A Qualitative Study of White Racial Identity in Global Nomads

Jessica Hilbert

A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of

The Chicago School of Professional Psychology

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

For the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Clinical Psychology

March 31, 2017





ProQuest Number: 10606838




All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.






ProQuest 10606838

Published by ProQuest LLC (2017 ). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.


All rights reserved.
This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.


ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
 Unpublished Work

Copyright 2017 by Jessica Hilbert

All Rights Reserved

 A Qualitative Study of White Racial Identity in Global Nomads

A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of

The Chicago School of Professional Psychology

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

For the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Clinical Psychology

Jessica Hilbert

2017

Approved By:

Rachel Singer, PhD, Chairperson

Faculty Member, The Chicago School of Professional Psychology: DC

Janice Caro, PhD, Member

Licensed Psychologist at Columbia Associates in Psychiatry

Layla Kassem, PsyD, Member

CEO of Malachite Institute for Behavioral Health
 Acknowledgements

I would first like to thank Dr. Singer, my chairperson, for guiding me through this

dissertation process; I would not have been able to reach this point without her support. I would

also like to offer thanks to Dr. Caro and Dr. Kassem for their valuable support and the time they

took helping me refine this document. To my friends, who helped keep me sane. I cannot thank

you enough for allowing me to enter and leave your world as needed with the ebb and flow of

school. To my brother, Matt, you helped inspire me to keep going. Finally and most

importantly, to my parents: I am who I am thanks to your love, support, teaching, and ever

attuned support.
 Dedication

I would like to dedicate this document to my brother, Aaron, always loved and never

forgotten.
 Abstract

According to Pollock and Van Reken (2009), Third Culture Kids (TCKs) are individuals who

have lived a significant amount of time in countries other than their passport country during their

developmental years prior to repatriating. While TCK identity and identity development have

been studied (Schaetti, 2000), there is a dearth of research that examines their racial identity

development. This is unfortunate particularly for White United States American TCKs who have

spent time in non-White countries, as their racial identity begins in a very different setting than

the setting they enter upon repatriation. This author wishes to understand the White TCK

experience of race, as it may not conform to current racial identity models (Helms, 1993; Sue &

Sue, 2009). It is this author’s hope that if White TCK racial experience can be understood, it

will be possible to educate White TCKs, their families, and their educators. This in turn may

better prepare them for the experience of repatriation. In addition, just as many TCKs find

comfort in learning that they develop specific traits and identities due to living across cultures

(Pollock & Van Reken, 2009; Schaetti, 2000), they may find comfort in having their racial

experience normalized.
 Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Nature of the Study ....................................................................................................... 1

Background ................................................................................................................................. 1

Problem Statement ...................................................................................................................... 4

Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................................... 4

Conceptual Framework ............................................................................................................... 5

Scope of the Study....................................................................................................................... 5

Definition of Key Terms ............................................................................................................. 6

Significance of the Study ............................................................................................................ 7

Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 8

Chapter 2: Literature Review ........................................................................................................ 10

Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 10

Research Strategy ...................................................................................................................... 10

Third Culture Kids .................................................................................................................... 11

Features of TCK Life ............................................................................................................. 11

Common TCK Personality Characteristics............................................................................ 13
Identity Models ......................................................................................................................... 14

Bennett and Hammer’s Intercultural Sensitivity Model ........................................................ 14

Schaetti’s Developmental Model........................................................................................... 16
Racial Identity ........................................................................................................................... 19

Models of White Racial Identity Development ..................................................................... 19

Gaps in the Literature ................................................................................................................ 22

Present Study ............................................................................................................................. 22

Summary and Transition ........................................................................................................... 24

i
Chapter 3: Research Design and Method...................................................................................... 25
Chapter Overview ..................................................................................................................... 25

Research Questions ................................................................................................................... 25

Research Design ........................................................................................................................ 26

Population and Sample .............................................................................................................. 27

Procedures ................................................................................................................................. 29

Instrumentation.......................................................................................................................... 30

Interview Tools ...................................................................................................................... 30

Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 30

Good Research Practices ........................................................................................................... 32

Trustworthiness ..................................................................................................................... 32
Reflexivity ............................................................................................................................. 33
Assumptions .............................................................................................................................. 36

Limitations ................................................................................................................................ 36

Ethical Assurances .................................................................................................................... 37

Summary ................................................................................................................................... 38

Chapter 4: Findings ....................................................................................................................... 40

Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 40

Results ....................................................................................................................................... 40

Participants ................................................................................................................................ 40

Data Analysis Process ............................................................................................................... 41

Overview of Concepts ............................................................................................................... 42

Identity ...................................................................................................................................... 42

Identifying Characteristics ..................................................................................................... 42

Sources of Influence .............................................................................................................. 46

ii
 Race ........................................................................................................................................... 47

Racial Identity........................................................................................................................ 48
Reflections on Race ............................................................................................................... 53
Privilege .................................................................................................................................... 55

Positive Experiences of Privilege .......................................................................................... 55

Negative Experiences of Privilege ........................................................................................ 57
Neutral/Ambivalent Experiences of Privilege ....................................................................... 60
Third Culture Kid Identity......................................................................................................... 61

Characteristics of Third Culture Kid Identity ........................................................................ 62

Perception of Third Culture Kid Identity .............................................................................. 64
Experience of Repatriation .................................................................................................... 66
Feelings of Belonging ............................................................................................................... 79

Feelings of Connection .......................................................................................................... 79

Feelings of Not Belonging ..................................................................................................... 82
Response to Information and Events ......................................................................................... 89

Emotion-Based Reactions...................................................................................................... 89
Thought-Based Reactions ...................................................................................................... 95
Action-Based Reactions ...................................................................................................... 105
Rigor ........................................................................................................................................ 113

Trustworthiness ................................................................................................................... 113

Reflexivity ........................................................................................................................... 113
Ethical Assurances ............................................................................................................... 114
Assumptions ........................................................................................................................ 115
Chapter Summary .................................................................................................................... 115

Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusions ...................................................................................... 116

Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 116

Summary of Findings .............................................................................................................. 116

Identity ................................................................................................................................. 116

iii
 Race ..................................................................................................................................... 116
Privilege ............................................................................................................................... 118
TCK Identity ........................................................................................................................ 119
Feelings of Membership ...................................................................................................... 120
Response to Information and/or Events............................................................................... 121
Integration of Findings and Research Literature ..................................................................... 123

TCK Research...................................................................................................................... 123

Theoretical Identity Models................................................................................................. 125
White Racial Identity ........................................................................................................... 128
Interpretation of Findings ........................................................................................................ 130

A Different Privileged White Experience ............................................................................... 130

TCK Education Gap ................................................................................................................ 132

Recommendations ................................................................................................................... 133

Implications ............................................................................................................................. 134

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 137

References ................................................................................................................................... 140

Appendix A: Recruitment Flyer.................................................................................................. 143
Appendix B: Informed Consent Form ........................................................................................ 144
Appendix C: Demographics Questionnaire ................................................................................ 148
Appendix D: Semi-Structured Interview .................................................................................... 152

iv
 1

Chapter 1: Nature of the Study

Background

When I was in my second year of college, I attended a workshop focused on racism in the

United States. In order to illuminate the nature of White privilege, the presenter named

characteristics of privilege that are afforded to Whites in the United States but are not available

to non-Whites. Everyone had strips of paper and glue, and each time a characteristic was listed

that was not true for you, you were to make a paper ring, and form a chain of links with the rings.

I found myself confused as to what to do. Living in the United States, all of the privileges listed

were ones I was provided as a White woman, including easily finding makeup in my skin-tone,

regularly seeing individuals of my race in positions of power or on magazine covers, and not

being targeted by policemen due to my race. However, these were not true of my life up until

the age of 18. My makeup had to be bought in the United States on vacation or shipped to me by

my grandparents because in Cameroon, the makeup available was for Black skin. The local

magazines and public officials were all African. Gendarmes, the term for Cameroonian

policemen carrying assault rifles, often targeted my family and pulled us over because we were

White. I did not know how to complete the exercise, was I to create the chain based on my first

18 years of life, or go without a chain as I had for the past year? How was I to understand what

being White meant in my life? I raised my hand and asked the presenter, who quickly ignored

the nuance of my question by saying that we were only talking about racism in the US. It was

clear to me at that moment that my White identity was not the same as that of my peers, I was the

only one in the room who had lived both with and without a chain, always with privilege, but

also as a minority.

Unlike many of my Global Nomad (a synonym for Third Culture Kids) peers, I had

parents who adeptly scaffolded me through our many moves, acknowledged the grieving process
 2

this entailed, and taught me about my identity as a Third Culture Kid. As a result, the above

story was the only time I was caught off guard by the ramifications of my life abroad. This has

inspired my interest in understanding how other White United States American TCKs have

experienced their racial identity. Throughout this study, the term “Americans” will specifically

refer to United States Americans. A better understanding of White TCK racial identity will

hopefully allow teachers and parents of TCKs to prepare their children for the experience of

repatriation so that they are not left feeling as alone and misunderstood as I did in that workshop.

With the rise of globalization and technologies that facilitate communication across large

distances, the world we live in has become less divided along national and cultural lines. While

this creates a new world for many, it is the norm for the number of adults who have grown up as

Third Culture Kids/Global Nomads. Dr. Useem first used the term “Third Culture Kid” (TCK)

when she began studying expatriate children living in India (Useem, 1993). She developed this

concept based on the observation that these children grew up in a world that was somewhere

between the culture of their parents and that of the nation in which they lived. The children she

observed lived in a world of expatriates where as a group they neither held the identity of their

home nation nor their host nation. They had a culture of their own, a third culture. Over time,

the concept of TCKs has been refined, most notably by Pollock and Van Reken (2009). They

defined TCKs as individuals who spent a significant amount of time in a country other than their

passport country during their developmental years, and eventually returned to their passport

nation. The term Global Nomads is also used to describe this population.

Global Nomads have been identified in a myriad of ways by the current TCK/Global

Nomad literature (Downey, 2012; Fail et al., 2004; Pearce, 2011; Pollock & Van Reken, 2009;

Schaetti, 2000). They are identified through their nationality, first language, supporting
 3

organization, mobility history, and general marginality. Global Nomad identity is complicated

by the fact that the definition covers a heterogeneous group of individuals with a wide range of

experiences regarding the amount of time spent abroad, the level of interaction they have with

host nation locals or expatriates. Some TCK’s repatriate repeatedly and have a home base in

their passport country, while others do not repatriate until they attend a university, or later in life

(Downey, 2012; Pollock & Van Reken, 2009; Schaetti, 2000). Much has been written on the

characteristics that Global Nomads seem to share. Amongst these are adaptability, open-

mindedness, a larger world view of culture, a shared experience of disenfranchised grief, and

often a feeling of belonging nowhere while being able to fit in anywhere (Downey, 2012;

Pollock & Van Reken, 2009; Schaetti, 2000). While TCK identity and identity development

have been greatly examined, there is little written specifically regarding TCK racial identity

development. The literature examines views on nationality and marginality, but it does not

address the development of racial identity (Downey, 2012; Schaetti, 2000).

Racial identity development in the United States is a crucial topic as it is central to

understanding how prejudice is maintained. Through the work of Helms (1990), the field has

developed an understanding of the process White and Black individuals go through as they

grapple with their racial identity. It is important to understand how American TCKs understand

their racial identity because upon repatriation they enter a world that is strongly influenced by a

unique racial history and racial present. In addition, as Global Nomads repatriate, they are likely

to struggle with the new racial world they have entered. Helping them understand their new

surroundings requires an understanding of the role that race plays in this new environment. This

study will focus on White American TCKs who have repatriated from countries whose

populations are majority non-White. In this dissertation, the researcher posits that their racial
 4

understanding may not fit the current models of White racial development as a result of their

time abroad.

This author proposed to study Global Nomad’s understanding of their race guided by the

models of Black and White racial identities put forth by Helms (1990), through Bronfenbrener’s

(Miller, 2011) bioecological theory, and finally through Schaettii’s (2000) model of Global

Nomad identity development. Helms’ (1990) model was used to create questions that examine

issues of privilege, power, and racial attitudes. Bronfenbrener’s bioecological theory guided

questions that aimed to understand how varied systems in TCK’s lives helped inform their racial

development and understanding (Miller, 2011). Finally, Schaetti’s (2000) model informed

research questions designed to examined factors that impacted TCK development such as

repatriation experiences and nationality identity. This study explored racial development from a

qualitative, content analysis approach, as no theory currently exists that takes into account the

multitude of factors that play in the identity development of TCKs.

Problem Statement

Every year, White American TCKs repatriate into a racial world that is unique due to the

United States’ insular experience of race relations. The theories on racial identity development

do not account for the unique multicultural world experienced by TCKs (Downie, 1976; Fail et

al., 2004; Schaetti, 2000). To help repatriated Global Nomads adjust to this new world and

become a positive force in it, those who interact with Global Nomads must understand the

unique nature of their racial understanding and development.

Purpose of the Study

The present study explored how White, American TCKs understand their racial identity,

the process by which they came to this understanding, and the role that repatriation played in the
 5

development of these views. Another important topic of exploration was the effect of being

visually distinctive while living abroad and the subsequent impact on their racial identity.

Conceptual Framework

This study examined the phenomenon of White racial identity development in US

American TCKs who lived in predominantly non-White countries. No theories currently exist to

explain this phenomenon. Helms (1990), Hardiman (1982), and Sue and Sue (2008) have all

described different theories of White racial identity development. However, these theories are

based on White United States citizens who are a privileged majority group, and thus do not

address the experience of living as a racial minority. The development models that speak to

minority experiences, however do not speak to the experience of being privileged (Helms, 1990;

Sue & Sue, 2008). Schaetti (2000) provided the field with an understanding of Global Nomad

identity development. Dr. Schaetti’s model includes nationality as a component, but does not

address racial identity development or beliefs. Using the frameworks put forth by Helms (1990)

and Schaetti as well as Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological theory, this author interviewed adult

repatriated TCKs to better understand their experience of racial development both before and

after repatriation.

Scope of the Study

The scope of this study has been narrowed significantly so that it can attempt to cover a

specific racial experience. It is limited specifically to US American TCKs. This decision was

made due to the unique nature of racial dynamics in the US. While race and racial prejudice

exists all over the world, the attitudes linked to race are unique to each country’s history. To

ensure that the information gathered is accurate for repatriating US Americans, it is important to

limit the study’s scope.

 6

In addition, there are Black, biracial, and multiracial US American TCKs who likely have

a very different experience both abroad and repatriating. This author chose to explore White

racial identity specifically because of the switch that happens upon repatriation, where Global

Nomads go from being visually recognizable to being part of a majority. This is likely a

different process than that of racial minority US Americans who, while they return to a different

racial world, maintain their visual minority status. This is also the rationale for only selecting

Global Nomads who lived in countries that are predominantly non-White.

Moreover, the scope of the study was limited to TCKs who first lived abroad before the

age of nine, and who spent at least six years living abroad. This is to ensure that they

experienced the racial dynamics of being part of a multicultural expatriate community and being

a privileged racial minority early in their development, and that they were still abroad when they

reached a time when they could think critically about the experience.

Definition of Key Terms

Adult Third Culture Kids (TCKs)/Global Nomads (GNs) are adults who lived a significant

amount of time outside of their passport nation as children and have repatriated or will repatriate

to their passport country at some time (Pollock & Van Reken, 2009). For the purposes of this

study, this required that individuals first lived abroad before the age of nine and spent at least six

years abroad.

Constructive marginality is a state where individuals not only understand how to play

different roles as situations require, but also have an internal set of codes and an internal culture

that they identify with (Paige, Jacobs-Cassuto, Yershova, & DeJaeghere, 2003).
 7

Disenfranchised grief is grief that occurs when the object of the grief is one that is not

recognized by the griever’s community, thus complicating the griever’s process of understanding

the loss (Doka 1999).

Encapsulated marginality is a state of being where individuals are able to play different

roles depending on their situation, but they feel they are in a cultural “no man’s land” (Paige et

al., 2003).

Ethnocentric worldview is one in which individuals feel that their culture is the ideal

culture and that other cultures are at worst silly or nonsensical, and at best only different on a

surface level as all people are the same deep down (Hammer, Bennett, & Wiseman, 2003). The

ethnocentric stage includes three distinct developmental periods, Denial of Difference, Defense

against Difference, and Minimization of Difference.

Ethnorelative worldview is a state of recognizing that other cultures exist and are

considered no more or less relevant than their own (Hammer et al., 2003). This worldview

consists of Acceptance, Adaptation, and Integration, which resolve in either Encapsulated

Marginality or Constructive Marginality.

Significance of the Study

The results of this study can provide insight into the experience of White American TCKs

and further inform interventions to support this population before and after repatriation. Parents

of TCKs will be able to develop an understanding of what to expect for their children, and

identify strategies to support their development so that they have a more positive experience both

abroad and upon repatriation. Teachers and guidance counselors who work with Global Nomads

may be able to use the information to support their students and prepare them for the struggles

they face while expatriates and as they transition to a life in the United States.
 8

One of the most difficult aspects of Global Nomad life is feeling marginalized and not

understanding why (Pollock & Van Reken, 2009; Schaetti, 2000). Providing TCKs themselves

with a clear framework with which to understand their current and future experiences could go a

long way to ameliorating their well-being and transition process. In addition, another struggle

Global Nomads face is anxiety upon entering new situations (Pollock & Van Reken, 2009;

Schaetti, 2000). They are often described as being chameleons and adept at fitting in, but this

may mean that upon repatriating to the United States, they will blend in to the racial culture as it

is, instead of using their unique intercultural understanding to combat prejudice. Disseminating

a model for understanding White racial identity may help recruit a population of individuals to

fight prejudice. This researcher focused on American TCKs, recruited after repatriation to the

United States, however the themes discovered about an international cross-cultural life may be

useful outside of the United States as well.

Summary

This researcher examined the way in which White American Global Nomads develop an

understanding of their racial identity having lived in majority non-White countries. An

additional topic for exploration was repatriation to the United States, with its unique racial

culture, and how this affects one’s understanding of racial identity. The rationale for this course

of study was to help TCKs understand this process for their own well-being, and to provide those

who support them with tools to help them with this process.

The current literature on Global Nomad identity development, racial identity

development, and intercultural sensitivity provide models for understanding the studied construct

(Greenholtz & Kim, 2009; Helms & Carter, 1990; Paige et al., 2003; Schaetti, 2000). However,

none of these models address all the unique components that White American TCKs face. It is
 9

the hope of the author that using the literature as a foundation, a qualitative interview process

will allow her to develop an understanding of this phenomenon that integrates the current models

with the unique experiences of this population.

 10

Chapter 2: Literature Review

Introduction

This section will review research pertaining to the experience of TCKs. In particular, this

chapter will address issues related to identity, loss, repatriation, marginality, open-mindedness,

and identity development. Pollock and Van Reken (2009) provided a general overview of TCK

life and a framework that can be been used for further exploration. Pedersen, and Sullivan

(1964) examined the issue of mobility focusing on parental attitudes. Gilbert (2008) studied in-

depth the issues of loss and grief. Many authors focused on Repatriation, which is a key

component in Schaetti’s (2000) model for Global Nomad identity development. Marginality was

a common thread found in all accounts of TCK literature, as was the attribute of open-

mindedness (Melles & Schwartz, 2013; Pollock & Van Recken, 2009; Schaetti, 2000). Further

research explored TCKs’ open-mindedness through the correlation between mobility and

prejudice (Melles & Schwartz, 2013). Schaetti (2000) outlined an in-depth model of Global

Nomad Identity development. This chapter will further review the different models of White

racial identity development as described by Helms (1990) and Sue and Sue (2008), looking to

identify similarities and differences.

Research Strategy

Initially, the researcher reviewed literature on the topic of Third Culture Kids broadly.

The writer started out with the EBSCO database using the key terms Third Culture Kid/s, Global

Nomad/s, Missionary Kid/s, Military Kid/s, and additive terms such as grief, identity, mobility,

and development. The impetus for this study began after discovering the case study of Lena and

intercultural hybridity (Greenholtz & Kim, 2009). In this article, authors found that the

participant, a Global Nomad, held traits of both ethnorelative and ethnocentric worldviews. The
 11

author then sought out works linked to Schaetti and the Intercultural Development Inventory

(Hammer, Bennett, & Wiseman, 2003; Paige et al., 2003; Schaetti, 2000). Literature on racial

identity came from Sue and Sue (2008), Helms (1990), Helms (1992), and Hardiman (1982). All

provided insight into White racial identity and served as a foundation for discussion on identity

development of TCKs.

Third Culture Kids

Features of TCK Life

Global Nomads are often defined in large part by the organization that sponsored their

family’s life abroad (Downey, 2012; Pollock & Van Reken, 2009; Schaetti, 2000). Each

sponsoring organization was found to have a unique set of goals, rules, and codes by which they

operated. Sponsoring organizations may include the military, diplomatic agencies, missionary

groups, international educational organizations, international businesses, and Non-Governmental

Organizations (NGOs) usually with the aim of providing humanitarian support. According to

research, not only did these organizations play a role in providing an initial identity, but they

affected the amount of support TCKs and their families received, as well as their level of

mobility.

Mobility was one of the experiences all TCKs shared (Downey, 2012; Pollock & Van

Reken, 2009; Schaetti, 2000). While not all TCKs moved repeatedly or often, the majority lived

in settings where others were constantly moving. Even when a Global Nomad may not be

changing countries, he or she was likely losing at least one friend or teacher to a move, and may

have a parent who travels often (Pollock & Van Reken, 2009; Schaetti, 2000). This created an

environment where the only constant was change. In contrast, their US American peers could

generally expect to live in the same house and have access to the same friends for extended

periods of time. The only thing that stayed the same for many TCKs was the presence of their
 12

nuclear family (Pollock & Van Reken, 2009), and even this was not always guaranteed in a

world with the possibility of evacuations and boarding schools.

Along with mobility came the experience of loss (Gilbert, 2008; Pollock & Van Reken,

2009). As Global Nomads moved, or those around them moved, they experienced repeated

losses of social support and environmental familiarity. Early on TCKs went through repeated

grieving experiences, and this often paralleled a similar process experienced by their parents

(Pollock & Van Reken, 2009). Unfortunately, not all TCKs received support through this

process, as their parents and teachers may not have understood the toll this takes on children

(Pascoe, 2006). Gilbert (2008) explored this theme in a recent study. She noted that much of the

grief experienced by TCKs could be understood as “disenfranchised grief”, or loss that is not

recognized by the griever’s social world, as it does not fit a traditional model of loss due to death

of a human one was close to (Gilbert, 2008). The grieving process is a difficult one, and it

became even more difficult when one did not receive the acknowledgment or support of their

community. One can hope that through the work of researchers such as Pollock and Van Reken

(2009), Schaetti (2000), and Pascoe (2006) that this will become less of a struggle as more

literature and support exists to draw from for the parents and educators of TCKs.

Global Nomads repeatedly reported feeling that they did not belong in any one setting

(Fail et al., 2004; Pollock & Van Reken, 2009). In their host country, they may have had

relationships with host natives, but clearly came from a different culture. When they repatriated,

they have been of the same nationality as their peers, but their experiences were anything but

similar, and they were often behind on pop culture references. This feeling of not belonging can

be exemplified by the common dread TCKs had of being asked where they are from, to which

there is rarely one easy answer. A TCK’s nationality may not be the same as their birthplace, or
 13

the country they grew up in (Fail et al., 2004; Pollock & Van Reken, 2009; Schaetti, 2000).

Another example of this marginality came when a Global nomad was asked to identify a “home”,

a question to which they also often had multiple answers, none of which encapsulated the

concept. All of this may leave Global Nomads feeling isolated, misunderstood by non-TCKs,

and like they must either ignore aspects of their identities to answer questions in a normative

way, or be prepared for a long complicated answer to supposedly simple questions.

Common TCK Personality Characteristics

One trait commonly associated with Global Nomads was their ability to adapt to new

situations as a result of living in an ever-changing world (Downey, 2012; Fail et al., 2004;

Pollock & Van Reken, 2009). TCKs and those who know them often described them as

chameleons, able to blend in to most any situation (Downey, 2012; Fail et al., 2004; Pollock &

Van Reken, 2009; Schaetti, 2000). This was a trait, that when learned, served Global Nomads

well as they were required to modify their behavior not just as they went from school to home,

but from time with individuals of one culture to another, from one country to another, and even

from one language to another. This type of code-switching was normal for them (Fail et al.,

2004; Pollock & Van Reken, 2009; Schaetti, 2000)

Owing to their time amongst various cultures and experience with peers of many nations

TCKs were often open-minded and tolerant of a wide range of cultures (Fail et al., 2004; Pollock

& Van Reken, 2009; Schaetti, 2000). They learned quickly that different cultures had different

rules for behavior and customs, and that this did not mean any one behavior was inherently bad

or wrong, but simply inappropriate given the current context (Schaetti, 2000). One study seemed

to support the hypothesis that exposure to multiple cultures led to lower levels of prejudice.

Melles (2013) found that the more countries a TCK lived in the less prejudiced they were. The
 14

authors surmised that mobility had this effect because as individuals move, the

stereotypes/prejudices they learned in one culture do not hold true in the next. As they move

repeatedly, stereotypes and prejudicial beliefs begin to lose their meaning.

Melles (2013) also found that American TCKs showed significantly higher levels of

prejudice than their non-US American TCK peers. The author suggested that this difference may

be due to internalized racial tension that exists in the US. This does have implications for the

current understanding of TCKs as much of the TCK literature is developed with TCKs as

participants. Another study on prejudice was the case study performed on Lena (Paige et al.,

2003). This study evaluated a Global Nomad’s responses to the Intercultural Development

Inventory (IDI) and found a conflicting profile that indicated a world-view that acknowledges

the uniqueness of different cultures without deeming any one preferable, while still minimizing

the differences between individuals. To better understand the implications of Lena’s results, it is

necessary to further examine the assessments used and the theories from which they derive.

Identity Models

Bennett and Hammer’s Intercultural Sensitivity Model

The case study examining Lena used a measure developed based on the Developmental

Model of Intercultural Sensitivity (DMIS). Lena’s profile on the Intercultural Development

Inventory (IDI) indicated that this measure may not be perfectly applicable to TCK development,

but it provides a strong framework to start from. This theory works on the premise that

individuals travel through six stages of intercultural growth starting with three ethnocentric

stages leading to increasingly complex ethnorelative stages (Hammer et al., 2003). Those in the

ethnocentric stage felt that their culture was the ideal. They began in a state of Denial of

Difference where they were unaware of, or ignorant of cultural differences. Most people in this

stage had little contact with other cultures. They may have started out in a state where they were
 15

isolated from other cultures and moved to a point where they actively separated themselves from

other cultures. They then moved into the stage of Defense against Difference, a position of bi-

dimensional thinking where those who are different are negative and threatening, where as those

who are similar are seen in a positive light. This was followed by Minimization of Differences

where people endorsed the idea that differences were only superficial, and that all humans were

inherently the same.

The ethnorelative stage began with the position of Acceptance where people not only

recognized cultural differences, but valued them and recognized them as being normal and

understandable (Hammer et al., 2003). This was followed by Adaptation to difference where

individuals began to show empathy and or pluralism. In this case, empathy was the ability to

take on another’s worldview to understand them. Pluralism was the internalization of multiple

worldviews as part of one’s own. Finally, one reached a stage of Integration of difference where

multiple worldviews were integrated into one’s own belief system. This stage resolved either in

simply being able to apply different cultural modalities in different situations (encapsulated

marginality), or later in constructive marginality where not only could one use a range of cultural

codes but also had a base set of beliefs and values of one’s own to draw on (Hammer et al., 2003;

Paige et al., 2003).

It would seem that this model did capture the range of cultural developmental

understandings TCKs have. Where it may have fallen short is in the belief that ethnorelativity

and ethnocentrism are mutually exclusive. In the case of Lena, she showed predominantly

ethnorelative thinking, except where she endorsed concepts related to people being

fundamentally the same regardless of culture. It is possible that when individuals are not

introduced to multiple cultures these more naïve thoughts are lost when developing ethnorelative
 16

patterns. However, it is possible that living between worlds allows one to also live between

ethnorelative and ethnocentric modes. Where this model spoke to intercultural development in

general the following model was specific to TCK development.

Schaetti’s Developmental Model

The model Schaetti (2000) developed sought to understand TCK development and the

unique experiences of those who grow up across cultures (Schaetti, 2000). Schaetti identified

four different struggles (Repatriation, Nationality, Difference, and Plurality) that TCKs face, and

the different ways in which they build their identity in regards to these tasks.

Repatriation. Schaetti (2000), along with Pollock and Van Reken, (2009) identified

repatriation as a crucial component of TCK life. Repatriation is the act of moving back, or

sometimes for the first time, to one’s passport nation. It is Repatriation that helps distinguish

TCKs from immigrants and refugees who never expect to live in, or return to their passport

nation (Pollock & Van Reken, 2009; Schaetti, 2000). It is a complicated aspect of TCK identity

as it is strongly affected by their feelings towards their passport nation, their feelings regarding

their host nation/s, and their level of experience with the culture of their passport nation. How

repatriation was experienced may even affect how they feel about their nationality, and how and

where they choose to live their lives. Schaetti (2000) proposed that the act of repatriation is

transacted in one of three different forms. There are those who identified as Homecomers,

expecting to feel at home in their passport country and having this expectation met. Many, by

contrast, identified as Strangers, meaning that they expect to feel at home in their passport

nation, but were disappointed to find this is not the case upon repatriation. The third contingent

she named Cosmopolites. These individuals recognized prior to repatriating that they would

likely feel somewhat out of place, but understood why and in what ways this will be the case.
 17

Nationality. Nationality was often a defining feature of TCKs both in the school

community, and outside of it (Pollock & Van Reken, 2009; Schaetti, 2000). One’s nationality is

traditionally defined by one’s nation of citizenship. In her article Schaetti recognized that TCKs

may feel allegiances to nations other than their passport nation. In her dissertation, Schaetti used

the term Nationality as being the nation or nations to which a TCK feels loyal. When traveling,

the topic of Nationality was present in the form of one’s passport, and was often how an

individual introduced him or herself (Schaetti, 2000). Schaetti’s (2000) model suggested there

are three different ways Nationality is resolved (Insular, International, Transnational). The first

state in this aspect of development is an Insular national identity. Those who identified as

Insular considered themselves strongly tied only to their passport nationality. These were

individuals who may have touted their country as the best. By contrast, those who exemplified

International identity felt strongly aligned with the mores and ideology of their passport nation

but also had a strong attachment to traveling, experiencing, and understanding other cultures and

nations. Finally, those who were Transnationals may have felt that national identities are no

more than titles. They held little to no allegiance to any one nation and may were ambivalent

towards ideas such as patriotism and nationalism.

Difference. When living abroad, Global Nomads were generally recognizably different

from those born in the host country in a variety of ways including the language they spoke, the

clothes they wore, and/or the color of their skin (Schaetti, 2000). This difference had some

advantages in that it allowed them to connect to their fellow TCK peers, and may have allowed

their errors in behavior to be forgiven. However, it could also be the source of great discomfort.

Schaetti (2000) suggested that TCKs’ different identity could be transacted in one of two ways.

The first being Encapsulated Marginality, a state where they were able to adapt to a variety of
 18

situations by using a multitude of learned roles, but felt that they had no distinct identity. The

second being a state of Constructive Marginality where they had not only integrated a range of

cultural scripts, but had also developed an internal script of their own to guide their behaviors.

Plurality. Living in a transcultural world, Global Nomads were faced with the issue of

plurality, or multiple truths on a regular basis (Schaetti, 2000). This included such concrete

things as being exposed to multiple languages and thus a range of words for any one idea, to

many ways of understanding events and behaviors. This is to say that they learned “that truth is

contextually relative” (Schaetti, 2000, p. 105). One of the four possible resolutions to the task of

Plurality (Dualism, Multiplicity, Contextual Relativism, Commitment Within Relativism) was to

maintain a state of Dualism, where one maintained the belief that there is a singular truth and that

other options are simply wrong. This was followed by a state of Multiplicity, where individuals

may have felt trapped in a world where there were so many possible truths that one could not be

chosen or held.

Schaetti’s (2000) review of the literature suggested that most global nomads surpassed

these two states and moved at the least to one of Contextual Relativism where the understanding

of truth was based on the context one was in. This was followed by a state of Commitment

Within Relativism where while truth was seen as relative to the context of the moment the

individual also had a set of higher-order values they held to help guide them. While Schaetti’s

(2000) model of development is an excellent framework for understanding some of the

developmental challenges that face TCKs, it does not specifically address how TCKs develop

their racial identity. While racial identity may be partially included in the resolution of

Nationality, Difference, and Plurality, none of these areas covers the depth of a TCK’s racial

experience
 19

Racial Identity

This section provides information about an aspect of TCK experience that has yet to be

addressed by the current literature, namely racial identity. It is important to build an

understanding of White identity development in TCKs, because a large subset of American

TCKs repatriating to this country are White. Repatriation is a daunting adjustment, and even

more so because one is entering a country with unique racial dynamics. White TCKs who have

lived in predominantly non-White countries have a rather unique experience of being both

minorities and privileged. This combination of traits is rare in the US, and is underrepresented in

the literature. To build a framework for how TCK identity may develop, it is crucial to look at

the racial, TCK, and intercultural identity models the literature does provide.

Models of White Racial Identity Development

The earliest model for understanding White racial identity found in the literature was

pioneered by Hardiman (1982). This model divided development into stages of Naïveté,

Acceptance, Resistance, Redefinition, and Internalization. She associated the Naïveté stage with

childhood, where individuals were not aware of the dynamics of race and were simply curious.

The Acceptance stage was a period where individuals believe in the idea that everyone had the

same chances to succeed, and thus any lack of opportunity was due to a failure on the part of that

individual. This begins the process of building attitudes of White superiority. After Acceptance

came the Resistance stage, which occurred when the White person’s beliefs become challenged,

often causing discomfort. This stage may have coincided with an avoidance of Black people as

being made aware of the discrimination they faced was upsetting. It is during the Redefinition

phase that White individuals began to examine their beliefs and prejudices as well as their racial

heritage. Now not only were they aware that they were White, but they began to explore what

this means to them and in the US. Finally, during the Internalization stage, the White individual
 20

had an understanding of his White identity free of prejudice and may have committed oneself to

social change.

In 1990, Helms developed an alternative model of White racial identity development.

The Helms model (1990) of White racial identity development starts in the Contact state. Much

like Hardiman’s (1982) Naïveté and Acceptance stages those who were in the contact phase were

ignorant of their White identity, believed that all humans had the same opportunities, and were

unaware of the discrimination experienced by non-Whites. This was followed by the

Disintegration status, wherein White individuals recognized the dissonance between the ideals of

equality and the inequality they see. They became aware of racist actions or thoughts they had

which contradicted their belief that they were free of prejudice. This, not unlike Hardiman’s

(1982) Resistance stage may be a time when White men/women avoided people of color,

avoided thinking about race, and sought validation from other White individuals.

After the Disintegration status, there was the risk that White individuals may regress and

become entrenched in their beliefs regarding White superiority and minority inferiority. Some

moved to a Pseudoindependence status, which begins the second phase of White racial identity.

This was a stage where a White individual began to understand their racial identity and their role

in fighting racism. They may however, despite good intentions, have maintained racism by

attempting to help minorities adjust to White standards, or keeping their understanding of racism

at an intellectual level. In the Immersion/Emersion status the White person continued their

exploration of their White identity but now with an attempt to change themselves and White

views as opposed to changing minorities. The final status was the Autonomy status where

individuals were better able to be an activist and non-racist force in the world due to reduced

feelings of guilt and a better understanding of their role in maintaining racism.

 21

Both of the models discussed above are relevant to White TCK identity. White TCKs,

like their peers, must go through the same stages of understanding what it is to be White. They

will also begin their lives naïve to the effects of race, and need to grapple with the effect race has

on how they are treated. The White model addressed the process of acknowledging White

privilege and feelings of guilt linked to White privilege. Most TCKs living abroad are provided

privileges not available to those in the host country. What the White identity model did not

address, is the issue of living as a racial minority, which is the case for TCKs in predominantly

non-White countries. For these individuals the model for Black identity is relevant because it

addresses the concept of being a visually distinctive minority, and how an individual has to

accept that their appearance may affect how they are treated. The Black identity model,

however, does not cover the experience of privilege. Schaetti’s (2000) model and Hammer,

Bennett, and Wiseman’s (2003) models shared a process of going from black and white ways of

seeing the world to a more relative and nuanced understanding. This is also the case with the

models of White racial identity.

The belief in White superiority was another key component of the Hardiman (1982) and

Helms (1990) models. While there is no lack of attitudes that align with White superiority in

non-White cultures, they are more often linked to a history of colonialism than that of slavery

(Perham, 1959). Thus far, this distinction has not been explored and its effect on White racial

identity is unknown. It may make it possible for White American TCKs to feel separate from the

historic guilt linked to Whiteness in their host countries, given that the US was never a colonial

force. Additionally, more recently Whiteness is linked to humanitarian work (Loftsdóttir, 2009).

Many of the agencies that sponsor TCKs and their families are humanitarian organizations. As

such most of the faces seen providing aid are White, as many of the humanitarian organizations
 22

that work in developing countries have their headquarters in majority White countries. Is it

possible that this new association while it still propagates a tone of White superiority may allow

White TCKs to avoid the less positive aspects of White identity? These questions are worth

exploring in the light of Melles’ (2013) finding that American adult TCKs displayed

significantly higher levels of prejudice than their non-American counterparts.

Gaps in the Literature

While current models of White racial identity (Helms, 1990; Sue & Sue, 2008) fit with a

White TCK’s experience of privilege, it involves the experience of being able to live without

acknowledging one’s White identity. By contrast White TCKs in predominantly non-White

countries may not have this luxury, as their race is clearly different and unavoidably so. The

same authors have Black identity models that include the experience of being racially

identifiable as different from the majority, but in the case of Black individuals they do not hold

privilege the way their White counterparts do. As such, neither Black nor White identity models

adequately describe a White TCK’s experience of race in predominantly non-White countries. It

is this author’s belief that before data can be used to begin developing models or theories of

White racial identity in TCKs it would be ideal to simply observe it through the participant’s

accounts and look for patterns.

Present Study

For the present study, the author explored how White American’s develop and experience

their Whiteness, both in the US and during their time abroad. In the United States, being White

means many different things. It means one is free not to think about one’s race (Helms, 1990).

It means that one is afforded privileges in the realms of education, work place, and society that

are not available to men and women who are not White. It also comes with vicarious guilt

regarding the US’s history of slavery and civil rights violations towards non-Whites. This is not
 23

to say that there are not White men and women who do not have the privileges that come with

higher socio-economic status, only that they still are not burdened by the discrimination that

comes from having darker skin and standing out because of it.

While a White American TCK may be privileged with money and freedoms not afforded

members of the host nation, they can also be discriminated against in small ways. Police may

stop them, not because they are assumed to be doing wrong but in the hopes that a bribe will be

paid to avoid the inconvenience of the interaction. They may be charged higher prices than

others purely because they are seen as being wealthy. Bids may be made for financial support or

help getting a Visa to their host country. They may be affected by the laws of the nation without

having the ability to effect change in those laws. Finally, many of the smaller markers of White

privilege such as being represented in the media, or having makeup in one’s skin color are not

available when living abroad in predominantly non-White countries.

What then happens when someone who has lived in this unique world is immersed in the

racial world of the United States? If they do not seek out an understanding of US racial culture

they may unwittingly become the recipients of a type of privilege that is new. While the

experience of privilege is not new, in this new setting it is based on majority group identity not

minority group inclusion. As such, it may be something they do not see happening.

Global Nomads already struggle with repatriation, and the change in racial culture is yet

another way in which they are different from their peers (Schaetti, 2000). This may cause stress

upon repatriation that parents, teachers, and mental health workers should be aware of.

Furthermore, Global Nomads could benefit from being made aware of not only the general ways

they will feel different and behind in their knowledge of the US world, but specifically how they

may be behind in their racial identity development. This is not to say that they have not
 24

developed a racial identity, but that the identity they developed was based on a different world,

and that in the new world of repatriation there is more to learn about their White identity. By

examining their attitudes regarding being White and those of other races this researcher hoped to

develop an understanding of how White TCKs experience and understand their race.

Summary and Transition

There is a dearth of literature on the topic of Third Culture Kids and White racial identity

development. The subject of White racial identity development has yet to be examined from the

perspective of White American TCKs living in non-White countries. It is true that this is a

relatively unique population, but it is one that faces a host of identity development challenges.

Many of these challenges have come to be described by the literature and intersect the issue of

race, but none of them address it. These Global Nomads face a very specific challenge upon

repatriation as they move from an intercultural world to one that is less international, and to a

country with a very specific racial dynamic. The literature makes clear that feelings of

marginality are common in TCKs, and this is likely no less the case when they repatriate and find

themselves part of a privileged White racial majority and yet understand some of the difficulties

that come from being a racial minority due to their time abroad (Pollock & Van Reken, 2009;

Schaetti, 2000). This author proposed to develop an understanding of how these Global Nomads

developed an appreciation for their Whiteness and how repatriation affected this process.

Qualitative methods were the most appropriate as there is no existing literature that examines and

understands this phenomenon.

 25

Chapter 3: Research Design and Method

Chapter Overview

The purpose of this study was to develop an understanding of how White American

Global Nomads understand their racial identity both before and after repatriation to the United

States. This is important because it may help Global Nomads to understand the world they are

entering upon repatriation, and why they may feel different from those around them after this

transition. In addition, data collected in this study may help parents and educators to provide

appropriate supports to ease transitions for this population and to further facilitate an informed,

nuanced understanding of what it means to be White in the world at large.

In this section the author will examine the questions asked during this research, and

explicate methods for gathering and analyzing data. This chapter will also explore why Content

Analysis was chosen as a method of study over other possible methods. Further, this chapter will

address inclusion and exclusion criteria for participating in this study.

The author will identify and describe the tools used and the development of interview

questions. In conjunction, the author will describe her personal connection to this topic along

with her understanding of any biases she may have. This chapter will also include the author’s

assumptions and a description of procedures that were put in place to safeguard the ethical rights

of the participants.

Research Questions

Due to the dearth of research on the topic of White identity in TCKs, and the unique

culture TCKs grow up in, an exploratory, semi-structured focus was necessary to begin

understanding the topic of White identity of those who are privileged minorities. The present

study was created to explore the following questions:

 26

• What does White mean when you live in a country where the majority of the population

has dark skin and when you attend a school where the students around you come from a

wide range of countries, ethnicities, language backgrounds, and religions?

• What prejudices does one hold in these situations?

• What is it like to be wealthy in the context of your host nation’s population, but perhaps

only lower middle class compared to peers in the host country, or peers back in your

passport nation?

Research Design

With this study the researcher proposed to develop an understanding of a phenomenon

that is not yet well documented in the literature. As there is little understanding of this topic,

qualitative methods were used to develop an in-depth understanding. The author chose to take a

Content Analysis approach to this topic. Content Analysis is similar to a phenomenological

approach, which is ideal when there is minimal literature available and one wants to get a clear

understanding of a phenomenon (Creswell, 2013; Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). While there are

many sources examining the characteristics and development of TCKs, and the effects of

mobility, the issue of racial identity has been largely untouched. Content Analysis is a method

that systematically examines the use of language as communication, and is a way of examining a

phenomenon (Elo & Kyngäs, 2007; Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). Other research designs that could

have been applicable for the present study were grounded theory and phenomenological

methods. Like Content Analysis, both grounded theory and phenomenological approaches

examine language to explore a phenomenon (Elo & Kyngäs, 2007). By contrast, they go further

in their analysis, to not only describe the phenomenon, but also to begin developing a theory or

model for understanding the subject studied. While it may eventually be important to develop a
 27

model based on the information gathered about White TCK identity, the process involved with

model development is one that acts to narrow the understanding of the phenomenon. At this

time there is a dearth of literature on this topic. Narrowing the focus too much would not allow

the author to explore how each participant experienced their White identity differently. This ran

the risk of missing important data that could inform later research into the topic. For this reason,

Content Analysis was an ideal method, as it allowed the researcher the freedom to explore the

phenomenon being investigated, without the narrow focus Grounded Theory or

Phenomenological methods would require.

Population and Sample

To be eligible for the study, individuals needed to be White, United States citizens, adult

TCKs who had repatriated to the United States at least once. For the purposes of this study, TCK

was operationalized as individuals who had spent at least 6 years living outside their passport

nations. Time abroad had to occur between at least age 9 and age 18. The time abroad had to

include at least 6 years in non-White countries and preferably included time in International

Schools. The lower age limit was chosen to ensure that racial minority status was experienced

early in individual’s development. The 6-year minimum time abroad was chosen to ensure that

participants were still abroad at an age when they could begin to think about their identity. This

was important because they would be asked to recall it, and if they were too young to have

contemplated the effects of their race while abroad this could limit the usefulness of the

information provided. They must have lived in countries where Whites are a minority as this

causes a distinct change in status upon repatriation to a nation where they are now a member of

the majority group. It is important that they had repatriated to help the examiner explore the

experience of going from being a racial minority group member to a racial majority group
 28

member. The choice to only include individuals 18 years old or older was made because

younger individuals are more likely to still be developing an understanding of their identity

overall, and it would be best to document an understanding of identity that may be more stable.

The primary researcher considered only including individuals who attended international schools

because the literature indicates that the experience of a third culture (neither host culture nor

passport culture) has an effect on development, and could influence their exposure to racial

dynamics as international schools are racially diverse (Pollock & Van Reken, 2009). However,

as not all TCKs attend international schools and this is an exploratory study the examiner

included some participants who were predominantly home-schooled while abroad. While not

attending international or mixed nationality schools provides a different between culture

experiences, those who were home-schooled did still receive exposure to both home culture and

host culture as children.

The primary researcher initially asked participants to complete a demographic

questionnaire to assess their eligibility for the study (Appendix A). Those participants who met

the criteria then received emails letting them know that they were eligible and setting up a means

of continuing on in the study. The researcher subsequently contacted participants to schedule

interviews in person. Before beginning interviews, participants had an opportunity to review

their rights as participants and were asked to sign an informed consent form. The information in

the consent form were reviewed again verbally prior to taping the interview.

The researcher planned to interview 10-12 participants, or until saturation of data was

reached and no new categories emerged while coding. After coding interviews by seven

participants, no new large categories were added to the coding. When this was still true after a

total of 10 interviews had been coded, the researcher,, with confirmation from the auditor
 29

decided that saturation had been met. While criteria only required that participants spend 6 years

abroad the researcher worked to include participants who had spent more years abroad during

their childhoods. In addition, an effort was made to include participants who ranged in age and

socioeconomic status, lived in different host nations, and had been sponsored by a range of

employers.

Procedures

The participants for this study were recruited by advertising the study through

International School Alumni groups, Third Culture Kid/Global Nomad social media groups, and

through a social media International Research group using the flyer in Appendix A.

Furthermore, snowballing was used to help gather more participants. Snowballing is a process

by which possible participants were asked to send the information regarding participation to

individuals they know, who were asked to do the same. The Global Nomad and international

communities are often close-knit communities, and it is likely that those who first come in

contact with the participation information will know of others who might meet participation

criteria. Participants had their names entered in to a raffle to win one of three $30 Amazon gift

cards.

The advertisement featured contact information as well as a description of the basic

inclusion criteria for participants. Upon expressing interest participants received an informed

consent form (Appendix B) by email, as well as a demographic questionnaire (Appendix C),

which helped confirm their appropriateness for the study. The primary researcher subsequently

scheduled a time to meet for the semi-structured interview (Appendix D) by phone. Prior to the

interview, the researcher reviewed consent, addressing participants’ right to withdraw at any time

without penalty, and permission to record the interview was received and documented.
 30

Following the interview, the author asked participants about their level of distress and

provided referral information for health care services should the process be upsetting, or become

upsetting after they left the interview. The author and a research assistant transcribed the

interviews and transcriptions were sent to participants for final approval before being coded by

the author.

Instrumentation

Interview Tools

The author used a basic demographics questionnaire to ensure participants’ eligibility for

the study, and to understand the intricacies of each participant’s unique Global Nomad

experience (Appendix B). In addition, the author developed a semi-structured interview that

asked participants to describe how they identify themselves, how they identify their race,

whether their understanding of their identity had changed over time, and which factors had been

part of forming their identity (Appendix D). This interview was developed with the models such

as the Helms’ White racial identity development model (1990), the Intercultural Development

Inventory (Hammer et al., 2003), and Schaetti’s (2000) model of TCK identity development in

mind. In addition, questions were also created based on the author’s own experience as a White

TCK. To control for personal biases, the initial and follow up questions were designed to be

open ended so that the participant was not led to respond in ways that validate the author’s

personal experience or expectations.

Data Analysis

While participants reviewed transcripts the primary researcher analyzed the subsequent

data using qualitative content analysis. Participants’ thoughts on the transcripts were kept in

mind during the analysis. In only one situation did a participant feel there was a
 31

misunderstanding in the transcript regarding the transcription of a word. The researcher

reviewed the transcript and the audio and agreed that the participant’s memory was accurate, and

made the appropriate change to the transcript. All other participants either had no revisions, or

small grammatical comments that did not modify the thematic content of their interviews. There

are three types of content analysis, conventional, directed, and summative (Hsieh & Shannon,

2005). Directed content analysis was not deemed appropriate for this study as it uses existing

research to guide the development of codes picked out of the interview transcripts. As there is

no research on this topic a less guided approach was more appropriate. Summative content

analysis uses counting, comparing, and interpreting the identified words in the transcript. This

focus on specific words narrows the meanings found in the text. By contrast conventional

content analysis like summative content analysis stays very true to the data, but allows for a

broader analysis of the text. Thus the researcher chose to do conventional content analysis.

The first step in the coding process was to read each interview carefully as a whole, so as

to fully engage with it as one narrative (Elo & Kyngäs, 2007). The formal coding started with

identifying quotes that expressed concepts or experiences that recur within the interviews. These

served as a first level, or in vivo codes (Weintraub, 2009). Through this process the researcher

was able to identify the core ideas expressed in each interview. The researcher then looked for

common themes across interviews. When this process was completed the researcher had a list of

codes that epitomize the themes expressed in the interviews. The second step was to examine

the in vivo codes and organize them in groups (categories) that share common characteristics

(Weintraub, 2009). When this was completed, the researcher had a list of categories. Finally,

these categories were examined for ways in which they may express larger concepts (Weintraub,

2009).
 32

The researcher did the initial review of the transcripts and developing of the codes. The

examiner then reviewed the data and the coding with my dissertation chair, who has extensive

experience with qualitative data analysis. The examiner’s dissertation chair then reviewed the

codes to ensure the data was well represented.

Good Research Practices

Trustworthiness

To ensure dependability, an interview protocol was developed that was practiced with the

auditor prior to administering it to participants. This was done to ensure that all participants

were responding to the same questions. The questions developed were chosen based on those

questions used by other researchers whose models for understanding racial identity development

and cultural sensitivity have been tested (Helms & Carter, 1990; Paige et al., 2003). In addition,

questions were developed based on the author’s own experience of this phenomenon, with an

understanding of Reflexivity, the idea that in qualitative research the researcher’s behaviors and

choices will have an impact on the investigation (Lietz, Langer, & Furman, 2006). Any

questions stemming from the author’s experiences were reviewed to ensure they were open-

ended and would not unduly influence the participant’s portrayal of their experiences as they

may not be the same as the author’s.

Threats to trustworthiness included the fact that the questions asked were face valid and

participants may have felt a need to modify their answers to maintain social desirability.

Another threat was that these questions asked participants to remember their experiences with

race from the past. There was the risk that their memories were inaccurate, or anachronistic to

current life abroad. In addition, there was the risk that the examiner’s biases would affect the

process of the interview and participants may have felt a pull to present their experiences in a

way that confirmed the author’s expectations.

 33

Reflexivity

In qualitative research, the examiner and the examiner’s experiences are an important

part of the research process. The creation of interview questions, the course the interview takes,

and the process of coding are all subject to the examiner’s personal bias. For this reason, it was

important to understand where the examiner may have areas of insight, where he or she may

have biases, and what steps were taken to ensure that the results were not influenced by

confirmation bias.

This research topic is one that is strongly linked to my personal experiences as a White

Global Nomad (GN). I was born in Canada to a White Canadian mother and White American

father. By the time I was six-weeks-old, I was on a transatlantic flight to the nation of Rwanda.

I lived in Rwanda, Mauritania, Morocco, The Gambia, Cameroon, and India before repatriating

to the United States at the age of 18. My father worked for Catholic Relief Services, (CRS) a

Non-Governmental Organization supported by the Catholic Church of the United States. CRS

provides a wide range of services to developing countries. Most of my father’s positions with

CRS involved working in-country, and thus required that we live in-country. I lived a mixed life

while abroad. We ate many American dishes, I attended international schools with US American

curricula, some of my friends were Americans with diplomatic, NGO, or international business

employees as parents, and my summers were spent visiting our extended family in the US and

Canada. These American influences were all framed by a life in countries where the majority of

those around me were Black or Brown, often spoke a different native language, ate different

foods, came from vastly different cultures, and were of a much lower socio-economic status.

While a member of a racial minority, I was part of a privileged minority. My father at

times made relatively little money compared to his peers in the US. However, by comparison to
 34

the average income of those in our host countries, we were incredibly wealthy. In addition,

housing, schooling, and transportation were often provided as part of my father’s job. As such,

we were of a high socio-economic status by our host nation’s standards. We lived in stand-alone

houses with guards and gates. We had a full-time maid, and later on in my life also had a driver

and a cook, all luxuries only available to the very wealthy in the United States. By contrast, we

had access to items such as electric kitchen utensils, television, cable TV, and phone service,

which are normal in the United States but luxuries abroad. We also had access to heated running

water, plumbing, electricity, and gas, which while considered basic amenities in the United

States, are luxury amenities where we were living.

A large component of certain stages of the racial identity theories developed in the United

States is the idea of White privilege and the ability to go through the world without knowing one

has a racial identity. This was not the case living as a White minority. At a very early age, I was

quite aware that my skin color was different and that I was afforded different opportunities than

those around me. While my White identity was clear, my understanding of what it meant to be

White was inherently linked to my socio-economic status, nationality, and social privilege.

Being White marked me as wealthy, afforded luxuries others did not have, and

opportunities for travel, freedom, justice, education, and future prospects unavailable to the

majority of those in my host country. As an American, I was also keenly aware of my country’s

role in slavery and the damage it did to African nations. I was also however, free of the burden

of imperialist guilt. Americans may have captured and bought slaves from Africa, they however

did not have a hand in the colonization of nations and destruction of the native cultures where I

was living. While my nationality protected me from this birthright, my skin color did not.
 35

It was my privileged identity as an expatriate that was the most prominent aspect of my

life. In school and the expatriate community, I found a shared experience. We were not color-

blind, we recognized our peers’ racial identities in that those from African nations were generally

Black, and those from European countries were generally White, but the focus was on their

national identities and their travel experience. Our shared experience was that of being

privileged and living as non-locals, regardless of our skin color.

Upon repatriation, my racial identity had different meaning. I became the recipient of

White privilege in a new way. While I had privileges abroad, I was not free to ignore my race.

Where once I stood out in a crowd and could be the victim of prejudice and both positive and

negative treatment due to my skin color, I now blended in. I did not have to think about the color

of my skin in this new life. I went from living in a world where I was different and this

difference was visible in my appearance to one where my difference was invisible. In addition, I

lost a built in community of individuals who shared my global experience.

While my experience has guided my interest in understanding White minority racial

development, it is my experience alone. I made an effort to develop interview questions that

were open ended and allowed participants to express their personal developmental path. Follow

up questions were developed that are equally neutral so as not to lead participants towards

describing their experience in a way that validated my own. It has become clear through the

research that my experience as a global nomad was possibly unique in that my parents worked

hard even early on to mitigate the risks associated with a globally mobile upbringing. There is

the strong possibility that many of the participants I recruited did not have the benefit of this

parental buffering. As such, I needed to ensure that my questions allowed for alternative

experiences to be expressed. The research on TCKs shows us that while global life leads to
 36

some common traits these traits are not shared by all TCKs. Allowance needed to be made for

individual differences as well as different life paths.

My experience may have biased my analysis in that I experienced being visually

distinctive strongly. I also felt significant guilt regarding my privileged status. I also

experienced myself as being “color blind” when younger. Finally, I struggled with what it meant

to be White in the United States. I may have been tempted to see the same experiences in the

words of other TCKs. I may have expected their understanding of Whiteness abroad to be

enmeshed with SES, privilege, and some discrimination. Their experience however, may have

been very different from my own. They may in fact have struggled more with their identity

while abroad as opposed to upon repatriation.

Assumptions

One key assumption in this study was that participants were being honest when

recounting their history and views on race, and when answering questions. The author also

assumed that they were participating willingly. Finally, the author assumed that given the lack

of information on White racial identity, a qualitative interview approach was the most effective

way to study this phenomenon.

Limitations

This study was limited in that it had a small sample size, and thus results may not be

generalizable. This sample was recruited using snowballing and advertising through social

media. This means that participants were self-selected, not randomly selected from the

population. This makes it more likely that those who chose to participate were those who had

strong feelings regarding the topic. In this way, the researcher may not have to opportunity to

gather data from individuals whose experiences were less polarized. While interviews were
 37

audited by the researcher’s committee chair as the coding process is a subjective one, there is the

risk that the coding process included a personal bias. Given the small sample size, there was a

risk that either too narrow a range of White US American TCKs were represented, or that due to

individual differences their experiences did not represent the true scope of White TCK racial

identity experiences. Due to the personal nature of interviews, there was the risk that the

author’s view asserted itself in the participants’ responses despite efforts to maintain neutrality.

Ethical Assurances

While the research proposed did not carry with it great risk of harm to the participants

there were some ethical concerns to be aware of. As is true for all research it was important that

participants be made clearly aware of their rights. The most important of these rights was the

right to refuse to participate. During the informed consent process, the researcher reminded

participants that they may choose to withdraw from the research at any time. They received this

information before the interview and were encouraged to relate any concerns to the interviewer

at any time after the interview. Participants signed paperwork during the original informed

consent process, and provided verbal confirmation prior to the interview. After reviewing the

transcript, no participant indicated major concerns or inaccuracy, nor any desire to be withdrawn

from the research In addition participants were offered a minimal compensation this

compensation was to be given after they have completed their involvement in the study

regardless of whether they participate until the end. Once they were deemed eligible and had

signed an informed consent form, they had done all they need to be eligible for the amazon gift

card raffle, although to incentivize continued participation it would not be presented to them

until they either completed the study or choose to withdraw from it. This was not done purely to

incentivize participation, but also was an artifice of the recruitment timeline. Not all participants
 38

in the raffle were identified when the first participants were being interviewed. They were not

required to complete the interview, or approve their transcript to be compensated. In this way,

their participation was not coerced.

Participants were made aware of their right to confidentiality and the procedures used to

ensure their confidentiality. To start their names and identifying information were separated

from all other information and kept encrypted on a separate hard drive locked in a lockbox.

When reporting the results of the interviews, participants were identified by number and the

information reported was limited in such a way as to ensure their identity could not be deduced.

While the interview questions were designed to be free of traumatic content there was

always the risk that participants may become upset during the process. Time and resources were

prepared to ensure that should a participant become upset that their distress was managed

appropriately. The primary researcher informed participants that they had the right to stop the

interview or not answer questions that upset them. This was important given that for many race

is a sensitive topic, and could be linked to some upsetting events in a participant’s history.

Summary

The present study analyzed how White US American Global Nomads develop an

understanding of their racial identity. Understanding this process would allow Global Nomads

and those who support them to not only develop healthy racial identities, but also to more

smoothly manage the transition from life abroad to that of life in the US. In addition, Helms

(1992) suggested that for racism to be effectively combated in the US, White Americans must

have a healthy racial identity. If this is the case, understanding the development process may

increase the number of individuals who can begin to combat racism in the United States by

capitalizing on the strengths of repatriated Global Nomads.

 39

The author proposed to study this construct through a Content Analysis research design.

The scope of this study was limited to White US Americans who had spent time in non-White

countries. This inclusion criteria was essential; White TCKs have the unique experience of

leaving a world where they are a visually distinct member of a privileged minority and entering

one where they become invisible members of a privileged majority. They may also have

experienced a third multicultural expatriate culture where race, while being acknowledged is

possibly experienced as secondary to nationality and other aspects of identity. To ensure

trustworthiness, the questions developed for the semi-structured interview were drawn from the

current constructs used to assess White racial identity, TCK development, and intercultural

sensitivity, and the author’s own experiences (Helms & Carter, 1990; Paige et al., 2003; Schaetti,

2000). While Schaetti’s (2000) model has yet to be studied in a quantitative format those of

Helms and Bennet and Hammer have gone through quantitative analysis. Furthermore, questions

were developed in an open-ended format to minimize interference from the author’s biases.

The semi-structured interview was first reviewed and practiced with the researcher’s

chair to provide an opportunity to make any necessary adjustments prior to the first formal

interview. This was to ensure that each participant went through a similar process. In addition,

each interview while coded by the researcher was audited by the researcher’s chair to help ensure

reliability of coding. Limitations to this study included a small sample size, non-random

selection of participants, a lack of control group, and a subjective process of coding. Moreover

for the purposes of the study the author must assume that participants were willing and answered

honestly.
 40

Chapter 4: Findings

Introduction

In this chapter, the author will review the demographics of the participants, the data

gathered, the process of analyzing the data, and the results of that analysis. Participants included

10 Third Culture Kids. The primary investigator conducted all interviews. The writer and a

research assistant transcribed the interviews. The writer coded the interviews into six

overarching categories: Identity, Race, Privilege, Third Culture Kid Identity, Feelings of

Membership, and Response to Information/Events.

Results

Participants

Ten participants were interviewed for this research. Participants were predominantly

female (N=9) with one male participant. Participant ages ranged from 20 years of age to 67

years of age with a mean of age of 33. Four different schooling experiences were represented by

the participants, with over half being home schooled for a period of their lives (N=6), over half

attending international schools for a period of time (N=6), half attending boarding school (P=5),

and a few (N=3) attending public schools for periods of time. Half of the participants only

experienced one school setting (N=5) with the others attending at least two different school types

over their childhoods. The amount of time spent in countries in which White individuals were a

minority ranged from 6 years to 18 years with a mean of 11.5 years. Half of the participants first

moved to a non-White country as toddlers or infants (N= 5). A few moved to their first non-

White country by the age of 6 (N=3), and a few (N=2) moved after the age of 8. Most

participants (N= 7) repatriated multiple times with the first repatriation ranging from 1 year of

age to 11 years of age. Three participants only repatriated once, these participants repatriated at

the ages of 16 and 18. All participants have received some higher education in the United States.
 41

Participants came from a range of sponsoring agencies. Over half (N=6) had parents who

worked for Missionary or Church-based organizations. Several participants (N=2) had parents

who worked for Non-Government Agencies (NGOs). One (N=1) participant had parents who

were International School staff, and one (N=1) had parents who worked for the State

Department. One (N=1) participant also expatriated as an adult working for the Peace Corps.

Several participants (N=3) lived in only one non-White country. Most (N=7) lived in at least

two Non-White countries. Most participants (N=7) spent time in Asian countries. Many (N=6)

spent time in African countries, and only one (N=1) spent time in South/Central America. All

together participants lived in the following countries; South Korea, Taiwan, India, China,

Thailand, Japan, Nepal, Hong Kong, Peru, Mexico, Cameroon, Ghana, Sierra Leone, Egypt,

Burkina Faso, Niger, Cote d’Ivoire, Ghana, and Nigeria.

Data Analysis Process

Data analysis began with the primary investigator or research assistant transcribing each

interview. After a holistic reading of an interview, the author then went through each interview

identifying quotes that shared information relevant to the topic of the study. Each quote was

then summarized. The author worked to use the participant’s own language, to create the

summary so as to minimize personal bias or interpretation. Finally, each quote was categorized

based on the type of information the participant was providing, with an effort made to have

categories reflect the participant’s words not the writer’s interpretation of statements. As the

information was categorized quotes were grouped thematically and integrated into an outline

with a hierarchy of thematic categories. As each interview was coded the information was either

added directly to the outline, or the outline was modified to accommodate new themes and types

of information shared. As more interviews were coded the outline underwent fewer changes

until only minor changes were made with each additional interview. The last three interviews
 42

coded required no fundamental changes. This lack of restructuring led to the decision that

saturation of data had been reached and analysis of the data could move forward.

Overview of Concepts

Concepts divided into six larger categories. Identity looked at aspects or characteristics

that individuals feel define them, as well as the events or factors that had an influence on each

participant’s identity development. The category of Race includes how individuals identify their

race, how others identify the participant’s race, and how individuals feel or think about race.

Privilege looks at what aspects of privilege individuals experienced based on location and their

feelings about their privilege. Third Culture Kid Identity combines experiences individuals

relate to their TCK identity, their thoughts on TCK identity, and experiences related to

repatriation. Feelings of belonging looks at ways in which individuals felt they belonged, were

part of a group, or excluded from a group; either by their own perception or the perception of

others. Finally, Responses to information and events, explores ways in which participants

reacted to their environment, and these responses ranged from thoughts to actions, to emotions.

Identity

The category of identity focuses on how participants describe themselves and the

characteristics that they feel are representative of their identities. This category looked not only

at how participants see themselves now but also examined self-perceived traits as they may have

changed over time. Finally, this category also included information regarding factors that helped

to form individuals’ identities.

Identifying Characteristics

Almost half of the participants (N=4) mentioned Nationality as a part of their identity.

For Participant 9 this part of the participant’s identity came with a choice, “I’ve chosen to like

say this is my home and I’m American and I’m proud to be American”(P9, p. 1). Part of
 43

Participant 9’s American identity was tied to patriotism, “I was a very patriotic American

[person]. Like on the 4th of July I just, I was wearing red, and white, and blue hairbands, and

red, white and blue socks and t-shirts” (P9, p. 10), and feeling that the Embassy was a safe place,

“Like, yeah, where would I feel safe and probably, probably I would feel safe like going to the

American Embassy because that was a safe place in China” (P9, p. 11). For one participant their

identity as an American came with a sense of responsibility to be an Ambassador for their

nationality. For example, Participant 5 stated, “I had a sense of ‘I am an American’… you have

the sense that you have to represent your country well, at least I did” (P5, p. 5). For Participant 7

being American was not just a part of the participant’s identity, but also something the

participant connected with some negative perceptions. When asked about negative traits

attributed to Americans, Participant 7 stated, “being loud is a big one”(P7, p. 15). Finally, one

participant (Participant 8) shared that while Nationality was an identifier for the participant,

when younger the participant would have identified with the host nation’s identity, not the

participant’s passport identity, “When I was younger, I would have said that I was Ghanaian

because I grew up in Ghana in West Africa. So, I would have said that I was Ghanaian...I was

not American” (P8, p. 2).

Several (N=4) participants mentioned their identity as a “missionary kid” as being a part

of their identity, “I think missionary kids are a smaller subset of being a TCK…there’s a

different aspect to your experience when you’re an MK … I think that helps tie me to a smaller

group in the very large TCK world” (P8, p. 1). Half of the participants (N=5) mentioned their

Third Culture Kid identities as important to how they understand themselves. For Participant 7

this was particularly true when in the US, “I’m noticing when I’m in the States then my TCK

identity is like the most important part of who I am. It’s not like a given, or it’s not readily
 44

understood, versus when I’m overseas” (P7, p. 1). Notably, for Participant 8 TCK identity was

the most prominent,

The aspect of my identity that most defines me . . . Kind of all of the things that make up

who I am I pick that one generally to introduce to people first . . . I’m some other things

but I pick TCK as the first one. (P8, p. 1)

While this was not a common identity feature shared (N=2) several participants

mentioned ethnicity as an aspect of their identities. Participant 2’s Jewish identity came with

some pressure to be an ambassador, “Jewish was much more of a minority status abroad, well

certainly in Taiwan. I got interviewed by the school newspaper like every year for like their

Chanukah/Christmas thing because I was the Chanukah representative” (P2, p. 12). For

Participant 7 it was a slightly different cultural heritage than other Americans,

My mother, her parents are from Czechoslovakia so she’s full Czechoslovakian. So I do

like personally take pride in like that half of my self and that side of my family cause I

see it as slightly different, being Eastern European versus most I would say a large

majority of Caucasian Americans are from Western Europe. (P7, p. 7)

More than half of the participants cited religion as a part of their identity (N=6).

Participant 10 stated, “The most important aspect of my identity to me at this time is that I

belong to God and the covenant through the blood of Jesus Christ. I’m a Christian. That takes

precedence over everything else” (P10, p. 1). Some (N=2) of those participants mentioned that

this part of their identity had changed over time. For example, Participant 4 shared that,

I think that as a child I saw faith and identity more as more kind of in a binary

system of right and wrong…And as I got older … my identity, my spiritual

identity became more rooted in the fact that I felt I was a child of God, loved by
 45

God no matter what I’d done, than rooted in the fact that I was a child of God and

he loved me because I did good things that I was supposed to do. (P4, p. 16)

Participant 10 shared that this part of their identity did change over time. These changes did not

feel linked to having moved as a child.

The most common response when asked about identity was to share more general

characteristics or personality traits (N=8). Most (N=6) participants cited general characteristics

that were expressed in an external way. For example, details of places they had lived, education,

profession, appearance, their interests, or things they do, “I think I spent a lot of time by myself

as a child. I read a lot” (P6, p. 16). For a few participants (N=2) there was ambivalence about

these characteristics,

I guess like other aspects like being like a cisgender female … people say, ‘you

shouldn’t apologize as much, that’s like a woman’s thing.’ …I don’t like that or

like think in that way. I wouldn’t say that like it’s a huge part of my identity so

much. (P7, p. 2)

Others (N=4) cited more internalized characteristics such as values participants had, “I

identify as a feminist. I identify as a queer ally, I identify as someone who is highly educated. I

identify as a reader." (P2, p. 1)

Many made reference to personality traits (N=6) such as being, “helpful, caring, . . . nice

friendly” (P1, p. 1). Another example of this was, “I would say personality characteristics are

things that I would tend to define myself by” (P4, p. 1). Half of those participants (N=4)

identified these traits as stable, “characteristics like perfectionism, … are things that have sort of

been a part of my approach and really like self-identity like for as long as I can remember” (P2,

p. 10). By contrast one participant cited a significant change to the participant’s personality over
 46

time, “I’ve taken the Myers Briggs test a few times, not recently, but umm, I think I was an INSP

before and I changed from a P to J after college” (P6, p. 1).

Sources of Influence

When discussing their identities, all participants made reference to a range of external

and internal factors that influence how they understand their identity. Over half (N=6) shared

that religion was one factor that informed their identity. “Faith, and my church community was a

big impact and a big force for shaping my identity” (P4, p. 15). Most (N=7) mentioned

education as a force that helped shape their identities, whether this was the American curriculum

they were exposed to, later learning done, or experiences with teachers in school. For example,

Participant 3 stated, “…going to art school for High School. I think that completely altered the

trajectory of my life” (P3, p. 2). Half (N=5) of the participants specifically cited events, or

information they learned around race and racism as something that helped them form their

identities. For example, Participant 6 shared that, “Even though we learned about the civil war

and we learned about slavery and we watched the Ken Burns Civil War series at home …I didn’t

understand that it was such a big problem still for people” (P6, p. 7). Several (N=4) noted that

learning they did on their own, often by reading books was an influential factor in their

development. For Participant 8, self-driven learning was the participant’s introduction to TCK

identity: “My parents bought a book called Raising Resilient MKs [Missionary Kid]…So I read

the whole thing through and I was like this is neat, they have a word for me. There’s other

people like me, it was really exciting” (P8, p. 10).

Exposure to a range of cultures was one of the most commonly mentioned (N=8) sources

of influence, whether it was cultures abroad (N=7), cultures within the US (N=5), or TCK/CCK

culture (N=1). For example, Participant 9 learned more about White culture when the participant
 47

traveled to the south, “We traveled down south and … If I didn’t know any better like I would

have traveled outside the state because I can’t understand these people’s accents …I realize that

Whites can actually be a lot of different things” (P9, p. 6). Similarly, Participant 1 felt traveling

had a deep influence, “I think my exposure to traveling and things like that, exposure to the

world created a strong sense of humanity if that makes sense” (P1, p. 7).

A majority of the participants also referenced family as a significant source of influence

in their lives (N=7). For Participant 4, family influenced the participant’s learning; “I think

because I’d grown up with in a pretty open household ... I’d probably been told about her

[Harriet Tubman] by my parents” (P2, p. 4). Similarly, for Participant 10, family was a main

source of learning, “My mother, I was home schooled the first two years, and my mother was the

one who taught me…my father did stuff, my mother explained things to me better than he did

usually” (P10, p. 5).

Quite a few participants (N=4) noted that they were shaped in part by negative events.

For example, Participant 6 shared how negative events shaped the participant’s religious identity,

I’m not religious anymore I am an atheist which I started that when I was like 14,

13-14 maybe.... I think when I was younger and had to leave my first school, I

was very upset about it. My parents pulled us out and kept us home for a year.

And that was totally miserable. No friends and being homeschooled with my

bratty 12-year-old brother. And I was very angry, I felt like I was being punished

for something. But I also had a lot of questions about all the terrible things I had

seen and I felt very upset about the suffering of the world in general. I would

break down crying about that in high school. (P6, p. 16)

Race
 48

The category of Race includes two main subdivisions. The first is how participants are

identified racially both from their own perspective, and the perspective of others. The second

aspect to this category features participant’s thoughts and opinions about race.

Racial Identity

Individuals spoke about their race from two distinct perspectives, from their own point of

view, and their sense of how others perceived them.

Participant’s point of view. The majority of participants identified themselves as being

White (N=9). Several (N=4) related that this identity is one that was stable for them, “I would

say probably my race is one of the most representative aspects of my identity...Mostly because

that is something that has stayed the same no matter where I’ve lived and where I’ve moved

around” (P4, p. 1). A few participants (N=3) made statements that blended their White identity

with their American identity, as seen in Participant 5’s statement,

So being White did not become, it was not something I pushed out there. Obviously,

physically I couldn’t hide it … I remember thinking … you are basically a guest here and

got to behave accordingly, so to me it wasn’t so much of my race that was trying to

project out… it became much more of a sense that, of my nationality, of being an

American and how, what that really meant. (P4, p. 4)

Most participants (N=5) identified the moment of recognizing their White identity as the

moment in which they realized that they looked different from people around them. For

example, Participant 3 stated, “I mean I always knew [I was White] cause, well I lived in Africa

when I was little and like I don’t know, some people were Black and I was White” (P3, p. 3). By

contrast, Participant 4 had a different experience. This participant remembers first thinking

about being White when the participant realized others around the participant were also White.
 49

The first time I remember thinking about it [being White] was getting off of the airplane

in the United States actually. I think I was around 3rd grade, and just looking, walking

through the airport looking at everyone going, “Oh my gosh, everyone looks like me.”

And that was when I realized I was White. (P4, p. 13)

Half of the participants (N=5) shared that part of their White experience was one of

standing out compared to others. In the case of Participant 8 this recognition came at a young

age. “We moved to Ghana when I was four. And I can recall, yes, I can recall when I was six

thinking of ways to change my skin color” (P8, p. 7). For a few participants, (N=3) this standing

out in a crowd was something they described with both negative and neutral tones. For example,

Participant 8 stated that “being stared at, I never even thought to be like ‘oh this is weird’

because it wasn’t weird” (P8, p. 4), but also shared, “there’s always downsides to being a

minority is that you’re not the majority so you always stand out...And skin color is a rather

obvious way to be different, so everybody knows it as soon as they see you” (P8, p. 6). Only two

participants spoke about standing out as a positive thing, as in this statement by Participant 9, “ If

you are White and you speak English everybody wants to be your friend, you’re a celebrity, they

yell, ‘I love you’, as you drive by” (P9, p. 7).

Most participants (N=7) reported that their sense of their race has changed over time.

This change often being in how they understood or express their Whiteness. Participant 10

indicated that racial identity depended on the context; “Well that depends on who I’m talking to.

I’m obviously Caucasian if you look at me.” (P10, p. 12). This participant further shared that “I

have been known to introduce myself as being African-American because I literally am” (P10, p.

12).
 50

For several participants, (N=4) variability or stability in racial identity depended on their

surroundings. While Participant 4 identified with a stable White identity, subtle shifts might

occur depending on geographic location and external context.

Being White in Asia meant that I related to the rest of the community and the rest of the

population very differently than if I had been an Asian in Asia. And I think I had grown

very accustomed to the way that played out in my life so that when I came to the United

States being White among a majority of White...made me realize that this identity that I

guess had been based on race because I was racially different was no longer this like key

indicator of my identity in the United States. (P4, p. 3)

Similarly, Participant 7 felt the importance of different aspects of the participant’s

identity changed depending on where they lived.

So, yes, so parts of my identity that shifted, I would say the most is around like racial

identity. As I said, like, I don’t think about the fact that I’m a TCK, or that I’m White

when I’m overseas, but I do when I’m in the States. (P7, p. 3)

Finally, Participant 8 has been left with a sense of confusion about race as a result of the move to

the US.

When I first got here [US] I was like ‘ok, so obviously the fact that I’m White

means something different here than it used to mean’...I’m still not exactly sure

what being White means except that it’s definitely not Black or anything else

except White. (P8, p. 4)

While most participants self-identified as White, over half also related experiences

feeling or wishing they were something other than White (N=6). For a few (N=3) they saw

themselves as just being human, or another race. For example, when asked to identify by race
 51

Participant 1 replied “human race” (P1, p. 1). As mentioned before, Participant 10 self-identifies

as African-American, because this feels like the most accurate label. Finally, Participant 7

shared that, “I tend to use the term that I am an egg. I’m White on the outside and Yellow on the

inside. But I also say that it’s like tinged with some Brown in there” (P7, p. 9). Participant 7

shared that while they never lived somewhere with predominantly Black or Brown people, there

was a large African and Filipino community where they lived in France.

Several (N=4) also shared a desire at some point in their lives wishing to be a different

race. Participant 6 for example, shared the following:

I have wished … that I was Black because then … I would look more like I feel where

I’m from and, you know, maybe I would look like more of an outsider here, which is

what I feel, and I would pass as African, at least just walking down the street if I was in

Africa. (P6, p. 2)

In a similar vein, Participant 9 referenced a desire not to be White specifically in some countries.

But then, later after High School I traveled on a mission ship….And we went to countries

like Libya, North Africa, and there and in the rest of the middle, Libya, Egypt, some of

those places Oman, it was not so good to be White. Like, you did not want to flaunt it.

You almost wished you weren’t White. Because, you didn’t feel as safe, for one, for two,

their cultures see everyone that’s White as American and all Americans equal

Hollywood, and Hollywood equals all the immoralities they see. (P9, p. 7)

Other’s view of participant’s race. In addition to expressing how they saw themselves,

the majority of participants (N=8) also mentioned how others perceived them racially. In all

cases (N=8) participants shared that they are identified as being White by those around them.

Most (N=6) shared that not only did others see them as White, but that this came with
 52

assumptions about who they are. Participant 2 noticed these assumptions in both the academic

and romantic aspects of life when abroad, sharing that, “I did very well academically. And I

kind of remember people being a little surprised by that, like given being White” (P2, p. 11), and,

“ [Whiteness] definitely came up in terms of my romantic life…I felt like I wasn’t dateable

because I was White” (P2, p. 13). Others such as Participant 5 mentioned these assumptions

occurring in the US as well, “when people look at me here in the United States, they… think that

I grew up …here, in a White neighborhood when actually … I’m not the typical White person”

(P5, p. 12).

In a similar vein, several (N=3) shared that they found that other’s perceiving them as

White felt limiting, or like it constricted their identity. Participant 8 stated, “In the US I think the

downfall of being White is that it disguises the fact that I am different and I would like to be seen

as different” (P8, p. 6). The last common experience based on others’ experience (N=4) was that

of assumed racism. Multiple participants felt that others often assumed they were racist, or

placed racist interpretations on participant’s statements or actions that were not in fact intended.

For example, Participant 8 stated that, “I got called a racist a lot for pointing out skin color…here

in the US they’re like, ‘oh, you’re a racist, why are you talking about skin color?’” (P8, p. 6).

Participant 10 also experienced this and found it had an effect on interactions with African-

Americans.

Black people expect racism, and not without reason. ...But, when you smile, when you

catch their eye, when you greet them, when you deal with them as people, almost without

exception they are delighted and respond very warmly one-on-one. But, you’ve gotta get

past that first wall. (P10, p. 20)

 53

It is worth noting that there was one outlier experience. Participant 10 shared that, “in

fact my Nigerian friends will often introduce me to their American Black friends as, ‘this guy is

a real African American’” (P10, p. 12). So at least in this context identity as a White person did

not limit the ability to also align with African culture.

Reflections on Race

When discussing racial identity participants often began discussing their thoughts or

feelings about race, both White race as well as others. These thoughts broke down into several

categories. Several participants (N=3) shared thoughts of either being confused or frustrated by

the topic of race. Participant 5 shared this thought, “the thing that I think about race is that why

are other people making such a big to do about race? … I get frustrated when… that’s the first

thing they are going to present or talk about” (P5, p. 6). By contrast, for Participant 8, confusion

centered around how to understand race, and how the term racist is used; “I mean, the Black

people here are not Ghanaians, I don’t fit with them. I think that’s probably where I still am. I

know I’m White but I don’t exactly know what that means” (P8, p. 9), “if you said anything that

mentioned the words White or Black … Like if I said I like the white part of an Oreo they’d be

like, ‘oh you’re a racist’, which I was super confused by” (P8, p. 6).

Half of participants (N=5) shared that for them race was often used as a descriptor

without being linked to any judgment or limitation of identity. This is exemplified in Participant

9’s comment,

I’m not, I’m not like touchy about it [race]. I’m like, “oh hey, I’m White, you’re Black,

you’re Hispanic, you’re Chinese, you’re like whatever.” It’s like all great and God made

us all and made variety and that’s so cool to me, I love it. (P9, p. 3)
 54

Some participants (N=4) shared negative thoughts or beliefs around the topic of race. For

a few (N=3) participants these thoughts focused on White individuals, for example, Participant 1

stated that, “I feel like I don’t have a very positive outlook on White people” (P1, p. 1).

Participants 7 and 9 found White identity to be limiting. Participant 7 indicated that “just calling

someone White … it’s not it’s not including all the other aspects of who they are so it’s really, I

mean, really washing away any of the diversity within the group” (P7, p. 6). One participant

shared that negative experiences abroad left the participant with negative feelings towards

African men in particular, “I know that I have racist reactions towards African people especially

men … and those things I think are the result of my childhood. Like the feeling threatened by

men, African men especially” (P6, p. 18).

A number of participants (N=4) shared ambivalent thoughts on the topic of race, such as

this statement by Participant 6: “I think it [being White] means that I am really lucky in having

been born American… but it is weird too” (P6, p. 2).

As was the case regarding racial identity, several participants (N=3) shared that their

thoughts on race have changed over time as opposed to being stagnant, as Participant 3

explained, “Interviewer: Are there any... key factors that shape your understanding of race?

Participant: I think it’s been a pretty gradual development over time” (P3, p. 11).

An interesting experience shared by the majority of participants was the experience of not

having any thoughts or opinions on race (N=6). For many (N=5) this was the case when they

were children or teenagers. When asked if understanding of your Whiteness changed since you

were a kid, Participant 1 responded, “I think as a kid I didn’t think about it at all, except for when

people would point it out” (P1, p. 2).

 55

The topic of race was not a simple one for the participants. While participants almost

exclusively self-identified as White, this White identity was stable for some and dynamic and

location based for others. In addition, a few wished at different times that they were not White.

Being White came with a feeling of standing out, which was positive, negative, or neutral

depending on the participant. Participants also noted that they were racially identified as White

from other people’s perspective. This White identity involved assumptions about who they

were, assumptions of racism, and a sense that their identities were limited by virtue of being seen

as White. Finally, this category involved general reflections on race, including some negative

thoughts regarding White and Black identities, confusion or frustration with the topic of race,

ambivalent or mixed feelings, changing thoughts on race, as well as a feeling that racial terms are

descriptive, not limiting to one’s identity.

Privilege

Participants shared a range of thoughts on privilege, from feeling they were not recipients

of privilege, to appreciation for the privilege they have. Many also shared downsides to

privilege, or ambivalent and neutral thoughts on the way they are privileged. Finally, for some

there was a sense that they are partial recipients of privilege.

Positive Experiences of Privilege

Participants related being privileged in a number of ways. For almost all participants

(N=9) there was a linking of their privilege to their White identity. This often came with a

general sense of feeling lucky, and realizing that they had done nothing to get this privilege, as

was described by Participant 3, “White to me means that I’m automatically a member of a

population that experiences a huge amount of privilege globally and is something that I didn’t

necessarily ask for, but I know that I benefit from” (P3, p. 5). This sense of privilege is

something they felt whether they were abroad (N=8) or in the US (N=5). Abroad, there was a
 56

recognition that being White meant that individuals may receive more respect (N=3), better

treatment, more power to enact change, or the freedom to go places and do things that others

would not. Participant 8 recognized that, “In Ghana I can get things done that my friends could

never get done. I could go places they could never go. Convince people to do things they

couldn’t get away with” (P8, p. 5).

One felt that the transition to the United States was made easier by their racial identity

and the privileges that come with that. Some specific aspects of privilege mentioned included

the ability to be seen as an American, the feeling that being part of the majority comes with

positives in general, including having more of a voice, being assumed to be American, and

likelihood of generally better treatment. Participant 4 noted that, “If I were to say I’m from the

United States no one would question that… but people take things that I say more trustingly I

guess because I’m White” (P4, p. 11).

Several participants acknowledged feeling that there was privilege in being a TCK,

specifically the opportunity to see the world, travel, and have unique experiences. Participant 4

described it this way,

There’s a privilege I think that comes with traveling as a TCK, and seeing a lot of

the world, and like I think that’s a privilege that people in the United States

automatically assume. They’re like, ‘that’s so cool’ and that’s something that

they’re like, ‘oh my gosh, like so jealous of you.’ So that in a sense is a privilege.

(P4, p. 20)

As participants talked about privilege it became clear that this privilege had several

sources for them. Participant 5 cited many sources of privilege, including financial security, a

good education, and the power that come from her sponsoring agency. Similarly, others
 57

referenced having supportive families as a source of Privilege. A few specifically referenced the

privilege that came with being US Citizens (N=2). This scattering of the origins of privilege was

noteworthy in several statements made by participants where they struggled to identify the

source of a particular privilege. Participant 2 discussed difficulty pinpointing the connection

between identity and potential privileges related to this identity.

So like in Taiwan for example, sometimes it is hard to unpack, is it Whiteness, is it

foreignness, is it both, because I think some of the privileges that I experienced were to

some degree experienced by my peers at the, you know, my friends from high school, you

know, it was the …the other folks at the school with me were the largely, not entirely, but

largely ABC, American Born Chinese and had similar privileges because it was so clear

that they were also foreign, but they weren’t like Taiwanese nationals. (P2, p. 5)

Similarly, Participant 3 had a difficult time parsing privilege related to White versus

American identity: “I don’t know if it’s like race or if it’s … like Nationalism” (P3, p. 8). While

participants could often point to things that they were lucky to be able to do as described in the

following quote, “opportunity for a better life, that I could go back to America and go to college.

And have a job and I could go anywhere that I wanted” (P6, p. 8). These privileges were not

always specifically linked to one identity feature such as race, or nationality, or financial status.

Negative Experiences of Privilege

The majority of participants (N=7) noted that there were downsides to being the

recipients of privilege. When it came specifically to race several negative aspects of being White

were mentioned. Several participants (N=3) shared that they felt that being White sometimes

came with a tendency to feel entitled, Participant 3 grappled repeatedly with this sense of

entitlement, “I think in terms of entitlement, like Americans tend to feel that way, and then
 58

there’s an aspect of that that is also like White people tend to feel that way” (P3, p. 8). This

quote illustrates how Participant 3 also links this sense of entitlement to Americans in general, as

well as White people. A few participants (N=2) specifically brought up downsides to being

White abroad. Participant 4 specifically noted that, “yeah, I think that being White abroad made

it challenging to develop friendships even with people even with people who I had a lot of

similarities with” (P4, p. 12). Participant 10 had a different point of view, while the participant

normally felt that being White was a positive thing abroad the participant noted that things

changed when some areas of Nigeria became strictly Muslim, sharing that, “if you are White it is

instantly assumed that you are Christian and therefore that you are an enemy” (P10, p. 20).

Downsides to privilege were also noted in regards to time in the United States.

Specifically, several participants (N=4) shared that they felt misperceived in the US based on

their position of privilege. For both Participants 4 and 6 they both felt that their being White

meant that their otherness was not recognized, and they were perceived as being like other White

Americans. Where Participants 4 and 6 felt misperceived based on their racial identity, for

Participant 10 it was a misperception based in part on White race, but also linked to political

identity as a Republican. Participant 9 and the participant’s husband had a unique frustration,

which is they feel they worked hard for their financial privilege, but others ignore their role in

obtaining financial stability, “sometimes I wish my parents would just say that, like, ‘wow

you’ve worked really hard and you’ve sacrificed a lot to get to the point you’re at.’ And instead

they sort of like, ‘oh well that’s so great’” (P9, p. 18).

Several participants (N=3) shared that their positions of privilege often left them feeling

isolated in some way. Both Participants 4 and 9 struggled with feeling that their privilege made

it hard to interact with others, whether it was TCK privilege making it hard for non-TCK peers to
 59

connect with them, or feeling like the special treatment they got abroad either made people

jealous, or made it hard to interact with locals as equals. Participant 9 described some of these

interactions.

The other people looking at you feel a gap. And so sometimes trying to like you know,

not come down, but in their minds come down to their level, or say ‘hey, I want to like’, I

was in my mud booth with my sickle and like out in the fields coming out and I’m not

good at this, ‘can you teach me how to do this.’ And they’re like, ‘ Oh no, no, no, you

shouldn’t do this’. And so it kind of is a barrier too that you have to overcome through

time and relationship and working with that so that they see you as an equal and so that

they will invite you into their culture, into their lives. To let you experience some of their

country I guess. (P9, p. 9)

By way of contrast, Participant 5 shared feelings of isolation in the US because of

interacting with others who have shared privilege, “it’s isolating, isolating in the sense of where I

live so I’m around people who are like socioeconomically in my community, in my

neighborhood. It’s maybe a sense of complacency” (P5, p. 18).

Four participants shared negative aspects of privilege that came with their privilege while

abroad. Participant 6 felt that privilege came with expectations. “I felt always that people were

only interested in being my friend because I was White and they thought I could do something

for them” (P6, p. 3). Participants 5, and 9 both shared that being White or American abroad in

some countries meant that they were at risk, either of terrorist activity, or inappropriate behavior

or comments. While Participant 8 did not mention concerns for safety, the participant did share

that one downside to being White in other countries was that, “you always stand out...And skin
 60

color is a rather obvious way to be different, so everybody knows it as soon as they see you” (P8,

p. 6).

Neutral/Ambivalent Experiences of Privilege

Often when talking about privilege participants did not always clearly share that their

privilege was positive or negative. Most shared somewhat mixed or ambivalent views of being

White abroad (N=7). For several participants one of the struggles they faced with being

privileged was that it came with feeling separate from those who did not have privilege. It was a

positive thing, but, “it was an otherness, but still like, but a privileged identity nonetheless” (P2,

p. 4). This feeling of not wanting privilege also existed for participant 8 who eventually decided

that since there was no way to change the privilege the participant would try and use it to do

positive things. For Participant 6 ambivalence came in several forms. Participant 6 recognized

that whatever benefit they had it came at a cost, and while the participant got preferential

treatment they felt that this also put a target on the participant’s back. This participant also

shared that it felt, “icky and weird” (P6, p. 18) to getting things just because of privilege, and

knowing that someone else was not getting this benefit who might need it. Similarly, the

participant shared the below anecdote.

And I saw my friends, like my little girlfriends getting married by the time they were 10,

12 years old. Never going to school, never leaving the village they grew up in. So I felt

very lucky but I also felt very isolated and lonely I guess. (P6, p. 8)

Participant’s 7 and 9 both shared a feeling that while they did have privilege in some

ways they were also not recipients of privilege in others. For Participant 7 this relates to how the

participant understands White privilege.

 61

Having grown up as the minority like yes I was White, but I was a minority in my context

and so like does that White Privilege play out? I would say that in some ways it does and

in some ways it doesn’t. (P7, p. 13)

For Participant 9, this participant recognized that they had some things that the host

country peers did not have, but at the same time felt that there were assets they had that the

participant’s family did not. So like Participant 7, Participant 9 felt both privileged and like they

did not have privileges others had.

Many participants spoke of their privilege in neutral terms. Many of the types of

privilege raised were similar to those above, issues of financial (N=1) and racial privilege (N=1),

feeling that expectations were placed on them based on perceived privilege (N=1), and privilege

whose origin was unclear (N=1). A few participants (N=3) noted feeling that they were

misperceived, either as having privilege they did not feel they had, or not being seen as different

from other Americans when they feel different.

One unique experience that was often talked about with a neutral tone was the feeling of

only partially being privileged (N=6). Similar to feeling misperceived often participants felt that

they had privilege in some ways but not others. Participant 2 described it in this way.

I feel like there is a part of me, or has been a part of me that sort of like wants some

credit. You know what I mean, that’s like… but no, like I didn’t have the like White

experience you might assume I had and that wants some credit for being like I know what

it’s like to be other and I know what it’s like to be a minority. I don’t know what it’s like

to have the same you know power imbalances that come with that. Right, like the same

oppression that comes with that. (P2, p. 5)

Third Culture Kid Identity

 62

The category of Third Culture Kid (TCK) identity looks at three different aspects of how

participants talked about TCK life. First it looks at some TCK traits that participants described

or identified. The second aspect of this category is how participants think about TCK identity.

Finally, this category includes individuals’ experiences of repatriating.

Characteristics of Third Culture Kid Identity

All of the participants interviewed were familiar with the term Third Culture Kid, and all

indicated that this was a term that fit them. A few participants described feeling like they do not

belong fully in any one place. Participant 8 described that, “I’m not fully American and I’m not

fully Ghanaian and I’m not fully anything that everybody else is, so being a TCK allows me to

be in a group of other people who are also not anything” (P8, p. 1). Participant 10 had a similar

thought regarding the host country of Nigeria. In the interview the participant said, “Nigeria is

home although it can never be home” (P10, p. 24).

A couple of participants (N=2) described the experience of feeling out of place despite

technically being in one’s home culture. For Participant 3 there was an expectation that the US

was a country of origin and thus the transition should be easy. However, the participant found

that it did not feel like going home because other Americans did not share the same life

experiences, “you think, ‘oh this is going to be easy’. This is where I’m from, this is like going

home, but in fact it’s not because people there have not had the same experience that you’ve

had” (P3, p. 14). Participant 8 had a similar experience, and added that the participant was made

to feel weird because in addition to not having a shared experience with American peers, they

expected the participant to interact like they did because they looked alike, “When they look at

you and you look like them they’re like ‘ok, you must be like me, you must think like me, you

must act like me’ and if you don’t they’re really surprised” (P8, p. 5). By contrast, when the
 63

participant was abroad it was obvious to people that the participant was different. This looking

the same had the added drawback in that people did not try and teach them about racial identity,

“I don’t think that anybody would ever think of talking to me about that because I am White and

I look American and I sound American so why on earth would they have that talk with me?” (P8,

p. 9).

A few of the participants (N = 3) shared anecdotes of times they had to learn a new way

of interacting or behaving because their normal assumptions or behaviors no longer fit the

setting. For Participant 6, this involved having to switch learning styles when they came to the

US. The participant had previously gone to school with the British system, and had to adapt to

the American system of learning, “We did the British system which is quite a bit different from

the American system… they want you to build concepts figuratively instead of doing a year of

geometry and then a year of algebra” (P6, p. 6). Participant 8 noted that they had to learn how to

talk about race in a new way, which predominantly involved not talking about skin color. For

two participants this need to code switch created moments of social disconnect. Participant 8 got

lost one day because the participant began following the wrong person. The participant was not

used to having to recognize a specific White person in a crowd because as a White minority the

only White people around were the ones the participant was supposed to follow. Participant 3

also had to shift worldview. As a child, Participant 3 grew up communicating with Black people

in Krio.

And then when we came back to the States there was a Black American and I walked up

to her and started speaking in Krio and my parents were like “Whoooaa, no, no, no, no,

no, no”. I mean I had like my understanding of the world was like oh people this color

speak this language, but that was not the case. (P3, p. 4)
 64

Perception of Third Culture Kid Identity

Most participants had a range of thoughts about TCK identity (N=9) as a construct. Half

of the participants (N=5) described positive thoughts regarding TCK identity, specifically feeling

that it provided them with a unique point of view or perspective on the world. Participant 2 felt

like the challenges that come with time abroad are good challenges that push people to grow.

Participant 4, heard from mentors that, “‘[Participant 4] you see the world differently and that’s a

good thing, and that’s like this is what you can add to the world’” (P4, p. 19). Similarly,

Participant 9 feels that they can, “see things from a little bit different and broader perspective” (P

9, p. 12). This allowed Participant 9 to better understand how they interacted in the world and

what the participant can bring to the environment. Participant 5 best summarized the general

sense of appreciating a TCK childhood this way:

People have asked me the question ‘Do you regret not having a childhood experience in

the US, a continuous one?’ I say no. No I don’t, absolutely not. It is and I guess in years

to come, as time has passed I have come to appreciate that I am who I am because of the

time I spent outside the United States and I wouldn’t change it for the world. (P5, p. 21)

Several participants (N=3) had mixed views of TCK identity. Each participant noted a

slightly different are of focus. For Participant 1, they avoided learning more about being a TCK

because the participant does not like labels and feels they separate people. Participant 2’s

ambivalence came related to feeling like they can access the experience of non-White people

better, and at the same time not liking the way the participant wants to be given credit or praise

for this part of their identity. By contrast, Participant 10 brought up the way in which American

peers may have had more money and toys, but the participant feels they had more fun, there were

things they did not have as a TCK, but things that peers did not have living in the US.
 65

There was one theme that was repeated by multiple (N=4) participants, and this was a

feeling that TCK identity provided them a frame of reference to help understand their

experiences. Both Participants 1 and 9 found it gave them a context for understanding. For

Participant 1, “I just remember it making sense, I was like, ‘oh ok, so that kind of explains us’”

(P1, p. 12), and for Participant 9 who had been trying to come up with a vocabulary to describe

the TCK experience there was a revelation of, “oh my word, somebody has already done this and

there are lots and lots of other people out there who support all these statements that I’ve been

making to my parents for such a long time now” (P8, p. 11).

This frame of reference allowed all four participants to use what they learned about TCK

identity to help them understand themselves and their experiences. Participant 4 put it in the

following terms,

I realized that TCK … could be something that was a label and that did put me in

a box, but it didn’t have to be. I could have said, used it as a tool or a frame of

reference through which to understand my own unique experience. And once I

started realizing that I think that the idea of a TCK or Third Culture Kid would,

has become more and more helpful for helping me understand myself and

understand others. (P4, p. 17)

Two participants shared some negative reactions to Third Culture Kid identity. Both felt

that when they learned about TCK identity through classes and seminars there was a focus on the

difficulties that come along with being a TCK. This included the emphasis on how difficult

repatriation is. Participant 4 described it the following way:

When the idea of TCK was rolled out to me I think, or, it seemed like the

emphasis was put so heavily on the negative aspects of being a TCK, and just how
 66

transitioning back to … your home country was going to be so challenging and

you are going to go through grief, and you’re going to, a lot of people get

depressed, and you’re going to have all these problems, and you are not going to

feel like you belong, and like this whole laundry list of things that were gonna to

suck. And in my mind, like, one, I wanted to prove people wrong, and be like the

TCK experience doesn’t suck, two, like, having like not experienced those things

what kind of high-schooler would hear those things and be like, ‘Oh yeah, I want

that to describe me!’ (P4, p. 18)

Participant 9 also noted a feeling that the loudest voices were those of TCKs who had bad

experiences. Participant 9 shared a desire to have more positive experiences get equal

acknowledgment. Participant 4 shared a desire to give voice to the positive aspects of TCK

identity, “having all of those negative things listed also minimized the things that I really enjoyed

about being a TCK” (P4, p. 18).

Experience of Repatriation

Participants had a range of reactions to the process of repatriating. A couple (N=2)

identified some positive repatriation experiences. For example, Participant 3 felt they were able

to “slip fairly seamlessly into mainstream society” (P3, p. 12). However, almost half of the

participants (N=4) described the transition as difficult. Participant 7 specifically noted

frustration with the feeling that the participant is often required to educate others on TCK

identity. Participant 8’s struggle came in part because the participant had not expected the

repatriation to be hard because they had spent time in the US prior to repatriating. Several

participants (N=3) noted that their stage of development was a relevant factor in how they

experienced repatriation. For Participant 3, it was hard to move to the States as a middle-school
 67

student, but “found high school to be really easy and fun” (P3, p. 13). Similarly, Participant 5

found the transition to the US easier in part because the participant was older, because it was

expected, and because the participant knew that it might be difficult. By contrast, Participant 9

shared the following regarding the repatriation at college age.

And I feel like it [repatriation] usually comes at, right at the point when you’re

transitioning to like your adult life too. Like that’s a natural time to come back,

18 to 20 somewhere in there. So not only are you transitioning from, from your,

one country to another, you know, and culture wise, but you’re also transitioning

from childhood to, or, you know, high school, to adulthood and really doing life

on your own. And so, I don’t know, sometimes I feel like a basic adulting course

would be helpful. (P 9, p. 14)

A few participants cited the phenomenon of Reverse Culture Shock. Reverse Culture

Shock is the term used to describe feeling culture shock for one’s home country. Participant 7

had mixed experiences during repatriation. Participant 7 noted that during early repatriations

they did not experience Reverse Culture Shock, something to be very proud of. This however

changed upon return to the US for graduate school, the participant is currently very aware of

Reverse Culture Shock, in part because the graduate program requires extensive self-reflection.

Participant 9 shared an experience of culture shock upon returning to the US, “culture shock, a

lot of culture shock. … things like going to Walmart is just overwhelming. Like I think it took

me like a year and a half before I felt confident going to Walmart to shop for groceries” (P9, p.

19). When asked about repatriation some (N=3) participants shared that in some ways it was

easier being abroad. For Participant 5, “coming into the United States from outside it was, by

far, the hardest transition” (P5, p. 19). While Participant 3 did not make the same statement the
 68

participant did share that international schools abroad were small and worked to help with the

transition, something not experienced in the US. In addition, the participant felt that moving

abroad there was an expectation that it would be difficult, so there were supports in place to aid

with the move, and a community that was interested in exchanging information and cultural

experiences.

While it was a minority experience, two participants described having strong emotional

reactions to repatriation moments. Participant 2 found herself very nervous about coming to the

US, about college, about the transition in general as she was worried she would not know how to

navigate the dynamics of the move. Participant 7 had a strong negative emotional reaction to

being in a room of White Americans.

I was looking around and it was just a sea of White females like White, American,

females and a few other people peppered in, and I just got so upset because I hate,

I hate being one of them. And being associated with one of them. And like

phenotypically looking like that and yeah, and so I think, being understood here

has been difficult. (P7, p. 23)

In summary, general characteristics that participants mentioned included feeling

that they don’t belong anywhere, feeling out of place even in their home culture, as well

as a need to change their behavior based on where they were or who they were with.

Participants had a range of thoughts regarding TCK identity including feeling that they

had a unique view of the world, the sense that TCK identity provided a useful frame of

reference, as well as negative thoughts related to TCK struggles and lack of focus on the

good aspects of TCK identity.

 69

Repatriation resources. The TCKs interviewed shared a range of resources that they

did or did not have during their repatriation. These resources, when present, made the transition

easier, but often were not available. It is worth noting that many participants noted occasions

where supports were both a source of support as well as an area where help was lacking, either at

different points during repatriation, or due to changes in circumstances.

Family. Family was a resource that over half (N=6) the participants mentioned when

discussing what helped or hindered their transition. A few (N=3) shared that their family was a

resource that they relied on during the transition either as people to talk to, a source of

understanding the difficulty of the transition, or just people who were present through the

transition. Conversely, half of the participants (N=5) noted the lack of family support as an

aspect of their repatriation. In some cases (N=4), this was a result of family living abroad while

the participants lived in the US. For Participant 8 it was particularly difficult because they did

not set up a plan ahead of time to maintain contact, so the participant felt that they were, “in a

foreign country all by myself and I don’t know what I’m doing and nobody here even knows

what I’m talking about” (P8, p. 16). Participant 7 had the added stress of there being discord in

the family. Not only were the participant’s parents still abroad, but there was also, “tension

within the family” (P7, p. 21). Two of the participants cited their families as not being available

for support for reasons other than being away. For Participant 4 the difficulty was that the

participant’s parents had lived abroad for so long they did not have the knowledge the participant

needed to help with the transition. So while they may have been willing, they did not know how

to help with things like cell phones or health insurance. Finally, Participant 7 noted that a barrier

to getting support from parents comes in their lack of understanding of her TCK identity.
 70

Sometimes when I’m really upset my mom might say something that’s really not

helpful and I’ll be like, ‘I know like you were there my entire life, but technically

you’re not a TCK and I am. And so, like even though you’re there and you can

sympathize with a lot of these feelings like you have different experiences and

you lived the first you know 30 something years of your life in America.’ So, it’s

helpful but sometimes they still can’t fully understand. (P7, p. 25)

Preparation. The degree to which individuals were prepared for the transition to the

United States varied significantly from person to person. Most (N=8) shared that they were

offered some level of learning or preparation to ease the process of repatriation. Participant 2

had a positive experience of doing an immersion program shortly before transitioning, and felt

this acted as a helpful bridge between time abroad and being in the US full-time. Participant 7

prepared by doing research and reading about TCKs, which validated the experience of the

transition.

Two different categories of types of preparation were noteworthy. Half of the

participants (N=5) felt they got some good basic general preparation, ingrained values that ease

transitions, or things parents or schools did to specifically prepare them for next steps. For

example, Participant 10 always knew that they would return to the US one day and the schooling

received was geared to this. The participant also benefitted from attending a school that, “had

seen enough MKs, they expected us to do well” (P10, p. 11). Where Participant 8 benefitted

from some previous exposure to the US, Participant 4’s school helped them prepare for college

with enough depth that the participant knew how to find support upon moving.

A few participants benefitted from TCK geared preparation in the form of re-entry

seminars or repatriation preparation discussions at school. All participants cited these things as
 71

being helpful. Things that participants shared they learned included, understandings of Reverse

Culture Shock, importance of goodbyes, and ways that TCKs often make friendships differently.

While Participant 7 found this information helpful, “but I didn’t really understand like the

gravity of what that meant or what that meant for me personally or I had always said that I hadn’t

ever experienced reverse culture shock until I was coming…until I was older” (P7, p. 4).

Participant 9 felt that one activity in particular was supremely beneficial.

And one of the things that they did that was super helpful was a scavenger hunt day and

then sent us out and like dropped us in the city and we walked around and we had to get,

we had to do our list and get pictures as proof that we did everything…. We had to get

some job applications and like we had to go to a bank and ask for a deposit slip. So there

were a lot of, it was a game, but within this game they hid all of the life-skills that like

later I called upon …Out of all the sessions and all the speakers and everything all the

material and resources they gave us, like that day of practical, hands-on practicing I guess

and going through the motions of some of these things like stuck with me the longest.

(P9, p. 21)

Of those who participated, most (N=7) felt that they were lacking in repatriation

preparation in three primary areas. A few (N=3) found themselves in situations where others

were not prepared for repatriation to facilitate their transition. Two of these participants shared

that schools they went to be not prepared with knowledge of TCKs to help with the transition,

whether this was knowing what to do with a lack of school records, in the case of Participant 10,

or simply not knowing to keep an eye on Participant 3’s adjustment. A pair of participants

(N=2) recognized that their parents were not adequately prepared. Participant 8’s family did not

“set up a specific way of communicating or anything, like, oh yeah we’ll talk whenever, but then
 72

we didn’t talk, and then we did meet but then we didn’t really” (P8, p. 16), leaving the

participant without as much family support as would have been helpful. Similarly, Participant 10

acknowledged that the participant’s parents had been abroad so long that the US they returned to

was foreign to them. So while they had educated him in American culture it was not the culture

they were in upon repatriation.

The most commonly cited difficulty was the logistics of daily life. Half of the

participants shared that they did not feel prepared for the details of living in the US. For

Participants 9 and 7 this led to embarrassing moments out in the community. Participant 7’s

family could not figure out how to order a combo meal at a drive-thru because they did not know

the specific words to use here in the US as opposed to abroad, “we tried three different ways of

saying it and we didn’t get it right and we did not get the food we wanted” (P7, p. 24). For

Participant 9 a similar confusing moment happened at a gas station.

So, things like that filling up gas in the car. I had to like make an embarrassing phone

call once cause I was using this borrowed car and was at a gas station and then like in and

out and in and out, and was trying to pry the little tank cover open and I could not get it

open and I didn’t know this car cause it wasn’t mine, and finally I had to call my friend’s

mom because it was her car and like, ‘can you just tell me how to open the gas, like, I

need to fill up with gas and I’m at the gas station.’ And it’s that age when like all the 20

something guys are out and you just feel like super embarrassed and she’s like, ‘there’s a

little lever under the drivers seat and that pops the little cap.’ ‘And I’m like, thank you’.

(P9, p. 20)

The issue of logistics left most stumped about seemingly easy tasks such as using

microwaves, dishwashers, credit cards, payphones, and driving or getting drivers licenses.
 73

Participant 4 had a unique experience in that the participant did not have a permanent address so

holidays became awkward, as Participant 4 had to figure out where to be, and then learn that

family’s traditions.

While experienced specifically by only two participants, the final type of preparation that

was lacking involves support in understanding one’s identity. Participant 8 shared that no one

talked about the participant’s racial identity, so while Participant 8 has seen what people post on

social media the participant has yet to have a discussion about racial identity. Participant 10 also

had a unique experience in part because Participant 10 is older than the other participants. This

participant shared that when they returned to the US, “There were not seminars and stuff as I

now see that there are for returning MKs” (P10, p. 24).

Support. Just as some participants shared that their family was available, some

participants found supportive people to help them through their transitions (N=4). For a few

participants this support came in the form of host families who understood their TCK/ MK

identities and could help answer their questions and smooth the transition, “I was living in a

home with some other MKs kept by a family who was on furlough who were very close friends

of my parents” (P10, p. 9). One participant remembers being provided mentors when they

repatriated, but did not remember taking advantage or needing their help.

Over half of the participants (N=6) shared some experience of not having support around

them. Three participants shared the experience of not having those who used to support them

present. For Participant 1 this was linked to leaving a country they had lived in for a long time.

For Participant 4 this was related to parents not having information needed because of their

extensive time abroad. Finally, Participant 6 felt that the transition to college left the participant

with no buffer and in a position of needing to figure things out alone.

 74

Participant 6 experienced this lack of old supports, “my parents were still in Africa” (P6,

p. 14), along with a slightly different lack of support. Participant 6 also experienced barriers to

obtaining new supporters; “I was the only missionary kid in my college that I knew of” (P6, p.

14). This was a difficulty expressed by half of the participants (N=5). Along with Participant 6

both Participants 3 and 4 experienced difficulty finding other TCK/CCKS, which, for Participant

3 meant that, “there’s no one to really talk about those [culture shock] experiences in the

States...you don’t tell people, ‘this is super weird for me’, because they are going to be like,

‘what do you mean it’s weird, this is just normal’” (P3, p. 15). For Participants 5 and 10 their

difficulty getting support was linked to their age and when they were repatriating, Participant 5

shared that, “If we had had the stuff that I know about today, like the Global Nomads …

gatherings, or just books or articles, journal articles, research, essays written, everything,

YouTube videos, it would have made a world of difference” (P5, p. 19). Similarly, when

Participant 10 repatriated there were no seminars or resources for MKs to help with the

transition.

Friends and significant-others. A few (N=3) participants pointed friends and significant

others being a source of support throughout their transition. Both Participants 6 and 10 made

friends who made their moves to the US easier. For Participant 10 this came in the form of a

friend who made his entry to the social world of his High School easier. For Participant 6 it was

a relief to find a friends who understood why the participant asked odd questions or behaved

differently and would speak up for these behaviors; “probably the biggest help, was just getting

some people, some American friends who I trusted enough that understood that I didn’t know all

this stuff. I could feel safe asking stupid questions” (P6, p. 14).
 75

Where having friends and significant others helped some TCKs, the lack of friendships or

significant relationships made the switch to the United States more difficult (N=3). Unlike

Participant 1, Participant 7 had to leave a significant other behind in the host country. Participant

3 remembers the transition being, “very disorienting and uncomfortable. And like lonely” (P3, p.

13). And where Participant 4 struggled to feel understood, Participant 7 found it difficult to

make friends,

I’ve found making friends difficult …I’ve noticed like a lot of people have said how they

find it difficult to make friends in the States because…their relationships and their

friendships are...it’s harder to get to that like deeper level of connection. (P7, p. 23)

Shared Experiences. One of the factors that participants reported helped their

repatriation experience was when they had some way of having a shared experience with those

around them. Approximately half the participants (N=6) shared that they had moments of shared

experience during their repatriation. For half the participants one way they benefited was

through contact with TCKs or CCKs. Most of these interactions (N=4) occurred in person, but

Participant 8 was forced to make TCK connections online; “I joined a Facebook group of other

MKs and it’s a very active, it’s got like, I don’t know 4,000 members and it, lots and lots of posts

every day” (P8, p. 17). The ability to be in contact with TCKs/CCKs helped the participants feel

understood, less alone, and like their experiences, while out of the norm compared to American

peers, were not abnormal within the community of TCKs. Participant 7 shared that it was

helpful to be “able to just like candidly speak to me because we knew that we had this like

understanding of being TCKs and like the schools that we went to were very similar” (P7, p. 25).

A few participants (N=3) noted that having some access to American culture while

abroad made the transition easier. For Participant 5 this was the experience transitioning from
 76

Cairo to the US because, “Even things like television...you would have access to a lot of things

that would be kind of similar to what was going on here” (P5, p. 19). Similarly, Participant 7

had some access to pop-culture during her furlough from 3rd to 5th grade. Finally, Participant 10

shared that it was helpful to have lived at one of the biggest missions because “it was a little

island of America in a way” (P10, p. 26).

Two participants brought attention to three different ways they had shared experiences

during their repatriation. Participant 10 benefited from getting involved in many activities at

school, such as the school newspaper and school play. Participant 2 shared two different ways

the transition was eased. For one going to a Christian school where the participant had religion

in common with classmates made it easier. Finally, the participant felt it was helpful to

transition to the United States in college when peers were also making a switch to a new phase of

maturity.

Unfortunately, most participants related that they did not have the benefit of shared

experiences during their repatriations (N=8). It is not surprising that, just as having access to

American pop-culture made the move to the US easier, not being aware of pop-culture made the

transition more difficult. This was an issue cited by half of those interviewed (N=5). Participant

6 noted that, “Every conversation I had with people was potentially full of references of things

that I didn’t get or talking about things I had no idea what they were” (P6, p. 7).

Pop culture was only one way in which participants struggled to adapt to the United

States. Many shared more general experiences of culture shock upon repatriation (N=6). These

experiences ranged from finding consumerism and stores like Walmart overwhelming, to not

knowing how to navigate the social dynamics of a high school cafeteria. For Participant 4, the

cultural differences were more prominent after college, “moving to North Carolina there wasn’t
 77

anyone to talk to or framework through which I could understand feeling different or other

people understood me being different. I think that was one of the challenges of repatriating” (P4,

p. 25). By contrast for Participant 7, it was the college party culture that was difficult to adapt to

coming from a more regulated religious setting abroad; “coming from a Christian High School to

undergrad in New Orleans is very different, cause of all the partying and what-not” (P7, p. 22).

In fact, the culture was so disconcerting that she chose to transfer schools. Participant 6 shared a

unique experience of culture shock that links to race and racism in the US, and the disconnect

between the participant’s understanding of these topics based on time and education abroad.

Oh, so this was a weird, embarrassing thing that happened to me in 10th grade. I was

really into WWII in high school and I read a lot of books about it … so I was sitting in

class one day and I was just doodling and I was drawing swastikas and one of the other

kids saw me and then later, I went into the bathroom like at lunchtime, and a whole group

of Black kids came into the bathroom and started yelling at me asking me if I was a Nazi,

and was I racist, and did I hate Black people. And I just started, I literally couldn’t

understand what they were talking about. And then one of my friends came in and was

like ‘Guys leave her alone’. I was just sitting on the floor crying. And they were like

‘Why were you drawing swastikas? They saw you.’ And I was like ‘It was just kind of a

fun thing to draw, from WWII’. In my mind, ancient history and not something that I

ever would have thought that Black people would be upset about. Jewish people I would

have been like ‘oh, I’m really sorry, I didn’t mean to bring up this upsetting thing’. Or

whatever, but I just did not get it at all. To me it was an academic thing, you know. And

I just completely failed to realize what a big problem it was and how prominent it still

was for people in this country, people in Europe too, probably. (P6, p. 12)
 78

Three others described situations where they had to adjust their cultural views or

understanding so as to better transition to the United States. Participant 3, when very young, had

to learn that while Black people in Sierra Leone spoke Krio, Black people in the US did not.

Participant 6 had to change the way she learned upon entering American schools, because the

participant had previously attended schools that used the British system. Finally, Participant 8

had to adjust to the way Americans socialize. Having grown up in a more community minded

culture in Ghana Participant 8 did not understand the individualistic tendencies of American

peers.

Just as there were cultural barriers to the transition to the US several participants shared

ways in which they struggled to integrate socially upon moving to the US (N=3). In some cases

these barriers were linked to isolation. Living in a small farming community left Participant 8

isolated from other TCKs or diverse groups. Participant 7 also recognized that it is hard to find

other TCKs/CCKs in the US because, unlike abroad, they do not stand out. Finally, Participant 6

was isolated socially because students at school were used to MKs staying for only short periods

of time, and as a result they left MKs alone assuming that they would leave in short stead.

A few participants had insulated experiences that left them feeling like outsiders.

Participant shared that they expected the transition to the US to be easy, but then was faced with

the fact that those around did not share similar experiences, even if they had the same nationality.

Participant 7 felt like they did not quite belong in any category in college; “things are always

categorized as you are either American or you’re an international student. And I don’t fall in

either of those categories and I had never thought of it fully in this way before” (P7, p. 24).

Finally, the topic of logistics existed in this context as well, Participant 6 recognized that the

participant did not have basic logistical knowledge peers had; “I didn’t know how to use a
 79

microwave; I didn’t know how to use a payphone. When I came back for high school I wanted

to drive but I didn’t know what the different lines on the road meant” (P6, p. 14)

Feelings of Belonging

The category of Feelings of Belonging is about where, when, and in what ways

participants felt like they belonged or didn’t. Unlike the category of identity this category is not

about how the participants understand their identity but about feeling like one is or is not linked

to a group. It is possible to feel like you belong in a group you don’t consider yourself a part of,

and you can out of place in a group you identify with. In addition, unlike identity, which is

centered in the participant’s point of view, feeling like one does not belong in a group could be

based on the participant’s point of view or how others see them. In some cases, participants feel

like they belong to groups they do not consider being part of their identity, or feeling like they do

not belong in a group they consider part of their identity.

Feelings of Connection

TCK/CCK. The connecting factor endorsed by the most participants (N=8) was that of

being a TCK or CCK. For many, this connection was about feeling like others can understand

their experiences (N=7). Participant 5 expressed it in the following way:

When I got involved with groups of people that had gathered for the purpose of talking

about experiences of growing up outside the US or outside the country it was mind-

blowing…not only do I understand what you are saying but I’ve thought that too or I’ve

felt that too… yes we all lived at different places at different times, but the underlying

theme to me in the struggles and the concerns and the worries and the stressors things like

that are pretty much the same. (P5, p. 20)

For others the connection to TCKs and other Cross Cultural Kids was comforting or

helpful (N=4). Several participants (N=3) mentioned belonging as a TCK by noting their
 80

friendship with other TCKs/CCKs, “I ended up making a lot of friends who are like, like, if not

Third Culture Kids, then people whose parents had recently emigrated to America and so like

first-generation kids” (P3, p. 15).

Foreigner. Most participants (N=7) reported feeling that they connected to others based

on being foreigners. For Participant 1 being a foreigner made them the same as other students at

the international school. Participant 9 put it this way, “We were foreigners I guess in a foreign

land, and that brought us together” (P9, p. 2). For Participant 8 this comfort as a foreigner

differentiates them from other Americans, “it’s not uncomfortable for me at all as opposed to

other American who are like ‘everybody’s staring at me’. Well, of course they are staring at you,

you are White, this is normal” (P8, p. 4).

Nationality. Half of the participants endorsed feeling a sense of belonging based on their

nationality (N=5). For several this was something they noted when talking about how they

connected or introduced/identified themselves and others in international schools (N=3). For

Participant 9, American nationality was a way to connect to other Americans regardless of race

or ethnicity, “Like race, and being White is not as big a deal maybe as nationality. Like, we can

have something in common even if you’re Chinese born American or you’re African, Black

American. Like it’s fine, we’re both from America” (P9, p. 11). By contrast, for Participant 8 a

feeling of belonging based on nationality was related to the connection to the host nation Ghana,

“I felt very patriotic about Ghana...the language, the food, the way we lived, the games we

played, every aspect of life I can think of was influenced by being in Ghana” (P8, p. 2).

Shared location. Just as location was important for Participant 8 regarding a feeling of

Ghanaian patriotism, location was a connection point for half of the participants (N=5). Both

Participants 2 and 7 sided with their host nations when discussing the Mexican-American war
 81

and Japanese internment camps, despite being American themselves. In both cases classmates

did not contradict their identification with the host nation. Participants 2, 8, and 9 all shared

having strong feelings of being connected to a host nation and/or it’s people, “But yeah, I’m

really proud to be from Hong Kong” (P9, p. 2). Participant 3 shared a strong affinity for

Baltimore, the city they lived in during early repatriations, and Participant 7 shared that the

participant identifies with Asians, even though the participant is not Asian.

Shared experience. Having a shared location with others was a connection point,

similarly several participants (N=3) bonded with others over shared experiences or interests.

Participant 10 reported that getting involved in school activities and events like the yearbook and

school plays eased the process of repatriation. Participants 2 and 4 both expressed making

connections based on shared interests, “usual I connect with people who shared my interests

academically” (P2, p. 8).

Language. Part of connecting with others involves communication. A few participants

(N=3) related that they connected through a shared language. Participant 8 endorsed patriotic

feelings towards Ghana, and part of what helped the participant feel connected to Ghanaian

culture was the use of the local language, “I spoke the language, I grew up speaking the

language” (P8, p. 2). Participant 9 not only noted that common language connected the

participant to other TCKs, “we were both in not our mother tongue language culture” (P9, p. 2).

Finally, Participant 7 made an interesting point about how language may have linked to how

friendship groups were created in the international school.

And so I was basically informed that our class was divided into these different

groups of friends. …And I think a lot of it had to do with language and also how

language includes humor because I think a lot of friendship groups are based off
 82

of like personalities and how you get along with people and I think a big part of

that is having like a similar sense of humor. And the humor in Japanese is very

different from the humor you would have in English. It’s a lot more word play

and so you really can’t translate that. And, so I think that played a big part into

how people were organized. (P7, p. 12)

Passing. Several participants shared the experience of feeling they belong in part

because they were able to visually pass for being part of the in-group. Participant 5 noted that in

Cairo they looked less out of place than in Nepal where visually they were more different.

Where Participant 5 shared an experience of passing abroad, Participant 9 shared that, “I live in

America and I blend in, because, you know, I’m White, I look American” (P9, p. 12).

Participant 2 had this experience of passing both abroad, “when I was living in Mexico …in

terms of like how I presented, because I spoke fluent Spanish, and had been there for so long, I

could pass…I was taken for Mexican” (P2, p. 3), and in the US, “I remember coming back to the

States to visit and like the sort-of, oh I can relax, like I’m not being stared at everywhere I go”

(P2, p. 4).

Human. While all of the above groupings involve being similar based on a specific

characteristic several (N=3) participants shared a feeling that they connect to others based on

their shared identity as humans, as Participant 5 shared in this way, “I just want to talk to

someone or interact with someone because they are a human being” (P5, p. 10). It is clear from

the interviews that the participants were able to connect with other people in a range of ways that

allowed them to overcome a range of differences. For all of the ways that they were able to feel

they belonged, there were many situations where they were led to feel separated from others.

Feelings of Not Belonging

 83

Presentation. Almost all participants (N=9) shared that they felt othered based on how

they present outwardly. For many (N=7) this feeling of not belonging was based on their own

perspective. Most mentioned their skin color as one of the ways they felt different. For a

couple, (N=2) this not belonging due to skin color was neutral. For Participant 2 being racially

different as a White person made the participant keenly aware of racial identity. For Participant

5 it was something the participant could not avoid abroad and made the role as a visitor clear.

By contrast, for others it was a negative experience. Half of the participants shared that they did

not like being othered based on their visual presentation (N=5). This sentiment was particularly

strong from Participant 7 who shared that being White so, “I didn’t like the fact that when people

saw me what they saw was a blond-haired, blue-eyed, Caucasian human, because I had negative

connotations with those aspects of a person” (P7, p. 6). In Participant 6’s case, they felt that

being Black would have helped the participant fit in abroad as well as help others see the

participant as different in the US.

While for some skin color was the thing that they felt made them not belong, others noted

language as an othering factor (N=2), “English is my native tongue and going outside the United

States into areas where English is not readily spoken um, very different” (P5, p. 7). In one case

wealth was a differing feature. Participant 6 felt different from playmates as they were

significantly poorer and were being married at young ages.

Not only did most participants feel othered from their perspective, but almost all felt like

they were made to feel they did not belong based on the actions or perceived reactions of others

(N=9). Some of these moments were described as negative occurrences (N=5). In some cases,

(N=3) individuals felt their race led them to be treated or perceived negatively. Participants 1

and 8 shared experiences like this in the US. Participant 1 felt African Americans in the US
 84

avoid interacting, and Participant 8 felt that being White, “blocked me from being accepted as an

insider, in some cases where I wanted to say, ‘yeah I’m on your side against these White

people’” (P8, p. 13). Two participants described experiencing significant discomfort or fear.

Participant 6 shared experiences of being picked on and sexually harassed as a result of being

visibly different, and Participant 9 shared insecurity regarding the tenuousness of their continued

welcome in China after 9/11 due to the family’s status as Americans. Two participants endorsed

feeling that when abroad they were expected to provide something to people they interacted with

because being White it was assumed that they were wealthy. Participant 8 also shared the

feeling that as a TCK the participant was misunderstood and isolated upon repatriation. Finally,

Participant 7 reported wanting to blend in which led to the wish to not be White.

Over half the participants (N=6) shared experiences of not belonging that were described

in neither positive nor negative terms, or in mixed terms. In most cases participants described

standing out visually and being faced with the curiosity of those in their host countries. For

Participant 1 this included reactions in the community such as, “Korea they used to take me aside

and take pictures of me and touch my hair and pet me” (P1, p. 3) and reactions in Cameroonian

public school, “I was the only White person in the school, so I would be brought as show and tell

from classroom to classroom to let them see what a White person looked like” (P1, p. 3). There

was often a sense of this being normal, as Participant 4 shares, “that was just a very normal part

of life. It wasn’t anything that I second-guessed” (P4, p. 4). In one case this was described as

happening in the US where Participant 5 felt that people saw the participant as a foreigner,

“people were looking at me like I was some sort of foreigner, and like my nationality made no

difference… ‘You’re not an American, you don’t even sound like an American, you don’t act

like an American’” (P5, p. 5).

 85

A few participants (N =3) described events that could be seen as negative, but did so with

a tone of acceptance. Participant 1 described being dunked while playing at a local pool by an

African American kid who made comments about the participant’s skin color when living in DC,

but did not describe finding this upsetting or scared despite the overt aggression. Similarly,

Participant 1 shared a situation in Cameroon where a woman became verbally aggressive, but

instead of blaming the woman the participant had the following reaction, “at that time I was still

kind of religious in my head, so I felt like, oh my god it’s God telling me that I shouldn’t be in a

bar...But I never remember feeling angry at her” (P1, p. 9). Participant 3 did not describe verbal

aggression abroad, but did describe feeling sexualized and pointed at if wearing clothes that were

not conservative. Finally, Participant 4 felt that when the participant moved to a predominantly

African American area that the visual difference was difficult for students to overcome, and that

“at first because I was so used to being different that I didn’t think it was a big deal. And then I

realized that this visual difference was big for them in the culture of their community” (P4, p.

11). Just as Participant 4 realized that the participant was being perceived differently from how

Participant 4’s felt, Participants 1 and 7 felt misperceived, Participant 1 abroad and Participant 7

in the US. The way participants felt about their appearance, or the way they were perceived by

others, led to situations where they felt different from the people around them. Some of these

moments were described as negative, whereas others were related with a relatively neutral tone.

Regardless, whether abroad or in the US participants did not always feel that they belonged.

While the majority of experiences described were negative or neutral, two participants

shared positive aspects of being perceived as different. Participant 1 felt in Korea being White

was, “kind of nice because I guess you got a lot of positive attention from people. People wanted

to talk to you, they were curious about you. They are very helpful” (P1, p. 4). Similarly,
 86

Participant 3 found that standing out abroad sometimes brought support from others, “there were

certain bars that you went to, and I everyone would be like, ‘hey, how are you liking China’ and

you could talk about your experience it was easy and nice” (P3, p. 14).

Identity features. While skin color or general presentation was one part of participant’s

identities that led them to feel like they did not belong, a few participants (N=5) experienced this

based on other aspects of their identity such as their nationality or religion. For several (N=3)

this sense of not belonging was internal. Participants 2 and 5 felt isolated because they were

religious minorities. Participant 8 shared a somewhat unique experience of feeling that the

participant was not American despite the participant’s documents, because Participant 8 was not

like the participant’s parents, and they were American. For two participants this feeling of not

belonging came from the reaction of others. Participant 6 felt separated from others as the

participant began modifying thoughts on religious views, and this was compounded by their

perceptions of the participant’s actions, “like people projected onto me that I was rebelling and I

wasn’t trying to rebel. I just didn’t want to do, go to church and pray and all those things

anymore” (P6, p. 16). For Participant 9, this feeling of not belonging came in part because being

Christian and American on top of White, in some places meant that others then concluded that

you must be from Hollywood and a prostitute, which led the participant to try and hide their

religious identity in those places. In the previous section feeling different was related to an

aspect of the participant’s outward presentation. In this section they were led to feel different

due to a part of their identity, be it their nationality, or their religion.

Shared experience. When participants shared ways in which they felt like they belonged

or connected to others one of the ways this happened was through the sharing of experiences

(N=6). It is not surprising then, that this is also a factor that came up when individuals discussed
 87

feeling like they did not belong in certain situations or communities. In quite a few cases this

sense of feeling different was internal or based on the participant’s own feelings or perception

(N=5). All of these five participants shared feeling like they were different while in the US or

around Americans based on the assumption or knowledge that these Americans did not share

their international experiences. For Participant 8, this led to a desire to be Black so that her

otherness would be visible, “my Whiteness was just there as a problem. Like it made me look, I

looked like everyone else and I sounded kind of like everyone else” (P6, p. 9). While Participant

6 wanted to feel visibly different, Participant 1 found began self-censoring thoughts because the

participant knew that American peers did not share the same experience of seeing poverty which

led to a specific value system, “when I would have a friend and then go shopping all the time, I

would go, like in my head I was trying not to be mad at them” (P1, p. 11). There was one

notable outlier who mentioned this same feeling but experiencing it while living abroad.

Participant 7 shared how while abroad the participant was not privy to the racial struggles

experienced by host nationals as a result of being a foreigner.

Cause I know like every country has their own like racial issues. But being a foreigner in

that country you’re kind of able to skirt around them or not really have to grapple with

them so much. Like you might be aware about it but versus when I’m in the States. (P7,

p. 15)

These internalized feelings of being separate or different based on a lack of common

experiences was mirrored by other’s reactions to participants. Not only did participants feel

different, but others caused them to become more aware of their differences (N=3). It is worth

noting that all of the experiences coded this way were situations that happened in the United

States. In some cases (N=3) the reactions described were relatively benign, such as weird looks,
 88

or moments of surprise or confusion, “like the cashier always looks at her like “What is wrong

with you” (P3, p. 15) or, “And even in the United States if I say that I lived in Taiwan and people

go, ‘wait, what were you doing in Taiwan?’” (P4, p. 8). Participant 6 also had the experience of

feeling left out after moving schools as a result of not having shared the teachers or activities

from past years. In addition, the participant noted that in college they did not know what to do

with the participant and dubbed the participant an International Student. While the above stories

shared often involved some level of discomfort, Participant 6 shared a particularly distressing

event that occurred when on furlough in the 10th grade. This is an example of how being taught

about history outside of the US without an in-depth understanding of racial issues in the US led

to a scary interaction described on page 39 of this dissertation. Where previous moments of

disconnection were related to aspects of participant’s identities, these moments were connected

to the lack of shared experience.

Ambiguous. Feeling like one does not belong was a common theme among participants.

While they were able in some cases to identify the specific ways in which they felt othered, this

was not always possible. Sometimes the cause was unknown, or the participant struggled parse

out one trait that was the cause of this feeling, as it could have been linked to a multitude of traits

(N=8). For a number of participants (N=6) this feeling disconnected was described as an internal

experience. Three participants shared unique ambiguous feelings of not belonging. For

Participant 2, it appeared to be a general feeling of not being in agreement while on Birthright

Israel, despite sharing the experience and religion of the others on the trip. One participant

identified feeling isolation as an expatriate, but did not identify whether this was specific to a

nationality, race, or religious difference. Finally, Participant 6 experienced personal confusion

upon returning abroad as an adult at a time when trying to figure out where the participant fit. In
 89

this case Participant 6 did not identify whether this sense of not belonging was related to any

specific identity feature. While the above participants had unique experiences, participants 7, 8,

and 9 all related stories where their feeling of not belonging was linked to multiple factors,

whether it was race and nationality, race, language, nationality, or nationality and a lack of

shared experiences. In all three cases words like, “I don’t know exactly” (P8, p. 9), “it was

maybe” (P9, p. 10), and “why am I doing this so much” (P7, p. 3) indicate some level of

uncertainty or confusion regarding these experiences.

Participants also discussed feeling generally different from others. These codes came

without a specific sense of why, whether it be a sense of privilege without identified cause of

privilege, “So I felt privileged but I felt very excluded from being able to be a part of regular life.

(P6, p. 4), or being different without knowing if it was the participant’s race, nationality, or

religion, “so I think they kind of treated us like, you know, ‘you’re just so different, we don’t

really, so, know how to approach you.’” (P5, p. 8). This last set of circumstances were

connected to situations where the disconnect was in some way ambiguous, either because the

participants were unsure in some way or another, or because it was difficult to parse out the

cause of the disconnect. What came before related to how participants felt they did or did not

belong. What comes next is a review of how they reacted to a range of experiences.

Response to Information and Events

This category is made up of participants’ different reactions to the world and events

around them. Responses fell in three major categories, emotional reactions, thought-based

reactions, and action-based reactions.

Emotion-Based Reactions

All participants (N=10) endorsed experiencing a range of emotional reactions to the

events of their life, their experiences/thoughts on race, identity, privilege, and belonging. These
 90

emotions ranged from acceptance and pride, to shame/guilt, anger/annoyance, fear, and general

emotional struggle.

Acceptance. A sense of acceptance was the most common emotional experience. It was

the one emotion that every participant reported during their interview. In this context,

acceptance was not the term participants used, but the term used by the examiner when

participants described moments when they did not question something, be it an event, their

identity, or the actions of others. A few participants (N=3) used language that implied

acceptance even when talking about upsetting events. For example, Participant 1 shared that,

“there’s a lot of things that happened in Cameroon which…and (laughs) throughout the world,

that happened, where I should have felt unsafe, but I always felt ok” (P1, p. 9). Acceptance was

also a common reaction for Participant 3 who shared that bullying just happens, and that being

sexualized based on clothing choices was an experience to learn from. While at the time of the

interview this participant was infuriated by a teacher’s performance of the Rebel Yell (a battle

cry made by the Confederate soldiers during the American Civil War), at the time they and their

peers thought, “‘oh there’s that kooky teacher doing that thing again, ha ha’” (P3, p. 9).

For many, acceptance was part of how they reacted to their racial identity as White

people (N=8). Most at some point endorsed that being White was just what it was for them, a

fact, neither good nor bad. Participant 10 put it well, when asked if they remembered when they

became conscious of being White the participant replied, “No, it was just always a fact of life”

(P10, p. 13). For Participant 2, an aspect of acceptance of racial identity is that there is no

conflict for the participant between how others perceive the participant’s race and how the

participant perceives it. This was not the case for Participants 4 and 8 who both struggled with

being perceived as racist or unable to understand Black perspectives despite feeling that their
 91

time abroad gave them a unique point of view. However, both shared an acceptance of this

perception, and in the case of Participant 4, she “absorbed” (P4, p. 15) these reactions and,

“realized that like inherently I probably did have some racial preferences” (P4, p. 15).

As was discussed in the category of Race standing out was a part of most of the

participant’s racial life experiences living abroad as minorities. Acceptance was seen in the way

half of the participants discussed their understanding of what it was like to stand out (N=5).

Participant 4 summarized it well when she shared that, “I was visually different and I guess I got

very used to being visually different… it was something I was born into and grew up with it was

normal” (P4, p. 4). Participant 5 reported initial challenges related to adapting to a new

environment, but later “got used to being in the minority” (P5, p. 5).

Earlier, participants’ understanding of their privilege, and characteristics that defined it

were discussed. Statements about privilege were often cross-coded with emotional content,

including acceptance (N=4). Participant 10 shared that when others tried to place guilt on White

Privilege the participant’s reaction was, “I don’t feel the least bit guilty because I’m White”

(P10, p. 14). Participant 8 developed a comfort with privilege abroad, as well as well as the

change in privilege that occurred upon repatriation.

But privilege I was used to living with by the time I left…It wasn’t confusing so much as

it was like great this is normal life…And then I came back to the US and those privileges

didn’t really exist in the same way anymore. It was like, oh, so now I am a normal

person, I’m not anybody special anymore. (P8, p. 12)

Just as Participant 8 extended acceptance to the perceived loss of privilege, Participants 9

and 10 did not appear to struggle with the idea that there were ways they were less privileged
 92

than others, “I felt like underprivileged, maybe in that, like I realized that it was ok, and that it

was a sacrifice and I was ok with it…And I felt like they were really lucky” (P9, p. 16).

Not only were privilege and race identity aspects that participants managed with

acceptance, but also other identity features. For example, Participant 3 said the following

regarding American identity, “And so it was sort of like our being there was sponsored by our

Americanness. So I mean like, even if you wished that you could not be American, you kind of

undeniably were, so” (P3, p. 6). Similarly, Participant 4 who had initially struggled with feeling

TCK was a limiting label came to the realization that, “I could have said, used it as a tool or a

frame of reference through which to understand my own unique experience” (P4, p. 17).

One of the events that several participants discussed with acceptance included their

experience of moving (N=7). For Participant 5 accepting that time abroad came bundled with an

appreciation that it formed who the participant is and is something the participant would not

want to change. Participant 3 noted that when it came to moving, “It was more about the

adjusting, all you can really do is have time” (P3, p. 14). Finally, while Participant 8 struggled to

move to an area with no TCKs upon repatriating the participant believed that, “it was necessarily

a bad decision because I’ve made friends here, I’m glad to be here, but I wasn’t expecting that

aspect of it” (P8, p. 16). Others also discussed repatriation specifically (N=5). Participants 2, 6,

and 10 spoke with a sense of neutrality about going along with things that were out of their

control. For example, Participant 2 attended International Orientation because, “I was invited so

I was like Ok” (P2, p. 15). Similarly, while Participant 10 did not want to move from Louisville

to Minnesota the participant, “got to Minnesota and had an absolutely wonderful senior year”

(P10, p. 10).
 93

Shame and guilt. While all participants shared acceptance as one way the reacted to

their world, it was by no means the only emotional reaction they had. Most participants (N=8)

endorsed feeling shame or guilt. These feelings seemed to link predominantly to their racial

identity, thoughts on White culture, or to their feelings about being privileged. Several

participants shared feelings of guilt or shame about White culture (N=4). Participants 1 and 3

struggled with shame about White history after they learned about slavery and mistreatment of

Native Americans. Participants 2 and 6 both felt negatively about acknowledging that their

White experience is not the same as White Americans who grew up in the US, “it seems

inappropriate to talk about it, being discriminated against when you are a White Person” (P6, p.

19).

Many individuals shared feelings of guilt regarding privilege (N=4). For Participant 3 it

came in the form of an acknowledgment that this participant should have felt “otherized” (P4, p.

7) while abroad, but because of the predominance of Eurocentric culture the participant was

spared this feeling. Participants 8 and 9 also acknowledged the injustice of having privilege.

Participant 9 struggled to understand why the participant was privileged simply for having been

born to the participant’s parents. Finally, Participant 5 shared how the reaction to the privileges

the participant had even compared to other expat kids based on the family’s embassy perks.

And at the post where we lived we had access to commissary privileges and that was a

huge dividing line between the ones that had commissary privileges and the ones that did

not. I felt, I very guilty, I would actually kind of hide some of my lunch at school because

I didn’t want any of the kids to see I had, well, you know, something in my lunchbox that

other people would be envious of so I would keep it down, downplay it as much as I

could. (P5, p. 16)

 94

Annoyance or anger. This subcategory represented a relatively common response,

occurring in the narratives of over half the participants (N=6). In most cases the expression of

anger centered around race or racism. Participants 3 and 5 shared anger about racist acts they

witnessed in others. By contrast, Participant 6 was angered by the harassment experienced in

Mali due to skin color. Participant 7 shared feeling angry at being White as a child, “I was very

upset about the fact that I was White” (P7, p. 5). In a similar vein this participant also shared

frustration with the use of the term people of color because they felt like it was limited to Black

and Brown individuals leaving out Asians, with whom the participant felt more connected.

While not specifically about their race, Participants 3 and 8 also shared anger at their privilege,

Participant 3 being disgusted by how blatant White Privilege is, and Participant 8 angered at the

injustice of privilege when living abroad. One participant shared frustration centering around

TCK identity. Participant 8 was frustrated with the participant’s parents who did not learn about

or understand TCK identity. By contrast, Participant 9 shared frustration with those who take

good things they have for granted, “I just want to shake some kids and be like, ‘quit the drama,

you’re just so blessed to have people around you who are good friends for you and who you can

hang out with and do fun things’” (P9, p. 13), and when the participant hears of, “White people

going off the deep-end and doing something crazy to like groups that they don’t like” (P9, p. 11).

Loneliness. Feeling lonely was something that half of the participants reported (N=5).

For most they described feeling lonely while abroad. Participant 10 shared that playmates were

no longer there to play with when they were 5 because, “because they had to go to work! They

were helping support their families” (P10, p. 28). For Participant 8 and 9 living in rural areas left

them isolated and lonely, “So I never had any friends like that two years, last two years of high

school” (P9, p. 12). Unlike the previous statements, Participant 1 shared loneliness
 95

predominantly focusing on time in the US, sharing that, “it was lonely and I was too scared to

talk to people” (P1, p. 11).

Fear. While not the most common emotion expressed fear was an emotion that came up

occasionally in interviews. A few participants shared that they were scared at different points of

time in reaction to events in their world (N=3). Participant 1 not only felt fear when being

propositioned and harassed by a taxi driver on the way to school, as well as when she was

preparing to move back to the United States. By contrast, it was not moving to the US that

scared Participant 5, but moving abroad, “It was so scary but it was different and nothing, very

little that I could draw from or here, it was like everything was opposite of what here was

including the side of the road they drove on” (P5, p. 8). Fear was a common experience for

Participant 6 who not only was scared as a kid, “when I was a kid I just knew that I was a

minority and that it wasn’t always safe” (P6, p. 4), but also later as an adult when the participant

returned to Africa as a Peace Corps volunteer.

Pride. While this was a minority response, pride was something that two participants

felt. Participant 7 held pride in the ability early on to repatriate without experiencing culture

shock or the difficulties many TCKs have when returning to the US. By contrast, Participant 9

was proud to be from Hong Kong.

Thought-Based Reactions

In addition to having emotional reactions to events or information in their world

participants also approached things with reactions based in thought processes. Types of thought

responses included attempts to integrate information so as to understand the larger context, the

use of hindsight thinking to review past events from a new lens, and a sense of curiosity.
 96

Understanding context. All participants at one point or another gave responses that

indicated an attempt to understand situations in their larger context (N=10).

Racial and ethnic context. Many participants approached the issue of understanding

their race or ethnicity by thinking through and synthesizing information (N=6). Participant 2 did

this extensively as the participant explored both Whiteness and Jewish identity, for example

noting that while the participant identifies as White that, “there are some Jews who wouldn’t

necessarily consider themselves White” (P2, p. 1). This participant also worked to integrate

information from a workshop attended into understanding of how White identity and personality

may intersect, “the White thing of projecting that and being like…people should be organized, or

should be perfectionist” (P2, p. 10).

For several participants there was an integration of historical information into their

understanding of their racial identity (N=3). Participant 3’s thoughts on White identity were

linked to the understanding of history and particularly the history of colonialism, imperialism,

and slavery, “this history of White culture, European culture, Eurocentric culture dominating so

many other cultures and like the outfall of imperialism and colonialism …it’s like so

pronounced” (P3, p. 6). Participant 10 also focused in on the history of colonialism when

discussing the participant’s experience as a White person in Africa. History allowed Participant

10 to understand why the participant was not a target in South Sudan, as well as consider why a

friend’s experience elsewhere was different, “this is an area that the Belgians had colonized and

actually the, the troubles they are having now are directly [laughs] a lot of them are directly

traceable back to the Belgian mismanagement and abuse” (P10, p. 23). By contrast, Participant 6

shared that while learning about race and racism in school that this education did not include

institutional acts of racism such as, “the systematic involvement of the government for instance,
 97

with like, where they decided to put freeways in cities and wiping out only Black people’s

houses. Or stuff like that” (P6, p. 14).

Just as several participants used historical context to understand the issue of race, a few

shared thoughts about how race is different from one country to another (N=3). Participant 4 and

9 noted that when thinking about race in America they often think predominantly in Black vs.

White because, “the Black-White system in the United States has become so charged” (P4, p.

11), “like I see America as kind of dual colored” (P9, p. 8). By contrast, Participant 6 shared

thoughts on how race is different in Europe, “in Sweden there’s less diversity… Being American

is different from being European in a lot of ways” (P6, p. 18). While not identified purely by

race Participant 9 noted that other’s reaction to Americans was different from country to country,

“So yeah, I’ve seen both, like China is like extreme love for like Americans…other countries just

have this disgust for those Americans. So that was like really eye-opening … to experience

that.” (P9, p. 8).

Privilege. Another aspect of participant’s lives that half of them (N=5) reacted to by

trying to understand better were their experiences of privilege. There were two main ways in

which participants thought through privilege. In two cases participants talked through intricacies

of privilege. Participant 2 noted how historically different groups had to earn privilege, “Italians

and Jews and other folks weren’t necessarily considered White some time ago, but I feel like

now are and right have all of the privileges of Whiteness” (P2, p. 1). Similarly, the participant

talked through having learned how much more is racially tinged than the participant ever

thought, “some of my tendencies like perfectionism … were all of a sudden like racialized to me

… maybe there’s a racial component to this that I never realized before” (P2, p. 9). Where

Participant 1’s thoughts were regarding the history of privilege Participant 8 examined her
 98

assumptions about aspects of privilege she assumed that all Americans have, “I do have privilege

[in the US] but I think it’s really hard to notice because there’re so many people who have the

same privileges… there are minorities here also who don’t have all the things that normal people

take for granted” (P8, p. 12),

Where participants 2 and 8 thought through more complex privilege components, a few

shared mixed thoughts on privilege. Participant 9 shared that while the participant recognizes

that the participant has many privileges compared to some, the participant is less privileged than

others. Participant 7 also noted some nuance in the sense of privilege when talking through how

there is a tendency to talk about White Privilege as a negative thing despite, “technically having

a lot of the privileges would be the positive” (P7, p. 13). Participant 7 was not the only

individual to struggle with the semantics and nuances of privilege, Participant 6 shared that they

struggled with the one sided nature of privilege having experienced discrimination despite the

privileged identity, as described in this statement:

It’s kind of like saying, the arguments that people make about racism or sexism. Women

can be sexist against men too, and then the counter argument is ‘you can’t be sexist if you

don’t have the power of the institution behind you’. So, you can be, and I mean I guess,

it’s a different dynamic, even what was going on in Africa, because I did have a certain

amount of power, even in that context, but not the same as it is with White people and

Black people in the US? (P6, p. 8)

Host nations. Not only did participants use a wider context to understand race and

privilege in general, but several also did so to understand sentiments in their host nations (N=4).

Participant 10 was sure to understand the historical experience of White people in Nigeria,

noting that, “most of the White people that anybody ever saw, especially in the olden days, they
 99

were missionaries, and so they were honest, and most of them were nice” (P10, p. 17).

Participant 6 had a different experience; “there’s also a lot of resentment from the colonial times

still towards White people” (P6, p. 4).

Participant 4 did not mention the relationship with White people in Taiwan, but focused

on how the tensions in Taiwan fell more along political lines than ethnic or racial lines due to the

history with China. Not only were tensions expressed differently in some countries, in

Participant 9’s experience skin color was also different in Asia, “in Asia everybody wants to be

White…Like in Asia you go to the beach and everyone is huddling under the trees in the shade

because they don’t want to get their skin any darker” (P9, p. 4).

Others’ actions. The previous examples of understanding the larger context focused on

the big picture views of large issues like race or host nation sentiments. A few participants also

worked to understand smaller moments such as the actions of others (N=3). For example, when

Participant 1 was verbally assaulted by a woman at a bar the participant shared that, “I

understand more that some people have been hurt a lot and had no where else to put the hurt, so

at the time it was put on me” (P1, p. 9). Similarly, Participant 6 recognized that while the

experience in Peace Corps was negative that it may have varied from country to country.

Finally, Participant 7 cited globalization and the participant’s hair darkening as reasons why

people reacted to differently when the family was in Japan for the second time.

So moving back to Japan it wasn’t anything I, I never experienced that [people wanting to

take pictures with her because of her skin/hair color] when I was older being in Japan,

maybe because I was less blond. But I would suspect it was more so because the world

had become a lot more globalized at that point. So really wasn’t as much of an anomaly
 100

and also now that I’m thinking about it Japanese people die their hair blond all the time,

so not, so it’s really not so, so different. (P7, p. 10)

Personal identity. The tendency to think about and try to understand privilege, race, and

the actions of others based on a wider context was also a skill participants applied to their

understanding of themselves and their identity (N=7). Several (N=3) participants worked to

understand things regarding their values. For Participant 10 this thought process related to how

the participant originally understood Christianity. For Participant 9 it was applied to how this

participant’s experiences taught the lesson of truly valuing friendships and not taking them for

granted. Finally, Participant 3 shared that time abroad taught the participant that this participant

needed to respect the host countries and their traditions. Where some used thoughts to

understand their values others used them to express ways in which they see themselves.

Participants 7, and 8 discussed their racial identities. For Participant 7 it was an understanding of

how the participant tends to use coloring descriptors as opposed to the racially oriented term

White, “So I don’t think it was ever like the label of being White … that comes with all those

connotations versus simply saying like I have super pale skin and you might have darker skin”

(P7, p. 8). This participant also shared an understanding that he/she cannot identify as Asian,

and as a result, chose to share that the participant identifies with Asian culture and Asians. The

issue of what language to use is one that Participant 8 shared, this participant too struggled to

find language to describe racial identity given the connection to Ghana and its culture combined

with the participant’s skin color and country of citizenship.

In America being a Black person would make me an African American which I’m not

even remotely part of that culture...And I can’t exactly say African because my passport

is American and because I have white skin so, I don’t know. (P8, p. 3)
 101

Where the above participants examined issues of race and nationality Participants 9 and

10 shared their views of their life narratives. Participant 9 stated that, “I’ve lived four different

lives now” (P9, p. 2). By contrast, Participant 10 shared family background as part of the

participant’s identity, describing the way parents and the events of their lives when asked what

the participant wanted others to know about him. A number of participants also specifically

worked to think through the context involved in their TCK identities (N=4). Participant 4 shared

the participant’s understanding of the complex topic of the expat bubble, recognizing that

different TCK families are more or less connected to the host nation. This included a review of

this participant’s family’s degree of integration into their host nation’s culture, “So my expat

bubble kind of fell in between those two. My family lived in a Taiwanese community, we

always had Taiwanese neighbors” (P4, p. 7). Participant 7 also shared about how living

internationally is different from living abroad, “when I’m in the States I’m not in an international

context and I’m not in that TCK world of like I’m in Japan but I’m not really in Japan” (P7, p.

15). While being in Japan was not like being in the US, this participant also noted how it was

not the same as being Japanese in Japan. For Participant 8 time abroad touched every part of the

participant’s world, “Even like my understanding of Christianity, my understanding of how

church is supposed to work, how worship is supposed to work, how relationships are supposed to

work” (P8, p. 14). Two participants noted the way transience in the TCK experience could have

an effect. Participant 7 shared how this participant feels that transience, “also hinders a TCK

from creating roots” (P7, p. 5), and Participant 9 shared how the goodbyes meant the participant

experienced difficult things non-TCKs likely did not experience at young ages.

Difference. A handful of participants (N=5) shared thoughts about differences between

themselves and others. Participants 2 and 10 noted that they were different from family
 102

members. For Participant 10 this related to the way the participant experienced family

interactions. The way the participant’s parents were different from the participant’s sister who

was more aware of their father’s PTSD. By comparison Participant 2 noted how the participant’s

experience of holidays was different from that of the participant’s mother’s. Others compared

themselves to others outside of their family. Participant 5 noticed the ways and reasons they

were different from the Nepalese where Participants 9 and 7 shared ways in which they were

different from other Americans. Both Participants 9 and 7 noticed that there were aspects of

their TCK experiences that were different from the lives of their American peers. For Participant

7 one effect of living abroad was that the participant internalized some a range of Eastern values.

I am currently living in a society that is the complete opposite of that and has very

different values I’ve really had to like dig deep into why it is that things that maybe my

professors are telling me to do are difficult for me. Like, being a self-advocate, speaking

up for yourself, and I often times want to say it’s a personality thing but I really had to

start saying, ‘no this is just a cultural difference, it’s not necessarily a personality thing.

It’s like we hold different values’. (P7, p. 5)

Extenuating circumstances. Finally, two Participants acknowledged how a range of

factors were involved in the way they experienced the world. For Participant 7 this included

recognizing that the initial repatriation to the US was experienced differently likely as a result of

other difficult events in the participant’s life that were happening at the same time including the

loss of a significant other, tension with family, and unhappiness about the family moving away

from Japan. While for Participant 7 this process was about the participant’s self, Participant 10

noted how while they had positive experiences as a missionary kid there were others who
 103

experienced abuse in missions and boarding schools, and that these sorts of experiences could

make it hard for them to think positively on their childhoods.

Hind-sight context. Most participants (N=7) mentioned re-evaluating their point of

view as they look back at past events during the interview. For several (N=4) this new point of

view came regarding the topic of race. While Participant 10 was unable to know identify ways

the participant’s sense of racial identity had changed it was assumed that it had. By contrast,

Participant 2 shared that she now sees how racial bias tinged how she interpreted everything.

Similarly, when looking back at the behavior of a teacher Participant 3 now sees it as,

“infuriating and so disrespectful” (P3, p. 9). Both Participants 2 and 4 shared a lack of certainty

regarding the impact of race. For Participant 4 this centered around how the participant does not

remember feeling race was an issue as a kid, but a lack of certainty given that the participant had

no African-American friends. By contrast, for Participant 2 this centered around her struggle

with understanding how much of what was experienced was about Whiteness or other factors;

“it’s hard to know how much of that is attributable to like Whiteness perhaps growing up

overseas, like all of that stuff. I just feel like it’s hard to unpack the threads” (P2, p. 15). Several

participants described moments of re-evaluating themselves and their actions (N=4). Participant

4 and 6 were both confronted with accusations of being racist which they have since thought

about. Participant 4 looked back at actions and determined that,

I hadn’t had much of an opportunity to interact with a Black population and so because I

had heard of all of these racially charged events going on I was really hesitant and didn’t

really have the language, and knowledge to be able to respectfully interact. So I think as

a result of that I probably did fall back on racist tendencies, whether I wanted to or not.

(P4, p. 15)
 104

Similar to the participant’s peer, Participant 6 had a different perspective than at the time

when she was accused of being a racist, sharing that, “I can’t believe that I did that, but I know

what I was thinking it’s just really embarrassing” (P6, p. 13). This participant went on to explain

how given the information at the time the participant’s actions made sense, even if they are

incomprehensible in hindsight. Both Participants 7 and 10 learned over time things that change

how they understand themselves. Participant 7 did not have the same appreciation for TCK

identity when first repatriating as the participant had at the time of the interview after a second

repatriation. Similarly, it was not until after a friend intervened that Participant 10 was able to

recognize and process how the participant’s mother and sister’s actions had effected the

participant’s identity, “a friend helped me to realize how really messed up I was in some ways

that went back primarily to my mother assisted by my sister” (P10, p. 5). Finally, both

Participants 2 and 5 shared hindsight thoughts about their TCK identities. Participant 2 related

an inability to imagine who the participant would be without the life they had experienced. By

contrast Participant 5 shared how much a difference it made for to learn about TCK identity, and

a wish to, “roll back the clock” (P5, p. 20) so the participant could have applied that information

then.

Curiosity. The final thought reaction observed in a few participants (N= 3) was that of

being curious about the world around them, both abroad and in the US. Participant 5 reported

awe and curiosity around difference in people and her environment, “I was fascinated by how

different the houses looked and the, and how people constructed things, objects, like carrying

water” (P5, p. 7). Where Participant 5 spoke about curiosity about the differences in culture the

participant saw abroad and in meeting people from other places, Participant 9 shared this interest

and curiosity about American culture, “So I love the diversity that there is even within the United
 105

States.” (P9, p. 6). By contrast, Participant 7 was most curious about the participant’s own TCK

experience.

I’ve had lots of conversations with my parents and with other people really trying to

understand my feelings around being a TCK back in America … So I’ve really been

trying to like break apart the elements of it and all the specific emotions where they’re

stemming from and how my experiences and my values differ from like an American

who’s grown up in the States. (P7, p. 4)

Action-Based Reactions

In addition to reacting to events with emotions, thoughts participants all participants

(N=10) also endorsed reacting with action in some circumstances. There were six different

action responses, rejection, doing good, identity integration, self-censoring, explaining, and

learning.

Rejection. The most common action response from participants (N=7) was one of

rejection. Participants rejected their privilege, issues of racism or white guilt, identities, their

nationality/race, expectations, and even TCK identity.

A few participants shared the experience of rejecting privilege (N=3). For participant 3

there was an internal reaction of rejection of privilege, “whoa, this isn’t fair, I’m in law school,

there are so many White people, and it’s totally unrepresentative of the general population of the

United States. And being a little more critical about things like that” (P3, p. 9). Where

Participant 3’s reaction was internal, described as being thoughtful and critical of issues around

privilege, Participant 8 initially actively worked against White Privilege, “this is not fair, this is

unjust…I don’t like this. So I’m gonna rebel against it, which didn’t really do much to change a

whole entire culture...But I don’t know, it [privilege] just made me angry mostly” (P8, p. 12).
 106

During that period the participant would try to refuse privileges like special food, which only left

Ghanaians and the participant’s family confused and in turn frustrated the participant. The last

situation where a participant rejected privilege came from Participant 6 who initially rejected the

idea that privilege was an issue the participant was a part of. When it was something the

participant first learned about, the participant felt that time abroad meant that it did not fit the

participant’s experience,

When I was younger I had more of a like ‘none of this is my problem, I don’t want to be

there’ kind of an attitude but trying to take responsibility for the privilege that I was born

with even though a lot of weird things happened along the way. (P6, p. 7)

Not unlike Participant’s rejection of privilege, others (N=2) rejected implied racism or

issues of White guilt. Participant 4 shared that when accused of being racist this participant’s

reaction was,

At first I said, I automatically in my mind and probably verbally said, ‘no I’m not racist,’

to them. Just because, like, I had grown up overseas and I had grown up in such a diverse

environment that I felt like someone with my, it was impossible for someone with my

background to be racist. (P4, p. 14)

Similarly, Participant 4 rejected the idea that the participant should feel guilty for being

White, “I don’t feel the least bit guilty because I’m White” (P10, p. 14).

A few participants (N=2) rejected their race and nationality. Participant 8 rejected White

identity as a kid because, “I mean I think every kid wants to be like everyone else. You want to

look like everyone else at least on the outside” (P8, p. 7). Similarly, Participant 7 rejected

Whiteness in that the participant did not want to marry someone White ensuring they would have

White children, due to internalized thoughts about the connotations that come with White
 107

culture. Not only did Participant 7 struggle with racial identity, but also shared that the

participant holds difficult thoughts regarding nationality,

But it was a lot of the connotations of America specifically as well as being White and I

don’t, I don’t think that I was ever really told, growing up like in the cultures that I grew

up in that there was ever explicitly said that America was negative or bad in any way, or

being White was bad. (P7, p. 14)

Participant 8 not only rejected the participant’s nationality, but also described rejecting

others’ expectations related to being an American. This participant related how, “it was sort of a

rebellion against the expectation that everybody had that I would be American” (P8, p. 2).

Another participant also discussed a similar act of rejecting external expectations; Participant 10

rejected the expectations of the participant’s mother. In this case these expectations were not

about race, nationality, or privilege, but more about expectations of behaviors,

My mother who was trying to squeeze me into a mold...when I started to show who I

really was...They were trying to squeeze me into a ...basically a compliant, subservient,

kind of personality that who would submit unquestioningly to female domination...Well,

domination produces rebellion…And, so my rebellion was generally much more subtle.

(P10, p. 5)

Finally, two participants had unique forms of rebellion. Participant 4 initially struggled

with the idea of being a TCK. As the participant had learned about what it meant to be a TCK

this participant felt there was a focus on the negative experiences involved. Not only did

Participant 4 feel this did not fit their experience at that time, “they didn’t fit me, I think I

probably hadn’t necessarily experienced them” (P4, p. 18), but they were not something the

participant wanted to experience. This participant was told that,

 108

Transitioning back to…your home country was going to be so challenging and you are

going to go through grief, and you’re going to, a lot of people get depressed, and you’re

going to have all these problems, and you are not going to feel like you belong, and like

this whole laundry list of things that were gonna suck. (P4, p. 18)

To add to this Participant 4 felt they negated the positives, “having all of those negative

things listed also minimized the things that I really enjoyed about being a TCK like I loved

growing up in Taiwan and having friends from around the world” (P4, p. 18). Where Participant

4 rejected TCK identity, Participant 5 had a reaction of internal rejection when faced with people

trying to focus on difference, “I just want to talk to someone or interact with someone because

they are a human being, um, not because of the race thing” (P5, p. 10).

Do good. Many participants shared statements about using their experiences as

motivation to act for the better good of others (N=6). For a few this act of doing good came in

response to some type of suffering they witnessed. Participant 1 summarized a desire to do good

in the following statement, “I have a strong urge to always do what I can to help people suffer

less” (P1, p. 6). Participant 1 remembered a story family told of how at the age of 6 or 8 how the

participant gave all of her money to women seen on the streets in Mexico after hearing that, “The

mothers would be kicked out of their houses once the husbands got married, and they would live

on the streets” (P1, p. 6). Just as Participant 1 had a desire to support people who were

struggling Participant 10 dedicated time while living in the US to being involved with agencies

that supported the Black community in the area, “I’ve run Habitat for Humanity, I’ve done a

number of things I’ve started Big Brother, Big Sister, and have actually done more in the Black

community directly than in the White community” (P10, p. 18). Participant 5 discussed a

different impetus when beginning the hobby of diving and subsequently witnessing the damage
 109

done to the environment. This led to a change in profession to pursue science, “look I can’t

stand by idly and let this go by, I have to somehow be a part of the solution here, and that’s why

I went back to school” (P5, p. 15).

Where the above participants felt pulled to do good by seeing the struggles of others, two

participants had a similar reaction to their own privilege. While above Participant 1 shared how

seeing suffering pushed the participant to help, Participant 1 later stated how, “I have been very

lucky and not many horrible things have happened to me, so I’ve had a lot of happiness, and I’ve

always had a strong urge to make people happy” (P1, p. 7). So not only did seeing suffering

encourage Participant 1 to do good, but knowing the participant had been privileged with luck

was an additional impetus to help others. Participant 8 had a similar desire to do good,

specifically related to the participant’s perception of White Privilege,

And then I realized when I was 13, 14 that being White, yes was not necessarily what I

wanted, but it had privileges and I could use those privileges to do better things than just

argue against them. So I could use my influence to do stuff, which was worth doing as

opposed to just fighting the fact that I had influence, like what’s the quote from

Spiderman, like “with great power comes great responsibility” kind of thing. (P8, p. 8)

Not only did participants respond this way to their experience of privilege, but also

several (N=3) responded similarly in relation to their experiences of struggle or learning about

their identity. With the help of professors Participant 4 learned how TCK experiences gave this

participant a unique perspective. When professors pointed out the positives of TCK identity the

participant stated that, “[I] started seeing myself more objectively … and evaluating how I can

use my experiences beneficially…Like I want to be a part of changing that narrative” (P4, p. 19).

Just as Participant 4 wanted to help change the TCK narrative, this was part of Participant 9’s
 110

reason for participating in this research. Participant 9 shared that, “I really desire to like help

anybody who’s doing research or like trying to help the TCK world” (P9, p. 23), and, “I also

want to be a voice for like the good stories” (P9, p. 24). Unlike the previous examples,

Participant 10’s statement about doing good was about a lesson taught by parents, “if I’m at a

gathering … I, we will very intentionally go and sit at tables with Black people. Just cause that’s

what we do. Because, but that it’s not because they’re Black, it’s because we were both raised

don’t leave anybody out” (P10, p. 14). Whether a reaction to their privilege, their identity

struggle, or a learned value system, multiple participants were pulled to respond to their world by

trying to act for the benefit of others.

Identity integration. While some actions like doing good are external many participants

(N=6) during their interviews, made statements that indicated more internal actions. These

participants reacted to events by internalizing a message and integrating that message into their

personality. This integration process was most often noted in reaction to negative events (N=3).

Participant 3 shared that the participant became a more shy and cautious person as a result of

having been bullied in middle school, noting that, “I think when it [bullying] happens at a

formative age like that you become quite self-conscious” (P3, p. 2). Participant 6 also felt that

events changed the participant’s personality, noting that, “I think I went into the Peace Corps

after college and I was kind of feeling a lot more like skeptical of things and people in general

after that. So, I think I became a little less like trusting and thinking the best of people” (P6, p.

1). Finally, Participant 9 shared that this participant became more extroverted after living

without friends for two years, “I think that experience kind of changed me … it pushed me to be

more extroverted …when I did start my life in … I put myself out there to make friends” (P9, p.

12).
 111

A couple participants (N=2) shared ways that moving had an effect on how they saw

themselves. For Participant 8 knowing that they would be leaving Ghana permanently at some

point was a big part of how this participant realized that they were not Ghanaian, and a catalyst

for connecting to the participant’s TCK identity. A key moment came when Participant 8

returned from furlough before the last few years in Ghana, “like, ‘this my last 3 years in Ghana

and I’m not going to be here anymore’. So, this is not permanent, I need to pick something else’”

(P8, p. 2). Similarly, Participant 9’s repatriation to the United States led the participant to adopt

an attitude where the participant accepts this move, “I’ve chosen to like say this is my home and

I’m American and I’m proud to be American and like chosen to live in the country” (P9, p. 1).

There were two unique cases of identity integration. Participant 2 felt that the participant

was seen as unattractive while living in Asia in part because Participant 2 was larger than Asian

women, and, “the Whiteness was like part of what felt othering. And definitely created some

like self-esteem and body issues, body image issues” (P2, p. 13). By contrast, Participant 10

shared that part of who Participant 10 is, is related to a lesson received from the participant’s

father, “My father taught me explicitly and implicitly that you can do anything if you put your

mind to it. Especially if you have an instruction book, that helps” (P10, p. 4).

Self-censoring. Several (N=4) participants shared a different experience. Where the

above statements were about integrating their experiences into their personalities the following

statements relate to censoring themselves. Participant 1 avoided sharing thoughts when out with

American friends in the US, “when I would have a friend and then go shopping …in my head I

was trying not to be mad at them. You know, trying not to lecture them on how this money

could go and actually feed a family” (P1, p. 11). Participants 6 and 7 both found that their

experiences were not considered relevant during conversations of race and privilege. This left
 112

Participant 6 confused, “I didn’t know what to do. I still feel that it’s not relevant and I don’t

really know what to do” (P6, p. 8), and Participant 7 shared that,

I feel like sometimes I’ve had to bite my tongue a little bit because, of the few times I

would say things about, “well my experience,” you know we were talking about High

school, teenagers or something. You know my experience was at a High School in Japan,

so it wasn’t incredibly relevant, or so I was told or something. (P7, p. 22)

Participant 8 had a similar experience in a slightly different context. Participant 8 felt

dismissed when trying to be an ally or show solidarity with non-White people, “they silence me

while I want to like talk about things that they’re like, ‘What are you talking about you’re White

just like I am.’ Like, but I’m not” (P8, p. 6).

Explaining. Two participants reacted with the feeling that they need to explain things to

others. Participant 7 is often explaining TCK experiences, “I’m constantly like in courses or

something I’m constantly having to say like, ‘well for me being a TCK’” (P7, p. 3). Participant 8

had a similar experience in that this participant was often trying to explain the participant’s point

of view to the people in Ghana,

There were a lot of struggles there and at the same point I was discovering that I was a

TCK and that this was a thing. Which the Ghanaians didn’t get, they’re remote they

never even heard of the word TCK, nor would the concept make any sense to them. And

then my parents who were too busy trying to reconcile being in Africa to even think

about what does being a TCK have to do with anything. (P8, p. 20)

Learning. Another minority experience was the reaction of treating events as a learning

experience. For example, Participant 3’s reacted to being sexualized when wearing shorts in

India in the following way, “it was also something to be learned from, like don’t wear shorts in a
 113

market… me learning to be respectful, and not assuming that I can just be how I want to be in

every area” (P3, p. 7). This same attempt to learn more was seen in Participant 7’s reaction to a

deepening understanding of the TCK experience, “I’ve had lots of conversations with my parents

and with other people really trying to understand my feelings around being a TCK back in

America and what that means” (P7, p. 4). This response of learning more was the last action-

type reaction described by participants. This concludes the review of the data gathered from

interviews.

Rigor

To maintain the trustworthiness of my findings I worked to keep my research practices

transparent, and was clear about the limits of research findings (citation). Chapter Three has a

more detailed discussion of trustworthiness, reflexivity, ethical assurances, assumptions, and

limitations.

Trustworthiness

To maintain the trustworthiness of the results whenever reporting participants’ I worked

to use their words as often as possible. In addition, I provided participants the opportunity to

review the transcripts and offer thoughts regarding the accuracy of the transcript. No

participants reported any significant differences between their memory of the interview and what

was represented in the transcript.

While coding I kept track of my thought process in organizing codes. I reviewed codes

with my chair, and on early codes with my research assistant. I also conferred with my chair

regarding any emotional reactions as well as times when I either identified with the experiences

of participants, or moments when their experiences were significantly different from my own.

Reflexivity
 114

Even prior to beginning interviews I met with Dr. Singer, my chair to discuss and process

ways in which my identity and reactions will be a part of this project. Throughout the process of

conducting and coding interviews I met with my chair to discuss my reactions and thoughts to

the process. I recognize that my identity as a fellow TCK may have put me at risk of assuming

similarities that are not accurate, in addition the participants may not have assumed similarities

that changed their description of their experiences. It is also possible that my role as a researcher

may have led participants to feel self-conscious or a desire to sound good during the interview.

In addition, I know two of the participants personally from my time abroad, which may have

made it difficult for them to share information that they may have felt would disrupt our

previously developed relationship. It is, also possible that being a TCK helped participants to

feel comfortable during interviews. My identity as a White woman may also have made it

difficult for some of the participants to feel free to discuss their racial views without managing

my impression of them, or without ensuring that they educate me on issues of diversity. This

being said, being of the same race as the participants may have helped them feel that their point-

of-view will be understood. In addition, my own reactions to the process of doing interviews

may have led me to modify the structure in ways that could have changed the nature of the

information gathered. I worked to notice reactions while interviewing, and to rely on the

structure of the interviews to ensure that each participant was asked similar questions even if the

details and follow-ups of the interview were tailored to each participant’s statements.

Ethical Assurances

I made extensive efforts not only to maintain the security of all of the data collected, but

also to ensure that interviews were transcribed in such a way as to maintain the confidentiality of
 115

the participants, through the omission of names and specific location. I also worked to share the

participant’s stories accurately and with respect.

Assumptions

All efforts were made to support the participants in making accurate and objective reports

about their experiences. Despite these efforts all reports are subject to their memories and

biases.

Chapter Summary

In conclusion, participants interviewed were all White, American, TCKs who spent

significant time abroad in non-White countries as children. Their time abroad included countries

from four different continents. They underwent a range of schooling experiences, and were

sponsored by several different types of agencies. Participant’s interviews revealed six

overarching categories of information, Identity, Race, Third Culture Kid Identity, Privilege,

Response to Information and Events, and Feelings of Membership. Themes that emerged in

these categories, the way information connects to the literature reviewed, and implications of the

data will all be discussed in the following chapter.

 116

Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusions

Introduction

In this chapter, the author will provide a summary of the findings, examine ways in

which the data relates to the research that has already been done regarding TCKs, White identity,

and multicultural identity, review themes in the data related to White identity in TCKs, and

finally review implications for the TCK community and possible future research.

Summary of Findings

When all the interviews were coded 6 overarching categories emerged: Identity, Race,

Privilege, Third Culture Kid (TCK) Identity, Feelings of Membership, and Responses to

Information and Events. The first four categories all related to different aspects of each

participant’s identities. By contrast, the last two related to their subjective experience of their

world, whether it be times when they either felt they belonged or did not belong, or simply their

reactions to their environment.

Identity

When asked about their identities, most participants shared information about personal

characteristics, whether these be values, personality traits, internal traits, or externalized aspects

of their identities. Participants did also identify in some cases with their nationality, religious

backgrounds, TCK identities, and sponsoring agencies. A common experience for several

participants included a sense that aspects of their identity were dynamic and had changed over

time. In addition to subcategories related to different identity characteristics, participant’s

responses also broke down into a subcategory related to different ways in which their identities

were shaped or influenced by their environment, whether this be from family, religion,

education, or exposure to other cultures.

Race
 117

When participants discussed the topic of race it broke down into three larger sub-

categories. Participants often spoke about their own personal thoughts on their racial identity.

While all are White US citizens, all recognize that they are identified as White/Caucasian,

several endorsed feeling something other than White, or having had different thoughts on their

White identity over time. For example, several at different times wished that they were a race

other than White, while others prefer to identify as human or some other racial identity. This

included participants who wished they were Black, and in one case a participant who thinks of

herself as an egg because while she is White on the outside she lived in Asia and feels

Asian/“Yellow” on the inside, and even has some identification with Brown cultures that she

described as brown specks.

Half of the participants shared thoughts on how being White meant that they stood out

visually in comparison to those around them. In addition, several participants discussed their

recognition of their White identity as coming in part from recognizing differences between

themselves and others. It is worth noting that in one unique case the participant first recognized

they were White when in a setting where others looked like the participant. The stability of

participant’s racial identity was also a noticeable theme. Where a few described their race as

stable, an equal number talked about ways in which their sense of their White identity changed

either over time or from one location to another.

Just as many participants mentioned their racial identity from their perspective, race was

also discussed from other people’s point of view. Most participants reported that others

identified them as White. This “other-centered” White identity was not a simple concept; it

came with assumptions regarding what knowledge or privilege participants may have,
 118

assumptions of racism, and a feeling that their complex identity was limited in others eyes

because they were seen so clearly as being White.

The final sub-category linked to Race was individual’s thoughts on race. Some

participants had negative thoughts about race in general, White people, and in one case Black

people. Some of the negative thoughts that participants had were linked to feelings of shame or

guilt, as well as a feeling that being White was limiting in some way. Many shared that as

children they had no particular thoughts regarding race. Other experiences included confusion

and or frustration around the topic of race, acceptance or feeling that racial identifiers are simply

descriptive as opposed to limiting, ambivalent or mixed feelings about race, and finally a sense

that thoughts regarding race changed over time.

Privilege

The topic of Privilege included several subcategories related to the tone with which

participants discussed their experiences of privilege. In some cases, participants talked about

ways they felt privileged as good things. This included feeling lucky to be privileged based on

being White, a TCK, a US citizen, having access to a good education, or supportive family. In

some cases, participants recognized positive experiences they had related to privilege, but did not

provide a clear sense of what identity characteristic provided that privilege.

By contrast, in some cases participants noted negative aspects of having privilege. For

some they found privilege isolating. In other cases, they felt that part of their privileged identity

led to safety concerns or a sense of entitlement. Finally, a few noted feeling like they were

misperceived regarding a privileged part of their identity, or that there were expectations placed

on them that were uncomfortable.

 119

The most common sentiment expressed regarding privilege was one of neutrality, feeling

neither particularly positive regarding an experience of privilege, nor particularly negatively.

This included a sense that in some cases participants were only partially privileged, or were

misperceived, or were unsure from where their privilege came.

TCK Identity

The last identity related category that emerged from the data was related to participants’

TCK experience. Four participants talked about general TCK experience characteristics such as

the need for code switching, feeling like an invisible immigrant while in their passport nation, or

feeling like they do not belong anywhere. Many also talked about their thoughts regarding TCK

identity. Some felt positively about being TCKs, particularly the unique perspective it provides.

Others had mixed feelings about being a TCK, or a neutral sense that TCK identity provides a

frame of reference for understanding their experience. Finally, some had negative impressions

of TCK identity, either feeling like it minimized positives, or focused heavily on negatives such

as the struggle to repatriate.

The majority of the data that fell under the TCK umbrella related to the experience of

repatriating. This included general information regarding finding it difficult, or recognizing

reverse culture shock and the ways in which age at repatriation could make a difference. Several

participants shared that things were better abroad. This subcategory also included an in-depth

look at resources that were or were not available to participants during their repatriation process,

including access to their family, preparation, support, friends, and a sense of shared experience.

No one repatriation experience was the same, and while many related that they did not have

access to some of these resources this was not universal. Some participants felt more prepared

than others, or more supported than others. Not only did the resources available range between
 120

participants, but in some cases within one participant’s experience. Sometimes, a participant felt

that family were both a source of support while also not being present all the time, or they were

prepared in some ways, but not in others.

Feelings of Membership

This category related to times and situations when participants felt either like a member

of an in-group, or like they did not belong for one reason or another. There are two key ways in

which this category is different from identity. First, identity is purely from the participant’s

point of view, and when individuals felt that they did not belong sometimes it was from their

perspective, and sometimes it was because others treated them as outsiders. The other key

distinction is that on occasion participants may have felt like they were part of an in-group even

when this is not a group they would claim as part of their identity.

The category of feelings of membership has two primary sub-categories, feelings of

membership, and feeling like a non-member. A range of factors allowed participants to feel they

belonged at different times. Such factors include identifying with others through nationality,

shared language, or shared identity as foreigners or as TCKs/CCKs. Having something in

common was also a way in which participants felt they belonged. This included shared

experiences or shared interests, or having a location in common whether that be abroad or in the

United States. Finally, one unique category that led participants to feel like they were a part of

an in-group included the experience of passing for a member of said group despite not

technically being of that culture for one reason or another.

A common experience among participants was that of feeling like an outsider. For most,

some of this being othered was related to how they present to the world. Some of the ways

participants presented included their skin color, their physical characteristics, and the language
 121

they used. In addition, othering factors included identity features such as religion and

nationality, and a lack of shared experience. In several cases participants were able to identify

times when they felt like they did not belong without being able to pin-point the exact cause,

either because there were several possible causes that could not be separated from one another

such as nationality and race, or because the participant simply did not identify a cause.

Participants not only described feeling like they did not belong abroad outside of their

passport nation/nations, but also had similar experiences while in the United States. In almost all

cases this sensation of being different or other was described using negative or neutral terms. In

the worst situations events left participants feeling fear or mild discomfort. Often participants

described being different with a tone of acceptance, this was a normal part of their world. Only

in two cases was being different described as a positive thing, and in these cases the events

described occurred abroad.

Feeling different was a common occurrence for participants, and this difference came

both from the participant’s point of view as well as from actions or beliefs shared by others.

Both in the US and abroad participants described self-identifying as different for one reason or

another, regardless of whether they were being seen as a member of an in-group or not. The

other side to this was that participants also described others saying or acting as if they were

different. Sometimes the difference was one that they also felt internally, but at times this

difference incongruent to their own experience.

Response to Information and/or Events

Participants responded to their world in three different ways, with emotional reactions,

thought based reactions, or with some form of action. Common emotional responses included

shame and guilt, acceptance, annoyance or anger, fear, emotional struggles, and loneliness.
 122

Acceptance was a particularly common sentiment, often expressed in relation to a description of

their experiences as just being normal, or part of everyday life regardless of whether there was a

discomfort or possible negative interpretation to the event. Expressions of shame and guilt

seemed to be linked to experiences related to race or privilege. Fear, by contrast, was

predominantly related to negative experiences abroad.

Participants provided information regarding their internal reactions to external events,

labeled here as “thoughts”. The most common form of “thought” response was an attempt to

describe or understand the context of events or information. Often as participants would

describe their thoughts or reactions to an event they would share with the examiner reasons why

things were this way, or other ways to think about the situation. While less common, another

response was a tendency to re-evaluate one’s thoughts on an event or piece of information based

on a hind-sight perspective. Several participants shared events from their past and their reactions

at the time while also sharing how their view is different in the present. Finally, a couple

participants made statements indicating that they approached their environment with a sense of

curiosity.

While in some cases participants thought through the events of their world, another

common reaction was to take action. Participants acted in several different ways. Many reacted

to their experiences by wishing to do good, either to use their privilege for good, or simply to be

of help to others. Most participants at some point expressed a rejection of events or values in

their world, whether this be a rejection of their privilege, or commonly a rejection of information

being provided by family, education, religion or another source of influence. Multiple

participants reacted to new information or events by integrating the event into their sense of self

or identity, whether this was by becoming more outgoing, modifying their view of their race, or
 123

becoming less trusting of others. A few participants responded to events by either wishing to

learn more, or by feeling a need to educate those around them. Finally, in a few cases

participants felt pressured to self-censor and be silent about their thoughts or experiences.

Integration of Findings and Research Literature

The data gathered provides valuable information about the participant’s subjective

experiences of their TCK identity, racial identity, sense of privilege, and their experiences abroad

and in the United States. In the following section the writer will show ways in which the

statements made by participants either fit the findings of earlier research, or are different from

this previous research. In this way it will be possible to identify limits of the current research, as

well as ways in which the current study adds to the field.

TCK Research

Research on TCKs has grown slowly ever since Ruth Useem (1993) first identified and

defined them. While there is no one TCK experience and many factors influence TCK’s lives

previous research does suggest a few characteristics and features common to many TCKs.

Features of TCK life. One of the themes commonly cited in the research on

TCKs/Global Nomads, was that TCKs often feel that they do not belong completely in any one

place. This was mirrored in the responses of several participants. Not only did two participants

make direct statements about not belonging, but it was also noticeable in the way participants

talked about having mixed identities: “I’m White on the outside and yellow on the inside” (P7, p.

9). While collecting research, the issue of marginality was a common theme. In some cases, it

was due to a lack of pop culture knowledge, sometimes it was related to having vastly different

life experiences, and at times related to the way they present differently from compared to their

non-TCK peers abroad and in the United States. Regardless, the research suggests that TCKs

often feel separate from others from their passport nation (Fail et al., 2004; Pollock & Van
 124

Reken, 2009; Schaetti, 2000). The above noted that TCKs often feel they are misunderstood or

misperceived. The data collected in the present study supports their findings. Multiple

participants cited a lack of shared experience as one of the difficulties they faced upon

repatriation, and several sited cultural ignorance specifically. This feeling of marginalization is

one of the ways that TCK life is difficult, and thus an important issue to bring to TCK’s

attention. Normalizing this experience may help them to recognize that they are not alone in

feeling this way. Later the feelings of marginalization related to their unique racial identities will

be discussed, along with the importance of teaching TCKs about how their racial identity may be

different from that of peers. This may help prepare them for experiences they have upon

repatriation.

Common TCK personality characteristics. According to existing research there are

many traits that appear to be common in TCKs. One such trait endorsed by previous research is

adaptability, namely the ability to blend in and to modify behavior according to the current

situation (Downey, 2012; Fail et al., 2004; Pollock & Van Reken, 2009; Schaetti, 2000). This

was mirrored in the present study in that a few participants described ways in which they would

modify their behavior between environments, while others described a feeling of belonging as a

result of passing even in a different culture.

A second predominant trait highlighted in previous research on TCK identity was that of

open-mindedness (Fail et al., 2004; Pollock & Van Reken, 2009; Schaetti, 2000). This was

supported by participants’ responses in the present study. While they did not specifically use the

term open minded, multiple statements could be interpreted to speak to this. Notably multiple

participants shared that their TCK experiences led them to have a unique world-view. Others

mentioned feeling comfortable in diverse settings, and one in particular shared her thoughts on
 125

how unfair it is that Eurocentric values permeate other cultures. Another participant shared

feeling that time in more community-oriented countries led to a unique interactional style

compared to American peers.

Theoretical Identity Models

Bennett and Hammer’s Intercultural Sensitivity Model. Bennett and Hammer

developed a model to better understand general cultural sensitivity and development, which

breaks down individual’s development between ethnocentric and ethnorelative positions

(Hammer et al., 2003). The two positions are, in their model mutually exclusive, the former

being a position of viewing the world through one’s own culture and sense that one’s culture is

ideal. Growth then leads to an ethnorelative stage where individuals recognize the value in a

range of cultures. Paige et al. (2003) raised questions about whether TCKs fit this model. They

assessed a TCK named Lena with a measure developed based on Bennett and Hammer’s model,

and Lena’s profile was invalid because while she was predominantly ethnorelative she also

endorsed a minimizing of difference that was thought to be indicative of ethnocentric thinking.

The data collected in the current study cannot speak directly to the Bennett and Hammer

model, however it seems to support their findings. Just as Lena shared statements that denied

difference while also understanding a range of cultural contexts and factors, participants in this

study made statements that indicated an understanding of larger contexts, as well as some denial

of difference between individuals. A few participants seemed to reject the divisive nature of

racial division, however they also showed an interest in other cultures, a compassion for other

cultures, and an understanding of privilege. In addition, Participants 1 and 5 did share language

that could be interpreted as denying difference, (Participant 1 identifying as human racially,

Participant 5 wishing to eschew racial division in discussions and just talk as fellow people),
 126

however both also shared nuanced understandings of how they also held privilege. In addition,

neither made statements suggesting that their privilege was earned, or indications that injustices

based on race do not occur. This may support the findings in the case of Lena.

Schaetti’s developmental model. Schaetti (2000) developed a model for TCK

development that cited four TCK specific struggles, Repatriation, Nationality, Difference, and

Plurality each with a few possible resolutions.

Repatriation. Schaetti’s 2000 findings on the resolutions to the act of repatriating were

supported in part by the current research. One resolution Schaetti identified was that of the

Homecomer. This resolution involves individuals expecting to feel at home upon repatriation,

and having this expectation met. While none of the participants in the current study shared a

feeling that returning to the US was going to be a return to a place they felt was home, several

did share that they did not expect it to feel so foreign, particularly for Participant 7 who had not

experienced reverse culture shock upon previous repatriations. The position of the Stranger

involved the expectation that repatriation would be a homecoming followed by the

disappointment of finding that one does not feel at home. This was also supported by

participants’ responses in this study. Participant 7’s last repatriation did involve the experience

of reverse culture shock. While not all participants specifically shared an expectation of an easy

transition many did share that they struggled with the transition, which may speak to this second

resolution. The final position Schaetti described was also supported by the participant’s

responses in the current study. The Cosmopolite resolution involves the expectation that

repatriation will be like any move to any other foreign country. Multiple participants shared that

they were taught what to expect regarding reverse culture shock and common TCK repatriation
 127

difficulties, so while their language means one cannot assume they would identify with the

Cosmopolite stance, it is suggestive of it.

Nationality. Schaetti (2000) provided a model for TCK’s identity, which included a

Nationality component with three possible resolutions. The Insular resolution is one where the

home country’s nationality is described as better than all others. International resolution

involves allegiances to several nationalities, and Transnational is the feeling that nationality is

just a social construct. In the current study, none of the participants endorsed currently having an

Insular or American centric resolution. This being said several did indicate strong patriotism

either currently or in the past. Several participants spoke about some allegiance to host nations

in addition to their United States identities, which could support International resolution, or an

allegiance to multiple nations. While no participants spoke specifically to the idea that

nationality is just a label, some participants spoke in general terms about all people being human,

or did not indicate any strong national allegiances, which could suggest Transnational points of

view, or the feeling that nationality is just a construct.

Difference. The reviewed research by Schaetti (2000) showed two resolutions to the task

of Difference. An Encapsulated stance is one where individuals adapt to different settings by

using a range of learned roles. Those who show a Constructive resolution have a range of

cultural scripts, but also hold an internal personal script they use to guide their behavior. The

current study does not definitively support one stance or another, however, participants did speak

about their understanding of difference, and their abilities to adapt to different circumstances.

Most were able to provide some sense of value system and personal identity. This supports the

possibility that they share some of the traits linked to a Constructive resolution.
 128

Plurality. In the previous research, Schaetti (2000) described Plurality, as resolving

through Dualism or the position that there is a singular truth, Multiplicity, or the belief that there

are several distinct truths. Schaetti found that most TCKs resolved in the latter ways, Contextual

Relativism or the sense that there are many truths and that truth is based on the context one is in,

or through Commitment Within Relativism where the above is true, but the individual has a sense

of personal values that they follow regardless of context. In the current study, participants’

tendency to think through and share their understanding of context during interviews would

support that TCKs may tend towards these two higher-order resolutions.

White Racial Identity

Both Helms (1990) and Hardiman’s (1982) reviewed models suggested that White

identity development begin with some level of naïveté or lack of contact with other races,

leading to a stage where individuals are unaware of or ignore the racial inequalities in a culture.

This was not supported by the current research as most participants shared stories of recognizing

racial difference quite early. Participant 10 reported recognizing privilege over Black peers at a

very young age. The current research may support a sense of naivety through other participant’s

statements that they felt that racism and inequality were not part of some of their early childhood

experiences, particularly time in international schools where they were in classes with students

from all over the world, without a sense of privilege based on race. Similar support may be seen

in statements made by Participants 1 and 5 who at times shared wishing to identify as human as

opposed to by their race.

While participants made statements about racism not being something they thought about

as children, in this context it may be different from the denial of difference discussed in the

reviewed research. Participants did not deny other forms of privilege, for example the difference
 129

between the expat community and the host community. This rebuttal of naiveté would seem to

be corroborated by the way several participants spoke clearly about their recognition of the ways

they were financially or educationally lucky compared to host nationals.

Helms’ model then continues to a stage of Resistance, which often includes avoiding

people from other races to not have to confront the dissonance of observed inequalities.

Resistance is followed by Pseudoindipendence, a time in which the White person fights racism

by attempting to help non-Whites conform to White standard. Participants in the current

research did not support experiencing Resistance, nor did they make statements indicative of a

Pseudoindependence. It is worth noting that while nothing stated fits these stages, this does not

mean that participants are not or did not experience it, just that they did not spontaneously speak

to it. This being said, Participant 3, may specifically have indicated disgust at behavior similar

to Pseudoindependence when sharing discomfort with the way a school showed nominal support

to a nearby slum community by going in and giving them school supplies. This disgust seemed

linked to the feeling that this was a minimal show of support that was accompanied by both a

righteous feeling of doing good while barely scratching the surface of possible supportive

actions.

Helms’ (1990) latter developmental stages of White identity included steps to change

racial injustice by changing oneself and working to better understand one’s White identity,

confronting guilt while working towards being a better activist in the fight against racism. This

type of stance was notable in statements made by one participant, who has done extensive

learning about racism and White privilege in terms of individual identity, and yet another

participant specifically whose White identity shifted when while working in a predominantly

non-White community in North Carolina. In the current research a Participant initially denied
 130

being racist when accused of bias by a student. This participant later accepted that the student

may have been correct in perceiving a bias towards White students, albeit an unconscious one. A

few others also discussed the way in which they have recently grappled with working towards

understanding their racial identity better, which at the very least could suggest the beginnings of

an Immersion/Emersion stage based on Helms’ model.

Interpretation of Findings

The previous sections have addressed a general overview of themes in the data, as well as

ways in which the data collected through interviews seems to fit or differ from the research

gathered thus far regarding TCK identity, racial identity, and multicultural identity. This leaves

the task of understanding what the data reveals and how this information relates to previous

research. This includes looking at how the information gathered fits with previous research,

where it diverges, and where it is unique by comparison.

A Different Privileged White Experience

In the above review of existing research, the theme of marginality was discussed. This

sense of marginality appears to extend to several of the participants’ sense of their privilege and

race. While at some point each participant acknowledged being White, most shared experiences

that made them feel different from other White US American peers. Several shared that at

different times they wished they were a different race, one going so far as imagining ways could

change skin color as a child. Participant 1 prefers to identify sans race, as a human, and

Participant 7 uses the metaphor of an “egg” as a racial descriptor. Participant 2 shared a desire to

have acknowledged that living as a minority gave a perspective on the world that is different

from that of other White Americans. Many shared that at some point being White meant that

they stood out, unlike being White in the United States. Others noted that being White was

different in the United States, or from one foreign country to another.

 131

Not only did participants make clear statements about how their sense of Whiteness was

different than that of their peers, but also there was often an ambiguity when talking about

privilege. In current racial models there is an understanding that being White is a predominant

source of privilege. This would suggest that understanding one’s White identity thus includes

understanding the privilege that accompanies one’s race.

Particularly in the United States several participants felt that their White identity, while it

allowed them to blend in to the community, led them to be misperceived, or limited others’

understanding of their identities. In some cases, this led to being seen as odd when one did not

know about different logistical or cultural aspects of American life such as how to pump gas, or

what people were talking about when they discussed pop-culture, and other times it led to intense

miscommunications. For example, one participant’s complete misunderstanding of the

connotations of the swastika symbol led to a terrifying altercation in a bathroom as a pre-teen.

All participants felt privileged to some degree or another. Some endorsed only feeling

partially privileged, either by comparison to other more privileged peers, or due to an

understanding of how host nationals might have some privileges (owning a house) that they did

not. Occasionally, when participants spoke of privilege they would reference being White

specifically, but other times noted privileges related to their nationality, identity as a TCK,

access to education, or privilege that had an unclear origin. So not only were several participants

left unsure of their White identity in the United States there is a level of uncertainty regarding the

origins of privilege. If one is receiving privilege based on nationality is this privilege due to

nationality alone, or is race a part of it? A similar question can be asked of Sponsoring

Agencies, while not all those who work for State Department, or International Schools, or

missions are White, for any one individual it may be hard to separate out race from their
 132

sponsoring agency, which may be predominantly staffed by White people. One participant

specifically spoke to this struggle when sharing the experience of not being held accountable in

the same way as host nationals. This participant noted that other foreigners were also afforded

this lack of accountability, so it may have been more related to being a privileged foreigner, not

specifically related to being White.

In addition, while privilege is generally considered a purely positive construct, several

participants shared a feeling that privilege was not always a comfortable or good thing in their

estimation. Several sited a feeling that privilege led individuals to feel entitled, where others

pointed out that it had an isolating effect. One participant in particular fought back against

privilege in Ghana because having privilege led to feeling different than peers. This participant

indicated that it was unfair to receive extra privileges, such as meat, simply due to White

identity. While not specifically related to privilege as much as nationality, in some cases being

identifiable as American/White was not always a positive, it came with safety concerns.

TCK Education Gap

A common theme in the interviews was a feeling that even when participants had the

opportunity to learn about their TCK identity and the traits that accompany it, they did not

remember ever discussing their racial identity and what it would mean upon repatriation. Many

shared stories of learning about racism, whether in the context of slavery, the American Civil

War, or other racially tinged events such as the Mexican American war, or the internment of the

Japanese during WWII. Several, however, shared that they did not feel that they were taught

about current racial dynamics, or how racism is expressed in the US in the present.

A few participants shared that they struggled in conversations about race presently

because at times they felt silenced or like their unique perspective was not relevant to the

discussion, leaving them unsure of how to understand their place in the discussion. This was
 133

mitigated for Participant 7, who was able to talk with another TCK about these topics without

fear of having statements be seen as racist, ignorant, or irrelevant, but not everyone had the

benefit of having other TCKs around them.

It is possible that being an invisible immigrant complicates this further. Not only did

participants feel silenced at times, but one noted others censored their conversations about race

due to the participant’s White identity. In some cases, participants felt it was assumed that they

were racist, which created a barrier they had to overcome when trying to interact in multicultural

communities, or it is assumed that they understand or are aware of the cultural norms because

they do not appear foreign. This likely puts White American TCKs in a difficult position. If this

is a topic that they are not discussing prior to repatriation they are not visually different enough

that people in the United States will recognize that they need to be taught about the culture.

They are then put in the position of needing to ask for an explanation, which may be problematic

either because they may not know what they need to learn, nor who is safe to ask. To complicate

this further, several participants shared that it is difficult or embarrassing to ask what seem to be

stupid questions, which makes it more likely that they will not have the opportunity to explore

their identity or the cultural norms in the US.

Recommendations

This is only a preliminary exploration of the topic of White identity in TCKs. As has

been identified in the research TCK experiences are not all the same, they vary based on

sponsoring agency, locations lived in, number of moves, type of schooling, and a host of other

factors. Even this small section of TCKs who share a nationality, similar amounts of time

abroad, time in non-White countries, as well as repatriation had a range of experiences. More

research would need to be conducted to better understand White TCK identities, and eventually
 134

this should include a review of White identity in those who lived in predominantly White

countries, as it could still differ significantly from that of White Americans who are not TCKs.

The data collected in this study suggests that mobility, country/countries lived in,

schooling type, and sponsoring agency were, as indicated in prior research, relevant sources of

influence regarding participants’ experiences and identities. Further research looking into the

influence of these factors on racial identity may help those who educate TCKs help them gain

insight into their racial identities give these factors. It would also be beneficial to continue using

the IDI to determine whether the findings from the case study of Lena (Paige et al., 2003) are

similar in other TCKs.

Finally, it would be ideal to also expand this research into racial identities for those who

are not White. Just as no research had been done looking into the White minority experience of

White TCKs thus far this examiner has not seen research looking at Black identity in Black,

American TCKs, or Asian, American, TCKs, or any other American TCKs of other

races/ethnicities. While it is theoretically possible that their experiences match the racial identity

models that have been developed thus far, it would seem likely that their multicultural

experiences have put them in a similarly unique position as those participants who were

interviewed for this research. They too, would likely benefit from support in understanding their

experience of their race, both abroad, and upon repatriation.

Implications

The data collected would seem to indicate that just as TCKs feel a sense of being in-

between when it comes to their nationality, and cultural identities that those who are White and

grew up in non-White countries may experience a similar confusing in-between feeling regarding

their racial identity. Participants shared feelings of being White and also feeling something other

than White, or being White in a different way than their American peers. Whiteness did involve
 135

standing out, which at times was described as uncomfortable, but was also simply accepted as

their normal. Participants did seem to share central identities that were not centered

predominantly around their race. This is true of White identity models, but at the same time

several shared both identifications with minority racial identities as well as a feeling of

understanding what it is like to be a minority, which is not consistent with White identity models.

They also had mixed experiences of Privilege, including noticing ways in which privilege was

not always positive as it could lead to entitlement, feeling misunderstood, feelings of guilt, or

being misunderstood or misperceived.

These unique experiences are important because several participants shared that they did

not feel that they were taught about their racial identity in a way that prepared them for what they

experienced when they repatriated. Many had learned about racism, slavery, and America’s

history, but several reported not understanding how racism continued to express itself in the

United States, nor ways in which their identity as White Americans might be different from

peers. While in most cases participants did not share a sense of distress related to this lack of

preparation, several shared that they were often called racist for behaviors they did not mean to

be prejudiced or racially tinged.

This lack of preparation was not limited to participants who had little to no education

regarding TCK identity or issues related to repatriation. This would suggest that the topic of

racial identity is one that needs to be added to the literature provided to TCKs, their families, and

those who develop re-entry seminars. This is not to say that all White TCKs will share these

participant’s thoughts regarding their racial identity, nor that only White TCKs are in the

position of needing support with understanding their racial identity, but that this appears to be a

topic that goes largely untouched across the board.

 136

There are several reasons this is an important issue to address. For one race and racism

are topics that are difficult to discuss in the United States and often are accompanied by

heightened emotions. Some participants felt silenced in situations where race came up because

their experiences are so different. If this happens this leaves them with few venues to process

and think through their racial identity. Helms (1990) shared that to be a part of creating a more

positive racial dynamic White people need to have an understanding of their White identity and

the privilege that accompanies it. This is likely true for TCKs, and if they continued to feel

silenced a strong, positive White identity is one that will be difficult to develop.

Furthermore, the White identity models available do not appear to fit many of the

experiences that these participants shared in their interviews. Thus further research to help

develop a more inclusive model for White identity in TCKs may help future TCKs in thinking

about and understanding their White identity, and thus help them be more active members in the

racial discussions in the US upon repatriation.

In short, those interviewed would have benefitted from being taught specifically about

racial dynamics in the US, taught about White identity, and ways in which their experiences may

be different from American peers, and being provided a space to talk about race and racism

where others have similar experiences so that they do not feel pressure to conform to the

dynamics of those with different experiences, or feeling that they risk being misinterpreted as

racist.

Specifically, a discussion of privilege and White privilege in the US should be added to

re-entry seminars or TCK identity workshops. This is supported by research by several authors

which indicates that for White individuals need to be aware of their privilege to be effective

allies to less privileged groups (Applebaum & Stoik, 2000; Case, 2012; Goren & Plaut, 2012).
 137

This discussion should include an open discussion between the TCKs about their experience of

privilege and race both abroad and in the United States. This second part of the discussion

would help meet the need participants shared in the current study to explore with other TCKs

their unique experience. Similarly, a discussion about White US Identity should be added to re-

entry seminars or TCK identity workshops. This should not only include information about

current models but a discussion of TCKs thoughts about these models, how they are relevant,

and how they are not. The above discussions should help provide TCKs with the information on

White identity and privilege that they need to be able to interact positively with US American

peers regarding discussions of diversity, privilege, and racism.

Conclusion

Prior to beginning my studies in psychology I struggled to understand my White racial

identity, because unlike my US peers I grew up as a White minority. As I began learning about

White identity in the US and White privilege I found myself confused as to how my experiences

fit with the experiences of those around me who grew up in very different ways. Reviewing

research on White identity such as that done by Hardiman (1982) and Helms (1990) provided

minimal support because their models did not fit my experiences. A review of TCK literature

was helpful regarding many TCK characteristics, but provided no information regarding racial

identity. This exploration of TCK identity led to a case study that suggested what I was

experiencing might be common for TCKs when a case study showed that a TCK’s profile on a

measure of intercultural sensitivity did not conform to the theory the model was based on.

This led to the question I pose in this study, what does it mean to be White if you grew up

abroad, specifically in predominantly non-White countries. Interviews with 10 participants

showed a range of themes. While all participants identify as White and US Americans when

asked about their racial identities several had a mix of feelings, either in the present, or based on
 138

their racial thoughts as children. Several participants shared that they were unsure of where they

fit in racially, as they recognized they were not the same as their White American peers, nor

were they like non-White Americans. Several shared feelings similar to mine, recognizing that

they stood out while abroad, and sometimes even in the US. In addition, several found it

difficult to discuss topics of race and racial identity either because they were assumed to be

racist, or because their experiences were so different they were led to feel they were not relevant

to discussions.

Participants had a range of TCK experiences, coming from a range of sponsoring

agencies, attending a range of schooling types, and living in countries across three predominantly

non-White continents. They also ranged regarding their introductions to TCK identity. While

most learned about TCK as a term while still abroad as youths, two were unaware of this identity

until after adulthood. Even those who know about TCK identity and learned about the

difficulties related to a global life, struggled with their understanding of their racial identities.

This was true even for those who went through repatriation seminars or repatriation preparation

classes.

The fact that despite preparation participants still struggled to understand and come to

terms with their racial identity and place in US racial dynamics suggests that this is a topic that

still needs to be examined and better taught to future TCKs. More research is needed so that this

phenomenon can be better understood, and more attention needs to be brought to the way in

which racial identity is a part of an individual’s identity that is also affected by a global

childhood, and what this may mean for the process of repatriation. It would seem that the feeling

of being in-between, not fully is also a part of racial identity for TCKs, and the more we can
 139

understand this the more we can help future Global Nomads understand their experiences and the

way they can use these experiences to enrich their communities.

 140

References

Applebaum, B., & Stoik, E. (2000). On the meaning and necessity of a White, anti-racist

identity. Philosophy of Education Yearbook, 307-316.

Case, K. A. (2012). Discovering the privilege of Whiteness: White women’s reflections on anti-

racist identity and ally behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 68(1), 78-96.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches

(3rd ed.). U.S.: SAGE Publications Inc.

Doka, K. J. (1999). Disenfranchised grief. Bereavement Care: For all those Who Help the

Bereaved., 18, 37-39.

Downey, D. L. (2012). Identity, mobility, and marginality: Counseling third culture kids in

college (MA). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text, ProQuest

Dissertations & Theses Global.

Downie, R. D. (1976). Re-entry experiences and identity formation of third culture experienced

dependent American youth: An exploratory study. (1978-09709-001).

Elo, S. K. H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing,

62(1), 107-15.

Fail, H., Thompson, J., & Walker, G. (2004). Belonging, identity and third culture kids: Life

histories of former international school students. Journal of Research in International

Education, 3(3), 319-338.

Gilbert, K. R. (2008). Loss and grief between and among cultures: The experience of third

culture kids. Illness, Crisis, & Loss, 16(2), 93-109.

Goren, M. J., & Plaut, V. C. (2012). Identity form matters: White racial identity and attitudes

towards diversity. Self and Identity, 11, 237-254.

 141

Greenholtz, J., & Kim, J. (2009). The cultural hybridity of Lena: A multi-method case study of a

third culture kid. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 33(5), 391-398.

Hammer, M. R., Bennett, M. J., & Wiseman, R. (2003). Measuring intercultural sensitivity: The

intercultural development inventory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations,

27(4), 421-443.

Hardiman, R. (1982). White identity development: A process oriented model for describing the

racial consciousness of White Americans (Educat.D.). Available from ProQuest

Dissertations & Theses Full Text, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (303243863).

Helms, J. E. (1990). Toward a model of racial identity develoment. In J. E. Helms (Ed.), Black

and White racial identity: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 49-66)

Helms, J. E. (1992). A race is a nice thing to have: Guide to being a White person or

understanding the White persons in your life. Topeka, Kansas: Content Communications.

Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis.

Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277-88.

Lietz, C., Langer, C., & Furman, R. (2006). Establishing trustworthiness in qualitative research

in social work. Qualitative Social Work, 5(4), 441-458.

Loftsdóttir, K. (2009). Invisible colour: Landscapes of Whiteness and racial identity in

international development. Anthropology Today, 25(5), 4-7. doi:10.1111/j.1467-

8322.2009.00685.x

Melles, E. A., & Schwartz, J. (2013). Does the third culture kid experience predict levels of

prejudice? International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 37(2), 260-267.

Miller, P. H. (2009). Theories of Developmental Psychology. (5th ed.). NY: Worth Publishers.
 142

Paige, R. M., Jacobs-Cassuto, M., Yershova, Y. A., & DeJaeghere, J. (2003). Assessing

intercultural sensitivity: An empirical analysis of the Hammer and Bennett intercultural

development inventory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27(4), 467-486.

Pascoe, R. (2006). Raising global nomads: Parenting abroad in an on-demand world.

Vancouver, CA: Expatriate Press Limited.

Pearce, R. (2011). When borders overlap: Composite identities in children in international

schools. Journal of Research in International Education, 10(2), 154-173.

Pedersen, F. A., & Sullivan, E. J. (1964). Relationships among geographical mobility, parental

attitudes and emotional disturbances in children. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,

34(3), 575-580. doi:10.1111/j.1939-0025.1964.tb02228.x

Perham, M. (1959). White minorities in Africa. Foreign Affairs, 37(4), 637-648.

Pollock, D. C., & Van Reken, R. E. (2009). Third culture kids: Growing up among worlds.

Boston: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.

Schaetti, B. F. (2000). Global nomad identity: Hypothesizing a developmental model (Ph.D.).

Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text, ProQuest Dissertations &

Theses Global. (304671379).

Sue, D. W., & Sue, D. (2008). Counseling the culturally diverse: Theory and practice (5th ed.).

New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Useem, R. H. (1993). Third culture kids: Focus of major study – TCK mother pens history field.

Newslinks, 12(3).

Weintraub, S. R. (2009). Working with and for: Advocates' experience of feminist relational

advocacy (Ph.D.). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (304830878).
 143

Appendix A

Recruitment Flyer
 144

Appendix B

Informed Consent Form

Investigators: Jessica Hilbert

Study Title: A Qualitative Study of White Racial Identity in Global Nomads

I am a student at The Chicago School of Professional Psychology. This study is being conducted

as a part of my dissertation requirement for the Clinical Psychology Psy.D.

I am asking you to participate in a research study. Please take your time to read the information

below and feel free to ask any questions before signing this document.

Purpose: This research study is being conducted by Jessica Hilbert, a doctoral candidate in

Clinical Psychology program at The Chicago School of Professional Psychology. I want to

understand how White Third Culture Kids (TCKs)/Global Nomads understand their racial

identity. The information obtained in this study may help inform how TCKs are prepared for life

abroad, for repatriation, as well as how they can be supported by teachers, parents, and

clinicians.

Procedures: If you are interested you will first be asked to fill out a demographics questionnaire,

to help determine your eligibility for the study. Participants must be above the age of 18, US

citizens, White, and must have lived at least 6 years in predominantly non-White environments

abroad. If deemed eligible then you will be contacted and asked to participate in a recorded,

semi-structured interview examining your experience of White racial identity. The interview

will last approximately 1-1.5 hours, and will take place in person, or over the phone.
 145

Participation in this study is completely your choice, and you are free either to not take

part or to stop the interview at any time.

Compensation: All participant’s names will be entered in to a raffle for 3, $30 dollar Amazon

gift cards.

Risks and Benefits: There is a small chance that the interview may raise some personal or

uncomfortable issues for you. If you feel upset or would like to talk more about the feelings you

have, I will give you a list of places that you can call to do so.

Your participation in the research is completely voluntary. If you choose to take part in

the research you may stop at any time. You do not have to answer any question you do not want

to answer.

You may find that the questions I ask will help you think about your experience as a

White person abroad and in the US in new ways. Also, the information you provide will help to

develop an understanding of what it is like to be a White person who has spent extended amounts

of time in non-White countries as a kid. This may help those who support TCKs better

understand how to guide them through the process of a life abroad.

Alternatives to Participation: Participation in this study is voluntary. You may withdraw from

study participation at any time without any penalty.

Confidentiality: During this study, information will be collected about you for the purpose of

this research. This includes your name, age, race, date of birth, and contact information. All

participants will be provided an participant ID number and a separate document holding their ID

numbers and personal information will be created. This document will be password protected

and kept on a separate protected USB device. All other documents will have the personal

information removed and will only be identified using the individual’s ID number. All
 146

documents will be password protected and stored on protected USB devices. All research

materials, when not in use, will be safely locked in a lock box in the examiner’s home. Per APA

guidelines research materials will be kept for a minimum of five years after publication, and then

destroyed. Participants have the right to confidentiality, except in two specific situations. If

anything a participant says lead the examiner to believe they are at risk of killing themselves or

another confidentiality must be broken for their protection and the protection of those around

them. In addition if they says something that leads to the belief that a child, elderly, or disabled

person is being abused authorities will need to be informed.

Your research records may be reviewed by federal agencies whose responsibility is to protect

human subjects participating in research, including the Office of Human Research Protections

(OHRP) and by representatives from The Chicago School of Professional Psychology

Institutional Review Board, a committee that oversees research.

Questions/Concerns: If you have questions related to the procedures described in this document

please contact Jessica Hilbert at jlh3423@ego.thechicagoschool.edu, or Dr. Rachel Singer at

rsinger@thechicagoschool.edu .

If you have questions concerning your rights in this research study you may contact the

Institutional Review Board (IRB), which is concerned with the protection of subjects in

research project. You may reach the IRB office Monday-Friday by calling 312.467.2343 or

writing: Institutional Review Board, The Chicago School of Professional Psychology, 325

N. Wells, Chicago, Illinois, 60654.

Consent to Participate in Research

Participant:
 147

I have read the above information and have received satisfactory answers to my

questions. I understand the research project and the procedures involved have been

explained to me. I agree to participate in this study. My participation is voluntary and I do

not have to sign this form if I do not want to be part of this research project. I may keep a

copy of this consent form for my records. In typing my name below I am signing my

consent to participate in this study.

________________________________________

Signature of Participant

Date: __________

_______Jessica Hilbert___________________

Signature of the Person Obtaining Consent

Date: ____________
 148

Appendix C

Demographics Questionnaire

Name: Address

Date of Birth: Age:

Phone Number

Gender: Female Male Other

Nationality:

Race: White/Caucasian

Black

Indian/South Asian

East Asian

South East Asian

Native American

Latino/Latina

Middle Eastern/Arab

Other:___________________

City, Nation of birth:

Mother’s Passport Nation/s:

Mother’s Race: White/Caucasian

Black

Indian/South Asian

East Asian

South East Asian

 149

Native American

Latino/Latina

Middle Eastern/Arab

Other:___________________

Father’s Passport Nation/s:

Father’s Race: White/Caucasian

Black

Indian/South Asian

East Asian

South East Asian

Native American

Latino/Latina

Middle Eastern/Arab

Other:___________________

Language/s Spoken at Home:

Language/s Spoken at School:

Reason for Living Abroad:

 150

Sponsoring Agency/Agencies:

Type of Education While Abroad: International School

Boarding School

Public School

Home School

Location of schooling if not in country where the family resided:

Residential History:

Country Month/Year Month/Year Left Sponsoring Agency

Arrived

Have you been diagnosed with a mental illness such as Major Depression, Bipolar I,

Bipolar II, Schizophrenia, etc.?

 151

Have you ever been hospitalized due to mental illness?

Is there anything you would like to add or share at this time:

 152

Appendix D

Semi-Structured Interview

I’m going to ask you some questions about yourself and about your experiences so that I

can get to know you.

Please tell me what aspects of your identity are the most representative of who you are?

Traits or characteristics that define your identity.

Has this changed since you lived abroad as a child?

How do you identify your race (if not part of above answer)?

Has this changed over-time?

What does being White mean to you?

Has this changed since you were a child?

Does this change in different contexts or countries?

Are there any benefits or downsides to being White?

Is being White different in the US than when you were living in other countries?

When did you first realize you were White?

Please tell me about a key event(s) that inform your understanding of your racial identity.

What factors shaped your identity including your race?

Anything else?
 153

How has privilege impacted your experience?

Are there any benefits to being the recipient of privilege, any downsides?

What was it like Repatriating?

Were there challenges to repatriating?

Did you find any resources or supports helpful in this process?

Is there anything else you would like to add?

What was it like for you to participate in this interview today?