The Unchosen Me: Race, Gender, and Identity among Black Women in College

Appendixes

Participants in the Study a p p e n d i x a table a.1 Demographics of Participants Number of Participants Race/ethnicity African American 26 Black Latina 3 Multiracial 1 Year in college First-year 6 Sophomore 8 Junior 6 Senior 9 First-year Graduate 1 Major by college Arts and Sciences (AS) 13 Education (E) 4 University Division/Undecided (U) 5 Business, Marketing and Management (BMM) 6 Health and Recreation (HR) 2 First-generation student First-generation 24 Parents had college degrees 6 table a.2 Participant Information Pseudonym Sister Circle Race/Ethnicity Year in college Major Firstgeneration ? Lisa 1 Dominican/ Black Latina Sophomore Secondary Education No Brandi 1 African American Sophomore Biochemistry No Monica 1 African American Sophomore Sociology No Ariel* 1/5 African American Freshman Undecided Yes Mercedes 2 African American Freshman Criminal Justice Yes Krystal 2 African American Freshman Sports Marketing Yes table a.2 (continued) Pseudonym Sister Circle Race/Ethnicity Year in college Major Firstgeneration ? Serena 2 African American Freshman Education Yes Leila 3 African American Sophomore Business No Camiya 3 African American Sophomore Undecided Yes Tracey 3 African American Sophomore Business Yes Turquoise 4 African American Master’s Recreation Yes Renee 4 Multiracial/ Black Senior Art History No Michelle 4 African American Senior Health and Recreation Yes Keisha 4 African American Sophomore Business Yes LaShara 4 African American Junior Legal Studies Yes Sheree 4 African American Freshman Undecided Yes Maria 4 Black Latina Freshman Undecided Yes Claudia* 4/7 Puerto Rican/ Black Latina Senior Psychology Yes Tina* 4/7 African American Senior Psychology Yes Isis* 4/7 African American Senior Non-profit Management Yes Semea* 4/7 African American Senior Exercise Science Yes Ryan 5/8 African American Sophomore Biochemistry /Pre-med Yes Jennifer 7 African American Senior Biology Yes Jarena 7 African American Senior Apparel Merchandising Yes Maya 7 African American Junior Marketing Yes Camille 7 African American Junior Biology No Carmen 7 African American Junior Public Policy Yes Elaine 8 African American Senior Early Childhood Education Yes Daphene 8 African American Junior Elementary Education Yes Talia 8 African American Junior Undecided Yes *The participant was involved in more than one focus group/Sister Circle. **Sister Circles 6 and 9 were composed of all White women and therefore were not included here. *** Sister Circle 5 included two White women who are not included here. a p p e n d i x b To make clear the sometimes implicit concept of identity, I employed a variety of research techniques. While identity can be tested empirically in a quantitative way, the primary research questions in this study were most meaningfully examined using techniques from ethnographic research methods. Ethnographic methods, over a prolonged period of time, allow for the researcher to use multiple techniques such as observation, dialogue, and writing analysis. In particular, I examined the socialized, role-taking, observable aspect of identity called the “Me” in Mead’s conception of identity (Mead 1934/1962). Critical research methods are particularly useful for topics such as the subject matter of interest here: race and gender interactions that impose identity. The notion of imposed identity implies disadvantage or oppression because of the imposition. Critical inquiry works to uncover oppression as a way to ameliorate inequality (Carspecken, 1996). habermas’s validity claims as a foundation for research Jürgen Habermas’s (1984, 1987) three validity claims provide useful tools for the analysis of research. In this section, I consider Habermas’ three validity claims (subjective, objective , and normative-evaluative) and their use in qualitative inquiry, particularly in the data analysis of this study. Validity claims are “equivalent to the assertion that the conditions for the validity of an utterance are fulfilled” (Habermas, 1984, p. 38). Habermas separates these validity claims into three ontological categories that he argues are referenced in every speech act in everyday communication: objective, subjective, and normative (1987, p. 120). Table B.1 offers a summary of these validity claims (Habermas, 1984, 1987; Carspecken, 1996, 1999). Through understanding the role of validity claims in everyday communication, we can formulate the “special requirements that a social researcher conducting formal inquiries into social processes must employ to produce a trustworthy account” (Carspecken, 1996, p. 58; Carspecken, 1999). In this research, I used Carspecken’s (1996) ethnographic methodology that builds on Habermas’s (1984, 1987) notion of validity claims to explore the meaning behind participants’ statements. Examples of the use of these...