Complicating Identity Exploration: An Intersectional

Grounded Theory Centering Queer Students of Color at

Historically White Institutions

Antonio Duran, Susan R. Jones

Journal of College Student Development, Volume 61, Number 3, May-June

2020, pp. 281-298 (Article)

Published by Johns Hopkins University Press

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2020.0028

For additional information about this article

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/757699

[ Access provided at 16 Jan 2021 08:08 GMT from USP-Universidade de São Paulo ]
Complicating Identity Exploration: An Intersectional
Grounded Theory Centering Queer Students of
Color at Historically White Institutions
Antonio Duran   Susan R. Jones
Using intersectionality as a framework, we exam­
ined how queer Students of Color at historically
white institutions explored and made meaning
of their intersecting identities in college. This
research employed constructivist grounded theory
to understand how 20 queer Collegians of Color
at various HWIs explained the process of identity
exploration and meaning making. Findings
reveal that overlapping systems of power shaped
identity exploration and that students engaged
in a cycle of (un)learning in relationship to
systemic influences. Stories suggested that by
exploring their identities, participants developed
meaning-making structures needed to filter out
oppressive influences.
 
US higher education professionals have long
considered holistic development as a goal
of postsecondary education, challenging
students to explore their values, ideologies, and
identities (Jones & Abes, 2013; Patton, Renn,
Guido, & Quaye, 2016). One cornerstone
of the student affairs profession includes
theories that explain college student identity,
how people discover who they are in college
(Jones & Abes, 2013). For those attending
college during late adolescence, the campus
represents a place to engage in the task
of identity exploration, described as “re-
think­ing, sorting through, and trying out
various roles and life plans” (Kroger &
Marcia, 2011, p. 33). Yet, identity researchers
historically have overlooked those who hold
multiple minoritized social identities, failing to
Antonio Duran is Assistant Professor of Administration of Higher Education at Auburn University. Susan R. Jones
is Professor of Educational Studies at The Ohio State University.
May–June 2020  ◆  vol 61 / no 3 281
interrogate the influence of systems of power.
With this in mind, we intended for this study
to complicate notions of identity exploration
for an underresearched population in higher
education: queer Students of Color.
Though the amount of research on queer
Students of Color has grown in recent years
(Duran, 2019b), studies that investigate how
these individuals explore who they are in
college are less represented in the literature.
In fact, college student identity theories
regularly suffer from two limitations: (a) they
do not articulate how larger sociohistorical
legacies of oppression shape how students
view themselves (Abes, 2009); and (b) they
examine social identities separately (e.g.,
looking at race or sexuality; Patton et al.,
2016). Because queer Students of Color
encounter racism and heterosexism in college,
especially at historically white institutions
(HWIs; see Blockett, 2017), more research is
needed about how they explore their identities
within these settings. We use HWIs, rather
than predominantly white institutions, PWIs,
echoing Smith, Allen, and Danley (2007):
“The gross numbers or percentages of White
students have less to do with the composition
of the majority populations than it does with
the historical and contemporary racialized
infrastructure that is in place” (p. 574).
The purpose of this constructivist grounded
theory study was to illustrate how queer
Students of Color explored their inter­secting
iden­tities at HWIs, together with how they

engaged in meaning making during this
process (Kegan, 1994). With inter­section­ality
(Crenshaw, 1989) as its theoretical frame­work,
this study sheds light on the ways that systems
of inequality (e.g., racism and hetero­sexism)
informed identity explora­tion for these indi­
viduals. This research thus actualizes the third
wave of student develop­ment theory (Jones &
Stewart, 2016), deploying a critical frame­work
to challenge existing under­standings of college
student identity. Specifically, the following
questions guided the study:
1. How do queer Students of Color explore
their identities during their time at
historically white institutions?
2. How do collegiate experiences play
a role in the process of identity
exploration for queer Students of
Color at HWIs?
3. How do systems of power influence the
process of identity exploration for queer
Students of Color at HWIs?
4. How do queer Students of Color
at HWIs make meaning of their
identities during the process of identity
exploration?
Theoretical Framework
Intersectionality, an analytical tool that
interrogates how overlapping systems of
power disproportionately affect certain popu­
lations (Crenshaw, 1989), served as our
theoretical framework. Though frequently
credited to Kimberlé Crenshaw, scholars trace
intersectionality’s genealogy to histories of
Women of Color feminism, and specifically,
Black women activists (Hancock, 2016).
Intersectional theorizing contends that it is
insufficient to see the experiences of individuals
with multiple minoritized identities solely
by acknowledging one form of domination
(e.g., sexism or racism). Instead, intersectional
282 Journal of College Student Development
Duran & Jones
scholars emphasize that oppressive systems
overlap and differentially impact people based
on their social location. Relevant to this study,
operationalizing intersectionality necessitates a
both/and approach to comprehending identities
and systems; that is, a person’s understanding
of their lived experiences elucidates how
interlocking systems of inequality function
(May, 2015). Intersectionality informed this
study by foregrounding the role of power in
the research design.
Literature Review
Systemic Oppression Influencing
Queer Students of Color
The ways in which queer Students of Color
face systems of racism and heterosexism
within HWIs is well documented (e.g.,
Blockett, 2017; Duran, 2019a; Goode-
Cross & Good, 2009; Vaccaro & Mena,
2011). Historically, higher education has
excluded those who are outside of white and
heteronormative ideals (Duran, 2019b). From
an intersectional perspective, queer Students of
Color encounter marginalization in structural
and interpersonal forms due to these historical
and contemporary legacies.
On a structural level, institutions often­
times do not provide resources (i.e., programs
and initiatives) for queer Students of Color
(Duran, 2019b). Even on campuses where
identity centers exist, these offices regularly
cater toward the majority within minoritized
communities (e.g., white students in LGBTQ
centers; see Mitchell & Means, 2014). Simi­
larly, though students benefit from the presence
of faculty and staff who share minoritized
identities, the number of queer Faculty and
Staff of Color on campuses is low (Duran,
2019a, 2019b; Vaccaro & Mena, 2011). Due
to these structural issues, institutions reinforce
heteronormative and racist environments,
making it difficult for students to explore their
Identity Exploration for Queer Students of Color
identities. As Blockett (2017) revealed in his
study on queer Black Men, participants put
forth additional labor to create communities
where they could talk about holding inter­
secting minoritized identities.
Scholarship also shows how queer Students
of Color combat interpersonal forms of oppres­
sion. Especially at HWIs, queer Students
of Color navigate peer interactions that
expose them to multiple forms of oppression
(Blockett, 2017; Mitchell & Means, 2014).
Notably, queer Students of Color encounter
margin­ali­zation with white queer peers or
hetero­sexual People of Color (Duran, 2019a).
Vaccaro and Mena’s (2011) study on queer
College Activists of Color underscored this
point, illumi­nating how students experienced
discrimination in white queer spaces that
resulted in mental health issues. Conversely,
studies like Goode-Cross and Good’s (2009)
showcased that queer Students of Color face
heterosexism from Communities of Color.
Consequently, queer Students of Color
negotiate oppressive exchanges with diverse
peers while they undergo identity exploration.
Perspectives on Social Identity
Exploration
Stemming from disciplines outside of higher
education (e.g., psychology and sociology),
researchers on identity initially examined the
development of the self and the ego (e.g.,
Erikson, 1963) before exploring identities as
socially constructed (e.g., Jones & Abes, 2013).
Expanding upon Erikson’s work on psychosocial
development, Marcia (1966, 1994) was one
of the first theorists to investi­gate the idea of
identity exploration specifically. According to
Marcia, identity exploration is a task that people
undergo in identity formation. Originally
termed crisis (Marcia, 1966), identity exploration
refers to a “time when the late adolescent is
actively involved in choosing among meaningful
alternatives” (Kroger & Marcia, 2011, p. 33).
May–June 2020  ◆  vol 61 / no 3 283
In this process, Marcia found that people
explore who they are cognitively (perceptions
of one’s self ) and behaviorally (experiencing
alternatives). Though Marcia’s identity statuses
focused on “occupational choice, religion,
and political identity” (1966, p. 551), later
research conceptualized identity exploration
with social identities.
Relevant to this study, research on sexuality
and ethnicity includes attention to identity
exploration. In the context of sexual identity
development, Dillon, Worthington, and
Moradi (2011) found that identity exploration
encapsulates how people evaluate aspects such
as “sexual needs, values, orientation and/
or preferences” (p. 66). Patton et al. (2016)
posited that during college this process might
look like searching for institutional resources
or acting on sexual desires with others.
Phinney (1993) described how individuals
explored ethnic identity before reconciling
their ethnicity within a sociohistorical context.
Phinney argued that exploration involves an
affective dimension, capturing the feelings
one holds about their social group. Though
Dillon et al. and Phinney are formative works,
this research minimally engaged with those
who hold multiple minoritized identities.
To fill this gap, we intended to complicate
identity exploration, while also attending
to meaning making.
Critical Turns in Meaning Making
Scholarship
The concept of meaning making used in this
research is rooted in the scholarship of Robert
Kegan (1994), a constructivist developmental
psychologist. In particular, he proposed people
can experience five orders of consciousness in
their lifetime, in which they develop through
cognitive, interpersonal, and intrapersonal
domains. Progressing in these five orders requires
that the frames through which individuals
organize and process experiences—recognized

as meaning-making structures—become more
complex. Increasingly complex frames allow
people to use more internal meaning-making
structures to approach their lives rather than
relying upon external influences. Baxter
Magolda (2009) is known in higher education
for applying Kegan’s research on orders of
consciousness and meaning making to college-
aged populations in her longitudinal study on
self-authorship. Yet, one major critique is that
scholars develop understandings of meaning
making and self-authorship without considering
the influence of systems of power, especially for
minoritized populations (Perez, 2019).
Of note, studies based on critical frame­
works in the study of meaning making,
frequently in relation to self-authorship,
have emerged during the past decade (e.g.,
Abes, 2012; Perez, 2019; Torres, 2009).
This scholarship pointed to the complex
meaning-making structures necessary for
students to name how systems like racism
and heterosexism function in society. Abes’s
(2012) intersectional study of a lesbian
college student’s multiple identities revealed a
paradoxical relationship between power systems
and cognitive development. Abes argued that
complex meaning-making structures are
needed to understand overlapping systems
of power, but that these systems make it
difficult to reach more developed meaning
making. Influenced by this area of research,
we interrogated how queer Students of Color
made meaning of their identities from both
constructivist and critical views.
Method
Guiding Epistemological Foundations
We used constructivism and critical theory
as our epistemological foundation, enacting
Abes’s (2009) theoretical borderlands that paint
a more complex picture of college student
identity. To begin, constructivism allowed
284 Journal of College Student Development
Duran & Jones
us to be attentive to the fact that multiple
realities exist and that people derive meaning
from interactions with others, as well as their
contexts (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000). Identity
researchers typically take a constructivist
position, seeking to understand how students
perceive their identities (Duran & Jones, 2019).
We also employed critical theory (Kincheloe &
McLaren, 2000), which challenged us to name
and contest the social structures rooted in
power that influenced queer Students of Color
at HWIs. Additionally, critical theory examines
contextual influences, but is more concerned
with the political, social, and cultural forces
that reinforce subjugation. This epistemological
blending informed the study from conception
to data collection and analysis.
Study Design
We used constructivist grounded theory
(Charmaz, 2014) as our methodology for
this study, because it allows researchers to
inductively generate a theory explaining
how and why a social process (e.g., identity
exploration) occurs. Specifically, constructivist
grounded theory provides a systematic way to
analyze data through the constant comparative
approach, a methodological characteristic.
Moreover, constructivist grounded theory
highlighted the role of contexts in identity
exploration and encouraged us to consider how
we as researchers interpret the data. Notably,
though named constructivist grounded theory,
this methodology pairs well with critical
inquiry since it “provides a means of studying
power, inequality, and marginality” (Charmaz,
2017, p. 39) when scholars identify exactly
how systems inform social processes.
Participant Recruitment and
Selection
To recruit participants, we engaged criter­ion
and maximum variation sampling procedures
(Creswell & Poth, 2018). For this study,
Identity Exploration for Queer Students of Color
students must have: (a) identified as an
undergraduate student (aged 18–25 years);
(b) identified as a Student of Color, including
biracial and multiracial identities; (c) identified
under the umbrella of queer; (d) felt comfortable
discussing their identity exploration as a queer
Student of Color; and (e) been enrolled at
their institution for at least 2 years, because
we believed that individuals in their third
year or later likely had more awareness of the
institutional structures that played a role in
their identity exploration. Study information
was shared using social media (i.e., Facebook,
Twitter, and Instagram). Interested individuals
filled out a demographic form with 43 people
submitting their interest to participate. To
fulfill maximum variation sampling (Creswell
& Poth, 2018), we acquired representation
across races and sexualities. Moreover, engaging
in intersectional research meant considering
other identities (e.g., gender, ability, worldview)
since these affect matters of social location (see
Duran & Jones, 2019). Finally, we wanted the
sample to represent a variety of HWIs (i.e.,
private and public in different geographic
regions across the United States). In the end,
we selected 20 students for the study (see Table
1 for demographic information). Though we
were open to including more students in this
research, our analytic process revealed that we
had reached a point of theoretical saturation
(Charmaz, 2014) indicating this was an
appropriate sample size. Of note, 2 participants
(E and Mirella Blackwell) did not continue past
the first interview due to time restrictions, but
they consented to having their stories included.
Data Collection
Participants engaged in several forms of data
collection, based on Charmaz’s (2014) recom­
men­dation to solicit multiple types of data
in grounded theory studies. Specifically, 3
inten­sive inter­views were conducted with each
partici­pant, lasting 60–90 minutes. Students
May–June 2020  ◆  vol 61 / no 3 285
also wrote reflection journals between the
first and second interviews. To adhere to
the inductive quality of grounded theory,
we created the second interview protocol
after analyzing the initial interview data
and reflection journals. Similarly, the third
interview was developed after another round
of analysis. The third interview served as a
member-checking opportunity and attended to
theoretical sampling, ensuring the soundness
of the theoretical categories.
We planned data collection to align with the
epistemological foundation. The first interview
was more constructivist in nature, asking
participants about their initial perceptions
of identity exploration. For the reflection
journal we encouraged them to think about
the structures at and outside of their HWI that
informed their identity exploration. The second
interview allowed for follow-up questions about
sentiments the participants shared, but with
more explicit attention to power (in accordance
with critical theory and inter­sectionality). In
the final interview par­tici­pants were asked to
offer thoughts about emerging themes and to
provide additional insight.
Data Analysis
Through data analysis, constructivist grounded
theorists paint “an interpretative rendering”
that speaks to narratives, contexts, and actions
(Charmaz, 2014, p. 111). We followed Abes’s
(2009) recommendations for developing this
rendering: namely, 2 separate readings of
the data occurred during initial coding. In
initial coding, the transcripts and reflection
journals were analyzed line-by-line 2 times:
once from a constructivist perspective and
again using the lens of critical theory. We
then used the constant comparative method to
compare codes that arose from the 2 readings,
generating focused codes in the process.
Focused coding “requires decisions about
which initial codes make the most analytic
 Table 1. Participant Information as Disclosed on Demographics Form

286
Pseudonymsa Pronouns Race & Ethnicity Sexuality Gender Disabilityb Institution Characteristics Year
Hispanic/Latinx – Salvadoran
Alejandro (Alejo) he/him Bisexual Man None Large Public Southeast HWI 4th
American
Multiracial (Hispanic and
Avery Demán it/itsc Gynysexual Demi-femme Anxiety and Small Public Northwest HWI 4th
white) – Mexican American PTSD
Carmen they/them Mestiza – Mexican Queer Nonbinary Mentally ill Large Public Mountain West HWI 3rd
Dash she/her Asian American – Korean Queer Woman Able Large Public Southwest HWI 6th
E they/them Black – US and Nigerian Pansexual Nonbinary ADHD Large Private Midwest HWI 4th
Ezekiel he/him Latino – Mexican American Gay Cisman left blank Large Public Southwest HWI 3rd
Black and Asian – American
gentle-breeze she/her Bisexual Cis woman but Depression Large Private Midwest HWI 3rd
and Japanese also ???
John Doe he/him Black – African American Bisexual Man N/a Large Private Midwest HWI 3rd
he/him or
Levix Bisexual Man left blank Large Private Southeast HWI 4th
they/them Latino
Gender fluid/
Max Aguirre they/them Latinx – Mexican Queer ADHD Large Public Midwest HWI 4th
non­binary/trans
Mirella Blackwell she/her Black – African American Demisexual Woman Anxiety Small Private Southeast HWI 4th
Ness they/them Asian American – Vietnamese Pansexual Nonbinary left blank Large Public Southeast HWI 4th
Oliver he/him Latinx Gay Cisman N/a Large Public Southwest HWI 4th
Parker he/him Biracial (Filipino and white) Gay Man None Large Public Midwest HWI 3rd
Richard he/him Asian – Nepalese Queer Man None Large Public Southeast HWI 6th
Rosa she/her Asian – Chinese Bisexual Ciswoman None Large Public Northeast HWI 3rd
Queer, Black femme,
Rose E. she/her or Black – African American None Large Public Southeast HWI 3rd
they/them Bisexual Black woman
Sarah Ray she/her Black Queer Woman None Small Public Midwest HWI 3rd
Asexual
TJ she/her Black – African Woman None Large Public Midwest HWI 3rd
Biromantic
he/him or African American – Black Nonbinary boy
Wren Queer left blank Small Public Midwest HWI 4th
they/them American / Creole (boi)
a
Participants selected their pseudonym. b Self-identified.
c
We use it/its pronouns for Avery Demán, whose “more unconventional pronouns” (as it stated) were a way to disrupt norms pertaining to gender identity. Nevertheless,

Journal of College Student Development

Duran & Jones

we recognize the potentially objectifying nature of referring to people as “it” and encourage readers to practice pronoun usage that aligns with how people identify.
Identity Exploration for Queer Students of Color
sense” (Charmaz, 2014, p. 138). We equally
weighed both sets of codes to see how these
differing perspectives converged.
Finally, theoretical coding transpired by our
comparing focused codes to concepts relevant
to sexual identity, racial identity, intersectional
theorizing, and multiple identities. An abduc­
tive process, theoretical coding allowed us to
create theoretical categories that were consis­
tent across participants, a sign of theo­retical
saturation. While this occurred, we wrote
operational, coding, and analytical memos
(for descriptions see Birks, Chapman, &
Francis, 2008). These memos were critical
to theoretical sampling, ensuring that no
more data needed to be collected (Charmaz,
2014). They also allowed us to hone in on
a core category, the central element of the
grounded theory explaining why a social pro­
cess happens. Furthermore, we diagrammed at
the final stages of data analysis, which led to
the development of a model.
Trustworthiness and
Researcher Positionality
In this study, we addressed four trustworthiness
criteria: credibility, transferability, depend­
ability, and confirmability (Morrow, 2005).
We adhered to credibility through the use of
a peer debriefer and by member checking in
the final interview. We achieved transferability,
or the extent to which a reader can trans­late
find­ings to their contexts, by providing thick
descrip­tions about the participants’ experiences.
Next, we established confirmability (connecting
find­ings to the data itself ) through coding
and analy­tical memos, because they revealed
how the theo­retical categories emerged from
the data. Opera­tional memos that tracked
the deci­sions made in the study served as a
form of depend­ability since they outlined the
inquiry process.
Finally, one of the cornerstones of con­
May–June 2020  ◆  vol 61 / no 3 287
struc­tivist grounded theory methodology is
the belief that the researcher plays a major
role in the research (Charmaz, 2014). Conse­
quently, we articulate how our identities and
backgrounds shaped our approach to this
study. As a queer Latino man, Antonio (he/
him) entered this study hoping to effect change
at historically white institutions. Having
attended a university that was fairly progressive
in its centering of minoritized populations,
Antonio constantly reflected in memos about
not letting these preconceived notions apply
to the participants’ experiences. Susan (she/
her) identifies as a cisgender white lesbian
who worked closely with Antonio in all phases
of the research. Her research is consistently
guided by a commitment to understanding
the complexities of identity when social
identities and systems of oppression are
taken into account.
Findings
Findings from this constructivist grounded
theory study revealed macro-level and micro-
level components that comprise identity
exploration for queer Students of Color. The
Intersectional Model of Identity Exploration
for Queer Students of Color (see Figure 1)
provides a visual representation of how the
identity exploration process occurs. This
model highlights how overlapping systems of
power shape all aspects of identity exploration.
Connected to these systems, participants
explored their identities by engaging in a cycle
of learning and unlearning, referred to as (un)
learning. These queer Students of Color learned
new perspectives about their identities through
four dimensions (cognitive, behavioral,
affective, and social), while unlearning negative
systemic influences they had previously
internalized about their identities.
This (un)learning process occurred pri­
marily as a result of salient collegiate experi­

ences. The model showcases the identity
patterns that emerged in the study, as well as
other salient iden­tities participants named as
being inte­gral to students’ exploration. Finally,
these queer Students of Color communicated
their com­mon goal in exploring their identities
(the core category): wanting to develop a more
secure sense of self.
Manifestations of Overlapping
Systems of Power
Participants named how systems of power
and the sites where they experienced them
(i.e., HWIs, local contexts, the sociopolitical
climate, cultural dynamics/norms, and inter­
personal interactions) shaped their identity
exploration (see Section A of the model,
Figure 1). While they pointed to racism
and heterosexism, these queer Students of
Color also encountered genderism, sexism,
nativism, ableism, and classism related to their
other identities.
The oppression these students experienced
critically affected their identity exploration.
For example, participants detailed how HWIs
lacked institutional support for their identities
and how at times significant institutional
moves on campus upheld systemic oppression.
Students discussed how this was felt as a
result of the student culture/climate, the
lack of funding for and representation of
diverse identities, as well as in the erasure of
queer People of Color (QPOC) identities in
curricula and programming. For example,
gentle-breeze commented that her large private
HWI perpetuated practices and climates
that “are very inherently straight and white.”
These climates then affected how participants
viewed their identities. Levix recalled his
disappointment when his institution refused
to defund a club that spoke disparagingly
about queer and trans communities: “I mean
in general, I can’t turn to the institution to
help me think about my identities. . . . I have
288 Journal of College Student Development
Duran & Jones
to look more internally.” Beyond institutions’
privileging certain groups through resources,
queer Students of Color described how
classes and offices dedicated to a minoritized
community (e.g., racial or sexual minorities)
reproduced marginalization by overlooking
within-group differences. Avery Demán
emphasized this when it stated: “We do have a
QPOC week on campus where both identities
meet, but that’s around the only time I see
that kind of thing happen. . . . It makes me
feel like I have to pick and choose. . . . And it
adds to the fight of how to identify in everyday
situations.” By not centering other minoritized
groups, faculty and student affairs professionals
furthered the oppression that queer Students
of Color experienced.
Of note, queer Students of Color who
attended college in Southern regions observed
how these local contexts influenced identity
exploration. Dash stated that the Southern
conservative state where her HWI was located
made her “not always feel comfortable with
being out” due to “safety concerns.” Seeing
the marginalizing environments in their
towns/cities, Dash and other participants
expressed fear in exploring their identities. The
sociopolitical climate had a similar impact.
Parker referenced the 2016 presidential
election as a reason why:
Me exploring my own identities during this
current political climate has definitely made
me very cautious almost, because if I see
someone wearing a red hat, I’m like, “Oh,
shit. There they go. They probably voted
for—no—they definitely voted for Trump,
but are they homophobic? Racist? Sexist?”
As seen in Parker’s and others’ words, the oppres­
sive systems furthered by sociopolitical contexts
shaped how comfortable queer Students of
Color were to explore their identities.
The next site explicates how participants
experienced heterosexist and racist beliefs
Identity Exploration for Queer Students of Color

Figure 1. Intersectional Model of Identity Exploration for Queer Students of Color

May–June 2020  ◆  vol 61 / no 3 289


within cultural dynamics/norms, including
queer communities and racial minority groups.
Oliver shared how Latinx communities are often
“rooted in a lot of homophobia, because a lot
of it is centered around Catholicism.” Because
of the oppressive influence of this culture,
Oliver hesitated to explore his identities: “I
have to be one or the other which, being with
that duality and double consciousness, hasn’t
exactly been the most fun thing.” Similarly,
Ness communicated how they could not
reconcile their identities because of racism
ingrained in queer culture: “The whiteness of
what I would consider queer culture has jarred
me in a lot of senses.” When Ness recognized
that the “white queer community can be super
reductive” to People of Color, they saw their
QPOC identities in a new light.
Finally, interpersonal interactions were
another arena where systems of oppression
manifested for students during their identity
exploration process (i.e., microaggressions and
macroaggressions). Sarah Ray described an
experience that negatively influenced the view
she had of her identities. A white gay faculty
member had a predominantly white choir sing
Negro spirituals. When she confronted him,
he ignored her concerns. “I don’t want these
horrific experiences to shape my understanding
of my identity, but I know that they are. . . .
’Cause he’s like, ‘I have more power than you.’”
As a result of this experience, Sarah Ray was
dismayed due to the ways she saw racism and
sexism functioning. Other participants’ stories
were laden with these types of encounters in
which people enacted dominance over them.
Salient Experiences During College
John Doe declared: “I am what I am because of
the institution I attend.” In this comment, John
Doe pointed to how salient experiences during
college intricately shaped identity exploration
(see Section B of the model, Figure 1). These
experiences (i.e., academic, extracurricular,
290 Journal of College Student Development
Duran & Jones
social/romantic, and off-campus involvement
like study abroad opportunities) prompted
participants to ask questions about identity.
Classrooms often served as a central
academic space where participants could
explore their race, sexuality, and other iden­
tities. A women’s studies class where Parker
learned about how society has historically
treated QPOC shaped his thoughts on what
it meant to hold multiple minoritized iden­
tities: “It really got me thinking about who
I am as Filipino and gay, but also everyone
I know that’s queer and/or a Person of
Color.” This academic space allowed Parker
to see how being a queer Person of Color
informed his experiences. Like Parker, other
participants asked questions about identity in
curricular spaces.
Valuable extracurricular experiences for
participants included cultural resource centers
and clubs. Mirella Blackwell spoke about a
student organization named Exploring Gender
and Sexuality that was meaningful because her
small HWI had no other spaces dedicated to
queerness on campus: “Seeing all these people
who either identify as gay or people who
just support it—it helps to just make sense
of it and say that it’s normal.” Though she
had met Black individuals at her HWI, this
organization was the first place where Mirella
could explore her sexuality openly. Aside
from clubs, participants referenced cultural
resource centers as vital to exploration. For E,
the Office of Diversity Affairs was one place
that was a catalyst for their exploration: “It
brought people together who did have many
different marginalized identities, who never
would’ve felt as comfortable or as represented
by an individual office.” By having a place
that catered to multiple minoritized groups,
E saw it as “really, really important” to their
QPOC identities.
Social/romantic relationships were another
salient type of experience that informed
Identity Exploration for Queer Students of Color
participants’ exploration of race, sexuality,
and other identities. Though not involved
with QPOC clubs at his HWI, John Doe
found social connections with other queer
Students of Color:
It means that I have safe spaces in which to
properly explore my identity: with people,
not in a vacuum. For QPOC without such
spaces, life will be more difficult because
they do not have the official space in
which to safely explore their identities.
As John Doe remarked, these relationships
provided him with “safe spaces” where he could
ask questions to learn about his identities.
Rosa’s partner was an example of a romantic
influence, reflected in how she spoke about
understanding her bisexual Asian identities:
“Cory’s white, so [being around them] reminds
me that I’m not white, because sometimes
they’re very conscientious of when other
people say stupid or ignorant things that are
racist towards me.” Through her partnership
with a white individual, Rosa recognized how
her QPOC identities differentially exposed
her to systems of oppression: a lesson in her
identity exploration.
Off-campus involvements (e.g., local
organizations and professional associations)
and study abroad experiences were also
opportunities for queer Students of Color
to explore QPOC identities. Joining a queer
chapter of a Hispanic national organization,
Levix recognized that he didn’t “have to think
about [identities] separately.” In particular,
“all of these LGBTQ and Latino-affirming
outlets” showed him how others lived out their
identities and how to employ this information
for himself. Alejo noted how going abroad
to a South American country exposed him
to a “more intersectional representation
and expression of Latino LGBT life that
is sometimes very lacking [in the US]. . . .
I think the most important thing is I felt more
May–June 2020  ◆  vol 61 / no 3 291
normal.” He then felt more comfortable to
share his sexuality at his HWI as a Latino man.
How Identities Intersect in the
Process of Exploration
Though all participants mentioned ways
their identities intertwined on different
occasions and in various settings, two identity
patterns emerged (see Section C of the model,
Figure 1). Of the 20 participants 9 queer
Students of Color named how they saw race
and sexuality as largely separate. The other
11 participants discussed how they were
mindful of how their race and sexuality were
interconnected. Participants also named how
other identities informed their exploration.
Ezekiel was one of the 9 participants who
mentioned that they perceived their race and
sexuality as separate entities: “I would say that
they’re exclusive from each other. . . . I feel
like every interaction I have always focuses on
one of the identities and never all of them.”
For Ezekiel, his experiences in exploring these
identities were distinct, limited by the lack
of spaces where he could understand what
they meant in relationship with one another.
Connected to this, participants who saw their
identities as intertwined had access to groups
where they could actively reflect on these
interconnections. Ness described how a day-
long workshop for queer Asian people at the
Creating Change conference “solidified [their]
want to express being both queer and Asian
American at the same time.” Thus, when they
spoke about queerness, it was always “in the
context of being a Person of Color, or more
specifically, an Asian.” For Ness and other
participants, QPOC spaces shaped how they
experienced being a queer Student of Color.
This theoretical category also explains the
other social identities (i.e., gender, religion
and faith, ability, undocumented status, and
socioeconomic status) that played a role in
identity exploration for queer Students of

Color. E, Max, Ness, Rosa, TJ, and Wren spoke
about gender identity explicitly. In particular,
E described finding academic means to explore
their nonbinary identity in conjunction with
their Black and pansexual identities: “It got
even larger than that—larger than thinking
about theories related to transness and related
to gender—was theories that were connecting
gender and queerness and transness, and race.”
By reading theories, E felt “grounded” and as
though they had “some way to think about
the existence of the identities that [they] were
talking about [themselves].” Examples such as
this show how participants held other identities
informing how they explored race and sexuality.
(Un)learning and the Dimensions of
Identity Exploration
How identity exploration occurs depends on
a cycle of (un)learning, which happens in
relation to systems of power and as a result of
people’s experiences during college. Specifically,
(un)learning happens in four main dimensions:
cognitive, behavioral, affective, and social (see
Section D of the model, Figure 1).
The cognitive dimension of identity
exploration refers to participants’ ideas
and thoughts about intersecting identities.
Unlearning in the cognitive dimension meant
that students moved away from stereotypes
about race, sexuality, and other identities. TJ
named how she initially felt “embarrassed”
that she was a part of the asexual community;
however, by encountering asexual artists
who were People of Color, TJ unlearned the
stereotype that asexuality was an identity
“that only young white people experienced.”
Conversely, learning in the cognitive dimension
represented how participants expanded knowl­
edge about their social identities by learning
about systemic oppression, seeing identities
as fluid, and gaining language relative to
minoritized communities. Through courses
and discussions with peers, Max discovered the
292 Journal of College Student Development
Duran & Jones
homophobia they had seen permeate Mexican
communities in fact stemmed from white
supremacy and settler colonialism:
Acknowledging that queerness was a
thing prior to colonization, . . . realizing
[colonialism] creates a system within
itself . . . like, “Okay, we’re all oppressed
as Latinx people but there’s a hierarchy
cause I’m straight and cis. So you’re the
other in that case.”
By gaining this knowledge, Max acquired a
new perspective on their identities.
The behavioral dimension describes
the ways in which queer Students of Color
took specific actions to explore their race,
sexuality, and other identities. Unlearning in
the behavioral dimension meant resisting the
need to be subservient, the embarrassment
tied to their language use, and the patterns
of conforming to dominant norms of gender
expression. For example, Ness articulated how
one of the “biggest steps in [their] identity
exploration” involved achieving the comfort
to use the term “queer.” Previously, they felt
as though they were “not qualified enough
to reclaim it” and to take “back the power
that the oppressors have previously used
on that slur against us”; however, by doing
“research on the history,” in and outside of
the classroom, Ness no longer felt shame
using “queer.” Conversely, behavioral learning
includes searching for people who hold similar
identities, together with acting on queer
desires. Oliver strove to find individuals who
differed from the racist and heterosexist culture
at his large public HWI:
I had gone to the queer affinity groups
that they have. . . . And then I also went to
the Latinx Cultural Center here and there.
It’s been a mix of visiting spaces where I
can feel more comfortable as opposed to
the overall feeling like, sort of ostracized
I guess, in a PWI.
Identity Exploration for Queer Students of Color
By connecting to those who also navigated
the oppression at HWIs, Oliver explored his
QPOC identities.
The affective dimension captures how
queer Students of Color engaged with signifi­
cant feelings as they underwent identity
exploration. Specifically, queer Students of
Color commented on how they unlearned
sentiments of self-hate, shame, and trauma
during exploration. Richard reflected on how
unlearning shame was a meaningful part of
his process: “Shame would be a big thing,
because you’re conditioned, I think, by society
and people from a young age that ‘white is
right, straight is great.’ I think that’s what
someone told me once.” As he explained, it was
“unlearning all those self-harmful thoughts”
through his campus involvement that made
him “feel like [he] grew the more [he] learned.”
During the learning cycle, these queer Students
of Color encountered confusion, healing,
as well as pride and confidence. Though he
thought college would be a place to help him
“piece the puzzle together,” Parker mentioned
that “all the puzzle pieces are looking the
same” in reference to the predominantly white
and heteronormative student culture at his
HWI: “For me, exploring my own identities
and exploring myself in college has made me
more confused.” Because of the homogenous
environment at his HWI, Parker felt limited
in his ability to explore his identities.
The social dimension depicts how queer
Students of Color believed that identity
exploration involved connecting to their
larger social groups, commenting on how
identity functions beyond an individual level.
Unlearning in the social dimension occurred
when students no longer felt as though they
were the “only one” who held and experienced
their identities. TJ explained the initial views
she had about her QPOC identities: “I guess
sometimes it feels like I’m the only one who
holds these identities. I know that’s not
May–June 2020  ◆  vol 61 / no 3 293
true, but at times it does.” By developing
relationships with other QPOC through her
institution’s LGBTQ Center, TJ moved away
from the belief that “there’s not much out
there.” In contrast to feeling like they were
the only one, participants felt a newfound
bond to queer Communities of Color and also
historicized their identities. For example, Avery
referenced when it first learned Frida Kahlo
was bisexual: “That was really cool learning
that in the grand scheme of things, I’ll also be
a part of that picture. I’ve just added another
puzzle piece or another color to a painting
that makes up being gay and being ethnic.”
Contextualizing its identities within a QPOC
genealogy during identity exploration created
vital connections to these social groups.
Developing Meaning-Making
Capacity in Relation to Oppressive
Systems
In addition to speaking about identity, parti­
cipants also revealed that (un)learning led to
developing a meaning-making capacity in
relation to oppressive systems (see Section E of
the model, Figure 1). Put simply, by acknowl­
edging how external influences had previ­ously
caused them to see their identities from a
dominant lens, these queer Students of Color
expanded their cognitive frames so that they
did not accept external beliefs wholeheartedly.
Moving toward more internal meaning
making occurred because during identity
exploration queer Students of Color questioned
systemic influences, such as those that came
from precollege experiences and groups. For
example, Alejo’s mother had told him: “Maybe
there’s a chance that you aren’t gay, or there’s
a chance that you could maybe fix it.” Alejo
reflected on this comment and how he had
grown by exploring:
If I was younger, back when I couldn’t
really understand it, possibly, I [would
be] like maybe that’s true. . . . But now

it’s like I’ve gone way past that idea and I
feel really confident in that identity and
thinking that there’s nothing to fix.
By learning about his identities, Alejo stopped
internalizing others’ views. Similarly, Richard
shared how college exposed him to a range
of things: “other people’s feelings, thoughts,
ideas, media’s feelings.” As a result, he asked:
“How do I relate to this? Why do I like this?
Do I like it or am I supposed to like it?”
Richard said that he did not want to submit to
questions he received from white queer peers
about what constituted “true” queer culture
or authentic queer identities. In questioning
external influences, queer Students of Color
challenged internalized oppression.
As a result of the (un)learning of identity
exploration, participants pushed against the
entrenched dominant ideologies in their lives.
For example, though he was proud of being
Black beforehand, Wren mentioned that these
sentiments were connected to whiteness: “It
was pride of being Black but only because of
being in whiteness and white people in these
cases.” His “step[ping] away from whiteness
and white people in general” hence represented
a shift toward recognizing how he depended
on white dominant ideologies. It also showed
how he started to center a more internal voice
that confirmed his identities were empowering
without having to conform to white systems.
Core Category: Goal of Exploring
Identities
The core category of this study describes
students’ goals in exploring their identities,
articulating the why behind identity explor­
ation. Participants wanted to develop a secure
sense of self in relation to their identities (see
Section F of the model, Figure 1), one that
did not internalize external negative influences
and actively resisted the manifestations of
systemic oppression.
First, participants aspired to no longer
294 Journal of College Student Development
Duran & Jones
internalize systemic influences that engendered
negative perceptions of their identities. Rose
E. emphasized: “You have to acknowledge
those systems, understand critically why
they’re there, but also understand that in your
existence you’re gonna be a contradiction to
those systems, . . . and that is your perfection.
. . . And I’m constantly trying to do that with
my exploration.” In (un)learning relative to
structures of inequality, Rose E. searched for
perfection in being a contradiction to systems.
Max shared an affective view of a secure sense
of self, wanting to find “a love for [themself ],”
because when “identities are constructed, it
comes with a lot of negative messages that you
just kind of internalized.” Both Rose E.’s and
Max’s words exemplify this pattern within the
theoretical category.
Second, queer Students of Color noted
that they also had an active desire to challenge
the manifestations of power that informed
their exploration. Though he did not believe
that he had reached this point, Oliver wanted
to engage in resistance: “My goal is to change
the way that my identities are viewed; because
if I say I don’t care what they think of me,
that means those mentalities—those offensive
behaviors and mentalities—are still there. They
don’t change.” Ezekiel echoed Oliver: “If you
have a secure sense of self, you don’t have to
be an educator, but in my ideal world, you
would, . . . because who else is going to do
it?” By developing “stamina of being able to
endure the societal oppressions that occur,” as
Ezekiel mentioned, participants would be able
to resist the overlapping systems of oppression
that had shaped their identities and realities.
Discussion
Constructed with intersectionality (Crenshaw,
1989) as a theoretical framework, findings
from this constructivist grounded theory study
contribute to the study of college student
Identity Exploration for Queer Students of Color
identity. By taking a specific look at overlapping
systems of power impacting queer Students of
Color, we have revealed that systemic inequality
is central to how students with multiple
minoritized identities explore who they are
in college, aligning with the third wave of
student development (Jones & Stewart, 2016).
In particular, participants highlighted how
their identity exploration occurred through
the cycle of (un)learning and, importantly,
by unlearning negative systemic influences.
Therefore, exploration involved both learning
new ideas and challenging existing hege­
monic norms of thinking, behaving, feeling,
and connecting. Whereas previous research
describes identity exploration largely as a
period when people search for new alternatives
(Kroger & Marcia, 2011), this study suggests
that exploration also involves sorting through
existing realties, especially those tied to social
location and power structures. Related, these
queer Students of Color named what practices
within their institutions had an influence on
this process. This is a necessary intervention
in student identity research, because as Patton
et al. (2016) critiqued: theorists rarely take into
account how college environments play a role
in how students view themselves. Exposing
which environments function as catalysts for
(un)learning is imperative to moving identity
research forward.
This grounded theory also adds to the
identity exploration scholarship that stemmed
from the work of Marcia (1966, 1994).
Though original views on identity exploration
highlighted the behavioral and cognitive
dimensions of this process, this study shows
how affect similarly appears during this
task. Thus, this research echoes Phinney
(1993), who argued that identity exploration
includes the emotions people have during
this process. Whether it was unlearning
shame or learning how to feel proud in
their QPOC identities, the experiences of
May–June 2020  ◆  vol 61 / no 3 295
these queer Students of Color represent a
significant contribution to the scholarship.
Additionally, the grounded theory presents
the social dimension of identity exploration
that resembles Tajfel’s (1982) work on social
identity theory, underscoring the importance
of social group membership and feeling a
bond to those who share similar attributes.
In the process of exploring identities, queer
Students of Color developed a connection to
present and historical queer Communities of
Color. This finding underscores what occurs
when researchers shift from viewing identity
exploration from the perspective of the
ego, a position taken by Marcia, to that of
social identities.
Finally, this study and the model that
resulted from the research contribute to
scholarship concerning the relationship
between psychosocial and cognitive develop­
ment. In particular, queer Students of Color
revealed how they made meaning (located in
the cognitive dimension) during the process of
identity exploration (a psychosocial construct),
insights we interrogated from an intersectional
perspective. Perez (2019) acknowledged that
many theorists who investigated meaning
making and self-authorship failed to name
the influences of power. This study suggests
that queer Students of Color may develop
in their meaning-making capacities because
of exploring identities and marginalization,
a position that is distinct from scholarship
asserting that the cognitive dimension func­
tions as the leading edge of development
(King, 2010). Simply put, exploring in the
interpersonal dimension led to cognitive
development, an insight that emerges when
power is foregrounded. Meaning making can
develop because of experiences that require
an internal voice (Baxter Magolda, 2009);
participants showed how learning about
and facing oppression (experiences rooted in
the psychosocial domain) resulted in more

complex cognitive frames. This reality was
represented by the goal they shared: wanting to
filter out and/or resist systemic influences. By
acquiring this goal, participants would have a
different relationship with their identities and
the structures that surround them. This study
provides a novel way to think about students’
holistic selves, putting psychosocial and
cognitive dimensions in conversation with one
another from an intersectional point of view.
Implications for Research
and Practice
Actualizing the aim for social change behind
intersectionality, we offer implications for
future research and practice. For research, we
were explicit in our intent to examine identity
exploration and not identity development.
Whereas identity exploration is a task that
individuals frequently undergo during
development (see Marcia, 1966, 1994), a
better understanding of identity development
for queer Students of Color might be gained
by researchers marking changes over time in
a longitudinal study. Though we can surmise
that participants who were farther in their
education (e.g., Dash and Richard) could
have been farther in their development, this
type of analysis was outside the scope of this
research project. Hence, scholars could expand
upon this study by interrogating identity
development specifically and examining
changes across class years. On a different note,
the decision to ground this study at HWIs
stemmed from our desire to comprehend how
environments rooted in heterosexism and
racism inform exploration (Blockett, 2017).
Nonetheless, future research could examine
exploration at minority-serving institutions
to see if the experiences of queer Students of
Color are similar within these contexts.
At the conclusion of the third interview,
participants were given the opportunity to
296 Journal of College Student Development
Duran & Jones
share what recommendations they had for
HWIs to support their identity exploration.
Participants contended that there was a need
to incorporate issues of multiple minoritized
identities in class conversations and curricula.
This would combat the oppressive erasure
that they noted in these spaces. One way that
power operates is by controlling the ways
that minoritized groups are represented in
dominant society. Omitting the stories of
queer People of Color further marginalizes
these communities. As a countermeasure,
gentle-breeze suggested: “One thing that I
think is good, just that anyone can do is, with
your material, just have literature and things
and examples that are coming from queer
voices and People of Color.” These comments
were echoed by participants who were taking
classes specific to identity groups (e.g., race
or sexuality studies) and those in STEM
fields as well. Specifically, instructors could
have conversations about how navigating the
discipline may be different for minoritized
populations, highlighting scholars in the field
who came from minoritized backgrounds.
Queer Students of Color in our sample
provided similar suggestions to student
affairs practitioners, encouraging people
across functional areas to plan initiatives
mindful of students’ multiple minoritized
identities and overlapping forms of oppression.
Avery commented: “You have students that
are exploring and they’re trying to figure
themselves out. [But] how can they when
it seems like you keep these two resource
centers so separate from one another?” In this
question, Avery spotlights how institutions
reify silos across minoritized groups by
obscuring the interconnections among various
forms of justice (e.g., racial and sexual).
Professionals should heed Avery’s words
and plan programs/initiatives that center
those most minoritized in communities. In
doing so, institutional agents can contest the
Identity Exploration for Queer Students of Color
interpersonal and systemic ways that queer
People of Color regularly face oppression in
minoritized groups. Hiring decisions at the
university should reflect a similar ethos. Parker
joked that he would want “less white people”
in campus offices, hoping to see more people
who resembled him; this implies that HWIs
must dedicate to recruiting and retaining those
with multiple minoritized identities, together
with rewarding them for the labor that they
put into supporting students.
Queer Students of Color also had thoughts
on institution-level actions to address structural
forms of inequality, such as providing all
faculty and staff mandatory trainings about
diversity, including, as Ezekiel described
them, “the entire senior-level administration.”
Participants thought that these were the ones
who held the most decision-making power
at a college or university. Students then
turned their attention to the issue of funding.
Ness stated: “If [institutions] will provide
the monetary support for spaces that those
marginalized communities need, . . . then
people who have marginalized identities will
see that they are valued in those senses, . . .
which will in turn help them explore their
[identities] more.” Funding represented one
way that power operated at an institution,
May–June 2020  ◆  vol 61 / no 3 297
controlling which groups received financial
support. Institutions should seriously consider
the fact that students saw connections between
what resources were funded and their comfort
in exploring their identities.
Conclusion
To move the study of college student identity
into the third wave (Jones & Stewart, 2016),
scholars must revisit previously taken-for-
granted constructs with new perspectives.
For example, this research showcases how
professionals can understand identity explor­
ation differently when intersecting identities
and systems of power are foregrounded. By
centering a population that is underrepresented
in identity theory research—queer Students of
Color—this intersectional scholarship can
lead to more equitable practices at HWIs.
Guided by this grounded theory, practitioners
are better equipped to combat the legacies
of racism, heterosexism, and other forms of
oppression that have long shaped identity
exploration for queer Students of Color.
Correspondence concerning this article should be
addressed to Antonio Duran at antonio.alberto.duran@
gmail.com.

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, 141‑156.
Abes, E. S. (2012). Constructivist and intersectional inter­pre­ta­
tions of a lesbian college student’s multiple social identities.
Journal of Higher Education, 83, 186‑216.
Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2009). The activity of meaning making:
A holistic perspective on college student development. Journal
of College Student Development, 50, 621‑639.
Birks, M., Chapman, Y., & Francis, K. (2008). Memoing in
qualitative research: Probing data and processes. Journal of
Research in Nursing, 13, 68‑75.
Blockett, R. A. (2017). “I think it’s very much placed on us”:
Black queer men laboring to forge community at a pre­domi­
nantly White and (hetero)cisnormative research institution.
International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education,
30, 800‑816.
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Charmaz, K. (2017). The power of constructivist grounded
theory for critical inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry, 23, 34‑45.
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, 139‑167.
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry &
research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). The discipline and
practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S.
Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.,
pp. 1‑28). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Dillon, F. R., Worthington, R. L., & Moradi, B. (2011). Sexual
identity as a universal process. In S. J. Schwartz, K. Luyckx,
& V. L. Vignoles (Eds.), Handbook of identity theory and
research (pp. 649‑670). New York, NY: Springer.
Duran, A. (2019a). A photovoice phenomenological study
exploring campus belonging for queer Students of Color.
Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 56, 153‑167.
Duran, A. (2019b). Queer and of Color: A systematic literature
review on queer Students of Color in higher education.
Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 12, 390‑400.
Duran, A., & Jones, S. R. (2019). Using intersectionality in
qualitative research on college student identity development:
Considerations, tensions, and possibilities. Journal of College
Student Development, 60, 455‑471.
Erikson, E. H. (1963). Youth: Change and challenge. New York,
NY: Doubleday.
Goode-Cross, D. T., & Good, G. E. (2009). Managing multiple-
minority identities: African American men who have sex with
men at predominantly White universities. Journal of Diversity
in Higher Education, 2, 103‑112.
Hancock, A.-M. (2016). Intersectionality: An intellectual history.
Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Jones, S. R., & Abes, E. S. (2013). Identity development of college
students: Advancing frameworks for multiple dimensions of
identity. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.
298 Journal of College Student Development
Duran & Jones
Jones, S. R., & Stewart, D-L. (2016). Evolution of student devel­
op­ment theory. In E. S. Abes (Ed.), New Directions for Student
Services: No. 154. Critical perspectives on student development
theory (pp. 17‑28). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of
modern life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kincheloe, J. L., & McLaren, P. (2000). Rethinking critical
theory and qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S.
Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.,
pp. 279‑313). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
King, P. M. (2010). The role of the cognitive dimension in self-
authorship: An equal partner or the strong partner? In M.
B. Baxter Magolda, E. G. Creamer, & P. S. Meszaros (Eds.),
Development and assessment of self-authorship: Exploring the
concept across cultures (pp. 167‑186). Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Kroger, J., & Marcia, J. E. (2011). The identity statuses: Origins,
meanings, and interpretations. In S. J. Schwartz, K. Luyckx,
& V. L. Vignoles (Eds.), Handbook of identity theory and
research (pp. 31‑53). New York, NY: Springer.
Marcia, J. E. (1966). Development and validation of ego-identity
status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 551‑558.
Marcia, J. E. (1994). Ego identity and object relations. In
J. Masling & R. F. Bornstein (Eds.), Empirical perspectives
on object relations theory (pp. 59‑103). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
May, V. M. (2015). Pursuing intersectionality, unsettling dominant
imaginaries. New York, NY: Routledge.
Mitchell, D., Jr., & Means, D. R. (2014). “Quadruple con­scious­
ness”: A literature review and new theoretical consideration
for understanding the experiences of Black gay and bisexual
college men at predominantly White institutions. Journal of
African American Males in Education, 5, 23‑25.
Morrow, S. L. (2005). Quality and trustworthiness in qualitative
research in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 52, 250‑260.
Patton, L. D., Renn, K. A., Guido, F. M., & Quaye, S. J. (2016).
Student development in college: Theory, research, and practice
(3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Perez, R. J. (2019). Paradigmatic perspectives and self-author­
ship: Implications for theory, research, and praxis. Journal
of College Student Development, 60, 70‑84.
Phinney, J. S. (1993). A three-stage model of ethnic identity
development in adolescence. In M. E. Bernal & G. P. Knight
(Eds.), Ethnic identity: Formation and transmission among
Hispanics and other minorities (pp. 61‑79). Albany: State
University of New York Press.
Smith, W. A., Allen, W. R., & Danley, L. L. (2007). “Assume the
position . . . you fit the description”: Psychosocial experiences
and racial battle fatigue among African American male college
students. American Behavioral Scientist, 51, 551‑578.
Tajfel, H. (Ed). (1982). Social identity and intergroup relations.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Torres, V. (2009). The developmental dimensions of recognizing
racist thoughts. Journal of College Student Development, 50,
504‑520.
Vaccaro, A., & Mena, J. A. (2011). It’s not burnout, it’s more:
Queer College Activists of Color and mental health. Journal
of Gay & Lesbian Mental Health, 15, 339‑367.