Running head: FIRST GEN

First Generation College Students: Marginalizing in Higher Education

Whitney Woodson

Northern Illinois University

FIRST GEN
2

Abstract

First generation college students are increasingly getting involved in higher education. This

proposed examination of first generation students will be exploring what factors in institutions of

higher education marginalize first generation students, what practices adopted by professionals in

higher education contribute to the marginalization of first generation students, how institutions

can better serve first generation students, and how first generation students can help themselves

succeed in institutions of higher education. Past research has primarily focused on the role of the

student and their families rather than the institution. In this narrative research study, a participant

will be chosen using critical sampling. The experience of one, white male first generation student

will be explored using interviews, participant observation, and personal journals.

FIRST GEN
3

First Generation College Students

A first generation college student is defined as a student whose parent(s) and/or legal

guardian(s) have not completed a bachelor's degree. Therefore, these students are the first in their

families to attend a four-year college or university to attain a bachelor's degree (Jehangir, 2010).

Even before arriving on campus as a freshman, first-generation college students face many

challenges starting as early as elementary school, such as lacking basic knowledge about higher

education, having little to no family support, belonging to low income families, and lacking

academic preparation in high school (Jehangir, 2010). Although higher education is viewed as a

way to level the playing field for oppressed groups, this has not been achieved for first

generation college students because institutions of higher education lack adequate support for

first generation college students.

Purpose Statement

There has been a wide range of research conducted on first generation college students in

regards to challenges they face outside of higher education institutions. For example, previous

research has focused on how the support system first generation college students receive from

their families has an effect on their knowledge of higher education in comparison to their second

generation counterparts (Jehangir, 2010). Other research has examined the question of how the

pre-college contexts of first generation college students affects their selectivity of schools and

how they perform in higher education (Pascarella et al., 2004).

Minimal research has been directed towards the role of the institution on the experience

of first generation college students in higher education. This calls for a need in research because

more often than not, college administrators have adapted a deficit-based orientation with respect
FIRST GEN
4

to first-generation college students (Jehangir, 2010). In other words, there is a lot of focus on

what first generation college students cannot do and not enough focus on what they can do.

Furthermore, institutions have become increasingly aware of their inability to effectively support

first generation students, which has forced a handful of colleges to create living-learning

programs for the purpose of helping first generation college students make a successful transition

into higher education (Inkelas et al., 2007).

Therefore, the purpose of this research is to explore factors within institutions of higher

education that play a role in the marginalization of first generation college students. By

examining the practices of institutions of higher education in regards to first generation college

students, we can help eliminate the dilemmas of first generation students and their families. We

can also provide research and evidence for administrators and faculty to use as a platform to

create better-quality programs and initiatives that will help them serve these students more

effectively. Furthermore, we can provide first generation college students with insight on how

they can seek out resources to help their transition into higher education more successful.

Research Questions

In this research proposal, the following research questions will guide the study:

1) What factors in institutions of higher education marginalize first generation college

students?
2) What practices adopted by professionals in higher education contribute to the

marginalization of first generation college students?

3) How can institutions better serve first generation college students?
4) How first generation college students can help themselves succeed in institutions of

higher education?
FIRST GEN
5

Theoretical Framework

In the present narrative study, a theoretical framework will be used to explore the central

phenomenon. A theoretical lens in narrative research is a guiding perspective or ideology that

provides structure for advocating for groups or individuals in a written report (Creswell, 2015).

In this study, the theory of Cultural Mismatch will be used to explore the phenomenon of the

marginalization of first generation college students in higher education. Cultural Mismatch

Theory states that there is a cultural mismatch between the mostly middle-class, independent

norms institutionalized in American universities and the relatively interdependent norms that first

generation students are socialized with in working-class contexts before college (Stephens,

Townsend, Markus, & Phillips, 2012). In other words, the cultural norms that are present in

mainstream higher education institutions do not match the cultural norms established among

student populations who are underrepresented in those institutions.

Literature Review

The literature that will be a reviewed on first generation college students will cover the

experience of this student population in many different contexts. The majority of the literature on

first generation students is focused on the topic of their pre-college contexts, family and peer

support, and individual characteristics. There is a noticeably low amount of research on the

institutional influence on these students as well as initiatives and programs put into place to help

these student. Therefore, there is a significant gap in research literature in regards to the role

institutions play in the lives and development of first generation college students. The present

study proposes to fill this gap by providing in-depth research on the institutional role in the

experience of first generation college students.

FIRST GEN
6

Family and Peer Support

There has been wide range of research conducted on first generation college students in

regards to challenges they face inside and outside of higher education institutions. The study

Assessing the College Knowledge of First-generation and Second-generation College

Students, examined the correlation between family support and knowledge about higher

education for first generation students in comparison to their second generation counterparts

(York-Anderson & Bowman, 2010). Questionnaires were administered to 58 first-generation and

142 second-generation college students. The questions were based on topics, such as grade point

average, involvement, academic resources, and financial aid. The findings showed that students

who perceived more family support for their college attendance had more factual information

about college than did those students who perceived less support (York-Anderson & Bowman,

2010). Furthermore, the study found that second generation college students perceived more

support from their families for attending college than did first generation college students (York-

Anderson & Bowman, 2010). These findings shine a light on the need to provide first-generation

college students with a support system while they are pursuing higher education because support

or lack thereof has a significant effect on students knowledge about higher education.

The concept of parental involvement as well peer support was also explored in a study by

Dennis, Phinney, and Chuateco (2005). In the study, the role of personal motivational

characteristics and environmental social support in college outcomes was examined in a

longitudinal study of 100 ethnic minority first-generation college students (Dennis et al., 2005).

The participants attended an ethnically diverse urban commuter university on the west coast. The

university serves predominantly ethnic minority students from lower and lower-middle class

backgrounds, many of who are immigrants. The present sample was similar to the universitys
FIRST GEN
7

student population of which approximately 51% are Latino and 24% Asian/Asian American

(Dennis et al., 2005).

The results showed a trend for career/ personal motivation to predict college

commitment, even after controlling for gender, ethnicity, SES, high school GPA, and social

support (Dennis et al., 2005). This finding also showed that both the career and personal

motivation of the students were significant predictors of academic skills such as self-

management skills, organization, and planning after two years in college (Dennis et al., 2005).

These results demonstrate that this connection between the personal/career motivation to attend

college and college outcomes is present for ethnic minority students. On the other hand, family

expectation motivation was not significantly related to any of the college outcome variables

(Dennis et al., 2005). Furthermore, the results showed that personal/career-related motivation to

attend college in the fall was a positive predictor and lack of peer support was a negative

predictor of college adjustment the following spring. Lack of peer support also predicted lower

spring GPA. This study reflects the idea that support and motivation play a major role in the

transition of first generation college students in higher education.

A similar study was done by McCarron and Inkelas (2006), in which parental

involvement was examined to show whether it had a significant influence on the educational

aspirations of first generation college students as compared to the educational aspirations of non-

first generation students (McCarron & Inkelas, 2006). The authors begin with a claim about the

growing population of first generation college students. It is mentioned that a greater number of

first generation students are emerging in higher education because these students are becoming

increasingly aware that in order to gain upward mobility, they have to get a college degree

(McCarron & Inkelas, 2006). Since there is a greater number of first generation students,
FIRST GEN
8

research has been conducted on this student population and has found that first generation

students differ in significant ways from their non-first generation peers in areas such as academic

preparation, racial/ethnic demographics, socioeconomic status, experience of college culture

shock, and family/parental involvement (McCarron & Inkelas, 2006). Unfortunately, these

differences play a major role in the educational aspirations and attainment of first generation

college students. Therefore, this is the research problem that McCarron and Inkelas examine in

the study.

The authors provided a primary research question that asks, Does parental involvement

influence the educational aspirations of first generation students as compared to non-first

generation students (McCarron & Inkelas, 2006)? The authors also provided two secondary

research questions that asks, Do the educational aspirations of first generation students differ

from their actual educational attainments? Is there a difference in educational attainment for

first-generation students by gender, race/ethnicity, and SES (McCarron & Inkelas, 2006)? This

study utilized student survey data from the National Educational Longitudinal Study (NELS:

88/2000) distributed by the National Center for Education Statistics (McCarron & Inkelas, 2006).

This survey was launched in the spring of 1988 with follow-up surveys in 1990, 1992, 1994, and

2000. In the first year of the study, a clustered, stratified national probability sample of 24, 599

eighth grade students from across all 50 states and the District of Columbia were chosen to take

the survey. 1,879 students with first generation status working toward degrees at four-and two-

year colleges or universities were chosen (McCarron & Inkelas, 2006). The paper and pencil

surveys were administered to selected students via group sessions in 1988, 1990, and 1992,

normally conducted in a school classroom (McCarron & Inkelas, 2006). Due to the dispersion of
FIRST GEN
9

the subjects, computer-assisted telephone interview (CATI) were used as were self-administered

surveys and field personnel administered surveys (McCarron & Inkelas, 2006).

For the first research question, the findings showed that that parental involvement was

not the main predictor of educational aspirations (McCarron & Inkelas, 2006). For the second

research question, finding showed that 62.1% of the total sample of first-generation students did

not attain their original educational aspirations by 2000 (McCarron & Inkelas, 2006). In regards

to the third research question, females did not attain at a significantly higher level than males,

students with lower socioeconomic status attained less, and most students across all racial groups

attained less (McCarron & Inkelas, 2006). The authors also made several recommendations after

discussing the findings. For example, since parental involvement was tied to students

educational aspirations, the authors suggested that higher education professionals who work in

the area of recruitment host parent education programs or student-parent counseling to encourage

more involvement from parents.

Pre-College Contexts and Individual Student Characteristics

Although support has proven to have a significant effect on the knowledge of first

generation college students, a study by Pascarella, Pierson, Wolniak and Terenzini (2004)

examined the pre-college contexts, persistence in college, co-curricular involvement, and college

academic experience of first generation college students in comparison to second generation

students. The study sampled students who participated in the National Study of Student

Learning, a federally funded, longitudinal study of college students experiences and outcomes

(Pascarella et al., 2004). The NSSL followed a sample of students from 18 four-year colleges in a

period of three years. There was a wide variety of schools used in the study, such as historically
FIRST GEN
10

black colleges, private liberal arts colleges, and public research institutions (Pascarella et al.,

2004). The students used in the study were all incoming freshman to the colleges and were

randomly selected (Pascarella et al., 2004).

In terms of pre-college contexts, the findings suggest that the level of parental

postsecondary education has a significant influence on academic selectivity of the institution a

student attends by second generation college students being more selective in their choices

(Pascarella et al., 2004). In terms of co-curricular and academic experiences, first generation

college students completed less credit hours, worked more hours, and lived off-campus more

than second generation college students (Pascarella et al., 2004). As a result, first generation

college students were involved in less extra-curricular activities than their second generation

counterparts. Lastly, in terms of persistence in college, first generation college students were less

likely to remain at a four-year institution after their first year or remain on a consistent track

towards a bachelor degree after three years (Pascarella et al., 2004). Furthermore, the study

suggested that federal and state funding be reexamined because financial aid facilitates or

impedes on the success of first generation students in higher education by mediating the

relationship between these students and the variables examined in the study (Pascarella et al.,

2004).

The study, Pushing the Boulder Uphill: The Persistence of First-Generation College

Students examined the impact of background, aspirations, achievement, and college experiences

of first-generation and continuing generation college students at 4-year institutions using the

National Postsecondary Student Aid Study. The sample was split into two cohorts: F-gen and C-

gen (Somers, Woodhouse, & Cofer, 2004). For the purposes of this study, first-generation

students are those whose parents had an educational level of a high school diploma or less
FIRST GEN
11

(Somers et al., 2004). In the study, there were 15,972 C-gen and 8,290 F-gen students (Somers et

al., 2004).

The finding showed that low-income and multiethnic F-gen students are less likely to

persist. Even students from high-income families did not have an advantage when it came to

college persistence (Somers et al., 2004). In terms of aspirations, F-gens who aspire to a

bachelors degree are twice as likely to persist as their peers with advanced degree aspirations

(Somers et al., 2004). This finding may be attributed as a reflection of the generally lower levels

of educational aspiration that families and society encourage for first generation students. In

terms of achievement and experiences, F-gens were more discouraged by low academic

performance and did not have the confidence to remain in school and improve their academic

performance (Somers et al., 2004). However, F-gens who attend school full-time or reside on

campus were more likely to stay in school. These findings suggest that during the crucial first

year, first generation students need academic and social support. Further, if they attend school

full-time and live on campus, they improve their chances of success.

Institutional Marginalization

While the previously mentioned studies have shown that characteristics of the individual

student and their parents educational background have a significant effect on the students

college experience, the institution itself as well as the administrators can also play a major role in

their experience as well. A study by Louis Macias (2013) examined how college administrators

have adapted a deficit-based orientation with respect to first-generation college students. In other

words, there is a lot of focus on what first generation college students cannot do and not enough

focus on what they can do. This is shown in a study by Macias in which she asked a room of
FIRST GEN
12

professionals to call out nouns, verbs, or adjectives that they would use to describe first

generation college students. In the study, it was mentioned how most of the college

administrators that were asked to do this task wrote down words, such as minority, clueless,

unsophisticated, and confused (Macias, 2013).

The study also mentions how deficit-based perspectives are not uncommon, especially

amongst practitioners. However, Macias explains how a perpetual focus on deficits and failures

has caused higher education professionals to expect deficiency (Macias, 2013). It is the norm so

much so that words like unsophisticated and clueless come to mind before family-oriented

and determined when higher education professionals think about first generation students

(Marias, 2013). Macias explains that as a result of this, it is logical to conclude that a deficit-

oriented mindset with respect to first-generation students will yield deficit oriented solutions

(Macias 2013). Macias mentioned that it would be beneficial to actively and consciously reject

the temptation to use what we know about first generation students as a justification for adopting

a Scared Straight approach to education (Macias, 2013). Instead of cultivating a fear of failure

through deficit-oriented perspectives, we must choose to emphasize a capacity for and

expectation of success.

Institutional marginalization is explored further in a study by Stephens, Townsend,

Markus, and Phillips (2012) based on the theory of cultural mismatch. The authors explained that

American universities increasingly admit first-generation studentsstudents whose parents do

not have four-year degrees. Once admitted, these students experience greater challenges

adjusting to universities compared to continuing-generation studentsstudents who have at least

one parent with a four-year degree. This additional adversity is typically explained in terms of

first-generation students' relative lack of economic (e.g., money) or academic (e.g., preparation)
FIRST GEN
13

resources (Stephens et al., 2012). The researchers proposed that this adversity also stems from

a cultural mismatch between the mostly middle-class, independent norms institutionalized in

American universities and the relatively interdependent norms that first-generation students are

socialized with in working-class contexts before college (Stephens et al., 2012).

During the study, 84 students participated in the lab study on physiological responses

during academic tasks. Before their scheduled visit, participants received a list of activities to

avoid prior to their session due to potential cortisol effects (e.g., exercising). Two participants

reported not following these instructions and were therefore excluded from all analyses

(Stephens et al., 2012). The remaining sample included 82 participants (35 first-generation; 47

continuing-generation; M age = 18.2; 60% female) (Stephens et al., 2012). Two different

welcome letters were used to manipulate the university culture's focus on independence

versus interdependence. Both included a full-page letter, modeled after university materials,

ostensibly from the university president. The two letters were equally focused on students'

academic experience (Stephens et al., 2012). While the independent letter focused on (1) learning

by exploring personal interests, (2) expressing ideas and opinions, (3) creating your own

intellectual journey, and (4) participating in independent research (i.e., the typical

representation), the interdependent letter focused on (1) learning by being part of a community,

(2) connecting with fellow students and faculty, (3) working with and learning from others, and

(4) participating in collaborative research (Stephens et al., 2012).

After participants read one of the messages, they gave a five-minute speech about their

college goals. The purpose of the speech was to assess how the welcome letters affected students'

psychological responses while engaging in a common academic task (Stephens et al., 2012).

Participants were told that the speech would be recorded and evaluated by a university
FIRST GEN
14

committee and were given two minutes to prepare. Subsequently, participants reported their

demographics. Supplementary materials provide additional information about survey measures

(Stephens et al., 2012).

The finding of the study showed that another important source of the greater adversity

experienced by first-generation students is a cultural mismatch between their

relatively interdependent norms and the independent norms institutionalized in American

universities. First-generation students experienced higher increases in cortisol and less

positive/more negative emotions than continuing-generation students while giving a speech

(Stephens et al., 2012). However, reframing the university culture to include interdependent

norms eliminated this social class gap in students' experience (Stephens et al., 2012). These

results suggest that a culturally-mismatched environmentin this case, a mismatch

between independent and interdependent cultural normscan burden first-generation students

with an additional, largely invisible layer of adversity. Compared to continuing-generation

students who spend their formative years developing and exploring personal interests, many

first-generation students are frustrated and perplexed by the university requirement to conform

(Stephens et al., 2012). These independent cultural norms can be viewed as one important source

of the middle-class cultural capital that helps students to navigate college environments.

The theory of cultural mismatch in regards to first generation college students was also

examined in the study, Unseen Disadvantage: How American Universities Focus on

Independence Undermines the Academic Performance of First-Generation College Students.

Four studies test the hypothesis that first-generation students underperform because

interdependent norms from their mostly working-class backgrounds constitute a mismatch with

middle-class independent norms prevalent in universities (Stephens, Fryberg, Markus, Johnson,

FIRST GEN
15

& Covarrubias, 2012). First, assessing university cultural norms, surveys of university

administrators revealed that American universities focus primarily on norms of independence

(Stephens et al., 2012). Second, identifying the hypothesized cultural mismatch, a longitudinal

survey revealed that universities focus on independence does not match first-generation

students relatively interdependent motives for attending college and that this cultural mismatch

is associated with lower grades (Stephens et al., 2012).

Finally, experiments at both private and public universities created a match or mismatch

for first-generation students and examined the performance consequences. Together these studies

revealed that representing the university culture in terms of independence rendered academic

tasks difficult and, thereby, undermined first-generation students performance (Stephens et al.,

2012). Conversely, representing the university culture in terms of interdependence reduced this

sense of difficulty and eliminated the performance gap without adverse consequences for

continuing-generation students. These studies address the urgent need to recognize cultural

obstacles that contribute to the social class achievement gap and to develop interventions to

address these obstacles (Stephens et al., 2012).

Institutional Programs and Initiatives

Contrary to the research that focuses on institutional lack of effectively supporting first

generation students, a study by Inkelas, Daver, Vogt, and Leonard (2007) examined institutional

programming and initiatives that are working to cultivate and create an expectancy of first

generation student success. The study examined the role of livinglearning (L/L) programs in

facilitating first generation students perceived academic and social transition to college (Inkelas

et al., 2007). Using a sample of 1,335 first generation students from 33 four-year institutions who
FIRST GEN
16

participated in the National Study of LivingLearning Programs during Spring 2004, the results

of the study show that first generation students in L/L programs reported a more successful

academic and social transition to college than their first generation counterparts living in a

traditional residence hall setting (Inkelas et al., 2007). In addition to this, interactions with

faculty members and using residence hall resources facilitated an easier academic transition for

first-generation students in L/L programs and supportive residence hall climates were related to

an easier social transition (Inkelas et al., 2007).

Similar to the living learning communities that helped the transition for first generations

students the previous study, The Influence of Multicultural Learning Communities on the

Intrapersonal Development of First-Generation College Students is a study that explores the

extent to which multicultural curriculum and critical pedagogy create avenues for intrapersonal

self-authorship for historically marginalized first generation students in a TRiO program

(Jehangir, 2012). The study was conducted at a large, Midwestern, public research institution.

Students were recruited using purposeful sampling techinique. Juniors, seniors, or recent

graduates who had participated in the Multicultural Learning Communities (MLC) between 2001

and 2005 were sent a letter and an e-mail asking if they would like to participate in the study.

Specifically, the letter asked students to participate in a 45-to-60-minute interview on campus to

discuss their experiences in the MLC. The final sample comprised 24 students, varying in race

and gender (Jehangir, 2012).

The interview questions covered four specific areas: students MLC experience, their

university experience outside of the MLC, involvement in extracurricular activities, and their

future goals (Jehangir, 2012). Overall, the study sought to gain an understanding as to how the

students thought the MLC experience had affected their university experience. The findings of
FIRST GEN
17

this study suggest that students who participated in the MLC possessed self-authoring ways of

knowing and although the degree to which these ways of knowing varied, analysis of students

narratives demonstrated how they moved from crossroads, to becoming an author of ones life,

and toward internal foundation (Jehangir, 2012). The authors mentioned that the experience in

the MLC cannot and was not expected to be the sole influence in developing self-authorship;

however, in many cases, students narratives revealed ways in which this early experience

influenced, shaped, or facilitated awareness and movement toward self-authorship (Jehangir,

2012). In many cases, students reflections of their first year specifically named the role that the

MLC experience played in the three different dimensions of their self-authoring process. The

results illustrate how the similar to the living-learning communities, MLC played a crucial role

in the development and successful transition for first generation college students. Additionally,

both of these initiatives successfully counteracted the familial background, individual

deficiencies, and marginalization that can take place inside of institutions of higher education for

first generation college students that were mentioned in the previous studies.

Supplemental programs and initiatives implemented by higher education institutions were

also proven to be effective in the study Building Educational Resilience and Social Support:

The Effects of the Educational Opportunity Fund Program Among First- and Second-Generation

College Students (Clauss-Ehlers & Wibrowski, 2007). In the study, Educational Opportunity

Fund (EOF) programs were developed in New Jersey to provide access to higher education for

financially disadvantaged students who are first- and second-generation college attendees

(Clauss-Ehlers & Wibrowski, 2007). The authors mentioned that the EOF program can be a

critical resource in helping provide the orientation and skill-base needed to help first- and

second-generation students learn the "culture of college (Clauss-Ehlers & Wibrowski, 2007).
FIRST GEN
18

The study explored the types of programmatic efforts that can support the academic lives of first-

and second-generation college students. Rather than merely discuss the challenges that first- and

second-generation students face, the authors specifically addressed how a program may promote

their educational resilience.

Participants of the study were 95 students (63 women, 32 men) who were about to start

their freshman year in college at a large state university on the East coast. The students were all

enrolled in the university's EOF summer academic institute for six weeks. Results showed that

participation in the EOF summer institute would significantly heighten a sense of resilience

among students (Clauss-Ehlers & Wibrowski, 2007). Additionally, students' sense of social

support significantly increased with participation in the EOF summer institute program (Clauss-

Ehlers & Wibrowski, 2007). This study as well as the prior shine a light on the need for research

on programs, practices, and initiatives that can eliminate the feeling of alienation and failure

amongst first generation college students. Therefore, the proposed study will attempt to do so.

Method

Research Design

In order to explore the experience of first generation college students within institutions

of higher education, the researcher will use a qualitative research design. More specifically, a

narrative research design will be used to explore the experience of one first generation college

student at a university in the northern part of Illinois. The term narrative comes from the verb to

narrate or tell (as a story) in detail (Creswell, 2015). According to Creswell (2015), a

researcher uses a narrative design when they have individuals who are willing to tell their stories

and want the research to report their story. Additionally, narrative designs are used to gather data
FIRST GEN
19

through a collection of stories, report individual experiences, and discuss the meaning of those

experiences for the individual. Narrative designs offer personal experiences in an actual school

setting with practical, specific insight (Creswell, 2015). Therefore, the researcher is justified in

using a narrative designs for this study because it will offer personal experiences in an actual

school setting that the researcher will need to explore the experience of first generation college

students.

Furthermore, the researcher will properly be able to explore the research questions of

what factors of higher education play a role in the marginalization of first generation college

students, what practices adopted by professionals in higher education contribute to the

marginalization of first generation college students, how institutions can better serve first

generation college students, and how first generation college students can help themselves

succeed in higher education by using a narrative design. Since the study will be exploring the

experience of only one first generation college student, the researcher chose this type of

qualitative research design because narrative research typically focuses on studying a single

person (Creswell, 2015). For the single participant in the study, Creswell mentions that sharing

their story may make them feel that their stories are important and that they are heard (Creswell,

2015).

Human Subject Procedure

Before beginning the data collection process, the researcher will have to seek permission

from several sources. The researcher will need to apply for permission to study individuals in a

qualitative study through the approval process of the campus institutional review board. These

steps include seeking permission from the board, developing a description of the study, designing
FIRST GEN
20

an informed consent form for the participant, and having the study reviewed (Creswell, 2015).

Since this study will consist of the researcher spending lengthy periods of time gathering

information directly involving a single first generation college student and recording their

detailed personal views, the researcher will need to provide a detailed description of the

procedure to the institutional review board before the research begins.

Since the present study is a qualitative research design, there is often a need to seek and

obtain permission from individuals and sites at many levels (Creswell, 2015). In the present

study, it would be beneficial for the researcher to identify and utilize gatekeepers because of the

personal and in-depth interviews that will take place during the research process. A gatekeeper is

an individual who has an official or unofficial role at the site, provides entrance to a site, helps

researchers locate people, and assists in the identification of places to study (Creswell, 2015). In

the present study, the researcher will be utilizing demographic information from a retention

survey to select a participant, but this survey is mandated by a director at the university where

the study will take place, therefore, this director is a gatekeeper. The researcher will also be

engaging in the participants daily experiences at the university, therefore, instructors and faculty

are also gatekeepers in the study. In order to get the access and information that the researcher

will need to successfully and accurately capture the experience of the first generation college

student, the researcher will need to win the support and trust of these gatekeepers. Similar to the

institutional review board process, the researcher will need to thoroughly describe the research

process to these gatekeepers.

Ethical Issues
FIRST GEN
21

In the present study, there are several ethical issues that have the potential to arise. The

participant may fake the data and information that they are providing to the researcher. This

concern about whether the participants story being authentic is common in narrative research

designs because the researcher relies heavily on the self-reported information from participants

(Creswell, 2015). The first generation college student in the study may want to falsely portray

their story as having a fairytale ending or a falsely traumatic one. This ethical issue can be

fixed by the researcher collecting multiple field notes, triangulating data, and member checking.

Another ethical issue that has the potential to arise is the participants not being able to tell the

real story of their experiences. Since the researcher will be exploring the very personal

experiences of a first generation college student, their experiences have the potential to be too

traumatic to recall or the participant may feel that they will receive some form of sanction for

recalling specific, sensitive information. Another reason why this lack of realness may occur is

because the participant may not be able to recall all of their experiences clearly and accurately

because they are buried too deep in the subconscious so their memory may be distorted

(Creswell, 2015). This ethical issue can be fixed by the researcher being aware that any story told

by the participant contains an element of truth.

Another ethical issue that has the potential to arise in the study is the issue of who owns

the story. By reporting the stories of a first generation college student who is marginalized in

society, specifically in higher education, the researcher can run the risk of reporting stories they

do not have permission to tell (Creswell, 2015). To fix this ethical issue as well as minimize the

risks and maximize the benefits for the participant, the researcher can obtain permission to report

stories and inform the participants of the purpose and use of the stories at the very beginning of

the study. The present study also has the potential to have the ethical issue of the participants
FIRST GEN
22

voice being lost in the final narrative report. It is possible for the report to reflect the researchers

story and not the story of the first generation college student. This risk can be minimized for the

participant and replaced with benefits by the researcher continuously using quotes from the

participant, utilizing the concise language of the participant, habitually reviewing the data

collected with the participant to check for accuracy, and carefully constructing the time and place

for the story (Creswell, 2015).

Similar to this issue, the present study has the potential to have the ethical issue of the

researcher gaining at the expense of the participant. Since the study involves the exploration of

first generation college students, which is an underrepresented student population that is

commonly not the focus of research, the researcher has the potential to get major gains rather

than the student. This ethical issue can be fixed and benefits can be maximized for the participant

by the researcher providing the participant with a reward for their participation or giving back to

the institution by being a volunteer in the classroom or at other school functions. Lastly, this

study has the potential to have lasting negative effects for the first generation student who is

chosen to participate. This can be fixed by the researcher using fictional interim research texts,

which is the use of multiple filed texts based on various research experiences (Creswell, 2015).

This strategy will minimize the risks for the participant and fix the ethical issue.

Sampling and Participants

In qualitative research, the intent is not to generalize to a population but rather to develop

an in-depth explanation of a central phenomenon (Creswell, 2015). In the present study, the

researcher will use purposeful sampling to select the participant. In purposeful sampling, the

researcher intentionally selects individuals and sites to learn or understand the central
FIRST GEN
23

phenomenon (Creswell, 2015). Specifically, the researcher will be using critical sampling. In

critical sampling, the strategy is to study a critical sample because it is an exceptional case and

the researcher can learn a lot about the phenomenon in the most dramatic terms (Creswell, 2015).

In regards to the present study, the researcher will be studying the marginalization of first

generation college students in institutions of higher education so the researcher will chose a first

generation college student that is representative of that institutions demographics as the

participant. This will in ensure that the participant represents the central phenomenon in the most

dramatic terms just as critical sampling requires. The present study should also use critical

sampling because this form of sampling typically uses a single cases or small samples, which is

what is being employed in the present study with the use of only one first generation college

student (Creswell, 2015).

The university utilizes a retention survey, in which students self-identify themselves as

first generation college students along with other demographic information. The surveys criteria

for a first generation student is someone whose parents did not attend college or engage in any

post-secondary education. As previously mentioned, the researcher will have to get permission

from the director who is in charge of the retention survey as well as institutional review board

approval before sampling begins. Once the researcher has gained permission from both sources,

the researcher will choose one individual from the students who self-identified themselves as

first generation college students on the retention survey. More specifically and for the purpose of

getting a dramatic case that will yield the most information about the central phenomenon, the

researcher will purposefully choose a student who is a first-year, white male first generation

college student. The university that is being used as the research site is a predominantly white,

male institution, so this sampling technique will yield the most dramatic case, which is a key
FIRST GEN
24

characteristic of critical sampling. The research will take place at a university in the northern part

of Illinois for the course of four academic school years. The university is a large, public institute

that serves a predominantly white student population. The university is in a small, rural area with

most of the landscape covered with cornfields. The universitys surrounding community is fairly

small with only a few retail stores and restaurants.

As mentioned previously, gatekeeper is an individual who has an official or unofficial

role at the site, provides entrance to a site, helps researchers locate people, and assists in the

identification of places to study (Creswell, 2015). In the present study, the researcher will be

utilizing demographic information from a retention survey to select a participant, but this survey

is mandated by a director at the university where the study will take place, therefore, this director

is a gatekeeper. The researcher will also be engaging in the participants daily experiences at the

university, therefore, instructors and faculty are also gatekeepers in the study. In order to get the

access and information that the researcher will need to successfully and accurately capture the

experience of the first generation college student, the researcher will need to win the support and

trust of these gatekeepers. Similar to the institutional review board process, the researcher will

need to thoroughly describe the research process to these gatekeepers.

Data Collection and Analysis

For the study, the researcher will be collecting data in three forms, therefore triangulation

is present in the study. This will allow the researcher to validate the data through cross

verification from two or more sources. In other words, triangulation is the process of

corroborating evidence from different individuals or methods of data collection in descriptions

and themes in qualitative research (Creswell, 2015). The researcher will be collecting data
FIRST GEN
25

through one-on-one interviews, participant observations, and personal journals kept by the

participant.

One-on-one interviews. In one-on-one interviews, the researcher asks questions to and

records answers from only one participant. This data collection method is ideal for the present

study because the researcher will only be using one participant. Furthermore, one-on-one

interviews are ideal for interviewing participants who are not hesitant to speak, who will

articulate, and who can share ideas comfortably (Creswell, 2015). Since the researcher in the

present study will be spending a considerably long period of time with the participant, the

participant is expected to feel very comfortable with the researcher to share information and

ideas. During the interviews, the researcher will audiotape the questions and responses using a

lapel microphone that will hook to the collar of the shirt. This audio recording equipment was

chosen because it has been identified as the best for one-on-one interviewing (Creswell, 2015).

For the purpose of having a back-up method in the event that the audio recording malfunctions,

the researcher will also be taking notes during the interview.

These interviews will take place with the participant once a month over the course of four

academic school years. The interviews will ask questions about experiences that participant has

in the classroom and during co-curricular activities as well. This will allow the researcher to get a

holistic view of the experience the participant has in higher education. After completing the

interviews, the researcher will start of process of analyzing the data. The researcher will do this

by transcribing the audiotapes from the interview. This process will give the researcher

transcripts that will give the researcher the information needed to create themes and patterns that

are consistent in the notes. The researcher will also restory or retell the story of the participant

in a chronology of events describing the individuals past, present, and future experiences lodged
FIRST GEN
26

within specific settings or contexts (Creswell, 2015). The researcher will also summarize how

these themes reflect or conflict existing literature on the central phenomenon. Finally, the

researcher will review these themes and stories with the participant to validate whether

accurately portraying the participants experiences. By doing this, the researcher is validating the

findings by using member checking. Member checking is the process in which the researcher

asks one or more participants in the study to check the accuracy of the account (Creswell, 2015).

Participant observations. Observation is the process of gathering open-ended, first-

handed information by observing people and places at a research site (Creswell, 2015). However

to truly learned about the central phenomenon, the researcher will be become a participant

observer. A participant observer is an observational role adopted by researchers when they take

part in activities in the setting they observe (Creswell, 2015). Through these observations, the

researcher will get first-hand information about the participants physical setting, events,

activities, and personal reactions. In the present study, the researcher will be engaging in the

daily activities of the participant that take place in and outside of the classroom. The researcher

will also be taking field notes as these experiences take place, however, it may be difficult to take

notes while participating so the researcher may will need to wait to take notes in some cases.

While observing, the researcher will be taking both descriptive and reflective notes. Descriptive

field notes will record a description of events, activities, and people. The reflective field notes

will record personal thoughts that the researcher will have that relate to their insights, hunches,

or ideas (Creswell, 2015). The field notes from the participant observation will then be analyzed

by creating themes and patterns that are consistent in the field notes. The researcher will also

restory or retell the story of the participant and summarize how these themes reflect or conflict

existing literature on the central phenomenon. Finally, the researcher will engage in member
FIRST GEN
27

checking again by reviewing these themes and stories with the participant to validate whether

they are accurately portraying the experiences.

Personal journals. The researcher will be collecting data form a personal journal kept by

the participant. This personal journal will provide the researcher with the advantage of getting

data that is in the language and perspective of the participant first-hand. Furthermore, this

personal journal will be a good source in validating the study because it does not allow any

opportunity for bias or interpretation from the researcher. Therefore, this form of data collecting

does not require the researcher to transcribe, so it will already be prepared for analysis. The

researcher will ask the participant to record thoughts, behaviors, and emotions that occur during

classes and co-curricular activities. The researcher will go over the journal entries and develop

themes. These themes will then be reviewed with the participant to validate their accuracy.

Limitations

There are a few limitations associated with this study. First, since the researcher is

focusing on the life and experiences of only one first generation college student, it may be

difficult to generalize my results to the larger population. However, this is typical of qualitative

research, especially of narrative research (Creswell, 2015). Second, since the study would take

place in a predominantly white public institution, the researcher may have gotten a broader, more

diverse sample at a different type of institution or by using various kinds of institutions. Lastly,

the researcher is only focusing the research questions on the institutions role in the

marginalization of first generation college students, however, there are many other factors that

could play a role in the experience of the first generation college student in the study. Thus, it

will become difficult for the researcher to conclude that the institution was the only cause.
FIRST GEN
28

References
FIRST GEN
29

Creswell, J. W. (2015). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating

Quantitative and Qualitative Research (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson

Prentice Hall.

Clauss-Ehlers, C. S., & Wibrowski, C. R. (2007). Building educational resilience and social

support: The effects of the educational opportunity fund program among first-and second-

generation college students. Journal of College Student Development, 48(5), 574-584.

Dennis, J. M., Phinney, J. S., & Chuateco, L. I. (2005). The role of motivation, parental support,

and peer support in the academic success of ethnic minority first-generation college

students. Journal of College Student Development, 46(3), 223-236.

Inkelas, K. K., Daver, Z. E., Vogt, K. E., & Leonard, J. B. (2007). Livinglearning programs and

first-generation college students academic and social transition to college. Research in

Higher education, 48(4), 403-434.

Jehangir, R. R. (2010). Higher education and first-generation students: Cultivating community,

voice, and place for the new majority. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Jehangir, R., Williams, R., & Jeske, J. (2012). The influence of multicultural learning

communities on the intrapersonal development of first-generation college

students. Journal of College Student Development, 53(2), 267-284.

Kinchelo, J. And Steinberg, S. (1997). Changing Multiculturalism. Open University:

Buckingham.

Macias, L. V. (2013). Choosing Success: A Paradigm for Empowering FirstGeneration College

Students. About Campus, 18(5), 17-21.

FIRST GEN
30

Pascarella, E. T., Pierson, C. T., Wolniak, G. C., & Terenzini, P. T. (2004). First-generation

college students: Additional evidence on college experiences and outcomes. Journal of

Higher Education, 249-284.

Somers, P., Woodhouse, S. R., & Cofer Sr, J. E. (2004). Pushing the boulder uphill: The

persistence of first-generation college students. NASPA journal, 41(3), 418-435.

Stephens, N. M., Fryberg, S. A., Markus, H. R., Johnson, C. S., & Covarrubias, R. (2012).

Unseen disadvantage: how American universities' focus on independence undermines the

academic performance of first-generation college students. Journal of personality and

social psychology, 102(6), 1178.

Stephens, N. M., Townsend, S. S., Markus, H. R., & Phillips, L. T. (2012). A cultural mismatch:

Independent cultural norms produce greater increases in cortisol and more negative

emotions among first-generation college students. Journal of Experimental Social

Psychology, 48(6), 1389-1393.

York-Anderson, D. C., & Bowman, S. L. (2010). Assessing the college knowledge of first-

generation and second-generation college students. Journal of College Student

Development.
FIRST GEN
31