22,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
- Kategorie: Bildung
- Serie: J-B ASHE-ERIC Report Series (AEHE)
- Sprache: Englisch
This monograph is focused on educating faculty and administrators about the developmental issues faced by students from different racial, ethnic, or other social groupings as they attempt to define themselves during the college years and the ways this information can enhance campus classrooms, programs, and policies. Although there is a growing body of work on how various racial, ethnic, gender and other social groups develop their identity, there has been limited synthesis or application of this literature to the practice of professionals in higher education. The authors have higher education administrative backgrounds, so their recommendations are grounded in experience, and each also has a solid record of scholarship in identity development. The combined scholarly and administrative experience of the three authors enhances the contribution of this book.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 217
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2011
Ähnliche
Table of Contents
Cover
Title
Copyright
Executive Summary
Why Is a Discussion of Ethnic Identity Development Necessary?
Why Is This Information So Necessary for Higher Education Practice?
How Can Our Practice Become More Intentional Around Ethic Identity Development?
About the ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports Series
Call for Proposals
Advisory Board
Consulting Editors and Review Panelists
Recent Titles
babout
Foreword
Why Should Higher Education Be Concerned with the Identity Development of Diverse Students?
Development of Identity
Definitions
Organization
Theoretical Frameworks of Identity Development Theory: Foundational Theories
Foundational Theories of Identity Development
Evaluation of Foundational Theories
Dominant Cultures, Oppression, and Other Societal Issues Affecting the Identity Development of Diverse Populations
Cultural and Societal Issues That Impact Identity Development
Theory of Oppression
The Social Oppression Matrix
Social Identity Development Theory
How Oppression Impacts Privileged Groups
White Identity Theories
Conclusion
Theoretical Frameworks of Diverse Identity Development Theories: A View Through a Different Lens
Multigroup Ethnic and Racial Identity Models
Racial and Ethnic Identity Theories Pertaining to African American Students
Racial and Ethnic Identity Theories Pertaining to Native American Students
Acculturation to the Majority Culture
Racial and Ethnic Identity Theories Pertaining to Latino and Latina Students
Racial and Ethnic Identity Theories Pertaining to Asian American Students
Multiracial Identity
Conclusion
Multiple Identities: Acknowledging the Interrelationship Among Roles
Integrating Multiple Layers of Identity Development
Sexual Orientation Identity Formation
Women and Gender Identity
Implications
Integration of Identity Development Theory into Practice
Campus Culture
Implications for Administrators
Implications for Faculty Members
Conclusions and Future Implications
Appendix A. Case Study: Defining Academic Diversity at Reflective College
Considerations in Addressing This Issue
Conclusions
References
Name Index
Subject Index
End User License Agreement
List of Illustrations
Theoretical Frameworks of Diverse Identity Development Theories: A View Through a Different Lens
FIGURE 1 The Behavioral Patterns of Multicultural Competence Model
List of Tables
Theoretical Frameworks of Identity Development Theory: Foundational Theories
TABLE 1 Marcia’s Identity Development Model
Guide
Cover
Table of Contents
Begin Reading
Pages
Cover
Table of Contents
i
ii
iii
iv
v
i
ii
iii
iv
i
ix
x
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
101
102
103
104
105
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
Identity Development of Diverse Populations: Implications for Teaching and Administration in Higher Education
Vasti Torres
Mary F. Howard-Hamilton
Diane L. Cooper
Adrianna J. Kezar, Series Editor
ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report: Volume 29, Number 6
Identity Development of Diverse Populations: Implications for Teaching and Administration in Higher Education
Vasti Torres, Mary F. Howard-Hamilton, Diane L. Cooper
ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report: Volume 29, Number 6
Adrianna J. Kezar, Series Editor
This publication was prepared partially with funding from the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education, under contract no. ED-99-00-0036. The opinions expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the positions or policies of OERI or the Department.
Copyright © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc., A Wiley Company. All rights reserved. Reproduction or translation of any part of this work beyond that permitted by Sections 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act without permission of the copyright owner is unlawful. Requests for permission or further information should be addressed to the Permissions Department, c/o John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River St., Hoboken, NJ 07030; (201) 748-8789, fax (201) 748-6326, e-mail: [email protected].
ISSN 0884-0040 electronic ISSN 1536-0709 ISBN 0-7879-6351-8
The ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report is part of the Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series and is published six times a year by Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company, at Jossey-Bass, 989 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94103-1741.
For subscription information, see the Back Issue/Subscription Order Form in the back of this journal.
CALL FOR PROPOSALS: Prospective authors are strongly encouraged to contact Adrianna Kezar at the University of Southern California, Waite Phillips Hall 703C, Los Angeles, CA 90089, or [email protected]. See “About the ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report Series” in the back of this volume.
Visit the Jossey-Bass Web site at www.josseybass.com.
Executive Summary
The idea for this monograph came from discussions among graduate faculty about how to deal with the issues of race, ethnicity, and other controversial issues in the classroom and around campus. Each of us could tell numerous stories about the mishandling of issues by faculty and administrators that focused on a misunderstood student from a different race, ethnicity, or social group other than the majority. The result of the misunderstanding can sometimes result in a campus conflict where others are involved without understanding the issues at hand. And it happens in higher education much more often than we care to admit.
Why Is a Discussion of Ethnic Identity Development Necessary?
The number of racially and ethnically diverse students on our college campuses has profoundly increased. What is more significant is the diversity within these groups. Students are becoming connected with their “homeland” and expressing this connection through their racial and ethnic identity. Concomitantly, the number is growing of biracial and multiracial students on campus whose identities blend and intersect with several cultures and contexts. The expansion and complexity of these groups necessitate a review of the current theories written for adolescent and college student populations. Reexamining foundational identity theories and expounding on the theories that address racial identity development can provide faculty and administrators with the ability to make the appropriate application for students who attend higher education institutions.
What often is not recognized is that demographic shifts are also occurring within the faculty and administrative ranks. Collegial interactions are changing with the influx of more women, people of color, and persons from other cultural backgrounds interacting with majority group members. Interactions in the classroom are changing as a result of students who have not had any significant contact or communication with racially or ethnically diverse professionals, which may create problems in the classroom and campus community. Everyone needs to be held accountable for enhancing his or her own level of multicultural competence and sensitivity to diverse groups.
Why Is This Information So Necessary for Higher Education Practice?
Hoare (1994) notes that “there is a strong correlation between the extent to which we understand our own conscious and unconscious biases and our abilities to unimposingly hear and care about those who do not share our culturally grounded views” (pp. 37–38). Our practice has not always been in sync with the changing populations on our college campuses. For us to hear and care, we need to challenge our presupposed ideas, biases, and prejudices about how we teach, practice, and interact with our students and colleagues.
A good example of the changing landscape is how predominantly white institutions may reflect the views and policies that are alienating to students from diverse populations. This monograph is written to challenge the traditional paradigms and recognize new voices that should be part of the construction of new, more inclusive policies and practices.
This monograph focuses on educating faculty and administrators about the developmental issues faced by students from different racial, ethnic, or social groups as they attempt to define themselves during the college years. By presenting the existing research and theories on the development of identity and the particular effects of this process on diverse students, we hope to foster greater understanding and dialogue. Attitudes about differences are influenced by how students make meaning of their own race and ethnicity, making it critical that all those who work on a college campus also understand how this identity is developed.
How Can Our Practice Become More Intentional Around Ethic Identity Development?
As diversity came to the forefront in the 1970s, colleges and universities rushed to create courses in African American studies, Chicano studies, and women’s studies, to name a few. Today, an infusion process is necessary rather than adding on to the curriculum. Faculty need to understand they have “new learners” in their classrooms and design assignments that include everyone and allow for students to learn and understand divergent points of views. Student affairs professionals also need to be more intentional in their programming, developing new and inclusive policies, mission statements, and learning goals that also reflect this new way of valuing diversity. Perhaps the baseline for new practice should be the question “Have I included everyone in the activities, programs, or syllabus I just created?”
We acknowledge that this monograph will make some readers uncomfortable, yet we view this discomfort as part of the process of creating a positive environment for all. Each faculty member and administrator must understand how he or she as an individual and as a member of the institution influences the success or failure of those who are not from the majority white culture. It is only when this discomfort is dealt with that higher education can truly say, “we value diversity.”
Foreword
Over the past decade, several ASHE-ERIC monographs have examined ways to increase the diversity of students and faculty, to retain students from diverse backgrounds, and to create more inclusive campus environments. Most works have focused on sociological, policy, or organizational frameworks to understand ways to reorganize and reexamine our institutional cultures. A gap in our knowledge about how to create a more inclusive environment has been the identity development of individuals that make up our campus communities. Vasti Torres, Mary F. Howard-Hamilton, and Diane L. Cooper help fill this gap in this new monograph, Identity Development of Diverse Populations: Implications for Teaching and Administration in Higher Education. It focuses on educating faculty and administrators about the developmental issues faced by students from different racial, ethnic, or other social groups as they attempt to define themselves during the college years and the ways this information can enhance campus classrooms, programs, and policies. Although a growing body of work is available on how various racial, ethnic, gender, and other social groups develop their identity, there has been limited synthesis or application of this literature to the practice of professionals in higher education. The authors’ recommendations are grounded in experience as educational administrators, and each has a solid record of scholarship in identity development.
Several aspects make this monograph a particularly strong synthesis of the literature. First, it is among the first monographs to bring together specific group identity (African American, for example), multiracial and multigroup, and multi-identity models (combining race, gender, and sexual orientation, for example). Identity has often been looked at in ways that are too facile. This monograph portrays a complex portrait of identity development that will surely enhance the understanding of campus faculty and administrators. A second strength is the presentation of oppression theories. Too often, discussions of differences in identity development do not address the inequitable power relations that exist and shape and frame our experiences. This monograph does not shy away from presenting what can be challenging material for those with privilege, often the campus leaders the monograph is aimed at engaging in dialogue. A third strength is the enumeration of detailed and thoughtful implications for changing campus cultures by designing institutional assessments, involving diverse persons in decision making, examining cultural artifacts, understanding how culture influences classrooms, and introducing new teaching strategies.
This monograph could not be published at a more opportune time as we reflect on the fifty-year anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education (in 2004). I hope that this anniversary will serve as a time for campuses to reflect on the way they have changed (or stayed the same) in terms of becoming more inclusive environments. As we continue to evolve as a multiracial, multiethnic, and multiidentity society, we need more tools to continue to move forward. I hope readers will use the theories synthesized by and recommendations offered by the authors to enhance institutional performance and equity, an unfinished agenda.
Adrianna J. KezarSeries Editor
Why Should Higher Education Be Concerned with the Identity Development of Diverse Students?
A MAJOR GOAL OF HIGHER EDUCATION is to be a marketplace of ideas. This goal is valued and often referred to when people discuss controversial issues. What is not often discussed is the response most people have when they have strongly opposing beliefs about important issues. Most people have one of two responses to disagreements: (1) engage in a dialogue with the aim of better understanding the other side so as to convince them to change their mind, and (2) intentionally avoid the individual and, when encounters are forced, actively avoid the controversial issue (Miller and Prentice, 1999). Often when individuals belong to different racial, ethnic, gender, social class, sexual orientation, or other social groups, the differences among the groups become the explanation for the disagreement. A possible outcome of this explanation is that with time, the differences can become “more unbridgeable when they occur between members of different groups than between members of the same group” (Miller and Prentice, 1999, p. 215). This potential communication gap can happen when faculty and administrators in higher education attempt a dialogue with students from various racial, ethnic, or social groups without having knowledge about the differences and similarities in the identity development of individuals within the groups as well as how one’s own social group identity impacts that interaction. Institutions of higher education are not necessarily equipped to deal with the emotional conflict that can occur when dealing with issues of race and ethnicity (Smith, 1996).
A study by Hurtado (1996) found that one in four students at four-year colleges perceived “considerable racial conflict” on the campus (p. 492). Only 12 percent of students at four-year colleges thought racial discrimination was no longer a problem in the United States (Hurtado, 1996). These data illustrate that conflict over race or ethnicity continues to be an issue on campus and will continue to be as the controversy about affirmative action continues (Schmidt, 2003; Selingo, 2003). Dialogue among people from diverse backgrounds is a critical element of the marketplace of ideas, yet sometimes these conversations are strained, difficult, and painful for one or both sides. The fear of being misunderstood paralyzes the conversations, making the dialogue even more difficult (Tatum, 1996).
The best way to improve intergroup interactions is to provide information that can educate individuals, particularly information about the variety of opinions, behaviors, and perceptions of any particular group. “Through education, it is possible to teach people that not all the differences they experience with members of other categories [social groups] are category differences” (Miller and Prentice, 1999, p. 234). This monograph is the first step in educating oneself about students from different racial, ethnic, or social groups as they attempt to define themselves during the college years. Because not all students are alike, it is important that we understand their identity development process rather than make overgeneralized statements about group membership. Attitudes about differences are influenced by how students make meaning of their own race and ethnicity. By understanding the similarities and differences in the identity development process of diverse groups of college students, faculty and administrators will be better able to dialogue about those differences.
Because not all students are alike, it is important that we understand their identity development process rather than make overgeneralized statements about group membership.
Development of Identity
The majority of individuals who have attended college note how much they changed during this period of their lives. From this intuitive sense of development, or change, which occurs during late adolescence, individuals create a sense of self that usually feels more grounded and stable. Student development theory emerged from investigating these changes and the sense of self that develops as a result of the changes. A central notion of student development has always been the idea that the college years are critical for the development of identity. Erikson (1968) saw the late adolescent years as a time of conflict between identity and identity diffusion. It is the resolution of this conflict that influences how identity develops. Chickering and Reisser (1993) expanded on the process of resolving conflict with the notion of identity development through seven vectors that students work on mastering during their time in college. The belief that students’ sense of identity is developed during the college years is widely accepted; what has not received as much attention is the influence of race, ethnicity, other social categories, or the interrelationship of multiple identities on that development during the college years.
Pascarella and Terenzini (1991) noted the “absence of studies dealing with identity development among Black (or other minority) students” (p. 166). The absence of this type of research has forced faculty and administrators to apply identity development theories that were formed from studies of white students (often not including women) to all students regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, or other differences. The application of these theories to students from very different racial or ethnic backgrounds can cause misunderstandings and miscommunications. The desire to intentionally influence positive learning and development requires those working in higher education to understand what conflicts students must resolve to develop their sense of self and in turn how we can assist them in resolving those conflicts.
Clear evidence suggests that the developmental process for racially and ethnically diverse students is “more than dichotomous to one group . . . than another. Moreover, the consequences or outcomes of the developmental process may have implications for the individual’s level of adjustment as well as for the quality of the interactions in which she or he engages and for the environment . . . generally” (Helms, 1994, p. 306). The desire to help students adjust positively to the college environment requires faculty and administrators to be familiar with the developmental issues facing these diverse students.
The study of racial and ethnic identity spans several disciplines. Anthropologists tend to describe theories about race and ethnicity as discussions of classifications and boundary maintenance (Banks, 1996), while sociologists’ theories of race are “defined by situations where phenotypically dissimilar groups are in some sort of long-term unequal power and/or economic relationship and where the dominant group justifies its position through some kind of legitimating ideology” (p. 54). This monograph does not attempt to define the characteristics of a racial, ethnic, or social group. Rather, it focuses on understanding the experiences of those who come from a different race, ethnic, or social group than the dominant group in the United States. This approach is in congruence with a sociological approach, yet much of the work that has been done on the actual identity development process has been conducted from a psychosocial perspective. In deciding what should be included in this monograph, the authors chose to focus on research conducted specifically on individuals in the early adult years or specifically on college students.
The authors of this monograph have used a broad definition of diversity that includes race, ethnicity, and multiple identities that encompass gender and sexual orientation. The approach presented in this monograph is based on the idea that a person must recognize one’s own culture before truly understanding another person’s culture. To accomplish this aim, the authors look at societal issues involving issues of race and ethnicity as well as examine how these societal issues have influenced the development of white people’s cultural identity. The fact that the dominant group of faculty and administrators in higher education continues to be white men (72.1 percent) or white women (17.3 percent) (Harvey, 2001) makes the inclusion of white identity theory a necessity. It is the authors’ desire that this monograph promote reflection, dialogue, and understanding for both dominant and nonsubordinate groups.
Dominant groups (usually identified as whites in the United States) “set the parameters within which subordinates operate. The dominant group holds the power and the authority in society relative to the subordinates and determines how that power and authority may be acceptably used” (Tatum, 1997, p. 23). History has illustrated the relationship between the dominant and subordinates as often based on the targeted group’s (subordinates’) being “labeled as defective or substandard” (p. 23). For example, the dominant group historically has characterized women (the subordinate group) as less emotionally stable than men. Certain dominant group members historically have believed that African Americans are less intelligent than whites (Tatum, 1997). The relationship between dominant and subordinate groups, such as minorities, requires that any discussion of identity include the influence of these stereotypes on the subordinate group. The influence of this phenomenon can best be understood through a discussion of oppression and how racial and ethnic minority identities are influenced by these stereotypes. Research has shown that the existence of a negative stereotype about a group to which one belongs can result in negative performance, referred to as stereotype threat (Steele and Aronson, 1995). In situations where the stereotype may be applicable (like stereotypes of lower performance than whites on academic tests), “one is at risk of confirming it [the stereotype] as a self-characterization, both to one’s self and to others who know the stereotype” (p. 808). In studies looking at stereotype threat, two groups of students were given tests, with each group given difference information. When race was given as a reason for poor performance, students of that race performed lower than white students. When race was not given as a reason for poor performance, students of that race did as well as white students (Steele and Aronson, 1995). These studies illustrate the power of the words we speak; we need to be aware of how faculty and administrators influence the performance of racially and ethnically diverse students. This power makes it necessary for all faculty and administrators to understand how their behavior can be interpreted and how they can influence the success of diverse students. The knowledge of how identity develops for these diverse groups can help further the understanding needed to help students succeed. The emphasis in this country on “racial markers as preliminary credentials for access to reward or punishment” makes racial membership a core element of identity development in the United States (Helms, 1994, p. 286).
As a result of societal influences, identity models for diverse populations emphasize experiences with oppression and those who are considered “minority.” This minority status comes with historical connotations and societal norms that obligate us to also look at the consequences of stereotypes and in turn oppression (Birman, 1994).
The inclusion of white identity theories, which focus on the perception and reaction to other racial groups, can assist in the understanding needed to change society. The authors chose to include white identity development, because the majority of faculty and staff in higher education continues to be white, making whites the dominant group (Harvey, 2001), and because these theories set the stage for the type of personal development that is needed to deal with other races, cultures, and lifestyles. To change the campus environment, all members of the college community must engage in understanding differences and accepting their own roles in the present campus culture.
The most distinguishable difference between identity development theories based on majority white populations and those from racial, ethnic, or other socially subordinate groups is the presence of oppression and how individuals cope with it. By looking at the consequences of oppression, we hope to illustrate how historical context and societal views have impacted and continue to influence how diverse students adapt in the college environment.
Definitions
Before we can begin to introduce theories and models, it is important that the reader understand the nuances of different terms used to describe diverse populations.
Race
deals with how humankind socially categorizes the hereditary traits of different groups of people, thus creating socially defined differences. These traits are biologically visible and deal mainly with skin color and physical differences. Centuries of racial mixing have made it difficult to “unequivocally differentiate one so-called racial group from another” (Helms, 1994, p. 295).
Ethnicity
is a social identity based on a person’s historical nationality or tribal group. For this reason, any one racial group comprises many ethnicities (Helms, 1994). In the context of this monograph, this social identity is based on membership in a segment, or social group, of a larger society that does not share the same culture (Yinger, 1994).
Culture
should be considered from a broad level (macroculture) and a subsidiary level. On a broad level, culture provides individuals with an identity and value orientation that represents a society (such as a country). This broad level can contain subsidiary cultures that focus on customs, values, traditions, and histories from different broad cultures (such as Mexican culture within the broad U.S. culture) (Helms, 1994).
Acculturation
