202
empowered students to navigate their identities and challenges. The BRO program interns and
mentors served as a conduit for BRO program staff to expand support for their students. In
challenging traditional hegemonic masculinity by emphasizing the positive impact of seeking
meaningful peer and faculty relationships that extended beyond academics, BRO program staff
normalized healthier expressions of masculinity for their students.
Encouraging Vulnerability and Emotional Expression
A theme in the program’s efforts to support students’ exploration of masculine identity is
the emphasis on encouraging vulnerability and emotional expression. This theme emerged
through individual counseling sessions and a variety of program events and workshops,
underscoring the program staff’s dedication to fostering environments where students feel safe to
express their emotions and challenges. Subthemes that emerged in these findings were a healthy
expression of masculinity and engagement with vulnerability. Current research underscores the
importance of these efforts, as fostering emotional expression and vulnerability can significantly
improve mental health outcomes and academic success for MOC by reducing feelings of
isolation and promoting emotional well-being (Harris et al., 2017; Huerta, 2022).
Interviews with program staff and observations of events revealed the program’s
commitment to encouraging vulnerability among students. During these sessions, participants
openly share their emotions and challenges. For instance, a student mentioned feeling anxious
about upcoming finals, which prompted immediate support from both staff and peers. Other,
more personal examples included students opening up about issues relating to identity,
relationships, and family dynamics affecting their mental and emotional well-being. This
environment of validation and support highlights the program’s role in normalizing emotional
expression as a healthy and essential aspect of personal development. Research suggests that
203
normalizing emotional expression in supportive environments helps MOC students navigate their
emotions healthily, challenging more traditional aspects of masculinity, such as stoicism and
concealing emotions, contributing to their overall personal development and academic
engagement (Brooms, 2018; Harper, 2012; Harris & Edwards, 2010; Huerta, 2022). Although a
plethora of existing research discusses the impact of masculinity on MOC academic engagement,
findings from the BRO case study demonstrate a need for further research on strategies to engage
MOC in CCC MOC programs in ways that foster exploration and masculine identity, along with
emotional expression.
Program staff like GXI and Pablito stressed the importance of creating spaces where
students can discuss their feelings of isolation, loss, and other emotional experiences. During the
pandemic, virtual Barbershop Talks allowed students to delve into these topics deeply,
showcasing the program’s adaptability in maintaining emotional support remotely. Pablito
emphasized addressing mental health and reframing vulnerability as a strength, challenging the
notion that expressing emotions is a sign of weakness. Guillermo noted the challenges of
engaging students in emotional discussions, emphasizing the need for patience and prompting to
help students articulate their feelings effectively, as many of them had not previously
encountered environments in which they felt comfortable to do so. These findings were
consistent with research highlighting that men’s engagement with vulnerability fosters resilience
and personal growth, as it reframes vulnerability as a strength rather than a weakness (Schwab &
Dupuis, 2020; Vogel et al., 2014).
In addition to encouraging vulnerability, the staff members actively work to challenge
traditional masculine norms that can hinder students’ development. Staff interviews revealed that
many students had not previously encountered environments where they could openly reflect on
204
masculinity. The program aims to help students understand that traits traditionally associated
with masculinity, such as hard work and resilience, are not exclusive to men. This approach
aligns with research indicating that challenging harmful stereotypes and promoting a more
nuanced understanding of masculinity can enhance self-esteem and academic engagement among
MOC (Brooms, 2020; Harris & Edwards, 2010; Huerta, 2022). Guillermo’s perspective, shaped
by his upbringing in a non-traditional household, contrasts with Pablito’s experience in a
machismo environment. Both perspectives highlighted the program’s efforts to provide a more
nuanced understanding of masculinity. For example, Guillermo emphasized recognizing that
resilience and hard work are not gender-specific traits. Whereas Pablito, reflecting on his
upbringing, appreciated certain aspects of traditional masculinity while rejecting others that
perpetuate negative behaviors toward women. These efforts to challenge and redefine traditional
masculine norms are supported by research that suggests fostering a broader perspective on
gender roles can promote gender equity and respectful relationships among MOC and their peers
(Harris & Edwards, 2010; Harris & Harper, 2008; Wood et al., 2015).
Despite the program’s efforts, challenging traditional norms is not always readily
accepted by students. GXI noted that some students resist these conversations, clinging to
traditional views of masculinity. For example, John, in his individual sessions, assesses students’
readiness to engage in discussions about masculinity, aiming to build rapport and trust before
challenging deeply ingrained beliefs. Building trust and rapport is essential for engaging students
in meaningful discussions about sensitive topics like masculinity, as it ensures students feel
supported and understood, increasing their willingness to explore and redefine their identities
(Harris & Wood, 2013; Harris et al., 2015; Huerta, 2022). These findings illustrate a need for
205
further research on strategies to engage MOC in CCCs who are resistant to conversations
surrounding masculinity.
The BRO program’s emphasis on encouraging vulnerability and challenging traditional
masculine norms supports students’ exploration of masculine identity. By creating environments
where emotional expression is normalized and traditional norms are questioned, the program
fosters personal growth and resilience among its participants. BRO program staff’s dedication to
these principles is evident in their interactions with students and the intentional design of
program events, ultimately contributing to a more inclusive and supportive community for MOC.
Further research is needed on community-based events, such as Hombre a Hombre, Brotha to
Brotha, and Barbershop Talks, to investigate the impact of such events on masculine identity
development, vulnerability, and emotional expression of MOC in CCCs.
Navigating Systemic and Structural Challenges
The exploration of systemic and structural challenges in the BRO program highlighted
several key issues program staff face. The subthemes identified a lack of dedicated full-time staff
and permanent funding and insufficient training on masculinity and intersectional identities.
Additionally, the staff identified additional challenges, such as geographic and financial barriers
for students. Consistent with recent scholarship on MOC programs, the BRO program does not
receive consistent institutional funds from ILC or have a staffing structure that is conducive to
scaling and sustainability of its efforts (Briscoe et al., 2020; Burmicky et al., 2023; Harris &
Wood, 2013; Huerta, Romero-Morales, Dizon, & Nguyen, 2021; Keflezighi et al., 2016; Torrens
et al., 2017). These findings are troubling, given that CCC MOC programs and MMIs can reduce
persistent statewide college completion equity gaps (Felix & Gonzalez, 2022; Huerta, RomeroMorales, Dizon, & Nguyen, 2021).
206
Additionally, BRO program staff juggle multiple responsibilities, which limits their
ability to dedicate sufficient time to the program. For example, Guillermo, the sole full-time
counselor assigned to BRO, was only allocated about 16 hours per week to BRO students due to
his other duties. Other staff members contributed even less time, with GXI working 18 hours and
John and Pablito each working 9 hours weekly. The growing enrollment exacerbated the need for
a full-time dedicated staff member and additional human resources. The lack of time to dedicate
to BRO hindered the development of effective programming tailored to the needs of MOC,
including specific events and discussions on masculinity. These findings were consistent with
literature highlighting a common systemic lack of dedicated staff and resources to MOC
initiatives at community colleges and universities, with the majority of programs operating with
volunteer and part-time staff, leading to high turnover and inability to sustain effective
programming and support (Felix & Gonzalez, 2022; Huerta & Dizon, 2021; Huerta, RomeroMorales, Dizon, & Nguyen, 2021; Oliver, 2018; Torrens et al., 2017).
The program staff also expressed frustration over the lack of permanent funding.
Although the institution provides some funding, it was not consistent, which created challenges
in organizing events and providing financial incentives to students. Guillermo highlighted the
inequity in financial incentives, stating that other programs on campus have better funding
structures. At ILC, the BRO program relies heavily on SEAP funds, which are not guaranteed
annually, making long-term planning difficult. These findings align with findings from prior
studies that indicated that adequate staffing and dedicated support enhance the success of student
support programs (Briscoe et al., 2020; Burmicky et al., 2023; Harris & Wood, 2013; Huerta &
Dizon, 2021; Huerta, Romero-Morales, Dizon, & Nguyen, 2021; Keflezighi et al., 2016).
207
Moreover, program staff identified a significant need for training on masculinity and
intersectionality, particularly concerning LGBTQ+ MOC. Guillermo pointed out that while staff
strive to address issues of masculinity, their lack of formal training makes it difficult to engage
deeply with these topics. This finding is consistent with research suggesting that MOC program
staff benefit from ongoing professional development to ensure they are equipped with the skills
and knowledge to effectively support MOC, including cultural competence and understanding
the challenges these students face (Cervantes et al., 2022; Lott et al., 2022). For example, GXI
noted that at other institutions he has worked at, more targeted interventions on masculinity are
offered, but such efforts are lacking at ILC. This finding suggests additional research on CCC
MOC programs that demonstrate a focus on masculine identity development to gain insights and
to more widely adopt successful interventions based on findings.
Additionally, there has been training on working with specialized populations like
LGBTQ+ and undocumented students, but nothing specifically on the masculine identity of these
populations. This gap in training limited the staff’s ability to facilitate discussions on masculinity
and support students with diverse identities effectively. These findings are consistent with
literature on the lack of focus and consideration by MOC program leaders on the specific needs
of MOC with intersectional identities of gay, bisexual, trans, queer, or man-identified (Huerta,
2022; Huerta & Dizon, 2021). Further research is needed on the experiences of MOC program
staff’s ability to foster environments conducive to the masculine identity development of
GBTQ+ MOC.
Further challenges include the geographic and financial barriers students face. The
majority of BRO students live far from ILC, often requiring long commutes, which reduces their
ability to participate in program events. Sixty-three percent of BRO students were low-income,
208
and 29% did not receive financial aid, compounding these difficulties. Despite the program’s
efforts, these barriers often lead to lower attendance and engagement. Observations of the March
Madness barbecue and Barbershop Talk revealed that transportation support from neighboring
colleges and the timing of events improved student attendance. These findings are supported by
Huerta and Martinez’s (2022) study on Latino community college men on academic probation,
which suggests that institutions maintain flexibility and grace regarding in-person and virtual
meetings to accommodate students who are working full-time, commuting, have family
commitments, or encounter pressing personal matters. Additionally, BRO program staff cited
ILC’s recognition as a premier community college for 4-year institution transfer rates as a
primary reason MOC traveled from all over Los Angeles County to enroll there. These findings
highlight a need for further research on effective strategies to aid in MOC program engagement
of students who endure long commutes to CCC campuses and their rationales for community
college campus selection.
Systemic and structural challenges significantly influenced the program staff members’
perceptions regarding achieving the maximum effectiveness of program interventions. There is a
need for dedicated full-time staff, consistent funding, and comprehensive training on masculinity
and intersectionality. Addressing these issues would enable the program to better support MOC
in navigating their identities and achieving their academic and personal goals. Areas for further
research included strategies and interventions used by CCC MOC programs with a primary focus
on masculine identity development, qualitative studies on fostering environments conducive to
masculine identity development of GBTQ+ MOC, and scholarship on effective strategies to
engage MOC enduring long commutes to community colleges and their rationale for attending
colleges further away from their homes.
209
Conclusion of Discussion and Analysis of Research Question 1
The BRO program staff at ILC created a nurturing environment that fosters the
exploration of masculine identity among MOC through intentional community building, open
discussions about masculinity, mentorship, encouraging emotional expression and vulnerability,
and navigating systemic challenges. Their deliberate efforts in personal validation, inclusivity,
and creating culturally affirming spaces have significantly contributed to a supportive
community. Through open discussions about masculinity, facilitated by relatable role models and
mentors, the program has empowered students to redefine and embrace their masculine identity.
Additionally, the encouragement of vulnerability and emotional expression in safe spaces has
further supported personal growth and resilience. Despite facing systemic and structural
challenges, such as insufficient funding and training, the program staff’s commitment to these
principles has cultivated a positive and inclusive environment, ultimately enhancing the
academic and personal development of their participants. This holistic approach underscores the
need for intentional community-building practices in higher education programs dedicated to
supporting MOC.
Future research should focus on understanding how the perspectives of MOC program
staff on masculinity influence their support for students’ healthy masculine identity exploration.
Effective strategies for engaging resistant MOC in discussions about masculinity and the role of
unstructured community events in fostering emotional expression should be examined. The
impact of multi-tiered mentorship models, training on masculinity and intersectionality, with a
particular focus on GBTQ+ MOC, and addressing systemic challenges like dedicated staffing
and consistent funding are critical areas. Additionally, exploring strategies to support MOC with
long commutes and understanding their college selection rationale, as well as the benefits of
210
caseload counseling models for MOC programs, can inform promising practices. Given the
uniqueness of its focus, this study contributes to the scholarship on the role of MOC program
staff in fostering spaces conducive to the masculine identity development of CCC MOC.
Discussion and Analysis of Research Question 2
This section will discuss the findings and analysis of the emerging themes drawn from
the case study that are relevant to Research Question 2: How do participants of community
college MOC programs perceive and navigate the exploration of masculine identity in spaces
fostered by program staff? The discussion will focus on the experiences of 10 BRO program
student participants at ILC. The discussion on the findings of the second research question is
based on responses to interview questions and observations, which focus on masculine identity
development and exploration, validating experiences, support and empowerment, and the
challenges experienced. This discussion is organized into five themes for Research Question 2:
navigating cultural expectations and masculine identity, support and validation from program
staff, redefining masculine roles through mentorship and role models, redefining masculinity
through emotional expression, and the role of community and brotherhood. The discussion will
begin with an analysis of each theme for Research Question 2 and is followed by a discussion of
limitations and delimitations for the study.
Navigating Cultural Expectations and Masculine Identity
Navigating cultural expectations and masculine identity was a significant theme in the
interview and observation data, highlighting how participants defined masculinity and how their
cultural and community backgrounds shaped these definitions. All participants shared about their
pre-college gendered experiences shaped by culture and community, and shared how their
program participation opened their eyes to diverse expressions of masculinity. This theme
211
encompassed three primary subthemes: personal definitions of masculinity, the impact of culture
and community on masculine identity, and intersectional identities. Although there is limited
scholarship on the incorporation of masculine identity exploration in CCC MOC programs,
scholars such as Huerta (2022) and Harris and Edwards (2010) have recommended that further
such research be conducted in diverse higher educational settings.
Participants’ definitions of masculinity revealed common themes, such as integrity,
responsibility, leadership, resilience, emotional expression, communication, and personal
growth. For example, Darius saw masculinity as rooted in integrity and moral steadfastness,
while Panda emphasized leadership and providing for others. Hypnotic viewed masculinity as
performing under pressure and providing financially, coupled with emotional strength. Wayne
defined masculinity as inherent traits that anyone can embody, highlighting service to others and
standing one’s ground. Charlton and Drake focused on overcoming adversity and acting with
maturity, respectively. Toro stressed values, respect, and caring for others, whereas Bobby
associated masculinity with responsibility and social duties. Vukubcane emphasized discipline,
providing, and mentorship, while Carter underscored resilience and emotional expression,
challenging the notion that showing emotions is a sign of weakness. These definitions
collectively present a multifaceted view of masculinity, blending traditional roles with modern
aspects of emotional intelligence and personal development. The participants’ perspectives
highlighted the evolving understanding of what it means to be a man, integrating both strength
and vulnerability. These findings are significant in shedding light on the nuanced and diverse
expressions of masculinity of today’s CCC MOC. Whereas past literature has focused on
hegemonic masculine traits exhibited by college MOC, such as self-reliance and stoicism (Harris
& Edwards, 2010; Harris & Harper, 2015; Sáenz, Mayo, et al., 2015), the MOC in this study
212
exemplified definitions of masculinity that are classified by Connell (1995) as subordinate,
leading to the need for further research on MOC exhibiting masculine behaviors beyond the
confines of hegemonic masculinity.
BRO participants’ cultural and community backgrounds significantly influenced their
concepts of masculinity. Bobby described the Chinese cultural expectation for men to be
problem-solvers and providers, while Carter reflected on the stoicism and toughness emphasized
in the African American community, challenging these norms through his personal experiences
with mental health support provided through the BRO program. Bobby’s cultural influence to be
a problem solver and a provider aligns with literature on the concept of “breadwinner
orientation,” or the notion that MOC feel pressured to serve as the primary financial supporters
of their families (Harris et al., 2015; Wood & Essien-Wood, 2012). Carter’s intentional
challenging of traditional characteristics of toughness and stoicism observed in his African
American community aligns with research on the masculine experiences of Black/African
American college men, which found that many Black men experience MGRC, which promotes
behaviors influenced by their fear of femininity or being perceived as gay or unmanly by others
(Harper et al., 2005; Vogel et al., 2014). Charlton discussed the stigma against mental health
support in his traditional Mexican family, finding new perspectives through relationships with
BRO program staff and BRO programming. These stigmas surrounding mental health in Latino
communities are supported by research highlighting the existence of “machismo” among Latino
college men and its harmful effects on their ability to seek support in college (Estrada &
Arciniega, 2015; Sáenz, Mayo, et al., 2015). Similarly, Drake confronted his family’s promotion
of toxic masculinity, reshaping his views through interactions with nurturing Latino men in the
BRO program. This highlights the BRO program’s ability to foster caballerismo (Estrada &
213
Arciniega, 2015; Sáenz, Mayo, et al., 2015). Darius offered a unique perspective on the negative
influence of his neighborhood’s culture on masculinity, where aggression and survival tactics
were prevalent. He chose to channel his masculine aggression into athletics, avoiding the
negative masculine behaviors of his peers. This finding highlights a need for further research on
the impact of MOC’s geographic environments, or neighborhoods, on their masculine identity
development. Student interviews demonstrated how the BRO program’s environment provided
alternative models of masculinity that challenged traditional norms and fostered a healthier
understanding of manhood regardless of community and cultural differences.
Intersectionality shaped participants’ masculine identities. For many, identities beyond
being MOC, such as ethnicity, sexual identity, family roles, religion, and system impaction,
influenced their views on masculinity. Drake, a gay MOC, felt the BRO program lacked safe
spaces to discuss his sexual identity, reflecting ongoing struggles with integrating his gay and
masculine identities. This finding should be further explored, as research by Duran and Pérez
(2017) found that queer Latino men often contemplate the decision of whether to reveal their
queer identity to their family members; alternatively, seeking assistance from their college peers,
staff members, and faculty networks at their institutions. Additionally, Carter, whose father is
incarcerated, shared how this experience forced him to assume significant responsibilities and
emotional challenges, redefining his concept of masculinity to include emotional expression and
vulnerability.
Although recent scholarship has examined formerly incarcerated and gang-involved
college students, further examination is necessary to understand the impact of parental
incarceration on MOC and their experiences in community colleges (Abeyta et al., 2021; Huerta
et al., 2023). Bobby, a father, discussed balancing responsibilities as a parent, student, and
214
provider, finding support and guidance from program staff who were fathers and fellow studentparents. This finding was consistent with scholarship on parenting students, which suggests that
students who are parents, or fathers in this case, may experience challenges such as time poverty,
known as a lack of time due to balancing responsibilities related to parenthood with work, school
and financial stressors associated with parental obligations (Huerta et al., 2022). The BRO
program helped participants navigate their intersectional identities, offering spaces to discuss and
integrate these diverse aspects of their lives into their understanding of masculinity.
The BRO program effectively supported students in navigating cultural expectations and
masculine identity, promoting a comprehensive understanding of manhood that acknowledged
traditional roles while encouraging emotional intelligence and personal growth. By challenging
traditional masculine norms and fostering inclusive environments, the program enabled
participants to redefine masculinity in ways that aligned with their values and experiences,
contributing to their overall development and well-being. This study’s findings demonstrated a
need for further scholarship on the impact of MOC’s neighborhood culture on their masculine
identity development, as well as the impact of parental incarceration on the experiences of MOC
in community colleges.
Support and Validation from Program Staff
Current research emphasizes personalized support and validation in higher education for
MOC, as it helps to build strong, trusting relationships that increase student retention and success
(Harris et al., 2015; Huerta, 2022; Rendón, 1994; Xiong, 2022). Interview and observation data
revealed that the support and validation provided by program staff had a significant impact on
each participant. The caseload counseling model ensured that every student could name their
assigned counselor and recall specific instances of support and guidance, underscoring the
215
importance of personalized attention in fostering student success. The positive influence of group
facilitation by BRO staff further enhanced feelings of connectedness, self-worth, and security
among the students, all of whom are first-generation college attendees. These validating
experiences and relationships with BRO program staff enhanced participants’ ability to engage in
productive discussions about masculine identity.
All student interviewees emphasized that the BRO program staff made them feel
recognized and validated. For example, Panda and Charlton shared stories of being encouraged
to apply for scholarships and feeling deeply supported by their counselors. Panda’s recounting of
his counselor, GXI, taking an active interest in his academic and personal development
highlights the personal connections that foster a sense of being valued and supported. Similarly,
Charlton and Hypnotic noted the familial role their counselors played, acting as surrogate father
figures and older brothers, which was especially meaningful given the absence of such figures in
their personal lives. These findings reflect the literature, which highlights the impact of
validating and engaging relationships with institutional agents on the academic and personal
development of MOC, enhancing their sense of belonging and engagement (Brooms, 2018, 2019,
2020; Harris et al., 2015; Huerta, 2022; Xiong, 2022).
Additionally, Charlton’s experience with his counselor, Pablito, who validated his
masculine identity during a mental health crisis, illustrated the need to address mental health in
the context of masculinity. Research indicates that integrating discussions of mental health with
considerations of masculine identity can be particularly effective for MOC, who may face
cultural stigmas around expressing vulnerability (Harris & Edwards, 2010; Huerta, 2022). For
example, Toro’s account of receiving consistent academic encouragement from his counselor,
Guillermo, underscored the need for men to hear affirmations of pride and support, which
216
significantly boosts their confidence and motivation. These positive affirmations foster resilience
and persistence among MOC (Brooms, 2019; Harris & Harper, 2008; Sáenz, Mayo, et al., 2015;
Sáenz, Ponjuan, et al., 2015; Xiong, 2022).
At the Barbershop Talk event, I noted numerous instances of program staff recognizing
and validating student achievements, such as the applause and verbal affirmations following a
student’s announcement of improving his GPA. This recognition helps students feel seen and
appreciated for their hard work. Students expressed appreciation for how program staff affirmed
their identities, many of which are often marginalized in educational settings. These findings are
consistent with research suggesting that facilitating the validation process is the primary
responsibility of institutional agents to ensure that students meet their educational goals and
experience a sense of belonging in the campus community (Huerta, 2022; Rendón Linares &
Muñoz, 2011).
The affirmation of racial, ethnic, gender, and sexual identities by the BRO staff provided
a supportive environment where students felt understood and valued. This aligns with research
suggesting that the validation of diverse identities enhances the well-being and academic success
of students from historically marginalized groups (Harper & Hurtado, 2007). Drake, for example,
highlighted the acceptance he felt from his counselors regarding his gay identity, which contrasts
with his fears of coming out to his peers. This finding demonstrates a need for further
scholarship on the peer-to-peer experiences of gay men in MOC programs in the community
college, which tend to focus on the heteronormative experiences of students from historically
marginalized ethnic and racial backgrounds (Huerta, 2022; Sáenz, Mayo, et al., 2015; Sáenz,
Ponjuan, et al., 2015).
217
Carter’s experiences in the Brotha to Brotha sessions illustrated how spaces specifically
tailored to Black/African American men can foster open dialogues and provide a non-judgmental
platform for expressing their unique racialized and gendered challenges and experiences. This
finding was consistent with Wood et al. (2015) and Brooms’s (2016, 2018, 2019) research on
Black Male Initiatives and the impact of safe spaces fostering authentic emotional expression
and support on Black college men’s increased sense of belonging and persistence. In regard to
support from BRO program staff, Bobby, the sole Asian American interview participant,
appreciated being treated as an equal member of the group and valued the cultural guidance
provided by his counselor despite the counselor not sharing his racial and ethnic background.
This finding was promising, considering recent scholarship suggesting that Asian American men
in college are often overlooked in diversity initiatives due to common misconceptions that they
do not face obstacles because of their gender, color, or ethnicity, which could jeopardize their
ability to succeed in college (Harris et al., 2015; Shek, 2006; Xiong & Wood, 2016). Charlton
and Toro’s narratives emphasized the significance of having counselors who shared their ethnic
or cultural backgrounds. For Charlton, the encouragement to celebrate his Oaxacan heritage was
empowering, motivating him to continue in his pursuit of higher education and increase the
representation of other Oaxacans in his field. Toro’s admiration for his counselor, Guillermo,
who shared his Mexican background, underscored the powerful impact of relatable role models
in inspiring students to achieve beyond their perceived limitations. These findings are consistent
with research suggesting that MOC in higher education benefit from positive interactions with
institutional agents who share their racial and gender identity (Brooms, 2016; Kugiya et al.,
2021).
218
The impact of personalized support and validation from program staff on BRO students
was a key finding of this study. The program’s caseload counseling model and group facilitation
efforts foster strong, trusting relationships, which increase student retention and success.
Through personal connections, program staff provided academic and emotional support and
facilitated open dialogues about masculine identity, mental health, and cultural heritage. These
interactions enhanced students’ feelings of belonging, self-worth, and motivation, highlighting
the role of institutional agents in creating an inclusive and supportive educational environment.
Although most students felt that the program staff validated and supported their exploration of
masculine identity, Drake shared that he did not feel comfortable discussing issues relating to his
identity as a gay MOC with his peers. This finding demonstrates the need for additional research
on the peer-to-peer experiences of MOC program participants with marginalized masculinities
(Connell, 1995), such as gay, bisexual, trans, and queer MOC. These findings underscore the
value of continued efforts to validate and engage MOC in CCC, ensuring that all students feel
recognized, valued, and empowered to achieve their goals.
Redefining Masculine Roles Through Mentorship and Role Models
The presence of older men and role models who defy traditional masculinity norms has a
substantial impact on MOC’s ability to redefine their gender identities (Harris & Edwards, 2010;
Huerta, 2022). A prominent theme in the interviews and observation data is the redefinition of
masculine roles through mentorship and role models. Students emphasized the importance of
learning new ways to express their masculinity through relationships with BRO program staff,
student interns, faculty and staff mentors, and peers. Two subthemes that emerged in this theme
were role models and guidance and mentorship.
219
All student participants identified individuals in the BRO program as role models,
recognizing their influence beyond academics, including interpersonal skills, leadership traits,
emotional intelligence, career achievements, and friendship. Darius, for example, did not view
his father as an ideal role model due to his father’s traditional masculine behavior toward
women. He found better role models in BRO workshops about healthy relationships, where other
MOC modeled respectful approaches to romantic relationships. This contrast allowed Darius to
redefine his views on masculinity as it relates to relationships with women. This finding is
consistent with recommendations for MOC programs to host sessions to raise awareness among
MOC about gender identity and the concept of gender as a social construct, as these efforts help
MOC understand that rigid gender norms can hinder their progress in higher education and
society as a whole (Sáenz, Mayo, et al., 2015; Sáenz, Ponjuan, et al., 2015).
Similarly, Toro shared how his counselor, Guillermo, inspired him to pursue a doctoral
degree, a feat unprecedented in his family. Guillermo’s role modeling of academic achievement
and career success motivated Toro to aspire to similar goals. Research indicates that seeing
relatable role models achieve high levels of success can inspire MOC to set and pursue ambitious
academic and career goals (Brooms, Franklin et al., 2018). In regard to peer influences on role
modeling, Wayne highlighted how J.C., a BRO student intern, has been a friend and role model
who demonstrated the value of voicing one’s opinions and providing space for different
perspectives. This support encouraged Wayne to express himself more freely. Additionally,
Hypnotic said his peer, D.L., influenced him through his resilience and willingness to seek help,
which motivated Hypnotic to pursue his own academic goals with greater determination and
openness. Drake provided another example of peer role modeling, as he initially felt insecure
about his age and educational progress. He found inspiration in K.C., a peer of similar age and
220
experience, who motivated him to persist and aim for a 4-year university. These findings are
consistent with research suggesting that MOC who participate in peer support programs or
informal peer networks report a stronger sense of community and belonging, which contributes
positively to their academic success and self-concept (Brooms, 2019; Huerta, 2022; Rodriguez et
al., 2019).
Student participants highlighted the impact of guidance and mentorship from program
staff, student interns, and volunteer mentors. Six participants had requested mentors. Bobby, a
recent immigrant, said that his relationship with Professor B., an African American accounting
professor, changed his perception of professors and made him more comfortable seeking
guidance beyond academics. Similarly, Charlton found support in Professor C., his mentor, who
helped him with both academic and personal challenges. These findings are consistent with
literature on the impact of faculty–student engagement, which has shown to be a significant
determinant of increased academic performance, student retention, and goal completion for
MOC (Brooms, 2018, 2019, 2020; Harris et al., 2015).
Students also expressed that engaging with mentors outside the academic environment of
ILC, such as at BRO barbecues, helped build authentic and deeper connections. Toro appreciated
these informal settings, which disrupted traditional power dynamics and made it easier for him to
seek guidance. Research suggests that informal mentoring relationships can be particularly
effective in creating a sense of trust, openness, and mattering (Huerta & Fishman, 2014), which
is crucial for meaningful mentorship (Brooms, 2016; Brooms, Clark & Smith, 2018; Brooms,
Franklin et al., 2018; Luedke, 2017). Vukubcane’s statements further evidenced the influence of
these mentor relationships, as he shared how his mentor, John, helped him navigate professional
opportunities, challenging his previous notions of masculinity, which emphasized overextending
221
oneself. John’s mentorship taught Vukubcane to embrace vulnerability and take healthy risks.
This finding aligns with research on how mentors help MOC develop a more nuanced
understanding of masculinity, which includes emotional intelligence and vulnerability (Harris &
Edwards, 2010; Huerta, 2022). The influence of these mentor interactions made students feel
cared for, as evidenced by Carter’s recollection of how Mr. X went “above and beyond’’ by
assisting him outside work hours, emphasizing “paying it forward” and supporting other MOC in
similar ways. This finding reflects the broader educational goal of promoting a culture of support
and mentorship among MOC, which can have a ripple effect, fostering a community of care and
mutual accountability (Brooms, 2018).
The BRO program’s emphasis on mentorship and role models through their relationships
with staff, faculty, and peer mentors helped students redefine masculine roles. Through these
relationships, students were exposed to diverse expressions of masculinity, challenging
traditional norms and fostering personal growth. The support from mentors and role models
aided academic success and encouraged emotional intelligence, resilience, and leadership,
contributing to a more comprehensive understanding of what it means to be a man. The
mentorship and guidance provided by the BRO program significantly impacted students’
educational and personal development, helping them reconcile their cultural backgrounds with
their evolving masculine identities.
Redefining Masculinity Through Emotional Expression
Emotional expression emerged as a unique theme of this study’s findings. All student
participants shared examples of how participation in the BRO program empowered them to feel
safe in “sharing their feelings” and helped them understand that demonstrating vulnerability does
not make them “weak.” Through guidance and support from program staff, students are
222
redefining traditional notions of masculinity by embracing healthier ways to express their
emotions in environments where emotional expression is encouraged, leading to a more holistic
understanding of masculinity. Two significant subthemes that surfaced were healthy expressions
of masculinity and engagement with vulnerability.
Student participants shared how the BRO program has helped them learn to communicate
their emotions constructively. Interviews explored how participants articulated their feelings and
how this practice contributed to a more nuanced and positive self-concept. By adopting healthier
emotional practices, BRO students challenged and expanded the conventional boundaries of
masculinity. Toro shared how BRO counselors’ willingness to express their emotions influenced
him profoundly. He described a session where a counselor openly discussed his feelings, a stark
contrast to his experiences with his own father, who avoided deep emotional conversations. This
exposure to emotional openness inspired Toro to be more comfortable sharing his emotions with
others. This finding was consistent with research suggesting that emotional modeling by MOC
program staff normalizes emotional expression for MOC, as they see that staff have also
experienced challenging situations in life (Huerta, 2022).
Carter highlighted how BRO encouraged him to challenge traditional masculine norms
prevalent in the Black/African American community, norms he believed contributed to systemic
issues like violence and incarceration. He noted that programs like BRO are important outlets for
emotional expression, which he viewed as critical for addressing these systemic issues for MOC.
Through workshops and individual counseling sessions focused on challenging traditional gender
roles, Carter shared that he gained self-awareness and emotional intelligence. These findings are
supported by research suggesting that conversations about gender roles are a key component of
the broader support system necessary to enhance MOC’s emotional awareness (Huerta, 2022).
223
Darius shared that BRO helped him redefine masculinity to align with his values, shifting his
focus from material success and toughness to integrity and leading by example. This redefinition
allowed him to take responsibility for his emotions and actions, fostering a healthier selfconcept. Panda said that BRO has helped him become more patient, reflective, and willing to ask
for help, traits not emphasized in his upbringing. Through supportive relationships with BRO
counselors, Panda has learned to engage with his emotions and share his feelings, which has
contributed to his success at ILC. The BRO program challenged the prevailing view that MOC
should be self-reliant and manage personal challenges independently, often resulting in them
leaving college, by offering intentional support fostering spaces that centered emotions, healthy
masculine identity development, and challenging harmful traditional gender norms often
internalized by MOC (Huerta, 2022).
The strong community of close relationships students had developed in the BRO program
created an environment where they felt more comfortable discussing experiences and revealing
their deepest emotions and difficulties. The students were reshaping the concept of strength and
masculinity by confronting their vulnerabilities, showing that being open and emotionally honest
are essential aspects of their developing identities. Hypnotic shared that his friendships in BRO
evolved from physical activities like soccer to discussions about personal challenges. This shift
encouraged him to be more vulnerable and open with his peers, fostering mutual accountability
and honesty. Also, Carter described the program as a place where he can be his “authentic self.”
He shared that the program provided emotional outlets to discuss the pain of his grandparents’
illnesses and his father’s incarceration without fear of judgment. This support was also important
for Carter, who felt safe discussing systemic issues with the BRO community. These findings are
consistent with research suggesting that authentic peer and mentor relationships among college
224
MOC, which provide a sense of psychological safety, can help them challenge pre-college
gender norms of hypermasculinity and hyper-competitiveness that negatively affect their
physical and emotional well-being (Brooms, Franklin et al., 2018; Harris et al., 2015; Huerta,
2022; Vogel et al., 2014).
The observation of the Barbershop Talk event demonstrated how staff instilled a belief in
students that vulnerability is a healthy way to express masculinity. One participant shared his
struggles with racial discrimination and how his interracial relationship offered new perspectives
and hope for an equal society. Another student discussed his mental health challenges and how
therapy, encouraged by his BRO counselor, significantly improved his overall well-being. These
sessions provided outlets for emotional expression in group settings where students had their
emotional challenges normalized and validated by peers and facilitators who also provided useful
coping strategies. Students who displayed vulnerability and emotionality in their shares
prompted their peers to share experiences of their own. By establishing normative cultural
expectations of emotional expression and vulnerability, the barbershop talks led to students
possessing mutual accountability to one another. These findings contribute to existing literature
on the positive impact of spaces where MOC can express vulnerability with peers and
institutional agents on their ability to challenge harmful traditional masculine norms negatively
affecting mental health and college completion (Harris & Harper, 2015; Huerta, 2022).
The program’s emphasis on emotional expression helps students redefine masculinity. By
fostering environments where healthy expression and engagement with vulnerability are modeled
and encouraged, BRO supports students in challenging traditional norms and embracing a more
holistic understanding of masculinity. This approach aids personal growth and contributes to
broader systemic change, empowering students to navigate their identities with greater emotional
225
intelligence and resilience. The program’s impact is evident in the students’ improved selfconcept, increased self-awareness, and stronger interpersonal connections.
The Role of Community and Brotherhood
Due to the decreasing educational achievement at the national level, colleges have been
compelled to take action and establish support systems that focus on developing leadership skills,
encouraging career exploration and growth, analyzing and challenging societal norms regarding
gender and masculinity, and fostering a strong sense of brotherhood (Brooms, Clark & Smith,
2018; Huerta, 2022). The analysis of the student interview data highlighted the significant impact
of community and brotherhood on their masculine identities. Establishing supportive networks
and communal relationships played a crucial role in the personal and academic growth of
participants. Subthemes of positive energy and engaging in brotherhood provide a deeper
understanding of this theme, demonstrating how these factors contributed to a supportive
community environment and strengthened the sense of belonging and mutual support among
students.
The positive energy that the program staff fostered created a dynamic and inspiring
environment for students. This deliberate creation of an inviting and supportive atmosphere
enhanced the general well-being and motivation of BRO participants. During the March
Madness barbecue, students and staff engaged in uplifting behaviors such as cheering, dancing,
and encouraging each other, showcasing the positive interactions that characterized the BRO
program. Wayne highlighted this event as a positive experience, noting the fun and camaraderie
he experienced despite the competitive setting. These findings are consistent with the plethora of
research finding supportive and validating environments that facilitate a sense of brotherhood
among community college MOC, enhancing their sense of belonging and mattering in higher
226
education institutions and increasing their accountability to one another (Brooms, 2016, 2018,
2019; Brooms, Clark & Smith, 2018; Harris & Edwards, 2010; Harris et al., 2015; Huerta, 2022;
Huerta & Fishman, 2014; Huerta, Romero-Morales, Dizon, & Nguyen, 2021; Huerta, RomeroMorales, Dizon, Salazar & Nguyen, 2021; Sáenz, Mayo, et al., 2015; Sáenz, Ponjuan, et al.,
2015).
Six student interviewees mentioned specific off-campus experiences, such as a MOC
leadership conference. These events extended the positive environment of the BRO program
beyond the ILC campus, contributing to students’ sense of belonging and inclusivity to a larger
brotherhood of community college MOC. Vukubcane, for example, felt part of a larger
community of MOC pursuing higher education together as a result of attending a MOC
leadership conference with BRO program staff and students. Similarly, Bobby emphasized the
impact of positive energy from keynote speakers at the conference, which inspired him to
overcome challenges and strive for academic and career goals. Charlton also echoed this
sentiment, attributing his continued participation in the BRO program to the positivity and
encouragement he received from the community. These experiences align with prior research
that highlights the role of positive reinforcement and community engagement in fostering
resilience and persistence among MOC (Brooms, 2019; Huerta, 2022; Huerta, Romero-Morales,
Dizon, & Nguyen, 2021; Huerta, Romero-Morales, Dizon, Salazar & Nguyen, 2021;).
Engagement in a brotherhood fostered a sense of belonging, mutual support, and
accountability among BRO program participants. By actively participating in BRO activities,
students develop strong connections and support networks, helping them achieve personal and
academic success. Darius portrayed another example by sharing how meaningful relationships
with BRO friends expanded his social network beyond the program, making him feel more
227
connected to the greater ILC community. Similarly, Charlton and Panda described the BRO
program as a family. These relationships allowed students to be their authentic selves and rely on
one another. Panda, for instance, appreciated conversations about shared challenges and traumas,
which helped him feel understood and supported. This finding is consistent with research
suggesting that encouraging openness and vulnerability, particularly regarding trauma, fosters
deeper brotherly bonds among MOC and challenges common stigmas around engaging in
conversations about trauma among communities of color (Huerta, 2022).
Interviews with BRO students revealed how a collective sense of brotherhood allowed
participants to interrogate their past masculine behaviors and redefine new ways of expressing
masculinity. For example, Drake, initially self-reliant, learned the value of collaboration and
leadership through the brotherhood he experienced in the program, reducing his ego and
fostering a healthier way of understanding and working together. Additionally, Darius, who
served as a panelist at the MOC leadership conference, felt a sense of pride and duty in BRO.
Staff implemented his suggestion for an anime watch party, making him feel like a valued
member of the BRO brotherhood. These findings are consistent with scholarship on the impact
of brotherhood on increasing MOC’s collective responsibility to one another by emphasizing
strength in numbers and the impact of a sense of brotherhood on increased engagement and
leadership in college environments (Brooms, Clark & Smith, 2018). Furthermore, these findings
reflect the impact of how MOC feeling a sense of brotherhood aids in promoting accountability
and responsibility to others as integral components of their concept of masculinity (Brooms,
Clark & Smith, 2018).
The BRO program’s emphasis on community and brotherhood significantly influenced
the masculine identities of its students. Through positive energy and engagement in brotherhood,
228
the program created a supportive environment that fostered healthier aspects of masculinity and
self-worth. All student interviewees expressed that they felt a duty to each other and the program
as a whole, demonstrating the impact that the sense of brotherhood had on their feelings of
mutual accountability, leadership, and responsibility to support others. These findings underscore
the importance of supportive networks and communal relationships in shaping MOC’s
experiences and identities in higher education.
Conclusion of Discussion and Analysis of Research Question 2
This study’s findings underscore the impact of validation by the BRO program staff on
participants’ exploration and navigation of masculine identity. Through personalized support and
validation from program staff, students experienced significant positive shifts in their selfperception and academic engagement. The culturally responsive counseling and mentorship in
the BRO program provided students with role models who defy traditional masculinity norms,
fostering environments that encouraged emotional expression and vulnerability. The emphasis on
community and brotherhood created a supportive network that reinforced students’ sense of
belonging and mutual accountability. Despite the predominantly positive experiences, the study
highlighted areas needing further research, particularly regarding the experiences of MOC with
marginalized masculinities, such as gay and queer identities.
Overall, the BRO program’s approach to addressing and redefining masculinity
contributed to its participants’ holistic development and well-being, emphasizing such programs
in enhancing diverse expressions of masculinity. This study’s findings demonstrate a need for
MOC programs in CCC to continue to validate their participants while incorporating theoretical
concepts relating to masculinity, such as Connell’s (1995) multiple masculinities framework, to
further investigate how such programs can normalize marginalized and subordinate masculinities
229
of MOC and challenge traditional hegemonic masculine norms which have contributed to lower
rates of college completion for MOC.
Limitations
Although qualitative methods provide an in-depth and nuanced understanding of
participants’ experiences, this limited the generalizability of findings to all MOC in community
colleges due to the subjective nature of the data and the small sample. The study’s use of a
limited, deliberately chosen sample from a sole community college program constrained the
applicability of the results. The experiences of these participants may not have been
representative of all MOC in community colleges or those in different geographical regions or
institutional contexts. Concentrating solely on one institution, such as ILC, limited the
understanding of the range and diversity of experiences among MOC throughout many
community colleges. Variations in institutional policies, cultural contexts, and program
implementations can significantly influence students’ experiences. I sought to recruit a diverse
sample of MOC, although it should be noted that specific characteristics such as race, ethnicity,
socioeconomic status, and other intersecting identities may not completely reflect the larger
population of MOC in community colleges. My subjective encounters and positionality,
encompassing my work as a coordinator for a MOC program at another college and my personal
experiences as a man of color, may have created bias during the process of data collection,
interpretation, and analysis. While efforts to limit prejudice, such as reflexivity and member
verification, are important, they may not completely eradicate these biases.
The use of questionnaires, semi-structured interviews, and observations as the primary
methods for data collection restricted the study to the viewpoints and encounters that participants
were inclined or capable of expressing. Certain experiences or impressions may have gone
230
unarticulated or unnoticed. Conducting the study during the 2023–2024 school year restricted the
capacity to observe the program’s long-term effects on the participants. This study might not
have adequately represented the potential for program efficacy or participant perceptions to
evolve. The study’s emphasis on a college designated as an HSI with a predominantly non-White
student body may not accurately represent the experiences of MOC in universities with varying
demographic compositions or institutional interests.
Delimitations
This study was a single-case study conducted at one community college in Southern
California. Due to this geographical constraint, the results are not applicable to community
colleges in other states or regions with distinct demographics, policies, or cultural contexts. The
research specifically focuses on MOC involved in the BRO program at ILC, as well as the
institutional agents employed by the program. This focus restricted the study to a specific
demographic and omitted. The inquiry focused on a specific program intended to assist MOC.
This delimitation specifically focused on the topic of MOC and did not include other support
programs or activities. It provides a specialized perspective on the topic.
The study was undertaken during the 2023–2024 academic year, capturing experiences
within a defined period. This boundary may have failed to encompass alterations in program
efficacy, student encounters, or institutional regulations over time. The qualitative research
design utilized a case study approach, using semi-structured interviews and observations to
conduct in-depth investigations of individual experiences and perceptions. This methodology
restricts the investigation to subjective judgments and does not incorporate quantitative
assessments of program efficacy or broader statistical patterns. The study utilized purposeful
sampling strategies, specifically convenience and snowball sampling, to choose participants.
231
This methodological decision was intended to collect comprehensive and detailed
understandings, but it may not have provided a sample that accurately represents all MOC in
community colleges or those involved in similar programs.
The study included 10 student respondents, all four institutional agents affiliated with
BRO, and two program events. The small sample and narrow range of observed participants and
events do not adequately represent the wide range of experiences and viewpoints among MOC in
community institutions. The study focused specifically on the function of MOC programs in
creating environments that promote the exploration and cultivation of positive masculine
identity. It did not consider other areas of student development, such as academic
accomplishment or career preparedness.
Recommendations
This qualitative case study of the BRO program at ILC revealed several key findings for
both research questions. The major themes of findings for Research Question 1 relating to how
BRO program staff fostered spaces to support student participants’ exploration of masculine
identity included intentional community building for MOC, facilitating open discussions about
masculinity, providing role models and mentorship, encouraging vulnerability and emotional
expression, and navigating systemic and structural challenges. The major themes of findings for
Research Question 2 to how BRO participants perceived and navigated the exploration of
masculine identity within spaces fostered by program staff included navigating cultural
expectations and masculine identity, support and validation from program staff, redefining
masculine roles through mentorship and role models, redefining masculinity through emotional
expression, and the role of community and brotherhood. Collectively, the implications of the
232
findings of this study can be used to inform policy, practice, and future research on the impact of
community college MOC programs on its participants’ masculine identity development.
Recommendations for Policy
Addressing the persistent educational inequities MOC face in community colleges
requires implementing several key policy recommendations. First, disaggregating national and
state data for MOC and establishing a dedicated MOC dashboard is essential. National and state
databases like IPEDS and CCCCO Data Mart often lack the granularity to fully understand the
specific challenges MOC face, leading to gaps in identifying systemic inequities. A dedicated
MOC dashboard would enable researchers and policymakers to uncover and address these gaps
more effectively, informing targeted interventions. Additionally, allocating state funds for the
expansion of system-wide MOC programming is critical, as current funding is often insufficient
and inconsistent, hindering the sustainability of effective support services. Finally, mandating the
inclusion of specific interventions addressing MOC in student equity plans (SEPs) would ensure
institutional accountability and dedicated efforts to close equity gaps. By institutionalizing
funding and resources for MOC programs, these initiatives can be sustained, effectively staffed,
and capable of adapting to MOC community college students’ evolving needs, thereby
enhancing their educational outcomes and personal development. In the following sections, I will
elaborate on each of these proposed recommendations for policy.
Disaggregate National and State Data for MOC and Establish a MOC Dashboard
National and state databases for higher education institutions, such as IPEDS and
CCCCO Data Mart, are most commonly used by policymakers, as they provide comprehensive
data on specific demographic groups to better comprehend systemic equity gaps among specific
performance outcomes. These databases often do not disaggregate data by ethnicity, nor is there
233
a separate database or dashboard specifically for data relating to community college MOC.
Given the disproportionately low rates of college completion of MOC in the United States and
California, such a database or dashboard would be helpful in identifying specific system-wide
equity gaps among MOC as well as those on individual campuses.
Recent scholarship by Xiong (2022) elucidated preliminary institutional findings that
suggest that Southeast Asian American men experience equity gaps in completion, yet CCCCO
Data Mart only provides data on Asian and Filipino students for the Asian American
demographic. Additionally, disaggregation of data by ethnicity and gender could advance limited
scholarship on MOC who identify as Native, Pacific Islander, and as having multiple racial
affiliations. Therefore, it is recommended that system-wide data disaggregation by ethnicity is
conducted and a dedicated MOC dashboard is established to provide much-needed data to
expose existing equity gaps that are not currently highlighted in broad institutional data and
research.
Allocate State Funds for the Expansion of System-Wide MOC Programming
Men of color are completing community college at disproportionately lower rates than
their comparable peers. This ongoing systemic issue necessitates dedicated statewide funding
allocation to address the needs of MOC in California. Recently, the California governor’s office
awarded state funds of $1.1 million to the African American Male Network and Development
(A2MEND, 2021; CCCCO, 2022). However, this allocation is not guaranteed beyond the 2022–
2023 fiscal year and is to be used specifically for the expansion of A2MEND efforts, including
recruitment, culture and climate change, high-impact practices, charter meetings, campus
programming, academic support referral, financial support referral, and community outreach and
programming (CCCCO, 2022). This funding does not guarantee that all 116 CCC campuses will
234
receive funding for these efforts. As stated in this study, only 29% of CCC campuses currently
host A2MEND (CCCCO, 2022). Given the lack of sustained funding for staffing and
programming (Felix & Gonzalez, 2022), the state must leverage funds to continue expanding
system-wide initiatives positioned to provide guidance and consultation to community college
campuses looking to implement effective programming and support for MOC. Furthermore, this
funding would aid in establishing a pipeline for MOC programming in K–12 systems to help
students transition into CCC and public 4-year institutions.
Mandate the Inclusion of Specific Interventions Addressing MOC in Student Equity Plans
Between 2014 and 2019, the CCC system has provided upwards of $680 million to close
equity gaps on its campuses, such as those found among MOC (Felix & Gonzalez, 2022). Yet,
MOC are still experiencing consistent gaps in college enrollment, persistence, retention, success,
and completion today (CCCCO, 2022; Felix & Gonzalez, 2022). Since the implementation of SB
1456 and AB 705, community college campuses have been tasked with developing SEPs to
closely examine basic skills progression, degree completion, and transfer rates for
disproportionately impacted students. Despite concerning statewide data on MOC CCC
performance outcomes, there is no statewide mandate to incorporate MOC in SEPs for individual
campuses. Felix and Gonzalez (2022) found that only 6% of activities described in 42 CCC SEPs
sampled were specifically directed toward MOC. Furthermore, many of these activities did not
intentionally target MOC, as they were often generic interventions applicable to a wide range of
student populations. This demonstrates a need to further examine system-wide data and for the
CCCCO to explicitly mandate all CCC institutions to include specific and measurable
interventions for MOC in their SEPs. This requirement would ensure that every CCC campus has
a written plan with dedicated funding to address equity gaps.
235
Institutionalize Funding and Resources for MOC Programming
Research on MOC programs suggests that one of the most significant challenges they
face is the lack of dedicated funding and resources from their institutions (Briscoe et al., 2020;
Burmicky et al., 2023; Felix & Gonzalez, 2022; Harris & Wood, 2013; Huerta, Romero-Morales,
Dizon, & Nguyen, 2021; Keflezighi et al., 2016). The BRO program staff echoed this concern as
they, too, felt that the fiscal resource allocation from ILC was insufficient to produce effective
sustainable outcomes. Many MOC programs function through the labor of part-time or volunteer
staff who tend to encounter burnout due to institutional leaders’ expectations (Briscoe et al.,
2020; Cervantes et al., 2022; Huerta & Dizon, 2021; Huerta, Romero-Morales, Dizon, &
Nguyen, 2021; Lott et al., 2022; Oliver, 2018).
Additionally, programs face challenges in offering financial incentives, such as
transportation and meal vouchers, to their students despite the challenges their students face
associated with systemic barriers such as food, housing, and transportation insecurities.
Furthermore, many of these programs rely on soft money, such as grant funds, and are funded by
multiple sources outside of the institutional budget, such as donations (Felix & Gonzalez, 2022;
Huerta, Romero-Morales, Dizon, & Nguyen, 2021). This lack of consistent and permanent
funding leads to high rates of turnover among staff and programs being cut due to institutional
budgetary constraints (Felix & Gonzalez, 2022; Torrens et al., 2017). Given these challenges, I
recommend that CCC leadership institutionalize funding for MOC programs and initiatives to
sustain, grow, and adjust programming and staffing, such as dedicated full-time staff.
Recommendations for Practice
This section will discuss recommendations regarding effective practices for MOC
programs that are essential for fostering a supportive and inclusive environment that promotes
236
healthy masculine identity development. Considering the challenges related to the lack of
institutional support, community college campuses must dedicate full-time staffing and physical
spaces to MOC programs, ensuring consistent support and validation. Additionally, ongoing
professional development on masculine and intersectional identities will allow program staff to
engage in promising practices effectively. Incorporating emotional well-being and vulnerability
into programming significantly enhances students’ sense of belonging and self-worth, helping
them navigate college life and redefine masculinity in healthier ways. By adopting the BRO
program’s culturally responsive caseload counseling model with low student-to-counselor ratios,
along with a peer intern and faculty/staff mentor network, other MOC programs can foster deep
bonds and promote mutual accountability, increasing students’ sense of belonging and improving
outcomes. Lastly, culturally affirming spaces relevant to MOC’s experiences and ensuring
inclusivity for those with marginalized masculinities establish a welcoming environment and
encourage broader participation. In the following sections, I will elaborate on each of these
recommendations.
Dedicate Full-time Staff, Space, and Professional Development to MOC Programs
Considering the challenges presented in the above section relating to the lack of
institutional support felt by MOC program staff, CCC campuses must dedicate full-time staffing
to MOC programs and initiatives. Given their poor outcomes in nearly every performance
category, MOC require and deserve consistent support and validation from individuals who are
available on a full-time basis. As noted in this study, the BRO program staff functioned on the
labor of four individuals who dedicated 16, 18, and 9 hours per week. Despite one member of the
BRO program staff holding a full-time role at ILC, he divides his time with other campus
237
programs. This diminished program staff members’ perceived effectiveness in closing equity
gaps and promoting healthier concepts of masculinity for their 150+ students.
All four program staff shared their desire for at least one full-time staff member to
oversee the program. Additionally, the program staff and students shared that a lack of a
dedicated physical space made it difficult for program staff to host regular meetings and events
without having to consult with the campus use department on the utilization of shared campus
spaces. Although the program is housed at a center at ILC, there is no dedicated space for it aside
from two individual counseling offices. Therefore, CCC campus leaders must prioritize funding
for dedicated full-time staff and space for MOC programs, as temporary or soft funds tend to
lead to unsuccessful and unsustainable outcomes for community college MOC programs and
their staff.
The program staff also communicated a need for additional training and professional
development on masculine identity and other intersectional identities of their students. They felt
that lacking this training limited their ability to engage in existing promising practices
surrounding masculinity identity development that they were not aware of. Additionally, national
organizations such as the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA),
include a Men and Masculinities Knowledge Community (MMKC), a subcommunity for
professionals, which could be beneficial to MOC program practitioners seeking additional
training and resources related to masculine identity development. Furthermore, statewide
organizations host annual professional conferences focusing specifically on the diverse
experiences of college MOC. Attending these conferences could provide additional training and
information on promising practices impacting MOC in community colleges. Therefore, CCC
238
campus leaders must prioritize funding dedicated to the ongoing professional development needs
of the individuals tasked with leading MOC programs and initiatives.
Incorporate Vulnerability and Emotional Expression in MOC Programming
The majority of research on MOC programs has focused on their leadership development
and community engagement (Brooms, 2018, 2019; Harris & Wood, 2013; Huerta, 2022;
Keflezighi et al., 2016; McCoy et al., 2020; Person et al., 2017; Sáenz, Ponjuan, et al., 2015).
This study was influenced by a recent study by Huerta (2022) on the aspects of MOC
programming that influenced participants’ emotional well-being and vulnerability. He found that
MOC programs’ ability to cultivate emotional vulnerability by challenging masculinity and to
cultivate emotional vulnerability by sharing trauma influenced participants’ emotional wellbeing (Huerta, 2022).
This study’s findings revealed that the program staff and activities increased students’
sense of belonging, mattering, self-worth, and ability to express emotions and vulnerability with
other MOC. In doing so, these students felt better equipped to navigate college as first-generation
MOC community college students and challenge preconceived notions of traditional masculinity.
Program staff and students shared how, although not always explicitly stated, the relationships
built through individual and group activities helped students redefine masculinity in ways that
were healthier and more conducive to improved emotional well-being. Although this is a singlecase study of an individual CCC MOC program, I recommend that other institutional agents
seeking to build such programs consider incorporating programming that centers on emotional
well-being and vulnerability related to MOC’s gender-identity development (Huerta, 2022).
239
Incorporate a Multi-Tiered Caseload and Mentorship Model of Support for MOC
A large component of the BRO program’s success was in its utilization of a culturally
responsive caseload counseling model with low student-to-counselor ratios. Counselors
described caseloads of between 20 to 40 students per counselor, which is considerably smaller
than the hundreds of students that counselors at most community colleges see (Felix & Gonzalez,
2022; Weiss et al., 2019). Counselors also shared incorporating an intentional focus on the
exploration of racial, ethnic, and gender identities of their students in counseling sessions. This is
a promising practice as it allows counselors to closely track, monitor, and support their students
while engaging them in meaningful identity exploration by offering students a consistent
counselor throughout their time at ILC. Furthermore, the small caseload sizes allow for the
development of close bonds between students and their counselors, which have been proven to
increase students’ sense of belonging and outcomes in community colleges (Brooms, 2018;
Harris & Edwards, 2010; Huerta & Fishman, 2014; Sáenz, Ponjuan, et al., 2015). Therefore, I
recommend that community college MOC programs with the capacity to do so adopt a caseload
counseling model with a considerably lower counselor-to-student ratio than their general
counseling department.
Another promising practice utilized by the BRO program was the hiring of peer interns
and the implementation of a faculty and staff mentor network. These components enhanced the
network of peer and professional mentorship, resulting in an increased sense of belonging and
mattering, which is crucial for college MOC (Huerta & Fishman, 2014). Given that MOC are
often the first in their families to attend college, this added layer of support and community
outside the program confines increases students’ navigational and social capital. Furthermore,
peer mentors or interns promote a sense of mutual accountability and leadership which has been
240
recognized as a valuable experience for community college MOC (Brooms, Clark & Smith,
2018). Therefore, I recommend that MOC programs hire and pay existing participants and
engage faculty and staff on campus to serve as mentors for the students in their programs.
Promote Culturally Affirming Inclusive Spaces Relevant to MOC’s Experiences
A unique aspect of the BRO program was its utilization of culturally affirming and
inclusive spaces relevant to MOC’s experiences. Examples included regularly held individual
group sessions for Black/African American and Latino students to discuss their racialized and
gendered experiences, MOC barbecues, and MOC sessions mirroring a barbershop environment
where students could engage in dialogue while receiving haircuts. Student participants shared
that the existence of these spaces provided much-needed structured and unstructured spaces
where they could engage in brotherhood activities while also seeking emotional and social
support. Many BRO students shared how their personal experiences and familiarity with social
environments such as barbershops and barbecues made for a more relaxing and comfortable
space to discuss emotional challenges and traumas. Therefore, I recommend that MOC programs
incorporate elements of students’ cultural and community backgrounds.
Although the majority of BRO students interviewed felt like their identities were valued
and validated by program staff, students with marginalized masculinities, such as gay men and
Asian American men, had a harder time finding programming and spaces that were relevant to
their ethnic and sexual identities. For example, the sole Asian American student interviewed
shared that he did not believe that other Asian American students on campus were aware that
they qualified for the BRO program due to its perceived focus on Black and Latino MOC.
Similarly, the sole gay student interviewed shared his disappointment with a lack of discussion
and workshop topics addressing the experiences of sexual identities outside of the dominant
241
heteronormative culture. This student shared that he believed that by incorporating more
discussion on such topics, more GBTQ+ students might join BRO.
These are important considerations when developing MOC programming for diverse
community college MOC. The inclusion of intersectional identities among MOC could establish
a more welcoming and inclusive environment for those MOC who do not share a traditional
heteronormative experience. Furthermore, conducting intentional outreach to underrepresented
MOC students such as Asian American, Pacific Islander, and Native students could promote
diversity among MOC program participants. Therefore, I recommend that MOC programs
clearly define their target populations and incorporate marketing materials that encourage the
inclusion of MOC who may not identify as straight, Latino, and/or Black/African American.
Recommendations for Future Research
The findings of this case study suggest the need for future research in several
understudied areas. Significant findings were uncovered: the impact of program staff
perspectives on masculinity, the experiences of gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer men, the
impact of commuting on MOC program engagement and campus selection, the role of MOC’s
neighborhood culture in masculine identity development, engaging resistant students in
masculine identity development, and longitudinal studies at multiple CCC MOC program sites
should be considered for further examination.
The program staff participants in the BRO study defined masculinity in ways that
challenged traditional norms of masculinity. They shared how these beliefs influenced them to
engage students by challenging traditional masculine norms and promoting healthier expressions
of masculinity for their students. As this study utilized a single-case study approach, the
scholarship on MOC programming in community colleges could be advanced by more broadly
242
examining the perspectives of MOC program staff on masculinity and how these perspectives
influence the programming they offer. This could provide further insight into the disparities in
MOC programming efforts and the common lack of incorporating masculine identity
development as a core programmatic element.
Another finding requiring further examination was the experiences of the sole gay MOC
student interview participant, Drake. Drake’s experience as a closeted gay MOC highlighted the
program’s focus on predominantly heteronormative experiences of MOC without particular
consideration of diverse intersecting sexual identities. Although unintentional, this experience
led Drake to only feel comfortable sharing his sexual identity with trusted BRO program staff
while remaining hesitant to share this with peers in the program. This finding sheds light on the
need for further research on the programmatic and peer-to-peer experiences of MOC who do not
identify as heterosexual.
Many of the student participants discussed the challenges they experienced due to their
long commutes to campus. Several cited commutes longer than 60 minutes as a barrier to
attending BRO events and workshops. Although not explicitly stated in student interviews,
program staff believed that the reason BRO students selected ILC was its reputation as a leader
in promoting transfer success. This finding demonstrates a need for further research on why
MOC attend specific community college campuses, particularly when they are not close to their
homes. This investigation could lead to critical data on MOC’s perceptions of specific campuses
and promising practices for improving their experiences at community colleges as commuters,
along with their various needs.
One unique finding on the impact of culture and community on masculine identity was
unveiled through an interview with Darius, a student, who cited that the community in which he
243
grew up, Northwest Pasadena, had a significant impact on his masculine identity development.
He noted that the culture of his community environment promoted hyper-masculine behaviors
such as physical violence and aggression, which he hypothesized was a survival tactic given the
poverty and gang violence in the neighborhood. As numerous studies have cited ethnic, racial,
and cultural beliefs leading to pre-college gender-identity development, this finding
demonstrates a need for research on how MOC’s surrounding communities, or neighborhoods,
play a role in their masculine identity development.
Program staff shared how their attempts to cultivate diverse expressions of masculinity
were largely successful among most of the program participants. However, all program staff
participants shared difficulties engaging some participants who were steadfast in their precollege concepts of gender identity despite staff members’ attempts to challenge these beliefs.
When encountered with such challenges, program staff were often left uncertain of how to
proceed and chose to focus their efforts on students who were more receptive to their support.
This finding highlights the need for additional research on strategies for engaging MOC who are
resistant to conversations surrounding masculine identity topics. Potential findings could lead to
promising practices for more holistically addressing masculinity and manhood with diverse
MOC.
Lastly, due to the single-case study methodology used in this study, further research is
needed on how other CCC MOC programs foster masculine identity development among their
participants. This would allow for more generalizability of findings and provide potential
frameworks for addressing this issue more broadly. I recommend that comparative longitudinal
studies across multiple CCC campus MOC programs determine if the impact of these programs
244
on masculine identity development is sustained over a student’s college experience and how
students’ perceptions change over time.
Conclusion
As stated in the first chapter, like many of the students and staff interviewed and
observed in this study, I identified as a low-income, first-generation, cisgender heterosexual man
of color from immigrant parents raised in an urban metropolitan. This study was more than an
educational endeavor for me, as the experiences shared by staff and students alike are close to
my heart as someone who has encountered many of these experiences myself. In my 15th year as
a higher education professional with an educational background in mental health and in my 5th
year of serving as a coordinator and counselor for a MOC program at one of California’s largest
community college districts, this research has made a profound impact on my perceptions of the
role of MOC programs on supporting masculine identity exploration among the broad spectrum
of community college MOC.
I was particularly impacted by stories such as Carter’s. He shared experiencing emotional
pain due to his father’s incarceration and his grandparents’ rapidly progressing illnesses. He had
been dismissed from ILC due to his academic probation standing. Due to his inability to identify
and reluctance to seek support, he left ILC to enter the workforce. Over the next several years, he
encountered financial insecurities while caring for his two ailing grandparents while his father
was incarcerated. He eventually found full-time employment as a deputy sheriff, a career path he
chose due to its lack of requiring a college degree.
After a few years of full-time work, Carter’s mental health began to decline, which he
shared was exacerbated by dropping out of college. Through internal motivation and newfound
financial stability, he visited the ILC campus again for the first time in over 5 years. This time,
245
he sought guidance to finish what he had started. On the day he visited campus, he was
pleasantly surprised to find support services specifically for Black-identifying students and
MOC. He spoke with GXI, a representative from both programs. Carter joined the Black student
support program as well as BRO. Reluctant at first, Carter sought guidance from GXI, who
encouraged him to attend BRO workshops, events, and activities. During his 1st year back at
ILC, Carter found emotional solace through the program’s Brotha to Brotha and Barbershop
Talks sessions. He stated that the relationships in BRO challenged him to behave outside of the
confines of hegemonic masculinity, which he described as being heavily prevalent in his African
American upbringing.
Carter described the BRO program as “life-changing” and said that he had become a
“better man” as a result of his participation. His mentor relationships at ILC with individuals
such as GXI have expanded his network of support and sense of belonging and have challenged
him to pursue a degree in law, a career path that was motivated by his experience witnessing the
systemic incarceration of Brown and Black men while working as a sheriff in correctional
facilities, including the one where his father is currently serving time. He talked about his lowest
points and how BRO had been there to support him through emotionally challenging and often
traumatic experiences. He shared how he now feels that he has brothers whose shoulders he feels
safe to cry on. Toward the end of his interview, he shared his screen with me. He showed me
several acceptance letters from some of California’s most prestigious universities. He shared that
the BRO program allowed him to heal some of his long-standing wounds, allowing him to focus
attentively on his studies, finally finishing what he started at ILC and one step closer to his career
goal of becoming a lawyer.
246
This is what this study was about. This study evidences that MOC programs in
community colleges are often undervalued and underresourced but are regularly used as a
performative indication that institutions have fulfilled their obligation to serve MOC equitably.
These programs can change the trajectories of the lives of some of the nation’s most vulnerable
students.
The BRO program staff have contributed to this by fostering spaces conducive to
masculine identity exploration of its participants by intentionally creating a culturally relevant
and inclusive community for its students, facilitating open discussions about masculinity,
providing meaningful role models and mentorship, encouraging vulnerability and emotional
expression, and helping MOC navigate systemic and structural challenges prevalent in the
community college system. BRO students perceived and navigated this explorative process by
interrogating their cultural and community expectations of masculinity, seeking support and
validation from program staff, redefining masculine roles through newfound mentors and role
models, redefining masculinity through emotional expression and vulnerability, and engaging in
a powerful community of brotherhood. Despite areas for improvement, such as more attention to
the needs of MOC with intersectional ethnic and sexual identities, the BRO program has done a
phenomenal job in cultivating a generation of MOC who are redefining traditional hegemonic
masculinity through meaningful exploration and interrogation of these norms. My hope for this
study is that it will contribute to existing literature on MOC programs and their ability to foster
environments that challenge traditional masculine norms that have prevented MOC from
engaging in campus communities filled with authentic meaningful relationships with other MOC,
leading to a greater sense of belonging and a higher likelihood of graduating community college.
247
References
Abeyta, M., Torres, A., Hernandez, J. L., & Duran, O. (2021). Rising scholars: A case study of
two community colleges serving formerly incarcerated and system-impacted students.
Journal of Applied Research in the Community College, 28(1), 99–109.
Abrica, E. J., & Martinez, J. (2016). Strategies for navigating financial challenges among Latino
male community college students: Centralizing race, gender, and immigrant generation.
Journal of Applied Research in the Community College, 23(2), 59–72.
Addis, M. E. (2011). Invisible men: Men’s inner lives and the consequences of silence. Times
Books.
African American Male Education Network & Development. (2021). Annual report 2021.
https://a2mend.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/a2mend_ar21_single.pdf
African American Male Education Network & Development. (2024). Student charters list.
https://a2mend.net/a%c2%b2mend-2022-web-update/student-charters-list/
Bailey, M. J., & Dynarski, S. M. (2011). Inequality in postsecondary education. In G. J. Duncan
& R. J. Murnane (Eds.), Whither opportunity? Rising inequality, schools, and children’s
life chances (pp. 117–131). Russell Sage Foundation.
Bailey, T., Jaggars, S. S., & Jenkins, D. (2015). What we know about guided pathways: Helping
students to complete programs faster (Research overview). Community College Research
Center, Teachers College, Columbia University.
Baum, S., Kurose, C., & McPherson, M. (2013). An overview of American higher education.
The Future of Children, 23(1), 17–39. https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.2013.0008
Belfield, C. R., & Bailey, T. (2017). The labor market returns to sub-baccalaureate college: A
review. Center for Analysis of Postsecondary Education and Employment.
248
Belfield, C. R., & Crosta, P. M. (2012). Predicting success in college: The importance of
placement tests and high school transcripts (CCRC Working paper no. 42). Community
College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia University.
Bensimon, E. M. (2016). The misbegotten URM as a data point. Center for Urban Education.
Braxton, J. M. (2000). Reworking the student departure puzzle. Vanderbilt University Press.
Bray, J., Beer, A., & Calloway, M. (2019). Continuing progress: How urban community colleges
are improving outcomes for minority men. Association of Community College Trustees.
Briscoe, K. L., Jones, V. A., Hatch-Tocaimaza, D. K., & Martinez, E. (2020). Positionality and
power: The individual’s role in directing community college men of color initiatives.
Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 57(5), 473–486.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19496591.2019.1699103
Brooms, D. R. (2016). Being Black, being male on campus: Understanding and confronting
Black male collegiate experiences. Suny Press.
Brooms, D. R. (2018). Exploring Black male initiative programs: Potential and possibilities for
supporting Black male success in college. Journal of Negro Education, 87(1), 59–72.
Brooms, D. R. (2019). Not in this alone: Black men’s bonding, learning, and sense of belonging
in Black Male Initiative programs. The Urban Review, 51(5), 748–767.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-019-00506-5
Brooms, D. R. (2020). Helping us think about ourselves: Black males’ sense of belonging
through connections and relationships with faculty in college. International Journal of
Qualitative Studies in Education: QSE, 33(9), 921–938.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2019.1687956
249
Brooms, D. R., Clark, J., & Smith, M. (2018). Being and becoming men of character: Exploring
Latino and Black males’ brotherhood and masculinity through leadership in college.
Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 17(4), 317–331.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1538192717699048
Brooms, D. R., Franklin, W., Clark, J. S., & Smith, M. (2018). ‘It’s more than just mentoring’:
Critical mentoring Black and Latino males from college to the community. Race,
Ethnicity and Education, 24(2), 210–228.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2018.1538125
Burmicky, J., Estrella-Ramirez, C., Hernández, S. H., Ryu, W., Aguayo, R., & Sáenz, V. B.
(2023). Men of color programs serving Latino men at Hispanic-serving community
colleges: An organizational identity exploration. Community College Journal of Research
and Practice, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2023.2189181
Bush, E. C. (2004). Dying on the vine: A look at African American student achievement in
California community colleges (Publication No. 3115606) [Doctoral dissertation, The
Claremont Graduate University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
Bustillos, L. T., & Siqueiros, M. (2018). Left out: how exclusion in California's colleges and
universities hurts our values, our students, and our economy. Campaign for College
Opportunity.
Cabrera, N. L., Karaman, A. K., Arámbula Turner, T., Oregon, Y. G., Gonell, E. A., Lopez, J.
D., & Deil-Amen, R. (2022). Race without gender? Trends and limitations in the higher
education scholarship regarding men of color. Review of Educational Research, 92(3),
331–369. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543211054577
250
Calcagno, J. C., Crosta, P., Bailey, T., & Jenkins, D. (2008). Does age of entrance affect
community college completion probabilities? Evidence from a discrete-time hazard
model. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(3), 215–229.
California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office. (2013). Student success scorecard.
California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office. (2014a). 2014–15 budget and legislative
request.
California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office. (2014b). Accountability reporting for the
community colleges.
California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office. (2022). Annual/term student count report.
https://datamart.cccco.edu/Students/Student_Headcount_Term_Annual.aspx
California Community Colleges Student Success Task Force. (2012). Advancing student success
in the California community colleges. California Community Colleges Chancellor’s
Office.
Carnevale, A. P., Garcia, T. I., & Gulish, A. (2017). Career pathways: Five ways to connect
college and careers. Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce.
Carrigan, T., Connell, R. W., & Lee, J. (1985). Toward a new sociology of masculinity. Theory
and Society, 14(5), 551–604. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00160017
Center for Community College Student Engagement. (2014). Aspirations to achievement: Men of
color and community colleges (A special report from the Center for Community College
Student Engagement). The University of Texas at Austin, Program in Higher Education
Leadership.
251
Cervantes, D., Burmicky, J., & Martinez, G., III. (2022). Latino men and men of color programs:
Research-based recommendations for community college practitioners. Journal of
Diversity in Higher Education, 15(5), 537–541. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000423
Cohen, A. M., Brawer, F. B., & Kisker, C. B. (2013). The American community college (6th ed.).
Jossey-Bass.
Coney, E. R. (2017). Stop out, drop out, grad out: The differential impact of institutional services
on anticipated persistence among African American community college men. Journal of
Applied Research in the Community College, 24(2), 1–14.
Connell, R. W. (1995). Masculinities. University of California Press.
Connell, R. W., & Messerschmidt, J. W. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the
concept. Gender & Society, 19(6), 829–859. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243205278639
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (5th ed). Sage.
Cuellar Mejia, M., Rodriguez, O., Johnson, H., & Perez, C. A. (2022). Community college
English in California’s new era of student development. Public Policy Institute in
California.
Duran, A., & Pérez, D. I. I. (2017). Queering la familia: A phenomenological study
reconceptualizing familial capital for queer Latino men. Journal of College Student
Development, 58(8), 1149–1165. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2017.0091
The Education Trust-West. (2017). Hear my voice: Strengthening the college pipeline for young
men of color in California. https://west.edtrust.org/resource/hear-my-voice/
252
Elliott, D. C. (2021). On my own: Exploring interactions between normative expectations of
independence and the help-seeking behaviors of men of color. Journal of the First-Year
Experience & Students in Transition, 33(2), 29–46.
Estrada, F., & Arciniega, G. M. (2015). Positive masculinity among Latino men and the direct
and indirect effects on well-being. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development,
43(3), 191–205. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmcd.12014
Felix, E. R., & Fernandez Castro, M. (2018). Planning as strategy for improving Black and
Latinx student equity: Lessons from nine California community colleges. Education
Policy Analysis Archives, 26(56), 56. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.26.3223
Felix, E. R., & Gonzalez, Á. (2022). Using institutional planning to support men of color in
community college. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 46(4), 257–
271. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2020.1841043
Ferguson, A. A. (2000). Bad boys: Public schools in the making of Black masculinity. University
of Michigan Press. https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.16801
Gándara, D., & Rutherford, A. (2018). The effects of premiums for underserved populations in
performance-funding policies for higher education. Research in Higher Education, 59(6),
681–703. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-017-9483-x
Gardenhire-Crooks, A., Collado, H., Martin, K., & Castro, A. (2010). Terms of engagement:
Men of color discuss their experiences in community college. MDRC.
https://mdrc.org/sites/default/files/Terms%20of%20Engagement%20ES.pdf
Gibbs, G. (2018). Analyzing qualitative data (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications Ltd.
253
Harper, S. R. (2004). The measure of a man: Conceptualizations of masculinity among highachieving African American male college students. Berkeley Journal of Sociology, 48,
89–107. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41035594
Harper, S. R. (2012). Black male student success in higher education: A report from the National
Black Male College Achievement Study. University of Pennsylvania, Center for the Study
of Race and Equity in Education.
Harper, S. R. (2014). (Re) setting the agenda for college men of color: Lessons learned from a
15-year movement to improve Black male student success. In R. A. Williams (Ed.), Men
of Color in Higher Education (pp. 116–143). Routledge.
Harper, S. R., Harris, F., & Mmeje, K. (2005). A theoretical model to explain the
overrepresentation of college men among campus judicial offenders: Implications for
campus administrators. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 42(4), 565–
588. https://doi.org/10.2202/1949-6605.1541
Harper, S. R., Harris, F., III, & Mmeje, K. (2010). A theoretical model to explain the
overrepresentation of college men among campus judicial offenders: Implications for
campus administrators. In S. R. Harper & F. Harris III (Eds.), College men and
masculinities: Theory, research, and implications for practice (pp. 221–238). JosseyBass/Wiley.
Harper, S. R., & Harris, F., III. (2012). Men of color: A role for policymakers in improving the
status of Black male students in U.S. higher education. Institute for Higher Education
Policy.
254
Harper, S. R., & Hurtado, S. (2007). Nine themes in CAMPUS racial climates and implications
for institutional transformation. New Directions for Student Services, 2007(120), 7–24.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ss.254
Harris, F., III, & Edwards, K. E. (2010). College men’s experiences as men: Findings and
implications from two grounded theory studies. Journal of Student Affairs Research and
Practice, 47(1), 43–62. https://doi.org/10.2202/1949-6605.6085
Harris, F., III, Felix, E. R., Bensimon, E. M., Wood, J. L., Mercado, A., Monge, O., & Falcon, V.
(2017). Supporting men of color in community colleges: An examination of promising
practices and California student equity plans. College Futures Foundation.
Harris, F., III, & Harper, S. R. (2008). Masculinities go to community college: Understanding
male identity socialization and gender role conflict. New Directions for Community
Colleges, 2008(142), 25–35. https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.322
Harris, F., III, Palmer, R. T., & Struve, L. E. (2011). “Cool posing” on campus: A qualitative
study of masculinities and gender expression among Black men at a private research
institution. The Journal of Negro Education, 80(1), 47–62.
Harris, F., III, & Wood, J. L. (2013). Student success for men of color in community colleges: A
review published literature and research, 1998-2012. Journal of Diversity in Higher
Education, 6(3), 174–185. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034224
Harris, F., III, & Wood, J. L. (2016). Applying the socio-ecological outcomes model to the
student experiences of men of color. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2016(174),
35–46. https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.20201
255
Harris, F., III., & Harper, S. R. (2015). Matriculating masculinity: Understanding undergraduate
men’s precollege gender socialization. Journal of the First-Year Experience & Students
in Transition, 27(2), 49–65.
Harris, F., III., Wood, J. L., & Newman, C. (2015). An exploratory investigation of the effect of
racial and masculine identity on focus: An examination of White, Black, Mexicano,
Latino, and Asian men in community colleges. Culture, Society and Masculinities, 7(1),
61.
Heelan, C. M., & Mellow, G. O. (2017). Social Justice and the Community College Mission.
New Directions for Community Colleges, 2017(180), 19–25.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.20277
Hillman, N. W., Tandberg, D. A., & Fryar, A. H. (2015). Evaluating the impacts of “new”
performance funding in higher education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
37(4), 501–519. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373714560224
Hillman, N. W., Tandberg, D. A., & Gross, J. P. K. (2017). Performance funding in higher
education. The Journal of Higher Education, 85(6), 826–857.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2014.11777349
Holzer, H. J., & Baum, S. (2017). Making college work: Pathways to success for disadvantaged
students. The Brookings Institution.
Hora, M. T., Wolfgram, M., Huerta, A. H., Lee, C., & Gopal, A. (2022). A multilevel, agentcentered analysis of intersectionality in a Hispanic-serving institution: The case of
college internship access for Latinx students. AERA Open, 8.
https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584221102162
256
Howard, T. C., & Rodriguez-Minkoff, A. C. (2017). Culturally relevant pedagogy 20 years later:
Progress or pontificating? What have we learned, and where do we go? Teachers College
Record, 119(1), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811711900104
Huerta, A. H. (2022). Exploring undergraduate students’ emotional vulnerability in men of color
programs. Journal of College Student Development, 63(1), 51–68.
https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2022.0006
Huerta, A. H., & Dizon, J. P. M. (2021). Redistributing resources for men of color in higher
education. About Campus: Enriching the Student Learning Experience, 26(4), 19–25.
https://doi.org/10.1177/10864822211038932
Huerta, A. H., & Fishman, S. (2014). Marginality and mattering: Urban Latino male
undergraduates in higher education. Journal of the First-Year Experience & Students in
Transition, 26(1), 85–100.
Huerta, A. H., & Fishman, S. M. (2019). Marginalizing what matters: Revisiting Latino male
students in the educational pipeline. In P. Brug, Z. S. Ritter, & K. R. Roth (Eds.),
Marginality in the urban center: The costs and challenges of continued Whiteness in the
Americas and beyond (1st ed., pp. 133–157). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-
319-96466-9_7
Huerta, A. H., Lopez, E. F., Salazar, M. E., Torres, G., & Munoz, M. Y. (2023). Bridging
criminal justice scholarship into the field of higher education: Implications for research,
practice, and policy. In L. W. Perna (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and
research (Vol. 38, pp. 2–42). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94844-3_9-1
257
Huerta, A. H., & Martinez, E., Jr. (2022). Strategies and support services for community college
Latino/x men on academic probation. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 15(4),
406–411. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000418
Huerta, A. H., Rios-Aguilar, C., & Ramirez, D. (2022). “I had to figure it out”: A case study of
how community college student parents of color navigate college and careers. Community
College Review, 50(2), 193–218. https://doi.org/10.1177/00915521211061425
Huerta, A. H., Romero-Morales, M., Dizon, J. P. M., & Nguyen, J. V. (2021). Lessons learned
from men of color programs: A roadmap to guide program development and beyond.
Pullias Center for Higher Education.
Huerta, A. H., Romero-Morales, M., Dizon, J. P. M., Salazar, M. E., & Nguyen, J. V. (2021).
Empowering men of color in higher education: A focus on psychological, social, and
cultural factors. Pullias Center for Higher Education.
Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2008). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and
mixed approaches. SAGE.
Jones, V. A., Briscoe, K. L., Hatch-Tocaimaza, D. K., & Martinez, E., Jr. (2023). The
commodification of men of color initiatives: Community colleges directors’ experiences
with non-performative commitment. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in
Education: QSE, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2023.2258107
Keflezighi, F., Sebahari, L., & Wood, J. L. (2016). An analysis of programs serving men of color
in the community college: An examination of funding streams, interventions, and
objectives. Research & Practice in Assessment, 11, 55–60.
Kisker, C. B., Cohen, A. M., & Brawer, F. N. (2023). The American community college (7th ed.).
Jossey Bass.
258
Kolluri, S. (2022). Men don’t ask for directions: Gendered social capital and the path to college
at an urban high school. Education and Urban Society, 56(4), 446–471.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00131245221142563
Kugiya, J., Burmicky, J., & Sáenz, V. B. (2021). High-achieving Latino men and men of color
programs: Perspectives from community college program staff. Journal of Minority
Achievement, Creativity, and Leadership, 1(2), 188–217.
https://doi.org/10.5325/minoachicrealead.1.2.0188
Lawson Bush, N., & Bush, E. C. (2013). Introducing African American Male Theory (AAMT).
Journal of African American Males in Education, 4(1)
Lochmiller, C. R., & Lester, J. N. (2017). An introduction to educational research: Connecting
methods to practice. Sage Publications.
Lott, J., Bauman, K. M., & Yeh, T. L. (2022). Men of color programs at public baccalaureate
institutions: A typology of institutional context and diversity. Research in Higher
Education, 64(5), 740–764. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-022-09726-3
Luedke, C. L. (2017). Person first, student second: Staff and administrators of color supporting
students of color authentically in higher education. Journal of College Student
Development, 58(1), 37–52. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2017.0002
Ma, J., Pender, M., & Welch, M. (2019). Education pays 2019: The benefits of higher education
for individuals and society. The College Board.
Martinez, E., Brooms, D. R., Franklin, W., Smith, M., Bailey, A., & Quarles, M. (2021).
Systemic response: Developing a strategic response to support young men of color during
COVID-19 pandemic. Education Sciences, 11(12), Article 800.
https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11120800
259
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). SAGE.
McCoy, D. L., Luedke, C. L., Lee-Johnson, J., & Winkle-Wagner, R. (2020). Transformational
mentoring practices: Students’ perspectives on practitioner-educators’ support during
college. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 57(1), 28–41.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19496591.2019.1614934
McGuire, K. M., Berhanu, J., Davis, C. H. F., & Harper, S. R. (2014). In search of progressive
Black masculinities: Critical self-reflections on gender identity development among
Black undergraduate men. Men and Masculinities, 17(3), 253–277.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X13514055
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Milner, H. R. (2007). Race, culture, and researcher positionality: Working through dangers seen,
unseen, and unforeseen. Educational Researcher, 36(7), 388–400.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X07309471
Moore, C., & Shulock, N. (2014). From community college to university: Expectations for
California’s new transfer degrees. Institute for Higher Education Leadership & Policy.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2017). Digest of education statistics.
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d17/tables/dt17_326.20.asp?referer=raceindicators
National Center for Education Statistics. (2019). Status and Trends in the education of racial and
ethnic groups. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/raceindicators/indicator_red.asp#info
National Center for Education Statistics. (2020). IPEDS Fall 2018 enrollment survey.
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cha.asp
260
National Center for Education Statistics. (2022). Student enrollment: How many students enroll
in postsecondary institutions annually?
https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/TrendGenerator/app/answer/2/2?f=5%3D2%7C1
Newman, C. B., Wood, J. L., & Harris, F., III. (2015). Black men’s perceptions of sense of
belonging with faculty members in community colleges. The Journal of Negro
Education, 84(4), 564–577. https://doi.org/10.7709/jnegroeducation.84.4.0564
Noguera, P. A. (2003). The trouble with Black Boys: The role and influence of environmental
and cultural factors on the academic performance of African American males. Urban
Education, 38(4), 431–459. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085903038004005
Oliver, S. T. (2018). Practice or perish: How overexposure and premature claims of success
undermine men of color initiatives. About Campus: Enriching the Student Learning
Experience, 22(6), 18–21. https://doi.org/10.1002/abc.21306
O’Neil, J. M., Good, G. E., & Holmes, S. (1995). Fifteen years of theory and research on men’s
gender role conflict: New paradigms for empirical research. In R. F. Levant & W. S.
Pollack (Eds.), A new psychology of men (pp. 164–206). Basic Books/Hachette Book
Group.
Palacios, A. M. G., & Wood, J. L. (2016). Is online learning the silver bullet for men of color?
An institutional-level analysis of the California community college system. Community
College Journal of Research and Practice, 40(8), 643–655.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2015.1087893
Pasadena City College. (2019). A compendium of information for and about Pasadena City
College Office of Institutional Effectiveness December 2019.
261
https://pasadena.edu/institutionaleffectiveness/research/docs/observations/Observations_2018-2019.pdf
Person, D., Dawson, R., García, Y., & Jones, A. (2017). The intersectionality of gender and
race—Programs to support men of color in education. New Directions for Community
Colleges, 2017(179), 67–76. https://doi.org/10.1002/cc.20263
Rendón, L. I. (1994). Validating culturally diverse students: Toward a new model of learning and
student development. Innovative Higher Education, 19(1), 33–51.
Rendón, L. I. (2002). Community College Puente: A validating model of education: Preparing
Latino youth for higher education. Educational Policy, 16(4), 642–667.
Rendón Linares, L. I., & Muñoz, S. M. (2011). Revisiting validation theory: Theoretical
foundations, applications, and extensions. Enrollment Management Journal: Student
Access, Finance, and Success in Higher Education, 5(2), 12–33.
Rodriguez, S., Jordan, A., Doran, E., & Sáenz, V. (2019). Latino men & community college
environments: Understanding how belonging, validation, and resources shape experience.
Journal of Applied Research in the Community College, 26(1), 1–14.
Sáenz, V. B., Mayo, J. R., Miller, R. A., & Rodriguez, S. L. (2015). (Re)defining Masculinity
through Peer Interactions: Latino Men in Texas Community Colleges. Journal of Student
Affairs Research and Practice, 52(2), 164–175.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19496591.2015.1018269
Sáenz, V. B., Ponjuan, L., Segovia, J., Jr., & Del Real Viramontes, J. (2015). Developing a
Latino Mentoring Program: Project MALES (Mentoring to Achieve Latino Educational
Success). New Directions for Higher Education, 2015(171), 75–85.
https://doi.org/10.1002/he.20144
262
Schwab, J. R., & Dupuis, D. L. (2020). Masculinity and silence in the academic struggles of
American Male college students. Emerging Adulthood, 10(1), 249–263.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2167696820983052
Shek, Y. L. (2006). Asian American masculinity: A review of the literature. The Journal of
Men’s Studies, 14(3), 379–391. https://doi.org/10.3149/jms.1403.379
Torrens, O. D., Salinas, C., & Floyd, D. L. (2017). Examining the value of mentoring and men of
color staff members of a community college. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in
Learning, 25(5), 509–527. https://doi.org/10.1080/13611267.2017.1415830
Vanover, C., Mihas, P., & Saldaña, J. (Eds.). (2021). Analyzing and interpreting qualitative
research: After the interview. Sage Publications.
Vogel, D. L., Wester, S. R., Hammer, J. H., & Downing-Matibag, T. M. (2014). Referring men
to seek help: The influence of gender role conflict and stigma. Psychology of Men &
Masculinity, 15(1), 60–67. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031761
Weiss, M. J., Ratledge, A., Sommo, C., & Gupta, H. (2019). Supporting community college
students from start to degree completion: Long-term evidence from a randomized trial of
CUNY’s ASAP. American Economic Journal. Applied Economics, 11(3), 253–297.
https://doi.org/10.1257/app.20170430
Willett, T. (2023). Transitions in math from high school to community college before and after
AB 705, updated through Fall 2021. The RP Group.
Wood, J. L. (2011, August 5). Laying the groundwork – Black male programs and initiatives in
community colleges. Community College Times.
Wood, J. L. (2012). Leaving the 2-year college: Predictors of Black male collegian departure.
Journal of Black Studies, 43(3), 303–326. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021934711424490
263
Wood, J. L. (2014). Apprehension to engagement in the classroom: Perceptions of Black males
in the community college. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education:
QSE, 27(6), 785–803. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2014.901575
Wood, J. L., & Essien-Wood, I. (2012). Capital identity projection: Understanding the
psychosocial effects of capitalism on Black male community college students. Journal of
Economic Psychology, 33(5), 984–995. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2012.06.001
Wood, J. L., & Harper, S. R. (Eds.). (2015). Advancing black male student success from
preschool through Ph.D. Routledge.
Wood, J. L., & Harris, F. (2015). The effect of academic engagement on sense of belonging: A
hierarchical, multilevel analysis of Black men in community colleges. Spectrum: A
Journal on Black Men, 4(1), 21–47. https://doi.org/10.2979/spectrum.4.1.03
Wood, J. L., Harris, F., III, & White, K. (2015). Teaching men of color in the community college:
A guidebook. Montezuma Publishing.
Wood, J. L., Harris, F., III, & White, K. G. (2016). Supporting men of color in community
colleges: An examination of promising practices and California’s M2C3 initiatives. The
Community College Equity Assessment Lab.
Wood, J. L., Reid, D. O., Jr., Harris, F., III, & Xiong, S. (2016). Male program assessment for
college excellence (M-PACE): Content validation summary. Community College Journal
of Research and Practice, 40(9), 802–805.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2015.1107515
Xiong, S. (2022). The role of faculty in faculty–student engagement: Disaggregated analyses by
ethnicity for Southeast Asian American college students. Journal of College Student
Development, 63(4), 461–466. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2022.0039
264
Xiong, S. (2023). “Determined to prove them all wrong”: The college aspirations of Hmong
males. American Journal of Qualitative Research, 7(4), 203–219.
https://doi.org/10.29333/ajqr/13728
Xiong, S., Lor, D., & Lorchueya, J. (2021). Understanding Southeast Asian American male
student engagement experiences with community college faculty members. Community
College Journal of Research and Practice, 45(10), 773–777.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2020.1785354
Xiong, S., & Wood, J. L. (2016). Noncognitive predictors of help-seeking among Southeast
Asian men in community colleges. Community College Journal of Research and
Practice, 40(5), 452–455. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2015.1080201
Xiong, S., & Wood, J. L. (2020). Determinants of faculty-student engagement for Southeast
Asian men in community college: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Educational
Research and Practice, 10, 185–198. https://doi.org/10.5590/JERAP.2020.10.1.13
265
Appendix A: Recruitment Email for Program Staff Participants
Dear Men of Color Action Network Program Staff,
My name is Rohan Desai, and I am a doctoral candidate in the Rossier School of
Education at the University of Southern California. As part of my dissertation, I am conducting a
study that captures the unique experiences and specific needs of men of color in California
Community College men of color programs. I plan to utilize a case study approach using the
NAMED program at Other Name College as my site. The study will include individual
interviews and field observations as well as document analysis.
The selection criteria for program staff participants are as follows: identify as a man of
color and serve in a program staff capacity for the NAMED program at ONC for at least one year
You have been pre-identified as meeting the above criteria and are invited to participate
in this study. If you are interested in participating in the study, please select the link below (see
survey link below) to complete a brief 3-minute survey that will help me determine if you qualify
to participate. If you meet the participant criteria, I may contact you to participate in an
individual interview. The interview will be approximately 60-90 minutes in length. Interviews
will be audio recorded, but all voice recordings will be deleted after being transcribed.
Participation in this study is completely voluntary and your identity as a participant will remain
confidential at all times during and after the study. If you are selected to participate in the study,
you will be given a token of appreciation in the form of a $10 Starbucks gift card that will be
presented to you by email at the conclusion of the interview.
Survey link:
If you have any questions, please contact me.
266
Thank you for your consideration,
Rohan Desai
Rohan Desai
Doctoral Candidate
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
267
Appendix B: Screening Questionnaire and Demographic Data Form for Program Staff
Participants
A case study examining the experience of Men of Color program participants of the
NAMED program at Other Name College is being conducted for the purposes of a doctoral
dissertation at the University of Southern California. You were identified as a current staff
member of the NAMED program. If you are interested in sharing your experiences relating to the
exploration and cultivation of masculine identity for men of color participating in the NAMED
program, please complete the screening survey/demographic data form below. This form should
take you approximately 3 minutes to complete.
1. Email address
2. Preferred pseudonym (a fictitious name to protect your identity if selected as a
participant for this study)
3. Age
4. Gender identity
Man
Woman
Transgender man
Transgender woman
Non-binary
Decline to state
5. Sexual identity
a. Heterosexual/straight
b. Bisexual
268
c. Gay
d. Other (please specify)
e. Decline to state
6. Racial identity (e.g., Black/African American, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native,
etc.)
7. Ethnic identity (e.g., Nigerian, Mexican, Salvadorean, Korean, Vietnamese, Samoan,
etc.)
8. In which city do you currently reside?
9. Highest level of education completed
High school diploma
Certificate of achievement
Associate degree
Bachelor’s degree
Master’s degree
Doctorate
10. Are you the first person in your family to attend college or university?
yes
no
11. Have you ever attended a community college?
Yes
No
12. If you have attended a community college, please list which campus(es) you have
attended
269
13. In which university did you complete your bachelor’s degree, if applicable
14. Current role in NAMED program (check all that apply)
Program coordinator
Full-time counselor
Part-time counselor
Other (please specify)
15. Number of years employed by this college
16. Number of years employed by NAMED program
17. Other current professional roles at this college
18. Do you agree to participate in an interview for this study in Spring 2024?
yes
no
19. Do you agree to participate in an observation of a “Barbershop Talk” event in Spring
2024?
Yes
No
270
Appendix C: Recruitment Email for Student Participants
Dear Men of Color Action Network Students,
My name is Rohan Desai, and I am a doctoral candidate in the Rossier School of
Education at the University of Southern California. As part of my dissertation, I am conducting a
study that captures the unique experiences and specific needs of men of color in California
community college men of color programs. I plan to utilize a case study approach using the
NAMED program at Other Name College as my site. The study will include individual
interviews and field observations as well as document analysis.
The selection criteria for student participants are as follows:
Identify as a man of color
At least 18 years of age or older
Currently enrolled in the NAMED program at this college
Participated in the NAMED program at this college for at least one semester
Completed all NAMED program requirements for at least one semester
Attended at least one NAMED program event or workshop in the past three years
You have been pre-identified by the NAMED program as meeting the above criteria and
are invited to participate in this study. If you are interested in participating in the study, please
select the link below (see survey link below) to complete a brief 3 to 5-minute survey that will
help me determine if you qualify to participate. If you meet the participant criteria, I may contact
you to participate in an individual interview. The interview will be approximately 60–90 minutes
in length. Interviews will be audio recorded, but all voice recordings will be deleted after being
transcribed. Participation in this study is completely voluntary and your identity as a participant
will remain confidential at all times during and after the study. If you are selected to participate
271
in the study, you will be given a token of appreciation in the form of a $30 Amazon gift card that
will be presented to you by email at the conclusion of the interview.
Survey Link:
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Thank you for your consideration,
Rohan Desai
Rohan Desai
Doctoral Candidate
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
272
Appendix D: Recruitment Flier for Student Participants
273
Appendix E: Screening Questionnaire and Demographic Data Form for Student
Participants
A case study examining the experience of Men of Color program participants of the
NAMED program at this college is being conducted
for the purposes of a doctoral dissertation at the University of Southern California. You were
identified as a current active student of the NAMED program. If you are interested in
sharing your experiences relating to the exploration and cultivation of masculine identity for men
of color participating in the NAMED program, please complete the screening
survey/demographic data form below. This form should take you approximately 5 minutes to
complete.
1. Email address
2. Choose a preferred pseudonym (a fake name used to protect your identity if selected
as a participant for this study)
3. Age
4. Gender Identity
a. Man
b. Woman
c. Transgender man
d. Transgender woman
e. Non-binary
f. Decline to state
5. Sexual identity
a. Heterosexual/straight
274
b. Bisexual
c. Gay
d. Other (please specify)
e. Decline to State
6. Racial identity
(e.g., Black/African-American, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native, etc.)
7. Ethnic identity (e.g., Nigerian, Mexican, Salvadorean, Korean, Vietnamese, Samoan,
etc.)
8. Do you identify as a man of color?
a. yes
b. no
9. In which city do you currently live?
10. How do you typically get to school?
a. I drive my own car or motorcycle
b. I get a ride with someone I know
c. I take rideshare services like Uber or Lyft
d. I walk or ride my bicycle
e. I take public transportation
f. I only attend classes remotely
11. How long does it typically take you to get to school from your home?
a. 1–15 minutes
b. 16–30 minutes
c. 31–45 minutes
275
d. 46–60 minutes
e. 61–75 minutes
f. 76–90 minutes
g. 91 minutes or more
h. I only attend classes remotely
12. Are you the first person in your family to attend college or university?
a. yes
b. no
13. Have you ever attended a different community college or university?
a. yes
b. no
14. If you have attended a different community college or university, please list which
campus(es) you have attended
15. Do you qualify for financial aid (FAFSA or California Dream Act)?
a. yes
b. no
c. I don’t know
16. Do you currently have a job where you get paid?
a. yes
b. no
17. If yes, how many hours per week do you work?
a. 1–10 hours per week
b. 11–20 hours per week
276
c. 21–30 hours per week
d. 31–40 hours per week
e. More than 40 hours per week
18. What is your highest level of education completed
a. High school diploma/GED
b. Certificate of achievement
c. Associate’s degree
d. Bachelor’s degree
e. Master’s degree
f. Doctoral degree
g. None of the above
19. Please state the name and city of the last high school you attended (e.g., John Muir High
School - Pasadena, CA)
20. Did you graduate from this high school?
a. yes
b. No
21. Which semester and year did you begin attending this college?
(e.g., Fall 2020)
22. How many full semesters (fall and spring) have you completed at this college?
23. How many units have you completed at this college?
24. What is your current cumulative GPA at this college?
25. What is your long-term career goal? (e.g., physician, registered nurse, engineer, attorney,
automotive technician, counselor, etc.)
277
26. What is your current educational goal at this college? (mark all that apply)
a. Completion of high school diploma/GED
b. Certificate of achievement or occupational skills certificate
c. Associate’s degree
d. Associate’s degree for transfer
e. Bachelor’s degree in interaction design
f. None of the above
27. What is your current major at this college? (e.g. business administration, nursing,
engineering, sociology, communication, biology, etc.)
28. Do you intend to transfer to a 4-year university?
a. yes
b. no
c. not sure
29. If so, which universities do you plan to apply to upon completion of this college?
30. Do you currently attend Santa Monica College part-time or full-time (12 or more units
per semester)?
a. full-time (12 or more units per semester)
b. part-time (less than 12 units per semester)
31. Do you currently participate in the NAMED program at this college?
a. yes
b. no
278
32. In which semester and year did you begin participating in the NAMED Program at this
college?
(e.g., Fall 2020)
33. How many full semesters (fall and spring) have you been part of the NAMED Program?
34. Have you completed the NAMED program requirements in the most recent semester you
were enrolled in the program?
a. yes
b. No
35. Have you attended at least one NAMED program event since joining the program?
a. yes
b. no
36. Do you agree to participate in an interview for this study in Spring 2024?
a. yes
b. no
37. Do you agree to participate in an observation of an “Barbershop Talk” event in Spring
2024?
a. yes
b. no
279
Appendix F: Information Study Sheet for Program Staff Participants
My name is Rohan Desai, and I am a doctoral student at the University of Southern
California. I currently work at Santa Monica College as a counselor within the Rising Scholars
program. I also hold a role as a counselor and coordinator for the men of color program at this
college.
I am conducting a research study on how community college men of color programs
foster spaces to explore masculine identity. The name of this research study is “Grinding All My
Life: The Role of a Community College Men of Color Program in Supporting Masculine
Identity.”
I am seeking your participation in this study.
Your participation is completely voluntary and there is no cost associated with
participation. I will address your questions or concerns at any point before or during the study.
You may be eligible to participate in this study if all of the following criteria are true for you:
● I identify as a man of color
● I have served in a program staff role within the NAMED program at this college for
at least one year
If you decide to participate in this study, you will be asked to do the following activities:
Complete an online screening questionnaire and demographic form for 3 minutes
Complete a one-on-one in-person or Zoom interview for 60–90 minutes
After you complete your screening questionnaire, demographic data form, and individual
interview, you will receive a $10 Starbucks gift card via email.
I will publish the results in my dissertation. Participants will not be identified in the
results. I will take reasonable measures to protect the security of all your personal information,
280
including the institution. All data will be de-identified prior to any publication or presentation. I
may share your data, de-identified, with other researchers in the future.
If you have any questions about this study, please contact me or my faculty advisor, Dr.
Sheila Bañuelos at smsanche@usc.edu.
If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, please contact the
University of Southern California Institutional Review Board at (323) 442-0114 or email
hrpp@usc.edu.
281
Appendix G: Information Study Sheet for Student Participants
My name is Rohan Desai, and I am a doctoral student at the University of Southern
California. I currently work at a college as a counselor within the Rising Scholars program. I also
hold a role as a counselor and coordinator for the men of color program at another college.
I am conducting a research study on how community college men of color programs
foster spaces to explore masculine identity. The name of this research study is “Grinding All My
Life:
The Role of a Community College Men of Color Program in Supporting Masculine
Identity.”
I am seeking your participation in this study.
Your participation is completely voluntary, and I will address your questions or concerns
at any point before or during the study.
You may be eligible to participate in this study if all of the following criteria are true for
you:
● I identify as a man of color
● I am 18 years old or older
● I have participated in the NAMED program at this college for at least one semester
● I have completed program requirements for the NAMED program at this college for
at least one semester
● I participate regularly (at least once per semester) in NAMED program activities
(workshops, events, group meetings, etc.)
282
If you decide to participate in this study, you will be asked to do the following activities:
1. Complete an online screening questionnaire and demographic form for 5 minutes
2. Complete a one-on-one in-person or Zoom interview for 60-90 minutes
After you complete your screening questionnaire, demographic data form, and individual
interview, you will receive a $30 Amazon gift card via email.
I will publish the results in my dissertation. Participants will not be identified in the
results. I will take reasonable measures to protect the security of all your personal information,
including the name of the institution. All data will be de-identified prior to any publication or
presentation. I may share your data, de-identified, with other researchers in the future.
If you have any questions about this study, please contact me or my faculty advisor, Dr.
Sheila Bañuelos at smsanche@usc.edu.
If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant, please contact the
University of Southern California Institutional Review Board at (323) 442-0114 or email
hrpp@usc.edu.
283
Appendix H: Interview Protocol for Program Staff Participants
Introduction
Hello, my name is Rohan Desai, and I am a doctoral student at the University of Southern
California studying the experiences of men of color students and staff in men of color programs
at California community colleges. More specifically, I am interested in the following research
questions:
1. How do community college men of color program staff foster spaces to support
student participants’ exploration of masculine identity?
2. How do participants of community college men of color programs perceive and
navigate the exploration of masculine identity within spaces fostered by program
staff?
As we get into the discussion, feel free to elaborate as much as you need to. The goal of
this discussion is to learn details of your experience and get as much information as possible. In
this setting, there is no such thing as too much information. Your story is important, and I will
create space to ensure it is documented robustly. Over the next 60–90 minutes, we will go
through a series of questions that seek to understand your experience. Identify themes,
occurrences, and programming that stood out to you. With your verbal consent, our conversation
will be recorded; however, for the purposes of the dissertation, I will use an alias for your name
and any other identifying information, including the name of the institution. As a reminder, your
participation in this study is voluntary. If at any point you feel uncomfortable or need to stop,
please indicate so and we can take a break. You may also choose to skip questions and end your
participation in the study at any point in the process. I appreciate your time and look forward to
the journey of our conversation. As a reminder, the recording of this interview will be for my
284
notes only. If it makes you feel more comfortable, you may turn off your video. May I have your
permission to record today’s interview?
Prior to scheduling this interview, you received a copy of your screening questionnaire
and demographic data form via email. You confirmed that your responses on this form were
accurate. Have any of your responses changed since confirming the accuracy of your responses?
If so, how? If not, let’s begin:
Program Overview
1. Can you describe your role within the men of color program and what led you to this
work?
2. What are the primary goals of the program with supporting students?
3. What are the requirements of the program for students?
4. How does the program specifically aid in the exploration of masculine identity, if at
all?
Strategies and Activities
5. Does the program employ an open space to discuss or explore masculinity? If so,
what strategies or activities does the program engage in?
6. How do you ensure these conversations are inclusive and supportive of diverse
expressions of masculinity?
Observations on Student Engagement
7. From your perspective, in what ways do students respond to the program's efforts to
explore masculine identity?
8. Have you noticed any particular moments or activities that were especially impactful
for students’ exploration of masculinity? Please share examples.
285
Support and Validation
9. How do you and other staff members work to validate students' experiences and
identities within the program?
10. How would you define healthy or positive masculinity?
11. In what ways does the program aim to empower students to express their masculinity
in healthy and positive ways?
Challenges and Adaptations
12. What are some challenges you face in your role within the program and specifically
with addressing masculinity?
13. How has the program evolved to better support students in exploring their masculine
identity, if at all?
Personal Reflections
14. What experiences have led you to want to work within this program and with this
population?
15. How has working within the men of color program influenced your own
understanding of masculinity and what have you learned throughout this process?
Improvements and Future Directions
16. Based on your experience, what improvements could be made to enhance the
program's impact on students’ exploration of masculine identity?
Closing Questions
17. Is there anything else about your understanding or expression of masculinity that has
been impacted by your involvement in the men of color program that you'd like to
share?
286
18. Is there anything else about your experience with the men of color program that you
think is important to share?
Conclusion
This concludes our interview. I want to thank you for your vulnerability in providing
answers to these questions and for taking the time out of your day to participate in this study. If I
require any further clarification on your responses, I will be reaching out to you via email. Is this
okay? Great! As compensation for your participation in this study, you will be receiving a $10
Starbucks gift card from me via email. Thank you again for your participation and if you have
any questions for me after today, please don’t hesitate to reach out via email or phone. Have a
great rest of your day. I will stop the recording now.
287
Appendix I: Interview Protocol Overview for Student Participants
Introduction
Hello, my name is Rohan Desai, and I am a doctoral student at the University of Southern
California studying the experiences of men of color in men of color programs at California
community colleges. More specifically, I am interested in the following research questions:
1. How do community college men of color program staff foster spaces to support
student participants’ exploration of masculine identity?
2. How do participants of community college men of color programs perceive and
navigate the exploration of masculine identity within spaces fostered by program
staff?
As we get into the discussion, feel free to elaborate as much as you need to. The goal of
this discussion is to learn details of your experience and get as much information as possible. In
this setting, there is no such thing as too much information. Your story is important, and we will
create space to ensure it is documented robustly. Over the next 60-90 minutes, we will go
through a series of questions that seek to understand your experience. Identify themes,
occurrences, and programming that stood out to you. With your verbal consent, our conversation
will be recorded; however, for the purposes of the dissertation I will use an alias for your name
and any other identifying information, including the name of the institution. As a reminder, your
participation in this study is voluntary. If at any point you feel uncomfortable or need to stop,
please indicate so and we can take a break. You may also choose to skip questions and end your
participation in the study at any point in the process. I appreciate your time and look forward to
the journey of our conversation. As a reminder, the recording of this interview will be for my
288
notes only. If it makes you feel more comfortable, you may turn off your video. May I have your
permission to record today’s interview?
Prior to scheduling this interview, you received a copy of your screening questionnaire
and demographic data form via email. You confirmed that your responses on this form were
accurate. Have any of your responses changed since confirming the accuracy of your responses?
If so, how? If not, let’s begin:
Opening Questions
1. Can you tell me a bit about yourself and your journey to community college?
2. Which of your identities do you feel are most important to you and why?
(race/ethnicity, gender, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, etc.)
3. What motivated you and why did you join the Men of Color program?
Identity Exploration and Development
4. What does being a man mean to you?
5. What does masculinity mean to you?
6. Can you describe how your participation in the men of color program influenced how
you understand masculinity, if at all?
7. Can you describe any conversations or activities within the program that have made
you reflect on your own masculinity?
8. Can you share how your cultural or community background has shaped your views on
masculinity? How has the program either affirmed or challenged those views?
289
Exploring Program Experience
9. Can you share a significant experience you've had within the program that has
impacted your view or understanding of masculinity?
10. How has the program addressed or engaged with concepts of masculinity in its
activities or discussions?
Validation Theory Application
11. In what ways do you feel the program has recognized or validated your personal
experiences and identity?
12. Can you describe any moments within the program where you felt particularly
supported or affirmed in your exploration of masculine identity? Can you describe a
moment where you felt like you were not supported by the program?
Support and Empowerment
13. Are there any particular individuals in the program, whether students or program staff,
who have influenced your personal or academic growth? If so, who are these
individuals and how did they achieve this?
14. In what ways has the program supported or challenged you to express your
masculinity in healthy and positive ways?
Challenges and Improvements
15. What would you describe to be your greatest challenges or barriers as a community
college student who identifies as a man of color?
16. What improvements or changes would you suggest to better support students in
exploring their masculine identity within the program?
290
17. Have societal or cultural expectations of masculinity affected your experience in the
program?
18. How could the program better address these influences?
Closing Questions
19. Is there anything else about your understanding or expression of masculinity that has
been impacted by your involvement in the Men of Color program that you'd like to
share?
20. Is there anything else about your experience with the Men of Color program that you
think is important to share?
Conclusion
This concludes our interview. I want to thank you for your vulnerability in providing
answers to these questions and for taking the time out of your day to participate in this study. If I
require any further clarification on your responses, I will be reaching out to you via email. Is this
okay? Great! As compensation for your participation in this study, you will be receiving a $30
Amazon gift card from me via email. Thank you again for your participation and if you have any
questions for me after today, please don’t hesitate to reach out via email or phone. Have a great
rest of your day. (I will stop the recording now).
291
Appendix J: Observation Protocol
Objective: To observe and document how men of color programs at community colleges
create environments that support the exploration of masculine identity among student
participants.
Theoretical Framework: Utilize Rendón’s validation theory and Connell’s multiple
masculinities framework to focus on the ways in which the program validates students’
experiences and identities, particularly in relation to masculinity.
Participants: Community college students and program staff who are part of the
Brothers Reaching Out program at Indigenous Land College.
Setting: Observations will take place at two separate Barbershop Talks events hosted by
the BRO program in the student services building of ILC during the Spring 2024 semester. These
events are 1 hour long and are described as safe spaces where program participants can engage in
dialogue with other participants and program staff on issues relating to their experiences and
identities as men of color.
Pre-Observation Preparation
The observer will review the principles of validation theory and the study’s research
question, discuss ethical considerations, including confidentiality, non-intrusiveness, and respect
for participants’ space and experience, and obtain permissions from program administrators and
informed consent from participants for observation
The observation focus areas are interactions between students and staff/facilitators,
activities and discussions related to masculinity and identity, validation practices within the
program (recognition, encouragement, support), student engagement and participation, and
physical and virtual spaces where the program takes place.
292
Observation Guidelines
In the non-participant observation, the observer should be non-intrusive, avoiding
interference with the natural flow of program activities.
The structured observation focus is on documenting specific instances where the
exploration of masculine identity is facilitated or discussed, noting verbal and nonverbal
expressions of validation by staff or peers, observing and recording the atmosphere and
dynamics of the program setting.
The use of observation tools includes utilizing checklists or rubrics based on validation
theory to systematically assess program elements and taking detailed notes on observations,
including quotes and significant interactions, while maintaining anonymity.
Reflective notes will be written after each observation session. They will detail the
observer’s impressions, potential biases, and preliminary interpretations.
Post-observation activities will consist of debriefing sessions to discuss findings and formulate
insights.
Data Analysis
The observation data will be analyzed in line with validation theory to identify how the
program fosters spaces for exploring masculine identity. The aim will be to look for patterns and
themes related to validation and the development of masculine identity.
Ethical Considerations
It is important to ensure the confidentiality of all observations and participant
information. The observer should also be mindful of and sensitive to the cultural and personal
contexts of participants’ expressions of masculinity.
293
Conclusion
This protocol is designed to capture the nuanced ways in which men of color programs at
community colleges support the exploration and affirmation of masculine identity among
participants, aligning with the principles of Rendón’s validation theory. Observers play a central
role in documenting these processes, contributing to a deeper understanding of effective
practices in fostering inclusive and validating educational environments.
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
This qualitative case study explored the experiences of staff and student participants in a men of color program at one California community college. The research aimed to understand how program staff creates environments conducive to exploring masculine identity among men of color. Grounded in validation theory and the multiple masculinities framework, the study addressed how program staff cultivates spaces for masculine identity exploration and how their students navigate and perceive such spaces. Data collection involved semi-structured interviews with four staff members and 10 student participants and observations of two program events. Key findings reveal several themes, such as creating safe and inclusive spaces, facilitating open discussions about masculinity, providing role models and mentorship, encouraging vulnerability and emotional expression, and navigating systemic and structural challenges. The themes highlight intentional community building, culturally affirming spaces, and addressing the challenges men of color face in higher education. The study underscores the need for supportive environments in fostering positive masculine identity exploration and offers insights for enhancing similar programs in other educational settings.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Planting the seeds of change: a journey of resilience and challenges faced by men of color in community colleges
PDF
Study abroad and the ethnoracial identity development of Latinx students
PDF
A pathway to success: experiences of first-generation minority students in academic jeopardy
PDF
Student support professionals: drivers of community cultural wealth aligned practices through support programs for first-generation college students of color amidst institutional shortcomings
PDF
"Sino ka ba?" The impact of community gatherings on Pilipinx American students' identity formation and sense of belonging in higher education
PDF
An intersectional examination of inequity in Black Bahamian men’s employment experience: a critical theory and social cognitive perspective
PDF
Breaking the silence: testimonios of undocumented Latino men of color students navigating higher education in California
PDF
Well-being and healing as resistance: testimonios of Latina students’ arrebatos in California community colleges
PDF
Testimonios of part-time enrolled Latina students: the challenges and experiences at a Hispanic-serving California community college
PDF
Perceptions of professional development from the lens of the global teacher in a rapidly evolving, linguistically diverse instructional environment
PDF
Underrepresented students with disabilities transitioning into a 4-year university
PDF
Intent vs. impact: exploring how community-based organizations support Latino/a/e students through their educational journeys
PDF
Mid-level Latina leaders in predominantly White institutions: balancing identities and cultural incongruity
PDF
Applying Schlossberg’s transition theory to the student veteran transfer experience at the University of Southern California: a qualitative case study
PDF
And I'm bring'n my kid's too: an examination of barriers to success for Single Mother Scholars of Color transferring from Los Angeles Community Colleges to 4-year universities
PDF
Beyond the board room: how personal experiences and environments shape community college trustee learning
PDF
A phenomenological study of the impact of English language learner support services on students’ identity development
PDF
Executive realness: examining the identity construction of black gay male educators and its influence on authentic identity expression in the K-12 workplace
PDF
Inclusive vogue: exploring the demand for body diversity in the fashion and modeling world
PDF
Persistence of first-generation Latinx engineering students: developing a better understanding of STEM classroom experiences and faculty interactions
Asset Metadata
Creator
Desai, Rohan
(author)
Core Title
Grinding all my life: the role of a community college men of color program in supporting masculine identity exploration
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Educational Leadership
Degree Conferral Date
2024-08
Publication Date
07/30/2024
Defense Date
07/24/2024
Publisher
Los Angeles, California
(original),
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
academic support services,community college,emotional vulnerability,hegemonic masculinity,Higher education,inclusive spaces,masculine identity,masculinity,men of color,mentorship,OAI-PMH Harvest,qualitative research,validation theory
Format
theses
(aat)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Bañuelos, Sheila (
committee chair
), Huerta, Adrián (
committee member
), Rios-Aguilar, Cecilia (
committee member
)
Creator Email
desair@usc.edu,pathwaysrohan@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113998LM5
Unique identifier
UC113998LM5
Identifier
etd-DesaiRohan-13307.pdf (filename)
Legacy Identifier
etd-DesaiRohan-13307
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
theses (aat)
Rights
Desai, Rohan
Internet Media Type
application/pdf
Type
texts
Source
20240731-usctheses-batch-1190
(batch),
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 author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.
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
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
academic support services
community college
emotional vulnerability
hegemonic masculinity
inclusive spaces
masculine identity
masculinity
men of color
mentorship
qualitative research
validation theory