University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Proactive advising and serving as an institutional agent: how academic advisors identify the needs of and support historically marginalized students navigating college

(USC Thesis Other)

Proactive advising and serving as an institutional agent: how academic advisors identify the needs of and support historically marginalized students navigating college

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Proactive Advising and Serving as an Institutional Agent: How Academic Advisors Identify
the Needs of and Support Historically Marginalized Students Navigating College
by
Alejandra Meza

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

May 2022

© Copyright by Alejandra Meza 2022
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Alejandra Meza certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Angélica Garcia
Julie Slayton
Artineh Samkian, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2022

iv
Abstract
The conceptual framework that guides this qualitative research study is grounded in institutional
agency and proactive advising approaches. Higher education literature has discussed the utility
and effectiveness of institutional agency techniques and proactive advising behaviors when
working with historically marginalized students (i.e., by virtue of race and first-generation
college status). The purpose of the study was to better understand the perceptions and
experiences of 10 academic advisors in identifying the needs of and better supporting historically
marginalized students through proactive advising behavior and serving as an institutional agent.
This study took place during spring 2021 semester, and data was collected from journal entries
and interviews. My research question in conjunction with my conceptual framework, were used
to analyze the data. By understanding the perceptions and experiences, current and future
academic advisors will learn how to work towards equitable advising by utilizing their
institutional agency role to be more proactive and engaged with historically marginalized
students. Most importantly, higher education institutions can create systemic change that reflects
support for equitable advising.

v
Dedication
To my Abuelo Alejo and Abuela Leonor, you instilled the love of learning in me and reminding
me to always “pon tu educación primero.”

To my mother Lucia, you set an example as a single parent of five children, who returned to
school in her 40s to pursue her academic goal of becoming a Licensed Vocational Nurse. Your
example and daily spiritual inspiration served as motivation to keep pushing forward as a
student-parent and working professional.

To my daughter Amani Leonor, you are my source of inspiration. I hope this milestone is a
symbol that whatever you set your heart and mind to accomplish, you can do it. Te amo con todo
mi corazón y mi alma.

vi
Acknowledgements
The pursuit of my doctoral degree was challenging and there were many times when I
doubted my ability to reach the finish line. Mi comunidad provided me unconditional love,
support, confidence, knowledge and motivation to remain focused on reaching my goal. This
doctoral journey was transformative, and I remain committed to lifelong learning and working
towards equity. To my family, loved ones, mentors, femtors and dissertation committee, I am
forever grateful for your presence and support throughout this journey. To my husband Larry
McDaniel Jr., I don’t have enough words to express my gratitude to you. Thank you for always
supporting every decision I’ve made throughout this process, listening to my highs and lows in
the late hours even when you were tired, and providing constructive feedback. Most importantly,
thank you for being a stay-at home dad while also pursuing your doctoral studies. Your
selflessness allowed me to work full-time and dedicate the late evenings to
coursework/dissertation writing. You have always believed in me even when I didn’t believe in
myself. I especially want to thank my dissertation committee, Dr. Artineh Samkian, Dr. Julie
Slayton, and Dr. Angélica Garcia. Thank you for your leadership, commitment to educational
research, and providing the guidance needed to achieve this goal. You are my role models in
education. To my dissertation chair Dr. Artineh Samkian, thank you for being deeply invested in
me. A huge part of reaching the finish line is having a great dissertation chair. You always made
time for me, provided consistent encouragement, and pushed me to critically reflect throughout
this process. I’m very thankful to have you in my life.

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. ix
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. x
Chapter One: Overview of the Study .............................................................................................. 1
Background of the Problem ................................................................................................ 4
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................... 9
Purpose of the Study ......................................................................................................... 10
Significance of the Study .................................................................................................. 11
Organization of the Study ................................................................................................. 11
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ........................................................................................ 13
Concepts Necessary for Developing the Conceptual Framework .................................... 13
Revised Conceptual Framework Narrative ....................................................................... 23
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 30
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 32
Sample ............................................................................................................................... 32
Data Collection and Instruments/Protocols ...................................................................... 36
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 42
Limitations and Delimitations ........................................................................................... 43
Credibility and Trustworthiness ........................................................................................ 46
Ethics ................................................................................................................................. 50
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 51
Chapter Four: Findings ................................................................................................................. 52

viii
Clear Understanding of Role as Institutional Agents ....................................................... 53
Advising Approach ........................................................................................................... 92
Summary ......................................................................................................................... 121
Chapter Five: Discussion ............................................................................................................ 123
Findings .......................................................................................................................... 124
Implications for Policy and Practice ............................................................................... 133
Future Research .............................................................................................................. 140
Conclusions ..................................................................................................................... 142
References ................................................................................................................................... 144
Appendix A: Information Sheet for Exempt Research ............................................................... 151
Appendix B: Personal Reflection Prompts ................................................................................. 153
Appendix C: Interview Protocol ................................................................................................. 155
Appendix D: Get to Know Me Survey ....................................................................................... 165

ix
List of Tables
Table 1: Expected Data Collection Summary 37
Table 2: Data Collection Summary 37

x
List of Figures
Figure 1: The Seven Organizational Models of Academic Advising 18
Figure 2: Organization of Academic Advising 19
Figure 3: Graphic Revised Conceptual Framework 24
Figure 4: Participant’s Information: Part One 34
Figure 5: Participant’s Information: Part Two 52

1

Chapter One: Overview of the Study
Higher education in America began when England’s colonies during the American
Revolution yearned to advance learning and continue it for future generations, by recreating “a
little bit of Old England in America” (a version of Oxford and Cambridge) so they established
Harvard (Rudolph & Thelin, 1990, pp. 3-4). As colleges developed, the purpose of higher
education in America was “help men to learn the things they must know in order to manage the
temporal affairs of the world” by training teachers (Rudolph & Thelin, 1990, p. 13). Higher
education institutions kept people away by only allowing White, wealthy men to navigate these
spaces and be prepared to become servants of society (Rudolph & Thelin, 1990). As higher
education became organized institutions by the beginning of World War I, one thing remained:
many higher education systems developed and continued to build upon the same White norms
and values that existed since the first college and continued to exclude potential students who
were not White and wealthy (Rudolph, 1990). The Morrill Act of 1862 offered land grants
endowments to states such as California, to establish agricultural colleges and in 1868,
University of California was founded (Delgado & Stefancic, 2000). For the first 70 years of
University of California’s existence, the student population was nearly all white (Delgado &
Stefancic, 2000). Thus, higher education systems were not designed for non-White individuals to
enroll and succeed.
Fast forward 386 years later after Harvard was established, currently in California and
nationwide, the student demographics of college enrollment are rapidly changing across higher
education institutions. Colleges and universities are having discussions on ways to support the
diverse group of students entering their institutions, and many have verbally committed to
implementing diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts. While these discussions are a positive step
2

towards supporting historically marginalized students, more action is required by institutional
representatives to support the persistence and holistic development of historically marginalized
students enrolled in higher education.
Historically marginalized people are “individuals or social groups who, by virtue of their
race, gender, geographical location, etc., have historically been placed on the margins or
periphery of the mainstream social and economic hierarchy” (Cross & Atinde, 2015, p. 308). In
the United States of America, historically marginalized groups by virtue of race include Black,
Latina/o/x
1
, Native American/Indigenous, Southeast Asian, and others (Rodriguez, 2018).
Historically marginalized groups by virtue of race, have been excluded from U.S. higher
education. A second historically marginalized group in U.S. higher education include first-
generation college students. Pike and Kuh (2005) describe a first-generation college student as a
“student from a family where no parent or guardian has earned a baccalaureate degree” (p. 277).
It’s important to note that Rodriguez (2018) was intentional in disaggregating historically
marginalized groups by virtue of race when he listed Southeast Asians instead of Asian. The
Asian racial category does not represent the diverse experiences of all subgroups lumped under
this term (Nguyen et al., 2018). When baccalaureate degree attainment data is disaggregated for
the Asian racial category, there is a drastic disparity in outcomes between Southeast Asians and
their Asian Indian, Pakistani, Korean and Chinese American counterparts (Museus et al., 2016).
Hence, it is important to acknowledge this disparity to better understand the experiences of
Southeast Asians navigating higher education. For historically marginalized students
2
, higher
education is a borderland—a social space that historically excluded and silenced marginalized

1
I use the term Latino/a/x to represent personal preference of the participant. I use the term Hispanic only when it’s
federally designated.
2
Moving forward, I will only use the term historically marginalized to represent these two groups (those groups
marginalized by virtue of race per Rodriguez (2018) definition and first-generation status).
3

groups, yet the same social space also provides students of marginalized groups the potential to
develop sense of self (Anzaldúa, 1999 as cited in Pyne & Means, 2013). Ritchey (2014) explains
that higher education institutions, specifically predominantly White institutions such as
University of California, expect all students to “fit into the mainstream White middle class value
structure,” therefore higher education institutions create barriers and a climate not inclusive of
non-White and middle-class students (p. 101). At times, historically marginalized students may
experience what’s recently been coined the imposter syndrome-the feeling of being an academic
fraud (Edwards, 2019).
Higher education has witnessed a shift of systems not being designed for non-White
individuals, to systems being redesigned for non-White individuals. For example, Hispanic
Serving Institutions (HSI) are nonprofit institutions with enrollment of at least 25% or more
fulltime equivalent undergraduate Latino/a/x students (Garcia, 2016). These institutions apply to
be designated as HSI and if selected, the federal government provides grants to them via Title V
(Higher Education Act) Program “expand educational opportunities for, and improve the
attainment of, Hispanic students” (U.S. Department of Education, 2022). Therefore, HSIs have
an institutional responsibility to provide differentiated support to Latino/a/x students attending
their institutions so that they succeed and holistically develop. Although the federal definition of
HSI designation suggests that the Latino/a/x-serving identity is solely based on enrollment and
graduation, research shows that institutional resources are significant predictors for graduation
rates of Latino/a/x students (Garcia, 2016). So “focusing solely on enrollment and graduation
rates creates a limited understanding of what it means to have an identity for serving” Latino/a/x
students (Garcia, 2016, p. 118). According to Garcia and Ramirez (2018), “it remains unclear
what it truly means to ‘serve’” Latino/a/x students (p. 2). HSIs need to focus on what it means to
4

be serving this population, what does this service look like when executed by institutional agents,
and how do institutional resources impact students’ progress towards degree completion.
To support historically marginalized students and ensure their success in higher
education, institutions need to focus on their specific needs. Institutional representatives such as
academic advisor have the most access to students (Strayhorn, 2015). Thus, they should be aware
and “understand that college experiences” of historically marginalized students “is likely to be
different…perhaps even more difficult, than that of students with dominant identities” (Gordon
et al., 2008, p. 108). With this knowledge and close contact with students, academic advisors are
best positioned to understand and respond to the needs of historically marginalized students.
Background of the Problem
NCES (2019) reported the following graduation rates within 6 years (150% of the normal
time [4 years] for degree completion) for first-time, full-time bachelor’s degree seeking
undergraduate students at baccalaureate-degree granting institutions in the U.S by race/ethnicity:
White: 64%, Black: 40%, Hispanic: 54%, Asian: 74%, Pacific Islander: 51%, American
Indian/Alaskan Native: 39%, and two or more races: 60%. Based on this data, it appears that
Asians outperform White students. However, it’s important to acknowledge that the data is
representative of the Asian racial group as a whole and is not disaggregated to represent the
nuances within this monolithic category. So while this data indicates that there is a graduation
gap between historically marginalized students and their White and Asian counterparts at
baccalaureate-degree granting institutions in the U.S., the graduation rates for Southeast Asian
students are not represented as Nguyen et al. (2018) discussed. Also, these rates do not provide
insight into the lived experiences of even those who are seemingly “successful” by objectives
5

outcomes, but may have faced linguistic challenges or those associated with being the “model
minority” (Chou & Feagin, 2015).
In addition to the graduation rates data, the U.S. Department of Education (2018) found
that after 3 of enrollment at a postsecondary education institution, approximately 48% of
historically marginalized students persisted compared to 67% of students with a parent(s) who
earned a bachelor’s degree. This data indicates that historically marginalized students have lower
persistence rates than continuing-generation peers. Interestingly, researchers found that
historically marginalized students “who attend HSIs are not graduating in equitable manners
when compared with White students at HSIs, or those students who attend non-HSI” (Garcia &
Ramirez, 2018, p. 2). So it’s concerning that institutions designated as HSIs and attain federal
support, are producing lower graduation rates for their historically marginalized students.
Only 25% of variance in college student success outcomes is attributed to academic
factors (e.g., GPA) while the remaining 75% is likely attributed to things within a college’s
control (e.g., finances, engagement, major, belonging, campus climate and advising); thus,
advisors play a significant role in serving as cultural navigators that help students take ownership
of their education (Strayhorn, 2015). Advisors can assist these students in getting connected and
staying engaged in their college experience, such that these students persist to achieve their
academic, personal, and career endeavors (Drake, 2011). For historically marginalized students,
specifically, it is critical to have access to a “resource-full relationship” with institutional agents
such as academic advisors (Stanton-Salazar, 2011, p. 1074), who have the capacity to provide the
necessary access to “key forms of social and institutional support” (Stanton-Salazar, 2011, p.
1075).
6

Furthermore, it’s important that student services professionals understand the unique
identities of historically marginalized students because it informs their practice on cultivating
inclusive and equitable college campuses (Nguyen et al., 2018). The first goal for an academic
advisor should be to develop a relationship with students by building trust and community.
Student development theory focuses on the development of the whole student, and this
philosophy guides student affairs educators to develop programs and services that encourage
student learning and growth (Rodgers, 1990 as cited in Patton, 2016). During advising
interactions with students, academic advisors can develop a relationship with students by
providing the guidance and assistance necessary to support students’ holistic development and
ultimately reach degree completion. This is important because having access to institutional
support (i.e., highly valued resources, opportunities, privileges, and resources) can positively
contribute to a student’s holistic development in college and beyond (Stanton-Salazar, 2011).
Nevertheless, there are several institutional constraints that hinder academic advisors’
ability to support the success and holistic development of students. First, academic advisors may
engage in prescriptive advising behavior by being transactional with students because they have
been trained to be a knowledge expert. As a result, academic advisors sometimes define the
needs of students based on their perceptions of students’ needs, instead of providing space for
students to define their needs (Barbuto et al., 2011). Also, academic advisors engaging in
prescriptive advising behavior, expect the student to initiate contact with the knowledge expert
(Drake, 2011). Therefore, higher education culture can hold the assumption that a student has
the responsibility to communicate their needs to the advisor rather than an expectation that the
advisor conduct the outreach. Second, based on prescriptive advising and professional advising
experiences, due to institutional policies and procedures, academic advisors may offer support to
7

students who schedule advising appointments and/or reach out, but don’t make an effort to offer
support to the remaining students who don’t reach out, who are often the most marginalized,
those who haven’t been taught to speak up when they need help. Lastly, it’s difficult to push
back against the higher education structure that prioritizes and serves the interests of a select few
group of students. The select few are students with dominant identities (e.g., cultural capital)
(Stanton-Salazar, 2011). Academic advisors have consistent contact with students, however they
have limited institutional power, if at all, to make systemic changes to shift the prioritization of
serving the interests of students with cultural capital, to students with no cultural capital. As a
result, academic advisors adhere to the expectations of their organization to maintain the status
quo. The focus on students with dominant identities unconsciously creates an unfair and unjust
treatment of other students (Bogue & Hall, 2003). Therefore, when academic advisors do not
challenge the status quo, academic advisors are guilty of being gatekeepers because they perform
services and institutional support to students with dominant identities (Stanton-Salazar, 2011).
The focus to serve students with dominant identities decreases the accessibility and availability
of advisors for other students with non-dominant identities (i.e., historically marginalized
students). It’s difficult for advisors to cultivate a culture of students taking ownership of their
education, engage in a mutual partnership with advisees, and provide support to students who
need it the most.
When effective academic advising is not accessible to historically marginalized students,
it can have a negative influence on their persistence and progress towards degree completion.
Similar to the national data presented above, California’s retention rate is based on full-time,
bachelor’s degree seeking students. For the full-time, bachelor’s degree seeking students that
enrolled in fall 2019 term, approximately 87.6% returned (NCES, 2020). It’s important to note
8

that California’s retention rate above does not report the undergraduate retention rate for full-
time bachelor’s degree seeking students by race/ethnicity and first-generation student status.
Also, California’s graduation rate is based on bachelor’s degree-seeking undergraduates who
graduated within 6 years of attendance (150% of the normal completion time) (NCES, 2020).
Normal completion time is 4 years. NCES (2020) reported that 72.2% of bachelor’s degree-
seeking undergraduates who began college in fall 2014, graduated within 6 years, 150% of
“normal time” (NCES, 2020). This California specific data are not disaggregated by
race/ethnicity. However, a separate NCES (2020) report states California’s graduation date for
bachelor’s degree-seeking undergraduates who graduated within 6 years of attendance (150% of
the normal completion time) by race/ethnicity. It reported the following graduation rates within 6
years (150% of the normal time [4 years] for degree completion) for bachelor’s degree seeking
undergraduate students at baccalaureate-degree granting institutions in the U.S by race/ethnicity:
White: 73.9%, Black or African American: 50%, Hispanic or Latino: 63.5%, Asian: 80.8%,
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander: 61.1%, American Indian/Alaskan Native: 56%, and
two or more races: 71.7%. Again, the disaggregated graduation rates for Southeast Asians are not
represented in the data above.
Although California’s graduation rate by race/ethnicity is higher than the nation’s
graduation rate by race/ethnicity mentioned above, White and Asian students appear to graduate
at higher rates than historically marginalized students. Black or African-American,
Hispanic/Latino, two or more races graduated at lower rates compared to White, American
Indian or Alaskan, and Asian students in California. No national data were reported on Hawaiian
and Southeast Asian student demographics regarding graduation rates. Every student, regardless
of racial/ethnic background, should be expected to graduate within 150% of normal time.
9

Additionally, the disaggregated data fails to address the different types of access to resources and
support provided to non-historically marginalized students by institutional agents as compared to
their historically marginalized counterparts. What is happening during these college students’
interactions with institutional actors that hinder student engagement, sense of belonging and
holistic wellbeing? More specifically, given the focus of this study, what is the role of academic
advisors to more fully support historically marginalized students?
While effective retention efforts are essential for higher education institutions to support
a student’s persistence towards degree completion, students must first feel connected and
supported by institutional agents to thrive in their undergraduate experience. Institutional agents
must take action to ensure that all student populations are receiving the support they need to
persist.
Statement of the Problem
Daily, adults encounter “unfamiliar and unexpected waters while striving to cope with the
impact of living with uncertainty for themselves and their families” (Anderson et al., 2012, p.3).
While race, ethnicity or first-generation status are not, by themselves, indicators of need, we
know from research that historically marginalized students tend to need more support navigating
higher education institutions that were not originally designed for them. As mentioned earlier,
academic advisors can define the needs of students based on their perceptions, and expect
students to initiate contact in order to receive support from them rather than reach out. When
individuals engage in these hegemonic assumptions, they are protecting the status quo that serves
the interests of the select few (Gramsci, 1971 in Brookfield, 2010). So when academic advisors
engage in the hegemonic assumptions that students only reach out when they require support and
all students should receive the same type of support, academic advisors are harming the students
10

that require additional support and guidance but don’t know how to ask for it. These hegemonic
assumptions contribute to the system maintaining itself because academic advisors become less
invested in developing meaningful relationships with students, threatening the holistic
development of students, particularly historically marginalized students (Brookfield, 2010, p.
222).
The lower persistence/graduation rates of historically marginalized students in California
have inspired me to focus on understanding how academic advisors interpret and understand
their advising experiences with historically marginalized students. Being an effective academic
advisor requires caring for students that translates in a meaningful manner, providing support by
connecting students to resources, information, and campus partners that can assist in providing
strategies and developing skills to successfully navigate college (Strayhorn, 2015). By
understanding how academic advisors identify the needs of and how they support historically
marginalized students, current and future academic advisors can improve their practice in ways
that better support students’ development throughout their college experience.
Purpose of the Study
This qualitative study focuses on understanding how academic advisors in higher
education institutions make sense of and understand their advising interactions with historically
marginalized students. It also explores how academic advisors reported supporting these
students. Understanding how academic advisors identify the needs of and support historically
marginalized students is imperative in examining whether and how they take on the role of
institutional agents who intentionally work towards equitable advising characterized by better
support and advocacy for these students. Given that researchers have suggested that effective
equitable advising is characterized by institutional agency and proactive advising, these are the
11

two approaches that I used to examine whether and how academic advisors helped or didn’t help
historically marginalized students reach their goals. This qualitative study will seek to answer the
following: What are academic advisors’ perceptions and experiences of how they can identify
the needs of and better support historically marginalized students through proactive advising
behavior and serving as an institutional agent?
Significance of the Study
This study holds significance because the experiences of academic advisors will inform
other academic advisors on how to utilize their institutional agency role to be more proactive
when engaging with historically marginalized students. Additionally, I aim to provide higher
education administrators, supervisors of advising departments and programs, and academic
advisors a greater understanding of how to work towards equitable advising. As higher education
institutions make head way in providing access to historically marginalized students, it is
incumbent upon them to also improve the experiences of these students once they arrive on our
campuses. Although other institutional actors such as faculty and student affairs professionals
also have the potential to serve as institutional agents, this study focuses on academic advisors
who have direct and ongoing contact with students throughout their educational trajectory.
Organization of the Study
This chapter provided the background of the problem associated with supporting
historically marginalized students once they arrive on our campuses. It provided the significance
of examining the perceptions of and support provided by academic advisors as key actors in the
higher education space. Chapter Two includes a literature review that discusses the concepts
related to the study, along with a visual and narrative description of the conceptual framework
that guided the study. Chapter Three discusses the methods used in this qualitative research
12

study. Chapter Four will present the findings of my research. Finally, Chapter Five concludes
with a discussion of the findings, implications for policy and practice, and recommendations for
further research.

13

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
The literature reviewed in this chapter includes those concepts deemed necessary for the
development of the conceptual framework for this study
3
. After I discuss the concepts, I will
share how the concepts discussed in the literature review are connected to each other by
explaining the revised visual of the conceptual framework.
Concepts Necessary for Developing the Conceptual Framework
In this section, I discuss the following concepts necessary for the development of the
conceptual framework development used to guide this qualitative research study: social capital,
institutional agent, historically marginalized students, academic advising, and proactive advising
vs. prescriptive advising.
Social Capital
Pierre Bourdieu (1986) defined social capital as existing in social networks, in which the
sum of resources tied to membership in a specific group, are provided by the group and the
resources serve as “credentials, sources of leverage, status, or worth” (Julien, 2015, p. 364).
When social interactions of resources (social capital) are exchanged, the social interaction
between the group reinforces and maintains both the social relationships and social standing
(Julien, 2015). Further, Bourdieu (1986) described how social capital is characterized by the
following three states: objectified in tangible goods (e.g., books, pictures), institutionalized (e.g.,
academic credentials or awards, and 3) the embodied form (i.e., habitus) (O’shea, 2016).
Stanton-Salazar (2011) defined social capital as consisting of resources and institutional support
within a multilayered social structure found in organizations and institutions (Stanton-Salazar,

3
This study was initially conceived as a self-study action research project that was not intended to be a traditional
dissertation with a comprehensive literature review. While extensive literature was reviewed prior to the start of this
project, what follows in this chapter is the distillation of that literature into the conceptual framework visual and
narrative.
14

2011). In the context of higher education, resources and institutional support within colleges and
universities are meant to support the academic growth and success of students. Social and
institutional support structures for undergraduate students can include the following: academic
services (academic coaching, writing support, math tutoring, peer tutoring, career, professional
and athletic advising, etc.), support services (financial aid, disability services, wellbeing and
crisis support, advocacy, cultural centers, etc.) and opportunities and engagement (undergraduate
student government, career center, cultural centers, study abroad, residential education, student
organizations, etc.). Students require full-resource relationships and engagement activities
facilitated by institutional agents to receive necessary social and institutional support (Stanton-
Salazar, 2011). Students from families with skills and preferences of the dominant culture, that is
students with the “correct” cultural capital, are better positioned to understand the hidden rules of
higher education, adapt to college environment, further develop cultural skills, and successfully
navigate higher education (Aschaffenburg & Maas, 1997). Garcia and Ramirez (2018) stated that
“dominant flows of social capital continuously allocate resources to those students already in
possession of dominant forms of social capital,” leaving historically marginalized “on the
margins of social network” (p. 6). Historically marginalized groups “lack the necessary cultural
or knowledge capital required to negotiate the implicit nature of an institution’s hidden
curriculum” because the knowledge and/or cultural capital they hold, may not be valued by the
higher education system (O’shea, 2016, p.63). Also, historically marginalized students, tend to
lack the social capital afforded by a parent with a baccalaureate degree, such as the knowledge
and tools valued to navigate higher education spaces (Swecker et al., 2013). Strayhorn (2015)
discussed that the cultural beliefs and values of higher education tend to operate from a mindset
that rewards an individual over a collective group, which is different than the set of cultural
15

beliefs and values that some students grew up with. Without the social capital required to
successfully navigate higher education systems, historically marginalized students are not
positioned for academic and holistic success during their college journey. As Strayhorn (2015)
stated,
These students are at risk for failure, for dropping out, and may be unsuccessful in
college, not due to academic underpreparedness, but rather due to cultural incongruity or
their unreadiness to negotiate or straddle multiple cultures, to acclimate to a new cultural
orientation, or to develop the skills necessary for cultural navigation (p.58).
Therefore, it is imperative that higher education systems provide social capital for these students,
and institutional agents are the liaison to relay social capital.
Institutional Agent
According to Stanton-Salazar (2011), an institutional agent is “an individual who
occupies one or more hierarchical positions of a relatively high-status and authority... situated in
a social network,” and utilizes their institutional agency role to directly “transmit or negotiate the
transmission of high valued resources” on behalf of an individual (p. 1067). These “high valued
resources” are known as social capital and located within an institutional agent’s social network.
However, not all institutional agents with “the position, power, and resources to provide support”
for historically marginalized students, “choose to disrupt the flow of social capital” for students
of the dominant culture (Garcia & Ramirez, 2018, p. 6). In the context of higher education,
Bensimon and colleagues (2019) narrow their definition of institutional agent as an individual
having developed or experienced an understanding of oppression institutionalized, and they use
their knowledge to support the success of historically marginalized students (Bensimon et al.,
2019). These institutional agents have the critical awareness to identify the systemic policies,
16

procedures and environmental conditions that are barriers to historically marginalized students
achieving their goals (Bensimon et al., 2019). Rather than being a gatekeeper agent who
maintains the status quo by performing services and institutional support only for students with
dominant identities (Stanton-Salazar, 2011), the institutional agents that Bensimon and
colleagues (2019) speak of use their institutional agency power to transform the institutional
context, particularly for students who have been historically marginalized. They transform the
institutional context by advocating on behalf of historically marginalized students for social and
institutional support directed to them (Stanton-Salazar, 2011). Also, the institutional agents,
especially at HSIs, empower historically marginalized students, recognize their strengths, and
work collectively to provide indirect support to them (Garcia & Ramirez, 2018).
Historically Marginalized Students
Historically marginalized undergraduate students often experience challenges when
navigating spaces set by White dominant norms that were not originally built for them. It’s
critical that these students feel a sense of belonging on their campus, because sense of belonging
contributes to their achievement and ultimate success (i.e., graduation or degree completion)
(Strayhorn, 2015). Because higher education institutions have not historically served historically
marginalized students, these students’ social capital and support network often falls outside the
structure of higher education. In other words, these students’ social capital often do not include
those who successfully navigate White dominant spaces such as higher education. Thus, students
find it difficult to understand how to navigate college bureaucracy and access support services
and highly valued resources (Mu & Fosnacht, 2019) deemed by persistent theories to be critical
for college retention and completion (Metz, 2004). Also, there are institutional agents in
leadership positions who intend to improve the college experiences of historically marginalized
17

students, but hold deficit-based beliefs about them. Garcia and Ramirez (2018) found that some
institutional agents at HSIs may contribute to perpetuating inequities that impact historically
marginalized students by making decisions influenced by a deficit-based framework. Hence, it’s
imperative that historically marginalized students have access to institutional agents with a non-
deficit mindset that support their academic and personal growth and grant them the access to a
full postsecondary experience. Also, it’s imperative that historically marginalized students have
access to institutional agents who disrupt the flow of social capital by being critically conscious
agents committed to empowering historically marginalized students and transforming the
institutional context (Bensimon et al., 2019; Garcia & Ramirez, 2018).
Academic Advising
Academic advising “refers to situations in which an institutional representative gives
insight or directions to a college student about an academic, social or personal matter” (Gordon
et al., 2008, p. 3). These institutional representatives, known as advisors, work in different types
of advising programs and departments. There are seven different organizational models used to
examine the administrative structures of advising (Gordon et al., 2008). The seven organization
models are: faculty-only model, supplementary model, split model, dual model, total intake
model, satellite model, and self-contained model. More information on the seven organizational
models can be found on Figure 1.

18

Figure 1
The Seven Organizational Models of Academic Advising
Model Description
Faculty-Only All students are assigned to an instructional faculty member for
advising. There is no advising office.
Supplementary All students are assigned to an instructional faculty member for
advising. There is an advising office that provides general academic
information and referrals for students, but all advising transactions must
be approved by the student’s faculty advisor.
Split A specific group(s) of students (e.g., undecided, underprepared, etc.) are
advised in an advising office. All other students are assigned to
academic units or faculty advisors.
Dual Each student has two advisors. A member of the instructional faculty
advises the students on matters related to the major. An advisor in an
advising office advises the student on general requirements, procedures,
and policies.
Total Intake Staff members of an administrative unit are responsible for advising all
students for a specified period of time or until some specific
requirements have been met. After meeting these requirements, students
are assigned to an academic subunit or member of the instructional
faculty for advising.
Satellite Each school, college, or division within the institution established its
own approach to advising.
Self-Contained Advising for all students from the point of enrollment to the point of
departure is done by staff in a centralized unit.

The seven organizational models of academic advising can be further understood in three
classifications: decentralized models, centralized models, and shared models. Decentralized
models reflect advising services provided by faculty and staff in their academic departments.
Centralized models reflect all advising taking place in an administrative unit (e.g., advising or
counseling center led by a director or staff housed in one location). Shared models reflect
advising services shared between a central administrative unit and faculty/staff in academic
19

departments (Gordon et al., 2008). Figure 2 illustrates how the seven organizational models of
academic advising are classified.

Figure 2
Organization of Academic Advising
Organizational Model Decentralized Models Centralized Models Shared Models
Faculty-Only

Supplementary

Split

Dual

Total Intake

Satellite

Self-Contained

20

Given that there are different types of academic advisors located in different
administrative structures of advising, and no specific degree is required to practice academic
advising (Gordon et al., 2008), advising theories are useful in having a deeper understanding of
“the act of advising itself” (Gordon et al., 2008).
Prescriptive Advising vs. Proactive Advising
A theory explains how something works (Gordon et al., 2008). Advising theories, also
known as approaches, serve as guides for advisors to learn how to approach advising interactions
with diverse student populations based on their unique needs. Harris (2018) described academic
advisors applying advising approaches to “guide students towards self-discovery and to set life
goals and recognize academic challenges” (p. 36). The two academic advising approaches
relevant to this study are prescriptive advising and proactive advising. Specifically, after
summarizing what prescriptive advising entails, I will discuss the importance of proactive
advising to improve support for diverse group of students entering higher education.
Prescriptive advising. Prescriptive advising is an advising approach where the academic
advisor is the expert who provides knowledge and instructions to the student (Punyanunt-Carter
& Carter, 2015). The expectation is that the advisor instructs the student on what to do, the
student follows the advice, and no problems are expected to occur because the student followed
instructions (Barbuto et al., 2011). Drake (2011) compared prescriptive advising to a physician-
patient interaction, that is the academic advisor taking on the role of a physician (prescribing the
best medicine [advice]) and the student taking on the role of a patient (take the prescribed
medicine)] to feel better. Prescriptive advising is mostly used in settings where academic
advisors’ major responsibilities are to assist with academic matters (course scheduling, course
scheduling, appealing policies, graduation procedures) (He & Hutson, 2016). The benefit of
21

prescriptive advising is addressing academic matters to make progress towards degree
completion (Harris. 2018). The cons of prescriptive advising are advising sessions are lack of
student focus, limited scope of academic advising, limited to academic matters (e.g., course
selection, registration process, explanation of degree requirements), neglects attention to
students’ educational and personal experiences in the institution, students follow advice rather
than make decisions for themselves, and does not promote an advising relationship (Drake, 2011,
Harris, 2018, He & Hutson, 2016, Punyanunt-Carter & Carter, 2015). Although prescriptive
advising may be the most commonly used advising approach (Barbuto et al., 2011), this advising
approach hinders the ability for students to develop a personal relationship with the advisor
(Punyanunt-Carter & Carter, 2015), and historically marginalized students most benefit from
developing a relationship with an institutional agent who supports their academic success and
holistic development.
Therefore, prescriptive advising alone is not sufficient for supporting the unique needs of
students, specifically historically marginalized students. It has been argued that historically
marginalized students bring different characteristics and thus different assets and needs. Gordon
and colleagues (2008) stated, “Demographics are not the only changes seen in college students:
their attitude and values, family issues, mental and physical health, academic preparation,
academic misconduct, and financial states are different, as well” (p. 130). Academic advisors
must be prepared with the knowledge and tools to address all matters related to a student’s
unique needs, aspirations, and goals. Because proactive advising is limited to academic matters
only, there is no space for developing and exploring aspiration, goals and supporting the unique
needs outside of academic factors. Therefore, proactive advising is an effective advising
approach that provides the opportunity for academic advisors and students to engage in advising
22

interactions focused on holistic success and development that centers the specific goals and
needs of students.
Proactive Advising. Effective academic advisors are motivated to serve students and
also recognize their responsibility to nurture students’ holistic student development (McClellan,
2007). Proactive advising is an intervention advising approach in which an advisor intentionally
seeks out a student for advising contact (Schwebel et al., 2012), and anticipates challenges that
students might face by identifying support for them in advance (He & Hutson, 2016). Proactive
advising takes elements of prescriptive advising such as focusing on discussions regarding
academic matters (Drake, 2011; Kitchen et al., 2021), and also incorporates focusing on a
student’s personal life and non-academic factors that affect their holistic development and
success (Kitchen et al., 2021). Additionally, proactive advising nurtures the student’s holistic
development by allowing for a personal relationship to form between the student and advisor
whenever an academic advisor and student work together to explore the students’ goals and
aspirations, and the student makes their own decision based on information provided by the
academic advisor (Punyanunt-Carter & Carter, 2015). Research shows that proactive advising
fosters encouragement and engagement for degree planning and exploration, supports holistic
development throughout college journey, facilitates adjustment to campus life, outlines a clear
path for transfer process, boosts student confidence, contributes to student self-efficacy, provides
emotional and interpersonal support, promotes student self-authorship development, and builds
supportive connections that are useful for historically marginalized students who wouldn’t know
how to be proactive themselves (Chan, 2016; Donaldson et al., 2016; Hayes et al., 2020; He &
Hutson, 2016; Kitchen et al., 2020, 2021; Museus & Ravello, 2010; Pizzolato, 2006; Schwebel et
al., 2012; Starobin et al., 2016; Strayhorn, 2015; Vianden, 2016; Waddington, 2019). Examples
23

of proactive advising strategies include mandatory advisements, early alert and intervention
systems, achievement plans, early-on and continuous student engagement in degree planning and
exploration, career exploration assessment, and more (Chan, 2016; Donaldson et al., 2016;
Hayes et al., 2020; He & Hutson, 2016; Kitchen et al., 2020, 2021; Museus & Ravello, 2010;
Strayhorn, 2015; Waddington, 2019). Overall, proactive advising is better able to establish an
advising relationship early on, encourages student engagement in academic planning and fosters
holistic development throughout their undergraduate journey (Donaldson et al., 2016). Rather
than simply prescribing what the student needs, proactive advisors engage students in ways that
allow the advisors to get to know their students better and for the students to take ownership of
their own educational journey.
Revised Conceptual Framework Narrative
4

Figure 3 is a visual representation of the revised conceptual framework for this study. A
conceptual framework is a model that explains the main concepts, ideas and beliefs to be studied
and informs the research design (Maxwell, 2013). My conceptual framework has evolved from
reflecting an action research project focused on my advising practices, to a qualitative research
study that focused on understanding the perceptions and experiences of academic advisors. My
conceptual framework is grounded in institutional agency and proactive advising approach,
because the literature is clear on the utility and effectiveness of these approaches when working
with historically marginalized and first-generation students. By applying these frameworks, this
study sought to better understand academic advisors’ perceptions and experiences of identifying

4
This conceptual framework was revised because the initial study was an action research study that focused on my
own practice. Thus, the initial framework focused on what I should do as an academic advisor to help my
historically marginalized and first-generation students meet their goals. However, I faced challenges in obtaining
approval from my superiors to conduct the action research as it was proposed, so I made a mid-course change. By
transitioning to a traditional empirical approach where I was no longer studying myself, the revised conceptual
framework examines the way that I see the role of academic advisors helping or hindering students from reaching
their goals.
24

the needs of and better supporting historically marginalized students. Below is the revised
conceptual framework visual, with a discussion on how the concepts represented in the visual are
connected.

25

Figure 3
Graphic Revised Conceptual Framework

As illustrated above and drawing on the literature presented, I contend that an academic
advisor who applies institutional agency techniques and enacts proactive advising behaviors has
the best opportunity at supporting historically marginalized students to connect to the advisors’
social network. This connection to the advisors’ social network, which includes representatives
of various entities that have services and opportunities, then positions students to reach their
goals. The framework above shows that if and when prescriptive advising is used alone, the
likelihood that the student connects to the advisors’ social network is lessened, thus ultimately
affecting the achievement of the students’ goals. In this study, I chose to focus on serving and
providing better support to students who are historically marginalized. In the conceptual
framework visual above, historically marginalized students are a key part (in the green circle),
26

thus representing my central focus on their success. The institutional agents with whom student
may have the most access to and make a connection with are their academic advisors (Swecker et
al., 2013). Also, advisors are the primary institutional agents with whom students interact in an
ongoing basis to access information, resources, and tools necessary to navigate college
(Strayhorn, 2015). As represented in the conceptual framework visual above, there is a bilateral
arrow between the institutional agent (academic advisor) and historically marginalized students
to represent the advising interaction taking place. Through this interaction, the academic advisor
serves as a liaison between the students and the institution, which grants students access to the
social capital located within the advisors’ social network. An academic advisor’s role is to build
relationships with students so they can identify areas of student disconnection and locate campus
spaces for students to reconnect (Drake, 2011). In the conceptual framework visual above, the
one-way arrow with institutional agency techniques represents how academic advisors as
institutional agents are positioned to relay highly valued institutional support (e.g., resources,
opportunities, privileges, and services) (Stanton-Salazar, 2011). Garcia and Ramirez (2018)
found that when institutional agents relay their social capital to historically marginalized
students, it leads to greater persistence, meaningful experiences, and success in college.
Given that different students will need different kinds and degrees of support, it’s critical
that academic advisors take steps to support them equitably and in differentiated ways. Advisors
who don’t provide differentiated support through in-depth knowledge of student needs stand to
reproduce the status quo by relaying social capital to students with dominant identities only and
not challenging the inequities within higher education structures, leaving historically
marginalized students behind. Thus, I contend that academic advisors should strive to become
institutional agents who take steps to transform higher education’s oppressive institutional
27

structures and practices so that historically marginalized students succeed (Bensimon et al.,
2019). In the illustration above, academic advisors are represented in the red circle because the
study focuses on gaining a deeper understanding of their perceptions and experiences in
identifying the needs of and providing better support for historically marginalized students.
Further, institutional agents such as academic advisors, can lack critical consciousness when
assisting historically marginalized students, and therefore reinforce higher education’s
oppressive structure through a deficit framework by not taking into consideration the existing
educational inequities that impact these students (Garcia & Ramirez, 2018). As a result, these
students may feel discouraged to seek further advisement from student affairs practitioners with
a deficit mindset. Academic advisors need to center their students and be critically conscious
institutional agents (Garcia & Ramirez, 2018) who provide better support to and advocate for
historically marginalized students so that they feel valued, have a sense of belonging and
ultimately reach degree completion. In order for academic advisors to know how best to support
their students, it’s critical that they first understand what their needs are. Strayhorn (2015) stated,
“College success begins with access” (p. 57), therefore student affairs practitioners must engage
in efforts to increase persistence and degree completion for historically marginalized students
(Museus & Ravello, 2010). Because advising is one pathway that institutional agents can
contribute to historically marginalized students’ social capital necessary to navigate college and
increase students’ learning and development (Mu & Fosnacht, 2019), and where academic
advisors can use their positionality to advocate for their unique needs to campus partners (Garcia
& Ramirez, 2018), it is crucial that academic advisors are proactive and engaged with
historically marginalized students. Thus, I contend that academic advisors must be institutional
agent who are intentional and proactive about the ways in which they build relationships with
28

and support the needs of their historically marginalized students. Also, they must learn how to
communicate to students in an environment that isn’t always welcoming to them, so that students
feel welcomed with their academic advisor and access them as needed. Thus, enacting
institutional agent techniques alone is not sufficient for academic advisors to assist historically
marginalized students with reaching true success and developing holistically. Proactive advising
behaviors are also necessary.
As illustrated above, the one-way arrow with institutional agency techniques also
includes the incorporation of proactive advising behaviors. When academic advisors enact both
institutional agency techniques and proactive advising behaviors during advising interactions
with historically marginalized students, they connect these students to the social capital located
within their social network and have a better chance at supporting students to reach their goals. I
chose the proactive advising approach because behaviors associated with this approach help
historically marginalized students explore their academic, personal, and professional endeavors,
develop holistically, and incorporate this exploration into their academic planning while keeping
them on track for degree completion.
As represented in the conceptual framework visual above, the social and institutional
support structures and mechanisms (purple circles) are located within an academic advisor’s
social network (light blue oval). Social network can include the following campus departments
and programs but not limited to counseling and mental health services, financial aid office,
records and registrar’s office, career center, disability/accessibility services, international
services, residential education, study abroad, faculty, and Title IX. Academic advisors can use
their social network to both directly and indirectly connect these students to social and
institutional support when they enact institutional agency techniques and proactive advising
29

behaviors. This positioning of the symbols in the visual demonstrates the academic advisor’s role
in linking historically marginalized students to the campus partners (the advisor’s social
network). Moreover, academic advisors can advocate for these students during interactions with
campus partners so they can collaboratively provide social and institutional support (Garcia &
Ramirez, 2018). By utilizing their social capital gained through their relationships with campus
partners, academic advisors can assist historically marginalized students in building both their
own social capital and making supportive connections to successfully navigate college,
represented as “goals” in the visual above.
As represented in the conceptual framework visual above, connecting historically
marginalized students to social network is theorized to lead to goals. The goals are holistic
student development, taking ownership of education, persistence, and student success. Holistic
student development is a goal because academic advisors must be prepared to support the holistic
development of historically marginalized students as non-academic factors and personal lives of
students impact their success and wellbeing (Kitchen et al., 20201). Taking ownership of
education is a goal because academic advisor must empower students in being agents of their
destiny throughout their college journey (Strayhorn, 2015). A third long-term goal is persistence.
Tinto’s (1975) persistence theory suggests that students require integration into the college
environment (e.g., faculty-student interaction, peer group interactions, and extracurricular
activities) to progress throughout college and ultimately reach degree completion (Metz, 2004).
Academic advisors must contribute to fostering student engagement with their larger campus
community and utilize the connections made to access additional support. Lastly, a goal
associated with persistence of historically marginalized students is student success. Student
success is progress towards degree attainment. Given that historically marginalized students have
30

lower rates of degree completion in comparison to White counterparts (Museus & Neville,
2012), this is an important measure of success. The end goal, as illustrated in my conceptual
framework, is for academic advisors to identify the needs of and better support historically
marginalized students so that they persist and succeed during their college journey.
However, there are constraints and institutional barriers that could result in academic
advisors not fully enacting institutional agency techniques, and a lack of knowledge and/or skills
to enact proactive advising behaviors. These constraints and institutional barriers will be
explored in Chapter Four, which include the sole use of prescriptive advising. Because
prescriptive advising is transactional and typically focuses on advising academic matters only
(Drake, 2011), prescriptive advising behaviors are not as likely to support students with making
connections to the academic advisor’s social network. This is represented in the illustration (red
dotted line between academic advisor and social network). Additionally, enacting prescriptive
advising only may or may not support students with fully reaching their goals as represented in
the visual (red dotted line between social network and goals). Thus, the broken red lines
represent the barriers for academic advisors fully engaging in prescriptive advising when
interacting with historically marginalized students.
Summary
The literature review discussed the concepts relevant to this study, and together, they
support my revised conceptual framework. As represented in the visual representation and
narrative of my conceptual framework, I contend that true success and holistic development of
historically marginalized students navigating college requires being assisted by an institutional
agent (academic advisors) who proactively engages in connecting them to social capital and
supports their development in all areas. In the visual above, it demonstrates that the way in which
31

an academic advisor engages with a historically marginalized student (institutional agency
techniques + proactive advising behaviors vs. prescriptive advising only) will determine whether
historically marginalized students connect to the social capital within the advisor’s social
network and ultimately whether they reach their goals.
Using this conceptual framework as a guide, this study aimed to understand the
perceptions and experiences of academic advisors working with historically marginalized
students, and to understand whether and how they self-reported working towards equitable
advising by being proactive and advocating for these students. More specifically, this study
aimed to illuminate how academic advisors connected (or failed to connect) students to
appropriate resources and opportunities necessary to support their holistic development and
progress towards degree completion. Lastly, this study explored whether and how academic
advisors advocated on behalf of historically marginalized students to transform the institutional
contexts that perpetuate systemic inequities (Bensimon et al., 2019). Chapter Three discusses the
study’s research methods, including the sampling, methods of data collection and analysis, as
well as efforts to ensure a credible, trustworthy, and ethical study.

32

Chapter Three: Methodology
This chapter presents an overview of the research methods and design for the research
question that guided this study: What are academic advisors’ perceptions and experiences of how
they can identify the needs of and better support historically marginalized students through
proactive advising behavior and serving as an institutional agent?
The purpose of qualitative research is to achieve an understanding of how individuals
make sense of and interpret their experiences (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). As an academic
advisor, I was interested in understanding how other academic advisors interpreted and
understood their advising interactions with historically marginalized students. This qualitative
research study explored academic advisors’ perceptions and experiences of their interactions
with and support provided to historically marginalized students. The study explored whether and
how they reported using institutional agency practices and proactive advising behaviors to
provide equitable support to these students such that they successfully navigate college and reach
their goals. Academic advisors reflected on their practices by participating in interviews and
writing journal entries using prompts I provided.
Sample
In this section, I discussed the sampling techniques for participants and justify the
sampling techniques.
Participants
Despite the action research project I had initially proposed no longer being a viable
option, I remained committed to ongoing and dedicated learning of the needs of diverse
historically marginalized student groups by gaining insight from academic advisors who
supported them. Specifically, academic advisors reflected on their interactions with their
33

historically marginalized students and given my conceptual framework, I probed specifically for
institutional agency practices and proactive advising behaviors. Given my interest in academic
advisors’ perceptions of their advising interactions with historically marginalized students,
purposeful sampling was appropriate for my qualitative research study. In qualitative research,
purposeful sampling occurs when participants are selected deliberately to provide relevant
information regarding the research question (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This approach allowed
me to understand and gain insight from a sample I can learn most from (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). The targeted number of potential participants was approximately 10 to 12 academic
advisors who worked in different types of institutions in California (e.g., large, small, public,
private, rural, urban, etc.). In California, there are four systems of higher education (i.e.,
California community colleges (CCC), California State Universities [CSU], Universities of
California [UC], and private colleges/universities). Each system has these different types of
institutions in existence. Further, California’s three of four systems of higher education award
baccalaureate degrees (i.e., CSU, UC, and private colleges/universities). So it was important for
me to gain insight from different advisors working in different settings located in different higher
education systems of California.
During the spring 2021 semester, I reached out to academic advisors about the study by
sharing the announcement on social media groups for student affairs professionals. Additionally,
I asked advisors to reshare the announcement on their social media platforms to expand the
outreach. As a result of my social media posts, I invited interested participants who expressed
meeting the selection criteria to participate. Interested participants completed a questionnaire to
determine criteria eligibility. The selection criteria for academic advisors consisted of the
following attributes: 1) academic advisor working at a baccalaureate-granting university/college
34

in California, 2) minimum 2 years of advising experience and 3) advised historically
marginalized students.
After 43 interested participants completed the questionnaire, I reached out via email to
the interested participants who met the criteria to briefly explain the purpose of my research
project and invite them to participate (see Appendix A). I also offered my availability to meet
with them individually via Zoom to further discuss the project in depth and address any
questions or concerns. There were interested participants who completed the questionnaire but
did not respond to my email. For the interested participants that did respond and agreed to meet
with me via Zoom for a pre-study meeting, followed through with attending the Zoom meeting.
During these meetings, I also informed the potential participants that their identity would be
protected by using pseudonyms and that any identifiable data would remain confidential. Lastly,
I reiterated to advisors that participation was voluntary, and they can opt out at any time.
After multiple conversations, I secured the first 10 participants who verbally committed
to being available to complete two journal entries and partake in an interview. Three of the 10
academic advisors who participated in the study worked for equity programs within the college
or university, dedicated to supporting historically marginalized students. All three equity
programs were either state funded or federally funded programs to support students that meet the
low-income status criteria, first-generation, and/or have a documented disability. Seven of the 10
academic advisors who participated in the study worked for advising programs and departments
that supported both historically marginalized students and non-historically marginalized students.
Information on participants can be found in Figure 4.

35

Figure 4
Participants’ Information: Part One
Participant Self-Identified as
Belonging to a
Historically
Marginalized
Group by Virtue
of Race and First-
Generation Status
Higher
Education
Institution
Type of
Institution
(Public or
Private)
Organizational
Model
Organization is an
Equity Program
Dedicated to Supporting
Historically
Marginalized Students
Amanda Yes Southern
Golden
State
Public Total Intake No
Beatrice Yes West
Golden
State
Public Self-Contained Yes
Destiny Yes North East
State
Private Self-Contained No
Eugene Yes East
Golden
State
Public Self-Contained No
Franchesca Yes North West
Golden
State
Private Self-Contained No
Grace Yes Northern
Golden
State
Public Self-Contained Yes
Heather Yes Southern
Golden
State
Public Self-Contained No
Irma Yes West
Golden
State
Public Self-Contained No
Jessica Yes North West
Golden
State
Private Self-Contained No
Kat Yes Northern
Golden
State
Public Self-Contained Yes
36

Figure 4 indicates that the different perspectives and experiences to be shared by the
participants in this study, are influenced to some extent by the experiences of historically
marginalized groups. Therefore, no perspectives and experiences will be shared by academic
advisors who self-identify as second generation and/or White. Also, Figure 4 shows that most
perspectives and experiences will be shared by academic advisors that self-identify as female
whereas there is only one academic advisor that self-identified as male. Based on my advising
experiences, the academic advising field is mostly represented by females. So the make-up of
participants reflects the majority representation by females. Further, 70% of the academic
advisors work for public institutions and 30% work at private institutions. 90% of the academic
advisors participating in the study work in central advising units where they support students
from the moment of enrollment to degree completion. Minimal data will be shared from the
perspective and experience of working in an intake model since 10% of academic advisors work
in this model. Data shared by academic advisors working in faculty only, supplementary, split,
dual and satellite models is absent. Lastly, as previously discussed, 30% of participants work for
equity programs, so majority of data collected will come from academic advisors working in
organizations that serve both historically marginalized students and non-historically marginalized
students.
Data Collection and Instruments/Protocols
Zoom is the platform where data collection happened during the spring 2021 semester
only. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, there was uncertainty as to when campus operations
would resume. Many California colleges and universities required their staff including academic
advisors, to work remotely beginning mid spring 2020 semester and until fall 2021 semester.
Therefore, it was appropriate that my data collection happened on Zoom and through email.
37

Before I officially began my study, I sought permission from the university’s Institutional
Review Board (IRB) and received approval. Due to changes in the study (no longer being an
action research project), I submitted amendments to IRB and was approved to move forward
with study.
For my qualitative research study, I collected data from participants’ journal entries and
conducted interviews with participants. I asked participants (academic advisors) to write journal
entries in response to reflection prompts I created (see Appendix B), to describe their honest
thoughts and feelings regarding the advising interactions they experienced with historically
marginalized students. While I could not ensure that the journal entries would reflect honest
thoughts and feelings, I tried my best to get as close as possible by reminding them that I really
wanted to understand their perspective so academic advisors can better support historically
marginalized students. Second, during the interviews, I let the academic advisor know that I was
taking notes during the interview to record the advising interactions discussed. So while I was
not looking at them directly, my undivided attention was being given to them. My goal was to
capture their perspectives accurately. By learning how participants perceived advising interaction
with historically marginalized students, academic advisors can take actions to make progress
towards providing equitable advising. Initially, the data collection was expected to begin in
February 2021 and conclude at the end of April 2021 to secure at least three months of data
collection. By the end of April 2021, I expected to have multiple pieces of data (please refer to
Table 1).

38

Table 1
Expected Data Collection Summary
Data
Collection
Month 1

(February
2021)
Month 2

(March
2021)
Month 3

(April 2021)
Total
Participant’s
Journal Entries
#1
10-12 10-12 0 20-24
Participant’s
Journal Entries
#2
10-12 10-12 0 20-24
Interviews 0 0 10-12 10-12

Collection began in late February 2021 as expected and concluded in May 2021 due to
having interviews scheduled in mid-May 2021. By the end of May 2021, I had collected multiple
pieces of data (please refer to Table 2).

Table 2
Data Collection Summary
Data
Collection
Month 1

(February
2021)
Month 2

(March
2021)
Month 3

(April 2021)
Month 4

(May 2021)
Total
Participant’s
Journal
Entries #1
2 7 1 0 10
Participant’s
Journal
Entries #2
0 3 2 0 5
Interviews 0 0 7 2 9

39

Documents and Artifacts
Participants’ journal entries were responses to reflection prompts. The journal entries
took place prior to interviews to capture their perceptions of an advising scenario, as well as the
extent to which their advising experiences were guided by institutional agency and proactive
advising. Also, data collected from the journal entries and identified as relevant to the study,
were further explored during the interview. I strongly believe having journal entries as one of
two data collection methods strengthened the credibility of academic advisors’ perceptions and
understanding of their advising interactions with historically marginalized students. These
journal entries were typed and emailed to me by participants. As previously mentioned, I asked
the participants via email to engage in two journal entries to capture their perceptions and
experiences of advising interactions with historically marginalized students. For the first journal
entry prompt, I provided participants with one reflection prompt (case scenario) to reflect on how
they would respond to a historically marginalized student in urgent need of support. 10 of 10
academic advisors submitted a response for the first journal prompt, so 10 journal entries were
collected. Data collected from journal entries in response to first reflection prompt offered
insight on how academic advisors would identify and support to the needs of a student in need of
urgent help. All academic advisors discussed prioritizing the students’ needs by responding to
their outreach that same day, replying via email with relevant information to address the matter,
and some offered to schedule a follow-up/check-in with the student. The interview protocol does
not provide academic advisors with an opportunity to engage in a case scenario. For the second
journal entry prompt, I provided participants with five reflection prompts to reflect on whether
they had evidence for engaging in proactive advising, had evidence for building trust and
relationships with their historically marginalized students, had challenges in acting consistently
40

and equitable through proactive advising, had evidence for an advising appointment being
successful, and had evidence for students making progress towards reaching goals illustrated in
the conceptual framework (e.g. holistic development, taking ownership, access to social capital,
persistence, and student success). Participants were asked to answer only one of five reflection
prompts. Five of 10 academic advisors submitted a response to a reflection prompt of their
choice, so five journal prompts were collected. Data collected from journal entries in response to
second reflection prompt offered insight on one academic advisor’s challenges faced in acting
consistently and equitably through proactive advising. Also, data collected offered insight on
how academic advisors defined success with their historically marginalized students, and their
perception of what is credible evidence to support their definition of success. The interview
protocol did not provide an opportunity for academic advisors to delve deeper into their
definition of success with historically marginalized students.
Interviews
I conducted interviews with participants at the conclusion of journal entry submissions to
gain a deeper understanding of the participants’ experiences not captured in journal entries
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016), and to further discuss the participants’ experiences discussed in
journal entries (see Appendix C). In this study, it was important to collect academic advisors’
perceptions and experiences of their advising interactions with historically marginalized students
because academic advisors have the most contact with students. I was interested in the varied
ways that academic advisors perceived and discussed their advising interactions with historically
marginalized students. Specifically, I was seeking for how these academic advisors described the
institutional agency techniques and/or proactive advising behavior they enacted, if at all.
41

These interviews took place in April and May 2021. With the permission of participants,
I audio recorded the interviews on two separate software, Zoom and Otter.ai, to ensure all data
was preserved (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Zoom software was the primary software for data
collection while Otter.ai was the backup software should a malfunction have occurred.
Specifically, I used Zoom cloud because it allowed for the recording of video and audio and
provided a transcript. I used audio record using the Otter.ai web format to record and transcribe
live. After each interview, I revisited the Zoom cloud recording to download a copy and
uploaded it immediately to both Otter.ai and a separate hard drive. Then, I deleted the Zoom
recording from the cloud. Additionally, I saved the transcription of the Otter.ai and Zoom cloud
recordings in Google Drive and the separate hard drive.
The academic advisors’ interview protocol was intended to facilitate a 45-minute semi-
structured interview so that I could remain on track with the interview by having a set of
questions to explore issues while also having the flexibility to follow the participant’s lead to
pursue additional information with follow-up questions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). However,
each interview lasted approximately 90 minutes. Topics explored consisted of the following:
organization’s and advisor’s own expectations of the academic advisor role, support for
historically marginalized students, advising practices, perceived needs of historically
marginalized students, social capital, students’ goals, advocacy, engagement, and holistic student
development. Overall, 9 of 10 academic advisors who participated in the study, were interviewed
once, totaling 13.5 hours. One of the 10 academic advisors was unresponsive to emails for
scheduling the interview but provided journal responses.

42

Data Analysis
Qualitative research requires continuous data analysis both during and after data
collection to inform the study’s findings (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). As previously mentioned,
the first journal entries were submitted in February 2021. As I waited to collect the second
journal entries in March 2021, I used the remainder of February and early March 2021
(approximately two weeks) to analyze data collected through the first journal entry. Then in
March 2021, I collected the second journal entry responses and analyzed the data in late March
and early April 2021 (approximately three weeks). The data collected from journal entries and
relevant to the study, were used to clarify and/or further discuss in the interviews. For example, I
intended to ask participants to further discuss a journal entry whenever an interview question
aligned with the journal prompt they responded to. By doing this, it was an opportunity to seek
more information or clarity on what the participants said in the journal entry (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). So in mid-April and May 2021, I collected data from interviews and analyzed the data in
May and June 2021 (approximately six weeks).
First, I engaged in data management (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This process included
listening to the audio recording to verify the transcription of interviews and made minor edits
where necessary. Second, I engaged in data identification (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This
process included identifying segments of data that were responsive to my research question
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Additionally, the codes that I applied during the data analysis of the
first journal entries, allowed me to engage in ongoing analysis to collect data during the analysis
of the second journal entries and interviews while also partaking in data analysis (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). I approached my data analysis by coding according to my conceptual framework
and research question. The construction of coding started off highly inductive (Merriam &
43

Tisdell, 2016). Once the first round of data analysis was completed, I began operating from a
deductive stance as my conceptual framework and research question changed based on data
analysis (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Then, I completed a second round of coding after I began to
sort and re-code data segments into the following categories based on the updated conceptual
framework and research question: holistic development, taking ownership, access to social
capital, persistence, student success, institutional agency behavior, proactive advising behavior
and prescriptive advising behavior. As data was being analyzed, I continued to write personal
reflections that served as analytic memos to describe what I was learning from the data, their
relationship to my conceptual framework, and considered how my biases may be projected onto
the data collection and analysis processes (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Also, when necessary, I
engaged in member checks with participants to ensure my interpretations of their experiences
were true (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Analyzed data were stored in multiple places, including
password protected cloud sites of Google drive and Otter.ai, as well as a separate hard drive.
Limitations and Delimitations
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, a limitation for my qualitative study was that spring
2021 semester was online for all higher education institutions, including those for whom the
academic advisors worked. Therefore, data collection took place online and I could not observe
advising interactions as I hoped for due to privacy and security concerns. This online method of
advising is not typical, so a limitation is that what academic advisors described as having
accomplished or experienced challenges with advising online, may not be transferable to what
they would have normally been able to accomplish or experience through in person advising
sessions prior to March 2020. Further, another limitation is that whenever academic advisors
described past advising experiences that took place in-person, they shared information based on
44

memory from one year prior. So the concern is that the memory is not an accurate interpretation
of the advising interaction.
Additionally, the COVID-19 pandemic caused concerns for students in regard to distance
learning and left them with many unanswered questions that advisors didn’t have resolutions for,
campus partners were in-process of figuring out, and/or the institution was addressing them as
new challenges arose. Thus, these historically contextual factors may have impacted the
perceptions of academic advisors’ in terms of their ability to support students to the best of their
ability. As such, what the advisors shared may not be a typical representation of their perceptions
and experiences.
Another limitation in this study was that participants self-reported their perceptions and
descriptions of interactions in the form of journal entries and interviews. As with all self-reported
data, one cannot be sure that participants were honest or that they remembered specific
interactions. Further, another limitation is I did not collect the proposed and expected amount of
data. While all participants submitted their first journal entry, only five of the 10 academic
advisors submitted their second journal entry responses. Also, nine of the 10 academic advisors
participated in the interview portion of the study, and one participant was unresponsive to my
scheduling emails. Lastly, all participants self-identified as former historically marginalized
students. Therefore, perspectives captured from academic advisors that did not self-identify as
historically marginalized, are missing from the study.
A delimitation in this qualitative research study was that I chose to focus my study on
academic advisors working at baccalaureate-granting universities and colleges in California.
There are other advisor roles such as faculty advisor, that have direct contact with students and
may have provided valuable and relevant information. However, I bounded this study by
45

focusing specifically on academic advisors. Also, there are other types of higher education
institutions in California such as community colleges, that do not award baccalaureate degrees,
but that enroll many historically marginalized students. Sampling academic advisors from these
community colleges may have also offered valuable and relevant information.
Another delimitation is the choice not to include student voice in this study. Literature on
students’ perceptions of the support they receive from institutional agents is minimal, and the
same is true for my study. Brookfield (2017) discussed the importance of understanding
students’ perspectives is crucial to building connections and guiding students from point A to
point B throughout their educational journey. Although I did not have the opportunity to
interview historically marginalized students for the study, it was important to get as close as
possible to understanding the experiences of these students from the individuals with whom they
have the most contact. I chose to focus my study on academic advisors’ interactions with
historically marginalized groups, but from their perspective. So I asked participants in my study
to think about and reflect on interactions with these groups of students. There are other
historically marginalized groups that may need support from academic advisors that I missed as a
result of my narrow criteria for participant and topic selection.
Lastly, I chose to focus on institutional agency techniques and proactive advising. My
conceptual framework was constructed using the literature on these concepts because research
shows their utility when working specifically with historically marginalized students. However,
there are additional advising practices and approaches that I did not consider. This delimitation
shaped what I gleaned, because the concepts represented in my conceptual framework were the
ones that shaped my data collection protocols and thus, the data it produced.

46

Credibility and Trustworthiness
I have a personal connection to the study due to my identity and professional experience.
I self-identify as a former first-generation college student who belongs to a historically
marginalized group by virtue of race (i.e. Latino/a/x). During my first semester at the University
of California, Berkeley (UC Berkeley), I struggled to adjust to the new learning environment. I
was not prepared for the academic rigor nor the personal challenges that accompanied it. My
eyes were opened to access and diversity issues at predominantly white institutions (PWIs), such
as the disproportionate gap of enrollment between White students and historically marginalized
students. Fortunately, UC Berkeley’s Educational Opportunity Program (EOP) reached out to me
during my first semester because I met their program’s eligibility criteria: low-income and
historically marginalized. Throughout my undergraduate journey, EOP counselors were
institutional agents who validated my student experiences, provided guidance to navigate UC
Berkeley, connected me to learning and community engagement opportunities, and empowered
me to utilize my student voice to fight against the systemic inequities at UC Berkeley and the
greater Bay Area community. EOP counselors and the UC Berkeley Public Service Center’s
advisors reaffirmed that I belonged at UC Berkeley and that I could create change. Most
importantly, I learned how to overcome personal and academic obstacles, grow while at UC
Berkeley, and ultimately graduate. The support and guidance I was fortunate to receive made all
the difference. I felt a sense of responsibility to reciprocate the support I’ve received during my
undergraduate experience by assisting historically marginalized students navigate their college
campus and push back against the systemic inequities within higher education.
47

My personal and academic experiences influenced me to serve undergraduate students in
a student affairs practitioner role that had consistent contact with students. Therefore, I chose to
become an academic advisor at a PWI and my hope was to be in a position that would allow me
to reverse the trends we see in higher education. In my advising experience, historically
marginalized students expressed what we know from the literature: that having access to
institutional support early-on and developing meaningful relationships with advisors is crucial to
feeling connected and a part of the larger campus community. Nevertheless, there were several
challenges and institutional barriers at the PWI that I was working at, that hindered my ability to
support the holistic student development of students and form a mutual partnership with students.
As a result, I became an academic advisor guilty at times of being a gatekeeper (Stanton-Salazar,
2011), and unconsciously shifted away from my commitment to serve students towards
promoting institutional priorities (Brookfield, 2017).
The lower persistence/graduation rates of historically marginalized student groups, and
my personal experience as a historically marginalized college student, inspired me to focus on
things within my control as an advisor. I had control in my oral, non-verbal, and written
communication with students, as well as the type of support and opportunities I provided to
students. So I pursued an action research project for my dissertation study to focus on my
advising practices with historically marginalized students. By focusing on things within my
control as an Academic Advisor, I intended to identify the students who needed support and how
to best support their development throughout their college experience by conducting an action
research project. In early 2019, I discussed the action research project with my supervisors and
received verbal support from them to pursue the study. For the next seven months, I put together
48

the action research study, passed the proposal defense, and received IRB approval to move
forward with the study.
Unfortunately, once IRB approval was granted, the supervisors within my organization
prevented me from moving forward with the action research project. First, I was recommended
to study a different advisor within the organization and their population, instead of studying my
own advising practices. Also, I was informed that a technique to screen potential participants that
I intended to use, was not allowed. I felt blindsided by this information because a supervisor had
verbally suggested this technique and I submitted my decision to use this technique in
documentation. Thus, this documentation could have jeopardized my employment. At the
moment, I did not disclose the verbal suggestion because I was shocked. Instead, I listened to
their concerns regarding the study such as harming students because of the study, violating
FERPA regulations, and preferential treatment for study participants. I found solutions to their
concerns (including the removal of the screener technique), that were confirmed by the Director
of Office for Protection of Research Subjects. However, the supervisors continued to push back
with issues regarding the study even as I came up with solutions to address their issues. It
became clear that the supervisors did not want me to conduct the study and they were doing
everything in their power to prevent the study moving forward. When I finally received a firm no
from the highest supervisor, I chose to no longer pursue the action research project because
enough harm was inflicted upon me, and I did not want to further jeopardize my employment.
This experience gave me insight into the power dynamics between academic advisors and their
supervisors, and the ways that organizations can maintain the status quo by choosing to not
address and understand advising practices that perpetuate inequities.
49

Since the action research project was no longer supported by my department prior to the
start of data collection, I transitioned to a traditional qualitative research study in 2021. It was
still important for me to conduct a study that focused on improving support for historically
marginalized students, and the best alternative was to connect with individuals who have
consistent contact: academic advisors. Based on my personal experiences, I aligned with
participants’ experiences of being a historically marginalized students navigating college and its
influence on their role as academic advisors. Also, based on my professional experiences, I
aligned with the participants’ experiences of being constrained by the institution to work towards
equitable advising. My supervisors prevented me from moving forward with the action research
project due to concerns such as preferential treatment for historically marginalized students. So a
bias I had coming into the study was that institutional barriers existed that hindered academic
advisors from supporting the holistic development of students and developing relationships with
them. Therefore, another bias that emerged was that academic advisors were not actively playing
a role in perpetuating educational inequities.
To maximize the credibility of my findings, I referred to Maxwell’s (2013) checklist for
strategies. First, I used triangulation to cross-check the data collected from the documents with
the interviews (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). For example, during the data collection of second
journal entry, a participant described a hostile and racist experience that a historically
marginalized student faced, and the participant shared their perception and understanding of the
situation. Later during the interview, the participant further described the situation, and their
perception and understanding of the situation shared during the interview, validated my initial
analysis of the second journal prompt. Additionally, I further maximized the credibility of my
findings during the data analysis phase by member checking (Maxwell, 2013). As previously
50

mentioned, member checks identified my biases and clarified any misunderstanding of my
interpretation of participants’ experiences (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). For example, a participant
described engaging in prescriptive advising behavior when a historically marginalized student
appeared disengaged. I assumed the participant was moving through the advising appointment
quickly because of the institutional barriers the administrative responsibilities spoke of earlier
were impeding her ability to engage with the student. When I reached out to the participant for
clarification, it turned out that no institutional barriers were impacting the advising appointment,
and instead the academic advisor chose to default to prescriptive advising behavior, which
surprised me. Lastly, I further maximized the credibility of my findings by writing personal
reflections that served as analytic memos. Then I discussed my reflections with my dissertation
chair to check my understanding of academic advisors’ perceptions, as well as biases and
assumptions influenced by my personal identity and professional experiences.
Ethics
Ethical practice is important in all research endeavors and should be guided by the
Belmont Report. Regarding confidentiality of participants, I used pseudonyms for both
participants and the institutions in which they work, removed details that identified an academic
advisor and made sure advising interactions’ descriptions did not identify academic advisors as a
participant in this study (Coghlan, 2019; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I reminded participants in
each email and interview that their participation was voluntary. To obtain consent, at the
beginning of each interview, I requested permission from participants to be interviewed and
audio recorded by giving them the information sheet again and asking if they had any questions.
All participants who agreed to participate in an interview, agreed to be audio recorded. Lastly, I
used personal memos to reflect on the ethical issues being raised, and then discussed these
51

reflections with my dissertation chair when I needed guidance (Coghlan, 2019). For example, a
participant was concerned that by disaggregating their race/ethnicity, it would easily identify
who they are by their institution, and therefore jeopardize their confidentiality and privacy. After
speaking with my dissertation chair, we agreed it was best to identify the participant as belonging
to the race/ethnicity group they asked for as a demonstration of my respect for research
participants.
Summary
This chapter summarized the methods used in this qualitative research study. Chapter
Four will discuss the findings of my research. Chapter Five concludes with a discussion of
findings as well as implications for policy and practice. Also, Chapter five provides
recommendations for further research to inform higher education administrators, supervisors of
advising departments and programs, and academic advisors on transformational ways and
advising practices to work towards equitable advising.

52

Chapter Four: Findings
The purpose of my qualitative research study was to gain a deeper understanding of how
institutional agents (academic advisors) perceived and understood their advising interactions
with historically marginalized students. More specifically, this study examined how academic
advisors did or did not enact institutional agency techniques and proactive advising behaviors to
fully support historically marginalized students navigating college. The research question that
guided this study was:
What are academic advisors’ perceptions and experiences of how they can identify the
needs of and better support historically marginalized students through proactive advising
behavior and serving as an institutional agent?
Chapter Four presents findings drawn from the analysis of 15 journal responses completed by 10
academic advisors. Also, data to inform the findings included nine interviews completed by nine
of the 10 academic advisors who participated in the study. Further information on participants
can be found in Figure 5.

53

Figure 5
Participants’ Information: Part Two
Participant Gender Race Type of Institution
(Public or Private)
Hispanic Serving
Institution
Amanda Female Latina Public Yes
Beatrice Female Latinx Public No
Destiny Female Latina Private Yes
Eugene Male Latinx Public Yes
Franchesca Female Latinx Private No
Grace Female Latina Public Yes
Heather Female Latina Public Yes
Irma Female Latina Public No
Jessica Female Asian Private No
Kat Female Latina Public Yes

Clear Understanding of Role as Institutional Agents
As summarized in Chapter Two, Stanton-Salazar (2011) describes an institutional agent
as an individual in a hierarchical position with high status and authority, and possesses social
capital (i.e., key forms of social and institutional support) within their network. This social
capital is accessible indirectly or directly through other institutional agents (Stanton-Salazar,
2011). Key forms of social support include academic services, support services and engagement.
Key forms of institutional support include resources and opportunities. In higher education, high
status individuals who possess social capital include faculty, staff, administrative leaders,
counselors and academic advisors. Building upon Stanton-Salazar (2011) definition of
institutional agency, Bensimon and colleagues (2019) argued that high-status individuals within
54

higher education serve in an institutional agent capacity when “they use their position, status, and
authority to act on behalf of young people to advocate for institutional support to be directed
towards their education” (p. 1695). This qualitative study examined whether and how academic
advisors served as an institutional agent for historically marginalized students by taking action to
support and advance the educational experience of students as Stanton-Salazar (2011) and
Bensimon and colleagues (2019) discussed. Historically marginalized students can benefit from
having a network of institutional agents who provide “privileges, institutional resources,
opportunities for career mobility, wealth creation, political empowerment, and school
achievement” (Stanton-Salazar, 2011, p. 1077). Bensimon et al. (2019) argue that institutional
agents can support historically marginalized students by having “an understanding of
institutionalized oppressiveness” and attempt “to transform institutional contexts such that they
function as well for minoritized students as they do for white students” (pp. 1691-1692). Thus,
historically marginalized students need institutional agents who provide intentional support in a
holistic manner while also taking action to address institutional barriers that hinder the students’
success or negatively affect their experiences.
In this study, academic advisors had a clear understanding of their role as institutional
agents, that is serving as a liaison between the student and university. Serving as a liaison
consisted of extending access to social capital to students as well as connecting students to the
larger campus community and understanding the college culture to successfully navigate college.
In this study, the liaison capacity did not often include the advocacy mentioned by Bensimon and
her colleagues (2019). It’s important to note that conditions of the organizations did not always
create the environment for the academic advisors to engage in the level of institutional agency
that Bensimon and colleagues (2019) spoke of. To some extent, the structure of the institutions
55

constrained the academic advisors to take action to address institutional barriers. At the same
time, academic advisors failed to push back against the institutions to transform institutional
contexts that could improve the experiences of historically marginalized students (Bensimon et
al., 2019). Nevertheless, the institutional agent techniques that these advisors reported applying
most frequently to empower students to take onus of their education were 1) providing support to
meet students’ needs, 2) relaying social and institutional support and 3) serving as a safe harbor.
These institutional agency techniques discussed by participants support the claim that academic
advisors in the study had a clear understanding of their role as institutional agents, because the
techniques allowed academic advisors to 1) extend access to social capital for historically
marginalized students, 2) provide them support with navigating their institution and 3) develop
an understanding of the campus culture.
Providing Support to Meet Students’ Needs
Academic advisors are institutional agents who possess the social capital crucial for
students to successfully navigate college (Stanton-Salazar, 2011). Academic advisors in this
study understood that a big part of their role was to provide support to meet students’ needs. One
way they did this was in being knowledgeable about university policies and procedures,
important deadlines, existing resources and support offered by campus partners. Providing direct
support consists of transmitting this knowledge, teaching students how to network, and how to
navigate higher education (Garcia & Ramirez, 2018). By being knowledgeable, academic
advisors can serve as cultural navigators who provide direct support to students in their college
journey and extend access to social capital as illustrated in the revised conceptual framework.
Nine of 10
5
participants were interviewed and asked to describe their organization’s expectations

5
As explained in Chapter Three, the 10
th
participant was not interviewed due to being unresponsive to scheduling
requests, however she did provide one journal response, so she is included in this study as a participant.
56

of them as an academic advisor, and all responded with being knowledgeable and transmitting
their knowledge to students in order to support their needs. These responses demonstrated the
advisors’ understanding of their role as academic advisors to serve as institutional agents.
Being Knowledgeable
Being knowledgeable about institutional policies, procedures and practices was perceived
to be critical if advisors were to provide support to meet students’ needs. For example, Amanda,
a Latina advisor who worked at a HSI, described the importance of making historically
marginalized students aware of institutional policies to assist with major exploration. Amanda
shared,
So, we work with students who are undeclared or exploring majors. A lot of times, it
happens to be students that were trying to get into a more competitive major, like in
STEM...and were not admitted into that major. So they’re offered admission as
undeclared with the intention that they should be actively exploring majors that are not
STEM, but they can still try to pursue these majors. So really supporting these students
and their goals... if their goal is to pursue a specific major, let’s make sure that you
understand the expectations, and the qualifications needed to get to that major... we are
here to support you with another plan, if you change your mind.
By saying “let’s make sure that you understand the expectations, and the qualifications needed to
get to that major,” Amanda demonstrated her role in ensuring she was a liaison between the
student and the institution, supporting the student by sharing information needed to make a
change the student desired. College can be an overwhelming place for historically marginalized
students to navigate by themselves. Historically marginalized students at HSIs, benefit from
having institutional agents like Amanda, take steps to disseminate the institutional knowledge
57

provided in a manner that helps these students understand expectations. It’s crucial that academic
advisors remain knowledgeable and up to date with institutional policies and procedures to best
support students in whatever goals the student wishes to pursue, and support students in pursuing
those goals.
Destiny, a Latina advisor at a small private HSI institution, stated that the majority of
students enrolled at the HSI in which she worked were identified as historically marginalized.
Destiny described serving as a liaison who supported the academic goals of historically
marginalized students. She stated,
They’re really just being that liaison between both... I think the expectation is that we are
responsive, that we are there to guide the student to help them figure out what their
academic schedule is going to look like...I think we’re there to also help the student
figure out what it is that they really want to focus their academic time. And so, if their
initial plan isn’t working out, what can they transition into, right. So what is the next
steps that they can take, to maybe transition to a new program, and really help them
figure out what program is going to be a better fit.
Destiny was committed to the success of historically marginalized students by using her
knowledge to guide these students through the unknown waters of their college journey. Destiny
supported students in pursuing their goals during transitional phases but also assisted the students
in determining program fit based on their interests and needs if the students were unsure what
path to take. While there were no expectations and formal guidelines set by the institution to
inform Destiny on how to support historically marginalized students intentionally, Destiny and
her department took it upon themselves to provide differentiated support to these students
58

because they understood that these students needed it to successfully navigate college. As
Destiny stated,
Because we have seen a need, we go that extra step to ask questions about, maybe what
can a student do if they’re in a particular situation? Are there any special grants that they
can apply for? Is there a specific question that they should be asking to maybe help them
understand the payment system that you know, the institution has? So, I think those are
all extra steps that, at least within my office, in the advisement office, we’ve been taking
to really help our students understand, like their entire experience.
Bensimon et al. (2019) argued that institutional agents “have the cultural and political know-how
to intentionally mobilize” resources for students of racial and ethnic backgrounds (p. 1712).
Garcia and Ramirez (2018) identified these institutional agents at HSIs, as lobbyists who use
their skills to attain resources for the purposes of retaining and supporting historically
marginalize students. Destiny and her department provided differentiated support to historically
marginalized students by going “that extra step to ask questions.” Most importantly, asking
questions such as a “specific question” that a historically marginalized student may not know to
ask, aligned with Bensimon and colleagues (2019) statement of institutional agents having the
“cultural and political know-how” of the college culture. By asking questions, Destiny and her
department learned more about a student’s unique situation, and the student’s responses
informed their actions as lobbyists to intentionally mobilize resources to connect the student with
such as “special grants that they[student] can apply for.” These “special grants” would retain and
support these historically marginalized students. Additionally, as Strayhorn (2015) stated in his
study, academic advisors must view their roles as cultural navigators that help students belong
and learn how to maneuver through higher education culture, while also viewing students as
59

“agents of their own destiny” (p. 59). As Destiny demonstrated in the study, she embraced
Strayhorn’s (2015) idea of being a “cultural navigator” when she helped students learn how to
navigate her institution’s culture, such as applying for “special grants” to fund their college
education, something that may not traditionally be seen as the role of an academic advisor.
Ultimately, Destiny utilized her institutional agency to provide holistic support to these students
to 1) ensure their needs were met by extending access to social capital and 2) contribute to the
students’ deeper understanding of “their entire experience.”
Professional Development. Staying up to date and knowledgeable so as to provide
support to meet students’ needs requires continuous professional development. Grace, a Latina
advisor at a HSI, worked for an equity program dedicated to serving historically marginalized
students only. She described the importance of participating in professional development
opportunities. Grace stated,
Most of our large majority of students are first-generation students of color, different
affiliations with regards to foster youth, sexual identity, all that with regards to what’s
considered marginalized. So we don’t really like, make sure that we check off boxes...We
make sure that we outreach to every single one, we’ll make sure that we are up to date
with regards to the more current advising pedagogy, we do a lot of professional
development. My boss is very good at sending us to conferences, or making sure that we
read, you know, read up-to-date articles with regards to figuring out how to help students
better… But you know, first gen don’t really know how to navigate well. So we try to
create different contexts or points of contact for them, so that way, they can ease into the
transition a little better. Now, this is how you talk to a professor or this is how you send
an email. This is what Blackboard is, you know, that kind of stuff.
60

Grace utilized her cultural knowledge of the institution to provide guidance to historically
marginalized students of the unspoken rules of navigating college using different means of
communication. By intentionally creating “different contexts or points of contact for them,” she
communicated being better able to relay institutional rules like how to talk to professors or use
the learning management system. Also, Grace was able to create “different points of contact” for
historically marginalized students by creating a social network with institutional and social
support. Grace embraced being an integrative agent at a HSI, who integrated other institutional
agents into their network to help advance support for historically marginalized students (Garcia
& Ramirez, 2018). This concept is represented in the revised conceptual framework as the social
and institutional support located within the social network. Grace credited her knowledge of how
to relay institutional information to her students to the professional development opportunities
her department provided. As such, she highlighted the importance of an academic advisor having
the most current knowledge to be able to support students.
Irma, a Latina advisor at a large public PWI institution, also said that her organization
encouraged employees to stay up to date with current trends in regard to challenges experienced
by historically marginalized students, and increase access to historically marginalized students,
through professional development opportunities. Afterwards, Irma applied the knowledge and
skills gained through professional development opportunities during her drop-in hours in campus
spaces. Irma stated,
Our office is really good about helping us grow professionally and developing our skills.
So we are encouraged to attend...like series that basically like a couple of times a month,
you get invited to like these zoom meetings. And they cover different topics. Most
recently, they had one for LGBTQ+ students, and then they’ve done one for the first-
61

generation. So we’re always encouraged to attend those. Our office is really good about
trying to create partnerships. So we’re allowed to do style advising to different
departments. So for example, I’ve done advising through the disabled student program
before where I will go into their own space and offer services there. And we have a bunch
of that going on in very different spaces... Like, we have a lot of conversations with
training around like students in distress and like how to handle that...we’re always trying
to make sure we have the most up to date information, we get retrained. Every
Wednesday, we meet to discuss new policies, you know. Definitely showing care,
definitely referrals and I think, trying to just not label them and do strength-based
advising.
In this example, Irma highlighted the importance of staying “up to date” with information to
improve advising services and provide support to meet students’ needs. In these trainings, Irma
expressed learning about specific strategies that work with specific populations, thus enabling
advisors to target their support. Grace and Irma’s experiences highlight the importance of
organization providing opportunities for academic advisors to expand their knowledge on the
historically marginalized student populations they serve, as well as engage with campus partners
to work collectively to support the holistic development of students. Without this knowledge,
academic advisors can’t support their students as effectively.
Empowering Students, Not Doing for Them
Cultural navigators also help students understand how the information provided will
impact their college experience so that students can make informed decisions for their college
journey. Eight of nine participants interviewed discussed the expectation of providing
information to students to empower them in taking ownership of their education, which is a goal
62

listed in the revised conceptual framework. Heather, a Latina advisor who worked at a large
public HSI stated,
Our goal is kind of like to assist students, and the way I interpret our role and
expectations would be as someone who is able to interpret policy and like the academic
rules, and be able to establish that relationship with students so that we can help them
navigate their own educational trajectory. So while we’re not at the level of a professor,
or their friend, right, like, we’re still developing, like this professional relationship that’s
kind of filled with trust. Hopefully, that they can take their advice and that they can make
informed decisions coming from the official source at school.
In this quote, Heather is echoing Strayhorn’s (2015) idea of empowering students to be “agents
of their own destiny” when she said, “so that we can help them navigate their own educational
trajectory.” As the “official source at school” who was charged with interpreting policy and
rules, she also saw the role of academic advisor as someone who gives advice to the student to
then take up and make their own “informed decisions.” Heather mentioned developing a
“professional relationship that’s…filled with trust,” which signals that she believed without that
trust, students won’t take their advice.
Eugene, a Latinx advisor who worked at a public HSI with approximately 90% of its
student population from historically marginalized backgrounds, also saw their role as being
similar to how Heather and Strayhorn (2015) described it. Eugene stated,
I think it’s mostly predicated on the premise that we’re there to support students in their
educational journeys. And the word support being very intentionally used, not doing it on
their behalf, and not doing it in a way that we’re providing so much support that the
student is unable to do...uhm... that they are unable to do it on their own. More
63

encouraging, supporting and helping the student grow. And so yeah, the expectation is
that whatever the students need, that we are knowledgeable.
Eugene also believed that their academic advisor role was to know when to place the onus on the
student, to empower them to “grow” and be able “to do it on their own.” Also, Eugene touched
upon cultural navigators finding that balance between Strayhorn’s (2015) idea of helping
students “learn how to maneuver through higher education culture” and empowering them to be
“agents of their own destiny” when he said, “not doing it on their behalf, and not doing it in a
way that we’re providing so much support that the student is unable to do...do it on their own.”
Amanda discussed that finances were an important topic of conversation for the
historically marginalized students whom she served. Amanda described being a cultural
navigator who found balance between helping students navigate finances and empowering them
to make decisions regarding their financial wellness. Amanda stated,
Yes, I think finances are a really big part of a lot of the conversations that we have with
our students. And I think just this lack of understanding or lack of awareness, in general,
of how finances work, is a big issue, right. Like financial literacy. Even understanding
how much tuition is per semester… So really sort of breaking down those numbers to
help them understand. Okay, this is how much tuition is. Okay, are you renting? Are you
driving? These are how much, you know, this is how much parking is...This is how much
you would spend on gas per week...and like, sort of those basic necessities that they need
for college, right. And even if that meant, like having some sort of liaison relationship
between advising and financial aid. Because obviously, we know we can refer the student
to the financial aid office. But when they are sitting with you in an advising appointment,
and they have these questions, it’s sort of difficult to refer them if they can’t get their
64

question answered right away… So, I think that can be a way to sort of help them
understand so that way they can take that knowledge and be able to advocate for
themselves as they continue throughout their journey.
Rather than immediately referring historically marginalized students to the financial aid office,
Amanda relied on her expertise and knowledge of financial aid to 1) transmit knowledge of “how
much tuition is” and 2) teach these students how to navigate the institution by developing an
understanding of financial aid. College related finances are a primary concern for historically
marginalized students throughout their college trajectory. By having an institutional agent like
Amanda provide intentional support by “breaking down those numbers to help them
understand,” Amanda was equipping the students with knowledge and tools to take charge of
their personal finances, and empowering them to learn how to “advocate for themselves” once
the connection was made to the financial aid office on campus. She did not focus solely on the
students’ academic experiences but saw her role as more holistic.
The statements above demonstrate that academic advisors in this study had a clear
understanding of their role as institutional agents and were committed to improving the
experiences of historically marginalized students through information sharing that was intended
to empower them to take charge of their educational journeys.
Using Multiple Methods of Communication
Although literature focusing on institutional agents does not speak to the importance of
providing support to students to meet their needs through multiple methods of communication,
five of 10
6
academic advisors in this study took initiative to provide advising contact through
various means. There are different methods of communication that the five academic advisors in

6
The 10
th
participant submitted journal entries and is thus included in the sample.
65

this study utilized outside of advising appointments to support students because they recognized
that extending access to social capital contributed to students learning how to navigate the
college culture. Also, not all students feel the need to or want to meet with advisors for an
advising appointment. By having multiple forms of communication, students can still receive
support from advisors outside of advising appointments and have access to information that will
be useful for navigating their institution.
Kat, a Latina academic advisor at a large public HSI with 86% of students from
historically marginalized backgrounds, worked for an equity program. In her role, she facilitated
semesterly advising workshops for historically marginalized students during the first year of
college. Historically marginalized students in their first year were required to attend the advising
workshops. During the interview, Kat stated,
We are now facilitating advising workshops to our first-year cohort, I must have done
about 20. But there’s no actual number on the order limit to the workshops that we can
facilitate, but we used to all rotate the same workshop. And within the past year or two,
we’ve just tailored it to present to our cohort, individually, especially since we’re virtual.
So this way, they get to know us a little bit more. And what that presentation overview is,
how to navigate your student portal, go through your student center and navigate your
degree audit.
Kat demonstrated the role of “cultural navigator” by helping historically marginalized students in
the first year, learn early on how to navigate their institution. She did this through
demonstrations of how to access programs and services and providing important information
pertaining to a student’s college experience and degree requirements. This concept is reflected in
the one-way arrow with institutional agency techniques as illustrated in the revised conceptual
66

framework. By requiring students to attend these advising workshops, Kat’s department provided
support by connecting students to the college culture. Most importantly, Kat developed a
structure within the equity program that supported and empowered students during the first year
of college.
In Eugene’s department, academic advisors supported students’ academic needs by
providing them with a six-page academic advising syllabus that included information regarding
academic advising. Both students and advisors worked together to create the academic advising
syllabus several years ago. Eugene shared,
We do provide them with an academic advising syllabus that talks a little bit more in
depth about the expectations of the partnership, right. You know, we are not going to
actively register you for your courses. But when you have questions about how to register
for courses, we will be patient, kind and caring and walk you through that process.
The academic advising syllabus had the following information: academic advising departmental
goals, shared responsibilities of students and advisors, policies and procedures of academic
advising and contact information (i.e., emails, phone number, hours, location and website). By
providing the academic advising syllabus to students via email and in-person meetings, Eugene
supported students by providing information about academic advising expectations, the support
offered to students and their responsibility in taking ownership of their education. Kat and
Eugene’s experiences highlight the importance of organizations offering different means of
communications for academic advisors to provide support to meet students’ needs.
Constraints and Failures
Literature on institutional agents asking students if their support met their needs is
minimal, and the same is true for my study. As explained in the Limitations and Delimitations
67

section in Chapter Three, this study is limited by the fact that it only sought out the perceptions
of the academic advisors themselves, not the students. Some advisors recognized that although
they provided support to meet students’ needs as expected by their institutions, the interactions
post advising appointments made them feel that they did not support historically marginalized
students to the best of their ability. Thus, academic advisors fell short of serving in an
institutional capacity where they used their position to “act on behalf” of historically
marginalized students” and “advocate for institutional support to be directed towards their
education” (Bensimon et al., 2019, p. 1695).
Franchesca, a Latinx advisor who worked for a predominantly White department at a
large private PWI, described the challenge of assisting a junior Latino student seeking her help
and feeling unsure of how to provide support moving forward. She shared,
He seemed like he didn’t know what was going on…he didn’t seem to kind of like, I
guess the hidden curriculum is what I’m referring to. Like, he didn’t seem to understand
like, which most of our students of color don’t. And then, when talking to him for the
first time… I was trying to assess his needs, but I can really feel like after a session, I
really didn’t feel like I understood what his needs were afterwards… I feel like he needs
more intrusive support. So I kind of started setting up more appointments with him…I
feel like the student kind of needs even more support beyond what I can provide
sometimes. … So, I think what I struggle with, with this student in particular, is I’m
trying to really understand where he’s coming from. And I’ve asked him about, you
know, his background, his narrative... So I think I just really struggle with the student,
particularly because I’m trying to kind of address his academic needs, but I feel like he
68

also needs to have other needs addressed at the same time, in order to help support him
academically.
Despite Franchesca being available to meet with the Latino student multiple times to support his
needs and discuss concerns, she felt she was unable to help the student learn how to navigate the
institution’s culture. If the academic advisor is unable to “understand where [the student] is
coming from,” it’s difficult to support them through providing the right information to them. In
this case, multiple attempts to connect still felt futile to Franchesca. Franchesca may have taken
action to set up additional appointments in hopes of providing “more intrusive support” to the
junior Latino student (e.g., relaying social and institutional support [connecting the student to
institutional agents via email]), but it did not transform the institutional contexts “such that they
function as well” the student “as they do for white students” (Bensimon et al., 2019, p. 1692).
According to Franchesca, after the multiple appointments, the student still “doesn’t know how to
navigate the system,” and it was something that she “struggled with.” Franchesca did not
improve the educational experience of the junior Latino student when she stated, “I feel like to
this day, I still struggle meeting his needs academic and personal… because I feel like he’s still
struggling.”
Kat had a similar experience of not being able to connect with a historically marginalized
student in ways that would have made her a better institutional agent to the student. Kat shared,
So, I have a [Black] student who expressed interest in researching historically Black
colleges and universities. The student, there’s personal things going on at home. Every
time we meet on Zoom, it’s our advising session is only in the chat. The student does not
share her screen. The student does not share her camera, which is concerning. And from
what I know, I can’t report anything. So that’s very difficult. And then she’ll disappear.
69

So I won’t hear from her or she won’t respond to emails, and was previously on academic
probation. And I made sure when I saw that her grades improved, I sent a
congratulations… But I didn’t follow up with her the way I said I would to help her
research the historically Black colleges, to connect her to the Black Resource Center. So I
didn’t do those things. I did provide her with the follow up email, but I didn’t follow up
anymore. The last time I followed up was probably early March, when her English
professor reached out saying that she hadn’t turned any work in.
When I asked Kat why she did not follow up with the student, she stated,
Workload, forgetting. So many students to outreach that it’s overwhelming and not
enough work time. Work life balance, you know... like, do I want to extend my hours
beyond what I can do today? Do I want to spend time with my family and then
forgetting? So the intention is always there. I think it’s just the realistic, the unrealistic
expectations, not so much of my supervisor, well, the unrealistic expectations of the
institution.
Both Franchesca and Kat were motivated to improve the college experiences of their historically
marginalized students by providing them support through the provision of information, but they
perceived constraints that hindered these advisors from fully supporting them. For Franchesca, it
was not being able to fully understand what the student needed, even as she added more follow
up appointment times. For Kat, it was the workload and the unrealistic expectations of the
institutions that took precedence over reaching a Black student in need with whom she had
difficulty connecting, especially because “she’ll disappear” and “I won’t hear from her or she
won’t respond to emails.” Kat intended to support the Black student’s academic and personal
needs, but in this instance, she failed to do so when she “didn’t follow up with her the way I said
70

I would to help her research the historically Black colleges, to connect her to the Black Resource
Center.” So, Kat was not the bridging agent that Garcia and Ramirez (2018) discussed as being
present at a HSI, that is serving as a bridge to key social network (Black Resource Center) with
knowledge necessary to engage resources and support for historically marginalized students
(Garcia & Ramirez, 2018). In the end, an academic advisor’s good intentions do not suffice.
Institutional constraints and academic advisors’ lack of actions have the most impact on
historically marginalized students’ educational experiences because they are not being provided
with the support they deserve.
Additionally, another constraint in serving as an institutional agent was that not all higher
education institutions prioritized providing intentional support to address the unique needs of
historically marginalized students. Four of the nine academic advisors interviewed mentioned
their institutions and/or advising departments did not prioritize intentional support for
historically marginalized students. Jessica, an Asian academic advisor who worked at a large
private PWI stated,
To be honest, I don’t think they have specifically told us to work any differently for
historically marginalized students compared to just students in general. They give us, I
would say like a toolbox of resources. And they have told us like, here are the resources
that campus has... I don’t think the organization is encouraging me to talk about that in an
advising meeting. But, you know, sometimes the topic comes up when they talk about
their overall undergraduate experience… I also think if I advise historically marginalized
students differently, I don’t think the organization considers that necessarily fair to those
who might say they’re not from marginalized space. They might wonder why is this
71

student getting different treatment than I am? But this is just my sense, probably my
assumption.
When I asked Jessica what made her assume that if she advised historically marginalized
students differently, then her department wouldn’t encourage it, she replied,
Yeah, and it’s kind of interesting, because the instances that I think of, is when, is when
advisors feel compelled to treat students from privileged backgrounds differently.
Because the students from those privileged backgrounds might have more connections
with people of power, or privilege to know how, when to advocate for themselves, and
when not to stop pushing for what they want. And so, in those instances, the advisors
might feel pressured to help those students more so than others. And it’s ironic, because I
think if I did the same for students from historically marginalized backgrounds, if I gave
them more time, or like, yeah, towards them, which would reduce my time for other
[privileged] students, and those other students noticed, then they would go to people they
know that have more authority and power, and then they would just cause I think, upset
among them. So I think, seeing the way we are told, maybe not through words, but just
kind of directions from the organization’s leadership, it gives me the sense that we should
not be spending extra time or approaching advising differently for historically
marginalized students if it negatively impacts our availability for other[privileged]
students.
Although Jessica’s organizational leadership created a “toolbox of resources” for advisors to
utilize when providing support to meet students’ needs, the toolbox did not prepare academic
advisors to provide support for the differentiated needs of historically marginalized students.
Organizations must create supportive environments for academic advisors to address the unique
72

needs of historically marginalized students and disrupt educational inequities. Instead,
organizations have constrained academic advisors’ power such as Jessica’s, to “attempt to
transform institutional contexts” to function for historically marginalized students “as they do for
white students” (Bensimon et al., 2019, pp. 1691-1692). This was demonstrated in Jessica’s
comment that leadership’s actions discourage “spending extra time or approaching advising
differently for historically marginalized students” but allowed a department culture where
“advisors feel compelled to treat students from privileged backgrounds differently” by helping
“those students more so than others.” The organization’s culture and actions alluded to the
perception that students deserving of additional support and time allotted by advisors, are
students with dominant identities, not historically marginalized students. The organization is
more concerned with being perceived as providing fair treatment to all students instead of
providing equitable advising, thus perpetuating the “institutionalized oppressiveness” that
Bensimon and her colleagues (2019) spoke of.
Furthermore, it’s important to note that Jessica took on this advisor role with the intention
of being “a resource for students who are underrepresented in STEM” and to be “an equitable
advisor.” However, Jessica alluded to not pushing back against the organization’s practice of
“not be spending extra time or approaching advising differently for historically marginalized
students” when she stated, “if I did the same for students from historically marginalized
backgrounds, if I gave them more time…would reduce my time for other [non-historically
marginalized] students.” Jessica’s statement suggested that there may be times when she felt
“compelled to treat students from privileged backgrounds differently,” and provide them with
more time because they understood how to navigate the college culture and requested support.
Thus, Jessica may not provide the same amount of time and quality of advising sessions to
73

historically marginalized students that was provided to non-historically marginalized students
because this would result in less time for students of privileged backgrounds and if “those
other[privileged] students noticed, then they would go to people [higher education
administration] they know that have more authority and power, and…upset among them.” In
reality, both Jessica and her organization did not provide fair treatment for all students. Also,
Jessica did not advocate on behalf of historically marginalized students as Bensimon and
colleagues (2019) spoke of. Jessica moved away from the intentions of being an equitable
advisor by becoming a gatekeeper complicit in the maintaining the organization’s practice of
providing more time to students with dominant identities (privilege) but not to historically
marginalized students (Stanton-Salazar, 2011). During the interview, Jessica realized that her
complicit actions did not align with being an equitable advisor when she shared the following:
Before I thought I will treat everyone the same. But through your prompts and just
experience, I think that doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s equitable if you’re treating
every student the same way. Because students are coming to you have different needs. So
what would work for one student might not necessarily be enough for another.
Being fair and equal is not the same as being equitable. Historically marginalized students
require action by institutional agents such as academic advisors, to support the different needs.
Academic advisors require institutional structures that create environments for them to do the
level of institutional agency that Bensimon et al. (2019) spoke of.
Franchesca shared similar experiences, and thus constraints, about the organizational
culture not prioritizing equitable support for historically marginalized students. Franchesca
advised for an arts department, and 60% of the students were white and the remaining 40% were
students from historically marginalized backgrounds. She stated,
74

There’s nothing in my training or nothing in our department that says like, you know,
“When working with historically marginalized students, these are things you want to
consider” right. Like literally that all comes from like, my either, you know, my graduate
training or like, I just take the time to learn more about these issues on my own because
I’m just passionate about it.
Franchesca’s organization did not communicate a commitment to historically marginalized
students, as demonstrated by the organization not providing professional development
opportunities for academic advisors to be knowledgeable and equipped with skills to effectively
differentiate their support to students from historically marginalized backgrounds. Instead,
Franchesca sought her own professional development opportunities when she took “the time to
learn more about these issues on my own” to be better prepared to relay institutional information
to the historically marginalized students that she advised.
Academic advisors in the study perceived institutional structures to constrain their ability
to serve as the institutional agents that historically marginalized students deserve. Kat’s Jessica’s
and Franchesca’s experiences with their organization indicate that some organizations are not
invested in preparing academic advisors to fully support the unique needs of historically
marginalized students. In some cases, like Jessica’s, some organizations were perceived to be
discouraging equitable advising because providing different support to historically marginalized
students was seen as providing preferential treatment, despite Jessica’s realization that those
from more privileged backgrounds often get preferential treatment because they know how to
advocate for themselves. Although institutional constraints played a role in hindering academic
advisors like Jessica and Franchesca from equitably supporting historically marginalized students
75

to the best of their ability, these academic advisors fell short of truly being institutional agents as
defined by Bensimon and her colleagues (2019).
Relaying Social and Institutional Support
In addition to providing support to students directly, all nine participants interviewed
discussed using their institutional agency to support the educational experiences of historically
marginalized students by bridging the students to others located within their social network with
access to social capital (i.e., social and institutional support). Indirect support consists of
advocating for students, using one’s institutional agency to provide resources to then empower
students (Garcia & Ramirez, 2018), and referring students to social and institutional support
outside of their expertise. This concept is also connected to the revised conceptual framework
because the one-way arrow with institutional agency techniques represents relaying social capital
to historically marginalized students.
Connecting to Social Networks
All nine participants interviewed described providing indirect support to students by
serving as a bridge to other institutional agents on campus. Amanda met with a historically
marginalized student who was unsure of their career trajectory. Amanda did not have experience
providing career advising, so she connected the student to a contact within their social network
who was best prepared to address the student’s inquiry. Amanda stated,
Sometimes we have students who are like, I really don’t know, I don’t know what I want
to do… Like they know that they want to graduate, right; that’s their first goal, but they
don’t really have ideas beyond that. So then going on, going in and providing resources
… we have on campus that are designed to support you, to sort of feel a little bit more at
ease if you don’t know what you want. So referring them to, we have a career
76

development center on campus. So I’m connecting them with a career counselor that can
sort of specialize in different interests that they have, whether that’s related to a potential
career or not to sort of figure out sort of like their personality type, and where, you know,
what types of careers would be a good fit based on their personality.
While the primary goal for students enrolled in baccalaureate granting universities is to earn a
baccalaureate degree, students also establish personal, academic and career goals that reflect
their interests and aspirations beyond college graduation. In the example, Amanda shared that
historically marginalized students struggled to identify and establish career aspirations. As
Strayhorn (2015) stated in their study, “bringing students to higher education means nothing if
they’re not successful… access with success is everything… our efforts are incomplete until we
connect students with the resources they need to be successful in higher education” (p. 58).
Amanda recognized that these students required specialized support that she was not experienced
nor trained to offer. Therefore, Amanda understood her role as a bridging agent at HSI, and
advanced the educational experience of the historically marginalized students by connecting
them to a career counselor qualified to support the students’ career exploration and readiness.
This service is especially important for first-generation college students who may not have the
social capital in their own networks to explore career opportunities available to those with
college degrees.
Grace relayed social support to a male student whose father was deported by addressing
his wellbeing and academic progress. Grace stated,
And so granted, obviously, we’re trained as counselors, but we’re not therapists. So you
know, I walked with him when we were on campus, to psychological services for one.
That’s one of the references that we did for him.
77

Stanton-Salazar (2011) argued that students require resource-full relationships organized within
social networks, to meet their academic demands, social development and preparation for
adulthood. Grace recognized the male student was dealing with a non-academic challenge (i.e.,
father’s deportation) that was negatively affecting his health and academic performance. As an
academic advisor, Grace recognized that she was qualified to address the student’s academic
performance, but not qualified nor experienced to provide the additional support necessary for
the student’s wellbeing. She stated, “we’re trained as counselors, but we’re not therapists.” After
Grace provided space for the male student to vent (discussed in the next section), she referred to
her social network and identified the psychological services center because they were trained to
provide the support needed.
Additionally, it’s important to note that there were situations where academic advisors
were more direct with students instead of empowering them to be “agents of their own destiny”
(Strayhorn, 2015, p. 59), which was discussed above. Grace served as a bridging agent when she
provided indirect support by walking the student over to the psychological services center
instead of placing the responsibility onto the student to initiate contact. Grace chose to walk the
male student over because she wanted to ensure the contact between the male student and
psychological services was made, and accessing these support services were crucial for the male
student’s wellbeing.
Similar to Grace, Eugene also served as a bridging agent by connecting a student to
another higher education professional within their network qualified to provide the student with
support for taking an educational leave. Eugene was also more direct with the student instead of
placing an onus on the student to initiate contact, by offering to directly connect the student and
higher education professional. Eugene shared,
78

Yeah, when it’s a resource that I think it’s like, Oh, it would be nice if you could check
this out, because I think it would be helpful, it’s usually an email. But the times where it’s
very critical for the student’s wellbeing, for their academic health.... or for their mental
health to access that resource… I try to go out of my way to almost put trust in... or to
demonstrate trust in that other resource. So for example, when a student tells me that they
have a lot going on their plate, they’re not sure how they’re going to handle it. And they
seem interested in taking an educational leave. But I can tell that they had a hard time
sharing what was going on. And if I build the trust with the students, I will try to
humanize that service of, “Hey, you know, it sounds like a lot. I’d love for you to just
give yourself permission to explore the educational leave option. And the first step in that
process is to meet with our caseworker Eric in the Dean of Students Office.” And then
I’ll share something personal like, “Oh, you know, I’ve worked with Eric for about like
four and a half years, he actually was on my interview committee, and he’s like one of
my favorite people to work with on campus. And like, so trust me when you chat with
him, you will be in good hands. I’m very confident. So you know, would you like me to
connect you directly with Eric?”
Oftentimes, Eugene relayed social and institutional support to students via email and placed onus
on the student to follow-up. However, if Eugene suspected that a student was experiencing a
challenging time and “had a hard time sharing what was going on,” Eugene approached the
advising interaction with intentional support to “demonstrate trust” in a resource before
explaining that resource, instead of copying and pasting information in an email. In this situation,
Eugene chose to be direct by verbalizing his confidence and trust in the resource when he shared
his personal connection to encourage the student to make contact. Eugene believed that
79

providing timely access to a trustworthy resource was “very critical for the student’s wellbeing,
for their academic health” especially when the student is “not sure how they’re going to handle it
[challenge].” Eugene had developed a network of institutional agents knowledgeable of and
experienced with historically marginalized students at HSIs (Garcia & Ramirez, 2018). Thus,
Eugene referred to his social network and identified the trustworthy and quality “institutional
agents… experienced in empowering” students to make informed decisions regarding
institutional support (Stanton-Salazar, 2011, p.1096). He encouraged the student to connect with
this institutional agent because they were better qualified to address the matter.
Grace’s, Amanda’s and Eugene’s examples above showed that academic advisors at
HSIs, utilized their institutional agency to provide intentional support for their historically
marginalized students in a holistic manner, knowing where their expertise was limited but also
knowing who to connect the student to in order to grant access to relevant experts on
campus. This is a key role of any institutional agent as defined by Stanton-Salazar (2011), thus
demonstrating that these academic advisors understood their role.
Advocating for Institutional Support
While it was not common among all participants, four of the nine participants
interviewed discussed using their position to advocate for institutional support on behalf of
historically marginalized students. Franchesca took action to transform the institutional context
that Bensimon and her colleagues (2019) spoke of. During the interview, Franchesca discussed
an advising appointment with a Black male student experiencing racism by North West Golden
State University’s public safety department. In addition to being there to listen, Franchesca took
a step further and used her position as an institutional agent to connect the student to Title IX
80

which she knew had the power to reverse policies that would benefit the student’s academic
standing. Franchesca shared,
So, I think, the way that I just really helped him is kind of obviously figuring out how he
could finish out his years but also ensuring that I connected with Title IX… Title IX was
able to, once they got involved, they were able to remove those grades or do something
where it didn’t... since GPA was so low, so he wouldn’t be able to graduate even if he
passed with As in the last two classes.
Bensimon et al. (2019) argued that an institutional agent with critical consciousness, has “a
critical awareness about societal structures, institutional policies and practices, and
environmental conditions that obstruct students’ efforts to achieve their goals” and an awareness
of inequalities, so they “utilize their status, position, and networks to advocate for opportunities
and resources to be directed” towards historically marginalized students (p. 1696). Franchesca
was aware that there were systemic inequities existing within the university that allowed
university employees, such as public safety personnel, to discriminate against the Black male
student on a consistent basis and not be held accountable for their actions and trauma inflicted on
the student. Although Franchesca did not have power to hold the public safety personnel
accountable herself, Franchesca focused on what was within her control and that was to bridge
the student’s connection to Title IX to advocate for the reversal of university policy based on the
racist experiences by public safety personnel. Franchesca and the Black male student explained
how “these failing grades were not a result of the student performance” and instead were “North
West Golden State’s fault.” As a result, the advocacy resulted in the university removing the
grades and the student was back on track towards achieving his goal: earning a baccalaureate
degree.
81

In another example, Grace described a culture of advocacy within her organization to
address challenges experienced by the historically marginalized students. Grace stated,
Previously, we’ve advocated for our, there was one semester where the financial aid
packages for our dreamers was messed up…we brought that up. And then you escalate all
the way up [university administration]…we have our weekly advisory meeting. So what’s
happening right now is students, “Oh, this is happening”… right now, the students on
these online platforms…professors were able to give students a link to a book. But if the
student didn’t opt out to use that link, then they were charged automatically…there’s
students that were like, I don’t know what that charge is for. So that’s our new kind of
fight like, why are these students needing to opt out of something?...So that’s what we’re
like now escalating that, and how can we do a better process for the next incoming
students...how can we do better? Our poor director is like on the front lines of these fights
sometimes and we’re like, “You can do it!”
Institutional agents at HSIs use their institutional agency to advocate on behalf of their students
while protecting the students’ best interests (Garcia & Ramirez, 2018). Grace and her
organization did not shy away from the advocacy that Bensimon et al. (2019) and Garcia and
Ramirez (2018) spoke of. They collectively worked together during weekly advisor meetings to
stay up to date with current challenges and concerns their students faced, worked towards
resolutions, and provided encouragement to their director who was “on the front lines of these
fights.” Additionally, Grace’s organization took action to force the university administration to
be aware of the institutional barriers experienced by historically marginalized students such as
the automatic charge and inaccurate financial aid packages, by escalating “all the way up.” Grace
and her supervisors were not afraid to try to transform the institutional context through critical
82

reflection, to “do better for the next incoming class” and committed to improving the experiences
of future historically marginalized students enrolled at the university.
Constraints and Failures
While all academic advisors provided indirect support and a few advocated for students,
four of nine participants interviewed perceived being limited in their power as institutional
agents to advocate for their students due to the structure of power and lack of support from the
organization.
For example, Heather described an advising appointment in which a Mexican female
student mentioned being discriminated against by a professor during their first semester in
college for speaking Spanish. Heather felt “blindsided” and “mad” when she realized that Sandy
experienced multiple incidents of discrimination by the professor. Heather felt that this situation
was a “curveball” because her organization did not provide the adequate training to have
“prepared me...to have these real hard conversations.” So, Heather turned to her male supervisor
for guidance on this matter. Although Heather described her supervisor as “supportive” and
“recognized hey, this [incident] is wrong,” Heather felt that “all these barriers were coming up”
to address the racism. For example, her male supervisor “explained the rule…and was like ‘well,
you know, we’re talking about a tenured faculty, and it’s harder than you think.” Despite
Heather’s organization participating in the equity roundtables, Heather felt that “like the whole
institution is perpetuating this message of you don’t belong here.” Surprisingly, Heather’s
institution is a HSI, so they have an institutional responsibility to provide differentiated support
to historically marginalized students, especially Hispanic/Latino/a/x students navigating their
college. The absence of advocacy by Heather’s organization to address the discrimination sent a
message to Franchesca, that providing indirect support for historically marginalized students
83

experiencing inequities at the HSI, would be challenging if not impossible. Thus, the
organization was complicit and an active participant in maintaining institutional inequities
experienced by historically marginalized students like Sandy.
Furthermore, although Heather wanted the professor to be held accountable, she said she
was also complacent in the racial inequity by not advocating for the student. Heather stated,
I felt shame. I felt like I was complacent… what am I going to sacrifice my, my
position.... Because at that point.. I was temporary. So having that kind of hanging,
looming over me, it’s like, well, how much power do I really have? You know, I can’t
like stir up the pot or stir the pot as someone would say, who’s like in a permanent
position, you know… My supervisor kind of told me that, you know without really
saying that, right. He just kind of essentially recommended that I kind of keep my head
low and still, like still tell the student “No, you need to talk to the department chair, and
I’ll give you the number. I’ll tell you where to reach her.” But like don’t get too
entangled in this too much….”
Besides connecting her to the department chair, still a role an institutional agent might play,
Heather chose to not advocate on behalf of the student because she prioritized job security over
transforming the structures that maintained the inequities. In other words, while she partially
played the role as an institutional agent by connecting the student to the right person, she didn’t
go as far as Bensimon and colleagues (2019) and Garcia and Ramirez (2018) suggest is
necessary for historically marginalized students. Also, her supervisor discouraged the advocacy
when he recommended that she “keep my head low and… don’t get too entangled in this too
much.” Heather’s supervisor encouraged her to be complacent by recommending her to not “get
too entangled,” suggesting that not pushing back against the organization was more important
84

than supporting Heather with advocating on behalf of the student. Further, Heather’s supervisor
advised her to connect Sandy with the Spanish department to “talk to the departmental chair” and
bring attention to the discrimination instead of embracing this leadership opportunity to model to
Heather, how to handle sensitive student matters. Even though Heather connected Sandy to the
Spanish department, Heather did not utilize her institutional agency to advocate alongside the
student, thus not addressing the root cause of the discrimination. Heather further stated,
I feel like I was unintentionally complicit and played a part in the student leaving because
the last I checked, she hasn’t come back… I feel like you knowing kind of going along
with like, “Well you know, these are kind of like the rules of the game. And I’m there
with you. And I don’t agree, and I think this is messed up and you definitely should fight
back because, you know, student voices, you know, you’ll have more power than me that
I’m a staff member.” It’s like I’m the school, I’m like, representing the institution. And I
feel like, you know, when you enforce those kinds of policies even unwillingly, it’s
tough. I feel like I let her down. And... yeah, I wish I could have done more.
Heather regretted how she handled the advising interaction and wished she “could have done
more” such as sharing the advocacy responsibility instead of encouraging Sandy to do it alone.
Because of this, Heather did not attempt to transform the structure and practices of the
institution. Heather acknowledged that she contributed to maintaining a systemic inequity and
playing a role in Sandy not being retained after their first year at the university.
In a similar fashion, Franchesca, received pushback from her organization when she
attempted to transform the institutional context by holding faculty accountable for
microaggressions inflicted on historically marginalized students. Franchesca shared,
85

But when it comes to actually really enforcing structural change, and really addressing
their needs, I feel like that’s kind of where I feel so stuck. Because I’m always told [by
supervisor] that that’s like a higher-level decision. Like how you know, getting rid of a
faculty member or reprimanding them is such a huge issue because, you know, they
[university administration] really push back on it. And it’s always kind of like a he said,
she said scenario where they’re [department] like, “Well, the student’s overreacting” and
then the student’s, “I’m not.”
Franchesca hoped that holding faculty accountable for their actions would be the first step
towards improving the educational experiences of historically marginalized students studying
within their department. However, structural changes designed to address the needs and
experiences of historically marginalized students were outside of Franchesca’s position and
power. She received this message from her supervisors who told her it’s “a higher-level
decision.” Therefore, the university and organization’s conditions limited Franchesca’s capacity
to truly be an institutional agent who could advocate for students in a manner that created
systemic change for the benefit of historically marginalized students. So Franchesca tried “to
validate them [historically marginalized students]” because she perceived this approach as
helpful. Unfortunately, validating was not support that these students needed. The historically
marginalized “concerns aren’t being addressed when all they feel is like, ‘you’re [Franchesca]
listening to me, but you’re not enacting any change about it.” The historically marginalized
students’ expectation of Franchesca aligned with Bensimon and colleagues (2019) stance that
these students require institutional agents that transform institutional contexts and improve their
educational experiences.
86

Both Franchesca’s and Heather’s experiences with discouragement from their
organization to advocate for students on a level that creates real change, and being complacent
with educational inequities (Heather), indicated that institutional agents were unable to reach
their full capacity. Therefore, Franchesca and Heather were unlike successful advocates that
Bensimon et al. (2019) discussed, to support the educational experiences and success of
historically marginalized students.
Serving as a Safe Harbor
A practice that emerged from the study aligned with being an institutional agent was
academic advisors saw their role as being a safe harbor for their historically marginalized
students. Advising interactions became spaces for academic advisors to serve as a safe harbor for
students to vent, not just serve as academic advising sessions. Although the academic advisors in
the study didn’t always intend for the advising interactions to become venting sessions, the
students sometimes turned the advising interactions into that, thus shifting the role of the
advisors into being institutional agents even if they didn’t themselves pursue it.
Eight of the nine participants interviewed described 13 advising interactions with
historically marginalized students who vented about personal and academic challenges. Grace
supported historically marginalized students who were required to take developmental courses in
math and English. As mentioned in the previous section, a male student scheduled an advising
appointment with Grace to discuss his academics, but soon the student took the conversation into
a different direction when he began to share his personal and academic challenges impacted by
his father’s deportation. Grace stated,
He was having trouble because unfortunately, his father was deported and so he
obviously, couldn’t concentrate in classes. He was worried about his dad, he was trying
87

to figure out what to do for not only that current semester, but the semesters afterwards…
Obviously, you let them vent, you let them talk out their issues as much as you can. And
then I told them...for that particular meeting, we kind of set up subsequent meetings,
because we weren’t going to cover everything right there and then. So for that particular
meeting, the best thing was just to reassure him, right. Obviously, I couldn’t tell them,
everything is going to be okay, though. But at least I can reassure him academic wise,
this is what we can do for you.
Grace embraced this advising interaction by providing intentional support to hold space for the
male student to “talk out their issues as much as [the student] can,” to “reassure him academic
wise” that the university had options available such as an educational leave from the university,
and schedule follow-up advising appointments to transmit knowledge regarding the leave and
options for modifying his academic plan. Taking an educational leave of absence requires a
thoughtful process of disseminating information, especially for historically marginalized students
because it impacts progress towards degree completion and sometimes financial aid
disbursements. The student’s current situation with their father had no end date for when the
matter would be resolved, thus it was likely that the matter would impact future semesters and
further impact the student’s health and academic progress towards degree completion. By saying
“this is what we can do for you,” Grace reassured the student that the university was prepared to
support their current academic needs and personal needs in a holistic manner, and ready to
support them if and when they chose to return in the future. In order to know what the student
needed, however, Grace first needed to make space for the student to share his personal
challenges.
88

Students also sometimes vented about what they perceived to be institutional barriers. As
previously mentioned, Franchesca met with a Black male student who experienced racism. The
Black male student was returning from a leave of absence and during the appointment, she
noticed the student was annoyed. The Black male student then explained his frustration with
racism experienced at North West Golden State University. Franchesca recounted,
He would continuously be pulled over by the public safety department and asked to show
his identification. No matter, it could be daylight, it could be nighttime, it happened to
him multiple times. So I think his frustration and a kind of aggression that I was getting
from the session was his frustration with just North West Golden State in general. He
said, “… I just feel like, my experience is not very positive from North West Golden
State. So I just kind of want to get this done with. Like, I don’t want to have any
connection with the university… I don't feel comfortable coming to campus period, like I
don't want to be on campus, I want to finish my classes online, because I feel like I’m just
going to repeat it. And I'm really traumatized from these incidents…”
The university’s department whose primary purpose was to maintain public safety for all campus
members, failed to maintain the Black male student’s safety by constantly racial profiling him.
North West Golden State University became an unsafe environment for the Black student to
successfully navigate and make progress towards degree completion. Even though it was the first
time that Franchesca interacted with this student, he felt safe enough with Franchesca to vent and
share his feelings, despite her being a representative of the very institution the student was
complaining about. Franchesca became the student’s “sounding box” and that was okay with
Franchesca “because that’s what they may need” to process the trauma and its impact on his
college journey.
89

Kat also described an advising interaction where she became a student’s sounding box
after encouraging a student-parent to share what they were going through. The student vented to
Kat about their personal challenges that impacted her academic performance. Kat stated,
The student became pregnant towards the end of fall 20 [fall 2020 semester], moved out
of the parents’ home, transitioned into living with her partner and their sibling. And in the
midst of that transition, both were working essential workers when COVID hit, and, um,
you know, they became, I believe this the beginning of the semester, they were getting
over COVID. And she had her baby, so she was fighting COVID while she was pregnant,
and then also had her child and just kind of like, I can’t deal with school right now. So we
didn’t catch up for maybe three weeks, four weeks, maybe a month ago, we caught her
she was ready to tell her story to me. So she exhibited a lot of shame and guilt around her
situation from what she wrote to me…
The COVID-19 pandemic greatly affected every individual in different ways, and for college
students like this student who was also a parent, it caused overwhelming feelings of stress as
they struggled to balance familial and academic responsibilities during uncertain times and
remain engaged in their studies. Kat could tell that the check-in would require a deeper
conversation that extended beyond academic challenges. Kat responded by asking the student
questions to “help me determine how to help you” and reassuring them that “this is a safe space
for us to talk.” The student then became vulnerable and shared the hard times she was going
through. Kat remained available to listen to the academic, emotional, and psychological issues
impacting the student fall 2020 semester despite this not necessarily being in her job title. Kat’s
comment that “she exhibited a lot of shame and guilt” is indicative that historically marginalized
students may have trouble reaching out to advisors when non-academic factors impact their
90

academic performance, thus advisors need to provide a safe space for students to become
vulnerable. Students often need to feel safe enough to “tell [their] story” to their academic
advisors.
Irma met with a male student to discuss his academic performance and the student shifted
the conversation from discussing academics to expressing that he may be experiencing
depression. Irma stated,
I don’t think he was on probation, but I think he didn’t want to drop a course if I
remember correctly. And he was like a CS [computer science] major. And we were just
talking and talking about academics. And at the end of the day, he kind of says, like, he
thinks he might be depressed, but he’s not sure...So, it’s a really good conversation
because we talk a lot about just like, he was feeling this way. And a lot of it was just him
feeling pressure to do CS which he wasn’t sure if he liked it anymore, but his parents
really wanted him to do CS and then talking about like, the resources on campus and
having a real discussion on like, what he thought about people who you who wanted
therapy and things like that.
In Irma’s example, the male student scheduled an advising appointment with her for guidance on
academic planning. While the student received the initial support he requested, he also felt
comfortable with Irma to share his mental health status and process his feelings regarding his
major choice. This, to Irma, was a “good conversation” because they talked a lot about this
student’s feelings, not just addressing issues of academics, but recognizing that academics are
often tied to students’ well-being.
In the four advising interactions discussed, the students initiated the sharing of additional,
emotional information and in response, the academic advisors held space for students to further
91

discuss their academic and personal circumstances. As a result, academic advisors were able to
get a deeper understanding of their students’ experiences and their impact on their college
journey. Only one of nine academic advisors interviewed discussed being advised by their
organization to “set boundaries” with a student who scheduled multiple advising appointments to
vent and share their feelings. Jessica stated,
I have been told to set boundaries for a student, because they started to come to me just to
vent and almost treating me like I’m their therapists, but like, that’s not really my role.
Although I do want to support them emotionally and academically and socially, I’m not
trained to like, be that type of support for them. Like, they would be better if they actually
went to like a therapist or mental health counselor. And so, I was told, like, the student is
meeting you frequently, but it’s like, for something that, like, it’s not your responsibility.
So I did have to kind of set some boundaries and, and let the student know, “These are
resources that could help you probably better than I’m able to.”
The student’s initiative to schedule multiple advising appointments with Jessica to vent their
feelings indicated that they felt comfortable to become vulnerable in her presence. However,
Jessica’s organization did not share the same views that Jessica could be a sounding box and told
her, “It’s not your responsibility.” While Jessica wanted to continue supporting the student as
their sounding box, she did not push back against her organization’s expectations when she “did
have to kind of set some boundaries” and informed the student of resources within her social
network that were trained to provide the support her organization perceived the student needed.
Jessica’s example demonstrates that organizations have the power to hinder academic advisors
from serving as a safe harbor to their historically marginalized students who seek out academic
advisors. Additionally, institutional agents like Jessica who do not push back against the
92

institutional barriers are missing out on key opportunities to learn about their historically
marginalized students and provide equitable advising. While it is true that academic advisors are
“not trained to like, be that type of support for them,” students are often seeking them out as
people who will simply listen. This example demonstrates the sometimes difficult balance
between advisors connecting students to members in their social network (who might be better
qualified to take on the students’ needs) and being more holistic in their approach and providing
a space for students to vent without immediately providing indirect support via connections to
others.
Advising Approach
Although academic advisors may enact institutional agency techniques during their
advising interactions with historically marginalized students, it is not enough to fully support the
diverse needs and holistic development of historically marginalized students. Academic advisors
must apply multiple techniques and approaches during their advising interactions with students.
In this study, I wanted to explore how participants enacted proactive advising because research
shows its utility when supporting historically marginalized students. Proactive advising, also
known as intrusive advising, transitions the focus from academic matters to engagement in
academic planning and development throughout a student’s college journey (Donaldson et al.,
2016), and an opportunity for academic advisors to intervene and prevent academic challenges
by offering support to targeted groups (He & Hutson, 2016). Institutional agents must have a
clear understanding of their role and be prepared with the knowledge and tools to be more
proactive and engaged with their historically marginalized students to support these students
holistically. During the study, it was discovered that not all academic advisors were expected by
93

the institutions they work for to apply proactive advising nor intended for themselves to apply
proactive advising as their main advising approach.
Nevertheless, despite proactive advising not being an intentional focus of the
participants’ institutions, in this study, I found that there were participants who aspired to
become and/or were proactive and engaged with their historically marginalized students. In these
cases, the proactive advising technique most frequently applied by academic advisors in the
study was early alert and intervention systems. While some other proactive advising techniques
were mentioned in the interviews, they were minimal in frequency and thus will not be discussed
in this section. Lastly, there were constraints that prevented academic advisors from being more
proactive and engaged with historically marginalized students. Each of these findings will be
further discussed below.
Aspirations to be More Proactive and Engaged
Historically marginalized students with none to minimal knowledge of college culture
and how to navigate higher education, need significant support from cultural navigators to build
connections to feel a positive sense of belonging to their college campus community, and
therefore academically succeed and persist in college (Strayhorn, 2015). Historically
marginalized students can benefit from engaging and proactive support provided by cultural
navigators like academic advisors “who know something about the new culture [of higher
education]” that is unfamiliar to them (Strayhorn, 2015, p.59).
All nine participants who participated in interviews described their aspiration to and/or
actions to be less passive and transactional and instead more engaged and proactive in their
advising interactions with historically marginalized students. Specifically, the participants
described their aspiration and/or actions to be more engaged and proactive when serving as an
94

institutional agent because they self-identified as belonging to a historically marginalized group
and reflected on their undergraduate college experience navigating higher education. Oftentimes,
the academic advisors referred to their undergraduate college experience during advising
interactions with historically marginalized students to communicate their relatability and
understanding of their student experience.
For example, Franchesca, a former college student from a historically marginalized
background, described how her undergraduate experiences navigating the college system made
her “really passionate about making sure my historically marginalized students feel supported”
because she experienced a lack of support during her undergraduate experience. Franchesca
stated,
The biggest thing I hear with our marginalized students is one of their goals is to find a
sense of belonging or finding community or feeling connected with their students… I
think it’s really about making sure that I’m connecting them with other students, so other
students of color, or connecting them with the resources on campus, and also just making
sure when I’m talking to them, if need be, like being very transparent with them that I
understand what they’re going through, I am there to support them. Like I tell them, “The
reason why I got into this is because I felt alone when I was navigating this and I just
want you to feel like you at least have me…and I am here to help you. But there are
plenty of other people who want to see you succeed here. And I want to make sure that
you can connect it with them.”
Franchesca “felt alone while navigating this [higher education]” and didn’t want her historically
marginalized students to experience the same thing. Proactive advising acknowledges that
students’ personal lives and non-academic factors can influence a college student’s success
95

(Kitchen et al., 2021). Therefore, proactive advising includes discussions regarding academic
matters as well as college adjustment and personal issues (Kitchen et al., 2021). Essentially,
proactive advising acknowledges the whole student. Because the historically marginalized
students verbally expressed their desire of “feeling connected” to the larger campus, Franchesca
recognized the importance of being proactive to help these student build connection points on
campus (Varney, 2012). Also, supporting students’ development throughout their college
journey is a characteristic of proactive advising (Donaldson et al., 2016), and Franchesca aligned
with this concept when she told these students “I am here to help you” as they navigate college.
Thus, she embraced the responsibility of expanding advising interactions beyond academic
matters, to engage students in making connections and foster a positive sense of belonging that
Strayhorn (2015) spoke of. Also, Franchesca took action to provide further engagement and
proactive support to these historically marginalized students making progress towards their
personal goals. Franchesca shared,
So, when we’re talking about the goals…I tell them, “Okay, so now that we’ve talked
about all these things, what’s one thing that you would like to actively pursue this
semester?” So, then they’ll say, “Okay, I think I really want to make sure that I get
connected with a cultural center. I just want to make sure to attend.” And I’m like,
“Okay, so what does that really mean?” So, get connected can mean a lot of things. So
being really specific about those goals. Then they’ll be like, “Okay, I think I want to go to
at least two workshops now that the cultural center offers.” …when it comes to following
up with them…I’ll be like, “Hey, I remember that we made a goal of doing two
workshops at the cultural center. How did they go?” … So, if they said, “You know, I
wasn’t able to attend” I’ll be like, “Okay, so what do you think are some of the
96

challenges that impeded your ability to attend a workshop?” …So, I think it’s just
checking in with them to see where they’re at with those goals. Seeing how we can adopt
those goals to still make sure they’re reaching the overall goal.
Franchesca was proactive in fostering the historically marginalized student’s sense of belonging
when she engaged with these students to be “really specific about those goals [get connected]”
and creating an action plan with steps instead of leaving it up to the student to figure out next
steps. This concept is represented in the revised conceptual framework by the one-way arrow
incorporating both institutional agency techniques and proactive advising behaviors to relay
social capital. Additionally, Franchesca was proactive when she followed up with the students to
check in regarding their progress and adjust the action plan as needed. Franchesca’s desires and
actions to provide significant support to historically marginalized students signified her
commitment to the students’ holistic development through their college experience.
Irma self-identified as a former college student from a historically marginalized
background and detailed how she wanted to be engaged and proactive with historically
marginalized students because she understood the complexity of navigating college for students
with similar identities. Irma was an academic advisor at her undergraduate institution and
primarily supported students on academic probation. She did not have an assigned student
population. Irma stated,
Being first-generation, a student of color myself, and having actually attended my
institution...I feel like you relate so much to their experiences, and the confusion
sometimes that comes with just navigating college, that your heart goes out to them. And
I think I always catch myself getting excited when I meet with a student of color because
I want to tell you all the things that I wish I would have known to some extent...I feel like
97

for me, I’ll do what I can...if I have an appointment already, then I won’t be able to
support that student at a time. But I will give them my email to follow up... I try to offer
to schedule my own appointment with them...I think there’s always this need, and
[academic advisors of color] genuinely want to extend ourselves to this population,
because we were them at some point in our lives. And we want to build this connection,
if you want them to understand their letters and arts college is not a scary place, which is
what a lot of my peers and what I thought when I was in college.
Irma’s connection to the university as a former student and belonging to a historically
marginalized group motivated her to engage in meaningful interactions with historically
marginalized students who stopped by the advisement office. Irma wanted to engage in a
meaningful manner by sharing “all the things that I wish I would have known” when navigating
college, build connections, and break down preconceived notions regarding college that she and
her peers (also historically marginalized) shared such as helping them “understand their letters
and arts college is not a scary place.” Also, Irma was proactive in attempting to build
connections with historically marginalized students who stopped by the office by “doing what I
can” when she reached out to schedule “my own appointment” with historically marginalized
students instead of the student initiating contact first.
Eugene self-identified as a former college student from a historically marginalized
background, and he advised for a HSI institution with approximately 70% first-generation and
60% Pell eligible students. During the interview, Eugene’s undergraduate experience as a
historically marginalized student influenced him to become an academic advisor who provided
significant support to historically marginalized students instead of engaging in prescriptive
advising and becoming “a paper pusher.” Additionally, Eugene discussed his organization’s
98

expectation to be more proactive during advising interactions with historically marginalized
students. Eugene stated,
There’s a recognized need that for some of our students, especially those with
extenuating circumstances, the absolute best way for us to reach them is to take proactive
advisement. And it’s welcomed.
Eugene’s organization acknowledged the “recognized need” to be proactive with historically
marginalized students and supported a proactive culture when Eugene stated they “welcomed” it.
As a result, Eugene’s organization was one of three organizations that incorporated what they
perceived to be a proactive advising technique, a mid-semester grade intervention (that will be
further discussed in the next section) to alert advisors of students in danger of not successfully
passing a course(s). Academic advisors at Eugene’s institution were required to reach out to
students flagged for a midsemester grade intervention. It’s important to note that these academic
advisors were not required to reach out to students not flagged during the midsemester grade
intervention phase who may also need proactive advising. Nevertheless, students flagged for a
midsemester grade intervention were advised by their academic advisor to complete a SMART
Goals worksheet. Proactive advising may include discussion about strategies for achieving
success (Kitchen et al., 2021), so a SMART Goals worksheet was an appropriate tool used to
strategically plan steps for achieving a goal (Donaldson et al., 2016; Kitchen et al., 2021).
Eugene described advising interactions that alerted him to be more proactive with historically
marginalized students during the mid-semester grade intervention. Eugene shared,
The responses that they give at the mid-semester grade checkpoint… we’ve gotten really
good at identifying when students are giving us surface level answers… they have to
come up with a SMART goal. And for many students, they haven’t done SMART goals
99

before. But we’re able to identify those students who... have something even deeper to
share, but they’re not quite sharing it with us. Because their goal will be
counterproductive to exactly the reasons that they told us……we’ll tell them like,
“…what has been the barrier there?” “Oh umm, time management…” I can push the
student on that response, “Hey, I noticed you said that. So my concern is…” “I’ve got a
lot going on…” and that’s when it starts coming out.
Eugene’s ability to recognize when a student’s “goal [SMART goal] will be counterproductive to
exactly the reasons that they[students] told us” led to being in danger of not successfully
completing a course(s), opened the doors to foster a meaningful conversation with students.
Eugene proactively asked questions to “push the student” to reflect on their initial response as to
why they are not doing well in a course(s). And then Eugene shared his concerns which often
opened up to students disclosing relevant information. In some instances, colleagues offered to
advise Eugene’s students waiting to meet with him, and this allowed Eugene to spend 1.5 hours
with a student to process what’s going on and provide support. Eugene’s actions to intervene
spoke to his commitment to prevent further academic challenges for historically marginalized
students. However, while Eugene had good intentions to proactively ask questions to push
students to reflect on barriers that explain their academic performance, these types of questions
suggest that the student is solely accountable for their success. Unknowingly, Eugene took on the
language of the dominant narrative, perpetuating a deficit mindset and ignoring the institutional
conditions that create risk for these students to not successfully navigate college. Thus, this can
lead to harming the educational experiences of historically marginalized students.
Franchesca’s, Irma’s and Eugene’s experiences as historically marginalized students
navigating the complex waters of higher education fueled their passion and commitment to
100

become proactive in their advising efforts and provide significant support for historically
marginalized students. They were starting to become engaged in fostering a sense of belonging,
and demonstrated understanding, care and empathy. Additionally, they intervened in ways that
incorporated elements of proactive advising such as supporting the student in their holistic
development (e.g., Franchesca helping students build connections to the larger campus
community) (Varney, 2012; Donaldson et al., 2016), and engagement in academic planning (e.g.,
Eugene utilizing SMART goals) (Donaldson et al., 2016). Additionally, in Eugene’s example,
engagement in academic planning via SMART goals, can take away responsibility and
accountability from institutions to create conditions that truly improve and advance the
educational experiences of historically marginalized students.
Enacting a Proactive Advising Technique
Proactive advising requires outreach, and outreach places responsibility on advisors
instead of students to make the initial contact and establish a student-advisor relationship
(Swecker et al., 2013). Academic advisors who enact proactive advising seek out students for
advising contact (Schwebel et al., 2012). Academic advisors can guide historically marginalized
students on navigating college by applying intervention-based support to prevent potential
setbacks and offer immediate support as needed (He & Hutson, 2016). The study found that
participants (academic advisors) outreached to historically marginalized students when they
incorporated limited aspects of proactive advising. By definition, the proactive advising
technique most applied by participants in the study was early alert and intervention systems.
Early Alert and Intervention System
Four of the 10 academic advisors in the study worked for academic advising departments
that institutionalized the proactive advising technique of early alert and intervention systems
101

(Kitchen et al., 2020; Museus & Ravello, 2021). Literature discussed early alert and intervention
systems as a proactive advising technique to monitor academic progress and promote academic
success. The academic advisors who engaged in early alert and intervention systems discussed
outreaching to historically marginalized students. The other six academic advisors in the study
did not mention implementing early alert and intervention systems.
Kat’s institution implemented early alerts for students’ midsemester academic
performance to notify academic advisors of students in danger of not successfully passing a
course(s). Kat was an academic advisor for an equity program that targeted historically
marginalized students, and she created an excel sheet to keep track of students with midsemester
alerts who 1) had a failing grade, 2) earned low exam scores and/or 3) had poor/lack of
attendance. So in between advising sessions, Kat’s responsibility was to reach out to students
whose GPA was between a 2.0 to 2.3 and therefore at risk of academic probation. Kat took it
upon herself to continue reaching out whenever a student was unresponsive. Kat shared,
So at those junctures, I will make a point to continuously outreach. And if it’s not me,
who’s outreaching in between appointments, it’s the peer mentor. So between myself and
the peer mentor, we are doing pretty much weekly outreach to especially those students
who have been non responsive, who have not been showing up to class or to those
students who have requested it.
Kitchen and colleagues (2020) found that midsemester checks provided an opportunity for
students to check in with their advisor to reflect on their academic progress midway through the
term and then assess potential changes to academic behaviors, as necessary to improve their
academic performance. By outreaching to students at risk of probation midway through the
semester, Kat hoped that she would connect with the students to discuss the current challenges
102

impacting their academic performance and provide additional support as necessary, so that the
student can improve their academic progress and persist in college. Ultimately, Kat’s
intervention efforts were intended to prevent students from being placed on academic probation,
remaining on academic probation or ultimately being disqualified after the semester concluded.
Eugene’s organization required students to meet with him prior to next semester’s
registration if they received a mid-semester grade(s) concern, to discuss any challenges or
concerns impacting their academic progress. Eugene received a mid-semester grade mark for a
male student and despite reaching out multiple times to the student via email, the student didn’t
respond. Eugene was able to view the student’s attempts to register for classes and knew that
every attempt provided an error message stating the reason for registration failure and clear
instructions for resolving the hold. So Eugene assumed that “something is in the way” of the
student coming to see him. After months of not hearing from the student, the student finally
showed up for the mandated requirement. Eugene stated,
They finally showed up...So I snuck in there like, “Yeah, you know, I know, when you
get those email reminders, it can be scary...So, something was stopping you from coming
in.” And they’re like, “Yeah, absolutely.” And I was like, “Would you feel comfortable
telling me a little bit more?”...They were like, “Yeah...I’ve been diagnosed with social
anxiety, and it just makes it hard...what, if I can’t find your office, what if I show up, and
you don’t actually have walk-in hours, and then I get turned away, and I feel like an idiot
because I thought I was bothering you...I don’t want to email you...I don’t want to be the
one that bothers you.” And my response was, like, “Bruh, same!” And then just kind of
disclose my own diagnosis with social anxiety. And he was blown away. And I was like,
103

“No, I get that. It can be challenging, especially because college is supposed to be a very
social experience, but you don’t know the norms.” And he was like, “Yeah.”
Similar to Kat, Eugene’s institution utilized midsemester alerts to remind academic advisors
when to reach out to students flagged by professors in danger of not successfully passing a
course. Eugene’s department mandated students flagged for a midsemester alert to meet with
their academic advisors because they perceived that the midsemester check-in was the perfect
timing to intervene and support the student with improving their academic performance. If a
student did not meet with Eugene, then they would not be cleared to register for the following
semester. In Eugene’s example, the male student did not connect with him until after the
semester concluded. Hence, the male student was unable to register for classes when registration
first began months earlier. Nevertheless, the mandated advising contact resulted in Eugene and
the male student sharing an understanding of the complex challenges navigating college with
social anxiety, and agreeing on communication approaches moving forward. Eugene shared,
I threw out some suggestions. So it’s like, “When you have a question, can we just... can
you and I just accept the fact that it's gonna be weird? So, you can just send me an email,
that’s just straight up the question. You don’t have to do the pleasantries. You don’t have
to do the ‘Good morning, Mr. Ramos,’ or any of that. Just ask me the question. And I
promise you, I will not read into it.” And he’s like, “Yeah, that's totally perfect. That’s
awesome.” And like, “Even if it’s a question that’s not related to academic advising. And
you just need to for the sake of knowing, I promise you, I will help you find the answer
and walk you through that next step and try to make it as easy as possible...”
Eugene wanted to support the male student’s challenge of navigating college with social anxiety.
So Eugene was proactive by utilizing the midsemester check-in to propose communication
104

approaches that he perceived would “make it as easy as possible” for the student to engage in the
academic advising relationship moving forward. By agreeing on the communication approaches
mentioned above, the male student would feel more comfortable connecting with Eugene and
Eugene would recognize that the male student required support.
Furthermore, as Kitchen and colleagues (2020) and Museus and Ravello (2021) stated
that early alert and intervention systems are intended to monitor academic progress, there were
midsemester check-ins that also focused on addressing personal challenges and wellbeing. For
example, Jessica’s institution also implemented the early alert and intervention systems.
Whenever Jessica received a midsemester alert for a student, the next step was to outreach to the
student via email and encourage them to schedule an advising appointment because students
were not mandated to schedule an advising appointment. Jessica received a midsemester alert for
a female student that was “on my radar” because a professor reached out to her with a list of
students who were at risk of not successfully passing the course. Jessica reached out and after
missing a few scheduled appointments, the female student finally showed up to the Zoom
advising appointment. Jessica stated,
I can tell that she was undergoing a lot of mental health challenges. And she had her
camera off. And she mentioned that she was interested in doing therapy, but she didn’t
want to do it at home while she’s working or learning from home because she doesn't
have a lot of privacy at home. So I got the sense that this is like an example of the
inequities that come with studying from home. Not everyone has a house that has a free
office space or a free room. You could be sharing a room with your siblings or other
family members, depending on your resources. And I helped her by noting some of the
campus resources that have space for her to work at and have some privacy...I pointed out
105

some resources where she could do through the phone, and she said she could go in her
car to have some privacy. So we worked with what we had, but it was not related to
course scheduling or advising for academics like what the meeting was for. I wanted her
to first take care of herself mentally before even thinking about next semester's schedule.
Jessica realized that the female student was “undergoing a lot of mental health challenges” and it
was more important to shift the appointment’s focus from academics to providing resources that
support the female student’s mental wellness. The COVID-19 pandemic shed light on inequities
within higher education such as historically marginalized students navigating online learning
while living in spaces that were not conducive to promoting academic success. Jessica was
proactive in identifying and sharing campus resources with the female student that were
accessible outside of the living space and provided privacy. After the advising appointment,
Jessica set a reminder on her calendar “to reach out to her [female student] in at least a week or a
week and a half” and the female student did respond, sharing that she followed “up with some of
the recommendations.”
During a midsemester check-in, Eugene met with a female student to discuss academics
during which she mentioned a personal challenge. The female student stated that “their home
environment was starting to not feel welcoming.” Alarmed by the female student’s statement,
Eugene was proactive in asking the student if they wanted to further discuss this, despite the
topic being outside the realm of academics. Eugene shared,
She’s like, “Yeah, it’s my roommates. Five of us signed onto a release, but there’s a sixth
guy. But she brought boyfriend and then, they brought a dog and a cat. But no one wants
to tell this person like, ‘Hey, why is this guy just living here when he’s not paying
rent?”...And I was like, “You know, not for nothing. But this used to be my job. I used to
106

handle roommate conflicts in the residence halls. And like, so if that’s information that’s
ever helpful, let me know.” And so, she was like, “Yeah. How the hell do you have that
hard conversation with your housemate of like, ‘Hey, get rid of this dog, cuz that’s not
okay. And the cat.”
Eugene previously worked in college residential life, so he had experience handling roommate
conflicts. As such, Eugene relied on his knowledge and skills gained through his past experience,
to guide the student in having “that hard conversation with your housemate.” Eugene walked the
female student through “communication styles, I statements, some of the more basics of critical
conversations” to equip the student with communication skills necessary to address the housing
matter. A week later, Eugene ran into the female student and she followed his advice. Eugene
shared,
She was like, “We actually have a house meeting later tonight to talk about it.”... And
then, at her own volition, the next day, she came to my walk-in hours and was just like, “I
just wanted to update you on that situation. So you were right. We’re kicking that guy
out… things are tense, but things are going into some kind of normal now.”
Although Eugene “didn’t expect a mid-semester grade conversation to go into talking about I
statements and how to have difficult conversations,” he recognized the female student was
experiencing a challenging situation. Eugene supported the female student’s holistic
development by engaging in proactive advising behavior when he transitioned the advising
appointment’s focus from academic matters to personal circumstances. Focusing on holistic
development is considered to be one of the elements of proactive advising (Donaldson et al.,
2016). As a result, the female student was equipped with communication skills to facilitate a
107

tense conversation and eventually her situation was resolved when she shared that “things are
going into some kind of normal now.”
Kat’s, Eugene’s and Jessica’s advising experiences with institutionalized early alert and
intervention systems required them to reach out to historically marginalized students in danger of
not successfully passing a course(s). In some instances, institutions required these students to
schedule an advising appointment with their academic advisor while other institutions did not.
Nevertheless, the institutionalized early alert and intervention systems resulted in advising
contact between academic advisors and historically marginalized students, and based on
literature, is considered proactive in nature. The academic advisors and historically marginalized
students discussed academic and personal matters and the academic advisors were ready to
respond with support needed. The advising contacts described above may have not occurred if
the institutions expected these students to take ownership of their education by seeking out
advisors during challenging times.
Literature on early alert and midsemester systems discussed the importance of providing
intentional support to a targeted group of students to prevent academic challenges (He & Hutson,
2016). In my study, the academic advisors discussed how their institutions perceived to
implement a proactive advising technique (early alert and midsemester systems) to target
students in danger of not successfully passing a course(s). Although the intervention effort was
well intended and provided support for the targeted students, it was not proactive and actually
reflected a deficit mindset for multiple reasons. First, early alert and intervention systems are a
reactive technique to students already experiencing academic challenges. Support to targeted
groups came after institutions identified students “at risk” of not successfully passing a course(s),
instead of being immediate support to prevent potential setbacks (He & Hutson, 2016). Second,
108

like SMART goals, early alert and intervention systems does not acknowledge the institutional
conditions that created risks for historically marginalized students to succeed. Rather, these
“interventions” and intentional support by academic advisors, only occurred when a student did
not meet the institution’s academic expectations and standards. The responsibility falls solely on
the student to improve their academic performance by following the advice of the academic
advisor (prescriptive advising), as they attempt to navigate their institution that may lack a
supportive environment to holistically thrive. Academic advisor support for the targeted students
should also occur when they meet the institution’s academic expectations and standards.
Academic advisors can foster these student’s holistic development by engaging the student early
on, in their academic, personal, and career exploration throughout their college journey, and
develop future goals (Donaldson et al., 2016; Kitchen et al., 2021). Additionally, academic
advisors can support these students in overcoming personal challenges impacting their college
experience (Kitchen et al., 2021). Thus, engagement in academic planning and fostering holistic
development is an ongoing process, and academic advisors should support this when advising
targeted group of students before academic challenges arise.
Furthermore, despite the intervention effort providing support to a targeted group of
students, language such as, “I[Kat] will make a point to continuously outreach...for students on
academic probation” suggests that there was an absence of outreach efforts by academic advisors
for many students not flagged during early alert and midsemester grade check-ins. Although
students not flagged met academic expectations and standards, it did not mean that these students
were excelling in their course(s) and therefore did not require academic support. These students
may have been doing the bare minimum to not be flagged in a course(s) and needed intervention
by an academic advisor to improve their academic progress. Also, students not flagged for
109

academic concerns may be experiencing difficulty with personal challenges and/or establishing
goals. It’s important to ask what these students’ experiences are in the context of the university,
and how can their academic advisor support them in overcoming challenges and goal planning as
these are key elements of proactive advising (Donaldson et al., 2016; Kitchen et al., 2021).
Lastly, although I was intentionally seeking proactive advising behaviors, it was difficult
to locate them as there was an absence of other proactive advising behaviors applied by
academic advisors. As discussed earlier, only three institutions required their advisors to engage
in the perceived proactive advising technique of early alert and midsemester systems.
Interestingly, the only “proactive advising technique” utilized in the study was reactive and
prescriptive. There were no additional proactive advising techniques applied by academic
advisors in this study such as 1) personalized planning (Kitchen et al., 2020) and 2) mandated
regular contacts. Proactive planning consists of academic advisor and student working together
to create a plan for achieving an academic goal (Kitchen et al., 2020). The findings suggest that
there were no academic advisors who sought out students first, to create a plan for achieving an
academic goal. Instead, when goal planning did occur, it was only after a student sought out an
advisor for advising contact or were flagged. Mandated regular contacts is when academic
advisors seek out students for advising contact and sometimes this advising contact is a
mandated requirement (e.g., meet on a regular basis [every quarter or semester)] (Schwebel et
al., 2012). Donaldson and colleagues (2016) found that mandatory advising encouraged students
to engage in academic planning early on. In Eugene’s example, his institution required targeted
students to meet with him before being cleared to register for the following semester. However,
if the same student was not flagged the following semester, then the mandated advising contact
110

no longer existed and was a one-time basis. Thus, Eugene’s example does not meet the proactive
advising technique of mandated regular contact.
Also, while Eugene’s mandated advising contact for targeted students can be seen as
supportive because it forced interaction between advisor and student, it actually could be
perceived as punitive for historically marginalized students. Eugene’s organization hoped that
mandated advising contacts would motivate these students to come in during spring semester for
the mandated advising contact and then be cleared to register for the following semester.
Donaldson and colleagues (2016) found that the majority of the students in their study who were
required to participate in mandatory advising, expressed some hesitation about completing the
requirement. As Eugene explained, there was a historically marginalized student not comfortable
coming in for a mandated advising contact, and lifting a hold to register for classes did not
motivate him. So Eugene and the student did not address the academic challenges before spring
semester ended. Also, the mandatory advisement hold was a barrier for the student to register for
classes during the expected window. In scenarios like this, the mandated advising contact can
impede historically marginalized students from remaining on track for the expected graduation
date if other proactive approaches are not simultaneously enacted.
Constraints to Being More Proactive and Engaged
Prescriptive advising behavior due to academic advisor’s personal choice and
institutional constraints, prevented academic advisors from being more proactive and engaging
with historically marginalized students. Prescriptive advising is an advising approach where the
academic advisor tells the student what to do (Barbuto et al., 2011), and limits advising sessions
to focus on academic matters such as course selection, degree requirements, and registration
(Drake, 2011). The focus is on supporting students to make progress towards degree completion
111

without recognizing the students’ other non-academic needs or goals. Prescriptive advising does
not intentionally promote an advising relationship like proactive advising and other advising
approaches (Barbuto et al., 2011), and students take in the information with limited autonomy
and room for decision making (He & Hutson, 2016).
Academic Advisor’s Personal Choice
Academic advisors who participated in the interviews were asked what advising practices
they believed do not contribute to historically marginalized students feeling valued by their
academic advisor. Academic advisors who made the personal choice to be proactive were the
individuals who enacted proactive advising. Academic advisors who made the personal choice to
not be proactive enacted prescriptive advising. Grace replied by sharing,
Well, the quick meeting. Like you’re just gonna come in, and then we just kind of talk
about, this is what you’ve done. This is what you need to do. Now go on and be on your
merry way kind of thing.
Grace’s description of limiting sessions to “this is what you need to do” aligned with Barbuto
and colleagues (2011) and Drake (2011) definitions of prescriptive advising. Thus, Grace
believed that this transactional advising interaction did not contribute to historically marginalized
students feeling valued by their academic advisor. Strayhorn (2015) stated that “sense of
belonging is related to mattering” (p. 60). If an historically marginalized student feels that they
do not matter to the institution because of an advising interaction with an advisor that sends the
message of “now go and be on your merry way,” this can lead to a negative sense of belonging
for the student. Moreover, in another part of the interview, academic advisors were asked when
they did not demonstrate patience or empathy with a student. Although there were no
institutional barriers existing, Grace made the personal decision to not be proactive and instead
112

be prescriptive. Grace described an advising interaction where she defaulted and engaged in
prescriptive advising behavior:
This morning, I had a student... not that I didn’t show empathy, you know, I checked off
boxes. But maybe I didn’t spend as much time with the student as I should have or could
have only because a student, basically, had just woken up...they didn’t have their camera
on...I didn’t spend as much time because I know that whatever I say, they’re not going to
retain. And so, I covered the major aspects that I covered. I didn’t even go into some of
the more personable, like, self-care or when you ask how the semester is going and then
they say good, and you’re like, okay, well, what's good about it? Right, trying to get them
to like talk...for this morning, I just kind of covered the basic, okay, this is the stuff...it
wasn’t (pause).... my best advising only because I know that that student was in and out
of consciousness, I’m sure this morning...But she had like a 3.7 GPA. So I wasn’t really
too worried about them understanding some of the major concepts.
Grace assumed that the student had just woken up and that the “student was in and out of
consciousness,” so she defaulted to engaging in the same prescriptive advising behavior that she
believed contributed to students not feeling valued by their academic advisor. Grace “wasn’t
really too worried about them[student] understanding some of the major concepts” that she
already “didn’t spend as much time” discussing because she believed that the student was not
going to retain the information provided. Also, “she [student] had like a 3.7 GPA” so the
student’s high GPA suggested to Grace that the student may not require proactive support when
compared to students with a lower GPA. Hence, Grace was less concerned with engaging and
developing a relationship with the student, using only the student’s GPA as a proxy for how she
was doing. She was also less concerned with helping the student understand how the information
113

provided impacted their degree completion. Grace recognized that the advising interaction did
not reflect her best advising and although she intended to send the advising notes to the student
and have a peer mentor follow-up with the student for student engagement purposes, Grace could
have done more to ensure that she was more proactive and engaged with the student.
Institutional Constraints
While some higher education institutions perceived to implement a proactive advising
technique, the conditions provided within the organizations made it difficult for academic
advisors to be more proactive even when encouraged by leadership. Donaldson and colleagues
(2016) found in their study that there was a need for increased advisor availability because
students had a difficult time meeting with their advisors due to large student caseload. Destiny
was the only academic advisor who indicated they had a manageable caseload (> 150 students)
and was available to meet with students as needed. Four of 10 academic advisors in the study
described that having a large student caseload impacted their ability to be more proactive and
develop relationships with students. The other six academic advisors did not discuss student
caseload in their critical reflections or interviews.
For example, Jessica advised 1000+ undergraduate and graduate students within her
department. For the second journal prompt, Jessica responded to the following critical reflection
prompt, What are some of the challenges (e.g. balancing responsibilities, accessibility and time)
I have faced in acting consistently and equitably through proactive advising? Jessica wrote:
It’s challenging to build strong and consistent partnerships with students when we are
responsible for such a large population. In addition to advising students, there are many
administrative tasks and projects I’m responsible for. Many tasks unrelated to advising
are assigned to me...These responsibilities reduce the time and accessibility I have for
114

student meetings. Because I always feel busy and short on time, advising often feels more
reactive than proactive. A lot of the responsibility falls on the student to reach out and
contact me if they need help.
In the critical reflection, Jessica attributed the lack of proactive advising and building
relationships with students to a large student population and administrative responsibilities.
Jessica’s feeling of “busy and short on time” forced students to initiate contact first instead of
Jessica intervening through outreach efforts. Thus, Jessica’s advising interactions were mostly
with students who sought support and these students accessed the opportunity to engage with
Jessica. Students with whom Jessica did not initiate contact and/or were uncomfortable reaching
out to Jessica, most likely did not access advising services provided even if they needed the
additional support. Additionally, Jessica’s description of academic advising “often feels more
reactive than proactive” alluded to Jessica having to tell students what to do instead of allocating
time to academic engagement and holistic development. Institutional constraints played a role in
Jessica’s availability and willingness to be proactive and more engaged with historically
marginalized students. However, Jessica could have taken action to push back against the
organization by requesting their support to decrease student caseload and administrative duties,
to be more accessible and intentional with developing meaningful relationships with historically
marginalized students.
A second institutional constraint that academic advisors perceived to prevent them from
being more proactive with historically marginalized students was institutional policies and
procedures. Five of the nine academic advisors who participated in the interviews described
wanting to support students in every possible way, however being an employee and
representative of the institution required enforcing university policies and procedures that often
115

prompted advisors to apply prescriptive advising techniques. For example, Destiny was an
advisor for a pre-nursing program with limited space for major exploration while making
progress towards degree completion. The nursing program was extremely competitive, and
students were unable to proceed with course sequencing if they did not successfully complete a
set of prerequisites. Destiny essentially had to tell students what to do to remain on track for
degree completion because the nature of the program and course sequences provided little
flexibility in taking courses. Destiny stated,
Our department works specifically with the pre-nursing students, the type of advising is
so prescribed that there isn’t like, the academic side of things just have a certain flow and
that has not changed as far as how we approach the courses and the way that we guide the
students to register for the courses. And we also typically work with them for a year or
two, so we don’t keep them very long.
The nursing program’s eligibility requirements were very straightforward and left no room for
students to explore course options without delaying their graduation date. As such, Destiny was
expected to engage in prescriptive advising to guide the students in pursuing their academic goal.
By saying “we also typically work with them for a year or two,” Destiny alluded to the time-
delimited nature of the program, which adds pressure to avoid getting off track from the
prescribed curriculum.
Similarly, Heather advised historically marginalized students listed as undeclared and
interested in declaring a major in the natural sciences or math. Some of the historically
marginalized students she advised did not meet the pre-major criteria to pursue the STEM related
majors. As such, Heather also engaged in prescriptive advising behavior of “telling students what
116

to do” when encouraging these students to explore major options to remain on track for degree
completion. Heather stated,
There are times when it’s difficult… having those challenging conversations... where...
they’re [students] not going to succeed in that major...because they’ve already exhausted
the amount of times that they could repeat the class that they need to stay in that major.
So they have to find an alternate and I do feel like I’m kind of disappointing them too in
letting them know, like, “No, that’s not an option”...
As an institutional agent, Heather’s responsibility was to transmit knowledge of the university
policies and procedures for pursuing majors. This also meant that the institution expected
Heather to inform students when their first choice major was “not an option” and instead advise
them to choose a different major because their academic performance did not reflect the
institution’s expectation for degree progress. Although Heather found it difficult to have “those
challenging conversations,” Heather did not push back against the institution’s expectation of her
role and felt “like I do play like a role in not helping them reach their goals.” By limiting their
options, Heather was using her knowledge of the institution’s policies and being prescriptive in
her advising approach. Heather further shared,
I don’t feel like policies, just because they’re in place and because they’ve helped out or
they helped me, the institution’s target goals, either for graduation...I don’t feel like it’s
always in the student’s best interest...especially for historically marginalized folks...if
they have other circumstances at home, or if we’re not even taking into account the... like
the level of preparation that they’re coming in with... that it’s, of course, like not there, I
don’t feel like it’s their fault. Because they come in and the institution sees the deficit, or
they focus on what they’re lacking, rather than what they’re bringing in. And then having
117

these policies that put the pressure on them to perform at the same level as other students
that, honestly might have had a better experience or better preparation or even considered
ahead, right. And that’s the disparity.
According to Bensimon and colleagues (2019), institutional agents “take action to transform
structures and practices that create inequality in opportunity and success in STEM (and higher
education” (p. 1692). Heather alluded to the institution’s structures and practices creating
inequality in STEM when she stated, “I don’t feel like it always in the student’s best
interest...especially for historically marginalized folks...they [institution] focus on what they’re
lacking...that’s the disparity.” The institution’s policies and procedures did not consider the
external factors that may impact a historically marginalized student’s academic progress in a
STEM course and instead focused on meeting the institution’s target goals such as graduation
rates. Therefore, the institution maintained the systemic inequity impacting historically
marginalized students pursuing STEM. Additionally, Heather perceived herself as being
complicit in maintaining the systemic inequity when she did not push back against the inequity
and instead engaged in prescriptive advising behavior to support the institution’s target goal for
graduation rates.
Franchesca also detailed the institutional constraint of attempting to transform the
institutional structures and practices to improve a historically marginalized student’s college
experience. A Black student informed Franchesca of a White male professor planning an in-class
play and the professor stated that “Black students in class had to do the slavery roles.”
Franchesca and the Black student were very upset by the microaggression caused by the White
male professor. Franchesca believed that “these microaggressions… straight up racist acts in the
118

classroom from their peers, from their faculty” were a barrier for historically marginalized
students navigating college. Franchesca shared,
So, I think for them [historically marginalized students], it’s really kind of talking about
like, do they feel like this class is impeding not only academically for them, but their
wellness? Because I really think that’s what it comes down to. I think the students are not
doing well in the classes, it’s impacting their wellness, therefore, it’s impacting their
academics... I do think it’s something that our White students are probably not facing.
Like when we talk about academic barriers, like that’s not something a White student is
going to encounter, therefore, they’re not being impacted in the same way.
In Franchesca’s example, she pointed out how academics and wellness are related and important
for student success when she said “it’s impacting their wellness, therefore, it’s impacting their
academics…” This academic barrier of microaggressions and racism inflicted by White
professors in Franchesca’s department onto historically marginalized students such as the Black
student and not White students “we’re actually impeding their [historically marginalized
students] academic ability further.” So Franchesca relayed this information to her supervisor in
hopes of holding the faculty accountable or changing the course instructor. Unfortunately,
nothing was done to hold the faculty accountable or change him as course instructor due to the
racist incident.
With no power to transform the classroom environment or policies in regard to holding
faculty accountable, Franchesca felt forced to engage in prescriptive advising behavior when she
presented only two options to the Black student regarding this matter. Franchesca shared,
What I did talk about with my student is like, “Do we feel like this is something we want
to continue pursuing in this class? Do we even want to be in this class anymore,
119

honestly?” And I think that’s kind of what becomes a problem because I’m putting them
between a rock and a hard place. Because the option to stay in this class where they may
be subjected to the same behavior, or drop the class, but now they’re gonna have to retake
it in another semester. And I think that’s kind of where the problem lies… I have to tell
them, ‘Like I understand, it’s not a safe space for you. I don’t want you to be in that
space. But now we have to take that class in another semester…” they [historically
marginalized students] really have to sometimes come down to a conversation of, I have
to prioritize wellness sometimes first before their academics. It’s gonna suck to add that
class later. But if you continue in this class, I almost feel like it’s [the effects] gonna be
irreversible.
Franchesca described the limited options presented to the Black student as “putting them
between a rock and a hard place.” If the Black student prioritized their academics and remained
enrolled in the course, they “may be subjected to the same behavior” experienced in the hostile
learning environment. If the Black student prioritized their wellness and dropped the course, they
“have to take that class in another semester” and may result in delay of graduation date.
Regardless of the choice selected by the Black student, hostile learning environments
experienced by historically marginalized students in Franchesca’s department continued and
Franchesca’s response of engaging in prescriptive advising was a band aid to the systemic
inequity.
Moreover, during Amanda’s interview, she described an experience where institutional
policies and procedures prevented her from supporting a historically marginalized student to the
best of her ability. Amanda had met with a female third-year student at least once a month every
semester throughout her college journey. Since the female student had anxiety issues, she was
120

enrolling as a part-time student because she didn’t “feel comfortable feeling rushed to make a
decision in regard to her major.” Amanda described being supportive of the student’s major
exploration process while also explaining current university policies and procedures that applied
to the major declaration process. Eventually, the student was ready to declare a biology major,
however she was no longer eligible to declare this major because her expected graduation date
would be further delayed. Instead of pushing back against the institution’s policy and request an
exception be made for the student to pursue the major, Amanda relayed the message and the
female student was not happy. Amanda shared,
So, I explained to her that we’ve had conversations about this major in particular, and
these are the classes that you would have needed to get started on a while ago. And the
fact that you have not taken these courses, takes this major off the table...And she said,
“No, but you said I could major in this.” And I had to go back and explain how I said,
“You could major in this if you stick to this policy and complete these courses by 16
units….I don’t know ultimately, what’s going to make you happy, which major is going
to make you happy. And these are your options at this point based on the courses that
you’ve taken, based on the majors we’ve discussed throughout the years. So at this point,
this is the time that you have to make the decision.” And she wasn’t necessarily happy
with that outcome.
Although Amanda was initially supportive of the student’s major exploration process, she
alluded to being in a position to be the bearer of bad news when it came to the student’s ultimate
academic goals, because she perceived institutional policies prevented her from majoring in
Biology without having taken a set of pre-requisite classes. Although Amanda may have felt
forced to engage in prescriptive advising by telling the student “these are your options” and “this
121

is the time you have to make the decision” regarding declaring a major that wasn’t her first
choice, she could advocated on behalf of the student to pursue the major.
The examples in this section indicate that academic advisors engaged in prescriptive
advising behavior due to personal choice and institutional constraints. Prescriptive advising
behaviors hindered academic advisors from being more proactive and engaged with historically
marginalized students. As a result, academic advisors often told students what to do instead of
engaging in academic planning and fostering holistic development. Also, academic advisors
feeling pressured to engage in prescriptive advising behaviors contributed to maintaining the
systemic inequities that impacted historically marginalized students’ experiences and success.
Ultimately, prescriptive advising behavior prevented the academic advisors from providing the
support they hoped for and historically marginalized students deserved.
Summary
Chapter Four presented the findings drawn from 15 journal entries submitted by 10
participants (academic advisors), and nine interviews completed by nine of the 10 participants
(academic advisors). Each academic advisor discussed their perceptions and understanding of
their advising interactions with historically marginalized students navigating their institution.
Specifically, academic advisors discussed the extent to which they enacted both institutional
agency techniques and proactive advising behaviors when interacting with historically
marginalized students. Through analyzing the data, I learned that academic advisors have a
challenging task in serving as a liaison between historically marginalized students and the
university, and equitably supporting students’ success and holistic development. In Chapter Five,
I summarize the findings presented in Chapter Four, discuss the implications for policy and
122

practice and provide recommendations for further research higher education professionals to
work towards equitable advising.

123

Chapter Five: Discussion
This study examined the self-reported actions of institutional agents (academic advisors)
to identify the needs of and support for historically marginalized students navigating
baccalaureate-granting universities and colleges in California. Additionally, my study intended to
examine how academic advisors enacted proactive advising, if at all. The first finding was that
academic advisors had a clear understanding of their roles as institutional agents at their higher
education institutions. Chapter Four presented the data to demonstrate which institutional agency
techniques were most frequently utilized by academic advisors in the study. The institutional
agency techniques most frequently applied were 1) providing support to meet students’ needs
(Bensimon et al., 2019; Garcia & Ramirez, 2018; Stanton-Salazar, 2011; Strayhorn, 2015), 2)
relaying social and institutional support (Bensimon et al., 2019; Garcia & Ramirez, 2018;
Stanton-Salazar, 2011; Strayhorn, 2015), and 3) serving as a safe harbor for students to share
academic and non-academic challenges. Chapter Four also highlighted the institutional
constraints and failures that these academic advisors faced that prevented them from supporting
historically marginalized students to the best of their ability. Another major finding was that,
despite its usefulness for historically marginalized students, proactive advising was not an
intentional focus for the academic advisors’ institutions. Despite this lack of focus on the part of
the institutions, I found that there were academic advisors who aspired to become and/or were
proactive with their historically marginalized students. Chapter Four also discussed early alert
and intervention systems (Kitchen et al., 2020; Museus & Ravello, 2021), which was the one
proactive advising technique (based on literature) most frequently applied by academic advisors
in the study. Lastly, I discussed the personal and institutional constraints that prevented academic
advisors from being more proactive and engaged with historically marginalized students.
124

This study utilized a qualitative approach to gain a deeper understanding of how
academic advisors understood and perceived their advising interactions with historically
marginalized students regarding identifying their needs and providing support for their needs.
The research question that guided this qualitative research study was: What are academic
advisors’ perceptions and experiences of how they can identify the needs of and better support
historically marginalized students through proactive advising behavior and serving as an
institutional agent? Interview data and journal responses were collected over a four-month period
and analyzed to help answer the research question. Chapter Five provides an analytical
discussion of the findings introduced in Chapter Four. Additionally, Chapter Five includes
recommendations for policy and practices on how higher education institutions can improve their
advising practices to work towards equitable advising for historically marginalized students.
Finally, I will recommend further research necessary to examine how to improve the institutional
structures designed to provide advising support for historically marginalized students.
Findings
This section presents a summary of the findings from nine in-depth interviews with nine
of the 10 academic advisors who participated in the study. Additionally, findings also drew on 15
journal entries completed by 10 academic advisors who participated in the study. During the data
collection phase of the study, the academic advisors who participated 1) had a minimum 2 years
of advising experience, 2) worked at a baccalaureate-granting university or college in California
and 3) currently advised historically marginalized undergraduate students within their student
population. Although not a required criterion for sample selection, all 10 academic advisors self-
identified as former college students of historically marginalized background. Also, it’s
important to note that three of 10 academic advisors who participated in the study worked for
125

equity programs dedicated specifically to supporting historically marginalized students. Seven of
10 academic advisors who participated in the study worked for advising programs and
departments that supported both historically marginalized and non-historically marginalized
students.
In each interview, the nine of 10 academic advisors who participated shared their
perspectives and experiences with applying institutional agency techniques and elements of
proactive advising to support historically marginalized students. Academic advisors also
discussed the institutional constraints and failures that prevented them from supporting
historically marginalized students to the best of their ability. The participants also discussed how
academic advisors can advocate for their historically marginalized students’ needs and provided
recommendations to improve support for these students.
Academic advisors were also asked to write two journal entries in response to critical
reflection prompts. The critical reflection prompts provided the academic advisors with an
opportunity to reflect on advising interactions with historically marginalized students. In the first
journal entry prompt, participants responded to a case scenario regarding a Black student seeking
support from them. The academic advisors were asked to reflect on how they would respond.
Through analysis, I learned that academic advisors in the study were committed to
supporting historically marginalized students’ academic success and holistic development
throughout their college journey, however they depended on existing structures to address the
needs and holistic development of these students. The higher education institutions required
academic advisors to use their institutional agency role to support historically marginalized
students with building connections on-campus, extending access to social capital so that students
could successfully navigate college as they take responsibility of their education. At the same
126

time, the academic advisors were constrained by institutional structures and their complicity, that
hindered them from fully supporting students and transforming the institutional context that
would improve their undergraduate experiences.
Furthermore, academic advisors were attempting to build relationships with historically
marginalized students. These academic advisors incorporated elements of proactive advising into
their advising interactions with students, but only some advisors were required to enact a
perceived proactive advising technique. Nevertheless, these academic advisors were constrained
by institutional structures and their complicity, that hindered their ability to be more proactive
and engaged. Ultimately, academic advisors need to incorporate both institutional agency
techniques and proactive advising into their interactions with historically marginalized students
so these students can reach academic success and holistic development.
Clear Understanding of Roles as Institutional Agents
Chapter Four demonstrated how academic advisors had a clear understanding of their
roles as institutional agents, and how these academic advisors utilized institutional advising
techniques to support historically marginalized students.
Providing Support to Meet Students’ Needs
The study found that an institutional agency technique most frequently utilized by
academic advisors was providing support to meet students’ needs. Participants in this study were
prepared to provide the support necessary for historically marginalized students by being
knowledgeable and serving as cultural navigators to provide direct support (Garcia & Ramirez,
2018; Stanton-Salazar, 2011). As a result, academic advisors supported historically marginalized
students with major exploration (Amanda), academic goals (Destiny), empowering them
(Heather) and more. While these findings shed light on how academic advisors perceived
127

providing support to historically marginalized students, student voices are sometimes not
centered by advising programs and departments. Pike and Kuh (2005) conducted a quantitative
study that explored the relationship among background characteristics, engagement, learning and
intellectual development for first and second generation college students. The sample included
1,000+ first and second generation college students as participants, and the study found that first
and second-generation college students had different levels of 1) academic engagement, 2) social
engagement, and 3) perceptions of college environment (Pike and Kuh, 2005). Pike and Kuh
(2005) study showed the importance of acknowledging students’ voices to understand the
different experiences and perceptions of higher education. Without centering the students’
voices, advising departments and programs will continue to implement structures with a “one
size fits all” model instead of providing differentiated support for historically marginalized
students. Further, it’s possible that the advising structures designed to support historically
marginalized students are not serving the unique needs of historically marginalized students.
As a result, higher education institutions may discourage academic advisors from engaging in
equitable advising (Jessica), and academic advisors will find it difficult to help historically
marginalized students navigate college because they do not “understand where [the student] is
coming from” (Franchesca).
Relaying Social and Institutional Support
The second institutional advising technique most frequently applied by academic advisors
in the study was relaying social and institutional support (indirect support as opposed to direct
support discussed above). Academic advisors served as liaisons to bridge connections between
students and other agents located within their social network, to access social capital (Garcia &
Ramirez, 2018). Additionally, academic advisors such as Franchesca and Grace, advocated on
128

behalf of historically marginalized students to transform institutional contexts (Bensimon et al.,
2019). Although academic advisors provided indirect support and advocated for students,
institutional constraints limited their power to use their institutional agency in situations that
necessitated a more systemic solution to student challenges/needs. Agents with institutional
power such as supervisors of advising programs, discouraged academic advisors (Heather) from
advocating on behalf of historically marginalized students or pushed back against advisors
advocating (Franchesca). Stanton-Salazar (2011) argued that gate-keeping agents adhere to
“social structures and the stratification system of the institution” (p. 1077). In these instances,
academic advisors became gatekeepers like the ones Stanton-Salazar (2011) spoke of when they
could not transform the institutional context and therefore maintained institutional inequalities.
The academic advisors in the study were committed to the work of supporting historically
marginalized students. However, higher education institutions simply telling academic advisors
to connect students with social and institutional support in the larger community is not sufficient.
Also, academic advisors cannot effectively provide differentiated support within institutional
contexts that perpetuate inequities against historically marginalized students. Historically
marginalized students deserve institutional agents (academic advisors) who transform
institutional contexts (Bensimon et al., 2019), bridge connections to the larger campus
community through proactive advising (Varney, 2012), and committed to engagement in
academic planning and development throughout these students’ college journey (Donaldson et
al., 2016).
Serving as a Safe Harbor
The third practice that emerged from the study and aligned with being an institutional
agent was academic advisors serving as a safe harbor for their historically marginalized students.
129

In the study, historically marginalized students sometimes became vulnerable by turning
advising interactions into venting sessions. Academic advisors then responded with active
listening as students shared their personal lives and its impact on their college experience (Grace
with the male student whose father was deported, Kat with the student parent), and institutional
barriers that contributed to a hostile college environment (Franchesca with the Black male
student who experienced racism). This data are important because to truly take on the role of an
institutional agent, academic advisors need to be prepared to respond with care, understanding
and empathy when historically marginalized students confide in them. A huge part of helping
historically marginalized students navigate college is understanding who these students are.
Getting a deeper sense of the students’ experiences and how they perceive the college journey
will inform academic advisors on their support moving forward. Surprisingly, there was one
organization that hindered an academic advisor (Jessica) from serving as a safe harbor for
students by directing her to connect students to other resources on campus. If academic advisors
are discouraged by their organizations to embrace the venting sessions due to institutional
policies and procedures, then academic advisors are not providing the support (listening) that
historically marginalized students may need. This can subsequently lead to these students not
seeking support from the academic advisor moving forward, which is often the only long-term
relationship students have with student support staff. Overall, the institutional agency techniques
discussed by participants were reported as being beneficial in terms of connecting historically
marginalized students to resources and supports on campus and developing an understanding of
college culture. At the same time, the techniques used by academic advisors did not always go
far enough in truly supporting the success and holistic development of historically marginalized
130

students per Bensimon and colleagues’ (2019) definition of institutional agents transforming
institutional contexts.
Advising Approach
The data in Chapter Four demonstrated that academic advisors in the study had a clear
understanding of their roles as institutional agents, but there are constraints that hindered them
from providing full support to historically marginalized students. Also, an academic advisor can
still be considered an institutional agent by providing support to meet students’ needs
(transmitting knowledge of policies and procedures), and engage in prescriptive advising
behavior by providing students with necessary information for progress towards degree
completion (Harris, 2018). Thus, institutional agency techniques alone cannot truly support
historically marginalized students. Academic advisors must also be prepared with the knowledge
and tools to be more proactive and engaged with historically marginalized students. Proactive
advising helps students build connections (Varney, 2012), support holistic student development
(Donaldson et al., 2016) and engagement in academic planning (Donaldson et al., 2016), instead
of telling students what to do (Barbuto et al., 2011; Drake, 2011). Most importantly, proactive
advising acknowledges students’ personal lives and the non-academic factors that may obstruct
their progress towards success, goals and holistic development (Kitchen et al., 2021). As
illustrated in the conceptual framework, true success and holistic development for historically
marginalized students can be achieved when academic advisors provide support by applying
institutional agency techniques in conjunction with proactive advising behaviors. Bensimon and
colleagues (2019) stated in their study that institutional agents with critical consciousness, have
“a critical awareness” of barriers that “obstruct students’ [historically marginalized] efforts to
achieve their goals” and an awareness of inequalities (p. 1696). If an academic advisor is not
131

proactive, they may not know what to advocate for on behalf of historically marginalized
students. Leaving the onus on the student to reach out and engage with institutional agents is
short-sighted and partial. Advocacy on behalf of students (a key element of institutional agency)
requires some knowledge about historically marginalized students’ experiences that proactive
advising can uncover. Further, academic advisors can have the knowledge (through professional
development for example) to connect students to the resources in the college, but professional
development may not provide academic advisors with the critical consciousness that Bensimon
and colleagues (2019) spoke of. Critical consciousness is needed to work towards equitable
advising and can only be achieved when academic advisors are proactively engaging with
students who then feel comfortable sharing their stories. Historically marginalized students are
not a monolith. For example, two students can self-identify as first-generation and Southeast
Asian, but have different identities and undergraduate experiences. Thus, proactive advising can
contribute to academic advisors having a deeper understanding of the unique needs of individual
students and be better positioned to provide differentiated support.
Aspirations to be More Proactive and Engaged
I found that most of the higher education institutions did not intentionally implement
advising structures with proactive advising techniques. Instead, academic advisors described
their aspirations and/or actions to be more engaged and proactive with their historically
marginalized students. In some instances, academic advisors would refer to their undergraduate
experience during advising interactions to relate to their students (Irma, Franchesca and Eugene).
Nevertheless, when proactive advising wasn’t intentionally included in the structures of advising
programs and departments, academic advisors were not required to engage in proactive advising
behaviors. The onus was on them to be proactive, which given institutional constraints could turn
132

out to be more challenging than simply enacting prescriptive advising. This is important to
address because I strongly believe (as illustrated in the conceptual framework) that proactive
advising is well positioned to support historically marginalized students’ success and holistic
student development. Prescriptive advising limits advising sessions to academic matters such as
degree requirements and tells the students what to do instead of engagement in planning
(Barbuto et al., 2011; Drake, 2011; Harris, 2018). By not institutionalizing proactive advising
techniques, advising programs and departments send the message that prescriptive advising is
sufficient. Most importantly, the absence of institutionalized proactive advising approaches fails
to set up advising programs and departments to provide the support needed to help diverse
historically marginalized students find success and develop holistically.
Enacting a Proactive Advising Technique
The only proactive advising technique, as defined in literature and discussed by academic
advisors in the study, was early alert and intervention systems intended to monitor academic
progress and promote academic success by reaching out to students at risk of failing a course(s)
(Kitchen et al., 2020; Museus & Ravello, 2021). This proactive advising technique was well
intended in capturing students not doing well academically. Unfortunately, this technique is
reactive, prescriptive and reflects a deficit mindset in that outreach efforts are conducted only
when students are “at-risk.” This deficit mindset assumes that the student is the problem and
does not acknowledge the role of systemic inequities impacting the student’s academic
performance. Furthermore, this perceived proactive advising technique does not capture students
who may not be flagged as “at-risk” but may still have needs/challenges both in and outside of
academics. Given that proactive advising is a technique that stretches beyond academic success
and sees students in holistic ways, even students who may be academically successful but need
133

non-academic support need to be identified and supported. For academic advisors to support the
holistic development of historically marginalized students, they need to implement additional
proactive advising techniques that are not deficit oriented and focus on supporting other areas of
student development.
Constraints to Being More Proactive and Engaged
In this study, I found that an academic advisor’s personal choice to engage in prescriptive
advising behavior (Grace) and institutional constraints (i.e., large student caseload,
administrative duties, institutional policies and procedures) prevented academic advisors from
being more proactive and engaged with historically marginalized students. Thus, historically
marginalized students did not receive the support they needed and deserved to address challenges
that impact their college journey. Also, higher education institutions continue to reproduce the
status quo when proactive advising behaviors are not required, and/or when proactive advising
behavior reflects a deficit mindset (early alert and intervention systems). When higher education
institutions don’t incorporate elements of (asset based) proactive advising techniques into their
policies and procedures, it is less likely that academic advisors will enact proactive advising
behaviors that have been shown to support historically marginalized students’ holistic
development.
Implications for Policy and Practice
The findings in this study suggest that it is important for higher education institutions to
institutionalize structures that require institutional agents (academic advisors) to apply both
institutional agency techniques and proactive advising approaches to move towards equitable
advising for historically marginalized students. This study examined the ways that academic
advisors utilized their institutional agency to support historically marginalized students
134

navigating college, as well as challenges to supporting the students to the best of their ability.
Additionally, the study examined how the academic advisors minimally embraced proactive
advising behavior through aspirations and actions, and how institutional barriers prevented them
from being more proactive and engaged with historically marginalized students. This section
highlights ways that higher education institutions through the work of directors with institutional
power and academic advisors positioned to directly support students can work collectively
towards equitable advising so that academic advisors can truly support the success and holistic
development of historically marginalized students navigating colleges.
The following recommendations for practice are offered to higher education
administrators to institutionalize a proactive and engaging advising culture.
a. Higher education administrators that oversee advising programs and departments,
can work closely with directors of these advising centers to revise the advising
program/department’s mission statement, values and objectives in ways that
reflect the proactive advising approach. The updated mission statement, values
and objectives can then guide advising programs and departments with
restructuring, development and implementation of programs/activities/practices
intended to improve support for future historically marginalized students
accessing these services.
b. Higher education administrators can reduce the student caseload for academic
advisors by collaborating with campus partners to support student success and
completion. Higher education administrators can include research office and
budget offices in advocacy efforts for an increase in budget to hire additional
academic advisors. Several academic advisors in the study attributed a large
135

student caseload as an institutional constraint for being more proactive and
engaged with historically marginalized students and building relationships with
these students. In addition to a large student caseload, administrative tasks and
responsibilities further decreased academic advisors’ availability and accessibility
to students. Reducing the student caseload will allow academic advisors to
dedicate time to reach out to students, be more available for advising interactions,
and engage in academic and personal planning. Essentially, academic advisors
will have more time to get to know their students and develop meaningful
relationships. Furthermore, some academic advisors in the study discussed
experiencing academic advisor burnout and it impeded their ability to engage with
students in a meaningful manner. Burnout is “emotional exhaustion,
depersonalization, and reduced personal accomplishment” that may occur
amongst professionals that provide services to individuals (McLaughlin, 2018, p.
831). Advisor burnout is when an advisor experiences exhaustion within their
role-whether it is mental, physical, or emotional, which may disconnect them
from their work and negatively impact their well-being (Meza, 2021). By
reducing the student caseload, academic advisors’ wellbeing is prioritized, and
they can better balance administrative responsibilities and support for students.
c. Higher education administrators at HSIs can revise and examine what it means to
be a Latino/a/x-serving identity. They can detail what their service looks like and
how institutional agents are expected to execute the service. They can also reform
existing structures that support and service historically marginalized students
“into more socially just, non-discriminatory, inclusive environments” (Garcia and
136

Ramirez, 2018. p. 3). By doing so, HSIs can work towards graduating their
historically marginalized students in equitable manners and improving their
college experiences.
The following recommendations for practice are offered to directors of advising
programs and departments to transform institutional contexts and improve the experiences of
historically marginalized students.
a. Directors can prioritize providing intentional support to address the unique needs
of historically marginalized students by preparing their academic advisors to
support these unique needs. As Museus and Ravello (2010) stated, “For
institutions of higher education to maximize the effectiveness of academic
advising on their campuses, their administrators must have a better understanding
of the characteristics of advisors and advising that foster or hinder success among
racial and ethnic minority college students” (p. 48). It is critical for these
academic advisors to stay up to date with current issues and policies that may
impact historically marginalized students’ holistic development and be
knowledgeable about how to effectively respond. Advising programs and
departments can increase professional development opportunities for academic
advisors to be knowledgeable and equipped with skills to effectively differentiate
their support to students from historically marginalized backgrounds. Professional
development opportunities can consist of statewide and nationwide conferences
and webinars, meetings with campus partners, and weekly case scenario activities.
By providing professional development opportunities, academic advisors will be
137

better prepared to respond to students’ needs and resolve challenging student
issues (Elmore, 2002).
b. Directors can develop a culture of advocacy within the organization. Directors can
utilize their position to advocate for institutional support (opportunities and
resources) to higher education administration and campus partners, to be directed
towards historically marginalized students (Bensimon et al., 2019). Grace’s
director was not afraid to be “on the front lines of these fights” whenever they
were tasked with relaying the concerns and challenges experienced by their
historically marginalized students to higher education administrators with
institutional power. By leading through example, directors affirm to their
academic advisors that advocacy is valued by the organization. Hence, academic
advisors will be better positioned to advocate on behalf of historically
marginalized students so that they receive the support they deserve. Also,
academic advisors will be better positioned to challenge the policies and
procedures that hinder positive experiences of historically marginalized students.
c. Directors can center historically marginalized student voices during assessment
efforts of the advising staff. Past literature has shown that higher education
institutions often do not take into consideration these student voices and
experiences when examining their practices and developing future programming.
As Franchesca shared in the interview, “Advising practices could be
fundamentally changed” when programs and departments consider the voices of
historically marginalized students. Thus, directors can send a quarterly/semesterly
survey to all students served by their program/department, to assess their practices
138

and make necessary changes to improve how the needs of and support for
historically marginalized students navigating college are identified and addressed.
The survey can ask questions to determine whether the proactive advising
behaviors and institutional agency techniques are most frequently applied by
academic advisors, aligned with the updated mission statement and students’
advising expectations. Also, student feedback can be used to determine whether
proactive advising behaviors and institutional agency techniques 1) perpetuate
inequities experienced by historically marginalized students, 2) support or hinder
the ability for academic advisors to support students to the best of their ability
and/or 3) need adjustments or removal. Lastly, as Franchesca stated, surveys can
provide insight to how students experience the advising program and “maybe
they[students] don’t even actually feel like they’re being served.” So, directors
can design and implement programming/activities that provide differentiated
support for historically marginalized students.
d. Directors can institutionalize a minimum of two proactive advising techniques
into their organization’s practices. Based on their updated mission’s statement and
students’ demographics and needs, directors can decide which proactive advising
techniques are most appropriate. Most importantly, directors should adopt a
proactive advising technique that best supports the needs of historically
marginalized students and does not have a deficit framing. Academic advisors can
help historically marginalized students navigate college with an asset approach to
help leverage students’ goals, desires, and commitment for academic excellence
and holistic development. If a director chooses to implement the early alert and
139

intervention system technique, then they can make this technique proactive by
collaborating with the institution’s research office to disaggregate the data
collected on students flagged. Who are the students being flagged during the early
alert and intervention phase? By having a better understanding of student’s
profiles being flagged, the disaggregated data will help other campus partners
engage in equitable work to improve the educational experiences of historically
marginalized students. Further, students not flagged during early alert and
intervention systems may benefit from an advisor outreaching during the early
alert and intervention phase, to further engage in academic planning and foster
their holistic development throughout their college journey. Therefore, directors
should implement outreach efforts to students not flagged during the early alert
and mid semester system phase to provide support in areas outside of academics.
The following recommendations for practice are offered to academic advisors to be
institutional agents who provide intentional support in a holistic manner.
a. Academic advisors can learn about the current needs of historically marginalized
students by asking them directly. Academic advisors can distribute an optional
questionnaire for all students to complete at the start of an academic year (see
Appendix D). The purpose of this questionnaire is for academic advisors to get to
know their students and get a glimpse of what their self-reported needs are.
Additionally, while academic advisors may hope to reflect on the responses of
their students to learn more about them, they should avoid essentializing students
based on their responses to just this questionnaire. Regardless of an academic
advisors’ identity (e.g., historically marginalized) and personal experiences
140

navigate college, they must acknowledge that they are not an expert on
race/ethnicity and the intersectional nature of being a first-generation college
student. Therefore, academic advisors have a responsibility to ongoing and
dedicated learning of diverse historically marginalized student groups (Drago-
Severson & Blum-DeStefano, 2017). Their work as an advisor necessitates insight
into their students as individuals, as they wish to present themselves. By having
students complete the questionnaire, academic advisors can gain invaluable
insight about their students such as their academic and personal interests, the type
of support they need, and first-generation status and the racial group(s) with
which they self-identify.
b. Per Amanda’s recommendation, academic advisors can teach students how to
advocate for themselves by helping “them[students] understand what advocacy
looks like” and providing them with tools so “when [the academic advisor is] not
around, [the student] can do this for yourself.” Should an academic advisor not be
readily available to assist a historically marginalized student, these students can
feel confident and empowered to voice their needs. Additionally, students can
advocate to demand their needs and educational inequities be addressed by
institutional agents with institutional power to improve the college experiences of
historically marginalized students.
Future Research
Although this study examined various institutional agency techniques and proactive
advising behaviors utilized by academic advisors, my findings are limited by the study’s design.
First, the data for this study were self-reported, so there was a reliance on what academic
141

advisors remembered and wanted to share. Although more difficult to do given the confidential
nature of the advisor-student interaction, researchers might attempt to examine these interactions
using observational approaches.
Second, this study is not intended to be generalizable to advising programs and
departments statewide nor nationwide. Specifically, higher education institutions within
California vary as some institutions private, public, profit, nonprofit, two-year, four-year, etc.
Future research can explore how advisors at different types of institutions understand and
interpret their advising interactions with historically marginalized students. How do the policies,
procedures and culture of a public institution, for example, impact the ways in which advisors
identify the needs of and better support historically marginalized students as compared to private
institutions? This study tried to sample academic advisors from a variety of institutions but was
not aimed at comparing them by type.
Also, there are different types of academic advisors ranging from faculty advisors,
licensed counselor, academic advisor and more. Future research can explore how different roles
of advisors shape their advising interactions with historically marginalized students. How does
the support provided by a faculty advisor differ, if at all, from the support provided by a licensed
counselor? Nonetheless, the examination of perceptions and experiences of academic advisors
engaging with historically marginalized students allowed me to better understand how academic
advisors, in general, identify the needs of and support historically marginalized students.
Triangulating with different stakeholders is another important recommendation for future
research. More research is recommended to center the student voices of historically marginalized
groups in the development and implementation of programming and services intended to serve
their unique needs. From the students’ standpoints, are academic advisors identifying their
142

unique needs and providing the support they deserve? Also, are advising efforts improving their
college experiences, or perpetuating existing educational inequities that negatively impact their
college experience?
Finally, future research can explore ways that academic advisors move away from a
deficit mindset and instead focus on restructuring policies and procedures that help leverage the
goals, desires, and commitment for historically marginalized students to successfully navigate
college. What does it look like for academic advisors to embrace the strengths and cultural
capital that these students already possess, during engagement in academic, personal and/or
career planning? A unique sampling approach could be used to recruit and examine the practices
of academic advisors that have a reputation of doing this well.
Conclusions
Higher education literature has discussed the ways in which academic advisors can serve
in an institutional capacity to serve the unique needs of students and foster holistic student
development, specifically historically marginalized students navigating the complexity of college
and universities (Bensimon et al., 2019; Garcia & Ramirez, 2018; Museus & Neville, 2012;
Stanton-Salazar, 2011; Strayhorn, 2015). Additionally, existing literature has shown how
academic advisors can engage in proactive advising behavior to support the holistic development
and unique needs of historically marginalized students (Donaldson et al., 2016; Drake, 2011;
Harris, 2018; He & Hutson, 2016; Kitchen et al., 2020; Museus & Ravello, 2010; 2021;
Schwebel et al., 2012; Strayhorn, 2015; Swecker et al., 2013). However, additional research is
necessary to understand how academic advisors perceive and understand their advising
interactions with historically marginalized students. That was the aim of this study. It is
imperative to understand the perceptions and experiences so that other institutional agents
143

(academic advisors) can work towards equitable advising. This study aimed to examine the self-
reported actions of institutional agents (academic advisors) to identify the needs of and support
for historically marginalized students navigating baccalaureate-granting universities and colleges
in California. Additionally, this study intended to examine how academic advisors enacted
proactive advising behaviors, if at all.
Using data collected from 15 journal entries and nine in-depth interviews with academic
advisors working in California, the findings, presented in Chapter Four, to make institutional
change could improve the experiences of historically marginalized students navigating higher
education. Most importantly, historically marginalized students deserve to be provided with the
support necessary to successfully navigate college. Higher education institutions and institutional
agents such as academic advisors, must remain committed and proactive to improving the
educational experiences of these students by transforming institutional contexts, valuing student
voices and holding themselves accountable to their students. Ultimately, higher education
institutions must cultivate a sense of belonging for these students and affirm their commitment to
their success and holistic development in an equitable manner. These higher education
institutions can achieve this by requiring and providing the time and space for academic advisors
to utilize both institutional agency techniques and proactive advising behaviors to best support
the success and holistic development of historically marginalized students.

144

References
Anderson, M., Schlossberg, N., & Goodman, J. (2012). Counseling adults in transition linking
Schlossberg’s theory with practice in a diverse world (4th ed.).
Aschaffenburg, K.; & Maas, I. (1997). Cultural and educational careers: The dynamics of social
reproduction. American Sociological Review, 62(4), 573–587.
Barbuto, J. E., Story, J. S., Fritz, S. M., & Schinstock, J. L. (2011). Full range advising:
Transforming the advisor-advisee experience. Journal of College Student Development,
52(6), 656-670.
Bensimon, E., Dowd, A., Stanton-Salazar, R., & Dávila, B. (2019). The role of institutional
agents in providing institutional support to Latinx students in STEM. Review of Higher
Education, 42(4), 1689–1721.
Bogue, E. G., & Hall, K. (2003). College rankings and ratings: The test of reputation. In E.G.
Bogue & K. Hall (Eds.), Quality and accountability in higher education: Improving
policy, enhancing performance (pp. 51-75).
Brookfield, S. D. (2010). Critical reflection as an adult learning process. In N. Lyons (ed.),
Handbook of reflection and reflective inquiry: Mapping a way of knowing for
professional reflective Inquiry (pp. 215-236).
Brookfield, S. D. (2017). Becoming a critically reflective teacher (2nd ed.).
Chan, Z. (2016). A qualitative study of freshmen’s and academic advisors’ perspectives on
academic advising in nursing. Nurse Education in Practice, 18, 23–29.
Chou, R. S., & Feagin, J. R. (2015). The myth of the model minority: Asian Americans facing
racism.
Coghlan, D. (2019). Doing action research in your own organization (5th ed.).
145

Cross, M., & Atinde, V. (2015). The Pedagogy of the marginalized: Understanding how
historically disadvantaged students negotiate their epistemic access in a diverse university
environment. Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies, 37(4), 308–325.
Delgado, R. & Stefancic, J. (2000). California’s racial history and constitutional rationales for
race-conscious decision making in higher education. UCLA Law Review, 47(6), 1521–
1552.
Donaldson, P., McKinney, L., Lee, M., & Pino, D. (2016). First-year community college
students’ perceptions of and attitudes toward intrusive academic advising. NACADA
Journal, 36(1), 30–42.
Drago-Severson, E., & Blum-DeStefano, J. (2017). The self in social justice: A developmental
lens on race, identity, and transformation. Harvard Educational Review, 87(4), 457- 481.
Drake, J. (2011). The role of academic advising in student retention and persistence. About
Campus, 16(3), 8–12.
Edwards, C.W. (2019). Overcoming imposter syndrome and stereotype threat:
Reconceptualizing the definition of a scholar. Taboo (New York, N.Y.), 18(1), 18–34.
Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement, Washington, D.C.:
Albert Shanker Institute.
Garcia, G., & Ramirez, J. (2018). Institutional agents at a Hispanic serving institution: Using
social capital to empower students. Urban Education, 53(3), 355–381.
Garcia, G. (2016). Complicating a Latina/o-serving identity at a Hispanic serving institution.
Review of Higher Education, 40(1), 117–143.
Gordon, V.N, Habley, W.R, Grites, T.J. and associates. (2008). Academic advising: A
comprehensive handbook.
146

Harris, T. A. (2018). Prescriptive vs. developmental: Academic advising at a historically black
university in south carolina. NACADA Journal, 38(1), 36-46.
Hayes, S., Lindeman, L., & Lukszo, C. (2020). The role of academic advisors in the development
of transfer student capital. NACADA Journal, 40(1), 49–63.
He, Y., & Hutson, B. (2016). Appreciative assessment in academic advising. Review of Higher
Education, 39(2), 213.
Julien, C. (2015). Bourdieu, social capital and online interaction. Sociology (Oxford), 49(2),
356–373.
Kitchen, J., Cole, D., Rivera, G., & Hallett, R. (2020). The impact of a college transition program
proactive advising intervention on self-efficacy. Journal of Student Affairs Research and
Practice, ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print), 1–15.
Kitchen, Cole, D., Rivera, G., & Hallett, R. (2021). The impact of a college transition program
proactive advising intervention on self-efficacy. Journal of Student Affairs Research and
Practice, 58(1), 29–43.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3
rd
ed.).
McClellan, J. L. (2007). The advisor as servant: The theoretical and philosophical relevance of
servant leadership to academic advising. NACADA Journal, 27(2), 41-49.
McLaughlin, W. (2018). Overloaded and overlooked: Improving resident advisors’ self-care.
Journal of American College Health, 66(8), 831–833.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.).
Metz, G. (2004). Challenge and changes to Tinto’s persistence theory: A historical review.
Journal of College Student Retention, 6(2), 191–207.
147

Meza, A. (2021). Advisor burnout definition.
Mu, L., & Fosnacht, K. (2019). Effective advising: How academic advising influences student
learning outcomes in different institutional contexts. Review of Higher Education, 42(4),
1283-1307.
Museus, S.D., & Neville, K.M. (2012). Delineating the ways that key institutional agents provide
racial minority students with access to social capital in college. Journal of College
Student Development 53(3), 436-452.
Museus, S., & Ravello, J. (2010). Characteristics of academic advising that contribute to racial
and ethnic minority student success at predominantly White institutions. NACADA
Journal, 30(1), 47–58.
Museus, S. D., & Ravello, J. N. (2021). Characteristics of academic advising that contribute to
racial and ethnic minority student success at predominantly White institutions. NACADA
Journal, 41(1), 13–25.
Museus, S. D., Shiroma, K., & Dizon, J. P. (2016). Cultural community connections and college
success: An examination of Southeast Asian American college students. Journal of
College Student Development, 57(5), 485–502.
National Center for Statistics (NCES). (2019). Postsecondary graduation rates: Figure 23.1.
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/raceindicators/indicator_red.asp
National Center for Statistics (NCES). (2020). Graduation rate within 150% of normal time at 4-
year postsecondary institutions (limited by state [California], degree-granting status
[degree-granting], sector of institution [public, 4 year or above; private nonprofit, 4 year
or above], level of institution [four or more years] and institutional category [degree-
granting, primarily baccalaureate or above]).
148

https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/TrendGenerator/app/answer/7/19?f=6%3D6%3B2%3D1%3B1
%3D1%7C2%3B5%3D1%3B57%3D2
National Center for Statistics (NCES). (2020). Graduation rate within 150% of normal time for
bachelor’s or equivalent degree-seeking undergraduate students who received a
bachelor’s or equivalent degree at 4-year postsecondary institutions, by race/ethnicity:
2014 (based on 136 institutions, limited by State[California].
https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/TrendGenerator/app/build-table/7/20?f=6%3D6&rid=52
National Center for Statistics (NCES). (2020). Full-time retention rate in postsecondary
institutions (sector of institution [public, 4-year or above; private not-for-profit, 4-year
or above], degree-granting status [degree-granting], level of institution [four or more
years, limited by state [California], and institutional category [degree-granting,
primarily baccalaureate or above]).
https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/TrendGenerator/app/answer/7/32?f=1%3D1%7C2%3B2%3D1
%3B5%3D1%3B6%3D6%3B57%3D2
Nguyen, T., Nguyen, M. H., Nguyen, B. M. D., Gasman, M., & Conrad, C. (2018). From
marginalized to validated: An in-depth case study of an Asian American, Native
American and Pacific Islander serving institution. Review of Higher Education, 41(3),
327–363.
Nguyen, T., Samayoa, A., Gasman, M., & Mobley, S. (2018). Challenging respectability:
Student health directors providing services to Lesbian and Gay students at historically
Black colleges and universities. Teachers College Record, 120(1).
O'shea, S. (2016). Avoiding the manufacture of “sameness”: First-in-family students, cultural
capital and the higher education environment. Higher Education, 72(1), 59–78.
149

Patton, L. (2016). Student development in college: theory, research, and practice (3
rd
ed.).
Pike, G., & Kuh, G. (2005). First- and second-generation college students: A comparison of their
engagement and intellectual development. The Journal of Higher Education (Columbus),
76(3), 276–300.
Pizzolato, J. (2006). Complex partnerships: Self-authorship and provocative academic-advising
practices. NACADA Journal, 26(1), 32–45.
Punyanunt-Carter, N., & Carter, S. (2015). Undergraduate students’ perceptions of the
communication behaviors of their advisors and perceptions of relational satisfaction.
Higher Learning Research Communications, 5(2), 14-23.
Pyne, K., & Means, D. (2013). Underrepresented and in/visible: A Hispanic first-generation
student’s narratives of college. Journal Of Diversity in Higher Education, 6(3), 186–198.
Ritchey, K. (2014). Black identity development. The Vermont Connection: Vol. 35, Article 12.
Rodriguez, L. (2018). The educational journeys of students of color across the educational
pipeline: A pedagogy of storytelling or a struggle for freedom? Diaspora, Indigenous,
and Minority Education, 12(4), 214–229.
Rudolph, F. & Thelin, J. R. (1990). American college and university: A history. University of
Georgia Press.
Schwebel, D., Walburn, N., Klyce, K., & Jerrolds, K. (2012). Efficacy of advising outreach on
student retention, academic progress and achievement, and frequency of advising
contacts: A longitudinal randomized trial. NACADA Journal, 32(2), 36–43.
Stanton-Salazar, R. (2011). A social capital framework for the study of institutional agents and
their role in the empowerment of low-status students and youth. Youth & Society, 43(3),
1066–1109.
150

Starobin, S., Smith, D., & Santos Laanan, F. (2016). Deconstructing the transfer student capital:
Intersect between cultural and social capital among female transfer students in STEM
fields. Community College Journal of Research and Practice: New Approaches to
Transfer Research: Implications for Policy and Practice, 40(12), 1040–1057.
Strayhorn, T. (2015). Reframing academic advising for student success: From advisor to cultural
navigator. NACADA Journal, 35(1), 56–63.
Swecker, H., Fifolt, M., & Searby, L. (2013). Academic advising and first-generation college
students: A quantitative study on student retention. NACADA Journal, 33(1), 46–53.
U.S. Department of Education. (2018, February). First-generation students: College access,
persistence, and postbachelor’s outcomes. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2018/2018421.pdf.
U.S. Department of Education. (2022). Developing Hispanic-Serving Institutions program - Title
V. https://www2.ed.gov/programs/idueshsi/index.html.
Varney, J. (2012). Proactive (intrusive) advising! Academic Advising Today, 35(3).
Vianden, J. (2016). Ties That bind: Academic advisors as agents of student relationship
management. NACADA Journal, 36(1), 19–29.
Waddington, D. (2019). Proactive advising for at-risk students: Comparing a predictive model to
faculty identification. College Quarterly, 22(2).

151

Appendix A: Information Sheet for Exempt Research

152

153

Appendix B: Personal Reflection Prompts
154

155

Appendix C: Interview Protocol
156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

Appendix D: Get to Know Me Survey
The following are questions that will be asked to students:
1. What made you decide to come to the college/university? Describe in 1-3 sentences.
2. What do you hope to get out of college?
3. What do you hope to accomplish by the end of the 2020-2021 academic year here at the
college/university, if any?
4. What are you hoping your academic advisor (me) can support you with?
5. Besides your major, what other subjects do you enjoy learning about/ don’t enjoy
learning about?
1. Subjects
1. Accounting
2. Architecture
3. Art and design
4. Arts, technology and the business of innovation
5. Business, entrepreneurship, finance, management, marketing
6. Cinematic arts, animation, media, production, writing
7. Communication, journalism, public relations
8. Dance
9. Dramatic arts
10. Early childhood education, multilingualism and multiculturalism,
education and society
11. Engineering
12. Ethnic studies/multicultural studies
166

13. Health, medicine
14. Humanities
15. Law
16. Music, songwriting
17. Natural sciences
18. Public policy
19. Social sciences
20. Social welfare
21. Theatre, screenplay
22. Other
6. What are your concerns about academic experiences here at the college/university, if
any?
1. Tutoring services
2. Study group
3. Asking for help
4. Developing study habits
5. Academic support services
6. Other (please specify)
7. What are your concerns about non-academic experiences here at the college/university, if
any?
1. Accommodations
2. Extracurricular Activities
3. Finances
167

4. Food insecurity
5. Health/wellbeing
6. Housing
7. Need for technology (e.g., laptop, Wi-Fi service, etc.)
8. Other (please specify)
8. What would you like for me to consider when planning your academic journey?
9. Are there any special situations that we need to consider in planning your educational
program?
1. ADA accommodations
2. Family responsibilities
3. First-generation
4. International student currently in-home country
5. International student currently in the U.S.
6. Living off-campus
7. Living on-campus
8. Military/veteran
9. Part-time/full time job
10. Re-entry student
11. Spirituality/faith
12. Other (please specify)
10. Please respond to the following demographic question
1. Race/Ethnicity
1. Black
168

2. Latina/o/x or Hispanic
3. Native American/Indigenous
4. Asian/Southeast Asian
5. White
6. Other (Please specify)
7. Decline to answer
11. What else would you like for me to know about you to better support you?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The conceptual framework that guides this qualitative research study is grounded in institutional agency and proactive advising approaches. Higher education literature has discussed the utility and effectiveness of institutional agency techniques and proactive advising behaviors when working with historically marginalized students (i.e., by virtue of race and first-generation college status). The purpose of the study was to better understand the perceptions and experiences of 10 academic advisors in identifying the needs of and better supporting historically marginalized students through proactive advising behavior and serving as an institutional agent. This study took place during spring 2021 semester, and data was collected from journal entries and interviews. My research question in conjunction with my conceptual framework, were used to analyze the data. By understanding the perceptions and experiences, current and future academic advisors will learn how to work towards equitable advising by utilizing their institutional agency role to be more proactive and engaged with historically marginalized students. Most importantly, higher education institutions can create systemic change that reflects support for equitable advising.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

A pathway to persistence: perspectives of academic advising and first-generation undergraduate students

PDF

Examining elementary school teachers’ beliefs and pedagogy with students from low socioeconomic status and historically marginalized communities

PDF

Advising strategies to support high graduation rates of transfer students

PDF

Cultivating critical reflection: an action research study on teaching and supporting district intern participants through critical reflection

PDF

Transfer first-generation college students: the role of academic advisors in degree completion

PDF

Examining the practices of teachers who teach historically marginalized students through an enactment of ideology, asset pedagogies, and funds of knowledge

PDF

Academic advisement practices and policies in support of Black community college students with the goal of transfer

PDF

Graduate academic advisor training course

PDF

Using culturally relevant pedagogy to deepen students' socio-political consciousness: an action research project

PDF

Developing sociopolitical consciousness and cultural competence to dismantle structural racism and hegemony within my high school English classroom

PDF

Undocumented students' personal reflections on the role institutional agents play in providing social capital towards post-secondary education

PDF

Activating student engagement in shared governance

PDF

Examining the learning environments of urban high school educators who are culturally aware and serve a majority of students from historically marginalized populations

PDF

Perceptions of inclusion: high school students diagnosed with learning disabilities and their level of self-efficacy

PDF

Disrupting cis-heteronormativity: creating safe and affirming conditions for racially marginalized LGBTQ+ students through a critical reflection coaching group

PDF

Do you see you in me!? No, I do not. I other you.

PDF

Critically reflective dialogue: an action research study on increasing the critical consciousness of ethnic studies teachers

PDF

A study of shared leadership in a California community college

PDF

Anti-racist adaptive leadership: an action research study on supporting principals in predominantly white schools to develop color consciousness and support future anti-racist practices

PDF

Échale ganas: the transition experiences of first-generation Latinx students and their parents to college

Asset Metadata

Creator Meza, Alejandra (author)

Core Title Proactive advising and serving as an institutional agent: how academic advisors identify the needs of and support historically marginalized students navigating college

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Educational Leadership

Degree Conferral Date 2022-05

Publication Date 02/09/2022

Defense Date 05/13/2022

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

Tag equitable advising,first-generation,Higher education,historically marginalized students,institutional agent,OAI-PMH Harvest,proactive advising

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Garcia, Angélica (committee member), Samkian, Artineh (committee member), Slayton, Julie (committee member)

Creator Email alejandrameza05@gmail.com,mezaa@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC110702285

Unique identifier UC110702285

Legacy Identifier etd-MezaAlejan-10386

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Meza, Alejandra

Type texts

Source 20220214-usctheses-batch-912 (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. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

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