Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
The search for transformative agents: the counter-institutional positioning of faculty and staff at an elite university
(USC Thesis Other)
The search for transformative agents: the counter-institutional positioning of faculty and staff at an elite university
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
THE SEARCH FOR TRANSFORMATIVE AGENTS: THE COUNTER-
INSTITUTIONAL POSITIONING OF FACULTY AND STAFF AT AN ELITE
UNIVERSITY
by
Sumun Lakshmi Pendakur
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
December 2010
Copyright 2010 Sumun Lakshmi Pendakur
ii
DEDICATION
I dedicate this work to my husband, my parents, and my brother, my partners in this
journey.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First, I want to thank my family for being by my side, every step of the way. For
my husband/best friend/life partner, Sunil – without your constant love, support, and
encouragement, this would not have been possible. You are my rock and I love you. I
thank my parents, Manjunath and Rojavathi. Thank you for believing in me, for
providing a loving foundation for me to grow, and for teaching me that we can make a
difference. And I give thanks for my brother, Vijay, for being the best brother a sister
could ask for, for being a wonderful sounding board through this process, and for your
unfailing moral support.
I offer my thanks for a wonderful community of friends and family who have
shown so much love and enthusiasm and been genuinely interested in my progress.
Loving thanks to my father-in-law, Anil, my mother-in-law, Kantu, my brother-in-law,
Uday, and my sisters-in-law, Prema and Katie. I have received so much support from my
extended family – they are far more than the word “in-law” would imply.
I am grateful for an amazing committee, whose work has profoundly shaped my
understanding. I offer my deepest thanks to Dr. Reynaldo Baca, Dr. Ricardo Stanton-
Salazar, Dr. Estela Bensimon, and Dr. Adrianna Kezar. Rey, you have been the best
chair any student could ask for – critical, caring, and pushing me to be the best thinker
and researcher I can be. I am grateful for your wisdom, never-ending encouragement,
and belief and trust in my abilities. The immense effort you have given to mentor me and
to help me produce this dissertation will never be forgotten. Ricardo, I was captivated
the first time I read your work. I am so proud to have been able to work with you and
learn from you. Your brilliance and compassion inspire me.
iv
I could not have made it through this process without my family of colleagues,
friends, and students at USC Asian Pacific American Student Services. I am blessed to
work at a place where passion and intellect meet in productive ways. From the bottom of
my heart, I thank Jade and Jeymi for being the best teammates one could ask for. Thank
you for going on this ride with me and being a constant source of emotional and moral
support. I also thank Anne, Elaine, Helen and our wonderful student staff members for
their good humor and excitement through this process.
I offer my sincere thanks and appreciation for my former supervisor, Ken Taylor,
and my current supervisor, Dr. Amy Johnson. Both of you have been active supporters of
my education in countless ways. Thank you for your wit, wisdom, and willingness to
listen and offer encouragement.
Finally, I could not have made it through the program without my mini-cohort,
Sonja, Karen, Dekan, and K.C. My Ed.D. comrades, I am so grateful for your humor,
intellect, and drive. And for the shared snacks, late night phone calls, and the sheer
rowdiness we brought to our classrooms! Thank you for the experience and the great
memories.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication ii
Acknowledgements iii
List of Tables vi
Abstract vii
Chapter One: Introduction 1
Chapter Two: Literature Review 11
Chapter Three: Methodology 32
Chapter Four: Biographical Portraits 48
Chapter Five: Key Beliefs and Worldview Development 65
Chapter Six: Beliefs to Behaviors: Praxis 127
Chapter Seven: Internal and Institutional Barriers: Repression, Resistance, Renewal 160
Chapter Eight: Analysis of Findings 178
Epilogue 227
References 230
Appendices
Appendix A: Study Participation Request 236
Appendix B: Information Sheet for Subjects 237
Appendix C: Interview Protocol 239
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Defining Characteristics of the Empowerment Agent 27
Table 2: Semantic Relationships through Domain Analysis 45
Table 3: Key Shared Attributes Held by Empowerment Agents 66
Table 4: Defining Life Experiences in Childhood 87
Table 5: Historic and Personal Precipitating Moments and Events 98
Table 6: Key Educational Events 107
Table 7: External Impact 115
Table 8: Ways the Subject Works with Low-Status Students 135
Table 9: Key Activities that Sustain the Agent’s Ability to Continue the Work 174
Table 10: Typification of Subjects as Institutional versus Empowerment Agents 216
vii
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study is to empirically ground Stanton-Salazar’s (2010)
theoretical trope of the empowerment agent through a life history study of subjects
identified as empowerment agents. Freireian empowerment agents leverage their social
capital network to offer institutional support to low-status students while helping the
students clarify and construct an action-oriented, social justice-centered, critically
conscious worldview. This study explores the subjects’ belief systems, experiential
worldview development, praxis, institutional and internal obstacles, and forms of
resistance and renewal. In our inequitable context, higher education institutions have not
adopted practices and cultures to fully enable all students to succeed (Kezar, 2011). My
study locates empowerment agents as key forms of resistance against institutional
repression and hegemony, as well as against the deficit positioning of low-status students.
By examining an under-researched population, I am able to offer both practitioner- and
researcher-oriented implications. In addition, the findings of my study complicate the
theoretical world of the empowerment agent, allowing new doors of study to open.
1
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
We exist in a context of hegemonic dominance – a milieu in which dominant
groups exert cultural, political, economic, and ideological power over others, who are
both willing and unwilling subordinates. Using a Gramscian lens (Burke, 2005),
hegemonic ideology goes beyond traditional forms of overt dominance to legitimize
differential power and justify (and normalize) the interests of dominant groups.
Therefore, the culture and norms of the ruling elite come to represent the natural order
and are internalized by subordinate and subaltern populations. Gramsci (1973) uses the
term “subaltern” to refer both to groups subjected to the hegemonic rule of the dominant
class, but also to the subordinated consciousness of non-elite groups. Moreover, we are
surrounded by stratification, defined as processes that create and perpetuate the
inequitable distribution of life chances to members of this society (Anderson, 1996).
Access to, and success in, higher education is one element in breaking the
confines of this society's stratified and hegemonic relationship to race and class. Finding
yet another way to close the doors of higher education is often a tool used by those who
wish to preserve the façade of individualism, competition, and meritocracy. This
neoliberal façade reifies the idea of higher education as the pinnacle of individual hard
work, determination, and intelligence rather than a variety of systematized processes that
cultivate advantage and disadvantage (Stanton-Salazar, 1997).
In this context of inequity, higher education institutions have not adopted
practices and cultures to fully enable all students to succeed (Kezar, 2011). Often, higher
education institutions benefit those who already have higher levels of cultural capital and
2
social capital, meaning forms of knowledge and skills that are socialized through the
family and that the dominant society readily accepts and values (Bourdieu, 1986).
Universities, guided by diversity discourses that construct working class students of color
as outsiders or at-risk victims, may offer compensatory or deficit model programs
(Iverson, 2007). But compensatory or remedial programs are predicated on the notion
that minority students and families are responsible for a lack of success in academia
because students enter school without the normative, valued cultural knowledge and
skills (Yosso, 2005). Therefore, this construction of the problem focuses on individuals’
deficiencies and the need to create programs and services to compensate for the
deficiencies. The key assumption guiding this deficit perspective is that it is not the
institution that needs to change, but rather, the working class minority student. If the
working class minority student can adapt and change, then he/she will be able to compete
in the supposedly level playing field of the academy.
In addition, compensatory programs that do offer social capital-oriented resources
such as mentoring, leadership development, and financial aid advice to working class
minority students are often on the margins of the institution. It is difficult for these
programs, or for the program leaders, to push the higher education institution to change in
terms of policies and practices. Through this study, I explore the lives, stories, and
actions of institutional and empowerment agents (Stanton-Salazar, 2010), to demonstrate
the possibility of effective interveners at multiple levels and locations in the higher
education institutions.
Institutional agents, as defined by Stanton-Salazar (1997, 2006, 2010), serve a key
role as sources of support and empowerment for minority/working-class students and as
3
institution transformers/change agents. Stanton-Salazar (2010) further defines
institutional agents specifically as "high-status, non-kin, agents who occupy relatively
high positions in the multiple dimensional stratification system, and who are well
positioned to provide key forms of social and institutional support" (p. 2). In other
words, institutional agents in higher education hold positions of some power, in which
they are strongly networked with access to multiple levels of institutional resources and
support. These institutional agents, recognizing systemic inequities, mobilize their social
capital networks in order to directly benefit low-status students. Low-status youth is the
term Stanton-Salazar (1997) operationalized to denote working class minority student.
However, Stanton-Salazar (2006) himself notes that some institutional agents are
more transformative and system-aware than others. In the context of this study, “system-
aware” means not only possessing an ideological framing and understanding of deep-
rooted inequity, but a commitment to a radical transformation of the hegemonic culture of
power, privilege, and inequity. Framed differently and using different language,
Bensimon sees the journey of the institutional agent through the lenses of equity and
equity-mindedness. Bensimon (2005) posits that the reduction of inequity in higher
education and the power to close the academic achievement gap “…lies within
individuals, specifically, in their capacity to develop equity as their cognitive frame” (p.
100), a concept that Stanton-Salazar (2010) would extend into the realms of Freireian
critical consciousness.
These Freireian agents, identified as empowerment agents by Stanton-Salazar
(2010), understand their place in the educational structure is two-fold. One, they serve to
empower minority and other low-status students with key forms of institutional support.
4
Two, they serve the critical function of empowering low-status students “with a critical
consciousness and the means by which to transform themselves, their communities, and
society as a whole" (p. 34). Empowerment here is defined as an active and participatory
process for the marginalized to gain access to resources and the ability to make decisions
that impact their lives and their communities (Maton & Salem, 1995). Critical
consciousness (or “conscientização”) is derived from Freire’s (1970, 1974) body of work.
Critical consciousness represents a two-fold process of understanding the oppressive and
contradictory world around us and taking action against the hegemonic elements that are
illuminated by that understanding – it is a praxis-oriented philosophy of education. It is
not theory without practice or vice versa.
The empowerment agent, guided by the goals of authentic empowerment and a
critical consciousness, does not merely "open the pipeline" of educational access and
opportunity – a concept embedded in liberal, non-transformative strategies for
advancement. The ideal empowerment agent works to shatter the narrow realms and
pathways of the pipeline and collaboratively build community and world-changing
strategy and methods with students. The empowerment agent leverages their social
capital network to offer institutional support to the student while helping the student
clarify and construct a social justice-oriented, critically conscious worldview. The
educator as empowerment agent optimally builds community by not didactically
teaching, but by participating with students in shifting their world (and thereby, the world
of the educator) in meaningful, system-altering ways.
Besides a worldview and practice centered on authentic transformation, the role of
the agent’s own social/relational network cannot be overemphasized. The empowerment
5
agent has a large, diverse, network of support with key allies (and other institutional
agents) across the institution. Both the structure and the resourcefulness of the agent’s
network are crucial determinants of their success as empowerment agents (Stanton-
Salazar, 2010). The “enlightened” network orientation of a successful empowerment
agent is centered on the critical idea that empowering low-status students is not
accomplished only through the actions of an individual. The critical network orientation
of the empowerment agent is built in concert with actors, resources, and support
mechanisms embedded in their own social networks and bridging functions (Lin, 2001;
Stanton-Salazar, 2010).
However, as Stanton-Salazar (2010) also explains, although empowerment agents
exist in the real world, they are exceptions to the normative rule of how university staff
and faculty function in a stratified system. Many faculty and staff will help students to
the best of their abilities, but many will lack the critical ideological framework or a
praxis-oriented ability to take action. Therefore, their help might benefit individual
students or groups of students advance according to societally prescribed and approved
ways, but their guidance may not benefit students in the life and community-altering
ways that an empowerment agent might.
If empowerment agents do exist – who are they and how did they come to be in a
stratified, elite educational environment? What are the lived experiences of the
empowerment agent? What moments in practitioners' life histories made them open or
able to assimilate the values and mindset of the empowerment agent? What are the
actions and behaviors that empowerment agents engage in that either directly benefit low-
status students or attempt to change the institution? What are the contextual barriers to
6
achieving full empowerment agent status? Is there a difference between empowerment
and transformation?
I hope to build upon Stanton-Salazar's important work - the concept of embedded
agents who access, distribute, and teach others (specifically marginalized minority youth)
to use the network power of social capital and to offer an empirical grounding of the
theoretical world of the empowerment agent.
Statement of the Problem
Many studies (Blossfeld & Shavit, 1993; Iverson, 2007; Stanton-Salazar, 1997;
Valencia, Menchaca & Donato, 2002) demonstrate that school systems at all levels favor
students that come from families that possess high cultural capital (dominant groups).
Cultural capital (Bourdieu, 1986) is defined here in primarily two types. First is
embodied cultural capital, in which qualities valued by the dominant class are acquired
and inherited through a process of family socialization in culture and traditions. One
example of this is linguistic capital, in which “appropriate” use of language in the
classroom comes with automatic rewards. Second is institutionalized cultural capital, in
which institutions or the labor market recognize and reward specific credentials, such as
academic credentials, thereby converting academic capital to economic capital.
In Blossfeld and Shavit’s (1993) thirteen-country study, the authors illustrate that
the direct linkage between social/familial origins and educational transitions (successful
movement through the educational pipeline) demonstrate that educational and market
selection persistently show preference for children of privileged social origins, or those
with high cultural capital. There are lifelong consequences to this educational inequity,
in that “education-based selection and allocation in the labor market are used to maintain
7
the hegemony and privilege of dominant social groups (Blossfeld & Shavit, 1993, p.
249). Therefore, since the educational system reifies the class structure and vice-versa,
false ideas about meritocracy and inequities are legitimized and further embedded into
the loaded American narratives of fairness, opportunity, and success.
However, the studies above are often ignored by schools and policymakers in
favor of an “often myopic focus on parental involvement, a focus that ignores the fact
that middle-class parents do not operate alone, but are embedded in the social network of
institutions, school personnel, institutional agents and youth-serving organizations in the
community” (Stanton-Salazar, 2010, p. 36). These networks, the currency of social
capital, as defined by Bourdieu (1986), Lin (2001), and Stanton-Salazar (1997, 2004,
2010), are the same forms of support that parents and families in oppressed or
marginalized communities do without daily. At the same time, Iverson’s (2007) work,
grounded in critical race theory, points to four major discursive threads that shape
working class minority students at institutions of higher education: access, disadvantage,
marketplace, and democracy. Iverson (2007) writes, “These discourses construct images
of people of color as outsiders, at-risk victims, commodities…(and) these discourses
coalesce to produce realities that situate people of color as outsiders to the institution, at
risk before and during participation in education…” (p. 586). Both outside and inside the
institution, a continual process of disadvantaging some communities versus others is
based on complex rubrics of existing social and cultural capital that young people “carry”
with them to the institution. To differentiate, social capital refers to the relationship of
the student to individuals and networks that can provide access to resources and
institutional support that assist in the accomplishment of goals. Cultural capital, as
8
defined above, refers to family socialization processes around culture, traditions, and
language. Both are a form of currency that affords fluidity and success in society to
those who possess both social and cultural capital.
With the multiple systemic issues indicated above at play, it is key to this study
that I frame achieving equitable educational outcomes for low-status students not as a
problem related to student accountability or academic preparation (deficit models).
Rather, achieving access and equity must be framed as a deep-rooted quandary of
institutional responsibility and performance (Bauman, Bustillos, Bensimon, Brown III, &
Bartee, 2005). The achievement gap – disparate educational attainment by different
racial groups – leads to long-term deleterious consequences for all of society. In an
increasingly credential-based society, the economic and human pitfalls of differential
success in academia are too perilous to ignore (Bauman, et al. 2005; Bowen & Bok,
1998; Gándara & Contreras, 2009).
Therefore, the social capital concepts of institutional agents (Stanton-Salazar,
1997) and empowerment agents (Stanton-Salazar, 2010) become tremendously vital for
two primary reasons. First, institutional/empowerment agents are crucial to the success
of minority youth and to closing the achievement gap. Second, these agents are central to
the broader idea of systemic change – authentic empowerment that is beyond simple
individual “making it,” but that speaks to liberation of self, of family, of community, and
of society. Key differences between institutional agents and empowerment agents, and
their potential impact, will be explored in the subsequent chapter. Most of the available
social capital educational research focuses on students and their social capital networks.
Therefore, the opportunity presents itself to study practitioners, specifically
9
empowerment agents, as key factors in systemic change in higher education and in the
lives of low-status youth.
Purpose of the Study
While the case can be made for the validity of the institutional
agent/empowerment agent role as necessary and transformative in institutions of higher
education, the process of becoming an institutional agent, and more importantly, an
empowerment agent, has thus far not been documented. It is this process that I aim to
explore through my research. The three research questions for this study are:
1. What are the lived experiences from the empowerment agent’s life history that have
made central for them a state of critical consciousness and a mindset centered on counter-
stratification (Stanton-Salazar, 2001)?
2. What are the behaviors that empowerment agents engage in that either directly benefit
low-status students or attempt to change the institution (praxis)?
3. What are the contextual (institutional and internal) obstacles to enacting agency and
transformation and achieving full empowerment agent status?
Significance of the Study
This study may prove valuable for multiple reasons. First, the study is useful to
advance the body of knowledge about practitioner growth and change. Because of the
methodological orientation of this study, we may uncover key developmental moments
instrumental in the evolution of worldviews rooted in critical consciousness and centered
on counter-stratification. The study, therefore, may uncover specific processes necessary
to the development and effective practice of the empowerment agent. The study will
specifically investigate actions that the empowerment agents engage in that affect both
10
low-status students and the institution of higher education. We will explore how
practitioners translate beliefs into practice; in other words, we will explore praxis. We
will investigate how agents enact their critical consciousness in the world in systematic
ways. And finally, the study will identify potential contextual barriers to transformation
(of practitioner and of institution) and methods of renewal that provide agents the
sustenance to continue their transformative work. Given that this study is highly
exploratory, I expect to detail multiple ways in which this study is valuable for
practitioners who wish to work with low-status students in a system-altering manner.
Organization of the Study
Chapter 2 will review the key concepts in the literature, including social capital
theory, theories on institutional/empowerment agents, and the need to study practitioners
Chapter 3 will delve into the methodology for the study, including the sample and the
population, the participant selection process, the instrumentation and conceptual
frameworks of the interview protocol, the approaches for data collection and data
analysis, and participant descriptions. I will be using a life history methodology.
11
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
The literature review for this study will cover three primary theoretical areas:
social capital theory, theories on institutional agents, and practitioner change theory.
This section will begin with an overview of social capital theory, defining the two
schools of thoughts (normative and social resource), but focusing on the social resource
school. The review will cover the basic, major premises of Coleman (1988) and
Bourdieu’s (1986) research, and how those theories have led directly into Lin (2001) and
Stanton-Salazar's (1997, 2004, 2010) work on social capital and interventions for low
status youth. I will also spend some time delineating why social capital theory/counter
stratification theories are important for low status youth.
From there, I will delve into Stanton-Salazar's development of the institutional
agent trope, the varieties of institutional agents, and the newest type - the empowerment
agent. I will cover Stanton-Salazar's thoughts on critical consciousness and the very
specific positioning of empowerment agents versus institutional agents. I will also cover
why the theoretical role of empowerment agents is necessary in not just distributing
social capital, but also in empowering students and changing institutions.
The third section of the literature review will make the case for the need to study
practitioners, primarily guided by Bensimon’s (2005, 2007) work. The literature review
will demonstrate that most of the available social capital educational research focuses on
students and their social capital networks. The literature review will also establish the
vital necessity to study practitioners, specifically empowerment agents, as key factors in
12
systemic change in higher education and in the lives of low-status youth. Therefore, this
study will enable readers to go beyond theoretically understanding who institutional
agents are, to developing a framework and an empirical grounding to understand who
institutional and empowerment agents are in practice, and how and why they do what
they do (using a life history methodological approach).
Social Capital Theory
Social capital theory is the foundational, yet complex and highly disputed, school
of thought that undergirds many researchers’ attempts to explicate educational disparities,
as disaggregated by race, class, gender, ethnicity, and immigrant status (Lareau, 2001;
Lareau & Horvart, 1999; Stanton-Salazar, 1997, 2001). While initially developed in the
field of sociology, educational researchers such as Dika and Singh (2002) and Stanton-
Salazar (1997) have greatly expanded the application of social capital theory into the
study of schooling, network formation, and more. In addition to his own work, citing
numerous studies, Stanton-Salazar (2004) explicates the value of the usage of social
capital theory in influencing academic achievement, school commitment, years
completed in school, and reducing attrition rates for low-status youth. At the same time,
Dika and Singh (2002), in their comprehensive literature review, offer the extremely
valuable insight into the misuse of Coleman’s (1988) normative perspective in
intervention strategies and educational research.
Bourdieu (1986) and Coleman (1988) were the two main pioneers in the field,
advancing an understanding of social capital in multiple directions. While both drew
upon human capital theory, Coleman’s work functioned as an extension of human capital
and an economic/material approach, while Bourdieu’s work directly critiqued that
13
approach. As a guiding definition, human capital can be explained as based on an
individual’s resources, not on the strength or variety of that individual’s relationships to
others. In direct contrast, social capital places great importance on social networks and
multiple relationships. Both forms of capital originate from an economic school of
thought (Lin, 1999, 2001). As an operating definition of social capital, I will rely on Lin
(2001) who defines social capital as “resources – embedded in social structures –that are
accessed and/or mobilized in purposive actions” (p. 29). More simply, Lin (2001)
defines social capital as “investment in social relations with expected returns” (p. 30).
Stated differently, social capital can be understood to be those connections to
“…individuals and networks that can provide access to resources and forms of support
that facilitate the accomplishment of goals” (Stanton-Salazar, 2004, p.18). All three
definitions rely on embeddedness, access to networked relationships, and goal or
outcome orientation.
Both Coleman and Bourdieu discuss the accrual of personal and systemic benefits
based on network placement and relationships, but Coleman’s focus on norms (normative
school) and Bourdieu’s focus on access to institutional resources (social resource school)
set them widely apart (Dika & Singh, 2002). Beyond the two major divides – normative
and social resource – more recent research highlights a four-dimensional typology of
defining attributes of social capital theory, especially as related to resource access by low
status youth. The typology consists of: social mediums, exemplified by social ties and
networks that act as conduits; properties or characteristics of social mediums, such as the
strength of the relationship, trust, and social closure; resources and forms of empowering
social support; and social structure, namely resources and mediums that are embedded in
14
a macro social structure (Stanton-Salazar, 2006). The following presents a brief overview
of the two primary schools of thought, as well as salient differences. These key
differences will offer insight into the specific development of current research on social
capital (Lin, 2001, Stanton-Salazar, 1997, 2001).
Normative School
Coleman’s (1992) work primarily emphasizes family structure and parent-child
interaction variables and was rooted in the structural-functionalist school. In the
normative perspective, which continues to dominate academic research and discourse,
“academic learning, intellectual development, and persistence to degree completion are
dependent upon a student’s level of personal engagement or social integration into the
social and intellectual fabric of the school” (Stanton-Salazar, 2001, p. 13). The burden is
upon the student to find fit (and the family and community to train the student
accordingly), not upon the institution or the dominant system.
According to Coleman, social capital is defined by its function (outcome). The
different entities that comprise social capital have two elements in common: “…they all
consist of some aspect of social structures, and they facilitate certain actions of
actors…within the structure” (Coleman, 1988, p. S98). Coleman (1988) explains that
social capital is intangible and inhabits three forms: level of trust (demonstrated through
obligations and expectations); information channels; and norms and sanctions that
promote common good over self-interest. The interaction of three primary variables –
trust, norms, and sanctions – underlies the strength of social capital. According to
Coleman, certain communities are able to create ties that create the framework for trust
and mutual benefits. This framework, in turn, leads to the creation of both norms and
15
sanctions that encourage collective participants to focus on the common good (over self-
interest). These tacit rules, Stanton-Salazar (2004) explains, not only guide social life,
but also create forms of power in a variety of community interactions. Community
members activate the norms and sanctions tacitly agreed upon to influence the successful
development (e.g. academic achievement) of their children (students).
Similar to Bourdieu, Coleman emphasizes social networks. However, in
Coleman’s framing, intergenerational closure, in which parents know the parents of their
children’s friends, is a key social structure that contributes to the development of
effective norms (Dika & Singh, 2002). Parental involvement in the development,
maintenance, and transferal of social capital is one of Coleman’s (1992) central
arguments. This type of closure can be applied to university settings, as well.
Portes’ (2000) work on relational and structural embeddedness links directly to
Coleman’s (1988, 1992) work, in that social capital is derived from being embedded in
specific family, community, and societal networks. The reward (outcome) of navigating
community-based norms and sanction, thereby gaining trust, is social capital. This
perspective, of social capital as an individually mitigated outcome of embeddedness – in
essence, that having social capital gets one social capital – is in direct contrast to
Bourdieu’s social resource perspective of social capital.
Social Resource School
Theories of social reproduction and symbolic power (Dika & Singh, 2002) serve
as the foundation of Bourdieu’s (1986) work. Bourdieu focuses on social capital not as
outcome or function, but rather as access to institutional resources (the basis for Lin’s and
Stanton-Salazar’s contemporary work). Bourdieu (1986) defined social capital as “the
16
aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable
network of more or less institutional relationships of mutual acquaintance and
recognition” (p. 248). The membership in the group provides participants/members with
the backing of the community-owned capital. Bourdieu states that the amount of social
capital one possesses is dependent on the size of and ability to mobilize a network of
connections and on the amount of capital (cultural, economic, and symbolic) held by each
connection (person in the network). Therefore, both the relationship that allows one to
claim collectively held resources, as well as the quantity and quality of those resources,
comprise Bourdieu’s definition of social capital (Dika & Singh, 2002). Portes (2000)
adds that “Bourdieu’s key insight was that forms of capital are fungible, that is they can
be traded for each other and actually require such trades for their development” (p. 2).
While both Coleman and Bourdieu navigate relationships and collective
resources, the social resource perspective sharply differs from the normative perspective
in that Bourdieu views social capital as the dominant class’ investment in maintaining
and reproducing group identity and group solidarity, so as to preserve the position of
dominance (Dika & Singh, 2002). Lin (2001) and Stanton-Salazar (1997, 2004), among
others, present the gross inequalities in social capital that remain obscured in Coleman’s
work. Key to progressive research in higher education is Bourdieu’s argument that
institutional normative bias mirrors and rewards the social/cultural capital of the upper
(dominant) classes and undervalues the norms and behaviors of the lower classes, which
directly contributes to the reproduction of systemic inequities (especially in regards to
race, class, and gender variables).
17
Returning to Lin’s (2001) operating definition of social capital as resources
embedded in social networks offers us the opportunity to expand Bourdieu’s work on
social capital by drawing in the contemporary work of Lin (2001) and Stanton-Salazar
(1997, 2004, 2006). Lin (2001) posits that the resources that represent social capital are
embedded in social relations, not just in the individual, and that the societal distribution
of these resources results in structural embeddedness. Although the resources of social
capital are not located within the individual, the ability to access and utilize said
resources lies with the individual. The awareness of these resources and skills to activate
them becomes paramount for the individual. An example of the importance of this
awareness, which will be further explicated later, is in the realm of the institutional
agent’s ability to identify and distribute resources in his/her network, particularly to low-
status youth.
Reflecting on Stanton-Salazar’s (2006) four-part typology helps us to gain
additional understanding regarding the key differences between the normative and social
resource schools. The typology consists of: social mediums, exemplified by social ties
and networks that act as conduits; properties or characteristics of social mediums, such as
the strength of the relationship, trust, and social closure; resources and forms of
empowering social support; and social structure, namely resources and mediums that are
embedded in a macro social structure. Using the framework of this typology, the two
major schisms between the normative and social resource perspectives are further
highlighted. It can be understood that the normative perspective delineates social capital
through the properties of the social mediums dimension (ties, relationships, norms,
sanctions, trust). The social resources perspective characterizes social capital as
18
resources and forms of networked, empowering social support. This typology is directly
in line with Stanton-Salazar’s (2004) own framing of social capital as a warehouse of
multiple types and forms of resources that are embedded in social relations. The
individual who wishes to achieve success through purposeful action can mobilize these
resources accordingly.
Primary Differences
Dika and Singh (2002) aptly summarize the two primary differences between
Bourdieu’s and Coleman’s perspectives on social capital. First, Bourdieu makes explicit
that which is blurred in Coleman: that there is a clear distinction between having
resources and having the ability to secure said resources in the social structure. The
second difference lies in Stanton-Salazar’s (2004) framing: that in contrast to the
normative perspective, “a critical network-analytic” view of social capital aims to
thoroughly understand society, as explicated by Bourdieu, whose conceptions of both
social and cultural capital were situated within social reproduction theory. This school of
thought explains how society’s institutions reproduce the relationships and behaviors
needed to perpetuate class dynamics in a capitalist society.
In other words, Coleman views social capital as positive social control, in which
trust, channels of information, and cultural norms are community characteristics.
Bourdieu, however, writes about social capital as a tool of reproduction for the dominant
class in a neoliberal society. Therefore, on the one hand Coleman’s work on social
capital offers support for the relatively traditional idea that it is the family’s locus of
responsibility to adopt certain social and cultural norms to advance their children’s
opportunities. On the other hand, Bourdieu emphasizes structural limitations, as well as
19
inequitable access to key institutional resources (power) based on race, class, and gender
(Dika & Singh, 2002).
Additionally, given that Coleman posits parents as the primary source of social
capital, Morrow (1999) states that Coleman’s theorizing on social capital does not take
into account students’ abilities to influence their environment, thereby removing them as
actors from the stage. Further, the stress on parents as the locus of social capital cannot
adequately explain social capital that is accessed or distributed through non-kin networks.
Finally, Morrow (1999) and Stanton-Salazar (1997, 2004) critique Coleman’s research
direction as gender-blind, ethnocentric, lacking in an understanding of intercultural
difference and internalized oppression, and missing a structural power (inequality)
analysis.
The Role of Transformative Agents in the Lives of Low-Status College Students
The next section will delve into Stanton-Salazar’s development of the institutional
agent trope, the types of institutional agents, critical consciousness, and the newest type
of institutional agent – the empowerment agent. However, the central need for these
types of agents must be established by understanding the context in which student-
institutional agent relationships develop.
Stanton-Salazar (2004) explains that mobilizing social capital networks (social
connections) for purposeful action occurs within the context of structural inequity -- a
context in which the imbalance of power is normalized – and within an economy in
which valuable resources are distributed in an inequitable fashion. In the milieu of higher
education, a context in which hierarchical relationships of privilege and power are the
norm, many misinterpret academic (and other) success as directly related to the
20
internalization of “appropriate” identities, norms, and values. This idea is clearly taken
from the normative school, and is therefore in direct opposition to the beliefs of critical
social capital theory. Stanton-Salazar (1997) frames this critique by stating that “…social
antagonisms and divisions existing in the wider society operate to
problematize…minority children’s access to opportunities and resources that are…taken-
for-granted products of middle-class family, community, and school networks” (p. 3). It
is because of an over-reliance on the normative school of thought by institutions and
educators that students are left to decode the hidden curriculum on their own.
Thus, if multiple scholars articulate access to networked social resources as social
capital, key forms of support are vital to effective participation within mainstream
educational spheres. Those key forms of support are institutional agents. It should be
stated that most research conducted on social capital theory and differential educational
experiences and outcomes of minority youth has mainly focused on schools and/or
students and not as thoroughly on social capital in relation to mobilizers of networked
resources – institutional agents (Stanton-Salazar, 1997, 2001, 2004). Therefore, an
ongoing need for empirical data regarding the roles and purposes of institutional agents
exists.
Institutional Agents
Stanton-Salazar (1997) defines institutional agents as individuals who have the
ability and commitment to transmit directly, or leverage access to, institutional resources
and opportunities. Bensimon (2007) would define institutional agents as individuals who
possess sensitivity, training, and an expertise that enables them to be receptive and
helpful to marginalized students. More explicitly, for the purposes of this study, an
21
institutional agent can be defined as an individual who occupies a relatively high-status
position in a higher education institution. Compared to others, the institutional agent
carries a high level of human, cultural, and social capital. The individual becomes an
institutional agent when, on behalf of a low-status students, she leverages her position
and capacity to either directly transmit or negotiate access to highly-prized, key forms of
institutional resources, support, and opportunities (Stanton-Salazar, 2009, 2010).
One could argue that middle and upper class/high-status students have greater
access to agents of the institution because of their already present levels of social and
cultural capital – implicit and explicit training that prepares them to navigate the system
of higher education. However, using Stanton-Salazar’s (1997, 2010) definitions of
institutional agent, I am specifically focusing on those who have an explicit commitment
to helping low-status students. These institutional agents are instrumental in helping low-
status students access institutional support, key forms of social support that help students
participate effectively within mainstream institutional, particularly educational, spheres
(Stanton-Salazar, 1997). This type of networked resource is in direct contrast to the
social networks of middle and upper-middle class youth and of their parents and older
relatives – in which connections exist to networked, talented individuals (alters) who are
deeply embedded in resourceful networks (Stanton-Salazar, 2009).
For working class minority college students without these pre-existing ties or pre-
developed ability to find their way in a system that is predicated upon white, middle-class
norms, developing ties to institutional agents becomes a crucial means of accessing
institutional support, learning to decode institutionally sanctioned discourse, navigate
healthy development, and participate in power. In the structurally inequitable world of
22
higher education, institutional agents are critically important because of their active
choice to provide institutional support to low-status students as part of a committed
agenda (Stanton-Salazar, 1997). It is because of the explicit and strategic nature of
institutional agents – their consciousness regarding structural inequity and their actions to
counterbalance said inequity – that their work with minority youth becomes counter-
hegemonic. Institutional agents live the concept of a network-analytic social capital
theory by leveraging their positions in networked relationships to distribute resources and
key forms of institutional support to minority/working class students.
There are key identifiers and characteristics that mark the institutional agent as
separate from an agent of the institution. First and foremost is motivation. What
motivates the institutional agent to act in particular ways? Stanton-Salazar (2009) defines
two primary forms of motivation as ideology and inspiration. He differentiates the root
of activity between those motivated by ideology versus inspiration. An ideological
motivation is rooted in a belief- and value-based commitment to empower low status
(working class, minority) youth in an inequitable system. An inspiration motivation is
held by those institutional agents who may not have an ideological framework for their
actions, but rather “…may be inspired to assume the role of institutional agent by other
agents who recognize and frame these actors’ talents and resources as potential assets to
the community and who make pleas for their active involvement in community
development” (Stanton-Salazar, 2009, pp. 5-6). This contrast in forms of motivation can
be related to Stanton-Salazar’s (2009) description of the ideological or political attributes
of institutional agents as either rooted in critical consciousness or an assimilationist
orientation. Critical consciousness can be described as an agent’s investigation into the
23
world around her, which allows for a critique of inequitable systems and structures, as
well as the space to take on the role of caring, change agent. With a critical
consciousness, the agent’s motives, interests, and agendas are not aligned with
reproductive, hegemonic dynamics in society. We will return to critical consciousness in
our exploration of the empowerment agent later. An assimilationist orientation lacks a
critical consciousness framework and leans toward conformity to societal norms in which
social inequality remains uninvestigated and unquestioned and individual achievement is
the prize.
A second set of characteristics defining the institutional agent is the social
network, position, and resources held by the agent. Committed institutional agents strive
to cultivate a highly diverse social network, to posses a specific “network orientation,”
and a wide range of communication and networking skills they use to work with other
institutional agents to transform the educational setting that directly impacts students
(Stanton-Salazar, 2009). A large network that is highly diversified and possession of
high-status resources are all markers of an institutional agent. A list of characteristics of
effective institutional agents would include: motivation, learning attitude, being people-
oriented, having past history and positive experiences with mentors, an abundant
network, a good reputation, strong networking skills, and being an effective teacher
(Stanton-Salazar, 2009).
Finally, Stanton-Salazar (2010) has developed a typology of kinds of institutional
agents who offer various forms institutional support. This typology includes knowledge
agents, networking coaches, advisors, advocates, bridging agents, institutional brokers,
cultural guides, and empowerment agents (pp. 50-51). If social capital is defined
24
“…within a conflict model that highlights the contradictory and simultaneous dynamics
of structured inequality and of empowerment” (Stanton-Salazar, 2010, p. 16), then
institutional agents can serve to mitigate and improve those circumstances for low-status
students.
Empowerment Agents
However, Stanton-Salazar (1997) himself points to a potential flaw in institutional
agent theory – that without a commitment to a radical transformation of the hegemonic
culture of power, privilege, and inequity, the best intentions of institutional agents could
lead simply to additional social reproduction, rather than a fundamental shift in our
educational and societal systems. In other words, working with working class, minority
students to help them decode the hidden curriculum and navigate the system of education
may lead only to individual mobility and success, as well as a relatively uncritical
assimilation into the status quo. Individual success and a faux-meritocracy are hallmarks
of neoliberal measures of accomplishment. A pedagogical commitment to destabilizing
the normative halls of academia and structures of inequity, as well as direct action that
runs counter to societal pressure and reproductive forces, is necessary to transform the
very consciousness of those that the institutional agent supports.
Thus enters the newest theoretical work on the empowerment agent (Stanton-
Salazar, 2010). Stanton-Salazar (2010) cites Maton and Salem (1995) to provide a
definition of empowerment as the active and participatory process of cultivating
resources and competencies necessary for control over one’s life direction and to achieve
short- and long-term goals. Stanton-Salazar (2010) presents a guiding framework of
institutional support, institutional agents, social capital, and empowerment in order to
25
explicate a transformative, empowerment-oriented support system for low-status
(working class, minority) youth.
Stanton-Salazar (2010) explains that empowerment is both a sociological and an
ideological framework and at the core of its construction is the quest for social justice, as
well as a forceful cry for equity in the distribution of resources. “To become empowered
is to confront the rules of hierarchy and to envision a more democratic and humanistic
social order,” (Stanton-Salazar, 2010, p. 25), as well as a world in which self-
determination of one’s own destiny is a possibility. The empowerment agent is invested
in counter-stratification, defined as strategies that deliberately counter rigid hierarchical
and reproductive social structures (Stanton-Salazar, 2001, 2010). The concept of the
empowerment agent emerges from reframing the definition of social capital. If social
capital is defined as resources embedded with the social structure (stratified and
codified), then the possibility exists to have agency and to counter the very structures that
oppress.
Stanton-Salazar (2010) expands upon his previous writings to explore beyond
how access to resources and institutional support are affected by an institutional agent’s
network characteristics and network-related abilities, and into the inclinations and
motivations of resourceful agents. Stanton-Salazar (2010) identifies five characteristics
of empowerment agents (p. 31), but specifies that the primary difference between
institutional agents who provide key forms of institutional support and empowerment
agents is rooted in “empowerment social capital.” This major paradigmatic shift moves
the discourse from embedded support to a concertedly radical agenda rooted in critical
consciousness and a counter-stratification stance (Stanton-Salazar, 2010).
26
Drawing on the highly theoretical understanding of Freiriean critical
consciousness, empowerment theory from critical social work, and rooted in a counter-
hegemonic positioning, Stanton-Salazar (2010) defines the empowerment agent as one
who enables youth to “… “decode the system,” to momentarily disembed from the
environment, engage in a critical moral dialogue with it, and to seek opportunities for
working collaboratively to change the sociopolitical context” (p. 26). An ideal
empowerment agent not only offers low-status youth access to institutional support, but
also alters their destinies by empowering them with a critical consciousness (ideological
mindset) and the means (tools for action) by which to transform themselves and society
(Stanton-Salazar, 2010). As explained in Chapter 1, critical consciousness represents a
two-fold process of understanding the oppressive and contradictory world around us and
taking action against the hegemonic elements that are illuminated by that understanding.
The empowerment agent encourages low-status youth to succeed by becoming moral and
caring agents dedicated to changing the undemocratic world around them. Freire (1970)
referred to “the essence of education as the practice of freedom.” In true Freiriean
fashion, the empowerment agent not only enables the authentic empowerment of
students, but also participates with them in shifting their world in meaningful, system-
altering ways.
However, empowerment agents who wish to actively challenge the neoliberal
hierarchy and imagine a more just and humanistic society face multiple challenges
(Stanton-Salazar, 2010). First is the fact that our institutions of higher education are not
immune to the very same systemic inequities and oppressions that exist in the wider
society. So the empowerment agent must at once construct a relationship based on trust,
27
solidarity, and shared meanings with the low-status student, but at the same time, must
build that relationship in the context of institutional relations that are rooted in societal
social structures, defined as “…hierarchical relations of power, institutionalized
dependency, and societal animosities and distrust” (Stanton- Salazar, 2010, p. 21).
Second, empowerment agents and low-status students may find it difficult to connect in a
campus milieu that values (in spoken and unspoken ways) status quo forms of values,
ideologies, and behavioral norms. The repressive environment in and of itself may
present a barrier to authentic relationship construction. And finally, bureaucratic barriers
– budgetary demands, management concerns, prestige-maximization agendas – may limit
the empowerment and solidarity-building abilities of highly placed institutional agents.
In order to study the theoretical concept of the empowerment agent, one must
understand the characteristics and criteria of the empowerment agent, as defined by
Stanton-Salazar (2010). As depicted in Table 1 below, institutional agent characteristics
necessarily inhere in the defining criteria of the empowerment agent.
Table 1
Defining Characteristics of the Empowerment Agent
Institutional
Agent
Enable low-status students to see the direct correspondence between
their goals and how to achieve them
Institutional
Agent
Develop awareness in low-status students regarding resource
acquisition for control over life
Institutional
Agent
Facilitate and enable the development of key coping strategies
(including problem-solving capacities, networking skills, and help-
seeking orientations)
28
(Table 1, Continued)
Empowerment
Agent
Help low-status students develop critical consciousness and
sociological mindset regarding societal oppression (structures and
systems) – decoding the system
Empowerment
Agent
Helping low-status youth understand the particularities and power of
counter-stratification in multiple sociopolitical contexts
Empowerment
Agent
Engage low-status youth in collaborative networking to change the
world and enact meaningful social change
Empowerment
Agent
Motivation
Ideologically driven by social justice mindset, counter-stratification
goals, and Freireian critical consciousness
Stanton-Salazar (1997, 2010) makes the case for an alternative reality – one in which
conscientious practitioners (faculty and staff) are not agents of a stratified system, but
agents of change and transformation. These practitioners need to be studied in order to
continue to flesh out the possibilities of a social justice-focused embedded support and
empowerment system for low-status students.
Practitioner Impact
A number of educational researchers have focused their work on students –
student success models, the value of particular types of interactions and interventions,
and student development theories. However, as Bensimon (2007) points out,
practitioners are missing from the picture. She refers to the dearth of scholarly research
and practical consideration given to truly understanding how the practitioner’s own
knowledge bases, belief and value systems, experiences, and abilities directly impact how
students experience the educational environment. For example, how do practitioners
demonstrate an asset-driven (rather than a deficit perspective-driven) practice? How do
29
practitioners acknowledge and honor the assets that low-status students bring to the
university (Chambers & Deller, 2011)? How and why do practitioners go the “extra
mile” in acting outside of institutional norms in their work with low-status students
(Dowd, 2011)?
Bensimon (2007) also notes that while practitioners are studied in relation to K-12
student success, the practitioner is nearly invisible in the scholarship on student
achievement in higher education. Faculty, staff, and administrators are generally absent
from the scholarship on college-age student success, but plenty of documentation exists
about the characteristics that students carry. Bensimon (2007) observes that a large body
of research correlates success in higher education with students’ characteristics prior to
entering college. Kezar (2011) also notes that most of the extant literature on student
success focuses on student input characteristics, rather than on practitioner impact and
institutional responsibility. Dowd (2011) and Chambers and Deller (2011) reiterate the
value of focusing on the people who directly impact low-status students. They point to
the need for a critical consciousness and the use of institutional funds of knowledge by
practitioners who seek to empower low-status students.
These continued correlations between student pre-college characteristics and the
possibility of success effectively release higher education institutions and academics from
carrying out research and creating programs that are not deficit-minded and that make a
difference in the lives of low-status college students. Bensimon (2007) makes the case
for conducting research on the very central role of practitioners and their influence on
marginalized students. Kezar (2011) emphasizes factors that institutions can direct and
control, such as policies and practices that affect student success.
30
Rationale for the Study
This literature review has explored a number of arenas necessary for our
understanding of the potentially powerful role of empowerment agents in transforming
students’ lives and consciousness, as well as their own environment. This chapter
covered three primary theoretical areas: social capital theory, theories on institutional
agents, and the importance of studying practitioners. The chapter covered the two
schools of thought within social capital theory – normative and social resource – while
also presenting conflicts between the two schools, as well as critiques. The literature
review also located Bourdieu’s social resource school as the basis for the contemporary
work of theorists and researchers such as Lin and Stanton-Salazar on social capital and
educational interventions for working class/minority youth. From there, I covered
Stanton-Salazar’s multi-decade research on the definition and varieties of institutional
agents, as well as the newest trope of the empowerment agent, while identifying the
power of counter-stratification embodied by the institutional and empowerment agents. I
delved into Stanton-Salazar's thoughts on critical consciousness and the very specific
ideological positioning of empowerment agents versus institutional agents. I also
explained why the theoretical role of empowerment agents is necessary in not just
distributing social capital, but also in empowering students and changing institutions.
The third section of the literature review made the case for the need to study practitioners.
This literature review demonstrates that most of the available social capital
educational research focuses on students, student-oriented interventions/success
strategies, and their social capital networks. By showcasing an understanding of the gap
in opportunity that trajectory of research creates, this literature review established the
31
vital necessity to study practitioners, specifically empowerment agents, as key factors in
systemic change in higher education and in the lives of low-status youth. Therefore, this
study will enable readers to go beyond traditional student-focused research, beyond
understanding who institutional agents are, to developing a framework and an empirical
grounding to understand who empowerment agents are, and how and why they do what
they do. By seeking an understanding of the influence and role of empowerment agents,
I hope to investigate and offer empirical grounding for the theoretical framing of the
empowerment agent. This study is important to establish the potential and possibilities of
empowerment agents as effective interveners in an inequitable system.
32
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
Introduction
The previous chapter revealed the theories and terms used in the study. This
chapter details the methodological strategies used to carry out this study. I conducted life
histories of practitioners (faculty and staff) identified by students specifically as
empowerment agents (using the multiple defined criteria in Stanton-Salazar’s (2010)
definition of empowerment agents; see Table 1). These life histories provided fodder to
empirically ground Stanton-Salazar’s (2010) theoretical work, as well as to identify
institutional and internal barriers to full empowerment agent development (as it is likely
that no one will meet all criteria). This study will add to the body of knowledge on who
these empowerment agents are and how they come to be and function in stratified
educational systems.
To review, the purpose of this study is to more thoroughly understand the
development and role of empowerment agents. In addition, the study aimed to establish
the potential and possibilities of empowerment agents as effective interveners, both by
altering low-status students’ destinies through the use of embedded social capital and by
engaging in counter-hegemonic practices. In an inequitable system of higher education,
practitioners may be sources of empowerment for low-status students. So far, researchers
have not thoroughly documented the process of becoming institutional and empowerment
agents. It is both the process of becoming an institutional/empowerment agent, as well as
the praxis-oriented engagement of the practitioners, that I explored. In addition, I
examined the contextual barriers that prevent full empowerment agent development.
33
This qualitative study is primarily an inductive analytic project, with subjects found using
purposive and reputational sampling, data collected through a life history interview
approach, and data analyzed using semantic domain analysis (Spradley, 1979).
The following three research questions frame this study:
1. What are the lived experiences from the empowerment agent’s life history that have
made central for them a state of critical consciousness and a mindset centered on counter-
stratification (Stanton-Salazar, 2001)?
2. What are the behaviors that empowerment agents engage in that either directly benefit
low-status students or attempt to change the institution (praxis)?
3. What are the contextual (institutional and internal) obstacles to enacting agency and
transformation and achieving full empowerment agent status?
Qualitative Inquiry
This study is grounded in qualitative inquiry. Qualitative methods often lead to
rich, thick descriptions and explanation, which yield greater insight into the complex
theoretical constructs I seek to unveil. Qualitative methods focus on the processes and
impact of context on the individual, as well as identifying the chronology of events
occurring within a setting (Miles & Huberman, 1984). Qualitative inquiry also allows for
the freedom to produce thoughtful, nuanced interpretations of the data from multiple
perspectives. Data analysis leads to construction of a narrative to recreate the experience
and the story for the reader, and optimally, creates new understanding of the issue or case
being studied. Given the void in research or findings on who institutional/empowerment
agents are and how they come to be in stratified educational environments, I chose to use
a life history approach to tell their stories.
34
Life Histories
A life history approach locates the presentation of the life story in the words of
the person recounting the story. The life history is viable as a research tool for two
primary reasons. First, the life history becomes a primary document created in
collaboration by the interviewee and the researcher. Second, an individual’s life history
can become a secondary research tool for other scholars who seek to mine the narrative
for data they are seeking (Atkinson, 1998). Atkinson (1998) argues that in the process of
telling life histories, important personal truths are shared, a better understanding of the
psychological and life trajectory of subjects is developed, and vital bonds are created
between the storyteller and the researcher.
The life history method is a qualitative research method useful in collecting
information on the subjective essence of one person’s life, particularly useful in
understanding how some develop as empowerment agents. Multiple researchers over the
decades have drawn from the power of life history methodology to shine light on
cultures, hidden stories, and educational practice (Ball & Goodson, 1985; Bertaux &
Kohli, 1984; Cole & Knowles, 2001; and Smith, Dwyer, Prunty, & Kleine, 1988). Cole
and Knowles’ (2001) book, divided into two parts, starts by offering a useful overview of
the life history field and by providing guidelines for conducting life history research. The
following thirteen chapters illustrate both the range of uses of life history research and the
variety of methods employed. Bertaux and Kohli’s (1984) work primarily articulates two
main trends of life history research popular in Europe, but gaining popularity in North
America at the time. The first trend focuses mainly on the symbolic (in social life) and
meaning (in individual life), and the second trend is centered on the goal to collect life
35
histories in social contexts, in order to unveil the patterns of social relations and the
processes that shaped them. Bertaux and Kohli (1984) make the case for life histories to
be considered as a fertile ground for the conception of substantive theories, which are
considered interpretations rather than scientific explanations. As an example of
conducting life history research in social context, Ball and Goodson’s (1985) work
examines teachers’ lives by having them tell their stories against the backdrop of
educational cuts and government demands for elemental change in educational processes
and systems. Smith, Dwyer, Prunty, & Kleine’s (1988) book also provides a similar
example, this one focusing on the evolution of a school district after the rapid societal
changes following World War II. These four examples are but a few of the life history
methods works available in the field, but all point to the viability of the method as a way
of capturing change, growth, ideological shifts, and more – all in social context.
The life history method is a strong research method in that it provides the ability
to look at life as a whole and because of the sheer depth of insight it can offer into an
individual’s life path (Atkinson, 1998). As noted above, because of the long-lens nature
of the life history, the researcher can document moments of social change and impact, as
well as information about strategies, opportunities, aspirations, constraints, and turning
points. Knowles (1993) states that life histories have “…provided backbones to some of
the most illuminating and persuasive anthropological and sociological research of this
century” (p. 70).
Knowles (1993) continues by summarizing three functions of using life history
research. The first is a subjective function: life histories emphasize the interpretation of
everyday experience that people use to explain behavior, while wrestling with the
36
individual’s subjective assumptions, reality, and beliefs. The second function is
contextual: the life history grounds the subject’s life in the context of the individual lived
experience, as well as in the broader political economy, or the social and economic
context, in which she lives. Third, life histories serve an evaluative function: life
histories are infinitely useful to examine issues for which there are limited bases of
knowledge. Given the current dearth of research on the who, how, and why of
empowerment agent development, the life story method is a particularly apt methodology
to shine light on the subjective and contextual factors involved.
Atkinson (1998) recommends an informal approach that elicits open-ended
comments and in-depth responses to cultivate an interviewing atmosphere that brings out
the individual’s life experiences, as well as his/her deeper reflections on their life. The
interview process is fully collaborative, as the interviewer and the storyteller engage in
on-going meaning making and construction of a lived reality. The interview guide should
not be highly structured and should allow for open-ended descriptive, structural, and
contrast questions. Individual questions should not get in the way of the storyteller’s
ultimate control over what goes into the story and how it is said (Atkinson, 1998).
Sample and Population
Sampling Method
This study used a combination of purposeful and reputational sampling. Patton
(2002) clearly makes the case for purposeful and purposive sampling. He explains that
although purposeful sampling may not yield empirical generalizations, the study of
information-rich cases can yield greater depth of insight and clearer understanding,
particularly of highly theoretical concepts, such as the empowerment agent. Reading
37
through Patton’s (2002) descriptions of types of sampling, I believed the closest fit was
theory-based sampling for my project. Given that the institutional agent and
empowerment agent tropes are derived from the literature, it seemed fitting to select
“people on the basis of their potential manifestation or representation of important
theoretical constructs” (Patton, 2002, p. 238). In other words, I aimed to find those
individuals who manifested the theoretical construct – empowerment agents – that I
wished to study, to examine and elaborate thoroughly upon the construct. Wong (2008)
extends the case for purposeful sampling by arguing that external validity can result from
purposive samples, specifically because the theoretically-driven selection of individuals
(cases) can improve our understanding of causal processes (the how and why) using
means other than randomization.
Therefore, I sought out individuals who embodied the theoretical construct of the
institutional or empowerment agent. I found these individuals through the process of
reputational sampling, a process that involved asking informants (low-status students) to
identify those whom they believe exhibit the characteristics (see Table 1) of the
empowerment agent (Bonjean & Olson, 1964). This sampling process will be further
described in the subsequent section on participant selection.
Research Site
For the purposes of the study, I gathered the sample from the population at The
University (a pseudonym). The University is a highly selective, private research
university in the United States. The institution is a predominantly White institution, with
some racial and socioeconomic diversity. I chose to locate my study at an elite university
because “elite institutions also function as gatekeepers to advanced, graduate, and
38
professional education and to positions of civic and corporate leadership” (Dowd, 2011,
p. 218). Studying institutional and empowerment agents at elite institutions affords us
the ability to examine the beliefs and practices of those who seek to counter the most
stratified of educational environments.
Participant Selection
To find the study subjects, I spoke to low-status students at The University, using
the reputational sampling method. I found students to speak to in student of color
centers, in the lounge of a scholarship and support program for low income, first
generation college students, and in the lounge of an access and support program for low
income transfer students. Student informants represented a breadth of diversity at the
institution. Informants ranged from fourth generation Americans to immigrants, low
income and working class to middle class, a multiplicity of low-status racial and ethnic
backgrounds, freshmen through seniors, both genders, and from a variety of majors. For
example, “David,” a male Asian American senior, is a second generation American (child
of immigrants), from a low-income family and a first generation college student.
“Melinda” is a female biracial (Latina and White) junior who is also a first generation
college student. “Juan,” a male Latino junior, and “Sylvia,” a female African American
sophomore, both identified as low income, first generation college students. In total, I
spoke to twenty-three student informants, all of whom were students of color and many
of whom were from working class backgrounds.
I used Stanton-Salazar’s (2009, 2010) multiple markers of those who hold
institutional agent or empowerment agent status to construct a two-part question set to
39
ask my informants who they believe embody the criteria. The questions posed to
informants were the following:
1. Do you know a highly placed staff member or a faculty member who uses their social
capital to work with and help working class minority students?
I explained to the informants I was speaking to that social capital, for this study, meant
two things. One, that it was important for the staff or faculty member to have a large,
complex network of colleagues and allies across the institution. Second, the staff or
faculty member used their social capital – meaning their own position or their own
network – to benefit low-status students. I explained that using their social capital could
include examples such as: providing introductions to key people; writing letters of
recommendation; advising and mentoring; and aiding in problem-solving and accessing
institutional resources. I followed that prompt by asking the informant to apply a second
set of criteria to the people that had come to his/her mind.
2. Of the faculty and staff members you thought of, do any of them not only meet the
first criteria, but also help low-status students to develop an understanding of inequitable
and unfair societal systems and structures? Do any of them help low-status students
develop a social justice mindset, as well as abilities that are focused on not just
succeeding, but also on changing the world around them in positive ways?
The two-step question set aided me in identifying and differentiating between
possible subjects who may be institutional agents and those who may be empowerment
agents. Speaking to student informants yielded eighteen possible subjects. Verifying
(through the university directory and department/program websites) how highly placed
possible subjects were in the institution narrowed the subject pool to twelve. For
40
example, although I had specified highly placed in my criteria, some informants named
lecturers or program assistants as influential figures. Of the twelve subjects contacted for
participation in this study, six elected to participate. Subject diversity was wide-ranging,
in terms of gender, age, race and ethnicity, and faculty or staff status.
Two pertinent facts emerged from the participant selection process. First, not all
of the twenty-three student informants were able to identify any institutional agents, let
alone empowerment agents, in their lives at The University. Only thirteen of the twenty-
three informants were able to identify practitioners that they felt embodied the two-step
criteria I had outlined for them. Those thirteen low-status students identified eighteen
possible subjects. Second, because the participant selection was not random, but in fact
relied on theory-based constructs for reputational sampling, I was able to identify a
subject pool that met the needs of this study. The two-part question set that led me to the
subject pool intentionally narrowed down the possible subjects to those that might
accurately fit the criteria, the root of theory-based sampling. Finding self-identified low-
status students to serve as informants further enhanced the reputational sampling method.
Instrumentation
I developed a reflexive interview guide, with open-ended descriptive, structural,
and contrast questions, guided by Atkinson’s (1998) recommendations (Appendix C).
The protocol, divided into three sections, included a total of thirty-nine questions, with
sixteen sub-questions (questions that allowed for follow-up and further detail).
Both of the first two sections of the protocol were instrumental in helping to
answer research question one. Research question one explored the lived experiences
from the institutional/empowerment agent’s life history that have made central for them a
41
state of critical consciousness and a mindset centered on counter-stratification. Counter-
stratification is defined as strategies that deliberately counter rigid hierarchical and
reproductive social structures (Stanton-Salazar, 2001, 2010). The first section of the
interview guide delved into the subject’s formative years and explored culture, family,
neighborhood, economic class, significant events, and influential figures. The first
section consisted of thirteen questions with three sub-questions. The second section
probed the impact of schooling, including the influence of teachers and mentors, co-
curricular involvement in college and graduate school, historical events, and key life
lessons. There were nine questions in the second section, with three sub-questions.
The third section of the protocol aided in answering research question two (what
are the behaviors that empowerment agents engage in that either directly benefit low-
status students or attempt to change the institution?) and research question three (what are
the contextual obstacles to enacting agency and transformation and achieving full
empowerment agent status?). The third section included questions focused on having the
subjects demonstrate both knowing and doing; in other words, demonstrating how they
enact their role as an empowerment agent. There were a total of seventeen questions in
section three, with ten sub-questions.
Data Collection
I collected the life histories of the six practitioners (faculty or staff) who had been
identified through the process of reputational sampling as embodying some or all of the
criteria of institutional/empowerment agents. I contacted each potential participant via
email or telephone beginning in March of 2010, seeking voluntary participation. I
introduced myself, explained the purpose of the study, and detailed any and all risks. I
42
then asked each individual if they were willing to participate in my study. Each life
history required two to three interview sessions of approximately 1.5 hours each. Based
on the potential participant’s response, I scheduled the first of the two interviews (with
their knowledge that a third interview might be necessary). Data was collected in April
and May of 2010 in the participants’ offices. Identities were kept confidential by
assigning pseudonyms to the participants and the research site location.
At the beginning of interviewing each subject, I introduced myself and the study.
I explained that was engaged in a doctoral study about the experiences and abilities of
those who had gained a reputation as someone who directly sought to help or empower
working class students of color. I followed by explaining that the preliminary interview
would last approximately one and a half hours, with the need for subsequent interview
times that would be selected at the end of each interview session. I requested that I be
allowed to audio record the conversation and received permission to use the digital tape
recorder. I then had the subject review the IRB information form, explained the
confidential nature of all of the information collected, and asked each subject to select a
pseudonym for the study. Following these procedures for each subject, we began the
interview.
All interviews were taped on a digital voice recorder and documented using
handwritten field notes. I simultaneously took note of points of interest during the
interviews, as well as sent the interview recordings to an external source for transcription.
All recordings were listened to and detailed notes and quotations were produced during
the data collection process and analysis. Interviews ranged from 125 minutes to 255
minutes, with the average interview lasting 187 minutes. The combination of my notes,
43
taken in the immediate context of the life history interview, as well as the recordings and
detailed transcriptions provided me with ample and extensive material for data analysis.
Data Analysis
Qualitative research, and especially the life history method, recognizes the
subjectivity of the researcher. As detailed in an earlier section, in life history research,
the interviewer is actively engaged in meaning-making with the interviewee. I was
particularly interested in this method because of my own rejection of the idea of positivist
objectivity. However, I did aim to let the interviewee tell their story and let their voice
be our guide in making meaning.
One primary goal I had in data analysis was to follow Patton’s (2002) firm
recommendation that data analysis be conducted simultaneously with data collection. It
is fundamentally important to analyze and try to understand data as it is collected. This
simultaneous process of research and analysis can lead to the creation of additional
questions and to new insights and ways to probe key topics, all of which could result in
modifications to the data collection plan, to the instrument, or to the process as a whole.
During the data collection and analysis period, I contiguously reviewed the interview
transcripts for emerging themes, similarities and differences, and unique occurrences.
The methodological orientation of this study encompassed analytical induction
and analytical deduction, with a primarily inductive approach. The first two sections of
the interview protocol explored the under-researched phenomenon of the development of
empowerment agents, from the impact of race, class, neighborhood, teachers, and
involvement to the evolution of belief systems and worldviews. Analytic induction
permits me to define phenomena from the perspective of the subject and also provides the
44
space to discover and analyze how forms of social life come into existence. Analytic
induction affords me the opportunity to build a linked story from seemingly unique cases.
What are often seen as biographical and ecological background factors are redefined to
locate the interactions and experiences through which individuals develop the
motivational dynamics of their own conduct (Katz, 2001).
The third section of the interview protocol specifically explored social capital in
action, or how the empowerment agent enacts their role, leverages their networks to
benefit low-status students, and challenges the stratification of the institution. Life
histories (Atkinson, 1998) analyzed through semantic domain analysis (Spradley, 1979)
allow me to use the logic of analytical induction to generate new knowledge about
institutional agents. In related fashion, analytic deduction uses theories of social capital
and other related frameworks to add depth to our interpretations of how the subjects’
beliefs and experiences translate into practice. The information gathered in both phases
of the data collection process corresponds to the research questions.
Once collected and transcribed, the data was analyzed using Spradley’s (1979)
ethnographic method of domain analysis. Conducting ethnographic, life history
interviews, combined with Spradley’s (1979) method of domain analysis can lead to the
emergence of inductive analytic, grounded theory (rather than the traditional testing of
formal theories). All of Spradley’s theories about ethnographic analysis hinge on his
belief that researchers should be searching for the meaning that participants make of their
lives. Domain analysis was highly useful in looking at the subjects from an ethnographic
perspective because this type of analysis seeks to uncover “cultural patterns of practice
and their relationships within a particular group” (Bielman, Putney, and Strudler, 2003).
45
Spradley’s (1979) method of domain analysis organizes the elements of cultural
practice and activity into cultural domains, which are categories of cultural meaning that
include smaller categories. Using Spradley’s notion of semantic relationships, I
organized the elements from the data in order to discover relationships. These semantic
relationships, such as strict inclusion (in which X is a kind of Y) or means-end (in which
X is a way to do Y), helped to sort and organize data in a systemic fashion.
I emerged with fifteen semantic relationship domains, presented below in Table 2.
The information gathered in each interview provided me with multiple examples to
substantiate each domain.
Table 2
Semantic Relationships through Domain Analysis
Domain Semantic Relationship
Kinds of Defining Life Experiences – Childhood
Strict Inclusion (X is a kind of Y)
Causes of Shift in Worldview Development Cause-Effect (X is a cause of Y)
Significant Educational Moments that Shape
Belief and Practice
Strict Inclusion (X is a kind of Y)
Kinds of Institutional Agents Who Have Impacted
the Subject
Strict Inclusion (X is a kind of Y)
Attributes (Core Beliefs) of the
Institutional/Empowerment Agent
Attribution (X is characteristic of Y)
Kinds of Co-Curricular Engagement Strict Inclusion (X is a kind of Y)
What It Takes to Do the Job of the
Institutional/Empowerment Agent
Function (X is used for Y)
46
(Table 2, Continued)
Ways the Institutional/Empowerment Agent
Works with Low-Status Students
Strict Inclusion (X is a kind of Y)
Ways the Institutional/Empowerment Agent
Teaches Low-Status Students to Decode the
System/Navigate the System
Strict Inclusion (X is a kind of Y)
Ways the Institutional/Empowerment Agent
Teaches Low-Status Students to Change the
System
Strict Inclusion (X is a kind of Y)
Ways the IA/EA Attempts to Change the
Institution for the Benefit of Low-Status Students
(Increasing Equitable Practices)
Strict Inclusion (X is a kind of Y)
Ways the IA/EA Attempts to Change the System
(Critical Consciousness)
Strict Inclusion (X is a kind of Y)
Barriers to Achieving Full Empowerment Agent
Status
Strict Inclusion (X is a kind of Y)
Response to Burn-Out – What Sustains Their
Ability to Continue the Work?
Strict Inclusion (X is a kind of Y)
Taking a Stand or Following Through on A Belief Strict Inclusion (X is a kind of Y)
Following a domain analysis of each subject’s interviews, I was able to create a
master domain analysis that brought together the domain analysis data from all subjects
so that data from individual domains could be analyzed across subjects. In that way, I
could examine, for example, all of the defining life experiences from childhood across
subjects in order to pull out themes, commonalities, unique cases, and key cultural
elements.
47
My analysis relied on Spradley’s (1979) semantic domain analysis to organize the
data and to make salient the cultural dimension underlying the beliefs and activities of
empowerment agents. This method offered a way to demonstrate that the empowerment
agents were not just acting out individual motivations, but that they were part of a
cultural pattern of practice and a cultural phenomenon within the complex social system
of the university setting. While relying on Spradley’s (1979) analysis tools, this study
was firmly rooted in social capital theory and notions of counter-stratification (Bourdieu,
1988; Lin, 2001; Stanton-Salazar, 1997, 2001, 2010). In order to protect the identities of
the subjects, pseudonyms and rigorous identity masking is used throughout.
Summary
This chapter presented the core research methodology and rationale. In addition,
it focused on the research design, sample and population, instrumentation, data
collection, and data analysis. Chapter 4 offers biographical portraits of the six subjects,
Chapter 5 delves into key beliefs and worldview development, Chapter 6 explores how
worldview is translated into practice and action, and Chapter 7 investigates internal and
institutional barriers to full empowerment agent development. Chapter 8 provides a
comprehensive analysis of the study’s findings. I close with an epilogue.
48
CHAPTER FOUR
BIOGRAPHICAL PORTRAITS
Introduction
For the study, I conducted six ethnographic interviews combined with life
histories covering three distinct phases. The first set of questions focused on the
formative years of the subjects, including race and culture, family and community,
socioeconomic background, and influential figures in the participants’ lives. The second
set of questions delved into the impact of schooling, from grade school through graduate
school, with emphasis on mentors and advisors, as well as co-curricular involvement.
The final question-set investigated the themes of knowing and doing, how the subjects
enact their roles as institutional or empowerment agents, and obstacles and challenges in
their path, as well as modes of resistance and renewal.
I completed the interviews at a large, highly selective, private university in the
United States. While still a predominantly White institution, the student demographic
profile has changed over the years with an increase in students of color and in first
generation college students.
The six subjects selected for the study represent the breadth of the institution.
Participants are men and women from both faculty and staff ranks, of different races and
ethnicities, varying ages, and life experiences. As explained in Chapter 3, I used a
reputational sampling strategy to identity the potential pool of interview subjects. In
addition, all subjects fit a set of criteria that identified them as potential
institutional/empowerment agents. This chapter aims to paint brief portraits of each
subject, offering insight about their development across their life span. I hope these
49
portraitures will enhance the reading of the following chapters. There I will intimately
delve into the formation of worldview and belief systems, the counter-stratification
actions of the subjects, and the barriers, both internal and contextual, which lay in the
paths of these agents.
Leroy
Leroy is a male of color in his thirties. He is the son of immigrants from Africa
and has a number of siblings. The United States did not accept his parents’ home country
educational credentials; therefore, his parents worked several low wage jobs to support
their growing family. They had a strong belief in education and sacrificed for their
children to have access to educational opportunities. Given their emphasis on education,
Leroy’s family placed him in magnet schools, outside the communities in which he grew
up. He was bussed to school and was one of few underrepresented minority students.
However, he was able to participate in specific academic enrichment programs that
targeted underrepresented minority male students and provided supplemental academic
support. Leroy acknowledges that through that program, “I met other counselors who
helped me get access to our special programs and opportunities that, I think, ultimately
helped me advance in the school system.” Several institutional agents impacted his life,
mainly in high school -- his Asian American athletic coach, his Latina math teacher, his
White AP literature teacher. He describes them as the first people, outside his family, to
advocate for him and encourage him to uphold and meet high expectations.
Leroy grew up in a working class neighborhood of African Americans and
Latinos that was the epicenter of civil unrest in the 1990s. The killing of Latasha Harlins,
the beating of Rodney King and the court verdict, and the destruction of his
50
neighborhood during this unrest profoundly affected him. As he explains, “That’s when I
got my first taste of what I consider to be institutionalized racism at work and saw first
hand the anger, the frustration, the effects of it and the direct effect on our community.”
Unnerved by the chaos of the city burning around them, Leroy’s family moved to another
urban community when Leroy was a teenager.
The year that a state’s new anti-affirmation action measure went into effect, a
selective, public university on the West Coast offered him admission. Leroy majored in
Ethnic Studies and Social Science, was an active member and leader in student of color
organizations, as well as Student Initiated Outreach (to combat the effects of Proposition
209). He was a Residential Advisor, deeply involved in Associate Students, and held a
prestigious Student Affairs internship in an administrative leader’s office. Reflecting on
his involvement in the student movement against the state’s anti-affirmative action
measure, he says: “For me, that’s when reality struck, that nothing is going to be handed
to me, and not only me, but to people from low-income backgrounds and underserved
communities. That it’s a constant fight to have a place at the table. It was the
culmination of the things that I had learned in the classroom.” After his undergraduate
experience, he earned his Master’s degree in higher education from a selective university
on the East Coast and is now pursuing his doctorate in higher education at another
institution.
Leroy runs a transfer initiative that brings low income, first generation community
college students to The University and supports them from matriculation through
graduation. Leroy sees his role as bifurcated. He is directly able to help, mentor, and
provide relational bridges for the students he works with, while serving as a “champion
51
of this issue (transfer and retention of low income, first generation students) to the
powers that be from the inside. Because if I wasn’t here, I can’t say with absolute
certainty that someone else would step up and bring that issue to the forefront.” Leroy is
not only active on campus, as a voice for marginalized students, but is part of several
community organizations that work to try to bring about policy change at the K-12/public
university level, including comprehensive admissions review.
Leroy is frustrated with The University’s slow to change institutional culture and
emphasis on prestige maximization, a condition which often places access and excellence
in conflict. Empathetic colleague and allies, the students he serves, and the knowledge
that the work is very much needed reinforce his spirits.
William
William is a White male in his sixties. He and his siblings grew up in a suburb in
the Midwest, children of a lawyer father and a homemaker mother. William’s mother
prized tolerance and fairness as values, and his father believed in justice. This, however,
was a point of contention between father and son by the early 1960s: “My father
believed in justice, and in that sense, the law was important to him. And when he and I
began to butt heads in the early part of the civil rights movement, it was more about his
belief that you don’t change laws by having demonstrations, you change laws by
legislature.”
William describes himself as an outsider in school – he was not a star athlete and
academics highly interested him; however, the former was more important in his
community at the time. As a teenager, the 1960 election of John F. Kennedy impacted
him. He states: “He was the first political figure that I could identify with…His whole
52
pitch was that this is the new generation, that America was changing, that America had to
be more racially inclusive…It just seemed like a big shift.” He eventually attended
boarding school in the east, which proved to be a formative time. Living in the center of
the early folk music movement exposed him to more liberal influences. As managing
editor of the school newspaper, he advocated to integrate his all-White, boys boarding
school, and stood his ground in the face of pressure from the community and the school
administration.
William then attended an elite university on the east coast, where he majored in
Language Studies. The strife and activism of the times surrounded him – from the
murders of Bobby Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., the bombing of Cambodia,
the killings of the students at Kent State, and the work of the Students for a Democratic
Society. William immersed himself in working on the weekends in music, for prominent
folk music artists. Reflecting on his work with the performers: “Bob Dylan was
definitely on the side of the Civil Rights Movement in the early days. He was just an
extraordinarily powerful, important poet…he helped me define my identity – what was
important and what was not important. The notion was that you could speak truth to
power.”
After graduation, William worked full-time in the music industry, going on to
produce seminal concert charity events. He moved on to produce movies for major
filmmakers and production companies and then worked in mergers and acquisitions for a
corporation. William is a communication studies faculty member at The University.
William feels strongly that “You can’t separate your worldview from your
teaching…You can’t pretend you don’t believe what you believe.” He sees his role as
53
serving a dual purpose of helping low-status students understand that they offer specific,
useful insights that other students may not be able to offer, while ensuring that “the role
of the academy is to be the critic.” He writes about political issues on his popular, widely
read blog, while also teaching courses that he hopes helps students see that politics are
not “just something that comes once every four years. It’s a continuous pursuit towards a
better world.”
William is irritated with the bureaucracy of The University, such as the length of
time to accomplish small tasks or the number of signatures needed to launch a new
initiative. He is also critical of the hypocrisy of the institution’s emphasis on inter-
disciplinarity, in which inter-disciplinarity is praised, but not rewarded during the tenure
process. He is bolstered by collegial staff and faculty, as well as his ability to be heard
through various public and Internet forums.
Isabella
Isabella is a female of color in her thirties. She was raised by her single mother
and was aware of the deep class conflict between her mother and her father’s wealthy,
more educated family. She emigrated from her native country to the United States with
her mother at a young age, where Isabella experienced the fear and exploitation of being
poor and undocumented after their visas expired. Isabella and her mother moved many
times in the early years, finally settling in an urban center on the West Coast.
Although she experienced frequent upheavals and lived in an unstable home
situation, Isabella craved education and loved being in school. She experienced conflict
in this arena, however, because her mother had given her care over to the local church
group, who did not stress education, and in fact, promoted early marriage within the
54
church. Although Isabella was married and gave birth to her child while still in school,
she persisted in school. Isabella experienced both the disappointment and rejection by
some of her teachers when they found out she was pregnant, as well as the support and
encouragement she needed from others, including her White high school English teacher
and her junior high principal. She credits giving birth with helping her survive: “And
once I felt responsible for this child, I thought, I am not going to make the mistakes my
mother made and education is going to be a big thing that’s going to get me out. So that
propelled me and my new religion became education.”
The time period in which she arrived in the United States deeply impacted
Isabella. She describes the period as a “difficult time for immigrants and immigrant
rights.” In addition, in high school, she pondered what it meant to bring a child into the
world after being affected by the 1992 Reginald Denny and Rodney King beatings: “So
that kind of stayed in terms of consciousness and creating my context of the human being
I was becoming, the adult I was becoming. There is so much work to be done and I had
this almost missionary spirit in me.”
Influenced by her teachers, Isabella completed two years at a community college,
applied to The University and was admitted. She majored in Public Governance. She
balanced being a single mother and her school responsibilities, with the struggles of being
a first generation, transfer college student, as well as the work-study job given to her by
the head of the Alumni of Color Scholarship Association (ACSA). After graduating,
Isabella stayed on as a staff member at the ACSA for two years. She then moved on to a
career at a television network, followed by a position at the headquarters of a national
55
bank. With the retirement of the ACSA director, Isabella applied for and secured the
position because she wanted to more directly empower those in her community.
“It’s important that they (students) get the right resources and support to help
them transform their lives,” notes Isabella about her role. She balances providing
resources, serving as a listener and as an advocate, and letting the upper administration
and the Board of Trustees know the value of her program and its long-term impact. She
states that she is “big on empowering, not enabling.”
Those in power, particularly the Trustees, who do not always understand the value
and merit of targeted program such as hers, discourage Isabella. She is also sometimes
frustrated that the demands of the job take her away from time with her child, especially
when she deals with entitled students. But she has learned how to pick her battles, find
balance, develop allies, and always reflect on living a life with purpose and commitment.
Logan
Logan is a male of color in his fifties. Logan clearly remembers the multiracial
friendships from growing up in an urban neighborhood that has historically been diverse
and replete with various immigrant communities. He says, “That’s how I thought the
world was and should be.”
Logan’s mother did not receive much education – she dropped out of middle
school to work and provide for her family. Logan’s father fought in the US military
during the Korean War and experienced many difficulties, particularly when his fellow
soldiers wanted to shoot at him, thinking he was the enemy. Logan learned much about
self-reliance following his family’s economic difficulties after his father’s lay off, and he
ended up putting himself through college.
56
The communities Logan grew up in did not have a strict racial hierarchy – in fact,
race did not become a salient factor for him until he attended college at a prestigious,
public university on the West Coast. It was at this predominantly White institution that
he realized he was part of the racial minority, although he still held a relatively traditional
view of assimilation. Logan dropped out of university after his first year to hitchhike
across the country. Following this experience, he spent a year at a community college
and transferred back to his original campus to major in the social sciences. Watergate,
the Vietnam War, and the US military’s illegal incursions into other countries impacted
Logan. After graduation, he decided to backpack and take trains across Europe, which
was a pivotal experience: “Here we are, sitting in the train, talking for hours, these White
Americans would ask me, ‘Where are you from? Where did you learn English?’ In their
minds they couldn’t imagine that I was an American. And then it became clearer and
clearer to me how much race mattered in the way that people perceived you.”
This realization enabled Logan to pursue his Master’s in Social Science at an
urban college, and then his Ph.D. in Social Science from another prominent university:
“I was interested because of my experiences from traveling in Europe; I was interested in
how society worked, how it shaped the way that people thought and behaved and acted.”
Because Logan was working for all of his undergraduate years, his most
foundational educational experiences occurred in graduate school. These grounding
lessons centered an understanding of race and political activism, as well as the valuable
relationships that professors could have with students. His faculty mentor asked Logan to
work on a project, which eventually turned into Logan’s dissertation, his first book, and
sparked his involvement in state and local politics and community organizing.
57
In graduate school, many colleagues and mentors (White and Latino) profoundly
affected him. The organizing efforts around the tenure battle of a faculty member of
color especially impacted him. After graduate school, Logan was a professor at another
West Coast public university campus for a number of years, where he found excellent
role models in teaching and mentoring. Logan is now a faculty member at The
University in the social sciences and ethno-racial studies.
Logan makes an extra effort to work with students of color, primarily because of
those who reached out to him in his student years. He sees himself as helping low-status
students navigate the educational atmosphere by mentoring and advising them, pointing
them to resources and fellowships, and involving them in his projects so they develop
top-notch research skills.
His lack of power in the institution and the tension in an elite institution anger
him: “There’s always that tension, because the more time you spend with students, the
less time you have for your research and writing.” The amount of service work and the
pressure to publish in mainstream social science journals rather than in ethnic studies
journals frustrate him: “They are judging work by the journals it’s published in, because
they can’t read the work and establish its credibility themselves.” In addition, Logan
offers a critique of the reproductive nature (the perpetuation of class and racial hierarchy)
of The University. But teaching, which he names as one of the major satisfactions in his
life, is his reward, as well as the special students over the years and the opportunity to
continually speak out and write about the importance of race in America.
58
Sandy
Sandy is a White female in her fifties. She was raised mostly in a dynamic city on
the West Coast and spent her high school years in an urban center on the West Coast.
She is the daughter of a fair-minded, educated, homemaker mother and a father, who
although an executive, struggled with his origins from an extremely poor family: “He
has spent his whole life trying to live that down.”
She describes the neighborhood of her youth as extremely diverse, prompting her
to have an early interest in difference and asking her parents about her own identity and
background. In addition, she was keyed into issues around justice from childhood. As
she grew up during the Vietnam War, she describes being the only student from her
junior high to participate in a walkout the day the US bombed Cambodia. Inside her own
family, one sibling was diagnosed as having a mental illness, while another was named
intellectually disabled. She credits this intimate experience with disability as heightening
her own sense of injustice and fairness, as well as helping understand the importance of
empathy.
Sandy attended a progressive, public West Coast university, where she intended
to pursue a degree in engineering. However, upon arriving on campus, she meets
professors teaching Marxism, as well as community-based Marxist activists, and changes
her life course. Besides the influence of her Marxist professors and reading groups, her
involvement with the jail moratorium coalition (a group that involved in a radical
analysis of the criminal justice system) deeply affected her. “It was huge,” she reflects,
“I mean it was formative training in a zillion different ways.” Her social science
professors, the antiwar movement, feminism, and the Black Power movement also
59
impacted her. Sandy credits the campus atmosphere with motivating her: “It was the
right atmosphere. It was an atmosphere of excitement and a sense that young people can
change the world, which many of us still think."
Sandy decided to major in one of the social sciences, and then worked as a social
worker and community activist for a number of years. She then followed her passion for
education and intellectual engagement and received her Master’s and her Ph.D. in the
social sciences from another prestigious public university. Sandy was a faculty member
in the social sciences and gender in society at a university in the South for many years,
where she grappled with the different ways racism played out in comparison to her West
Coast upbringing.
Sandy is a faculty member at The University in the social sciences and feminist
studies. Sandy works with low-status students in multiple ways. She works very closely
with female students: “Women are low-status by virtue of their gender, so it’s way more
times than I can count (that she steps in and connects students to resources and allies)
related to date rape issues, related to sexual harassment by fellow students and faculty
members.” And Sandy tries to make sure that she constructs the kind of classroom
environment in which low-status students are valued and difference and privilege are
made explicit: “I can’t imagine what classroom I don’t think it (consideration of
difference and equity) belongs in, so there is not class that I teach where that’s not there.”
Her struggles with the administration to keep Feminist Studies alive deeply
disturb Sandy. The University hired her to lead Feminist Studies, but when she arrived
they announced that they were cutting the program. So she has invested considerable
time and energy into saving and reinforcing the program at an institution she describes as
60
“an old boys network,” “a glossy photo,” and “more concerned with the market than they
are with education.” Sandy keeps going, however, because of her love of and satisfaction
in working with and teaching students, and by finding ways to work with the “good
people.” Building community with other people who are equally committed to equity
and advocacy invigorates her.
Peter
Peter is a male of color in his fifties. He is the son of immigrant parents. Peter
was born in a diverse immigrant neighborhood on the West Coast that was undergoing
demographic shifts at the time. Peter relates that many of his early cultural memories are
tied to African Americans because of the neighborhoods he grew up in – first, the
diverse, immigrant neighborhood, and then a neighborhood in an urban center. Peter’s
parents did not have much formal education, although his mother saw herself as a
professional due to her job as a secretary. She was the driving force in the family,
pushing Peter and his sibling by stressing and valuing education.
After experiencing a major community riot, Peter’s parents decided to move the
family to another neighborhood. In the context of his parochial junior high and high
school, Peter learned to navigate the broad terrain of class and race differences: “Moving
really did impact me. I think it provided certain kinds of opportunity, but it also made me
much more aware of racial difference, because all of a sudden we are in a mostly White
area.” In high school, Peter was an athlete and then highly involved in student
government. His White student government advisor and his White debate coach, both of
whom demanded that Peter push himself towards his potential, deeply influenced him.
However, the transition from athletics to student government was difficult. Peter recalls,
61
“So, the coach tells me essentially I would never make anything of myself, because you
are not going to get into college, etcetera. I am made aware that he is telling me this
because I am [a person of color]. It’s the first time I am really dealing with people who
have got me in a box about being [a person of color]…and that the only way I’m going to
make it is by playing [sports].”
Because of Peter’s student government advisor’s influence, he applied to an elite
university on the East Coast and was accepted, the same year the Bakke affirmative
action decision went into effect. In that context, Peter became involved with a student of
color student organization, fought for Ethnic Studies courses, worked as a student staff
member in admissions, and engaged in minority student recruitment at a complicated
time period. He reflects that his supervisor in the admissions job “trained me how to do
this, how to do this well, and what it meant about access, and the Bakke case, and the
issues about class and race. I learned all that stuff very deeply in that particular role.”
Besides his pivotal co-curricular experiences, Peter found himself in the academic
structure, as well. He entered college thinking he was going to be a lawyer, took many
courses on race and ethnicity, and decided to double major in two social sciences fields.
By working with and constantly dialoguing with mentoring-oriented professors, Peter
states: “It was a very powerful experience of realizing that I had something to contribute
to an academic understanding…I learned that I actually asked really good questions and
that the questions were more important than the discipline…and that some of the stuff
that I had experienced in my own life could be applied to social theory…and when I then
was applying to graduate school, I knew the value of mentorship.”
62
After graduating, Peter went on to receive an M.A. in Social Science and his
Ph.D. in Area Studies from an elite, private university on the West Coast. He was highly
compelled by various faculty mentors in his years as a graduate student. Reflecting on
one mentor, Peter says, “It’s very clear that he had a profound impact on shaping the way
that I thought about faculty life and the ways I thought about my own career.” Reagan’s
election and the 1992 Civil Unrest (which has shaped his research and work on interracial
dynamics) deeply impacted Peter during his years in graduate school.
After receiving his Ph.D., Peter was a faculty member at a public university and
then head of a program that focused on racial minorities at a prestigious public
institution. At The University, Peter served as a faculty member and later as an
administrator on equity issues. In his administrator role, Peter has wide-ranging
responsibilities, from faculty recruitment, to tenure processes, and evaluation and final
approval for every faculty search committee to ensure that they are looking at and
interviewing diverse candidates.
Peter sees his role through multiple lenses. He has high level power and decision-
making abilities to change the university’s race, class, and gender makeup from faculty
hiring to graduate student selection on down. In addition, as someone who values
mentoring, he works with low-status undergraduate and graduate students by giving them
highest priority and by making himself and his networks accessible. Moreover, he
creates a safe learning environment with high expectations and makes explicit what is
often unsaid (whether that be expectations, assignments, or other tacit knowledge).
Peter is sometimes disappointed in faculty colleagues who may not be using the
power and resources they have as effectively as they could. He struggles to gain and
63
maintain trust as he rises through the ranks, and explains that the life of a high-ranking,
effective change agent is lonely. He wrestles with core institutional obstacles – that
although diversity is part of the university mission, most departments are unwilling to
prioritize it.
But Peter is buoyed and re-energized by engagement in new projects, digging into
innovative educational opportunities, and working with “good people and good students
in a very different kind of way.” He is striving for increased balance in his life and takes
joy in building community around him. He deeply believes that “You make the
community that you are in,” and tries to directly make changes to the campus community
that also make it more accessible to others so long left out.
Summary
As Atkinson (1998) describes, it is through the telling of the life history that
meaning is made – by accepting the life history as a reflective text that has something to
say about life and an individual’s self-understanding. These six biographical sketches
provide us with a broad sense of the formative aspects of the subjects’ lives –
demographic characteristics, family, neighborhood, schooling, impact of key individuals,
events, and historical moments, current context, and opportunities and challenges of their
roles as institutional or empowerment agents.
There are clear patterns emerging, even from these brief subject portraits. They
encompass the impact of neighborhoods and moving; grappling with the particularities of
identity complexity; precipitating historic, personal, and school moments; and key
involvement with co-curricular opportunities and role models/exemplars. A major point
that surfaces in all of the interviews is the sheer reflexivity of the participating subjects.
64
Each of them, over the lifespan, and even during the multiple interviews, had engaged in
and continued to engage in on-going reflection and self-dialogue.
Most importantly, it is through their own words, reflections, and stories that we
come to see the connections, meanings, and patterns that make up one life and that
connect that life to another’s life journey and experiences. In the following chapter, I
will delve more deeply into the beliefs and key attributes of the subjects, as well as the
developmental and social processes illuminated by the life history approach in this study.
We will explore the development of worldview and belief systems by examining life
experiences, as well as precipitating events and figures. We will examine how
transitional periods and moments of structural change in the evolution of the subjects
promoted the development of a mindset centered in social justice and/or critical
consciousness. The question of who exactly these institutional/empowerment agents are
and how they came to be will lead us into subsequent chapters focused on the behaviors
and actions that the subjects engage in, as guided by their beliefs, and the institutional
and internal barriers that serve as roadblocks to personal and institutional change.
65
CHAPTER FIVE
KEY BELIEFS AND WORLDVIEW DEVELOPMENT
Introduction
One of the primary questions for this study explores the lived experiences of
institutional and empowerment agents. This chapter investigates precipitating and pivotal
moments in the subjects’ lives that fashioned a state of critical consciousness and a mind-
set centered on counter-stratification (Stanton-Salazar, 2001). It is this mindset,
combined with a social justice, counter-reproductive motivation, that sets these
practitioners apart. While each participant is unique in their stories and experiences, it is
essential to understand what emerged as shared beliefs (worldviews) or attributes across
all subjects. I was curious to see if these subjects retained a highly developed sense of
equity as a cognitive frame (Bensimon, 2005). Or if they possessed a system awareness
and an empowerment-oriented pedagogic perspective (Stanton-Salazar, 2010). In many
cases, subjects demonstrated core beliefs across the board, in addition to many unique
social justice-oriented perspectives. Spradley’s (1979) theory of ethnographic analysis
hinges on his belief that researchers should search for the meaning that participants make
of their lives. Using Spradley’s (1979) method of domain analysis, I created the
following attribution table (in which X is a characteristic of Y). X is a belief held by the
subject who has been identified as the institutional/empowerment agent. Y is the belief
of the empowerment agent that has been developed through life experiences.
66
Table 3
Key Shared Attributes Held by Empowerment Agents
Relationship Form Domains
Attribution X is an attribute of Y 1. Asset orientation (Not deficit-minded)
2. Strong belief in value of education
3. Belief in creating community and giving back
4. Living the worldview in all contexts
5. Maintaining critical consciousness while embedded
Shared Attributes and Beliefs
While there are many unique, social justice-oriented convictions and values held
by the subjects, the five domains in Table 3 represent the beliefs held by at least four of
the six participants. In fact, the three domains of asset orientation, belief in creating
community and giving back, and maintaining critical consciousness were attributes all six
subjects held. Listening to the study participants’ stories in their own voices gives us
insight into their beliefs and the development of their daily practice.
Asset Orientation
One of the most crucial factors in serving as an empowerment agent is the
subject’s own perception of low-status students. None of the subjects held a deficit-
minded perspective (Bensimon, 2007) or a “culture of poverty” perspective about low-
status students. Emerging from the mid-1960s, the notions of cultural deficit encompass
theories which posit that minorities are culturally deficient (as opposed to the Anglo-
Saxon majority). The “culture of poverty,” popularized in the 1965 Moynihan Report
67
was based on Lewis’ (1959) concept that the poor (particularly the urban poor) have a
unique value system that keeps them poor. Deficit models place the responsibility for
change and adaptation not on the institution or the system, but rather on the shoulders of
the marginalized.
However, rather than use these deficit-based approaches in their work with low-
status students, none of the subjects blamed inequitable outcomes on innate student
characteristics. Rather, all six participants were quick to point out the unique assets that
low-status students bring with them to the college environment. In this way, the six
subjects demonstrated their belief in an asset-minded, rather than a deficit-minded,
approach to low-status students. For example, Isabella and Leroy both shared views
about low-status students being survivors.
Isabella: Because a lot of them (low-status students) are survivors, I mean you just
point them in a direction and it’s that idea, that where there is a will, there is a
way. And they will make it work. When they are committed for the right
reasons, they fight… You just survive, you have it in your DNA. Whereas
someone whose parents made it easier, they need help getting started, figuring it
out.
Leroy also expressed his belief that the lived experiences of low-status students lead to
key asset development.
Leroy: They have a tremendous work ethic and a will to persevere. I think they
are fearless to some regard, and that they have overcome hardships.
Leroy and Logan both expressed their feeling that low-status students “give back” more
to their communities. The process of “giving back” may emerge from having a stronger
sense of identity that then leads to greater commitment to the world around them.
Leroy: I think that these students are far more committed to giving back and
improving opportunities and life chances of those who are disadvantaged than our
general students. I think many of these students come with a stronger sense of
68
who they are. Whether that’s because people have constantly tried to define
them, or I don’t know, but they tend to come with a stronger sense of who they
are.
While Leroy offers his thoughts on students’ contributions to their communities based on
his personal experience, Logan expands on the thought by citing Bowen and Bok’s
(1998) longitudinal study on Black students in Research 1 universities.
Logan: One of their findings in the “Shape of the River” is that the students who
enter through affirmative action, or students of color, that they are more active in
the community, they contribute more to community service than other students,
and I think that is really important to society.
William and Leroy explained that the lived experiences of low-status students were vital
in terms of classroom discussion and learning. Both subjects noted that the perspectives
of the low-status students were valuable to both peers and professors. William finds the
viewpoints of low-status students as particularly valuable in confronting classmates’
privilege.
William: A lot of kids, they have come here spoiled rotten, and they don’t really
have a sense of what's going on the real world, they are clueless. And so what
happens is, if you get into a class where there is lot of discussion, the low-status
students speak up from a place of reality as to issues like consumerism...I get
them (low-status students) to understand that they may actually have some
insights that may be more useful to businesses than the White sorority girl that sits
next to them.
Leroy notes the “believability” of low-status students’ experiential knowledge and that
faculty members remark upon the enhanced classroom learning.
Leroy: Their lived experience is just a tremendous asset that they bring. I think
that their peers benefit tremendously from it in the classroom when they speak
and they share their personal experiences. They could say, “Hey, I believe this.”
And that’s something that the faculty members who are exposed to these students
constantly talk about. About one of the things that they appreciate by having
them in the classroom is they bring their lived experiences into the classroom and
that they enhance the learning environment for everybody.
69
Besides persevering and being survivors, giving back, and benefitting classroom
discussions with their lived experiences, Sandy and Peter felt strongly that low-status
students have specific insights and abilities. Peter comments on low-status students’
social aptitude and their ability to comfortably navigate and speak to a variety of sectors.
Peter: I tell almost all my graduate students, especially future faculty, to look
around at the faculty. Most of them are socially inept. So if you can work hard
and keep your own personality, keep your own passion for life, keep who you are
together, you are going to do well. I often feel that minority faculty, not all, but
most, are just a lot more socially adept. They can actually talk with other people,
they can actually have conversations within their own families, across the range
of classes, they can appeal to the public in a way that other people can’t. Not
everybody, but a much higher percentage. That’s the actual advantage in this.
When you have to talk across fields, when you have to be able to talk to people
who you don’t know, they often can make people feel more comfortable than
other folks can.
Sandy offers an astute observation regarding the structural knowledge of those who are
subordinated. She states that the knowledge of the system that low-status students carry
offers a two-fold benefit, in terms of navigating stratification, as well as in educating
privileged peers.
Sandy: Knowledge about how power structures work and a healthy critique and
suspicion of peoples’ claims to power, which is huge, right, it’s stunning. So, you
know, subordinated groups are always people who are actually most aware of
how the system works. That’s an absolute truism. And they have this asset to
offer their fellow students. So it’s not just that this could potentially help them
navigate a system that is not structured on their behalf, but could actually help to
make all those White privilege bimbos into smarter, more responsible people.
Sandy, in her comment, demonstrates both equity-mindedness (in her acknowledgement
of a system that is inequitably structured), as well as an asset-minded framework in her
beliefs about low-status students. All the subjects, through their own experiences, have
witnessed a broad range of assets that low-status students bring to the academy, from a
sense of fearlessness and drive to valuable insight that impacts fellow students and
70
practitioners. Low-status students’ assets include unique insights and abilities that help
them navigate rough terrain in interesting ways.
Belief in the Value of Education
In the same way, almost all the subjects shared their firm belief in the value of
education as a liberating force, in both personal and political terms. Isabella spoke about
the meaning or value of education in terms of its impact on her own life and on her
journey toward a sense of security, confidence, and self-actualization.
Isabella: And I think that what I would see, particularly for immigrants,
sometimes we would hold to the basic immediate needs. That we just stayed
focused on survival. I always think about Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.
So they stay in that lower level. And when you are in that level, you can’t think
about self-actualization so you can get to that next level. Education, for me,
became access to not only the important people in the community, but this
knowledge – it opened my mind. And I have within me the certainty that no
matter what, I can always find a job, no matter what, I can make a living doing
something I love, and none of that could have been possible without having my
degree.
Leroy also dialogued about education from a very personal place. Similar to Isabella,
Leroy finds a sense of security in his education. In addition, he contemplated the notions
of the right to and privilege of education.
Leroy: I think education is a tool for self-discovery, certainly, it’s a tool for
empowerment, it’s a tool for enlightenment, and lastly, it’s a tool for improving
your situation and advancing your standing. It’s the one thing I always remember
my parents taught me; it’s one thing that no one can ever take away from you.
It’s yours. You own it, that can’t be taken away from you, and it’s a privilege to
have it. It’s a privilege. I think it should be a right. I think everyone should have
the right to education, but that’s not the case right now. For those that do have it,
it’s a privilege and you shouldn’t take it for granted.
Peter reflected on experimentation in education and his own desire to create safe
educational environments that contribute to a sense of exploration and discovery.
71
Peter: Well, I mean it’s not surprising that I feel that education can open up
worlds that we don’t even know exist. I think that to me is what’s most exciting
about it and sometimes most scary for people. And I think that therefore it can be
a profound experience when people are willing to really experiment, really push
the envelope beyond what they are comfortable. I think doing that in a safe
environment, which education should be, is really important because I think you
can then learn some really profound things that will stay with you the rest of your
life. So, I’m very much about trying to create safe environments for people to
explore all kinds of things that one maybe would never thought of before they
enter the classroom.
Sandy expressed her thoughts as a question about places of learning in American society,
particularly as education has been a formative force in her own life.
Sandy: The role of education in a person’s life? Huge, obviously. I realize that
my own image of that can be grossly distorted, precisely because it was so
important in my own. But I do think that relative to that question of life-long
learning, if it doesn’t happen in the education system, there is nothing about our
contemporary culture that would enable it to happen. In American culture today,
if you are not going to get it in the classroom, then I don’t really see where you
are getting it. Where are you going to get the sense that learning actually opens
your eyes and that it is a valuable pursuit in and of itself?
Although not described as a key attribute in Stanton-Salazar’s (1997, 2010) writing, note
the intensity with which these subjects speak about the place of education in their own
lives and their belief in education as a world-opening force. For as many struggles within
the institution the participants share (further discussed in Chapter 7), none of them are
cynical about the power of education. They respect education as a form of networking,
as a place to grow and learn and push, as a source of pride, and as a valuable endeavor for
its own sake.
Creating Community and Giving Back
Stanton-Salazar (2010) explains that a central role of the empowerment agent is to
engage low-status youth in transforming the world around them by enacting meaningful
social change. As defined by Stanton-Salazar (2010), meaningful social change
72
encompasses a variety of actions, including: collaborating with others; acting politically;
contesting oppressive institutional policies and practices; working to solve community-
based problems; and take up democratic leadership.
For empowerment agents to embody this influential role in the lives of low-status
students necessitates a complex vision of community and sets of relationships that they
are invested in as a means to improve the world (their own and others’). All six of the
participants spoke at length about their deeply rooted feelings about community, their
relationship to community(ies), and their desire to fight injustice by giving back and not
closing the door on community. For example, Isabella spoke about her belief in
interdependence and how she explains that to students who aim to build community.
Isabella: So, even though I focus on one community, I believe in supporting all
communities. That’s really important for me. I always tell the students, we come
in a certain package, but we are all human beings having a certain existence and
we happen to have this cultural element. It’s a point of reference. So, as I tell our
students, we live in a global society; everybody is interdependent. In Haiti, there
is an earthquake; we all have to come to that. There is an earthquake in Chile; we
all have to help. It matters when there is something going up in Japan. More and
more, we have to be there for our brothers and sisters.
Leroy spoke philosophically about his multifaceted definition of community.
Leroy: Community in variety of shapes and forms and for me it means a lot of
different things. It’s folks that I share common struggles with. People that are
there to support and uplift me and give me the strength that I need to deal with the
challenges that I face on a day-to-day basis, that’s what community means to me.
It’s very important.
Leroy continued by explaining his understanding of community as rooted in the
differences in American and his own culture of origin.
Leroy: I think that relative to my [community’s] culture, American culture tends
to be very individualistic. It’s about individual achievement. It’s the complete
opposite to our culture, which is about the community. Even if an individual
73
succeeds, how are they going to use that success to benefit the community? That
question very much informs the person that I am today and the work that I do.
Leroy followed his explanation of a culturally grounded meaning of community by
connecting it to his work with low-status students on a daily basis. He places critical
importance on prioritizing community advancement in its totality, rather than just
prodding his students toward individual achievement.
Leroy: It’s a message that I constantly remind my students of. Okay, you are
successful, you’ve been afforded very, very privileged opportunities. How you
are going to use these opportunities to better the lives of others? How are you
going to get back to your community? Or providing that message of, “Don’t
forget where you came from because your community needs you. They are
depending on you and your success.” You didn’t get here by yourself. People
helped you along the way to get to this point. How are you going to repay those
people or repay your community? I think we advance or we progress as
individuals, but we have to go back to our communities and make sure our
communities are moving forward as well. So that’s a very big aspect of my
cultural philosophy and my professional philosophy as well.
Sandy craves a thinking, caring community that is invested in impacting the world in
positive ways. She relates that she returned to academia to find this particular
community.
Sandy: I want to be around people who are interesting and interested in making
the world a better place. Otherwise they’re just more clones to me. So I would
always seek out that kind of community. And really thinking people, like actually
spending part of their thinking on the world. I didn’t go straight to graduate
school. I went out into world and that is one of things that I noticed right away.
A lot of people stop thinking and just do their job. And so that is part of what led
me back to the academy. I want to be around people who are thinking and
committed to trying to understand the world and trying to make it better, even if
it’s not always according to my definition.
Peter made a valuable observation about creating community in all environments – that
the concept of community is not external to where one is. Peter argues that “making the
74
world a better place” essentially starts in our own backyard, the place in which low-status
students in elite institutions experience their daily lives.
Peter: A sense of community is very important, but I think that I have grown over
time to thinking about community in very flexible sorts of ways. The one thing I
can tell you that I react to very strongly is when community is always external to
your day-to-day life. I am not a person that thinks, well, my community
somehow is [the urban neighborhood], because I grew up there, you know, it’s
where the [people of color] are. I don’t buy that. I am attached to [my childhood
neighborhood], feel very connected, but my community is here. And I mean an
academic community, I mean the campus that is employing me, I mean the
students and the teachers and the colleagues that I have interaction with. You
make the community that you are in.
Not only does Peter believe in making the community he is in, it is, in fact, a source of
frustration for him when colleagues and the institution treat “community” as something
external. In particular, Peter feels passionate about the campus as community because it
is related to his sense of access, belonging, and ownership.
Peter: I see way too many people talking about community as something external
to them, particularly for academics, where you can actually write and research
this. I don’t buy that our community is that place “over there.” And that is
always what has made me pissed about what they (The University) are not doing.
So, for me, it’s always been important that I have to deal with the community I
am in. I have to try to make the changes that make my life bearable in the
community I am in, and if I don’t do that, I am not going to be happy. I really
believe that this is my community, for better or worse, and it’s important for me
to make sure that there is access to other people for this. It’s very important to
deal with the people around me and not a theoretical community that is out there.
And it comes from a sense that I have every right to be here as anybody else. You
are not going to deny me this community.
Leroy adds his strong belief about our collective obligation to one another as human
beings in the struggle for a more just and humane society.
Leroy: We have an obligation to one another that we oftentimes forget. In our
capitalist society, we tend to be very “me” oriented and we often forget that our
success as a people depends on one another. I think we all have to find our ways
to be successful, but contribute to the well-being of our humanity as a whole. I
think that’s the takeaway from all of those experiences – that we have an
75
obligation to each other. We have an obligation to confront injustice when we see
it. Injustice against one is injustice against all.
I highlight this particular set of attributes, convictions about creating community and
giving back, as a centrally important belief set for empowerment agents. As defined by
the subjects, creating community is both philosophical and place-based and is related to
shared struggles and a sense of interdependence. Creating community challenges the
individualistic orthodoxy of American neoliberalism. In the same way, giving back,
according to the subjects, is about moving beyond individual gain and success to thinking
critically about the community from which one comes, how multiple communities’
stories intersect, and how moving forward must include advancing one’s community. It
is the community-oriented philosophies and lived experiences of the subjects that help
them translate a social justice mindset/critical consciousness to the low-status students
they seek to empower.
Living the Worldview
Equally important to adhering to the principles described above is an ability to
live the worldview and belief system in all contexts, make sacrifices when necessary, and
take a broad approach to engagement. William states his views clearly and succinctly.
William: Well, you can’t really separate those (worldview/belief system) when
you are teaching undergraduates or graduates. I mean you can’t pretend you don’t
believe what you believe.
Sandy expands on William’s response about the inability to separate belief from practice
with her own reflections on personal and professional integrity.
Sandy: My worldview affects my work in fundamental ways. I do think of my
mother as being a certain kind of role model. She had one rule, which is “Be
yourself.” Basically, that is it. After that, nothing else matters. You give up your
own sense of integrity, then all is lost, so to speak. I can’t imagine doing anything
76
except for living my worldview. What else would you do? You put on a different
suit for different contexts? I wouldn’t even know how to do it. It’s really a treat
to teach 18 to 22-year olds. So a lesson relative to that is to have ways to let them
know early on that this is who I am and I am not asking them to be me. I will just
put it out there.
Leroy explains why standing firm and speaking up, even when the topic runs counter to
the institution’s standpoint, is so vital, especially when it comes to helping institutions
become more equitable places.
Leroy: If we’re talking about changing this place, you can’t have a chorus of
people saying the same thing, especially when it’s not based in fact. I think you
have to have people to stand up on the side of truth. Even when it’s unpopular,
even when it’s controversial. I mean history has shown us that our great leaders
in the past all had their moments when they have to take similar stances. Now
again, this issue probably pales in comparison in terms of significance to some of
those historical issues or historical moments but it all starts when somebody was
able to stand up and say, “Look, this is not right; this is problematic.” That’s why
I feel it is important to say it.
Peter explains that a change agent’s worldview must necessarily be both political and
able to weather a lifelong commitment. Peter notes that he considers the process of
making institutions more equitable and less stratified a political act.
Peter: This (the movement for institutional equity) is a constant political process
with people who are against what you are trying to do. And then, there are the
people who will say that they are for it, but actually never do anything to make it
happen. And to me, that’s actually much more important than any single event
along the way. It’s more of the commitment to that issue from the beginning to
the very end of life; that’s what I most value about the whole thing. So, it’s not
one event. It’s a whole political commitment over a long period of time from a
number of different positions where I have learned a lot as I have gone through.
And to me, that’s one political movement. I do consider making these
universities more responsive to be a political act.
Peter follows later by explaining that making a difference and following through on a
worldview incurs sacrifice, sometimes taking a heavy toll. Peter posits that those who are
77
willing to make the effort to alter institutional structures need to be offered supportive
resources by those who care and who have resources to offer.
Peter: First you have to get yourself to a point in which you are positioned in a
place where you make a difference. But once you are there, you then got to do it.
And the people that I know who have done that do it at great personal sacrifice,
do it at sometimes professional sacrifice. They don’t publish as much, that kind
of stuff. But they get it done and they see that as a critical thing. And it is a
critical thing for the entire profession. So, you know, one or two scientists in each
field of science who says, I am at this place, I can do this – they could profoundly
change the entire discipline of chemistry or physics by just making that
commitment. I fundamentally believe that. I have seen it happen and I think it
can be done. So, that’s where institutional changes happen at a much more slower
pace. But it can happen. It can happen by finding just a few people who are
willing to put themselves out to do it and trying to get resources to those people.
The sacrifices Peter mentions and the need for supportive resources will be further
explored in subsequent chapters.
All the subjects have highly developed worldviews when it comes to issues of
justice and equity. Their beliefs about an integrated identity in all contexts is important
to explore as a source of inspiration and motivation for the students they seek to
empower.
Maintaining Critical Consciousness
Finally, in terms of shared attributes, all six subjects discussed the complexity and
their own unique ways of maintaining critical consciousness while embedded in the
power structure of the institution. Meyerson and Tompkins (2007) in their analysis of a
gender equity change initiative at the University of Michigan, provide an critical template
to understand the paradox of embeddedness. These embedded actors, or “tempered
radicals,” are those who wish to initiate change in institutions, and for various reasons,
are marginalized by the power structure within the institution they seek to change.
78
Therefore, they “are exposed to contradictions between their interests or identities and the
dominant logic” (p. 311). Those embedded (in our case, the institutional/empowerment
agents) experience a Gramscian birds-eye view of the fissures in the hegemonic order,
arising from the organic experiences of their own lives as workers. This ideological
break results in an understanding of the possibility and reality of their own
marginalization, that then leads them to question the institution and seek change. The
embedded agents balance their critical consciousness, their multiplicity of networks, and
their community-based commitments in the face of a dominant institutional narrative.
In the case of the six participants in this study, they could readily be described as
both “tempered radicals” and “organizational catalysts/institutional entrepreneurs”
according to Meyerson and Tompkins’ (2007) differentiation between those who
advocate for change from the margins (tempered radicals) and those who have negotiated
the paradox of embedded agency to mobilize a broader base of support (organizational
catalysts/institutional entrepreneurs).
For example, Isabella finds power in her embedded role by using her personal and
network resources to keep the institution accountable to the community she serves.
Isabella explains that many people ask why programs like the Alumni of Color
Scholarship Association (ACSA) need to exist. These same detractors say that she
should fundraise and give the money to admissions and they should allocate the financial
aid. But she is very protective of the program for personal reasons: “I often call myself a
product of this institution and programs like the ACSA, and because of the advocacy
work that (the former director) invested in more than others, I think there were
opportunities for me, a nontraditional student.” To protect her program and the benefits it
79
provides for students, she used her resources, such as corporate contacts, relationship
equity, and sales skills, to create a powerful corporate advisory council. This corporate
advisory council is comprised of high-level leaders, including business people,
government bureaucrats, and a trustee.
Isabella: And they (the corporate advisory council) understand that we are
supporting The University and we are representing The University, that we are
ambassadors for The University outside of campus. But we also know that The
University is accountable to them. So if there is a decision to get rid of a program
like the ACSA, if somebody says, “Oh, we have met the goal, we have enough
[people of color] at The University,” if that day ever comes, then this group will
say absolutely not. They’re our protection.
Isabella takes the time to explain how she has used her embedded role specifically to
“train” the corporate advisory council in what it means to hold the institution
accountable.
Isabella: So when I created the board, one of the things I said to them is you are
here to make sure you keep the University accountable. Your job is to ask the
right questions. So I have had the President of The University meet with them. I
had the university publicist meet with them. I have had the athletic director meet
with them. I have had the senior person for university relations meet with them.
And the questions asked by the council have been particularly focused on - what
are you doing with and for students of color? So that way the president is forced
to ask the speechwriter, “Find out what we are doing.” Because most trustees
don’t ask those questions or he (the President) gets to report whatever numbers
looked good, right? The administration knows if they decide to eliminate a
program like the ACSA or give all the money that ACSA raises to admissions and
financial aid and they (ACSA) don’t get to decide who gets it, the administration
will have to face a very important constituency.
Logan also is highly cognizant (and critical) of his place in the institution’s power
dynamic, but has found the opening to continue his work as an institutional agent.
Logan: I also know that The University has this big con going on where they’re
telling the parents how much education really means to the institution and how
their money is going to be well spent on a great education. But they don’t give us
(faculty) the resources. If that were true, then teaching would be a much bigger
part of tenure and promotion. But it’s not. It’s all a fiction to get these big checks
80
for tuition. And so I know I am part of that. That by working hard, by trying to
be a good teacher, by working with undergrads, I am contributing to this fiction.
But I do it not because of The University; I do it because of my department and
how we think education should work. And because of my relationship with
students. Because I know some of these students, they give so much of
themselves, and because education means so much to them. I think it’s important
for me to try to give them more.
Sandy, in response to the question about maintaining critical consciousness while
embedded in the power structure of the institution, answered very frankly about her
solution to that conundrum. She identifies herself as a “perennial troublemaker.”
Sandy: That brings up the theoretical question. Once you’re a Marxist, does that
mean that you should live in a very small shack with no running water? I don’t
actually think that has to be a contradiction. I think that having power is not the
same as having power over. I would never suggest to someone that the
appropriate political position is to not try to get any power. What I am pissed
about is that I have no power. Now, if I were sucking the [expletive] of the
institution, yes, that would be too much of a contradiction. But I am a perennial
troublemaker. There is my solution. It’s my job to make trouble.
Peter acknowledges that it is difficult balancing his embedded role and his drive for
institutional change. He offers specific strategies that help him to make sense of his
work, particularly around goal-setting to test effectiveness.
Peter: I don’t think it's easy. I think you have got to go constantly back to why
you are doing the job that you are doing. You also have to have a way to figure
out if you are being effective or not. So I really look at trying to set goals for
what I want to accomplish at each point and trying to reach them. I worry a lot
about not being effective. I also don’t think I can do this kind of job by myself, so
part of it is literally making small incremental changes at the departmental levels.
At the same time, I know that I can be effective in a lot of individual contexts
with individual students, individual faculty. And I don’t take that for granted –
that the position actually allows me to be even more effective on individual cases.
Peter continues by explaining how he derives continued strength from the impact he
makes in terms of individuals.
Peter: So that is part of the equation for me, which is if I ever felt like I stopped
having time to make a difference in individual lives for whatever I was trying to
81
do more globally, I don’t think I could do this job. I think it would be impossible
for me, because I do have to judge myself partly on whether or not I am actually
creating access for students, for undergraduates, for graduate students, for
individuals. And that, to me, has always been part of the equation.
Leroy navigated the maintenance of his critical consciousness by reflecting on his role at
the institution. He is skeptical in terms of who would do the job of creating more
equitable systems and pathways to access if he wasn’t one of those pushing that dialogue.
Leroy: I think I still do maintain my beliefs and my convictions, but I think that
we can’t all be on the outside trying to bring about change. You’ve got to have
people on the inside. I see my role as being one of a small group of folks that, on
the inside, are reminding those that are in power or in positions of influence that
we need to be more conscious of the way we operate. To be more mindful of
whom we’re serving and whom we’re not serving, intentionally or
unintentionally. So I see my role as not only helping the students that I get the
opportunity to interact with, but also being a champion of this issue to the powers
that be from the inside. Because if I wasn’t here, I can’t say with absolute
certainty that someone else would step up and bring that issue to the forefront.
My natural reaction would be to say that issue would not be discussed at the table.
It would go away, so I think that’s how I’m able to reconcile the two.
The pivotal question Leroy prompts is one of how more faculty and staff can grow as
institutional/empowerment agents. That question was a driving reason behind my interest
in this study. Learning about the beliefs and worldviews of the study participants can
guide us towards an idea of those who may be optimal agents of change.
Unique Beliefs and Attributes
As well as the five shared attributes described above, the subjects offered insights
into their unique beliefs, shaped by their specific experiences. The unique beliefs help us
to flesh out the characteristics of the subjects as individuals. They also complement the
shared attributes to create a more holistic picture of the participants as highly reflective
institutional agents. Isabella shared that she is invested in empowering, not enabling,
82
students, as well as in serving as an advocate. This investment comes from a very
personal place and set of experiences.
Isabella: I want to be an advocate. A young alum said, a lot of people that claim
to be mentors, they listen, they take you out to lunch, but the minute you call them
and say, “Could you make this phone call to this person, so I can get an
interview?,” they won’t do it. So she used the word advocate and I really liked
that word because that’s what our students need, an advocate. I always try to
follow up that way because it’s that they matter and I realize for me, a lot of the
times, it was that message -- that I needed to matter because I didn’t think I
mattered enough. So all that’s transformative because you increase their self
esteem, their self value and also you want to help them increase their self efficacy
overall, that they could really have this belief that I may not know how to do it,
but I know I can figure it out. And that’s powerful.
Leroy also spoke from a personal place to share his belief about his own personal
accountability to students and the way he engages in the work of mentoring and
empowerment.
Leroy: Very much the way I felt like individuals took it upon themselves to
ensure that I was successful as an undergraduate student. I embrace the same
kind of mindset when I work with my students. I feel like I’m personally
accountable and responsible for ensuring that they are successful. If they fail, I
feel like it’s a failure, that I failed in some shape or fashion as well, and that’s not
necessarily an option. It’s just a very personal way of doing the work that I do.
Besides his personal investment in student success, Leroy also holds a firm belief in the
value of his role in shaping and shifting, however slowly, institutional policy and
direction.
Leroy: I think we bring about change at an institutional level, although it’s very
gradual and painfully slow. But I feel like through the work that we’re doing,
we’re speaking for those that are not usually at the table. We’re helping others
that are in a position to set policy and influence the direction of this institution to
realize how important it is to ensure that we are providing access to educational
opportunities for students who historically have not had that. And constantly
challenging the institution to look at who is not being served and how we can
better serve those people. And I think that’s just really important work.
83
Leroy notes that equity-oriented colleagues and dialogues are not common on campus.
Therefore, one of his key roles is also helping students connect the institutional dots to
access key forms of institutional support.
Leroy: Unfortunately, it doesn’t happen throughout the entire campus; it happens
in small pockets here and there. And so what I try and do in my role for the
students is helping them connect the dots here at the institution, helping them
identify where those pockets are and gain access to them, so that they can advance
themselves and achieve the goals that they set for themselves when they came
here.
Logan shared his philosophical orientation towards his work, rooted in the field. He sees
his academic discipline as being central to student empowerment.
Logan: So that you understand how our society works and that our society is this
way because of the accumulation of all our individual actions. It’s not something
that is this way because it has to be, it’s this way because we make it. So we need
to be able to give students the analytical tools they need to analyze our society.
He also spoke openly about his beliefs regarding The University’s reproductive role in
society. Logan feels strongly that The University’s mission does not match its practice.
Logan: I think The University tries to see itself as a university that contributes to
society, but then it has to open its doors and its resources to a broad spectrum of
the population. If we want people who are really civically engaged, then The
University has to open its doors to a larger spectrum of the population. If The
University sees part of its mission as changing society, then it just can’t educate
the elite members of society, and it has to make its resources available to a
broader spectrum of society. Otherwise, education just perpetuates the class and
racial hierarchy in America.
Peter shared his experiential belief about his holistic academic identity. For him, his
academic life is not limited only to research. It is an integrated belief system in which
inquiry and exploration of access and inequity are important in all facets of his life.
Peter: The one thing that I think good academics end up learning is that you don’t
shut off being an academic when you’re not in the classroom. The single most
important thing I learned academically was bridging between what was the
extracurricular and the curricular. What was interesting me outside the
84
classroom, I could take inside the classroom and vice versa. I didn’t have to just
restrict it to this formal time and then my life is somewhere out here. I couldn’t
just shut it off. There is nothing that can be taken out of me. That’s actually who
I am and why I am doing this. It’s not just something I research in my office and
put away. And I think for a lot of White faculty, that’s kind of where they sit, and
some minority faculty for that matter.
As well as living a rich, integrated academic life, Peter feels strongly about access and
difference on college campuses. He has learned, over the years, how to argue against
those who do not value difference and what the true nature of anti-access rhetoric and
policies are about.
Peter: Who gets to define it (diversity and access) and how it’s manipulated for a
lot of different reasons is a contentious issue. So I've learned how to be more
effective and to be willing to be more realistic about this. In the sense of the
kinds of arguments you have to make at different times to achieve access and how
much a lot of the anti-affirmative action is literally about trying to shut down
diversity and to literally make sure certain people don’t get the benefits. I mean
it’s not anything more than that. And so, it is a war that you have to decide where
you stand. It’s not because people don’t know. No, it’s actually that people are
offended by the presence of difference in college campuses, whether it’s faculty
or staff or other students, and unwilling to look at privilege. I mean the case of
Bakke was about five slots of a hundred in law school. But five slots were also
reserved for the UC regents and it was all elite people that got in that way. And
you see it in elite universities all the time. I saw it in admissions all the time.
And you know, as soon as you spend any time there, you realize how unfair it is
and how profoundly self-destructive it is.
Sandy, equally reflective, talked about how her experiences at universities across the
country taught her more about the complicated nature of multiplicity. For Sandy, the
Black/White binary of the South served to highlight that the racial/ethnic multiplicity she
was familiar with actually masked the effects of structural racism.
Sandy: Going to the university in the South was an education for me on multiple
kinds of levels. I had always thought of myself as somebody who fought against
racism, including my own, but [my home state] is such a multicultural place that
the way in which you see race is in multiplicity. And I taught issues of race at
that time, and I realized when I got to the university in the South, all of a sudden
the world became two colors. [Coming from the West Coast] the real experience
85
of it is as pure multiplicity; there are just so many differences. When you see
something like the South, it’s a real education in how racism works, and in a way
it was astounding to me, because of the lessons that it taught about how forms of
difference coalesce to create injustices. And the ways in which multiplicity can
actually be kind of a cover up, in that the damning aspects of racism become more
invisible in the context of multiplicity.
Even with her sharp analysis of the world around her, Sandy holds on to a key belief she
developed as a young person, which she identifies as a gift.
Sandy: And the thing that was so striking for people that were there and I think
when I look at today’s generation, they have no conception of this. The real
belief that people could change the world. Once you get that, and you get that
relatively young, you still believe it. It’s not like you’re going to go, oh, you
really can’t do that anymore. And when I look at 18 to 22 year olds today, as
much as many of them would want to be activists, any notion that they could
change the world beyond the three people they know is not there. I haven’t seen
that. So I think that was a great gift.
William is very cognizant of the privileges of his own background. He is aware that his
class, race, and cultural background offered him a different set of life opportunities than
many others.
William: Well, I think my cultural background and my racial background, on one
level gave me a sense of confidence, in the sense that I never was intimidated by
anybody. On another level, I realized that I was in the lucky sperm club. (laughs)
And you know a lot of people weren’t so lucky. So it became important to me to
make sure that people who weren’t quite as fortunate as I had opportunities.
He also offered his belief about engagement, change, and imagination. William,
unconsciously mimicking a critique offered by Meyerson and Tompkins (2007), notes
that most people believe that only the margins can be changed – that systemic change is
nearly impossible. He finds that type of thinking flawed.
William: And so that’s the hard thing for people to understand, that politics isn’t
just something that comes once every four years. It’s a continuous pursuit
towards a better world. But the problem is that a lot of people, this is kind of
what I call establishment thinking, a lot of people just think the world that we live
86
in is the world we are going to have to live in. And that you can only change the
edges. So that leads to a great failure of imagination.
William’s observation on “a continuous pursuit towards a better world” is echoed in
almost all of the subject’s musings and patterns of belief.
While wide-ranging, the unique beliefs and attributes of the subjects point to a
high level of reflectivity and reflexivity. The participants are reflective in that they
actively contemplate and examine their life, work, positionality, and relationships. They
have spent time thinking through beliefs, patterns of practice, and their own subjectivity.
Reflexivity refers to the bidirectional relationship between reflection and action. In the
case of our subjects, their reflectivity leads to greater recognition of their place within an
inequitable system and to further action against institutional hegemony. That action leads
to reflection, and the cycle continues.
In addition to reflectivity and reflexivity, key, shared belief systems that emerge
from my interviews include: asset orientation (not deficit-minded); a strong belief in the
value of education; a belief in creating community and giving back; living the worldview
in all contexts; and maintaining critical consciousness while embedded. When one
combines the shared attributes with the unique beliefs described above, one emerges with
a more holistic picture of the worldviews of these institutional/empowerment agents and
the beliefs that guide their work as agents of change.
Worldview Development Over the Lifespan
Aside from delving into the beliefs that shape the daily practice of the
participants, this study explored the development of those worldviews and belief systems
through a life history approach to draw out and better understand pivotal life experiences,
87
precipitating events, and key figures. Using this approach, I hoped to unearth the lived
experiences from the empowerment agent’s life history that have made central for them a
state of critical consciousness and a mindset centered on counter-stratification (Stanton-
Salazar, 2001). This section on worldview development will be comprised of four
analytical areas: defining life experiences in childhood; historic and personal
precipitating moments and events; key educational events; and external impact.
Defining Life Experiences in Childhood
Table 4 indicates the three primary domains that exemplify the defining life
experiences of the subjects: influence of parents in the development of beliefs; the
impact of neighborhoods and moving; and grappling with the complexity of identity.
Table 4
Defining Life Experiences in Childhood
Relationship Form Domains
Strict Inclusion X is a kind of Y 1. Influence of parents in belief development
2. Neighborhoods and moving
3. Grappling with identity complexity
Parental influence.
Five of the participants felt the strong influence of their parents in developing
their own worldview. Their stories reflected both a process of internalizing certain
messages and attitudes and occasionally contesting and rejecting parental beliefs in their
own developmental journey.
88
Isabella, Sandy, and William all offered mixed feelings about their parents’
beliefs and behaviors and had spent a significant amount of their lives grappling with and
contesting their parents’ legacies. For example, Isabella shared her extremely fraught
feelings about her parents that led to developing compassion and resilience, as well as a
lack of trust and dislike of entitlement.
Isabella: From my mother I inherited the idea that I don’t wait for things to
happen. I make them happen. And a little bit of – you really can’t trust anybody.
I learned, ironically from her, how to have compassion, because at times she was
the child and I was the parent. And yet with my mother, although it wasn’t a
picnic, I learned a lot of things. I am very fearless and I understand the
psychology behind people like her and I could be very forgiving.
Sandy both loved and respected her mother (especially her mother’s struggles with her
role as a 1950s, middle class housewife), but rejected her color-blind ideology as
problematic. Colorblindness is premised on the idea of not seeing race or color and is a
manifestation of classical liberalism (Bonilla-Silva, 2006).
Sandy: My mom had lots of strong women in her own heritage. My great-aunts
are in the first women meat packers union in [our home state], the first woman to
head the Bureau of [indigenous affairs]. My mom was also summa cum laude
from [a prestigious West Coast public university], and there she was, being a
housewife. Precisely that time where the problem…Yeah, exactly, The Feminine
Mystique. So I think she always felt robbed of that other opportunities. My mom
had also been raised in [a diverse, urban city] and her parents were racists, so she
was trying to do different with her own kids. It was colorblind ideology, which is
I think is pretty much the best you could do in [the late 1950s] without the help of
any ethnic studies program. And my mother would always tell us kids that we
were Heinz 57 Varieties, which was her way of doing colorblind ideology. It’s
that you can lay no claim to any particular ethnic identity. Which was kind of
cute, in retrospect, sort of sweet, but nonetheless useless to me.
William shared that his mother’s artistic worldview highly influenced him, as well as his
mother’s insistence on tolerance and fairness. But he took issue with his father’s
understanding of progress and justice.
89
William: My father believed in justice and in that sense, the law was important to
him. When he and I began to butt heads in the early ‘60s of the Civil Rights
Movement, it was more about his belief that you don’t change laws by having
civil rights demonstrations, you change laws by legislature. And so that became a
point of contention for us, because I embraced the Civil Rights Movement very
early on in the early ‘60s, and it became part of my identity, creed, whatever, and
I think I got into trouble with my father for that. My mother was very supportive.
Leroy and Peter, both children of immigrants, shared the positive impact of their parents’
influence on their beliefs, especially the values of accountability, education, sacrifice, and
risk-taking.
Leroy: They emphasized having appreciation for our cultural heritage, our
extended family, and understanding that we are accountable to one another and
we are responsible for success as a family unit. They also stressed education at
every turn and oftentimes, they sacrificed a lot to make sure that we had
educational opportunities. And not just any educational opportunities –
opportunities that they considered to be decent or above average for the early part
of my childhood.
Peter: My parents were never the kind that were very outward about race or
ethnicity, but they had a very strong sense of themselves, and a very strong sense
of being connected to [their homeland] and to our culture. I was really intrigued
by their willingness to have courage and to be brave about actually setting up life
in a new place. To me, that was a very important lesson that I learned about being
willing to risk something and of going away from home, going in environments
that are different. I think that was incredibly important. I realize that my parents
had always gone through this, connecting with people that had nothing to do with
their own background.
Peter’s current position in the institution, as a groundbreaker in terms of diversity goals
of the institution, can possibly be viewed as a direct outcome of observing his parents
take risks, connect with others, and pushing into unfamiliar environments.
Whether through a contentious process or a grounding in familial lessons, the
subjects were deeply impacted and influenced by their parents. As indicated earlier, the
reflective and reflexive natures of the subjects allow them to articulate the depth and
direction of the impact. From a very early age, the subjects, through processes of
90
contesting and accepting, were building a social justice mindset that permeates their
identities today. They were building characters based on compassion, questioning,
exploration, accountability to more than oneself, courage, and a valuing of education.
They were learning, through experience, to value risk-taking, building bridges, and to
challenge commonly accepted and widely held beliefs on justice, access, race, and
societal change.
Neighborhoods and moving.
Besides parental influence, the impact of neighborhoods and moving on the
worldview development of the subjects was also an area rich with information. Five of
the participants shared their experiences in this area. Leroy’s neighborhood, the epicenter
of the 1992 Civil Unrest, plays heavily into his identity and worldview development and
will be explored further in subsequent sections.
Isabella was uprooted from her native country at a young age to come to the
United States, and soon after she and her mother arrived, their visas expired. Isabella
recalls the feeling of just “surviving.”
Isabella: The United States had a new president. It was Ronald Reagan and the
immigration rights were really bad. During that time our visas had expired – they
were only three-month visas. And so, that was my introduction to a new culture.
It was just sort of surviving. I was very fortunate because when you’re that
young, you learn the language very quickly.
Within six months of their visas expiring, Isabella’s mother married a citizen and they
received legal immigrant status. But Isabella vividly remembers the period of being
without legal immigrant status and the havoc it played on her sense of safety and security.
Isabella: During that time I remember what it was like feeling like we had to
hide. Because you would see the INS green van driving around my
neighborhood, and that stayed with me in terms of how scary it was, especially for
91
a little child. And the irony was we lived in this Victorian home that was owned
by a [South American] guy and he was renting it to all undocumented people and
it was like one room for two hundred dollars a month. It was crazy at that time.
And across the street were the cops. It was a cop station and a fire station.
Everyday, we just always knew they were right there. And it was just kind of that
scary feeling.
Isabella’s transnational, undocumented experience is very different from Logan’s rooted
knowledge of neighborhoods and communities. In contrast to Isabella, Logan’s family
has been in the United States for multiple generations. His family raised him and his
siblings in well-established, multi-racial neighborhoods on the West Coast. Logan was
deeply impacted by the experience of growing up in a multi-racial neighborhood with
strong social networks. Those experiences shaped his view of ideal neighborhoods and
communities.
Logan: My family moved to [an urban center on the West Coast] where they
lived in a mixed income, multi-racial community. This neighborhood, a hundred
years ago, was a fairly affluent Jewish American community. But there have
always been immigrants there and groups of people of color. And then my family
moved to [more suburban] neighborhoods, where I finished from elementary
school to high school. Growing up in the [urban] neighborhood, even as a young
kid I remember the gangs over there – so that was an issue that they had always
been dealing with, the issues of gang activity. But at the same time, it’s always
been a community with well-established residents. So it was a neighborhood in
the sense that there were strong social networks, and we were very close to our
neighbors. I can’t underplay the impact of growing up in these multi-racial
communities. They were both multi-racial. And so that’s how I thought the
world was and should be.
Sandy acknowledged her neighborhood’s impact in a humorous way.
Sandy: I was raised in an urban part of [the West Coast], so diversity is
everywhere. My first boyfriend is Chinese; I’m trying to figure out Catholicism
and Judaism by the time I’m ten.
Peter spoke extensively about how living in particular sets of neighborhoods shaped his
understanding of the world around him. His knowledge of himself as a politicized racial
92
minority is directly tied to interactions with Mexican Americans and African Americans,
as well as living through complex and tumultuous historical moments.
Peter: I clearly see myself as [a member of a politically active American ethnic
group], which to me means [a similar ethnic group] with some politics. That is
critical. I think the other aspect is that mostly because of growing up in [an urban
city], a lot of my early cultural memories are also tied to African Americans. So
where I grew up, the interaction was often with Mexican Americans and African
Americans in the ‘60s and ‘70s. When my parents moved to [the heart of the
urban center], this was a changing neighborhood in which we were in a minority
among primarily African Americans. We lived through [a neighborhood riot] in
this area; we lived through all this. It’s one of the most tumultuous times in
[urban] history in that area in particular.
When Peter is in his early teens, his family moves from the urban metro to a nearby
suburban neighborhood. He experiences a dramatic shift from the racially and ethnically
diverse neighborhood of his early youth to an almost entirely Anglo neighborhood, that
then experiences a White exodus and the influx of one predominant ethnic group. It is
due to this move that Peter becomes more aware of racial difference.
Peter: When I was going into junior high, my parents moved. I think we were at
that point one of the first [families of color] on an almost all Anglo block. I think
that happens right at the end of that period (age 12/13), and I think it really does
impact me. I think it provides certain kinds of opportunity. But it also kind of
makes me much more aware of racial difference, because all of a sudden we are in
a mostly white area. In my new neighborhood, I go to Catholic junior high and
Catholic high school, mostly a football school. It’s right in that time of the mix,
so when I was a senior, my younger brother was a freshman. My class is about
70% White, his class is about 70% [one specific ethnic group], so that is how
quick the transition was in the mid-1970s.
The immense demographic shifts that Peter experienced, moving from the urban city to
shifting suburbs, play out in the context of the school environment where he, for the first
time, had to negotiate major class and race differences.
Peter: Learning how to negotiate these differences including with Whites, the
difference between kids that lived in [low income, urban neighborhoods] to
people who lived in [middle class suburbs]. The parochial school ranged a much
93
broader terrain, and so we had kids with all different kinds of class backgrounds,
in addition to the differences racially. So I think that was very important, learning
to maneuver around pretty stark differences.
Neighborhood interactions and reflection provided opportunities, sometimes scary (as in
Isabella’s case) and sometimes growth-oriented. These neighborhood particularities and
the impact of moving clearly impacted the subjects’ understanding of themselves in
context. Learning and living in multi-racial contexts, wrestling with the fear of being
without legal immigrant status, and navigating terrains of racial and class difference are
all formative experiences in the development of the worldviews of the subjects.
Grappling with identity.
Finally, in terms of defining childhood life experiences, all six agents shared how
they had wrestled with the complexity of identity development through their formative
years. For all the subjects, this set of experiences has shaped so much of who they are,
how they look at and interact with the world, and how they question systems and
structures around them. Isabella and Leroy, for example, both detailed the relationship of
their ethnicities to their races and to their feelings of perception and treatment. Isabella
struggled with societal and internalized stigmas against an American ethnic group she
physically resembled, finally coming to peace by claiming a pan-ethnic identity for
herself.
Isabella: After many moves, we finally moved to [an urban center on the West
Coast]. So it was in here that I really got my experience in terms of being in a
[homogeneous ethnic community]. And I wasn’t [of the same ethnic group as the
community] and it was always, should I let people know? Because then you were
identified? And the undocumented kids were called the [specific derogatory
term] and it was like everybody had a little clique within it. When I learned
English, they (teachers) would correct me. “That’s not how you say it,” or “Don’t
sound like a [person from that ethnic group].” So for a long time, I said I am not
[of that ethnic group]; I am [from elsewhere]. It sounded more exotic. I
94
remember [at a young age], when we were in San Diego. And I said I was [from
the more exotic country] and there was a [student from the marginalized ethnic
group] who said, “You think the White people look at you differently because
you’re from [exotic country]? You look just like us.” And that’s when I
remembered thinking, what am I doing? It’s silly, because I am [that ethnic
group] to White people. I like the [pan-ethnic identity] because it leaves me
without a country, but it leaves me with my ethnic background, which is very
different now in the United States.
Leroy shares the specificity of growing up in a household that was centered on the
family’s culture of origin, as well as his parents’ emphasis on the difference between
being of immigrant descent (valued) and being perceived as of the racial minority in the
United States (stigmatized). Similar to Isabella, the question of perception by others
directly impacts both his lived experience, as well as the race by which Leroy has come
to identify himself.
Leroy: My parents were very specific about our [culture of origin] identity –
knowing where we come from, having appreciation for our cultural heritage, our
extended family. Very much also understanding that we are not [a specific
American racial group]. We may appear to be [of that specific American racial
group], but we are different. I think they wanted to us to clearly understand that.
And for them it meant being willing to work hard to achieve high expectations. I
think that if you talk to anybody [from their country of origin] your education is
part of your culture, so education was something that was always emphasized
growing up, even though their credentials didn’t transfer over here. But, and
here’s the complexity, when you see me, I present as a [man of the specific
American racial group]. For all intents and purposes with those that I interact
with, they see me as a [racialized] man, as an [American racial minority], this
world sees me as [an American man of color]. So I identify with that experience
because it very much has been my lived experience.
Leroy continues by discussing how his racial identity has not only been a factor in the
opportunities he received, but also in his practice of “paying it forward.” Leroy was able
to take advantage of race-specific academic achievement programs through which he met
important institutional agents. Those programs and mentors play a major role in how
95
Leroy sees his current work and how he demonstrates his gratefulness to those who
encouraged him.
Leroy: I think race has certainly been a factor in the opportunities that I was
afforded as a student. I went to magnet schools. I was oftentimes bussed to
suburban communities to go to school and consequently, I was always one of few
[underrepresented students of color]. I was given the opportunity to take honors
courses and then to take AP courses, but again, I was always one of two
[underrepresented] people in those classes. I was able to participate in our
targeted academic enrichment program that provided supplemental academic
support. I was able to participate in that program because I was an
[underrepresented minority] male. Through that I met other counselors who
helped me get access to our special programs and opportunities that I think
ultimately helped me advance in the school system. And so, I think that informs
my work today because I am always trying to be there for the students that I work
with. Trying to encourage them and create opportunities for them to take
advantage of programs and services that they may not be aware of, or that they
may not think that they can see themselves in, but being that person to encourage
them to step out on faith and give it a try. Making sure they at least have the
opportunity to participate, which I think is really important because many people
did that for me on my way on up.
Logan’s experiences with educational and opportunity inequity within his own family, as
well as his family’s financial difficulties, played a large role in his development. Logan’s
mother received very little education, while his father experienced racial difficulties
while serving in the US Army during the Korean War. His father’s eventual layoff from
a car dealership and a downturn in family finances pushed Leroy toward greater self-
sufficiency.
Logan: My mother dropped out of intermediate school to work, to help support
the family. My father fought in the US Army during the Korean War. My dad
actually said very little about the war. And my mother tell us that for him it was
tough because there were times when all these young (American) soldiers were so
scared that they were ready to shoot at him. And so he had to swear in English.
That was the way to prove that he was an American, because Koreans, even if
they spoke English, they couldn’t swear without an accent. Eventually, he was a
manager at [a major car dealership]. But then they had a change in management,
and the person that hired my father was fired, and so my father was laid off, too.
So I think that had a big impact on him. Here he had this job, a lot of
96
responsibility with good pay and then he was laid off. And then he tried to start
another business, but that lost money. My first year of college, my father paid for
all of it. But after he got laid off and everything, I wanted to do it myself. So, I
worked my way through college.
Besides serious conflicts with his father over values and career paths, William struggled
with feeling like an outsider, in his hometown and then in boarding school. Although
leading to an increased sense of empathy with other outsiders, William’s childhood and
early teen experiences were painful for him.
William: I felt a little bit of an outsider in the sense that I wasn’t an athletic star,
which was the one thing that was important in [the Midwest] in the ‘50s – athletic
prowess. I was much more interested in academics and reading and that wasn’t
very highly prized in that atmosphere. When I went to boarding school, I felt
very lost. In the east, I felt very lost, because I came from a very different culture.
I came from this kind of [Midwestern] “okey-doke,” and the whole notions of
sarcasm and eastern prep school culture, capturing the right stuff, just went right
over my head. I came in a year later than most of my classmates, so again I was
in the out-group.
William added there was immense pressure on him from his father to follow a certain
path (elite university, prestigious law school, practice law with father), but that when his
father died, “I could be whatever I wanted to be.” Subsequent sections of this chapter
will explore William’s increasing involvement with the folk music scene – an
involvement that changed the course of his life.
Sandy’s defining youthful experiences grounded her as someone invested in
questions around inequity and injustice, from her childhood understanding of diversity to
her early activism to her notion of class security. Sandy explains that she grew up in a
neighborhood that was primarily Black, Asian, and White, and at home, her father was
struggling with trying to escape his roots in poverty.
Sandy: By the time I’m in primary school, I’m interested in those kind of
questions of diversity, so I’m asking my parents, what is my identity? Well, here
97
is my father pretending like he has no identity. Because his own upbringing is so
horrible that he can’t even speak of it. My dad, dirt poor, actually, so working
class isn’t the right description. He grows up in [a rural part of the West Coast],
farmers, dirt poor, abusive family, and he gets out of there. So he has spent his
whole life trying to live that down. Then he becomes an engineer in World War
II, comes back, builds dams [on the West Coast]. And then moves into being a
water executive, in which he was always a guy out of his own shoes. He feels he
doesn’t really belong with those guys. And so, class issues, I’m trying to figure
out. I wouldn’t have had language of talking about them in terms of class at the
time, but unfair, inequality.
Sandy’s early understanding of how her father’s background had shaped his worldview
lead her to take action on issues that matter to her from a young age.
Sandy: So justice issues are really high on my list from the time I’m a little kid.
And then, of course, like so many faculty of my generation, then it’s the Vietnam
War. So, I’m not full grown, but by the time I’m in junior high school it is
everywhere. There was a walkout the day they bombed Cambodia – I mean there
is nobody there, you are just bombing civilians. So, there was a walkout on
campuses across the nation, and so there I was imagining all my fellow students
would be joining me in seventh grade, and I walked out. I walked out of the
classroom and sat on the lawn. I turned out to be the only person who engaged in
the walkout in my junior high school.
Sandy articulates her own nuanced understanding of her class privilege based on her
upbringing. In addition, she provides key distinctions between the power of middle class
security and working class insecurity.
Sandy: It was privileged. I grew up solidly in the middle class. And the way in
which that gives you a sense of security, there is no way to underestimate it. My
husband is working class and there are a thousand things in daily life where I
recognize that he feels the sense of insecurity. That somehow, everything can
topple and the next thing you know you will be on food stamps. For middle class
people, once it’s in you, you get to imagine security, get to start from a place of
security, and then move from there. And when you start from a place of
insecurity, it can distort a thousand different things.
All the participants shared the experience of wrestling with the complexities of their
identity development in the contexts of self, home, neighborhood, and academic milieu.
Those experiences led to self-definition, beliefs about how to live in the world, and
98
deeper understandings of oppression, privilege, and the need to engage. Parental
influence in belief development, the impact of neighborhoods and moving, and the
outcomes of grappling with identity formation comprised the three major areas of
defining childhood life experiences. The precipitating events detailed in the next section,
focused on historic and personal precipitating moments and events, complement these
findings.
The events of the formative years detailed in the prior section helped set the
incipient framing of a social justice mindset. Likewise, combining the experience of
specific historic and personal life events helped to crystallize an ideological stance
centered on counter-stratification and equity. Table 5 lists the two primary domains
covered in this section.
Historic and Personal Precipitating Events
Table 5
Historic and Personal Precipitating Moments and Events
Relationship Form Domains
Cause-Effect X is a cause of Y 1. Precipitating historic events
2. Precipitating personal events
Precipitating historic events.
The six subjects, ranging in age from early 30s through mid-60s, have
experienced a wide spectrum of historic moments in their lifetimes. Similar to their
defining childhood experiences, it is the reflection the participants have engaged in over
99
the lifespan that gives weight to their experiences and their reflexivity that changes them
into the institutional/empowerment agents they are today.
Isabella related her feelings when her block went up in flames during the 1992
Los Angeles Civil Unrest. She was pregnant and in high school. She remembers
working on a creative writing piece in which she juxtaposed the images of Reginald
Denny and Rodney King.
Isabella: I was in high school and I was graduating that year and I was having a
baby and I just felt like, oh God, what have I done, who am I bringing to this
world? I mean, we had never seen [the urban center] the way it turned – that was
in April ‘92 of the riots and I had [my child] in May. Who had the power?
(speaking of the power differential in the Denny and King beatings). So that kind
of stayed, in terms of consciousness and creating my context of the human being
that I was becoming, the adult that I was becoming. There is so much work to be
done and I had this almost missionary spirit in me.
Leroy also shared the impact of the killing of Latasha Harlins, the beating of Rodney
King, and the conflagration that surrounded his neighborhood.
Leroy: Here you have this life, a young girl who has gone will never come back.
What’s her life worth – a bottle of juice? And him (Leroy’s father) explaining –
this is another example of how the legal system doesn’t appreciate our value or
disadvantages [racial minorities]. And even at that time, I still didn’t really get it
because I was a kid.
Leroy couldn’t understand what he was seeing when he first saw the videos of the
Rodney King beating on the television. And he could not have prepared himself for the
violence in the streets of his own neighborhood. But it was witnessing the violence first
hand, and seeing the impact on his community, that helped Leroy form his nascent
critical worldview regarding race and ethnicity.
Leroy: We stayed up, watching the news and you could hear the unrest from our
house. You could hear it, and it was watching that entire situation unfold, that’s
when I really realized, like, “Wow, things aren’t just.” That’s when I got my first
taste, if you will, of what I consider to be institutionalized racism at work and saw
100
first hand the anger, the frustration, the effects of it and the direct effect on our
community. The riots went on for about a week or so, being at home, not being
able to go to the grocery store, go anywhere, seeing National Guard trucks on
your corner, then all the burnt down stores. I think for me that’s when the whole
issue of race became an issue or my racialized view of the world was developed.
I always knew what race was, but for me that’s what was really telling, in that
people are treated differently based on their race and ethnicity.
Leroy enrolls in a prestigious West Coast university the year the state’s anti-affirmative
action measure passed. The measure prohibited the statewide university system from
using race, gender, or ethnicity as factors in admissions. But the measure also
represented a rolling back of multiple decades of affirmative action policies addressing
discrimination against women and minorities.
Leroy: And again, it’s just like, wow, why would anyone want to take away
peoples’ opportunity or a mechanism that tried to provide opportunities for people
in communities who clearly have been disadvantaged? Why would anyone want
to take that away? What does that mean? I think for me again it solidified that
there are larger forces at play here. I went from being very passive about these
issues to being upset about them.
For Leroy, the injustice of the anti-affirmative action measure sparked his activist
mindset and helped to form his ideology about race and equity, as well as his ability to
vocalize his positions on key systemic issues around access. Leroy notes that as difficult
as the experience was, he counts his involvement in counter-stratification as a student as
life training.
Leroy: I’d have to say it was the rallies against [the measure] when I was an
undergraduate student. For me, I think that’s when reality struck, that nothing is
going to be handed to me or, not only to me, but to people from low-income
backgrounds, underserved communities, that it’s a constant fight to have a place
at the table. And despite how much we think we’ve progressed as a society, the
moment that fight stops we take steps backwards. And for me, it was like the
culmination of the things that I had learned in the classroom to real life. And so I
think that those experiences really solidified for me my racial and political
ideology. It makes you really think about where do you stand, and not only where
do you stand, but how do explain why you stand there and why that’s important to
101
you. And I think that was really a very valuable experience, as traumatic as it was
as I was going through it, and as frustrating as it was going through it. It was
absolutely critical and invaluable. It was on the ground training.
Logan explains that attending the selective public university on the West Coast was
formative for him because of the events surrounding his college years, which led to him
to apply for and receive conscientious objector status, not an easy task at any time period,
and particularly difficult during a time of draft.
Logan: And so going to the [this particular campus] was formative – Watergate
was happening, the Vietnam War was going on, the US military was going into
other countries besides Vietnam secretly and illegally. And so even though I was
aware of Watergate in high school, I think it was in college where I became much
more aware of that. And then I turned eighteen the summer before college, and so
I got my draft number which was a very low number, but because the US was
winding down, they stopped drafting people, otherwise I would have been drafted.
Sandy also attended college during this period of historic upheaval and explains that the
antiwar movement, the bombing of Cambodia, feminism, Marxism, criminal justice
work, and the Black Power movement deeply affected her.
Sandy: I still think that the 60’s can be divided up into the so-called free love
movement and then the politicos. The politicos were all anti-war activists. It was
the politicos that I wanted to emulate.
William, too, was profoundly touched and affected by the movements and moments of
the 1960s, especially in terms of creating a new and different America. For William, the
Kennedy administration represented the ideals that William had come to cherish –
inclusivity, racial progress, and openness.
William: The 1960 election of John F. Kennedy versus Richard Nixon was
pivotal for me, because he was the first political figure that I could identify with.
I mean I really had a tough time identifying with Eisenhower, who was the
president when I was a kid. And Kennedy, his whole pitch was that this is the
new generation, America was changing, America had to be more racially
inclusive, and America had to be more open. And he reached out to Martin
102
Luther King and just everything. It just seemed like a big shift, so I would say
that is probably the most important thing that happened.
William’s experiences at college, similar to Sandy and Logan’s, were surrounded by the
political drama of the time. He was surrounded by the tumultuousness and injustice of
the time period and was close friends with those trying to push progressive social change.
William: Bobby (Robert F. Kennedy) was killed, that was one of the big
incidents. But things like the Cambodian bombing…I mean there was constant
strife on campus, constant strife, always. The factions of the Students for a
Democratic Society fighting the ROTC. There was revolution in the air; it was
constantly having a sense of protest against the university. And my campus had a
[an institute], a kind of think tank which turned out to have been exploring how to
make napalm more effective. I mean that kind of bullshit. One of my best friends
at [his university] was both the president of SDS and became president of our
class, too, which shows you how the revolution had become part of everything. I
mean ‘68 was pretty much all year, just insanity, Martin Luther King was killed,
Bobby was killed, there was Kent state.
William found a way to make sense of the constant strife around him through his
involvement in the folk music and counterculture scene. He found mentors in these
unusual circumstances that further helped him define his social justice identity.
William: Bob Dylan was definitely on the side of the Civil Rights Movement.
He helped define my identity of what was important and what was not important.
I mean the notion was that you could speak truth to power, and quite honestly, it
also said that my generation, the young generation, had just as much right to be
heard as the older people, you know “the times they are a-changing, come
mothers and fathers, you have got to listen to your kids,” and that was something
that, by this time, when I was fighting with my father tooth and nail about
politics…I just felt like nobody understood me, except Bob Dylan understood me.
It was in that historical moment of music and creativity that William defined his
understanding of inclusivity in a stratified society.
William: Well, it was an extraordinarily inclusive world, there was no class or
race within our world; in other words, everybody was in. We were on the side of
all the underrepresented, the underprivileged, the under everything. So having a
deep sense of solidarity, while on the other hand, a very powerful awareness of
what a [expletive] up society it was too.
103
Peter presents his own take on the impact of the 1960s on his consciousness. In
particular, Peter highlights the influence of the Reagan years on his ability to vocally
challenge structural inequity. He shares that he is not shocked by conservatism because
of the time period in which he came to adulthood. In fact, he feels that coming to
consciousness in that specific political environment helped him to hone the skills to
challenge the Right directly.
Peter: Well, a big thing for me was Reagan becoming President and it was
important because nobody thought that this clown is ever going to be elected
President. And then when he got elected, all these people said I don’t believe it. I
realized a couple of things. One, I realized that – I want to say profoundly that
the ‘60s are dead, but it’s not really that. It’s that, I was not of the ‘60s generation
and most people in [Ethnic] Studies think they are, even if they really weren’t.
The ‘60s were not that critical in my own formation, I don’t go back to all of the
“wonderful time of ‘68 and everything else has gone downhill.” I am much more
a product in some ways of the Reagan think. And what I mean by that is that
living with incredible conservatism and profound clashes, I’m willing to talk
straight up about White racism, about privilege, about students with privilege. I
was never one of these faculty members that was shocked by how conservative
students are at The University or anywhere else. Or colleagues, for that matter!
To me, it’s really important to engage the Right very directly. So, for me I think
that’s a big difference in the way that I go about my own work.
Peter also notes that the ’92 Civil Unrest has played a major role in shaping his academic
work.
Peter: Clearly, I think one of the most influential things that happen later for me
is the riots in ‘92. It’s shaped a whole bunch of my research since then. I think
it’s profound in terms of Los Angeles and the work on Los Angeles, and it’s been
a driving force in a lot of the ways I think about interracial relations.
It is evident that all of the participants were shaped and transformed by their experiences
during specific historical periods and moments. Equally, if not more important, is their
reflection over the lifespan regarding the impact of historical events on their own
consciousness and development. In a similar fashion, the subjects have been formed in a
104
cauldron of their own personal life events that sparked growth and the formation of
ideological patterns of belief and behavior.
Precipitating personal events.
A few years after coming to the United States, Isabella’s mother moves them back
to their country of origin for a year. Isabella has slowly acculturated, lost her accent, her
Barbies don’t speak her native language anymore, and she feels uprooted all over again.
She finds a church community because she needs a community and learns about the
power of social service.
Isabella: I remember one of the sisters there said, “You know, we are not just
teaching them about God, we’re teaching them how to read, we’re trying to raise
funds for them so that they can build their homes.” I mean some of these people,
they lived in little shacks by the beach and it was such a different way of looking
at spirituality. So the kids, out of the year, maybe they would have two, three
months of school – so no one really learned how to read, so you kept people poor
and ignorant. And this one particular sister, she was just such an activist and she
just was so committed and she basically was a teacher, and it stayed with me. So
that changed my perspective, and that was my introduction to community service.
And it still has a soft spot in my life because the religion was one piece because it
was hope, but we actually left them with tools. And to be a part of that, for me it
just felt so good and I wanted my life to be about that.
Isabella also shared how difficult the experience of being a pregnant teenager was and the
ultimate strength she derives from her relationship to her child and to the world around
her. Isabella has experienced the pain of rejection from those whose opinion she values.
But her view of herself and her inner sense of self-worth grows upon the birth of her
child.
Isabella: You know, it wasn’t the smartest thing, but in so many ways my child
saved my life. I wanted to get pregnant. [My child] was something of mine that
wasn’t going to leave and a lot of young women would do that. So that event was
very transformative because when I became a mother, it was like the lioness came
out and it was sort of everything my mother had taught me about how no one is
105
going to step on me and no one is going to tell me I can’t do this. All that kicked
in immediately.
Sandy also reflects on the power of that which is in your own home as a factor in
worldview development. In Sandy’s case, her first hand experience with disability helps
her to develop a finely tuned sense of empathy.
Sandy: I think my [sibling] going bananas, really, my [sibling] going nuts as a
kid was probably the most significant life event for me at that point. I also had a
[sibling] who was diagnosed as mentally retarded. And my father, he was pretty
pissed about this. So for me, that experience with disability probably heightened
my sense of injustice and fairness, as well as the importance of empathy.
William and Logan both revealed the impact of leaving home on their consciousness.
For William, leaving home meant leaving the conservatism of the Midwest to enter the
more liberal environment of the east coast.
William: I went away to school in [the early sixties], to boarding school in the
east, and that exposed me to a lot more influences that were much more liberal,
[the city] being at that time the center of the early folk music movement. And it
was by entering into that world of folk music that I think I found myself.
For Logan, leaving home to go to college had less impact than backpacking through
Europe. It was there that his assimilationist viewpoint underwent a critical
transformation. Logan makes his first major conclusions about race, perception, and
unequal treatment.
Logan: (Speaking of college) Although I never did join any [specific student of
color groups] there, because I had this more traditional view of assimilation. I
never took any [ethnic studies classes focused on his racial community] at my
campus either. Although I did I take some Native American studies classes! After
I graduated, I went home, worked for number of months as a bartender, saved up
some money, and I went to Europe. And I still had this kind of assimilation
viewpoint. But then in Europe, I remember all of these train rides. Say I ran into
other Americans, White Americans sitting there in the train. So sitting in the train
and talking for hours and then, you know, that typical question, here we are sitting
in the train talking for hours, these White Americans would ask me, "Where are
you from, oh, where did you learn English?" In their minds they couldn’t imagine
106
that I was an American. And then it became clearer and clearer to me how much
race mattered in the way that people perceived you.
In terms of key personal moments that engendered a shift in consciousness, Peter also
ruminated on the issue of how people perceived him and his abilities. Peter recounts
experiencing stereotyping from an authority figure for the first time and how that
experience gave him a self-confidence to push back against racism.
Peter: Around age 16, I have been elected student body president and I make a
decision that I am not going to play [sports] anymore. So, the coach tells me
essentially I would never make anything of myself, because you are not going to
get into college, etcetera. I am pissed, but I am also made aware, that why he is
telling me this is because I am [a person of color]. You know, I don’t think he
would have told a White kid this. It’s the first time I am really dealing with
people who have got me in a box about being [a person of color]. The coach
couldn’t care less about what my grades are, what other things I’m doing, he just
has the sense that the only way this kid is going to make it is that he plays
[sports], and then somebody gives him a scholarship because he plays [sports]. It
both provided first hand experience with what I was interpreting, and I didn’t
have the words at that point, but a real racism, but secondly also willingness to
stand up against a pressure that I clearly felt. It all seemed to me to center around
not just [athletics], but also around race, so I think it left a really deep impression
and also it gave me a self-confidence that I otherwise wouldn’t have had.
Peter experienced a key breakthrough in college when he realized that his two worlds –
lived experience and academia – could meet in a productive fashion.
Peter: I had to learn that some of the stuff that I had experienced in my own life
could be applied to social theory and I didn’t know that before. It made me
realize that there was a connection between theory and grand ideas and literally
what I was living through. The fact that I could actually analyze my father’s site
of employment and talk about the race and class implications of it and that would
be important as filling a gap that was in the existing literature gave me this
profound sense of power. I think in being willing to act as a bridge intellectually
between these two worlds that I knew. One that came from a much more
academic world of theory and knowledge production, which tended to leave
people like me out, and then the world that I actually knew, and that I could have
a career of making those bridges work.
107
From childhood through college, from inside the home to Europe, the subjects’
experiences with key precipitating, personal life events helped shape them into the
faculty and staff they are today – reflective, engaged with and for the community,
empathetic, and with a strong sense that race and injustice matter deeply. The next
analytical area serves to illuminate precipitating educational events that were formative
for practitioners who would eventually devote themselves to the fields of education and
access.
Precipitating Educational Events
Table 6 houses the two primary domains in this section: precipitating school (K-
12) events and precipitating college and/or graduate school events.
Table 6
Key Educational Events
Relationship Form Domains
Strict Inclusion X is a kind of Y 1. Precipitating school (K-12) events
2. Precipitating college/graduate school events
The experiences of the subjects in the K-12 educational milieu include some
thought-provoking moments, some painful moments, and some transformative moments.
Subjects develop heightened senses of empathy or learned the value of allies and mentors
in stratified contexts. These moments form the basis for the reflection and learning the
subjects are able to engage in when experiencing key precipitating college and/or
graduate school events.
108
Precipitating school-based events.
Isabella learns what it feels like to experience the disappointment of her teachers
and mentors when they discover she is pregnant. Although emotionally and
psychologically distressing, she describes this time period as centrally important in her
own understanding of empathy and support for students.
Isabella: I tried to go back to school and the teachers were just so mean, the
disdain they had, “You’ve ruined your life,” and it was really hard. That was the
one place I always excelled and I had teachers just so disappointed in me and I
felt like I was a complete failure. Probably what was even harder was walking
around campus with a nine-month old belly. I remember at one point, one teacher
looked at me, and he said, “I can’t even look at you because I get so disgusted
every time I see you,” and I’m nine months pregnant. I remember sitting there – I
was sitting on the floor waiting for him to open the class and I just sat out there
and just cried. People can be so cruel when you’re down.
Logan shared childhood memories of a general unawareness of race, ethnicity, or
differential treatment. But he explores his growing race awareness in a neighborhood
community without a strict racial hierarchy.
Logan: I don’t think we ever thought about race or ethnicity back then. We were
just kids in the neighborhood. But I think as I got older, I became more aware in
intermediate school in the [suburban community]. I remember in the first week of
school, my teacher is walking ahead of me, she didn’t see me behind her, and she
was talking with some other teacher and the other teacher was saying, "How are
your students?" She goes, "Oh, I think I have a good group, I got a couple of
Oriental kids, and they are always good." And I think I began to be more aware of
race then.
In the previous section, Leroy explained the importance of targeted academic enrichment
programs on his growth and ability to succeed in the academic realm. He also credits his
mother with pushing his school administrators to allow Leroy to access honors and AP
classes. He knew the value of an ally in the school setting from a very early age.
Leroy: How I got into honors classes and had the opportunity to take AP courses
when I was in high school was because my mother particularly really, really was
109
aggressive in her efforts for us to have those opportunities. Because initially I
wasn’t given those opportunities. As a result of her hard work and belief in me, I
was given the opportunity to take honors courses and then start to take AP
courses.
Peter also had an incredible mentor and ally in his school environment – his student
organization advisor (who will also figure into the next section on institutional agent
impact). The advisor modeled for Peter certain forms of counter-institutional actions.
Peter’s school-based activism teaches him about labor organizing and institutional
racism.
Peter: [The student organization advisor] was very important. It’s about a high
school teacher having real faith in you, and actually someone who you get to
know, because you are working together closely, because of the student
government. [The advisor] was a labor organizer, and when I was in high school,
the teachers who are working for the archdiocese went on strike, and he was the
chief labor organizer of that group. So, I end up being an organizer of the
students in support of the teachers, but we have to do that undercover, because we
know the archdiocese is not going to support this. So we end up meeting with a
lot of other kids in parochial schools all over the archdiocese, mostly downtown.
And we actually meet with the archbishop at that time who essentially tells us that
he is going to shut down all the schools in [in urban neighborhoods], because the
teachers are just a problem anyway. It’s a real incredible example of the
institutional racism out of the [religious institution]; you see it right up front. But
you can see how the relationship between me and [my advisor] was very strong
and very influential, obviously in my life, and in a lot of different levels,
including religion. I could never be [of that religion] after that.
While Peter related the profound impact his advisor had on his ability to mobilize and
take action, William shared an equally important incident of pushing against
institutionalized forces that changed his life. Challenging the segregation and injustice in
his boarding school was life-changing, in William’s recollections.
William: I got on the school newspaper and became the managing editor of the
school-led newspaper. It was in the midst of the Civil Rights Movement, 1963,
1964, and I was at this all-White boys boarding school, and I said that it should be
integrated. This caused no manner of big problems, just horrendous nightmares.
I mean, not just alumni and other masters and other students, but everything, it
110
just caused a huge ruckus. But I stood my ground, and I managed to get a famous
[elite university] chaplain to come speak about the Civil Rights Movement and it
was a really powerful speech. He somehow won over some people to my side,
and then it became a few of us rebels and then there was everybody else. And
eventually I won quite a bit of respect from that, and at the end when I graduated I
was given a prize for courage, and so I felt vindicated. And then from there, you
know my life changed radically because I felt I had done something, I had stood
up for myself and then, and in the end the school did integrate.
The school-based incidents detailed above prove formative for the types of actions the
practitioners engaged during their college and graduate school years. More importantly,
the precipitating K-12 events taught the subjects the value of allies and mentors, placed a
critical lens on bias, prejudice, and structural racism, and fomented a philosophy that
required taking action against institutional barriers to justice.
Precipitating college/graduate school events.
The experiences shared by subjects impact their beliefs and practice to this day.
For example, Isabella spoke frankly about her personal and deep understanding of the
first generation college student experience. While in college, the Alumni of Color
Scholarship Association hired her as a work-study student. This becomes a site of
inspiration for her because she is meeting people from her community who are movers
and shakers in multiple spheres.
Isabella: Through the ACSA, the kind of alumni I met at 20 years old – I was
meeting the people that were talking about changing the world and making an
impact. And not just for their families. I had never heard of people talking this
way and that was really powerful.
Sandy was equally impressed by the people she met when she arrived on campus as an
undergraduate student. Meeting and working with Marxists and other activists leads to
major career and life trajectory changes, including developing a belief in the
sustainability of activism.
111
Sandy: So, I’m still going to be an engineer, right? Being cognizant of the fact
that there are no women engineers, I’m going to be an engineer. And I get to my
progressive [West Coast] campus and get involved. And then, I meet the people
who are teaching Marxism at my campus. So, it’s the activists and Marxists that I
meet. I’m like, screw being an engineer, forget that shit, I’m doing this. And
seeing and meeting for the first time older activists. So, people are in their ‘50s
and ‘60s that are still activists. I think that really matters. You can see that you
can actually keep on doing it. So, all that stuff counts.
She continues by explaining that the feeling on campus at the time was infectious and a
feeling that she carries with her to this day.
Sandy: It was the right atmosphere. At that time on campus, it is the atmosphere
of excitement and a sense that young people can change the world, which many of
us still think. It still has to happen on college campuses. This is the place it has
to happen. Sometimes I feel like it’s the only place it can happen.
In many ways, Leroy also found himself and his future direction during his college years.
The agitations against the anti-affirmative action measure, as well as his choice of majors
and academic exploration, significantly impacted him. Leroy not only developed a
keener, more nuanced race consciousness, but found the aspect of reclamation of a lost
history through Ethnic Studies highly therapeutic.
Leroy: I think that’s one of the reasons why I became an Ethnic Studies major as
an undergraduate student. It provided me an outlet, it provided me an opportunity
to deal with a lot of that anger and frustration and just reclaim a lot of the lost
education I feel like I missed during grade school. It provided me a space; it
provided me an opportunity to discuss with others who also valued this culture, its
origins, its history, its relevance to today’s life, and its contributions to Western
society and to our society as a whole. And I found that was very, very much
missing from my previous educational experiences, so I think through pursuing
Social Science and Ethnic Studies majors I was able to draw connections between
my cultural background and the way that society works, or the way background,
cultural, race, or ethnic background, impacts your position in society. So while it
was also getting an education in many regards, I think it was very therapeutic, as
well, for me.
112
He continued by explaining how Ethnic Studies was pivotal in his understanding of
oppression, particularly in his ability to understand personal experiences or particular
moments in history as part of a larger story of systemic and structural racism.
Leroy: It was the Ethnic Studies curriculum as a whole that really helped to shape
and provide a historical perspective of how these aren’t simply isolated
incidences, but this is a larger systematic issue that’s at play here. This is a
systematic and institutionalized racism, that in our society there are structures in
place that are designed to limit opportunities for some and perpetuate privilege
and power for others. It was through the curriculum, it was through the
discussions and some of the out of class experiences that we had. Also, learning
about the different movements was also empowering and important and helped
me frame my racial-ethnic worldview.
Leroy emphasized that Ethnic Studies was also foundational because it emphasized the
need to build solidarity with other marginalized communities.
Leroy: Not only seeing things or being solely concerned about just one
movement or the Civil Rights Movement as it relates to [one specific group], but
learning and understanding and appreciating the struggle of Asian Americans and
Chicanos and Latinos and seeing that at various points in history these groups
worked together and how that’s often lost. And they realized, “Hey, we have
common problems and common issues,” and they were able to pool resources and
that is often negated and we don’t talk about that. And it’s certainly not practiced
enough in our efforts today in trying to combat some of these same societal ills.
Peter shared how a simple visit to a professor’s office hours triggered an avalanche of
possibilities and future directions. Peter attended the office hours of a White social
science professor who had impressed him and reflects on the feelings generated by that
first visit that still impact his relations with students today.
Peter: He was the first faculty member that I ever visited in his office hours and
started to talk to him. And I think about this thing every time I am visited by a
student for the first time, an undergraduate student here, because I didn’t know
what the hell to say. I just sort of knew I liked him, I wanted to go and see him,
but then when I got there, I didn’t know what to say exactly.
113
From not knowing what to say, Peter evolves over the course of the semester. After
submitting his final research paper for the social science professor’s course, Peter is
invited to be one of his research assistants. Through the research assistant experience,
Peter realizes what he has to offer to the world of academia. In addition, the professor
role models the value of mentoring for Peter.
Peter: And then I became his research assistant; he brought me in to do a number
of research projects. It was a very powerful experience of realizing that I had
something to contribute to an academic understanding. So, it just gave me a lot of
confidence to then connect with other people, other professors, other graduate
students, people who helped me along the way. So I think he was really key.
And when I then was applying to graduate school, I knew the value of
mentorship.
This lengthy process of serving as a research assistant over his undergraduate years
builds in Peter a certain confidence in the idea that he could ask important and relevant
questions, that he could compete with the best, and that commitment to a specific field
was possibly less important than the breadth and depth of questions one engages in,
Peter: I learned that I could compete with the elite and the best in a lot of
different fields. I learned that I actually asked good questions and that the
questions were more important than the discipline. So, for me it was really
important and I decided I wanted to learn about identity. Where do I learn about
identity? Oh, I can learn in sociology or psychology or history, and that was more
important than being committed to being a historian or a social psychologist. And
so I kind of broadened the questions themselves – if you can formulate good
questions that could take you a long way.
Logan shared a similar journey story, one that also involves a seminal figure that helped
Logan shape his long-term academic interests and have faith in his abilities. First, Logan
compares the impact of his undergraduate versus graduate years of study.
Logan: And so to me, it was a very different world when I moved to my campus
as a freshman. Because at that time in the early '70s, it was still predominantly a
White school. And then that's where race became more salient, where I realized
that I was part of a racial minority, which was a very different situation than the
114
neighborhoods in which I’d grown up. Compared to my undergraduate years,
grad school had a much bigger impact on me in terms of my involvement in
education, in my ideas about political activism, and about education and the
relationships that professors have with students.
Then, Logan describes how his research interests evolved because of his foundational
relationship to his advisor.
When I started graduate school, I was interested in looking at [multiethnic and
multiracial communities], which was reflective of my background growing up in
these communities. And I wanted to look at differences in educational attainment,
and so that’s what I did my thesis on. But then a [White] professor in the [social
sciences] department got a grant from [a national foundation] to do a study of [a
multiracial urban/suburban community] and he asked me to be his research
assistant. I wasn’t interested, because I wanted to focus on education, but since I
lived and grew up near that community, and since he asked me a number of times,
I finally said yes. I went from studying education to studying politics, community
politics, and that became my dissertation and then my first book. So, that’s how I
became involved in politics in so many ways. I thought that I was only going to
be a research assistant, but it became my dissertation and completely changed my
research focus. It was still on race and I'm still interested in [specific racial
communities], but it went from education to politics.
Logan reflects on “growing up” in the academy and the fantastic role models and
exemplars he worked with. He explains the immense value of mentorship he learned
from his professors.
Logan: In all the departments I have been in as a professor, they have been very
research-oriented. The big emphasis was on research and publishing, but they
were all dedicated teachers. And so, people were always working with students at
all levels from undergrad to grad students. And famous people were also
mentoring faculty, assistant and associate professors. I grew up, in terms of my
academic career, with people who really worked hard with students. Working
with these folks that really, really focused on teaching and mentoring and working
with other people, and in ethnic studies, most of our students were students of
color. And they were just incredible examples.
All the subjects related the deep impact of individuals, courses of study, and exploration
on their own understanding of self, systems, community, and mentoring. When relating
these stories, not only through the anecdotes, but through their body language and
115
emotion, it was clear how strongly the subjects felt about the impressions left by key
experiences over their educational journeys. They used words like “pivotal,”
“transformative,” “shaping,” and “life-changing.” The final analytical area we will
explore further delves into the impact of role models and co-curricular involvement on
the worldview development of the study participants.
External Impact
This section reveals the impact of role models, mentors, and institutional agents in
the lives of the subjects. In addition, this section showcases the depth and impact of co-
curricular (out-of-the-classroom) involvement and learning. Table 7 represents the two
domains of external impact: institutional agent impact and co-curricular engagement
impact.
Table 7
External Impact
Relationship Form Domains
Strict Inclusion X is a kind of Y 1. Key institutional agents impacting the subject
2. Co-curricular engagement
The six subjects themselves have been identified as institutional/empowerment
agents, so it makes sense that they would have experienced the benefit of an institutional
agent’s presence in their own lives, although that is not the case in all of the subjects’
lives. The following section showcases just a few of the array of institutional agents
described by the subjects.
116
Key institutional agents for the subjects.
William provided the one example of a subject who had not been positively
impacted by institutional agents over his educational lifespan.
William: I mean, the funny thing is the kind of stuff that I take for granted as to
what a professor should do, which is like counseling my students about their
career and their life, in and out of school and all that, at my university, people
didn’t really do that. I mean you could go in and meet with a professor about a
paper, but that was about it.
William, regardless of the impact of role models, developed a sensibility grounded in
reaching out to his students, possibly because of his involvement in other movements that
were rooted in empathy and inclusivity. All of the other subjects, however, freely shared
multiple examples of institutional agents who had truly leveraged their own social capital
networks for the benefit of the student participants. For example, Isabella explained that
her White English teacher took the place of her mother, served as a role model and
mentor, and encouraged her to excel and seek help.
Isabella: I remember I had one teacher who had graduated from The University
and every Halloween, he dressed as The University’s mascot. And he’d always
say, you’re going to end up at The University, and I said I wanted to go to the
campus across town. But it was that influence and it’s funny how teachers who
were particularly in that school, once they thought you had potential, they really
put a lot of energy into you. The first class I had with [him], he noticed my
writing, and “Wow, you are a good writer,” and he encouraged me. Then, the
next year he got me into honors courses. So he stayed very present and I
remember I did something off campus and he actually came to it and that meant
so much to me. One time, we had some problem at home and I had a little bit of a
bruise in my eye, and I remember [he] walked me to the psychologist’s office. He
said, “You know, I’m a crazy person, so I need a psychologist. But you’re not
crazy, it’s just that sometimes it’s good for young people to have someone to talk
to in a safe place.” So I remember he took me to her and then he goes, “Besides,
she’s really hot, so I get to see her.” You know, he made it about himself so that I
wouldn’t feel bad.
117
Isabella’s English teacher role models involvement and compassion for Isabella. She is
conscious of the direct impact of her teacher on her life path.
Isabella: I think some of us did so well because these teachers cared a lot. So
when I submitted my application to The University, [my teacher] came to mind,
you know, the thought that he had come here too. So it was kind of neat, and he
obviously had a big impact on me.
Likewise, Leroy’s Asian American basketball coach deeply influenced him during his
high school years. The coach was Leroy’s first advocate outside of his family. He not
only served as Leroy’s ally inside the school, but educated Leroy’s mother about her
potential to serve as an advocate for her child’s’s education.
Leroy: Coach was a no-nonsense guy who really had high expectations for the
students he worked with. You talk to most athletes and I tell you that their coach
is primarily concerned with what they did on the court or being academically
eligible, just keeping the grades up good enough just so they can play their sport.
This coach was cut from a different cloth in that he had really high expectations
from his players, he didn’t tolerate excuses, and he was very big on holding
people accountable. And he is the one, outside of my mother and father, who
really, really encouraged me to consider taking honors courses. And when I
initially met resistance from my counselor who didn’t think that that was wise, he
was my first advocate at the school beyond my family, who talked to one of our
assistant principals who oversaw our counseling department and expressed his
frustrations about me not being able to take honors courses. He is also the one
who called my mother and told my mother that he thought that she should come
to school and make a noise about it.
The coach role-modeled for Leroy the value of not just setting high expectations, but also
providing the support necessary to meet those high expectations.
Leroy: He is the one that I attribute, outside of my mom and my family, for me
having those opportunities. I think his high expectations of students, regardless of
background, regardless of socio-economic status – and it’s not just having high
expectations, but then providing you the support needed to meet his high
expectations was really, really critical for many of our players that didn’t have
fathers. People talked about him as like a father figure and he was very well
respected.
118
In college, Leroy met one of the administrative leaders in Student Affairs, who proved to
be instrumental in Leroy’s long-term career path, helping Leroy to secure additional
assistantships, introducing him to key players within the institution, and encouraging
Leroy to pursue graduate study.
Leroy: He was the first man [of a specific racial group] that I saw in a position of
power or authority and he was very down to earth, very approachable and through
talking to him and learning about his personal life and his background, I began to
see that his background or history wasn’t that different from my own. He was a
real role model. And it was through my interactions and relationship with him
that I eventually discovered what would be my future career path. He is someone
who always has been available to provide advice or support along the way. He
was very instrumental in encouraging me to go to graduate school.
Sandy’s future trajectory was equally impacted by her interactions with her White social
sciences professor. He helped her to understand that her original choice of career path
(engineer or judge), while groundbreaking in specific fields, was still centered on her
individual advancement, rather than on impacting social change.
Sandy: But, you know, he made the Social Problems course global, which was
really kind of stunning for that time. Because the truth is, now you get a lot more
of it. But that wasn’t the case then. That turned me around. I thought activism
was really cool, and prior to that time, I was already really concerned about issues
of injustice. But I still imagined that my trajectory was about me, so hence the
first woman justice or the woman engineer or the…But that it’s still about me,
and I think that experience in his course turned that around. It was less about me.
So he was inspirational to a lot people. And this guy, he made me say I’m going
to be social activist. There is nothing else to be.
Peter shared experiences with institutional agents from high school, college, and graduate
school. He begins by sharing more memories about his White student body advisor, who
featured in his recollections in the prior section. Knowing Peter’s abilities, the advisor
suggests that Peter aim high and apply to elite universities.
Peter: When I was a junior, I was [highly involved in student government] and it
got me working very closely with the student body advisor, he was this young
119
guy, Irish guy. I learned a whole bunch about him working with him for two
years since I was [highly involved] both junior and senior. And at the end of my
junior year, he gave me a piece of paper, and he says you are going to apply to
these six [elite an/or Ivy League] colleges. I said, fine, I will apply to them, and I
just did that. He, I think, had a sense that I would appeal to a big Ivy League type
of school.
The advisor is then pivotal in changing Peter’s life course.
So, the other part was that a big Ivy League school used to call my high school
each year, the local alumni recruiter, because we were really good in [athletics]
and I had played up to the point that I got elected student body president. They
get this call in my junior year. I am no longer playing [sports], and the alumni
recruiter calls up to ask, “Do you have any good [athletes] with good grades?”
[My advisor] happened to be in the counselor’s office at the time, and the
counselor turned to him and asked, “Can you give me suggestions?” [My
advisor] says, “Just tell him Peter plays.” So, that is what they did. I get invited
to a bunch of these recruiting things and had played enough to know my way
around those kinds of questions, even though I wasn’t actually playing any longer.
And by the time everybody figured it out, I had already got all the information.
(laughs)
Peter attends college at the Ivy League school that called to recruit athletes. He develops
a relationship with his White social sciences professor who was also mentioned in the
prior section. His conversations with the professor help Peter reflect on the valuable
knowledge he has collected from his organic life experiences.
Peter: We started talking about [my city] and two hours later, I mean literally he
just takes two hours out, he is asking me all these questions about [my city], he is
telling me about his experience doing this. I said this is cool, I mean just a
wonderful conversation. I think what it got me to think about is the kinds of
knowledges that I had that actually made sense for him. He really was asking me
real questions that I could answer, and so it was a very powerful meeting. And I
remember him encouraging me to keep writing and thinking and working on the
things we talked about.
Peter’s experience with mentors like his professor encourages him to go to graduate
school. There, he meets an important mentor in a colleague of color, who dramatically
impacted Peter’s career engagement.
120
Peter: [My colleague of color] was my mentor in graduate school and he had
clearly a profound effect on me. A lot of the things that he taught me, and a lot of
the things that he has done, have been things that I am doing. Everything, like
civic engagement work, mentoring new students, all these things are things that he
did. It’s very clear to me that he had a profound impact on shaping the way that I
thought about faculty life, and the ways I thought about my own career and how I
wanted to shape that.
Logan was equally reflective about the influence of his mentors in graduate school,
particularly in terms of the importance of working with students of color and the value of
service. Two institutional agents that had particular impact were his White doctoral
advisor and an older, politically active graduate student of color. Logan offers a
particularly poignant and personal memory of working with his doctoral advisor.
Logan: My advisor, he was really marginalized because he was publishing in
these leftist journals, never published a book, and he was really ostracized by the
department. And people told me not to work with him because I'd never get a job.
But he had been the advisor probably for more students of color than the rest of
the department put together. Well, that particular campus has changed
dramatically since then. But at the time, for working on issues of race, and if you
are a student of color he was the person to work with. But the study of [the
ethnically diverse neighborhood] and the grant that he got, the book he published
in some ways transformed his status in the department because he was a
publishing researcher again. But he was an incredible mentor for me and students
of color generally. So he had an impact on my life, this person that worked so
hard to work with students that were considered marginal in the department and in
society.
Logan was heavily influenced by his politically active classmate’s beliefs about civic and
community engagement and urgings about active participation and giving back,
something he has carried with him to this day.
Logan: [My classmate of color] was very politically involved; in fact he was one
of the major figures in the [radical people of color] movement in [the mountain
states] growing up. He was the one that pulled [my graduate advisor] into the
research project. He is incredibly involved. And so he's had an impact on me
because of his community and political involvement. And he said, "Brother, you
have to do it. You have to do it. You gotta do that kind of service (civic
engagement).” And I remember him telling me, “Okay, now it’s your turn to
121
serve on the admissions committee.” Because at that time, they had grad students
on the admissions committee. That was a time when affirmative action was an
important part of the admissions process. And he says, “Okay, it’s your turn.”
Well, talking to grad students there who followed us, that whole spirit amongst
students of color has disappeared. But I carry it inside me to this day.
That idea of “carrying it inside me to this day” was expressed by all of the subjects in
their reflections on the roles of key figures and institutional agents in the development of
their beliefs and consciousness. Interesting, also, is the fact that institutional
agents/mentors of all backgrounds and races served to empower and guide the subjects
through their educational journeys. Beyond race and other factors, it is that the
institutional agents cared about the subjects’ success, well-being, future paths, and civic
engagement in the most holistic of senses. Although William could not share an example
of a mentor at his educational institution, he shares multiple exemplars from the folk
music world, including Bob Dylan, who role-modeled behaviors and beliefs that the
subject later emulated. In a similar fashion, the other five subjects shared many examples
from their own lives of the impact that mentors and institutional agents have to this day
and behaviors that they continue to embody. As Peter, speaking from his own experience
as a long-time faculty member, shares:
We tend to mimic our own advisors. If you end up having a mean advisor, or end
up having an advisor that doesn’t care, it’s very hard not to become that kind of
person. You have to really consciously figure out who you want to be. I was
drawn to people who were serious about being an academic, but were real people,
who were passionate about what they did, but were very open to other things.
And I didn’t always follow their advice, but I respected what they had to say and I
have learned a lot about how to do what I am doing from them.
Co-curricular engagement.
Finally, to flesh out this analytical area, the study participants all shared pivotal
out-of-the classroom experiences that were integral to their development as
122
institutional/empowerment agents. Earlier in this chapter, the subjects spelled out their
beliefs about the value of education. But education happens both in and out of the
classroom. This co-curricular (out of the classroom) education could occur through
involvement in student organizations or movements or through programs offered by
Student Affairs or other departments. The subjects were passionate and expressive about
their co-curricular engagement as a life-changing set of experiences. For example,
William’s transformative and energizing experiences fighting segregation at his boarding
school through his position on the school newspaper typified the kind of impact co-
curricular engagement can have.
Sandy explained that her experiences in college served as formative training for
the way she leads her life, particularly through her involvement with Marxist reading
groups and the jail moratorium coalition.
Sandy: So, we would have Marxist reading groups, and we would get together on
our free time to run Marxist reading and discussion groups. I tell my students this
because I think they could not imagine getting together on their free time to read
Marx. And [anti-prison industrial activists] came to our campus at the very
moment that I arrived, and they offered a radical analysis of the criminal justice
system. So I hooked up with those guys right away and we were on the jail
moratorium coalition. And it was huge, I mean it was formative training in a
zillion different way. The jail moratorium coalition, absolutely, that was the
center of everything, so then things went from that, you know, women in prison
stuff, and but it was the core.
Similarly for Logan, his co-curricular engagement was very broad-based, moving past the
borders of campus into the community and into state government. Beginning with
activism surrounding a key, racialized tenure struggle and leading to involvement with
anti-gentrification efforts and statewide redistricting, Logan was directly impacted by his
out-of-the-classroom commitments.
123
Logan: When I went to grad school, a popular [professor of color in a racialized
field of study] was going to tenure review and he was denied tenure. And that
was a multi-year battle. So as part of that, three of us formed the [Student of
Color] Grad Student Association. And the main purpose of that was to work on
this tenure issue. Our main goal was to bring students together to get involved
with the tenure case. So we met with the Chancellor many times to discuss this
and we worked on strategy with this grad student network. And we eventually
won. I also started studying local community politics in [a diverse urban
community], and then a lot of my research was ethnography. So I joined [people
of color] Democratic club and eventually became the co-president of that club. I
joined the neighborhood group that was concerned about the redevelopment of a
shopping center. And then redistricting was happening in statewide level, so I
became involved in a redistricting group that formed in [my area] at that time.
Peter explains how his involvement with the political student of color organization at
college and the minority recruitment process impacted his worldview. Through his
involvement, Peter was learning about the complexities of race, class, and college access.
He notes that he learned just as much in his admissions and recruiting experience as he
did in the academic setting.
Peter: [The political student of color organization] was really important because
it gave me a community of people I felt very comfortable with. A big function of
that organization was college recruitment. So, essentially right from when I was a
freshman, I learned very quickly one of the big things the organization did was it
recruited other college students. And that ended up being a very profound
experience because here I was recruiting rural [ethnic minority] kids to come to
this Ivy League institution and I was very good at it. I was very successful. And
then I ended up in charge of the whole program. What happened is that you
learned a lot about access and you were sent out for a week, you then organize
other people, you made sure you wrote up letters about the kids that you had met
so they could have a better chance of getting in. Now the other part that was
really interesting is they had some of the minority admission officers you would
work with. So, you’re learning a lot of the complexities of race across the board.
They trained me to how do this well, and what it meant about access and what are
the issues about class and race. And so all of the stuff that I learned very deeply
in that particular role is a constant thing. I think I learned as much in that
environment and trying to figure out the schools and so forth as I did in the
classrooms.
124
Leroy shares a similar set of experiences – seeking out organizations that offered comfort
and support, only to grow and expand through the level of involvement, action, and
outreach.
Leroy: In college, being exposed to their upbringings, their viewpoints, many of
them (White students) had very little interaction or knowledge of what it was to
be [a racial minority], aside from what they saw in the news or in the media. So
that caused a lot of uneasiness. And from that uneasiness, I sought out pieces of
home, or communities that looked like home, or that provided me the comfort and
the security that I was accustomed to getting from home. And so I found that in
EOPS, in our office of multicultural student affairs, and through student
organizations, culturally based student organizations, and through my Ethnic
Studies major.
Leroy then expands his involvement to student of color organizations, a historically racial
minority fraternity, and Student Initiated Outreach, where he learned about student-
powered tools to challenge the anti-affirmative action policies on his campus.
Leroy: So we were students who were really, really passionate about doing
outreach to disadvantaged communities. So we created opportunities for those
students to come to campus, and we provided buses to bring those students to
campus for overnight trips. For many of those students, it was the first time being
on a college campus. The Student Initiated Outreach effort was borne out of the
fact that [the anti-affirmative action measure] had passed and that there were no
more race specific outreach and recruitment program that were at least sponsored
by the campus and so students tried to fill the void by doing some of those things,
using student government money and student organization money.
Leroy describes his time in Student Initiated Outreach as truly elemental for the
development of his worldview, in that he learned about fundamental issues of access and
inequity, as well as methods to contest oppressive systems. He also was thoughtful
about the long-term impact of his co-curricular involvement, in terms of professional
behaviors. Similar to Peter, Leroy also notes that many of his most valuable lessons in
college were learned outside of the classroom environment.
125
Leroy: If you look at my co-curricular involvement, you’ll see that it was sort of
very much pro-[racial minority]. I wanted to be around all people that looked like
me, that kind of shared my background, and it was through that involvement that I
established a network. I developed the self-confidence and the skills also needed
to go out and explore other, mainstream campus involvement opportunities.
Again, through those opportunities I continued to be exposed to people with very
different opinions than me, different backgrounds, different upbringings. I
learned to work with those people, despite our differences, and I think it was a
really valuable skill. I learned leadership skills, budgetary skills, a lot of those
skills I think I use still to this day in my professional setting. And so when you
talk about some of the most valuable lessons you learn in college, for me many of
those lessons happened outside of the formal classroom, and they happened as a
result of my co-curricular involvement.
The impact of both institutional agents and co-curricular involvement emerges as
fundamentally important in the worldview development of the subjects identified as
institutional/empowerment agents. The institutional agents not only linked the subjects to
key networked resources, but also helped the subjects gain access to opportunities, to
think critically about the world around them, and to believe in their ability to make an
impact on society. They served as mentors, advisors, bridges, and guides, and role
modeled future beliefs and behaviors for the subjects. Co-curricular involvement helped
the subjects make sense of their classroom experiences by providing opportunities for the
subjects to experiment and learn core skills centered on engagement, empowerment, and
education. The multifaceted investment of the subjects out of the classroom led to life-
altering discoveries about themselves as potential leaders and change agents. The
combination of influential figures and co-curricular engagement emerges as a powerful
source of impact in the lives of the subjects.
Over the course of this chapter, we have delved into four analytical areas that
have impacted the development of a critical consciousness amongst the practitioners
studied. These four analytical areas of findings are: defining childhood life experiences
126
(including parental influence, neighborhoods and moving, and identity complexity);
historic and personal precipitating moments (including precipitating historic events and
precipitating personal events); key educational events (including precipitating school
events and precipitating college/graduate school events); and external impact (including
institutional agent impact and co-curricular engagement impact).
By exploring the life histories of the subjects in their own words, we better
understand their core beliefs: an asset orientation (not deficit-minded); a strong belief in
the value of education; belief in creating community and giving back; living the
worldview in all contexts; and maintaining critical consciousness while embedded. In
addition, we are painted a picture of reflective, reflexive practitioners who have built
upon their life experiences to develop a social justice-oriented worldview centered on
students, mentoring, justice, and equity.
In the following chapter, we will explore how the subjects enact their beliefs and
worldview in their everyday practice. Exploring the participants’ praxis affords us the
opportunity to test convictions developed over the lifespan – what are the actions
institutional/empowerment agents actively engage in that transform the lives of students,
as well as institutional and systemic structures?
127
CHAPTER SIX
BELIEFS TO BEHAVIORS: PRAXIS
Introduction
In the previous chapter, we explored the beliefs and worldview development of
those identified as empowerment agents for this study. Through the subjects’ own
recollections and reflections, we learned about their core convictions and how, through
various precipitating moments and events, they developed these social justice-oriented,
counter-stratification belief systems and their particular understanding of the world
around them. In this chapter, I seek to explore the praxis-orientation of the subjects. In
essence, what are the practices (actions) that the participants engage in that emerge from
their belief systems? How do they live and enact their worldviews inside and outside the
institution? How do they directly and indirectly serve low-status students?
The chapter will be divided into three sections. The first section will delve into
the characteristics necessary, as described by the subjects themselves, to do the job of the
institutional/empowerment agent effectively. I will also explore Stanton-Salazar’s (2010)
stated criteria of the empowerment agent against the practice-based characteristics
described by the subjects. The second section of this chapter will probe the specific
behaviors and actions of the subjects in two directions. First, in teaching low-status
students to “decode” the institution and the system around them. And second, in terms of
working with low-status students in system- and world-changing ways (Stanton-Salazar,
2010). The final section of the chapter will look into the broad-systemic action the
subjects undertake that aims to change the local and systemic environment impacting
low-status students in an elite institution. In other words, in what ways do the subjects
128
demonstrate their critical consciousness and counter-stratification stances? This chapter
aims to ground empirically Stanton-Salazar’s theoretical (1997, 2010) work by
illuminating key actions the subjects undertake in their roles as
institutional/empowerment agents.
What it Takes to Do the Job Effectively – Necessary Characteristics
All the subjects first discussed the value and significance of university-wide
relationships as centrally important and vital to their roles as institutional/empowerment
agents. Their discussion directly aligns with Stanton-Salazar’s (2010) tenet that the
empowerment capacity of the agent is measured by the structure and resourcefulness of
their own social networks. For example, Leroy explains his belief in the power of
relationships as a means to directly benefit low-status students clearly and succinctly.
Leroy: You do need to be able to pick up the phone and call on somebody with
confidence. To know that you have a faculty member that’s in your corner that
understands the work that you do and is willing to work with you to better serve a
low income or first generation student is invaluable. So absolutely, relationships
are key.
In his own words, Leroy describes the value, as a staff member, of being able to call on a
faculty member who is also an institutional agent of some sort. Leroy notes that staff
members’ relationships with faculty that have an understanding of the work, as well as a
willingness to serve marginalized students, is essential to procure resources. The strength
of these cross-institution relationships is precisely what Stanton-Salazar (2010) describes
as a key element for any successful empowerment agent.
Leroy, William, and Isabella all reflect on their dependence on great colleagues,
especially those that share a love of collaboration. Isabella also shared that the Alumni of
Color Scholarship Association and its resources, including scholarships and mentoring
129
programs, would not exist without the relational work performed by her and her staff
with alumni, donors, and corporations. William also notes that “The dean is really
important, and he is a very hands on dean, so that’s very critical.” The relationships these
practitioners discuss cross the institution, are both horizontal and vertical (in terms of
access to diverse resources and to highly placed people), and they often cut across
institutional boundaries. Peter described the multifaceted, multidirectional relationships
necessary to meet the larger goals of equity in the institution.
Peter: You need support from the people that hired you. You need networks of
people who believe in the goal and who feel they can work with you. And I think
you need to see some results along the way to keep going. None of this is very
easy. You also have to negotiate across faculty, across students, across student
services people, across staff, all kinds of different people and to make that all
work together. And I think that’s the part that I feel most comfortable with is
being able to talk to a whole bunch of different people around common interests.
Sandy, besides her own network of institutional allies and partners, specifically
underscored the role of undergraduate and graduate students as crucial to her ability to
serve as a resource when female students come to her in crisis, such as after a sexual
assault or experiencing sexual harassment. Although students do not meet the definition
of institutional agents according to Stanton-Salazar (1997, 2010), I found Sandy’s
reliance on students as resourceful figures in the university environment very interesting.
She is able to mobilize students as sub-agents in the complex university environment,
noting that undergraduates often are most aware of available resources. She describes a
process of building a “little community” around the student in need by identifying allies
and trusted colleagues, often through student recommendation.
Sandy: I will actually try to get trusted graduate students to help, to do their part.
Or trusted undergraduates. Really, the undergraduates are often most
knowledgeable about what resources exist and to the extent that those are helpful.
130
So I always try to create a little community around the person that is in need. And
yes, it is always the people. It’s not, “Oh, you are going to go here and they will
be great.” It’s that “You MUST go here and talk to THIS specific person.” And
like I said, undergraduates tend to be really the most knowledgeable of all, so that
they will not only know where to go, but who to go to. Usually I will try to enlist
more than one to say, okay, what do you think and have you had any interaction
with these people, and what will they do? I guess the other thing is that people
hate to go into strange situations, especially when they are traumatized or upset,
and not know what to expect, so I will try to find out for them. So mostly I try to
enlist the help of other people, and make those people friends to the person that
needs their help or needs assistance.
Finally, Peter dialogued about a crucial factor in his own success as an empowerment
agent: a strong network outside the institution of similarly situated, highly placed,
resourceful individuals.
Peter: The other thing is I have found that’s critical to my own success in this job
is to find people at other universities who have taken on major administrative
responsibilities that you can sit and talk with. The truth is I have these folks for
my own advice, like [a renowned professor at a higher ranked university] who has
done this and is doing this, to people that I met along the way. Or a really close
friend from my former institution (who is now a provost at a major research
university). I mean these are minority faculty members who are doing this kind
of work and doing it effectively and are really dedicated to the same sorts of
issues. So when I really have questions or really need somebody to talk to, these
are often the people I turn to.
Peter effectively describes a powerful resource network, useful for both students and for
himself. Equally important in his description is the need for empowerment agents to
replenish themselves to fight burnout and fatigue, often caused by institutional resistance
and myopia. I will delve further into the topic of institutional and internal barriers, and
resistance methods of the practitioners, in Chapter 7.
In addition to the central role of inter- and intra-institutional relationships as a
major factor in being effective institutional/empowerment agents, they shared a wide
range of reflections on what it takes to do their jobs well, especially to empower low-
131
status student. Logan shared that his philosophical, personally-rooted orientation helps
him to be effective in working with low-status students. He notes that students with
higher cultural capital tend to receive attention from their professors, as they possess the
markers of skills and language that are valued. However, in seeking out students with a
similar background to himself, Logan is selective with whom he mobilizes social capital.
Logan: I work with students of all races, but I tend to work more with students of
color. And that probably started because, say when I was at my prior institution,
there aren’t that many faculty of color, there or not here either. And so for many
students, I am interested in what’s going on in their lives. To me, it’s important to
be involved in their education. And for some of them who come from lower
income, working class backgrounds, I think it’s really helpful for them, too.
Because other students who went to great schools and so on, I know they are
getting a lot of attention from their professors, because they have all the markers
of success. But other students may have to struggle more. I take an interest in
these students because they come from a similar background to me, and so I am
interested in what they are doing and what their plans are and trying to help them
navigate through college and so on.
Leroy explained what it takes do the job effectively, as well as his personal approach to
working with low-status students, in which he takes the time to get to know their
priorities, values, and identities as individuals. He then shared the multi-layered nature of
commitment as a primary requirement to serve this community of students. Examples of
multi-layered commitment include: institutional commitment (for example, support to
apply for grant funding and mentoring programs building pathways to graduate school);
individuals committed to issues of access and equity who are willing to marshal their
resources to address inequity and stratification; and people who demonstrate their
commitment, not just through words, but by actions. He added that while it is not a
requirement, it helps to have people situated as institutional agents who are/were
personally affected (they themselves would have been considered low-status students).
132
As he explicated, “It takes people who are willing to go above and beyond the call of
duty to ensure that the work is getting done and that students’ needs are met.” He then
went beyond describing his networked resources to talk about the necessity of care and
affirmation. Because of the time invested in getting to know each student, Leroy is able
to tailor his approach in mobilizing his social capital.
Leroy: I think at the most fundamental level I really stop and take the time to get
to know each one of my students. And when I know them, I don’t mean just their
name and what they are studying, but to know what’s important to them, how do
they identify themselves, who are they, where they come from, what have they
been through, what has been their life experience up into that point. And I really
try and get the sense of what they hope to get out of this experience here. And I
found that by putting that time early on with all of the students it makes my job a
lot easier because I feel like I know all the thing that I need to know about them to
better serve them to better meet their needs. And I can figure out what role I’m
going to play in helping them get to that point. It sounds very clichéd, but just the
notion that there is no one size fits all for our students.
Although the students Leroy directly serves are all low-income, first generation college
students, those identifiers are but one part of their stories. Just knowing that a student is a
low-status student does not necessarily offer a prescription for a plan of action. Taking
the time to invest in students’ journeys, and their interests and choices, while serving as a
guide, mentor, and counter-stratification source is critical to authentic empowerment.
Leroy follows by further explaining his role. He is fashioning a space for the students
that contributes to their sense of belonging, even though the institution does not always
do so.
Leroy: I’m taking the time to make sure that each one of these students feels like
they are validated. Their identities are being affirmed, to know that despite what
it looks like, they have a place here at the university, a place that really has
invested in their success and a staff that’s committed to being there for them at
every step of the journey.
133
Isabella explained that she feels more effective today after she spent time developing her
own understanding of institutional politics and necessary relationships. She took time to
better understand campus dynamics, which peers she could trust, and whom she could
call on as allies. She notes that she can be more effective for the low-status students she
works with because of her political understanding, combined with the development of
these key cross-institutional partnerships.
Isabella: In the beginning, I worked so much on the outside dynamic (funders)
that I didn’t interface too much with different groups that first year, whether
within the division or other campus partners. So that second year I decided I need
to get to know my colleagues and peers more. So year two, I started identifying
some groups I should get to know. Year three and year four have really been
about figuring who my allies are. So now, understanding the politics within the
different units and the increased collaboration means the more I can do for my
students.
Peter looks at his role as a form of community organizing and an obligation to moving
the institution further along on the arc of justice and access. Peter’s reflections on
working to change the institution embody what Stanton-Salazar (2010) explains as a key
paradigmatic shift. This shift moves the discourse from embedded support (institutional
agent) to an agenda rooted in critical consciousness and a counter-stratification stance
(empowerment agent). Peter describes his actions as “community organizing,” as well as
a driving obligation to push the institution towards equitable practices.
Peter: As I started to reflect more, what I realized is that my own perspective
about this was that I was doing community organizing. But I had identified my
community as the academic community that I was in, it was the site I was
committed to expanding and providing access to. I mean I have never arrived at a
university or college or a department that I thought was adequate on these issues
(diversity and equity). For me it was like, well, are you going to do something
about it or not do something about it? I just realized that that was important to
me, to actually feel like I was moving the institution that was employing me
farther along in the kinds of values that I certainly was committed to. And if I
didn’t do that, I never felt very comfortable with myself. So a lot of faculty either
134
very quickly decide I am just in it for myself, or they decide my community is not
the academic community, my community is somewhere else, this is an ivory
tower, bitch and moan. And there weren’t actually a lot of people who just sort of
rolled up their sleeves and tried to get stuff done. And then pretty quickly I
learned that I was pretty good at it. So, that combination of factors made me feel
like I had an obligation to do this, to push the institution.
Similar to the other subjects, Peter describes a combination of passion and skill, mixed
with a sense of duty and a belief in social justice, as driving factors in what it takes for
him to effectively serve as an empowerment agent.
From this section, we learned from the subjects themselves that the necessary
criteria for their effective practice include:
• A strong network orientation with key relationships horizontally and
vertically inside and outside the institution to those who hold resources
and share the commitment to low-status students (personally and/or
intellectually)
• Rooted philosophies centered on empowerment and community-building
• A strong understanding of institutional politics
• Care, affirmation, and trust-building with the students
• A willingness to do the hard work to change institutions for the benefit of
low-status communities and to increase access
Specific Behaviors and Action – Teaching Decoding and System Changing
Moving from beliefs and worldviews, to these practitioners’ articulation of the
characteristics of an effective institutional/empowerment agent, we now explore the
specific actions they take to empower low-status students. This section focuses on the
ways they work with low-status students, the ways they teach students to decode and
135
navigate the institutional context, and the ways they teach students to challenge the
dominant system.
Ways the Subjects Work with Students
As one would expect, all the participants help low-status students through
advising, writing letters of recommendation, introductions to people in their networks,
and more. Beyond the expected, Table 8 catalogues some of the various practices and
interventions that the subjects described as specific ways they work with low-status
students. These range from classroom pedagogy to generating specific resources to
engaging in select mentoring and empowering behaviors. The bolded domains will be
further explicated as key examples below.
Table 8
Ways the Subject Works with Low-Status Students
Domains
(Strict Inclusion)
X is a kind of Y
Examples
Scholarship money Isabella generates and distributes scholarship funds for low-status
students.
Mentoring,
advising, and
serving as an
advocate
The combination of Isabella’s mentoring/coaching and Isabella
directing a student towards university-wide resources led to the
student landing a coveted job.
Minimizing the
impact of transfer
shock
Leroy explains that transfer shock is minimized through:
immersion experiences, writing boot camp, community formation,
connecting students to key people, additional funding, semester
lunch meetings, and monthly guest speakers.
136
(Table 8, continued)
Connecting
students to key
figures and
resources
Looking beyond an individual office or program, connecting
students goes past introducing low-status students to departments –
it is about people. See p. 139.
Cultivating interests
and providing
opportunities
Logan reaches out to low-status students by inviting them to his
office to dialogue about their interests. He recommends books or
pursuits that might be of interest to the student. He actively
encourages student participation in programs such as McNair and
Mellon. He has had over a dozen low-status students work with
him on his research.
Using general
education courses to
increase access
Peter uses the diversity of his large undergraduate seminars to
make himself accessible. He is conscious that for many of the
students, he might be their first minority faculty member. So he
actively reaches out to undergraduates to serve as a mentor.
Low-status =
highest priority
Peter actively seeks out low-status students to mentor. See p. 138.
Access is the
beginning/Long-
term commitment
Peter is critical of fellow faculty to believe that access is the
beginning and the end. Particularly for graduate students of color,
he views that relationship as a commitment from admission
through graduation, in which the students’ strengths are
appreciated and weaknesses are acknowledged and worked on.
Using networks Peter explained the use of his progressive external networks of
faculty as a source of power for placing new low-status Ph.D.
students, as well as in getting students published.
Explicit
construction of an
equitable
community
Sandy actively constructs an equitable classroom space in which
the experiences of low-status communities are included and at the
forefront. See p. 140.
Her office as a safe
space
Sandy identifies herself as an ally to low-status students because
she has built a reputation in which her office is a safe space, in
which anything can be discussed. In addition, her work with low-
status female students, in particular, requires the safe space.
137
(Table 8, continued)
Mentoring and
dialogue
William shares that he does his work best when he takes the time
to engage in honest dialogue with low-status students.
Listening to their
interests and finding
opportunities
William offered specific stories of how, through dialogue, he
learned of students’ interests. He then connected them with
opportunities they might not have been otherwise able to access,
because of his breadth of connections in the entertainment and
music industries.
Building confidence
in students
William explains that key to low-status student success is building
confidence by demonstrating how they have key, valuable forms
of knowledge through trusting relationships, listening, and
connecting students to additional resources.
All subjects identified for the study reached out to low-status students in different ways.
They made mentoring and advising a priority, served as advocates for students in a
variety of complex situations, and were thoughtful about their roles in the students’ lives
and in the environment of the institution. Some of the subjects eloquently explained their
ways of working with low-status students, from Peter, who offered a philosophical-action
perspective, to Leroy, who shared his resource generating perspective, to Sandy, who
framed an academic environment perspective. I felt the following examples provided by
the subjects crystallized the value of practitioners who actively and systemically engage
low-status students. For example, Peter, who is very highly positioned in the institution,
discussed prioritizing low-status students as a way to demonstrate his praxis. In many
ways, Peter feels an obligation to engage low-status students because, in his eyes, most
other faculty (who do not identify as minority or first generation) do not reach out in the
138
same way. Peter’s act of prioritizing serves to “balance out” the inattention that many
low-status students experience.
Peter: I give low-status students the highest priority, and I literally think of it that
way. I have done this from the very beginning. If you are an underrepresented
minority, if you are a first generation college student, if you are low income, I
want to see you in my office as opposed to anybody else. And the reason I do this
is because I think I am balancing out what are usually much more distant faculty.
I mean, the vast majority of faculty are not minority, are not first generation
college graduates, are not low income. So for me, it’s trying to do that balancing.
I followed Peter’s thoughts by asking him to explain how he prioritizes low-status
students, in addition to reaching out them individually.
How do I prioritize them? For example, when I am teaching the big courses, I
instruct each of my TAs as to my priorities because I want to know the students
who fall into these categories so that I can encourage them. My TAs can help
identify students for me. Particularly if they are either struggling or if they are
strong, to take advantage of research. I take particular joy in working with those
students.
Leroy very clearly explained the core of his program and his mission. Similar to Sandy’s
emphasis on the connection to key people, Leroy reveals how he actively helps students
build their own supportive networks of people who share a philosophical commitment to
increasing access and offering institutional support for low-status students.
Leroy: The key piece of our program or key philosophy that undergirds the
program is beyond just connecting the students to resources and departments on
campus, we connect them to people. So they start to grow that network. That
network of support is people they call on in times of need or in times of hardship
to help to get through those situations. So it goes far beyond just saying “Oh! The
academic support office is located in the student center.” Instead we create
opportunities for these students to sit down physically with staff in those areas
and get to know them, and these are not just any staff, but staff members that we
know are committed to working with this population. Staff members that we
know will serve as advocates for these students, should they need that.
139
Leroy demonstrated that he was living his understanding of social capital as embedded in
structures and relationships by not hoarding his relationship to students and by effectively
distributing his relational social capital.
Leroy: We have to keep moving them forward and connecting them to resources
that may be in a position to better serve them beyond the resources we’re able to
provide in this office.
Sandy revealed how she constructs a classroom environment that is explicitly driven by
an equity-oriented agenda. Sandy is clear that she tries to enact equitable classroom
practices by allowing extra space for those whose voices have been silenced and an
opportunity for all students to understand power and cultural capital. A key insight that
Sandy offers is that the process of building an equitable classroom community is a long-
term project that requires commitment.
Sandy: I think though that the main way that I do matter to people who are from
low-status backgrounds is because I demand that be part of the classroom
experience. That I really have to construct that community within the classroom,
and I have been working at that for a really long time. Because that becomes the
way to mirror proper behavior. I mean, if you can construct the kind of
environment where people recognize the ways in which difference gets in the way
of who gets counted as smart or who gets to speak or… So then I try to make that
stuff explicit, and try to talk enough about creating that kind of atmosphere where
everybody feels that they have an equal voice, and that in some ways, people
whose voices have been silenced actually get extra air space.
Sandy points out that the active construction of equity is necessary in all spheres of the
academy.
Sandy: I can’t imagine what classroom I don’t think it belongs in (the
consideration of difference and equity), so there is no class that I teach where that
it’s not there. But it’s more than that. I think that there are ways in which people
will frame say, science, as being somehow neutral and objective. Whereas they
are the sites that have the worst kinds of discrimination that you see anywhere at
the academy.
140
The three examples presented above encapsulate a holistic atmosphere of support, push,
and success for low-status students. The subjects’ work aids in developing “coping
strategies.” Stanton-Salazar (2010) describes coping strategies as help-seeking
orientations, problem solving abilities, networking skills, and behaviors directed toward
overcoming institutional barriers. Whether in the interpersonal context or the classroom-
based context, the practitioners describe attitudes and practices that may contribute to the
growth and success of the low-status students they work with. Moreover, the
practitioners’ strategies may help low-status students think critically about a network
orientation, as well as larger systemic questions of inequity and power.
Further expanding on how the subjects enact their roles as institutional agents, we
arrive at two key functions of the empowerment agent (Stanton-Salazar, 2010): teaching
low-status students to decode (navigate) the system and teaching low-status students to
change (alter) the system and the stratified, oppressive world around them. These two
major functions are the essence of Stanton-Salazar’s empowerment social capital as
embodied in the empowerment agent.
Decoding the system may involve unlocking the hidden curriculum, achieving
one’s goals within an existing system while learning what structures need to be
dismantled, navigating channels of power, and accessing key institutional resources and
forms of support. A practitioner, whose mindset and orientation are empowerment-
driven, can work with low-status students to help them navigate the institution in a
counter-reproductive and counter-exclusionary.
At the same time, the empowerment agent may alter the destinies of low-status
youth by empowering them with a critical consciousness and the means to transform
141
society and the world (Stanton-Salazar, 2010). Thus, this section explores how the
empowerment agent engages the student in the act of critical consciousness, a two-fold
process of understanding the stratified and contradictory world around us and taking
action against the oppressive elements that are illuminated by that understanding.
Teaching decoding and system-changing challenge the neoliberal, individualistic success
model of higher education, particularly in elite institutions. In this model, as suggested
by Stanton-Salazar (1997, 2010), success is not just for oneself and one’s own upward
mobility. One’s success is rooted in understanding the need for and having the ability to
run counter to the dominant, reproductive forces in society. How the subjects teach both
decoding and system-challenging comprises the two areas of exploration in this next
section.
Ways the Empowerment Agent Teaches Low-Status Students to Decode and
Navigate
Each one of the subjects shared ways that they felt they contributed to helping
students to decode their surroundings in the university.
Isabella and Leroy both expanded on the practical implications of their work in
helping students navigate the environment. For example, Isabella detailed a very specific
intervention she designed to help the scholarship students she works with feel like they
can equally participate in key university and life activities. The workshop series include
seminars on topics such as: How to Network; Business Etiquette; Budgeting; Identity
Theft; and Financial Literacy. She used a holistic approach under the assumption that
students’ financial realities, particularly limited financial resources and knowledge about
financial practices, will affect their ability to succeed in the college environment,
142
particularly in terms of a sense of belonging. Kezar and Yang (2011) indicate that
exposing the hidden curriculum and privilege through financial education is critical, and
note that it often occurs in the co-curricular sphere. In addition, Isabella spoke from a
place of personal reflection as she seeks to teach tacit knowledge, knowledge that is
generally taken for granted among students with higher levels of cultural capital or
advantage.
Isabella: So, I designed these workshops and we looked at where students needed
some additional support, what they didn’t get in the classroom, but could be very
important for them from the classroom to boardroom. The reality that was
missing was everything from how to dress, the difference between a club dress
and a cocktail party dress, the difference between to eat in an event or not to eat in
an event, and how do you network. Everyone at The University says, “Oh, you
have to network.” And low-status students would say, “Well, I go to these events
and I go to the food and I pick up some of the food and I eat and then I don’t
know anybody. I eat and then I leave. You know, they’re all a bunch of old
White people. I don’t even know them and I don’t know what to say to them.”
And then it just dawned on me that I remember feeling that way. If you feel you
don’t belong there, they don’t think you have to belong there either. Roll up your
sleeves and let me show you what it looks like.
Leroy, besides skills-building and connecting students to key resources (institutional and
individual), counsels his students about a long-term approach to effecting system change.
He dialogues with his students on a regular basis to help them think about succeeding in
the academic environment as one more step in their ability to “have a place at the table”
where they can be a part of the process of change-making.
Leroy: One of the things that I try and encourage them to do is, number one I
think, is to ensure that they don’t lose sight of what they came here for and that’s
their academics. That’s very important to their long-term ability to really bring
about change. Meaningful changes – that they really have to get a piece of paper
that gives them a place at the table, if you will, so that they could be part of that
process, engage that dialogue.
143
Logan and Peter shared the ways they expose the hidden curriculum by making explicit
what is often obscured or assumed as understood. Through a process of explanation,
demonstration, and breaking down complexities, Logan and Peter directly teach tacit
knowledge, the taken for granted knowledge of more privileged students.
Logan: I just ask them what they want to do, and then I tell them, this is what you
need to do it. Just working with them on research projects is showing them how
academic work is done. And then a lot of times they ask me questions about how
to deal with other professors, and so we will talk about all the different possible
ways to approach professors and discuss certain things, and that includes low-
status grad students, too. How to get people to be on your committee, how to get
somebody to write a letter of recommendation for you, what kind of grad schools
to go to. So part of it is just teaching them how to do academic work, and then
answering their specific questions about different aspects of it, especially how to
deal with other professors.
Peter also expanded on the idea of making overt what is so often unstated. He is very
clear about stating expectations and explicating possibilities.
Peter: I try to break down assignments as clearly as they can be stated with what
the real expectations are. I am always amazed, for example, when a student starts
to write a dissertation, many of them have never read a dissertation. I keep all the
dissertations of my students in one central place and when they start I say, pick
one out and read it. Read it as a dissertation, not as a polished book at the end.
It’s a dissertation – know what you are getting yourself into, know what it has to
look like, know what the possibilities are. Now don’t get limited by it, but don’t
make it a bigger thing than it is. On qualifying exams, the same sort of thing –
break it down.
From coursework to the networks students have access to, Peter felt strongly that one of
his primary roles was to serve as a bridge for low-status students. Peter acknowledges
that it is difficult for all undergraduates to know the correct individuals to connect with
for all facets of the educational experiences, from research, to writing recommendation
letters, to pursuing graduate study. But he explains that part of his role as a “bridge” is to
help low-status students connect to others in his trusted network.
144
Peter: I actually think that one of the hardest things at this place is for low-status
students to realize who they should connect with if they want to be able to do
research or if they want to go on to the next step. And it’s partly because – this is
the unstated assumptions piece, right – guess what? The letter of recommendation
from your teaching assistant is not going to mean as much as a letter from a
faculty. You know I was completely scared the first time I ever went to see a
faculty member. They have got to get over that and faculty have to put
themselves in positions that allow students to get over that. (He shares a story of
a student of color who came to see him). I was the bridge. I said, “I am going to
give you this guy and I am going to e-mail him and have him contact you. He is
in your school, talk to him, he will help you.” I don’t mind playing that bridge
role. So it's partly that they gotta feel they can go to somebody who can connect
them into that wider network.
From the highly practical to making the unspoken explicit and to serving as a bridge, the
subjects identified specific ways that they help low-status students navigate and decode
the world of the university. In addition, some of the subjects also shared ways that they
help low-status students learn the mindset of counter-stratification and the skills to
change their environments. For example, Sandy explained how she models the critique
and teaches students, through a process of theorizing, how to creatively “play the game”
and tackle the dominant system. Sandy uses her own life as an exemplar to demonstrate
to students how power and privilege work and what is important to hold on to while
navigating the system. Similar to other subjects, Sandy values being explicit in
explaining how systemic injustice works and how one can approach the problem.
Sandy: I try to model it. I will talk about how I think about it, so it’s not
patronizing, “Oh, here is what you should do and how you should approach it,”
but rather just to model the critique and to try to elaborate the story of how it
works. In many ways this is too late. The truth is you need to start earlier. By
the time you get here, you have already shown an unbelievable amount of
resilience and resourcefulness. We have to alert the students to, “This is the way
to get out from under the injustice.” And at what age can you put it all on the
table – this is the way the system works, this is the way it’s going to screw you,
these are the kind of choices that you can make about how to approach
it…(Playing the game and changing the system). It is the notion of never giving
up your integrity, so you have to be able to do this in a way that allows you to
145
maintain your self-respect or it’s truly not worth it. So, you first theorize how this
system is working, clarify and theorize how the system is working, and then
figure out what places, what openings you can use to make it work for you.
Leroy explicitly works in concert with students so they can be truly effective in agitating
for change, particularly in terms of access of other low-status students to The University.
He is their ally on the inside, helping them to better comprehend institutional politics and
demands. Leroy explains his process of working with students as a two-step process.
First, he takes the time to understand what the student cares about specifically.
Leroy: The fact that my program exists suggests to them that this isn’t necessarily
a perfect place and so they come in understanding that. And many of them come
in wanting to do something about that. They want to figure out ways to bring
about change, positive change that would enhance the experience of other transfer
students or provide more access to students from their respective community
colleges. They’d like to know why, or do something to get The University to be
more present on their home campus. But then at the same time for me, I think it’s
making sure that I understand what it is that they want to see change.
Then, Leroy helps students develop the skills to be heard by those in power in the
institution. He aids them by connecting them to the correct decision-makers, helps them
tailor arguments that will make an impact, and provides students with demographic and
statistical data to make their case. Leroy models for students institutionally savvy forms
of resistance and helps them think critically about how they demand resources.
Leroy: Once I get an understanding of what the problem is, then I can help point
them in the direction to the people that are in positions that make those decisions.
And not only just point them in a direction or say “Go to that office,” but more so
help them think through – so if you’re fortunate enough to get an audience with
this highly placed person, how are you going to present your argument to them in
a way that they will hear it? And have them (the authority figure) say, wow this
student raises a really valuable concern and what can we be doing to better
promote The University at these particular schools? And so for that, it’s
sometimes helping them get access to the information they need, whether it be
statistics that show how we haven’t done the best job recruiting from these
schools or demographics, and just hearing them, hearing their ideas, giving them
feedback.
146
Leroy also discussed the ways he works with students to help them build issue-based
understanding, or solidarity, with other students and other campus- and community-based
movements, in order to foment collective change.
Leroy: Also, I help them connect with other students to share or to other
movements on campus that are already going on that I think could support their
particular interest. And the other part of it is, although their issue might be
slightly different from other battles that students are waging on campus, helping
them see the similarities so they can come and work together on each other’s
causes and hopefully bring about that change they’re looking to do.
The idea of solidarity is just one facet of helping students develop a critical
consciousness, which leads us to the next section.
Ways the Empowerment Agent Teaches Low-Status Students to Challenge the
System
As Stanton-Salazar (2010) explains, authentic empowerment must surpass what
an institutional agent can do in embedding low-status youth in resource-laden networks.
The best-intentioned interventions of the institutional agent interventions may serve to
maintain the status quo if they result only in individual advancement. The critical work
of the empowerment agent must also go beyond teaching decoding and navigating of
institutional systems (Stanton-Salazar, 2010). According to Stanton-Salazar (2010),
working with low-status students in system-altering ways is a two-fold process. First,
one must build critical consciousness, or a mindset centered on counter-stratification.
Second, one must engage in specific teaching moments and actions that lead to students
being able to change their communities and the world around them, in big and small
ways. I tested this theoretical construct of the empowerment agent with the subjects.
First, let us explore the teaching of a social justice mindset.
147
Isabella, for example, links learning the rules (decoding) as a first and necessary
step in bending or breaking the rules (enacting change). Isabella reflects on lessons
learned from her own mentors that helped her to understand the power of understanding
organizational culture, structure, and language. She emphasizes that knowing the rules of
any given context can aid one in being a more effective change agent, a person who does
not just effect change for him/herself, but opens the door to broader change.
Isabella: One of my mentors once said in order to play the game, you need to
learn the rules. So that later you can bend them or break them. You have to learn
the language and every institution, every organization has a certain language.
And once you know the language, then you can help interpret. You can speak
their code, you can extend their metaphor and you can slowly, but surely, be an
agent of change. But if you have no idea what the language is, there is no way
you can begin. You will spin your wheels, you will get on your one soapbox that
no one relates to, and you can’t really be an agent of change. You can change
your immediate situation, change yourself and change your plight, but in the
process maybe have left sort of a sour feeling, so that after you are through, they
close the door behind you and lock it up. So you can’t jump in and create waves
without understanding, without knowing the power players, and understanding the
structure.
Regarding the issue of reproducing the status quo and simply attaining individual
achievement, William and Leroy shared their own concerns and perspectives on the
nature of “forgetting where you come from.” Both discussed what it meant achieve
individual success in the context of broader community success from differing
perspectives.
William: So, then it’s a question of whether these students, especially students
who are, say students of color, whether they are going to be really involved
politically, or whether they are going to just take the gravy train and leave their
community behind. For instance, I had a very successful female basketball player
about three years ago. She was [a person of color]. She was a senior. She was
being recruited by the WNBA, and yet, that was two years down, and there was
this very important political campaign going on for the first Black man ever to run
for President. And I told her that I thought, and this was very early on in Barack’s
campaign, but I told her I thought she had a responsibility as a leader to speak up.
148
And she was all worried, if she got too political, whether it would affect her
getting recruited or something like that. And I said, “Well, you’re not doing
anything illegal. You’re just showing up at a political rally we’re having. And
you’re going to get your friends and all the people that respect you to come.”
And she got it and she eventually did do it. But my worry was not so much about
whether she was going to succeed in life. I was afraid she was going to succeed
so much that she would forget where she came from. And maybe that’s a
problem.
In an interesting fashion, Leroy’s thoughts offer a response to William’s concerns about
individual achievement. Leroy actively addresses this very issue in his dialogue with
students, possibly because of his own personal life journey. He bluntly informs students
about his beliefs regarding their responsibility to their communities.
Leroy: I think for me it comes back to those who much is given, much is
required. I always tell these students, if you come out of this institution with the
degree and you go on to be a successful lawyer or doctor, and you do nothing to
benefit the community from which you came, then you failed. It’s more than just
you, and it’s constantly reminding them that their success and their community
success are tied to one another. They didn’t get here by themselves.
But Leroy is also cognizant that the specific population he works with, low income
transfer students, recognize that they are standing on the shoulders of many others.
Leroy: I think that fortunately all these students are not that full of themselves to
believe that they got here by themselves. They realize that they got here through
the help of family members, counselors, teachers, that somehow went above and
beyond the call of duty to help them gain access to a special program or provided
them with the support they needed to get information about transfer. Their
success is owed to many people and I feel like with this population, I don’t have
to beat that drum too loud – they get that.
Leroy explains to the students in his program that the best way to demonstrate gratitude
to those who have helped them in their paths is by opening the door to the next
generation. Leroy is very intentional about capitalizing on the community-oriented
feelings amongst his students in order to help them think beyond individual achievement
as the marker of success.
149
But the one thing that I constantly remind them is the way that you thank those
individuals is by helping the next generation of folks. It’s by going back into
communities and showing that it is possible and spread the word to the other folks
and reaching back and helping them get to where you were. And with this
population, I think that’s a message that really hits home for them. Many of these
students come from cultural backgrounds that really emphasize community.
Community is big to them, just as it was for me growing up. And so they feel that
they have a very strong sense of who they are, where they came from, and they
don’t want to give that up. They want to maintain their connections to their
communities and so it has been easy to help remind them that the communities are
expecting you to give back, communities need you. And when you go out and
you get these degrees and you become successful, you need to go back to your
communities and bring those folks with you.
Peter and Leroy both shared useful examples about specific actions and teaching
strategies they engaged with respect to changing the system. Peter discussed the nature
of dialogue and the implications of realistic, multifaceted, systemic change.
Peter: I think you have to teach students how to change the system, one, by
example and two, by talking to them about how change is effected and how to do
at different levels. And I think you have to have an idea about this. Some of the
kinds of changes that some students and faculty want are really revolutions, and I
can say, “Well, that ain't gonna happen unless we change capitalism, unless we
overthrow the government, unless we…” whatever. And there are some changes
that may be very good, but that’s what it’s going to require.
Peter also offered his perspective regarding a useful motivational tool for educators
engaged in this type of work. He is very clear that his direct impact is possibly less than
the impact all of the students he has mentored, guided, and motivated over the years have
on others, particularly in terms of the types of beliefs and practices Peter has imparted to
them as valuable.
Peter: So I think the one thing about being a faculty member is that you have to
have consistent hope that what you are doing and who you are reaching will have
a long term impact. In many ways I am doing certain things and that’s going to
be able to change things, but the truth is, the real impact is that I am affecting and
conveying information to a whole generation of new people. It's much more
significant what my 18 Ph.D. students who are now tenure track faculty are going
to do than whatever I could do. It’s much more important the thousands of
150
students they are now teaching than the hundreds of students I taught. It is about
growing a new generation of people who can make that kind of outreach happen,
with the kind of perspective that I think matters. And a lot of my belief in change
comes from that kind of an impact and the way in which small personal impact in
fact can affect a much larger array of people. And I think as educators, that’s what
we are about.
Leroy shared an impact-related story of how he worked with students who wished to
mobilize against the fee increases at many West Coast community colleges and public
four-year institutions. He helped them collaborate with students at several higher
education institutions to get up to the state capital, get petitions signed, and secure an
audience with a legislator. For students who traditionally feel alienated and removed
from the political process, this opportunity proved to be empowering and eye-opening.
Leroy: And so I think for a lot of students, it got them to see, wow, we can be
change agents. That there is a process that exists, and for many of those students,
they always thought themselves very far removed from the process, but they
found through this experience that there are ways for them to connect and get
involved and that ultimately they do have the opportunity and the potential to
bring about change or at least be heard in the process.
Authentic youth empowerment that teaches both critical consciousness and key skill sets
is a challenge. However, in this section, the subjects demonstrated how they work for
and with low-status students to enable them to decode and navigate the institutional
system in critical ways. In addition, the subjects, in major and minor ways, also are
engaged in helping low-status students think about social justice, advocacy, community
engagement, empowerment, and changing the world.
The Subject as System-Changer
This section aims to expand past the funds of knowledge Bensimon (2007) wishes
for practitioners to have regarding equity-oriented success outcomes. We will examine
the action-oriented ways the subjects attempt to change the institution for the benefit of
151
low-status students. In addition, we will explore how the subjects attempt to challenge
the dominant system and demonstrate their own critical consciousness.
Changing the Institution
The study participants provided examples that either had peripheral impact or
direct impact on The University. All examples, however, demonstrate an understanding
of institutional culture and politics, as well as the reality of inequitable practices.
Logan, for example, shared a change that he was involved in that, although
peripheral and not necessarily intentional, has had an impact on students of color at The
University. He explained that the remodeling of the Ethno-Racial Studies curriculum
had a corollary positive impact on students of color
Logan: We revamped our Ethno-Racial Studies major. Before, it was so
complicated when I looked at it, I couldn’t understand how to put together classes
that would satisfy the major. Now it’s much more straightforward, much more
easily understood, and in some ways, because we have such a high concentration
of students of color in the major, it does help students of color.
Leroy observed that in this era of data-driven decision making, he and his unit are
providing the university with success stories to capitalize on and further build resources
for. In this way, Leroy secures resources for the low-status students he serves by making
programmatic outcomes comprehensible to administrative stakeholders.
Leroy: So through the program and services that we provide, I think we are really
trying to create success stories. I think we‘ve done that. Success stories that we
can raise to those who are in positions of power and share with them and say, look
there’s a need here. We’ve (his unit) attempted to fill that need and as a result of
that, we were able to document this set of outcomes, whether it’s a particular
student or being able to show our retention rates and what our students doing
beyond their time here, when they graduate.
152
In terms of direct action in the institution that is centered on increasing equitable
practices that benefit low-status students, Isabella, Leroy, and Peter all offered specific
examples. Isabella shared her story of advocating on behalf of her program and the
community to the very powerful Board of Trustees. She is attempting to get highly
placed business and economic leaders to understand differential social and cultural
capital and the value and purpose of a program such as hers in the lives of low-status
students. In addition, she works with stakeholders so they comprehend that access to the
institution is just the first step.
Isabella: I did a presentation for the trustees and they give me this look, like, why
is that necessary? One of the trustees said, “Why do you need that? Don’t they
get that at home from their parents?” I explained no, you have some bright,
talented students here that, through scholarship and financial aid, will be the first
in the families to go to college. And mom cleans homes and dad does lawns and
they don’t know how to begin the conversation about how to behave in the
corporate world. They don’t have the same social capital. At the end, the
President (having defended the subject’s story with stories of his own) was really
great, and said I did an excellent job and he gave me kudos. A couple of the
trustees there still felt like it wasn’t relevant, like that’s not The University’s
responsibility to have programs like this. And to me, it was evident as I looked
about, I was the only Latina and my boss was the only [other person of color]. It
is so important to remind the ivory tower that you can’t just feed them (low-status
students) cake. Absolutely, you have to do a lot more to really bring our
community up.
In addition, she uses the power of her own story as an example for decision makers. She
also reflects on the tremendous internal pressure she felt to represent her community
accurately and well.
Isabella: The trustees acted like, “This isn't the school for those people.” But I
am one of those people. I am pretty open with my story, and there is a place for it
and how much of it I share. I can certainly pick and choose stories, but a lot of it
is not being ashamed of where I come from and who I am. Getting over myself
and my fear and my own inadequacy to present at the trustee meeting was huge
for me because years ago I would have gone home right before the meeting and
said I am sick. So that was part of me getting over my fear to make it and, at that
153
level, at that moment, it was important because I was representing our
community.
Leroy also shared his feelings about carrying the burden of the message or the burden of
his racial identity in the context of the relationship building he has engaged in to confront
the access and support issues at The University.
Leroy: We’ve been able to develop relationships with colleagues across the
campus, colleagues that are also committed to this particular issue, and have been
able to work strategically in different ways to bring this issue up through various
channels at the institution, so it’s not always just me the angry, [person of color]
transfer low-income guy. I am constantly an educator on this issue to fellow
faculty and staff. There are other colleagues in different spheres of influence here
at the institution that are also talking about the importance of this population and
the need to do more and those spheres are not only amongst students and staff, but
in the faculty sphere, as well, and within the academic units.
Leroy’s most direct institutional action comes in the form of constantly keeping the
conversation about equity and access at the forefront. He pushes colleagues to take
personal responsibility regarding what they or their departments are doing for and with
low-status transfer students.
Leroy: I constantly bring up the issue, making sure that it’s in the forefront of
people’s minds, number 1. Whenever I get the opportunity, whether it’s in
divisional meeting or even at departmental meetings, making sure that people
know that we do not do a sufficient job in serving this particular population and
imploring our colleagues to take personal responsibility for the success of this
population or at least to go back to their respective departments and say, what are
we doing for this population? What can we be doing better for this particular
population? So that’s one way, I’m just making sure that this is a conversation
that continues to happen. Because before this initiative existed, you can count on
one hand the people who were champions of this particular group of students or
this particular issue.
Stanton-Salazar (1997, 2010) identifies young women of all backgrounds as low-status
students because of their place in the patriarchal hegemony. Sandy’s action in the
institution centers around the gender studies program and standing up to power. She
154
observes that the stated principles of some of her colleagues and superiors fall to the
wayside when faced with challenge.
Sandy: By trying to keep Feminist Studies alive and allow it to continue to offer
courses, but to actually let it do more. Provide more kinds of programming for
students. So mostly struggles with administrations to keep gender studies
programs alive, get them space, a recognition that it can be a place to build
community. And just being a girl that will stand up to power, saying, you know,
“Excuse me, that is homophobic, [expletive].” When you get in these meetings
with deans and faculty and you just have never seen so much [expletive]
cheapness in all your life, it is really scary. Seeing that in the way in which
otherwise powerful people could all of a sudden start being very quiet and their
principles become a lot less salient. So, just always being that girl that will say,
“No, I am sorry, that is [expletive].”
Peter’s actions and attempts to change the institution are particularly interesting to
explore because of his very specific role as a high-level administrator for equity issues.
Peter has wide-ranging responsibilities, from faculty recruitment, to tenure processes, and
evaluation and final approval for every faculty search committee, to ensuring that diverse
candidates are considered and interviewed. Here, Peter shares the charge he was given
from his first day at The University.
Peter: So when I was recruited to The University as a faculty member, the Dean
asked me very specifically, “Well, what would you do with this program and how
do we make it much better than it is?” And that meant that when I literally was in
the recruitment stage, I was asking faculty that question. My interest was
basically, “How do I make this place a better place for minority faculty?” So, I
asked all the minority faculty I met, “What would improve your life here?” For
[many] years, I worked to build one specific department that would be a cutting
edge department in terms of race and ethnicity and in terms of hiring minority
faculty.
Peter goes on leave after the rigors of building that particular department, only to be
called back to serve as head of the department. Other departments, such as those in the
social sciences, were claiming that they were having difficulty finding qualified minority
faculty. Peter thinks of an inventive solution to the situation.
155
Peter: I was called back from that leave to take up the position because they had
decided to invest in faculty hiring through the program, because all the other
traditional departments were saying, “We can’t find qualified minority faculty to
hire.” Well, what I said to them was, “Hey, if you want minority faculty and
these departments are telling you they can’t find them, give those positions to us
and we will go find them, we will bring them on.” Really simple and he (the
Dean) agreed. We hired a number of key people. Some of the very best, and in
the end, the other departments started to say we would have never thought that
these people would have come to The University.
Peter then shared the direct impact his work had had on The University.
Peter: So, basically over six years that I headed the program, I hired twenty
faculty and they were all cross-listed with other units. So, we were diversifying
all the departments in the humanities and the social sciences. The other piece, by
the way, was that they launched the Ph.D. program. A fellow faculty member and
I secured a [multi-million] dollar grant to support graduate students of color at
The University and we funded [nearly 50] Ph.D. students of color coming in, not
just in one department, but all other departments. That was huge. We were
operating on all cylinders at that point. For our area, that meant for a ten-year
period, they doubled the number of faculty of color in the college through this
effort.
Peter also shared his involvement in faculty hiring and the diversifying of departments
from the ground up as essential to his work. He also articulated a realistic, results-driven
approach to getting departments to commit to diversity in recruitment and hiring.
Peter: Now he (the Dean) definitely had that idea of what I would do at the
faculty level and wanted me to do some of the stuff in the Ph.D. because he knew
my track record. He wasn’t so sure I should do anything else. And I said, “I
won’t do this without the undergraduates. I have to be involved with that level.”
Because for some departments, the truth is they are not going to be successful
with faculty, they may not even be successful with graduate students, but at the
very least, every department should make a commitment to diversity somewhere.
Even if it’s, we need to do a better job with diverse undergraduates. And if that’s
what a department says, great, let me work with them on that level because I
wanted a way that every department could work on something that could have
results. So it was a real balancing act.
Peter also offered a broad operating definition of “diversity” that guides his work with
departments and colleagues.
156
Peter: What that means in terms of diversity is we have a very open definition of
it. It’s race and ethnicity, certainly, underrepresented minorities, of course, but
it’s also women in science and women in other departments that have not had
enough women, and so we put philosophy and we put economics on that list. It
also is first generation college students and so it allows me to really think through
what is it that we are trying to achieve by focusing on that.
Peter’s story teaches us much about the value of a supportive upper administration, the
significance of true (versus symbolic power), the nature of working in a complex
institution while trying to reach goals that are set both internally (one’s own worldview),
as well as externally (parameters set by the Dean). In addition, Peter’s recollections
center the importance of creativity, passion and commitment, and relationship-building
across the institution.
In both peripheral and direct ways, the subjects attempt to make change at the
institution that will ultimately benefit low-status students. In doing so, they gain the
strength to continue to demonstrate to students what change-making in action looks like.
But the subjects also try to enact their critical consciousness in the world, making them
exemplars for low-status students who wish to impact the dominant system that surrounds
them.
Challenging the System
To close this section, I asked the subjects in what ways they attempt to make
change to the system. I asked them to explain to me how they demonstrate their own
critical consciousness in the world. While the subjects addressed how they sustained
critical consciousness while embedded in an earlier chapter, continually challenging the
dominant system in big and small ways enables the subjects to maintain a sense of
integrity. William, Logan, and Sandy approached the question in a political sense, in
157
terms of life inside and outside the institution. William keeps himself centered by
publicly expressing his opinion, in the classroom and on the Internet through his blog.
William: Well, I’m kind of a discontent person. So I have very little patience
with a lot of parts of the system. And because I write a blog and I do all sorts of
things that are relatively public to express my own opinions, my students come
knowing that I have an opinion. And they know when I say something snarky
about Glenn Beck, they know where that’s coming from. I advise students, I
write, and I teach. I think the only tools I have are the ones that I’m using from
the digital revolution that makes it possible for a person like myself to make
70,000 people read a blog. Health care, financial fraud. I mean, I write about
almost anything. And then I write on a big, famous political blog. But I do that
like once a week, because that is red meat politics. Yeah, and I feel very satisfied.
I don’t feel frustrated at all. I mean, I feel frustrated about the political system,
but that doesn’t mean I feel frustrated with my ability to be heard because I feel I
do get heard.
Logan is involved locally, through political organizations, and at the statewide level in
issues around redistricting and the building of advocacy centers.
Logan: I have been involved in redistricting. Twice, I was part of the statewide
[specific racial group] coalition that was involved in redistricting. I have been
part of political groups such as the [city-wide people of color] Democratic Club. I
was on the redistricting commission in [another city], the city council redistricting
commission, so we had the sole and complete authority to redistrict the city
council districts in [the entire city]. I have applied for the statewide redistricting
commission. I was part of a group that established a legal center in [another city]
because I saw how important the [legal and advocacy center for people of color]
has been for [my city].
Sandy engages in political action, contributes through academia, and most importantly to
her, tries to mentor students in the development of their own critical consciousness.
Sandy: How do I enact my critical consciousness in the world? Well, besides
attending political demonstrations, and voting, and signing petitions, writing my
congressman, and putting political signs in my office and on my front lawn, I
write books, and articles, and talk to lots of journalists, and give talks at
universities across the nation. I guess above all I try to train students in critical
consciousness. Really, all of my classes are about critical thinking regarding
social and political issues, and I wouldn't have it any other way.
158
Peter took a more philosophical approach to the question of how he works to change the
system. He asserts that his contribution is but a small part of an ideal, collective inside-
outside action.
Peter: I don’t know. I sort of feel if I knew that answer I wouldn’t be here
(laughs). I think I have much more modest aspirations and I think they have
become more modest over time, too, partly because I think this is a long haul. So
I am much less willing to talk about transformations of the system. I think what I
am doing adds to it, but I think it’s a much larger thing. I think what changes a
system is something that has to be collective. It often is from the outside. And it
exerts a kind of pressure. I mean in the ideal world, what you would have is a lot
of inside change agents coupled with a lot of outside pressure. And that’s what
rarely happens. But that is the ideal.
In the previous sections, we have seen how Leroy exerts pressure inside the institution.
As Peter alludes to, outside pressure is necessary, as well. Leroy discussed his
community-based involvement in the larger systemic issues of pre-college preparation
and access to the statewide system.
Leroy: Well, I’m part of several groups, community organizations that work to
try and bring about change, not only at the policy level, but also programmatically
working with students and trying to supplement some of the instruction that
students get at the K-12 level, in terms of providing more college preparatory
curriculum for students. I feel like I’m able to really try and enact change
particularly at the [statewide level] because both of those programs where I work
have good relationships with the [statewide system] main office. We are
constantly pushing them to take new approaches in terms of the way that they
conduct early academic outreach and then also the way that they do admission
review. I think much of the work of those organizations resulted in the
comprehensive review process that was widely enacted system-wide after [the
statewide anti-affirmative action measure] passed.
In addition, Leroy offered his belief that he is changing the system by influencing and
empowering the students he works with (in a similar fashion to Sandy).
Leroy: I feel like I contribute to changing the system in that way (through
organizational involvement), but then I feel like literally, with every student that I
interact with and every student that I have the opportunity to work with over an
extended period of time, in this case it’s two years, maybe three years. I feel like
159
many times by the time they leave here, I feel like I’ve just won someone else
over. I got another convert, if you will! (laughs) Not that these students needed
conversion or anything like that, but I feel like we’re producing change agents
that will go out there and continue to champion these causes and be the voice for
those who are omitted from the conversation. So that might seem like a very
microscopic view of enacting change, but I think it’s a very powerful one in terms
of empowering individuals to go out and fight the same fight.
Leroy, Sandy, Isabella, Peter, William, and Logan engage in a variety of actions that
demonstrate how they enact their critical consciousness in the world. These are all
actions that the subjects take in order to challenge the status quo, from direct political
action to the act of teaching empowerment. While not all of the actions may appear to be
world-changing, it is important to note that these practitioners are truly engaged in the
lives of students, in the complexity of the institution, and in the struggle against inequity
on multiple levels. It is the combination of engagement, challenge, and reflection that
separates them from the institutional agent who may not have adopted a local and
systemic empowerment-oriented stance.
Over the course of this chapter, we have explored the characteristics, named by
the subjects themselves, necessary to do the job of institutional/empowerment agent
effectively. We delved into the specific actions the subjects engage in. These actions
included particular ways they work with students, how they teach low-status student to
decode and navigate the complexities of the institution, and how they teach system-
changing skills and mindsets. Finally, we saw how subjects themselves attempt to
change both the institution and the system, thereby enacting their critical consciousness.
The next chapter will focus on the internal and institutional barriers to the full
development of empowerment agents. We will explore resistance, repression, and
renewal in the lives of the subjects.
160
CHAPTER SEVEN
INTERNAL AND INSTITUTIONAL BARRIERS:
REPRESSION, RESISTANCE, RENEWAL
Introduction
In the preceding three chapters, we have learned about our subjects through their
biographical sketches and have delved into their beliefs and worldview development. We
furthered explored how they enact their critical consciousness in the world – with and for
low-status students, in the institution, and against the dominant system. But no
practitioner operates in a vacuum. Context is critical, and therefore, this chapter aims to
address the question of internal and institutional barriers to enacting agency and
transformation and achieving full empowerment agent status. What contextual
roadblocks possibly prevent the full engagement of our subjects? In addition, this chapter
will detail how the subjects have taken stands against the institution, as well as how they
sustain themselves and their ability to continue the work of empowering low-status
students. In summary, the three sections of this chapter will highlight the three themes of
repression, resistance, and renewal.
Institutional and Internal Barriers – Repression
The participants shared a number of contextual barriers to their effective practice.
Table 8 summarizes common barriers shared by the subjects on key internal and
institutional obstacles.
161
Table 8. Common Barriers to Achieving Full Empowerment Agent Status
Relationship Form Domains
Strict Inclusion X is a kind of Y 1. Bureaucracy
2. No credit for interdisciplinarity
3. Broad institutional obstacles
4. Internal burnout and frustration
Bureaucracy
Many of the subjects discussed an obstacle that is an institutional fact of life:
bureaucracy. In these cases, however, bureaucracy, red tape, and institutional culture
present challenges that make the job of the institutional/empowerment agent more
difficult, literally and emotionally. In William’s case, the combination of bureaucracy,
the size of the institution, and its sheer resistance to change is deeply aggravating.
William expresses his frustration at the bureaucratic rigmarole he faced in creating an
experiential lab for his program.
William: Just like any organization, there are all sorts of people who believe it’s
their job to sign off on anything you do and basically, they have a sense of “it
can’t be done” or “we don’t do things that way.” And that’s unfortunate. I mean,
we were told when we came up with this lab idea that maybe we could get a
website up in a year. And we said we’d build it in two months. And they said
that’s impossible. So we just went off, took some money from the Dean, and did
it. And that was just pure bureaucratic impossibility. So, that’s constantly
frustrating.
Isabella, who constantly fundraises to keep the scholarship fund healthy and viable for
the dynamic student of color community, discusses the complicated nexus of money and
relationships in the university context.
Isabella: So one of the things that I did find most recently is in trying to partner
for money, some people want so much of the credit that it gets very sticky. I also
encountered institutionally a roadblock where they (central University
Development office) were going to give me a list of companies that they could tell
162
I was getting money from, that I couldn’t approach anymore. But one of the
companies that got on that list was my former employer, which is kind of silly
since I have a lot of colleagues there and they were my direct contact. So I’ve
decided who are really allies and who are not and that’s okay. I’ve learned in the
last year the challenges that exist within the institution in terms of collaboration. I
think people want to, but then everybody gets very possessive and money is a
funny thing.
And Sandy was disturbed by the seeming inaccessibility of the corridors of power.
Sandy, at various times during our interviews, described her sense of alienation from The
University, which she referred to as a puzzle, an “old boys network,” a maze, and a brick
wall. Sandy’s reference to an “old boys network” alludes to exclusive, yet informal,
systems of mutual assistance and benefit, traditionally through which men belonging to a
particular group or social class exchange favors and connections (Gamba & Kleiner,
2001).
Sandy: I have not figured out how to negotiate this university at all in terms of
the halls of power. This is an old boys network. It isn’t necessarily all boys, but
it is old. It is an old network of who you know, from when. I am not a member.
At an institution like this, I think of it as a brick wall for somebody like me.
The subjects’ frustrations range from what one would expect of any large, decentralized
organization (red tape and institutional size) to specific challenges they face at The
University (resistance to change and old boys network).
No Credit for Interdisciplinarity
A targeted concern that emerged that I would also identify as specific to The
University is about the value (or lack thereof) placed on academic interdisciplinarity.
William, who is not directly impacted by the issue, raised the concern during his
interviews.
William: The other thing that’s frustrating is the university talks a lot about inter-
disciplinarity. But, and this is not an issue for me, because I’m not a tenure track,
163
young, 30-year-old post doc. But the university gives no credit to people doing
the inter-disciplinary work through their tenure. And that is a real shame.
Because that’s the kind of work that should be championed, and yet, if you aren’t
just spending all your time writing for peer-reviewed journals in your specialty
field, you’ll never get tenure. And it’s too bad because it’s making everybody a
specialist too soon.
Logan, who is directly impacted by this issue, raised two major points – the lack of
recognition for specific types of research and publishing and the demands placed on him
as a joint member of two departments. That which should ostensibly lead to greater
institutional cross-pollination leads only to burn out, in this specific institutional context.
Logan begins by expressing concern that his award-winning work is not recognized as
valid by the institution, which uses narrower standards, preferring work published in
mainline social sciences journals versus ethnic studies journals,
Logan: They won’t promote me to full professor yet. The deans thought, looking
at my CV, that I should wait, that I should publish more in mainstream social
sciences journals. A lot of my work has been in ethnic studies journals (all peer
reviewed, nationally recognized). But they wanted it in [social science] journals.
See, they are judging work by the journals it’s published in, because they can’t
read the work and establish its credibility themselves.
The University’s policies seem to make life for faculty of color difficult, particularly
those whose work sits at the crossroads of two fields, such as Social Sciences and Ethno-
Racial Studies. Logan’s sense of bitterness leads to anger against the institution and
feelings of defeat and impotence, in many ways limiting his full effectiveness as an
empowerment agent. Logan details the many ways he feels frustrated by The University,
including the service and committee work (usually additionally burdensome for faculty of
color).
Logan: The main thing is, especially being a joint member of two departments,
there is just too much service work, there is just too much committee work to do,
and it really impinges on my time for research and publications. That is to me the
164
main obstacle. And I haven’t been involved in any effort to change The
University – to me that is beating your head against the wall. I just want to try to
do my work in my departments, and I am lucky that I have great colleagues in
both departments. So I just want to do my work, my departments’ work, with the
grad and undergrad students, and that is it. For example, [an administrative
leader] has been having meetings with faculty to talk about the future of the
university. I said I couldn’t go, because to me it’s a waste of time. I think they
already have their vision.
The lack of course releases and the business model of The University particularly anger
Logan.
Logan: There are just very basic things they need to provide like some [other
universities] do, and they need to provide the resources for their professors to be
able to do their research. And one of the things is if people are doing service you
give them course releases. And that is just so basic. The University is so stingy
with their course releases. I was talking to somebody else who came from
another [university], he says he couldn’t believe it and if he had known he
wouldn’t have come. Over here he has to fight for every single release, unless
you are bringing in a lot of money through research. And then you could buy out
your course releases, but that is a little bit different. Well, it’s a big institution, it
has this entrepreneurial model, this kind of business model.
The critique of the “business model” leads directly into the next section, focusing on
broad institutional obstacles.
Broad Institutional Obstacles
Leroy and Sandy both share their thoughts about The University’s emphasis on
prestige maximization and concern for image and market status. Prestige maximization
can be defined as intentional acts directed by self-interest to increase the reputation and
renown of higher education institutions. Prestige maximization results, for example, in
higher rankings in publications that rate prestige, such as U.S. News and World Reports
(Melguizo & Strober, 2007). Leroy notes that he perceives that The University holds
prestige and equitable access in opposition.
165
Leroy: The University is primarily concerned about serving its own end versus its
community. It’s a place that’s very, very concerned with prestige maximization,
and they see access and prestige maximization as being in conflict with one
another or not being able to mutually exist.
Sandy bluntly expresses a similar concern, but is also unnerved by what The University is
willing to showcase or conceal.
Sandy: But basically the question will be, will it make it to a glossy photo, will it
get coverage in US News and World Reports? They are more superficial
oriented, so it is purely about, “Will this sell?” Education is for sale in a very big
way, so can we make this sell. We (The University) will be happy to publicize
our diversity statistics. We know that is useful in selling ourselves. But
something astounding about this place is that they won’t publish the information
on the gender and race composition of their faculty.
Leroy and Sandy note that The University is choosing to prioritize certain features at the
expense of others, particularly in external presentation. Peter dialogued about the range
of internal, institutional obstacles he faces, from inertia regarding prioritizing diversity to
lack of resources.
Peter: Oh, every unit head, every department has presented a barrier. When
people talk about academic freedom, part of what academic freedom is, is the
ability not to do anything. You get that from every department to some extent,
even though it’s the university mission, you know, they are unwilling to prioritize
it (diversity) and so you got to find ways, find actors at the local level willing to
do certain things, sometimes it’s threats, sometimes it’s taking away things,
sometimes it’s encouraging things, sometimes it’s patting people on the back.
Even inside this office, look, it’s a new position. I went from being a [department
head] to being [a high-level administrator]. I don’t have any [administrative, full-
time staff]. Every other [administrator] has a staff and I know that’s how they get
the work done. So, you know, I make do with it, maybe eventually, maybe in the
next round maybe as they reshuffle things, they add more resources. I am doing it
basically working with other peoples’ [staffs] and a set of research assistants. We
are doing pretty good work, but not as much as those with dedicated staff.
Peter is clear that with additional resources, he could be even more effective in his role as
an institutional change agent. Logan, who, above, questioned his own effectiveness and
ability to make change, shares the key pressure that any faculty member in a Research 1
166
institution will face: the fine balance between teaching, mentoring, researching, and
publishing.
Logan: So there's always that tension, because the more time you spend with
students, the less time you have for your research and writing.
Sandy, who says, out of frustration, that she has been “Quitting this job ever since I got
here,” shares the tremendous obstacle she faced upon arriving at The University.
Sandy: I land in Feminist Studies, which makes me perfectly happy. And I find
out that the administration wants to shut it down, and I find this out the minute I
arrive. And I am like, wait a minute, I ended up at [expletive] university that
wants to shut down women’s studies, and they hired me to be in Feminist Studies.
So, relative to my engagement, I probably spent way too much time engaging
with that issue, which seemed to me a crime. Like, wait, I’m pretty sure this
university still needs a gender-oriented program – I am pretty sure that we are not
done.
The very specific hurdles faced by Logan and Sandy have engendered deep feelings of
powerlessness within the institution. While both are extremely active in engaging low-
status students, exhibiting their critical consciousness in the world, and speaking up for
their beliefs, they feel stifled by The University’s practices.
It is The University’s practices that Leroy alludes to in his apt commentary
regarding an overarching lack of institutional commitment to equity and access.
Leroy: And as a result of that, there’s not the level of commitment that I think
needs to exist for this issue or similar issues that deal with matters of access to
education and equitable outcomes. So I think commitment is lacking. And that
manifests itself in a lack of resources and a variety of other ways, as well, such as
a slow to change institutional culture that would make this place more welcoming
to transfer students, particularly the ones from low income, historically
underrepresented backgrounds.
Whether impacting the agent directly, leading to anger and impotence, or exhibited in a
larger, business model of institutional culture that relies on prestige maximization
167
(situated oppositionally to equity), the broad contextual obstacles faced by the subjects at
The University lead to major burnout.
Internal Burnout and Frustration
Stanton-Salazar (2010) details the institutional barriers that the empowerment
agent may encounter, but the resulting emotional, physical, and psychological aftermath
of those encounters, detailed below, can be devastating. While the subjects are giving of
themselves, their intellect, their compassion, and their social capital networks, they are
being drained by a variety of institutional stumbling blocks. And while tiredness and
resentment are feelings experienced by many workers in practically all settings, burnout
of institutional/empowerment agents has a corollary impact on the low-status students
they wish to empower. For example, Isabella, Logan, and Leroy all shared personal
accounts of what burnout looked and felt like to them.
Isabella: Because it’s been a lot of weekends, a lot of personal time. There were
a couple of years [my child] was getting in trouble because I was here four nights
a week and almost every weekend I had something to do for the ACSA.
Logan: I have felt very, very tired. I just feel overworked, I feel tired, I can’t, I
don’t want to do any more work. I want to just take time to be with my family,
and just put work aside.
Leroy: It feels frustrating. I feel helpless and I start to question whether the work
that I’m doing is meaningful or is making a difference. Fortunately, I have not
gotten to the point where I’ve stayed in that feeling.
Peter reflected on similar feelings as the subjects above, but also was thoughtful about the
tremendous internalized pressure he feels to continue to do the work. The deeply
personal commitment to the work of increasing access of low-status students to the
institution can be a heavy burden.
168
Peter: Time, more than anything else. There is so little time to do all the things
that need to be done and even all the things we are asked to do. Forget the
personal life – the patience of my wife is amazing! I have to think a lot about that
because it’s trying to balance that issue and trying to figure out what do I actually
dedicate time to that is critical and important. I literally have to find the time to do
the meetings that make a difference, while balancing the teaching, while
balancing the graduate students, while balancing all the other sorts of
commitments. And you have to cut out things. I am certainly cutting out most
intellectual activities. I just don’t have time for some things I would love to do. I
do a lot of things that I am committed to because I know there won’t be minority
students admitted in history if I am not on admissions in history. Just doesn’t
happen – every time I have taken a leave and not been on it, it doesn’t happen.
The internalized pressures of the empowerment agent are not necessarily something that
Stanton-Salazar (2010) addresses, but the telling offers a complexity to the story of the
empowerment agent. What Peter expresses, and what Leroy reflects on, are tremendous
weights for the agents to carry.
Peter shares two final thoughts that help us close this section. First, he shares a
poignant thought about the proportional relationship of effectiveness and loneliness. In
his highly placed role in the institution, Peter, who prefers working in collaboration, must
make tough decisions, often in isolation. In addition, he discusses the short half-life of
someone in his type of position.
Peter: Part of what I have been much more conscious of lately in this job is that,
and this goes to being institutional agents or stuff like that, in the end, the more
effective you are, the more lonely it gets. This literally means that you have
fewer and fewer people to talk about it with, partly because you are given more
and more responsibilities and it's harder and harder to explain it to people. So I
actually think that this goes with the territory. I don’t like feeling so lonely. But
it’s really hard because it’s often very tough decisions you have to make, you
have to remember what are your basic principles, but there gets to be fewer and
fewer people. And that’s a tough obstacle for a lot of us, particularly anybody
that’s community oriented, that likes to work with groups. And this relates to
burnout, I think you can only do these kinds of jobs for a certain period of time
effectively. And then you have to step out and do other things. But it does mean
that that you are trying to do a good job for a limited amount of time and then you
are going to move on to something else where you get to do – nothing changes in
169
terms of your overall feelings, but you get to do it a different sort of way. So
that’s hard for people to kind of understand and most of the people who end up
doing these things as careers, they don’t end up being very effective for very long,
I don’t think. So part of it is just loneliness, literally it’s like, you just don’t feel
like you have a lot of other people to reach out to and stay connected with and
who are people who could really understand what’s going on. So that’s tough.
Peter speaks from a very specific place, as an administrator charged with actively
bringing equity to faculty searches and more. Second, Peter offers his beliefs about the
power and privilege of being a tenured faculty member, challenging, in some ways,
Logan’s and Sandy’s frustrations.
Peter: I want to see results and I got to tell you, it's partly because of the privilege
that being a tenured faculty member gives you. If you have a tenured faculty
member who is saying, “Oh, what about this and what about that, and I don’t have
power, and I don’t have this, and I don’t have resources to do that…” Bullshit!
You have it all. You don’t have everything you possibly want, but you have
resources that you are not using. You have power that you are not making good
use of. And no one said you were just going to get everything because you got
tenure. You’ve got to spend time on this (efforts for institutional diversity), you
are making some choices, and I don’t care who that person is.
Does Peter, who was based in the progressive field of Ethnic Studies, have more privilege
than do faculty members in more traditional disciplines, such as the social sciences?
When Peter exhorts his fellow tenured faculty members to remember the power they
have, is it appropriate? Tenure confers job security and academic freedom, and yet, from
Logan’s perspective, he perceives himself as, “…an exploited laborer to the
administration. That’s my analysis of how this institution works and my place in it.” The
answers to these questions are not within the scope of this study, but do pose an
interesting institutional conundrum. However, the question that does emerge from the
conflicts expressed by the faculty members, “How do empowerment agents themselves
170
remain empowered to continue to ‘fight the good fight’?” will be explored in the next two
sections of this chapter, focused on resistance and renewal.
Taking A Stand – Resistance
In Chapter 5, we learned that a key shared belief among the subjects was the value
of maintaining critical consciousness while embedded in the system. We explored the
ways they balanced their roles and thought critically about their positionality. In Chapter
6, we delved into the multiple ways the subjects enacted their critical consciousness, both
in working with and teaching students, as well as in the world around them.
I asked the study participants to share moments in which they had followed
through on a controversial stance or stood in opposition to institutional or societal
practice. The following examples showcase ways that the subjects took a stand and/or
followed through on a belief. Exhibiting resistance in multiple contexts is key to the
mindset of the effective empowerment agent. The personal engagement is crucial –
otherwise, they can simply be agents of reproduction or agents that enable a pipeline of
neoliberal progress and individual achievement. Leroy shared an example that allows
him to sleep easy at night. He explains that he was quoted in the university newspaper,
questioning the institution’s commitment to his program. His superiors chastised him,
but Leroy held his ground, based both on his beliefs, as well as his ability to demonstrate
The University’s failures.
Leroy: They wrote a couple of stories in the university newspaper and in one of
them, I was quoted as saying that I didn’t think the institution was committed to
it, to this particular initiative (his program that works with low-status transfer
students). While my immediate supervisor was supportive, it was conveyed to me
by those above my immediate supervisor that that was not an appropriate
statement to make and that it was one in which I did not come across as being a
team player. My response was that certainly is that individual’s opinion but that
171
doesn’t change what I said. It doesn’t change why I said it. I actually believed
that when I said it and if pressed, I can demonstrate why I feel that way. And so
for me, I didn’t have a problem saying it at that time, although it probably wasn’t
the best thing politically. I thought I was being true to my experience and being
true to myself in that statement and so for me, even if it upset the higher ups
within our organization, I can sleep at night knowing that I was still true to me
and I didn’t misrepresent anything at all.
Logan and William know what they do angers people, but they continue because it
matters. Logan notes that the very subject matter he researches and writes about, race in
America, is seen as subversive and controversial.
Logan: Well, all of the time just speaking out and writing about the importance of
race in America, when people want to see ourselves as an open, fair, meritocratic
country. It is something that I think goes against the mainstream, when we talk
about the systemic inequality in society, versus this idea that we have grown up in
this fair and meritocratic society. That race does matter, that Asian Americans
still do face discrimination in many ways.
William acknowledges that his “thick skin” protects him from the harsh responses to his political
writing.
William: Oh, yeah, all the time. I mean, I write things on my blog that people get
crazy about. Because I realize, you know, there's all sort of fish in the sea and I
don't have to please everybody. I am old enough to know that. I don't care if
people, if the civil libertarians hate what I have to say or something, tough, you
know. I've got a reasonably thick skin and so it doesn't really bother me.
Sandy takes an even more direct approach in her resistance. She confronts the deans about their
emphasis on prestige maximization and market economics. She is cognizant of the reproductive,
self-replicating nature of The University and that it is an oppressive force for her.
Sandy: To the deans, I tell them that I think that it’s really problematic that they
are more concerned with the market than they are with education. So there is this
smiley face guy who says, I share your concern. And it turns out he shares your
concerns no matter what they are – with the color of your toilet paper, right. He is
clearly just a practiced yes man, so I think that is pretty much the way that the
place is structured. It is structured to reproduce itself, so that the minute you get
somebody from the outside who might actually try to institute positive change, it
172
will get rid of that person – either push them into line or push them out. So the
response to me has been dismissive. It’s really hard being a faculty member here
just doing the job, let alone try to make something better.
Sandy has real disappointments with the institution and clearly sees herself as an outsider.
She has witnessed the institution’s reproductive, hegemonic power in action. Although
equally cognizant of the institution’s flaws, Peter sees himself very specifically as a
change agent on the inside, and therefore, adopts a different approach to taking a stand.
He is careful to protect his insider status because he sees it as part of a larger strategy of
change agents on both the inside and outside.
Peter: I will not take certain public positions as an administrator that I would
have easily taken as a faculty member because I am not going to jeopardize the
role I have inside. Now, I have taken unpopular positions inside, and been very
adamant and I can do that and there are not many people who can do that. Most
people will never know the positions I take inside, I will not talk to them about it,
it will not become public, but for me to be effective, I have to be able to take
unpopular positions inside. To me, that’s the greatest thing that this position
allows you to do. But it ain’t going to win me any friends because no one outside
will know I ever did it.
Peter offers a specific example of his “insider advocacy” and further explains the
contextual demands and challenges of his insider status. He believes in internal and
external push in order to achieve institutional change.
Peter: I will give you an example and this is actually a very good example. I am
never going to take a public position on [this issue]. But I have been to the
[senior administrator’s] office, I have been to the Director of External Relations,
they know exactly how I feel about it. I will put pressure on the [new people in
the upper administration], I will keep doing it and I will do it over and over and
over again as a historian and as everything else. I will never take a public
position on it, but I am putting it in the face of many people as many times as I
possibly can until something is done about it. I think it is a scandal that they
haven’t done anything. You are never going to see me talking at a rally. But
when I walk in to the Vice President of External Relations or to the Provost, and I
say this has to change, he has to know or she has to know that I am not going to
be outside protesting. Other people can do that, other people will do that, I have
faith in them. They (upper administration) have got to be able to have somebody
173
on the inside that they can turn to. But I know that I am much less effective if I
don’t say that from the inside, if I end up saying from the outside and not the
inside, because I have been given the privilege to be on the inside. Otherwise,
you undermine whatever leverage you have on the inside. But I will raise these
issues on the inside consistently. And you need everybody pushing from the
outside and people on the inside who are pushing, too.
The continued demonstration of resistance against systemic and institutional repression is
a key factor in the life of an empowerment agent. Whether from the outside or from the
inside, the challenge to the status quo and the refusal to accept institutional silencing are
core acts in which empowerment agents engage. Of course, similar to the prior section,
the very act of contesting reproductive practices and stratification, in big and small ways,
can be draining. The final section of this chapter details coping methods the subjects rely
upon for renewal and a re-energizing of the spirit that leads them to the work they do.
Sustaining Self and Practice – Renewal
The subjects shared on a wide range of activities and practices that they relied
upon for energy and mission renewal, from reflection to action. The participants
identified these strategies as deeply necessary for their continued ability to engage in the
work of counter-stratification, particularly in the face of reproductive and repressive
institutional practices. As Stanton-Salazar (2010) indicates, institutional conditions
require a certain level of self-awareness and self-care in order to be able to continue
developing as an empowerment agent. Table 9 showcases the range of key renewal
activities, with bolded items explored in further detail subsequently.
174
Table 9
Key Activities that Sustain the Agent’s Ability to Continue the Work
Relationship Form Domains
Strict Inclusion X is a kind of Y 1. Knowing which battles to pick
2. Setting boundaries and making time
3. Having perspective
4. Living life with a purpose/Paying it forward
5. Interaction with students
6. Collegial relationships
7. Thank yous from students
8. Reflecting on how much work remains
9. Identifying comrades and allies
10. Re-focusing on spiritual, mental, physical health
11. Finding balance
12. Engaging with new projects and ideas
13. The absolute belief that things can change
14. Separating institution from students
15. Finding the good people
16. Remembering incredible support
The subjects offered a range of personally fulfilling ways they focus on self and
restoration of energy and spirit. Self-care methods included: learning to find balance by
working out and sleeping enough; learning to recognize the symptoms of being
overworked or burned out; surfing as a restorative for mental, spiritual, and physical
health; and spending time with spouses. Additional restorative tactics included:
revisiting thank you cards from students as a reminder for why he engages in the work
and continued motivation; picking and choosing which battles to fight; and realizing that
there must be intentional time to put work aside as a preventive to full burnout. Key
examples from the subjects help to further explicate methods of self-renewal. A number
of the participants discussed mission and purpose over the course of their interviews.
175
Isabella shared her reflection on living a life with purpose as a primary source of re-
energizing and re-committing to the work.
Isabella: When I feel lost in terms of whether my purpose here or not, whenever I
encounter whatever challenge, it’s always about going to the higher beings and
saying, okay, I can’t live a life without purpose. That really sustains me, so once I
connect to the purpose, then I realize there is always going to be a challenge. And
by overcoming the challenge then you are more committed to the purpose, right?
So that’s very important to me and that reenergizes me. I have had students in the
four years that I have been here, and I could see their successes and it just makes
me feel really proud because what an opportunity to get things right early on. I
mean a lot of the way I have gotten here has been because of people taking that
extra time and believing in me when I didn’t believe in myself. So it’s a way to
stay connected with that energy and it’s your responsibility – you have to pay it
forward.
The sense of purpose and a mission-driven mindset also permeates Leroy’s thoughts on
the subject. The very fact of the reproductive nature of the institution reminds Leroy of
how the work is needed.
Leroy: Just looking around and seeing that we have so far to go. As far as we’ve
come, we’ve still got so far to go. Probably more so than the interaction with the
students and the thank you cards – it’s great that these folks are here, but we have
so much work left to do. This is something that we have to continue to work at
until things get better. I just think that it’s evident we’ve got a lot more work to
do. But still even places like this, the fact that it is able to operate in the way that
it does and serve exclusively the clientele that it does is problematic in and of
itself. This work is still very much needed and that’s what keeps me going, as
well.
Peter and Sandy find sources of energy in different places. Sandy returns to the
satisfaction she derives from her interaction with students, while Peter reflects on
continual engagement with new and interesting projects that provide stimulation.
Sandy: I am burnt out on the institution side, but never on the student side. The
students themselves, they always give back. I never really feel burn out by that,
and so that part is always really satisfying.
Peter: So I think that helps me – actual engagement with new stuff helps me a
great deal in confronting burnout. I don’t mind the science stuff because I just
176
don’t know it. As long as I think of as an educational opportunity, it becomes
more interesting to me. I like the new project I’m working on because it’s doing
some completely new that no one has tried before and working with good people
and good students in a very different kind of way. So, you know, everything that
comes new is re-energizing.
A major source of renewal that all of the subjects identified were the valuable and
meaningful relationships they had formed on campus. In the very beginning of this
study, we explored social capital networks and relationships as central to the work of the
institutional/empowerment agents (Stanton-Salazar, 2010). And the subjects themselves
live the theory in their daily lives. For example, Sandy, who has a very complicated
relationship with the institution, shares her thoughts about developing relationships.
Sandy: I find ways where I can just work with the good people and [expletive]
the institution. I hang out with a lot of other people who are equally committed.
Leroy expands on Sandy’s thoughts with his ruminations about strategic relationships and
finding allies who prioritize access.
Leroy: It’s kind of picking and choosing your battles. There are some people that
are so far gone in their way of thinking that there’s nothing that I could say to
them that’s going to get them to change the way that they see things. I’m far
much better served talking to and identifying those people that possibly can be
changed. Who could be willing comrades, who could be potential allies, and
cultivating and developing those folks. Or working with those individuals to
ensure that they see the importance of this work. But I’d be naïve to believe that
every single person on this campus is going to see this problem the way that I see
it or that’s going to give it the priority that I give it.
Leroy also relies on his trusted network of relationships for support and motivation, a
necessary component of being able to do the work effectively.
Leroy: Again it goes back to relationships, but I go to those colleagues that I
know get it and that understand what that feels like, and I turn to them for support.
And I’ve been fortunate to have colleagues that are very, very empathetic with
what we go through because they go through it on their own and so we’re able to
come and support each other through those difficult times and they remind me
why it’s important to keep going.
177
Relationships are vitally important, not only as a requirement for the practitioner to
leverage social capital networks for the benefit of low-status students, but in and of
themselves, deeply beneficial to the agent’s sense of self-efficacy and self-empowerment.
Peter helps us to close this chapter with this thought: “I want to see the change. I
want to see that things move. I absolutely believe that things can change and that keeps
me going.” This belief in change and movement, a shifting of a universal and systemic
consciousness, is a thought that is expressed in different ways by all of the subjects. It is
a driving, motivating force for all of them, no matter the internalized frustration they may
feel, nor the contextual roadblocks that exist on their journey. The barriers present in the
institution are tremendous, and each subject has been impacted in a variety of ways –
ranging from feelings of anger, powerlessness, and impotence to increased creativity and
ingenuity to surmount obstacles. Through this chapter, we have explored the three
primary themes of repression, resistance, and renewal. Although many will recognize the
barriers and obstacles faced by the subjects as common to similar, large bureaucratic
organizations, some are institution-specific. Situating the institution as a locus of control
helps us to view the acts of resistance and the methods of renewal explained by the
subjects as what they are – necessary to the continuance of a movement by practitioners
to shift dominant practices and dismantle hegemonic mores, one student, one department,
and one university at a time.
Chapter 8 will offer in a comprehensive analysis of the data and findings explored
in Chapters 5, 6, and 7, as well as implications for both practice and research.
178
CHAPTER EIGHT
ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS
Introduction
I enter this chapter having traveled on a journey with the subjects. Over the
course of the last four chapters, I offered subject portraits, allowing us glimpses into the
lives of the study participants. I then explored their core beliefs and worldview
development over the lifespan. Next, I examined how they translate beliefs into practice
(their praxis orientation). And finally, I delved into internal and contextual barriers to
their full realization of the role of empowerment agent. This chapter provides my
analysis of the data gathered through the life history interviews to address the three
research questions that guided this study:
1. What are the lived experiences from the empowerment agent’s life history that
have made central for them a state of critical consciousness and a mindset
centered on counter-stratification (Stanton-Salazar, 2001)?
2. What are the behaviors that empowerment agents engage in that either directly
benefit low-status students or attempt to change the institution (praxis)?
3. What are the contextual (institutional and internal) obstacles to enacting
agency and transformation and achieving full empowerment agent status?
Following a summary of the findings by research question, I will delve into an
analysis of the findings, including an empirical comparison between institutional agents
and empowerment agents. We will specifically examine the discrepancy between the
integration of a social justice/critical consciousness mindset and the actual
implementation and praxis-driven actions that result. I will explore two sets of
179
implications. First, I will consider the implications for practice, of both the practitioner
and of the institution. Second, I will reflect upon the implications for research and build
from Stanton-Salazar’s (1997, 2010) work. Following this two-part exploration of the
contributions to the field, I will close with possible areas for future research.
Summary of Findings by Research Question
In this section, I will offer a summary of this study’s findings, as they relate to
each of the three research questions.
Research Question 1: What are the lived experiences from the empowerment agent’s life
history that have made central for them a state of critical consciousness and a mindset
centered on counter-stratification (Stanton-Salazar, 2001)?
The first two sections of the interview guide (Appendix C) consisted of questions
designed to answer research question one. Research question one aimed to explore the
lived experiences from the institutional/empowerment agent’s life history that have made
central for them critical consciousness and a mindset centered on counter-stratification.
Counter-stratification is defined as strategies that deliberately counter rigid hierarchical
and reproductive social structures (Stanton-Salazar, 2001, 2010). The first section of the
interview guide delved into the subject’s formative years and explored culture, family,
neighborhood, economic class, significant events, and influential figures. The second
section probed the impact of schooling, including the influence of teachers and mentors,
co-curricular involvement in college and graduate school, historical events, and key life
lessons. The first set of findings has to do with the beliefs and mindset, or worldviews, of
the subjects. What are the key beliefs held by the subjects and how do their beliefs
impact their ways of looking at and thinking about the world around them?
180
Beliefs/Mindset/Worldview
While wide-ranging, the beliefs and attributes of the subjects reveal high-level
reflectivity and reflexivity. The qualities of reflectivity and reflexivity are increasingly
necessary in postsecondary educational environments of increasing stratification (Roksa,
Grodsky, Arum, & Gamoran, 2007). A number of recent studies indicate that, in the
context of higher education, class advantage (and disadvantage) persists, that differences
in educational attainment persist or have increased over time, and that educational
expansion has disproportionately rewarded students from the upper class (Karen, 2002;
Roksa, et al., 2007). In fact, Astin and Osguera (2004) reveal that higher education in the
United States is more socioeconomically stratified today than at any time during the prior
three decades. In my study, institutional/empowerment agents are reflective in that they
actively contemplate and examine their life, work, positionality, and relationships. They
have spent time thinking through beliefs, patterns of practice, and their own subjectivity.
Reflexivity refers to the bidirectional relationship between reflection and action. In the
case of the subjects, their reflectivity leads to greater recognition of their place within an
inequitable system and to further action against institutional oppression and stratification.
That action leads to reflection, and the cycle continues.
Besides the combination of reflectivity and reflexivity, it appears that the subjects
shared key belief systems about their lives and their roles in The University. Key, shared
belief systems that emerge as findings from this study are:
• Possessing an asset orientation (not deficit-minded);
• A strong belief in the value of education;
• A belief in creating community and giving back;
181
• Living the worldview in all contexts;
• Maintaining critical consciousness while embedded
When one combines the shared attributes with the unique beliefs described below, one
emerges with a more holistic picture of the worldviews of these
institutional/empowerment agents and the beliefs that guide their work as agents of
change.
The subjects expressed additional beliefs about their work and their roles as
institutional/empowerment agents. Although these were unique beliefs as related by each
subject, they are nevertheless valuable in contemplating the wide-ranging, social justice
oriented worldviews of the subjects. Some of the unique beliefs that emerged from the
study included:
• Investment in empowering, not enabling, students;
• Belief regarding personal accountability to students;
• Value of role in terms of shaping and shifting, however slowly,
institutional policy and direction;
• A philosophical orientation towards the work, rooted in the field of study;
• Critical view of The University’s reproductive role in society;
• Experiential belief in a holistic (not compartmentalized) academic
identity;
• Strong views on the value of access and difference on college campuses
The combination of reflectivity and reflexivity, the five shared beliefs, as well as
the unique worldviews of the subjects helps us to further visualize a holistic picture of
real-life practitioners who regularly empower students and engage in the work of counter-
182
stratification. Their belief systems guide their work. Yet because of their inherent
challenge to the forces of reproduction and oppression, they are also a potential source of
conflict and stress within the institution of the university. Before I share the findings
related to the ideas of resistance and repression, I must first delve into how these belief
systems evolved. What are the lived experiences of the empowerment agent that have
made central for them critical consciousness and a mindset centered on counter-
stratification?
Worldview Development Over the Lifespan
The life history approach (Atkinson, 1998) offered the opportunity for
practitioners to construct a developmental narrative, from early childhood through
adulthood, about the formation of their critical worldviews. Stanton-Salazar’s work
(1997, 2004, 2010) largely focuses on the need for institutional and empowerment agents
as key sources of opposition and support in a stratified educational system. While
Stanton-Salazar (2010) offers many characteristics of an ideal empowerment agent, there
is a dearth of research on how these practitioners develop. What experiences have
shaped their consciousness so that they are willing to be empowerment agents? What
foundational moments or precipitating events shaped the subjects’ critical consciousness?
Critical consciousness, derived from Freire’s (1970, 1974) body of work, represents a
two-fold process of understanding the oppressive and contradictory world around us and
taking action against the hegemonic elements that understanding illuminates. It is a
praxis-oriented philosophy of education. Critical consciousness can also describe an
agent’s investigation of the world around him or her; thereby fostering a critique of
inequitable systems and structures and the space to take on the role of a caring change
183
agent. With a critical consciousness, the agent does not align motives, interests, and
agendas with reproductive, hegemonic dynamics in society.
This next section offers a summary of the lived experiences that dynamically
impacted the subjects and shaped a critical consciousness. The four analytical areas
covered in this section include:
• Defining life experiences in childhood;
• Historic and personal precipitating moments and events;
• Key educational events;
• External impact
Defining life experiences in childhood
The major areas of findings for this section included:
• The influence of parents in belief development;
• The impact of neighborhoods and moving;
• The process of grappling with identity complexity
Again, it was not just the defining childhood experiences that aided in developing a
critical consciousness, but the combined reflectivity and reflexivity exhibited by the
subjects that enabled them to translate childhood experiences.
In terms of parental influence, whether through a contentious process or grounded
in family lessons, the subjects were deeply impacted and influenced by their parents. As
pointed out earlier, the reflective and reflexive natures of the subjects allow them to
articulate the depth and direction of the impact. From an early age, the subjects, through
contesting and accepting, were building a social justice mindset that permeates their
identities today. Each subject was building character based on compassion, questioning,
184
exploration, accountability to more than oneself, courage, and a valuing of education.
They were learning, through experience, to appreciate risk-taking, building bridges, and
challenging commonly accepted and widely held beliefs on justice, access, race, and
social change.
In terms of neighborhoods and moving, neighborhood interactions and reflection
provided sometimes challenging and sometimes growth-oriented opportunities. These
neighborhood particularities and the impact of moving clearly impacted the subjects’
understanding of themselves in context. Learning and living in multi-racial contexts,
wrestling with the fear of being without legal immigrant status, and navigating terrains of
racial and class difference were all formative experiences in developing worldviews of
the subjects.
For all the subjects, the set of experiences related to identity complexity shaped so
much of whom they are, how they look at and interact with the world, and how they
question systems and structures around them. All participants shared the experience of
wrestling with the complexities of their identity development in the contexts of self,
home, neighborhood, and academic milieu. Those experiences led to self-definition,
beliefs about how to live in the world, and deeper understandings of oppression,
privilege, and the need to engage and confront stratification.
Historic and Personal Precipitating Moments and Events
The findings in the prior section helped set the incipient framing of a social justice
mindset. Likewise, combining the experience of specific historic and personal life events
helped to crystallize an ideological stance centered on counter-stratification and equity. I
divided the findings for this section into two domains:
185
• Precipitating historic events
• Precipitating personal events
The six subjects, ranging in age from early 30s through mid-60s, have
experienced a wide spectrum of historic moments in their lifetimes. Similar to their
defining childhood experiences, it is the reflection the participants have engaged in over
the lifespan that gives weight to their experiences and their reflexivity that changes them
into the institutional/empowerment agents they are today. Key historic moments
impacting the subjects included: the Civil Rights Movement; the election of President
Kennedy; the Vietnam War; the bombing of Cambodia; the folk music culture of the
1960s; the Watts Riots; the Black Power Movement; the murders of Robert F. Kennedy,
Jr., and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.; the feminist movement of the 1970s; the election of
President Reagan; the Los Angeles 1992 Civil Unrest; and the dismantling of affirmative
action.
Leroy’s reflections on anti-affirmative action measures and his subsequent
involvement in counter-stratification efforts are echoed by all subjects. While the historic
source of impact may have been different subject to subject, the realization that the
struggle against oppression and toward equity is a life-long endeavor was common
among all.
Leroy: For me, I think that’s when reality struck, that nothing is going to be
handed to me or, not only to me, but to people from low-income backgrounds,
underserved communities, that it’s a constant fight to have a place at the table.
And despite how much we think we’ve progressed as a society, the moment that
fight stops we take steps backwards. And for me, it was like the culmination of
the things that I had learned in the classroom to real life. And so I think that those
experiences really solidified for me my racial and political ideology. It makes
you really think about where do you stand, and not only where do you stand, but
how do explain why you stand there and why that’s important to you. And I think
186
that was really a very valuable experience, as traumatic as it was as I was going
through it, and as frustrating as it was going through it. It was
absolutely critical and invaluable. It was on the ground training.
Their experiences during specific historical periods and moments shaped and
transformed all the subjects. Their reflections over the lifespan regarding the impact of
historical events shaped their own consciousness and development even more. Similarly,
precipitating personal events helped contour their mindsets.
From teenage motherhood to deep involvement in the counterculture world of
folk music to backpacking through Europe, the specific personal experiences of the
subjects were foundational for framing a critical, social justice-oriented ideology. Their
experiences helped them to develop heightened senses of empathy, to develop a depth of
understanding about race and racism, and to see the personal as both political and
productive (as a source of knowledge). From childhood through college, from inside the
home to abroad, their experiences with key precipitating, personal life events helped
shape them into the faculty and staff they are today – reflective, engaged with and for the
community, empathetic, and with a strong sense that race and injustice matter deeply.
Key Educational Events
Following the summary of the findings from the two sections covering life
experiences in childhood and historic and personal precipitating moments and events, I
examine the impact of schooling. The findings for this section can be divided into two
domains:
• Precipitating school (K-12) events
• Precipitating college/graduate school events
187
The experiences of the subjects in the K-12 educational milieu include some
thought-provoking moments, some painful moments, and some transformative moments.
These moments form the basis for the reflection and learning the subjects are able to
engage in when experiencing key precipitating college and/or graduate school events.
The school-based incidents prove formative for the types of actions the practitioners
engage during their college and graduate school years. More importantly, the
precipitating K-12 events taught the subjects the value of allies and mentors, placed a
critical lens on bias, prejudice, and structural racism, and fomented a philosophy that
required taking action against institutional barriers to justice. Although they were not
named as such, it was during this period that our subjects first experience relationships
with those who would be deemed institutional agents.
Transitioning to the college and graduate school environments, the experiences
shared by subjects impact their beliefs and practice to this day. All subjects related the
deep impression left by individuals, courses of study, and exploration on their own
understanding of self, systems, community, and mentoring. When relating these stories,
not only through the anecdotes, but through their body language and emotion, it was clear
how strongly the subjects felt about the impressions left by key experiences over their
educational journeys. They used words like “pivotal,” “transformative,” “shaping,” and
“life-changing.” All of them were eloquent on the topic of how the precipitating
college/graduate school events continue to shape them and the direction of their own
relationship with students and colleagues.
188
External Impact
The final set of findings delves into the impact of external figures and external
involvement on the worldview development of the subjects. The combination of
influential figures and co-curricular engagement emerges as a powerful source of impact
in the lives of the subjects. The findings for this section were located in two primary
domains:
• Key institutional agents impacting the subject
• Co-curricular engagement
As all the study participants were identified as institutional/empowerment agents,
it was interesting to note the depth of impact of institutional agents in their own lives. All
but one of the subjects had directly benefited from their relationships with institutional
agents. Upon reflecting on the role of key figures and institutional agents in developing
their beliefs and consciousness, all the subjects expressed the idea of carrying on a legacy
and responsibility to others. Also, institutional agents and mentors of all backgrounds
and races served to empower and guide the subjects through their educational journeys.
Race notwithstanding, it is the fact that the institutional agents cared about the subjects’
success, well-being, future paths, and civic engagement in the most holistic of senses.
Although William could not share an example of a mentor at his educational institution,
he shares multiple exemplars from the folk music world, including Bob Dylan, who role-
modeled behaviors and beliefs that the subject later emulated. In a similar fashion, the
other five subjects shared many examples from their own lives of the impact that mentors
and institutional agents have to this day and behaviors that they continue to embody. The
institutional agents not only linked the subjects to key networked resources, but also
189
helped them gain access to opportunities, to think critically about the world, and to
believe in their ability to make an impact on society. They served as mentors, advisors,
bridges, and guides, and role modeled future beliefs and behaviors for the subjects.
Finally, the study participants all shared pivotal out-of-the classroom experiences
that were integral to their development as institutional/empowerment agents. All of them
indicated a shared belief in the value of education. But as many researchers have
demonstrated, and as this study also reveals, education happens both in and out of the
classroom. The subjects were passionate and expressive about their co-curricular
engagement as a life-changing set of experiences. Co-curricular involvement helped the
subjects make sense of their classroom experiences by providing opportunities for them
to experiment and learn core skills about engagement, empowerment, and education.
Their multifaceted investment out of the classroom led to life-altering discoveries about
themselves as potential leaders and change agents. Therefore, the impact of both
institutional agents and co-curricular involvement emerges as fundamentally important in
the worldview development of the subjects identified as institutional/empowerment
agents.
Again, the four analytical areas covered in this section include:
• Defining life experiences in childhood (including parental influence,
neighborhoods and moving, and identity complexity);
• Historic and personal precipitating moments and events (including
precipitating historic events and precipitating personal events);
• Key educational events (including precipitating school events and
precipitating college/graduate school events);
190
• External impact (including institutional agent impact and co-curricular
engagement impact)
By exploring their life histories in their own words, I gained a better
understanding of their core beliefs: an asset orientation (not deficit-minded); a strong
belief in the value of education; belief in creating community and giving back; living the
worldview in all contexts; and maintaining critical consciousness while embedded. In
addition, they painted a picture of reflective, reflexive practitioners who have built upon
their life experiences to develop a social justice-oriented worldview centered on students,
mentoring, justice, and equity.
Through the subjects’ own recollections and reflections, they reveal various
precipitating moments, events, and figures that shaped their core convictions, developed
their belief systems, and their understanding of the world around them. In the following
section, I will share the major findings that serve to address research question two. I
explore how the subjects enact their beliefs and worldview in their everyday practice.
Research Question Two: What are the behaviors that empowerment agents engage in
that either directly benefit low-status students or attempt to change the institution
(praxis)?
The third section of the protocol (Appendix C) aided in answering research
question two. The third section included questions focused on having the subjects
demonstrate both knowing and doing; in other words, demonstrating how they enact their
role as an empowerment agent.
The findings in this section illuminate the praxis-orientation of the subjects – in
essence, the behaviors and actions they engage in that align with their belief systems.
191
Their interviews reveal how they directly and indirectly serve low-status students and
how they live and enact their worldviews inside and outside the institution. Exploring the
participants’ praxis affords us the opportunity to test convictions developed over the
lifespan. In this case, I will share the actions institutional/empowerment agents actively
engage in that “alter the destinies” of students, as well as institutional and systemic
structures. The findings in this section include:
• Necessary characteristics to do the job effectively
• Specific actions on behalf of low-status students
o Ways the subjects work with low-status students
o Teaching decoding and navigating
o Teaching changing the system
• The subject as change agent
o Challenging the institution
o Challenging the system
What it Takes to Do the Job Effectively – Necessary Characteristics
The first set of findings comes from the subjects’ explanations of the necessary
characteristics and abilities to do the job of institutional/empowerment agent effectively.
First, all of them call attention to the value and significance of university-wide
relationships as centrally important and vital to their roles as institutional/empowerment
agents. This finding dovetails with Lin’s (2001) and Stanton-Salazar’s (1997, 2010)
premise that the ability of the institutional/empowerment agent will be directly related to
the strength and flexibility of their embedded network of cross-institution, multi-level
relationships.
192
The subjects also shared a wide range of reflections on what it takes to do their
jobs well, in the cause of empowering low-status students. Many of the subjects had a
highly personal orientation to the work. As one subject noted, while it is not a
requirement, it helps to have people situated as institutional agents who are/were
personally affected (they themselves would have been considered low-status students).
Many subjects were reflective on their own journeys, acknowledging that without key
mentors, experiences, and institutional agents, they would not be where they are today.
They believed that taking the time to invest in each student’s journey, and their interests
and choices, while serving as a guide, mentor, and source of empowerment was critical.
In addition to the characteristics of effectiveness, subjects also noted that the
interpersonal was not enough. They had spent time developing their own understanding
of institutional politics and necessary relationships. Understanding the particularities of
the institution was key to some of the subjects’ success as institutional/empowerment
agents. While Peter specifically looked at his role as a form of community organizing,
many expressed an obligation to moving the institution further along on the arc of justice
and access. Most importantly, all of them noted that a combination of passion and skill,
mixed with a sense of duty and a belief in social justice, as necessary, driving factors to
succeed as institutional/empowerment agents.
From this section, I learned from the subjects themselves that the necessary
criteria for their effective practice include:
• A strong network orientation with key relationships horizontally and
vertically inside and outside the institution to those who hold resources
193
and share the commitment to low-status students (personally and/or
intellectually)
• Rooted philosophies centered on empowerment and community-building
• A strong understanding of institutional politics
• Care, affirmation, and trust-building with the students
• A willingness to do the hard work to change institutions for the benefit of
low-status communities and to increase access
The next section offers findings related to how the practitioners actively translate both
their worldviews, as well as their beliefs in the necessary characteristics for effective
practice, into action.
Specific Behaviors and Action – Teaching Decoding and System Changing
This section reveals the specific ways the subjects work with low-status students.
In addition, the findings demonstrate the ways the study participants teach students to
both decode and navigate the institutional context and the ways they teach students to
challenge the dominant system. Combining the two separates the potentially
reproductive aspects of the institutional agent from the actions of the empowerment
agent. As Stanton-Salazar (2010) explains, authentic empowerment must surpass what
an institutional agent can do in embedding low-status youth in resource-laden networks.
The best-intentioned interventions of the institutional agent interventions may serve to
maintain the status quo if they result only in individual advancement. Therefore, working
with low-status youth in system-altering ways must include opportunities to teach
methods of challenging the dominant system.
194
Ways they Work with Low-Status Students
All subjects identified for the study reached out to low-status students in different
ways. They made mentoring and advising a priority, served as advocates for students in a
variety of complex situations, and were thoughtful about their roles in the students’ lives
and in the environment of the institution. Table 8 details some of the ways in which
agents actively work with low-status students in empowering or resourceful ways.
The three explicated examples presented (from Peter, who offered a
philosophical-action perspective, to Leroy, who shared his resource generating
perspective, to Sandy, who framed an academic environment perspective), if actualized at
all institutions, would encapsulate a holistic atmosphere of support, push, and success for
low-status students. The work of the subjects aids in developing “coping strategies,”
explained by Stanton-Salazar (2010) as help-seeking orientations, problem solving
abilities, networking skills, and behaviors directed toward overcoming institutional
barriers. Whether in the interpersonal context or the classroom-based context, the
practitioners describe attitudes and practices that may contribute to the growth and
success of the low-status students they work with.
Ways the Empowerment Agent Teaches Low-Status Students to Decode and
Navigate
Decoding the system may involve unlocking the hidden curriculum, achieving
one’s goals within an existing system while learning what structures need to be
dismantled, navigating channels of power, and accessing key institutional resources and
forms of support. A practitioner, whose mindset and orientation are empowerment-
195
driven, can work with low-status students to help them navigate the institution in a
counter-reproductive and counter-exclusionary.
In practice, the subjects offered several ways that they embody the theoretical
construct and offered real-world examples of their interventions. For example, subjects
engaged in skill-building, serving as bridges, and connecting students to key resources
(institutional and individual), but also counseled students about a long-lens approach to
effecting system change. The faculty subjects, in particular, shared the ways they expose
the hidden curriculum by making explicit what is often obscured or assumed as
understood. They teach tacit knowledge through clear explanations of assignments;
unambiguous expectations on syllabi; directly tapping low-status students and inviting
them to office hours; and making processes (such as dissertation writing) more
transparent. Sandy explained how she models the critique of the dominant system and
teaches students, through a process of theorizing, how to creatively both “play the game”
and tackle the system. She enables students to navigate the institution and its demands
while helping them to think critically about hierarchy, access, and privilege.
In a similar fashion, Leroy calls himself “an ally on the inside,” aiding students to
better comprehend institutional politics and demands, as well as to build coalitions
around issue solidarity. The subjects are vocal about their work in teaching students
institutionally savvy forms of resistance. Many of the subjects were able to reflect on
their own undergraduate and graduate school experiences and acknowledge the presence
and impact of institutional agents on their own lives and daily practices. Because of this
reflection, the subjects keep counter-stratification at the heart of their work in
empowering low-status students.
196
Ways the Empowerment Agent Teaches Low-Status Students to Challenge the
System
Stanton-Salazar (2010) frames working with low-status students in system-
altering ways as a two-fold process. First, it involves building critical consciousness, or a
mindset centered on counter-stratification. Second, it requires engaging in specific
teaching moments and actions that lead to students being able to change their
communities and the world around them. According to Stanton-Salazar (2010), the
student as change agent can then critically navigate multiple social and institutional
terrains, and, in the long-term, engage in equity-building and counter-stratification that
alters structural oppression.
In this section, the findings show how, in major and minor ways, the subjects
work for and with low-status students to enable them to decode and navigate the
institutional system in critical ways. Yet, at the same time the subjects taught them to
think about social justice, advocacy, community engagement, empowerment, and
changing the world. This is one of the most difficult propositions of serving as an
empowerment agent and an area that deserves additional study.
Isabella laid out her version of serving as an institutional/empowerment agent as a
two-fold process. First, one has to learn the rules (decode) as a first and necessary step.
Second, after one has learned to decode the system, one can bend or break the rules.
Isabella reflects on lessons learned from her own mentors that helped her to understand
the power of understanding organizational culture, structure, and language. She
emphasized that knowing the rules of any given context can aid one in being a more
197
effective change agent, a person who does not just effect change for him/herself, but
opens the door to broader social change.
While Isabella’s comments are reflected in many of the examples shared by the
other subjects, some of them expressed specific concerns about students reproducing the
status quo and simply attaining individual achievement. Counter-reproductive strategies
used by subjects so that students do not forget their responsibility to broader community
issues include: direct dialogue; reminders about individual and community success as
interlinked; and an emphasis on gratitude for those who have come before. Leroy, for
example, actively addresses the issue of neoliberal privilege in his dialogue with students
because of his own personal life journey and belief systems. Peter notes that teaching a
challenge to the system often goes beyond individual students. For faculty institutional
agents who inculcate generations of teachers and researchers with specific beliefs and
practices, the process is about long-term impact. Many of the subjects were invested in
imparting a counter-exclusionary mindset similar to their own, as well as in teaching
strategies to impact the dominant system. For example, Leroy worked with students to
help them mobilize around issues of concern to them – namely, tuition hikes and
decreased access. He helped them create petitions, connect with concerned students at
other institutions, and get to the state capital to present their arguments to legislators.
The opportunity to help low-status students see themselves as potential change
agents is a driving factor expressed by many of the subjects. Authentic youth
empowerment that teaches both critical consciousness and key skill sets to achieve social
change is a complex challenge and a lofty goal. But some of the subjects revealed a
198
depth of intentionality in their work with low-status students and demonstrated that their
own critical consciousness is embedded in their relationship with students.
The Subject as Change Agent
This section summarizes the findings for two domains that explore the subject as
change agent:
• Changing the institution
• Challenging the system
The findings reveal the action-oriented ways the subjects attempt to change the
institution for the benefit of low-status students. In addition, I will explore how the
subjects attempt to challenge the dominant system and demonstrate their own critical
consciousness. The findings aim to empirically ground Stanton-Salazar’s (2010)
theoretical and idealized trope of the empowerment agent.
Changing the Institution
In both peripheral and direct ways, the subjects attempt to make changes to the
institution that will ultimately benefit low-status students. In doing so, they gain the
strength to continue to demonstrate to students what change-making in action looks like.
Findings of specific examples of change-making include:
• Revamping curriculum for majors that attract large numbers of low-status
students
• Securing resources for low-status students by making programmatic
outcomes comprehensible to administrative stakeholders
• Advocating for programs that serve low-status students at the Board of
Trustees level
199
• Engaging stakeholders to understand that access to the institution is just
the first step
• Strategically educating other decision-makers across the institution about
low-status students, access, and support
• Ensuring that the conversation about access and privilege is at the
forefront of colleagues’ minds
• Enabling colleagues to see that every department has a responsibility for
low-status students
• Standing up to power, in the form of deans and senior colleagues, and
speaking out on behalf of marginalized populations
• Using a specific charge and a results-driven approach to shape the
diversity landscape of The University
Some of the subjects discussed the tremendous internalized pressure and the
“burden of the race” feeling that they carry in their work. “Burden of the race” can be
understood to mean the feeling of carrying the weight of representing one’s subordinated
race status in classroom and collegial settings. Pressure and related topics will be
explored in the subsequent section. The findings from Peter’s experiences teach us much
about the value of a supportive upper administration and the significance of true (versus
symbolic power). Peter’s recollections also help to frame an understanding of the nature
of working in a complex institution while trying to reach goals that are set both internally
(one’s own worldview), as well as externally (parameters set by the Dean). In addition,
Peter’s life history and praxis, similar to all of the subjects, center the importance of
creativity, passion and commitment, and relationship-building across the institution. The
200
nature of challenging and attempting to change the institution is multi-faceted. As
revealed in this study, subjects have varying levels of success based on their own skills
and attitudes, their placement in the hierarchy of the institution, and their continued
ability to run counter to institutional norms.
Challenging the System
Motivation is a key frame described by Stanton-Salazar (2010) that distinguishes
institutional agents from empowerment agents. A social justice mindset, counter-
stratification goals, and a Freirian critical consciousness ideologically drive
empowerment agents. The findings from my exploration of the subjects’ ways of
challenging the system are intended to test motivation and the continued application of
mindset to practice. If the dominant, hegemonic system is the ultimate source of
oppression for low-status youth, then the subjects’ investment in challenging the system
is a critical test of their counter-reproductive, counter-stratification stance.
I asked the subjects in what ways they attempt to make change to the system. I
asked them to explain to me how they demonstrate their own critical consciousness in the
world. While the subjects addressed how they sustained critical consciousness while
embedded in an earlier chapter, continually challenging the dominant system enables the
subjects to maintain a sense of integrity.
System-challenging examples included:
• Training students in critical consciousness and empowering individuals
• Direct political action, through blogging, local and statewide political
organizations, and political demonstrations
201
• Community-based action around policy and programmatic changes at
educational institutions
• Acknowledging that system change happens from both the inside and the
outside
The subjects offer their own ways to enact system-change, through directly influencing
students as future change agents, to challenging the status quo through community-based
and direct political action. Again, the practitioners are reflective on the on-going,
systemic struggles that surround the local, institutional struggle. None of them isolated
their focus to only the institutional context. They all had broader lenses through which
they engaged with the oppressive world around them. It is the combination of
engagement, challenge, and reflection that separates them from the institutional agent
who may not have adopted a local and systemic empowerment-oriented stance.
Research Question Three: What are the contextual (institutional and internal) obstacles
to enacting agency and transformation and achieving full empowerment agent status?
The third section of the protocol (Appendix C) also aided in answering research
question three. To reiterate, the third section included questions focused on having the
subjects demonstrate both knowing and doing. In other words, they demonstrated how
they enact their role as an empowerment agent.
The findings for this section address the contextual roadblocks that prevent the
full engagement of the subjects. The findings will detail how the subjects have taken
stands against the institution, as well as how they sustain themselves and their ability to
continue the work of empowering low-status students. In summary, the three domains
highlight:
202
• Repression;
• Resistance;
• Renewal
Repression
Findings for this section ranged from frustrations with bureaucracy, the lack of
credit for interdisciplinarity and the strain that places on cross-listed faculty of color, to
broad institutional obstacles. All of these lead to internal burnout and frustration.
Moreover, the tremendous internalized pressure to continue to do the work – because of a
deeply personal investment or a fear that no one else will – leads to fatigue.
Bureaucracy concerns included administrative obstacles and roadblocks to
inclusiveness, the complicated relationship between fundraising and relationships, and
the inaccessibility of the corridors of power because of the feeling of an “old boys
network.” Particularly for Isabella, who raises funds to support student scholarships, the
obfuscation on the part of the institution about funding sources is problematic. Sandy’s
revelations regarding the “brick wall” of the institution also serve to challenge
practitioners. Sandy feels the “old boys network” of administrators and deans, as well as
the reproductive nature of The University, are both “brick walls” for her ability to
navigate the institution and provide support to low-status students. If the practitioner
herself is stymied by the institution, how can she effectively empower the students she
seeks to serve?
William, a White faculty member, pointed out the problems with the lack of
recognition for interdisciplinary work, but Logan, a faculty member of color, sees this
play out in his own academic life. As Stanley (2006) indicates, faculty of color are often
203
singled out by administrators and institutional pressures, given more responsibility, and
scrutinized more heavily. In addition, faculty of color face weightier service demands.
For faculty of color like Logan who sit at the nexus of two fields, and who face the
additional burden of extra service and committee work, this is a source of extreme
frustration. Extra service can range from sitting on university-wide committees, to
serving as the undergraduate or graduate admissions chair for a department, to liaising
with centers that serve underrepresented students. These are all time-consuming
endeavors that are often overlooked and unrewarded in the tenure and promotion process;
expected on the part of the faculty member, but carrying little to no weight at decision
time.
Broad institutional obstacles were wide-ranging. Findings related to broad
institutional obstacles included:
• The business model of The University;
• The institution’s emphasis on prestige maximization (positioned in
conflict with equitable access);
• Lack of resources;
• Unwillingness to prioritize diversity;
• The tension between balancing teaching, mentoring, researching, and
publishing at a Research One institution;
• Cutting departments such as Feminist Studies, that have a stated
commitment to critical consciousness;
• An overarching lack of institutional commitment to equity and access
204
While many of these institutional challenges would be frustrating to any
practitioner, several are particularly demoralizing for those who wish to serve as
institutional/empowerment agents. The impact is manifold. As Stanton-Salazar (1997,
2010) notes, bureaucratic and institutional agendas, such as budgetary pressures and
prestige-enhancing schemes, may override the will to embed low-status students in a
structure of support.
All the repressive factors revealed above lead to feelings of burnout,
powerlessness, and anger. The resulting emotional, physical, and psychological
aftermath of encounters with repression and frustration can be devastating. I found that
while the subjects are giving of themselves, their intellect, their compassion, and their
social capital networks, institutional stumbling blocks drain them. And while tiredness
and resentment are feelings experienced by many workers in practically all settings,
burnout of institutional/empowerment agents has a corollary impact on the low-status
students they wish to empower. My findings demonstrate that subjects begin to question
whether their work is meaningful enough to make a difference.
Beyond the exhaustion, the strain on family relationships, and the feeling of being
overworked, a key finding emerges from the deeply internalized pressure they place on
themselves. Many of the subjects, particularly the practitioners of color, expressed a high
level of personal commitment to the work of empowering low-status students, as well as
a fear that if they did not do the work, that no one else would. As Peter said, “I do a lot
of things that I am committed to because I know there won’t be minority students
admitted in [certain departments] if I am not on admissions. Just doesn’t happen – every
205
time I have taken a leave and not been on it, it doesn’t happen.” This internalized
pressure and knowledge is a tremendous burden to carry.
To close this section on repressive barriers in the institution that impact the full
development of empowerment agents, I will end with a finding from Peter’s thoughts.
Peter’s comments about the loneliness and the high rate of burnout of the type of position
he holds suggest a larger problem in the field. Peter, who is charged with ensuring
diversity and equity from hiring through tenure, must contend with the lack of
transparency at a private institution. He must make his decisions in isolation, rather than
in collaboration. And the more effective he is, the lonelier he is. The loneliness can be a
factor in burnout, and, as Peter indicates, positions like his are far and few between. Is
the isolation an institutional tool to silence both those who want increased representation
and equity, as well as the practitioner who serves in that role? This is a question that
warrants additional study.
Resistance
In the environment of repression, fatigue, isolation, and institutional status quo,
my study aimed to explore how practitioners themselves remain empowered to continue
to fight against stratification and oppression. The study’s findings demonstrate that
exhibiting resistance in multiple contexts is key to the mindset of the effective
empowerment agent. The personal engagement is crucial – otherwise, practitioners can
simply be agents of reproduction or agents that enable a pipeline of neoliberal, individual
progress and achievement. Resistance also helped the subjects keep a clear conscience,
feel empowered, and continue to think and take action on societal issues. Examples of
resistance exhibited by the subjects included:
206
• Holding one’s ground against pressure from superiors;
• Demonstrating the institution’s failures in relation to low-status students;
• Researching and writing about the realities of race in America;
• Direct confrontation of deans regarding prestige maximization;
• Pushing back against the reproductive nature of the institution;
• Serving as a change agent from the inside
The continued demonstration of resistance against systemic and institutional
repression is a key factor in the life of an empowerment agent. Acts of resistance range
from the academic (writing, researching, blogging) to direction action inside the
institution, from both insider and outsider stances. Whether from the outside or from the
inside, the challenge to the status quo and the refusal to accept institutional silencing are
core acts in which empowerment agents engage. But dealing with repression and
institutional status quo, as well as contesting stratification and reproduction, are draining
of the emotional and psychological resources of institutional/empowerment agents.
Therefore, the next set of findings explores how the subjects renew themselves and their
spirits, so they can continue the work of empowerment and counter-stratification.
Renewal
I found several ways the subjects focus on self and restoration of energy and
spirit. These methods are key to their abilities to continue to serve as positive,
empowerment-oriented presences on campus. Some of these methods included:
• Surfing as a restorative for mental, spiritual, and physical health;
• Learning to find balance by working out and sleeping enough;
• Spending time with spouses;
207
• Revisiting thank you cards from students as a source of continued
motivation;
• Learning to recognize the symptoms of being overworked or burned out;
• Picking and choosing which battles to fight;
• Realizing that there must be intentional time to put work aside as a
preventative to full burnout
The methods listed above range from the specific (surfing) to the strategic
(picking and choosing, intentionality of renewal). As well as these tactics, almost all of
them returned to the idea of mission and purpose as a key form of combating burnout.
The subjects are fully aware of how much work is needed to offer key forms of
institutional support in the name of resisting the status quo. In addition, subjects found
sources of renewal from the rewarding interactions with students to the opportunity to
engage with new, stimulating projects. Finally, returning to relationships, a key aspect of
empowerment social capital, all of the subjects named relationships as vitally important
sources of renewal. I found that relationships with allies and like-minded colleagues
were more than a prerequisite for the practitioner to leverage social capital networks for
the benefit of low-status students. Relationships with supportive comrades were valuable
in and of themselves and deeply beneficial to the agent’s sense of self-efficacy and self-
empowerment.
The first section of this chapter offered a summary of key findings by research
question. The next section will offer an analysis of the findings, including an empirical
comparison between institutional agents and empowerment agents. Implications for
practice will be followed by implications for research. We will specifically explore the
208
discrepancy between the integration of a social justice/critical consciousness mindset and
the actual implementation and praxis-driven actions that result.
Analysis of Findings
Stanton-Salazar (2010) reveals his newest theoretical figure: the empowerment
agent. In doing so, he ascribes critical differences to the orientation and actions of the
institutional agent versus the empowerment agent. Institutional agents are highly placed,
caring practitioners in the stratified world of higher education institutions. These
practitioners are positioned in an embedded network of relationships and resources to
offer key forms of institutional support to low-status students (Stanton-Salazar, 1997,
2010). The empowerment agent, however, is an institutional agent who, motivated by a
Freireian critical consciousness, enables the lasting, authentic empowerment of the low-
status student (Stanton-Salazar, 2010). The authenticity of empowerment is rooted in the
construction of interpersonal trust, solidarity, and shared meaning (Stanton-Salazar,
2010). The impact is long-term. “Altering the destinies” of low-status youth challenges
the reproductive framework of meritocratic, individual success by empowering youth
with institutional support and critical consciousness and the means to transform their
communities and society (Stanton-Salazar, 2010).
Referring again to Table 1, included below for discussion purposes, we see that
the first three characteristics correspond to the role of the institutional agent, while the
combination of the institutional agent and empowerment agent characteristics correlate to
the role of the empowerment agent. Again, the empowerment agent’s characteristics are
inclusive of the institutional agent’s characteristics.
209
Table 1
Defining Characteristics of the Empowerment Agent
Institutional
Agent
Enable low-status students to see the direct correspondence between
their goals and how to achieve them
Basic Develop awareness in low-status students regarding resource
acquisition for control over life
Basic Facilitate and enable the development of key coping strategies
(including problem-solving capacities, networking skills, and help-
seeking orientations)
Advanced Help low-status students develop critical consciousness and
sociological mindset regarding societal oppression (structures and
systems) – decoding the system
Advanced Helping low-status youth understand the particularities and power of
counter-stratification in multiple sociopolitical contexts
Advanced Engage low-status youth in collaborative networking to change the
world and enact meaningful social change
Empowerment
Agent
Motivation
Ideologically driven by social justice mindset, counter-stratification
goals, and Freireian critical consciousness
The most dynamic difference between the two types of agent is grounded in
motivation. The ideologically driven motivation of the empowerment agent is centered
on counter-stratification goals and rooted in a Freireian critical consciousness. This key
difference – motivation – separates the possibilities and potentials of institutional and
empowerment agents. A distinct possibility exists that the labor of the institutional agent
may be rewarded with a widening only of the pipeline of individual achievement, which
is a mark of success for a meritocratic, neoliberal definition of advancement. In contrast,
the work of the empowerment agent, in an ideal situation, leads not only to individual
210
success, but to the development of critical consciousness, a counter-stratification mindset,
and ultimately, the will and ability to enact meaningful social change (Stanton-Salazar,
2010). Therefore, we now turn to implications for practice and research. Opportunities
for future research and a conclusion will follow the implications section.
Implications for Practice
The implications for practitioners, faculty and staff alike, are wide-ranging. In
this section, we will explore the implications for would-be empowerment agents, the
necessary integration of mindset and skillset, key lessons learned from the subjects that
are valuable for practitioners, and the importance of context and renewal. In addition, we
will examine institutional implications throughout.
First and foremost, the successful empowerment agent not only understands
oppressive institutional boundaries, but in fact, expects it. The agent comprehends the
nature of the status quo and the reproductive quality of elite universities. The
empowerment agent is an astute observer of institutional dynamics, politics, and power.
In addition to the agent’s recognition of the structural inequities of the institution, the
successful empowerment agent possesses a keenly developed critical consciousness and a
stance centered on counter-stratification. Third, possessing a critical mindset and
institutional awareness, the empowerment agent strategically builds complex, multi-
directional, embedded social capital networks. The agent constructs these analytic
networks deliberately as an important tool to counter stratification and oppression in her
work to authentically empower low-status students. Moreover, the agent confronts
institutional inequity in the broad scale, not just in her work with students, so that both
institutions and students are transformed. Finally, although empowerment agents
211
experience institutional repression, barriers, and obstacles, they continue to demonstrate
their critical consciousness in the world and find ways to renew their spirit and ability to
persist and do the work
The beliefs, abilities, and actions above, emerging directly from this study, help to
substantiate Stanton-Salazar’s (2010) theoretical framing of the empowerment agent.
However, as seen in the classification of the study subjects, achieving all of the markers
of the successful empowerment agent is a true challenge. A number of major factors play
a role in the success of stakeholders.
It is my contention that practitioners, both faculty and staff, must acknowledge
and expect that the institution will strain to perpetuate the status quo as a standard course
of action. With a reflective critical consciousness, developed through research,
coursework, or community engagement, one is not surprised by the reproductive
enterprise, but prepared. Practitioners who wish to serve as empowerment agents accept
that their very presence can be seen as a threat to the status quo. Shared belief systems
that are vital to empowerment agent functioning that emerged from this study include an
asset orientation and the maintenance of critical consciousness while embedded. A clear
understanding of hegemony, and our own role in submitting to the dominant order, is
vital. Integrating this fact into their consciousness, empowerment agents can engage with
students and institutions and fight co-optation. However, I posit that consciousness is not
enough. As Bourdieu (2000) notes:
And another effect of the scholastic illusion is seen when people describe
resistance to domination in the language of consciousness (and) expect political
liberation to come from the ‘raising of consciousness’ – ignoring the
extraordinary inertia which results from the inscription of social structures in
212
bodies…Only a thoroughgoing process of countertraining, involving repeated
exercises, can, like an athlete’s training, durably transform habitus.
The training, and countertraining, that Bourdieu (2000) refers to is largely lacking in
mainstream educational programs, whether for practitioners or academics.
Therefore, for universities that purport to care about equity, from access through
graduation, an imperative is presented to integrate counter-hegemonic training in
educational curriculums. This is a difficult proposition for institutions to actively counter
their own reproductive functions and valuing of particular forms of cultural capital in
non-deficit model ways. Thus, it is imperative for practitioners interested in counter-
exclusionary work to locate existing empowerment agent mentors inside and outside the
institution who can teach, guide, and support potential empowerment agents. As Peter
relates, while he maintains powerful networks within The University, his external guides
and mentors help him to re-focus on the critical work ahead. As senior in the institution
as he is, Peter continues to rely on networks of intra- and inter-institutional comrades for
his “repeated exercises” and his “countertraining.”
Second, practitioners must be deliberate and intentional both in their counter-
stratification efforts and in their empowerment work with low-status students. Mindset
and action, and an investment in strategic, social capital networks, are equally important
– one without the other may not lead to holistic results. As I witnessed in this study’s
findings, action without a social justice mindset can simply lead to a widening of the
neoliberal pipeline. Neoliberalism in education reifies the idea of higher education as the
pinnacle of individual hard work, determination, and intelligence rather than a variety of
systematized processes that cultivate advantage and disadvantage (Stanton-Salazar,
213
1997). The trap exists for institutional agents to focus more on the perceived individual
“deficits” of low-status students and build low-status students’ social capital through that
lens. Therefore, for example, if a networking workshop (such as Isabella’s) is offered to
low-status students, but the same students are not engaged to dialogue about altering the
reproductive system that constructs success and achievement in specific ways, then the
following may result:
When capital is imagined in this way, the characteristics and values of middle-
and upper-income students are re-privileged as the norm towards which lower-
income students must aspire (Colyar, 2011).
In the case of low-status students, those who are working class students of color, the
privileging of higher cultural capital in the teaching of social capital acquisition is
damaging to the cause of authentic empowerment. Understanding Bourdieu’s (1986)
concept of habitus, integrating structure and individual agency, is essential to the
practitioner who wishes to work with students who are “agents in their own successes”
(Colyar, 2011, p. 127). However, it is also not enough to possess an asset-oriented,
critical, compassionate mindset with limited social capital networks, as that may lead to
stymied feelings of frustration and an inability to be effective. Hence, a key finding
indicates that the time invested in building networked social capital relationships, as well
as learning empowerment skills, is crucial to the empowerment agent’s ability to engage
in lifelong counter-stratification efforts.
Third, context is critical and position matters. As Peter and Leroy allude to, their
institutional positioning affords them specific opportunities to empower individual
students, but also to challenge the status quo. However, Peter is very specific that he is
an inside change agent. His location in the highest levels of the institution is a source of
214
power that he acknowledges he is keen to protect, in order to make broad-based
institutional change. Leroy, charged with working specifically with low-status transfer
students, can take the more vocal, yet still highly politically charged, role of advocate.
Empowerment agents-in-training must question their own desires and beliefs about
positionality, advocacy, and insider/outsider status. Moreover, Peter eloquently describes
his loneliness as a combination of his place in the organizational structure and he
sensitive work he is tasked with. He states, “In the end, the more effective you are, the
more lonely it gets.” Acknowledging the realities of context and position enables the
would be empowerment agent to make tactical, proactive decisions, rather than decisions
that are reactive to institutional barriers and contextual oppression.
Finally, if one intends to be successful as an empowerment agent, one must
deliberately foster renewal strategies. The subjects offered sources of renewal that range
from the spiritual to the physical to the practical. For example, one source of Peter’s
renewal is his driving belief in change: “I want to see the change. I want to see that
things move. I absolutely believe that things can change and that keeps me going.” The
subjects are clear on the necessity of a supportive network of allies. As demonstrated in
prior chapters, this reliance on key relationships is necessary for the effective practice of
the empowerment agent in his or her work with low-status students. I theorize that the
relational support system of trusted comrades is absolutely essential for the sustainability
of the efforts of empowerment agents. Intra- and inter-institution support systems are
effective coping mechanisms, necessary to relieve the stress (internal and external) of
advocating and acting on behalf of low-status students. Knowing both that a critical
mindset will be seen as a challenge to the institution, and that a variety of barriers and
215
obstacles will potentially aim to stifle the actions of the practitioner, the successful
empowerment agent will opt for appropriate self-care and renewal methods. Renewal is
not a luxury. Rather, it is a necessity for the empowerment agent to continue to educate,
engage, and empower low-status students and actively counter stratification and inequity.
In some of the subjects’ eyes, it is an institutional necessity. In addition, as demonstrated
by all of the subjects, practitioners who wish to serve as empowerment agents will be
more successful if they are reflective and reflexive. The combined reflectivity and
reflexivity are integral parts of a sustainable practice.
Ultimately, increasing the numbers of empowerment agents represents a new
direction in practitioner and institutional responsibility. Rather than a myopic focus on
changing the student rather than the institution, empowerment agents offer a form of
localized resistance to reproduction and oppression.
Implications for Research
The charge to serve as an authentic empowerment agent is a challenging
proposition for any practitioner, given the stratified, reproductive environments faculty
and staff operate in daily. This study’s subjects possess a range of beliefs and
worldviews experientially developed over the lifespan. They perform a variety of actions
on behalf of low-status students in specific ways. And they are stymied and stimulated
by the institutional dynamic in particular ways. Through this study, I also come to see
how some of the subjects are more effective empowerment agents than others, in terms of
both beliefs and actions.
Hence I used the term institutional/empowerment agent throughout the
dissertation without distinction. I did not differentiate between terms throughout because
216
although low-status students identified the subjects as empowerment agents, in actuality,
not all of the subjects were empowerment agents as defined by Stanton-Salazar (2010).
In addition to the basic, advanced, and motivation criteria detailed in Table 1, Stanton-
Salazar (2010) also notes that the most effective, resourceful agents will have highly
developed network orientations and network-related capacities and skills. I come now to
a point where I may critically distinguish between the subjects to ascertain who can be
described as an empowerment agent versus those who are institutional agents.
By situating the subjects in the context of the criteria described in Table 1, I offer
Table 10, in which the subjects are ordered by nature of their mindset (critical
consciousness), their implementation ability (praxis), and their network characteristics
(embedded network analytic orientation). IA stands for institutional agent and EA
represents empowerment agent. A discussion will follow.
Table 10
Typification of Subjects as Institutional versus Empowerment Agents
Subject Mindset Implementation/Network
Isabella IA IA
William EA IA
Logan EA EA/IA
Sandy EA EA/IA
Leroy EA EA
Peter EA EA
217
Mindset refers to critical consciousness and an anti-stratification stance.
Implementation refers to two criteria. First, implementation pertains to the ability of the
subject to take action and translate that critical mindset into authentic empowerment
strategies in their work with low-status students. Second, implementation is defined by
the ability of the subject to confront the reproductive and oppressive nature of the
institution. Network refers to the network characteristics of the subjects – how they are
embedded and how they leverage their social capital networks for the benefit of low-
status students. The theoretical construct of the empowerment agent empirically plays
out differently in real life because possessing a critical worldview and the ability to
implement one’s worldview as a practitioner are not always in sync.
Through my study, it appears that two of the subjects, Peter and Leroy, can be
deemed empowerment agents. Sandy and Logan are empowerment agents in their
mindsets and classroom pedagogies, but have mixed success in their implementation and
limited network capacities. William is an empowerment agent in his mindset, but does
not translate that critical consciousness into authentic empowerment work with students.
And Isabella appears to be an institutional agent in both mindset and implementation. I
came to these conclusions through an analysis of the data and findings from my study.
For example, Isabella, the head of the Alumni of Color Scholarship Association,
exhibited a limited critical consciousness, referring broadly to the values of community
service and interdependence. But Isabella did not offer a critique of systemic oppression
in her analysis of her position and its utility. She represented herself as someone highly
invested in the growth and development of students of color, but her investment is largely
focused on individual success and the attainment of self-actualization. The resources she
218
aims to secure, while important, are primarily financial. And the actions she has taken to
demonstrate her commitment to low-status students – networking workshops, life skills
workshops, financial planning seminars – may directly lead to individual achievement,
but not necessarily social change. In this sense, Isabella’s version of teaching decoding
and system change have more to do with learning how to navigate the system and play
the game, rather than changing the game altogether.
Moreover, Isabella herself explains that she is still identifying networks of allies
and colleagues whom she can trust. She is still learning institutional politics and policies.
The successful empowerment agent cannot operate in isolation and must be savvy about
institutional politics. Isabella is a caring practitioner who is motivated by the desire to
benefit her community, but her mindset and her implementation/actions do not lead to the
type of empowerment and system-changing that Stanton-Salazar (2010) predicates as a
requirement for empowerment agents.
I identify William as having the mindset of the empowerment agent, but the
implementation of the institutional agent. He is invested in the social justice and activism
he learned in the 1960s and 1970s. He values inclusivity and demonstrates an awareness
of the flaws of the hegemonic system, from his early years agitating against the
segregation of his boarding school to his education in the folk music counterculture to his
Left-oriented political blogs today.
But William’s impact on low-status students is as an institutional agent, not as an
empowerment agent. He describes how he has helped students secure internships
(decoding) and think about giving back to their communities (empowering). But he
offers a limited critique of the reproductive nature of The University and does not
219
actively try to challenge the institution. An example of this limited view can be seen in
William’s frustration with the bureaucracy of the institution and The University’s “sheer
resistance to change.” Sandy also describes the institution’s reluctance to change. But
the key difference in the analysis is while William is frustrated and irritated, he ultimately
sees those frustrations as small roadblocks in his path to establish particular operations.
He has a personal friction with institutional bureaucracy. Sandy, however, sees the
resistance to change as the will of the institution to reproduce an elite status quo. She
says the following: “I think that is pretty much the way that the place is structured. It is
structured to reproduce itself, so that the minute you get somebody from the outside who
might actually try to institute positive change, it will get rid of that person – either push
them into line or push them out.” Sandy is aware of the structural impediments to change
and the structural imperative to reproduce hegemony.
I describe Sandy and Logan as having empowerment agent mindsets with mixed
empowerment agent/institutional agent implementation. Sandy emerges from the fields
of social science and gender studies, while Logan’s fields are social science and ethnic
studies. Both share a critical understanding of systemic inequity and hegemony and can
easily explain their worldviews as centered on anti-oppression and social justice. They
have highly developed senses of empathy, as well as knowledge of race, class, gender,
and power dynamics. Both demonstrate their critical consciousness in the classroom,
through their political action, and their civic engagement. Similar to Sandy’s awareness
of the self-replicating nature of the institution, Logan is incisively questioning of his own
role in perpetuating the mythology of the institution. He acknowledges The University to
be an exclusive environment that tries to portray itself as inclusive and equitable.
220
In practice, however, the implementation of their mindsets is mixed. In some
ways, they are empowerment agents. Their lenses and rubrics are those of critical
consciousness and counter-stratification, in their research, in their interpersonal
relationships, and in their classroom pedagogies. Sandy, in particular, is highly
intentional about creating classroom environments in which difference is valued and in
which the oft-silenced have a voice. Logan is intentional about reaching out to low-status
students because of his own experiences in the academy. Both deliberately decode
institutional norms for low-status students and provide key resources and forms of
support. Sandy is more directly confrontational of the institution and its administrative
leaders than is Logan.
However, the anger and deep sense of helplessness expressed by both subjects
leads to feelings of impotence, which limits their abilities to be complete empowerment
agents. Sandy arrived at The University to lead Feminist Studies, only to find that the
administration planned to shut it down. She has devoted considerable resources to
fighting to keep Feminist Studies alive and is embittered by the process. She clearly
states that she has been “Quitting since I got here,” and has not invested in building
broad-based relationships in the institution, a key criterion for empowerment agents.
Logan, cross-listed in Ethno-Racial Studies and the social sciences, is angered by the
service demands placed on faculty of color and the lack of recognition of his work in
peer-reviewed Ethnic Studies journals. He states, “And I haven’t been involved in any
effort to change The University – to me that is beating your head against the wall.” The
stumbling block of his own anger against the institution limits Logan’s ability to
challenge and change the environment in which he works.
221
For these reasons, Sandy and Logan are identified as having empowerment agent
mindsets with mixed empowerment agent/institutional agent implementation. They
possess critical consciousness, and they clearly impact students, classrooms, and
research, but their overall impact on broad-based student empowerment and
institution/system change may be limited.
I identified Leroy and Peter as empowerment agents, in both mindset and
implementation. Leroy and Peter possess highly developed network orientations and are
embedded in crucial horizontal and vertical cross-institution relationships. They are
resource-ful agents for the low-status students they seek to empower. Moreover, both
subjects vocalized finely tuned values of social justice, critical consciousness, and
community engagement. Neither had difficulty explicating their counter-stratification
beliefs and practices. They were able to demonstrate through individual impact,
classroom/programmatic impact, and institutional impact the multifaceted ways they
implement and take action on their mindsets and belief systems. Interestingly, Leroy and
Peter were the two subjects to express a depth of internalization of the pressure to engage
in the work of empowerment and system transformation. A source of stress, but also a
driving mission, both subjects felt immense moral pressure to succeed in their roles.
Both practitioners invested in decoding the institutional system and its norms for
students, but also worked with students and the institution to challenge those norms.
Leroy is an empowerment agent because of his direct work with low-income transfer
students and his pushing on the institution to take seriously the call for equitable access.
And Peter is an empowerment agent through his highly placed role as an administrator
222
charged with equity issues, focused on broad institutional access issues, as well as
through his professorial and mentoring roles.
My analysis and classification of the subjects complicates Stanton-Salazar’s
theoretical trope of the empowerment agent. To reiterate my classification of the
subjects: two subjects are empowerment agents in mindset and implementation; two have
the mindset of the empowerment agent, but mixed implementation results; one subject
has the mindset of an empowerment agent, but the implementation of an institutional
agent; and one is an institutional agent in mindset and implementation.
In practice, the act of serving as an institutional or empowerment agent is not
particularly straightforward. There is no guarantee that mindset leads to effective
implementation of a belief system. There is no guarantee that specific personal
experiences – from the fear of being undocumented to watching one’s neighborhood go
up in flames to anti-war activism – will translate into the ability to authentically empower
low-status students and invest in counter-stratification measures. The mixed results are a
testament to the power of hegemony and reproduction, as well as to the lack of training
offered to those who wish to serve. However, this study demonstrates that an
investigation of beliefs, worldview development, praxis, and barriers (as well as
resistance and renewal) leads to an increased complexity of understanding a range of
implications for both practitioners and researchers.
Areas of Future Research
My study is one of the first to offer empirical grounding for the theoretical work
of Stanton-Salazar (1997, 2010). The area of study is fertile; therefore, there are
numerous areas of future research that emerge from this dissertation. Most social capital
223
research focuses on students, their networks, and barriers/avenues to their success.
Therefore, additional research is needed both in the field of empowerment social capital
and on empowerment agents themselves. The two are important mitigators of
dominance and hegemony and are worthy of study by researchers invested in countering
and altering the stratified world of higher education.
It is clear from this study that context and position matter. I specifically chose to
locate my study at an elite research university, as those institutions are perforce the most
stratified. Therefore, additional studies could focus on non-elite university settings, such
as community colleges, to explore the development and actions of empowerment agents
in multiple settings. Do choices and behaviors change? It is an interesting question to
pursue.
In addition, the faculty selected for this study hold tenure or permanent positions.
Therefore, the opportunity presents itself to study the ability of untenured faculty to
develop as empowerment agents and sustain a critical consciousness and an empowering
practice. How does the lack of or the quest for tenure limit the ability to serve as an
empowerment agent? Moreover, I would recommend studying untenured faculty of
color, given the subjects’ own experiences, as well as the support found in the literature,
for the double and triple burden placed on faculty of color. The external burden,
combined with the internalized pressure felt by those identified as empowerment agents,
would be a potent area of study.
A number of studies could also be conducted selecting larger pools of those
identified as empowerment agents, divided by age and generation. I was pleased to have
wide-ranging diversity in study participants, in terms of gender, age, race and ethnicity,
224
and faculty or staff status. In addition, there was a wide range in generational status,
from second generation (parents were immigrants) to one subject’s relative’s involvement
in the Revolutionary War. As there is a paucity of data in this subject matter, the breadth
of experiences represented was valuable to offer specific findings and assertions.
However, for example, a comparative study of empowerment agents impacted by the
historical events of the1960s versus the 1980s might offer some interesting insight into
the depth or level of critical consciousness and/or the ability to implement one’s
worldview. Or, a study of authentic empowerment agents in their fifties, sixties, and
beyond may offer long-term sustainability practices that may be beneficial for younger
practitioners.
As seen in my study, practitioners such as Leroy and Peter view themselves in
very specific ways, with different types of access to university power. And yet, both are
empowerment agents and both acknowledge the need for the other as essential for
systemic change. Therefore, in terms of context and position, further study is needed of
those holding “insider” and “outsider” stances. A depth of inquiry into the efficacy of
either or both positionings will offer value for future empowerment agents.
This study examined the worldview development and the praxis orientation of
subjects identified as empowerment agents. My research demonstrated the highly
reflective and reflexive nature of the subjects. This reflectivity and reflexivity are two
essential bridges that move practitioners from critical consciousness or a social justice
mindset to the ability to engage in counter-stratification. All of the subjects talked about
the role of mentors and advisors in shaping they way they act and believe. In addition,
my study clearly showed how practitioners sustain and renew themselves once in the
225
practicing position of institutional or empowerment agent. However, how practitioners
learn how to move from mindset to action is an area ripe for further exploration. Space
exists to investigate exactly how mentors train their protégés, what relying on a network
in a crisis actively looks like, or what training (or counter-training) empowerment agents
can name as formative. Through my study, one can see, for example, how Sandy’s
college involvement in the jail moratorium coalition, listening to and advocating for those
most marginalized, as well as her Marxist study groups, have lead to her active
pedagogical involvement in creating equitable classroom spaces. Therefore, a study
offering an overarching narrative that demonstrates how beliefs lead to actions and how
that growth exactly happens could be valuable and complementary to my research.
My research focused on those currently serving at The University as staff or
faculty who had been identified by low-status students as empowerment agents. Through
this study, it can be argued that racialized oppression within elite universities is both
serial and reactionary. There is the original, reproductive oppression and gate-keeping
that exists. Then, there are the repressive conditions of the institution in which
empowerment agents must contend with isolation, loneliness, frustration, and emotional
exhaustion. Unexplored in this study is the idea of targeted oppression, in which
institutions oppress or fire specific empowerment agents as a way to demonstrate to
others that the university will tolerate only so much change and political pressure for
increased equity and social justice. We can see this type of targeted oppression occurring
throughout US history, whether in the marginalizing treatment of suffragettes or in the
assassinations of young Black Panthers. Therefore, one potentially fascinating study
could be conducted with those empowerment agents who had been fired by the institution
226
for pushing too hard or attempting to destabilize normative forms of power. These
potential subjects might represent a class of transformative agents who have been
thwarted by the institution. This category of subjects could offer additional knowledge
for those who wish to serve as empowerment agents. A study of this nature could prove
valuable to further complicate and evolve Stanton-Salazar’s (2010) work.
A final key area that emerges from this study is the need to teach, train, and
develop empowerment agents in all institutions. Empowerment agents represent one
valuable form of counter-hegemonic resistance in reproductive institutions of higher
education. An interesting opportunity therefore presents itself to create resources such as
handbooks for empowerment agent development or curriculum that both consciousness-
raises and countertrains.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to bring to life and empirically ground Stanton-
Salazar’s (2010) theoretical trope of the empowerment agent through a life history study
of subjects identified as empowerment agents. This study explored the subjects’ belief
systems, experiential worldview development, praxis, institutional and internal obstacles,
and forms of resistance and renewal. My study locates empowerment agents as key
forms of resistance against institutional repression and hegemony, as well as against the
deficit positioning of low-status students. By studying an under-researched population, I
am able to offer both practitioner- and researcher-oriented implications. In addition, the
findings of my study complicate the theoretical world of the empowerment agent,
allowing new doors of study to open.
227
EPILOGUE
In 1849, the abolitionist orator, Frederick Douglass, wrote:
If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom,
and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the
ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean
without the awful roar of its many waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it
may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a
struggle. Power concedes nothing without demand. It never did and it never will.
Over 150 years later, Douglass’ potent statement and call to action continues to
hold true. The struggle against dominance fascinates me. I have always been drawn to
those who resist and demonstrate agency, today and in history. That is why the
opportunity to conduct this research study has been both intellectually and personally
fulfilling. As both a researcher and a practitioner, I have learned so much from my study
subjects, those who are invested in a struggle for progress and change. They were deeply
honest, thoughtful, and often profound. I have kept so much of their voice in some of the
chapters because I felt the data – their stories and analysis – was powerful. They
showcased the highly developed beliefs and practices of the empowerment agent,
bringing a theoretical construct to life. But they also demonstrated that hegemony and
reproduction are powerful forces, leading to mixed results, such as the inability to convert
belief into practice.
This epilogue allows me to bring myself back into the study, as both researcher
and potential subject. In my own work, I aim to empower students with the critical
framework and skill-sets to shape their own destinies and, hopefully, challenge and shift
the dominant system that renders them subordinate. When I first read Stanton-Salazar’s
(1997) work in which he first framed the idea of the institutional agent as running counter
228
to systemic and institutional hegemony, I was instantly captivated. Stanton-Salazar’s
(2010) own positioning of the potentially reproductive aspects of the institutional agent,
in contrast to the theoretical construct of the empowerment agent, afforded me the
opportunity to engage in this study. What were the beliefs and practices of those who
were willing to brave the roar of the ocean’s waters?
Beyond the research opportunity, I had a personal investment in this study. I
wanted to understand how fellow practitioners came to understand themselves and the
world around them. I wanted to see how faculty and staff translated their beliefs into
daily practice. I wanted to learn how the subjects navigate sometimes oppressive
institutional barriers, as well as their own internalized pressures, given that I struggle
with many similar frustrations. There is a high cost, personal and political, in challenging
dominant institutions. But I am inspired by the subjects’ intrinsic motivation, their
willingness to continue to do the work and engage in dialogue, and their good humor.
I started this dissertation by describing the hegemonic context in which we live
and learn. All of that – hegemony, reproduction, neoliberalism – is real. And yet,
engaging in this study, I feel hope in knowing that there is a network of comrades and
allies in institutions of higher education who share similar goals and motivations. If I
could continue this study, I would interview subjects from all parts of the country
identified as empowerment agents by low-status students to ask two specific questions.
First, how do you teach and mentor others, particularly younger practitioners, to serve as
empowerment agents? This would require confronting the liberal tendencies within
educational systems that co-opt the type of world-changing that Stanton-Salazar (2010)
describes. Second, how do you make authentic youth empowerment an institutional
229
priority, rather than an individual imperative? The second question is a conundrum to
me. Institutions that are reproductive in nature will not have a natural investment in
countering or altering the structure that serves them well. However, these two questions
are fascinating to me and I hope to pursue additional research in this area. Maybe I will
create the handbook for practitioners that I describe in Chapter 8!
I am grateful to have had this opportunity to study the processes of empowerment
agent development. This particular research and writing journey has been incredible. For
me, empowerment agents represent the demand that Douglass (1849) describes. They
embody the challenge to power and the struggle for equitable justice. They are one
avenue of resistance in an oppressive educational system that renders the low-status
student as subaltern. I remain hopeful.
230
REFERENCES
Anderson, C.D. (1996). Understanding the inequality problematic: From scholarly
rhetoric to theoretical reconstruction. Gender and Society, 10(6), 729-746.
Astin, A. & Oseguera, L. (2004). The declining "equity" of American higher education.
The Review of Higher Education, 27(3), 321-341.
Atkinson, R. (1998). The life story interview. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Ball, S.J., & Goodson, I.F. (1985). Teachers’ lives and careers. London, England:
Falmer Press.
Bauman, G.L., Bustillos, L.T., Bensimon, E.M, Brown II, M.C., & Bartee, R.D. (2005).
Achieving equitable educational outcomes with all students: The institution’s
roles and responsibilities. Association of American Colleges and Universities.
Bensimon, E. M. (2005). Closing the achievement gap in higher education: An
organizational learning perspective. New Directions for Higher Education, 131,
99-111.
Bensimon, E. M. (2007). The underestimated significance of practitioner knowledge in
the scholarship of student success. The Review of Higher Education, 30(4), 441-
469.
Bertaux, D., & Kohli, M. (1984). The life story approach: A continental view. Annual
Review of Sociology, 10, 215-237.
Bielman, V.A., Putney, L.G., & Strudler, N. (2003). Constructing community in a
postsecondary virtual classroom. Journal of Educational Computing Research
29(1), 119 – 144.
Bowen, W.G., & Bok, D. (1998). The shape of the river: Long-term consequences of
considering race in college and university admissions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (2003). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and
leadership (3
rd
ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Blossfeld, H., & Shavit, Y. (1993). Persisting barriers. In Y. Shavit & H. Blossfeld
(Eds.), Persistent Inequality. Boulder, CO.: Westview Press.
231
Bonilla-Silva, E. (2006). Racism without racists: Color-blind racism and the persistence
of racial inequality in the United States (2
nd
ed.). Lanham, MD: Rowman &
Littlefield Publishers.
Bonjean, C.M., & Olson, D.M. (1964). Community leadership: Directions of research.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 9(3), 278-300. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2391442.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J.G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of
Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. New York, NY:
Greenwood Press.
Bourdieu, P. (2000). Pascalian meditations. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Burke, B. (2005). Antonio Gramsci, schooling and education. In The encyclopedia of
informal education. Retrieved from http://www.infed.org/thinkers/et-gram.htm.
Chambers, T., & Deller, F. (2011). Chances and choices of low-income students in
Canada and England: A post-structuralist discussion of early intervention. In A.
Kezar (Ed.), Recognizing and serving low-income students in higher education:
An examination of institutional policies, practices, and culture. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Cole, A.L. & Knowles, G.J. (Eds). (2001). Lives in context: The art of life history
research. Blue Ridge Summit, PA: AltaMira Press.
Coleman, J. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal
of Sociology, 94 (Supplement), S95-S120.
Coleman, J. (1992). Some points on choice in education. Sociology of Education, 65(4),
260-262.
Colyar, J. (2011). Transition to college and student support. In A. Kezar (Ed.),
Recognizing and serving low-income students in higher education: An
examination of institutional policies, practices, and culture. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Dika, S., & Singh, K. (2002). Applications of social capital in educational literature: A
critical synthesis. Review of Education Research, 72(1), 31-60.
Douglass, Frederick. [1849] (1991). Letter to an abolitionist associate. In K. Bobo, J.
Kendall, & S. Max (Eds.), Organizing For Social Change: A Mandate For
Activity In The 1990s. Washington, D.C.: Seven Locks Press.
232
Dowd, A. (2011). Improving transfer access for low-income community college
students. In A. Kezar (Ed.), Recognizing and serving low-income students in
higher education: An examination of institutional policies, practices, and culture.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum.
Freire, P. (1974). Education for critical consciousness. New York, NY: Continuum
International Publishing Group.
Gamba, M., & Kleiner, B.H. (2001). The old boys’ network today. International
Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 21, 101-107.
Gándara, P. & Contreras, F. (2009). The Latino education crisis: The consequences of
failed social policies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gramsci, A. (1973). Selections from the prison notebooks. London, England: Lawrence
and Wishart.
Giddens, A. (1997). Sociology (3rd ed.) Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
Iverson, S. (2007). Camouflaging power and privilege: A critical race analysis of
university diversity policies. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(5), 586-
611.
Karen, D. (2002). Changes in access to higher education in the United States: 1980-
1992. Sociology of Education, 75(3), 191-210.
Katz, J. (2001). Analytic induction. In N.K. Smelser and P.B. Baltes (Eds.),
International encyclopedia of social and behavioral sciences Sciences. Oxford,
England: Elsevier.
Kezar, A. (Ed.). (2011). Recognizing and serving low-income students in higher
education: An examination of institutional policies, practices, and culture. New
York, NY: Routledge.
Kezar, A., & Yang, H. (2011). The importance of financial education. In Kezar (Ed.),
Recognizing and serving low-income students in higher education: An
examination of institutional policies, practices, and culture. New York, NY:
Routledge.
233
Knowles, G.J. (1993). Life history accounts as mirrors: A practical avenue for the
conceptualization of reflection in teacher education. In Calderhead. J. & Gates, P.
(Eds.), Conceptualizing reflection in teacher development. Bristol, PA: The
Falmer Press.
Lareau, A. (2001). Linking Bourdieu’s concept of capital to the broader field: The case
of family-school relationships. In B.J. Biddle (Ed.), Social class, poverty, and
education: Policy and practice (p. 77-100). New York, NY: RoutledgeFalmer.
Lareau, A., & Horvart, E.M. (1999). Moments of social inclusion and exclusion: Race,
class, and cultural capital in family-school relationships. Sociology of Education,
72, 37-53.
Lewis, O. (1959). Five families: Mexican case studies in the culture of poverty. New
York, NY: Basic Books.
Lin, N. (2001). Social capital: A theory of social structure and action. Cambridge:
University Press.
Maton, K. I., & Salem, D. (1995). Organizational characteristics of empowering
community settings: A multiple case study approach. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 23, 631-656.
Melguizo, T., & Strober, M.H. (2007). Faculty salaries and the maximization of
prestige. Research in Higher Education (48)6, 633-668.
Meyerson, D., & Tompkins, M. (2007). Tempered radicals as institutional change
agents: The case of advancing gender equality at the University of Michigan.
Harvard Journal of Law and Gender, 30(2), 303-322.
Miles, M., & Huberman,, A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. London: Sage
Publications.
Morrow, V. (1999). Conceptualising social capital in relation to the well-being of
children and young people: A critical review. The Editorial Board of the
Sociological Review, 745-765.
Moynihan, D. (1965). The Negro family: The case for national action. Retrieved from
http://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/history/webid-meynihan.htm.
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Portes, A. 2000. The two meanings of social capital. Sociological Forum, 15(1), 1–12.
234
Roksa, J., Grodsky, E., Arum, R., & Gamoran, A. (2007). United States: Changes in
higher education and social stratification. In Y. Shavit, R. Arum, & A. Gamoran
(Eds.), Stratification in Higher Education: A Comparative Study.
Smith, L.M., Dwyer, D.C., Prunty, J.J., & Kleine, P.F. (1988). Innovation and change in
schooling: History, politics and agency. New York, NY: Falmer Press.
Stanley, C.A. (2006). Faculty of color: Teaching in predominantly white colleges and
universities. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Company, Inc.
Spradley, J.P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
Group/Thomson Learning.
Stanton-Salazar, R. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the
socialization of racial minority children and youths. Harvard Educational
Review, 67(1), 1-40.
Stanton-Salazar, R. (2001). Manufacturing hope and despair: The school support
networks of U.S.-Mexican youth. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Stanton-Salazar, R. (2004). Social capital among working-class minority students. In
M.A. Gibson, P. Gándara, & J.P. Koyama (Eds.), School Connections: U.S.
Mexican Youth, Peers, and School Achievement. New York, NY: Teachers
College Press, Columbia University.
Stanton-Salazar, R.D. (2006, February). Keynote address: Social capital and
educational achievement. Paper presented at the annual conference of The
Sociology of Education Association, Pacific Grove, California.
Stanton-Salazar, R.D. (2009). Institutional agent. Unpublished manuscript.
Stanton-Salazar, R.D. (2009, January). The role of institutional agents in the
empowerment of working-class minority youth. Paper presented at the Eighth
Annual Education Community Leadership Conference, San Marcos, Texas.
Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (2010). A social capital framework for the study of
institutional agents and their role in the empowerment of low-status students and
youth. Youth & Society. Retrieved from
http://yas.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/10/05/0044118X10382877.
235
Valencia, R., Menchaca, M., & Donato, R. (2002). Segregation, desegregation, and
integration of Chicano students: Old and new realities. In R. Valencia (Ed.),
Chicano school failure and success: Past, present, and future (2nd ed.) (pp. 83-
99, 104-109). New York, NY: RoutledgeFalmer.
Wong, T. (2008). Purposive and snowball sampling in the study of ethnic and
mainstream community organizations. Retrieved from
http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p238387_index.html.
Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital?: A critical race theory discussion of
community cultural wealth. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69-91.
236
APPENDIX A
STUDY PARTICIPATION REQUEST
Dear [Name],
My name is Sumun Pendakur, and I am a doctoral student in the Rossier School of
Education. I am conducting a research study as part of my dissertation, focusing on
faculty and staff and their belief systems and work with low income, minority, college
students. A student, faculty member, or staff member has identified you as someone who
might be ideal for the study. Participation would require one interview of up to 1.5 hours,
with the possibility of a 1-hour follow-up interview.
Participation in this study is entirely voluntary. Your identity as a participant will remain
confidential at all times during and after the study and all interviews will take place in a
private office of your choosing. Your relationship with your university will not be
affected whether or not you participate in the study.
If you have questions or would like to participate, please contact me at
pendakur@usc.edu or at
213-740-4999.
Thank you for your consideration,
Sumun Pendakur, Principle Investigator
pendakur@usc.edu
University of Southern California
Date of Preparation: March 18, 2010
UPIRB#: UP-10-00086
Study ID: UP-10-00086 Valid From: 3/18/2010
237
APPENDIX B
INFORMATION SHEET FOR SUBJECTS
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
INFORMATION SHEET FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
The Search for Transformative Agents: The Counter-Institutional Positioning of Faculty and Staff
at an Elite University
You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Sumun Pendakur at the University
of Southern California, under the supervision of Reynaldo Baca for the purposes of a dissertation.
You are invited to participate because you are a faculty or staff member who has been identified
as a potential subject by a student, staff member, or faculty member and you are aged 18 or older.
Your participation is voluntary. You should read the information below, and ask questions about
anything you do not understand before deciding whether to participate.
Please take as much time as you need to read the consent form.
You may also decide to discuss participation with your family or friends.
You will be given a copy of this form.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to more thoroughly understand the development and role of
institutional and empowerment agents in elite universities. The study aims to
investigate the specific beliefs and skill sets of empowerment agents as effective
interveners in systems of higher education.
STUDY PROCEDURES
If you volunteer to participate in this study, you will be asked to participate in one
interview session of approximately 1.5 hours, with the possibility of a follow-up
interview of 1 hour. For the purposes of thorough data collection, notes will be taken
during the interview, as well as audio recorded using a digital recorder. You will be
assigned a false name (pseudonym) that will be used during the interviews, so as to
protect your confidentiality and privacy. You will be interviewed in a private office of
your choosing either your office or mine. If you do not want to be audio-taped, you
cannot participate in the study.
POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There are no anticipated risks associated with this study. You do not need to answer
any question you do not want to.
Date of Preparation: [March 18, 2010] – General ICF
USC UPIRB # UP-10-00086
Study ID: UP-10-00086 Valid From: 3/18/2010
238
POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO PARTICIPANTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
There are no direct benefits to you as the participant. However, as there is very little known about
the development of either the institutional or empowerment agent, this study seeks to fill in a
piece of that knowledge gap. Given the potential of empowerment agents to not only be
instrumental in marginalized students' lives, but also to also help shape institutions as more
equitable places, there is potentially great value in this study, and multiple benefits to society and
educational researchers and practitioners.
CONFIDENTIALITY
Any identifiable information obtained in connection with this study will remain confidential and
will be disclosed only with your permission or as required by law.
Only the study personnel will have access to the data associated with this study. The audio data
may be transcribed by a transcriptionist who has signed a confidentiality agreement. The audio
data will be stored in a password protected computer and the interview notes will be stored in a
locked filing cabinet. Your identity will remain confidential. Your coded information may be
used for future research and writing. If the data is used in future research studies, your permission
will not be obtained, since all identifiers will be removed. Identifiable data will destroyed three
years after the study has been completed; the remaining data will be securely stored for
a maximum of five years and then destroyed. When the results of the research are
published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable information will be used.
PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
Your participation is voluntary. Your refusal to participate will involve no penalty or
loss of benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. You may withdraw your consent at
any time and discontinue participation without penalty. You are not waiving any legal
claims, rights or remedies because of your participation in this research study.
ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION
Your alternative is to not participate in this study; your relationship with your
university will not be affected whether or not you participate.
INVESTIGATOR’S CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact
Sumun Pendakur at 213-740-4999, or pendakur@usc.edu, or in STU 410
RIGHTS OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT – IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have questions, concerns, or complaints about your rights as a research
participant you may contact the IRB directly at the information provided below. If you
have questions about the research and are unable to contact the research team, or if you
want to talk to someone independent of the research team, please contact the University
Park IRB (UPIRB), Office of the
Vice Provost for Research Advancement, Stonier Hall, Room 224a, Los Angeles, CA 90089-
1146, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu.
Date of Preparation: [March 18, 2010] – General ICF
USC UPIRB # UP-10-00086
Study ID: UP-10-00086 Valid From: 3/18/2010
239
APPENDIX C
INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
A. Introduce myself.
B. As you know, I am engaged in a doctoral study about the experiences and abilities
of those who have gained a reputation as someone who helps out working class and/or
students of color. Today’s interview should last approximately 1.5 hours. I will need to
interview you again after I have reviewed the information you share today. We’ll set up
that appointment after our conversation today.
C. I would like to audio record our conversation in order to allow me to listen more
carefully to what you say. Do I have your permission to use the tape recorder? All of
your information will remain confidential and we will use a pseudonym for the
interviews. Select pseudonym.
D. Present information form. Would you mind taking a minute to read through the
information form?
Formative
Years –
Culture,
Family, SES,
and
Influential
Figures
1. What was going on in your family, your community, and the
world at the time of your birth?
2. How would you describe your parents?
3. What do you think you inherited from them?
4. What is your cultural background?
5. What was growing up in your house or neighborhood like?
6. What cultural influences are still important to you today?
7. How much of a factor in your life do you feel your cultural
background and/or racial background has been?
8. How did your economic situation growing up impact your life?
9. What were some of your struggles as a child?
10. What was the most significant event in your life up to age 12
that impacted your way of looking at the world?
11. What was the most significant event of your teenage years that
impacted your worldview?
12. What special people have you known in your life?
• Who shaped and influenced your life the most?
• Who are the guides and helpers in your life?
• Who most helped you develop your current
understanding of yourself?
13. Is a sense of community important to you? Why? How?
240
The Impact
of Schooling
14. What is your first memory of attending school?
• Did you have a favorite teacher in grade school? Junior
high/middle school? High school?
• How did they influence you?
15. How far have you gone with your formal education?
16. What do you remember most about college?
17. What organizations or activities were you involved with in
college?
• Did any of your involvement in co-curricular or out-of-the-
classroom experiences impact you in terms of class or race
awareness?
18. Did you take a course that impacted your class or race
consciousness?
19. What did you learn about yourself during those years?
20. What historical events shaped your youth and college years:
e.g., Vietnam War, Civil Rights Movement in the 60s, Watts Riot, the
women’s movement, equal rights movement, anti-war protestors,
environmentalist (green), first generation college students, immigrant
rights, etc.
21. What has been your most important lesson in life, outside the
classroom?
22. What is your view of the role of education in a person’s life?
241
Knowing and
Doing –
Enacting the
Role of the
Institutional
or
Empowerment
Agent
23. What were you doing before you worked here? How long
have you been here?
24. How did you end up in the type of work you do?
• What is important to you in your work?
• Why do you do this work?
• What does it take for you to do your job?
• What relationships do you rely on or invoke to do
your job well?
25. What was the most significant social or political event you
participated in?
26. In what ways is your practice significantly different than it
was in the past?
27. How does your worldview and belief system affect your
work? (Your role on campus?)
28. What kinds of students do you primarily work with?
29. How do you specifically work with low-status students?
(Define low-status per RSS’s definition.) Any gender differences?
30. Can you think about a student for whom you worked on
his/her behalf? Explain. [Probe for several examples of students --
examples that typify the types of students the agent works with.]
31. In your experience, what are some key assets low-status
students bring to the college environment?
32. How do you show low-status students to -- “Pretend I’m one
of your students…” Get details!
• Work within (decode) the system?
• To change the system?
33. How do you specifically attempt to make changes to the
institution that benefit low-status students?
34. How do you work to change the system?
35. What obstacles do you face in your work? What have you
struggled with?
36. Have you ever felt burnt out as an IA/EA?
• What does it look like when you’re burnt out?
• What do you do in response?
• Is it a cycle?
37. Have you ever taken a public position that was considered
unpopular? What contributed to your ability to take that stance and
follow through on that belief? Probe for institutional response and
how that impacted what they do now.
38. As someone who is vested in the power structure of this
institution, how do you maintain your beliefs and convictions (the
contradictions of maintaining critical consciousness while
embedded)?
• What sustains your ability to do this work?
39. Is there anything I missed? What should I have asked?
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to empirically ground Stanton-Salazar’s (2010) theoretical trope of the empowerment agent through a life history study of subjects identified as empowerment agents. Freireian empowerment agents leverage their social capital network to offer institutional support to low-status students while helping the students clarify and construct an action-oriented, social justice-centered, critically conscious worldview. This study explores the subjects’ belief systems, experiential worldview development, praxis, institutional and internal obstacles, and forms of resistance and renewal. In our inequitable context, higher education institutions have not adopted practices and cultures to fully enable all students to succeed (Kezar, 2011). My study locates empowerment agents as key forms of resistance against institutional repression and hegemony, as well as against the deficit positioning of low-status students. By examining an under-researched population, I am able to offer both practitioner- and researcher-oriented implications. In addition, the findings of my study complicate the theoretical world of the empowerment agent, allowing new doors of study to open.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
“Mismatched”: matching Latino/as from API 1-2 high schools to an elite public university
PDF
Institutional agents' impact on tranfser student success through the avenue of social capital
PDF
Math faculty as institutional agents: role reflection through inquiry-based activities
PDF
Latino and Latina faculty members’ funds of knowledge: a qualitative study of empowerment agents’ experiences and practices
PDF
Faculty as institutional agents for low-income Latino students in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields at a Hispanic-serving institution
PDF
Chinese-Vietnamese American college students: narratives of educational experiences and college success
PDF
Defining the mobilization of social capital for low-SES minority youth participants in the Summer Bridge program by program leaders
PDF
The manifestation of social capital within the mathematics, engineering, and science achievement (MESA) program
PDF
His story: African-American male college students’ journey to success
PDF
Collaboration across institutional silos: a case study of a postsecondary professional learning community
PDF
The lived experience of first-generation latino students in remedial education and navigating the transfer pathway
PDF
Embedding and embodying a Hispanic-serving consciousness: a phenomenological case study of faculty hiring experiences
PDF
Cultural ecology, stereotype threat, and institutional agents: high school achievements of Black male and female students
PDF
Mission dissemination: a multi-case study of the research university mission
PDF
Undocumented students' personal reflections on the role institutional agents play in providing social capital towards post-secondary education
PDF
The role that mentoring interactions between faculty, staff, campus stakeholders, and peer mentors among students play in cultivating a culture of mentoring in higher education institutions
PDF
Institutional researchers as agents of organizational learning in hispanic-serving community colleges
PDF
Leadership decisions and organizational change; the role of summer sessions as an enrollment management planning tool at the University of California: a case study
PDF
Exploring faculty-student interactions in a comprehensive college transition program for low-income and first-generation college students
PDF
How do non-tenure track faculty interact with Latino and Latina students in gatekeeper math courses at an urban community college?
Asset Metadata
Creator
Pendakur, Sumun Lakshmi
(author)
Core Title
The search for transformative agents: the counter-institutional positioning of faculty and staff at an elite university
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Degree Conferral Date
2010-12
Publication Date
11/16/2010
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
critical consciousness,empowerment agents,Higher education,institutional agents,low-status students,OAI-PMH Harvest,praxis,reproduction,resistance,social capital
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Baca, Reynaldo R. (
committee chair
), Bensimon, Estela M. (
committee member
), Fischer, Linda A. (
committee member
), Kezar, Adrianna (
committee member
)
Creator Email
pendakur@usc.edu,slpendakur@yahoo.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m3533
Unique identifier
UC1189628
Identifier
etd-Pendakur-4180 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-421604 (legacy record id),usctheses-m3533 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-Pendakur-4180.pdf
Dmrecord
421604
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Pendakur, Sumun Lakshmi
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Repository Name
Libraries, University of Southern California
Repository Location
Los Angeles, California
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
critical consciousness
empowerment agents
institutional agents
low-status students
praxis
reproduction
social capital