Qualitive and Quantitive Matrix

Parents and Families of First-Generation College Students Experience Their Own College Transition Casandra Elena Harpera, Hao Zhub, and Judy Marquez Kiyamac

aEducational Leadership & Policy Analysis, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, USA; bOffice of Institutional Research Assessment and Effectiveness, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, USA; cHigher Education, Morgridge College of Education, University of Denver, Denver, Colorado, USA

ABSTRACT This case study of families of first-generation college students, drawing from multiple data sources including longitudinal data from 8 parents who were interviewed three times over the span of their students’ first college year and focus group data with parents attending college orientation, expands our under- standing of parent and family engagement in students’ college experiences. This qualitative study also offers insight into par- ents’ views of and interactions with college, which are informed by direct communication with parents as well as students sharing stories and information about their experi- ences in college with their parents. Key themes include: 1) valuing a college degree, 2) changing relationship dynamics, 3) changing roles and dynamics, 4) changing involvement in educational events, and 5) institutional engagement of par- ents. With this knowledge, strategies can be developed to foster and support what parents are already doing well and address any gaps in resources, support, or information — whether on behalf of parents or the institution.

ARTICLE HISTORY Received 13 July 2018 Accepted 2 July 2019

KEYWORDS Families; parents; first- generation; transition; case study

Parents and families play a critical role in the lives of students, and the nature of that relationship will change during the transition to college in alignment with students’ emerging adulthood (Lowe & Dotterer, 2018). Descriptions of parental involvement vary substantially. Parents are characterized as either over-involved, hovering, and intrusive (Wartman & Savage, 2008) or, at the other end of the spectrum, completely absent (New, 2014); there is little understanding of families who do not fit either extreme. It is unclear what role families should play in students’ lives, and some in higher education are unaware that parents from first-generation, low-income, and diverse racial/ ethnic backgrounds have always been invested and involved, perhaps in ways that higher education misses or disregards (Harper, Sax, & Wolf, 2012; Kiyama & Harper, 2015). Further, while we know much about students’ college transition, including the importance of parents in supporting their children, we know little about how parents experience this change.

CONTACT Casandra Elena Harper [email protected]

THE JOURNAL OF HIGHER EDUCATION 2020, VOL. 91, NO. 4, 540–564 https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2019.1647583

© 2019 The Ohio State University

Parents, families, and the communities in which students live are influential in shaping their views, expectations, and experiences about college. Empirical research from recent years demonstrates the influence of families in shaping students’ attitudes about going to college (Hamrick & Stage, 2004; Perna & Titus, 2005), deciding where to enroll (Nuñez & Kim, 2012), and determining how to afford college (McDonough & Calderone, 2006). The influence of parents and families starts well before college and is well documented within the K-12 literature (Kiyama & Harper, 2015). More research is needed on the changing role of parents and family members in students’ lives while in college (Kiyama & Harper, 2015; Sax & Wartman, 2010). And more specifically, additional research is needed that examines differences by students’ gender, race, and socioeconomic class (Harper et al., 2012; McCarron & Inkelas, 2006; Sax & Wartman, 2010) and for students whose parents did not attend college (Choy, Horn, Nuñez, & Chen, 2000; Cruce, Kinzie, Williams, Morelon, & Xingming, 2005).

Literature review

Terminology

Parents in higher education are typically thought of within heteronormative ideals, often including two (opposite sex) parents who have never been divorced and who are white (Kiyama & Harper, 2018). In this article, we encourage a broader under- standing of parents and the multiple constructions that describe students’ families. We also acknowledge that the predominant characterization used within the higher education literature involves the direct use of parents as a descriptor, and all of the participants of our study identified as parents of a college student, and so this terminology informs our review of literature. We further acknowledge the tension involved in the language we use to refer to the participants’ children. Our participants referred to their children with familiar and casual terms, such as son, daughter, baby, and kid. As higher education researchers, we prefer the term student as it acknowledges their role in college and adulthood but felt compelled to use terms that best reflected our participants’ language and familial relationship, so a mix of terms is used throughout.

Parent and family engagement in educational contexts

Research in K-12 contexts reveals that parents and families from marginalized or nondominant communities may feel unwelcomed in their children’s school set- tings (Delgado-Gaitan, 2004; Ishimaru et al., 2016; Lareau & Horvat, 1999) and that these parents are particularly at risk of feeling less engaged and marginalized by the educational system (Bolívar & Chrispeels, 2010). For example, Ishimaru and colleagues have studied the engagement practices of K-12 nondominant families (see Ishimaru, 2014; Ishimaru, Barajas-López, & Bang, 2015; Ishimaru et al., 2016).

THE JOURNAL OF HIGHER EDUCATION 541

Utilizing a qualitative, comparative case study approach to examine district and community efforts of family engagement, Ishimaru et al.’s (2016), findings point to the “potential of the emergent collective, reciprocal, or relational cultural brokering as milestones in shifting power dynamics and transforming systems toward equitable collaborations” (p. 874). Specifically, building family engagement with nondominant communities can occur with cultural brokering as authentic care, community engagement, and, building on family leadership.

While the positive educational outcomes associated with parent and family involvement has been well documented in K-12 literature (Auerbach, 2006; Ishimaru et al., 2016; Lareau, 1987; Jun & Colyar, 2002; Tierney, 2002; Zarate, 2007; among others), few studies examine how parents from nondominant communities experience higher education settings, including how race, gen- der, class, or first-generation status might influence parent involvement (Harper et al., 2012; McCarron & Inkelas, 2006). Yet, research has confirmed that first-generation, low-income, and families of color establish high expec- tations and aspirations around college-going as early as K-5 (Carolan-Silva & Reyes, 2013; Kiyama, 2010; Wu & Bai, 2015, among others). Although it is difficult to predict how early college aspirations impact future college com- pletion, Wu and Bai (2015) present evidence that early college-going aspira- tions are strongly related to actual university attainment. Such development of college-going expectations demonstrates an important form of positive, emotional engagement with the college-going process.

Transition to college

The transition to college (Terenzini et al., 1994) and adjustment within the first year (Upcraft, Gardner, & Barefoot, 2005) has been a focus of research on students. Parental support is associated with the academic adjustment and success of Latino students from lower income backgrounds (Ong, Phinney, & Dennis, 2006) and among White students (Yazedjian, Toews, & Navarro, 2009). Parental attachment among first-year students also seems to be parti- cularly salient among women (Kenny & Donaldson, 1991), and some research has found declines in parental attachment among men in the first year (Hiester, Nordstrom, & Swenson, 2009). A meta-analysis of research through 2009 revealed a modest positive relationship between par- ental attachment and college adjustment (Mattanah, Lopez, & Govern, 2011).

Other research suggests that students benefit from a secure attachment to parents while also developing an independent sense of self separate from parents (Mattanah, Hancock, & Brand, 2004; Vivona, 2000). Parents’ chan- ging relationship to their children might also include more trust in students’ decision making, although parents are likely to still offer advice and multiple forms of support through the transition to college and beyond (Kolkhorst, Yazedjian, & Toews, 2011). Persistence (Ratelle, Larose, Guay, & Senécal,

542 C. E. HARPER ET AL.

2005) and subjective well-being (Ratelle, Simard, & Guay, 2013) are asso- ciated with parents’ encouragement of students’ autonomy. The influence of parents on college students is an emerging topic in higher education research (Kiyama & Harper, 2015), with recent studies documenting differences in the levels and types of involvement (Wolf, Sax, & Harper, 2009), as well as the effect of parental involvement on students’ development (Harper et al., 2012; Wartman & Savage, 2008).

While past research reveals much about students’ transition to college experience (Fischer, 2007), including differences among first generation college students (Atherton, 2014; Choy et al., 2000) and students of color (Hurtado & Carter, 1997), research has not examined how the parents of these students experience this transition. Understanding this experience from the perspective of parents who did not go to college themselves might offer unique insights and implications that better serve these families.

The purpose of this study is to understand how parents of first-generation college students experience the transition to college through the first college year. Within this transition year, we examine the support strategies families create and enact for their college-aged children, in addition to areas of struggle they may experience with the transition. This study explores the ways in which parents are engaged in their children’s education and pay particular attention to the ways in which parents’ involvement is often ignored or unaccounted for within postsecondary contexts.

Theoretical framework

The theoretical framework guiding this study is the Model of Parent Characteristics, Engagement, and Support (Kiyama & Harper, 2018), which was developed to provide an alternative narrative to terms such as “helicopter parents,” which stereotype parents as overprotective and overinvolved in their children’s adult life (Carney-Hall, 2008; Self, 2013). While higher education staff tend to focus on helping parents understand adolescent development and promoting student independence (White, 2005), the insti- tutional practices largely operate from a color-blind and class-blind ideology (Bonilla-Silva, 2003), resulting in raced and classed policies and practices around family engagement. In addition, the term “family” in modern litera- ture is often idealized, lacking variation across the diversity of family units that exist among today’s college student population.

Therefore, as the overarching framework that guides this study, the Model of Parent Characteristics, Engagement and Support was proposed as an inclusive model of family engagement that drew upon the Ecologies of Parental Involvement (EPE) framework, which highlights parents’ networks, space and capital, (Calabrese Barton, Drake, Perez, St. Louis, & George, 2004), and the concept of collectivism where parents use shared resources,

THE JOURNAL OF HIGHER EDUCATION 543

norms and solidarity to navigate and respond to changes in the ecologies (Fox, Lowe, & McClellan, 2005; Guiffrida, Kiyama, Waterman, & Museus, 2012; Triandis, Chen, & Chan, 1998). As low-income, first-generation college students are situated in the center of multiple interactive ecologies, the engagement, spaces, and networks of parents will significantly influence how students navigate their connections to college education (Kiyama & Harper, 2018).

This model, informed by past research on inclusive family practices and engagement, is a non-hierarchical model comprised of key factors related to parent and family engagement. The model honors families’ pre-college characteristics in addition to the various individuals that make up a students’ family and community, while also taking into account the institutional context and college characteristics. Together, these interact- ing elements help to illustrate the factors at the center of the model, including:

Family characteristics such as the family composition (e.g., single parent or two parent home), role of siblings, cultural background.

Social networks such as community organization or religious organization membership,

Self-efficacy, including the strategies used to navigate educational systems,

Educational aspirations, such as how and when these aspirations were identified and developed,

Involvement and Engagement, inclusive of both normative engagement (campus visits) and more culturally informed engagement (emotional support).

Dimensions of support, such as the various people, networks, and resources drawn upon for support.

There is no particular order or hierarchy to these factors as they can inform and mediate family engagement at different or recurring points in time.

The model dimensions should be assessed in college, as they could change with time, particularly because of the change in context from high school or another pre-college setting to college (Kiyama & Harper, 2018). Students and their families are not isolated from these broader contexts that play a role in supporting or hindering students’ success and the engagement and support of their families. This framework informed the data collection and analysis for the study, as described in the methodology section.

544 C. E. HARPER ET AL.

Research questions

This project was guided by the following research questions: 1) What moti- vations do parents have for their college-going children that informs their engagement with them? 2) How do parents of first-generation college stu- dents experience the transition to college and the first college year? 3) What are the mechanisms and strategies utilized by these parents to support students during this time?

Methodology

This research used a case study (Yin, 2013) approach to understand the essence of the transition to college through the first year, from the perspec- tive of the parents of college students. Our case study was bound by a point in time, the transition period beginning with college orientation and ending with the first year of college. Our approach involved the collection of multi- ple points of data (Yin, 2013). All parents included in the study self-identified as not having graduated from college themselves, making their student a first-generation college student. One data collection strategy involved focus group data with groups of parents of first-generation college students. These occurred while parents were on campus attending orientation in the summer of 2016.

Our other main data collection strategy involved a longitudinal approach, with a completely different sample of participants, where four forms of data were sought from families over the span of a student’s first year of college. The institution where the data collection took place is a four-year, public university with high research activity and an undergraduate enrollment that exceeds 30,000 students. Recruitment for these families occurred in coordi- nation with the campus Parent and Family Relations office, which was able to send out an invitation email about the study directly to parents and inter- ested parties were invited to contact the research team via email or phone. We also received permission to contact the guidance counselors of high schools local to the university who were able to then pass along the recruit- ment information to families who fit the selection criteria.

The recruitment email introduced the study as being about “the experi- ences that parents of first-generation college students (students who are the first in their families to go to college) have during their child’s first college year, as well as your own educational history. Specifically, I’m inter- ested in the experience of low-income families and families of color.” Participants’ consent form restated these criteria and participants were asked to affirm that they met these. We did not ask participants to clarify whether they identified as low-income or as a person of color, although this information did sometimes emerge through the interviews.

THE JOURNAL OF HIGHER EDUCATION 545

Eight families initially participated in the longitudinal data collection (see Table 1), which was intended to be a series of three interviews per family, each over the course of the students’ first year of college. Seven families agreed to the second interview and five agreed to the third. When conducting the longitudinal interviews, we utilized phenomenological interviewing stra- tegies (Seidman, 2006). This approach calls for a three-step interview struc- ture: 1) the first interview focused on participants’ life histories as they pertain to the topic of educational involvement in their children’s lives; 2) the second interview provided details of parents’ experience of their child’s transition to college; 3) in the third interview, parents were asked to reflect on the meaning of their transition experiences (Seidman, 2006) and any closing reflections parents have about the college transition process. The first interview occurred prior to the start of the freshman year or up to two weeks into the first semester, depending on parents’ availability; The second interview occurred at the end of the first semester or beginning of the second semester; and the final interview occurred at the end of the students’ first year (i.e., after 2 full semesters in college). For two families, this inter- view cycle started in Fall 2013, and six families in the study participated in the Fall 2014 to Spring 2015 academic year. For seven of the eight families, we interviewed one parent alone and one family included interviews with both parents together. All interviews were conducted face-to-face or by phone. Each interview lasted between 30 and 90 minutes, with most lasting about one hour. Interviews were conducted in English (6 of 8 families) or Spanish (2 of 8 families); all interviews were transcribed and, as necessary, translated into English. Families were compensated for their time after each interview with a $35 gift card per household.

Beyond the interviews, parents were asked to journal about how they experienced the college transition process between our interviews. We

Table 1. Description of Participants. Parent Participants’ Pseudonyms

Student in college Parent Education

Parents’ Ethnicity or Race

Language of interview

Abigail Daughter Attended community college, but did not complete a degree

White English

Sabrina Son Did not attend college Hispanic Spanish Rose Daughter Attended college; no degree

mentioned White English

Sonia Daughter Attended a trade school; Associate degree

Hispanic English

Makayla Son Attended a two-year college; Associate degree

African American

English

Esme Daughter Attended a trade school Hispanic English Emmett Daughter Attended college, but did not

complete a degree White–Dad (Mexican Mom)

English

Diego & Luna Daughter Did not attend college Hispanic Spanish

546 C. E. HARPER ET AL.

asked them their preference for documenting this information, including being provided a notebook and pen, a tape recorder, and/or the family could send us emails. Families were also asked to save any communication they received from the institution their child was attending (e.g., emails, letters, brochures). Similarly, parents were asked to take note of any forms of communication they initiated with the college. Our intent was to discuss any university documentation they received in order to understand the messaging and information being shared, whether written or implied. Unfortunately, the journaling and institutional communication did not yield rich data; therefore, we did not include these data as part of this paper, a limitation that we discuss below.

The final form of data collection was campus observations in order to better understand the college and attend events targeted toward parents and families. Specifically, we observed parent orientation, where we documented messages shared about parents and families. The observations, documented with field notes, were conducted by the lead researcher and three graduate assistants.

Data analysis

All data collected were uploaded to a qualitative analysis software (NVivo). The research team used a combination of a priori codes that aligned with our theoretical framework, as well as open coding to allow for emergent themes (Merriam, 2009). The codes that aligned with our framework included codes capturing the characteristics of the families and their views toward education (educational history, parental education, desires, goals, missed opportu- nities). We also created codes related to parents’ changing role or relation- ship with the student or educational institution (more involved, less involved) and sometimes included a comparison over time (high school vs. now). Our parental support codes became more detailed than initially antici- pated by the model and included communication type (e.g., text, phone), frequency (e.g., daily), and nature (e.g., encouragement, financial) of the support. Parents’ self-efficacy navigating the educational system and their network of support and information was captured with institutional support codes that captured institutional resources, events, services, and personnel that were somehow influential to participants or left an impression, whether positive or negative. Self-efficacy also included sources of support beyond the institution (e.g., family members, co-workers).

The process of open coding consisted of multiple steps. First, members of the research team (two graduate research assistants and two faculty mem- bers) each read the entire series of one parent’s interviews. Together, the team developed a list of emergent codes, some of which confirmed the codes derived from the theoretical framework. Some of these codes included:

THE JOURNAL OF HIGHER EDUCATION 547

communication types and strategies, parent engagement, parent support, expectations about college, changes in family relationships, social networks and institutional support. For example, under the code of “parent support” we noted sub-codes that captured specific types of parents’ advice, while under “institutional support” we noted sub-codes including: more/different communication, unmet needs, confusion. Engaging in these analytical pro- cesses together, both theoretical and open coding, allowed for the team to check for consistency in findings and develop inter-coder agreement (Creswell, 2007). Once all codes were uploaded into NVivo, interview tran- scripts and observation notes were analyzed using the same coding schema.

Trustworthiness

Establishing trustworthiness is a critical component of qualitative research and as such, we drew on multiple techniques. Our research team is situated at two institutions in two different states, although all of the data collected for this study were collected from only one institution. We have regular research meetings that allow for “an external check of the research process” (Creswell, 2007, p. 208), specifically through the use of peer debriefing. During this peer debriefing, which occurs both in person and online, we review analytic strategies and present emerging research findings. Likewise, we have drawn on the expertise of our campus colleagues to serve as external checks and reviewers of preliminary findings. We have also shared summary reports with campus partners, including those institutions that participated in the study. This allowed for a check of accuracy of findings.

Limitations

As noted above, the non-interview forms of data proved to be unsuccessful collection strategies. One reason was that the parents reported not receiving any communication from their child’s college, which was noteworthy itself. Parents also declined to provide additional reflections beyond the interviews. Further, scheduling time to interview these families was challenging because many parents were working multiple jobs and did not have spare time, making additional tasks unfeasible. We were also limited in our ability to consider gender differences and the ways in which fathers and mothers might differentially interact with and support their sons and daughters.

Findings

Guided by the Model of Parent Characteristics, Engagement, and Support (Kiyama & Harper, 2018), results provide empirical support for the dimen- sions identified in the model. Different from the original proposed model,

548 C. E. HARPER ET AL.

the qualitative data revealed support for an additional theme, which revolves around the change in relationship between parents and students as they both make the transition from K12 to college. Moreover, our results suggest that some of the main sections in the original model are more intertwined than first conceptualized (e.g., self-efficacy and networks; dimensions of support, involvement and engagement). The themes presented below represent the main themes from our current analysis, which address our research questions and help us extend the theoretical framework we used.

Valuing a college degree

The first-generation participants in this study shared a common and ada- mant desire that their child receive a college degree. The leading reason they felt so strongly about this goal was their own lack of college experiences, which they believed may have hindered their career development and, eventually, upward social mobility. As one parent shared:

I should’ve challenged myself a little more I think, in hindsight … I don’t think I really thought about the future … So I tell my daughter: you need to go to college. Yeah. First of all, you need to go and probably get your master’s [for] better opportunities, more pay in whatever field you’re in. You can always step above applicant that doesn’t have a degree. Definitely more pay. (Esme, Interview 2)

Our participants emphasized to their children the importance of a college degree and noted this largely stemmed from the lack of encouragement they received from their own parents to pursue college. Therefore, they have been pushing their own children a lot harder than their parents did, telling them that going to college “it’s not an option,” it’s a requirement, and saying this long before high school even started (Abigail, interview 2). As Abigail noted:

My parents didn’t push me, (but) I have definitely made the point to my daughter that it’s not an option. I feel that I wasn’t pushed, but if I was pushed a little more, I feel I would’ve went … I just feel like there wasn’t a lot of pressure put on me back then. (So) I always just stressed the importance of a college education, and do well in high school.

To a great extent, these first-generation parents were reliving their unfin- ished educational dream through their children. As Sabrina (interview 2) explained to her son:

I told him, continue forward (to college). This success is not going to be yours alone, it’s going to mine as well. When you reach the end, it will be my success as well. If you stay behind, I will be behind as well.

In terms of first-generation parents’ views on colleges and careers, they exhibited different sentiments and strategies regarding choosing a college for

THE JOURNAL OF HIGHER EDUCATION 549

their children. The main concerns that influenced students’ college choice, according to our participants, included geographical location, tuition, finan- cial aid, college size, and campus environment. When students’ college preferences differed from those of their families, many parents were willing to negotiate and showed empathy for students’ decisions, seeing it as a major milestone of independence development and critical thinking.

Changing relationship dynamics in the college transition

This theme captured the relationship between students and their families before college and during the college transition. Emmett, for example, noted a personal transformation once his daughter went to college: “I mean, her going to school changed me. I don’t know how to describe it; it helped me be more liberated. Knowing that she was on her way to adulthood and being on her own. That was something.” Many participants noted changes in the nature of the relationship between themselves and their college student, and how their own involvement changed pre- and post-college entry.

Parental support Parents supported their students in many ways, including financially, emo- tionally, and with guidance or problem-solving techniques. Even when par- ents were unfamiliar with a situation, by talking it through with students, parents were able to direct students to arrive at their own solutions. Financial support included students’ tuition, transportation, housing, meal plans, and allowances. Some parents tried covering as many college expenses as possible, believing that the college years should be spent studying and experiencing college, not working; others encouraged students to work part-time as an integral part of the college experience and effective training for financial responsibility.

Many of the participants rarely provided monetary allowances to students, unless in times of emergency. For example, a couple of parents described when their student stopped working part-time on campus to move into off- campus housing or to prepare for a major exam, and the parents would provide allowances to temporarily cover their living expenses (e.g., only two months). The participants expressed their hope of cultivating financial inde- pendence in their students so they’ll appreciate the value of hard work and become reasonable spenders.

Emotional support included staying positive and motivating their students with optimism. As parents gradually realized they could not always be physically present or help problem-solve for every difficulty, parents moti- vated and built confidence in their students through regular, often daily,

550 C. E. HARPER ET AL.

communication such as text messages or phone calls. As one parent describes support for her daughter:

I’ve been a cheerleader for her, without her feeling a lot of pressure. Just giving her support and letting her know that I’m here and that I know the hard work she’s putting in at school. It’s just being connected with her, knowing … what’s going on with her life. She got so much going on and I’m just trying to mark that in my head so that I can encourage her and ask her about it. (Sonia, interview 3)

Other examples of general guidance while encouraging students’ auton- omy include one parent encouraging a student to talk to a police officer about a stolen bike, while another parent provided advice about applying for a part-time job. As one parent sums up her new role with her daughter:

She was very busy with her schedule and her books and figuring out how it was going to work, and figuring out her dorm, and planning all of that. It was kind of a slam for her, but I’m not going to do all of that for her. I’m not going to call the sorority, but going to the sites and navigating, I agreed to help her with that, but I can’t do [everything]. I’d be doing a disservice if I were doing it all for her. Just trying to strike that balance and explain to her why. (Rose, interview 1)

Trying to encourage students to solve their own problems was a key pattern seen within this general guidance theme.

Changing roles and dynamics As their students enrolled in college, our participants tended to retreat from an active hands-on role of guardians to a more observant role of life coach or mentor. In particular, some parents purposefully became less hands-on in students’ college life, allowing students more autonomy for independent thinking and action. Other participants demonstrated respect and trust towards students’ independent decisions, only giving suggestions if asked. For example, with regard to parents’ access to academic records, Abigail (interview 1) commented:

[She] has not given us access to her grades. But in my opinion, she’s in college now, and … she knows what she wants to do. If you asked me in high school, I would always look at her grades to the point of when she got home, I knew what she had gotten on an exam before she did. But, this I kind of took a step back, ‘cause I know she’s worked so hard to get there that I know she’s not going to mess this up. … I’m totally different person than when I was when she was in high school. I know what she has to do, she knows what she has to do … ; I don’t have a problem not looking at her grades.

This changing dynamic pre- and post-college between parents and stu- dents offers interesting insight into their changing relationships. While some parents preferred leaving all decisions to their students to let them “crash and learn,” the majority favored a much more gradual approach before totally

THE JOURNAL OF HIGHER EDUCATION 551

letting go, trying to strike a “happy medium” between still maintaining parental standards with perhaps too much involvement and giving students complete independence. Sonia commented on her understanding of such a medium:

I think there’s kind of a happy medium that you have to get to, because you don’t want to cover up the students too much. You want them to, you know, they’re off on their own now, but then again, I want to stay connected with her, so she’s constantly telling me stories about sorority or classes or her friends. (Sonia, inter- view 1)

For a parent who doesn’t have the communication that I have with my daughter, I mean, I think you can definitely have too little [involvement]. Even if it’s just talking about your classes, letting them know that you’re there, in general, even if you’re far away, “hey, I’m still here for you, I’m thinking about you.” I think it’s important. And certainly I think, too little involvement it’s not good or being too overwhelming and always questioning their grades. I think there’s a happy med- ium. (Sonia, interview 3)

In reaching this happy medium, parents had different strategies. For example, some parents would start with a relatively high level of commu- nication that would taper off over time. Sabrina described being readily available for her son because “I think that one should get involved as much as possible and to one’s ability, but because it’s a stage of youth to be developing as a young adult, then he should have his own space.” Diego and Luna took the approach of waiting to hear from their daughter:

We talk less frequently, because she’s always busy, she always has something to do. I’ve asked her to call me when she has free time, but she does not call me that often. And, I don’t want to be calling her regularly so I don’t bother her and her work. It’s difficult for me that she’s gone from home, but it’s what’s best for her. (Luna, Interview 2)

Similarly, Emmett said, “Just like anything else, as they’re maturing in their third and fourth year, if you’re doing all the work in the beginning, in the end it should be more hands off, from the parents’ aspect.” Other parents said they would like to maintain daily communication throughout college and are ready for consultation whenever needed.

Communication Parents’ preferences varied regarding different communication apps and devices, the majority of parents who participated in this study preferred using text messages over other methods:

She always usually answers me and it could be one-word answers, like “nothing,” but I probably text more than call. I just think it’s—she communicates better probably. (Abigail, interview 3)

552 C. E. HARPER ET AL.

Being so far away, yeah, I got to hear from her every day. Either FaceTime or text or something. I don’t always FaceTime, I text. (Focus group parent)

Texting was described as convenient, since students could be in class or busy and not available to talk. Parents’ desire for frequent communication was associated with safety and concerns, particularly those living out-of-state. As one mother said:

I mean, my only daughter, I have to know, oh my gosh, I, I just have to. As a mother I just have to make sure she’s okay, she’s only nineteen, I just want to make sure she’s okay. (Abigail, interview 3)

Esme (interview 1) also mentioned concern for the safety of her “baby girl” and how there’s a difference in the level of concern that she has about her daughter than she did for her son.

A key reason that parents want to maintain an appropriate level of involvement is to provide support. As students transition to college, parents felt it was imperative to initiate contact “so she doesn’t think that I’m not there” (focus group parent). When students experienced new challenges in studies, relationships, and work, parents believed that they could offer valu- able insights, emotional comfort, and a frustration outlet.

Another finding related to changing parent-student dynamics was the change in students’ role and behavior towards their parents. Participants described how some students had assumed a more grown-up role and initiate communication with parents in a distinctly new way. In particular, a number of parents mentioned that their students checked up on them via text messages or calls. For example, Makayla (interview 3) said that her son will call unprompted: “He will pick up the phone himself. And he’ll call and say, ‘Hey. You have time to talk? I want to talk about so and so and so and so.’” Therefore, it is interesting to note that while these first-generation parents made the transition from guardians to mentors, they are also experiencing a different reaction and communication style from their children.

Changing involvement in educational events Almost all of our participants described their precollege involvement in their students’ lives as being quite high and then dropping dramatically in college. All participants said they had reduced their involvement in academics. Regarding university events, an unexpected finding emerged related to the geographical distance between parents and the university. For parents who live in-state or considered themselves to be within a reasonable driving distance and for whom cost of participation wasn’t constraining, they had attended events each semester. For parents who lived farther away, their involvement in university events has inevitably been lower due to the incon- venience and cost of traveling. For some parents, involvement was con- strained by lack of information, including schedules of events and

THE JOURNAL OF HIGHER EDUCATION 553

calendars or contact persons when they had questions. Luna (interview 2), for example, said that she and Diego would go visit their daughter “every other weekend” if possible, but that they don’t “because we don’t have enough information regarding the school. I don’t know if we could go over during the weekend and spend the night in my daughter’s room, and keep her company.” In general, the parents did express appreciation for university events as a great avenue to stay connected to students and their college community, even if they weren’t able to take full advantage of these options.

Institutional engagement of parents

Overall, our participants greatly valued the ways university campus events and institutional programs target parents, which can include a range of campus resources and services, such as campus tours, welcome orientation, and visits with the Parent Relations Office. The parents expressed particular appreciation for the organization of institutional structured programs. The parents who participated in structured programs said it helped offer a more comprehensive understanding of the university. Feeling supported and assured about leaving their students in the hands of the university, the parents themselves also described establishing a bond with the university through structured programs. As different parents noted:

[The programs are] absolutely amazing. We went off for probably just to do a visit, in March, and everything is mind blowing. It’s incredible. I wanted to go there, I wanted to quit my job and go back to college. I’m very impressed. I’m on the newsletter, I’m on their Facebook. I think that the campus and school has so much to offer. The speeches I’ve heard and the people I’ve interacted with, it’s an incredible school. (Abigail, interview 1)

Another parent from a focus group noted:

It seems like everything is structured, and they do have a lot of, um, avenues, if this happens, if that happens, it seems that way. A lot of help, you know, just someone to go to about anything or everything, as far as what we heard. So that makes you feel a little better, ‘cause it’s not like you’re alone and there’s nobody to go to.

Among all the institutional programs, first-generation parents especially appreciated the establishment of Parent Relations Office, which is the first campus contact that many parents seek when issues arise. Another frequently mentioned theme regarding institutional support for first-generation parents is related to campus safety. Our observation data offered numerous examples of safety issues being covered in various institutional orientation events and sessions, although parents still consistently hoped that different institutional offices and police department could “optimize communication” to keep them more informed at all times.

554 C. E. HARPER ET AL.

Although our participants have specified needs that they want the institu- tion to address, institutional initiatives have not successfully targeted first- generation parents. For example, one common frustration voiced by our participants was their lack of financial knowledge related to financial aid and scholarships, describing these processes as “difficult” and “confusing.” Many participants recognized that institutional offices could help dissemi- nate such information; however, few participants knew about the responsi- bilities of those offices or had any direct communication with them. The parents who did contact the institution usually called one general office (e.g., parent relations) or one person on campus they had already connected with (e.g., academic advisor).

Social strategies of self-efficacy & support

First-generation parents utilize friends, family members, other parents and professionals as their system of network. For parents who experience college- goers for the first time, it is based on the collective wisdom in their network that parents gather information and make a decision; it is also from their network that they draw emotional and sometimes financial support to over- come obstacles in supporting their college students.

First and foremost, parents generally sought different networks for infor- mation not readily available through institutional programs, but interest- ingly, many parents kept returning to one helpful source for all questions. For example, some parents return to their circle of friends for questions or confirmation before making a decision, because they have kids of a similar age. Another example is a parent who returns to “one gentleman in the department of engineering” for all questions and would be directed from there, even though her student was not an engineering major (Makayla, interview 2). Still, many first-generation parents relied on the Parent Relations Office for all types of questions, and they have generally been satisfied with the assistance they received there.

Second, family members functioned as an important network to provide parents emotional counseling and financial support as they made important decisions. Many parents faced stress or anxiety during their child’s college choice process. The stress continued while determining how to support them financially through college and direct them through different challenges in academics and in life. In such cases, families functioned as parents’ first resort due to the pre-existing trust within families. One parent describes how she helped her sister pick out a university for her niece:

I’m coaching [my sister] to go visit the site, and make sure you feel comfortable, look at the safety thing because, again, that was a big thing for me. Look at the commute because it gets costly. How far do you want them driving by themselves

THE JOURNAL OF HIGHER EDUCATION 555

to come home, to turn around and go back two days later? Because those are things that have played into our lives. (Rose, interview 1)

Moreover, family also served as parents’ last resort in difficult situations, especially in financial difficulties. For example, as one parent puts it:

If something comes up and I know I don’t have the money for it …, I always know that I don’t have to get stressed out about it because I have help to get it done … I know that there are times where I just can’t get, like, every avenue I’ve tried has failed. So I know I don’t have a choice but to ask. So when I ask, I already know that it’s going to happen, but I always try to find a way to do it myself so that way I won’t have to ask … (Makayla, interview 3)

Parents described not wanting to burden others, but also noting the strong connection and source of support that family members provided.

Discussion

Returning to the study’s first research question, parents’ motivations for their college-going children was largely informed by their steadfast belief in the power of higher education and desire that their children obtain the degree that they were unable to complete for themselves. This led parents to be clear with their children about the value of a college degree by talking about it early and often, and expressing how they (parents) thought it would benefit their children in economic, occupational, and developmental ways. Past research has similarly found that parental expectations are a key motivator to attend college, particularly among first-generation college students’ families (Dennis, Phinney, & Chuateco, 2005) and students of color (Carolan-Silva & Reyes, 2013; Espino, 2016; Kiyama, 2010; Wu & Bai, 2015).

The second research question revealed that the parents of first-generation college students experience their own transition during their students’ first college year. This primarily involved navigating a changing relationship with their child, but also included navigating a relationship with a university. The participants noted wanting to encourage independence and the development of key life skills related to problem solving, while also wanting to maintain strong connections to students through frequent communication, which is consistent with recent research on text messaging between students and parents (Sax & Weintraub, 2014).

First-generation parents in this study defied the stereotypical mode of constant hovering and interfering that is perceived in previous literature and media (Wartman & Savage, 2008); instead, parents sought a “happy medium” to promote students’ development. Specifically, parents talked about wanting to encourage independence and problem solving with their children, which is consistent with past research on parental attachment (Mattanah et al., 2004; Vivona, 2000). Parents wanted to encourage and

556 C. E. HARPER ET AL.

motivate their students, which mirrors past research on parental support (Kolkhorst et al., 2011). Many also described wanting to assist without taking over and to help their son or daughter be able to solve their own problems. This finding was consistent with past research that found that self-sufficiency was something that was encouraged or required among first-generation students (Carpenter & Peña, 2017).

Parents were fairly consistent in wanting frequent communication with students, though some heard from their son or daughter less often than they would have preferred. Over the first year, parents applied different commu- nication and involvement strategies — some maintained a high level of communication and involvement that then tapered off gradually over time, while others maintained daily communication and attended multiple events throughout the first college year; with either strategy, parents were always ready to offer consultation and assistance when asked. Lastly, our analysis reveals that parents mostly utilize friends, family members, other parents, and professionals as their network to achieve self-efficacy regarding how to navigate the college experience as parents.

Navigating the relationship with their child’s college was a stark change in communication in comparison to their child’s previous educational contexts. Whereas lines of communication were open and reciprocal prior to college, the communication in college became parent-initiated. Parents could seek out college offices, resources, and staff but this was sometimes limited either by students’ choices (e.g., not giving parents access to grades) or by distance, time, or cost (e.g., coming to campus for family weekend). The parents who did participate in college programs felt connected and spoke about feeling that they understood the university better and felt more secure about leaving their child there. Consistent with past research (Kiyama, Harper, & Ramos, 2018), parents were appreciative of the symbolic importance of just knowing that these services or programs existed, even if they were not able to take advantage of them.

Our study revealed that there were some gaps in information noted by some of the participants and these suggest areas where higher education institutions could offer more information and support. Financial aid was the area that parents wanted to know more about, which echoes past research findings on the importance of but confusion about the financial aid process (Darolia & Harper, 2018; Dynarski & Scott-Clayton, 2013; Harper, Kiyama, Ramos, & Aguayo, 2018). Consistent with past research (Auerbach, 2006), schools need to reach out first when parents might be hesitant to initiate communication. There was confusion about applying for financial aid and this was the hardest part of the transition. Overall, parents said they didn’t receive much or any information from the institution. A few of the parents in the study said that calendars and schedules of events, for example, would have been helpful to receive.

THE JOURNAL OF HIGHER EDUCATION 557

Our third research question addresses the mechanisms and strategies utilized by our participants to support students during this time. Consistent with past research (Sax & Weintraub, 2014), the parents in this study used text messages and sometimes phone calls to check in with students. They offered their advice, guidance, and their financial and emo- tional support when needed and available. Parents differed in their views on whether students needed to work in college, where some described the benefits of doing so while others thought it might be a distraction from academics. Some participants hoped that students would build strong, sen- sible financial habits.

Parents were helped by some of the resources and information they were made aware of or received by the institution. They noted the organization of structured programs offered by the university, such as campus tours, orienta- tion, and specific offices, which have interactively comprised an informative support system that they can rely on for different problems. Among all the institutional programs, parents especially appreciated the establishment of the Parent Relations Office (Harper et al., 2018; Kiyama et al., 2018), which functions as a first contact for the majority of parents when they encounter an issue. In addition, the data suggest that parents consistently believe that the issue of campus safety cannot be addressed enough, therefore they hope there could be more institutional efforts devoted to optimize safety-related communication to parents at all times.

Implications

This is the first empirical study of the Model of Parent Characteristics, Engagement, and Support (Kiyama & Harper, 2018) that expands our under- standing of parent and family engagement in students’ college experiences. The results reveal multiple contributions to research, theory, and practice. First, it contributes a parent/family perspective on what role parents and families should play in first-generation college students’ lives during and after the crucial transition to college period, including that first college year. Second, it utilizes a non-deficit perspective to focus on the voices of parents, of first-generation college students, who are experiencing a transition of their own. Contrary to the negative characterizations some have provided about how little first-generation college students’ parents are in students’ lives (New, 2014), these results reveal that there are strong connections that offer communication, support, and development for stu- dents. These results reveal the ways in which these parents are adjusting to a new role and are supporting their students in new ways.

Third, it provides evidence of the key dimensions of support that these parents offer students, which might be missed by college and university faculty and staff, including guidance, and financial and emotional support.

558 C. E. HARPER ET AL.

If higher education institutions are going to better serve the needs of its students, they first need to understand what those needs are and who might already be helping address them. The participants of this study noted an appreciation for all of the efforts and programs that colleges provide, although parents tended to gravitate toward and maintain connections to one institutional staff member, prioritizing the helpfulness of that relation- ship over other people on campus who might know an answer but were unknown to the parent.

Theory Because this is the first study to utilize Kiyama and Harper’s (2018) model, there are important implications to consider. The framework is much more overlapping in nature than previously described and the experiences of parents are not as disaggregated or neatly categorized as the framework may suggest. Therefore, further development of the framework may include modifying the presentation of factors as separate and distinct, and instead illustrating how one form of engagement can include multiple factors in both the development and enactment of that engagement.

Practice This study raises important implications for practice, particularly with regard to staff training in an effort to direct parents more broadly across campus, and for the importance of having a stable resource for parents to contact, such as the Parent Relations Office. Alternatively, additional structures might be put in place to develop multiple personal connections between families and support services, particularly the Financial Aid Office. Findings clearly demonstrated that communication was often initiated by parents. Institutions should develop further means of communicating with parents in an effort to make resources more readily available and therefore appearing less symbolic in nature. Again, this takes us back to the Financial Aid Office where parents felt that much of this communication was missing around issues of financial assistance and scholarship support.

This study identifies opportunities for institutions to better serve this population. As first-generation parents who did not have college experiences explore institutional programs and services to help their students, institutions should reach out and create more programs to cater to their needs. We found a particular need among families who lived out of town or could not attend campus events because of cost or work commitments. Since parents in this study had questions and concerns about issues such as safety and financial aid, it might be worthwhile to consider a seminar series for parents on these topics that might be offered on a weekend so that this information can be reviewed in greater depth. Parents were also fairly consistent in talking about their own missed higher education experience, so these seminars might also

THE JOURNAL OF HIGHER EDUCATION 559

review the certificate and degree programs offered by the institution in case parents wanted to pursue such opportunities.

Research Overall, this study lends support for the growing research on parents and families in college (Harper et al., 2012; Kiyama & Harper, 2015; Wartman & Savage, 2008; Wolf et al., 2009), specifically through the added support of empirical data for the Model of Parent Characteristics, Engagement, and Support (Kiyama & Harper, 2018). This model provides direct connections with which to explore the experiences of first-generation college families, some of whom also self-identified as low income or families of color. Future research might build on this model by expanding our understanding of the experience of other family configurations than those included in this study. Specifically, the majority of the parents in this study were mothers, therefore missing from the study are the perspectives of fathers and the ways in which they build and maintain forms of engagement with both their sons or daughters and institu- tions. Future research should consider a gendered analysis of parent and family support. Finally, it is likely that parent and family involvement changes over the course of students’ time in college. Although this study gives us important data on the transition period from high school into the first year of college, future research should follow families over students’ entire college career.

Conclusion

Our results reveal that the parents in this study experienced a transition to college that involved navigating a changing relationship with their children and with educational institutions. While our impression in higher education of parents might shift from one extreme of over involvement to the other extreme of complete absence, the results of this study offer a picture of involvement that is less extreme and indicates that parents are navigating how to best stay connected with students while also letting go in some ways to encourage growth and development. There are many ways in which the parents felt supported and informed by the college their student was attend- ing, but there are also areas of unmet need and improvements that could be made to improve their experience, and by extension, their student’s experi- ence. The results of this study offer a new understanding of the transition experiences by parents and families of first-generation college students.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

560 C. E. HARPER ET AL.

References

Atherton, M. C. (2014). Academic preparedness of first-generation college students: Different perspectives. Journal of College Student Development, 55(8), 824–829. doi:10.1353/ csd.2014.0081

Auerbach, S. (2006). “If the student is good, let him fly”: Moral support for college among Latino immigrant parents. Journal of Latinos and Education, 5(4), 275–292. doi:10.1207/ s1532771xjle0504_4

Bolívar, J. M., & Chrispeels, J. H. (2010). Enhancing parent leadership through building social and intellectual capital. American Educational Research Journal, 48(1), 1–34. doi:10.3102/ 0002831210366466

Bonilla-Silva, E. (2003). Racism without racists: Color-blind racism and the persistence of racial inequality in the United States. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Calabrese Barton, A., Drake, C., Perez, J. G., St. Louis, K., & George, M. (2004). Ecologies of parental engagement in urban education. Educational Researcher, 33(4), 3–12. doi:10.3102/ 0013189X033004003

Carney-Hall, K. (2008). Understanding current trends in family involvement. New Directions for Student Services, 122, 3–14. doi:10.1002/ss.271

Carolan-Silva, A., & Reyes, J. R. (2013). Navigating the path to college: Latino students’ social networks and access to college. Educational Studies, 49(4), 334–359. doi:10.1080/ 00131946.2013.808199

Carpenter, A. M., & Peña, E. V. (2017). Self-authorship among first-generation undergrad- uate students: A qualitative study of experiences and catalysts. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 10(1), 86–100. doi:10.1037/a0040026

Choy, S. P., Horn, L. J., Nuñez, A.-M., & Chen, X. (2000). Transition to college: What helps at-risk students and students whose parents did not attend college. New Directions for Institutional Research, 107, 45–63. doi:10.1002/ir.10704

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cruce, T. M., Kinzie, J. L., Williams, J. M., Morelon, C. L., & Xingming, Y. (2005). The relationship between first-generation status and academic self-efficacy among entering college students. Paper presented at the meeting of Association for the Study of Higher Education, Philadelphia, PA.

Darolia, R., & Harper, C. (2018). Information use and attention deferment in college student loan decisions: Evidence from a debt letter experiment. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 40(1), 129–150. doi:10.3102/0162373717734368

Delgado-Gaitan, C. (2004). Involving Latino families in schools: Raising student achievement through home-school partnerships. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.

Dennis, J., Phinney, J., & Chuateco, L. (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. doi:10.1353/csd.2005.0023

Dynarski, S., & Scott-Clayton, J. (2013). Financial aid policy: Lessons from research. Future of Children, 23(1), 67–91. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1015227.pdf

Espino, M. M. (2016). The value of education and educación: Nurturing Mexican American children’s educational aspirations to the doctorate. Journal of Latinos and Education, 15(2), 73–90. doi:10.1080/15348431.2015.1066250

Fischer, M. J. (2007). Settling into campus life: Differences by race/ethnicity in college involvement and outcomes. Journal of Higher Education, 78(2), 125–161. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4501200

THE JOURNAL OF HIGHER EDUCATION 561

Fox, M. J. T., Lowe, S. C., & McClellan, G. S. (Eds.). (2005). New directions for student services: Serving native American students, no. 109. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Guiffrida, D. A., Kiyama, J. M., Waterman, S. J., & Museus, S. D. (2012). Moving from cultures of individualism to cultures of collectivism to serve college students of color. In S. D. Museus & U. M. Jayakumar (Eds.), Creating campus cultures that foster success among racially diverse student populations (pp. 78–97). New York, NY: Routledge.

Hamrick, F. A., & Stage, F. K. (2004). College predisposition at high-minority enrollment, low-income schools. The Review of Higher Education, 27(2), 151–168.

Harper, C., Kiyama, J. M., Ramos, D., & Aguayo, D. (2018). Examining the inclusivity of parent and family college orientations: A directed content analysis. Journal of College Orientation and Transition, 25(1), 30–42.

Harper, C., Sax, L., & Wolf, D. (2012). The role of parents in college students’ sociopolitical awareness, academic, and social development. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 49(2), 137–156. doi:10.1515/jsarp-2012-6147

Hiester, M., Nordstrom, A., & Swenson, L. (2009). Stability and change in parental attach- ment and adjustment outcomes during the first semester transition to college life. Journal of College Student Development, 50(5), 521–538. doi:10.1353/csd.0.0089

Hurtado, S., & Carter, D. F. (1997). Effects of college transition and perceptions of the campus racial climate on Latino college students’ sense of belonging. Sociology of Education, 70(4), 324–345. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2673270

Ishimaru, A. M. (2014). Rewriting the rules of engagement: Elaborating a model of district-community collaboration. Harvard Educational Review, 84(2), 188–216.

Ishimaru, A. M., Barajas-López, F., & Bang, M. (2015). Centering family knowledge to develop children’s empowered mathematics identities. Journal of Family Diversity in Education, 1(4), 1–21.

Ishimaru, A. M., Torres, K. E., Salvador, J. E., Lott, J., II., Cameron Williams, D. M., & Tran, C. (2016). Reinforcing deficit, journeying toward equity: Cultural brokering in family engagement initiatives. American Educational Research Journal, 53(4), 850–882. doi:10.3102/0002831216657178

Jun, A., & Colyar, J. (2002). Parental guidance suggested: Family involvement in college preparation programs. In W. G. Tierney & L. S. Hagedorn (Eds.), Increasing access to college: Extending possibilities for all students (pp. 195–216). Albany: State University of New York Press.

Kenny, M. E., & Donaldson, G. A. (1991). Contributions of parental attachment and family structure to the social and psychological functioning of first-year college students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38(4), 479–486. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.38.4.479

Kiyama, J. M. (2010). College aspirations and limitations: The role of educational ideologies and funds of knowledge in Mexican American families. American Educational Research Journal, 47(2), 330–356. doi:10.3102/0002831209357468

Kiyama, J. M., Harper, C., & Ramos, D. (2018). First-generation students and their families: Examining institutional responsibility during college access and transition. In A. C. Rondini, B. Nicola Richards, & N. P. Simon (Eds.), Clearing the path for first- generation college students: Qualitative and intersectional studies of educational mobility (pp. 203–231). Lanham, MD: Lexington Press.

Kiyama, J. M., & Harper, C. E. with Ramos, D., Aguayo, D., Page, L., & Riester, K. A. (2015). Parent and family engagement in higher education. ASHE Higher Education Report Series, 41(6), 1–94. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. doi:10.1002/aehe.20024

Kiyama, J. M., & Harper, C. E. (2018). Beyond hovering: A conceptual argument for an inclusive model of family engagement in higher education. Review of Higher Education, 41 (3), 365–385. doi:10.1353/rhe.2018.0012

562 C. E. HARPER ET AL.

Kolkhorst, B., Yazedjian, A., & Toews, M. (2011). Students’ perceptions of parental support during the college years. College Student Affairs Journal, 29(1), 47–63.

Lareau, A. (1987). Social class differences in family-school relationships: The importance of cultural capital. Sociology of Education, 60, 73–85. doi:10.2307/2112583

Lareau, A., & Horvat, E. M. N. (1999). Moments of social inclusion and exclusion: Race, class, and cultural capital in family-school relationships. Sociology of Education, 72(1), 37–53. doi:10.2307/2673185

Lowe, K., & Dotterer, A. M. (2018). Parental involvement during the college transition: A review and suggestion for its conceptual definition. Adolescent Research Review, 3(1), 29–42. doi:10.1007/s40894-017-0058-z

Mattanah, J., Hancock, G., & Brand, B. (2004). Parental attachment, separation-individuation, and college student adjustment: A structural equation analysis of mediational effects. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51(2), 213–225. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.51.2.213

Mattanah, J., Lopez, F., & Govern, J. (2011). The contributions of parental attachment bonds to college student development and adjustment: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58(4), 565–596. doi:10.1037/a0024635

McCarron, G. P., & Inkelas, K. K. (2006). The gap between educational aspirations and attainment for first-generation college students and the role of parental involvement. Journal of College Student Development, 47(5), 534–549. doi:10.1353/csd.2006.0059

McDonough, P., & Calderone, S. (2006). The meaning of money: Perceptual differences between college counselors and low-income families about college costs and financial aid. American Behavioral Scientist, 49(12), 1703–1718. doi:10.1177/0002764206289140

Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

New, J. (2014, August 13). The opposite of helicopter parents: Colleges struggle to engage parents of first-generation college students. Inside Higher Education. Retrieved from https:// www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/08/13/colleges-struggle-engage-parents-first- generation-college-students

Nuñez, A.-M., & Kim, D. (2012). Building a multicontextual model of Latino college enroll- ment: Student, school, and state-level effects. The Review of Higher Education, 35(2), 237–263. doi:10.1353/rhe.2012.0004

Ong, A., Phinney, J., & Dennis, J. (2006). Competence under challenge: Exploring the protective influence of parental support and ethnic identity in Latino college students. Journal of Adolescence, 29, 961–979. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2006.04.010

Perna, L., & Titus, M. (2005). The relationship between parental involvement as social capital and college enrollment: An examination of racial/ethnic group differences. Journal of Higher Education, 76(5), 485–518. doi:10.1353/jhe.2005.0036

Ratelle, C., Larose, S., Guay, F., & Senécal, C. (2005). Perceptions of parental involvement and support as predictors of college students’ persistence in a science curriculum. Journal of Family Psychology, 19(2), 286–293. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.19.2.286

Ratelle, C., Simard, K., & Guay, F. (2013). University students’ subjective well-being: The role of autonomy support from parents, friends, and the romantic partner. Journal of Happiness Studies, 14, 893–910. doi:10.1007/s10902-012-9360-4

Sax, L. J., & Wartman, K. L. (2010). Studying the impact of parental involvement on college student development: A review and agenda for research. In J. Smart (Ed.), Higher educa- tion: Handbook of theory and research, XXV. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Press. doi:10.1007/978-90-481-8598-6_6

Sax, L. J., & Weintraub, D. S. (2014). Exploring the parental role in first-year students’ well- being: Considerations by gender. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 51(2), 113–127. doi:10.1515/jsarp-2014-0013

THE JOURNAL OF HIGHER EDUCATION 563

Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Self, C. (2013). Parent involvement in higher education: A review of the literature. AHEPPP Journal, 4(1), 1–11.

Terenzini, P. T., Rendon, L. I., Upcraft, M. L., Millar, S. B., Allison, K. W., Gregg, P. L., & Jalomo, R. (1994). The transition to college: Diverse students, diverse stories. Research in Higher Education, 35(1), 57–73. doi:10.1007/BF02496662

Tierney, W. (2002). Parents and families in precollege preparation: The lack of connection between research and practice. Educational Policy, 16, 588–606. doi:10.1177/ 0895904802016004007

Triandis, H. C., Chen, X. P., & Chan, D. K. (1998). Scenarios for the measurement of collectivism and individualism. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 54(2), 323–338.

Upcraft, J. N., Gardner, J. N., & Barefoot, B. O. (2005). Challenging and supporting the first- year student: A handbook for improving the first year of college. San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass.

Vivona, J. (2000). Parental attachment styles of late adolescents: Qualities of attachment relationships and consequences for adjustment. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 47(3), 316–329. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.47.3.316

Wartman, K. L., & Savage, M. B. (2008). Parental involvement in higher education: Understanding the relationship among students, parents, and the institution. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

White, W. S. (2005). Students, parents, colleges: Drawing the lines. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 52(17), B16.

Wolf, D., Sax, L. J., & Harper, C. E. (2009). Parental engagement and contact in the academic lives of college students. NASPA Journal, 46(2), 325–358.

Wu, C. L., & Bai, H. (2015). From early aspirations to actual attainment: The effects of economic status and educational expectations on university pursuit. Higher Education, 69 (3), 331–344. doi:10.1007/s10734-014-9778-1

Yazedjian, A., Toews, M., & Navarro, A. (2009). Exploring parental factors, adjustment, and academic achievement among White and Hispanic college students. Journal of College Student Development, 50(4), 458–467. doi:10.1353/csd.0.0080

Yin, R. K. (2013). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Zarate, M. E. (2007). Understanding Latino parental involvement in education: Perceptions, expectations, and recommendations. Los Angeles, CA: Tomás Rivera Policy Institute.

564 C. E. HARPER ET AL.

Copyright of Journal of Higher Education is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.