LP762-L2 WEEK 6

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tqse20

International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/tqse20

Thinking with theory in college student success research: investigating the influence of theoretical leanings in analyzing data

Antonio Duran, Wilson Kwamogi Okello & David Pérez II

To cite this article: Antonio Duran, Wilson Kwamogi Okello & David Pérez II (2023) Thinking with theory in college student success research: investigating the influence of theoretical leanings in analyzing data, International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 36:10, 2036-2052, DOI: 10.1080/09518398.2021.1962561

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2021.1962561

Published online: 11 Aug 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 350

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Thinking with theory in college student success research: investigating the influence of theoretical leanings in analyzing data

Antonio Durana , Wilson Kwamogi Okellob and David P�erez IIc

aFlorida International University; bUniversity of North Carolina Wilmington; cSyracuse University

ABSTRACT Using Jackson and Mazzei’s thinking with theory, this paper centers the stories of three researchers who practiced critical self-reflection while engaging in secondary analysis of data from The Pedagogy of Student Success Project, a study intended to learn about graduate students’ evolving conceptualizations of student success. In particular, the researchers were interested in how their individual theoretical leanings influenced how they interacted with the data and how their collabora- tions in turn shaped their thinking. To explore this phenomena, the authors analyzed qualitative data from two participants, wrote reflective memorandums, and held conversations about their theoretical leanings. The three researchers addressed how the Anti-Deficit Achievement Framework, Black Feminisms, and Intersectionality shaped their analysis of qualitative data. Findings reveal how scholars’ theoretical leanings inform how they analyze and interpret student success research, in add- ition to showing how research collaborations play a role in thinking with theory.

ARTICLE HISTORY Received 4 June 2020 Accepted 22 July 2021

KEYWORDS Student success; higher education; theoret- ical frameworks

As the familiar aphorism goes, the research question should guide the theoretical and methodo- logical choices. The assumption here suggests that one’s theoretical and methodological deci- sions provide the necessary tools to explore and make sense of a phenomenon (Jones et al., 2014; Maxwell, 2013). Moreover, rigorous and trustworthy research should have replicable meth- ods, and analysis guided by those methods should be consistent from researcher to researcher (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). As such, researchers often rely on strict rules, principles, and procedures in the study and evaluation of data (Patton, 2014). This framing, however, ignores, to some degree, that each individual holds unique theoretical leanings that shape their approach to inquiry (England, 1994) and that all theoretical perspectives are inherently incomplete (Abes, 2009; Jackson & Mazzei, 2012). If theoretical perspectives are incomplete, it might mean that tucked away, in the crevices and corners of qualitative data, in the pause and silences, in the exasperations and inflected tones, that meaning is struggling to be heard and brought to light. When all theoretical perspectives are incomplete, it must mean that analyses and findings are also incomplete, especially when individual researchers are bringing their own theoretical lean- ings to a singular project.

Attempting to fill this void, scholars have urged connectivity and paradigm proliferation (Lather, 2006), writing, “[r]ather than searching for the common elements underlying difference,”

CONTACT Antonio Duran [email protected] 2631 NW 84th Avenue #304 Doral, FL 33122, USA � 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF QUALITATIVE STUDIES IN EDUCATION 2023, VOL. 36, NO. 10, 2036–2052 https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2021.1962561

there is something to be gained in the “freeing of difference” such that “divergence, dispersed multiplicities, the possibilities of that which is in excess of our categories of containment” (p. 47). In a collaborative research project, this messiness, which resists the tidiness of neat and carefully constructed categories, offers researchers an opportunity to experience the data afresh. In par- ticular, when scholars work on a project together, it may be beneficial to understand how indi- vidual subjectivities and theoretical subjectivities converge to produce a more nuanced view of the chosen study phenomenon. Kincheloe and McLaren (2005) echoed this methodological per- verseness in their review of bricolage, which exists out of respect for the "complexity of the lived world and complications of power” (p. 317). Specifically, bricolage involves the process of blend- ing multiple, diverging, “methodological strategies as they are needed in the unfolding context of the research situation” (p. 316). Unrestrained by disciplinary bounds, bricoleurs are interested in “uncovering the invisible artifacts of power and culture” (p. 317) that undergirds research processes.

Against this backdrop, this manuscript interrogates how the theoretical leanings of individual researchers influence a collaborative study on college student success, an area of investigation well known in postsecondary education. In particular, matters of student success have long capti- vated scholars and practitioners in the interest of bolstering outcomes like retention and persist- ence (Kuh et al., 2005; Museus & Jayakumar, 2012; Perna & Thomas, 2008; Schreiner et al., 2012). And yet, how researchers investigate student success widely varies, framing the concept as driven by the individual and/or as a construct shaped by institutional barriers (Harper, 2012; P�erez et al., 2017). Because how student success is presented in the literature has strong implica- tions for practice and policy, it is necessary to examine how scholars’ unique lenses inform the inquiry process, especially if they strive to embrace connectivity and paradigm proliferation (Lather, 2006) in a collaborative research project.

Using Jackson and Mazzei (2012, 2013) thinking with theory as methodology, this project investigates the process of conducting a qualitative study on student success with an explicit focus on how researchers’ individual selves affect the interpretation of participants’ stories. Pulling together our distinct researcher working theoretical/conceptual perspectives, we explored how intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1989, 1991), Black feminisms (e.g. Collins, 1990; Hull et al., 1982), and anti-deficit thinking (Harper, 2012; Valencia, 2010) manifested when examining cen- tralized data from The Pedagogy of Student Success Project, a project created to understand higher education graduate students’ evolving conceptualizations of student success. Our research questions were thus:

1. How do researchers’ theoretical leanings influence their understandings of student suc- cess data?

2. How does collaborating on research shape scholars’ interpretations of student success data?

Origins and purpose of this study

Before diving into the investigation at heart, we as authors find it important to offer context about how this study emerged as we believe that this foundation will inform the utility of this research for readers. Namely, further explained below in our Study Design section, the three authors are a part of a larger research group investigating how higher education graduate stu- dents apply perspectives from a course on student success to their practice. The class largely centered on Harper’s (2012) anti-deficit achievement framework as a means to understand fac- tors that contribute to students’ success, although it incorporated other readings and ideas. As a research team, our conversations and analysis also used Harper’s (2012) ADAF as a guiding tool. However, in our team meetings, the group started to notice that members were approaching the data with other implicit frameworks in mind. For instance, Dr. Duran regularly brought up

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF QUALITATIVE STUDIES IN EDUCATION 2037

mention of intersectionality, Dr. Okello of Black feminisms, and Dr. P�erez frequently viewed the data from the ADAF vantage point. As a result, we as researchers became curious how individu- als may hold and employ theoretical leanings in a collaborative qualitative inquiry project—even if it is not done explicitly.

Consequently, we wondered what it would mean to make the implicit actually explicit, lead- ing to our two research questions in this paper (i.e., how do individual theoretical leanings influ- ence understandings of student success data and how do research collaborations shape one’s theoretical leanings). We assert that this study will be valuable as it sheds light on the effects of engaging in collaborative research on topics like student success. In particular, we were inter- ested in revealing how our individual theoretical leanings are both central to our ways of approaching data analysis, while at the same time, permeable based on our relationships with fellow researchers. At the heart of this investigation is comprehending how one’s unique lenses shape how they understand student success and how relationships in a group may further inform these perspectives. Additionally, this manuscript will be of interest to scholars and practi- tioners hoping to foster student success, as it illustrates the ways in which one’s frames inform how they conceptualize the concept and the necessity of embracing different theoretical per- spectives in the process.

A brief overview of college student success research

In order to set the stage for this present exploration, we find it necessary to first overview the existing research on college student success and how scholars have framed their studies. Importantly, how student success is defined often depends on the disciplinary approach (Schreiner et al., 2012) and typically falls under two areas. These subtopics include student suc- cess as individually driven and those that believe that the construct is shaped by institutional and environmental barriers.

To begin, initial conceptualizations of student success in college were typically tied to metrics tied to individual achievement (Astin, 1985, 1993; Kuh et al., 2006; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991, 2005). In this view, success is a direct result of a person’s own motivations and responsibilities. Importance was placed on topics such as grade point averages (GPA) and student involvement given their connections to outcomes such as retention and persistence (Mayhew et al., 2016). In fact, the earlier discourses on student success were largely tied to why students were departing prematurely from higher education institutions (Tinto, 1987). Oftentimes, the studies supporting these perspectives were quantitative in nature, upholding a postpositivistic lens (Bensimon, 2007). The focus of scholars within this area of study was to have students move through and graduate from college, highly concerned with degree completion. Departing from this initial con- ceptualization, other researchers like Schreiner (2010) have advanced visions of student success that still center on the individual but embrace metrics outside of degree completion. Drawing upon psychological influences, Schreiner (2010) contended that success has to account for cogni- tive and psychological domains, capturing how individuals need to be psychologically well and connected to communities in order to be successful. However, the issue associated with this per- spective is that if the sole focus is that an individual is autonomous and has the capacity for stu- dent success, they are also blamed if they do not reach these metrics.

Therefore, another school of thought connected to student success that has emerged in recent years involves recognizing how institutional structures create or hinder the capability for people to be successful (Harper, 2012; Museus, 2014; P�erez et al., 2017). Rather than seeing indi- viduals as the reason for their lack of success, this view advances an anti-deficit approach (Valencia, 1997, 2010) in that environmental factors are foregrounded and implicated. For example, Harper’s (2012) qualitative study on Black males integrated disciplinary influences from psychology, sociology, gender studies, and education, arguing that it is necessary to keep in

2038 A. DURAN ET AL.

mind pre-college, collegiate, and post-collegiate factors to understand student success. In his anti-deficit achievement framework (ADAF), Harper named the various influences that inform stu- dent success like K-12 schools, collegiate classrooms, and out-of-class engagement. In this per- spective, success is multifaceted and is not solely dependent on the individual. Similarly, Museus (2014) developed a model of student success that accounted for culturally engaging campus environments and other external factors. From his standpoint, it is the role of the institution to create environments that attend to people’s cultural knowledge in an effort to bolster their suc- cess. What this body of literature reveals is that student success research is continuously evolving and has strong implications for the ways that faculty, staff, and students attempt to cultivate suc- cess in collegiate settings. However, each of these studies frequently presents student success as a one-dimensional concept, not exploring the different forms that student success can take.

Study design

To approach this investigation, we mobilized Jackson and Mazzei (2012, 2013) conceptualization of thinking with theory. As a methodological approach, thinking with theory invites researchers to reveal the multiple meanings that exist in data, rather than succumbing to “the desire to cre- ate a coherent and interesting narrative that is bound by themes and patterns” (Jackson & Mazzei, 2012, p. viii). As a practice, thinking with theory involves a process of “plugging in” where researchers place various frameworks in conversation with their data. Doing so resists the theory/practice divide that frequently occurs in qualitative research in which scholars fail to show the complexities that exist in data. When scholars challenge the belief that singular mean- ings exist in participants’ stories and instead plug in different theoretical standpoints, they can reach a place known as the “threshold” where data is “continuously transformed” (p. 6). Thinking with theory was thus appropriate to design this study as we sought to comprehend how our individual lenses could lead to different meanings of student success. Of note, we address our positionalities and theoretical leanings in a subsequent section titled, “Our Journeys Through this Project.”

Epistemological foundations

As an epistemological project, thinking with theory necessitated that we do what Jackson and Mazzei (2012) referred to as “working with/against interpretivism” (p. vii). That is, whereas inter- pretivist researchers attempt to comprehend what participants mean by analyzing their stories (Schwandt, 1994), thinking with theory strays away from a belief that data communicates one coherent voice. Instead, thinking with theory embraces a poststructural belief that “data are par- tial, incomplete, and always in a process of re-telling and re-membering” (p. ix). Related to this research, as Scheurich and Young (1997) discussed, we presumed that we are all products of a social history and have come to know within that context. This framing of our epistemological viewpoints encouraged us to understand how we as individual researchers interpreted partici- pants’ narratives in unique ways and thus led to our differential perceptions of student success. Additionally, it pushed us to consider how our understandings of the individual theoretical lean- ings we held evolved as we engaged collaboratively with one another.

Data source

Data for this project originated from The Pedagogy of Student Success Project (TPSSP), a longitu- dinal research study investigating how exposing graduate students to Harper’s (2012) anti-deficit achievement framework shapes their understanding of student success. Important to note is that this current project is a secondary analysis of this larger research study. Dr. P�erez, the primary

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF QUALITATIVE STUDIES IN EDUCATION 2039

investigator of TPSSP and course instructor, used the ADAF to identify topics addressed in this course. In addition to exploring perspectives on deficit thinking (Valencia (1997, 2010), graduate students critically analyzed sociological (Winkle-Wagner, 2010; Yosso, 2005), cultural (Museus & Jayakumar, 2012; Quaye & Harper, 2015), organizational (Bensimon & Malcolm, 2012; Kezar, 2012), and psychological (Okello & P�erez, 2018; Schreiner et al., 2012) theories related to student success in higher education. Building on Harper’s (2012) framework, the curriculum was purposefully designed around

… three pipeline points (pre-college socialization and readiness, college achievement, and post-college success) as well as eight researchable dimensions of achievement (familial factors, K-12 school forces, out-of-school college prep resources, classroom experiences, out-of-class engagement, enriching educational experiences, graduate school enrollment, and career readiness). (p. 5)

Dr. P�erez extended this framework by including content related to civic engagement, which is an important post-college success outcome (Bowman et al., 2015; Guinier, 2015). Dr. P�erez did not make any significant revisions to the curriculum while conducting this study.

During the fall (2016), Dr. P�erez began collecting data from students enrolled in EDL 696 at Miami University (MU), a 3-credit graduate-level course designed to expose students to empiric- ally grounded anti-deficit perspectives on undergraduates from marginalized communities. All participants were full-time graduate students in the Student Affairs and Higher Education pro- gram at MU. Based on the availability of data, we as authors focused our analysis on participants in the first graduate cohort (see Table 1).

Participants consented to have three reflection papers serve as data. These reflection papers addressed one question: How do I define student success in higher education? The three reflec- tion papers varied in length and were submitted as course assignments during the first, seventh, and last week of the course. Whereas the initial reflection paper submitted by the students was 1–2 pages, the second paper (3–4 pages) and final paper (5–9 pages) provided in-depth accounts of how their conceptualizations of success evolved as a result of the course. Additionally, partici- pants consented to complete an interview with a member of the TPSSP research team to explore whether this course informed their practice as full-time professionals. For example, we asked par- ticipants the following questions: You’ve been working professionally for approximately one year and I’m wondering if your definition (or understanding) of student success has evolved? As a professional, to what extent have you been able to apply what you learned in EDL 696 to your practice. What do you perceive is the role of student affairs in fostering student success in higher education?

At the time of this study, we completed and transcribed interviews with eight participants in the first cohort. Members of the TPSSP research team, which included Dr. Duran and Dr. Okello, were still conducting interviews with participants in the second cohort. Hence, we did not have access to data for all participants in this study. As we engaged in conversations as a larger research team, the three authors on this manuscript discovered a need to better elucidate how our theoretical leanings informed our interpretations on the team. Consequently, this present project emerged.

Table 1. Data collection timeline by cohort.

Graduate Cohort 1 Graduate Cohort 2 Graduate Cohort 3

Year 1 interview Summer (2018) Summer (2019) aFall (2020) Year 3 interview bSpring (2021) Summer (2021) Summer (2022) Year 5 interview Summer (2022) Summer (2023) Summer (2024) Year 7 interview Summer (2024) Summer (2025) Summer (2026) Year 9 interview Summer (2026) Summer (2027) Summer (2028) aData collection postponed due to the Coronavirus pandemic. bSee previous note.

2040 A. DURAN ET AL.

Data collection and analysis for the present investigation

With our research question in mind, we began the project by individually writing a 3-4 page memo answering the following two questions: (a) How do we conceptualize student success? and (b) What has influenced our understanding of student success in higher education? Doing so was imperative to situating ourselves in this project, bringing to light the experiences and frameworks that we have previously used to make sense of student success. Following this initial memo, we made the decision to identify information-rich cases (Patton, 2014) from The Pedagogy of Student Success Project dataset in order to elucidate our theoretical leanings. We selected Beyonc�e, a straight Black woman, and Harper1, a gay Black man, who both graduated in the 2017 cohort, because they allowed us to critically examine the convergences and divergen- ces across our theoretical perspectives (e.g. intersectionality, Black feminisms, and anti-deficit thinking). Whereas Beyonc�e and Harper’s shared racial identities allowed us to explore the ways their experiences coalesced, we were also able to draw comparisons to student success literature on racially minoritized populations (Museus & Jayakumar, 2012). Moreover, we were able to explore differences in their experiences based on other identities (e.g., gender). Finally, selecting two individuals permitted us to get to intimately explore these participants’ data in relationship to our theoretical leanings.

After selecting the two participants for this investigation, we then approached this project by engaging in a cyclical process of analyzing the reflection journals, writing analytical memos, and then participating in debriefing conversations. We began by reading through the first reflection journal that Beyonc�e and Harper wrote at the beginning of the semester. We individually made preliminary annotations in the margins of these journals, writing down how we were making sense of their perceptions of student success. In essence, we were plugging in (Jackson & Mazzei, 2012, 2013) our interpretations and lenses into the data. Jackson and Mazzei (2013) rejected a systematic approach to plugging in, writing that it is a “process of making and unmasking the thing” (p. 1). For this reason, we regularly returned to our annotations, adding notes and making edits. Following this step, we wrote memos that were approximately 4–5 pages about our own meaning making of the participants’ journals, reflecting on how our own theoretical leanings influenced our thoughts. Next, we left comments on each other’s memos before coming together to discuss our thoughts collectively in a debriefing conversation. The debriefing conversation was recorded, lasting approximately an hour and a half. We repeated this same process for the subsequent two reflection journals.

Once we completed our analysis of the reflection journals, we then wrote a final reflection memo in which we detailed our thoughts on this project relevant to our research question. Similar to the procedure above, we provided comments on each other’s memos, presenting questions and offering dis/agreeing thoughts. Then, we conducted a final debriefing conversa- tion where we discussed our thoughts on this project guided by the constructs presented by thinking with theory.

Who the participants were

To set the stage for insights derived from this project, we offer brief overviews of the partici- pants’ narratives through their three reflection papers. Though no overview of their stories would be complete, we include these introductions as a way for readers to be grounded in their experi- ences before we share our reflections on how we made meaning of their data.

Beyonc�e

In her first reflection paper, Beyonc�e began this inquiry with the notion that student success was grounded in the experiences students create and take on while in college. She emphasized the

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF QUALITATIVE STUDIES IN EDUCATION 2041

importance of students “com[ing] up with their own definition of success.” Notably, she empha- sized that educators played an integral role in creating and sustaining environments that help students thrive during college. Beyonc�e started her second reflection by noting that student suc- cess depends upon a partnership between the student and the institution. She used the lan- guage of both entities needing to take responsibility for their role in student success, writing that colleges and universities should provide students with “ample opportunities to take respon- sibility for their learning.” In addition, she suggested, “marginalized students … have to be aware … [of] larger systems of inequality.” In reflection paper three, Beyonc�e admitted that she was not “completely steadfast” about her initial conceptualizations of student success. Sensing a need for more institutional accountability with regard to experiences like study abroad, she noted “… an institution likely needs to do more than merely ‘offer’ this experience to students. Instead they should figure out ways to actively engage students with this experience.” She pos- ited that faculty and staff must assume greater responsibility for engaging students in high- impact experiences, such as study abroad and service learning.

Harper

In his first paper, Harper entered this inquiry focused on individualist notions of student success, noting that students should be able to pursue goals “at their own pace” and “without restrictions.” Harper made mention in his first reflection about the importance of social identities (e.g. race/ethnicity, gender). Moreover, he noted that student affairs practitioners can play an integral role in helping students navigate barriers that undermine the success of students with minoritized identities. In Harper’s second reflection, he observed how the course was influencing his thinking. Initially, he focused on students’ individual pursuit of success and shifted to an emphasis on institutional barriers, as well as how the biases of educators and practitioners play a role in student success. Furthermore, he believed institutions should be creating equity-minded initiatives to support disenfranchised students. Harper’s third reflection captured his shift to an institutional lens when thinking about student success. Accordingly, Harper stated that changing student success perspectives would involve addressing educators’ inherent biases. Harper argued that this action is necessary in order to further an equity-minded view of student success. To accomplish this, Harper pointed to the benefits of employing models based on cultural wealth (Yosso, 2005). Harper not only asserted that this was recommended; rather, he viewed it as imperative that educators integrate asset-based perspectives in policies and structures.

Our journeys through this project

Integral to this project is the belief that who a researcher is, where they come from, what identi- ties they hold, and how they approach knowledge production informs the inquiry process. As noted previously, the first step that we took in this research involved us reflecting on our own theoretical leanings that we often adopt in our work as scholars invested in the study of higher education. To make our standpoints explicit to readers, we offer abridged statements detailing who we are and what lenses we brought to this project. We follow the introduction of our theor- etical leanings with a discussion on how these dispositions influenced how we read Beyonc�e and Harper’s reflection papers.

Antonio Duran

Throughout this research, Dr. Duran reflected on his identities as a queer Latino cisgender man and his strong tie to intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1989, 1991) as a theoretical framework. As a queer person of color, Dr. Duran has long been invested in the study of student success specific

2042 A. DURAN ET AL.

to those minoritized on the basis of race/ethnicity, sexuality, and gender. He entered into this investigation from an intersectional framework, an analytical approach positing that overlapping systems of power and oppression constitute the realities of those with multiple minoritized iden- tities (Crenshaw, 1989, 1991). Namely, he considered how three forms of intersectionality—struc- tural (how policies disenfranchise people), political (how social movements have historically erased those with multiple minoritized identities), and representational (how cultural discourses negatively portray minoritized groups) (see Crenshaw, 1991)—manifested in Beyonc�e and Harper’s stories.

As Dr. Duran read Beyonc�e and Harper’s first reflection papers, he felt disconcerted at the fact that these students were not employing a structural analysis to define student success. He saw them focusing on student success as the responsibility of an individual rather than a construct shaped by intersecting systems of power and oppression. Dr. Duran began to perceive this level of analysis manifesting more through their second papers, but he also started to question the degree to which his personal reading of intersectionality led him to disparagingly read the par- ticipants’ interpretations. In other words, he wondered: was he placing value judgments on their analysis because their writing did not neatly align with intersectionality’s focus on structural inequality? It was in his conversation with Dr. Okello and Dr. P�erez after reading the third reflec- tion paper that he realized that his lens of intersectional theorizing could be used differently, while also recognizing the benefits of other theories contributed by his co-authors.

Wilson Kwamogi Okello

Across this analysis, Dr. Okello considered what it meant to be a Black cisgender man who takes up the work of material Black feminisms (Collins, 1990; Sharpe, 2016; Spillers, 1987) in his theoriz- ing. For Dr. Okello, naming the systems that function to impede success/survival is crucial and serves the purpose of legitimating the multiple and varied shapeshifting (Cox, 2015) maneuvers that Black folx employ to negotiate these systems. Importantly, Black feminisms require that in our thinking about survival, one is ever mindful of the possibilities of joy. Accordingly, he approached this interrogation of student success with an eye on the relationship between his- tory, the body, and epistemology, and what it means for students’ agency in the process of reaching their definitions of success.

Engaging with the first set of reflections, Dr. Okello noticed the influence of his theoretical underpinnings by highlighting Beyonc�e’s acknowledgment of experience as central to how one understands success. In pointing to her language of “opportunities and memories,” this communi- cated the importance of having time to reflect on one’s experiences as a way to define success. With regard to Harper’s first reflection, Dr. Okello was drawn to the notion of subjectivity and Harper’s acknowledgment of the deeply ingrained ways oppression works in the psyche. Carrying over into the second set of reflections, Dr. Okello brought attention to history, the body, and epis- temology in complex readings of Beyonc�e and Harper. Sensing that both Beyonc�e and Harper were wrestling with their lived definitions of success in conversation with their emergent learning, Dr. Okello wondered if “Black folx are seduced into following neoliberal logics that are not able to affirm them at their core.” In the final set of reflections, Dr. Okello appeared to be drawing more connections to systemic issues, reflecting the influence of Dr. Duran and Dr. P�erez. Specifically, Dr. Okello commented on race-conscious engagement practices in Beyonc�e’s narrative, and Harper’s insistence that educators address “infrastructure and the ideology” in their work with students.

David P�erez II

Dr. P�erez began this project reflecting on the anti-deficit achievement framework (Harper, 2012), given that he regularly takes up this perspective in his own work on high-achieving Latino

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF QUALITATIVE STUDIES IN EDUCATION 2043

undergraduate males. As someone who attended underresourced public schools growing up and who identifies as a Latino male himself, Dr. P�erez is committed to understanding how educa- tional institutions do or do not contribute to the success of underserved students. Moreover, since Dr. P�erez was the primary investigator on The Pedagogy of Student Success Project and taught the class using the ADAF as a framework, he had a unique perspective in this study.

In particular, Dr. P�erez found himself questioning his initial view of the TPSSP data when read- ing Beyonc�e and Harper’s first reflection paper. Although he saw both participants discussing how individuals were responsible for their success, he also noted how they spoke about the role of outside influences such as educators. As he analyzed their second reflection paper, Dr. P�erez started to see limitations with the ADAF when interpreting the participants’ stories. Specifically, Dr. P�erez wrote in his own memo, “this framework does not necessarily make issues related to power, oppression … explicit.” As he approached the analysis of the final paper, Dr. P�erez noted how his perspectives on the data had shifted drastically based on the conversations with the other two authors. He was interested in exploring how perspectives on intersectionality, Black feminisms, and anti-deficit thinking could be integrated to advance inquiry related to student success in higher education.

Insights

Thinking with theory, as a methodological approach, has implications for how data is read, understood, and interpreted. Threading the central propositions of this framework throughout this study, for Dr. P�erez, raised the critical question, “Can one’s theoretical leanings shift in the midst of a study?” A different take on this question, informed by thinking with theory, might ask: how does one’s theoretical leaning shift during a study when we consider the process of plug- ging in, a process of continuously reimagining different interpretations of data? Herein, several insights, connections, and departures emerged in our analysis of student success using intersec- tionality, Black feminisms, and anti-deficit thinking respectively. Namely, the analysis revealed revelations, reckonings, and agreements amongst the researchers, representing the various thresholds that manifested (Jackson & Mazzei, 2012). Revelations name the ways researchers were nudged out of their standpoint and invited to consider differing perspectives. Reckonings describe researchers’ confrontations with the incompleteness of their standpoint. Finally, although critical explications varied from paragraph to paragraph, agreements describe how researchers found synergy in their theoretical underpinnings.

Revelations

Dr. P�erez, in one of the reflective dialogues, remarked, “over time, it is becoming harder for me to focus on the ADAF.” His comment offered critical insight into the collaborative nature of thinking with theory and what it calls on researchers to do as partners and interlocutors in the research process. That it was becoming “harder to focus” on the ADAF seems to suggest that for Dr. P�erez, engaging in consistent theoretical exchange with intersectionality and Black feminisms stretched his thinking in new and creative ways. In this way, revelations were a consistent theme across the analysis. Revelations in the analysis are indicative of the limitations of rooting oneself in opposition to multiple tools of analysis. Building on Anzald�ua (1987), who asserted, “it is not enough to stand on the opposite river bank, shouting questions … a counter stance locks one into a duel” (p. 78), revelations in the analysis embraced the messiness of theory positions, pur- posefully blurring theoretical boundaries to embrace and extend one’s theorizing. Dr. Duran articulated this point in response to Dr. P�erez’s thoughts on seeing the data in new ways, saying, "your core is shifting, because we as people are growing, we shift the lens in which we are look- ing at … what I really hear you saying is that it is possible to change one’s theoretical

2044 A. DURAN ET AL.

groundings, one’s theoretical lenses.” Dr. Duran utilized the language of "shift" and "growth" as monikers for a new revelation of one’s core beliefs as they encounter varied axiological positions. Reflecting on his core beliefs, Dr. Duran wrote,

It was a comment by Dr. P�erez that started to get me thinking differently: “Is there a way to bring together the ADAF, intersectionality, and Black feminisms ?” In what ways did my incessant focus on systems of power move me toward projecting certain beliefs onto these narratives? Moreover, how were my views on power and student success narrow?

For Dr. Duran, dialogic exchange prompted an understanding “that the ADAF was not inher- ently tied to issues of power." He continued, "Moreover, Dr. Okello’s view of Black feminisms also challenged me to see how power and the perceptions of experiences were manifesting but in different ways that I was seeing.”

In Dr. Okello’s reflection journal, revelations are apparent in the ways he began to explicitly name deficit thinking and the connection of these orientations to issues of power. He wrote, “While I was acutely aware of scripts beneath the surface across the data, I began to name the power structures and the responsibilities of institutions to more meaningfully contribute to the success of students.” Referring to his deliberations with intersectionality, he continued, “I was, how- ever, struck by his [Harper’s] belief that ‘we are at the table’ such that [we] control the rewards, futures, and developments of the university. Analysis of power helped to reveal the limitations of Harper’s belief here.” The ADAF, which asks educators and researchers to reconsider the assump- tions that undergird one’s beliefs about students, in concert with intersectionality and its attention to how power and oppression overlap, made for layered and critical readings of the data.

Importantly, thinking with theory, in some ways, augmented researchers’ foundational beliefs about student success. Dr. P�erez, for instance, noted, “the process of engaging in this collabora- tive project has reinforced [beliefs about the ADAF] … it’s not that I do not believe these things are not at play. But it helps me; it just gave me a richer, deeper understanding.” This deeper understanding is evident in the following meditation on Beyonc�e:

I felt these tensions, like living in the in-between, that I thought she did well, and then, she at one point talks about racial consciousness and says, she ‘wrestled with doing that because you do not want to be read as the angry black woman.’ And for me, therein lies something about Black Feminist Thought.

This language presumes that a process took place, evinced by the reflections above, that would serve to strengthen particular ways of approaching student success.

Growth, as the integration and collision of multiple frames, both enhancing and reaffirming one’s core beliefs, was, seemingly, more than an intellectual project. More than that, it occurred beyond the surface, at the crux of one’s values and suppositions. This particular angle of vision engenders discussion on how revelations are not only informing one’s theoretical positions but, too, their embodied locations. Dr. Okello clarified this point when he said, “Theory is not some- thing we just do but something that happens to us.” He continued, saying:

I think it is happening to you; you are developing a particular language and sight and the ability to see differently. Earlier on, I might have been the one to point out some of the ways in which Beyonc�e was embodying this theory … But now to hear you say, two reflections papers later , “I see it, I can identify the ways she was building black feminisms. I think it’s telling. Exposure is one thing, but I think even as we are talking through it, it is also happening.”

Revelations, here, as a theoretical and embodied project, appear to enhance how one can see and interpret data, while also prompting critical reflexivity and reckonings.

Reckonings

Thinking with theory as a framework invited critical questioning. Researchers across this collab- orative project came face-to-face with some of the ways their practiced perspectives of student

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF QUALITATIVE STUDIES IN EDUCATION 2045

success were infused in their various interpretations and, perhaps, how exposure to different per- spectives (i.e. intersectionality and Black feminisms) revealed the limitations of their theoretical frames. Relatedly, at points, researchers accepted the centrality of their perspectives, framing it as a unique opportunity for the methodological approach to shed new insights. Thus, reckonings illustrate the tensions that researchers noticed or felt as they grappled with the data and each other.

Concerning the potentialities of the chosen methodological approaches, Dr. Okello stated,

Maybe there are not specific points of connection, and I think that is a good thing. It means that the ADAF lens provides us with something that feminisms broadly don’t, which means that intersectionality provides us with something that black feminisms does not, right? [W]e will be able to say, here are the multiple layers, here’s a more complex picture of Beyonc�e and Harper given these particular theories… are not talking to each other, but I do think they are working together to provide the complex picture that we are asking.

This reflection, during the researchers’ first meeting in this collaborative process, highlighted the essence of thinking with theory. Dr. Duran, adding to this thought, discussed thinking with theory as “viewing data from multiple theoretical backgrounds, giving it new life and showing that a multiplicity of meaning can exist within the same passage.” Departing slightly from the theory, Dr. Duran queried, “I wonder how we do this all the time… [T]his conversation and the memos … brought to light some of the hidden theoretical foundations that I did not originally write about, but that are there, right?” Recognizing how his preferred theoretical approach was coming to fore in the data analysis, Dr. Duran wrote:

I felt myself imposing my ideas about what student success entailed and saw intersectional erasure as it relates to their [Beyonc�e and Harper] comments. In doing so, I placed value judgment on their thinking, potentially going against the very anti-deficit ways of theorizing that Dr. P�erez so often put forward. It was in this collaborative relationship that my ways of knowing changed.

In this passage, it is clear that Dr. Duran was viewing his approach differently because of the interactions he had with his fellow two researchers. He continued, asking, “In what ways did my incessant focus on systems of power move me toward projecting certain beliefs onto these nar- ratives? Moreover, how were my views on power and student success narrow?” Hence, research- ers were reckoning with the importance of naming one’s theoretical positions as a necessary component of the research process. Strikingly, though they seemed to be aware of this notion early in the process, there were moments, initiated by the methodological approach, that revealed the subtle manner in which one’s identity and theoretical positions can inadvertently track throughout the research process.

Additionally, we as researchers saw through the reflection that this process required that employing intersectionality, Black feminisms, and anti-deficit thinking provided different lan- guage for interpreting the data. Dr. P�erez captured this sentiment, positing that student’s engagement with ADAF in class “created a way of understanding that [deficit perspectives] and… content from the course gave Beyonc�e language to describe something that… may or may not have been known to her.” Notably, he commented on the power and possibilities of this new language, saying,

I’m not even suggesting that the ADAF or intersectionality, and/or Black feminisms, is the language, but it does give me a sense of the power in that, you know, the possibility to recognize that [the data] in a different way.

This passage is noteworthy in that though intersectionality, Black feminisms, and anti-deficit thinking operate as critical frameworks in and of themselves, researchers’ reflexive shadows may limit the full use of their theoretical energies. Each of these theoretical frameworks, respectively, possess the wherewithal to mine findings beyond their applications. How each theory is taken up, however, as part and parcel of the researcher’s reflexivity, places limitations on them. This

2046 A. DURAN ET AL.

revelation is a nod to thinking with theory as it pushed researchers to plunge and excavate their theoretical underpinnings and biases.

In this vein, researchers questioned one’s capacity to break with their practiced theoretical approaches. Dr. Duran addressed this sentiment, stating, “Plugging in also feels very limiting, because it feels like we can separate ourselves from theory.” Separating ourselves from theory suggests that one can bracket their theoretical leanings such that they make room for another theory to guide one’s analytical approach. Alternatively, researchers seemed to arrive at a place in thinking with theory, where one could hold on to their particular perspective while simultan- eously wrestling with others.

Agreements

Exploring student success through various theoretical frames yielded multiple meanings of the data. Yet, analysis of the reflections and conversations also identified overlaps and agreements between researchers. Dr. P�erez, sensing in the initial reflection that this might be the case, asked: “I wonder if there are … points of connection to your position … to the theoretical perspective that informed the way that you see [student success] because I think we are saying the same thing.” More pointedly, he asked, “Is there a way to bring together the ADAF, intersectionality, and Black feminisms?” Interrogating Beyonc�e and Harper’s reflections on student success did pro- voke researcher imaginings about points of convergence. For example, Dr. Okello’s Black feminist reading found commonality with Dr. P�erez’s use of the ADAF in some instances. The following reflective passage captured similar readings of Beyonc�e. Dr. Okello wrote:

Although she [Beyonc�e] uses the language of idealism, I sense that this use is far more critical than what she wrote. I gather this because of her discussion on anti-Eurocentric curriculum. Dr. P�erez is drawn to this notion of idealism as well. Dr. P�erez queried: ‘Beyonc�e believes that successful college students have to take responsibility for their actions. This raises more questions about her idealistic view of student success. Although she acknowledged myriad factors that result in student success, I wonder if Beyonc�e was suggesting that the ‘odds were stacked against students from marginalized communities.’

Demonstrating the ways Black feminist theorizing may work with an ADAF analysis, Dr. Okello and Dr. P�erez seem to be referring to longer histories of subjugation that minoritized students experience in a western, United States context. For Dr. Okello and Dr. P�erez, idealism is a compli- cated term, signaling oversimplified assumptions about success for minoritized students, as their “responsibility” is undermined by systems of oppression.

Notably,Dr, Okello and Dr. P�erez were reading beneath the surface. Whereas Dr. Okello was attending to the body, history, and epistemology, Dr. P�erez focused on deficit framings of suc- cess. In a dialogue about similarities, Dr. P�erez offered another example of the ways the ADAF may subtly align with the aims of intersectionality. He posited:

[D]eficit-based questions are shaped intentionally and unintentionally by racist ideologies about Black students. That is not explicit … There’s no way that shows up. But Beyonc�e talks about how racism and sexism shaped her own experiences in education, and why she made certain decisions—why she chose to go to a PWI, why she purposely engaged in campus activities. Some of that was around debunking stereotypes about Black students. I think there is a connection to intersectionality.

Dr. P�erez maintained, “there’s an unarticulated assumption about this framework that [was never] unpacked, which is around racist research.” Though the ADAF as a conceptual approach does not explicitly take up intersectional analysis, a closer look at what undergirds the ADAF, particularly anti-deficit scholarship (Valencia, 1997, 2010), revealed the ways the two approaches can be aligned. Mainly, deficit thinking is framed by six characteristics: (1) blaming the victim; (2) oppression; (3) pseudoscience; (4) temporal changes; (5) educability; and (6) heterodoxy (Valencia, 1997). Oppression and heterodoxy, which rests on historically dominant paradigms (i.e. orthodoxy) as the ruling logic of the contemporary moment, are consistent with

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF QUALITATIVE STUDIES IN EDUCATION 2047

intersectionality’s analytic purpose, articulated by Dr. Duran as the “examination of how power is maintained in higher education. It is not simply the policies and practices, but also the ways that groups are positioned against one another or the dominant images created of individuals, that relate to this intersectional theorizing.” Furthermore, the ADAF’s attention to blaming the victim and pseudoscience are consistent with Black feminisms’ focus on historicizing the body and naming the various misreadings that are attached to minoritized lives across history. Dr. P�erez noted this connection while reflecting on Beyonc�e’s Black feminist theorizing and dispositions, stating, “she did draw on anti-deficit research to make sense of her experiences, and to imagine possibilities or new ways to approach her practice,” demonstrating the ways the two frameworks (i.e. Black feminisms and the Anti-Deficit Achievement Framework) advance similar epi- stemic interests.

Similarly, thinking with theory demonstrated the ability to provide varying layers of analysis that work together to present a fuller picture of the data. Dr. Duran discussed this point while reflecting on intersectionality and Black feminisms, postulating:

I will own that it is perhaps my readings of or the ways that I’m conceptualizing intersectionality in this process… Because we know that intersectionality emerges from a tradition of Black feminism and women of color feminisms, but perhaps because of its location, as original, at least in the Crenshaw tradition of being located in critical legal studies, that I am perhaps looking at thinking about this from a more right structural policy role.

This insight was concerning Dr. Okello’s Black feminist readings of Beyonc�e and Harper, which, more frequently, located the agentic person existing in structural inequality, whereas an intersec- tional analysis examined structural barriers or the lack of explicit conversation about systems of oppression. Both findings, as Dr. Okello concluded, were accurate, and “at best always working together,” but when they are not, thinking with theory provided a sophisticated understanding that made up for one’s theoretical leanings.

Discussion and implications

Guided by Jackson and Mazzei (2012, 2013) conceptualization of thinking with theory, this pro- ject showcases how data detailing how individuals view student success does not inherently hold a singular meaning. Specifically, this project extends past an interpretivist stance in which researchers attempt to comprehend the voice of a participant (Schwandt, 1994). Instead, we as individuals recognized that we implicitly read Beyonc�e and Harper’s stories informed by our the- oretical leanings. It was in our conversations with one another that we started to see the limita- tions of our theoretical frames and revealed our ways of understanding in the process, a direct result of the idea of “plugging in” that thinking with theory offers. In this section, we elaborate on these points and why they are particularly important as it relates to the qualitative study of college student success.

To begin, college student success research has continuously evolved over the past few deca- des (Kuh et al., 2005; Museus & Jayakumar, 2012; Perna & Thomas, 2008; Schreiner et al., 2012). Increasingly, studies on student success have advanced the need to move away from its postpo- sitivist origins (Astin, 1985, 1993; Kuh et al., 2006; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991, 2005) to an anti- deficit perspective; this lens is one that does not solely position the student as the reason for their (lack of) success but instead also recognizes the presence of structural barriers affecting their capacity to succeed (Patton & Museus, 2019; Valencia, 1997, 2010). And still, anti-deficit thinking itself is complex, holding a variety of meanings (Patton & Museus, 2019). In fact, inter- sectionality (Crenshaw, 1989, 1991), Black feminisms (Collins, 1990; Hull et al., 1982), and anti-def- icit thinking (Harper, 2012; Valencia, 1997, 2010) each implicate the role that systems and structures play in shaping the lives of individuals. Yet, what this study reveals is that these theo- ries that advance anti-deficit thought themselves each contribute uniquely to perspectives on

2048 A. DURAN ET AL.

student success, especially given their distinct disciplinary origins. Because disciplinary influences substantially shape college student success research (Schreiner et al., 2012), it is important to rec- ognize how disciplinary perspectives held by individuals play a role in qualitative data analysis.

The reckonings that we had throughout this project caused us to reflect on the uniqueness of our theoretical leanings and how this influenced our perspectives on TPSSP data. In essence, the reckonings had us think about our own process of plugging in. At times, this caused us to recog- nize how our theoretical leanings and reliance on particular readings of these theories actually foreclosed the potential of anti-deficit theorizing, as in the case of Dr. Duran’s initial leveraging of intersectionality where he focused too explicitly on trying to see the participants attend to structural forms of oppression. Therefore, this project encourages student success researchers to continue to critically interrogate how they define anti-deficit perspectives and how this definition influences their interpretations of data. Moreover, this research showcases that theoretical frame- works themselves are not static in their analytical potential but instead, are used differently depending on the individual.

Related to this point, this study also underscores the value of viewing data centered on stu- dent success from multiple vantage points, embracing the possibilities that plugging in (Jackson & Mazzei, 2012, 2013) as a practice offers higher education researchers. Specifically, the different approaches that we employed contributed to a more nuanced view of Beyonc�e and Harper’s sto- ries, showcasing the value of engaging diverging lenses (Abes, 2009; Kincheloe & McLaren, 2005; Lather, 2006). As a collaborative project, we found ourselves plugging in our own perspectives that we first identified during our initial reflection memo. In doing so, we acknowledged how our theoretical leanings would be present throughout the project, as it is in qualitative research broadly (England, 1994). Nevertheless, plugging in not only presents an opening up of data, as Jackson and Mazzei (2012, 2013) provided, but it also influenced us as researchers. Exemplified through the revelations that we experienced, plugging in represents an iterative process where both the data and the researcher is affected. Dr. Okello’s comment of how “theory is not just something we do but something that happens to us” underscores this point. This phenomena was particularly salient for us engaging in this research as a collaborative process where we were exposed to each other’s thought processes. This statement has implications for student suc- cess research done both by an individual and that which is collaborative in nature.

For collaborative projects on student success, members of research teams should document what theoretical influences shape their understanding of this construct, reflecting deeply on their disciplinary knowledge and lenses. These assumptions should be made evident throughout the analytical process with people having clear discussions about the explicit and implicit theoretical leanings that they bring as researchers. For instance, moving forward with The Pedagogy of Student Success Project, the research team started to have conversations during data analysis guided by the questions of: (a) What theoretical leanings are you holding as you read through the data? (b) How do you think these leanings are influencing how you are understanding the participants’ stories? This practice can easily be adopted by other research groups. These conver- sations should also leave open the possibility that engaging in a collaborative project can itself influence people’s views, as noted by our own personal revelations.

Additionally, it would be more provocative for researchers in their write-ups of their findings to note where researchers diverged and converged in the analysis in order to present the study of college student success in a more complex manner. Although we agreed in certain places des- pite our unique theoretical standpoints, we also saw the data in different ways. For individuals doing student success research, it would also benefit them to engage in this plugging in process using various theoretical approaches. By showing how theories constitute data and vice-versa, student success can reach new thresholds (Jackson & Mazzei, 2012), having implications for edu- cational research and practice.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF QUALITATIVE STUDIES IN EDUCATION 2049

Conclusion

A researcher’s theoretical leanings and foundations matter; they are always present in and throughout the research process. When theoretical leanings are unexamined, researchers may ignore how one’s values and ways of knowing influence the data. This reflection is imperative in college student success research, as one’s lens substantially shapes what is at play in fostering an individual’s success: the individual, postsecondary institutions, and/or oppressive societal structures (Patton & Museus, 2019). Furthermore, when one’s positionality, in relationship to a chosen theoretical/conceptual perspective, is unattended, theoretical frameworks may not fulfill their purpose. Future research ought to squarely consider how one’s positionality-social identi- ties-are always and already at play in student success research. More than theoretical exploration, the findings from this manuscript denote the critical need for bringing multiple perspectives to bear on student success, as singular standpoints do not fully capture the messiness of the research process. Placing the ADAF (Harper, 2012), foundationally used in The Pedagogy of Student Success Project, in conversation with intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1989, 1991) and Black feminisms (Collins, 1990; Hull et al., 1982), revealed insufficiency of any one perspective to account for the thick realities of student participants, as well as the limitations of research reflex- ivity. Stitching perspectives, through honest and reflective dialogue among researchers, while imperfect, can illuminate necessarily complex interpretations of student success.

Note

1. Participants selected their own pseudonym.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes on contributors

Antonio Duran, Ph.D. is an assistant professor of higher education at Florida International University.

Wilson K. Okello, Ph.D. is an assistant professor of higher education at University of North Carolina, Wilmington.

David P�erez II, Ph.D. is an associate professor of higher education at Syracuse University.

ORCID

Antonio Duran http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3990-6796 Wilson Kwamogi Okello http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5056-1514

References

Abes, E. S. (2009). Theoretical borderlands: Using multiple theoretical perspectives to challenge inequitable power structures in student development theory. Journal of College Student Development, 50(2), 141–156. https://doi. org/10.1353/csd.0.0059

Anzald�ua, G. (1987). Borderlands: La frontera (2nd ed.). Aunt Lute Books. Astin, A. W. (1985). Achieving academic excellence. Jossey-Bass. Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college: Four critical years revisited. Jossey-Bass. Bensimon, E. M. (2007). The underestimated significance of practitioner knowledge in the scholarship on student

success. The Review of Higher Education, 30(4), 441–469. https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2007.0032 Bensimon, E. M., & Malcolm, L. (2012). Confronting equity issues on campus: Implementing the equity scorecard in the-

ory and practice. Stylus.

2050 A. DURAN ET AL.

Bowman, N. A., Park, J. J., & Denson, N. (2015). Student involvement in ethnic student organizations: Examining civic outcomes 6 years after graduation. Research in Higher Education, 56(2), 127–145. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11162-014-9353-8

Collins, P. H. (1990). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. Unwin Hyman.

Cox, M. A. (2015). Shapeshifters: Black girls and the choreography of citizenship. Duke University Press. Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination

doctrine, feminist theory, and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 8(1), 139–167. Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color.

Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229039 England, K. V. L. (1994). Getting personal: Reflexivity, positionality, and feminist research. The Professional

Geographer, 46(1), 80–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0033-0124.1994.00080.x Guinier, L. (2015). The tyranny of the meritocracy: Democratizing higher education in America. Routledge. Harper, S. R. (2012). Black male student success in higher education: A report from the national Black male college

achievement study. Center for the Study of Race and Equity in Education. Hull, G. T., Scott, P. B., & Smith, B. (1982). But some of us are brave: All the women are White, all the Blacks are men:

Black women’s studies. Feminist. Jackson, A. Y., & Mazzei, L. A. (2012). Thinking with theory in qualitative research: Viewing data across multiple per-

spectives. Routledge. Jackson, A. Y., & Mazzei, L. A. (2013). Plugging one text into another: Thinking with theory in qualitative research.

Qualitative Inquiry, 19(4), 261–271. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800412471510 Jones, S. R., Torres, V., & Arminio, J. (2014). Negotiating the complexities of qualitative research in higher education:

Fundamental elements and issues (2nd ed.). Routledge. Kezar, A. J. (2012). Shared leadership for creating campus cultures that support students of color. In S. D. Museus,

& U. M. Jayakumar (Eds.), Creating campus culture: Fostering success among racially diverse student populations (pp. 150–167). Routledge.

Kincheloe, J. L., & McLaren, P. (2005). Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 303–342). Sage.

Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Buckley, J. A., Bridges, B. K., & Hayek, J. C. (2006). What matters to student success: A review of the literature commissioned report for the national symposium on postsecondary student success: Spearheading a dialog on student success. National Postsecondary Education Cooperative.

Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., & Whitt, E. J. (2005). Student success in college: Creating conditions that matter. Jossey-Bass.

Lather, P. (2006). Paradigm proliferation as a good thing to think with: Teaching research in education as wild pro- fusion. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19(1), 35–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 09518390500450144

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage. Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Sage. Mayhew, M. J., Rockenbach, A. N., Bowman, N. A., Seifert, T. A., & Wolniak, G. C. (2016). How college affects students:

21st century evidence that higher education works (Vol. 3). Jossey-Bass. Museus, S. D. (2014). The Culturally Engaging Campus Environments (CECE) Model: A new theory of college success

among racially diverse student populations. In M. B. Paulsen (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 29, pp. 189–227). Springer.

Museus, S. D., & Jayakumar, U. M. (2012). Creating campus culture: Fostering success among racially diverse student populations. Routledge.

Okello, W. K., & P�erez, I. I. D. (2018). “Don’t believe the hype”: Complicating the Thriving Quotient for Latino under- graduate men at selective institutions. About Campus: Enriching the Student Learning Experience, 22(6), 27–31. https://doi.org/10.1002/abc.21312

Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students. Jossey-Bass. Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of research (Vol. 2). Jossey-Bass. Patton, L. D., & Museus, S. (2019). What is deficit thinking? An analysis of conceptualizations of deficit thinking and

implications for scholarly research. National Center for Institutional Diversity. Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4th ed.). Sage. P�erez, D., II, Ashlee, K. C., Do, V. H., Karikari, S. N., & Sim, C. (2017). Re-conceptualizing student success in higher

education: Reflections from graduate student affairs educators using anti-deficit achievement framework. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 28(3), 5–28.

Perna, L. W., & Thomas, S. L. (2008). Theoretical perspectives on student success: Understanding the contributions of the disciplines. ASHE Higher Education Report, 34(1), 1–87.

Quaye, S. J., & Harper, S. R. (Eds.). (2015). Student engagement in higher education: Theoretical perspectives and prac- tical approaches for diverse populations (2nd ed.). Routledge.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF QUALITATIVE STUDIES IN EDUCATION 2051

Scheurich, J. J., & Young, M. D. (1997). Coloring epistemologies: Are our research epistemologies racially biased? Educational Researcher, 26(4), 4–16. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X026004004

Schreiner, L. A. (2010). The “Thriving Quotient. About Campus: Enriching the Student Learning Experience, 15(2), 2–10. https://doi.org/10.1002/abc.20016

Schreiner, L. A., Louis, M. C., & Nelson, D. D. (Eds.). (2012). Thriving in transitions: A research-based approach to col- lege student success. National Resource Center for the First-Year Experience and Students in Transition.

Schreiner, L. A. (2010). The “thriving quotient”: A new vision for student success. About Campus, 15(2), 2–10. https:// doi.org/10.1002/abc.20016

Schwandt, T. A. (1994). Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 118–137). Sage.

Sharpe, C. (2016). In the wake: On blackness and being. Duke University Press. Spillers, H. (1987). Mama’s baby papa’s maybe: An American grammar book. Diacritics, 17(2), 64–81. https://doi.org/

10.2307/464747 Tinto, V. (1987). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition. University of Chicago Press. Valencia, R. (1997). The evolution of deficit thinking: Education, thought, and practice. The Falmer Press. Valencia, R. R. (2010). Dismantling contemporary deficit thinking: Educational thought and practice. Routledge. Winkle-Wagner, R. (2010). Cultural capital: The promises and pitfalls in educational research. ASHE Higher Education

Report Series (no. 36). Jossey-Bass. Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth. Race,

Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69–91.

2052 A. DURAN ET AL.