Using Mixed Methods to Study Intersectionality in Higher Education E-Book

• Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
• Kategorie: Bildung
• Serie: J-B IR Single Issue Institutional Research
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 229

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2011

Beschreibung

This volume offers institutional researchers several examples ofthe ways in which quantitative and qualitative methods can beintegrated for a better grasp of how members of our educationalcommunities understand and experience their environments on thebasis of their multiple identities. The first two chapters provide context for the volume's themewith definitions and overview of the underpinnings of mixtedmethodology. Subsequent chapters illustrate the multiple ways inwhich qualitative and quantitative methods can be integrated tounderstand the complexity of identity and experiences ofmarginalized groups in the academy. Other chapters focus on students' experiences and demonstratehow mixed-methodology approaches were used to * explore college access among first-generation Asian Americansand Pacific Islanders * analyze racial ideology of white males with interview datadriving analysis of longitudinal dataset * and research and accessment generating accurate understandinghow of race and gender shape students' experiences within thecampus The final chapter presents findings of a mixed-methods inquiry tochallenge current conceptions about racial categorization andpractices for gathering institutional data on students' identity. Volume editors Kimberly A Griffin, assistant professor ofeducation policy studies at the Pennsylvania State University, andSamuel D. Museus, assistant professor of educational administrationat University of Hawai?i Manoa, and contributing authors advocatefor intersectionality research and argue that it holds greatpromise for advancing knowledge in higher education. Their book isideal for institutions and institutional researchers who want tounderstand and most effectively serve their students andfaculty. This is the 151st volume of the Jossey-Bass quarterly reportseries New Directions for Institutional Research.Always timely and comprehensive, New Directions forInstitutional Research provides planners and administratorsin all types of academic institutions with guidelines in such areasas resource coordination, information analysis, program evaluation,and institutional management.

Leseprobe

Table of Contents

Cover

Title page

Copyright page

About AIR

Editors’ Notes

Chapter 1: Mapping the Margins in Higher Education: On the Promise of Intersectionality Frameworks in Research and Discourse

Delineating and Defining the Types of Intersectionality

Intersectionality as an Integrative Concept

One-Dimensional Analyses and the Role of Intersectionality in Higher Education Research

Conclusion

Chapter 2: Application of Mixed-Methods Approaches to Higher Education and Intersectional Analyses

Mono-Methods and Intersectionality Research

Paradigmatic Pragmatism, Mixed Methods, and Intersectionality

Considerations in Mixed-Methods Research Design

Applying Mixed-Methods Designs to Intersectionality Research in Higher Education

Dealing with the Challenges of Mixed-Methods Intersectional Analyses

Conclusion

Chapter 3: Intersectionality in Context: A Mixed-Methods Approach to Researching the Faculty Experience

Intersectionality and Faculty Careers

Researching Intersectionality and the Faculty Experience

A Mixed-Methods Approach: Network Surveys and Individual Interviews

Research Example

Emerging Intersectionality

Intersectionality and Institutional Research

Chapter 4: Analyzing Gender Differences in Black Faculty Marginalization Through a Sequential Mixed-Methods Design

Using Mono-Method and Mixed-Methods Designs to Study Cultural Taxation

A Mixed-Methods Study of Black Faculty

Findings of the Mixed-Methods Inquiry

Implications for Institutional Research

Chapter 5: An Introductory Mixed-Methods Intersectionality Analysis of College Access and Equity: An Examination of First-Generation Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders

Utility of Intersectionality Research in Studying College Access Among Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders

Utility of Mixed-Methods Approaches to Studying College Access Among Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders

Mixed-Method Intersectional Analysis of Inequities in College Access Faced by First-Generation Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders

The Quantitative Analysis

The Qualitative Analysis

Extensions of the Preceding Introductory Analyses

Lessons Learned from the Mixed-Method Intersectional Analysis

Chapter 6: Using a Sequential Exploratory Mixed-Method Design to Examine Racial Hyperprivilege in Higher Education

Intersectionality

Racial Ideology

An Exploratory Mixed-Methods Inquiry into Campus Environments and White Male Racial Ideology

Discussion of Mixed-Method and Intersectionality Approach

Chapter 7: The Utility of Using Mixed-Methods and Intersectionality Approaches in Conducting Research on Filipino American Students’ Experiences with the Campus Climate and on Sense of Belonging

Mixed-Methods and Intersectionality in Conducting Research on Campus Climates and Sense of Belonging

Example of a Mixed-Methods Intersectional Analysis of Filipino American Students’ Experiences with the Campus Climate and Sense of Belonging

Lessons Learned from the Inquiry

Chapter 8: Identity, Intersectionality, and Mixed-Methods Approaches

Research and Methodological Approaches to Capturing Identity

Mixed Methods and Institutional Research

Capturing Multidimensional Identity in Research and Practice

Conclusion

Index

OTHER TITLES AVAILABLE IN THE NEW DIRECTIONS FOR INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH SERIES

USING MIXED-METHODS APPROACHES TO STUDY INTERSECTIONALITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Kimberly A. Griffin and Samuel D. Museus (eds.)

New Directions for Institutional Research, no. 151

Paul D. Umbach, Editor-in-Chief

Copyright © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc., A Wiley Company

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form or by any means, except as permitted under section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without either the prior written permission of the publisher or authorization through the Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923; [phone]; fax [phone]. The code and copyright notice appearing at the bottom of the first page of an article in this journal indicate the copyright holder’s consent that copies may be made for personal or internal use, or for personal or internal use of specific clients, on the condition that the copier pay for copying beyond that permitted by law. This consent does not extend to other kinds of copying, such as copying for general distribution, for advertising or promotional purposes, for creating collective works, or for resale. Such permission requests and other permission inquiries should be addressed to the Permissions Department, c/o John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River St., Hoboken, NJ 07030; [phone], fax [phone], http://www.wiley.com/go/permissions.

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH (ISSN 0271-0579, electronic ISSN 1536-075X) is part of The Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series and is published quarterly by Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company, at Jossey-Bass, 989 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94103-1741 (publication number USPS 098-830). Periodicals Postage Paid at San Francisco, California, and at additional mailing offices. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to New Directions for Institutional Research, Jossey-Bass, 989 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94103-1741.

SUBSCRIPTIONS cost $109 for individuals and $297 for institutions, agencies, and libraries in the United States. See order form at end of book.

EDITORIAL CORRESPONDENCE should be sent to Paul D. Umbach, Leadership, Policy and Adult and Higher Education, North Carolina State University, Poe 300, Box 7801, Raleigh, NC 27695-7801.

New Directions for Institutional Research is indexed in Academic Search (EBSCO), Academic Search Elite (EBSCO), Academic Search Premier (EBSCO), CIJE: Current Index to Journals in Education (ERIC), Contents Pages in Education (T&F), EBSCO Professional Development Collection (EBSCO), Educational Research Abstracts Online (T&F), ERIC Database (Education Resources Information Center), Higher Education Abstracts (Claremont Graduate University), Multicultural Education Abstracts (T&F), Sociology of Education Abstracts (T&F).

Microfilm copies of issues and chapters are available in 16mm and 35mm, as well as microfiche in 105mm, through University Microfilms, Inc., 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106-1346.

www.josseybass.com

ISBN: 9781118173473

ISBN: 9781118182826 (epdf)

ISBN: 9781118182833 (epub)

ISBN: 9781118182840 (mobi)

THE ASSOCIATION FOR INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH was created in 1966 to benefit, assist, and advance research leading to improved understanding, planning, and operation of institutions of higher education. Publication policy is set by its Publications Committee.

PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE

Gary R. Pike (Chair)Indiana University–Purdue University IndianapolisGloria CrispUniversity of Texas at San AntonioPaul DubyNorthern Michigan UniversityJames HearnUniversity of GeorgiaTerry T. IshitaniUniversity of MemphisJan W. LyddonSan Jacinto Community CollegeJohn R. RyanThe Ohio State University

EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE

John Muffo (Editor, Assessment in the Disciplines), Ohio Board of Regents

John C. Smart (Editor, Research in Higher Education), University of Memphis

Richard D. Howard (Editor, Resources in Institutional Research), University of Minnesota

Paul D. Umbach (Editor, New Directions for Institutional Research), North Carolina State University

Marne K. Einarson (Editor, AIR Electronic Newsletter), Cornell University

Gerald W. McLaughlin (Editor, AIR Professional File/IR Applications), DePaul University

Richard J. Kroc II (Chair, Forum Publications Committee), University of Arizona

Sharron L. Ronco (Chair, Best Visual Presentation Committee), Florida Atlantic University

Randy Swing (Staff Liaison)

For information about the Association for Institutional Research, write to the following address:

AIR Executive Office

1435 E. Piedmont Drive

Suite 211

Tallahassee, FL 32308-7955

[phone]

[email protected]

http://airweb.org

Editors’ Notes

There is a famous Indian legend in which six blind men feel different parts of an elephant and draw conclusions about what they are touching. In the story, one man touches the elephant’s side and concludes that the elephant is like a wall. A second man touches the elephant’s tusk and infers that the animal is shaped like a spear. A third man touches the elephant’s trunk and concludes that the elephant is shaped like a snake. A fourth man touches the elephant’s knee and asserts that the animal is shaped like a tree. The fifth and sixth men touch the elephant’s ear and tail and conclude that the elephant is shaped like a fan and a rope, respectively. All six men are certain that they are correct and argue with each other. They are partially right, but they are all completely wrong (Saxe, 1963).

In some ways, this tale is analogous to the quantitative-qualitative paradigm wars. Researchers have argued for decades about the validity, utility, and desirability of quantitative and qualitative methods. In the legend of the blind men and the elephant, incorporation of all six individual perspectives could have resulted in a holistic understanding of the nature of the elephant. Similarly, although quantitative and qualitative researchers have historically debated about quantitative and qualitative methods, it is increasingly acknowledged that each approach contributes a valuable perspective to research that can lead to more holistic understandings of various phenomena (Johnson, Onwuegbuzie, and Turner, 2007). Accordingly, there is a growing recognition of the value of mixed-methods approaches. Indeed, as we discuss in Chapter Two of this volume, the last two decades have, by and large, been defined by the emergence of paradigmatic pragmatism—the methodological paradigm based on the philosophical perspective that positivist-oriented quantitative methods and constructivist-oriented qualitative techniques are complimentary rather than oppositional.

Despite the growth of paradigmatic pragmatism in higher education, there are still instances in which researchers are discouraged or receive signals that they are second-class because their quantitative methods are not comprehensible or their qualitative findings are not generalizable. As paradigmatic pragmatists, we both use quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods research in our own scholarship, selecting the methods that can most effectively address the questions we seek to answer. We believe that it is no longer acceptable to spend valuable time and resources arguing about the validity or desirability of quantitative or qualitative methods; nor is it suitable to view quantitative or qualitative methods as inadequate. In this volume, we aim to demonstrate not only that quantitative and qualitative methods are both useful but also that they can be complementary tools for understanding important individuals, groups, processes, and phenomena on college and university campuses.

Ten years ago, Borland (2001) and his colleagues made the case that mixed-method approaches are useful tools for conducting institutional research and assessment. The contributors of this volume build on their work, applying mixed-methods research to engagement in intersectional analyses in higher education—examination of how multiple identities shape the experiences of individuals and groups in postsecondary education. Our personal experiences and commitment to our respective social justice agendas warrant a greater focus on intersectionality in higher education research and discourse. Regarding the former, we understand that our multiple identities have shaped our own experiences in unique and complex ways. Regarding the latter, in many ways intersectionality research is in its infancy in the field of higher education. In addition, we believe it holds great promise for advancing knowledge in higher education, as well as the ability of institutions and institutional researchers to understand and most effectively serve their students and faculty.

This volume offers institutional researchers several examples of the ways in which quantitative and qualitative methods can be integrated for a better grasp of how members of our educational communities understand and experience their environments on the basis of their multiple identities. The first two chapters provide the context for this volume. In Chapter One, we define intersectionality and discuss the importance of incorporating intersectional analysis into scholarly and institutional research, encouraging researchers to move beyond models and analytic strategies that focus solely on a singular aspect of student identity. In Chapter Two, we give an overview of the epistemological underpinnings of mixed methodology, discuss key considerations in designing a mixed-methods study, present a useful typology of mixed-methods research designs, and describe ways to overcome the challenges associated with conducting mixed-methods research.

In the subsequent chapters, invited authors illustrate the multiple ways in which qualitative and quantitative methods can be integrated to understand the complexity of identity and experiences of marginalized groups in the academy. Chapters Three and Four focus on faculty members. In Chapter Three, Meghan Pifer illustrates how to integrate social network analysis with interviews to explore how faculty make choices about the frequency and nature of their interactions with their colleagues according to the multiple aspects of their identities. In doing so, she illuminates how perceived similarities and differences shape faculty members’ access to information and resources that are important to faculty development, satisfaction, and success. In Chapter Four, Kimberly Griffin, Jessica Bennett, and Jessica Harris demonstrate how qualitative interviews can illuminate nuances in individual and group experiences that are not fully captured in examinations of large-scale quantitative surveys. They illustrate this reality using the example of a study that focuses on how black male and female faculty members engage in service, believe their work is evaluated, describe how faculty colleagues perceive them, and evaluate their stress as a result of these experiences.

The remaining four chapters focus on students’ experiences. In Chapter Five, Samuel Museus shows how to integrate the analysis of a national quantitative dataset with qualitative interviews to explore college access among first-generation Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders. In doing so, he demonstrates how the voices of students can explain the causes of inequities identified in national quantitative datasets. In Chapter Six, Nolan Cabrera presents an analysis of racial ideology of white males to illustrate how researchers can use qualitative interview data to drive an analysis of a quantitative longitudinal dataset. Dina Maramba and Samuel Museus then demonstrate in Chapter Seven how quantitative and qualitative data can be analyzed concurrently in research and assessment to generate a more accurate understanding of how race and gender shape students’ experiences within the campus climate and sense of belonging.

In our final chapter, Casandra Harper uses the findings of a mixed-methods inquiry to challenge current conceptions about racial categorization and practices for gathering institutional data on students’ identity. She problematizes surveys that ask students to “check the box” or even “check multiple boxes,” arguing that these questions can be troublesome for students who embrace multiple racial/ethnic identities and do not reflect the shifting nature of identity, and she makes multiple recommendations to better assess the racial/ethnic representation in one’s institutional community, highlighting the importance of multiple measures of identity.

Kimberly A. Griffin

Samuel D. Museus

Editors

KIMBERLY A. GRIFFIN is an assistant professor of education policy studies at the Pennsylvania State University and a research associate in the Center for the Study of Higher Education.

SAMUEL D. MUSEUS is an assistant professor of educational administration at the University of Hawai’i Manoa.

References

Borland, K. W., Jr. “Qualitative and Quantitative Research: A Complimentary Balance.” In K. W. Borland Jr. (ed.), Balancing Qualitative and Quantitative Information for Effective Decision Support. New Directions for Institutional Research, no. 112. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2001.

Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., and Turner, L. A. “Toward a Definition of Mixed-Methods Research.” Journal of Mixed-Methods Research, 2007, 1(2), 112–133.

Saxe, J. G. The Blind Men and the Elephant: John Godfrey Saxe’s Version of the Famous Indian Legend. New York: Whittlesey House, 1963.

1

Mapping the Margins in Higher Education: On the Promise of Intersectionality Frameworks in Research and Discourse