Transcript Isn*t it ironic? Grappling with Higher education*s perpetuation of

ISN’T IT IRONIC?: GRAPPLING
WITH HIGHER EDUCATION’S
PERPETUATION OF PRIVILEGE,
POWER, AND OPPRESSION
DIFFERENTIALS
STEPHANIE BEGUN, MSW
SAMANTHA M. BROWN, M.A., LPC
SUSANNE KLAWETTER, LCSW
STEPHANIE LECHUGA PEÑA, MSW
DARREN WHITFIELD, MSW
Pedagogy of Privilege – August 6, 2013
Workshop Agenda






Topic Overview
Terminology
Review of Literature
Break
Small-Group Activity
Large-Group Discussion and Debrief
Topic Overview

Power, Privilege, and Oppression: A Social Work
Perspective
 NASW
Code of Ethics
 Social Work Profession’s Core Values

Workshop Learning Objectives:
 Raise
Awareness
 Engage in Thoughtful, Respectful Dialogue
 Strategize Productive Actions
Terminology
How do you define the following concepts?




Power
Privilege
Oppression
Stereotype
What examples come to mind for each?
Eréndira in American Academia
Higher Education and Race and
Ethnicity
“ The racial and ethnic demographics of the student population in
U.S. higher education has changed in recent years and even more
dramatic shifts are projected over the coming decade.”

Between 1998 – 2008 student enrollment in colleges and universities increased by
32% from 14.5 million to 19.1 million.
>
Approximately 33% of these incoming students were from underrepresented
racial and ethnic groups.
(Ponjuan, Gasman, Hirshman, & Esters, 2011)
Higher Education and Race and
Ethnicity


The National Science Foundation (NSF) 2009 Survey of Earned Doctorates
illustrated that there was approximately a 20% increase in the total number of
students of color who earned doctoral degrees in the 2008 cohort when compared
to the 1998 cohort.
In 2009 – 2010, faculty members of color represented approximately 18% of
all full-time faculty members in degree-granting institutions.
>
82% White
>
8% Asian Pacific Islander
>
5% African American
>
4% Latino
>
Less than 1% Native American
(Ponjuan, Gasman, Hirshman, & Esters, 2011)
Higher Education and Race and
Ethnicity
Institutions place a larger emphasis on faculty recruitment rather than retention
efforts. Underrepresented faculty retention requires as much attention as
recruitment.


Lack of committed leadership from all levels at degree serving institutions.
Retention Issues
Barriers to Tenure Process and Promotion
Work Place Stressors
Cultural Taxation
Lack of Collegiality and Mentorship
Lack of Transparency and Consistency
(Moreno, Smith, Clayton-Pederson,, Parker, & Hiroyuki Teraguchi, 2006; Thompson, 2008 ; Stanley
2006).
Higher Education and Class




Socioeconomic status is a leading predictor of educational
attainment (Engberg & Wolniak, 2010; Grodsky & Jones, 2007;
NCES, 2007).
Studies suggest the lower one’s family socioeconomic status, the
lower the chances of graduating from a four year college (Alon,
2009; Rosenbaum, 2004).
College students who have low SES are more likely to be
disengaged in campus life and extracurricular activities (Bourdieu,
2007; Bourdieu & Passeron, 1979; Martin, 2011).
Campus engagement is shown to increase the likelihood of
graduating from college (Brown 2000; Lohfink & Paulsen, 2005;
Martin, 2011).
Higher Education and Class

Cultural Capital and Habitus
 Social
classes pass on attitudes, preferences, and
behaviors from parent to child.
 Individuals who enter higher education with wealth
have an added advantage of having desirable cultural
capital.
 Educators value high status cultural capital, rewarding
student from dominant cultural backgrounds and
discarding those from lower social standing.
(Bourdieu, 1977, 1990, 1994)
Higher Education and Class
 In
the academy, there is an unspoken preference given
to those of particular cultural capitals.
 For low income individuals, their success in education
depends on their ability to learn to cues they are
inherent in the cultural capital system of higher
education.
(Bourdieu, 1977, 1990, 1994)
Higher Education and Class
How does
social class
appear in the
classroom?
How do we
talk about the
divide it may
create?
Higher Education and Gender

Women have made significant gains in higher education



Over half of those in doctoral programs are women (NCES,
2006)
Single women without children are 16% more likely to obtain
tenure-track positions than single men without children (Wolfinger,
Mason, & Goulden, 2008)
However, challenges for women persist



More women drop out of doctoral programs than men (NCES,
2006; Wolfinger et al., 2008)
Less women make tenure than men (NCES, 2006; Wolfinger et al.,
2008)
Less women achieve full professor status than men (Wolfinger et
al., 2008)
Higher Education and Gender

The role of children
While single, childless women are more likely to obtain a
tenure-track job, marital status and young children have a
negative impact on career progression (Wolfinger et al.,
2008)
 Even single, childless women are less likely to make tenure
than their male counterparts (Wolfinger et al., 2008)
 Older children, however, do not impact women’s
employment and tenure decisions negatively.


Wolfinger et al. (2008) suggest selection effects: women who
complete doctoral degrees with young children may possess skills
to balance work/family demands, supportive partners, and time
management abilities.
Higher Education and Gender

Socialization



Higher education is “configured around a male career model
established in the nineteenth century, that forces women to choose
between work and family” (Wolfinger et al., 2008)
“Historically, higher education has been and continues to be a
male- dominated enterprise. As a result, academic culture and the
socialization that accompanies it reflect the experiences of men.”
(Ward & Bensimon, 2002)
Highest attrition rates: women, students of color, older students,
students with children, and part-time students (Gardner, 2008)

Socialization processes do not account for diversity of student body
and negatively impacts marginalized students’ doctoral education
experiences
Higher Education and Age

Ageism
 “Any
attitude, action, or institutional structure that
subordinates a person or group because of age, or any
assignment of roles in society based on age” (Allen &
Burwell, 1980, p. 71)

Post-Secondary Education Differences
 Perceptions
of traditional aged students (18-23) and
non-traditional aged students

Perception Shift in Graduate Education
Higher Education and Age

Intersectionality and Ageism
 Interlocking

identities primarily with gender and culture
Faculty Status and Age Discrimination
 Tenure-track
positions
 When I asked why they might not have wanted an older,
highly qualified woman for the position, she replied: “If
you don’t do things on a certain timetable, you get
punished” (Bronstein, 2001, p.191)

Challenging Ageism in Social Work Higher
Education
Higher Education and Positionality
“There was once an entomologist who found a bug he
couldn’t classify—so he stepped on it.”
– Ernest R. Hilgard

Positionality:
 “The
notion that personal values, views, and location in
time and space influence how one understands the
world” (Warf, 2010, p. 2257-2258).
Higher Education and Positionality
Researcher Privilege and Positionality
 Higher education’s long-held definitions of the ideal
scholar:
An omnipotent expert in control of both passive research
subjects and the research process (England, 1994).
 A researcher unearths universal truths about the world
rather than offering interpretations of it (Warren, 1988).


Implications: any scholar with the “correct” training in methods
could objectively produce the same findings as another (Moser,
2008).
Higher Education and Positionality
But…
 Because of a researcher’s positionality, how
accurately do research findings capture the lived
experiences and voices of those being studied?
 Is there any such thing as objective? Does
“objectivity” matter?
 In what ways does a given researcher have the
“upper hand” in power differentials (and privilege)
compared to the subjects of research?
Higher Education and Positionality

Research trends have slowly shifted, but debates
remain:
 Who
should conduct research with and about people?
(Scheurich & Young, 1997; Tillman, 2002).
 Must
the researcher be from the community with whom they
are conducting research? (Tillman, 2002; Milner, 2007).
 Do researchers disrupt or contribute to ongoing oppression
and power differentials? Do they do both things
simultaneously?
 The
countless levels of “insider vs. outsider” (Moser,
2008).
Activity

Break into small groups, and think about your personal
experiences. Within the context of higher education
settings, how would you respond to the following
questions?
Think of a time when you were an outsider in a group. What
was it like? When have you been an insider? How was that
different?
 Have you ever been “caught” by your own stereotyping,
misjudging someone because of your own faulty
assumptions?
 Have you ever been misjudged by someone else? How did
that make you feel, and how did you respond?

Discussion and Debrief





What were some of the most interesting insights
uncovered from your discussions? Was anything
surprising?
What question was the most difficult for you to answer?
Why?
Where do messages about other groups come from?
What similarities did you notice among all those you
conversed with? What differences?
How did it feel when you were the one talking? When
were you the one listening?
References
Alon, S. (2009). The evolution of class inequality in higher education: Competition, exclusion,
and adaptation. American Sociological Review, 72, 478 – 511.
Allen, J. A., & Burwell, N. Y. (1980). Ageism and racism: Two issues in social work education
and practice. Journal of Education for Social Work, 16(2), 71-77.
Bell, N. E. (2009). Council of graduate school research report: Data sources nontraditional students in graduate education. Retrieved from
http://www.cgsnet.org/ckfinder/userfiles/files/DataSources_2009_12.pdf
Black, L. L., & Stone, D. (2005). Expanding the definition of privilege: The concept of social
privilege. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 33(4), 243-255.
Bonilla-Silva, E. & Herring, C. (1999). “`We’d love to hire them, but...’: The Underepresentation of
Sociologists of Color and Its Implications.” Footnotes, March, 27(3):6-7.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Cultural reproduction and social reproduction. In J. Karabeland & A. H.
Halsey (Eds.). Power and ideology in education (pp. 487 – 511). New York: Oxford University
Press.
References
Bourdieu, P. (1990). Artistic taste and cultural capital. In J. Alexander & S.
Seidman (Eds.), Culture and society: Contemporary debates (pp. 205 – 215).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1994). Distinctions: A social critique. In D. B. Grusky (Ed.), Social
stratification: Class, race, and gender in sociological prespective (pp. 404 –
429). New York: Westview Press.
Bourdieu, P. (2007). Sketch for a self-analysis. Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press.
Bourdieu, P. & Passeron, J. (1979). The inheritors: French students and their
relation to culture. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Bourland, S. W. (2009). Attitudes of faculty and students toward traditional and
nontraditional students and the intergenerational postsecondary classroom.
(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest. (3383737)
References
Bronstein, P. (2001). Older women in academia: Contemporary history and issues. Journal of
Women’s History, 12(4), 184-201. doi: 10.1352/jowh.2001.0004
Brown, T. (2000). Gender differences in African American student’s satisfaction with college.
Journal of College Student Development, 41, 479 – 487.
Du Bois, W. E. B. [1920] 2003. “The Souls of White Folk.” In Darkwater: Voices from Within the
Veil. Introduction by Joseph R. Feagin. New York: Humanity Press.
Engberg, M., & Wolniak, G., (2010). Examining the effects of high school contexts on
postsecondary enrollment. Research in Higher Education, 51, 132 – 153.
England, K. V. L. (1994). Getting personal: Reflexivity, positionality, and feminist research.
Professional Geographer, 46, 80-89.
Gardner, S. K. (2008). Fitting the mold of graduate school: A qualitative study of socialization in
doctoral education. Innov High Educ 33: 125-138.
Granleese, J., & Sayer, G. (2006). Gendered ageism and “lookism”: A triple jeopardy
for female academics. Women in Management Review, 21(6), 500-517. doi:
10.1108/09649420610683480
Grodsky, E., & Jones, M., (2007). Real and imagined barriers to college entry: Perceptions of cost.
Social Science Research, 36, 745-766.
References
Kinyon, L. K. (1994). Ageism in higher education: Age-based stereotyping and
attitudes toward nontraditional students at Fort Hays State University. Hays, Kansas: Fort Hays
State University.
Kivel, P. (1995). Uprooting racism. New York, New York: New Society.
Klassen, T. R., & MacGregor, D. (2006). Challenging ageism in the academy. CAUT
Bulletin, 53(3), A6.
Lohfink, M. & Paulsen, M. (2005). Comparing the determinants of persistence for first
generation and continuing generation students. Journal of College Student Development, 46,
409 – 428.
Martin, N. (2011). The privilege of ease: Social class and campus life at highly selective,
private universities. Research in Higher Education, 53, 426 – 452, doi: 10.1007/s111629234-3.
McKee, J. (1993). Sociology and the Race Problem: The Failure of a Perspective. Urbana and
Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
Milner, H. R. (2007). Race, culture, and researcher positionality: Working through dangers
seen, unseen, and unforeseen. Educational Researcher, 36(7), 388-400.
Moreno, J. F., Smith, D., Clayton-Pederson, A.R., Parker,S. and Hiroyuki Teraguchi, D. ( 2006).
“The Revolving Door for Underrepresented Minority Faculty in Higher Education”. The James
Irvine Foundation, A Research Brief.
Moser, S. (2008). Personality: A new positionality? Area, 40(3), 383-392.
References
National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES). (2007). Educational longitudinal study of 2002
(ELS: 2002): A first look at the initial postsecondary experiences of the high school sophomore
class of 2002. Washington, DC: US Department of Education
National Center for Education Statistics. (2006). NCES Fast Facts. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/
Ponjuan, L., Gasman, M., Hirshman E., & Esters, L.L. (2011). “A New Hope: Recruiting and
Retaining The Next Generation of Faculty of Color”. Association of Public and Land Grant
Universities, Issue Brief: Commission on Access, Diversity, and Excellence. Washington D.C.
Reynolds, A. L., & Pope, R. L. (1991). The complexities of diversity: Exploring
multiple oppressions. Journal of Counseling and Development, 70, 174-180.
Rosenbaum, J. (2004). Beyond college for all: Career paths for the forgotten half. New York: Russell
Sage Foundation.
Scheurich, J. J., & Young, M. D. (1997). Coloring epistemologies: Are our research epistemologies
racially biased? Educational Researcher, 26(4), 4-16.
Steinberg, S. (2007). Race Relations: A Critique. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Thompson, C.Q. (2008). “Recruitment, Retention, and Mentoring Faculty of Color: The Chronicle
Continues”. New Directions for Higher Education, no. 143. Retrieved from
www.interscience.wiley.com.
Tillman, L. C. (2002). Culturally sensitive research approaches: An African-American perspective.
Educational Researcher, 31(9), 3-12.
References
Tisdell, E. J. (1993). Interlocking systems of power, privilege, and oppression in
adult higher education classes. Adult Education Quarterly, 43(4), 203-226.
doi: 10.1177/0741713693043004001
Ward, K. A., & Bensimon, E. M. (2002). Socialization. In A. M. Martinez
Aleman, & K. A. Renn (Eds.), Women in higher education: An encyclopedia (pp.
431–435). Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO
Warf, B. (Ed.). (2010). Positionality. Encyclopedia of Geography (5th ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Warren, C. A. B. (1998). Gender issues in field research. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Wolfinger, N. H., Mason, M. A., & Goulden, M. (2008). Problems in the
pipeline: Gender, marriage, & fertility in the ivory tower. The Journal of Higher
Education 79(4): 388-405.
Zuberi, Tukufu, &Bonilla-Silva. (2010). Forthcoming. White Logic, White
Methods: Race and Social Science. Boulder: Rowman and Littlefield.
Contact Information

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]